The introduction of leaven

[aron]

I am curious to know what others think about the introduction of leaven in the assemblies of believers post-resurrection. My own take is that they organized themselves, which soon led to believers in hierarchies, "offices" which were filled by sinecure, patronage, politics, bossy people dominating others, divisions (as alpha males & females couldn't be "under" others and left to start their own "tribes"), and assorted bureaucracies filled with lackies, hacks and hangers-on to the straps of power. In short, as I said, they organized.

It started out as "Believe in Jesus and love the person next to you." Soon it became that and a whole lot more. Rule books flourished. Decline set in speedily.

Question: what was the Nee/Lee take on the so-called "decline of the church"? I really never got a clear answer. Certainly the "one church = one city" issue was not an issue until the Reformation, as the RCC had the LSM model for a thousand years, right? So all the problems won't go away if we just become one city-church under one set of elders, right? Somehow the problems are deeper. But what are they?

I am not picking on James and Paul, who in my view accelerated the trend. I believe that these trends would have occurred no matter who created the reins of power, and who grabbed them. I just single them out because they are main personages in the NT and early "church" age.

I think there is a problem because the Lord mentioned the idea of leaven in one of his parables. Matthew 13 and Luke 13 both contain this parable. A woman put leaven into some flour and the whole thing got leavened eventually. I take this to be an indication of future corruption. What corruption? My answer is "organization". Besides the Lee/Nee teachings, what do others teach about the "decline of the church"? I am curious to know what the other alternatives are.

2 possible alternatives are: 1) the "fierce wolves" that will come in, not sparing the flock (Acts 20:29,30). I disagree with this idea. This, to me, are non-believers, tares, who lead many astray. People like Witness Lee don't fall into this category. These are the David Koresh/Jim Jones/Marshall Applewhite (the "Heaven's Gate suicide cult) types. These are the ones lambasted by both Jude (vv. 4, 10-14) and Peter in his second epistle (ch 2, vv 1-21). But they are not the real problem, the worst problem.

2) A return to the law. A mixture of OT requirements/commandments with the new commandments of the NT kingdom. Paul has big issues with this. See his epistles to the Romans, and Galatians, for instance. But I don't think this causes the church decline as much as organization does. The only real organized "return to the law" types I am aware of are the 7th day adventist types who want to "keep the Sabbath" (i.e. Saturday) as a holy day. But this is small compared to the problems of the organized "church" over the past 2,000 years. The only thing I can say positive about this idea (a return to the law-keeping) is that it does "leaven" many ministries, notably the LSM. Look at their neatly organized outlines in the trainings. Look for the words "We must", "We need to", "We should", "We have to" etc. It is ubiquitous. This is a ministry of neediness, not fulfillment.

But still, it is the "organization of the church" that allows error-filled teachings like the "ministry of need" of WL to take root, and flourish. Otherwise he'd be laughed out of town.

I know that I have a small audience for my ideas. They threaten "order in the church", and seem to slander, or at least disrespect Paul and James. I reply that neither accusation is necessarily true, certainly not by my hand. But space denies me the opportunity to deal with these at length. So I will merely say, "Who's got a better idea?" What caused the decline of the church? Please try to make your answer simple enough for a 10-year old, which is about my theological level.

[YP0534]

aron,

I've been pondering this issue off and on for awhile now. It seems more and more like the model James and Paul and the others employed for organizing the assemblies was then-current synagogue practice.

Pursue the answer to this question: Paul appointed elders. WHY? Wherever did Paul get the idea to go about organizing the believers in that fashion? When considered in tandem with Luke's account in Acts where "elders" refers alternately to the high-ranking in the Jewish religion and the leading ones among the believers, the indications seem to point to a continuum and a reform movement.

Of course, I don't mean for a second to say that those first apostles didn't see Jesus as the unique Messiah and the start of a new era. But the Messiah was foretold and expected within Judaism. And I'm not familiar with Old Testament prophecies concerning the cessation of temple practice, much less synagogue practice, are you?

Lee used the analogy of a chicken and an egg: when the chicken hatches, you don't need the old shell any more. I think that's probably right but I don't have the conviction that our spiritual ancestors necessarily saw that so clearly.

