Grace
Theological Journal 11.2 (1970) 3-20
Copyright © 1970 by Grace Theological
Seminary.
Cited with permission.
THE
INTERPRETATION OF PARABLES
Assistant Professor of
Theology and New Testament
The striking importance of the parabolic method of teaching in
Jewish thinking can be seen from this
passage in the Apocrypha:
But
he that giveth his mind to the law of the most
High,
and is occupied in the meditation
thereof, will seek
out
the wisdom of all the ancient, and be occupied in
prophecies.
He will keep the sayings of the renowned
men:
and where subtil parab1es are, he will be there also.
He
will seek out the secrets of grave sentences, and be
conversant
in dark parables (Eccles. 39:1-3).
Our
Lord made ready use of the parabolic method of teaching
to the extent that Mark comments "but
without a parable spake he
not unto them" (
teachings of the Son of God, the One to
whom the crowd listened gladly
(Mk. 12:37). Of Him it is declared,
"...the people were astonished at
his doctrine: for he taught them as one
having authority, and not as the
scribes" (Matt.
Indeed, they are sparks
from that fire which our
Lord brought to the earth (Lk. xii.
49)--the message of
One who was 'a prophet...and more
than a prophet'
(Mk. xi.9; Lk. vii. 16)1
Christ's
parables are not of mere man. Their higher quality is evidenced
by deep earnestness and the lack, yea,
total absence of jesting or folly.
By
a consideration of the great number of parables, one can note
the importance of them in Christ's
ministry. Ramm has written, "The importance
of the study of the parables is to be
found in their sheer number representing a
large part of the text of the Gospels.2
And he further makes an important
observation, "Any doctrine of the
kingdom or eschatology which ignores
a careful study of the parables cannot be
adequate.”3
3
4 GRACE JOURNAL
The
individual parables have been interpreted in many diverse
ways, from the extreme allegorical method
of Augustine to the topical
method of Chrysostom. Hubbard vividly
states, "They have been made
the stalking-horse for all kinds of false
doctrine and not a little sheer
nonsense besides.4
It
is necessary, therefore, to determine hermeneutical principles
for the uncovering of Biblical truth
contained in the parables.
WHAT IS A PARABLE?
The
definition often learned by Sunday school children is, "A parable
is an earthly story with a heavenly
meaning." This, though true, needs
further clarification.
In
the Authorized Version "parable" is a translation used of three
different terms. The Hebrew word is mashal
meaning "a proverbial saying”
(I Sam.
a similitude" or "parable"
(Ezek. 17:2), "a poem" (Ps. 49:4), or "a riddle”
(Ezek. 17:2).5 In the New Testament the word is a translation
of two Greek
terms parabolē and paroimia.
The former is used in the sense of "symbol”
or "type" (Heb. 9:9;
characteristic form of the teaching of
Jesus," (6) and the
latter word is used
by John (Jn. 10:6) as "dark
saying" or "figure of speech" and by Peter
(2 Pet. 2:22) as "proverb."
The
importance of a definition, and the confusion at this point, can
be noted by the varied lists of parables
that are assembled. Moulton relates
that scholars have made lists varying from
"33 to 79 parables.7 He
con-
cludes, "This divergence of opinion
makes it evident that it is not easy to
determine the precise extent of the
parabolic material."8 Standard listings
contain about thirty. A. B. Bruce lists 33
parables and eight parable-
germs,9 and Trench gives 30.10
In
our thinking, the word "parable" generally brings to mind
the longer stories of Jesus. Therefore it
is well, at this point, to distinguish
between parable, allegory, simile, and
metaphor.
A
metaphor equates one object or person with the other. For
instance, John's Gospel contains no
parables, in the usual sense, but it
gives many metaphors of our Lord, such as,
"I am the good shepherd”
(
A
simile does not equate the two, but it does draw out a comparison.
Straton writes, "A simile says that
one thing is not another but like
another.”11 An example is, "But whereunto shall I
liken this generation?
It is like unto children sitting in the
markets, and calling to their fellows…"
(Matt. 11:16ff). The simile and parable
are very close together in a par-
able such as, “The kingdom of heaven is
like unto leaven, which a woman
took…” (Matt. 13:33). This may be called a
parabolic similitude, or an
extended simile, though Smith points up
the problem of endeavoring to split
hairs at this point:
If
the illustration of the Mustard Seed is a similitude
in
Mark, are we to class it as a parable in its Lukan
form?
