The introduction of leaven

[ZNPaaneah]

I have hesitated to enter the fray for too long. I used to bake bread, not white flour bread, but pan au levain. First of all, the flavor, texture and quality of bread is all about the fermentation process. The entire concept of bread of life is completely wrapped up with leaven.

2nd, you don't need to add leaven to the bread to have leavened bread. You use a wooden mixing bowl. You scrape it clean when you are done but you don't wash it with soap and water. Scraping it clean is sufficient. If you read the account in Exodus it doesn't say that the unleavened bread didn't have leaven in it, that would be impossible (yeast is in the air, especially in a kitchen that bakes bread). It says that they baked it before it had time to rise because they were in a rush. By mixing the flour in the mixing bowl it would have gotten the leaven.

3rd, if the seed is "the word" in the beginning of the chapter, why wouldn't the flour made from the wheat also be the word? Leaven is a living organism that eats the flour. First it eats all the sugar (carbs), that is why there are two risings. It is in the second rising that you get the fermentation. We are like little leaven consuming the word of God and transforming it into bread. The Lord said "my Body is the bread". Please note, without leaven it is not bread.

4th the Leaven of the Pharisees is the product of their chewing on the word. They teach the Bible, but the Lord warned the disciples to beware of that teaching.

[OBW]

While you did give something to think about, here are the first things that came to my mind:

1. The "bread of life" is not about fermentation. It is about the nutritional content that sustains life.

2. If Exodus called it "unleavened" bread then by what account do you end up with leaven in it? It would then be leavened bread rather than unleavened bread.

3. Not all seed is grain. The parables that mention seed are referring to what grows up, not what you can do with it after it is harvested.

4. So you are suggesting that the problem with the Pharisees' teaching was what they got out of "chewing" on the word? When I read the passage in context, it would seem that it was that it was about what they added to it, not what they got out of it, that was the problem. In effect, they were adding to the Word rather than simply taking from it.

I honestly believe that the whole "leaven is bad" comes from a kind of reading in which a term is expected to have a constant meaning throughout scripture. So let's take the example of "flesh." In the gospels, this word is used quite consistently by Jesus to refer to his body, both literally and metaphorically, and is pretty consistently positive. Yet Paul uses the term "flesh" almost exclusively with reference to our old nature and therefore something negative. Both are right because both have a context and provide more than hints at what is being discussed.

Some of your statements about bread/leaven in your four points needs information not available to the listener of the day, or that would not be the first thought on the subject. So let's talk about them in that light.

1. I will agree that adding leaven makes bread more palatable. Whether it changes the nutritional value of the bread, I am not qualified to say. But if "the entire concept of bread of life is completely wrapped up with leaven" then I would think that we have found another clearly positive point relating to leaven.

2. While man may have generally understood that there was something still around that could add leaven to bread, the point of the unleavened bread in general was not about something evil, but about not taking the time for dough to rise before hitting the road, probably with quickly-baked bread to eat on the road. Yet the ritual that they were required to observe required that they effectively cleanse their houses of leaven for the passover. It was not just about hiding it, but to the extent possible, to clean it out. Sort of like a good washing from ceiling to floor. Doing more than just scraping that wooden bowl. Still, there is no certainty that there was anything about evil presumed in that process unless we conclude that for the journey from Egypt to the promised land there was going to be no significant amount of flour taken along, and no stopping to grow wheat or other grain for a few weeks or even months. Seems they were starving until the arrival of the manna. So it is possible that leaven was pointless for the journey, and might have represented something of Egypt being brought along. But that is not stated to be true as far as I know.

And there is at least one sacrifice in which leavened bread is used, so its offering to God is not entirely disdained. But it has its purpose.

But further to all of this, while the average person in the time of the passover, as well as in the time of Christ, knew that leaven altered the bread. And they had learned that two risings were preferable to only one. But start talking about a living organism eating the carbs and you would have been taken to the the edge of town and stoned as some kind of sorcerer (a little over the top, but I think you understand). The point is that you cannot presume that our knowledge about leaven and the fermentation process can be attributed to the people who were listening to Jesus speak. If you believe that this is what Jesus had in mind when he spoke, then you must presume that he didn't intend it for the audience to whom he directly spoke, but was hoping that it would be one of the few out of many sayings that got recorded so that the more knowledgeable minds of centuries later could understand it. I have a difficult time accepting that Jesus did not speak to them in the way they would understand and instead said nonsense to them for our benefit centuries later.

3. This kind of thinking is Lee's "God never uses a metaphor in other than one way" error. Of course it is not just his error. He has some company in this error.

Instead, each metaphor is a statement concerning a specific thing. It has a purpose that is directly linked to the words used. The parable about the scattering of seed is about the nature of the soil rather than much about the seed. The parable of the weeds is about how you deal with certain kinds of problems within the community of believers. The parable of the mustard seed says that you should expect the kingdom to start small (one man?) yet grow more like a special example than some other plants. The parable of the leaven says something about the kingdom permeating and changing the world. The catch of fish speaks of the gospel attracting many but not keeping everything that was attracted. (And for you died-in-the-wool Calvinists, maybe it is much more complicated than "once saved, always saved.")

To argue that because of a link between seed and dough (assuming the right seed) that the two metaphors must align is nonsense. Each metaphor stands alone to say something specific. Unlike Lee's kind of "take each metaphor and milk it for every possible thing that every related aspect of the whole example could mean" theology. The parable of the seed is about soil. The parable of the mustard seed is about growth. The parable of the leaven is about the power of the kingdom to change everything. The parable of the catch of fish could be about putting in the net to fish and being willing to start with more than is ultimately "caught."

Nothing forces seed to become dough just because it could. That is to interject something not stated and require an understanding that makes the plain reading of the parable strained (at best).

4. This notion of the Pharisee's leaven being the result of "chewing on the word" creates an inference not made. Leaven is something added. It is something that alters what it is added to. So it seems most directly to suggest that it is about what the Pharisees added to the word to arrive at their additional laws and regulations. Given Jesus' other comments in various places concerning this group, he seems to think their pronouncements are quite difficult to bear. Yet the "yoke" of Jesus is light. And while some may say that leaven makes bread more palatable, I doubt that was the intent here since the result was that so much of the Jewish population was willing to be considered sinners by the Pharisees. They couldn't do it. It was too hard.

In summary (don't you wished this had come earlier?) I find most of the old ways of thinking about these particular parables to be strained relative to their context and their actual words. Each has a specific thing to say about a small portion of truth, not some overarching thing to say about everything because there is a commonality of terms, like "leaven." You have to read it where it is first. Only if it is meaningless or clearly referring beyond itself do you reach out to other passages. I don't find these lacking.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

While you did give something to think about, here are the first things that came to my mind:

1. The "bread of life" is not about fermentation. It is about the nutritional content that sustains life.

Sounds reasonable but completely untrue. When you make bread you learn very quickly that you are dealing with something that is alive. If I used tap water (that had chlorine) it would affect my bread, if the temperature was not right, it would affect my bread, etc. Ultimately I learned the most important thing was to have fresh flour. If you buy store bought flour it is white, but the flour I would buy would be freshly ground and then air shipped to me. It would be yellow, but would become rancid in a very short period, and you would get flies. The reason corporations push white flour bread is because it is "dead". Dead bread has a long shelf life. Dead flour doesn't go rancid. So I must completely disagree with you on this point, you sound like someone who has no experience whatsoever in making leavened bread.

2. If Exodus called it "unleavened" bread then by what account do you end up with leaven in it? It would then be leavened bread rather than unleavened bread.