We were told to beware the leaven of the Pharisees.

Wasn't Paul one of those?

[UntoHim]

Excellent posts guys! I've always just assumed that the church and it's leadership was "modeled" after the Jewish synagogue.
I don't think it is unreasonable, however, to assume that there were a lot of things that the Lord Jesus taught the original apostles (+Paul) that did not make it word-for-word in the Bible.(in fact the Bible itself tells us exactly this) I have always assumed that many of the details of church leadership were among these things that never actually made it to the accepted text. Would it be a stretch to think that when Paul was apart from the other apostle (for many years right after he was saved) that God was giving him instructions regarding church leadership, along with so many of the other high and glorious revelations regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit?

I am very, very leery of questioning anything that seems to have been established by the scripture writing apostles. I am not saying that is what is happing here (I'm sure its not) but it can be a slippery slope if we're not careful.

Just as an aside (maybe not relevant) I think it should be noted that there has been just as much abuse of power and hierarchical nonsense perpetrated in the "house church" movement as anywhere else. Ironically this movement has, in some part, been lead by Gene Edwards who was once in the Local Church.

One thing that just popped into my pea brain was that the Lord Jesus was referred to as our "great High Priest" and the church is called "a kingdom of priests". Again, I'm just popping off here and not sure if this fits into the argument at all, but it does suggest that there is a connection there.

Good to hear from you both!

[OBW]

While I think that the parable of the leaven was to warn that added things tend to disappear into and become permanently part of the things they are added to, this topic is much deeper than just something about leaven. It plays into something broader concerning the church in general, and not just in the first century, but also today.

The changes, both positive and negative, that are happening or being proposed as the fight between conservative, liberal, evangelical, emerging (and emergent) thoughts collide, and the larger change from a philosophical base of modernity to one of postmodernity can be staggering. And anyone who simply says that we need to stay the course of conservative Evangelical "modern" thought is a fool. The problem isn't elders or no elders. It is not hierarchy or no hierarchy. It isn't modern or postmodern. It isn't megachurches or home churches. It isn't traditional worship v emerging worship. (That last one is really vague because "emerging" is as varied as the climatological environments present within the whole of Asia.)

Alan: Is this thread intended to simply explore the notion that the structure with elders and deacons might have been in error from the beginning? Or is there some other direction you would like to go?

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

While I think that the parable of the leaven was to warn that added things tend to disappear into and become permanently part of the things they are added to, this topic is much deeper than just something about leaven. It plays into something broader concerning the church in general, and not just in the first century, but also today.

I may have gotten this thread off on the wrong foot by citing the parables in Matt 13 and Luke 13. I was aware of the differing interpretations of "leaven" in these 2 parables, and was just taking the Lee interpretation as my starting point. By so doing I introduced unnecesary conflict, and perhaps derailed it somewhat. OBW and Timotheist, my apologies for a less-than definitive lead-in. I would rather use the word "leaven" the general sense, without referring to those less-than-unequivocal parables.

I believe the Lord warned the disciples of a falling-away, post-resurrection, but I can't find it, and maybe I've confused it with Paul's word in Acts 20 about the "fierce wolves" coming into the flock. I'll keep looking. But for the meantime, please take Revelation 2 & 3 as the starting point. What caused all the problems in the seven assemblies? Is there one "root cause" we can single out? Or even two or three?

I say this because I am interested in solving puzzles, and this one has me intrigued. Also, I do it before you all because it seems to me that some appropriate context may help us as we continue to diagnose "l'affaire Lee" here and elsewhere. As I mentioned in another post, it's not like Lee showed up in a marvelous christian brotherhood/sisterhood, 1964 USA, and proceeded to ruin everything. No, "l'affaire Lee" is to me a symptom of a larger issue, and I want to know what it is.

I am not looking for a once-for-all, definitive answer. The truth as we experience it is unfolding. But I want to go forward and today my vehicle of inquiry is primarily being fueled by the epistles in Revelations 2 & 3, and the questions I see being raised there. If the Spirit is speaking one thing, or two or three things at most, what is it speaking to the churches in those two chapters, in those 7 epistles?

