Bible Study The hijacking of the Faith

[Sinthesis]

"About the Son of God, post: 1088358, member: 4152"]OK. I'm game.



There are no commas in Greek and word order does not determine subjects of sentences in Greek. It is your decision, or the translators decision to insert a comma after mustard seed.

I could translate the sentence just as accurately:

Matthew 13:31 Another parable he put forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of God is like a man having taken a seed of mustard and sown it in his garden. ( The rest of the parable explains how the kingdom of heaven is like a field or garden that has an incredibly virulent mustard seed growing in it, it is growing faster than even the mightiest of weeds, but the word garden is or isn't mentioned depending on the version of the bible that you read. )

Please NOTE: The word, man, and the word kingdom are both in the nominative case in Greek -- therefore they are agreeable subjects of the parable regardless of word order. The mustard seed is a 'dative clause' of the sentence and is therefore relative to the kingdom and is absolutely not the subject of the parable.

I'll say it again without greeky grammar speak: A kingdom is not a kingdom without a king.
A mustard seed can't be the whole kingdom of heaven all by itself.

And the observant bible reader will realize that Kings like to plant gardens with mustard seed as one of the crops.
So in my honest opinion, from my heart of hearts -- A single tree is about as much of a garden, as a single vine is a vineyard.

If Israel was a vineyard that God planted to make wine, then it makes sense that the church is a garden chock full of mustard seed. But a single plant is not the whole kingdom.

The man, the mustard seed, the soil, and the grain are all part of the parables -- but none of them is the entire kingdom by itself. They are each just glancing images that emphasize only one aspect of the kingdom, and not the whole of it.

I agree with you that the parable about the mustard seed shows how greatly it Grew; for that is the nature of Faith:
Jesus tells us repetitively that a mustard seed is "Faith". Matthew 17:20-21
May we all have faith the size of a mustard seed.

But even the parable of the mustard seed is about death; for only when a seed falls into the ground and dies can it provide a rich harvest. John 12:24

I'm thankful for your willingness to share your facility with the Greek language. I largely agree with what you say about the mustard seed parable. I believe Jesus is comparing and contrasting what His ministry will produce with the failed example of Babylon given in Daniel 4.​

I still don't see it. It's too fine of a point.

That's OK.
​

Leaven uncooked always end in corruption elsewhere in the bible, so why all the sudden is raw leaven, uneaten, a good thing ?

You're taking the parable too far. Leaven can be good or bad depending on the context.
​

At least the mustard seed in the parable grew into something which birds nested in, or found shade under.

The leaven in the parable grew to change the lump. Our only contention is if this is good or bad.
​

But the leaven in the parable was never said to have done anyone any good, at all; it merely put on a big show and ended totally unfinished and more importantly uneaten. God apparently never put it in his mouth, because he was in a hurry to go somewhere else and not finish the parable -- just like the three angels left Sarah in a rush, and it never says they ate her cake either.

I'm not saying God couldn't eat it -- I'm just saying the parable was left unfinished.

Why do you believe Jesus chose to end the parable where He did?​

The kingdom of heaven as it is now, on earth, the vineyard, and the field, is going to be destroyed on the day of judgment. We should not say that those loyal to God, or those having faith, are going to be corrupted, I agree.

But; How can a Christian not believe that corruption and teachers who tickle peoples ears will not somehow be 'in' the church?

I don't believe or disbelieve, I know that the kingdom of heaven on earth is going to end and am not sure how leaven fits into what is 'inside' the kingdom of heaven on earth. ( Was Judas one of our number -- yes he was -- or else scripture could not be fulfilled. )

I suppose our eschatological viewpoints are affecting how we interpret the parable. (Judas was not a Christian as there were no Christians before the resurrection.)​

Oh boy... you know it's the same two angels, you realize that this is just a matter of hours after Abraham and Sarah cooked for those same two angels, and you still doubt that Abraham and Sarah produced unleavened cakes?

Maybe they did, maybe the didn't. It doesn't specify which.​

I mean, who do you think taught Lot to cook ?! It was Sarah and Abraham who had been raising Lot as a child. I'l agree that we do not know for absolute sure that the cakes were unleavened.