I thought I explained this very clearly. In the account in Exodus it says that the bread was unleavened because they didn't have time to let the bread rise. As I said in my previous post, you do not need to add store bought leaven to bread to have leavened bread. Just by mixing the ingredients up in a wooden bowl the bread becomes leavened. If you don't wish to take my word for it consult with an expert. If necessary I can quote from my own cookbooks. So unleavened bread in Exodus means that the bread had been baked before it had risen. Again, think, do you really think in Egypt at the time that people went to the store and bought leaven and put it in their bread?

3. Not all seed is grain. The parables that mention seed are referring to what grows up, not what you can do with it after it is harvested.

What are you talking about? You can make flour out of any seed. What is the purpose of planting grain if you are not going to harvest it for food?

4. So you are suggesting that the problem with the Pharisees' teaching was what they got out of "chewing" on the word? When I read the passage in context, it would seem that it was that it was about what they added to it, not what they got out of it, that was the problem. In effect, they were adding to the Word rather than simply taking from it.

No, what I am suggesting is that the term "leaven of the pharisees" refers to the teaching of the pharisees. No doubt the pharisees did read the Bible and other books to arrive at their teachings. So if the pure word of God in the analogy is the flour, the yeast would be the pharisees, and the product that they produce is referred to as "leaven of the pharisees".

I honestly believe that the whole "leaven is bad" comes from a kind of reading in which a term is expected to have a constant meaning throughout scripture. So let's take the example of "flesh." In the gospels, this word is used quite consistently by Jesus to refer to his body, both literally and metaphorically, and is pretty consistently positive. Yet Paul uses the term "flesh" almost exclusively with reference to our old nature and therefore something negative. Both are right because both have a context and provide more than hints at what is being discussed.

Some of your statements about bread/leaven in your four points needs information not available to the listener of the day, or that would not be the first thought on the subject. So let's talk about them in that light.

1. I will agree that adding leaven makes bread more palatable. Whether it changes the nutritional value of the bread, I am not qualified to say. But if "the entire concept of bread of life is completely wrapped up with leaven" then I would think that we have found another clearly positive point relating to leaven.

I do agree with this. I have explained earlier, few Bible students would be willing to receive this word, so I have been very leery to even mention this to others. When you make leavened bread you are working with something that is alive and everything you do is with that in mind. The water you use, the flour you use, even the salt. Likewise you learn some sweeteners have more life power than others (honey, molasses instead of white sugar). Modern corporations try to push dead bread on people because it is more cost effective for them. Now I am sure that anyone who makes leavened bread learns these lessons, and that includes the Israelites.

2. While man may have generally understood that there was something still around that could add leaven to bread, the point of the unleavened bread in general was not about something evil, but about not taking the time for dough to rise before hitting the road, probably with quickly-baked bread to eat on the road. Yet the ritual that they were required to observe required that they effectively cleanse their houses of leaven for the passover.

Among modern Jews this generally refers to cleansing the house of things that have been leavened, like bread, not about removing yeast (not many people have yeast in their house, if they do it is generally in a small box in the refrigerator and can easily be thrown away). What the Israelites probably did was to have a small cup of sour dough on the hearth which they threw away. One way to make leavened bread is to use sour dough, when you are about to bake the bread you take a small chunk and put it back in the cup. However, it does make sense to make a new sour dough starter every year.

It was not just about hiding it, but to the extent possible, to clean it out. Sort of like a good washing from ceiling to floor. Doing more than just scraping that wooden bowl. Still, there is no certainty that there was anything about evil presumed in that process unless we conclude that for the journey from Egypt to the promised land there was going to be no significant amount of flour taken along, and no stopping to grow wheat or other grain for a few weeks or even months. Seems they were starving until the arrival of the manna. So it is possible that leaven was pointless for the journey, and might have represented something of Egypt being brought along. But that is not stated to be true as far as I know.

And there is at least one sacrifice in which leavened bread is used, so its offering to God is not entirely disdained. But it has its purpose.

Yes, the whole concept of leaven is very hard to understand. It seems intimately tied to sin in this analogy and yet it also seems intimately tied to the bread of life. However, what the Passover is really saying is that every year you need a fresh start with your leaven, throw out the old leaven and start fresh. If leaven really signified sin then why do Jews eat leavened bread for the whole year? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees may just mean it is time to throw out last years sour dough and start a new batch. Like new wine and new wineskins.

But further to all of this, while the average person in the time of the passover, as well as in the time of Christ, knew that leaven altered the bread. And they had learned that two risings were preferable to only one. But start talking about a living organism eating the carbs and you would have been taken to the the edge of town and stoned as some kind of sorcerer (a little over the top, but I think you understand). The point is that you cannot presume that our knowledge about leaven and the fermentation process can be attributed to the people who were listening to Jesus speak.

Anyone who makes bread learns very quickly that the bread is alive. Every time you make bread (which was probably several times a week for the Israelites) the recipe is the same yet the results are not. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the bubbling of the bread is from a living organism. You are experimenting with a living organism two or three times a week, I am sure they figured this out. My feeling is they had a much better understanding of what Jesus meant by "bread of life" than people who never made bread and ate wonder bread their whole life.

If you believe that this is what Jesus had in mind when he spoke, then you must presume that he didn't intend it for the audience to whom he directly spoke, but was hoping that it would be one of the few out of many sayings that got recorded so that the more knowledgeable minds of centuries later could understand it.

On the contrary, it wasn't until I started to make bread using sour dough as my leaven (pan au levain is bread that uses sour dough as the leaven) that I understood what Jesus was saying. Soon I was taking great pains to make my bread more "alive". I put thermometers everywhere, people in the house were instructed not to let a draft in when I was working as though the bread were a delicate baby, I was airlifting in flour, using bottled water, etc. You could never have taught me this from a book, I saw the results with each batch.

I have a difficult time accepting that Jesus did not speak to them in the way they would understand and instead said nonsense to them for our benefit centuries later.

Me too. Unfortunately we seem to disrespect our elders and think they knew less than we did.

3. This kind of thinking is Lee's "God never uses a metaphor in other than one way" error. Of course it is not just his error. He has some company in this error.

No its not.

Instead, each metaphor is a statement concerning a specific thing. It has a purpose that is directly linked to the words used. The parable about the scattering of seed is about the nature of the soil rather than much about the seed. The parable of the weeds is about how you deal with certain kinds of problems within the community of believers. The parable of the mustard seed says that you should expect the kingdom to start small (one man?) yet grow more like a special example than some other plants. The parable of the leaven says something about the kingdom permeating and changing the world. The catch of fish speaks of the gospel attracting many but not keeping everything that was attracted. (And for you died-in-the-wool Calvinists, maybe it is much more complicated than "once saved, always saved.")

Really, you are saying that the writers of the Bible could not put together a single paragraph? I find this thinking highly disrespectful, if I were Matthew I would be extremely insulted that people would think I couldn't put together Chapter 13 around a single theme.

To argue that because of a link between seed and dough (assuming the right seed) that the two metaphors must align is nonsense.

To not consider that two sentences in the same chapter and in virtually any grammatical style in the same paragraph are not linked is idiocy.

Each metaphor stands alone to say something specific.

Who made up this rule?

Unlike Lee's kind of "take each metaphor and milk it for every possible thing that every related aspect of the whole example could mean" theology. The parable of the seed is about soil. The parable of the mustard seed is about growth. The parable of the leaven is about the power of the kingdom to change everything. The parable of the catch of fish could be about putting in the net to fish and being willing to start with more than is ultimately "caught."

Nothing forces seed to become dough just because it could. That is to interject something not stated and require an understanding that makes the plain reading of the parable strained (at best).