And if so, where shall we place Matthew's version
of
it, which stands half-way between the two?12
One
further form is the allegory. An allegory is a story where
every point is important. The classical
illustration is Bunyan's Pilgrim's
Progress. A
Biblical example is allegory in Galatians (
perhaps pressing it too far, but Straton
indicates that the Christian soldier
in Ephesians (
the story has its counter-part; whereas,
in a parable there is usually but
one central truth. Terry makes this
pertinent observation:
The
parable is essentially a formal comparison, and
requires
its interpreter to go beyond its own narrative to
bring
in its meaning: the allegory is an extended meta-
phor,
and contains its interpretation within itself.14
Thus
for our purpose, a parable is a similitude or full-length story,
true to nature and to life, a picture of
something which can be observed in
the world of our experience, which was
told by our Lord to illustrate a
divine truth.
THE PURPOSE FOR THE USE OF PARABLES
In
order to draw a proper conclusion in the interpretation of the
parables, it is first necessary to determine
the reason for Christ's use of
the parabolic method. The “Whereunto shall
I liken it?" of Christ's teach-
ing method is not without significance.
Two specific reasons can be sug-
gested; one a pedagogical, the other a
historical one.
The Pedagogical Purpose for Parables
The
value of illustration can scarcely be denied in proper teaching.
A parable is an illustration. The term
itself is from parabal1ō, "to cast
along side." It is a story "cast
along side" as an illustration. Several
characteristics of the parabolic method of
teaching can be noted.
6 GRACE
JOURNAL
They
are Stories. Parables are pictorial, easily grasped, quickly remembered,
and attention holders. Mark 4:1, 2
demonstrates this fact.
A great multitude had gathered and He
taught them by parables. The group
stayed all day; finally in the evening
they were sent away. It appears that
the parabolic method was a good way of keeping
their attention (cf. vs. 33-
35). The story-telling method is a
powerful means of imparting truth. The
Lord made effective use of it.
Truths
are Taught. It cannot correctly be said that unbelievers did
not understand any of the parables. An example
is the parable of the Wicked
Husbandmen (Lk. 20:9-18). The parable was
told to the people, in the
presence of the chief priests, scribes,
and elders who had questioned His
authority to perform His mighty deeds. At
the conclusion the chief priests
and scribes sought to kill him "for
they perceived that he had spoken this
parable against them" (v. 19). Lenski
makes an interesting observation at
this point: "They realized that the
parable was directed against them but
did not realize that by their rage they
were justifying that parable in its
severest part."15
No
doubt, the full implication of the parable, and certainly the
prophetic utterance, they did not
understand, but it was sufficiently clear
for them to desire to kill Him.
Thus
it is evident that unbelievers as well as believers were taught
truths by means of parables.
They
Unfold the Meaning of Scripture. One parable can be men-
tioned at this point. An inquirer
questioned Christ concerning His under-
standing of "neighbor" as found in
Leviticus 19:18. Christ responded by
telling the parable of the Good Samaritan
(Lk.
clearly gives, in illustration form, the
meaning of "neighbor.”16 This
parable was understood by an unbelieving
lawyer who had come to challenge
Christ, and the Lord told him to do even
as he had understood the
itan to have done (v. 37). Geldenhuys
writes, "Jesus' answer was so clear
and challenging that the lawyer was
compelled to acknowledge the deep
truth conveyed by it."17 Thus the truth of Leviticus 19:18 is clearly
taught
by our Lord.
They
Force the Hearer to Think. Though Moule misses the point
of Mark 4:11,12, his statement concerning
those verses is worthy
consideration:
You
cannot teach people by spoon-feeding: you must
set
them a puzzle to think out for themselves; those who
start
to crack it are getting somewhere. There
is no
short-cut
to understanding.18
THE INTERPRETATION OF PARABLES 7
A
liberal writes, "The parable is not so much a crutch for limping
intellects as a spur to spiritual
perception."19
An
illustration of this purpose may be seen in the parable of the
two debtors (Lk.
this parable, was an unbeliever, but he
was able to understand the meaning
and respond to the question posed by
Christ. Christ said, "Thou hast
rightly judged" (v. 43). And in the
words of A. B. Bruce:
Jesus
looks at the woman now for the first time, and
asks
His host to look at her, the despised one, that he
may
learn a lesson from her, by a contrast to be drawn
between
her behavior and his own in application of the
parable.20
One
of the most difficult parables of our Lord, the parable of the
Unjust Steward (Lk. 16:1-9), closes with
two searching questions (vss. 11,
12). It seems obvious that the questions
appeal to the hearer to think that
matter through and come to a conclusion.
