The introduction of leaven

aron · 06-19-2009, 07:34 AM

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 · 06-19-2009, 12:19 PM

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 · 06-19-2009, 02:14 PM

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 · 06-19-2009, 02:27 PM

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?

Timotheist · 06-20-2009, 07:07 AM

Quote:

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 · 06-20-2009, 08:42 AM

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 · 06-20-2009, 09:04 AM

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 · 06-20-2009, 01:38 PM

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 · 06-20-2009, 02:42 PM

Quote:

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.

aron · 06-21-2009, 07:48 AM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

OBW · 06-21-2009, 09:59 AM

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.

aron · 06-21-2009, 11:51 AM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 06-21-2009, 12:13 PM

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 06-21-2009, 03:26 PM

Quote:

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 · 06-21-2009, 04:25 PM

Quote:

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.

kisstheson · 06-21-2009, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

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.

Dear beloved Timotheist,

While you are, of course, fully free to follow the Lord as you are led by Him, I must say that I hate to hear that you have made your last post. :verysad:

I was actually enjoying the fellowship back and forth here, but I guess that is easy for me to say since I was not directly participating.

Have you considered opening a "blog" on the "blog" section of this forum? With a "blog" you can share whatever is on your heart, whenever you want. If you do start your own "blog", I know it would be a big blessing to the rest of us.

Whatever you decide to do, we love you in Christ, dear brother.

Much grace, peace, and love be with you, precious one.

YP0534 · 06-22-2009, 07:17 AM

Quote:

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 · 06-22-2009, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kisstheson

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.
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!

You are right on track. The idea of "repentance" being broadly applied to cover a host of woes afflicting the fellowships is exactly what I was looking for. I am looking for themes which might be applicable beyond those 7 assemblies.

As I said, if the seven assemblies in asia were merely "signs" meant to represent the seven "stages" of church experience through history, then that wouldn't help the Corinthians or the Antiochians, right? I think that John's letters were meant to have an immediate and broad application, what the Spirit was speaking to the churches, both in Asia and beyond. And one of the things was surely "repent". Another was "hold fast".

But I digress. Those words are therapeutic in nature, and I was first looking for diagnostic. What is the problem with the seven assemblies? And how does this relate to others, including the lc issue, and us today outside the lc fold?

Well, I got some help from Jude's epistle, and I wanted to share it here. Jude in verse 6 says that some angels "abandoned their appointed place"; they had a position and function set for them by God and they left it. I realized this was of course especially relevant to Satan, who had a high position but wanted the highest position, reserved for God alone. Satan left his place. So did Adam and Eve. God set bounds for their human experience, and they trespassed the boundaries, went where they shouldn't, and suffered great loss.

Now, this is directly applicable to the christian experience. We all have an allotted portion of the common faith. There is a strong warning not to overstep our boundaries. To me, a common thread of the problems evident in the asian assemblies was leaving God's boundaries, and going somewhere you don't belong. To me, the Satan's throne, the Jezebel's fornication, the Nicolaitans (lording it over others), the claiming of some to be apostles, etc are all "wofish" ambition manifesting itself in the kingdom of sheep.

The second problem is pride. Attaining something spiritually is dangerous, if you look at the attainment instead of christ. That's what Satan did. And in the LCs you have the constant self-promotion of the "rich ministry" of Witness Lee. The "we have laid hold" theme is pervasive there. This can be seen in boasting of one's attainments, and also in lukewarmness (thinking one has already laid hold).

So, my diagnosis is: 1) Ambition, masking unremoved fear; and 2) pride, masking hidden shame. Those 2 spiritual "viruses" leaven the collective experience of Christ, and its expression on earth.

They issue in: 1) Egypt, which is carnality, and 2) Babylon, which is religious confusion. And the mingling of the two is seen in a golden cup full of abominations (Rev. 17:4), and the incessant merchandising ("cargo of gold and silver and precious stone and pearls and fine linen..[etc]..and cargo of horses and chariots and slaves and souls of men" - Rev. 18:12,13).

That's the kind of universal themes I am looking for, and it certainly seems applicable to the case of the local churches of Lee. But I am really just thinking aloud here; I don't pretend to have the definitive diagnosis of the situation. I just think it's fun to publicly explore ideas, it seems everyone has a piece of the puzzle and we can collectively find out things that would stymie us individually. My thanks to all for the input.

p.s. I have found that faith and love are the cures for fear and shame. I certainly need more of both. Lord, that we would fix our eyes on You alone!

aron · 06-22-2009, 07:34 AM

Quote:

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 · 06-22-2009, 08:29 AM

Quote:

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 · 06-22-2009, 09:57 AM

Quote:

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 · 06-22-2009, 10:20 AM

Quote:

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.

aron · 06-22-2009, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

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.

Well, at the very least it can serve to humble us and make us aware that we don't have all the answers. So I look in places like Eusebius' "Church History", which seems to be a repository of genuine records. I look in the marginalia, such as Diotrophes wanting to be first (3 John 9-11), and refusing not only the counsel of the disciples, but also shunting them from the assembly! What a bother that must have been to the shepherds of the flock!

My point is that there are obviously issues related to maintaining order in any aggregation of folks, no matter how spiritual. And it seems only natural that you'd have the so-called "Episcopal Throne" in the Jerusalem Assembly being passed on to the "Desposyni", the blood relatives of the Lord. But that's kind of what bugs me, really, is it natural, or heavenly?

2 more ideas, one old, one new: First, I've mentioned before but would like to repeat in this context that John the apostle might have been at the forefront of the "organizational" push, post-resurrection, had not his brother been beheaded, and Peter captured, only to be miraculously released. John as one of the original "inner three" might have felt it wise to disappear.

Second, I once read a story about a man who runs a shelter for wolves. Some people think they can raise wolves, and wolf/dog hybrids, and the poor creatures often end up half dead in an animal shelter in Bergen, NJ or somewhere. Well, rather than euthenize them this man who lives up in the mountains has a large fenced area and he takes them in and cares for them.

He was relating the behavior of pack animals. He said, "When the leader dies, the whole clan sets up a howling for several days. Then, they pick the next leader and life goes on. But when one of the "zeta" males dies, they walk over his dead body like he never even existed."

I read that story and I immediately thought of the funeral service of Witness Lee. Or it could be the pope, or Ronald Reagan or any head of state. The alpha males of pack animals occupy a ceremonial spot of honor, which allows the orderly functioning of the whole social system. And the "zeta" males die just as they lived, which is ignored and unnoticed. But Jesus turned the whole system on its head: He went to the "Zeta" people; the man in the Gadarenes, chained to a rock, the woman at the well in Samaria, the blind beggars and cripples. Paul is on record as remembering the poor, and himself was arguably "the scum and offscouring of the world". But look at the bulk of his writings, the "pastoral epistles", such as Timothy and Titus. Paul is focused on "order in the church".

The system that was set up, post-Pentecost, reflected the wordly ways to a large degree, even as it struggled to follow the heavenly path.

And I believe that possibly John, sitting on Patmos, looked back and saw this emergent trend, and the Spirit told him to take a scroll and write down what he saw and send it to the assemblies, to Ephesus and Smyrna and Pergamos...

aron · 06-22-2009, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

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. .

very good point. I now remember that Luke, Paul's traveling companion, was a compendium of stories par excellence, so Paul must be presumed to have had unfettered and long-term access to all of the Master's teachings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

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..

True. I just raise my line of questioning because something bad seems to have happened to the fellowships by the "Revelation" of John, and I am casting my net broadly. Throwing a net and pulling in a fish are two different things. One may follow the other, but it doesn't necessarily, at least the first or second cast.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

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..

Well, my reading is probably stronger than yours, but that may be a function of my personality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

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.

Good points. As I mentioned earlier, I am recalibrating my positions vis-a-vis structured positions. I myself am rather inclined to "function" and let people hang whatever title they want to upon me, rather than be handed a square hole and told to fit myself in. But again, that may be disposition or culture rather than "truth". People from other cultures might be very uncomfortable in a group agglomeration unless someone starts assigning places.

But at the very least, I would suggest what Paul did doesn't have to be the template we all have to squirm into, a la "NCCL" of Nee.

YP0534 · 06-22-2009, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

And I believe that possibly John, sitting on Patmos, looked back and saw this emergent trend, and the Spirit told him to take a scroll and write down what he saw and send it to the assemblies, to Ephesus and Smyrna and Pergamos...

In complete accord with my earlier speculations concerning why "all those in Asia" may have left Paul.

The Gentiles likely were never very kindly disposed towards the ways of the Jews, and not just with regard to the matter of circumcision upon which topic it is more than clear that Paul sided with them over against the Judaizers.

Hierarchy did not spring full grown from the throne of Constantine. The witnesses are much earlier than this, regardless of how you read "Nicolaitans."

Hierarchy is a creeping thing among those who bear some seeming preeminence or there is no explanation for the course of Christian history.

It was not possible then for interlopers to dominate any more than it is possible now for someone like me to walk up and lay claim to the legacy of Lee's ministry. Such a claim is surely laughable for those in the continuum.

Only those who appear as legitimate successors have a chance to uplift themselves and subjugate others.

It is critical that all the saints recognize this.

OBW · 06-22-2009, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

In complete accord with my earlier speculations concerning why "all those in Asia" may have left Paul.

The Gentiles likely were never very kindly disposed towards the ways of the Jews, and not just with regard to the matter of circumcision upon which topic it is more than clear that Paul sided with them over against the Judaizers.

Hierarchy did not spring full grown from the throne of Constantine. The witnesses are much earlier than this, regardless of how you read "Nicolaitans."

Hierarchy is a creeping thing among those who bear some seeming preeminence or there is no explanation for the course of Christian history.

It was not possible then for interlopers to dominate any more than it is possible now for someone like me to walk up and lay claim to the legacy of Lee's ministry. Such a claim is surely laughable for those in the continuum.

Only those who appear as legitimate successors have a chance to uplift themselves and subjugate others.

It is critical that all the saints recognize this.

No disagreement on any of this. It is interesting that we seem to promote those "who bear some seeming preeminence" rather than defer to those who serve us well. Surely the power struggles were well underway when Constantine offered access to the power of the sword.

We may prefer to see it as the elimination of heresy, but the power offered by Constantine ended many debates without sufficient consideration. Surely there were serious errors eliminated. But are we sure that is the case for all issues? Have we continued to this day based on the doctrinal position of the ones with the legal authority rather than the ones with the spiritual authority?

(I do not have any particular issue in mind, just the general thought that many of the issues with which we now grapple may have been simply silenced then by power rather than settled by council (not necessarily something like at Nicea).)

While no one person has yet ascended to the top of Mt LSM to claim succession to Lee's ministry, they are busy uplifting themselves, albeit in unison and outward harmony at this point in time.

YP0534 · 06-22-2009, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Surely there were serious errors eliminated. But are we sure that is the case for all issues? Have we continued to this day based on the doctrinal position of the ones with the legal authority rather than the ones with the spiritual authority?

This was one of my questions/realizations a few months ago.

I'm not out and out denying Paul's instruction in scripture to have and submit (appropriately) to elders.

I am, however, on the one hand, curious as to where Paul got the notion to appoint elders as he did. Surely we should find some authority in scripture somewhere for such a thing, besides Paul's own instructions, right? Or at the least, shouldn't he have stated that such a thing was or wasn't a commandment of the Lord? But that's just my own speculation on the one hand.

On the other hand, accepting that Paul was 100% divinely inspired in appointing elders, where do we get our notions concerning elders other than through the traditions that we have received? We got an episcopacy which was reactionary to earlier error and that was modified and refined over time but was it ever really just based upon an erroneous model in the first place passed down from one generation to the next on the Protestant side of the tree?

The Local Church got it from The Brethren who got it from whoever who got it from somebody else and back on and on to the first time someone went back to an eldership model from the exclusive and annointed priesthood model.

But, really, hasn't it mostly been unexamined all along?

Most of what I've seen is a post-hoc justification for existing practice rather than an honest reexamination of the very premise of our traditional notions of having an eldership.

It is a fact: the Local Church has never gone back to "the pure word of the Bible" regarding their practice of having an eldership. They have merely perpetuated what The Brethren did before them.

Think about it.

OBW · 06-22-2009, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

Think about it.

No! Please don't make me! My brain hurts too much already!!

Seriously, I agree with you. We may see certain aspects differently, but you are correct. And those pesky little problems, whatever the source, that began oh so early grew into the mess we have today.

Yes. It has mostly been unexamined. I think that most presume that a true servant effectively corrects whatever error might otherwise exist. There may be some truth in that, but it requires that the pattern of service that one gives himself/herself to must be a genuine service to the church. But the fact that hierarchies are often filled with the ambitious casts shadows over a lot of it.

YP0534 · 06-23-2009, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I think that most presume that a true servant effectively corrects whatever error might otherwise exist. There may be some truth in that, but it requires that the pattern of service that one gives himself/herself to must be a genuine service to the church. But the fact that hierarchies are often filled with the ambitious casts shadows over a lot of it.

Here is the issue with leadership in general: followers trust leaders. We must believe and be convinced on some level that the one ahead of us knows where he (or she) is going. Institutions and hierarchies make this question automatic - you follow the one with the correct title on his name tag. (In Christian bookstores I always get a kick out of the various kinds of little "USHER" and "DEACON" badges you can buy. I want one that says "BISHOP" but they don't seem to make those.)

There's been some discussion elsewhere about "titles in the LC" and I don't intend to embark on an exploration of whether there's a meaningful difference between the LC terminology and the corresponding words in other denominations. But the key question is certainly based upon the same underlying issues - by virtue of what authority is anyone designated leader?

I know Hope said he's explored this topic in detail, though I haven't had the benefit of his study. Someone else frequently points out the problem of identifying the correct "elders" as evidence of the impracticality of the LC doctrine of locality. There is also considerable criticism of the doctrine of "Deputy Authority," particularly in its practical application.

Elders appointed by Paul could say that they had Paul's appointing as the evidence of their authority. But if we deny the denominational authority as a legitimate source and also deny an individual's ability to simply declare himself (or herself) an authority, as I do believe is appropriate, how do we have the ability to know, and more importantly, trust those whom we should follow?

The Lord said that His sheep know His voice.

I really think maybe that's all we get.

The pure and living Word burns in our ears and hearts when we hear it. If we strip away the superstition that one who has spoken for the Lord once is His appointed and anointed forever, perhaps we come to the place where we are able to follow Paul as he follows Christ and also avoid following him should he misstep into error. The Spirit witnesses with our spirits that we are the children of God. Does the Spirit not witness that we should submit to any particular one at any moment? Or do we need to have some external imprimatur to verify what is the Lord's voice?

And to tie it back to the thread, was Paul's appointment of elders even necessary?

TLFisher · 06-23-2009, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kisstheson

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.

KTS, I do hear what you're saying. You touched on a key word. Repentance is indeed a big part of the solution, but there needs to be humbling of oursleves. If a saint believes brothers so and so needs to repent, but not me, how can you or I expect anything can change? In a sense when there's no humility, there's no capacity to love beyond our natural measure.
This is why we need the Lord's grace, the Lord's mercy, and to seek the Lord's love. Whatever the factors of degradation may be, one that is missing is loving one another as the Lord has loved us.

Terry

OBW · 06-23-2009, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

The Lord said that His sheep know His voice.

I really think maybe that's all we get.

The pure and living Word burns in our ears and hearts when we hear it. If we strip away the superstition that one who has spoken for the Lord once is His appointed and anointed forever, perhaps we come to the place where we are able to follow Paul as he follows Christ and also avoid following him should he misstep into error. The Spirit witnesses with our spirits that we are the children of God. Does the Spirit not witness that we should submit to any particular one at any moment? Or do we need to have some external imprimatur to verify what is the Lord's voice?

And to tie it back to the thread, was Paul's appointment of elders even necessary?

The first sentence I quoted above says so much to me. And if it is true, then I think the sheep know who their leader(s) is(are). No matter what they do, how many there are, what kind of structure is present, if there is willful acknowledgment by the flock, then I have little complaint.

Now when the leadership includes persons far away, like a denominational headquarters, or a structure of bishops, archbishops, etc., then there is the possibility of direction from beyond the sphere of the flock that might not be something they would "know" or "hear."

But if I am hearing the Lord's voice in my environment, whether denominational or independent, then maybe what man has interposed outside of my local assembly is not truly relevant for me. Maybe arguing about it as some kind of spiritual evil is just a red herring.

In my particular case, there is nothing outside of the "walls" of our assembly that controls besides scripture and the Spirit. And coming back to the idea that the sheep know the master's voice, that tends to leave me content with the idea that we are capable of determining who really are our elders, and further knowing who are elders who do not have "position."

I think that Paul took it upon himself to appoint elders in environments in which the sheep were only just beginning to have some appreciation for the shepherd's voice. If I were to assume that his appointment meant that someone outside, like an apostle, was always going to be responsible for making that determination, I might not think so highly of it. Once I have ears to hear, I am capable of listening. I'm not sure that someone who is not here to listen will know, or alternately they will send in an outsider (a hireling?) as the one they promote (or hear) but it may not be the experience of the flock.

