40. “A Little Leaven” (1 Corinthians 5)
“Your glorying is not good. Know ye not
that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old
leaven... the leaven of malice and wickedness” (vv.
6-8).
These words are often quoted as supplying the
reason for the rooting out of false doctrine. The application made of them is
this: ‘Just as leaven, given time, permeates and changes the whole mass of
dough, so also any single difficulty in any ecclesia will inevitably ruin the
otherwise good character of the rest.’
It needs to be emphasized that what Paul is
talking about in this chapter is bad behavior, not false ideas. The
context (do some folks ever look at context?) is the case of incest:
“a fornication among you, and such
fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have
his father’s wife” (v. 1).
This open flouting of all moral restraints on the
part of one was aggravated by the permissive, even proud and defiant, attitude
of the ecclesia:
“And ye are puffed up, and have
not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from
among you” (v. 2).
In the entire chapter there is no hint of
doctrinal error. This simple fact makes it clear that the words quoted are being
made to do duty for a purpose other than their original
intention.
Objection to a general application of this saying
(“A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump”) is also made in the
following:
“Long experience shows that whereas nothing
contributes to the lowering of tone in an ecclesia like persistent bad
behaviour, it is possible for the community to immunize itself almost completely
from the cranky ideas of one member, be he never so good a propagandist.
Paul’s words [however] are absolutely true in the field of morals”
(H. Whittaker, “Block Disfellowship: Is It Taught in the Bible?”,
The Testimony, Vol. 43, No. 512 — Aug. 1973 — p.
312).
In the case of Corinth, what made the sin
“leaven” was the proud willingness to allow its influence to affect
the whole of the ecclesia. And even should we talk of doctrinal divergence as
“leaven”, then it is still true that one false teacher does not
introduce the “leaven” singlehandedly. He usually has to have the
approbation of the arranging brethren or the whole ecclesia. In supporting this
deviation in their midst, and taking no steps to correct or isolate the problem,
it is in fact they who are introducing the leaven.
“In the case of 1 Corinthians 5 the evil
was not only unrepented of, it had not been repudiated by the ecclesia, although
it was the case of open and manifest sin. The second epistle, however, shows the
response of the ecclesia to rebuke, and also (so at any rate many would
interpret it) the restoration of the repentant sinner (2 Cor. 2:5-11; 7:8-11)...
It is, as Paul showed, the ecclesia’s responsibility to judge open sin,
and to repudiate it while doing all possible for the recovery of the sinner (1
Cor. 5:12,13)” (L.G. Sargent, “Why Not Ask?”, The
Christadelphian, Vol. 105, No. 1247 — May 1968 — pp.
218,219).
As to those who resort to this passage for proof
of the necessity to separate from error, how often have they been as eager and
energetic to seek the reclamation of the brethren whom they brand in the most
infamous terms? If we follow the apostle’s example (supposedly) in purging
out any that offend, then we must endeavor to follow his example also in
fervently seeking their reinstatement. This, in the case of “false
doctrine”, would involve a most serious effort to bring about reunion of
the divided sections of the brotherhood — especially when the ones who
“caused” the divisions by their peculiar ideas have now in some
cases been dead for years.
A further point that must be made in regard to 1
Corinthians 5 — as has been already made for other passages: Even if
this passage may be used of those who teach wrongly concerning the first
principles, it still goes no further than demanding that the single ecclesia
purge out its own “leaven”. There is no hint that failure to
do so would result in the Corinthian ecclesia being expelled from the worldwide
association of all her sister-ecclesias.
And finally....
“If the application so often put on this
passage be granted, it becomes a terrible ground of censure of those who apply
it thus. For, if the leaven of false teaching really leavens so drastically, how
is it that the writings of the ‘spiritually decadent’ are read,
scrutinised, criticised, and discussed so vigorously? If such activities do not
‘leaven’ some who are doctrinally ‘pure’, why should
they be so damaging to others?” (Whittaker, op.
cit).
It is in the nature of leaven, and indeed it is
the only reason for ever using the figure, that it changes the basic nature of
any material with which it comes into contact. If this proves not to be the case
with something that is called “leaven”, then the whole argument with
regard to that divergence — whether in morals or doctrine —
collapses.
Using this criterion, certain retroactive tests
may be made. The Christadelphian body has experienced many grievous divisions,
ostensibly to excise “leaven” from pure dough in each case. If the
thesis were correct that those errors or so-called errors would have a leavening
influence on the rest, then it should be true that the body that contained such
leaven would be by now thoroughly leavened. But this is just not the case! What
has actually happened many times is that the teaching, or perhaps action, that
aroused so much indignation in other ecclesial circles far removed from the
center has quietly sunk into oblivion, never again to trouble anyone except
those who separated themselves prematurely and who, to justify their
separation, continue to be exercised about a long-dead issue.
One of the main historical reasons for one
“pure fellowship” group’s separation from the main body of
believers was the queer ideas of a rather eccentric brother; this brother
circulated several pamphlets on the nature and sacrifice of Christ in the early
part of this century. His uncertain speculations were not summarily repudiated
by more responsible brethren elsewhere (though neither were they accepted), and
the pages of the break-away periodical were for years filled with denunciations
of the leavening nature of his work. Some seventy years have now passed since
all this began, and one occasionally still reads criticisms of this brother and
of his “toleration” by others. But his writings have completely
vanished, and no one else has to our knowledge ever taken up those ideas he so
weakly articulated. It was told me by another brother who once belonged to one
of the separated ecclesias that, in his travels, he had visited the old ecclesia
of that long-dead brother. The ecclesia met in a hall with an extensive library,
and our friend began a search therein for some of the brother’s
questionable writings. He found none and so asked a brother of that meeting
where they were kept; this brother in fact was a relative of the original
perpetrator of the questionable ideas. “Oh, we wouldn’t have that
sort of thing around here!” was the immediate reply. And so it seems that
the only ecclesias where the old “leaven” still exists are those who
supposedly “purged” it out in the first place, but who still keep a
few “fragments” under wraps on the “top shelf” to
demonstrate to later generations how terrible it really was!
Returning to a more positive conclusion here, we
should endeavor to make an application of these verses to ourselves
individually, for certainly this was Paul’s intention, as v. 8
would indicate:
“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.”
We could do no better than conclude with the
following quotation:
“To this day the Orthodox Jew is ruthless
in the exclusion of all leaven (or yeast) from his home for the seven day feast
[i.e., of Passover]; even to the extent of using a special set of cutlery,
crockery and cooking utensils lest a trace should be left on that normally used.
In many cases this is merely a slavish adherence to the letter of the law but we
can take a lesson from it. Should we not be just as diligent and just as
ruthless ourselves with our lives, with our thoughts, words
and deeds to exclude from them anything savouring of malice or evil?
Bearing in mind the nature of the evil which Paul had in mind at this
time the warning is surely not to be lightly passed over when we live in a world
rapidly becoming as morally degenerate as was the world by which the
brethren and sisters at Corinth were surrounded. Such moral depravity must at
all costs be kept at bay, and the only way this can possibly be done is by
each one purging from his or her heart the old leaven that as a community we
may be a new lump, as we are unleavened” (E. Toms, “Christ Our
Passover”, The Dawn Ecclesial Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 12 —
Dec. 1960 — pp. 280,281).