The
Historical Purpose for the Parables
It
has been shown that some parables were given to illustrate a
truth so that the hearers would grasp the
meaning more readily. They were
stories of common settings and close to
the experience of the Palestinian
people. But beyond this, when our Lord was
asked why He spoke in para-
bles He responded, "Because it is
given unto you to know the mysteries of
the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is
not given" (Matt.
not come until His rejection by the nation
of
and He saw the need to speak in a manner
understood by His true followers,
but not understood by the mere curious or
those who were hostile to His
ministry. Bruce shows that there was a
progression toward the parabolic
method from beatitudes to metaphors and similes
to parables.21 Matthew
12 is a turning point in the ministry of
Christ. At this point the work of
Christ has been attributed to Satan and
the leaders of the people have
turned their backs on Christ. Matthew 13
introduces the reader to the
parables of the kingdom. (22) The coming Inter-Regnum is being
unfolded.
At the close of the first parable, we are
introduced to the purpose of the
parabolic method. The truth was revealed
to the followers of Christ, but
through this method it was concealed to
those who were not true believers.
The
interpretation of Matthew 13:10-17, Mark 4:11 and Luke 8:10
has gone in many directions. The critical
view is that it was an addition
by the primitive church. Torrey writes on Matthew
13:14ff., "The extended
8 GRACE
JOURNAL
citation from Is. 6 (LXX) is an early
insertion in the Greek Gospel.”23
Dodd explains that "this explanation
of the purpose of the parables is an
answer to the question which arose after
the death of Jesus, and the failure
of His followers to win the Jewish
people."24 He further
states,
But
that He desired not to be understood by the people
in
general, and therefore clothed His teaching in unintel-
ligible
forms, cannot be made credible on any reasonable
reading
of the Gospels.25
Dodd
clearly misses the idea of judicial blinding upon unbelieving
Armstrong seems to take the ability of
sound scholarship away from evan-
gelicals when he writes, "This
passage [Mark
preted in different ways by commentators,
though it would be hard to find
any authority who regarded it as a
verbatim record."26
Jeremias
holds a view that is unacceptable, when he teaches:
...That
v. 11 f. [Mark 4] is a logion belonging to
wholly
independent tradition, which was adapted
to the
word
parabolai (v. 10-11), and must therefore be inter-
preted
without reference to its present context.27
It was, in his view, a possible saying of
Christ, but out of context.
F.
Hauck, in Kittel's Theological Dictionary, holds that these were
actual words of Christ, but spoken at a
later period in His ministry, and
"obviously a distinction has to be
made between the theology of Mk.
and the original meaning and purpose of
the preaching in parables."28
Hunter
summarizes the critical view well when he writes:
If
the notorious verses in Mark
at
first glance, they appear to mean--then Jesus delib-
erately
used parables to hide God's truth from the masses
and
made them ripe for judgment--they cannot be words
of
Jesus (My own view is that they are
genuine words but
that
they do not belong here).29
Hauck
expresses this view clearly, "The critical understanding
sees in it a later construction which
echoes the theology of the community
rather than Jesus Himself."30
This
unbiblical view must be rejected and the verses accepted as a
part of the original autographs. The
inclusion of Christ's statement con-
cerning His use of parables in the three
Synoptics is significant.
THE
INTERPRETATION OF PARABLES 9
How
are we to understand this seeming judgment of closed ears
and eyes to understand the parables? As
has been noted, some reject it alto-
gether, or say the writer added it as a
true saying of Christ but completely
out of context.
One
can s1ide over the judicia1 pronouncement of Christ as
Thompson has done:
These
words are a little hard to understand at first,
but
the difficulty disappears when we observe that Jesus
was
quoting a passage from Isaiah, and that Isaiah was
speaking
ironically, putting the result as a purpose, as
is
done so often in Hebrew. Jesus also was speaking
ironically.31
Or
as Moule writes, "They will hear without hearing and see with-
out seeing; otherwise--this is a bit of
sarcasm, not meant to be taken in a
solemnly literal way--they might actually
repent,"32
Another
explanation has been suggested by some, proposing that the
hina may
rather be translated from the Aramaic as a relative pronoun.33
As Wright says, it "may here be a
mistranslation of the Aramaic particle
di, which can
be used to express purpose, but was here probably used as a
relative pronoun."34
Robertson
accepts the words as written and draws this conclusion,
“What is certain is that the use of
parables on this occasion was a penalty
for judicial blindness on those who will
not see." (35) It seems
clear that
this is the only legitimate conclusion
that can be drawn. Judicial blindness
comes upon those who willfully refuse the
gracious invitation for salvation.