Respectfully disagree.

4. This notion of the Pharisee's leaven being the result of "chewing on the word" creates an inference not made.

"Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" -- this inference is also in Matthew. "You search the scriptures" spoken to the Pharisees in the book of Matthew. Clearly Matthew has already made it clear that we should eat the word of God, and that the Pharisees were searching the scripture. We are in chapter 13, it is absurd to think you have to read this chapter and exclude everything that Matthew has spoken previously. You would never read another book that way.

Leaven is something added. It is something that alters what it is added to. So it seems most directly to suggest that it is about what the Pharisees added to the word to arrive at their additional laws and regulations. Given Jesus' other comments in various places concerning this group, he seems to think their pronouncements are quite difficult to bear. Yet the "yoke" of Jesus is light. And while some may say that leaven makes bread more palatable, I doubt that was the intent here since the result was that so much of the Jewish population was willing to be considered sinners by the Pharisees. They couldn't do it. It was too hard.

This is not the first mention of leaven in the Bible, if it were then we might be forced to make these conjectures. But since leaven has been mentioned in a very powerful way in the Passover, so much so that all Jews would have their thinking of it colored by that yearly practice, I think that must define leaven. Clearly, to the Jews leaven could not be seen as something bad because all of their bread was leavened, except for one week in the year. Interestingly, when you make a new batch of sour dough it takes a week. Also, the sour dough is not going to be the same everywhere, it depends on the particular yeast in the air. So by cleaning out the old leaven you allow for a new batch of yeast. I think the meaning should be that, clean out the old and bring in the new.

In summary (don't you wished this had come earlier?) I find most of the old ways of thinking about these particular parables to be strained relative to their context and their actual words. Each has a specific thing to say about a small portion of truth, not some overarching thing to say about everything because there is a commonality of terms, like "leaven." You have to read it where it is first. Only if it is meaningless or clearly referring beyond itself do you reach out to other passages. I don't find these lacking.

I think you have made a good point that equating leaven with sin does not work and is a mistake. In this case I think this analogy is so important that it is worth the effort to understand. I think we have missed the understanding on this as a result of our lack of experience of actually making leavened bread.

[OBW]

OBW: “The bread of life is not about fermentation. It is about the nutritional content that sustains life.”
ZNP: “Sounds reasonable but completely untrue. When you make bread you learn very quickly that you are dealing with something that is alive. If I used tap water (that had chlorine)”
Problem with response: I am talking about the scriptural reference to Jesus as the bread of life while ZNP is busy talking about how bread is made. Since the reference to the bread of life is in response to eating, it is not about making bread, but about the value of bread as nutrition and therefore of Jesus as spiritual food. I challenge anyone to show how scripture, at least in this case, refers to Jesus as the bread of life so that the process of how bread is made can be made important (or the fact that leaven is something alive) rather than Jesus as spiritual food.

OBW: The bread is either unleavened or it is leavened. The Passover type was to remove all leaven from the premises.
ZNP: Simply not letting it rise is the definition of unleavened.
Problem with response: Ignores the meaning of the ritualistic removal of leaven from the premises. If simply not letting it rise makes unleavened, then there is no need to avoid leavening agents. But in any case, how does that ritual factor into the parable in Matt 13? Leaven is not mentioned as something to avoid, but as the Kingdom added to something else. Leaven is not used in the sense of something to purge out as in the Passover ritual.

OBW: “Not all seed is grain. The parables that mention seed are referring to what grows up, not what you can do with it after it is harvested.”
ZNP: “What are you talking about? You can make flour out of any seed. What is the purpose of planting grain if you are not going to harvest it for food?”
Problem with response: The thrust of my comment was that the purpose of the parable was not about the seed, but the soil into which it was placed (or landed). ZNP has made it all about whether you can make bread or other food out of the harvest. The parable never gets to the harvest except in the mention at the end of the produce from one type of soil. Whether the purpose of planting a seed is to harvest it for food is irrelevant if the purpose of the parable is to demonstrate the kind of soil into which seed can be sown. Jumping to the harvest and beyond is to ignore the purpose of the parable.

OBW: When I refer to the teaching of the Pharisees (which is not part of the Matthew 13 dialog) I mention that the Pharisees are adding to the Word in their teachings.
ZNP: “No, what I am suggesting is that the term "leaven of the Pharisees" refers to the teaching of the Pharisees. No doubt the Pharisees did read the Bible and other books to arrive at their teachings. So if the pure word of God in the analogy is the flour, the yeast would be the Pharisees, and the product that they produce is referred to as "leaven of the Pharisees".”
Problem with response: There is no flour in the reference to the Pharisees. The mention of leaven is referring directly and singly to what they add to the Word to arrive at their teachings. There is no evidence that the reference needs to discuss the aspects of making bread more palatable (as some have tried to do). Further, even though it would be easy to say that the Word is the flour, it is unimportant. It is not the purpose of the mention. The purpose is to make note that what the Pharisees were adding was to be avoided. It wasn’t’ even necessarily that they added something. It was what they added. It was something to be avoided. Bringing in all the other possible aspects of a flour/yeast/dough/bread analogy is to create in a rather direct warning about the Pharisees’ teachings something that is not there. The rest of what you might try to make out of it could be theologically correct, but not actually supported by the passage in question.

I do not care that yeast is “something alive.” I don’t care that you can make your own sourdough without yeast. My son and daughter-in-law have done it. The problem is that you are jumping all over kingdom come to make points about yeast and leaven that are not being made. Sort of like a reference in the NT to power. Since the word is the root from which we get “dynamo” then every appendage to the process of making electricity will be brought in as important to the verse. The verse said “power.” It didn’t say 100 megawatt power plant with step-down transformers, miles of wires and a light switch to turn on the light in your house. You are doing the same thing here with leaven. Leave out anything that is not in the passage. Let the passage speak for itself. It actually does quite well. These few parables in Matt 13 are quite meaningful. They do not need any reference to how yeast works. They don’t refer to Paul’s use of leaven as a negative thing. The don’t refer to seed for the purpose of grinding into flour. They don’t speak about the RCC with birds roosting in its evil, anomalous branches.

Yes, Jesus did say that he was the bread of life. But living on “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” does not “mean that we should eat the word” in some special definition. It means that our source and supply is there. And just because the Pharisees were searching the scripture did not mean that they were “eating the word” when Jesus made reference to the leaven of the Pharisees. And on what basis do you conclude that it is the Pharisees themselves that is the leaven? That is quite novel. Surely you mean that what comes from the Pharisees for the people to follow to attain their definition of “God’s standard” had something added by the Pharisees that was not part of what the read and studied in the scripture.

This kind of reading is the main reason that I have suggested in parting that almost everyone’s reading of scripture is still too influenced by Lee. Lee did not take scripture and expound upon it. He took scripture and added to it. He took every word that could be made to refer to some other place in scripture and made it so. And caused it to override what the present scripture actually said.

A challenge. Read what is actually there. Then read it again. Then again. If you start thinking about other passages that have similar words, forget them — at least for a while. See if the context and the words actually present say what you think they do without searching elsewhere. See if what they actually say without referring elsewhere is sound in the context. Don’t start with knowledge of what you expect them to mean. Start with what they actually say. There is entirely too much good stuff without layering on Lee or a modified form of it.

