Leaven in the Dough

Leaven in the Dough

Brian Culliton

The parable of the leaven in the lump of dough from Mathew's Gospel is another in a string of parables Jesus spoke concerning the Kingdom of Heaven. The parable is very short, only one sentence long, but has an incredibly significant meaning that many, I believe, misunderstand. Jesus spoke the parable thusly: "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened." ¹

"The Kingdom of Heaven is like…" Mathew records Jesus saying these words seven times in chapter 13 alone. Each time He said this, He began to give insight, by parable, into the kingdom age - i.e. the church age. Some of the parables appear to be teaching the same thing, but there are differences in each one. For people that are not familiar with the Bible, these parables can be quite odd sounding; but once they begin to grow in the knowledge of God, the meanings of these things become very fascinating.

The leaven in the dough parable is widely misunderstood because people more or less believe Jesus is saying the same thing He said in the parable of the grain of mustard seed, only using a different symbol. Even some of my favorite Bible commentators make this comparison. I agree that in some aspects they are the same, but yet they are quite different. The parable of the mustard seed concerns the growth of the church as well as some other particular aspects concerning the church. The parable of the mustard seed looks at the growth of the church from an external point of view, but the parable of the leaven tells of something growing within the church.

There are a lot of ideas as to what the "three measures" specifically means. The scope of this article, however, is to focus primarily on the leaven. Interestingly, many true believers agree with the school of thought that I disagree with concerning what the leaven represents. This is because in their view they are really speaking of the heart, which the Word of God permeates through like leaven permeates through dough. It's more like a teaching on sanctification. As far as understanding the believer's heart and how one is sanctified, they do well. As far as believing that the Word of God is represented as leaven, I believe they are mistaken. This is not, however, a point of doctrinal division. What is lost in understanding the parable this way is the connection between false doctrine in the church, and the fact that Jesus specifically warned us concerning it.

If the leaven in this parable represents something good, then it would be the only time the word is used in a positive sense in the entire Bible. Leaven is always used in a negative sense; it either represents sin, or it represents false doctrine. In the Old Testament Law, leaven was not allowed to be in the peoples possession during Passover. "So this day shall be to you a memorial; and you shall keep it as a feast to the Lord throughout your generations. You shall keep it as a feast by an everlasting ordinance. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses. For whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel." ²

Soon they would find that their entire diet would consist of unleavened bread, which they would call manna. For 40 years God fed the people with manna from Heaven. Jesus latter taught the Jews (not that they understood Him) that the manna their fathers ate was a foreshadowing of the true Bread from Heaven, Jesus Christ. Therefore, the bread could not be leavened, nor could they consume both leavened and unleavened bread because the true bread, which was to come, is without leaven. In other words, Christ is without sin and His doctrine is true. The fact that the Jews kept the feast of unleavened bread showed forth the coming of Christ. But it was leaven that kept them from recognizing when He did come, and that leaven was the false doctrine of the religious leaders.

Jesus Christ is God who stepped out of Heaven and took on the form of man under the lineage of King David according to the flesh. God didn't become a man in the sense that He ceased to be God, but rather He was fully God and fully man. God gave no law that He Himself wasn't willing to prove that it could be lived without transgression. Jesus lived the law perfectly even though He was tempted in every way men can be tempted. He lived the Law perfectly even though the traditions of men clouded the Law. Yet the Law served to only condemn men of sin because they could not keep it. Therefore, men were filled with the leaven of sin and were ungodly. Nevertheless, Christ came and died for the ungodly that they might be purged of the leaven that was in them by the unleavened sacrifice at Calvary.

Jesus told His disciples, "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees." ³     The disciple thought He was referring to the fact they had forgotten to bring bread with them. But when Jesus rebuked them, then they realized what He was talking about. "Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees." ⁴     So here we see Christ referring to the false doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees as leaven. Jesus is warning them about the traditions of men, the false doctrine of the religious leaders. Unless one remains rooted in the truth, false doctrines can sneak up and overtake them. This is because false doctrine usually has very subtle and innocent looking beginnings and it satisfies the desires of the carnal mind.

Paul also spoke about leaven to the young church. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul seemed to be referring to this same parable when he said, "Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." ⁵     As Paul said, they were truly unleavened as are we if we truly follow Christ. We are not unleavened in and of ourselves, though; this unleavened transformation is the righteousness of Christ, which is imputed to us because He was obedient and worthy. But nevertheless, Jesus warns of leaven in the Kingdom of Heaven.

It didn't take long for Satin to plant the seeds of deception in the early church. Prominent men in the church began to introduce their philosophies and wisdom into the minds of the Christians, especially after the church became the preferred religion in the fourth century. But false beliefs about Christ have existed since the apostolic church. No writings are more evident of these false teachings then are those of Irenaeus who wrote in opposition to them. In his extensive writings, Irenaeus makes many attempts to explain the reality of Christ's humanity due to the influence of the Gnostics who believed Christ did not really exist in the flesh. I think it's very important to note at this point that the Gnostics did not believe Christ suffered in the flesh, and this was the focus of much of Irenaeus' writings.

