The Parable of the Leavening Process

By Mark L. Bailey

[Mark L. Bailey is Vice President for Academic Affairs, Academic Dean, and Professor of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.

This is article five in an eight-part series, “The Kingdom in the Parables of Matthew 13.”]

The parable of the leavening process follows the parable of the mustard seed in Matthew and Luke. As in that parable Matthew used a statement of introduction (“The kingdom of heaven is like,” Matt. 13:20), compared to the introductory question in Luke 13:20 (“To what shall I compare the kingdom of God?”). The parable itself is virtually identical in Matthew and Luke. Like that of the mustard seed the analogy in Matthew is said to concern “the kingdom of heaven,” whereas in Luke it is “the kingdom of God.”[1]

The Setting

Spoken on the great day of Sabbath controversy and rejection, this is the second of two growth parables, the fourth parable in Matthew 13, and the last of those spoken by Jesus to the crowd beside the Sea of Galilee. After the parable Jesus explained why He used the parabolic method with the crowds, adding a validating Old Testament quotation from Psalm 78:2 (LXX, 77:2). Hunter’s argument for calling this the parable of the “leavening process” is impressive. “The Kingdom. .. is being compared not to the leaven but to what happens when you put leaven into a batch of meal-a heaving, panting mass, swelling and bursting with bubbles, and all the commotion indicating something live and at work below: in one phrase, a ferment, pervasive, dynamic, resistless.”[2] The emphasis is on the dynamic of permeation more than simply a referent identification for leaven.

The Need or Problem Prompting the Parable

As with all the parables various motives have been proposed for this one. Drury links it with the two previous ones as stressing the “intermediate state of confusion, littleness, and hiddenness” in which “the confusion will clarify, the littleness grow, and the hiddenness be seen.”[3] Some see the purpose as an encouragement to the disciples who may have felt intimidated because of opposition. For example Blomberg sees the parable as a counter to “defeatism or siege mentality when Christian witness seems temporarily ineffective.”[4] Similarly Hill states, “From the hidden beginnings in Jesus’ ministry, which must have caused many to be impatient, God causes His Kingdom to grow.”[5] Scott sees the small beginnings in both the parable of the mustard seed and this one as offering encouragement.[6] Still another view is that the purpose was to link Jesus’ ministry to the coming kingdom of God. Others say the parable addresses the relationship of the kingdom program as it had developed during the time of Christ with its state at the end of the age. In this vein Ladd believes the underlying question is, “What could Jesus’ humble ministry and His handful of followers have to do with the coming of God’s kingdom?”[7]

Whereas the parable of the mustard seed answers the question of whether the phase of the kingdom planted by Jesus would survive, the parable of the leavening process answers how. This can be supported by the fact that leaven is found in all three sections of the narrative: the beginning, the permeation stage, and the completed “whole.” Another way to put the question being answered by the leavening process could be, “What is the nature of the power that will expand the kingdom of heaven in the present age?” That the parable can be confined to the present age is supported by the fact that the mysteries of the kingdom present new revelation and by the stated time references throughout Matthew 13, especially those in the parallel parables of the tares and of the dragnet. The present age of the interadvent kingdom extends until the end of the Tribulation.

The Narrative Structure and Details

The pericope surrounding this parable includes an introductory formula (Matt. 13:33a), the parable itself (v. 33b), an explanation of Jesus’ method of speaking parables to the crowd (v. 34), and an Old Testament fulfillment formula together with its quotation (v. 35).[8] Details to be interpreted include the leaven, the hiding, and the ultimate effect of the leaven in the loaf.

The Analogy of Leaven

Leaven (ζύμῃ) was a common and necessary ingredient in the households of Palestine. It was a piece of the previous week’s fermented dough saved over to help cause the current week’s dough to rise.[9] Leaven by itself is a fermenting agent which, when added to flour, causes it to rise and expand. According to Wenham, the fermentation process can be started from scratch by letting water and barley ferment or by mixing bran with wine.[10]

In the New Testament the leavening metaphor often portrays the permeating effect of evil (Matt. 16:6, 11–12; 1 Cor. 5:6; Gal. 5:9). In the Old Testament all leaven was to be purged from Jewish households in preparation for the first Passover (Exod. 12:15, 19). Elsewhere in the Old Testament leaven may occasionally symbolize evil, as in Exodus 34:25 and Leviticus 2:11 (though these verses do not explicitly state that leaven is a symbol of evil).