And while I have somewhat dissected your response to me in the manner that you did my response to you, did you actually bother to read the whole thing for the full context? And did you read the response to aron who commented in between? I see virtually every specific issue that you are bringing as an external overlay to the parables and statements of Jesus. I find those to require more than saying they are to make them applicable to the verses we are actually reading. You are trying so desperately to align all the references to leaven and make them say one constant thing. But they simply don’t. One place is mostly about not being slowed down, and possibly about getting out of Egypt. Another is about the Kingdom being introduced to the world and ultimately spreading throughout it. Another is about something that the Pharisees are adding to the teachings of scripture. Yet another is about mixing the world and sin into the assembly in an open and even boastful way.

On that last one, I find that a perfect reference to leaven is not found. Since the sin can be located and purged, it is not like leaven within bread because there is a chemical bond. It is too late to purge it. But the metaphor is still quite useful since the boastful allowance of such sin within the assembly will both weaken the testimony of that assembly to the larger community in which it is found, and will create a (unspoken?) teaching of tolerance for sin in a manner that should not be. It is not a perfect fit to leaven. But the point is well made.

And, despite my true desire to leave, I find it difficult to simply leave everyone to consider this kind of thing in such a convoluted way that I honestly believe is damaging to the overall spiritual condition. The kind of seeking for more in scripture than is there can only result in teachings that are unique and ultimately puff up its adherents. Maybe not you specifically. But that is what we had in all those special readings and understandings from Nee and Lee. We had something that no one else had. And there was a reason that no one else had them in too much of the cases — it wasn’t really there.

[OBW]

Oh,

One more:

OBW: "Each metaphor stands alone to say something specific."
ZNP: "Who made up this rule?"

Who said it was a rule? Read them. Read each one separately. They each speak quite well without reinterpreting them in light of something else or even each other. Yes. They also paint, in parts, a more complete picture of the Kingdom. But that does not make one rule another, but rather that they bring their separate statements together to better expound on the nature of the kingdom.

I never said it was a rule. But it seems to be true here. The question is put back to you. Where is the rule that every metaphor has to be tied to every other metaphor, especially if there is a common term?

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Where is the rule that every metaphor has to be tied to every other metaphor, especially if there is a common term?

Again, that is too strong. Every metaphor doesn't have to be tied to every other metaphor. But common metaphors, used repeatedly to signal something deemed important to the speakers/writers, over time begin to assert independent meanings which can be used in new messages to convey new information.

But of course, immediate context may override this.

Secondly, think about it from another vantage point. The whole earth lies under the evil one, yes? So Jesus is in "enemy territory", trying to convey a message to his troops. So He speaks in parables. He uses imagery to convey something taking place, right in front of the noses of the "enemy". Then, privately, He explains what each image represents.

So my hypothesis is that just as Daniel was in captivity, encouraging the chosen ones who also were in captivity, to hold fast and look for God's coming rescue, so too was John in captivity (Patmos), writing to assemblies already fast in Babylon's grip, encouraging them to overcome, for the day of the Lord draws nigh.

And so it is not coincidental (to me) that John reverts to OT imagery. Look at the parallels of Revelation to Daniel, Isaiah, and Ezekiel. Literally hundreds of allusions to OT images. I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to assume that John would expect his readers to be familiar with the images, and use them to interpret his riddles.

Because God likes to use riddles. Look at Jesus' parables; look at Samson and the Philistines; look at all the dreams in Genesis. "In the last days your old men will see visions, and your young men will dream dreams."

So my conjectures are just that. I don't try to impose them on my local assembly as the new doctrine, nor do I pine of starting some "pure" splinter group. And if my ruminations don't find a receptive audience among my fellows, I would be wise to take that into consideration as well, for the counsel of the believers is a powerful check to our imaginations.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

OBW: “The bread of life is not about fermentation. It is about the nutritional content that sustains life.”
ZNP: “Sounds reasonable but completely untrue. When you make bread you learn very quickly that you are dealing with something that is alive. If I used tap water (that had chlorine)”
Problem with response: I am talking about the scriptural reference to Jesus as the bread of life while ZNP is busy talking about how bread is made. Since the reference to the bread of life is in response to eating, it is not about making bread, but about the value of bread as nutrition and therefore of Jesus as spiritual food. I challenge anyone to show how scripture, at least in this case, refers to Jesus as the bread of life so that the process of how bread is made can be made important (or the fact that leaven is something alive) rather than Jesus as spiritual food.

OBW: The bread is either unleavened or it is leavened. The Passover type was to remove all leaven from the premises.
ZNP: Simply not letting it rise is the definition of unleavened.
Problem with response: Ignores the meaning of the ritualistic removal of leaven from the premises. If simply not letting it rise makes unleavened, then there is no need to avoid leavening agents. But in any case, how does that ritual factor into the parable in Matt 13? Leaven is not mentioned as something to avoid, but as the Kingdom added to something else. Leaven is not used in the sense of something to purge out as in the Passover ritual.

OBW: “Not all seed is grain. The parables that mention seed are referring to what grows up, not what you can do with it after it is harvested.”
ZNP: “What are you talking about? You can make flour out of any seed. What is the purpose of planting grain if you are not going to harvest it for food?”
Problem with response: The thrust of my comment was that the purpose of the parable was not about the seed, but the soil into which it was placed (or landed). ZNP has made it all about whether you can make bread or other food out of the harvest. The parable never gets to the harvest except in the mention at the end of the produce from one type of soil. Whether the purpose of planting a seed is to harvest it for food is irrelevant if the purpose of the parable is to demonstrate the kind of soil into which seed can be sown. Jumping to the harvest and beyond is to ignore the purpose of the parable.

OBW: When I refer to the teaching of the Pharisees (which is not part of the Matthew 13 dialog) I mention that the Pharisees are adding to the Word in their teachings.
ZNP: “No, what I am suggesting is that the term "leaven of the Pharisees" refers to the teaching of the Pharisees. No doubt the Pharisees did read the Bible and other books to arrive at their teachings. So if the pure word of God in the analogy is the flour, the yeast would be the Pharisees, and the product that they produce is referred to as "leaven of the Pharisees".”
Problem with response: There is no flour in the reference to the Pharisees. The mention of leaven is referring directly and singly to what they add to the Word to arrive at their teachings. There is no evidence that the reference needs to discuss the aspects of making bread more palatable (as some have tried to do). Further, even though it would be easy to say that the Word is the flour, it is unimportant. It is not the purpose of the mention. The purpose is to make note that what the Pharisees were adding was to be avoided. It wasn’t’ even necessarily that they added something. It was what they added. It was something to be avoided. Bringing in all the other possible aspects of a flour/yeast/dough/bread analogy is to create in a rather direct warning about the Pharisees’ teachings something that is not there. The rest of what you might try to make out of it could be theologically correct, but not actually supported by the passage in question.

I do not care that yeast is “something alive.” I don’t care that you can make your own sourdough without yeast. My son and daughter-in-law have done it. The problem is that you are jumping all over kingdom come to make points about yeast and leaven that are not being made. Sort of like a reference in the NT to power. Since the word is the root from which we get “dynamo” then every appendage to the process of making electricity will be brought in as important to the verse. The verse said “power.” It didn’t say 100 megawatt power plant with step-down transformers, miles of wires and a light switch to turn on the light in your house. You are doing the same thing here with leaven. Leave out anything that is not in the passage. Let the passage speak for itself. It actually does quite well. These few parables in Matt 13 are quite meaningful. They do not need any reference to how yeast works. They don’t refer to Paul’s use of leaven as a negative thing. The don’t refer to seed for the purpose of grinding into flour. They don’t speak about the RCC with birds roosting in its evil, anomalous branches.