YP0534 · 06-23-2009, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I think that Paul took it upon himself to appoint elders in environments in which the sheep were only just beginning to have some appreciation for the shepherd's voice.

Doesn't seem to fit the known facts, to me.

In Acts 11, after the scattering of the disciples from Jerusalem following Stephen's martyrdom, some wound up in Antioch, although at first they were only preaching to Jews until the Cypriots and Cyrenians showed up preaching to the Hellenists. By the end of Acts 11, there were a large number of believers in Antioch already when Barnabas retrieved Saul from Tarsus, and they stayed with that assembly for a whole year.

Acts 13 expressly states that there were "prophets and teachers" in Antioch and that assembly eventually sent forth Saul and Barnabas in accordance with the speaking of the Holy Spirit.

Yet Acts 14:21-23 seems to fairly clearly say that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in Antioch as one of the "every" assemblies.

Then, oddest of all, the letter from Jerusalem in Acts 15 strikingly omits reference to any "elders" in Antioch, although making express reference to the "apostles and elders" in Jerusalem.

Were there "elders" in Antioch or not?

Why weren't they addressed by the big shots in Jerusalem?

OBW · 06-23-2009, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

Yet Acts 14:21-23 seems to fairly clearly say that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in Antioch as one of the "every" assemblies.

Actually, there are two cities of Antioch. One is considered Syrian Antioch, and is along the Mediterranean coast in what is modern Turkey but near Lebanon. The other was considered Pisidian Antioch and is in Galatia, or roughly the middle of modern day Turkey. Pretty sure the appointment of elders was in Galatia.

YP0534 · 06-23-2009, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, there are two cities of Antioch. One is considered Syrian Antioch, and is along the Mediterranean coast in what is modern Turkey but near Lebanon. The other was considered Pisidian Antioch and is in Galatia, or roughly the middle of modern day Turkey. Pretty sure the appointment of elders was in Galatia.

Just the sort of information to leave out of the historical account to poor Theophilus - not THIS Antioch but the OTHER Antioch! And both in Turkey, yet!

Ultimately, however, that's of no moment to my larger points which are:

(1) was it truly necessary for Paul to designate "elders," wherever exactly it was he did so, to help young ones to know the Lord's voice, as you have suggested? (Alternatively, is there really any value to the young ones in hearing Paul's endorsement since we all know that people can go bad after the apostle leaves?)

and

(2) presumably there were "elders" in both the younger assembly at the one Antioch (via Paul's appointment, at least) and in the older assembly in the other Antioch where the believers were first called Christians. (Of course, unless there's more Antiochs to account for!) So why didn't the dignitaries at Jerusalem, who identified themselves as "apostles and elders" as well as "brothers," discuss such important matters particularly with the "elders" in whichever Antioch was the intended recipient of the great edict of Jerusalem? (Choose your favorite Antioch.)

I'm doubting the wisdom of Paul's appointments as well as the motives of those gathered in Jerusalem.

Multiple Antiochs may cloud the situations somewhat but the questions remain clear in my mind.

The apostles considered that it was beneath them to serve tables for the widows and therefore chose 7 other disciples (one of whom hailed from some Antioch or other!) but it seems to me that they neglected washing feet as they were instructed and instead made some organizational appointments to take care of such business. Later, these same fellows promote their own positions in Jerusalem while declining to recognize others similarly situated.

That entire senario sounds awfully very familiar to me, frankly...

aron · 06-24-2009, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

I'm doubting the wisdom of Paul's appointments as well as the motives of those gathered in Jerusalem.

Multiple Antiochs may cloud the situations somewhat but the questions remain clear in my mind.

The apostles considered that it was beneath them to serve tables for the widows and therefore chose 7 other disciples (one of whom hailed from some Antioch or other!) but it seems to me that they neglected washing feet as they were instructed and instead made some organizational appointments to take care of such business. Later, these same fellows promote their own positions in Jerusalem while declining to recognize others similarly situated.

That entire senario sounds awfully very familiar to me, frankly...

Yes, this is exactly the kind of inquiry I had in mind when I originally raised the question of "the introduction of leaven" in the assemblies of the faithful. It seems clear to me that there is some kind of pattern of degradation in the Asian assemblies by the writing of Revelation, and due to the inclusion of those seven epistles (Rev 2 & 3) in a document which also had the imagery of Revelation 17 etc, it seems fair to conclude that John(and/or the Spirit, take your pick) felt that this bad scene was going to get worse. History seems to have borne out that premonition quite nicely.

So what was the problem? I think it is a novel and (for most of us) uncomfortable notion, to take a hard look at the doings of the disciples, instead of slavishly imitating their every move. But we already do it unconsciously, and instinctively. We don't require sisters to cover their heads - we say "Oh, that's just Paul's opinion. It's a cultural artifact." But in most other areas we use "the letter of Paul" as our law.

YP0534 earlier mentioned imitating Paul as he imitated Christ. In many, many areas, Paul clearly is imitating Christ: "Receive one another as God received you in Christ Jesus", etc. We could write 14 books of all the things Paul did that imitated Christ! But taking wine when we are ill, sisters not being allowed to speak in public but only in the homes, anointing those who are ill (James), or even handling snakes and drinking poison (Jesus), we use human discretion, the hard lessons of history, and the indwelling Spirit in our conscience and feel free to disregard the literal application of the letter.

Now, something like Paul's directions to Timothy on the appointment of elders might be somewhere in between. Paul is meeting a perceived need in the assemblies. He is aware of the circulation of his letters(he even encourages this, to the Colossians), and is probably also writing to a broader audience. However we come down on this kind of thing, collectively and individually, we at least shouldn't be afraid to look, to question, and to think. God gave you a brain; we shouldn't be afraid to use it.

"I do whatever X (Lee, Paul, the pope, the Grand Pooh-Bah) says" is just a cop-out, pure and simple. Yes, Paul equals the Bible, I know, I know; I am just saying that we already use discernment, to a limited degree, for the obvious things, and we shouldn't be so afraid, as believers, to continually exercise this facility.

If we do it in public, before the body of Christ, we will be safeguarded from going too far off the reservation. "In the multitude of counselors there is safety" Proverbs 24:6

YP0534 · 06-24-2009, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Yes, this is exactly the kind of inquiry I had in mind when I originally raised the question of "the introduction of leaven" in the assemblies of the faithful.

It was some time ago that it first occurred to me that there might have been a problem with the appointment of the 7 (as well as the selection of the one to take the place of Judas) but this time I saw it from a different angle. The Lord washed the feet and said they should wash the feet as well. But now they've just got more important things to do than feed the hungry widows.

Where did hierarchy begin?

Now I'm thinking it was when they decided replace the twelfth "apostle" as if there were a position on a panel or committee.

Paul, although having superior Jewish credentials to all of them combined, he becomes the "apostle to the Gentiles" and they're basically OK with that niche he carved out for himself, so long as he continues to publicly declare his allegiance to temple practice, which he does repeatedly.

The seeds were there all along from the very beginning.

Now, here's another question that suggests itself to me at this point: WHY did the Lord select a dozen in the first place? Some of those guys we barely even hear about in scripture. What's that about? What did they do besides stick it out with James when times were tough? What was the real point in having an inner circle? It seems likely that an inner circle would eventually ascend to some position just naturally...

OBW · 06-24-2009, 10:09 AM

YP,

I understand your points. And they warrant consideration.

First, to get this Antioch thing out of the way, virtually all of the maps of Paul’s first missionary journey show an Antioch which was at a certain place in Galatia. It was identified in the verses you mentioned as being a string of places that he went back through on the way home. Since he would not have jumped over to Syria then back to Galatia, the city in that region is almost certainly the one being mentioned as it falls in order. All mentions of Antioch prior to that journey were of the one in Syria. If those in Jerusalem were writing to the place that Paul treated as his home base, then it was the city in Syria. It’s not really so muddy.

But back to the actual topic concerning elders, it would seem that you simply distrust the entire account as reflecting something positive from God. You have now even questioned the appointing of the deacons as indicating a flaw in the apostles' character. (I presume that you actually wash other’s feet, feed widows and orphans, etc. Or do you pay another to do it, such as an organization that feeds the hungry in Africa.) When the world observes the actions of the church in this day, do you think that the fact that not every person is involved in every ministry diminishes their care for those ministries or the testimony of the church? And if an organization is actually feeding the hungry (whether widows and orphans or just the homeless on the streets of your city) are persons who help organize and see that it actually happens considered of lesser importance or connection to the activity because they are not the ones who might actually be standing in the soup kitchen with a ladle?

Did Luke suggest a negative thing when he recorded that the apostles and elders sent a letter to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia? It would seem that these men (the apostles and elders who were the ones sending the letter) wrote to the whole of the believers. How does that demean the elders in any location or deny them their “position.” It would seem that when they called themselves “brothers” and then wrote to everyone that they were admitting to the perceived authority they might or might not actually hold, but that they considered themselves brothers and that they were writing to all the believers and not just some similarly situated authorities.

I cannot find the flaw in the NT record that you seem to see. I see plenty of flaw in what flawed humans have done with the NT on many subjects, not the least of which has been leadership. But in any group, there will be leadership. Even in an informal gathering of people, there eventually begins to be one or two that will stand out as the one(s) that the others follow. The one(s) that suggest the next time they are going to get together. You can buck it if you want. But the result will either be discord or you will become a/the leader. And in a spiritual context, the natural leader may not be the best choice. Having some guidelines for the willful selection of leaders is quite helpful if something more that a type A personality is required.

It would appear that God stopped Paul from participating in that purification vow. But he did not stop him from setting up elders. And those 7 letters at the beginning of Revelation would have been a good time to mention the eldership thing. Not a word. But the next chapter has 24 elders sitting on 24 thrones with 24 golden crowns. Now this does not indicate that these were “elders” of churches or “elders” of the Jewish tradition. It just says they are there.

And yes, why did Jesus select 12 for his inner circle? But I think it is recorded that he sent out 70 at one point. So there were the 12, plus another 58, plus how many others who followed regularly? Do we just say it was what happened? Did it have meaning as it was done to those whom he called, selected and sent? Did this tie into Jewish practice? Would this be meaningful to those very Jewish men? Would Jesus have expected them to practice just as he did? Or do we presume that it just happened and those same 12 (well, 11) made something out of it that was not?

It seems to me that you are trying to find the error captured in scripture so that we can have a clear scriptural basis for dealing with it. I think the basis already exists. The leader is a servant. The first shall be last. Love God and your neighbor as yourself. When you find "leaders" outside of these and other principles, then they are not spiritual leaders.

YP0534 · 06-24-2009, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

But back to the actual topic concerning elders, it would seem that you simply distrust the entire account as reflecting something positive from God.

I wouldn't have used that exact phrasing but I'll accept it.

I'd have said the fact that events and statements are recorded in the New Testament is not de facto proof that they are things to emulate, as some certainly negative events and statements are also preserved. And the fact that generation after generation of sincere followers of the Christian religion have viewed a certain matter as positive is not sufficient evidence to me that it should forever be considered in the traditional manner.

I thank you for making out the case for orthodoxy. I believe I might do the same if I tried, as could most hereabouts. This is a pretty learned group by and large. And I think most would agree that whether or not I'm personally a footwasher isn't germane. So I guess I'm wondering what purpose your response serves other than to highlight my budding heterodoxy. I think aron already made an excellent point about our brains and the risk of becoming shipwrecked so if this is your expression of concern, take heart.

Someone elsewhere recently used the word "hagiography" to identify problems with the LC and the RCC, both, and justifiably so, in my opinion.

I don't view equality with God as a matter to be grasped but I might aspire to become like Paul and James and John and Peter, men who put their sandals on one foot at a time just like me. You and I make mistakes and are motivated by things that aren't even available to us on a conscious level. I see no reason to believe that those earliest believers were any different in this regard. My goal has nothing to do with finding fault but rather with explaining the actions of persons who I know only incompletely through a partial written record that's been dinked by the ravages of time and mushed through various translational filters, including my own. I'm seeking an explanation for matters that to me seem largely inexplicable in context and I'm not content with a pat "well it just is" while my interest continues happily working through various topics.

Perhaps the choosing of the 7 was a glorious decision by resplendent angelic beings.

Perhaps not.

I'd prefer to read someone's considerations of the topic because I'm really very lazy but I'm not familiar with anyone faithfully asking such a question.

Are you?

And surely whether or not the choosing of the 7 was a mistake is not a major point of faith anyways, so my heterodoxy is still within permissible boundaries even if I were to fault them, no?

What do you think, aron?

Am I too much?

This is your thread, after all...

OBW · 06-24-2009, 11:28 AM

YP,

Sorry if I seemed to just be attacking your position. While I might have some problem with it, when I posed most of my post as a series of questions, it was to ask those questions. I do not ask them because I presume the answers. I might honestly lean toward one answer over another. But if I thought I was that sure about it, I would have simply stated.

I admit that the number of those questions that needs to be answered contrary to what some might consider the "mainstream" answer (whether orthodoxy is or is not the correct term) suggests one direction. But I am also willing to entertain the notion that there is both good and bad in the accounts. But I need more than the fact that all in Asia left Paul or there are denominations today. (And that is not all you have mentioned. I'm just not yet seeing the linkage.)

You may be correct that appointing elders may not have been intended as prescriptive. But if the alternative means doing nothing, the result is not a unity of equals, but a rising of the "natural leader" to the task. It may have been "a" way to do it. Maybe there are others. Actually, in many cases today, there are no outsiders appointing elders, pastors, or whatevers in local assemblies. We are already in a different mode. It has its own advantages and disadvantages. Might it be better to critique actual instances as examples to follow or avoid?

More questions. Still no answers. I'm not suggesting you or I should supply them. But asking questions is good. Even your questions.

aron · 06-24-2009, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

Where did hierarchy begin?

Now I'm thinking it was when they decided replace the twelfth "apostle" as if there were a position on a panel or committee.

They decided to cast lots. They had a vague OT reference "His bishophric let another take", and they needed to fulfil (for some reason) the letter of the law.

But we christians no longer see the need for a "counsel of 12 overseers", so this arrangement died the death. That doesn't mean they were in error, so much as they didn't have all the light yet. They were comforted with the old arrangement (12), and didn't yet know what to do, so they did something. They chose another.

And it was likewise expedient to choose 7 to "wait on tables", or some such. That seems okay with me. God specializes in differentiation. We have specialized functions, the eye, the ear, the nose and mouth, etc. That there should be specialization arising whenever a clot of us believers gather is neither surprising nor wrong. But to codify that to a one-size-fits-all arrangement henceforth and forever; I balk.

And likewise Paul with the elders. Paul said, "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle?" (1 Cor. 9:1). Likewise, can't we who have the Spirit of God likewise say, "Aren't we free? Are we not [part of] the assembly of Christ's bride in Missoula, Montana (or wherever)?" In other words, Paul did what seemed best for him; can't we do also for us here? Are we not also recipients of the Holy Spirit?

I think the Bible gives us a lot more freedom than we realize. "A new commandment I give to you; that you love one another." That's the extent of our law today. Believe in God, love one another, and don't sin.

I think what those brothers did wasn't so much a creation of hierarchy as mere expediency; what followed immediately afterward was that people began to look to the new "law", not to the Spirit. People were afraid of freedom.

The parallels to what I hear of happening in the lcs, from say '65 to '75, are striking, to me. Same with other moves of the Spirit. We end up looking at the arrangement of chairs in the room, thinking that somehow we can recreate that special feeling. That's were the bureaucrats come in: they specialize in arranging chairs.

Just thinking aloud here.

YP0534 · 06-24-2009, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

The parallels to what I hear of happening in the lcs, from say '65 to '75, are striking, to me. Same with other moves of the Spirit. We end up looking at the arrangement of chairs in the room, thinking that somehow we can recreate that special feeling. That's were the bureaucrats come in: they specialize in arranging chairs.

Just thinking aloud here.

I agree.

I think it's instructive to read these things backwards into our interpretations, as far as there seems to be a valid correspondence and good fit.

I don't really believe in coincidence. That the LC and the RCC become more alike with each passing year is evidence of something. Or several things. The one thing they have distinct is that LC descends from a Protestant line which itself descended from the RCC. In a way, these two are either sides of the looking glass.

Not to say that I need to see a conspiracy or correlation in the actions of the 12 and the BBs of today. Not at all. But neither do I dismiss such connections outright. I got to know and really liked several of the BBs and to hear some of the things today just takes my breath away. James telling Paul to do the temple ritual to prove loyalty to Moses does the same thing.

And while I don't disagree with your point about specialization, when the hand says "You be a foot because I'm a Hand," I just get suspicious is all...

YP0534 · 06-24-2009, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

YP,

Sorry if I seemed to just be attacking your position.

It was the footwashing crack, but I'm over it.

aron · 06-24-2009, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

What do you think, aron?

Am I too much?

This is your thread, after all...

Not at all. I didn't expect your questions, and cannot answer them to your or my own satisfaction, but I was getting stuck in my journey through the bible and I needed someone to come along and help me out. You did just fine.