Yep.​

But -- unless Sarah pulled a quick one, and hid some leaven in there without telling us or Abraham -- there's no reason to believe the cake was leavened. Abraham didn't tell her to leaven it. But what is surely known, is that the three angels didn't eat it, they ate only Abraham's cooking of meat, milk, and butter -- for Sarah was still in the tent cooking when they judged her denial of mocking them, and left her without so much as tasting a morsel of HER bread. ( Genesis 18:9-16 )

We don't know, but unleavened bread was about speed, so Sarah must have been a slow cook if the calf had already been killed, dressed, and cooked before she could whip up some flatbread, unless she was waiting for leaven to rise...​

Did they take some of the bread for the journey ? Scripture doesn't say.

Sandwiches? Donuts? Bagels!​

There is a perfect place for the Apostles to have said, use the kingdom's leaven and not the Pharisees leaven; It's here -- but notice what's missing:

1Corinthians 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
1Corinthians 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

I'm a sincere Christian, Sinthesis. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't see how you miss 1Corinthians with respect to who I AM ? I, myself, am unleavened, even if it's old fashioned. You may be ANYTHING you choose, I will not condemn you; but I prefer to be unleavened with my Lord.

I've never accused you of being anything more or less than a sincere Christian. I trust you extend the same courtesy to me.

Much of the apostles' work was concerned with effecting the transition from Jewish/Pagan doctrine to Christian doctrine. This was not instantaneous, anymore than our personal conversion to Christianity instantly removes all our daily struggles. The first step is like the Baptism of John (death/repentance of the old life to make straight the way for the new life) or a purge of the old legal leaven so that in sincerity and truth we can accept the new spiritual leaven of Christ, similar to how Christ was baptized before the Holy Spirit settled on Him. This is all analogy, where as believers we repent of our old life so that we approach the communion feast unleavened, but having taken communion, are now leavened by the Holy Spirit.​

The new wine, and wine-skins, are things which show biblically that leavening does indeed have a place in the new covenant. The parables in Matthew assuredly do emphasize the mustard seed itself, and the leaven itself. So -- I'm not judging you here, I'm simply talking about a preference and saying there is a deeper relationship that needs to be explored.

I know that there is a way which leavening can be applied even to the bread which can not possibly end in corruption. And I know that some people are skilled enough to give even house cats baths -- but others are not. I think were at the not quite skilled enough stage in this thread regarding leavening....

I believe our eschatology affects how we interpret the bible. From this, whenever possible, I choose to see how Jesus and Christianity have and are changing things in a positive light. Naturally this means challenging many common assumptions such as 'leaven is always bad'. Suppose a measure of leaven is given us as a free gift from God?​

 

[JohnD]

Let's try again.

From the study on Matthew 13 by Chuck Missler - Koinonia Misnistries

"The Mustard Tree"

In Israel the winter rains were late this year (April 1994) so the land was lush and green with wild flowers abounding. Along the roadsides, there were continual clumps of small bushes with bright yellow flowers that, like almost everything else in Israel, carried some Biblical insights for us.
Ruthie Geva, our guide, pointed out to us that these ubiquitous plants are the famed "mustard" plants frequently alluded to in the Bible. The remarkable thing about them is that they grow as bushes,about 3 or 4 feet high. This surprised many of the inquisitive pilgrims on our tour since we all remember the parable in Matthew 13 where this bush grew into a tree that provided a refuge for the birds in its branches. (Birds are rarely attracted to a bush only 4 feet high!)

The puzzling character of these parables (in Matthew 13) is no more evident than in the Mustard "Tree." Despite the well-meaning Bible dictionaries that attempt to link this parable to various flora of the Middle East, the common mustard plant grows as a small bush, and is hardly the haven for birds.

Furthermore, the identity of the birds have already been revealed in verse 19 (cf. v.3): the ministers of the "Wicked One!" This seems to portray a view in which the church†† will grow into something never intended--a monstrosity in which the very ministers of the wicked one will find refuge in its branches! (Doesn't that sound descriptive of some of the activities of the present day? Should we be surprised?)