Irenaeus did not intentionally introduced ideas that would one day become false doctrine. Irenaeus did, however, write extensively concerning heresy, making him a prominent figure in Christian history. His writings have been studied for centuries, and for those who would base their doctrine on history, he was extremely influential. But to what extent did people stretch their imagination concerning the teachings of Irenaeus and others?

What we are about to examine is the origins of a modern day belief that is heavily disputed among Christians today. Soon this belief will be made dogma by the Catholic Church, and many others seem to be primed to accept it. The belief is the ever-so-popular "Mary: Co-redemptrix." I want to begin with Irenaeus because most proponents of this doctrine like to reference his statement concerning the "new Eve." They also know that Christians who do not support their doctrine consider him a respectable church father, making his writings a potent source for their belief. In his third volume of "Against Heresies," Irenaeus makes the following observation:

"In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, 'Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.' But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin, … having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race." ⁶

This is a parallel teaching to Paul's teaching on Christ as the new Adam. In Paul's letter to the Romans, he wrote, "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many." ⁷     It stands to reason; when people read this they are inevitably going to ask: Didn't Eve sin too; didn't she also bring sin and death into the world? It seems inevitable that one would automatically think of Eve as a type of Mary when they learn that Adam is a type of Christ.

Irenaeus certainly satisfies the inevitable questions, but is he correct? Was Eve's disobedience the cause of death entering into the world? Was Mary's obedience the cause of salvation? These are tantalizing questions that deserve an answer. I would like to begin by showing what is probably the origin of Irenaeus' thoughts towards this subject. About 20 years or so before Irenaeus wrote this, Justin Martyr wrote his apologies and other letters explaining the faith. In his "dialogue with Trypho," Justin wrote:

"…And that He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, 'Be it unto me according to thy word.' And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him." ⁸

First note that Justin establishes that the virgin Eve brought forth disobedience and death. We all know the story; God made Adam in God's own image. God commanded Adam not to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree, warning him that if he did he would surly die. Later, God declares that it's not good for Adam to be alone so He made a helper for him that would be a companion to him. God made Eve from Adam, for Adam. Notice, God commanded Adam, forbidding him from eating from the tree of knowledge, before He made Eve. It was Adams responsibility to pass that commandment on to Eve, which he faithfully did. Also, the devil did not deceive Adam; he deceived Eve. Adam's sin was in obeying his wife who gave him the fruit. Therefore, sin and death entered the world by Adam through the conduit of the serpent and the virgin Eve. So Justin is saying that Adam's disobedience came by this means; it was through the virgin Eve that disobedience came. Likewise, the conduit by which salvation came was through the virgin Mary, and it was a sign to men that the Messiah had come. Isaiah said, "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel." ⁹     So, as Justin said, life came into the world by the same means death did, through the virgin.

Both these early church fathers were teaching the same thing; death entered the world by Eve believing the serpent, and life came into the world by Mary believing the angel. Neither man, however, gives credit to Eve for Adam's sin, nor do they give credit to Mary for Christ's obedience. So just as Eve was cursed for believing Satan, Mary was blessed for believing God. No Christian can argue against God's perfect knowledge, therefore, we must confess that God knew that Satan would tempt Eve and Eve would believe him; He knew Adam would hearken unto his wife and eat the fruit. Likewise, God knew that Mary would believe because He chose her from the beginning. Even Justin said that she received faith and joy from God when the angel visited her. This wasn't a case of Mary agreeing with God, as if the salvation of the world hinged on her answer; this was a humbling honor to Mary, not a position of honor for her.

If the Christians of the first two centuries venerated Mary, why did these men stop here? Why didn't they write that all grace flows through Mary and Mary's roll as co-redemptrix? Why didn't they write that Mary was conceived without sin? Surly this would have been important information for the writings against heresies - if it were true. However it wasn't, nor is it now, true. At the most, some believed that Mary remained a virgin all her life, but this was in no way an official teaching of the church.

Gnosticism was a constant opponent of the early Christian church as evidenced by the volumes of writings against it. As earlier stated, much of these writings focused on Christ's humanity. For this very reason Mary's role as mother of Jesus is often mentioned. The emphasis was on the fact that God became the "Son of Man;" this could only happen if He took His fleshly body from man, i.e. Mary who is of the house of David, thus fulfilling the promise: There shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse, And a Branch shall grow out of his roots." ¹⁰

As the church moved into the third century, heretical teachings seemed to gain strength. All sorts of philosophies and pagan practices began to enter the church by this time as evidenced by the writings of Tertullian. The making of idols was a common occupation in those days, and it seem that there were many converts to the Christian church who still held that occupation. Tertullian warned them to stop participating in the trade because he viewed making idols the same as worshiping them. But the real danger was in the fact that they started to make likenesses of Christ for the church, and it was evident that there were churches condoning this practice. Tertullian strictly warned them not to do this because it was an abomination to the Lord.

