SPECIAL TOPIC: INTERPRETING PARABLES

The Synoptic Gospels were written many years after Jesus’ life. The Gospel writers
(by the aid of the Spirit) were culturally accustomed to oral tradition. The
rabbis taught by oral presentation. Jesus mimicked this oral approach to
teaching. To our knowledge He never wrote down any of His teachings or sermons.
To aid in the memory, teaching presentations were repeated, summarized, and
illustrated. The Gospel writers retained these memory aids. Parables,
which are hard to define, are one of these techniques.

“Parables are best defined as stories with two levels of meaning; the story
level provides a mirror by which reality is perceived and understood,”
Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, (p. 594).

“A parable is a saying or story that seeks to drive home a point that the
speaker wishes to emphasize by illustrating it from a familiar situation of
common life,” The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Encyclopedia (p. 590).

It is hard to define exactly what was understood by the term “parable” in
Jesus’ day

1. Some say it reflects the Hebrew term mashal which was any kind of
riddle (Mark 3:23), clever saying (Proverbs, Luke 4:23), short saying (Mark
7:15), or mysterious saying (“dark saying”).

2. Others hold to a more limited definition of a short story.

Depending on how one defines the term, over one-third of Jesus’ recorded
teachings are in parabolic form. This was a major NT literary genre. Parables
are certainly authentic sayings of Jesus. If one accepts the second definition,
there are still several different types of short stories:

1. simple stories (Luke 13:6-9)

2. complex stories (Luke 15:11-32)

3. contrasting stories (Luke 16:1-8; 18:1-8)

4. typological/allegorical (Matt. 13:24-30, 47-50; Luke 8:4-8, 11-15;
10:25-37; 14:16-24; 20:9-19; John. 10; 15:1-8)

In dealing with this variety of parabolic material one must interpret
these sayings on several levels. The first level would be general hermeneutic
principles applicable to all biblical genres. Some guidelines:

1. identify the purpose of the entire book or at least the larger
literary unit

2. identify the original audience. It is significant that often the
same parable is given to different groups, example:

a. lost sheep in Luke 15 directed to sinners

b. lost sheep in Matt. 18 directed toward disciples

3. be sure to note the immediate context of the parable. Often Jesus
or the gospel writer tells the main point (usually at the end of the parable or
immediately after it).

4. express the central intent(s) of the parable in one declarative
sentence. Parables often have two or three main characters. Usually there is an
implied truth, purpose, or point (plot) to each character (Luke 15:11-22 has 3
characters but not the parable of the good Samaritan, Luke 10:25-37).

5. check the parallel passages in the other Gospels, then other NT books and OT
books

The second level of interpretive principles are those that relate
specifically to parabolic material

1. Read (hear if possible) the parable again and again. These were
given for oral impact, not written analysis.

2. Most parables have only one central truth which is related to the
historical and literary contexts of both Jesus and/or the evangelist.

3. Be careful of interpreting the details. Often they are just part of
the setting of the story.

4. Remember that parables are not reality. They are life-like analogies,
but often exaggerations, to drive home a point (truth).

5. Identify the main points of the story that a first century Jewish
audience would have understood (Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus
Through Middle Eastern Eyes). Then look for the twist or surprise. Usually it
comes toward the end of the story (cf. A. Berkeley Mickelsen,
Interpreting the
Bible, pp. 221-224).

6. All parables were given to elicit a response. That response is
usually related to the concept of “the Kingdom of God.” Jesus was the
inaugurator of the new Messianic Kingdom (Matt. 21:31; Luke 17:21). Those who
heard Him must respond to Him now!

The Kingdom was also future (Matthew 25). A person’s future was dependent on how
he responded to Jesus at the time. Kingdom parables described the new kingdom
that had arrived
in Jesus. They described its ethical and radical demands for discipleship.
Nothing can be as it was. All is radically new and focused on Jesus!

7. Parables often do not express the point or central truth. The
interpreter must seek the contextual keys that reveal the culturally-obvious central truths
to the original recipients but that are now obscure to us.

A third level that is often controversial is that of the hiddenness of
parabolic truth. Jesus often spoke of the hiddenness of parables (cf. Matt.
13:9-15; Mark 4:9-13; Luke 8:8-10; John. 10:6; 16:25). This was related to the
prophecy in Isa. 6:9-10. The heart of the hearer determines the level of
understanding (cf. Matt. 11:15; 13:9,15,16,43; Mark 4:9,23,33-34; 7:16; 8:18;
Luke 8:8; 9:44; 14:35).

