[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Lee's teaching is not than different than Scofield's, except that he named names in the recovery version which are censored by the Living Stream as a tactic in their bait and switch method for consumption by the general public.

Here's an excerpt from Scofield for comparison:

(omitted)

Scofield, who's commentary became the fundamentalist standard, may have identified the apostate church with the Roman Catholic Church but he didn't put it in his Bible commentary like Lee did.

While Lee surely had some original teachings on a lot of things, he also tended to like where the Brethren teachings went with a lot of it. The kinds of teachings here would be clearly within the kind Lee liked.

And while I acknowledge that Lee was not alone in his "woman = bad, leaven = bad" theology, when I read the snippet you provided from Schofield, it would appear that he is trying to fight off a significant interpretation already in existence.

But we have already been over the parables in Matt 13, and it would seem that there was no single parable for any particular thing, such as the spreading of the gospel, but rather several different points made through different means. And, ignoring this particular parable, there is at least one other place where leaven is given a positive part to play. I believe that it is in one of the sacrifices. There may be others. But then even if there are, there is a collection of teachers that have to make leaven simply bad no matter what. So they will require that the reading be twisted to support that position.

The meaning of the leaven in all of the passages combined is something that permeates something else and cannot be extricated. But each use has a specific meaning in addition to that. It does not simply mean evil.

And when set up against the idea of evil, it is difficult to understand leaven as meaning evil within the story of the Exodus. Of course, some have layered on meaning that is not recorded in the account. But it would appear that it was something about being focused and ready to go. Not needing to wait for the bread to rise.

And even when Jesus said to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, he was pointing to the things that were being slipped into their teachings that were not of God. Yes, it is simple to jump to an "it's about evil" conclusion. But again, the point is not that being leaven is evil, but that what is being slipped in is evil.

And when you read a parable that likens the kingdom of heaven to leaven, then conclude that the leaven is evil (which requires that the actual structure of the parable be ignored) then I would suggest that you have started with the conclusion that leaven is evil and did everything in your power to align everything to reach that conclusion. Schofield is sold on "universal meaning" and insists that "first use" controls use forever. Where is that written?

I note that Schofield's exposition introduces a presumption that is not necessarily correct, but which would bolster his position. Since the leaven is worked throughout the flour, clearly changing the nature of the dough, it is presumed that it would have to mean that the entire world becomes Christian as the result of the "leaven" gospel, and since that cannot be true, then the leaven cannot be the gospel. But the parable does not mention the preaching of the gospel, but the spread of the kingdom. And who would assert that the spread of the church has not affected the entire world, even those parts that try to keep the church out? Here in America, we can see some evidence that when we live the kingdom and be and preach the gospel, the nation benefits, yet when we try to force the kingdom's positions on the country, it does not seem to have much real effect. Possibly even a backlash against it.

And how is it that the first parable in the chapter becomes, by definition, THE metaphor for the spread of the gospel? Has no one noted that Jesus could take a large picture, and look at small parts of it and find yet another analogy that, if you force them all together into one, you get a confusion of symbols and types? For example, the whole series on the sheep pen, the gate, the hireling, the shepherd, the gate, the pasture . . . . If you push all of those together into one unified you cannot arrive at the totality of what he taught. It is as if he starts with one smal portion, makes a point, then another small portion to make a point, etc., and you begin to see the totality of what he is trying to say. But the totality is not that he is the gateshepherdpasture conglomeration.

Here is the same. Each parable shows a nuance about the kingdom.

BTW. What does Schofield say about the mustard seed?