The introduction of leaven

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I still wonder if there are any verses that truly give a negative connotation to leaven. There are lots of dietary laws in the OT and never once is it even suggested that things leavened (bread, wine, beer, etc.) have a negative connotation. Also, the fact that they had to purge out the old leaven indicates that leaven was a central commodity in all Jewish homes.

Beware of the leaven is not any different from beware the electric cable, being dangerous is not equivalent with sinful, unclean, or evil. Rather the term old is a decidedly negative term, God is always new. So the issue with purging out the old leaven could be that it was old, not that it was leaven. Likewise beware the leaven of the pharisees could easily be an issue of the Pharisees, not leaven.

[Cal]

Also, I have a problem thinking the Lord might directly call the kingdom of heaven a negative thing. If leaven here is evil, why would the Lord call the kingdom leaven? That's like saying the kingdom is evil. In none of the other parables is the kingdom itself directly called something that is considered evil.

If he had said that the kingdom is like flour which a women mixed with yeast, perhaps then the idea that the leaven was evil might hold up better. But the Lord said the kingdom is like yeast which a woman mixed with flour! Flour is surely positive, right? So if the woman is some evil Jezebel, why is she mixing the good thing into the bad thing, rather than the other way around? And why is the bad thing directly equated with the kingdom?

It just doesn't make sense. Yet, that's what Lee taught.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Also, I have a problem thinking the Lord might directly call the kingdom of heaven a negative thing. If leaven here is evil, why would the Lord call the kingdom leaven? That's like saying the kingdom is evil. In none of the other parables is the kingdom itself directly called something that is considered evil.

If he had said that the kingdom is like flour which a women mixed with yeast, perhaps then the idea that the leaven was evil might hold up better. But the Lord said the kingdom is like yeast which a woman mixed with flour! Flour is surely positive, right? So if the woman is some evil Jezebel, why is she mixing the good thing into the bad thing, rather than the other way around? And why is the bad thing directly equated with the kingdom?

It just doesn't make sense. Yet, that's what Lee taught.

It doesn't make sense because you have not carried the context. There is a conversation going on; our Lord is telling the disciples that Good and Evil will commingle for a time, and eventually Evil will be purged from the kingdom.

And "The kingdom is..." is relating to a story, not merely to the first object that appears in the story. If I say "The kingdom of heaven is like a net..." that is not the story. Rather, the kingdom is a net, which goes into the sea, and gathers creatures diverse, which then get sorted, with the good being kept and the foul being discarded. At one point, in the kingdom of heaven, there are both "wicked and just" side by side (verses 46-49).

Also verse 41: "The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity..." (KJV).

Temporarily, in the kingdom of heaven, there are things which offend, which do iniquity. There are tares, there are unfruitful hearts (soil), there are fishes quite foul and inedible (think of some of the nasty creatures which Peter and his companions hauled out of the sea!), there are "children of the wicked one" (verse 38).

Of course, there are positive and desireable things there also. There is a treasure hidden in the field (v.44), there are good fish, there are good crops, there are children of the kingdom, etc.

But the overall theme in these parables (Matthew 13) involves the temporary commingling of both realms, both wicked and good, with the eventual resolution.

Now, that does not perforce dictate that here leaven must be bad, nor the birds roosting in the mustard plant must stand for evil spirits. But your grammatical reading (and logic) requiring the object in question to be "good" rather than "evil" also looks away from the theme of the overall story, I think.

I could just as easily say, "The kingdom of heaven is many diverse fishes, which are gathered into a net and hauled ashore, with good fishes being sorted out from the bad." In this case, the fish are not the kingdom any more than the net (or the flour, or leaven, or whatever). Rather, it is a story in which something is happening within the kingdom.

Here is another story: ""Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they were defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world - he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him."

