P
ARABLE&ALONG WITH APOCALYPTIC,HAVEBEENAMONGTHE MOST WRITTEN ABOUT YET hermeneutically abused portions of Scripture. This is understandable since the two form at one and the same time the most dynamic and yet the most difficult to comprehend of the biblical genres. The potential of the parable for communication is enormous, since it creates a comparison or story based upon everyday experiences. How- ever, that story itself is capable of many meanings, and the modern reader has as much difficulty interpreting it as did the ancient hearers. Jesus himself gave the operating principle, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, ‘though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand’ “(Lk 8:10). Mary Ann Tolbert correctly states, “Judg- ing by the varied opinions and continued controversies that mark the study of the par- ables of Jesus . . . it is undoubtedly true that most modern parable interpreters fall into the category of the ‘others’ ” (1979:13). The disciples had great difficulty understanding the parables, and this is even more true in our day. If one were to read a cross-section of works on the parables or hear a randomly selected cross-section of sermons, the multiplicity of interpretations would be bewildering. Is the “author’s intended meaning”possible? And by “author” do we mean Jesus or the evangelist? These are only two of the many issues we face when coming to grips with the parable genre.
The Meaning and Use of Parables
The importance of parables is evident when we realize that fully a third of Jesus’ teaching in the Synoptic Gospels comes in parabolic form. In modern terms, we think of a parable as “an earthly story with a heavenly meaning.” Yet what did it mean in the ancient world?
The Hebrew term is r&&1, which also is used for the “proverb” or “riddle” and has as its basic meaning the idea of comparison. Indeed, the proverbial form often established a comparison, such as Proverbs 18:11, “The wealth of the rich is their fortified city, like a high wall in their imagination.” As Peisker points out, m&l developed from a popular term for proverb to a technical term for wisdom teaching and finally to a broad term used for prophetic proverbs, parables, riddles and symbolic actions (1978:744-45). Several prophetic parables might be mentioned, such as Nathan’s parable of the ewe lamb, which -
236 The Hsrmeneutlcal Spiral Parable 237
dramatically demonstrated his own injustice to Uriah (2 Sam 12:1-2) or Isaiah’s parable of the unfruitful vineyard, used to illustrate Israel’s unfaithfulness and God’s judgment upon the nation (5:1-7).
The background of the parable in wisdom and prophecy is crucial when considering Jesus’ development of the parable form. It has long been recognized that Jesus was a teacher of eschatological wisdom and his parables demonstrate this quite well. Yet, as Perkins points out, there were significant differences (1981:37-39). Jesus was not a teacher of wisdom in the sense of helping the young learn to live as responsible members of society. Purely pragmatic issues like friendship, choosing a wife and future leadership in society are all missing. Rather, Jesus was preparing citizens of the kingdom, and he used the methods of wisdom to that end. This has important ramifications for the positive side of Jesus’ use of parables to challenge the hearer to respond for the kingdom (see further below).
Like the many forms of the Jewish m&l, the parabolii that Jesus used had a multi- plicity of forms. There are proverbs (Lk 4:23, “Physician heal yourself”), metaphors (Mt 15:13, “Every plant not planted by my heavenly Father will be uprooted”), similes (Mt 10:16, “I send you out like sheep among wolves”), figurative sayings (Lk 5:36-38 on the new wine in old wineskins, which utilizes parabola?), similitudes or more developed similes (Mk 4:30-32, comparing the kingdom to a grain of mustard seed), story parables in which the comparison takes the form of fictional narrative (Mt 25:1-13, the ten virgins), illus- trative or example stories in which the parable becomes a model for proper conduct (Lk 10:29-37, the good Samaritan) and allegorical parables in which several points of com- parison are drawn (Mk 4:1-9, 13-20, the sower and the seed). The one common element is the use of everyday experiences to draw a comparison with kingdom truths. When most people think of “parable” they think of the story parables, but as we have seen the form is much broader. No wonder Mark could add, “And with many such parables Jesus spoke the word to [the crowds] . . . and without parables he did not speak to them” (4:33-34).
