Parables [1]
In the previous article in this series we looked at some of the parables in the context of Jesus’ use of humour. This article will look at the parables more broadly and suggest some guidelines for interpreting them.
Firstly, what is a parable?
PARABLES
It has been estimated that 35% of Jesus’ teachings were in the form of parables.
The word translated “parable” in the English Bible literally means a comparison of one thing with another. Jesus frequently used comparisons in His teachings, as in the following examples:
“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.” (Matthew 10:16)
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.” (Matthew 23:27)
The two above comparisons are similes. Similes are comparisons which say one thing is like another. Metaphors are figures of speech which say one thing is another. The following comparisons are metaphors.
“You are the salt of the earth. ... You are the light of the world.” (Matthew 5:13-14)
“You snakes! You brood of vipers!” (Matthew 23:33)
“I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.” (John 15:5)
These metaphors are obviously not meant to be taken literally. they are figures of speech which make comparisons.
A parable is a simile expanded into a story.
INTERPRETING THE PARABLES
Some people make the mistake of taking the comparison in a parable too far. By this I mean they make every point in the story mean something else and in so doing often miss the main point of the story.
Here are some guidelines for understanding parables.
1. Look at the context.
The context will help us understand the reason for Jesus telling the story. For example, Jesus told the story of the good Samaritan in order to answer the question “who is my neighbour?” (Luke 10:25-37). Any interpretation of this parable which becomes involved or complicated yet does not answer this question is, therefore, a wrong interpretation.
To understand context we need to look at what comes immediately before the parable in the Gospel we are reading. We should also consider who Jesus is speaking to (e.g. was it His disciples, the Jewish leaders, or a particular person?), where He is speaking (e.g. in the Temple, or someone’s home?) and why He is telling this story (e.g. is He trying to explain something to His followers, or to hide something from people who are trying to trick Him?)
2. What type of story is this?
Jesus often used simple illustrations from everyday life to make a point. He spoke of mustard seeds, leaven, sowing and other common things so that the comparison could be easily understood. (We sometimes call these similitudes).
Some of Jesus’ parables are short and pithy, while others are complete stories with a beginning, ending and a plot (such as the stories of the lost sheep, the lost/prodigal son, and the ten bridesmaids). We sometimes call these “true parables”.
Occasionally Jesus used allegories which are complex stories where almost every detail is meant to represent something else. There are only two definite examples of these in Jesus’ teachings, and they occur together: the story of the sower (Matthew 13:1-23) and the story of the weeds (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43). Some people make the mistake of assuming from the fact that Jesus used allegories here to assume all His parables were allegories. However, the need for Jesus to explain the meaning of these stories to His disciples (Matthew 13:36) demonstrates that allegories were not typical of how He taught. They were the exceptions and not the rule.
3. Points of comparison.
We should look for the “points of comparison” in a parable, remembering that there will be a main point of comparison but that not every detail has to be a comparison (as in an allegory). In the story of the moneylender (Luke 7:40-42) Jesus tells this story to a pharisee named Simon, knowing that Simon was thinking that if Jesus was truly a prophet He would know that the woman who was wiping His feet with her hair was a “sinner”. In the story He describes a moneylender who forgave two debts: one for 50 days wages, and the other for 500 days wages. He asked Simon “which of these debtors will love the moneylender more?” Simon correctly answered “I suppose the one who had the bigger debt cancelled”. Jesus then went on to make His comparison by saying this was like Him (a simile), because He had forgiven this woman for “her many sins” and so she “loved much”. The point of comparison is that Jesus is like the moneylender, and the woman is like the person with the big debt. We should not push the comparison beyond this by giving any significance to the numbers 50 or 500, except for the big difference between them.
Similarly, in the longer and more detailed stories we should look for the main points of comparison and not try to find a meaning for every detail. Most parables are built around a single comparison.
4. Exaggeration or unrealism.
By now we are familiar with several examples of how Jesus used exaggeration in order to make a point. This also features in His stories.
Jesus was clearly a very good storyteller and good storytellers don’t hold people’s attention by telling them things they already know. That’s why Jesus uses common everyday things they will understand, but then adds some humour, uses exaggeration, gives the story a twist and gets the audience involved. Using some unreal elements might be part of the humour or exaggeration. However, one of His stories seems very unreal: the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). I will use this story at the end of this article as an example of how to use all these guidelines to interpret a parable.
5. Humour.
In an earlier article we looked at how the story of the ten bridesmaids contained some humour in order to make the point that we take things like preparing for weddings seriously, so we should take our preparation for the coming of the Kingdom very seriously. The humour was to emphasise and reinforce the point, and to highlight the urgency.
In the parable of the sower (Matthew 13:1-9) there may be a similar use of humour or unreal exaggeration in the way Jesus describes a sower who is almost careless in the way he scatters seed on both good and bad ground, pathways and rocky places. In reality farmers would probably have been much more careful in how they scattered seed. (First century Palestine was a poor country and in some places good ground was scarce.) However, in describing a farmer who scatters seed widely and extravagantly Jesus is making a comparison with God who is generous and provides abundantly: He provides the opportunity to hear His Word to people whether they are likely to be receptive to it or not.