Blomberg finds that among interpreters leaven in Jesus’ parable may picture evil overtly or covertly.[11] In the view of some dispensationalists leaven represents the overt presence of evil or its growth in the present stage of God’s program.[12] Toussaint, for example, says leaven refers to the progressive evil character of the present age before God establishes the messianic kingdom.[13] Covertly leaven was Jesus’ parody against the religious leaders in which He was teaching that the kingdom is to be made up of those whom the religious leadership believed were the scum of the earth, such as tax collectors and sinners.[14]

A hermeneutical principle to be kept in mind is that a term may not have the same symbolic significance every time it is mentioned. A lion symbolizes the adversarial work of the devil (1 Pet. 5:8), and the Lord Jesus is “the lion of the tribe of Judah” (Gen. 49:8–10; Rev. 5:5). Similarly while leaven is often associated with evil in the Scriptures, it is not always used in that way.[15] Notable exceptions include Leviticus 7:13 and 23:15–18. Both Genesis 19:3 and Exodus 12:39 (cf. 1 Sam. 28:24; Hos. 7:4) associate omitting leaven with haste rather than with evil as such. While the association of leaven with evil may have been known in Israel’s culture, the disciples did not recognize this symbolism when Jesus warned of the leaven (false teachings) of the Pharisees and the Sadducees in Matthew 16:5–12.

Kingsbury argues for a more positive use for leaven, suggesting that it pictures not “bad things” but “great effects.”[16] Similarly Swete maintains that leaven signifies the kingdom’s subtle power of spreading itself through society and transforming it. The kingdom grows by its own inherent vitality.[17]

The Hiding of the Leaven

Hiding leaven in the dough was the customary practice in baking bread. “Three measures of flour” (σάτα τρία, v. 33) is a large amount of flour. Since one σάτον equals about thirteen liters, the whole amount would be nearly forty liters, or enough, some suggest, to feed 150 people.[18] Capon humorously comments on the surprising size of the meal being prepared: “This is no slip of a girl making two tiny loaves for her husband’s pleasure. This is a baker, folks. Three measures. .. is a bushel of flour.. .. That’s 128 cups! That’s 16 five-pound bags! And when you get done putting in the 42 or so cups of water you need to make it come together, you’ve got a little over 101 pounds of dough on your hands.”[19]

Dalman maintains three measures of wheat flour was the largest amount of dough a woman could knead at one time.[20] Jeremias says the excessive amount of flour points beyond normal practice and therefore must speak only of divine reality.[21] Gundry suggests the leaven refers to the eschatological banquet.[22] However, three measures of meal was not unique, since this amount was used by Sarah (Gen. 18:6), Gideon (Judg. 6:19), and Hannah (1 Sam. 1:24). It was enough to feed a crowd, but it is also not an unrealistic exaggeration, as sometimes advanced.

The Ultimate Effect of the Leaven

The leavening process continued “until the whole was leavened.” As in the previous parables, the agent causing the growth or transformation is unstated. However, the same one responsible for the growth of the seed may be responsible for the transformation within the loaf.[23] Therefore the sovereignty of God is again at work. The last emphatic word of the narrative is the term “whole” (ὅλον), which is also used in both Pauline passages that employ the leavening metaphor (1 Cor. 5:6; Gal. 5:9). This suggests that, whatever meaning is assigned to leaven, the idea of permeation is constantly associated with leaven. This emphasis on the final effect of the leaven functions in parallel with the final stage of the mustard tree, which has been interpreted as suggesting international inclusion.[24]

In the two parables of growth Jesus gave one illustration with a man and one with a woman. As Blomberg concludes, this probably “reflects His concern to relate well to women as well as men in His audience.”[25] This same pairing of a man and a woman can be found in the parables of the lost sheep and coin in Luke 15:1–10 and the eschatological warnings regarding “two men in the field” and “two women at the mill” in Matthew 24:40–41.

In conclusion the leavening process is analogous to the kingdom of heaven in that the small amount of leaven affects the whole batch of flour.

The Central Truths in Relation to the Kingdom

Various paths have been followed in interpreting this parable, most of which have been influenced by the interpreter’s theology of the kingdom. These various proposals can be identified with the various narrative stages of the parable.

The Insignificant Beginnings

Those who take this as the parable’s emphasis argue either from its smallness or its realized presence. As for the former, Stein holds that the parables of the mustard seed and of the leavening process refer not to the greatness of the kingdom, which every Jew expected-but to the fact that the kingdom would begin insignificantly.[26] Dodd, who teaches “realized eschatology,” says the parable refers to the eschatological kingdom of God, which was already present in the teaching of Jesus. Dodd says the parable emphasizes the completion of the process of fermentation. “The period of obscure development is over; the dough is completely leavened: the Kingdom of God, for which the prophets up to John made preparation, has now come.”[27] Likewise, Young states, “The reign of God is being realized in the work and ministry of Jesus and His followers.”[28]

The Idea of Hiddenness

Emphasizing the leaven’s hiddenness, some say the parable refers to martyrdom, power, and mystery. Gerhardsson says the parables of the mustard seed and of the leavening process emphasize the process that creates the ultimate effect. The leaven, he says, must “die” in the dough in order to have its ultimate effect.

