Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 4
The teacher argues the Septuagint writers are very careful to use *azimos* for Passover but *artos* for showbread and manna; what does that pattern imply about God’s freedom to call something “holy” even when it doesn’t match our symbolic expectations (like “leaven = sin”)?
Another way to ask: If the Bible uses different words for Passover bread than for other holy bread, what does that show about God calling something “holy” even when it doesn’t match our symbols (like “leaven = sin”)?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The pattern implies that God can declare something holy regardless of whether it fits our preferred symbolism, since both unleavened Passover bread and leavened showbread can be treated as holy in Scripture.
- The speaker reports that in the Septuagint (and Hebrew) “when it’s unleavened bread, it’s azimos. And when it’s leavened, it’s artos,” sometimes “in the same sentence.”
- He identifies specific examples: Passover uses *azimos*, while “the showbread…artos,” and “manna…artos.”
- He reads Leviticus 24:4-9, emphasizing the showbread is eaten in “a holy place,” and “it is most holy,” yet it is *artos*.
- He explicitly draws the conclusion: “The showbread was made from leavened bread, and God declared it to be holy…Either one can be holy.”
- He challenges the simplistic symbol rule: “don’t think that…leaven always represents sin because it doesn’t,” since Jesus compared the kingdom to leaven.