Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
Your understanding is that leaven results in a permanent alteration of the dough?
Why, then, does Paul write the Corinthians to "Purge out the leaven"? See 1 Cor. 5:7.
If, based on your logic and not the Word, you think that the kingdom "dough" cannot co-exist with leaven, then your argument deflates after Paul's exhortation.
|
You misunderstand on two counts.
First, you are requiring that all references to leaven must be on the same terms and in the same thought. So if the kingdom is the leaven in Matt 13 that permeates and alters the world (the dough) then Paul must be referring to the same aspect of leaven in 1 Corinthians.
But this is not the case. No matter how Jesus used leaven, Paul is using it differently. And the children of Israel were already required to purge out all of the leaven in advance of the original passover and the exodus and then required to do it over and over as part of the passover observance. But neither was about expelling the leaven from existing dough. It was about expelling the existence of leaven (whatever that was to signify) from their household. And Paul saying to purge out the leaven in 1 Corinthians is not somehow contradictory to Jesus just because Jesus used leaven in terms of the kingdom permeating, and therefore becoming unable to extracted from mankind. The two stand on their own without reference to each other.
Second, in the context of Matt 13, the kingdom is the leaven and it is permeating 60 pounds of dough. I never indicated that the dough was the kingdom. That is someone else's thought. If the kingdom is the leaven, then the dough is not the leaven. But the dough is altered because of the leaven (the kingdom).
Why is it so nearly impossibly to read one parable/metaphor in its context without requiring that it be a parallel to another parable/metaphor just because there is a common term? Jesus seems (to me) to be rather clear in his meaning. And Paul seems rather clear in his. Even if we assume that these two meanings are not parallels, they do not create a problem with the other unless someone feels obligated to align them due to some other principle. And these "other principles" seem to be entirely the requirement of man (including or excluding Lee) to force something that is not there. Until you provide a need for the leaven in Matt 13 and 1 Corinthians 5 to be in reference to the exact same thing, the two contexts scream out (again to me) that they are separate instances used for specific purposes that have nothing to do with each other.
Leaven is a useful metaphor. It speaks of the introduction of something into something else that combines with that something else to make a permanent alteration. That can be good or bad. Each use of it would have its own meaning as indicated in its context.
The need to align Jesus and Paul due to the use of a term is not consistent with the separate contexts.
As for reading something into it all about the failure of Christianity even by the time of the letters to the seven churches in Asia, that is something that you keep coming back to over and over. Is it part of the tint and focus of the lens through which you read scripture? I do not suggest that I have no lens. But you seem to have an answer searching for evidence. I believe that this too easily colors what you see.