|
|
FULL BACKGROUND
PARABLE — (Gr. parabole), a placing beside; a comparison; equivalent to the Heb. mashal, a similitude. In the Old Testament this is used to denote (1) a proverb (1 Sam. 10:12; 24:13; 2 Chr. 7:20), (2) a prophetic utterance (Num. 23:7; Ezek. 20:49), (3) an enigmatic saying (Ps. 78:2; Prov. 1:6). In the New Testament, (1) a proverb (Mark 7:17; Luke 4:23), (2) a typical emblem (Heb. 9:9; 11:19), (3) a similitude or allegory (Matt. 15:15; 24:32; Mark 3:23; Luke 5:36; 14:7); (4) ordinarily, in a more restricted sense, a comparison of earthly with heavenly things, “an earthly story with a heavenly meaning,” as in the parables of our Lord.
Instruction by parables has been in use from the earliest times. A large portion of our Lord’s public teaching consisted of parables. He himself explains his reasons for this in his answer to the inquiry of the disciples, “Why speakest thou to them in parables?” (Matt. 13:13–15; Mark 4:11, 12; Luke 8:9, 10). He followed in so doing the rule of the divine procedures, as recorded in Matt. 13:13.
The parables uttered by our Lord are all recorded in the synoptical (i.e., the first three) Gospels. The fourth Gospel contains no parable properly so called, although the illustration of the good shepherd (John 10:1–16) has all the essential features of a parable. (See List of Parables in Appendix.) 1
PARABLE.
I. Parables and allegories
‘Parable’ is ultimately derived from Gk. paraboleµ, literally ‘putting things side by side’. Etymologically it is thus close to ‘allegory’, which by derivation means ‘saying things in a different way’. Both parables and allegories have usually been regarded as forms of teaching which present the listener with interesting illustrations from which can be drawn moral and religious truths; ‘parable’ is the somewhat protracted simile or short descriptive story, usually designed to inculcate a single truth or answer a single question, while ‘allegory’ denotes the more elaborate tale in which all or most of the details have their counterparts in the application. Since ‘truth embodied in a tale shall enter in at lowly doors’, the value of this method of instruction is obvious.
The line between parables and allegories is obviously a fluid one, and both forms are found in the Gospels. There is, however, a more basic difference than that of amount of detail present. While the developed allegory is essentially illustrative, so that one might almost say that the details of the story have been derived from the application, many of the parables of Jesus are not merely illustrations of general principles; rather they embody messages which cannot be conveyed in any other way. The parables are the appropriate form of communication for bringing to men the message of the kingdom, since their function is to jolt them into seeing things in a new way. They are means of enlightenment and persuasion, intended to bring the hearers to the point of decision. Jesus, as it were, stands where his hearers stand, and uses imagery familiar to them to bring new and unfamiliar insights to them. Just as a lover finds himself restricted by the language of prose and must resort to poetry to express his feelings, so Jesus expresses the message of the kingdom in the appropriate forms of language.
II. The interpretation of the parables
In the NT the actual word ‘parable’ is used with the same broad variety of meaning as Heb. maµsûaµl to refer to almost any kind of non-literal utterance. What we should normally call a *proverb can be termed a parable (Lk. 4:23, Gk.; rsv has ‘proverb’). The ‘parable’ in Mt. 15:15 has almost the nature of a conundrum. The simple illustration, that leaves on a tree are signs of the approach of summer, is a ‘parable’ (Mk. 13:28). The more elaborate comparison between children at play and the reaction of Jesus’ contemporaries to John the Baptist and himself is usually spoken.of as ‘the parable of the children’s game’ (Lk. 7:31f.). On the other hand, the parables of the sower and the tares are both given detailed allegorical interpretations (Mt. 13:18-23, 36-43), and the parables of the drag-net (Mt. 13:47-50), the wicked husbandmen (Mk. 12:1-12), the marriage feast (Mt. 22:1-14) and the great supper (Lk. 14:16-24) obviously contain details with allegorical significance.