For obscurity and darkness of this kind,
no amount of hermeneutical ability
can bring clarity and light. "The
wicked purpose of the obdurate not to
believe and be saved God is eventually
compelled to make also his purpose;
that they shall not believe and be
saved."36
At
this juncture a point must be made clear. The honest, believing
inquirer was not shut out from
understanding. Kirk makes this pertinent
statement, "The Saviour explained to
those who asked for explanation."37
Certainly, the whole purpose of our Lord
was to bring truth to light, to
seek and to save that which was lost, to
illumine and enlighten.
...The
unreceptive and unworthy multitude stood
self-condemned
because of their rejection of the message
of
salvation. Teaching in parables is part
of their just
punishment,
and serves also to keep the door open for
those
who may become receptive.38
10 GRACE
JOURNAL
The
hina clause of Mark and Luke and the hoti clause of Matthew,
point to judicial blinding. Mark and Luke
view purpose and Matthew result.
Haas writes, "Mark sees in actual
occurrence what Matthew portrays as
a result.” (39) Jeremias quotes Bower, "In the case of divine decisions
purpose and fulfillment are
identical." (40)
Notwithstanding differences in
statement, the three accounts are in
substantial agreement as to the purpose
of the parabolic method at that time.
Judicial blindness may seem harsh, but:
If
we shrink sensitively from the idea that the 'Lord of heaven and
earth' reveals
to some and hides from others, we are strangely out of
sympathy with the feelings of Jesus and of
Paul, who found in this idea not
only occasion of resignation, but of
adoration and joy. ([Matt.]
Rom.
It
is concluded that often the parables were meant to be examples
and illustrations, demonstrating a truth
which our Lord was emphasizing
to believer or unbeliever. At other times
(such as Matthew 13), the para-
bles were a method of veiling the truth
from those who would not believe.
This was a judicial blinding upon the
unbelieving. To those who asked,
Christ gave the meaning of the veiled
truths.
THE
INTERPRETATION
The
interpretation of parables is not an easy task. The multiplicity
of interpretations testifies to this. Even
those who walked daily with Christ
had need of asking of Him the
interpretation (Matt.
tation Christ gave of several will help in
understanding others.
It
is self-evident that one's theological persuasions will also bear
on his understanding of the meaning. Ramm
makes this worthwhile
comment:
In
general, the amillennialists and postmillennialists
have
interpreted certain parables optimistically whereas
premillenarians
and dispensationalists have interpreted
the
same parables pessimistically.42
He
illustrates this by the two basic interpretations of the parables
of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven (Matt.
The
growth of the mustard seed to a tree, and the permeation of the
meal
by the leaven is taken by the former to be a teaching of the powerful
growth and spread
THE INTERPRETATION OF PARABLES 11
of
Christianity, and by the latter of the corruption of the
professing
Church.43
This
points out the need to keep ourselves open to the ministry
of Spirit and compare our findings with
the clear teachings of the rest of
Word. Certain principles must be observed.
Study
the Context
This
point cannot be stressed too forcefully. The modern critical
method is to remove the parable from the
setting. The liberals generally
agree that the parables are original
stories of Christ, re-audienced, re-
applied, and generalized by later editors.
Jeremias' first two sentences
are:
The
student of the parables of Jesus, as they have
been
transmitted to us in the first three Gospels, may
be
confident that he stands upon a particularly firm his-
torical
foundation. The parables are a fragment of the
original
rock of tradition.44
Jesus
and His Parables by
A
recent commentator maintains (and there is sound
and
reverent scholarship to support the plea) that the
parables
themselves are more trustworthy guides than
their
scriptural settings. He quotes Wernle with approval:
'Our
delight in the parables rises regularly in the exact
degree
in which we succeed in liberating ourselves from
the
interpretations of the Evangelists, and yielding our-
selves
up to the original force of the parables them-
selves.‘45
So,
in their view, the parable is an actual logion of Jesus, but they
are quick to say that the setting into
which the writer places it was an
addition of the primitive church.
