Dictionary Article

An understanding of parables is essential if one is to understand the teaching of Jesus, since the parables make up approximately 35 percent of his recorded sayings. At no point are the vitality, relevance, and appropriateness of his teaching so clear as they are in his parables. While the parable form is not unique to Jesus, he was certainly a master at using parables as a way of teaching. The parables are not merely illustrations for Jesus’ preaching; they are the preaching, at least to a great extent. Nor are they simple stories; they have been truly described as both “works of art” and “weapons of warfare.” How one interprets the parables is not as easy a task as one might think. The way one understands the nature of a parable and the essence of Jesus’ message obviously will determine the method and content of interpretation.

A great deal of insight can be obtained by following the course of treatment the parables have received over the centuries. Not surprisingly, they have been subjected to radically different approaches. But the questions that underlie all interpretations are these: (1) How much of the parable is really significant—all the details or only one point? (2) What is the meaning of the parable in the teaching of Jesus? (3) Of what relevance is the parable to the interpreter?

From the second century even to the present, many people have allegorized the parables. In effect, they have said that every detail in the account is significant and that the meaning and relevance of a parable are to be found in the way it portrays Christian theology. This method, often identified as the Alexandrian school of interpretation, is best illustrated by a classic example that comes from Augustine (AD 354–430), the scholar who, despite his allegorizing, was a great theologian. His interpretation of the parable of the good Samaritan views Christ as the good Samaritan, the oil as the comfort of good hope, the animal as the flesh of the Incarnation, the inn as the church, and the innkeeper as the apostle Paul (to say nothing of the other details). Obviously, this interpretation has nothing in common with Jesus’ intention but rather reads into the story preconceived ideas of the interpreter. Such an approach can sound good theologically, but it prohibits the hearing of the Word of God. Medieval interpreters went even further than the allegorizing approach by finding multiple meanings in the text. Usually four were listed: (1) the literal meaning; (2) an allegorical meaning relating to Christian theology; (3) a moral meaning giving direction for daily life; (4) a heavenly meaning indicating something about future life.

Not all of the church was dominated by such allegorizing interpretations. The school of Antioch was known for its commonsense approach to hearing the text. However, its influence was limited when compared to the Alexandrian school and, apart from notable exceptions, most of the church’s efforts at understanding the parables over the centuries have involved allegorizing.

Julicher was a German scholar who published two volumes on the parables toward the end of the 19th century. His major contribution was the wholesale rejection of allegorizing as a means of interpreting the parables. In his reaction against allegorizing, Julicher went to the opposite extreme to say that a parable of Jesus has only one point of contact between the story and the fact being portrayed. He believed that this one point alone is important in interpretation and that it will usually be a general religious statement. Julicher went so far as to say that not only was allegorizing wrong but that Jesus did not use allegories, since they tend to hide rather than reveal. He said that any allegory appearing in the NT comes from the writers of the Gospels rather than Jesus. Julicher was correct to reject allegorizing (i.e., making an allegory of what was not intended to be allegory), but the rejection of allegory itself as a legitimate means of communication for Jesus is unfounded.

Twentieth-century study of the parables, particularly the work of C. H. Dodd (1884–1973) and Joachim Jeremias, has rightly emphasized the historical context in which the parables were originally told. Focus is placed on cultural factors that help in understanding the details of the parables and on the context of Jesus’ original preaching about the kingdom of God. Usually this approach has assumed that the first-century church changed the original thrust of some of the parables to meet her own needs, and consequently various procedures have been proposed to recover the original intent. It is true that the parables have been shaped, edited, and collected in units by the Gospel writers (note, e.g., Matthew’s collection of eight parables in Mt 13:1-52). Also, the aim of an interpreter should be to hear the parables as they were originally intended by Jesus and as his original audience heard them. The attempt to go behind the Gospel accounts, however, is a delicate task, and some of the procedures proposed for doing so need to be questioned. Notice must be taken of the way each of the Gospel writers has used his material, but the extent to which one can go behind the Gospels is limited.

In the past few decades a number of attempts to interpret the parables have suggested new avenues of approach. Basically these new approaches have been somewhat dissatisfied with (although appreciative of) both Julicher and the historical approach in that both limit the impact of the parables on today’s reader. Julicher reduced Jesus’ teaching to pious moralisms, and the historical approach tended to focus on 2,000 years ago while ignoring both the artistic and psychological features of the parables. Consequently, numerous attempts have been made to convey the same impact the parables had for the original hearers to today’s hearers. Increasingly, less focus is placed on the historical meaning of the parables and more emphasis is placed on their artistic, existential, and poetic effect. Jesus’ parables are regarded as works of art that can be regarded as open-ended as far as meaning is concerned. A parable, then, would have an original meaning and the potential for a series of further possible meanings. While the original meaning would provide some control for reinterpretation, these approaches are not bound by the author’s intention.