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem isn't elders or no elders. It is not hierarchy or no hierarchy. It isn't modern or postmodern. It isn't megachurches or home churches. It isn't traditional worship v emerging worship.

Agreed. I am rapidly moving away from my "anti-organizational" views. I think organizational structure, or lack thereof, is not the crux of the matter.

Originally Posted by OBW

Alan: Is this thread intended to simply explore the notion that the structure with elders and deacons might have been in error from the beginning? Or is there some other direction you would like to go?

See my response to "UntoHim" in my previous post, e.g. "But the varied issues with the seven churches have a common root (I am surmising), and I want to find out what it is. What caused the degradation?" I apologize if my initial, thread-starting post wasn't coherent enough.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by aron

I may have gotten this thread off on the wrong foot by citing the parables in Matt 13 and Luke 13. I was aware of the differing interpretations of "leaven" in these 2 parables, and was just taking the Lee interpretation as my starting point. By so doing I introduced unnecesary conflict, and perhaps derailed it somewhat. OBW and Timotheist, my apologies for a less-than definitive lead-in. I would rather use the word "leaven" the general sense, without referring to those less-than-unequivocal parables.

No need to apologize. I tried to answer your direct question with no intent of stirring up a conflict. Unfortunately there are those who seem to enjoy challenging what others post regardless of the intent.

I took a break from these forums because I tired of the argument-for-arguments-sake debates. Alas, I was only about three posts in to my return before it reared its head again.

This is my last post.

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by aron

I am not looking for a once-for-all, definitive answer. The truth as we experience it is unfolding. But I want to go forward and today my vehicle of inquiry is primarily being fueled by the epistles in Revelations 2 & 3, and the questions I see being raised there. If the Spirit is speaking one thing, or two or three things at most, what is it speaking to the churches in those two chapters, in those 7 epistles?

Hello dear brother aron, beloved in Christ,

At the present time I do not have any answers to your big questions, but I do have one insight to share. One item the Spirit is clearly speaking to the seven assemblies is the crucial need for repentance. If I remember correctly, the word "repent" appears eight times in these seven epistles. These eight mentions of the word "repent" are not spread evenly throughout all the epistles, but we should remember that all seven of the assemblies read the book of Revelation as a whole, i.e. each assemlby read the epistles spoken to the other assemblies.

While I am not touching on the root cause of the problem of degradation, repentance is surely a big, big, part of the solution!

Humbling ourselves before the Lord and admitting our faults and shortcomings to Him, especially on a corporate basis, is too important! How many times in Church history can we see examples of this? Not enough times! May our dear Lord be incredibly merciful and gracious to us regarding this matter.

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I've always just assumed that the church and it's leadership was "modeled" after the Jewish synagogue. I have always assumed that many of the details of church leadership were among these things that never actually made it to the accepted text. Would it be a stretch to think that when Paul was apart from the other apostle (for many years right after he was saved) that God was giving him instructions regarding church leadership, along with so many of the other high and glorious revelations regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit?

Good point. As I stated in my response to YP, it seems natural that a) if the Lord didn't explicitly forbid it and b) it was the prevailing practice among the observant ones, pre-Christ, then why shouldn't church leadership models which seemed proper be enacted? I am radically rethinking my longstanding issue with "organization" per se. I may have been completely missing the boat on this one. Thanks for your input.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I am very, very leery of questioning anything that seems to have been established by the scripture writing apostles. I am not saying that is what is happing here (I'm sure its not) but it can be a slippery slope if we're not careful.

I understand completely. I raise this questioning thread based on the "epistles to the seven churches" in the second and third chapters of Revelation. It seems to me that something had happened to the fellowships between the day of pentecost and the day that John was instructed by the Lord to take a scroll and write down what he saw and send it to the seven churches. Something negative, corrupting; some degrading element had "leavened" the fellowships.

I take the opposite tack as Witness Lee; he says that they were identical positively (golden lampstands) but differed in negative aspects (lukewarmness, pride, deadness, sin, etc). I say the opposite: as a positive collective expression of Christ, these fellowships, like individuals, will have unique characteristics. God will give some to be strong on the truth, some to be strong in the gospel, some in shepherding, etc. I believe this pleases the Father, and the strengths of one can support the weaknesses of another in a free flow of fellowship among the differing assemblies.