Christian preachers in all ages have striven, for homiletic purposes, to express their message afresh for their own audiences. This is obviously an entirely legitimate procedure; it is justified by the nature of the parables themselves as art-forms and it is already to be seen in the NT itself (cf. perhaps Paul’s use of the ‘sower’ motif in Col. 1:6). Unfortunately a tendency developed to allegorize small details in the parables so as to teach truths not in the least obvious in the stories themselves, and irrelevant to the context in which they are found. As a result, the inevitable critical reaction set in. Scholars, such as A. Jülicher, asserted that the parables were intended to illustrate one truth only; and they regarded the allegorical interpretations of the parables of the sower and the tares as early examples of the dangerous process of allegorization which had done so much harm in the Christian church. But it is in reality impossible to draw a clear-cut distinction between parable and allegory in the stories told by Jesus; some of his stories were clearly intended to illustrate several lessons, as in the parable of the prodigal son, where stress is laid on the joy which God as Father has in forgiving his children, the nature of repentance, and the sin of jealousy and self-righteousness (Lk. 15:11-32).
It was the mistake of Jülicher to reduce the messages of the parables to moral platitudes. More recent scholars have rightly recognized that they formed part of Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God. In an effort to define more precisely their meaning, J. Jeremias and other scholars have insisted that the parables must be understood in their original historical settings within the ministry and teaching of Jesus. In some cases, according to Jeremias, the parables have been re-worded by those who transmitted them in the early church in order to bring out their abiding significance for fresh generations of hearers; in order to hear them again in their pristine freshness as they fell from the lips of Jesus we must attempt to remove any secondary elements which they have acquired and free the original, comparatively simple lessons taught by Jesus from the more elaborate meanings added by early Christian teachers. While some valuable light can be shed on the parables in this way, such analysis of primary and secondary elements tends to be subjective. It is certainly the case that the Evangelists did not always know the occasion on which particular parable was first spoken or the persons to whom it was originally addressed. In the case of the parables of the good Samaritan (Lk. 10:25), the two debtors (Lk. 7:41), the children’s game (Lk. 7:31f.) and the pounds (Lk. 19:11), the context is given and provides a clue to the interpretation. Often, however, it would seem that the stories of Jesus were remembered long after the circumstances that gave rise to them were forgotten; and the Evangelists have fitted them into their narratives in suitable places, sometimes suggesting the original motive for their utterance (Lk. 18:9). On occasion collections of parables, detached from their original contexts were made (Mt. 13).
Recent scholars have claimed that the parables constitute an art-form whose interpretation is not entirely dependent on a reconstruction of their original content and form; as parables, the stories told by Jesus are capable of showing fresh facets of meaning. It is clear, however, that exposition of the parables for today must be based on as careful an understanding of what Jesus meant by the parables as is possible; otherwise we fall back into the error of regarding them as illustrations of general truths.
The study of the parables with the aid of insights from modern linguistics and semantics has shown that they are not simply ways of conveying information in an attractive form. They have a variety of logical forms and functions. Very often their aim is to jolt the audience into seeing things from a new point of view and to be the actual means of bringing them into a new situation. The parables were meant to force people to decide about their attitude to Jesus and his message and thus to bring them into a new relationship with him. They have been described (by E. Fuchs) as ‘language-events’: i.e. they are the form which the kingdom of God takes in the sphere of language. Through the parables the kingly rule of God comes to men with its promises, judgments, demands and gifts.