"Thus the parables, in the earliest days,
had two settings--their original
setting in the life of Jesus, and their later
one in the life of the early church."46
Therefore, it is clear, the liberal
has no room for the setting as contained
in the Gospels. Bishop Kennedy
in his work on the parables virtually
ignores the setting.47
The
setting is needful; though, if the proper interpretation is to be
derived, even as Hope quotes James Denney,
"A text without its context is
nothing but a pretext."(48) The evangelical scholar will recognize
this.
Lightfoot is correct in stating, "The
background of the parable and the con-
12 GRACE
JOURNAL
text of the passage in which it appears
will help immeasurably
standing it."49 Another
scholar has written:
...Perhaps
the best way of studying them is not to
isolate
them from the general history of His ministry for
separate
consideration, but rather to look a t them as
parts
of a larger whole in connection with the particular
occasions
which called them forth.50
Keys
to the interpretation can be found in the context. Often our
Lord supplied the interpretation (Matt.
supplied by the Gospel writer such as the
parable of the Unjust Judge (Lk.
18:1). Luke introduces it thus, "And
he spake a parable unto them to this
end, that men ought always to pray, and
not to faint" (v. 1). The Pharisees’
murmuring that Jesus ate with Sinners
brought forth the three parables of
Luke 15.
Often
the key to the interpretation can be found in the prologue to
the parable. The parable of the Pharisee
and Publican (Lk. 18:9-14) is
introduced by, "And he spake this
parable unto certain which trusted in
themselves that they were righteous, and
despised others" (v. 9). The
parable of the Pounds is introduced by
Luke in this fashion:
For
the Son of man is come to seek and to save that
which
was lost. And as they heard these things, he added
and
spake a parable, because he was nigh to
and
because they thought that the
immediately
appear (Lk.
At
other times the epilogue of the parable gives a key to the proper
interpretation. After the parable of the
Ten Virgins (Matt. 25:1-12), our
Lord said, "Watch therefore, for ye
know neither the day nor the hour
wherein the Son of man cometh" (v.
13). "Make to yourselves friends out
of the mammon of unrighteousness; that,
when it fails, they may receive
you into everlasting habitations" is
the conclusion to the parable of the
Unjust Steward (Lk. 16:9, Greek).
In
some parables, information for interpretation is given in both
the epilogue as well as the prologue. The
parable of the Unmerciful Ser-
vant (Matt.
oft shall my brother sin against me, and I
forgive him?" (v.21). Christ
told him, "Until seventy times
seven" (v. 22). This was followed by the
parable. The conclusion to the parable is,
"So likewise shall my heavenly
Father do also unto you, if ye from your
hearts forgive not every one his
brother their trespasses" (v. 35).
THE INTERPRETATION OF PARABLES 13
The
context of the parable of the Rich Fool (Lk.
further illustration. It was given in
response to a man asking Christ to
arbitrate the dividing of an inheritance
between two feuding brothers (v.14).
Christ asked the man. "Who made me a
judge or a divider over you?" (v.
14); then he said to those around.
"Take heed, and beware of covetousness:
a man's life consisteth not in the
abundance of the things which he pos-
sesseth” (v. 15). This was followed by the
parable to illustrate this truth.
Our Lord's conclusion was, "So is he
that layeth up treasure for himself,
and is not rich toward God" (v. 21).
Dodd has well written:
The
task of the interpreter of the parables is to find
out,
if he can, the setting of the parable in the situation
contemplated
by the Gospels, and hence the application
which
would suggest itself to one who stood in that
situation.51
Learn
and Understand the Story
An
understanding of life in
of many of the parables. Christ told
stories which were common to the
people of the day. "Most of the
stories involve customs, conditions, and
ideas peculiar to the Jews of Palestine in
Jesus' time and therefore require
explanation before an American reader
fully understands them."52 Jesus
lived among the Jewish people and most of
the parables were drawn from
the natural setting of the poor Jewish
peasant. Customs of possession and
transference of property are involved in
the story of the Prodigal Son (Lk.
not from the mustard plant of the
from the mustard plant growing in
and pence must be known to appreciate the
lesson of forgiveness taught by
the parable of the Unmerciful Servant
(Matt.
practice of broadcasting grain should be
familiar to understand the parable
of the Sower (Matt. 13:3-8). The parable
of the Tares is incomprehensible
without an acquaintance with darnel (Matt.
