Yeast/Leaven: Ever good?

[Eric B]

Inasmuch as it speaks of unleavened wine it speaks of unleavened grapes. The inference is there. Where do you think alcoholic beverages come from. They are a form of corruption, that is all.

That is not true, that is overgeneralizing. You can say it "infers" it, but that is up for debate; yet it does not SPEAK of it as it does unleavened bread.

It hasn't been shown that there is yeast in grapes. It was a futile attempt that failed. I will demonstrate it for you.
Grapes left long enough will go bad. They will ferment (as Prov.23 describes) and become a corrupted but alcoholic beverage.
Bread, even unleavened bread if left alone over a period of time and under the right conditions will grow moldy. A tortillia (unleavened) has had mold on it. They do become moldy sometimes even though they be unleavened.
Oranges go bad over a period of time. Leave them a little longer and they become moldy though they are very acidic in nature. Apples also grow moldy.
I once left a glass of water for a couple of weeks in a dark corner of the church where no one found it. After two weeks, instead of evaporating, it had a layer of mold on it. Where did that come from?? The chlorine perhaps?? I think not?

Now if you are up to drinking moldy water, eating moldy bread, moldy oranges and apples, in general having moldy food for your meals, then you must admit that yeast throughout the Bible is a form of corruption.

You are using MOLD as a substitute for YEAST on other foods? Sorry, but that is another species of fungus, and not what the Bible ever calls "Leaven". Grapes will ferment, but are not then necesarily "bad". They will also later mold, and that is when they are bad! Two separate types of fungus, no other relationship. Mushroom is yet another fungus, associated with decay (like growing on old tree stumps, etc) but they themselves are food.

You have made a gross error in your hermenutics. You have taken a parable and drawn doctrine out of a parable. Parables don't teach doctrine. They illustrate truth that is already taught in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible is your premise taught that yeast is good. It is always taught that yeast is a symbol of corruption, sin, and false doctrine. Yet you are trying to pull doctrine out of a parable and teach it as new doctrine. This is what the cults do.

I have not made a "doctrine" out of it. Your side has made a doctrine out of leaven ALWAYS representing "corruption" meaning fermented beverages are always completely off limits. Yet this one parable disproves that generalization. If it is so universally bad, then why was it used in the parable as part of something good? (i.e. the bread should have grown using something else)

Luke 15:8 Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?

Quote:
saroo
from a derivative of sairo (to brush off; akin to 4951); meaning a broom; to sweep:--sweep.
Yes, a broom was used, as the word "swept" indicates. And since she swept "the house" it would indicate the whole of it, which would obviously be behind the door.
Either way the point is made. One does not teach doctrine from a parable. A parable is used to illustrate truth that is already taught.

Nobody's saying a broom was bad. If they were, then we could use this as an example of it having a good use

I am not the one reading things into parables--obviously.
Read the Bible.

Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees (corrupt or false doctrine)

1 Corinthians 5:6-8 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
(Was Paul referring to the Parable of the Kingdom here??)

7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened.
1 Corinthians 5:7 Purge out the old yeast, (WEB)
Leaven or yeast are a symbol of sin and corruption.

8 For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 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.
--A direct reference to the Passover or inference to the Lord's Table. This would explicitly condemn any form of yeast which would include fermented wine.
Yeast or leaven is symbolic of sin and corruption. Is that the kind of Christ you serve--one who is full of sin and corruption?
DHK

But that one example disproves this generalization. Since "leaven" is symbolic there, it would fall under the same principle as the parables. You are the one building a doctrine off of symbolism. Remember, the yeast is DEAD in completely fermented wine anyway.

 

[DHK]

But that one example disproves this generalization. Since "leaven" is symbolic there, it would fall under the same principle as the parables. You are the one building a doctrine off of symbolism. Remember, the yeast is DEAD in completely fermented wine anyway.