Yes, Jesus did say that he was the bread of life. But living on “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” does not “mean that we should eat the word” in some special definition. It means that our source and supply is there. And just because the Pharisees were searching the scripture did not mean that they were “eating the word” when Jesus made reference to the leaven of the Pharisees. And on what basis do you conclude that it is the Pharisees themselves that is the leaven? That is quite novel. Surely you mean that what comes from the Pharisees for the people to follow to attain their definition of “God’s standard” had something added by the Pharisees that was not part of what the read and studied in the scripture.

This kind of reading is the main reason that I have suggested in parting that almost everyone’s reading of scripture is still too influenced by Lee. Lee did not take scripture and expound upon it. He took scripture and added to it. He took every word that could be made to refer to some other place in scripture and made it so. And caused it to override what the present scripture actually said.

A challenge. Read what is actually there. Then read it again. Then again. If you start thinking about other passages that have similar words, forget them — at least for a while. See if the context and the words actually present say what you think they do without searching elsewhere. See if what they actually say without referring elsewhere is sound in the context. Don’t start with knowledge of what you expect them to mean. Start with what they actually say. There is entirely too much good stuff without layering on Lee or a modified form of it.

And while I have somewhat dissected your response to me in the manner that you did my response to you, did you actually bother to read the whole thing for the full context? And did you read the response to aron who commented in between? I see virtually every specific issue that you are bringing as an external overlay to the parables and statements of Jesus. I find those to require more than saying they are to make them applicable to the verses we are actually reading. You are trying so desperately to align all the references to leaven and make them say one constant thing. But they simply don’t. One place is mostly about not being slowed down, and possibly about getting out of Egypt. Another is about the Kingdom being introduced to the world and ultimately spreading throughout it. Another is about something that the Pharisees are adding to the teachings of scripture. Yet another is about mixing the world and sin into the assembly in an open and even boastful way.

On that last one, I find that a perfect reference to leaven is not found. Since the sin can be located and purged, it is not like leaven within bread because there is a chemical bond. It is too late to purge it. But the metaphor is still quite useful since the boastful allowance of such sin within the assembly will both weaken the testimony of that assembly to the larger community in which it is found, and will create a (unspoken?) teaching of tolerance for sin in a manner that should not be. It is not a perfect fit to leaven. But the point is well made.

And, despite my true desire to leave, I find it difficult to simply leave everyone to consider this kind of thing in such a convoluted way that I honestly believe is damaging to the overall spiritual condition. The kind of seeking for more in scripture than is there can only result in teachings that are unique and ultimately puff up its adherents. Maybe not you specifically. But that is what we had in all those special readings and understandings from Nee and Lee. We had something that no one else had. And there was a reason that no one else had them in too much of the cases — it wasn’t really there.

I will try to respond to this post but due to time constraints I doubt I will cover everything.
1. Is the reference “I am the Bread of Life” referring only to the life supply of the bread to those that eat it? Clearly it is referring to Jesus, and it says “In Him was life and the life was the light of men”. OBW says that he is talking about scriptural references and I am talking about how bread Is made. Since the reference is to bread then surely understanding a little about bread is clearly relevant and may even be instructive. But, many times the use of the term “leaven” is used in both the NT and OT and this is either an unusual term for bread or else it is a somewhat technical term that does need further understanding.
2. “Unleavened bread”. I can understand you not being interested in the microscopic reality of no such thing as “unleavened bread”. Fine, the agent that was not added was the sour dough. The point is that once a year you had to throw out your sour dough and start a new batch. It takes a week for the new batch so for one week you eat unleavened bread. One way around this would be to start a new batch before throwing out the old batch, this is clearly forbidden, as you are to first purge your house of the old leaven. There are reasons why you would want to do this as the old leaven would have a dramatic impact on the new leaven, by throwing it away you clearly do have a chance to have a new leaven.
3. I do not have any issue with the you discussing the type of soil that the seed is placed in. Without a doubt that is part of the story, but why do you have an issue with someone pointing out how all the stories can be united by a general theme.
4. I read your response about the Pharisees and have no idea how that relates to what I said. The word clearly from the Lord Jesus is that the Leaven of the Pharisees refers to the teaching of the Pharisees, but it also is quite clear that the term confused the disciples who thought that by saying leaven he was referring to bread.
5. To say that describing my experience making pan levain is not relevant is just stupid. The Bible is describing leaven, if everyone is familiar with how to make bread then it could be superfluous to discuss it, but since very few people today are (unlike the time of Jesus) it seems ludicrous to me that anyone would have an issue with this. Jesus is using the process of making bread to make an analogy, a process that his audience was very familiar with, but a process that people today are not.
6. Finally, you say that my use of analogy is a direct result of WL. I have told you before that this is not true. I have repeatedly told you that I am a geologist, in Geology we have to correlate different rock layers, sometimes separated by miles . In doing this we (geologists as a whole) have learned that the sequence of layers is as important as an individual sample of a single layer. We are taught to do this in our textbooks. WL had nothing to do with this. Likewise when you read any portion of the Bible the context is clearly critical to examine as much as the individual word.
I do not like people telling me that I can not understand a verse a certain way (i.e. just because the Bible says we live on the word of God doesn’t mean that we are to eat it). The NT clearly says whoever eats my flesh shall live because of me, and this in the same book where Jesus is the word. I have not issue with you having a different understanding, but stop telling people how to read the Bible, what is and is not acceptable, etc. It is the height of arrogance to think that your interpretation is accurate and all others are invalid.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It is the height of arrogance to think that your interpretation is accurate and all others are invalid.

I know this was perhaps not directed at me, but I still want to comment. I always think that my interpretation is accurate. It is simply how my brain works. And I think I'm not entirely alone in this regard: the subjective nature of the human psyche lends one to distort the input/output feedback; what I am saying to others and what others are saying to me.

The phenomenon of being aware of splinters in the eyes of others, while being oblivious to beams and timbers in my own, is always a revelation when it is unmasked.

An example that I have noticed is that the LSM authors (Lee, and now DCP and other organs) use words like "correct" and "adjust" and "rebuke", and even "fellowship" when characterizing communication with others, but when the shoe is on the other foot it is called "slander" and "accusation" and "attack".

My point is that we are often subjective, while thinking we are objective.

Even being aware of this, I always think that my interpretation is the "best" one available. But I try to keep in mind two things. First, my current interpretation, or understanding, is different from yesterday, or last week, or last year. And it will continue to change over time as new experiences come across my bow. So while I take my faith seriously, I don't take myself too seriously.

Second, my current interpretation is due to a long socialization process, as well as "time alone with God." This includes, for me, time in the Lee-affiliated groups, as well as with many other christians, both individual and en masse. "What do you have that you did not receive?" 1 Cor chapter 4.

[OBW]

Trying not to quote the entire post but not succeeding very well:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Since the reference is to bread then surely understanding a little about bread is clearly relevant and may even be instructive.

John 6:32-35 “Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
“Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.”

This would be closer to having a discussion about groceries bought from a grocery store than about the process of making bread. But even the fact that the groceries came from a store would be irrelevant. The passage is talking about receiving a kind of nourishment from Jesus. It is in contrast to what Moses was thought to have given, but is now given by God and it came down from heaven. If it comes down from heaven, the process of man making bread becomes irrelevant.

But without going into all of this about making bread, just read the one verse. “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me. . . .” I do not need to be educated on what processes made that bread. I need to come to Christ. To do otherwise would almost be like that silly story from the old Stream magazine about hunky and Dory studying food rather than eating it. It might be relevant to point out that this story was designed to over-focus on “eating” and to despise reading and studying. But there clearly is a place for eating, and this is it. There is no “work” required to come to Christ and eat. There is no degree in breadology required.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But, many times the use of the term “leaven” is used in both the NT and OT and this is either an unusual term for bread or else it is a somewhat technical term that does need further understanding.