Ramm
has written:
Studies
in the local color of the parables have turned
up
a rich store of information and one is tempted to say
that
one should never preach again on any parable until
he
has made himself familiar with this material.53
14 GRACE
JOURNAL
Recognize the Christological
Nature of the Parables
The
central theme of the teaching of Christ was the
The parables were used to illustrate some
of the great truths concerning
the kingdom. Hope writes:
For a proper understanding of the parables of Jesus
it
must always be borne in mind that all of them deal with
one
great subject, and one great subject only, namely,
the
It
is commonly agreed that they are all illustrations of Christ and
His mission. Without an understanding of
Christ and His mission, the
interpretation of the parables is
impossible. Bruce divides the parables
into three groups: 1) the didactic
parables (e.g. parables of the Sower, the
Tares, the Mustard Seed) which relate in a
general way to teachings con-
cerning the
the Lost Sheep, the Lost Son, the Great
Supper) which deal with Christ’s
love for the sinful; and 3.) the prophetic
or judicial parables (e.g. parables
such as the Ten Virgins and the Wicked
Husbandman).55
Even
the critic recognizes the kingdom nature of the parables though
he interprets them as realized
eschatology. The evangelical realizes the
two-fold nature of the kingdom. In one
sense it is present (cf. Matt. 13),
and in another sense it is yet future in
fulfillment (the Ten Virgins, the
Talents). Proper interpretation demands
that we "keep in mind the cen-
trality of the reign of God in all that
Jesus said and did."56
Determine
the Central Point of the Parable
With
but few exceptions the stories of Christ were parables, not
allegories. (57) A true parable has but one main point.
Christ spoke a par-
able to drive home the truth He was
endeavoring to teach. Dodd calls this
"the most important principle of
interpretation.”58 He
continues, “The
typical parable, whether it be a simple
metaphor, or a more elaborate
similitude, or a full length story,
presents one single point of compar-
ison.”59 A parable might be
likened to a wheel, the central point is the
hub, and all the spokes point to the hub.
If the hub is off center, the wheel
will not perform and function properly.
Some
have seen in the parable of the Prodigal Son two main points;
the joy of the Father over the return of a
penitent, and a rebuke to those
not accepting a sinner returning from the
error of his way. These two
ideas can be brought together when it is
recognized that the thrust of the
parable is the joy which should be
expressed when a wayward one returns
to God.
THE
INTERPRETATION OF PARABLES 15
Even
in the Parable of the Sower, the emphasis is on the soil, not
the sower.
The
four-fold division represents but one truth, viz.,
Other
things being equal, the growth and fruitfulness
of
seeds
will be determined by the nature of the
soil upon
which
they are cast.60
Understand
the Details
Recognizing
the importance of the one central point, the next thing is to
understand the various details of the
parable. The parabolic method is not
expository but topical and parables must be
treated in that fashion.
The topical method "looks first of
all to find the central thought which
the parable was designed to embody, and it
treats every detail with
reference to its bearing upon this
thought."61 Trench gives this advice:
The
expositor must proceed on the presumption that
there
is import in every single point, and only desist
from
seeking it when either it does not result without
forcing,
or when we can clearly show that this or that
circumstance
was merely added for the sake of giving
intuitiveness
to the narrative.62
He
also writes:
It
will much help us in the matter of determining
what
is essential and what is not, if, before we attempt
to
explain the parts we obtain a firm grasp of the central
truth
which the parable would set forth, and distinguish
it
in the mind as sharply and accurately as we can from
all
cognate truths which border upon it; for only seen
from
that middle point will the different parts appear in
their
true light.63
The
details are included for a purpose, either they have a definite
role in the interpretation or ".
..they simply belong to the story as a true
transcript of life."64 Plummer makes this observation concerning the
parable of the Unjust Steward (Lk.
16:1-9), "The difficulty and consequent
diversity of interpretation are for the
most part the result of mistaken
attempts to make the details of the
parables mean something definite."65
Augustine
is a notable example of one who endeavored to make the
parables "walk on all four." One
illustration is sufficient to see his method.
In the parable of the Great Supper (Lk.
