Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom by Norman Perrin
Chapter 3: The Modern Interpretation of the Parables of Jesus
B. THE "NEW HERMENEUTIC" AND THE PARABLES OF JESUS
3. Eberhard Jun gel: Paulus und Jesus 69
parables are not so striking, or so convincing, as her theoretical discussion leads one to expect. The interest in the "language-event"
character of the parables is certainly justifiable, and it is an interesting insight to think of hermeneutics in terms of making intelligible the parable as language event in the situation of Jesus and his hearers, and then, further, in terms of repeating the parable as language event under certain subsequent conditions. In the interpretation of The Good
Samaritan this hermeneutical process shows promise, but the
interpretation of the other parables does not live up to this promise. In practice Linnemann has advanced over Jeremias only in stressing the
"event" character of the things from the ministry of Jesus that she finds reflected in the parables, or toward which she sees the parables as
directed; and Jeremias would be happy, I am sure, to support her in most of what she has said. Apart from stressing the "event" character of
repentance, or the table-fellowship with tax-collectors and sinners, Linnemann moves the discussion forward in her appreciation of the extremely radical thrust of the parables. In speaking of Jesus’
demanding that his listeners "alter their ideas radically," or of his turning
"the world upside down," or of him as "one who disturbs God’s order,"
she is sounding a note that is being heard a great deal in the current American discussion, especially from Dominic Crossan. But in general her interpretation in practice does not live up to its promise in theory, and there is good reason for this: Linnemann has not paid sufficient attention to the literary-critical element in the hermeneutical process.
But this is a problem she inherited from her teacher, so we will take it up below, when we comment critically on "the new hermeneutic and the parables of Jesus." Next, however, we turn to the second pupil of Ernst Fuchs to address himself to the parables, Eberhard Jungel.
of this review of the discussion in what I myself have written above, especially in connection with Julicher71 but my interest now is in
Jungel’s own views so I will not discuss his review of the discussion but rather turn immediately to the conclusions he draws from it. He draws twelve (!) conclusions,72 of which the first five are the most important.
1. The proclamation of Jesus is to be understood as "language event."
We may not distinguish between an outer mythological "form" and an inner existentialist, (existentiale) "intent" as Bultmann’s
demythologizing program does.73
2. What is true of the proclamation of Jesus in general is certainly true of the parables in particular. The Kingdom of God is not a theme with which the parables are concerned.74
3. "From this we can establish a guiding principle for parable interpretation:
The Parables of Jesus bring the Kingdom of God into language (zur Sprache) as parable."75
4. The literary understanding of parables in terms of "matter," "picture,"
and "tertium comparationis" (stemming from Julicher) is misleading in that it takes us into the schoolroom whereas the concern of the parables is not to teach us lessons but to confront us with ultimacy.76
5. The parables are a collection of pictures and stories which constantly have a single point of reference, a point of reference to human existence.
"If the parables are concerned with the Kingdom of God, then human existence has its point in the extra nos of the Kingdom of God."77
The remaining seven points are not of the same interest or importance as these first five.78 But these first five points offer a number of most
challenging insights. If I may put some of these in my own words, then Jungel challenges us to do justice to the integrity of the parable as a literary form and not, for example, to draw a non-parabolic "message"
from it, whether moral, theological, existentialist, or some other kind.
He challenges us, further, to seek an appropriate way of approach to the parables, claiming — in my view rightly — that the way pioneered by Julicher with its distinction between matter (Sache) and picture (Bild)
and its tertium comparationis was inappropriate. This point was a particular challenge to Jungel’s own teacher, Fuchs, who had made extensive use of this method of approach. But clearly for Jungel himself the most important point of all is his italicized claim that the parables’
of Jesus bring the Kingdom of God zur Sprache as parable. Now I am not at all sure what that means, but Jungel offers us a discussion of "The Kingdom of God as Parable"79 in which he interprets a whole series of parables from this perspective and to which I now turn.
Jungel begins his discussion of "the Kingdom of God as parable" by interpreting The Hid Treasure and The Pearl of Great Price (Matt. 13:44- 46). These are understood as challenges to the hearer to allow himself to be drawn into the parables so that he who seeks the Kingdom may
suddenly discover himself to have been "found" by it.
The truth is that the attitude and actions of the lucky finder are so dominated by the overwhelming value of that which is found that the apparently passive element (that which is found) becomes the active element, over against which the attitude and activity of the finder demanded by the discovery, that is, the apparently active element, can only be regarded as a passivity
corresponding to that active element; it becomes a "non- action" which "corresponds to the action of God" — because God has already acted!80
This interpretation makes the parable very much a paradigm of the activity of God and the response of man, a paradigm of the relationship between God and man. Jungel’s interpretation of other parables follows this same pattern, often in language very reminiscent of a sermon. The Dragnet (Matt. 13:47-48) concerns the gathering and the sorting of fish;
its point is that the people "gathered" by the proclamation of Jesus are challenged to decision in prospect of the "sorting" to be expected in relationship to the coming of the Kingdom of God. Jesus "guarantees his hearers an opportunity for decision."81 The Seed Growing by Itself (Mark 4:26-29) is another guarantee by Jesus to his hearers. The
proclamation of the Kingdom of God by Jesus in this parable establishes the present of his hearers as a time free from the past (the time of
sowing) and free for the future (the time of harvest). It is guaranteed as a time of hearing, and hence of the opportunity for decision.82 In The Mustard Seed (Mark 4:30-32) Jesus leads his hearers to consider the present in light of the "wonderful future of the Kingdom (of God) ." But
there is more to the matter than that because "the power of the coming Kingdom of God is already present in this parable (ist im diesem
Gleichnis da)." Jesus himself is so convinced that the power of God is at work in the present that he "dares, by means of the parable of the
Mustard Seed, to gather men together, to summon them for the Kingdom (fur die Basileia zu berufen),83 so that those who are
summoned for the Kingdom then belong themselves to the beginning of that wonderful end."84
Jungel offers an interpretation of other parables — The Importunate Friend (Luke 11:5-8), The Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-7), The Prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32), The Laborers in the Vineyard (Matt. 20:1-15)85 — but we will discuss further only his interpretation of The Good
Samaritan (Luke 10:30-35).86
Jungel understands The Good Samaritan as an exemplary story,87 and he interprets it without reference to its context, the lawyer’s question, which he regards as secondary. The story turns on the contrast between the unloving Jew and the loving Samaritan, as both are related to the man in need of love. Priest, Levite, and Samaritan all experience need-of- love (Liebebedurftigkeit) as an event (Ereignis), but the priest and Levite ignore it while the Samaritan responds to it. The contrast between the Samaritan and the Jews becomes the more emphatic when one
remembers that, according to rabbinical teaching, no Jew could accept an act of almsgiving or of love from a Samaritan because to do so would delay the redemption of Israel. As a story The Good Samaritan is
concerned with fulfilling and not fulfilling the Jewish law of loving the neighbor.88 It shows the Jewish priest and Levite, bound by that law, as not fulfilling it, although it is for them the law of God, while it shows the Samaritan, not bound by that law, fulfilling it as the natural law of man’s conscience. The exemplary story shows to us Jesus as a preacher of the law interpreting the law as fulfilled in an event of love occasioned by an event of need-for-love. Jesus can do this "because he is speaking out of the experience of the love of God as an event." By its power as analogy the exemplary story confronts us with the love of God as an event as it directs our attention toward the need-for-love of our fellow men. As Jungel interprets the parable, Jesus, the preacher of the law to his contemporaries, becomes Jesus, the preacher of the law to us. Jungel bridges the hermeneutical gulf by means of the sermon!