The introduction of leaven

[Timotheist]

Luke 13 puts the parable in its context. It was stated in response to the episode of the synagogue officials opposing Jesus' healing on the sabbath.

OBW's statement that the kingdom of God being likened unto leaven must make the leaven a "positive" thing is a common interpretation among commentaries.

But in the context of the parable, "the kingdom of God" is Judaism, and by extension, Christianity. Leaven here and Paul's use in 1 Cor both refer to man's negative influence on the church.

So Lee's interpretation of this parable and the companion one about the mustard seed growing into a tree is the correct one, IMHO.

Where Lee went WAY off was assuming that, through his ministry, an "unleavened" church could be attained.

[OBW]

Tim,

You missed my first pass at a response. Unfortunately, something happened and it disappeared off my screen before I could submit it.

While I understand the notions that some, including Lee/Nee say about this parable, I note that it does not say the kingdom of God is like a lump of dough into which a woman added yeast. It says it is like yeast which a woman put into flour. Linguistics are important. Lee did a terrible job at linguistics.

The problem is that to say it the other way is to ignore the clear words and substitute others. That is what Lee did too much of the time.

But what you missed from my alternate (and not submitted) post was that negative cannot be added to the kingdom of God. The "church" which is the gathering of believers (and probably others) and has teachings about whatever gets taught may have negative things added to it. But that is not the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is not subject to corruption. Man's practices as they seek to align with that kingdom may be corrupted. But the kingdom is not.

It is for this reason that I reject that line of thought. When I said I saw your point in the previous post, it was not meant in jest. But as I looked closer at the verses, I could not make them align with that kind of thinking. So what do we do? Lee would have said something like "it's the economy of God, so it must mean what I say" (being a little facetious there).

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by OBW

Tim,

The problem is that to say it the other way is to ignore the clear words and substitute others. That is what Lee did too much of the time.

I take a little issue with your assertion that the words are "clear". You seem to be taking the English translation literally so that the "kingdom is like leaven" instead of "this parable describes the kingdom".

If I apply your assertion to the other parables then Matthew 13 tells us this:

the kingdom is a man.
the kingdom is a mustard seed.
the kingdom is a treasure.
the kingdom is a merchant.
the kingdom is a dragnet.

etc

and not that the parable as a whole describes the kingdom.

As i noted in my post, several commentaries say the same thing as you, so you have good company. But since the Bible elsewhere defines yeast (leaven) as a negative thing in every case, I am expected to accept that yeast is a positive thing here just because the English translation makes it appear to be so?

No, I would rather accept that the English text is ambiguous.

[OBW]

Tim,

But there is sound parallels in the direct reading. As a mustard seed, the kingdom is much more than expected. As yeast, it permeates and affects everything. There are probably more profound things to say about both of these, but this is what first comes to mind.

Now if I start with a discussion about incorrect teachings or bad practices and then note that a little leaven leavens the whole lump, then there is a clear parallel that suggests that letting a little error in affects even the good.

It might have been an excellent parable to describe the preaching of the gospel as like the introduction of leaven into flour. It starts as something outside you, then comes inside. But its affect is not to simply remain as a separate ingredient mixed inside, but to actually change the nature of the combined ingredients, resulting in something different than was there before.

I do not have the time to find the other parables you mention, but I start with the presumption that the linkages of terms, even in English (after consulting various translations) will attempt to be consistent with the original and therefore should be respected. Only if there is some evidence, such as an explanation provided afterwords will I consider that this is not the way to read it.

The Bible is not just verses of systematic theology. It is a story. The words used are significant. The telling of this part of the story is not necessarily linked to another simply because of a common word. Even yeast is not something entirely bad in Jewish life. It was only excluded from the passover bread. There was a reason. Outside of that, the negative references to leaven are manifestly clear. It is referred to as the leaven of the pharisees, referring to their teachings. And Paul was talking about the immoral man (Corinthians) and legalistic teachings (Galatians).

As you point out, in Luke (I did not look at the account in Matthew) these two parables follow Jesus' healing on the Sabbath. The kingdom of God is bigger than your concept of the rules and in the same manner as the people who were persuaded by Jesus as he broke the laws, the little thing is affecting that larger context.

As you note, I am not alone in thinking this. I am willing to let it be something that we disagree about. I did not simply dismiss the other thinking. But to me there is nothing compelling me to accept that and reject the direct meaning of the words. I confess that this approach has caused me to rethink man passages over the past few years. I am open to that.