A great deal can be learned from modern approaches, especially from their concern to make sure that the parables speak to our day with their original vitality. However, there is also the danger of abusing the parables in a way similar to earlier mistreatments. Those allegorizing the parables in the history of the church were not bound by the meaning of Jesus and found their own meaning. Modern interpreters, too, can find their own meaning, and even though the explanations may sound convincing (as no doubt Augustine’s did to his hearers), they will not be a communication of the Word of God. If God and his ways are revealed by Jesus, then we err if we do not hear his parables as they were intended in their original context. There is indeed a dynamic interaction between the text and the interpreter, but the interpreter is brought to a moment of truth most effectively when the Spirit confronts him or her with the parable as Jesus intended it for his hearers.

The usual definition of a parable as “an earthly story with a heavenly meaning” will not suffice for understanding Jesus’ parables. Nor are parables merely comparisons or illustrations of what Jesus wanted to say. The situation is much more complex with regard to the biblical meaning of the word “parable.” In fact, one must distinguish between three uses of the word “parable” in biblical studies.

First, one should be aware that the Greek word for parable and its Hebrew counterpart are both broad terms and can be used for anything from a proverb to a full-blown allegory, including a riddle, a dark saying, an illustration, a contrast, or a story. For example, the Greek word for parable is used in Luke 4:23 with reference to the saying “physician, heal yourself” and most translations render it as “proverb.” In Mark 3:23 “parables” is used with reference to the riddles Jesus asks the scribes, such as “How can Satan cast out Satan?” Similarly, Mark 13:28 uses “parable” of a simple illustration. In Luke 18:2-5 the unjust judge is contrasted with God, who brings justice quickly. If one compares the Hebrew OT and the Septuagint (an ancient Greek translation of the OT), the word for parable is used most frequently with reference to a proverb or dark saying. The broad meaning of “parable,” then, can refer to any of these methods used to stimulate thought.

Second, “parable” can be used of any story with two levels of meaning (literal and figurative) that functions as religious and ethical speech.

Third, “parable” can be used technically in modern studies to distinguish it from other types of stories, such as similitudes, exemplary stories, and allegories. In this case a parable is a fictitious story that narrates a particular event and is usually told in the past tense (e.g., the parable of the lost son). A similitude, however, is a comparison that relates a typical or recurring event in real life and is usually told in the present tense (e.g., Mt 13:31-32). An exemplary story is not a comparison at all; rather, it presents character traits as either positive or negative examples to be imitated or avoided. Usually four exemplary stories are identified: the good Samaritan (Lk 10:30-35), the rich fool (12:16-20), the rich man and Lazarus (16:19-31), and the Pharisee and the tax collector (18:10-13).

Allegory is the most difficult to define and has caused considerable debate. Usually allegory is defined as “a series of related metaphors.” A metaphor is an implied comparison that does not use “like” or “as.” This definition is used broadly, but it is not entirely satisfactory for two reasons: (1) It does not indicate whether obscurity is an essential element in allegory. Some view allegory as needing to be decoded and as being understandable only to a select few. If, however, the allegory uses customary metaphors that all could understand, it would not be obscure. (2) It does not specify how much of the story is important as related metaphors. If there were only two or three related metaphors, would the story be an allegory? At the other extreme, do minor details in the story (such as the three levels of harvest in the parable of the sower) have significance? An example of an allegory would be the parable of the sower.

This raises the problem of the difference between a parable and an allegory—a frequently debated issue. On definitions one and two above, allegory is included in parable. But on definition three, a distinction is made between them because a parable is not a series of related metaphors. The details of the story of the lost son (the swine, the far country, etc.) do not stand for something else as they would if they were in an allegory but rather convey in dramatic terms the depths to which the son had sunk. However, a parable is not thereby limited to one point of comparison between the story and the fact being portrayed. There may be several items that need to be mentioned from a particular parable. The parable of the lost son emphasizes the rejoicing that takes place at repentance (note the repetition of this theme in Lk 15:24, 32), but the receptivity of the father obviously parallels the grace of God and the younger and elder sons reflect sinners and religious authorities, respectively. The distinction between parable and allegory is vague at best and will vary, depending on what definitions are assigned the terms. One should note that what can be said about parable usually can also be said about allegory.

The purpose of parables and a description of their characteristics will assist understanding. The parables focus on God and his kingdom and in doing so reveal what kind of God he is, by what principles he works, and what he expects of humanity. Because of the focus on the kingdom, some of the parables reveal many aspects of Jesus’ mission as well (note the parable of the wicked tenants in Mt 21:33-41).