†† My departure from Missler on this point is the Kingdom referred to is the present Kingdom Israel.

 

[JohnD]

All that Greek grammar is not so impressive when you consider that the point of the parabolic narrative is to liken the kingdom to the mustard seed and THAT gives it the significance you, Sinthesis, tried to reason out of existence. And as goes the kingdom (so you say) so goes the man according to your explanation of the grammar.

 

[About the Son of God]

All that Greek grammar is not so impressive when you consider that the point of the parabolic narrative is to liken the kingdom to the mustard seed and THAT gives it the significance you, Sinthesis, tried to reason out of existence. And as goes the kingdom (so you say) so goes the man according to your explanation of the grammar.

To be fair to Sinthesis, I was the one who brought up the Greek grammar; and not to be impressive or to support sinthesis' position -- but to make him think about the problem more and give a fuller explanation. The relationships given in the parable can be understood a number of different ways. so: I don't find your explanation exactly wrong either....

Regarding your previous post on the mustard 'tree', your post is very true except when it comes to the part about birds not wanting to land in small bushes:

Dendrons, (AKA a generic Greek word for tree, http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/13-32.htm ), can be of any size -- but what is most important about dendritic trees, is that they are a highly branching form of plant, and not something like a monocot or grass, or leafy plant like lettuce -- all of which can be found in gardens.

For example a rhodo-dendron would noramlly be called a shrub or bush in English, but it is still considered a 'tree' in Greek -- because that's what the word 'dendron' means: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhododendron But grasses, lettuce, etc. aren't called 'dendrons'.

So: When Jesus says the mustard seed waxed 'a great tree' (dendron) -- (Luke 13:19) -- I don't think he ever meant to imply a tall tree, but rather he is referring to a shrub which is larger than other garden plants and has many branches. (The fact is, other plants are also mentioned in the parable... not just the mustard plant).

So although I do agree with your post concerning the size of the mustard plant, and that is consistent with what Jesus said; I would still like to point out that Small birds, routinely do land in any kind of bush which has sufficiently horizontal branches -- including rhododendrons and other shrubs; Birds generally aren't there to hurt the tree, but almost always do eat the seeds and fruits of trees -- especially when the seeds are small and soft; as opposed to hard shelled like a cherry pit. So: When there are too many birds around, vulnerable soft seeded crops and gardens can be devastated;

But this is true of all kinds of birds, even without the parable saying the evil one comes as a bird; for even Doves -- which are taken as *the* sign of the Holy Spirit in the bible will eat seeds; and it is a Dove (not an evil bird) who plucked a leaf off an olive tree and brought it back to Noah's ark as a sign of new life.
Genesis 8:10-11

So, I'm not sure the bird of the parable is necessarily a strictly evil bird, either. For it doesn't say the bird is there to eat, but to rest on the branches of the tree. It is a threat, to be sure -- but the bird is unlikely to hurt the tree itself.

 

[About the Son of God]

OK. I'm game.

...

You're taking the parable too far. Leaven can be good or bad depending on the context.​

Then I must have worked to long on the parable, and spoilt it ?



I did indeed say:

Leaven has this problematic characteristic: If leaven is allowed to work too long on bread, it rots. That's the nature of leavening.

and when I said:

At least the mustard seed in the parable grew into something which birds nested in, or found shade under.​

you replied:

The leaven in the parable grew to change the lump. Our only contention is if this is good or bad.​

But -- that's not my contention; my contention is that leaven is both good and bad. Not good OR bad.

Why do you believe Jesus chose to end the parable where He did?​

I don't know.
I think it possible that he didn't finish it because the kingdom itself is unfinished at the time he spoke those words.
It's also possible that he wanted the hearts of the disciples to be revealed by how they interpreted the parable individually.

I suppose our eschatological viewpoints are affecting how we interpret the parable. (Judas was not a Christian as there were no Christians before the resurrection.)​

I see, well in that case I don't really see how we can resolve the issue between us.
Anyone who follows Christ is a christian in my tentative view, especially those with Faith and possibly some without faith.
They may not yet have been called Christians, while Jesus was alive -- but they still were Christians -- as far as I'm concerned.