Suppose I said that the dragon, the ancient serpent, called both Devil, and Satan, is in heaven. People might be aghast. "No!! Heaven is where God dwells! Satan is in Hell!" But context is required: I am referring to a temporary situation. There are both good and evil temporarily commingling "in heaven", and there is indeed a struggle, just as there is implied (so I read, anyway) in all of the parables in Matthew 13 (Even the "treasure" is hidden in the "field").

So an overly narrow reading of the grammar of the translation trumping the story laid in multiple parables (notice the prefaces, "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like..." vv. 44,45,47 - they are a linked sequence) is perhaps leaning too far in the other direction.

I admit that Lee would shoehorn verses to fit "the story". But to disregard the ongoing story and attempt to piece meaning from grammar alone (again, remember this is a translation) also has its perils.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

Now, that does not perforce dictate that here leaven must be bad, nor the birds roosting in the mustard plant must stand for evil spirits. But your grammatical reading (and logic) requiring the object in question to be "good" rather than "evil" also looks away from the theme of the overall story, I think.

I could just as easily say, "The kingdom of heaven is many diverse fishes, which are gathered into a net and hauled ashore, with good fishes being sorted out from the bad." In this case, the fish are not the kingdom any more than the net (or the flour, or leaven, or whatever). Rather, it is a story in which something is happening within the kingdom.

Here is another story: ""Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they were defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world - he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him."

Suppose I said that the dragon, the ancient serpent, called both Devil, and Satan, is in heaven. People might be aghast. "No!! Heaven is where God dwells! Satan is in Hell!" But context is required: I am referring to a temporary situation. There are both good and evil temporarily commingling "in heaven", and there is indeed a struggle, just as there is implied (so I read, anyway) in all of the parables in Matthew 13 (Even the "treasure" is hidden in the "field").

So an overly narrow reading of the grammar of the translation trumping the story laid in multiple parables (notice the prefaces, "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like..." vv. 44,45,47 - they are a linked sequence) is perhaps leaning too far in the other direction.

I admit that Lee would shoehorn verses to fit "the story". But to disregard the ongoing story and attempt to piece meaning from grammar alone (again, remember this is a translation) also has its perils.

Yeah, I thought about that, and I think it has some merit... up to a point. At the same time, as to the overall theme being about mixture, that's a stretch. The two parables about pearls aren't about mixture. Why are they there?

We don't know for sure that the leaven is negative or positive. I think the fact that the Lord called the kingdom the leaven, and not the flour, is a hint that it is positive in this case.

Note that all the parables that the Lord goes back and explains have a clear negative aspect. But he doesn't explain the parables of the pearls, of the mustard seed, or of the leaven. This, to me, also hints that the parables of the mustard seed and the leaven are positive, since they are grouped with the pearl parables in this way.

Also, if the parable of the leaven is negative, it certainly comes across as defeatist. If negative, it flatly says that the KoH is something that gets totally corrupted. Plain and simple, end of story, no explanation, no resolution.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The two parables about pearls aren't about mixture. Why are they there?

The pearl is good, desirable. The field is the world; ruled by Satan. The pearl is hidden within the field. There are two kingdoms simultaneously presented. That of heaven is hidden within that which has been corrupted and usurped by the evil one.

I am increasingly thinking that "leaven" and "birds" in Matthew 13 are neither expressly good or evil; there is the leaven of Jesus, and the leaven of the Pharisees; there are both swallows and eagles and turtledoves, and also vultures.

Originally Posted by Igzy

... if the parable of the leaven is negative, it certainly comes across as defeatist. If negative, it flatly says that the KoH is something that gets totally corrupted. Plain and simple, end of story, no explanation, no resolution.

I see a meta-narrative, where the only "end of story" is in Revelation chapter 22. Until then you see angels fighting, tares growing along with wheat, pearls hidden in fields, and nets pulling up gross and ugly fish along with tasty trout.

One story which really opened my eyes to the idea of "mixture" is in Matthew 16: Peter expresses the Father, then three verses later expresses Satan. And this "mixed Peter" continues, even after the resurection, and after the day of Pentecost, etc.