You may be right. In some cases. But you don’t seem to want to give the plain understanding a chance. I don’t see the need for understanding bread-making for this reference. It is a distraction from the very meaningful words on the page.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

“Unleavened bread”. I can understand you not being interested in the microscopic reality of no such thing as “unleavened bread”. . . .

All relevant to a discussion on the Passover pattern/requirement to purge out the leaven. That is not this discussion unless you want to bring in something that is irrelevant to the discussion.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I do not have any issue with the you discussing the type of soil that the seed is placed in. Without a doubt that is part of the story. . .

Thank you. It is good that you don’t have a problem with it. In fact, it is very good, because that is what it is about. It is not just “part of the story.” It is the story. Jesus said to scatter the seed. Don’t pre-think about where it is landing. Let the soil do its part. Man’s free will must come into play. You don’t know their will, so plant it and let it run its course. Each man has his own concerns and distractions. If he is ultimately not receptive, that is his problem, not yours. Sow the seed.

Yes. Where the seed takes hold and grows, there will be a harvest. And some of it will still grow differently from some other. Still the issue is the soil. It is not really about the harvest. The disciples are being charged to sow without pre-thinking the harvest. To do so would be to refuse the opportunity for one heart/mind/will/soul to face the gospel and let it take root, or let it be devoured by the birds.

Nothing about flour. Nothing about leaven. Nothing about eating.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

but why do you have an issue with someone pointing out how all the stories can be united by a general theme.

Because it was the first place that the whole discussion was going. What was actually in the parables was being (and continues to be) overrun by discussions about things somewhere else in scripture that might be relevant, and about presumptions of strained meanings for terms based upon their use in a different metaphorical context in another passage, some of them even by another writer.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The word clearly from the Lord Jesus is that the Leaven of the Pharisees refers to the teaching of the Pharisees, but it also is quite clear that the term confused the disciples who thought that by saying leaven he was referring to bread.

And a pretty strong evidence that getting too tied-up in discussing the process of using leaven in bread making was not the point. Bread was not the point. A warning about what the Pharisees were adding to the word was the point. It was simply about the thing added. Jesus didn’t even comment on what the outcome of accepting their additions would do. The Pharisees are pulling a bait-and-switch. You think you are getting sound scriptural advice. You are not. It has non-scriptural, and more importantly, unscriptural content. Watch for it.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

To say that describing my experience making pan levain is not relevant is just stupid. The Bible is describing leaven, if everyone is familiar with how to make bread then it could be superfluous to discuss it, but since very few people today are (unlike the time of Jesus) it seems ludicrous to me that anyone would have an issue with this. Jesus is using the process of making bread to make an analogy, a process that his audience was very familiar with, but a process that people today are not.

It is not relevant because, in the context of the one parable that even mentioned leaven, the rising of the dough was not mentioned. The baking was not mentioned. The time factor was not mentioned. It is simply pointed out that a little of something is added to a lot of something else and then kneaded until that little bit is mixed throughout. It is not totally ridiculous to consider where that leads. And leaven added to flour is a great example of this. But you should at least start with the part that is actually mentioned. To rush in with living yeast, fermentation, the Passover, is to blow by what is actually said and skip on to something else. This started with a mention of the parable in Matt 13. The notion that the leaven was something questionable, maybe bad, and possibly quite evil that was introduced. I turn the reading back to what the words actually say — that the kingdom is the leaven in the context and therefore clearly not questionable, bad or evil. And there is a quick rush to make it about something else — fermentation, bread making, etc. Where did the consideration for what the parable actually says go?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Finally, you say that my use of analogy is a direct result of WL. . . .

I see it as so because you spent an important portion of your life hearing this kind of “exposition.” Even if you had problems with some of it, you stayed around it for a long time. It gets into you. I know because I saw it in me. Almost 20 years after leaving the LRC. You may have heard little directly from Lee other than in a training or in his books. But that was his way. There were way too many passages that would seem to be contrary to his kind of thinking that he either glossed over and moved along as if “nothing to see here. Move along.” Or he gave almost no opportunity to contemplate the verses as they were in their own context, but instead rushed in “God’s economy,” “Christ and the church,” or some other overlay to rephrase and reinterpret the passage.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Likewise when you read any portion of the Bible the context is clearly critical to examine as much as the individual word.

Then why is 1 Cor. 5 and Exodus quickly rushed out to reinterpret “leaven” in Matt 13? Why are the words “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven . . .” immediately presumed to mean that something evil is added to the kingdom when the words say that the kingdom is added to something else? (You were not the source of this. But you have rushed in with a discussion about the process of making bread.)

I am not opposed to you coming to your own understanding of scripture. But I honestly believe that it is much more important that “we” (not necessarily you and me, or even the participants of this forum as a group) come to understand scripture. That is because I am prone to my error. You are prone to yours. But when we contemplate together, we have a chance to see something outside our own prejudice.

I agree with Rob Bell (who I don’t always agree with) that we probably cannot, as individuals, just come to the pure word of God. There is a pure word of God. But each of us has our own lens through which we read it. We need each other to point that out. We need to go through the process of taking in the alternate views. But it should start with an attempt to use the words that are there. To help each other purge out our leavened view. Even if you suddenly drop your discussion about bread making and just focus on the words in Matt 13, I do not presume that you will conclude as I do. I presume that you, or someone, will see something else that is actually there, that we should consider. But when you start with overlays, presumptions, etc., that are openly stated as coming from some need to consider things outside the passage, then my guard immediately goes up and you have “violated” what I consider to be the “rules of the road.” Not necessarily absolute rules. But important rules. If you don’t engage what is there for some time before throwing out something like “would consideration of the bread-making process be relevant to this?” then you have started several steps down the path. In fact, if I want to allow someone else to simply bring in their considerations, I will go to a lecture where I can listen to someone give their conclusions without the messy discussion that gets there.

If you argue that I am just doing the same, then you are not looking. I am trying to make this a discussion rather than an opportunity for everyone to simply throw in their conclusions. To do that, you really need to start with the verses in their context. You think I am telling you how to understand these verses. I am not. But I am refusing to be bullied into accepting more than is actually there before we actually discuss what is actually there. I will not tell you that you cannot be thinking about where this all can go. Or that you cannot, at this point in time, think that understanding bread-making might be important. But if you want to skip past my (and your) need to start with what is actually there and dissect it — linguistically and contextually — before rushing off to another way to read it, then you are not prepared to engage with scripture in community.

And if you think that I am telling anyone how to read the bible and that I should stop it, then please quit insisting that to dismiss what you think is important (and not part of the scripture we are discussing), namely the bread making process, or “my experience making pan levain” is “just stupid.” Where I believe that it is relevant, I will consider it. In the context of Matt 13, I do not see it as relevant. To say that is “just stupid” is to tell me how to read the bible.

Which way do you want it?

Yeah. I hear it now. “But you just went through all of this statement of your ‘rules.’ How can you complain?” Because my “rules” were not about how to expand the discussion before the discussion starts, but how to focus the discussion before it gets away from us. It was not about how to understand it. It is about how to approach it. And we all need instruction in that at times. And my “instructions” were far from complete in every way.

But this free-for-all that I have been arguing against has been the failure of both LRC forums. Complain about my overly-mental way of approaching scripture if you want. My overly-mental way has revealed much light to me. And it is a way shared by many who I would consider true scholars of the Word. In 2007 or 2008 I was reading 1 Cor. 3, seeing the same old Lee-lens understanding when one word popped out at me that didn’t fit. It wasn’t until I had reread it several times, put it down and come back again that I managed to turn off enough of the old thinking to clearly see what was written. I am not the builder in 1 Cor. I am the building. It has been easier when others are trying to do the same thing. There is much truth in scripture. Starting beyond what is written (and there is a reference to consider) is not a good place to be.

