And He left them, and getting into the boat again, departed to the other side.
Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, and they did not have more than one loaf with them in the boat.
Then He charged them, saying, “Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.”
And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “It is because we have no bread.”
But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, “Why do you reason because you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive nor understand? Is your heart still hardened?
Having eyes, do you not see? And having ears, do you not hear? And do you not remember?
When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments did you take up?” They said to Him, “Twelve.”
“Also, when I broke the seven for the four thousand, how many large baskets full of fragments did you take up?” And they said, “Seven.”
So He said to them, “How is it you do not understand?”
~Mark 8:13-21
In the ancient narrative from the Gospel of Mark, we find a striking moment of disconnect. After a series of profound miracles, Jesus warns his disciples to “beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.” His followers, however, immediately default to a concrete, physical concern: “It is because we have no bread.” This moment perfectly encapsulates a fundamental divide in how individuals approach profound wisdom. The disciples are operating from a literal, surface-level perspective, while the lesson being offered is symbolic and internal. Their inability to grasp the metaphor highlights a common human tendency to get stuck in the material world, missing the deeper principles and meanings that actually shape our lives.
This division can be understood through the concepts of the exoteric and the esoteric. An exoteric approach is externalized; it is the outward, public, and literal interpretation of a teaching or text. It relies on rules, rituals, and historical accounts as they are presented on the surface. In contrast, an esoteric approach is internalized; it seeks the hidden, inner meaning behind the symbols and stories. This distinction directly relates to one’s locus of identity. An exoteric orientation fosters an external locus of control, where authority, truth, and validation are sought from outside sources—a priest, a text, a community. An esoteric orientation cultivates an internal locus of control, where the individual takes on the responsibility of interpreting meaning and integrating it into their own character and understanding.
The modern preference for literalism is heavily influenced by materialism, the philosophical stance that the physical, tangible world is the only reality. When this view is applied to sacred texts, it acts as a reductionist filter, stripping them of their symbolic power. A materialist reading demands that every story be a verifiable historical event, every character a literal person, and every teaching a direct command. This approach flattens the rich, multi-layered landscape of the text into a one-dimensional historical record. It is precisely this mindset that caused the disciples to worry about a physical loaf of bread when the real danger—the corrupting “leaven”—was an invisible, ideological poison.
To unlock the deeper wisdom of these texts, one must engage with them as a form of mythos, rich with metaphors and archetypes. A metaphor is a figure of speech that helps us understand one thing by describing it in terms of another, like “leaven” representing a corrupting influence. An archetype is a universal, primordial symbol or pattern that resides in the collective human psyche—such as the Hero, the Sage, or the Divine Child. Mythology, in this context, is not a falsehood but a sophisticated narrative vehicle for conveying profound truths about human nature, the psyche, and our place in the cosmos using these very tools. When we see Jesus not just as a historical figure but as an archetype of the fully realized Self, the stories transform from history lessons into a map for our own psychological and spiritual development.
It is crucial to clarify that this approach does not deify humanity nor promote self-worship. This common objection often mirrors the disciples’ own error from the book of Mark—a material fixation on the word ‘bread’ that blinded them to Christ’s symbolic warning. Like them, the literalist mindset reduces profound spiritual concepts to superficial literalism, mistaking the pursuit of self-actualization that I mentioned for the sin of arrogance. The aim is not to usurp divinity, but to recognize Christ as the archetype of perfected humanity—a model of wholeness and moral clarity. A ‘fully realized Self’ does not signify a god, but a sovereign individual aligned with reason and virtue. This is the opposite of arrogance; it is the ultimate expression of personal responsibility.
Revisiting the passage in Mark through this esoteric lens, the lesson becomes clear and intensely personal. The “leaven of the Pharisees” can be understood as the archetype of rigid, self-righteous dogma and hypocrisy, while the “leaven of Herod” represents the corrupting influence of worldly power, politics, and moral compromise. Jesus is not giving a baking tip; he is issuing a timeless warning to guard one’s own mind and character against these toxic, internal influences. His frustration with the disciples stems from their inability to turn their gaze inward. He reminds them of the miracles of the loaves and fishes to prove a point: if they would focus on the deeper principles, their material needs would be taken care of. Their obsession with the physical bread was preventing them from receiving true sustenance.
Egocentric oversimplification: the natural tendency to ignore real and important complexities in the world in favor of simplistic notions when consideration of those complexities would require us to modify our beliefs or values. ~The Miniature Guide to the Human Mind, Richard Paul and Linda Elder
The straw man fallacy applied to a person’s character is the act of misrepresenting someone’s motivations, principles, or inner state by reducing them to a simplistic, negative caricature that is easier to dismiss than their actual complex worldview.
This pattern of material reductionism rarely confines itself to ancient texts. An individual who flattens a myth into a mere historical account is often the same individual who reduces a complex human being to a simplistic caricature. This is a form of egocentric oversimplification—a defensive tendency to ignore the challenging complexities in others in favor of a simple judgment that keeps one’s own beliefs and values comfortably intact. Lacking the self-awareness to see their own biases, they don’t interact with a person, but with a straw man of their own creation—a superficial, exoteric manifestation that is easier to categorize and dismiss. This externalized worldview treats not only scripture but all of reality, from human relationships to social structures, as a collection of surface-level facts rather than a web of deep, interconnected principles.
Ultimately, by treating scripture and life’s great questions with an exclusively externalized and literal approach, we risk becoming like the disciples in the boat—anxious about trivialities while missing the profound wisdom right in front of us. The true value of these ancient stories lies not in proving their historical accuracy, but in using them as a mirror for responsible self-reflection. An internalized, philosophical engagement turns a book of rules into a toolkit for personal integration. It empowers the individual to move beyond blind belief and instead undertake the demanding work of cultivating that reasoned, whole character—one capable of discerning the “leaven” in their own mind and perceiving the depth in others beyond their shallow, external caricatures.
Did you enjoy the article? Show your appreciation and buy me a coffee:
Bitcoin: bc1qmevs7evjxx2f3asapytt8jv8vt0et5q0tkct32
Doge: DBLkU7R4fd9VsMKimi7X8EtMnDJPUdnWrZ
XRP: r4pwVyTu2UwpcM7ZXavt98AgFXRLre52aj
MATIC: 0xEf62e7C4Eaf72504de70f28CDf43D1b382c8263F
THE UNITY PROCESS: I’ve created an integrative methodology called the Unity Process, which combines the philosophy of Natural Law, the Trivium Method, Socratic Questioning, Jungian shadow work, and Meridian Tapping—into an easy to use system that allows people to process their emotional upsets, work through trauma, correct poor thinking, discover meaning, set healthy boundaries, refine their viewpoints, and to achieve a positive focus. You can give it a try by contacting me for a private session.