You are doing what the cults do. Leaven or yeast is consistently used throughout the entire Bible to symbolize corruption, sin and false doctrine.
You say: "This one example disproves this generalization."
No, it shows that you cannot teach doctrine out of a parable. Parables illustrate truth already taught in the Bible. You are not doing that. You are coming up with a new and contradictory doctrine not taught in the Bible. And you are doing so through the use of a parable. That is bad hermeneutics and it is not rightly dividing the word of truth. You cannot teach doctrine out of parables. Parables serve only to illustrate existing truth. They cannot teach new truth. You do err in doing this.
DHK

 

[DHK]

That is not true, that is overgeneralizing. You can say it "infers" it, but that is up for debate; yet it does not SPEAK of it as it does unleavened bread.
You are using MOLD as a substitute for YEAST on other foods? Sorry, but that is another species of fungus, and not what the Bible ever calls "Leaven". Grapes will ferment, but are not then necesarily "bad". They will also later mold, and that is when they are bad! Two separate types of fungus, no other relationship. Mushroom is yet another fungus, associated with decay (like growing on old tree stumps, etc) but they themselves are food.
.

I believe the Bible to be scientifically correct. I know that to many I step out on a limb here. But that is the stand that I take. Having said that however, the Bible is not a book of science. It does not differentiate between different species of molds. Prov.23 describes how Solomon could tell when the fermentation process took place--when the wine "turned itself aright." Then he said don't even look at it. It biteth like an adder. It has serious consequences. It has become fermented--corrupted. It has gone through the process of fermentation, otherwise known as corruption in the Bible.

Proverbs 23:31-32 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.
--Solomon was a wise man--the wisest. I think he knew what he was talking about. It is not a book of science but it describes a scientific process--the process of fermentation.

Yes, there are many kinds of molds. They are all basically the same thing, in the same basic category. They all are forms of leaven or yeast. They are all forbidden in unleavened bread and juice, especially when celebrating the Lord's Table.
DHK

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

DHK says leaven is used in the Bible throughout consistently representing sin. It is dangerous generalisation, and I'm surprised by DHK's use of it.

In the parable leaven MEANS good - no one can come by the fact. Bob Ryan, I appreciate your stand for simple correctness here!

Even in 1Cor5 'dzumos' represents BOTH the bad AND the good. Bad leaven is said to be "old". "You are UNLEAVENED", says Paul of THIS - bad - leaven; and now are made a "new lump" of bread 'leavened' of course - or it won't be "new bread"-'neon phurama'. Then in 8a Paul recommends us to "feast not with the leaven of malice and wickedness but with in the unfermentedness (by the old and bad leaven) of sincererity and truth".
The implication of 'fermentedness' by the leaven of Christ and the Holy Spirit is undeniable.
The term 'dzumos'/'adzumos' by itself is a parable - a metaphor - of a spiritual or invisible and inner agitation - whether by a bad or by a good agent.

 

[DHK]

DHK says leaven is used in the Bible throughout consistently representing sin. It is dangerous generalisation, and I'm surprised by DHK's use of it.

In the parable leaven MEANS good - no one can come by the fact. Bob Ryan, I appreciate your stand for simple correctness here!

Even in 1Cor5 'dzumos' represents BOTH the bad AND the good. Bad leaven is said to be "old". "You are UNLEAVENED", says Paul of THIS - bad - leaven; and now are made a "new lump" of bread 'leavened' of course - or it won't be "new bread"-'neon phurama'. Then in 8a Paul recommends us to "feast not with the leaven of malice and wickedness but with in the unfermentedness (by the old and bad leaven) of sincererity and truth".
The implication of 'fermentedness' by the leaven of Christ and the Holy Spirit is undeniable.
The term 'dzumos'/'adzumos' by itself is a parable - a metaphor - of a spiritual or invisible and inner agitation - whether by a bad or by a good agent.

Outside of parable you cannot show that yeast has a positive meaning; that is, that as you say it does not represent sin. Prove this assertion from Scripture without the use of a parable. If you can't do this then your assertion may be classified as heresy. You cannot develop new doctrine from a parable.
That is the mark of a cult.
DHK

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

'Phyrama' - "that which is mixed" - with leaven naturally! Such are the reborn (Christians). Question is, with what, "mixed"? Dough for bread is mixed with leaven - and leaven in this case therefore is 'good'. Another 'exception' that makes BobRyan's 'exception' no longer the only.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

So the Reformed Church sorts under 'cult'!?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Christian language - the expression of Faith - is an a priori impossibility without metaphor - or parable. So one could go further and insist Christiandom is cultish for using for doctrine, parable upon parable.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

In fact DHK, your conclusion does not befit you, for it makes of you legalist in the worst sense - that of linguistic literalness.