But since the current membership is determined to just start 10 steps into the discussion — start with leaven is bad, or bread making is automatically important, or the LRC may be wrong about one church per city, but I can’t give myself to any specific group of Christians because they don’t stack up to the kind of “unity” that we learned in the LRC, or “dispensing” is God’s economy, or anything that looks like works is simply rejected as of the flesh — I am frustrated to deal with this. There is no desire to think beyond what is already thought. (And overstatement, for sure.) But every time you or anyone else starts with a conclusion that is essentially consistent with how we were taught in the LRC, you can argue that you aren’t starting with Lee, but it is true. You may despise Lee. But if we want to use Paul’s leaven reference in 1 Cor. 5, or Jesus reference to the leaven of the Pharisees, then “Purge out the leaven of Lee. Do not just despise him. Root out his teachings. Start over with the pure milk of the word. Beware of the vestiges of his leaven in your thinking. Don’t presume that anything he said was even sort of right. Reject it. If it is true, it will come back to you from the scripture and from other sources.”

Steve Isitt is clear that he believes the bulk of the teachings of Lee and the LRC. He just wants them to admit that they have made mistakes and even lied so that Lee could remain with the appearance of no spot or blemish in front of the majority of the membership. But most of the rest here who actually have left the LRC are not far from the same. I say that their thinking is “knee-jerk” or “from Lee” because they mostly speak consistently with LRC teachings with the exception of deputy authority or MOTA/”acting God” kinds of teaching. And they don’t start with the scripture, but with the Lee-supplied teachings and seem surprised that anyone with an LRC history would disagree. Sort of like when my sister (still in the LRC) said to me “Lee said that [some specific thing that I actually think he was wrong about]. You do still agree with this?” To which I could only reply “No, I do not.”

I put out a couple of verses for consideration and it falls flat. There is no desire to think about scripture on their own. Are you going to continue just like them — as if you never left the LRC? Despite leaving the LSM/LRC, are you closed to reconsider? Or have you got it figured out? My insistence on dropping the Passover, and bread-making, is not to insist on a conclusion, but to start without one. Bringing those other things in at the start evidences your conclusion rather than your thoughtful consideration and participation in the process of moving through discussion to a conclusion (if there is one to be had).

But if you want to argue about how I am insisting on anything, then you have your own answer. You don’t want to discuss. You want to direct. And so does virtually everyone else.

I erred in responding to this thread after saying I was bowing out. It is proof that I really should have stayed out. And if you want to prove me wrong, then don’t come back with arguments against what I have said here, but with discussion (with whoever else wants to discuss) concerning the verses that are in scripture rather than the overlays that aren’t. If you come back to dissect what I have said and pick them apart, then you make my point. And if this angers you, then you don’t get it. And your glasses are darker than you think.

I should not respond again. I hope I don’t. If I do, it will be because I think it will do you some good. But the fact that we got to this post reveals some of the futility of this kind of thought, at least at this time. Complain about whether you think saying this is arrogant if you will. But there is Lee in almost everything you say, even when you disagree with him. His way of misreading scripture remains in you. No one else is telling you this. You aren’t concluding it on your own. So if I see it, I should just keep it to myself because your pride will be damaged if someone else suggests that you need to take some correction? Talk about arrogance. I come to discuss. You come to conclude. And I am arrogant.

Oh. I forgot. This is a postmodern age in which it is “everyman in his own eyes.” And “don’t say anything if you can’t say something nice.” I suspect that if I managed to be able to produce a couple of PhDs, including one in theology, you might at least think about it. But since I can’t, no one can tell you anything. But you sure want to tell me. And say I am stupid for disagreeing.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Trying not to quote the entire post but not succeeding very well:
John 6:32-35 “Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
“Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.”

This would be closer to having a discussion about groceries bought from a grocery store than about the process of making bread. But even the fact that the groceries came from a store would be irrelevant. The passage is talking about receiving a kind of nourishment from Jesus. It is in contrast to what Moses was thought to have given, but is now given by God and it came down from heaven. If it comes down from heaven, the process of man making bread becomes irrelevant.

But without going into all of this about making bread, just read the one verse. “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me. . . .” I do not need to be educated on what processes made that bread. I need to come to Christ. To do otherwise would almost be like that silly story from the old Stream magazine about hunky and Dory studying food rather than eating it. It might be relevant to point out that this story was designed to over-focus on “eating” and to despise reading and studying. But there clearly is a place for eating, and this is it. There is no “work” required to come to Christ and eat. There is no degree in breadology required.
You may be right. In some cases. But you don’t seem to want to give the plain understanding a chance. I don’t see the need for understanding bread-making for this reference. It is a distraction from the very meaningful words on the page.
All relevant to a discussion on the Passover pattern/requirement to purge out the leaven. That is not this discussion unless you want to bring in something that is irrelevant to the discussion.
Thank you. It is good that you don’t have a problem with it. In fact, it is very good, because that is what it is about. It is not just “part of the story.” It is the story. Jesus said to scatter the seed. Don’t pre-think about where it is landing. Let the soil do its part. Man’s free will must come into play. You don’t know their will, so plant it and let it run its course. Each man has his own concerns and distractions. If he is ultimately not receptive, that is his problem, not yours. Sow the seed.

Yes. Where the seed takes hold and grows, there will be a harvest. And some of it will still grow differently from some other. Still the issue is the soil. It is not really about the harvest. The disciples are being charged to sow without pre-thinking the harvest. To do so would be to refuse the opportunity for one heart/mind/will/soul to face the gospel and let it take root, or let it be devoured by the birds.

Nothing about flour. Nothing about leaven. Nothing about eating.
Because it was the first place that the whole discussion was going. What was actually in the parables was being (and continues to be) overrun by discussions about things somewhere else in scripture that might be relevant, and about presumptions of strained meanings for terms based upon their use in a different metaphorical context in another passage, some of them even by another writer.
And a pretty strong evidence that getting too tied-up in discussing the process of using leaven in bread making was not the point. Bread was not the point. A warning about what the Pharisees were adding to the word was the point. It was simply about the thing added. Jesus didn’t even comment on what the outcome of accepting their additions would do. The Pharisees are pulling a bait-and-switch. You think you are getting sound scriptural advice. You are not. It has non-scriptural, and more importantly, unscriptural content. Watch for it.
It is not relevant because, in the context of the one parable that even mentioned leaven, the rising of the dough was not mentioned. The baking was not mentioned. The time factor was not mentioned. It is simply pointed out that a little of something is added to a lot of something else and then kneaded until that little bit is mixed throughout. It is not totally ridiculous to consider where that leads. And leaven added to flour is a great example of this. But you should at least start with the part that is actually mentioned. To rush in with living yeast, fermentation, the Passover, is to blow by what is actually said and skip on to something else. This started with a mention of the parable in Matt 13. The notion that the leaven was something questionable, maybe bad, and possibly quite evil that was introduced. I turn the reading back to what the words actually say — that the kingdom is the leaven in the context and therefore clearly not questionable, bad or evil. And there is a quick rush to make it about something else — fermentation, bread making, etc. Where did the consideration for what the parable actually says go?
I see it as so because you spent an important portion of your life hearing this kind of “exposition.” Even if you had problems with some of it, you stayed around it for a long time. It gets into you. I know because I saw it in me. Almost 20 years after leaving the LRC. You may have heard little directly from Lee other than in a training or in his books. But that was his way. There were way too many passages that would seem to be contrary to his kind of thinking that he either glossed over and moved along as if “nothing to see here. Move along.” Or he gave almost no opportunity to contemplate the verses as they were in their own context, but instead rushed in “God’s economy,” “Christ and the church,” or some other overlay to rephrase and reinterpret the passage.
Then why is 1 Cor. 5 and Exodus quickly rushed out to reinterpret “leaven” in Matt 13? Why are the words “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven . . .” immediately presumed to mean that something evil is added to the kingdom when the words say that the kingdom is added to something else? (You were not the source of this. But you have rushed in with a discussion about the process of making bread.)