And so did others, inc. OBW. My idea of a conversation isn't "Listen to me" so much as "Here's what I have. What do you have?" It is mutual exploration, and trading.

I am convinced "something bad" happened in the fellowships after Pentecost. The sign of the woman on the beast(Rev 17), with the purple robe and the golden cup, tells me that John saw something bad was going on there, too. John had been intimate with the observant Jews before Jesus came along (remember he knew the high priest, Ananias), and he had himself a front row seat on the failure of God's chosen people, when the long-awaited Messiah showed up. Now, 50-odd years had passed, and the christian assembly was failing fast, and I want to know what happened. And I am trying to explain it to myself in a simple way (remember my "10 year-old" rule).

If it wasn't for Rev. chapter 21/22, I might get depressed. But I ain't.

p.s. John was just like the OT prophets. They lambasted Israel, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Babylon, everyone in sight, then when you think it's all over, just pelicans and cormorants and owls and a smoking hole in the ground, the prophets start on how good and merciful God is, and how He'll keep His promise to His people, and you go, "awww.."

YP0534 · 06-24-2009, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

We are already in a different mode. It has its own advantages and disadvantages. Might it be better to critique actual instances as examples to follow or avoid?

It might be, Mike.

But while folks continue to pull a verse out of context and demand your agreement that their way is the one to follow, it surely still serves a purpose to carefully review our source texts themselves.

Not that I'm advocating that sort of thing.

aron · 06-24-2009, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

And while I don't disagree with your point about specialization, when the hand says "You be a foot because I'm a Hand," I just get suspicious is all...

True. "I am a hand" is valid; "You be a foot" makes me nervous, as well.

We have to trust the Spirit to meet the need. Remember the feeding of the 5000? "How are we ever going to feed all these people?"

As OBW points out, God loves order. Jesus appointed 12, sent out 70, separated the thousands into groups of one hundred each. But to me, this is fluid order, entirely apt to meet the contingency.

Too quickly, the followers had "frozen order", able only to meet the past needs, not the present. Only the Spirit could meet the present needs.

YP0534 · 06-24-2009, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

We have to trust the Spirit to meet the need.
...
Only the Spirit could meet the present needs.

And that goes back to what Mike and I were sharing about knowing the Lord's voice.

Is that enough?

What about all that stuff in the Bible?

OBW · 06-24-2009, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

It was the footwashing crack, but I'm over it.

Too funny!

I hoped it would be too over-the-top to be taken as an actual charge against you. I know that I haven't washed any feet besides my own, and probably my kids when they were really small.

YP0534 · 06-24-2009, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Too funny!

I hoped it would be too over-the-top to be taken as an actual charge against you. I know that I haven't washed any feet besides my own, and probably my kids when they were really small.

There's so much about context, I guess. And you have no way of knowing.

If you're gonna make laws out of the NT, like a lot of people do, this is a pretty clear commandment and it is nevertheless nearly universally ignored. That in and of itself bugs me.

MOREOVER

I was an altar boy as a young man in the RCC and on one Holy Thursday evening service, the elderly Monsignor washed my feet (with a little help from the designated water jug bearer and foot basin bearer.) He tied a starched white linen cloth around his waist (exactly like the one Jesus used, I'm sure) and bathed and dried both my feet. Felt weird to take off my shoes and socks in the sanctuary in front of a congregation like that.

I've never forgotten it.

Made a big impression about what the Lord was up to that evening.

It may have been performed ritually but there had to be some element of the character of servant in the man to perform that year after year. There's really something to be said for the way many priests dedicate themselves to service.

I'm not sure there's a modern equivalent, really. Maybe washing your car? Maybe a pedicure? But it really does take an element of humility to perform this task and I really think we completely neglect it to our detriment.

aron · 06-24-2009, 04:15 PM

Me: "The Spirit will supply all the needs"

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

And that goes back to what Mike and I were sharing about knowing the Lord's voice.

Is that enough?

What about all that stuff in the Bible?

All "that stuff" in the Bible shouldn't supplant our relationship with the Spirit. When I have an abiding relationship with the Spirit, then the Bible is opened to me. It's like the two disciples in Luke 24:32 "Was not our heart burning while He was opening to us the Scriptures?"

God is pretty tough. He doesn't get frightened off when we ask the difficult questions. Rather, if we are persistent, He will give us a great blessing.

The Bible is not a rule book to get the right answers. The Bible is rather the key to finding the Spirit, and abiding with Him. And the more I ask the difficult questions (at least from the perspective of those who think everything is neatly answered in chapter 8, verse 14, footnote 6, third paragraph, e.g.), the more I sense the "parousia", the happiness of the arriving and abiding Spirit.

It is my opinion that God loves it when we wrestle with Him in His Word. When we simply take it as dead letter, which as you've noted most people do with Paul et al "organizing the church", I don't think God is so happy.

What saves us from going off the rails is that we do so not in a corner, but in public. To have OBW knocking down our speculations like ninepins is a great blessing, I think. Witness Lee could have salvaged his ministry, imho, if he had allowed a skeptical djohnson or two to keep an eye on him. Lee had a good mind, the Spirit, and the Bible, but he had no counselors. And in many counselors there is safety (Prov 24:6).

=============

Let me repeat an earlier question: if the Spirit speaking to the assemblies in Revelations 2 and 3 is not merely foretelling the future "stages" of the "church" (because that wouldn't have made any sense to the recipients, and John who loved mysteries[e.g. signs] also loved explanations), then what is the answer? What was the Spirit speaking to the churches?

I believe John was speaking in code. He had to get past the censors, but he wanted to convey information. He wanted to be understood by his readers. What was he speaking to the churches? "Blessed is he who keeps the words of this prophecy"... what were they/are we supposed to keep?

Now, I realize we might not be able to say that "The answer is 'X'", because Lee did that and we're not terribly impressed. But still, I love the kind of answers that stun my feeble brain into insensibility. Stuff like "God is love". Stuff like that. I like finding answers that I'm going to have to wrestle with for the rest of my life.

So I think it's okay to be a voice in the wilderness, asking the unanswerable questions that nobody else really wants to hear, probably.

Some kind of virus got into the churches and degraded their function. I wonder what it is? The Lord hasn't yet returned. I wonder why not? Gee, I wonder if those 2 questions are related?

OBW · 06-24-2009, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

I was an altar boy as a young man in the RCC and on one Holy Thursday evening service, the elderly Monsignor washed my feet (with a little help from the designated water jug bearer and foot basin bearer.) He tied a starched white linen cloth around his waist (exactly like the one Jesus used, I'm sure) and bathed and dried both my feet. Felt weird to take off my shoes and socks in the sanctuary in front of a congregation like that.

I've never forgotten it.

Made a big impression about what the Lord was up to that evening.

It may have been performed ritually but there had to be some element of the character of servant in the man to perform that year after year. There's really something to be said for the way many priests dedicate themselves to service.

I'm not sure there's a modern equivalent, really. Maybe washing your car? Maybe a pedicure? But it really does take an element of humility to perform this task and I really think we completely neglect it to our detriment.

Quite a story. At some level, the willingness to be that subservient, even as part of a ritual can be quite meaningful if you have a willing spirit. In some aspects the ritualism of the more liturgical traditions has significant intrinsic value and I think that Evangelicals miss something when they dismiss these things without a thought.

aron · 06-24-2009, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

it would seem that you simply distrust the entire account as reflecting something positive from God. You have now even questioned the appointing of the deacons as indicating a flaw in the apostles' character [

]. if an organization is actually feeding the hungry are persons who help organize and see that it actually happens considered of lesser importance or connection to the activity because they are not the ones who might actually be standing in the soup kitchen with a ladle?

Well, maybe, maybe not. Don't simply dismiss the idea out of hand. I work for a very large corporation where a paper clip costs $4 because sixteen people are involved in its purchase. It is extreeeemely inefficient (like GM; only we have a monopoly, for now, so we get away with it). What I have found is that generally the "persons who help organize" tend to lounge in paneled offices, while someone is sweating down below trying to do 3 different jobs (management fodder I ain't).

At some point, the more "organized" things get, the more the "servant of all" tends to sleep on silken sheets and the ostensible recipients get an empty slogan. So the idea that an organization that supposedly cares for the poor becoming a bloated mass that only really cares for its own stomach isn't out of the realm of possibility. But, like you said, "organization" doesn't necessarily mean "corrupted"; however, in my view that has tended to be the case. How often this has occurred, where, and how far back into the record (i.e. into the biblical text) is open to discussion, I think.

Anyway, I don't think YP was questioning the apostles' character as much as simply wondering if they hadn't quite grasped it yet. Like Apollos -- you know, full of enthusiasm but preaching the wrong baptism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Did Luke suggest a negative thing when he recorded that the apostles and elders sent a letter to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia? It would seem that these men (the apostles and elders who were the ones sending the letter) wrote to the whole of the believers. How does that demean the elders in any location or deny them their “position.” It would seem that when they called themselves “brothers” and then wrote to everyone that they were admitting to the perceived authority they might or might not actually hold, but that they considered themselves brothers and that they were writing to all the believers and not just some similarly situated authorities.

Good point, except for the part about Luke's opinion. That's not relevant. Luke was a chronicler of events, not a characterizer. Other than that, your point is well taken.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I cannot find the flaw in the NT record that you seem to see. I see plenty of flaw in what flawed humans have done with the NT on many subjects, not the least of which has been leadership. But in any group, there will be leadership. Even in an informal gathering of people, there eventually begins to be one or two that will stand out as the one(s) that the others follow. The one(s) that suggest the next time they are going to get together. You can buck it if you want. But the result will either be discord or you will become a/the leader. And in a spiritual context, the natural leader may not be the best choice. Having some guidelines for the willful selection of leaders is quite helpful if something more that a type A personality is required.

Well, let's see...it seems that the criteria for leadership, pre-resurrection, was something like that of James and John, i.e. ambition. And the rest are on record as quarreling among themselves twice (Luke 9:46, & 22:24) about who was greatest. Jesus corrected them, patiently (thank You Lord for Your patience!) and repeatedly. The question is: did they get it? Or perhaps the better question is: did they get it all, 100%, on the day Jesus resurrected? In Acts chapter 1 they were drawing straws to replace one of the twelve. We all know they were on board "The Jesus Express" there. But were they fully on board or still partly on board?

Jesus told them that He still had a lot to teach them, and that the Spirit of reality would guide them into all the reality (John 16:13). I take that to mean "not instantaneous enlightenment on all things, but instead gradual enlightenment, over the course of time and experience." Maybe with different guidelines, sister Dorcas would have been "the leading one". And maybe that would have been better for all concerned. Again, we are just thinking aloud here. Please allow us to possibly appear foolish/ridiculous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

It would appear that God stopped Paul from participating in that purification vow. But he did not stop him from setting up elders. And those 7 letters at the beginning of Revelation would have been a good time to mention the eldership thing. Not a word. But the next chapter has 24 elders sitting on 24 thrones with 24 golden crowns. Now this does not indicate that these were “elders” of churches or “elders” of the Jewish tradition. It just says they are there.

And yes, why did Jesus select 12 for his inner circle? But I think it is recorded that he sent out 70 at one point. So there were the 12, plus another 58, plus how many others who followed regularly? Do we just say it was what happened? Did it have meaning as it was done to those whom he called, selected and sent? Did this tie into Jewish practice? Would this be meaningful to those very Jewish men? Would Jesus have expected them to practice just as he did? Or do we presume that it just happened and those same 12 (well, 11) made something out of it that was not?

God, and by definition/extension Jesus, likes order. Some are given to reign over 10 cities, some over 2 cities. And maybe the one reigning over 10 cities is overseeing 5 ones that have 2 cities each. So hierarchy isn't bad, at least to me. But God's organization, ordering, and ranking, are completely opposite to ours, at least when I look at and listen to Jesus the Nazarene. And when I look at His ostensible servants (e.g. RCC & LCs) I see more of a worldly pattern than a spiritual one. Even though it is, somewhat, "biblical".

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

It seems to me that you are trying to find the error captured in scripture so that we can have a clear scriptural basis for dealing with it. I think the basis already exists. The leader is a servant. The first shall be last. Love God and your neighbor as yourself. When you find "leaders" outside of these and other principles, then they are not spiritual leaders.

Sister Dorcas, anyone?

aron · 06-25-2009, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

...it seems that the criteria for leadership, pre-resurrection, was something like that of James and John, i.e. ambition. And the rest are on record as quarreling among themselves twice (Luke 9:46, & 22:24) about who was greatest. Jesus corrected them, patiently (thank You Lord for Your patience!) and repeatedly. The question is: did they get it? Or perhaps the better question is: did they get it all, 100%, on the day Jesus resurrected? In Acts chapter 1 they were drawing straws to replace one of the twelve. We all know they were on board "The Jesus Express" there. But were they fully on board or still merely partly on board?

Jesus told them that He still had a lot to teach them, and that the Spirit of reality would guide them into all the reality (John 16:13). I take that to mean "not instantaneous enlightenment on all things, but instead gradual enlightenment, over the course of time and experience."

I was struck by the fact that Jesus caught them arguing, not once, but twice, in the gospel record in Luke. The first is when, in chapter 9, He says He is going to be delivered to the Gentiles. They couldn't understand what He was saying, and promptly fell into "reasoning" (RcV) about whom was the greatest. Jesus found them so doing (Mark 9:34 has them falling silent when He enters the room -- oops!), gave them the "whoever is least among you, is greatest" speech, showing them a little child.

Immediately after, John brings up how he forbade others to preach in Jesus' name.

Later, in chapter 22, a "contention" occurred among them about who was greater, right after he broke the bread and gave the wine at the last supper together. Again, He compared the "Gentiles" model with the heavenly model.

I am wondering how much the "Jewish" model was really the Gentile model, in disguise. "And He said to them, The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who have authority over them are called benefactors." Luke 22:25

How much were the Jewish practices like everything else on this fallen globe, i.e. "I'm gonna git mine, and the devil take the hindmost", Moses notwithstanding? Because the observant Jews waved the scroll of Moses at Jesus, and He dismissed them with "You don't know Moses." How much were Jewish practices and customs, which rolled over, at least somewhat, into the new age, after Pentecost, not the "blueprint" God had in mind?

My point is this: the desire to be "top dog" is arguably ubiquitous among us "pack animals" - it is the way Gentiles do business, it permeated the Jewish system, and "who's greatest" would have been a repeated argument, whichever 12 disciples Jesus chose, and I am not convinced this impulse to control was expunged forthwith post-resurrection. Peter certainly was wary of it, and he gives it ample space in his second epistle.

In the seven letters to the Asian assemblies, we have Satan's throne, we have Jezebel(surely the classic case of usurpation of the kingship role), we have some claiming to be apostles who are not, we have the Nicolaitans. The entire Laodicean assembly is affected with this "We're the best" disease. Diotrophes crowds his way into the conversation in 3 John. This jockeying for position, to place others beneath the soles of your feet, is pervasive, even here.

I have been bugging my christian friends with these same questions. To one, who I put the question "What went wrong" regarding the Asian churches, explaining that to me this was a stand-in for the assemblies 'en masse', she merely replied, "They wanted to be first." I immediately thought of Jude verse 6, where the angels disregarded the place (yes, in a hierarchy) into which God had placed them, and they removed themselves to where they didn't belong, and were cast down headlong into the pit.

It seems the only safe thing is to take the last place. If God calls you up higher, fine. But that "calling up higher" is first done at the Judgment Seat, and then at the Wedding Feast.

YP0534 · 06-25-2009, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

I was struck by the fact that Jesus caught them arguing, not once, but twice, in the gospel record in Luke.
...

Striking to me as well, aron. Thank you.
Noting the ordering in Jude was a help also.

But the thing that just impressed me is that you've got the makings of an excellent message in all of that but even though brother Lee was fond of denouncing ambition and I heard him speak about the "power struggle" a couple of times, I'm not sure I ever heard him quite as clearly as this on this topic.

It's a good thing what's happening here!

According to my math, what we're looking at is adding up to a satanic hierarchy versus the heavenly hierarchy in the universe.

Men all think they can order things in a superior fashion and in fact they merely play into the enemy's hands every time they try. But it is God's intention that the universe be headed up uniquely in Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth, in Him.

You might just be onto something...

aron · 06-25-2009, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

According to my math, what we're looking at is adding up to a satanic hierarchy versus the heavenly hierarchy in the universe.

Men all think they can order things in a superior fashion and in fact they merely play into the enemy's hands every time they try.

Yes, there is a heavenly hierarchy, clearly, but according to our "fallen" nature God puts the least things first! This was demonstrated unequivocally and repeatedly by Christ, both in teaching and in behavior.

And thank God for Peter's second epistle. He got it, also. "You leaders, lead by example, not by bossing others around." How often has that been violated, not only in spirit but even in letter, by supposed Bible experts. They think the Bible gives them the right to tell others what books to read, who to talk to, what to eat, what to wear, how to speak, where to sit in meetings, can I stop now? Wrong, wrong. We can encourage, we can give counsel, we can call sin when we see it (including "bossy" behavior), and especially we can model "heavenly" behavior for the weaker ones (which includes basically all of us, from time to time anyway).