 

[DHK]

In fact DHK, your conclusion does not befit you, for it makes of you legalist in the worst sense - that of linguistic literalness.

It doesn't matter to me what you believe, nor your denomination believes, nor anyone else. I have stated some sound principles of hermeneutics above. I have challenged you with the same. Demonstrate through the Bible that leaven means any thing else but corruption, sin or false doctrine. Other than taking new doctrine out of a parable you cannot. This is bad hermeneutics and something that the cults do frequently. If that is who you want to associate yourself with then so be it.
DHK

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

It doesn't matter to me what you believe, nor your denomination believes, nor anyone else. I have stated some sound principles of hermeneutics above. I have challenged you with the same. Demonstrate through the Bible that leaven means any thing else but corruption, sin or false doctrine. Other than taking new doctrine out of a parable you cannot. This is bad hermeneutics and something that the cults do frequently. If that is who you want to associate yourself with then so be it.
DHK

No DHK, you disappoint! You don't care this and you don't care that. Then you dare the same thing over and over, without even looking at the replies I have given! And saddest is you dont care about the associations you force upon people - despite being an old fashioned Calvinist Protestant! Or about Gospel truths - whether corrupted or false? You occupy a position on this Board that influence others - even sincere seekers. Consider!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

You know DHK, I used to be of your opinion much earlier in life as far as this question is concerned. S-i-m-p-l-e Bible-understanding has made me change my o so strong own convictions --- no cult

 

[gekko]

You cannot develop new doctrine from a parable.

\

yah you can. well. you can introduce again an old doctrine left behind for ages.
that of true and false conversion. (parable of the soils)

 

[Eric B]

You are doing what the cults do. Leaven or yeast is consistently used throughout the entire Bible to symbolize corruption, sin and false doctrine.
You say: "This one example disproves this generalization."
No, it shows that you cannot teach doctrine out of a parable. Parables illustrate truth already taught in the Bible. You are not doing that. You are coming up with a new and contradictory doctrine not taught in the Bible. And you are doing so through the use of a parable. That is bad hermeneutics and it is not rightly dividing the word of truth. You cannot teach doctrine out of parables. Parables serve only to illustrate existing truth. They cannot teach new truth. You do err in doing this.
DHK

I do not see how you can make this insistence on "you cannot teach doctrine from a parable" when you are teaching doctrine from symbolism (leaven is used for sin). Parable; symbolism--its the same basic principle. One you have the symbolism woven into a whole story using symbolism, and the other case, you have the symbolism used as a single metaphor by itself. It's the same thing!
So it stands that the symbolism is not consistent, as it has symbolized both negative and positive things.

I believe the Bible to be scientifically correct. I know that to many I step out on a limb here. But that is the stand that I take. Having said that however, the Bible is not a book of science. It does not differentiate between different species of molds. Prov.23 describes how Solomon could tell when the fermentation process took place--when the wine "turned itself aright." Then he said don't even look at it. It biteth like an adder. It has serious consequences. It has become fermented--corrupted. It has gone through the process of fermentation, otherwise known as corruption in the Bible.

Proverbs 23:31-32 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.
--Solomon was a wise man--the wisest. I think he knew what he was talking about. It is not a book of science but it describes a scientific process--the process of fermentation.

Yes, there are many kinds of molds. They are all basically the same thing, in the same basic category. They all are forms of leaven or yeast. They are all forbidden in unleavened bread and juice, especially when celebrating the Lord's Table.
DHK

You're still doing it (confusing the different things). They are not "different TYPES OF MOLD". Mold is ONE type of fungus, and yeast is another. (Mushroom is still another). ONLY yeast is associated with the fermentation process, in both Bible and scientific usage. Spoiling from MOLD is never called "fermentation" in either area, and Soloman was not speaking of a molding process in that verse either!

 

[Inquiring Mind]

DHK is stepping outside the bounds of a moderator.
Moderators are to Moderate. They are not to Debate.