The following characteristics of parables should be observed: (1) Parables are usually concise and symmetrical. Items are presented in twos or threes with an economy of words. Unnecessary people, motives, and details are usually omitted. (2) The features in the story are taken from everyday life, and the metaphors used are frequently common enough that they set up a context for understanding. For example, the discussion of an owner and his vineyard would naturally make hearers think of God and his people because of the OT use of those images. (3) Even though the parables speak in terms of everyday life, often they contain elements of surprise or hyperbole (an exaggeration used as a figure of speech). The parable of the good Samaritan (Lk 10:30-35) introduces a Samaritan in the story where one would probably expect a layperson. The parable of the unforgiving servant (Mt 18:23-34) puts the debt of the first servant at $10 million, an unbelievable sum in that day. (4) Parables require their hearers to pass judgment on the events of the story and, having done so, to realize that they must make a similar judgment in their own lives. The classic example is the parable of Nathan to David (2 Sm 12:1-7), where David judges the man in the story as worthy of death and then is told that he is the man. Because they force one to decide, to come to a moment of truth, the parables force their hearers to live in the present without resting on the laurels of the past or waiting for the future. The parables are the result of a mind that sees truth in concrete pictures rather than abstractions, and they teach that truth in such a compelling manner that the hearer cannot escape it.

Guidelines for Interpreting Parables

Interpreting the parables is not easy, but certain guidelines can be presented that will avoid past errors and make sane interpretation possible.

1. Analyze the parable thoroughly. Note the characters and movement of the story, its climax, and the repetition of key words or ideas. If it appears in more than one Gospel, do a comparative analysis of the various accounts to note both similarities and differences.

2. Listen to the parable without any preconceptions as to its form or its meaning. Attempt to hear the parable as if sitting at the feet of Jesus without knowing the parable, its meaning, and Christian theology. While it is impossible for a modern reader to become a first-century Jewish hearer, it is imperative that a parable be interpreted in its original context and in the ways its author originally intended it to be understood.

3. Look for help in the surrounding context, but realize that the original context for many of the parables has not been preserved. Often the parables appear where they do in the Gospels because of the arrangement of the Gospel writers.

4. Notice features in the parable that reflect the life and thinking of the first-century world. An understanding of cultural and religious factors, and an awareness of the OT ideas reflected in a parable, will greatly assist in its interpretation.

5. Note how the parable fits into the purpose and plan of the entire book. If the parable is present in the other Gospels, note its location and how it has been shaped to fit into the purpose of each Gospel writer.

6. Determine as explicitly as possible the message of the parable in the teaching of Jesus. There may be several points that need to be made in a given parable, as was indicated above for the parable of the lost son. There may be legitimate secondary features in the parable, but be careful not to push the story too far. One should exercise caution since it is easy to violate a parable’s intention. No one would want to suggest that God has tormentors on the basis of the parable of the unforgiving servant (see Mt 18:34); rather, this verse points out the seriousness of the sin and its judgment. However, some people wrongly overemphasize minor features of other parables. If one will interpret the parable as a whole—in keeping with its original intention—such errors will be minimized.

7. Note where the teaching of the parable conforms to the teaching of Jesus elsewhere. Jesus’ nonparabolic teaching may provide the key for, or strengthen, the interpretation of a parable.

8. Give due emphasis to the “rule of end stress.” Usually the climax and the most important part of a parable comes at its conclusion. Consequently, the focus of the interpretation should be there as well. Often, the end of the parable will include the theme of reversal. As elsewhere in the teaching of Jesus, his statement on a given topic is often the exact reverse of what others say or expect. Note Matthew 10:39: “If you cling to your life, you will lose it; but if you give it up for me, you will find it” (NLT). The parable of the workers in the vineyard tells of those who receive less than they expected and closes with a classic reversal statement: “the last shall be first and the first last” (Mt 20:16; cf. 19:30). Note the reversal in Matthew 21:31 at the end of the parable of the two sons (21:28-30). After the religious authorities had made a judgment on the basis of the parable, the reversal is accomplished as they are told that the tax collectors and prostitutes were going into the kingdom of God before them (vv 31-32).

9. Determine what principles are present in the parable that reveal the nature of God, his kingdom, the way he deals with humanity, or what he expects of humanity.

There is little doubt that Jesus taught in parables because they are both interesting and compelling and therefore are one of the most effective means of communicating. When one reads Mark 4:10-12, however, it seems that Jesus taught in parables in order to keep people from understanding so that they would not turn and be forgiven. It seems as well that there is a mystery that is given to the in group and that the out group is prohibited from learning. Herein is the meaning of the term “mystery.” Rather than being that which is not known or understood, as the word is used today, the biblical use of this word is usually for that which has been revealed by God and would not have been known had God not revealed it. The content of the mystery is not explained here, but from Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom elsewhere, it probably refers to the fact that the kingdom is present in Jesus’ own words and actions.

The other factor crucial for understanding this passage is that the word “parable” in biblical usage has a broad meaning referring to any striking speech or dark saying intended to stimulate thought. Jesus did not spoon-feed his hearers; rather, he taught in such a way as to bring about a response, and where there was a response, he gave additional teaching. Consequently, it is not merely that parables are interesting, poetic, and arresting (as important as those characteristics are). In addition, parables stimulate thought and bring about response—if hardness of heart does not prevent it. It is as if Jesus were saying, “If you cannot hear what I am saying, I will reveal my thought in parables.” Where there is response to this initial teaching, additional information is given.

Tyndale Open Bible Dictionary