[OBW]

Tim,

But there is sound parallels in the direct reading. As a mustard seed, the kingdom is much more than expected. As yeast, it permeates and affects everything. There are probably more profound things to say about both of these, but this is what first comes to mind.

Now if I start with a discussion about incorrect teachings or bad practices and then note that a little leaven leavens the whole lump, then there is a clear parallel that suggests that letting a little error in affects even the good.

It might have been an excellent parable to describe the preaching of the gospel as like the introduction of leaven into flour. It starts as something outside you, then comes inside. But its affect is not to simply remain as a separate ingredient mixed inside, but to actually change the nature of the combined ingredients, resulting in something different than was there before.

I do not have the time to find the other parables you mention, but I start with the presumption that the linkages of terms, even in English (after consulting various translations) will attempt to be consistent with the original and therefore should be respected. Only if there is some evidence, such as an explanation provided afterwords will I consider that this is not the way to read it.

The Bible is not just verses of systematic theology. It is a story. The words used are significant. The telling of this part of the story is not necessarily linked to another simply because of a common word. Even yeast is not something entirely bad in Jewish life. It was only excluded from the passover bread. There was a reason. Outside of that, the negative references to leaven are manifestly clear. It is referred to as the leaven of the pharisees, referring to their teachings. And Paul was talking about the immoral man (Corinthians) and legalistic teachings (Galatians).

As you point out, in Luke (I did not look at the account in Matthew) these two parables follow Jesus' healing on the Sabbath. The kingdom of God is bigger than your concept of the rules and in the same manner as the people who were persuaded by Jesus as he broke the laws, the little thing is affecting that larger context.

As you note, I am not alone in thinking this. I am willing to let it be something that we disagree about. I did not simply dismiss the other thinking. But to me there is nothing compelling me to accept that and reject the direct meaning of the words. I confess that this approach has caused me to rethink man passages over the past few years. I am open to that.