But the varied issues with the seven churches have a common root (I am surmising), and I want to find out what it is. What caused the degradation? As I said before, I think this is a wider issue than the seven churches; in some way they are meant to be representative of the larger body, the "body of Christ", not only at that time, but going forward. There is a strong universalist streak in the book of Revelation, and it would be completely out of character (it seems to me) to insert seven private letters into this book like John did. Nee & Lee say that the seven churches represent the various "ages of the church"; I don't disagree but it goes much deeper than that. If that was merely a prediction about the various stages the body of christ would go through, it wouldn't have much sense for the immediate recipients would it? No, John is MUCH more practical than this. He has fish to fry, and he wants to fry them today, not when Nee or the Brethren show up to correctly interpret the signs.

If you have 4 patients in a hospital ward, and one of them has Karposi's Sarcoma, one of them has Hairy Leukoplatia, another has uncontrolled infections, another has Pneumonia, you may say they are all diversely afflicted. But if I tell you they all have AIDS, and it is manifesting itself differently, that makes sense, right? So I think that maybe some "virus" got into the fellowship of the believers, before the end of the writing of the Bible, and I want to know what it is.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

One thing that just popped into my pea brain was that the Lord Jesus was referred to as our "great High Priest" and the church is called "a kingdom of priests". Again, I'm just popping off here and not sure if this fits into the argument at all, but it does suggest that there is a connection there.

Well, the notion of "serving priests" would have different connotations to a Jewish believer AD 50, and a gentile believer today, wouldn't it? Point well raised.

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

It seems more and more like the model James and Paul and the others employed for organizing the assemblies was then-current synagogue practice.

When I read this sentence, I had one of those "Duh" questions that somehow I overlooked before. My previous take was that there was no explicit word from the Lord to appoint elders, to "organize", have synauds, etc; then any move in this direction is suspect, especially in view of the monstrosity that eventually was shown to all (the RCC and its various mutant offspring).

But why can't Paul & James et al organize assemblies along the the prevailing customs? Better yet, why shouldn't they? I mean, the Lord didn't forbid it, and here was this existing structure, ready to be appropriated. Peter & John also went into the synagogues and preached, right? So what should "organically" develop out of this was exactly what we saw. Why shouldn't Jerusalem be seen as the de facto "center" of the nascent movement? After Jerusalem is destroyed, circa 70 AD, Rome by dint of being the seat of political power gradually takes over as the seat of ecclesiastical control.

Originally Posted by YP0534

Pursue the answer to this question: Paul appointed elders. WHY? Wherever did Paul get the idea to go about organizing the believers in that fashion? When considered in tandem with Luke's account in Acts where "elders" refers alternately to the high-ranking in the Jewish religion and the leading ones among the believers, the indications seem to point to a continuum and a reform movement.

Of course, I don't mean for a second to say that those first apostles didn't see Jesus as the unique Messiah and the start of a new era. But the Messiah was foretold and expected within [the cultural domain of] Judaism. And I'm not familiar with Old Testament prophecies concerning the cessation of temple practice, much less synagogue practice, are you?

Yes, exactly. I am suddenly getting a massive recalibration of my brain circuits. I now realize my old shibboleth "organization" is not necessarily the underlying culprit here. Organization was a main vector which allowed degradation to take root, and to flourish, largely unchecked, despite what I see as warnings by the aged apostle John. But I am going to discard organization per se as the culprit. I think we can go deeper.

Regarding your question abot Paul appointing elders; well, Paul wanted "order in the church", and it seemed good to have some overseers who were proven trustworthy. Isn't this a big theme with Paul? Letters to Timothy, Titus, etc center around this theme. Like you said, this (eldership) might have been prevailing in the Jewish synagogues, so why shouldn't it work here as well? I wouldn't be surprised if there were more than a few like Diotrophes who "loved to be first" and tried to shunt the apostles' teaching; these "local cancers" needed to be nipped in the bud (so I surmise), and thus appointing elders seemed to be the logical and necessary extension of the gospel work.