What really gave the "They wanted to be first" remark of my friend some traction in my mind, pushing me to verse 6 Jude, was the fact that I'd been reading Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 over and over, trying to find the "2 Edens". I kept reading the prophet saying that the king of Tyre had a good deal going, but he went too far, and he tried to exalt himself, to be where only God could be, to be something he was never supposed to be. Even if he isn't directly referring to Satan, boy, does it sound like him, no?

Then, you have Satan tempting Adam & Eve in the garden, to a tree they didn't belong at. And so forth, on and on and on. If Satan gets a good thing going, he just becomes a broken record; he plays the same thing over again. "Psst! You over there! Hey! Lookie here! Yummy-yummy!" And the dupes crane their necks, wondering what treat God has deprived them of...

This subtle deception didn't stop on the day of Pentecost. We who have been blessed by the light of the truth of the Gospel in Christ Jesus must heed His words: "When the light turns to darkness, how great is the darkness!" (Matt 6:23). That was true starting from Lucifer, the original light-bearer, right up through to today.

aron · 06-25-2009, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

even though brother Lee was fond of denouncing ambition and I heard him speak about the "power struggle" a couple of times, I'm not sure I ever heard him quite as clearly as this on this topic.

Lee denounced ambition, he was referring to everyone else's but his. His ambition was okay, because supposedly he was pure, he was wholly for "the ministry", "the recovery", and what all. And the rest of us, as much as we could demonstrate both competence and being "sold out" for the program, were allowed to rise in its ranks.

But this only works when the "acting God" of the system is pure, while our system is populated with sinners (albeit redeemed and reborn ones), so really it's illogical, to me. Why put a human being, frail and fallible, at the head of the system? We have a perfectly good head, Christ, who was tempted in every manner like us, yet without sin. Everybody else sinned. That's an immutable principle. The only acting God is God, and that, for us, thankfully, is fully realized and fully operational with our own Jesus Christ the Nazarene. Any other intermediaries corrupts the process. The Daystar fiasco was inevitable, in some form, because the "local church" system had humans running things instead of God.

Now, qualifications are in order. In any bunch, as OBW already pointed out and is basically self-evident, there's going to be some more qualified than others; differentiation is natural, and God-arranged. If I'm in a lifeboat with a bunch of 14 year-olds it would behoove me to speak up and say, "Listen up, folks: I've been in a few lifeboats before and this is how we get to shore." No problem.

But as I've said elsewhere, God's order is fluid, and immediate, and meets every need. Man's "structure" is dead, static, and tries to copy yesterday's solutions, and is today no longer valid. That is why the arrangements made in the first century showed such a marked and rapid move away from the teachings of Jesus Christ. If you don't believe me, read the book of Revelation again. It's there; the degredation is the rule, not the exception. What structure can we see surviving the first century? I see the "episcopal throne" of James. What do you see?

Now, the principles are always valid. They point to eternal realities and God Himself. That is why having an "elder" or two around is so incredibly useful. The cost of information is lowered dramatically for the newbies. But structures are "old wineskins" which can't hold new wine. Nee's NCCL was arguably a better wineskin than some of the others he saw in China and elsewhere, circa 1925. But it was still an "old wineskin", in my estimation.

OBW · 06-25-2009, 01:59 PM

Aron,

I will not quote your post, but do feel to make a couple of comments.

First, my goal in the post was more in the line of asking questions to expand the thinking, or at least determine that the areas I mentioned had been considered. When I suggested that the appointment of deacons was being dismissed “out of hand” I was pointing at the fact that only a negative motive followed by more negative considerations were given. But the account (albeit from the even-handed Luke) does not indicate a problem with doing it, but a problem if it was not. We need more than supposition to make the kind of remarks about the apostles and elders that YP was suggesting. I did not think he was really that strong about it. But it had that kind of sound when my wife starts into one of her “everything is wrong” funks. The cure for that is often an intentional look outside of the black hole that has your attention.

Concerning those who have organizational responsibilities for some work of service, I have to presume that you are playing devil’s advocate when you mention corporate inefficiencies as a reason against that. I would admit that if someone has taken a “position” with a service activity but contributes nothing of substance to the organization other than their appearance so that they are seen by men as doing a “good deed” then they have their reward. Let me know if you did not understand what I actually meant in the original post.

Your examples of flaws recorded in the NT concerning leadership are all part of the training that Jesus provided them while he was alive. It is all pre-crucifixion. They aren’t yet in charge. James and John showed up their ambition (just as Peter constantly tried to stand out and stuck his foot in his mouth) and Jesus put them in place. It was in this context that some of the significant words about the attitude of a leader were given.

You are correct that man’s natural inclination toward order and leadership is based on a human model of natural ability and efficiency. (On this last point, I note that there is a lot of flack concerning “para-church” organizations doing some of the service activities because there is too much emphasis on doing it like a corporation and being humanly efficient. I’m a little conflicted on that position. On one hand, I see a value to using the resources (time, effort, money, etc.,) effectively and efficiently. But I also see a need to involve more people in “getting their hands dirty” in service which might beg for a little inefficiency.) That does not mean that order and/or leadership are not needed. But the leadership has a somewhat different task than that of the corporate world.

I agree that we do not have a clear picture of “the way” to both become and be leaders in the church. We do have “biblical” principles. And we have ample bad examples to consider (more in current times than in scripture). And if we look around, there are good examples. Besides some possibilities in your area, I am beginning to think that John Myer demonstrated exceptional leadership when he chose to avoid the LSM’s lawsuit and let the rascals have whatever they demanded. It also demonstrates the error of the LSM.

As for Dorcas, if she had been around in 2008 and after in the Irving area, she might have found herself on the ministry team at our assembly. That would mean that she would be part of the team that actually plans and discusses the upcoming sermons and will occasionally be the one who gives it.

YP0534 · 06-25-2009, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

First, my goal in the post was more in the line of asking questions to expand the thinking, or at least determine that the areas I mentioned had been considered. When I suggested that the appointment of deacons was being dismissed “out of hand” I was pointing at the fact that only a negative motive followed by more negative considerations were given.

The customary and positive views of eldership and apostleship have been explored to death.

Let me challenge you, then, as I essentially did once before.

Are you aware of anyone who has legitimately and yet still faithfully explored the possibility that the the "apostles and elders" made a number of mistakes in recorded scripture that have remained unexamined and unchecked yet solemnly repeated throughout recorded history?

Sure it's speculative on my part to consider such notions. I admit that readily. But it's not that I'm merely focused on negative perspective. Surely you don't think me that ignorant of, ok, well, not "orthodox" teachings but "mainstream" Christian doctrine?

My thesis is essentially that everyone has always just accepted that all this stuff was right and proper and good and wholesome. Well, what if that isn't necessarily the case? Can we learn something new by rejecting that consensus opinion which has been handed down through the dusty tomes of medieval hagiography?

I'm not at all sold on my own thesis at this point. You're right about that. But neither am I dissuaded a bit by reference to consensus opinion without more.

Maybe look at it this way: I'm trying to come to these things with fresher eyes. Pretend for a minute that I know nothing of Christ or of these "apostles" and don't have any opinions about any of that one way or another. Upon reading that the 12 selected the 7 to take care of the widows, is it POSSIBLE that I might not immediately be struck with the wisdom and propriety of that action?

I think a reasonable person would agree that there could potentially be a difference of opinion on that point in that context. (I know that people harshly criticize televangelists who don't "get their hands dirty," for instance.)

We're obviously working with a larger context than just a slice of the book of Acts, thankfully, and I don't reject the traditional views outright for the sake of doing so. Part of the reason for bringing such speculations into discussion here is so that others can bring in their portions of which I am not yet a beneficiary of. But it's really not an answer to say something is merely speculative when that is its entire reason in the first place.

God is a God of order. Check.
There's a hierarchy of angelic beings which was breached. Check.
The Lord chose 12 and then 70 and then 120. Check.
There are 24 elders and thrones in Revelation. Check.
There are different members of the Body and diverse gifts. Check.

But does any of that MANDATE an interpretation that Paul was justified in appointment of "elders" or that the apostles were justified in appointing the 7?

I don't think it does.

And could all of the above still be held true while saying that Paul and the other apostles erred in some fashion?

I think perhaps.

And this is the thing that interests me and I think aron on this line: it would help explain where the intractable problem of (ok, maybe not all but at least errant) hierarchy originated within the Body, innocently enough and with good intention, as we know must have been the case.

I'm not interested in throwing the 12 under the bus of my interpretation solely to explain why a bishop is considered over an elder by 120 AD. But I think it's something worth considering in a modern context where we're a lot more focused on the importance of the function of every member of the Body than they were in medieval Europe, at least.

I'm just not familiar with the Lord being very concerned in the gospels with things along the lines of the appointment of "deacons" and "elders" and such and I'd have to believe that if He had said things touching these topics it surely would be preserved. We know that it was an important thing to Paul to set up "elders" in every assembly. And all I'm saying,at the end of the day, is that maybe I'm not completely sold on the concept of such formal designations under at least one possible reading of the teachings of Jesus in the gospels.

But perhaps there are teachings of Jesus in the gospels that support such formal designations of which I am simply ignorant at this time. Perhaps there are clear Old Testament types which we might reasonably feel are persuasive that formal designations are as good and wholesome and helpful as is commonly assumed. Maybe there's something instructive I'm missing where Paul commends us to a formal designation that wasn't set up by himself (other than "apostle" which he claimed). "The elders designated by James" or something like that? What about the other NT authors? Does Peter or John ever suggest that we need to have the "elders" that Paul describes with such deliberateness? How about similar formal designations, even?

I don't know. I'm likely missing some important piece of the puzzle along these lines and I need the help. Hence the posting.

Grace to you.

aron · 06-25-2009, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

When I suggested that the appointment of deacons was being dismissed “out of hand” I was pointing at the fact that only a negative motive followed by more negative considerations were given. But the account does not indicate a problem with doing it, but a problem if it was not. We need more than supposition to make the kind of remarks about the apostles and elders that YP was suggesting.

You say there was a problem if they didn't appoint 7 deacons? Were there any other options? Yes, there was a problem, grumbling Hellenists, unfed and unwatered, but was appointing 7 deacons the only solution available? (And YP is not saying negative motives were the issue (ambition, eg) but rather the problem was ignorance combined with good intentions).

You are acting as if they only had 2 options: a) do nothing, or b) appoint 7 deacons. And there is seems to be an unspoken and unchallenged assumption that if that worked out favorably there(it did; see verse 7), the solution henceforth and forevermore is "appoint more deacons".

I raise the questions because it seems there is a general decline by the end of the Bible, subsequent history shows this trend continuing, and I am curious as to why. In my view, everything is open to questioning.

But rather than asking, "was this wrong" which might understandably raise hackles, how about asking, "If I was there, and I wanted to be at the right hand or left of the ascended and glorified Master in His kingdom, what should I do?"

Of course, I would have many options. I would run into many scenarios on my path, like grumbling Hellenists, and would have a multitude of options to choose from. One of them is to deptutize, to appoint: "Moses got deputies to handle the small cases, why can't I?"

Well, let me tell ya, the Last Thing I'd do, is appoint deacons and elders. Of course, I have the hindsight of history, and history tells me it didn't work out so well.

Suppose I'm madly ambitious. I am "Hitler-level" ambitious; I am Napoleon-esqe in my ambitions (Actually, this is common in every age -- look at Alexander the Great, look at Nebuchadnezzar). My ambition is nothing less than to be "top dog": to sit next to Jesus at the Heavenly Banquet. Okay, what do I do?

Well, I know what I don't do. I don't organize. Didn't work then. Won't work now.

Okay, okay, I'm still leaning negatively. Positives, lad! Think positively! Well, number one, pray. "God, I'm helpless. Help me get home to the Father". Something like that. Like Solomon prayed, not for riches but wisdom. Like Elisha: "I want a double portion (a 7-fold portion?) of the Spirit".

So, number one, prayer. Check. We got that one at Pentecost (the 10 days prior; praying in one accord). They clearly got the prayer thing down good.

Okay, number two. Announce the good news. Well, that one seems well taken. Look at Peter's 2 public sermons. Thousands saved. Massive salvation taking place. Okay, check. We're looking good.

Three: "Don't organize". It will eventually quench the Spirit.

I would argue that if they hadn't organized then we wouldn't be here typing about the problems of Witness Lee and the local churches. The kingdom would have long since appeared, "like lightning from east to west." But their misstep is our opportunity.

Of course, I can't prove that. But I do know one thing clearly: they organized, and Jesus still hasn't returned. Instead we have multiple, competing organizations (Babylon, anyone?) and no returned Messiah.

Lest I seem overly harsh -- well, they are gone, and the Lord hasn't yet returned. What do we do? More of what's occurred over the last 2,000 years? Or do we have other options here?

aron · 06-25-2009, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

I'm just not familiar with the Lord being very concerned in the gospels with things along the lines of the appointment of "deacons" and "elders" and such and I'd have to believe that if He had said things touching these topics it surely would be preserved. We know that it was an important thing to Paul to set up "elders" in every assembly. And all I'm saying,at the end of the day, is that maybe I'm not completely sold on the concept of such formal designations under at least one possible reading of the teachings of Jesus in the gospels.

Maybe there's something instructive I'm missing where Paul commends us to a formal designation that wasn't set up by himself (other than "apostle" which he claimed). "The elders designated by James" or something like that? What about the other NT authors? Does Peter or John ever suggest that we need to have the "elders" that Paul describes with such deliberateness? How about similar formal designations, even?

John has discussions about elders, I believe. John's criteria for being an elder is to "know Him who was from the beginning" (1 John 2:13). The young ones are strong and fresh, and the older ones have wisdom. Pretty good, I think. Why make it more than that?

Here's John later, in chapter 3: "And this is His commandment, that we believe into the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, even as He gave commandment to us." Believe into Jesus and love one another. This, to me, is the viable organizing principle. Do this, and resist the tendency to add nameplates on doors, and who knows what might happen?

aron · 06-26-2009, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

But I do know one thing clearly: they organized, and Jesus still hasn't returned. Instead we have multiple, competing organizations (Babylon, anyone?) and no returned Messiah.

1. I apologize for the "Babylon" remark. I didn't mean to insinuate that any christian group is Babylon. I was thinking specifically of the GLA, the Dong group, and the BBs now trading barbs, competing against each other for 'sheep', or the proper doctrinal interpretation. That was what I meant about "competing organizations". But I insinuated that all christian groupings are competing, which is patently untrue and unfair.

And if there is any "Babylonian" aspect of religious plurality equaling religious confusion, it is not mine to say. Lee never got this point, it seems: if you see a "Babylonian" splinter in the other's eye, it may well indicate a "Babylonian" beam in your own. So if there is any Babylonian aspect to contemporary christianity or not, I doubt I am the one qualified to make those assertions. My apologies.

2. I don't think we are casting aspersions on the motives of the apostles. Yes, the evident ambition is pre-resurrection; we can see no trace of it in the record later and thus must assume it was fully dealt with. And there is evidence on the positive side, as well -- Peter got fried in public by Paul and no civil war broke out. So all's well.

But, they may have inadvertently set up a structure in which the undealt-with ambitions of others may flourish and grow. Thus, in the Asian assemblies we have evidence of Satan's throne, Jezebel is doing business, false apostles are claiming chunks of the flock, Nicolaitans are conquering the people, and so forth. Now, this all might have happened, sans organization, and might have been worse. Organization doesn't necessarily equal "Jezebel". But, look at the history of the decline of the Israelites ("We want a king like the Gentiles have") and there are maybe uncomfortable parallels.

At one point Jesus said, "Moses allowed this arrangement (divorce), as a concession to your fallen nature. But from the beginning it was not so." Maybe Jesus wanted to go more "back to the beginning" than the saints realized, in the first century church.

3. I would modify my earlier post somewhat, upon reflection.

Q: I am newly saved, brimming with ambition to serve God and be rewarded greatly upon the Master's triumphant return. What should I do?

A: Well, there's several things. First, pray unceasingly, and read the Bible until you know it better than your own birthdate and zip code.

Second, preach the gospel to those languishing in darkness.

Third, shepherd the believers God puts you with, by encouraging them, consoling them, counseling them if they ask, and most of all by being a good example. Don't just declare the kingdom to them: live the kingdom in front of them. If you are really ambitious, and want to compete with others to sit closer to Jesus at the Wedding Feast, then follow Paul's dictum closely, and "compete with others in showing honor to one another."

Lastly, go back to step one and do it again.

4. I am not "anti-organization". But it is my observation that some spiritual corollary of Newton's law of gravitation may be in effect here. Newton said that gravitational force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses. F equals G*M1*M2 divided by R^2.

Well, at some point, looking at the sweep of christian history, with its revivals and ebbs, I realized that maybe the Holy Spirit's gravitational pull is directly proportional to the product of our prayer and Bible reading, and inversely proportional to the square of our organizational efforts.

I haven't got it quite down into a mathematical formula, but it's something like that, anyway!