This thread “I am interested in what others think about the introduction of leaven into the assemblies” and this was asked in the context of Matt 13, and the parable of the woman that hid leaven in the dough.

You responded that in Matt 13 the term leaven in the parable is equated with the kingdom of God, “the kingdom of God is like”. Your point was that contrary to the teaching of WL, leaven here is not something negative.

In my response, agreeing that leaven is not something negative, I referred to the bread of life. Although I did not give a specific Bible reference, the term is from John 6.

You respond “the bread of life is not about fermentation but nutritional content that sustains life”. Later you say that you are speaking of the scriptural reference and I am off talking about making bread. (Let’s get real, “nutritional content” is not a scriptural reference, it is a concept ingrained by large food companies to make things like “fortified” or “enriched” look better, even though they have a shelf life of months and are dead).

So, let’s look at the Bible’s use of the term “bread of life”. You quote John 6:32-35, but do not quote John 6:48 “I am the bread of life”. The term is used twice in the Bible, from John 6:35 and then in John 6:48. How can you possibly ignore the verses in between? In those verses 3 times the Lord says “all that the Father has given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day”, and 40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. and then again 44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Now anyone who makes bread finds it very difficult not to read these verses and not see the process of making bread and the two risings of bread as part of the analogy. Please note, for those not familiar with the process, bread is allowed to rise once and then beat down, and it is after the second rising that it is baked. Jesus is the Bread of Life, and everyone who believes on Him may have everlasting life.

This is why your writing comes across as arrogant. You think you are scriptural, but “nutritional content” is not scriptural, rather it comes straight from the mouth of corporate america so that you will ignore the fact that your bread is now dead. Then you say “I do not need to be educated on what processes made that bread” and totally miss the Lord’s references to this process.

Next point -- “All relevant to a discussion on the Passover pattern/requirement to purge out the leaven. That is not this discussion unless you want to bring in something that is irrelevant to the discussion.”

The discussion is “re: the introduction of leaven”. The discussion is over what exactly is the introduction of leaven into the dough in the parable in Matt 13. Is the leaven symbolic of sin (as taught by WL), or is it symbolic of the Kingdom of God (as taught by OBW), etc. But the discussion is not solely on leaven, it is on “the introduction” of leaven (see the first post). My point strikes right at the heart of this discussion since I am pointing out that the leaven will always get into the bread, regardless of whether the woman hides it in there or not.

Next point -- The parable of the sower sowing the seed -- you say “It is not just “part of the story.” It is the story.”

When you say “It is the story” are you referring to the New Testament? The New Testament is a story of a sower who went forth to sow? Or are you referring to the gospel. The gospel is a story of a sower that went forth to sow? Or are you referring to Matthew, the Gospel of Matthew is a story about a sower who went forth to sow? Or are you referring to Matthew chapter 13, the story of the mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven begins with a sower who went forth to sow. You think these verses live completely cut off from the rest of the book in isolation? The concept is amazing to me, I thought that everyone who read this parable could see the broader applications. To pretend that these verses need to be cut off from the rest of the chapter, from the rest of the book of Matthew, and literally looked at in isolation is mind boggling to me because if you were to truly do that it would be meaningless. Do you mean that I cannot interpret that the sower here is Jesus? That this parable is describing what Jesus did in His ministry and also describes what many others have done in there ministry? The parable doesn’t say that, but I have yet to meet anyone that doesn’t understand it that way.

You seem to explain this aversion because the discussion was heading in a particular direction and you didn’t want to get it sidetracked with extraneous discussion. How can anyone conclude how to understand the allegorical meaning of Leaven if you are only going to look at one mention of the term? The Bible tells us no verse is of its own interpretation, you have to use the Bible to understand the Bible. The question very relevant to your discussion was this “If leaven does not have a negative connotation, then why does it appear to do so in so many other places.” Your explanation that one term can have several meanings is quite unsatisfactory. It is extremely unpalatable to me that in one place Leaven could mean sin, and in another it could mean Kingdom of Heaven. To me that would be similar to Christ referring to Jesus in one place and the AntiChrist in another. Therefore, I felt it was important to show that leaven doesn’t mean sin. To do that you have to go to the most significant mention of leaven, the purging of leaven at the time of passover and discuss that. What exactly does it mean to purge out the old leaven, why do they eat unleavened bread for one week, etc.

Next point -- “beware the leaven of the pharisees”

OBW -- "And a pretty strong evidence that getting too tied-up in discussing the process of using leaven in bread making was not the point. Bread was not the point. A warning about what the Pharisees were adding to the word was the point. It was simply about the thing added. Jesus didn’t even comment on what the outcome of accepting their additions would do. The Pharisees are pulling a bait-and-switch. You think you are getting sound scriptural advice. You are not. It has non-scriptural, and more importantly, unscriptural content. Watch for it."

The Pharisees are not pulling a bait and switch. This is where we differ, and the reason is that we have a different understanding of what the term leaven means. If the disciples were confused by the term leaven, doesn’t that prove that Jesus was using the term allegorically? Clearly leaven was not typically understood to mean teaching, so therefore to understand what the Lord is saying it is crucial to understand the term leaven and why it would be used in reference to teaching. What you are doing in this thread is “leaven”, you are taking the pure word of God, quoting it, and then interpreting it, and that is becoming a teaching. That is the analogy. Often you are looking for “old leaven” teaching that is old. In fact, in this thread you challenge the old notion of leaven signifying sin. He does not accuse the Pharisees of not teaching from the word of God, nowhere does the Lord ever say that. Instead, He says “you search the scriptures but you won’t come to me”. That is the old leaven. Now that Christ has come and become our passover it is time to purge out the old leaven. The new leaven is faith in Christ. All of this misunderstanding is because you are not familiar with sour dough and how once a year you should make a new batch.

Next Point -- I took issue with you saying my use of looking at the context of Matt 13 was based on WL teaching. In your discussion you said --

Then why is 1 Cor. 5 and Exodus quickly rushed out to reinterpret “leaven” in Matt 13? Why are the words “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven . . .” immediately presumed to mean that something evil is added to the kingdom when the words say that the kingdom is added to something else?

We both know the answer to this. Small minded people cannot accept when their concepts are wrong. But the reason they made the mistake in the first place was not because 1 Cor 5 and Exodus were not relevant to an understanding of leaven, but because they misunderstood what the term “purge out the old leaven” meant. Think about it, every day you make bread (let’s say pancakes) using the sour dough starter on the stove. Do you really think that stuff is bad? It is what makes your bread delicious, and healthy, and “living”. Yet, once a year you go through a practice of throwing out the sour dough starter you have had for an entire year, and creating a new batch. Does this mean the old starter signified sin? No, it means we need a new beginning, a fresh new faith. You “solve” the issue by saying one term can have two meanings, but this doesn’t solve the issue, it leaves the original misconception in place.

Sorry, you probably made more points after this but I lost interest. If I am missing something important please bring it to my attention.