Originally Posted by YP0534

Lee used the analogy of a chicken and an egg: when the chicken hatches, you don't need the old shell any more. I think that's probably right but I don't have the conviction that our spiritual ancestors necessarily saw that so clearly.

Your comments were very helpful. Thanks for writing. I will post my new thoughts shortly.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

But why can't Paul & James et al organize assemblies along the the prevailing customs? Better yet, why shouldn't they? I mean, the Lord didn't forbid it,

I think it was perfectly natural for them to pick up synagogue practice and while it is not inherently wrong or evil I think it grew up into a large tree.

I think maybe the Lord did forbid it in that we are to wash the feet and that we are all brothers and that none is greater than the other and that none is rabbi or father.

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I think it was perfectly natural for them to pick up synagogue practice and while it is not inherently wrong or evil I think it grew up into a large tree.

I think maybe the Lord did forbid it in that we are to wash the feet and that we are all brothers and that none is greater than the other and that none is rabbi or father.

Matthew Chapter 23:
1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples,
2 saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
3 Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.
4They tie up heavy burdens 3 (hard to carry) and lay them on people's shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them.
5 All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels.
6 They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues,
7 greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation 'Rabbi.'
8 As for you, do not be called 'Rabbi.' You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.
9Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven.
10 Do not be called 'Master'; you have but one master, the Messiah.
11 The greatest among you must be your servant.
12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

There is certainly a "turning upside down" here in the teachings of Jesus, of the traditional "power structure" of both the religious Jews and of the Gentiles. But the "church" instead reverted to hierarchical arrangement already existant. And I think it did so to its detriment.

But, I am now thinking that a hierarchical "power" or "authority" structure, formalized into a human organization, meant to stand for a spiritual entity such as the "universal church" or the "body of christ", is not the real issue. The real issue is undealt-with ambition (fear) which manifests itself in distorted human relationships, and with pride (masking shame) which pushes God aside.

Jesus said that the drunkards and harlots were going into the kingdom before the religious Jews (Matt. 21:31. The sinners were closer to the kingdom because their sins were exposed. The religious ones were further away because their sins were hidden.

I think formalized structure is not the issue. But a structure can allow these issues to flourish, and eventually to dominate the collective expression.

Again, just thinking aloud here.

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I think it was perfectly natural for them[James & Paul] to pick up synagogue practice and while it is not inherently wrong or evil I think it grew up into a large tree.

I think maybe the Lord did forbid it in that we are to wash the feet and that we are all brothers and that none is greater than the other and that none is rabbi or father.

Think about it this way: Paul was a pharisee, persecuting the faith, when he got knocked down on the road to Damascus. Then he went off to Arabia or somewhere for what, 14 years? Then he stops by Jerusalem, then off to preach "where Christ is not yet known". So at what point, if ever, does he get exposed to the teachings that we now call "Matthew Chapter 23", etc?

In Arabia he surely had the Holy Spirit and revelation, and he also had what we'd call the OT (I imagine), but when, and to what degree, did he ever get Jesus' teachings like "the last shall be first, and the first, last", and "the greatest among you shall be the least"? And would(or should) these teachings have influenced his decision to copy synagogue practice, if that's indeed what he did, and appoint overseers of the church?

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

when, and to what degree, did he ever get Jesus' teachings like "the last shall be first, and the first, last", and "the greatest among you shall be the least"? And would(or should) these teachings have influenced his decision to copy synagogue practice, if that's indeed what he did, and appoint overseers of the church?

Both two very excellent questions.

As to the first, I'd say perhaps not as much as we have.

As to the second, I'd say they should.


Both of these are just my opinion, however.

Paul's humility in being a servant and a slave and "less than the least of all saints" at least bears witness to his being in accord with that manner of life on some level.

Presumably Paul didn't consider appointment of elders as even slightly inconsistent with vying with each other in showing honor (Rom. 12:1-10).

At least, that is what we must conclude based upon the Biblical record.

It's times like these I feel we are a terrible disadvantage in not being able to state with certainty the chronology of the events after Pentecost.