OBW · 06-26-2009, 06:32 AM

First, I’m a little surprised that you would determine that the return of Christ is dictated by man and delayed by his lack of proper organizational skills.

But more than that, I am a little befuddled that the fact that there was any kind of organization, whether apostles, elders, deacons, or whatever we flawed humans turned it into over time, is suggested as the cause of the problems we see today in the whole of Christianity. And then you mention that it might have helped Lee do what he did to the LC. Actually, it was a willful ruse that there was not an organization while that man (and his deputies) hid behind the curtain and caused the Great and Mighty Oz to appear on the screen that caused the LC’s problems.

Organization did not cause the RCC’s errors. The false belief that there was a succession of supreme leaders starting with Peter and passing through the various popes did it. If there is one who is God’s deputy on earth, then whatever he says must be true. If the one that rises to power is an unregenerated fool, then the changes could be devastating.

Surely the appointment of elders will not be blamed for Ephesus’ loss of its first love. But neither did elders stop the decline. Elders didn’t invite Jezebel, but neither did they throw her out. It may have been more that they were unwilling to stand up to error and instead abdicated their responsibility. That suggests a lack of leadership.

So we won’t have elders. Got a better solution? Do you propose that lack of clear leadership will successfully keep Hitler out of leadership? The “madly ambitious” tend to rise to power in a vacuum.

And how does Babylon fit into this?

The problem is that so far I have seen a lot of correlation. There were errors and mistakes and there were elders. There also were members of the body of Christ. If we just have no members of the body of Christ, then the body of Christ will not be lead into error.

Find a causal link. I have not seen one suggested. I have only seen correlation. Might as well determine that the fact that airplanes are allowed to fly in the sky is the reason for the 9/11 attacks. Yeah, I know. That’s way off base. But have you done anything more than fret about the appointment of elders and deacons and the separate observation of errors in the church? If you want to do an “Emerging Church” kind of conversation that talks about things for 20 years but comes to no conclusions, have at it. Otherwise, either find a link or cease. Just suggesting that there might be a link is getting old. This is not the first time it has come up and I don’t recall that there has yet been a causal link found. How long do we continue to search for something that may not be there? When do we decide that it is negative research and conclude that we have found nothing and that more time spent will just find more nothing?

I do not think that questioning the Bible is a bad thing. But it should eventually lead to something. It should help us ferret out our errors, or strengthen our faith as we discover that what we previously accepted based on the word of another is seen fully by our own inquiry. But there should be a limit to endless doubt and angst. If this continually revisited issue does not begin to conclude, then it seems to suggest a desire to find fault but no ability to succeed at that goal. I do not say that you are willfully trying to fault the existence of elders and deacons, but rather that you are unwilling to accept that a lengthy yet unsuccessful search for proof of that fault should say something.

Now you know my position. Carry on as you will. If you come up with something, that will be good.

YP0534 · 06-26-2009, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

If you want to do an “Emerging Church" kind of conversation that talks about things for 20 years but comes to no conclusions, have at it. Otherwise, either find a link or cease. Just suggesting that there might be a link is getting old. This is not the first time it has come up and I don’t recall that there has yet been a causal link found.

Love is patient, my brother.

I was discussing with someone just this morning about the human fallacy of efficiency. Henry Ford has brainwashed our generation. That is very clearly not God's way. The generations from Adam to Christ are way more than I would have laid out, particularly the intertestamental period. The God of the universe dwelling on the earth for 33.5 years seems like a pretty big chunk of time to just end up in crucifixion (wouldn't 20 years have been plenty, really?) And now we've been in this new era for more than 2000 years. God sure seems to take His time, doesn't He?

How long? When?

Dunno.

I'm personally following this line as long as it's feeding me. If it's not feeding you, I can understand that. Not everyone's need is met by the same supply.

"find a link or cease"?

Grace to you, brother.

aron · 06-26-2009, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem is that so far I have seen a lot of correlation. There were errors and mistakes and there were elders.

Find a causal link. I have not seen one suggested. I have only seen correlation.

have you done anything more than fret about the appointment of elders and deacons and the separate observation of errors in the church?

either find a link or cease. Just suggesting that there might be a link is getting old. This is not the first time it has come up and I don’t recall that there has yet been a causal link found. How long do we continue to search for something that may not be there?

I do not think that questioning the Bible is a bad thing. But it should eventually lead to something.

I do not say that you are willfully trying to fault the existence of elders and deacons, but rather that you are unwilling to accept that a lengthy yet unsuccessful search for proof of that fault should say something.

Mike,

Your points are well taken. So far I have not offered anything to show that these phenomena, which I term "degradation" and "organization", are not merely independent events in the life of the church. Fair enough.

I very much appreciate your analysis. Thank you for taking the time to read my ideas, and even moreso for responding.

I have an active imagination, which is a good thing (usually), but I probably lack your analytical rigor, and very much appreciate your coming alongside. Peace & grace.

YP0534 · 06-26-2009, 11:08 AM

Apparently, not that this is anything more than a "coincidence", but Ignatius of "Antioch" appears to be stating these offices fairly formally as early as 110 A.D.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Bish...and_Deacon.asp

There may not be a complete historical record upon which to delineate a "beyond a shadow of a doubt" certainty about the origins of hierarchy but there seems to be reasonably good evidence that such existed while the apostles were still alive. Without express approbation somewhere, I submit it was with their assent and approval, if not at their initiation as I have suggested.

But I think that might be done with this particular topic for now.

Thanks to all!

OBW · 06-26-2009, 12:02 PM

aron & YP,

I know I seem a little perturbed. I do not doubt that there are problems to be found in what we do with leadership. And today's leadership is all over the place in terms of how it is carried out.

If you think you can find something, then I'm all for it and will gladly take it when when it comes.

Yes, YP, I have become a little impatient. I understand the process of contemplation. I do not have an answer that I need to defend. But when it seems that there is perpetually a question about whether the appointment of elders may be some cause of a problem but never anything that supports it beyond being a question to ask, then it begins to come across as an innuendo that taints without being an established fact that can be discussed. (A sort of "when did you stop beating your wife" question.) I mention the Emerging Church "conversation" because they do not like to be called a movement since they are just discussing some questions about faith. But the same questions keep getting asked going on 20 plus years now, but when someone suggests an answer, they cry "foul," say they have not arrived at an answer, and keep everything in perpetual limbo as they converse. At some point, this discussion will become the same kind of unsolved "black hole" that many of the questions the Emergents ask have become.

I do not see Christ's life as being 33-1/2 years, or the fact that we are now almost 2,000 years since Christ as relevant to whether the question should simply remain on the table perpetually because you can't find basis to prove or disprove a hypothesis. "I understand you, but let us contemplate it some more anyway" is an OK answer. It surely is not a matter of my will over yours.

Do you keep doing research on the legal point for which there just doesn't seem to be anything? When do you stop? (rhetorical; no need to answer)

I'm not telling you to stop. Just suggesting that some boundaries be put on the inquiry. For me, those boundaries seem to have been exceeded. But then I am about to bow out (as if I hadn't done so some time back but refused to simply "go away"

).

YP0534 · 06-26-2009, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Do you keep doing research on the legal point for which there just doesn't seem to be anything? When do you stop? (rhetorical; no need to answer)

It's gonna get an answer, though, because it helps illustrate how I see that boundary.

You stop when you have exerted time and effort commensurate with the importance of the issue.

It's somewhat of a judgment call of when you've reached that point and reasonable people can disagree.

But, for me, the magnitude of the point defines the scope of the research.

I think leadership, whether legitimate or pretend, is perhaps the largest issue facing the believers in these days.

Anti-Christ will seek to draw even the elect after himself and too many good people of faith are kept from God's fullest blessings because of inadequate leadership of one kind or another.

I'll probably dig further on my own into these topics as a consequence of these beliefs, content that at least for the present the question is relatively well framed.

But if you ever do come across someone who has seriously considered these things and written about them, regardless of the eventual determination, please do remember to share that with me.

Thank you.

OBW · 06-26-2009, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

But if you ever do come across someone who has seriously considered these things and written about them, regardless of the eventual determination, please do remember to share that with me.

Will do. And I will be as interested in either outcome as you are.

YP0534 · 07-02-2009, 06:10 PM

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

that his praise of Steven and Philip is essentially my criticism of the 12 and
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 · 07-02-2009, 07:33 PM

Quote:

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

that his praise of Steven and Philip is essentially my criticism of the 12 and
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 · 07-29-2009, 11:33 AM

Quote:

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.

NeitherFirstnorLast · 03-28-2011, 08:11 PM

Quote:

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 · 03-31-2011, 11:09 AM

Quote:

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 · 04-01-2011, 11:06 AM

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.

aron · 04-01-2011, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

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.

I would say, leaven going into dough = Kingdom of God.

Just like in Matthew 13, the net is not the kingdom of God. The net going down into the water and hauling up diverse kinds of creatures is the kingdom of God.

It is not an object, rather it is an activity involving several objects, not all of which are destined to remain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Matthew 13 ... 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.

Well, some of the fish are kept, and some are tossed. So I read into that a value judgment: good and not good. Like wheat and tares. One goes into the barn, another is burnt. I put value on the item, depending on what happens to it in the parable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

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.

How much is my "misreading as Lee did" and how much is my own reading I cannot say. But I can at least make the plausible case that leaven may mean something undesired in this instance, even though it is synonymous with the kingdom of God. The problem is that we don't have an explanation for this parable, as in the sower and the seed. So we are left to use context as a means for deciphering its meaning. What does leaven usually connote? How are the other presentations of "The Kingdom of God is..." played out?

If this is in fact a misreading of "leaven", as used here, then I and Lee are probably not the only ones who are missing the point.

OBW · 04-03-2011, 02:02 PM

As I read the whole of chapter 13 of Matthew, I see a beginning that speaks of a scattering of seed (the Word) that finds both fertile and infertile places to try to grow. Then there is the parable of the weeds (tares) where Jesus basically instructed that to the extent that the wrong crops are found in the field, they should not be uprooted because that will uproot the good crops.

So at this point, you have the seed being scattered everywhere, and you have bad seed scattered in among the good seed. Opposite issues.

The is the parable of the Mustard seed which looks at the rather odd nature of a particularly small seed that in that environment resulted in a woody shrub of such stature that it was often 12 feet tall or so and birds, even fairly large ones, did roost in its "branches." Not an anomaly. This is the regular, everyday truth to the people to whom Jesus was speaking.

So how do you read a parable in which the words "The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into about sixty pounds of flour until it worked all through the dough"? You could argue that something bad is put into something good. But since it is described as worked "throughout," and it is understood that leaven results in the permanent alteration of the nature of the thing it is put into (dough, grape juice, etc.) then you would need to have a theology that causes the Kingdom of God to be permanently changed by the introduction of something evil.

Now you may find that what we think is the present, earthly representation of the kingdom of God can be altered in appearance. But the true kingdom of God is never altered. So no matter how this parable could be interpreted, it would seem that this particular interpretation stands in opposition to the truth of God.

So that leaves us with the alternative reading. The kingdom is the leaven. It is added to the dough (humanity?) and it slowly changes it all. Yes, you can argue that much of humanity will never be altered. But that is not entirely true. God was sown into humanity and even those who will not take His grace and follow will ultimately be affected. The one sown into humanity proclaimed a sentence on sin and its author. From that time until it is finished, everything is slowly working to and changing toward that conclusion.

But there are many ways to understand this parable from the side of "the kingdom is the leaven" that are consistent with the whole of this chapter. To read it that the dough is the kingdom and it is inundated with something evil (leaven) just seems to stand in stark contrast to the "reality" of the kingdom. It makes the kingdom into something powerless and even altered by the evil into which it comes. Christ came into the evil. The evil did not come into Christ. And if Christ is the kingdom, while we can talk about spending time trying to reach the "fish" that will ultimately reject the message and be tossed aside, there is nothing evil being added to the kingdom of God that will chemically change its nature.

These other parables, of the weeds and of the great catch of fish, speak well to the nature of things that surround the kingdom but do not change its nature. I believe that understanding the parable of the leaven as about something evil/bad altering the kingdom itself to be contrary to everything else that we learn concerning the kingdom.

I will once again bow out. If you disagree, I cannot say that it is because I have not made my case clearly enough.

ZNPaaneah · 04-03-2011, 05:16 PM

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 · 04-04-2011, 05:39 AM

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.

aron · 04-04-2011, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

So how do you read a parable in which the words "The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into about sixty pounds of flour until it worked all through the dough"? You could argue that something bad is put into something good. But since it is described as worked "throughout," and it is understood that leaven results in the permanent alteration of the nature of the thing it is put into (dough, grape juice, etc.) then you would need to have a theology that causes the Kingdom of God to be permanently changed by the introduction of something evil.

Your understanding is that leaven results in a permanent alteration of the dough?

Why, then, does Paul write the Corinthians to "Purge out the leaven"? See 1 Cor. 5:7.

If, based on your logic and not the Word, you think that the kingdom "dough" cannot co-exist with leaven, then your argument deflates after Paul's exhortation.

Plus, the good in the kingdom clearly co-exists elsewhere with unclean things, as with wheat and tares, and good and bad fish, just from the Matthew 13 parables alone.

However, I can understand the need for latitude for our varying interpretations of the leaven in Matthew 13:33 several ways.

Nonetheless, my original question remains. Something negative sifted its way into the fellowship of the believers. Satan is not the called the subtle one for nothing. I suspect the introduction of leaven into the fellowship was earlier, and worse, than most of us have heretofore realized. So attempts like Nee's to create a "normal" NT-based church-life just codify ad-hoc attempts by well-meaning but fallen men to organize God's move on the earth.

Nee's "recovery" was no different from Wesley's and Luther's organizational efforts, or the "catholic" and "orthodox" attempts preceeding them, except that perhaps it was worse in thinking it was better.

Based on the epistles such as Galatians, and 1 Corinthians, based on what I see in Acts which deviates from both Jesus' example and teaching, the negative tone of the epistles to the messengers of the Asian assemblies in Revelations 2 and 3 is not surprising.

The Hebrews had failed at their God-appointed mission, and by the end of the NT the Christian assemblies were faltering as well. Why should we try to emulate their organizational efforts? My argument is that the degradation of the church was perhaps far earlier, and more pernicious, than we realized.

OBW · 04-04-2011, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Your understanding is that leaven results in a permanent alteration of the dough?

Why, then, does Paul write the Corinthians to "Purge out the leaven"? See 1 Cor. 5:7.

If, based on your logic and not the Word, you think that the kingdom "dough" cannot co-exist with leaven, then your argument deflates after Paul's exhortation.

You misunderstand on two counts.

First, you are requiring that all references to leaven must be on the same terms and in the same thought. So if the kingdom is the leaven in Matt 13 that permeates and alters the world (the dough) then Paul must be referring to the same aspect of leaven in 1 Corinthians.

But this is not the case. No matter how Jesus used leaven, Paul is using it differently. And the children of Israel were already required to purge out all of the leaven in advance of the original passover and the exodus and then required to do it over and over as part of the passover observance. But neither was about expelling the leaven from existing dough. It was about expelling the existence of leaven (whatever that was to signify) from their household. And Paul saying to purge out the leaven in 1 Corinthians is not somehow contradictory to Jesus just because Jesus used leaven in terms of the kingdom permeating, and therefore becoming unable to extracted from mankind. The two stand on their own without reference to each other.

Second, in the context of Matt 13, the kingdom is the leaven and it is permeating 60 pounds of dough. I never indicated that the dough was the kingdom. That is someone else's thought. If the kingdom is the leaven, then the dough is not the leaven. But the dough is altered because of the leaven (the kingdom).

Why is it so nearly impossibly to read one parable/metaphor in its context without requiring that it be a parallel to another parable/metaphor just because there is a common term? Jesus seems (to me) to be rather clear in his meaning. And Paul seems rather clear in his. Even if we assume that these two meanings are not parallels, they do not create a problem with the other unless someone feels obligated to align them due to some other principle. And these "other principles" seem to be entirely the requirement of man (including or excluding Lee) to force something that is not there. Until you provide a need for the leaven in Matt 13 and 1 Corinthians 5 to be in reference to the exact same thing, the two contexts scream out (again to me) that they are separate instances used for specific purposes that have nothing to do with each other.

Leaven is a useful metaphor. It speaks of the introduction of something into something else that combines with that something else to make a permanent alteration. That can be good or bad. Each use of it would have its own meaning as indicated in its context.

The need to align Jesus and Paul due to the use of a term is not consistent with the separate contexts.

As for reading something into it all about the failure of Christianity even by the time of the letters to the seven churches in Asia, that is something that you keep coming back to over and over. Is it part of the tint and focus of the lens through which you read scripture? I do not suggest that I have no lens. But you seem to have an answer searching for evidence. I believe that this too easily colors what you see.

ZNPaaneah · 04-04-2011, 05:07 PM

Quote:

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 · 04-04-2011, 07:18 PM

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 · 04-04-2011, 07:26 PM

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 · 04-05-2011, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

You misunderstand on two counts.