But -- unless Sarah pulled a quick one, and hid some leaven in there without telling us or Abraham -- there's no reason to believe the cake was leavened. Abraham didn't tell her to leaven it. But what is surely known, is that the three angels didn't eat it, they ate only Abraham's cooking of meat, milk, and butter -- for Sarah was still in the tent cooking when they judged her denial of mocking them, and left her without so much as tasting a morsel of HER bread. ( Genesis 18:9-16 )

We don't know, but unleavened bread was about speed, so Sarah must have been a slow cook if the calf had already been killed, dressed, and cooked before she could whip up some flatbread, unless she was waiting for leaven to rise...​

Good point; although, there were other things which had to be cooked first on the fire because I doubt the animal was served raw; so it is not necessarily true that Sarah was slow. She may have been waiting for the fat of the animal to use as oil for the bread; much like pancakes are often tastiest when a oil is used to fry them in.
Or else, the bread may have been ready for the end of the meal, but the strangers refused to eat it because of Sarah's bad manners.

Bread was often used by ancient peoples as something to wipe ones finger off, like a napkin, before the invention of cheap paper -- so that bread might serve at the end of the meal as a morsel or sop with which to clean up the last of the rest of the food with.

The fact remains that they interrupted and left the meal without any mention of eating leavened bread.

I've never accused you of being anything more or less than a sincere Christian. I trust you extend the same courtesy to me.​

As far as I know, you are. Let's hope nothing is shared which isn't. You know my preference, and I if you think about the passage in 1Corinthians 5:6-8 I think you'll know why I am the way I am.

Much of the apostles' work was concerned with effecting the transition from Jewish/Pagan doctrine to Christian doctrine. This was not instantaneous, anymore than our personal conversion to Christianity instantly removes all our daily struggles. The first step is like the Baptism of John (death/repentance of the old life to make straight the way for the new life) or a purge of the old legal leaven so that in sincerity and truth we can accept the new spiritual leaven of Christ, similar to how Christ was baptized before the Holy Spirit settled on Him. This is all analogy, where as believers we repent of our old life so that we approach the communion feast unleavened, but having taken communion, are now leavened by the Holy Spirit.​

I have never seen a biblical reference to the Holy Spirit leavening anything, except by implication, perhaps "wine" which does not 'rise' but only risks bursting the skins if done wrongly. Nor have I ever seen a biblical reference to a 'leaven' of Christ.

(And Paul claimed to be a Pharisee even after Christ... Acts 23:6, so yes it was not 'instantaneous' change, even in the least of the Apostles who were not always very concerned about effecting the change in doctrine when it suited them. )

So -- All I see for sure is that mustard seed is either compared or contrasted to leaven as a means of growth in the parables. It does not say if the growth is purely good, or partially bad, or totally bad (which is the only possibility I doubt).

I believe our eschatology affects how we interpret the bible. From this, whenever possible, I choose to see how Jesus and Christianity have and are changing things in a positive light. Naturally this means challenging many common assumptions such as 'leaven is always bad'. Suppose a measure of leaven is given us as a free gift from God?

Suppose it is? That doesn't mean it will be only a pleasant gift that changes something for the better.

If the leaven is put into the bread by wisdom, and the bread assumed to be the church; then leaven can be anything at all which causes the church to grow. It can be tests, and trials, and even the allowance of wicked pastors to gain entry into the church temporarily so that some good known only to God may come from the events which follow. He gives the faithful what they need in order to escape the trial, but he does not always remove the trial itself.

On the other hand, if leaven is put into the bread by a woman presumed to be the church, then the leaven is going to be something along the lines of 'doctrine' or 'prayer' or 'works/works of love' done by Christians. For, if the woman is the church -- then leavening is something which Christians do and hopefully out of Faith.

