What does this verse mean to YOU?

No, not at all. But knowing what I am talking about doesn't disqualify me from participating in the conversation.

 

Leaven may be symbolic of sin in certain circumstances, only because of what leaven is. In this particular case of Gal 5, the point of the analogy is that adding a little bit of works of the Law to grace in our relationship with God ruins the whole relationship with God. If the question had been about 1 Cor 5, there, the leaven is the little bit of sin that was being tolerated in the body.

I am not beating anyone up over semantics. I am pointing out a few basic matters of scriptural interpretation. Asking what a particular verse means to an individual is not heresy; I never said it was. It is bad hermeneutics. There is no stretching about that.

As a side note, it is always remarkable to me how people who know something are looked down on by certain people. That seems to be the wrong way to go about it. When someone is encouraging you to be more precise in your theology, they are not the problem.

 

So since you knew what I said, why did you say I said something that I, in fact, didn't say? I said heresy gets started that way, not that it is heresy. There is a big difference between the two. I was merely pointing it out. It is unfortunate you responded so negatively to it.

I am certainly not as knowledgeable as some, but certainly more knowledgeable than others.

I don't know that you do, but you certainly responded negatively towards a comment that should have been educational. That kind of response may indicate that one has a disdain for proper knowledge.

I have said nothing to indicate any thoughts such as these. There is no legitimate reason for you to think that I think anything of this type. I haven't been rude, insulting, or argumentative.

NOthing like mixing in a personal attack to try to buttress your argument.

What did I say that was obnoxious? All I did was 1) point out proper hermeneutics, and 2) answer the question asked about what the verse meant. You took that opportunity to launch into a series of attacks on my knowledge and now my character, and then top it off by calling me obnoxious. These are discussions boards where people exchange ideas and teach one another. If you aren't ready and willing to learn, then you will find this a hard place to get along with people. I sincerely hope that your future on this board will take a turn in a positive direction. It is not helpful to stoop to false accusations and personal attacks. If you don't like my perspective, that is fine. But handle it in a gentlemanly way (assuming you are a man, or a ladylike way if you are not). Things will be much smoother then.

 

You know, sometimes verses have multiple interpretations and meanings. Yes, they should always be in context, but I find I may learn something new from someone else's perspectives.

 

First rule of hermanutics: One interpretation,many applications. Copper's question I believe is just poor choice of words. Those who opposed his rendering "What does it mean to you" involves application to one's life. What the verse actually "means" involves interpretation, which there can only be one meaning not several. Besides, what is the point of pulling out a piece of a verse and throwing it up on the site. That in itself promotes taking it out of context from the get go. Context, context, context. That is the key. How one can apply a verse and what it means is two different things.
Again, one interpretation, many applications I believe that is the rule of thumb to follow when studying Scripture.

 

I too think Copper's question was probably a bad choice of words.

And you are right that there is only one meaning, not multiple meanings. There are different levels of application for different people, different contexts, different times in history, but all applications stems from the one legitimate meaning of the text. Of course, that is a different thread.

We can, as well, learn something from other people's perspective about how a verse applies in their life.

 

Magnetic Poles,
In response to your statement "sometimes verses have multiple interpretations" I hope your just using a poor choice of words. It is very true tha often times some verses have multiple applications but never mulitple interpretations. For example Jesus said in Jn.14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I'am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh to the father; but by me. Now friend that verse can only MEAN ONE thing. If that verse can have multiple interpretations then we are in sad shape concerning our salvation.
If we are to look at Scripture properly we must be objective. It is always better to say what does the passage mean in context and how can I apply it to my life, than to say what does this mean to me in a subjective sense.
Those of a liberal persuasion have used the very same line of thinking to tear down the authority of Holy Scripture. I'm in no way implying your liberal in your theology I'm simply saying that having a tendency to believe in "multilple interpretaions" is not a wise practice in dealing with the Scriptures. One of the main problems in society today is the fact that everyone wants to view truth as they see it. IF that is the case then everyone can do what is right in their own eyes and its cool because hey, if I interprete it to be truth to me then it is truth. That line of thinking is relativism not truth. The truth and relativism cannot occupy the same space yet that is very common in our society today. If you don't believe it just share the Gospel with people today. Person after person will tell you time and again. Hey if it is true for you then fine. This is true for me. There is no such thing as "relative truth" In my opinion the phrase "truth is relative" is a ludicrous statement but yet that is the very culture in which we find ourselves. Therefore to say there are "Multilple interpretations" when concerning Scripture is to adopt a "truth is relative" point of view when reading Scripture which in turn is going to give you personally a weakened viewpoint when regarding the what I believe to be the Absolute Authority of Scripture concerning absolutely all aspects of our lives.