First, you are requiring that all references to leaven must be on the same terms and in the same thought. So if the kingdom is the leaven in Matt 13 that permeates and alters the world (the dough) then Paul must be referring to the same aspect of leaven in 1 Corinthians.

I think you are being a little too strong here. I don't require that all references to the leaven must be on the same terms and convey the same valence, either negative or positive. But I do look at similar terms for help in understanding. The question is: how is this term used in scripture? I don't say that it must be used in exactly the same manner every time. But looking for other references is a common christian practice. If I am in the assembly and I speak of "leaven", I can expect some familiarity from my audience. Likewise "sheep", "goats", "shepherd", "wolves", and so forth. Metaphors over time begin to contain generic messages to the populace, based on how they are commonly used to convey information.

Now, in some cases the familiar trope may spin an entirely new meaning, based on the immediate context. And your argument on "leaven", or "yeast", in this context, may certainly be such a case.

Let me give an example. The term "goat" is familiar in the New Testament from the passage on the separation of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25. But I was greatly helped in my interpretation by reading Zechariah 10:3, about improper shepherds being called "goats". I remembered being on a farm and seeing the male goats going off and not shepherding the young, but standing in splendid isolation of some distant crag (if they could find one). And it lent poignancy to Jesus' words to Peter: "Shepherd My sheep".

So I used scripture to interpret scripture. I look for both immediate and larger context. I think it's common practice. It was common practice even as the NT was being composed. Some may think that doesn't wash in Matthew 13 with leaven, but still the term "leaven" and the associated concept are familiar enough to the general christian public that my idea of "the introduction of leaven" still stands, without specific reference to the parable in Matthew 13.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

As for reading something into it all about the failure of Christianity even by the time of the letters to the seven churches in Asia, that is something that you keep coming back to over and over. Is it part of the tint and focus of the lens through which you read scripture? I do not suggest that I have no lens. But you seem to have an answer searching for evidence. I believe that this too easily colors what you see.

Again, I probably overstate. I have an hypothesis, not an answer. Here is what I see: God made man in His image. Mankind got derailed by Satan and was corrupted, and cast out from God's presence. God made a covenant, nonetheless, with a particular people from among humankind: Abraham's descendents. He took them out of Egypt, and gave them a good land, and gave them laws and statutes and ordinances.

But when the promised Savior Emmanuel arrived, He was rejected, not by the drunkards and thieves, but by the ones who took the law and statutes and ordinances very, very seriously. "We have Moses -- we don't need You."

Now, here is a metaphor: whitewashed tombs. Outside clean, but inside full of dead men's bones.

Fast-forward another 60 years. All of the original disciples (so I presume) are gone; even some of the second wave (notably Paul) have also departed. John remains, on Patmos. He writes a document full of imagery. One of those images is a woman holding a golden cup full of abominations.

Now, unfortunately I am a rank amateur, but I still try to decipher. I remember the white tombs, clean on the outside but dirty within, as I look at the golden cup full of abominations.

So I hypothesize. Maybe John is referring to christianity. Seems to be religion of some sort. Outwardly clean, inwardly not. Buddhism? Judaism?

That's where Revelations 2 and 3, the seven epistles to the messengers of the assemblies in Asia, come in. The Asian believers are good, fundamentally sound groups of believers. And six out of seven messengers are told to repent. So I sense a trend, and I see a possible conintuation of a trend from Genesis chapter 3 all the way to the Golden Cup; just as the Hebrews got the straight skinny from Moses the prophet and failed abysmally by not recognizing their reality when it arrived among them, so too would the christians.

Now, that is just a hypothesis. I see data points, and a trend, or meta-trend of smaller trends, and try to construct a story line.

And yes, I will keep coming back to it, until someone a) shows me how it doesn't work, or b) provides a more compelling hypothesis/narrative based on the evidence before us.

And I do suspect the answer is systemic. Satan the subtle one slipped something into the fellowships, and once it was accepted he had a way to frustrate them from following God, and serving Him according to His purpose in Christ Jesus.

So I began to look in the record for deviations from the message and example of Jesus, and I found them coming far earlier than I had supposed. Mayhaps Constantine was merely the crowning jewel on an edifice long in the building.

aron · 04-05-2011, 06:20 AM

Quote:

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 · 04-05-2011, 06:46 AM

Quote:

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 · 04-05-2011, 11:08 AM

Quote:

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 · 04-06-2011, 08:56 AM

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 04-06-2011, 07:22 PM

Quote:

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.

Suannehill · 04-07-2011, 06:00 AM

By tradition and teaching...leaven is negative in both Christian and Jewish faiths.
We can't avoid leaven on this earth.
As a baker of yeast breads since a child I can tell you that yeast is everywhere. In fact, that's what sourdough bread is...wild yeast...just expose it to the air.
Vinegar is made with wild yeast from the air and don't forget our bodies, some of the most resistant infections are yeast.
So, it's easy to see positive and and negative aspects of yeast.
However, spiritually...yeast is negative.

ZNPaaneah · 04-07-2011, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suannehill

By tradition and teaching...leaven is negative in both Christian and Jewish faiths.
We can't avoid leaven on this earth.
As a baker of yeast breads since a child I can tell you that yeast is everywhere. In fact, that's what sourdough bread is...wild yeast...just expose it to the air.
Vinegar is made with wild yeast from the air and don't forget our bodies, some of the most resistant infections are yeast.
So, it's easy to see positive and and negative aspects of
However, spiritually...yeast is negative.

Is there a verse reference that would clear this up? Because I am questioning that conclusion.

OBW · 04-07-2011, 06:18 AM

You clearly don't get it.

First, your declaration that you don't now what story I am talking about is a ruse, unless you are only putting on a show of intelligence concerning leaven. You know exactly which "story" is being mentioned. It is the one concerning the sowing of the seed. A story about the places that the seed can land and try to grow. It might have been better titled, "The Parable of the Soil."

Second, leaven is used in so many places because it speaks about small things put into larger things that causes the larger thing to be altered. And once put in, there is difficulty in extracting it. (In the case of actual leaven, essentially impossible to extract.)

The verse concerning searching to scriptures is not contextually part of the passage about the leaven of the Pharisees. So it is forced upon the discussion. And when something is discovered to be metaphorical or allegorical, that does not automatically bring every possible aspect of that allegory/metaphor into play. There is probably only one aspect of leaven that is in play in this statement. It probably has to do with the things not found in scripture that are being added into their teachings. It might extend to the idea that taking in their teachings was to take in something that will alter your faith and obedience from what it should be (but probably not). The rest of the possible aspects of bread-making could become a Christian self-help book, but that might turn out to just be leaven of 20th/21st century LRC theologians. At least that is where I would start. You don't just bring the whole analogy in. You seek to find how it is meaningful.

And you don't presume verses not in play as relevant to understanding the one you are reading. Take the John 5:39 fortune cookie and the Matt 16:6 fortune cookie and stick them together. NO. Read Matt 16. It has its own words and context. If, after studying Matt 16 for a while, someone were to ask "how might John 5:39 play into the understanding of this?" I might have to answer "I'm not sure. It is not within the context of Matt 16 and therefore not necessarily about the same thing. It might be said that the Pharisees were not doing a very good job of searching the scriptures. But failure to get everything out of it would not be leaven, so I'm still not so sure."

Last, "purge out the old leaven" is not part of the Matt 13 context. So a statement like "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. . . " is to suggest that understanding the irrelevant passage is important. The one parable in Matt 13 that concerns leaven is about adding the kingdom (the leaven) to something else — "humanity" might be a reasonable way to describe the significance of the flour/dough. There is no purging of old leaven involved. No need to understand "purge out the old leaven."

And, in short, you have blown by the actual words in Matt 13 and gone to look for something else as the answer. You are too focused on the whole bread-making experience to pay attention to the particular ways that small parts of that process are relevant to the one parable (the kingdom as leaven) and irrelevant to all the others in Matt 13.

And you wonder why I suggest that you are doing exactly what Lee did. It may have actually come about it from a different source, but it is no less like Lee and no less wrong.

Beware the leaven of Nee, Lee and the LRC. Beware of the leaven of those who have splintered from the LRC yet cling to its leaven.

Cal · 04-07-2011, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suannehill

By tradition and teaching...leaven is negative in both Christian and Jewish faiths.
We can't avoid leaven on this earth.
As a baker of yeast breads since a child I can tell you that yeast is everywhere. In fact, that's what sourdough bread is...wild yeast...just expose it to the air.
Vinegar is made with wild yeast from the air and don't forget our bodies, some of the most resistant infections are yeast.
So, it's easy to see positive and and negative aspects of yeast.
However, spiritually...yeast is negative.

I don't think it's always negative. Just like birds aren't always negative.

Lee decided the parable of the mustard seed was negative because he thought birds (of the sky) were negative. But that's forcing a meaning on the verse based on another flawed concept. Birds aren't always negative (doves, eagles, sparrows). Take away the idea that birds refer to bad angels and the overwhelming import is that this is a positive parable about the growth of the kingdom from small things.

In the same, way Lee decided that leaven was always negative, and so interpreted the the parable of the leaven negatively. He used the bias against women in the LRC to strengthen this interpretation (a woman hid the leaven!) But the parable of the leaven is likely a positive parable, not a negative one.

This from Smith's Bible Dictionary:

Another quality in leaven is noticed in the Bible, namely, its secretly penetrating and diffusive power. In this respect it was emblematic of moral influence generally, whether good or bad; and hence our Saviour adopts it as illustrating the growth of the kingdom of heaven in the individual heart and in the world at large: because (1) its source is from without; (2) it is secret in its operation; (3) it spreads by contact of particle with particle; (4) it is widely diffusive, one particle of leaven being able to change any number of particles of flour; and because (5) it does not act like water, moistening a certain amount of flour, but is like a plant, changing the particles it comes in contact with into its own nature, with like propagating power.

Ohio · 04-07-2011, 07:00 AM

I see you guys are extending the right hand of fellowship ...

aron · 04-07-2011, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't think [leaven] is always negative. Just like birds aren't always negative.

Lee decided the parable of the mustard seed was negative because he thought birds (of the sky) were negative. But that's forcing a meaning on the verse based on another flawed concept. Birds aren't always negative (doves, eagles, sparrows). Take away the idea that birds refer to bad angels and the overwhelming import is that this is a positive parable about the growth of the kingdom from small things.

Interesting. I had also felt that "birds lodging in the branches" of the great mustard plant in Matthew 13 was also indicative of uncleanness invading the kingdom. But a deeper search does not bear this out.

For instance, in the vision of Daniel chapter 4, with the great tree: "Its leaves were beautiful, its fruit abundant, and on it was food for all. Under it the beasts of the field found shelter, and the birds of the air lived in its branches; from it every creature was fed."

The birds, here, do not seem to carry a negative connotation.

Similarly,Revelation 18, about the fall of Babylon, clearly denotes that the birds are unclean, "With a mighty voice he shouted: "Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great! She has become a home for demons and a haunt for every evil spirit, a haunt for every unclean and detestable bird."

So unless the immediate parable indicates clearly that they are bad, they should not necessarily be understood as that. That is, probably, reading too much into the document. I must look anew at Matthew 13's parables.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

In the same, way Lee decided that leaven was always negative, and so interpreted the the parable of the leaven negatively. He used the bias against women in the LRC to strengthen this interpretation (a woman hid the leaven!) But the parable of the leaven is likely a positive parable, not a negative one.

This from Smith's Bible Dictionary:

Another quality in leaven is noticed in the Bible, namely, its secretly penetrating and diffusive power. In this respect it was emblematic of moral influence generally, whether good or bad; and hence our Saviour adopts it as illustrating the growth of the kingdom of heaven in the individual heart and in the world at large: because (1) its source is from without; (2) it is secret in its operation; (3) it spreads by contact of particle with particle; (4) it is widely diffusive, one particle of leaven being able to change any number of particles of flour; and because (5) it does not act like water, moistening a certain amount of flour, but is like a plant, changing the particles it comes in contact with into its own nature, with like propagating power.

But leaven I had felt to be negative in every instance. Spiritually speaking, you know; like Sueannehill said. So Smith's Bible Dictionary is certainly helpful.

Additionally, I really didn't know anything about making bread. My mind went, "Leaven, bad; flour, good", and that was it.... ZNPaaneah's commentary was certainly eye-opening, for me. It connects with Smith's explanation(and, actually, I think "negative" leaven probably works in the same way. Insidiously, quietly, corrupting from within).

Nonetheless, as stated earlier, I can simply strike Matthew 13's parable from the record, and use another reference; something like Paul's clearly negative association in 1 Cor 5:6 -- "Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough?"(NIV) -- and leave my question out there.

My sense is that the fact that the Nee/Lee "solution" to "degraded christianity" has ended up arguably worse, points to a deeper, systemic issue at hand than the idea of "one city, one church", which had largely been the model anyway when the RCC dominated the land, pre-Reformation.

So Satan snuck something in, which Nee & Lee with all their "normal, New-Testament-based church" teachings did not purge out at all.

Like I said, they don't call Satan the subtle one for nothing.

ZNPaaneah · 04-07-2011, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

You clearly don't get it.

First, your declaration that you don't now what story I am talking about is a ruse, unless you are only putting on a show of intelligence concerning leaven. You know exactly which "story" is being mentioned. It is the one concerning the sowing of the seed. A story about the places that the seed can land and try to grow. It might have been better titled, "The Parable of the Soil."

My point was not a ruse. I feel it was clear and no need to repeat it.

Second, leaven is used in so many places because it speaks about small things put into larger things that causes the larger thing to be altered. And once put in, there is difficulty in extracting it. (In the case of actual leaven, essentially impossible to extract.)

The verse concerning searching to scriptures is not contextually part of the passage about the leaven of the Pharisees. So it is forced upon the discussion. And when something is discovered to be metaphorical or allegorical, that does not automatically bring every possible aspect of that allegory/metaphor into play. There is probably only one aspect of leaven that is in play in this statement. It probably has to do with the things not found in scripture that are being added into their teachings. It might extend to the idea that taking in their teachings was to take in something that will alter your faith and obedience from what it should be (but probably not). The rest of the possible aspects of bread-making could become a Christian self-help book, but that might turn out to just be leaven of 20th/21st century LRC theologians. At least that is where I would start. You don't just bring the whole analogy in. You seek to find how it is meaningful.

I have come to the conclusion that we read the scripture in very different ways. I have yet to see any benefit in reading it in such a narrow way, nor have you convinced me that expanding the allegories brings in error.

And you don't presume verses not in play as relevant to understanding the one you are reading. Take the John 5:39 fortune cookie and the Matt 16:6 fortune cookie and stick them together. NO. Read Matt 16. It has its own words and context. If, after studying Matt 16 for a while, someone were to ask "how might John 5:39 play into the understanding of this?" I might have to answer "I'm not sure. It is not within the context of Matt 16 and therefore not necessarily about the same thing. It might be said that the Pharisees were not doing a very good job of searching the scriptures. But failure to get everything out of it would not be leaven, so I'm still not so sure."

Last, "purge out the old leaven" is not part of the Matt 13 context. So a statement like "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. . . " is to suggest that understanding the irrelevant passage is important. The one parable in Matt 13 that concerns leaven is about adding the kingdom (the leaven) to something else — "humanity" might be a reasonable way to describe the significance of the flour/dough. There is no purging of old leaven involved. No need to understand "purge out the old leaven."

Once again I feel I explained the relevance of looking at the other verses in clear enough detail, it does not require repeating.

And, in short, you have blown by the actual words in Matt 13 and gone to look for something else as the answer. You are too focused on the whole bread-making experience to pay attention to the particular ways that small parts of that process are relevant to the one parable (the kingdom as leaven) and irrelevant to all the others in Matt 13.

I have no idea what you mean, I thought I was agreeing with your interpretation and adding some suport.

And you wonder why I suggest that you are doing exactly what Lee did. It may have actually come about it from a different source, but it is no less like Lee and no less wrong.

Apparently anyone who does not agree with your way of reading the Bible is "wrong". That seems to be a very proud and arrogant attitude to me.

Beware the leaven of Nee, Lee and the LRC. Beware of the leaven of those who have splintered from the LRC yet cling to its leaven.

Well, since you have said that Leaven is equated to the Kingdom of God, what exactly does this mean?

Cal · 04-07-2011, 02:34 PM

The problem I have with Lee's definition of leaven, aron, is that he defined it as mixture. And eventually that meant mixture of an ever-widening array of threatening things with a ever-shrinking base of acceptable things. Eventually, even things such as innocent frivolity and modern music became leaven. Any kind of non-New Way gospel effort was leaven. Pants on women was leaven. The list kept growing.

What it eventually became was paranoia. We lost track of the fact that to the pure all things are pure. Most everything has the potential to be a distraction, but that doesn't mean everything is a distraction. God just isn't that small. Not my God, anyway.

ZNPaaneah · 04-07-2011, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

The problem I have with Lee's definition of leaven, aron, is that he defined it as mixture. And eventually that meant mixture of an ever-widening array of threatening things with a ever-shrinking base of acceptable things. Eventually, even things such as innocent frivolity and modern music became leaven. Any kind of non-New Way gospel effort was leaven. Pants on women was leaven. The list kept growing.