Peter once asked, how many times he needed to forgive his brother? Hundreds, the Lord replied. Don't even bother counting. And this is how many times Peter was destined to offend the Holy Spirit. Peter, an apostle and disciple and chosen vessel of mercy destined to shine forever in glory, was temporarily on earth "leavened" by dark forces, and alternately displaying both kingdoms. There is a mixture in Peter, as in us all. So there are many "defeats", and repentances (I hope), and lessons learned.

After the resurrection Peter went fishing, and got rebuked. Later, he shrank back from the Judaizers who came "from James", and got dressed down publicly by 'junior brother Paul'. Etc. We all do this. We are spiritual lions one minute, and mice the next. We can go from "clear" to "cloudy" in the blink of an eye.

It ain't over 'till it's over. Ultimately there is victory. We are sure of it. Else why would we struggle?

[Cal]

And, not to go along with the crowd, but another point to consider is that those who regard the parables of the mustard seed and leaven as negative are in the vast minority. Although, more do interpret the leaven as negative, few interpret the mustard seed that way.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

... another point to consider is that those who regard the parables of the mustard seed and leaven as negative are in the vast minority. Although, more do interpret the leaven as negative, few interpret the mustard seed that way.

I am increasingly of the opinion that there is something to be said for the wisdom of 2,000 years of collective opinion. That is a lot of vetting.

This comes from one who occasionally hazards rather provocative theses, I know. But my conjectures are merely what I am chewing on today, metaphorically speaking. And I present them to the collective not so much to sway the masses (though I do like the occasional "nice point there"...) but rather to open it up to objective scrutiny in Jesus' ekklesia. I've said it before: I treasure people like OBW coming along and slicing and dicing my ideas.

On the flip side, I've been interacting online on a forum peopled by quite a few "ministry die-hards". When I offer a critique of Lee's conclusions, they respond with some version of "You just need to pray more; then you'll get it", or if they are feeling uncharitable they tell me how dark my heart is, that I am "twisting" the Word (which of course was "cut straight" by "the Oracle"), and so forth.

The overall impression I get is of a less carefully-managed version of Lee: they have made an emotional commitment to an hypothesis (e.g. 'one church per city'), and under the polished veneer of logic and God's Word there fairly quickly surfaces an immature and petulant insistance on being the first, the last, the only.

So I have decided that my only emotionally-vested, intransigent insistence should be upon the notion that God loves me so much that He sent His only-begotten Son, that I might believe into Him and be saved. That and a few other basics ("Love your neighbor as yourself" comes quickly to mind) seem to sustain quite well in all venues. Beyond that, though I work long and hard on my ideas, I (hopefully) am willing to let them go within the fellowship of the ekklesia.

[ZNPaaneah]

Yes, I would certainly agree that if you look at the stories as a collective you do see certain concepts that are common. For example, in the parable with the leaven it says the woman "hid" the leaven in the flour. This is an extremely unique way of describing the making of bread. Yet, the concept of hiding things is common to virtually all of the stories in chapter 13. The seed is stolen by the birds because it is unable to hide beneath the soil. The treasure is hidden in the field. The pearl was "found" indicating that it was hidden until that point. On the other hand an enemy hid tares in the field. So both sides are working with this strategy, almost like a spy vs spy episode. And then the fish try to sneak into the kingdom net, but are rejected by the angels.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by aron

On the flip side, I've been interacting online on a forum peopled by quite a few "ministry die-hards". When I offer a critique of Lee's conclusions, they respond with some version of "You just need to pray more; then you'll get it", or if they are feeling uncharitable they tell me how dark my heart is, that I am "twisting" the Word (which of course was "cut straight" by "the Oracle"), and so forth.

Any chance you'd like to share the web address of this forum? Not so we can mock such people, but share with them? Or have you shared the address of this forum over there with them?