Matthew 13:33- The Parable of the Leaven

[Guest]

How do we best interpret this parable? I've thought a lot about it and still can't decide.

MATTHEW 13:33 THE PARABLE OF THE LEAVEN
He spoke another parable to them, "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three pecks of flour until it was all leavened."

There seem to be two popular interpretations of this parable:

#1 This is a good thing! The leaven is the Gospel. The woman is the church. The flour is mankind. The Gospel is placed in the world by the church and the church rises. It grows. It expands. From small beginnings, the church becomes great.

#2 This is a bad thing! The leaven is sin and corruption. The woman is deceitful and using her position in an evil manner. The meal being prepared represents fellowship. Thus, someone is wrongfully corrupting true fellowship and preventing it from occuring in the church.

Some who support Interpretation #1

Thus it was in the world. The apostles, by their preaching, hid a handful of leaven in the great mass of mankind, and it had a strange effect; it put the world into a ferment, and in a sense turned it upside down (Acts 17:6), and by degrees made a wonderful change in the taste and relish of it
~Matthew Henry Commentary

Thus will the Gospel leaven the world and grace the Christian
~John Wesley

Great results from a small beginning
~William Taylor

The Kingdom of heaven operates quietly and from small beginnings
~D.A. Carson

Some who support Interpretation #2

An abnormal and harmful beaurocratic expansion of the church and the devil’s work of undermining it by the infusion of sin represented by the yeast
~Arno Gabeline

Jesus is using here a very common picture from any Hebrew household, and everyone present knew that he meant that this woman did an evil, and sneaky thing when she hid this leaven in the meal
~Ray Stedman

[Guest]

Go to:

http://www.thenarrowpath.com/life_of_christ.html

Listen to:

Life of Christ Volume 5 Tape 1 Side A

You can listen to the first few minutes for a brief introduction. Then skip over to listen from the 35th minute onwards for Steve Gregg's actual comments about the Parable of the Leaven.

[Guest]

I listened to the whole thing

I think Steve somewhat overstates his case. I don't take myself to be any kind of expert, but I have spent a lot of time on these Matthew 13 parables and cannot come to such a black & white conclusion.

I am not a dispensationalist. I do not believe the church has been or is going to be wildly unsuccessful. I am probably pretty close to the beliefs Steve stated on the tape (amillenialist...'perfect balance' ...lol). I have, therefore, little to no motivation to see this parable as bad. I agree that the church has been salt and light in society. That nations with many righteous Christians within its borders are blessed is plain to see.

But I just don't think the passage is as simple to interpret as he says on the tape, though, I admit...I could be wrong. Here's why:

1. Steve talks about the dispensationalists rule of 'exegetical constancy' in interpreting parables. He describes it as untrue. I agree. But clearly 'exegetical consISTENCY' is a good rule of thumb, and I'm not so sure THAT is not what is being utilized. Steve then goes on to use the interpretational method he disposed (by utilizing Daniel and Ezekiel) of to disprove the interpretation he disagrees with. Seems kinda odd.

2. Steve seems to poke fun at the certainty of advocates for this opposing interpretation, but seems pretty certain of his own position. Once again, pretty odd.

3. His point that the wording states the kingdom of heaven 'is like leaven' instead of 'like three measures of meal'...and that such wording is the demise of this opposing interpretation seems like a serious overstatement to me. There are various views of how the phrase 'the kingdom of heaven is like' sets up the parables. It doesn't HAVE to indicate that the kingdom is like the first item/person mentioned. It could simply mean the kingdom is like the following parable as a whole. I see both as valid possibilities. The Kingdom isn't just a 'man who sowed good seed in his field' (v. 24). The Kingdom isn't just a 'mustard seed' (31). The Kingdom is like the totality of the parable. There are multiple views of how to define the kingdom.

4. Steve doesn't address the problem that mustard seeds (according to some) DON'T grow into large trees....which some interpreters say suggests that this was un-natural (not supernatural) growth.

5. Steve doesn't make anything of the point that these 2 parables are told between the telling and the interpretation of the wheat and tares parable. Surely this could mean that these 2 parables are meant to shed light on the tares. It's at least a possibility.

6. No matter what one's interpretation of these 2 parables, surely we can agree that in many ways the original seed (the early church) has been corrupted by satan (false teaching, immorality, etc). Even though the church has grown wonderfully, it has also grown terribly. I don't see how this truth can be dismissed by anyone.

7. The negative connotation of leaven is Scripture is perhaps SO overwhelming that the opposing interpretation should not be dismissed as casually as Steve attempts to do so...in my opinion.

I am undecided. Not hostile either way. But clearly I can envision a non-dispensational amillenialist like myself adhering to this 'negative' interpretation. After all, generally 75% of the first parable is negative, and 50% of the second (in a manner of speaking).

[Guest]

Hi Matthew,

I agree with your points.

At this juncture, I kinda take the Parable of the Mustard Seed in the positive light of the church-kingdom growing, but I take the Parable of the Leaven in the negative light of evil influencing the church. (I agree strongly with your point 7.) Therefore I suppose another possibility is that one parable sheds light on the wheat while the other on the tares. (see your point 5).

[Guest]

I do admit, however, that if the Mustard seed parable was only found in Mark I'd be much more prone to interpret it positively based on its context there.

[Guest]

I take it in the positive sense, as in the kingdom overcoming "until the whole lump is leavened".

Here is why I believe so. First, he is not speaking about evil growing but the kingdom growing (what it is like). Is the kingdom like corruption? I don't believe so. Although there is corruption in the churches we see today, we see Jesus warn several churches in Revelation. In other words, people that gather together in a building with a cross on it does not make it a church. So pointing the finger at them and saying they are corrupting the "church" isn't entirely true, since they may not even be part of the body of Christ, the true church. They may be broken off branches.

Anyway here are some verses that make me think this parable is about the "true" kingdom of God growing:

Revelation 11:15
Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!"

Hebrews 2:7-8
You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor and put everything under his feet.? In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him.

Daniel 2:
35...And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.

44 And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.

Luke 20:17-18

"What then is this that is written:
"The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone'?
Whoever falls on that stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder."

Everyone who is disobedient falls and is crushed, the others are built up into the kingdom of God.

1 Peter 2:4-8;
Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
"Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame."
Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,
"The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,"
and
"A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense."

[Guest]

First, he is not speaking about evil growing but the kingdom growing (what it is like). Is the kingdom like corruption? I don't believe so.

The negative interpretation doesn't say the mustard seed is bad. It says what happens to the seed is bad. Just like what happens to the seed that falls on the path/thorns/rocks is bad. The interpretation is not saying the kingdom is like corruption, it says corruption masquerades as the kingdom, which was supposed to stay humble and pungent (of strong consequence) like a mustard seed should.