What it eventually became was paranoia. We lost track of the fact that to the pure all things are pure. Most everything has the potential to be a distraction, but that doesn't mean everything is a distraction. God just isn't that small. Not my God, anyway.

I still wonder if there are any verses that truly give a negative connotation to leaven.

ZNPaaneah · 04-07-2011, 04:43 PM

Quote:

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 · 04-07-2011, 06:24 PM

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 · 04-08-2011, 06:07 AM

Quote:

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.

aron · 04-08-2011, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I still wonder if there are any verses that truly give a negative connotation to leaven.

I have found this online discussion to be both fascinating and informative. I am now thinking that perhaps "leaven" can be both negative or positive, depending on if it is "old" or "new"; whether it is the leaven of Jesus or the Pharisees (to give two specific instances).

In both cases, there is an operating from within, a changing of the nature of what has been entered. Just as "poison" and "antidote" may use similar routes to modify body chemistry.

I thank you, ZNPaaneah, for sharing your ideas on bread-making. I never have paid the slightest attention. To me, "leaven" meant "something bad mixed in and ruining what was once good". This perceptual filter prevented me from reading what the actual text is stating, as OBW warns against. At the same time, I feel that just using a rigid grammatical reading of the immediate text to figure out "what they are saying" is to risk losing much of the depth of the story.

What I now try to do is to ask, what is the common knowledge both the speaker/writer and the recipients of the message would have had, which would give weight to the information? What did the messager want/intend the recipients to get from it?

Many passages have begun to change for me. Let me give two examples. First, I grew up on a farm, and gradually I began to realize that the shared agrarian knowledge base of this people would convey meanings which we might miss today. "My sheep hear My voice -- I call them out by name" carries many subtle associatations if you have ever tended a flock. This is similar to ZNPaaneah's bread-making experience.

Also, the whole reading of Revelation, like Daniel before it, can be colored so much by our view of the historical passage of time that we forget there was an immediate message from writer to reader. Even though the writers were in part referring to "things ... to come" they were doing so from a different knowledge/experience base than we possess today.

So Nee/Lee's use of the "historical lens" to interpret the seven epistles to the messengers of the Asian assemblies, for instance, sidesteps what John/Jesus wanted them to get. I don't think the focus was on the Roman Catholic Church! Or the Reformation, or the Brethren, etc. There were spiritual forces at work which flowed through time and would eventually manifest themselves in diverse ways, but John/Jesus was sending a message to the saints which superseded the passage of time.

And these spiritual forces were often represented by images, just as Daniel had done with his visions and Jesus had done with His parables. So if John was telling his readers about a call to "...birds flying in mid-heaven, coming to feast on the flesh of kings and generals" it was understood that they would use their common knowledge base (which includes daily life but especially includes the preceeding scriptures). And yes, it involves logic as well, and conversation among the assembly.

So I end up agreeing with both ZNPaaneah and OBW. And I am also grateful for the "lens of Lee" which I used for a time, and still remains part of my repertoire. My real quibble with Lee et al is that they thought they were doing a PhD when they were really in fourth grade! I suspect we have a ways to go, and dressing anyone's teachings up as "the high peak" is to get diverted, and stuck.

But I digress, I am sure...

Cal · 04-08-2011, 07:11 AM

Quote:

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 · 04-08-2011, 07:58 AM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 04-08-2011, 07:59 AM

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 · 04-08-2011, 11:12 AM

Quote:

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 · 04-08-2011, 12:14 PM

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.

aron · 04-08-2011, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

...both sides are working with this [sifting]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.

The "de-leavening" process may even extend even beyond the reaping angels referred to in Matt. 13:39, who knows?

There is a scene at "the great wedding feast" in Matthew 22:

1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,

2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,

3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.

...

8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.

9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.

10 So those servants [i.e. the reaping angels in Matt 13:39] went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.

11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:

12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.

13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

As a believer, and ostensible disciple of Jesus, I find such words to be quite sobering.

On a related note, I thought for years that the epistle of Jude and 2 Peter chapter 2 were composed by raving paranoiacs. "filthy dreamers...waterless clouds feasting among you...wandering stars...", indeed! Don't these guys realize this is the church!?!? Nothing but lovers of Jesus here!

Today, I am like, Wow. Too heavy.

aron · 04-11-2011, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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.

"There was war in heaven..." Revelation chapter 12

In this war, there is a lot of close-in fighting, mingling, and deception. We, of course, should be pure, but only Jesus truly fulfilled His mission by being pure to the end. "The ruler of this world is coming, and he has no power or claim over Me". (John 14)

The rest of us are to fulfill our mission by repenting and believing into Jesus Christ, and receiving life in His name. Then, we are promised that if we endure to the end, we will be saved (cf Matt. ch 10).

But the tempter continually comes to attempt to turn even the saints from the true path (Mark 13, Matt 24). He tries to disguise his ministers as angels of light. (2 Cor 11)

And look at the armies! Jesus allowed Satan to lodge even among the Twelve. "I chose you, but one of you has a devil" (John 6). And then Peter left God's call and a dark stream of curses exited his mouth as he denied the true Christ. Yet Jesus prayed for him, so that eventually Peter repented and came back, and strengthened the brothers. (Luke 22)

I find this so interesting: there seems to be a continual sifting, with the light sifting through and redeeming the darkness, and the darkness creeping in and sifting the kingdom of light. The angels I don't see "switching sides" at all; once the fallen angels are in Satan's realm they are done. Likewise God's hosts never seem to sway or falter in carrying out their mission. The muddy humans, on the other hand, seem to go back and forth. Sin, repentance, sin, repentance.

"When the light becomes darkness, how great is the darkness!" (Luke 11).We who claim the kingdom of light should ever be wary of the subtle one, who continually endeavors to snare us. But we are not ignorant of his schemes.

And on the other hand, there are many encouraging stories, like Christ praying for Peter, so that we should never give up hope, either for ourselves or one another. "Rescue others by snatching them from the flames of judgment. Show mercy to still others, but do so with great caution, hating the sins that contaminate their lives." (Jude)

The battle rages. But Jesus, the Prince of Peace, is surely the victor. His resurrection is a testimony to the world, that the battle's course is set. "It is finished!" (John 19)

ZNPaaneah · 04-11-2011, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

"There was war in heaven..." Revelation chapter 12

In this war, there is a lot of close-in fighting, mingling, and deception. We, of course, should be pure, but only Jesus truly fulfilled His mission by being pure to the end. "The ruler of this world is coming, and he has no power or claim over Me". (John 14)

The rest of us are to fulfill our mission by repenting and believing into Jesus Christ, and receiving life in His name. Then, we are promised that if we endure to the end, we will be saved (cf Matt. ch 10).

But the tempter continually comes to attempt to turn even the saints from the true path (Mark 13, Matt 24). He tries to disguise his ministers as angels of light. (2 Cor 11)

And look at the armies! Jesus allowed Satan to lodge even among the Twelve. "I chose you, but one of you has a devil" (John 6). And then Peter left God's call and a dark stream of curses exited his mouth as he denied the true Christ. Yet Jesus prayed for him, so that eventually Peter repented and came back, and strengthened the brothers. (Luke 22)

I find this so interesting: there seems to be a continual sifting, with the light sifting through and redeeming the darkness, and the darkness creeping in and sifting the kingdom of light. The angels I don't see "switching sides" at all; once the fallen angels are in Satan's realm they are done. Likewise God's hosts never seem to sway or falter in carrying out their mission. The muddy humans, on the other hand, seem to go back and forth. Sin, repentance, sin, repentance.

"When the light becomes darkness, how great is the darkness!" (Luke 11).We who claim the kingdom of light should ever be wary of the subtle one, who continually endeavors to snare us. But we are not ignorant of his schemes.

And on the other hand, there are many encouraging stories, like Christ praying for Peter, so that we should never give up hope, either for ourselves or one another. "Rescue others by snatching them from the flames of judgment. Show mercy to still others, but do so with great caution, hating the sins that contaminate their lives." (Jude)

The battle rages. But Jesus, the Prince of Peace, is surely the victor. His resurrection is a testimony to the world, that the battle's course is set. "It is finished!" (John 19)

Yes, and it gets better, hiding leaven in flour is for bread, so the battle could be over what we eat (is it poisoned, is it tainted? -- Beware the leaven of the pharisees), sowing the seeds is our vocation, just as finding a pearl of great worth or a treasure hidden in a field, or the tares. So the kingdom is like Bakers, Farmers, Fishermen, etc. Again, you cannot understand a single parable without also looking at the whole chapter, the whole gospel and the whole NT.

NeitherFirstnorLast · 04-11-2011, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

"There was war in heaven..." Revelation chapter 12

In this war, there is a lot of close-in fighting, mingling, and deception. We, of course, should be pure, but only Jesus truly fulfilled His mission by being pure to the end. "The ruler of this world is coming, and he has no power or claim over Me". (John 14)

The rest of us are to fulfill our mission by repenting and believing into Jesus Christ, and receiving life in His name. Then, we are promised that if we endure to the end, we will be saved (cf Matt. ch 10).

But the tempter continually comes to attempt to turn even the saints from the true path (Mark 13, Matt 24). He tries to disguise his ministers as angels of light. (2 Cor 11)

And look at the armies! Jesus allowed Satan to lodge even among the Twelve. "I chose you, but one of you has a devil" (John 6). And then Peter left God's call and a dark stream of curses exited his mouth as he denied the true Christ. Yet Jesus prayed for him, so that eventually Peter repented and came back, and strengthened the brothers. (Luke 22)

I find this so interesting: there seems to be a continual sifting, with the light sifting through and redeeming the darkness, and the darkness creeping in and sifting the kingdom of light. The angels I don't see "switching sides" at all; once the fallen angels are in Satan's realm they are done. Likewise God's hosts never seem to sway or falter in carrying out their mission. The muddy humans, on the other hand, seem to go back and forth. Sin, repentance, sin, repentance.

"When the light becomes darkness, how great is the darkness!" (Luke 11).We who claim the kingdom of light should ever be wary of the subtle one, who continually endeavors to snare us. But we are not ignorant of his schemes.

And on the other hand, there are many encouraging stories, like Christ praying for Peter, so that we should never give up hope, either for ourselves or one another. "Rescue others by snatching them from the flames of judgment. Show mercy to still others, but do so with great caution, hating the sins that contaminate their lives." (Jude)

The battle rages. But Jesus, the Prince of Peace, is surely the victor. His resurrection is a testimony to the world, that the battle's course is set. "It is finished!" (John 19)

Call me old fashioned, but I have to give this a heart-felt "Amen!"

The enemy prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking whomever he might devour. Like wolves in sheeps clothing, the seed of the serpent infiltrates the flock to devour the very sheep of the fold. When it comes to our Christian walk, we must take nothing for granted.

Fix your eyes upon Jesus and trust in Him and His Word; and be ever vigilant against the schemes of the Devil. I believe that it is for this reason that we are commanded to "work out our own salvation with fear and trembling"; a far cry from just calling on His name and "eating Him".

NeitherFirstnorLast

NeitherFirstnorLast · 04-11-2011, 03:45 PM

Quote:

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?

Ohio · 04-12-2011, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

The angels I don't see "switching sides" at all; once the fallen angels are in Satan's realm they are done. Likewise God's hosts never seem to sway or falter in carrying out their mission. The muddy humans, on the other hand, seem to go back and forth. Sin, repentance, sin, repentance.

God is so merciful to us muddy, wishy-washy humans!

aron · 04-12-2011, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

The enemy prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking whomever he might devour. Like wolves in sheeps clothing, the seed of the serpent infiltrates the flock to devour the very sheep of the fold.

I cannot tell how often I have been such a one. Probably much more than I realize!! So a "repentant spirit" is really a requisite, to be saved from the "wolf" spirit.

There were good, observant, orthodox, religious Jews there, in Galilee and Jerusalem, who would probably put most of us to shame with their living. But they didn't want to repent. Ultimately, they were straining gnats and swallowing camels.

The enemy is really very clever. He can insinuate himself into the most benign thought, and the most good intention. So over the past couple of years I have worked very hard to simplify my program. I am no longer interested in high peaks of abstruse theology.

The ones who made it out of Egypt and into the promised land were simple. They had a mission from God. "Enter the good land and posses it". They were not distracted by heat, drought, giants, or golden calves. Their hearts were fixed on God's commandment, and thus their brains were cleared of foolish thinking.

I am learning to be simple. God loves me so much He sent His Beloved Son. I need to repent and believe into Jesus. Jesus told us to love God and love one another. Jesus said to forgive one another and God will forgive us.

If we focus on theology, or various "works" or "moves" or "ministries", we end up quarreling with one another. I see this as failure. Jesus taught us to be one with one another, just as He and the Father are one. You never saw Jesus and the Father arguing over theology.

So today I am encouraged by my mission statement. "God loves us and sent His Son. Love God; love the person next to you. Believe into Jesus Christ and be saved."

You would not believe how many times I say this stuff to myself over and over again. I want to cleanse my brain.

aron · 04-12-2011, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

God is so merciful to us muddy, wishy-washy humans!

The key is to be merciful. Remember the parable of the unmerciful steward. God withdrew His mercy from such a one. (Matthew chapter 18)

"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us."

"As you do unto others, so shall it be done to you".

So if we are merciful to the muddy, wishy-washy people around us, and God will indeed be so merciful to us as well.

Thank You Father God for Your mercy.

06-19-2009, 07:34 AM	#1
aron Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Natal Transvaal Posts: 5,629	The introduction of leaven 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. __________________ "Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'

06-19-2009, 12:19 PM	#2
YP0534 Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 688	Re: The introduction of leaven 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? __________________ Let each walk as the Lord has distributed to each, as God has called each, and in this manner I instruct all the assemblies. 1 Cor. 7:17

06-19-2009, 02:14 PM	#3
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,794	Re: The introduction of leaven 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!

06-19-2009, 02:27 PM	#4
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: The introduction of leaven 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? __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

06-20-2009, 08:42 AM	#6
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: The introduction of leaven 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. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

06-20-2009, 09:04 AM	#7
Timotheist Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 424	Re: The introduction of leaven 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.

06-20-2009, 01:38 PM	#8
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: The introduction of leaven 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). __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

06-21-2009, 09:59 AM	#11
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: The introduction of leaven 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. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

06-24-2009, 10:09 AM	#37
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: The introduction of leaven YP, I understand your points. And they warrant consideration. First, to get this Antioch thing out of the way, virtually all of the maps of Paul’s first missionary journey show an Antioch which was at a certain place in Galatia. It was identified in the verses you mentioned as being a string of places that he went back through on the way home. Since he would not have jumped over to Syria then back to Galatia, the city in that region is almost certainly the one being mentioned as it falls in order. All mentions of Antioch prior to that journey were of the one in Syria. If those in Jerusalem were writing to the place that Paul treated as his home base, then it was the city in Syria. It’s not really so muddy. But back to the actual topic concerning elders, it would seem that you simply distrust the entire account as reflecting something positive from God. You have now even questioned the appointing of the deacons as indicating a flaw in the apostles' character. (I presume that you actually wash other’s feet, feed widows and orphans, etc. Or do you pay another to do it, such as an organization that feeds the hungry in Africa.) When the world observes the actions of the church in this day, do you think that the fact that not every person is involved in every ministry diminishes their care for those ministries or the testimony of the church? And if an organization is actually feeding the hungry (whether widows and orphans or just the homeless on the streets of your city) are persons who help organize and see that it actually happens considered of lesser importance or connection to the activity because they are not the ones who might actually be standing in the soup kitchen with a ladle? Did Luke suggest a negative thing when he recorded that the apostles and elders sent a letter to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia? It would seem that these men (the apostles and elders who were the ones sending the letter) wrote to the whole of the believers. How does that demean the elders in any location or deny them their “position.” It would seem that when they called themselves “brothers” and then wrote to everyone that they were admitting to the perceived authority they might or might not actually hold, but that they considered themselves brothers and that they were writing to all the believers and not just some similarly situated authorities. I cannot find the flaw in the NT record that you seem to see. I see plenty of flaw in what flawed humans have done with the NT on many subjects, not the least of which has been leadership. But in any group, there will be leadership. Even in an informal gathering of people, there eventually begins to be one or two that will stand out as the one(s) that the others follow. The one(s) that suggest the next time they are going to get together. You can buck it if you want. But the result will either be discord or you will become a/the leader. And in a spiritual context, the natural leader may not be the best choice. Having some guidelines for the willful selection of leaders is quite helpful if something more that a type A personality is required. It would appear that God stopped Paul from participating in that purification vow. But he did not stop him from setting up elders. And those 7 letters at the beginning of Revelation would have been a good time to mention the eldership thing. Not a word. But the next chapter has 24 elders sitting on 24 thrones with 24 golden crowns. Now this does not indicate that these were “elders” of churches or “elders” of the Jewish tradition. It just says they are there. And yes, why did Jesus select 12 for his inner circle? But I think it is recorded that he sent out 70 at one point. So there were the 12, plus another 58, plus how many others who followed regularly? Do we just say it was what happened? Did it have meaning as it was done to those whom he called, selected and sent? Did this tie into Jewish practice? Would this be meaningful to those very Jewish men? Would Jesus have expected them to practice just as he did? Or do we presume that it just happened and those same 12 (well, 11) made something out of it that was not? It seems to me that you are trying to find the error captured in scripture so that we can have a clear scriptural basis for dealing with it. I think the basis already exists. The leader is a servant. The first shall be last. Love God and your neighbor as yourself. When you find "leaders" outside of these and other principles, then they are not spiritual leaders. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