Let us delve a little more deeply into the similitude, parable and allegory. The first two have strong similarities, as each maintains a formal, literal comparison stressing a central idea. However, a similitude is a straightforward comparison with one or more verbs in the present tense, applying a common experience or typical habit to greater spiritual realities. Consider Mark 13:28-29: the everyday reality (the fig tree sprouting leaves as evidence that summer is near) demonstrates the kingdom truth (the events of 13:5-27 as harbingers of the return of Christ). A parable on the other hand is a narrative employing a particular event in the past tense without the direct and obvious comparison. It is indirect and demands that the hearer react. It does not appeal to the mind as much as to the whole person. As Linnemann says, the similitude finds its authority in the univer- sality of the imagery, the parable in the “perspicuity” with which it is told, that is, in the power of the story to attract and hold one’s attention.
The allegory paints a series of pictures in metaphorical form, all of which combine in parabolic fashion. It is common today to state that the major difference between a pure parable and an allegory is that in the latter all the details have symbolic significance with many thrusts rather than a single point. Yet this is debatable, as exemplified in Matthew
22: 1-14 (parable of the royal wedding feast) in which the king refers to God, the servants to the prophets and the son to Christ.
The extent to which allegories are found in Jesus’ teaching has been debated. Jeremias argues that allegorical details are later church embellishments or additions and must be removed to get back to Jesus’ original parables, whi-ch have a single point (1972:66-89).
However, as most now recognize, Jeremias was forced to employ circular reasoning to prove his case. From Jtilicher (see below) he received his basic thesis that Jesus’ parables had to make only one single point, and he then read this theory back into the evidence.
The presence of allegory at the earliest stages of Jesus’ teaching is strongly attested to in the Gospels. The very first parable narrated, the parable of the sower (Mk 4:3-9), provides one of the clearest cases of multiple thrusts; one could also mention the parables of the tares (Mt 13:24-30), the net (Mt 13:47-50) and the vine and the branches (Jn 15:1- 8). However, only the context may decide which details provide local color without spiritual significance (part of the story world) or have individual theological meaning themselves (meant to be contextualized).
Craig Blomberg provides the strongest challenge yet to the “one-point only” school of Jiilicher and Jeremias (1990:29-70, especially 36-47). He argues that the distinction be- tween parable and allegory has been overstated, and that both Jesus and the evangelists intended the parables to be understood as having several points: (1) Both Old Testament and rabbinic parables show that the Jewish mikil preferred a carefully controlled alle- gorical thrust. (2) There never was a distinction between allegorical and nonallegorical forms in the Greco-Roman world; most preferred mixed types in which some but not all the details had a “second level of meaning.” (3) The form-critical assertion that the tendency in ancient times was to allegorize originally simple stories can be turned on its head; the tendency may well have been to abbreviate, not expand. (4) Even single-point parables are metaphorical and thus allegorical, since they involve further levels of mean- ing. (5) There is a difference between “allegory,” a literary device in which the author draws the reader into a deeper and intended level of meaning; and “allegorizing,” in which levels of meaning (never intended) are read into the text. The former is true of the Gospel parables, but not the latter. (6) So many details in the parables are indeed meant to be understood on the metaphorical level due to their extravagant nature (they go beyond the normal story line) that they cannot be mere added details; they must have spiritual significance.
The task is to distinguish between “local color” (details not meant to carry spiritual meaning) and theologically loaded details (those which do have allegorical significance).’
This is determined on the basis of context, both macro (the larger context within which the parable is found) and micro (the parable itself), as well as the historical background of the details as seen in the story. In general, as Blomberg states, the main characters or symbols of a parable contain significance. For instance, in the parable of the sower, the four types of soil signify different types of receptivity to the gospel, the sower refers to God and the seed is the gospel. Here most of the details are allegorized. In the prodigal son parable (Lk 15:11-32), however, the characters have significance (the father q God, the prodigal son = tax collectors and sinners, the elder son = scribes and Pharisees; see -
Parable 239
238 The Hsrmeneulical Spiral
15: 1) but the details (such as the famine, the pigs and the carob seeds) add vividness rather than spiritual meaning. In each case we must study the parable in terms of external (larger context) and internal (structural development) considerations before making any deci- sions.