16 GRACE
JOURNAL
yoke of oxen (v. 19) to be the five
senses; seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting,
and touching. They are in pairs; two eyes,
two ears, two nostrils, the
tongue and the palate, and the inner and
outer touch. These senses are
double; the eyes see light and darkness,
the ears hear harsh and musical
sounds, the nose smells sweet and offensive
odors, the mouth tastes bitter
and sweet, and the touch feels smooth and
rough.66
Against
this extreme view is Chrysostom. He taught that the parable
had only one central meaning and they were
not to be allegorized. In dealing
with Matthew 13:34, 35, he writes,
"And, as I am always saying, the parables
must not be explained throughout word for
word, since many absurdities
will follow."67
Thus,
in the history of interpretations there have been these
two extremes. It caused Trench to write:
There
are those who expect to trace only the most
general
correspondence between the sign and the thing
signified;
while others aim at running out the interpre-
tation
into the minutest detail; with those who occupy
every
intermediate stage between the two extremes.68
Often
it is difficult to determine which is to be interpreted and
which is not. Christ gave the
interpretation of the parable of the Tares
(Matt. 13:24-30, 37-43) and this may be of
help at this point. Note that
Christ interpreted for the disciples the
meaning of the tares, the sower,
the field, the good seed, the enemy, the
harvest, the reapers; but, at the
same time He does not interpret the
meaning of the men who slept, the
meaning of sleep, the springing up of the
wheat, the yielding of fruit, or
the servants.
After
dealing with the parables of the Sower and the Tares, Terry concludes:
From
the above examples we may derive the general
principles
which are to be observed in the interpretation
of
parables. No specific rules can be formed that will
apply
to every case, and show what parts of a parable
are
designed to be significant, and what parts are mere
drapery
and form. Sound sense and delicate discrim-
ination
are to be cultivated and matured by a protracted
study
of all the parables, and by careful collation and
comparison.69
Thus
it is observed that the parts of the parable often play an impor-
tant role in interpretation, on the other
hand they may be given just to
THE INTERPRETATION OF PARABLES 17
streamline the story. The interpreter must
determine the importance of
every part.
Certain Warnings
In
brief, a few dangers in interpretation should be mentioned. The
parables contain much which is doctrinal,
and these doctrinal teachings are
not to be taken lightly. Ramm has written:
Parables
do teach doctrine, and the claim that they
may
not be used at all in doctrinal writing is improper.
But
in gleaning our doctrine from the parables we must
be
strict in our interpretation; we must check our results
with
the plain, evident teaching of our Lord, and with
the
rest of the New Testament.70
Parables
should not be considered primary sources of doctrine. Doc-
trine
may be illustrated and confirmed by parables, but one must be careful
to check the interpretation with the whole
body of inspired Scripture.
As
a further warning, it is needful to be aware that parables are
comparisons and illustrations. Every
comparison must halt somewhere.
The interpreter is to use the parable as
an illustration and he must be
careful not to interpret it further than
the intent of the Lord.
Finally,
Christ made it quite clear, many parables cannot be under-
stood by the natural man. These can only
be understood by the one who is
led by the Spirit (I Cor. 2:9-16). There
is a blinding over the hearts of
those who willfully refuse the message of
our Lord.
DOCUMENTATION
1.
Edward A. Armstrong, The Gospel
Parables (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1967), p. 11.
2.
Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical
Interpretation (Boston: W. A. Wilde, 1956), p. 255.
3.
Ibid
4.
George H. Hubbard, The Teachings of
Jesus in Parables (Boston: The
Pilgrim Press, 1907), p. xv.
5. This listing is given by Howard Cleveland, "Parable," The
Zondervan Pictorial
Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1963), p. 621.
6. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English
Lexicon of the New
Testament (Chicago: The University Press, 1957), p. 617.
18 GRACE
JOURNAL
7.
W. J.
Moulton, "Parable,” Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (N. Y.: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1912), II, 313.
8.
Ibid.
9.
A. B.
Bruce, Parabolic Teaching of Christ (
10. R.
C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of our Lord (N.Y.: Fleming H. Revell
Company,
n. d.), pp. v, vi.
11. Hillyer H. Straton, A Guide to the
Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1960), p. 14.
12. B. T. D. Smith, The Parables of the
Synoptic Gospel (Cambridge: University
Press, 1937), pp. 17, 18.
13. Straton, p. 15.
14. Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics
(N. Y.: Eaton and Mains, 1890),
p. 189.
15. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of
St. Luke's Gospel (Columbus: The
Wartburg Press, 1946), pp. 984, 5.