And, yet again, there must be some reason that such record was not sovereignly preserved.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

Think about it this way: Paul was a pharisee, persecuting the faith, when he got knocked down on the road to Damascus. Then he went off to Arabia or somewhere for what, 14 years? Then he stops by Jerusalem, then off to preach "where Christ is not yet known". So at what point, if ever, does he get exposed to the teachings that we now call "Matthew Chapter 23", etc?

In Arabia he surely had the Holy Spirit and revelation, and he also had what we'd call the OT (I imagine), but when, and to what degree, did he ever get Jesus' teachings like "the last shall be first, and the first, last", and "the greatest among you shall be the least"? And would(or should) these teachings have influenced his decision to copy synagogue practice, if that's indeed what he did, and appoint overseers of the church?

I must admit that it is never stated. But in 1 Corinthians 11, he gives a fairly accurate rendition of the portions of the last Passover in which Jesus broke the bread and passed the wine. I'm fairly comfortable that Paul was not just "winging it" since the so-called "great commission" was mostly about obedience to Jesus commands and following and therefore a lack of knowledge of those commands would have been a disqualification from the very start.

So whether entirely alone and taught by God, or through a time receiving the accounts from someone(s), unnamed, who were there when Jesus spoke and acted as he did, Paul got it all. Why 14 years rather than just 3-1/2? Who knows. Maybe it is that even for a top brain with all the Jewish teachings that Paul had, not being there makes understanding more difficult. (Look at how unclear we are and we've been looking at this for more than 14 years in most cases.)

As for the use of synagogue practices, there is no way to presume that he got direct word from God or those unnamed persons that it was what God intended. We can only presume that with his writings about qualifications for elders achieving "Word of God" status as well as the mentions of appointing elders being recorded by Luke and mentioned by Paul, it is not simply some error even if not necessarily a requirement by God.

I also note that Jesus, while he did say strong things about the errors and teachings of the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc., never suggested that the temple leadership should not be. Further, he did his entire ministry in the form of a rabbi, even engaging in the kind of discussion and analysis of scripture that the rabbis of that time would do. He did say that we were not to revere a man for his position, such as "rabbi," but he did not say that the function of the position was invalid.

I don't know that any of this prescribes anything specific, but it makes me less inclined to oppose function like elders, and possibly even structures of positions, but to look instead at how those functions are being carried out. The problem may not be the function or position, but the person who is claiming the position. That is another can of worms when you begin to analyze how to deal with persons who have come to hold postion but should not.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by aron

What caused the decline of the church? Please try to make your answer simple enough for a 10-year old, which is about my theological level.

The cute. simplistic answer: Eve caused it.

The woman in the parable is us. No matter what we do, we bring leaven into the mix. There is not another woman who is kneading in flour.

One of the doctrines that have been deLeeted from my mindset is that an "unleavened" church in this age can exist. It is impossible.

We can, and should, identify and purge impurities in the church. But to think or hope that we can deal with all impurity is naive.

But I have come to learn to be OK with this. The underlying purpose of the church environment is to make us grow. This requires an environment of both the positive and the negative, both to comfort and to discipline.

[OBW]

I'm having a hard time with this topic. Timotheist may be at least partly right.

But as I look at the actual parable, I begin to see something else.

We think that the yeast is something added to the kingdom of God. Now we need to decide whether it is something positive or negative. If this is the correct reading, then I would suggest that nothing negative can be added to the kingdom of God. Negative things may be added to our attempt to play "Kingdom of God, the board game" but the kingdom of God is not subject to error or pollution.

But look at the words. "What shall I compare the kingdom of God to? It is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough." Note that the flour is not the kingdom of God. Neither is the dough. It is the yeast that is likened to the kingdom of God.

So all those times that we read this and presumed that the yeast was bad and somehow polluting the kingdom of God, we were "simply" misreading the verse. And who lead that way of reading? Lee. He said that leaven was bad. It was bad when Paul mentioned it, so it must be bad here.

But it is not so. The yeast is the kingdom of God. It is added to something else (maybe mankind, or the new believer — whatever) and permeates it. Maybe it is an indication of the influence of the church throughout the world. It starts as something that comes into a part, then is slowly kneaded until it is found throughout the whole lump of dough.