The Purpose of Parables
One of the most difficult parable sections in the Gospels is the only one that clearly delineates their “purpose”: Mark 4:10-12 (Mt 13:10-15; Lk 8:9-lo), which gives a very negative perspective, “to those on the outside everything is spoken in parables so that,
‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding, otherwise they might turn and be forgiven’ ” (Mk 4: 11-12). Modern interpreters have had a great deal of trouble accepting a statement that implies that Jesus used parables to hide the kingdom truths from unbelievers. Linnemann, for instance, argues that this could only have been added by a later church in absolute conflict with Jewish opponents (1966).
Others argue that Mark created the story as part of his “messianic secret,” his view that Jesus wished to conceal his true identity,, This is convenient but hardly convincing.
Kermode argues that this forms the very core of Jesus’ enigmatic preaching, which both conceals and reveals (1979:25-47). The “mystery” of the gospel produced the enigma.
First, attempts to solve the question on the basis of the connectives are doomed to disappointment. We should not overly distinguish Mark’s him from Matthew’s hoti; as Zerwick points out, both may be based upon the original Aramaic di and in this instance should not be set against each other (1963:146). Yet, at the same time, we should not remove all differences, as if the two were synonymous. The answer is found somewhere between the two poles. Furthermore, we cannot argue that hina in Mark 4:12 means result rather than purpose. While such is possible, the strong judgment context with its
“those around/ those outside” polarity makes result unlikely. The quote from Isaiah 6:9- 10 is too strong for a resultative sense. The basic thrust of the Isaianic passage is divine rejection and judgment, and this is certainly Jesus’ meaning as well. Finally, the inter- pretation of mepote as “unless” rather than “lest” is also possible* but unlikely, again because of the strong judgment context of the passage. This is hardly a promise of forgiveness in light of the rigid distinction between Jesus’ followers (who obviously alone have forgiveness) and the outsiders. Thus Mark centers on Jesus’ sovereign purpose (“so that”) and Matthew on the reason (“because”) for that judgment. They constitute two sides of the same coin.
In short, Mark 4:10-12 clearly indicates that Jesus chose the parable form to symbolize God’s judgment upon his opponents. Jesus often used parables not from a desire to communicate truth but to hide the truth from unresponsive hearers. Parables confirmed unbelievers in their rejection. However, we must ask a further question: Was this rhe purpose of the parable form or Q purpose? One of the keys to the determination of dogma from Scripture is to reject proof-texting (determining a doctrine from single statements rather than from the whole of Scripture). Two factors force us to seek other evidence:
this quote is found within the conflict-and-rejection parables of Mark 4 and Matthew 13 and therefore occurs in a limited context; and parables are definitely used to challenge
and instruct the disciples (such as the parable of the moneylender, Lk 7:40-43; the par- ables in the Olivet Discourse, Mt 24:32-25:46; those in the farewell discourse, Jn 14:2- 3,6; 15:1-8; 16:21-22) and also to challenge the crowds and even the Pharisees to respond (such as the parables on seeking the lost, Lk 15; the good Samaritan, Lk 10).
It seems clear that Jesus did indeed have a larger purpose in using the parable form.
Parables are an “encounter mechanism” and function differently depending on the au- dience. In his controversies with the leaders and unbelieving Israel a large part of that purpose was to conceal the truth from them. This was a divine judgment on recalcitrant Israel that paralleled the judgment on Pharaoh and on the apostate nation of Isaiah’s day. In response to their rejection of Jesus’ message God will harden their hearts further via the parable. Yet this negative sign was part of a larger purpose that had its roots in the Old Testament wisdom use of parables to challenge and draw the people to response (such as Nathan’s parable to David in 2 Sam 12). Indeed, here the “performative” lan- guage in the parables noted by the New Hermeneutic is valid (Funk 1966:193-96). The crowds are forced to make a decision for or against Jesus, and his disciples are challenged and taught by them. Each group (leaders, crowds, disciples) is encountered differently by the parables.