If that's the case: May your prayers rise like incense, and your doctrine be pure and holy; but realize all is not rosy:

Matthew 6:8-9, James 4:3, Matthew 7:8, 2nd Corinthians 12:8-10

 

[Deborah13]

Mat 13:33 ¶ Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, (the rest of the parable explains how the kingdom of heaven is like leaven) which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

The leaven is like the dough starter that a woman would always have ready for use. It's just flour and water, each day feeding it more flour and water, the wild yeast causes fermenting, and growing in size. It can double in size in one day, ready in five days. It can keep forever if it is kept fed and cool. In those days, in a clay jar wrapped in leather or cloth, in cool water such as a well or creek water. There are people that have dough starter that originated from g-g-grandma that is over 100 yrs. old.

Gen 18:6 - And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth.
Was this bread unleavened?

Sarah would have very likely had a dough starter. Mix in the flour to thicken, knead, throw on the griddle (flat stone?). It won't be like a bread is, but would be thicker like a round pancake, but not flat like an unleavened bread.
Was it leavened, don't know.

 

[eddif]

The leaven is like the dough starter that a woman would always have ready for use. It's just flour and water, each day feeding it more flour and water, the wild yeast causes fermenting, and growing in size. It can double in size in one day, ready in five days. It can keep forever if it is kept fed and cool. In those days, in a clay jar wrapped in leather or cloth, in cool water such as a well or creek water. There are people that have dough starter that originated from g-g-grandma that is over 100 yrs. old.

Sarah would have very likely had a dough starter. Mix in the flour to thicken, knead, throw on the griddle (flat stone?). It won't be like a bread is, but would be thicker like a round pancake, but not flat like an unleavened bread.
Was it leavened, don't know.

At first the word is hidden in our heart as seed to stop sin. Then the word is consumed as a meal, but only after it has been modified by Holy Spirit? Our hard stony heart and fire finally prepare a meal? Revelation 3:20

I would think the stony heart is broken in the process, and replaced by a heart of flesh.

First you first have to declare all foods clean?

Is this where you are headed, with your example?

The reality is always Christ Jesus and the shadows are the schoolmaster.

eddif

 

[eddif]

I never thought of getting into leaven. Thanks y'all.
Yeast can cause a quick (2hr rise?)
Sourdough starter sometimes is an 18hr process (on a warm hearth area 68 degrees?)
http://www.sourdoughhome.com/index.php?content=theartoftherise

Genesis 18. Abraham's visitors
This is a foot washing, baking, lamb slaughter and coking, with conversation. It is rushed to start, but takes the time needed to finish?

Galatians 4:4
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Matthew 21:40
When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

A new lump is prepared.

eddif

 

[eddif]

I wish not to imply that the new lump does away with Israel. In Christ we are neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, etc.

The first converts were from the 120 followers of Jesus. The Gentile inclusion first came with the deceleration of not calling foods unclean. How Christ removed the wall, and the final one new man, is still hard for me to examine in minute detail.

eddif

 

[TheBarrd]

You know, it occurs to me that one way to "hijack the faith" is to overthink stuff like leaven and mustard seeds....

Christians have spent 2000+ years working hard at complicating what Jesus died to make simple.

Think about it.

 

[eddif]

Mark 4:31
"It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the soil, though it is smaller than all the seeds that are upon the soil, NAS Bible

I usually use KJ, but in this case there is a question in my mind. Some seeds are broadcast on the surface and some are planted in the earth. Now this is according to the translation you use. Was the mustard seed in or on the ground? Is faith something that has to be planted deep, or can the least amount of faith take root and grow?

Leaven is usually in but at Passover it is not even to be in the house?

I will have to leave this to others for now. I do not know. In or on does it make a difference?

eddif

 

[eddif]

You know, it occurs to me that one way to "hijack the faith" is to overthink stuff like leaven and mustard seeds....

Christians have spent 2000+ years working hard at complicating what Jesus died to make simple.

Think about it.

I agree to a point.
Romans 1:18-19 does exist though.
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Also
Galatians 3:24
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

The one new man should be able to look at all information and realize how to separate the shadow from the body that cast the shadow.