It is on these points that interpretation of the parables must concentrate. We should not expect to find the whole of the gospel in any given parable: ‘It is, for example, misleading to say that the parable of the prodigal son contains ‘the gospel within the Gospels’ and to deduce from it that no doctrine of atonement is vital to Christianity; or to suppose from the story of the good Samaritan that practical service to our fellow men is the be-all and end-all of Christianity’ (R. V. G. Tasker, The Nature and Purpose of the Gospels, 1957, pp. 57f.). Nor should we attempt to bring ethical and economic considerations to bear upon the interpretation of the parables when these are in fact irrelevant. The parable of the unjust steward (Lk. 16:1-9) teaches that men must prepare themselves for the future; but the morality of the steward (if he was in fact acting immorally-see J. D. M. Derrett, cited below) has no bearing on this lesson. It is futile to suggest that the parable of the labourers in the vineyard (Mt. 20:1-16) is meant to throw light on the problem of wages; it illustrates the goodness of God, who deals with men generously and not strictly in accordance with their merits.
III. Characteristics of the parables
Jesus took the illustrations for his parables sometimes from nature, as in the various parables about seeds and their growth (Mt. 13:24-30; Mk. 4:1-9, 26-29, 30-32); sometimes from familiar customs and incidents of everyday life, as in the parables of the leaven (Mt. 13:33), the lost sheep and the lost coin (Lk. 15:3-10), the importunate man (Lk. 11:5-8) and the ten virgins (Mt. 25:1-13); sometimes from recent events (Lk. 19:14); and sometimes from what might be regarded as occasional happenings or not improbable contingencies, as in the parables of the unjust judge (Lk. 18:2-8), the unjust steward (Lk. 16:1-9) and the prodigal son (Lk. 15:11-32). The style varies from the brief simile or metaphor (Mk. 2:21f.; 3:23) to the description of a typical event or a full-scale short story of a particular happening.
Sometimes the lesson of a parable is quite obvious from the story itself, as in the story of the rich fool, where the rich man dies at the very moment when he has completed his preparations to retire in security and comfort (Lk. 12:16-21), but even here the story is ‘capped’ with the dictum: ‘So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God’. On other occasions the point is elicited by means of a question, e.g. ‘Now which of them will love him more?‘ (Lk. 7:42). A parable itself may be told in the form of a question which invites the hearer to think how he would act, and then to make the application (Lk. 11:5-8; 14:28-32).
Jesus may draw out the point himself, either at the conclusion of a story (e.g. Mt. 18:23) or in response to a subsequent request for elucidation (e.g. Mt. 15:15). But more often the story is told without additions, and the hearers are left to draw their own deductions from it. Thus in Mk. 12:12 it is clear that the religious leaders knew that Jesus had spoken the parable of the wicked husbandmen against them.
IV. The kingdom of God
Many of the parables of Jesus are specifically related to the *kingdom of God (e.g. Mk. 4:26, 30), and in general the parables are related to its nature, its coming, its value, its growth, the sacrifices it calls for, and so on. Very naturally the interpretation of the parables is dependent on the view of the kingdom held by individual interpreters, and vice versa. Theologians of the ‘thoroughgoing’ school of eschatology, such as A. Schweitzer, who believed that Jesus envisaged the coming of the kingdom of God as a supernatural event which would take place suddenly and catastrophically in the near future, found here the clue to the meaning of the parables of the kingdom. They referred to the imminent crisis prophesied by Jesus. Even parables which implied growth or progress were regarded in this way. It was, for example, in the suddenness of the rising of leaven, not in its slow working, that the meaning of the parable was to be found (Mt. 13:33). Theologians of the school of ‘realised’ eschatology, such as C. H. Dodd, who argued that the kingdom had fully arrived in the ministry of Jesus, interpreted the parables in terms of fulfilment. The harvest prepared for in past ages had already come; the mustard seed planted long ago had now become a tree (Mk. 4:26-32).