The parables encounter, interpret and invite the listener/reader to participate in Jesus’
new world-vision of the kingdom. They are a “speech-event” that never allows us to remain neutral; they grasp our attention and force us to interact with the presence of the kingdom in Jesus, either positively (those “around” Jesus in Mk 4:10-12) or negatively (those “outside”). Scholars are beginning to agree that Matthew 16: 19 and especially John 20:23 (“Whatever sins you forgive will be forgiven and whatever you retain will be retained”) relate primarily to the proclamation of divine truths; the hearer must respond and this response leads to salvation or judgment. This is very applicable to the parable.
For those who reject the presence of God in Jesus (the leaders of the Jews) the parable becomes a sign of sovereign judgment, further hardening their hearts. For those who are open (the crowds) the parable encounters and draws them to decision. For those who believe (the disciples) the parable teaches them further kingdom truths.
The Characteristics of Parables
1. Earthiness. Jesus borrowed pictures from home life (lost coin, leaven, prodigal son), nature (mustard seed, tares), the animal world (birds of the air, wolves in sheep’s cloth- ing), agriculture (sower, vineyard, lost sheep), commerce (talents, unjust steward, wicked tenants), royalty (royal wedding), hospitality (good Samaritan). To this extent Jesus followed in the tradition of the sages (wisdom teachers), who centered on the practical side of life. Yet Jesus also transcended the sages in that this was primarily the picture
’ or image side of the metaphor and not the true thrust. At times there was an ethical message (such as the good Samaritan) but it formed a kingdom ethics.
At the same time the point of the parable can be skewed unless we understand the earthy details behind the image in the parable. For instance, explaining the topography of Palestine aids greatly in understanding and applying the parable of the sower. The seed
“beside the road” is based upon the fact that roads run right through the middle of the
., ,,. ,,
240 The Hermsnsulicrl Spiral
fields and since farmers sowed seed liberally rather than scientifically some would nat- urally fall on the hard-packed road. The “rocky place” refers to the limestone shelf just a few inches below the soil in many parts of Palestine. This would hold in the water, allowing the plant to sprout quickly. However, the sun would dry it up just as swiftly and the crop would wither; there was insufficient soil for deep roots. The “thorns” were a type of weed that sunk roots more quickly and so “choked” the moisture and nutrition from the new stalks. Finally, in many parts of Palestine a hundredfold yield has actually been recorded, so Jesus’ point is not just hyperbole.
2. Conciseness. The parables recorded in the Gospels are simple and uncomplicated.
There are seldom more than two or three characters, and the plot line contains few subplots. Here we must correct earlier misunderstandings, however. From Jiilicher and Jeremias, many have taught that parables have only a single perspective or plot. This is not quite true. The prodigal son does have a major plot (the profligacy of the son followed by repentance, forgiveness and reinstatement) but also has two other perspectives (the love of the father, the jealousy of the older brother), both of which have meaning in the parable and transcend mere “local color” (that is, are part of the story but have no theological significance). The parable itself must guide us into its complexities.
3. Major and Minor Points. This is the most debated aspect of parable research. Due to the tremendous influence of Jiilicher still today, many demand a single major point and argue that minor points are “local color.” However, I would modify this. I agree that the continuing tendency of many to allegorize parables subjectively must make the in- terpreter extremely cautious.3 However, each parable must be interpreted individually, and the interpreter should be open to the possibility of minor points as the text dictates.
There is in one sense a unified message; the individual deiails of the parable of the sower point to a basic truth, challenging the reader to identify which type of soil/response he or she will become/make. In the prodigal son parable, the forgiveness of the father is contrasted with the self-centeredness of the older brother. Yet in both parables (as stated above) the secondary elements do have significance.