So there may be some error than men have undertaken with regard to elders, leadership, hierarchies, etc., but I'm not sure this parable has anything to say about it.

[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.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm having a hard time with this topic. Timotheist may be at least partly right.

But as I look at the actual parable, I begin to see something else.

We think that the yeast is something added to the kingdom of God. Now we need to decide whether it is something positive or negative. If this is the correct reading, then I would suggest that nothing negative can be added to the kingdom of God. Negative things may be added to our attempt to play "Kingdom of God, the board game" but the kingdom of God is not subject to error or pollution.

But look at the words. "What shall I compare the kingdom of God to? It is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough." Note that the flour is not the kingdom of God. Neither is the dough. It is the yeast that is likened to the kingdom of God.

So all those times that we read this and presumed that the yeast was bad and somehow polluting the kingdom of God, we were "simply" misreading the verse. And who lead that way of reading? Lee. He said that leaven was bad. It was bad when Paul mentioned it, so it must be bad here.

But it is not so. The yeast is the kingdom of God. It is added to something else (maybe mankind, or the new believer — whatever) and permeates it. Maybe it is an indication of the influence of the church throughout the world. It starts as something that comes into a part, then is slowly kneaded until it is found throughout the whole lump of dough.

So there may be some error than men have undertaken with regard to elders, leadership, hierarchies, etc., but I'm not sure this parable has anything to say about it.

I know it's two years to late, but wow! Amen! I never saw that before. Thank you brother, for having shared it! That one word of Scripture turns the tables completely on the LSM interpretation...

[aron]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

I know it's two years to late, but wow! Amen! I never saw that before. Thank you brother, for having shared it! That one word of Scripture turns the tables completely on the LSM interpretation...

I disagree with OBW's reading. The words "Kingdom of God" and the idea of "bad" can simultaneously exist. OBW seems to think that there can be nothing bad in the kingdom of God, and therefore yeast cannot signify something bad in this useage (a woman putting in yeast and leavening the whole mixture).

I maintain that leaven still can be have a negative connotation, even though it is synonymous with "Kingdom of God". We see other parables where good and bad are mixed together, for a time, and eventually the negative thing is purged. So why not also in this instance?

Look at the parable of the net, in Matthew 13:47. All kinds of fish are in the net. Nasty ones, slimy, gross, inedible creatures. Plus nice, plump, fat tasty fish. They sort them and toss the nasty ones out, and keep the good ones. This is the kingdom of God.

Plus the parable of the wheat and tares, etc. Same thing.

In the "kingdom of God", temporarily, there is leaven, there are nasty slimy inedible sea creatures, there are tares, etc. Satan is currently at work. Eventually all this stuff will be dealt with.

So OBW's idea that "leaven" is not necessarily bad, just because Paul called it bad in one place, is lacking. And the idea the "the kingdom of God" and something unpleasant cannot co-exist (at least temporarily) seems unfounded. Jesus also taught repeatedly to beware of leaven.

[OBW]

Despite my general withdrawal from these sites, I have not stopped reading them altogether. And as this post seems to misunderstand what I said, I will try to restate it.

I did not say that leaven cannot be something evil. I said that in this case, the parable defines the Kingdom of God as being the leaven that is put into something else — the dough. In this particular use, leaven = Kingdom of God.

And while you are correct that within the outward expression of the Kingdom of God we may find things that are not ultimately a true part of that kingdom, those things are not the leaven. The Kingdom of God is. And if the Kingdom of God is the leaven, then the leaven referred to here is not temporary. It is permanent. Yes, those other parables may refer to things that get swept along with the Kingdom for a while. But those are not this parable. In this case, the leaven is the kingdom, therefore the leaven is not something bad.

What I wrote does not deny that there is reasonable consideration that the reference to "all kinds of fish" in this other parable could refer to things caught, at least for a time, that are not kept. The problem with taking that analogy to conclusions about what is kept or thrown back or whatever, is that the parable does not actually discuss that, therefore no basis to conclude what that part of a more robust metaphor of catching all kinds of fish could mean. Maybe there is a different metaphor to hint at the handling of things "captured" that are not really intended (if that is a fair word to use). This one did not go there.