Both of these interpretations are one-sided and fail to do justice to the undoubted elements of future hope (Mk. 13:28-37) and present fulfilment (Mt. 9:37f.; Jn. 4:35) in the teaching of Jesus. While Jesus regarded the kingdom or kingship of God as present indeed in his own words and actions, he also anticipated a period, the length of which he did not know (Mk. 13:32), during which that kingship would be a reality in the society of his followers who would constitute his world-wide church, and he predicted that the kingdom would not come in its fullness until he himself came as the Son of man in glory. The contrast between the apparent lack of response with which his teaching was at first received and the final outcome of it is suggested in the parables recorded in Mk. 4. Many of the parables are concerned with the grace shown by God through Jesus in the present time and indicate that the new age has dawned. Others are concerned with how men are to live in the light of the kingdom until its final consummation: they are to be persistent in prayer, to forgive others, to serve their neighbours, to use the gifts God has given them, to be free from covetousness, to remain alert, to be faithful stewards, and to remember that their final judgment is being determined by their present conduct.
V. The purpose of the parables
Some have found Mk. 4:10-12 very difficult to understand, for it seems to suggest that Jesus’ purpose in the parables was not to enlighten the unenlightened, but that the unbeliever might become hardened in his unbelief. It is possible, however, that what seems to be a clause of purpose in Mk. 4:12 is in fact a clause of consequence (so Mt. 13:13). The parables of Jesus may have the effect of hardening the unbeliever, just as Isaiah prophesied with regard to the effects of preaching the Word of God. The truth is that Jesus’ parables are unique. The parables of other teachers can to some extent be separated from the teachers themselves, but Jesus and his parables are inseparable. To fail to understand him is to fail to understand his parables. ‘For those outside everything is in parables’ (Mk. 4:11); the whole of Jesus’ ministry, not merely the parables, remains on the level of earthly stories and portents devoid of any deeper significance. Here ‘parables’ has virtually come to mean ‘riddles’. It is, therefore, possible for men to decline the invitation to understanding and commitment found in the parables, and in them Isaiah’s prophecy (Is. 6:9f.) is fulfilled (cf. Jn. 12:40 where the same prophecy is cited with reference to the disbelief of the Jews in the face of Jesus’ mighty works).
VI. Parables in John’s Gospel
In Jn. 10:6 the word paroimia (a variant translation of maµsûaµl, usually rendered ‘proverb’, e.g. Pr. 1:1) is used to describe the allegory of the true and false shepherds. In Jn. 16:25 the same word is closer to its OT sense of a difficult saying which needs further explanation. The Gospel of John is apparently lacking in parables of the kind found, in the other Gospels, but C. H. Dodd and A. M. Hunter have drawn attention to a number of brief parables which lie almost hidden in this Gospel (Jn. 3:8, 29; 4:35-38; 5:19f.; 8:35; 10:1-5; 11:9f.; 12:24, 35f.; 16:21). Nor should we overlook the many ‘figurative’ descriptions which Jesus uses of himself in this Gospel, e.g. ‘the good shepherd’, ‘the true vine’, ‘the door’, ‘the light of the world’, and ‘the way, and the truth, and the life’.
Bibliography. F. Hauck, TDNT 5, pp. 744-761; C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom2, 1961; C. W. F. Smith, The Jesus of the Parables, 1948; A. M. Hunter, Interpreting the Parables, 1960; idem, The Parables Then and Now, 1971; H. Thielicke, The Waiting Father, 1960; J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus2, 1963; G. V. Jones, The Art and Truth of the Parables, 1964; E. Linnemann, Parables of Jesus, 1966; J. D. M. Derrett, Law in the New Testament, 1970; D. O. Via, Jr., The Parables: Their Literary and Existential Dimension, 1967; J. D. Crossan, In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus, 1973; N. Perrin, Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom, 1976. On parables in Jn. see C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 1963; A. M. Hunter, According to John, 1968. On hermeneutics and the parables, see A. C. Thiselton, SJT 23, 1970, pp. 437-468. r.v.g.t. i.h.m. 2
1. Easton, M. G., M. A. D. D., Easton’s Bible Dictionary, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1996.
2. The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) 1962.
|
|