06-24-2009, 11:28 AM	#39
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: The introduction of leaven YP, Sorry if I seemed to just be attacking your position. While I might have some problem with it, when I posed most of my post as a series of questions, it was to ask those questions. I do not ask them because I presume the answers. I might honestly lean toward one answer over another. But if I thought I was that sure about it, I would have simply stated. I admit that the number of those questions that needs to be answered contrary to what some might consider the "mainstream" answer (whether orthodoxy is or is not the correct term) suggests one direction. But I am also willing to entertain the notion that there is both good and bad in the accounts. But I need more than the fact that all in Asia left Paul or there are denominations today. (And that is not all you have mentioned. I'm just not yet seeing the linkage.) You may be correct that appointing elders may not have been intended as prescriptive. But if the alternative means doing nothing, the result is not a unity of equals, but a rising of the "natural leader" to the task. It may have been "a" way to do it. Maybe there are others. Actually, in many cases today, there are no outsiders appointing elders, pastors, or whatevers in local assemblies. We are already in a different mode. It has its own advantages and disadvantages. Might it be better to critique actual instances as examples to follow or avoid? More questions. Still no answers. I'm not suggesting you or I should supply them. But asking questions is good. Even your questions. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

06-25-2009, 01:59 PM	#56
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: The introduction of leaven Aron, I will not quote your post, but do feel to make a couple of comments. First, my goal in the post was more in the line of asking questions to expand the thinking, or at least determine that the areas I mentioned had been considered. When I suggested that the appointment of deacons was being dismissed “out of hand” I was pointing at the fact that only a negative motive followed by more negative considerations were given. But the account (albeit from the even-handed Luke) does not indicate a problem with doing it, but a problem if it was not. We need more than supposition to make the kind of remarks about the apostles and elders that YP was suggesting. I did not think he was really that strong about it. But it had that kind of sound when my wife starts into one of her “everything is wrong” funks. The cure for that is often an intentional look outside of the black hole that has your attention. Concerning those who have organizational responsibilities for some work of service, I have to presume that you are playing devil’s advocate when you mention corporate inefficiencies as a reason against that. I would admit that if someone has taken a “position” with a service activity but contributes nothing of substance to the organization other than their appearance so that they are seen by men as doing a “good deed” then they have their reward. Let me know if you did not understand what I actually meant in the original post. Your examples of flaws recorded in the NT concerning leadership are all part of the training that Jesus provided them while he was alive. It is all pre-crucifixion. They aren’t yet in charge. James and John showed up their ambition (just as Peter constantly tried to stand out and stuck his foot in his mouth) and Jesus put them in place. It was in this context that some of the significant words about the attitude of a leader were given. You are correct that man’s natural inclination toward order and leadership is based on a human model of natural ability and efficiency. (On this last point, I note that there is a lot of flack concerning “para-church” organizations doing some of the service activities because there is too much emphasis on doing it like a corporation and being humanly efficient. I’m a little conflicted on that position. On one hand, I see a value to using the resources (time, effort, money, etc.,) effectively and efficiently. But I also see a need to involve more people in “getting their hands dirty” in service which might beg for a little inefficiency.) That does not mean that order and/or leadership are not needed. But the leadership has a somewhat different task than that of the corporate world. I agree that we do not have a clear picture of “the way” to both become and be leaders in the church. We do have “biblical” principles. And we have ample bad examples to consider (more in current times than in scripture). And if we look around, there are good examples. Besides some possibilities in your area, I am beginning to think that John Myer demonstrated exceptional leadership when he chose to avoid the LSM’s lawsuit and let the rascals have whatever they demanded. It also demonstrates the error of the LSM. As for Dorcas, if she had been around in 2008 and after in the Irving area, she might have found herself on the ministry team at our assembly. That would mean that she would be part of the team that actually plans and discusses the upcoming sermons and will occasionally be the one who gives it. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

06-26-2009, 06:32 AM	#61
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: The introduction of leaven First, I’m a little surprised that you would determine that the return of Christ is dictated by man and delayed by his lack of proper organizational skills. But more than that, I am a little befuddled that the fact that there was any kind of organization, whether apostles, elders, deacons, or whatever we flawed humans turned it into over time, is suggested as the cause of the problems we see today in the whole of Christianity. And then you mention that it might have helped Lee do what he did to the LC. Actually, it was a willful ruse that there was not an organization while that man (and his deputies) hid behind the curtain and caused the Great and Mighty Oz to appear on the screen that caused the LC’s problems. Organization did not cause the RCC’s errors. The false belief that there was a succession of supreme leaders starting with Peter and passing through the various popes did it. If there is one who is God’s deputy on earth, then whatever he says must be true. If the one that rises to power is an unregenerated fool, then the changes could be devastating. Surely the appointment of elders will not be blamed for Ephesus’ loss of its first love. But neither did elders stop the decline. Elders didn’t invite Jezebel, but neither did they throw her out. It may have been more that they were unwilling to stand up to error and instead abdicated their responsibility. That suggests a lack of leadership. So we won’t have elders. Got a better solution? Do you propose that lack of clear leadership will successfully keep Hitler out of leadership? The “madly ambitious” tend to rise to power in a vacuum. And how does Babylon fit into this? The problem is that so far I have seen a lot of correlation. There were errors and mistakes and there were elders. There also were members of the body of Christ. If we just have no members of the body of Christ, then the body of Christ will not be lead into error. Find a causal link. I have not seen one suggested. I have only seen correlation. Might as well determine that the fact that airplanes are allowed to fly in the sky is the reason for the 9/11 attacks. Yeah, I know. That’s way off base. But have you done anything more than fret about the appointment of elders and deacons and the separate observation of errors in the church? If you want to do an “Emerging Church” kind of conversation that talks about things for 20 years but comes to no conclusions, have at it. Otherwise, either find a link or cease. Just suggesting that there might be a link is getting old. This is not the first time it has come up and I don’t recall that there has yet been a causal link found. How long do we continue to search for something that may not be there? When do we decide that it is negative research and conclude that we have found nothing and that more time spent will just find more nothing? I do not think that questioning the Bible is a bad thing. But it should eventually lead to something. It should help us ferret out our errors, or strengthen our faith as we discover that what we previously accepted based on the word of another is seen fully by our own inquiry. But there should be a limit to endless doubt and angst. If this continually revisited issue does not begin to conclude, then it seems to suggest a desire to find fault but no ability to succeed at that goal. I do not say that you are willfully trying to fault the existence of elders and deacons, but rather that you are unwilling to accept that a lengthy yet unsuccessful search for proof of that fault should say something. Now you know my position. Carry on as you will. If you come up with something, that will be good. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

06-26-2009, 11:08 AM	#64
YP0534 Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 688	Re: The introduction of leaven Apparently, not that this is anything more than a "coincidence", but Ignatius of "Antioch" appears to be stating these offices fairly formally as early as 110 A.D. http://www.catholic.com/library/Bish...and_Deacon.asp There may not be a complete historical record upon which to delineate a "beyond a shadow of a doubt" certainty about the origins of hierarchy but there seems to be reasonably good evidence that such existed while the apostles were still alive. Without express approbation somewhere, I submit it was with their assent and approval, if not at their initiation as I have suggested. But I think that might be done with this particular topic for now. Thanks to all! __________________ Let each walk as the Lord has distributed to each, as God has called each, and in this manner I instruct all the assemblies. 1 Cor. 7:17

06-26-2009, 12:02 PM	#65
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: The introduction of leaven aron & YP, I know I seem a little perturbed. I do not doubt that there are problems to be found in what we do with leadership. And today's leadership is all over the place in terms of how it is carried out. If you think you can find something, then I'm all for it and will gladly take it when when it comes. Yes, YP, I have become a little impatient. I understand the process of contemplation. I do not have an answer that I need to defend. But when it seems that there is perpetually a question about whether the appointment of elders may be some cause of a problem but never anything that supports it beyond being a question to ask, then it begins to come across as an innuendo that taints without being an established fact that can be discussed. (A sort of "when did you stop beating your wife" question.) I mention the Emerging Church "conversation" because they do not like to be called a movement since they are just discussing some questions about faith. But the same questions keep getting asked going on 20 plus years now, but when someone suggests an answer, they cry "foul," say they have not arrived at an answer, and keep everything in perpetual limbo as they converse. At some point, this discussion will become the same kind of unsolved "black hole" that many of the questions the Emergents ask have become. I do not see Christ's life as being 33-1/2 years, or the fact that we are now almost 2,000 years since Christ as relevant to whether the question should simply remain on the table perpetually because you can't find basis to prove or disprove a hypothesis. "I understand you, but let us contemplate it some more anyway" is an OK answer. It surely is not a matter of my will over yours. Do you keep doing research on the legal point for which there just doesn't seem to be anything? When do you stop? (rhetorical; no need to answer) I'm not telling you to stop. Just suggesting that some boundaries be put on the inquiry. For me, those boundaries seem to have been exceeded. But then I am about to bow out (as if I hadn't done so some time back but refused to simply "go away"). __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

07-02-2009, 06:10 PM	#68
YP0534 Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 688	Witness Lee on Acts 6 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 that his praise of Steven and Philip is essentially my criticism of the 12 and 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. __________________ Let each walk as the Lord has distributed to each, as God has called each, and in this manner I instruct all the assemblies. 1 Cor. 7:17

04-01-2011, 11:06 AM	#73
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: The introduction of leaven 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. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

04-03-2011, 02:02 PM	#75
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: The introduction of leaven As I read the whole of chapter 13 of Matthew, I see a beginning that speaks of a scattering of seed (the Word) that finds both fertile and infertile places to try to grow. Then there is the parable of the weeds (tares) where Jesus basically instructed that to the extent that the wrong crops are found in the field, they should not be uprooted because that will uproot the good crops. So at this point, you have the seed being scattered everywhere, and you have bad seed scattered in among the good seed. Opposite issues. The is the parable of the Mustard seed which looks at the rather odd nature of a particularly small seed that in that environment resulted in a woody shrub of such stature that it was often 12 feet tall or so and birds, even fairly large ones, did roost in its "branches." Not an anomaly. This is the regular, everyday truth to the people to whom Jesus was speaking. So how do you read a parable in which the words "The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into about sixty pounds of flour until it worked all through the dough"? You could argue that something bad is put into something good. But since it is described as worked "throughout," and it is understood that leaven results in the permanent alteration of the nature of the thing it is put into (dough, grape juice, etc.) then you would need to have a theology that causes the Kingdom of God to be permanently changed by the introduction of something evil. Now you may find that what we think is the present, earthly representation of the kingdom of God can be altered in appearance. But the true kingdom of God is never altered. So no matter how this parable could be interpreted, it would seem that this particular interpretation stands in opposition to the truth of God. So that leaves us with the alternative reading. The kingdom is the leaven. It is added to the dough (humanity?) and it slowly changes it all. Yes, you can argue that much of humanity will never be altered. But that is not entirely true. God was sown into humanity and even those who will not take His grace and follow will ultimately be affected. The one sown into humanity proclaimed a sentence on sin and its author. From that time until it is finished, everything is slowly working to and changing toward that conclusion. But there are many ways to understand this parable from the side of "the kingdom is the leaven" that are consistent with the whole of this chapter. To read it that the dough is the kingdom and it is inundated with something evil (leaven) just seems to stand in stark contrast to the "reality" of the kingdom. It makes the kingdom into something powerless and even altered by the evil into which it comes. Christ came into the evil. The evil did not come into Christ. And if Christ is the kingdom, while we can talk about spending time trying to reach the "fish" that will ultimately reject the message and be tossed aside, there is nothing evil being added to the kingdom of God that will chemically change its nature. These other parables, of the weeds and of the great catch of fish, speak well to the nature of things that surround the kingdom but do not change its nature. I believe that understanding the parable of the leaven as about something evil/bad altering the kingdom itself to be contrary to everything else that we learn concerning the kingdom. I will once again bow out. If you disagree, I cannot say that it is because I have not made my case clearly enough. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

04-03-2011, 05:16 PM	#76
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: The introduction of leaven 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.

04-04-2011, 05:39 AM	#77
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: The introduction of leaven 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. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

04-04-2011, 07:18 PM	#81
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: The introduction of leaven 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. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

04-04-2011, 07:26 PM	#82
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: The introduction of leaven 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? __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

04-07-2011, 06:00 AM	#89
Suannehill Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: North of Mansfield Ohio Posts: 165	Re: The introduction of leaven By tradition and teaching...leaven is negative in both Christian and Jewish faiths. We can't avoid leaven on this earth. As a baker of yeast breads since a child I can tell you that yeast is everywhere. In fact, that's what sourdough bread is...wild yeast...just expose it to the air. Vinegar is made with wild yeast from the air and don't forget our bodies, some of the most resistant infections are yeast. So, it's easy to see positive and and negative aspects of yeast. However, spiritually...yeast is negative. __________________ http://godswordtowomen.org/Lesson%201.htm

04-07-2011, 06:18 AM	#91
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: The introduction of leaven You clearly don't get it. First, your declaration that you don't now what story I am talking about is a ruse, unless you are only putting on a show of intelligence concerning leaven. You know exactly which "story" is being mentioned. It is the one concerning the sowing of the seed. A story about the places that the seed can land and try to grow. It might have been better titled, "The Parable of the Soil." Second, leaven is used in so many places because it speaks about small things put into larger things that causes the larger thing to be altered. And once put in, there is difficulty in extracting it. (In the case of actual leaven, essentially impossible to extract.) The verse concerning searching to scriptures is not contextually part of the passage about the leaven of the Pharisees. So it is forced upon the discussion. And when something is discovered to be metaphorical or allegorical, that does not automatically bring every possible aspect of that allegory/metaphor into play. There is probably only one aspect of leaven that is in play in this statement. It probably has to do with the things not found in scripture that are being added into their teachings. It might extend to the idea that taking in their teachings was to take in something that will alter your faith and obedience from what it should be (but probably not). The rest of the possible aspects of bread-making could become a Christian self-help book, but that might turn out to just be leaven of 20th/21st century LRC theologians. At least that is where I would start. You don't just bring the whole analogy in. You seek to find how it is meaningful. And you don't presume verses not in play as relevant to understanding the one you are reading. Take the John 5:39 fortune cookie and the Matt 16:6 fortune cookie and stick them together. NO. Read Matt 16. It has its own words and context. If, after studying Matt 16 for a while, someone were to ask "how might John 5:39 play into the understanding of this?" I might have to answer "I'm not sure. It is not within the context of Matt 16 and therefore not necessarily about the same thing. It might be said that the Pharisees were not doing a very good job of searching the scriptures. But failure to get everything out of it would not be leaven, so I'm still not so sure." Last, "purge out the old leaven" is not part of the Matt 13 context. So a statement like "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. . . " is to suggest that understanding the irrelevant passage is important. The one parable in Matt 13 that concerns leaven is about adding the kingdom (the leaven) to something else — "humanity" might be a reasonable way to describe the significance of the flour/dough. There is no purging of old leaven involved. No need to understand "purge out the old leaven." And, in short, you have blown by the actual words in Matt 13 and gone to look for something else as the answer. You are too focused on the whole bread-making experience to pay attention to the particular ways that small parts of that process are relevant to the one parable (the kingdom as leaven) and irrelevant to all the others in Matt 13. And you wonder why I suggest that you are doing exactly what Lee did. It may have actually come about it from a different source, but it is no less like Lee and no less wrong. Beware the leaven of Nee, Lee and the LRC. Beware of the leaven of those who have splintered from the LRC yet cling to its leaven. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

04-07-2011, 07:00 AM	#93
Ohio Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greater Ohio Posts: 13,654	Re: The introduction of leaven I see you guys are extending the right hand of fellowship ... __________________ Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

04-07-2011, 02:34 PM	#96
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,330	Re: The introduction of leaven The problem I have with Lee's definition of leaven, aron, is that he defined it as mixture. And eventually that meant mixture of an ever-widening array of threatening things with a ever-shrinking base of acceptable things. Eventually, even things such as innocent frivolity and modern music became leaven. Any kind of non-New Way gospel effort was leaven. Pants on women was leaven. The list kept growing. What it eventually became was paranoia. We lost track of the fact that to the pure all things are pure. Most everything has the potential to be a distraction, but that doesn't mean everything is a distraction. God just isn't that small. Not my God, anyway.

04-07-2011, 06:24 PM	#99
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,330	Re: The introduction of leaven 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.

04-08-2011, 07:59 AM	#104
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,330	Re: Read the whole chapter!!! 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.

04-08-2011, 12:14 PM	#106
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: Read the whole chapter!!! 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.