In the early third century the same idea about Eve being the conduit of death and Mary the conduit of life was still propagating undefiled. Tertullian taught that any teaching or philosophy that can't be backed by Scripture is not from God. This idea shows what the Christians of the first few centuries believed concerning traditions - the Scriptures were the authority. The teaching about the roles of Eve and Mary were certainly taught within the context of the Scriptures. Tertullian taught the following concerning this teaching:

"For it was while Eve was yet a virgin, that the ensnaring word had crept into her ear which was to build the edifice of death. Into a virgin's soul, in like manner, must be introduced that Word of God which was to raise the fabric of life; so that what had been reduced to ruin by this sex, might by the selfsame sex be recovered to salvation. As Eve had believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel." ¹¹

I think it's evident that this teaching remained Scriptural up to the third century, as none of the church fathers elaborated about Mary holding any place of special honor in the church. Any attempt to elevate Mary above the saints (i.e. above true believers both past and present) would have been disputed by these disciples of Christ. It is apparent that Tertullian was not going to idly stand by while vain philosophy entered the church, for he states:

"Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, ¹²     Platonic, ¹³     and dialectic ¹⁴     composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our palmary faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides." ¹⁵

Unfortunately, vain philosophies did enter the church, and as time went on, they became more and more elaborate. But at least as far as the first few centuries go, the church did a pretty good job of combating them. The earliest writing that focuses on Mary, as far as I know, comes from Epiphanius in 377 A. D. who wrote:

"But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary's death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried ... Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] ... For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence ... The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain ... Did she die, we do not know ... Either the holy Virgin died and was buried ... Or she was killed ... Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows." ¹⁶

Epiphanius specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. The Catholic Encyclopedia even admits this while attempting to prove their belief on "the assumption of Mary." However, in order to "prove" such things, they can only reference pseudo writings that are way out of line with any early orthodox teachings. The main writing regarding the assumption of Mary is Transitus Beatae Mariae, which emerged in the late fifth century and was attributed to Melito of Sardis who lived in the third century. Interestingly in the late fifth century (around A.D. 494) Pope Gelasius officially condemned the writing as heretical, and the author condemned forever under the indissoluble bond of anathema. ¹⁷     It wasn't until 1950 that this extraordinary claim was officially declared to be a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith. Pope Pius XII decreed Munificentissimus Deus, the official teaching of the assumption of Mary. In his decree, Pius sternly warns:

"Hence, if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic faith...It is forbidden to any man to change this, Our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul." ¹⁸

How can this be, seeing how the Scriptures and the early church are totally silent concerning Mary's end? It is also quite curious because the Gospel of Luke records an event that truly establishes for us the spiritual status of Mary. The incident occurs when a woman who heard Jesus answer the Pharisees, Scribes, and Lawyers with great authority, cried out, "Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!" ¹⁹     Jesus replied, "More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" ²⁰     It is evident from Luke's Gospel that Jesus gave no higher status to Mary than He does to anyone who does the will of God. This does not take away from the fact that Mary was blessed among women; in fact, she was a disciple of Christ and most certainty did the will of God by both believing God and following His Son.

It is not our intent to take anything away from Mary; she was truly blessed for believing God. But on the other hand, it is not right for anyone to elevate her to any special status. There exists no evidence that Mary was assumed into Heaven or that she was conceived without sin. There is not even any credible evidence for Mary remaining a virgin all her life. There is, however, much evidence that all these things are not true. Mary was simply a God-fearing young woman who loved the Lord our God with all her heart and believed Him and was blessed for it. I think it does disservice to the memory of Mary (so much as we know her through the Scriptures) to revere her as an object of spiritual adoration.

The danger of all this is it leads people away from God and into disobedience. Many statues are made and people bow before them in direct disobedience to God. When people question this practice, they are lied to with clever deceit such as being told this does not go against God's commandments because "we do not worship but adore the person for whom the image represents." Calling an orange an apple does not make it so; likewise, calling the act of bowing and praying to anyone but God is worship and idolatry, and anyone who practices these things are guilty of the same.

The Scriptural teaching of the virgin Eve and the virgin Mary was well understood in the early church, but through time as the pagan world that surrounded the church continued to impact it, the church itself began to cave. But God is faithful and promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail, and His Word is with us, and so too is His Spirit if we ask for it. It is a fact that almost all of the New Testament can be reconstructed by the writings of the church fathers of the first three centuries, but none of the traditions of the Catholic Church can be discovered there.

As Paul indeed said, "a little leaven leavens the whole lump." The Marian doctrine is just a small example of this leaven phenomenon. Christianity is not only permeated with old leaven, but also there have been many drops of new leaven added in recent times. The "historical critical approach" to the Bible is a good example of modern day leaven. So the only way to know the truth is to know God. God has been faithful to us in that He gave us His Word, and His word will endure forever - He promised! You can be sure, by both the grace of God and by the power of the Holy Spirit, that the Bible is the word of God. If the apocryphal writings were meant to be part of the Scriptures, they would have been. Let's not deny the power of the Holy Spirit, nor let us deny God's love for us by allowing these heretical writings to influence our faith.

Back to Top