We can speak of allegorical parables but not allegorizing per se. There is no license’
for interpreters to do whatever they wish with the details. There is a very tight control and the inner dynamics of the story tell us whether or not to see a theological point in a detail. For instance, the mustard seed and the great plant are the center of the Mark 4:30-32 parable, and it is unlikely that the birds in the branches should be allegorized;4 their function in the parable is to emphasize the great size of the plant. Via says, “While the meaning of Jesus’ parables cannot be restricted to one central point of comparison, that does not mean that they are allegories. . . , We must seek a non-allegorical approach to the parables other than the one-point approach” (1967:17). Yet I have noted many indications that the parables are indeed allegories, albeit tightly controlled by the author’s intention. Blomberg (1990) in fact argues that there are & many points as there are characters in the parables and that they are indeed allegories. While this is somewhat overstated, it is nearer the truth than the “one point” approach.
Parable 241
4. Repetition. This is sometimes used to stress the climax or the major point of the parable, as in the twofold confession of the prodigal son (Lk 15:18-19, 21, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son”) or the similar wording of the reward to the faithful servant (Mt 25:21, 23, “Well done, good and faithful servant. You were faithful in the few things. I will give you charge over many things”). Some parables are delivered in two settings, like the parable of the lost sheep, addressed to the disciples in Matthew 18:12-14 and to the Pharisees in Luke 15:1- 7. Audience criticism will note slightly different emphases in such circumstances. In Matthew 18 Jesus teaches that the Father “is not willing that any of the little ones should be lost”(v. 14, with the stress on mission), and in Luke 15 the accent is upon the heavenly rejoicing “over one repentant sinner” (v. 7, with the emphasis upon conversion). This is often used as a prime example of the open-ended nature of parables, since the “evange- lists” place them in different situations and give them slightly different thrusts. However, this ignores two things: (1) Jesus as an itinerant preacher would naturally use parables in more than one setting, so it could well bl: his own interpretations (this is my prefer- ence). (2) This does not give one license to remove parables from their historical settings and read multiple meanings into them; in fact, it argues just the opposite, for both Matthew 18 and Luke 15 are textual interpretations and not free renderings. Parables can be read in many ways, but if they are to be Scripture the context must decide!
5. Conclusion at the End. Jesus often uses a terse dictum to conclude a parable, such as “So is he who lays up treasures for himself” (Lk 12:21). Other times he may elicit the lesson from the listeners via a question such as the two debtors in Luke 7:42 (“Who will love him more?“) or the good Samaritan in Luke lo:36 (“Who of the three was the neighbor?“). At times Jesus interprets the parable himself (Mt 13: 18-23; 15: 15-20). Of course this is a general rule rather than an ironclad law. The parable of the workers in the vineyard (Mt 20:1-16) ends with a statement on the reversal of roles (v. 16, “the last will be first and the first last”) almost opposite to the thrust of the parable itself (vv. l- 15) on divine generosity to all alike. Yet these two aspects are not in conflict. While the concluding statement does not provide the main point of the parable, it does fit the situation. As Stein says, “If the Sitz im Leben of the parable is indeed Jesus’ defense of his association with publicans and sinners and his offering to them of the kingdom of God, then there is a sense in which the parable does reveal that ‘the last will be first and the first last’ ” (1981:128). In other words, the final saying (v. 16) does not interpret the parable but rather applies it to the broader situation (Jesus turning to the outcasts; note that this method parallels Mt 19:30 following the rich young ruler incident).
6. Listener-relatedness. This takes us to the heart of the parable form. Primarily Jesus intended to elicit a response from the listener, either positive or negative (see above on
“purpose”). Crossan points out that this provides a basic difference between Jewish parables and those of Jesus (1973:19-21). Rabbinic stories are didactic, elaborating a specific text and illustrating a dogmatic proposition. Jesus’ parables drive home a point and elicit a response. For instance, the question parables (see point 5 above) drew the c