 

This post asked a question about a specific verse. In that verse the specific leaven is legalism.

In the Corinthians passage above it refers to sin in general. I don't see how this can be so complicated.

 

That is an untrue statement. I haven't chased you around. I don't even know who you are. I don't know what other questions you hae asked. You asked a question, and I answered it. If you didn't want an answer, then you shouldn't have asked. Your question was poorly worded. I pointed that out, and then answered the question.

What do you think my motives were? My motive was to answer the question. Truth be told, you have no way of knowing my motives and you shouldn't pretend to. It is wrong for you to attack me on baselss charges.

Really?? After 13,000 posts, I am quite sure I am neither a troll nor a troublemaker. You have not even reached 100 yet, so you haven't been here long enough to make a habit out of anything.

That is untrue. It was educational in that I explained why "to you" is a bad addition to a perfectly legitimate question. It is essentially existential in nature. It was educational in that I answered your question about what the verse meant. It was nice in that I made no personal comments about you or your character that I can remember.

Really? How would you know? I happen to know the answer to a question you asked. I am not superior to you. I simply answered what you asked. But you have stooped to personal attacks. That is inappropriate. Talk about issues, not about people.

I can read and reply to whatever I desire. This is a conversation board. I am not the subject of it, so don't talk about me. If you don't want an answer, then don't ask the question. You have said way more than enough, since your first post on this thread. The subsequent ones have been out of bounds, full of personal attacks against me and that is a violation of hte board rules that you agreed to when you joined. Please do not continue to make personal attacks.

I am sorry that you have gotten off to such a poor start in your first seventy posts. Let's start over and cease this kind of conversation. Please do not attack people. Keep the posts on subject. If you don't like a particular post, then ignore it, refute it, discuss it, or whatever. Don't stoop to personal attacks.

 

The whole local body had been spread though, infected and impacted by this legalism. Either by the practice or the strife/trouble that it was causing.

HankD

 

It seems to me that the point of the verse isn't that a little leaven will EVENTUALLY ruin the bread but that a little leaven ruins it right now. If you start with a lump of unleavened bread (the gospel) and add just a little yeast (One or more works) then what you have is no longer unleavened bread (the Gospel). It is immediately something else even if it is not immediately noticeable. The gospel ceases to be the gospel and ceases to have the ability to save and it no longer good news. Just by adding one work Christ will be of no effect because He must be 100% and with even one workd added He isn't 100% anymore and that is all that
can save you.

 

I like that explanation Artimaeus.

What do you think about the following, is the leaven a good or bad thing (no agenda, I'm just curious)?

Luke 13
18 And he said, To what is the kingdom of God like? and to what shall I liken it?
19 It is like a grain of mustard seed which a man took and cast into his garden; and it grew and became a great tree, and the birds of heaven lodged in its branches.
20 And again he said, To what shall I liken the kingdom of God?
21 It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal until the whole was leavened.

This is the Scripture I had in mind which caused me to see the growth potential of leaven as well as an evil influence.

It is "hid" in the meal "until" the whole became leavened.

Some see the leaven as the good affect of the Gospel in the world.

Others (usually dispensationalists) see the leaven as a secret evil influence introduced into the "Kingdom of God" as in the parable of the wheat and the tares.

My view is the later.

HankD

 

Thank you for the kind words. In these verses I really don't see how it can be taken in any way but for a good thing.

kingdon of God = a good thing = leaven

A grain of mustard seed is representing a good thing. Leaven is representing a good thing. Both are representing the kingdom of God.

If you plug in the second option you have Jesus saying. "To what shall I liken the kingdom of God?
21 It is like a secret evil influence, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal until the whole was evil. Does that seem reasonable? Notice that He doesn't say that the kingdom of God is like the three measures of meal but that it is like the leaven which in this case must be a good thing.

She incorporated the leaven with the meal for the specific purpose of making the meal leavend not to "hide" a secret. Think of it as God putting the kingdom of God among men for the specific purpose of making the whole of mankind leavend, that is, fulfilling its purpose as meal fulfills its purpose.

More than an affect or influence, a total transformation. The leaven IS the kingdom.

Mixing parables seems to me to not be a good idea. Each parable teaches something unique and the parts don't seem to be interchangeable.

 

Thanks Art.

HankD

 

I had forgotten about this passage. It brings to my mind what Copper said the other day (on page 2): Not sure what kind of Pastor you are but, every Pastor I've ever met - from SBC to IFB knows that leaven is symbolic of sin. Too bad Jesus agreed with me when I said that leaven is used as a metaphor for a lot of things, not always the same thing.