[OBW]

While you did give something to think about, here are the first things that came to my mind:

1. The "bread of life" is not about fermentation. It is about the nutritional content that sustains life.

2. If Exodus called it "unleavened" bread then by what account do you end up with leaven in it? It would then be leavened bread rather than unleavened bread.

3. Not all seed is grain. The parables that mention seed are referring to what grows up, not what you can do with it after it is harvested.

4. So you are suggesting that the problem with the Pharisees' teaching was what they got out of "chewing" on the word? When I read the passage in context, it would seem that it was that it was about what they added to it, not what they got out of it, that was the problem. In effect, they were adding to the Word rather than simply taking from it.

I honestly believe that the whole "leaven is bad" comes from a kind of reading in which a term is expected to have a constant meaning throughout scripture. So let's take the example of "flesh." In the gospels, this word is used quite consistently by Jesus to refer to his body, both literally and metaphorically, and is pretty consistently positive. Yet Paul uses the term "flesh" almost exclusively with reference to our old nature and therefore something negative. Both are right because both have a context and provide more than hints at what is being discussed.

Some of your statements about bread/leaven in your four points needs information not available to the listener of the day, or that would not be the first thought on the subject. So let's talk about them in that light.

1. I will agree that adding leaven makes bread more palatable. Whether it changes the nutritional value of the bread, I am not qualified to say. But if "the entire concept of bread of life is completely wrapped up with leaven" then I would think that we have found another clearly positive point relating to leaven.

2. While man may have generally understood that there was something still around that could add leaven to bread, the point of the unleavened bread in general was not about something evil, but about not taking the time for dough to rise before hitting the road, probably with quickly-baked bread to eat on the road. Yet the ritual that they were required to observe required that they effectively cleanse their houses of leaven for the passover. It was not just about hiding it, but to the extent possible, to clean it out. Sort of like a good washing from ceiling to floor. Doing more than just scraping that wooden bowl. Still, there is no certainty that there was anything about evil presumed in that process unless we conclude that for the journey from Egypt to the promised land there was going to be no significant amount of flour taken along, and no stopping to grow wheat or other grain for a few weeks or even months. Seems they were starving until the arrival of the manna. So it is possible that leaven was pointless for the journey, and might have represented something of Egypt being brought along. But that is not stated to be true as far as I know.

And there is at least one sacrifice in which leavened bread is used, so its offering to God is not entirely disdained. But it has its purpose.

But further to all of this, while the average person in the time of the passover, as well as in the time of Christ, knew that leaven altered the bread. And they had learned that two risings were preferable to only one. But start talking about a living organism eating the carbs and you would have been taken to the the edge of town and stoned as some kind of sorcerer (a little over the top, but I think you understand). The point is that you cannot presume that our knowledge about leaven and the fermentation process can be attributed to the people who were listening to Jesus speak. If you believe that this is what Jesus had in mind when he spoke, then you must presume that he didn't intend it for the audience to whom he directly spoke, but was hoping that it would be one of the few out of many sayings that got recorded so that the more knowledgeable minds of centuries later could understand it. I have a difficult time accepting that Jesus did not speak to them in the way they would understand and instead said nonsense to them for our benefit centuries later.

3. This kind of thinking is Lee's "God never uses a metaphor in other than one way" error. Of course it is not just his error. He has some company in this error.

Instead, each metaphor is a statement concerning a specific thing. It has a purpose that is directly linked to the words used. The parable about the scattering of seed is about the nature of the soil rather than much about the seed. The parable of the weeds is about how you deal with certain kinds of problems within the community of believers. The parable of the mustard seed says that you should expect the kingdom to start small (one man?) yet grow more like a special example than some other plants. The parable of the leaven says something about the kingdom permeating and changing the world. The catch of fish speaks of the gospel attracting many but not keeping everything that was attracted. (And for you died-in-the-wool Calvinists, maybe it is much more complicated than "once saved, always saved.")

To argue that because of a link between seed and dough (assuming the right seed) that the two metaphors must align is nonsense. Each metaphor stands alone to say something specific. Unlike Lee's kind of "take each metaphor and milk it for every possible thing that every related aspect of the whole example could mean" theology. The parable of the seed is about soil. The parable of the mustard seed is about growth. The parable of the leaven is about the power of the kingdom to change everything. The parable of the catch of fish could be about putting in the net to fish and being willing to start with more than is ultimately "caught."

Nothing forces seed to become dough just because it could. That is to interject something not stated and require an understanding that makes the plain reading of the parable strained (at best).

4. This notion of the Pharisee's leaven being the result of "chewing on the word" creates an inference not made. Leaven is something added. It is something that alters what it is added to. So it seems most directly to suggest that it is about what the Pharisees added to the word to arrive at their additional laws and regulations. Given Jesus' other comments in various places concerning this group, he seems to think their pronouncements are quite difficult to bear. Yet the "yoke" of Jesus is light. And while some may say that leaven makes bread more palatable, I doubt that was the intent here since the result was that so much of the Jewish population was willing to be considered sinners by the Pharisees. They couldn't do it. It was too hard.

In summary (don't you wished this had come earlier?) I find most of the old ways of thinking about these particular parables to be strained relative to their context and their actual words. Each has a specific thing to say about a small portion of truth, not some overarching thing to say about everything because there is a commonality of terms, like "leaven." You have to read it where it is first. Only if it is meaningless or clearly referring beyond itself do you reach out to other passages. I don't find these lacking.