First was the illustration of the sower, then that of the wheat and the weeds, the mustard grain, the leaven hid in the batch of dough, the treasure hid in the field, the pearl of high value and the dragnet. (Matt. 13:1-50) The Gospel writer Luke introduces the parables of the mustard seed and the leaven in a different way, and says:

And again he said: ‘With what shall I compare the kingdom of God? It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three large measures of flour until the whole mass was fermented.’”​—Luke 13:17-21.

For instance, the Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Gospel of Matthew, by H. A. W. Meyer, Th.D., English edition of 1884, says on page 259, paragraph three:

The parable of the leaven, on the other hand, is intended to show how the specific influences of the Messiah’s kingdom (Eph. iv.4 ff.) gradually penetrate the whole of its future subjects, till by this means the entire mass is brought intensively into that spiritual condition which qualifies it for being admitted into the kingdom.

9. In a contribution to the Watch Tower issue of April 1881, how did J. H. Paton explain the parable of the leaven?

⁹ Back in the issue of Zion’s Watch Tower dated April 1881, on page 5, there appeared a contribution by J. H. Paton, on the parable of the leaven. In the course of his discussion he said:

This work of progression and glorious success, seems to be illustrated by the Saviour’s parable, in which He compared the kingdom of heaven to leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal until the whole was leavened. Matt. 13:33. A very plausible and we will add, forcible objection to this application of the parable, is based on the fact that leaven of bread and of doctrine are spoken of in the Bible as elements of impurity and of corruption. Would the Saviour represent the kingdom of heaven by an element and process of corruption? We understand the Saviour here uses one feature of the leaven only, in His illustration, that is its permeating power. It does not cease until the work is done, so God’s kingdom will not cease its operations until the curse is removed.

10. How did the Watch Tower issue of May 15, 1900, comment on the parable of the leaven?

¹⁰ However, Zion’s Watch Tower, under date of May 15, 1900, page 154, took exception to that view. Under the subheading “The Parable of the Leaven,” it said: “Leaven represents corruption throughout the Scriptures: In every other instance of its Scriptural use it is represented as an evil, an impurity, something that is defiling. . . . It would not seem reasonable that our Lord should use the word leaven here as Christian people generally suppose, in a good sense, as implying some grace of the holy spirit. On the contrary, we recognize consistency in all of his teachings, and we may be as sure that he would not use leaven as a symbol of righteousness as that he would not use leprosy as a symbol of holiness.”

11. How did The Watch Tower under date of June 15, 1910, explain the parable of the leaven?

¹¹ The Watch Tower, under date of June 15, 1910, page 205, pursued that same line of thought. It said, under the heading “Leaven Hidden in the Meal,” the following: “The parable of the ‘leaven’ (Mt 13:v. 33) illustrates the process by which, as was foretold, the church would get into the wrong condition. As a woman would take her batch of flour for baking and put leaven (yeast) in it and the result would be that the mass would become leavened, so it would be with the church of Christ; the food of the entire household would become leavened or corrupted. Every portion would become more or less vitiated with the leaven of false doctrines which would permeate the entire mass. Thus today nearly every doctrine inculcated by Jesus and his apostles has become more or less perverted or twisted by the errors of the dark ages.”​—See also The Watch Tower as of June 15, 1912, pages 198, 199, under the heading “Parable of the Leaven.”

LEAVEN AND WINE

12. In objection, what might the aforementioned Watch Tower contributor insist upon, and what illustration of Jesus concerning wine and wineskins might he mention?

¹² Now, if J. H. Paton, like the Watch Tower editor C. T. Russell, were alive at the time, he might have objected to those articles in the Watch Tower issues of 1900, 1910 and 1912. He might have insisted that The Watch Tower stick to the “one feature of the leaven only, in [Jesus’] illustration, that is its permeating power.” As the permeating power lies in the fermentation that is caused, he might have argued that fermentation is fermentation, something to be viewed objectively. So he might have referred to Matthew 9:17, where Jesus says: “Neither do people put new wine into old wineskins; but if they do, then the wineskins burst and the wine spills out and the wineskins are ruined. But people put new wine into new wineskins, and both things are preserved.”​—Also, Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37, 38.

13. (a) In what sense, then, is the fermentation of the wine used as a symbol? (b) In view of that, what question arises as to the symbolic significance of fermentation caused by leaven?

¹³ The still-continuing fermentation of the new wine causes gas bubbles and bursts the old, nonresilient wineskins. The wine fermentation operates to a good end, and so here fermentation is used in a good way and symbolizes something good. But does that argue that the fermentation caused by leaven is used as a symbol of something good in the parable of the woman that hid leaven in three large measures of flour until the whole mass was fermented? And so is there an exception or two to the Bible’s use of leaven as a symbol of what is bad and wicked? Does the Bible use leaven as a symbol in a twofold way, both as a symbol of what is good and righteous and also as a symbol of what is bad and wicked?

14. What fact shows that the Bible does not treat wine fermentation as on the same level as fermentation caused by leaven added to a batch of flour?

¹⁴ How, though, can it be rightly argued that the Bible uses the leaven of dough in such a twofold way, when, at the celebration of the Passover and of the seven-day festival that followed, wine was allowed to be drunk whereas all leaven of bread was forbidden, banned, under pain of death for a violator? (Lev. 23:5-13; Luke 22:7-20) So, does the Bible treat all fermentations and their permeative power alike? Does the Bible treat only the permeating power caused by fermentation as the one factor that is to be considered, regardless of what causes the fermentation? The Scriptural answer is No! Otherwise, we would not find the apparent discrepancy at the celebration of the Passover and of the week-long festival of unleavened bread that followed the Passover.

15. In the matter of fermentation, what is the determining factor, and so is the parable of the leaven on the positive side or not?

¹⁵ It is apparent, therefore, that fermentation with its permeating power is, in itself, not the determining factor so that it occupies a status either good or bad as regards its symbolical meaning. Rather, the thing that is added to promote the fermentation is the determining factor. In the Holy Scriptures, the fermentation (as a factor) is not isolated from what causes it. Consequently, the fermentation that is naturally caused in wine making is not classified as being the same as the fermentation that is promoted in flour dough by an additive, yeast, namely leaven or sour dough.a Hence anyone’s referring to the fermenting new wine put in new wineskins in order for him to show that leaven (sour dough) added in bread making is a symbol of what is good and righteous fails to make the point. His argument is not Bible-based. For this reason the argument used by J. H. Paton in the April 1881 issue of Zion’s Watch Tower does not hold good. The inspired Scriptures do oblige us to make a distinction in the case of leaven (sour dough) as a symbol. Accordingly, the parable of the leaven is not an illustration on the positive side; to the contrary, it is on the negative side. But we shall present more on this matter of leaven later on in our discussion.