“The leaven can leaven the lump (influence it, change its character) under one condition only: it must, to use drastic language, ‘die’ in the dough.”[29] Therefore the leaven shows why some will be martyred for the sake of the kingdom.

Bruner concentrates more on the invisible power of the kingdom. In contrast to other power displays and philosophical movements, “the gospel will rarely be front-page news; its standard method of operation is barely visible to the eye of publicity.”[30] Wenham follows along closely: “The kingdom of God which Jesus brought, seemed unimpressive to many people, but Jesus was setting in motion a powerful process which, though hidden at present, would as surely reach its goal as does the leaven in the dough.. .. Jesus’ present work is the beginning of a powerful process which will eventually lead to the reconciliation and renewal of all creation.”[31]

Hendrickx writes, “Jesus apparently used the term ‘hid’ to suggest that the present development of the kingdom is hidden by His ministry, although in a mysterious way it also reveals the kingdom. It is out of this hidden reality that the final glorious kingdom of God will grow.”[32] Some have suggested the leaven speaks simply of the secrecy or hiddenness of the kingdom in the present age. As Hill maintains, “The kingdom was inaugurated without display or pomp; its silent, secret character must have surprised those who were zealously impatient for its expected manifestation in power and glory.”[33]

The Contrast of the Beginning with the End

As with the parable of the mustard seed, most interpreters say the purpose of this parable is to contrast the insignificant beginning of the kingdom during Jesus’ ministry with its glorious future in the end times. Regarding both parables, Jeremias states, “Their meaning is that out of insignificant beginnings, invisible to the human eye, God creates His mighty Kingdom, which embraces all the peoples of the world.”[34] Treating the two parables together, he writes, “With the same compelling certainty that causes a tall shrub to grow out of a minute grain of mustard seed, or a small piece of leaven to produce a vast mass of dough, will God’s miraculous power cause [a] small band to grow into a mighty host of the people of God in the Messianic Age, embracing the Gentiles.”[35] Here Jeremias is addressing the international flavor found previously in the mustard seed.

Ladd says, “The one point is the contrast between the present and future character of God’s kingly rule. The kingdom which will one day be like a tree harboring the birds of heaven is now like an insignificant seed. One day filling all the earth, it is now like scarcely perceptible leaven leavening a bowl of dough.”[36]

Kingsbury, too, sees this parable as referring to the insignificant form the kingdom manifested in Jesus’ ministry and the final form the kingdom will assume at the end of the age.[37] “Just as leaven initiates a process that is independent of man’s control, so God alone determines the course of events that will culminate in the manifestation of His splendid Kingdom.”[38] Morris states, “Like the previous parable this one brings out the contrast and the continuity between the small beginnings of the kingdom and its consummation.”[39] Hagner believes that this parable and that of the mustard seed speak of “that which appears initially to be insignificant and of no consequence but which in time produces an astonishing and dramatic effect.”[40] And Bruner says, “the main point of the seed parables is the contrast between the littleness of the means and the largeness of the end.”[41]

Blomberg writes, “Since the emphasis is on the small beginnings and the large results, the emphasis must lie there and not in the process of growth.”[42] For him these twin parables have one central point: “The kingdom will eventually attain to significant proportions despite its entirely inauspicious outset.”[43] He also points out that the size of the tree in the mustard seed and the extravagant amount of flour in the leavening process portray that “the end result will be far greater than what anyone observing Jesus and His band of disciples would have imagined.”[44]

The Encouragement for Church Evangelism

Bruner distinguishes the historical message of Jesus from the theological intent of Matthew. “Historically, Jesus taught here that His little ministry would be gloriously vindicated by God. Theologically, Matthew’s church heard Jesus teaching the disciples through these twin stories to have confidence in the telling of the little gospel as Jesus’ unsensational way of making His community a sheltering tree and a nourishing loaf.”[45]

Kingsbury also sees an apologetic purpose in the parable; leaven pictures the presence of the kingdom in the church, from which the entire leavened bread of God’s eschatological kingdom will issue forth.[46] Similarly Bruner says the leaven speaks of the penetration of the message of Christianity in the world.[47] However, this view fails to take seriously the possibility of a future age of the kingdom beyond the present dispensation of the church age.