I think that the problem with this parable of the big catch of fish is that we tend to read more into it than was provided. We take the fact of a net coming out of the water with edible fish, inedible fish, seaweed, old boots, etc., and presume that it is commenting on what to do with the unwanted stuff. But all it does is say that there is a net that is trying to catch fish and that you will find all kinds. It doesn't even mention whether the various kinds are a collection of good and bad fish, or just that there is diversity in the fish.

And so, in response to your last paragraph (an inadvertent strawman), I did not dispute Paul's use of leaven in a negative sense. I simply pointed to the tendency to presume that because he did so that all references to leaven must be negative. And I challenge you to conclude how this parable can be using leaven in a negative sense other than to misread it again as Lee did and conclude that the Kingdom is the dough and the leaven is something bad mixed into it. That is a linguistic impossibility. The parable does not say that.

[YP0534]

I briefly hit some of my most at-hand volumes regarding my speculations and didn't find anything to support my contentions (no surprise there) but nothing that directly addressed them, either (as expected.)

More to do on that front, for certain.

But, just out of curiosity, I opened LS-Acts to Message 19 and found it a really interesting discussion.

I'll summarize as concisely as I can.

Lee says there was "A Problem in the Church Life" regarding the "daily dispensing" to the widows and he muses that "these problems are not caused by outsiders but by those in the church." He notes in passing that the first "problem" was with Annanias and Sapphira. Then he notes that different languages caused problems in the Local Church once but "no longer!"

Then he addresses himself to the choosing of the 7 deacons and refers to it as the apostles "exercis[ing] their wisdom to solve the problem and to take care of all the different saints." He quickly asserts that this is "A Pattern for Us Today" and explains that the best thing is to delegate and to "distribute the responsibility."

He follows up by noting the "Two Brothers with Particular Gifts" and then discusses that "some who have particular gifts may not be willing to serve tables" but that "Steven and Philip did not murmur." He then gives a short paragraph to say that there was "No Leader Appointed" among the seven deacons. "All the serving ones are the servants to the saints," he says. 'This is a good pattern for us to lean and follow that we may avoid leadership in rank and position in any form."

Anyway, it struck me as quite ironic that Lee found all of these things as excellent "patterns" for us to follow while I'm noting

1. that his praise of Steven and Philip is essentially my criticism of the 12 and
2. that the appointment of the 7 is implicitly not "leadership in rank and position in any form" as far as he was concerned.

I find myself in Opposite-land.

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

it struck me as quite ironic that Lee found all of these things as excellent "patterns" for us to follow while I'm noting

1. that his praise of Steven and Philip is essentially my criticism of the 12 and
2. that the appointment of the 7 is implicitly not "leadership in rank and position in any form" as far as he was concerned.

I find myself in Opposite-land.

Agreed. And speaking of patterns, look what the Lord did when He fed the thousands, who were also grumbling and unfed. He arranged them up into groups of hundreds, had them all sit down, and broke the bread and handed it out to delegates (servers) to be further distributed.

I'm notice that Jesus didn't delegate someone as a substitute for His serving; rather He enlisted helpers in His own service; and

He never said, "Okay, you guys are henceforth now the "distributors". It wasn't an office, it was merely an expediency. Nothing to be frozen in place was implied, in my reading.

Much more effective. Notice how the "ministry" isn't allowed to balloon into monstrous proportions, turning into a ravenous entity with needs of its own. No, the hungry folk were fed, and subsequently the "structure" just disappeared - poof! Marvelous!

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

I notice that Jesus didn't delegate someone as a substitute for His serving; rather He enlisted helpers in His own service; and

He never said, "Okay, you guys are henceforth now the "distributors". It wasn't an office, it was merely an expediency. Nothing to be frozen in place was implied, in my reading.

In fact, aron, as I understand it, the mystery isn't even that He enlisted helpers but that the helpers become HIM in that service.

"Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto Me."

And when you consider titles and ambition, the ultimate ambition is to be "The Christ," and this is where some have desired to ascend to.

No one of us ever could be.

But all of us together in Him actually are.