6. End-stress.
The main point of a parable usually comes right at the end and is therefore called the “end-stress”. In the parable of the lost (prodigal) son this comes in the words “we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found” (Luke 11:32). Notice that the words are addressed to the older son. this is significant because Luke tells us earlier that this group of three parables in chapter 15 was in response to the Pharisees and scribes complaining “this man (Jesus) receives sinners and eats with them” (verses 1-2). “So He spoke this parable to them” (verse 3).
The three parables in this cluster are about “lost things”: a lost sheep, a lost coin, and a lost son. Each has a similar end-stress:
“There will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety nine just persons who need no repentance” (v 7)
“There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents” (v 10)
“We had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found” (v 32).
The final words in the final parable of the trilogy bring us back to the beginning and tell us that the older son in the story was being compared with the scribes and Pharisees to whom the stories were being addressed. You might also notice the poetic structure, where the first ending makes mention of the “just persons who need no repentance” and the third ending which is addressed to the son who also felt he was fully justified and needed no repentance.
APPLYING THESE GUIDELINES
As I promised above, we will now look at a difficult parable and apply these guidelines to see if we can discover what Jesus was teaching.
The rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)
The first point to remember here is that this is a story (a “true parable”) - it is not necessarily meant to be taken literally.
Then we must also take note of the context: Jesus first addressed 3 parables to the scribes and Pharisees (15:1-3), then He spoke to His disciples (16:1), but within the hearing of the scribes and Pharisees who were still listening (16:14). The story He told His disciples was about a rich man who entrusted his goods to a dishonest manager. The next story (and the last one in this series of stories) is about a rich man who suffers terribly and a poor man who receives great blessings. In each of the earlier parables addressed to the scribes and Pharisees there was also a contrast between two people or objects:
- one lost sheep and ninety-nine others
- one lost coin and nine others
- a lost son and his brother
This tells us that there are meant to be two points of comparison: one with the scribes and Pharisees and the other with the “sinners” who had gathered around to listen to Jesus. The next story is addressed to the disciples but is about a rich man and his dishonest manager. Luke’s next words tell us that the scribes and Pharisees “were lovers of money” (16:14), and the next story is addressed to them. So here we have two stories about the use of riches joined together with a comment that the people to whom it was addressed “loved money”. The Pharisees looked upon wealth as a sign of God’s blessings and looked upon poverty as a sign of God’s judgment. They were rich, therefore they could argue that they must have pleased God. In doing so Jesus said they “justify themselves” (16:15). They were building a great gulf between themselves and the “sinners”: they considered themselves better and more righteous and used their wealth as “proof” that they had God’s favour. In the previous story He pointed out that they were mismanaging the things God had entrusted to them. Jesus is about to tell another story against their attitude to wealth.
Now, this story is clearly not a true story or meant to be taken literally. It contains some things which are impossible. For example, the rich man is in Hades while Lazarus is in a place called “Abraham’s bosom” which is “far off” (v 23) and there is “a great gulf fixed” between them (v 26). Yet despite this distance and the great gulf the rich man is able to speak with Abraham. If this story is describing actual conditions then those in heaven must be able to conduct conversations with those in hell, and the dead must be able to travel from heaven to hell, because the rich man asks Abraham to “send Lazarus (to Hades) to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire” (v 24). Here is yet another unreal element: would one drop of water ease his thirst in the slightest? Jesus is again using exaggeration to make His point.
The main point comes at the end (“the end-stress”). The rich man says to Abraham “if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent”, to which Abraham replies “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead. " This connects with the main points of the earlier parables (e.g. “There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents”). In the earlier parables the “sinners” were repenting and heaven was rejoicing. In this parable heaven is declaring that the scribes and Pharisees will not repent. The rich man’s misery and hopelessness in this story is contrasted with the celebration and great rejoicing in the earlier ones.
in this story Jesus seems to be teaching things about the afterlife which completely contradicts the rest of Scripture about what happens after death. Why does Jesus do this? Well, we learn from Jewish historical sources (such as the first century Jewish historian Josephus) that the Pharisees, although believing in the resurrection, also believed in immortal souls, fiery torments, the righteous and wicked being separated by a great chasm, and a place called the bosom of Abraham. In speaking to them and appealing them to see their real need to repent, Jesus used language which they would understand. He used their own understanding about the afterlife, wrong though it was, to encourage them to see the seriousness of their position. Rather than arguing against their distorted views He uses these very ideas in an effort to persuade them to get right with God before it is too late.
Of course there is an irony here as well: a short time later a real Lazarus did rise from the dead and they still didn’t repent. And then Jesus Himself rose from the dead and most did not repent. So His parable was also prophetic.