The Presence of Evil in the Present Age

Reading this parable with the previous two (the tares and the mustard seed), Donahue believes “all three reveal the paradoxical nature of the Matthean church.”[48] And further, “The church is the corpus mixtum, a body in which the good and bad are mixed together.”[49] This has also been the traditional dispensational interpretation. As stated earlier, Toussaint follows older dispenationalists in seeing the referent to evil: “This parable reveals the fact that evil will run its course and dominate the new [church] age.”[50] His support includes the references to leaven as a symbol of evil and what he calls the “sinister effect” of the hiding of the leaven by the woman.[51]

Green maintains that Jesus preserved the traditional association of leaven with evil but that He intentionally reversed it. “Leaven had a bad press in Judaism.. .. So the hearers would be surprised to find Jesus using leaven as an image of the Kingdom. Yet, on second thought, that is just what His followers must have seemed to respectable Jews. Common uneducated fishermen and farmers, carpenters and women, tax-gatherers and disreputable characters-it would all seem rather distasteful.. .. But God is like that. He takes the distasteful characters and transforms them, and then transforms society through them.”[52]

The Nature of Kingdom Growth

Neglected in all the above interpretations is the parable’s focus on the effect leaven has on dough; that is the major point of the analogy. Pentecost observes that the growth occurs because of an internal source, not an external source. “Thus Jesus was teaching that the kingdom would not be established by outward means, since no external force could cause the dough to rise. Rather this new form of the kingdom would operate according to an internal force that would be continuous and progressive until the whole mixture had been leavened.”[53]

For Pentecost, this internal force is the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The mystery of the leavening process is the internal growth effected by the Holy Spirit, which the kingdom will experience before its final manifestation in the world. Though advancing a different center point, Morris supports Pentecost’s view with this statement: “The parable also makes the point that the power that effects the change comes from outside the dough; the mass of dough does not change itself.”[54] While the Holy Spirit comes from without, He works internally to permeate the whole.

Commenting on the difference between this parable and that of the mustard seed, Carson says, “If there is a distinction between this parable and the last one, it is that the mustard seed suggests extensive growth and the yeast intensive transformation.”[55] Of course the kneading and the wholly baked bread are visible elements. But the focus of the parable seems to be on how the leaven works inside the dough, picturing the Holy Spirit’s work in the present age. If the mustard seed speaks of the extent of kingdom growth, the leavening process speaks of the nature or means of kingdom growth. Like leaven, the kingdom appeared in a humble form, is expanding, and at a future time it will be manifested in splendor.

The Intended Appeal for the Audience

To the multitudes this parable revealed Jesus’ association with the present form of the kingdom. Apologetically, though the kingdom in its smaller stages may not seem impressive, it is nevertheless what God is doing.

For the disciples this parable offered assurance that what seemed to be a failed movement will ultimately issue in triumph.[56] Beasley-Murray captures this double-edged appeal of the parable for unbelievers and believers. “Both vantage points are of moment, alike to those who fail to perceive the significance of the ministry of Jesus and to those who count themselves as His followers. The former are called on to recognize the signs of the future in the present and to place themselves under the saving sovereignty in repentant faith in order that they might enter it when it is revealed in glory. The latter are encouraged to stand firm and to look for the completion of that to which they have committed themselves in faith and which they serve in hope.”[57]

Kingsbury argues that in reference to Matthew’s readers the parable functions in a twofold way: an apologetic against the Jews’ failure to understand that the message of the kingdom comes through Jesus, and as an encouraging reminder to believers that in the church age God is manifesting and expanding His rule.[58] “God, through the vehicle of the Church, is even now at work in power to spread out His kingly rule, and this will terminate only with the setting up of His latter-day Realm.”[59] While Kingsbury does not believe in a future earthly Davidic kingdom, his argumentation can support a premillennial interpretation.

Practical applications of this parable to present readers can include the following. First, believers should depend on what God is doing through His Spirit in the present age. Second, Christians should be suspicious of any man-made, externally influenced institutional structures that say they are the manifestation of God’s kingdom. Third, believers must be cautious about setting dates and presuming the arrival of the kingdom since the parable gives no hint as to when the permeation ends. Fourth, Jesus’ followers can be confident that regardless of any current perspectives, the kingdom of God has a glorious future.