If the discussion is just about seeds and leaven; then we are hijacking the faith in Christ Jesus. If the discussion brings us to Christ Jesus, are we not using the law lawfully?
I Corinthians 9:8
Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?

We are one new man. Tripping over a little rubble, but sharing Christ Jesus.

eddif

 

[TheBarrd]

Each of us is struggling to follow our Shepherd along the way He is leading us. Some are a bit further along than others...and some have occasionally wandered off the path and had to be found and brought back...
One thing is sure, though...we have all "tripped over a little rubble"...

 

[Deborah13]

Is this where you are headed, with your example?

Nothing so spiritual in mind. Just think about different types of leaven. Physical first then spiritual.

Sourdough starter sometimes is an 18hr process (on a warm hearth area 68 degrees?)

We speak of two different things. The bakery in your article is talking about a completed bread dough rising 18hrs to make a loaf. I am referring to the starter/leaven that is used in making that dough. Checked out that bakery, their starter is 160 yrs. old. 160 yrs. ago someone took days to make the first of that starter and it's been kept alive by feeding it. Wow, thousands and thousands of loaves have been made using that starter.
So in the parable the leaven/wild yeast multiples like the kingdom? I'm sure it's not bad though, the kingdom of God can in no way be bad. Maybe it's not leaven itself but how it is used that, the results are good or bad? Hmm...over my spiritual head.
Mat_16:12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Mar_8:15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.

 

[bcbsr]

I would think was the kingdom is analogous to the entire parable and not simply one element of the parable.

 

[Sinthesis]

"About the Son of God, post: 1090150, member: 4152"]Then I must have worked to long on the parable, and spoilt it ?

My figurative pantry is full of spoilt parables. I've never been able to decipher an expiration date of 'soon'.​

I did indeed say:

​

and when I said:

At least the mustard seed in the parable grew into something which birds nested in, or found shade under.​

you replied:

The leaven in the parable grew to change the lump. Our only contention is if this is good or bad.​

But -- that's not my contention; my contention is that leaven is both good and bad. Not good OR bad.

Then I agree with you that leaven can be both good and bad. I believe the distinction in this parable depends on the context and definitions we choose.​

---

Why do you believe Jesus chose to end the parable where He did?​

I don't know.
I think it possible that he didn't finish it because the kingdom itself is unfinished at the time he spoke those words.
It's also possible that he wanted the hearts of the disciples to be revealed by how they interpreted the parable individually.

Fair enough. As an individual I believe the parable prophecies our currently unfinished continuing work as confessed members of Christ's Kingdom to change the world. In the long run I don't believe we, as Christ's Body, can fail.​

---

I suppose our eschatological viewpoints are affecting how we interpret the parable. (Judas was not a Christian as there were no Christians before the resurrection.)​

I see, well in that case I don't really see how we can resolve the issue between us.
Anyone who follows Christ is a christian in my tentative view, especially those with Faith and possibly some without faith.
They may not yet have been called Christians, while Jesus was alive -- but they still were Christians -- as far as I'm concerned.

I understand your point of view. I arrived at mine in an effort to justify the way Jesus' followers reacted to his trial and crucifixion. I believe that every one of them (except perhaps John) lost their faith that Jesus was the promised Messiah during the three days He was in the grave. I can't believe I would have reacted any better absent the benefit of knowing (and sometimes taking for granted) what the disciples eventually learned from Jesus and the Holy Spirit after the Resurrection. This viewpoint means I can't in all fairness hold Jews in contempt for forsaking our Messiah.​

---

Good point; although, there were other things which had to be cooked first on the fire because I doubt the animal was served raw; so it is not necessarily true that Sarah was slow. She may have been waiting for the fat of the animal to use as oil for the bread; much like pancakes are often tastiest when a oil is used to fry them in.
Or else, the bread may have been ready for the end of the meal, but the strangers refused to eat it because of Sarah's bad manners.

Bread was often used by ancient peoples as something to wipe ones finger off, like a napkin, before the invention of cheap paper -- so that bread might serve at the end of the meal as a morsel or sop with which to clean up the last of the rest of the food with.

