[aron]

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...