The function of a moderator is to insure that a post stays on topic.

DHK if you want to Debate please create a name to debate with and leave the DHK name to moderating.

Thank you.

 

[DHK]

DHK is stepping outside the bounds of a moderator.
Moderators are to Moderate. They are not to Debate.

The function of a moderator is to insure that a post stays on topic.

DHK if you want to Debate please create a name to debate with and leave the DHK name to moderating.

Thank you.

IQ, You just stepped out of bounds as a poster into that of a moderator which is not tolerated. Any registered poster can debate, and that includes moderators. Moderators are subject to the same rules, when debating as others. Are you frustrated because I take a stand on the Word of God that you cannot refute, and therefore take shots at my person and position on the board, rather than the stance I take on the Bible. Shame on you! That is the lowest tactic one can stoop to.
DHK

 

[DHK]

I
You're still doing it (confusing the different things). They are not "different TYPES OF MOLD". Mold is ONE type of fungus, and yeast is another. (Mushroom is still another). ONLY yeast is associated with the fermentation process, in both Bible and scientific usage. Spoiling from MOLD is never called "fermentation" in either area, and Soloman was not speaking of a molding process in that verse either!

Solomon was not differentiating between different kinds of molds. Our method of taxonomy didn't come into play until centuries later. How can you impose modern science into an age 1000 years before Christ. You are being ridiculous.
DHK

 

[DHK]

I do not see how you can make this insistence on "you cannot teach doctrine from a parable" when you are teaching doctrine from symbolism (leaven is used for sin). Parable; symbolism--its the same basic principle. One you have the symbolism woven into a whole story using symbolism, and the other case, you have the symbolism used as a single metaphor by itself. It's the same thing!
So it stands that the symbolism is not consistent, as it has symbolized both negative and positive things.

There is a lot of symbolism in the Bible. There is symbolism every time a person is baptized, every time one partakes of the Lord's Table, every time a sacrifice was made in the OT, every time the Passover was celebrated. Symbolism runs throughout the Bible. That fact is recognized by all. In the Book of John Jesus symbolically calls himself seven different things: the door, the shepherd, the light of the world, the way, the truth and the light, etc. Yet he isn't literally a door for example.

When Jesus specifically said: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees what was he talking about.
When Paul said Purge out the old leaven what was speaking about.
When Moses said Thou shalt not use leavened bread in the Passover, what was he talking about?

Why were they not permitted to use leaven?
DHK

 

[Eric B]

Solomon was not differentiating between different kinds of molds. Our method of taxonomy didn't come into play until centuries later. How can you impose modern science into an age 1000 years before Christ. You are being ridiculous.
DHK

Precisely the point I forgot to add last time; you're the one using modern taxonomy by speaking of "different KINDS of mold", not me! Yeast is not a "kind of mold", and molding is not a kind of fermentation either! They are two separate organisms with two separate processes. The only connection between them is the modern taxonomological classification of both in the "fungus" family. You're the one using this system, only substituting the word "[kinds of] mold" for "fungus" (which is then incorrect). But that is not the Biblical use or understanding. They are two tataly different creatures. So forget about mold; it has NOTHING to do with leaven!

There is a lot of symbolism in the Bible. There is symbolism every time a person is baptized, every time one partakes of the Lord's Table, every time a sacrifice was made in the OT, every time the Passover was celebrated. Symbolism runs throughout the Bible. That fact is recognized by all. In the Book of John Jesus symbolically calls himself seven different things: the door, the shepherd, the light of the world, the way, the truth and the light, etc. Yet he isn't literally a door for example.

When Jesus specifically said: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees what was he talking about.
When Paul said Purge out the old leaven what was speaking about.
When Moses said Thou shalt not use leavened bread in the Passover, what was he talking about?

Why were they not permitted to use leaven?
DHK

When Jesus said that leaven made the lump of bread that represented the Kingom grow, what was He talking about?
Once again, if you're going to actually condemn all leaven like that, then regular soft bread is then forbidden!

 

[EdSutton]

As to the title of the thread, the question is asked, "Is yeast/leaven ever good?""

Answer: Yep! It "raises the dough!"

:laugh: :laugh:

Ed