The fact remains that they interrupted and left the meal without any mention of eating leavened bread.

...or unleavened bread.​

---

I've never accused you of being anything more or less than a sincere Christian. I trust you extend the same courtesy to me.​

As far as I know, you are. Let's hope nothing is shared which isn't. You know my preference, and I if you think about the passage in 1Corinthians 5:6-8 I think you'll know why I am the way I am.

Your interpretation of 1Corinthians 5:6-8 is valid. I'll just add that here the particular type of leaven Paul warned against is their 'glorying', which is then to be purged using the contextual words of 'Passover' and 'feast' as illustration. Does this mean all glorying is bad? If we purge our old glorying, is it then OK to glory in Christ?

"I am the way I am" sounds like a code name for Jesus.​

---

Much of the apostles' work was concerned with effecting the transition from Jewish/Pagan doctrine to Christian doctrine. This was not instantaneous, anymore than our personal conversion to Christianity instantly removes all our daily struggles. The first step is like the Baptism of John (death/repentance of the old life to make straight the way for the new life) or a purge of the old legal leaven so that in sincerity and truth we can accept the new spiritual leaven of Christ, similar to how Christ was baptized before the Holy Spirit settled on Him. This is all analogy, where as believers we repent of our old life so that we approach the communion feast unleavened, but having taken communion, are now leavened by the Holy Spirit.​

I have never seen a biblical reference to the Holy Spirit leavening anything, except by implication, perhaps "wine" which does not 'rise' but only risks bursting the skins if done wrongly. Nor have I ever seen a biblical reference to a 'leaven' of Christ.

I admit it is only by implication, where the idea is leaven is purged for the original Passover supposedly to make way for Moses' Law, which then translates to the leaven of the Law is purged to make way for the Holy Spirit.​

---
(And Paul claimed to be a Pharisee even after Christ... Acts 23:6, so yes it was not 'instantaneous' change, even in the least of the Apostles who were not always very concerned about effecting the change in doctrine when it suited them. )

So -- All I see for sure is that mustard seed is either compared or contrasted to leaven as a means of growth in the parables. It does not say if the growth is purely good, or partially bad, or totally bad (which is the only possibility I doubt).

If we apply this idea to our own personal Christian growth it suggests that the tribulations we are promised might appear to contaminate our life, yet they are given us for a greater good.​

---

I believe our eschatology affects how we interpret the bible. From this, whenever possible, I choose to see how Jesus and Christianity have and are changing things in a positive light. Naturally this means challenging many common assumptions such as 'leaven is always bad'. Suppose a measure of leaven is given us as a free gift from God?

Suppose it is? That doesn't mean it will be only a pleasant gift that changes something for the better.

Oh no; for those invested in the status quo any change can be traumatic. 'Give up everything you have and follow Me' doesn't necessarily sound better to those who believe they are already rich.
​

If the leaven is put into the bread by wisdom, and the bread assumed to be the church; then leaven can be anything at all which causes the church to grow. It can be tests, and trials, and even the allowance of wicked pastors to gain entry into the church temporarily so that some good known only to God may come from the events which follow. He gives the faithful what they need in order to escape the trial, but he does not always remove the trial itself.

On the other hand, if leaven is put into the bread by a woman presumed to be the church, then the leaven is going to be something along the lines of 'doctrine' or 'prayer' or 'works/works of love' done by Christians. For, if the woman is the church -- then leavening is something which Christians do and hopefully out of Faith.

Suppose the leaven is inserted by The Shekhinah? Three measures, or three types of believers, sent out to change the world...over time...given lots of kneading...​

If that's the case: May your prayers rise like incense, and your doctrine be pure and holy; but realize all is not rosy:

Literally?​

Matthew 6:8-9, James 4:3, Matthew 7:8, 2nd Corinthians 12:8-10

 

[eddif]

The parables were used to conceal (Matthew 13 & Mark 4). The majority of the parables ceased when Jesus was shown to be the Son of God.

The Great Commission required the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit leads into all truth.
John 16:13

Isaiah 6 tells of using parables. We unwind things and not conceal.

eddif