Notes

1. This parallel argues against the view that the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are different spheres of God’s rule. Matthew’s term is better understood as a reference to Daniel 7 and especially appropriate for a Jewish audience.
2. Archibald M. Hunter, Interpreting the Parables (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 44.
3. John Drury, The Parables in the Gospels (New York: Crossroads, 1985), 86.
4. Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 221.
5. David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible (London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1972), 233.
6. Bernard B. Scott, Hear Then the Parable (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 322.
7. George E. Ladd, “The Life-Setting of the Parables of the Kingdom,” Journal of Bible and Religion 31 (January 1963): 198.
8. The first line of parallelism in the psalm quotation agrees verbatim with the Septuagint, while the second is closer to the Hebrew.
9. H. A. White, “Leaven,” in Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings et al. (New York: Scribner & Sons, 1902), 3:573; Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 353; and C. L. Mitton, “New Wine in Old Wineskins: IV. Leaven,” Expository Times 84 (August 1973): 339-43.
10. David Wenham, The Parables of Jesus (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1989), 55.
11. Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 286.
12. John F. Walvoord says the leaven represents the corrupted state of professing Christendom (Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come [Chicago: Moody, 1974], 103).
13. Stanley D. Tousssaint, Behold Your King (Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1980), 182.
14. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 286; cf. Francis W. Beare, The Gospel according to Matthew (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981), 309; and Eduard Schweizer, The Good News according to Matthew, trans. David Green (Richmond, VA: Knox, 1975), 307.
15. Oswald T. Allis, “The Parable of the Leaven,” Evangelical Quarterly 19 (1947): 254-73.
16. Jack Dean Kingsbury, Matthew 13: A Study in Redaction Criticism (Richmond, VA: Knox, 1969), 86.
17. Henry B. Swete, The Parables of the Kingdom (London: Macmillan, 1921), 43–44.
18. Ibid., 390; cf. Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, trans. S. H. Hooke, 2d ed. (New York: Scribner & Sons, 1954), 147. D. A. Carson has a long footnote detailing the debate on the exact amount (“Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], 8:399). Cf. David Ussishkin, “Excavations at Tel Lachish: 1973–1977,” Tel Aviv 5 (1978): 87.
19. Robert F. Capon, The Parables of the Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 118 (italics his).
20. Gustof Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina (Hildesheim: Olms, 1964), 4:35.
21. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 147.
22. Robert Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 268; also see Blomberg, Matthew, 268. Hagner, however, sees these details as “drapery” in the story and of no allegorical significance (Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, Word Biblical Commentary [Dallas: Word, 1993], 390).
23. Phillips, “Enunciation and the Kingdom of Heaven,” 415.
24. Mark L. Bailey, “The Parable of the Mustard Seed,” Bibliotheca Sacra 155 (October-December 1998): 449-59.
25. Blomberg, Matthew, 221. Blomberg rightly dismisses the feminist overstatements of Elizabeth Waller, “The Parable of the Leaven: A Sectarian Teaching and the Inclusion of Women,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 35 (fall 1979-winter 1980), 99–109. More appropriate is Wenham’s observation: “The revolution of God means the breaking down of divisive prejudice, whether against Samaritans, tax-collectors, women or children” (The Parables of Jesus, 53). Cf. Henry Barclay Swete, The Parables of the Kingdom (London: Macmillan, 1921), 40.
26. Robert Stein, An Introduction to the Parables (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 95.
27. C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (New York: Scribner & Sons, 1961), 154.
28. Brad Young, Jesus and His Jewish Parables (New York: Paulist, 1989), 210.
29. Birger Gerhardsson, “The Seven Parables of Matthew 13, ” New Testament Studies 19 (October 1972): 23, 27.
30. Frederick Dall Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1990), 2:304.
31. Wenham, The Parables of Jesus, 56–57.
32. Herman Hendrickx, The Parables of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986), 48.
33. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, 233.
34. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 149.
35. Ibid., 132.
36. Ladd, “The Life-Setting of the Parables of the Kingdom,” 198.
37. Kingsbury, Matthew 13, 86.
38. Ibid., 87.
39. Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 353.
40. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 389.
41. Bruner, Matthew, 2:502.
42. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 284.
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid. All other allegorizings can be ignored, as Simon Kistemaker demonstrates (The Parables of Jesus [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980], 48–49).
45. Bruner, Matthew, 2:502.
46. Kingsbury, Matthew 13, 86.
47. Bruner, Matthew, 2:504.
48. John R. Donahue, The Gospel in Parable (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 67.
49. Ibid.
50. Toussaint, Behold Your King, 182.
51. Ibid.
52. Michael Green, Matthew for Today (Dallas: Word, 1988), 138.
53. J. Dwight Pentecost, Thy Kingdom Come (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1990), 223.
54. Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 353.
55. Carson, “Matthew,” 319.
56. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 146; and Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 322.
57. George R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 195.
58. Kingsbury, Matthew 13, 87.
59. Ibid.