16. An interesting change takes place in this
parable. From the question "Who is
my neighbor?" Christ turns it about to "Who acted as a
neighbor?" This is a most
interesting switch.
17. Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the
Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954), p. 312.
18. C. F, D. Moule, The Gospel According to
Mark (Cambridge: The University
Press, 1965), p. 36.
19. A. M. Hunter, "Interpreting
Parables," Interpretation, 14:1 (January, 1960), p. 74.
20. A. B. Bruce, The Synoptic Gospels,
in The Expositor's Greek Testament, vol. I
(
p. 517.
21. A. B. Bruce, The Parabolic Teaching of
Christ, pp. 20, 21.
22. Some have suggested that the parable of
the Sower was the first parable
of Christ. However, A. T. Robertson, Wm. Stevens and
Roney, in their harmonies, give it as the second parable, with the
parable of the Two Debtors (Lk.
23. Charles C. Torrey, Documents of the
Primitive Church (N. Y.: Harper
and Brothers, 1941), p.67.
24. C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom
(N. Y.: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1961), p. 4.
25. Ibid.
26. Edward Armstrong, The Gospel Parables
(London: Hodder and
Steughton, 1967), p. 22.
27. Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus
(London: SCM Press, 1955), p. 12.
28. Friedrich Hauck, "Parabole," Theological
Dictionary of the New
Testament, vol. V (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1967), p.758.
THE INTERPRETATION OF PARABLES 19
29. Hunter, pp. 73, 4.
30. Hauck, p. 757.
31. Ernest Thompson, The Gospels According to Mark and It’s Meaning
for
Today (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1962), p. 86.
32. C. F. D. Moule, The Gospels According to Mark (Cambridge:
University Press, 1965), p.35.
33. Sherman Johnson, The Gospels According to St. Mark (N. Y.: Harper
and Brothers, 1960), p.90.
34. Francis Beare, The Earliest Records of Jesus (N. Y.:
Abingdon Press, 1962),
p. 111.
35. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (N. Y.:
Richard R.
Smith, 1930), I, p. 286.
36. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Mark's Gospel
(Columbus: The
Wartburg Press, 1946), p. 169.
37. Edward Kirk, Lectures on the Parables of Our Savior (N. Y.:
R. Craighead,
1857), p. 14.
38. W. J. Moulton, p. 315.
39. John Haas, Gospel According to Mark, in The Lutheran
Commentary (N. Y.:
The Christian Literature Co., 1895), pp. 72, 3.
40. Jeremias, p. 14.
41. John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
(Valley Forge: The
American Baptist Publication Society, 1886), p. 288.
42. Ramm, P.263.
43. Ibid., pp. 263, 4.
44. Jeremias, p. 9
45. George A. Buttrick, The Parables of Jesus (Garden City,
N.Y.: Doubleday,
Doran and Company, 1928), p. xxiv.
46. Hunter, p. 76.
47. Gerald Kennedy, The Parables (N.Y.: Harper and Brothers,
1960).
48. Norman Hope, "Bases for Understanding," Interpretation,
6:3 (July, 1952),
p. 306.
49. Neil Lightfoot, Lessons from the Parables (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book
House, 1965), p. 16.
50. Bruce, The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, p. 1.
51. Dodd, p. 14.
52. Elbert Russell, The Parables of Jesus (N.Y.: Young Women's
Christian
Associations, 1912), p. 10.
53. Ramm, p. 260.
54. Hope, p. 303.
55. Bruce, The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, pp. 8, 9.
56. A. Berkeley Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible (Grand
Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1966), p. 229.
57. It has been argued that the story of the Wicked Husbandmen (Matt.
21:33-45)
is an allegory.
58. Dodd, p. 7.
59. Ibid.
20 GRACE
JOURNAL
60. Hubbard, p. 4.
61. Ibid.
62. Trench, p. 35.
63. Ibid.
64. Russell, p. 15.
65. Alfred Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke (N. Y.:
Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1914), p. 380.
66.
Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VI (N. Y.: The Christian Literature Company,
1888), p. 477.
67. Chrysostom, "Gospel of Matthew," The Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers,
vol. X (N.Y.: The Christian Literature Co., 1888), p. 292.
68. Trench, p. 30.
69. Terry, p. 198.
70. Ramm, p. 263.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
Grace
Theological Seminary
www.grace.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
thildebrandt@gordon.edu