However, it must also be stated that often the crowd (Matt. 15:10; Mark
7:14) and the Pharisees (Matt. 21:45; Mark 12:12; Luke 20:19) understood exactly
what Jesus was saying but refused to respond appropriately to it by faith and
repentance. In one sense this is the truth of the Parable of the Soils (Matthew
13; Mark 4; Luke 8). The parables were a means to conceal or reveal truth (Matt.
13:16-17; 16:12; 17:13; Luke 8:10; 10:23-24).

Grant Osborne, in Hermeneutical Spiral, p. 239, makes the point that
“parables are an ‘encounter mechanism’ and function differently depending on the
audience…Each group (leaders, crowds, disciples) is encountered differently by
the parables.” Often even the disciples did not understand either His parables
or His teachings (cf. Matt. 15:16; Mark 6:52; 8:17-18,21; 9:32; Luke 9:45;
18:34; John. 12:16).

A fourth level is also controversial. It deals with the central truth of
parables. Most modern interpreters have reacted (justifiably so) to the
allegorical interpretation of the parables. Allegory turned the details into
elaborate systems of truth. This method of interpretation did not focus on the
historical setting, literary setting, or authorial intent, but presented the
thought of the interpreter, not the text.

However, it must be admitted that the parables that Jesus interpreted are
very close to allegorical or at least typological. Jesus used the details to
convey truth (the Sower, Matthew 13; Mark 4; Luke 8 and the wicked tenants,
Matthew 21; Mark 12, Luke 20).

Some of the other parables also have several main truths. A good example
is the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32). It is not only the love of
the Father and waywardness of the younger son but the attitude of the older son
that is integral to the full meaning of the parable.

A helpful quote from Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation
by Peter
Cotterell and Max Turner:

“It was Adulf Julicher more than any other who directed New Testament
scholarship towards a decisive attempt to understand the role of parable in the
teaching of Jesus. The radical allegorizing of the parables was abandoned and
the search begun for a key that would enable us to penetrate their true meaning.
But as Jeremias made clear, ‘His efforts to free the parables from the fantastic
and arbitrary interpretations of every detail caused him to fall into a fatal
error.’ The error was to insist not merely that a parable should be understood
as conveying a single idea, but that the idea should be as general as possible”
(p. 308).

Another helpful quote from The Hermeneutical Spiral by Grant Osborne:

“Yet I have noted many indications that the parables are indeed allegories,
albeit controlled by the author’s intention. Blomberg (1990) in fact argues that
there are as 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” (p. 240).

Should parables be used to teach doctrinal truths or illuminate doctrinal
truths? Most interpreters have been influenced by the abuse of the allegorical
method of interpreting parables which allowed them to be used to establish
doctrines that had no connection to Jesus’ original intent nor that of the
gospel writer. Meaning must be linked to authorial intent. Jesus and the gospel
writers were under inspiration, but interpreters are not.

However badly the parables have been abused they still function as
teaching vehicles of truth, doctrinal truth. Hear Bernard Ramm on this point.

“Parables do teach doctrine and the claim that they may not be used at all in
doctrinal writing is improper. . .we must check our results with plain, evident
teaching of our Lord, and with the rest of the New Testament. Parables with
proper cautions may be used to illustrate doctrine, illuminate Christian
experience and to teach practical lessons.” Protestant Biblical Interpretation
(p. 285).

In conclusion let me give three quotes that reflect warnings in our
interpretation of parables:

1. Taken from How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth
by Gordon Fee and Doug Stuart,

“The parables have suffered a fate of misinterpretation in the church second
only to the Revelation” (p. 135).

2. Taken from Understanding and Applying the Bible by J. Robertson
McQuilkin,

“Parables have been the source of untold blessing in enlightening God’s people
concerning spiritual truth. At the same time, parables have been the source of
untold confusion in both doctrine and practice in the church” (p. 164).

3. Taken from The Hermeneutical Spiral by Grant Osborne,

“Parables have been among the most written about yet hermeneutically abused
portions of Scripture. . .the most dynamic 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. However,
that story itself is capable of many meanings, and the modern reader has as much
difficulty interpreting it as did the ancient hearers” (p. 235).