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.