A fable or allegorical instruction, founded on something read or apparent in nature or history, from which a moral is drawn, by comparing it with something in which the people are more immediately concerned: such are the parables of Dives and Lazarus, or the prodigal son, of the ten virgins, &c. Dr. Blair observes, that "of parables, which form a part of allegory, the prophetical writings are full; and if to us they sometimes appear obscure, we must remember, that, in those early times, it was universally the mode throughout all the eastern nations, to convey sacred truths under some mysterious figures and representations."
A mode of speaking, in order to illustrate and make familiar to our apprehension divine and spiritual things, by human and natural figures of expression. It was a method of teaching common in the eastern part of the world, and hence all the sacred writers and servants of the Lord adopted it. Yea; the Lord Jesus himself condescended to the same; and indeed so much so that at one time we are told, "without a parable spake he not unto them." (Matt. 13. 34.) There is another sense of the word parable, in which it is sometimesused in Scripture when spoken in a way of reproach; hence Moses, when charging Israel to faithfulness, declares that if the people of God apostatize from him, and set up idols in the land, the Lord would scatter them among all nations, "and thou shalt become (saith Moses) an astonishment, a proverb, (or parable) and a by - word, among all nations whither the Lord shall lead thee." (Deut. 28. 37.) See Types.
It is the first excellence of a parable to turn upon an image well known and applicable to the subject, the meaning of which is clear and definite; for this circumstance will give it perspicuity, which is essential to every species of allegory. If the parables of the sacred prophets are examined by this rule, they will not be found deficient. They are in general founded upon such imagery as is frequently used, and similarly applied by way of metaphor and comparison in the Hebrew poetry. Examples of this kind occur in the parable of the deceitful vineyard, Isa 5:1-7, and of the useless vine, Ezekiel 15; Eze 19:10-14; for under this imagery the ungrateful people of God are more than once described; Eze 19:1-9; Ezekiel 31; Ezekiel 16; Ezekiel 23. Moreover, the image must not only be apt and familiar, but it must be also elegant and beautiful in itself; since it is the purpose of a poetic parable, not only to explain more perfectly some proposition, but frequently to give it some animation and splendour. As the imagery from natural objects is in this respect superior to all others, the parables of the sacred poets consist chiefly of this kind of imagery. It is also essential to the elegance of a parable, that the imagery should not only be apt and beautiful, but that all its parts and appendages should be perspicuous and pertinent. Of all these excellencies, there cannot be more perfect examples than the parables that have been just specified; to which we may add the well known parable of Nathan, 2Sa 12:1-4, although written in prose, as well as that of Jotham, Jdg 9:7-15, which appears to be the most ancient extant, and approaches somewhat nearer to the poetical form. It is also the criterion of a parable, that it be consistent throughout, and that the literal be never confounded with the figurative sense; and in this respect it materially differs from that species of allegory, called the continued metaphor, Isa 5:1-7. It should be considered, that the continued metaphor and the parable have a very different view. The sole intention of the former is to embellish a subject, to represent it more magnificently, or at the most to illustrate it, that, by describing it in more elevated language, it may strike the mind more forcibly; but the intent of the latter is to withdraw the truth for a moment from our sight, in order to conceal whatever it may contain ungrateful or reproving, and to enable it secretly to insinuate itself, and obtain an ascendency as it were by stealth. There is, however, a species of parable, the intent of which is only to illustrate the subject; such is that remarkable one of the cedar of Lebanon, Ezekiel 31; than which, if we consider the imagery itself, none was ever more apt or more beautiful; or the description and colouring, none was ever more elegant or splendid; in which, however, the poet has occasionally allowed himself to blend the figurative with the literal description, Eze 31:11; Eze 31:14-17; whether he has done this because the peculiar nature of this kind of parable required it, or whether his own fervid imagination alone, which disdained the stricter rules of composition, was his guide, our learned author can scarcely presume to determine.
In the New Testament, the word parable is used variously: in Luk 4:23, for a proverb, or adage; in Mat 15:15, for a thing darkly and figuratively expressed; in Heb 9:9, &c, for a type; in Luk 14:7, &c, for a special instruction; in Mat 24:32, for a similitude or comparison.
The word parable denotes
an obscure or enigmatical saying, e.g.Psa 49:4; Psa 78:2.
It denotes a fictitious narrative, invented for the purpose of conveying truth in a less offensive or more engaging form than that of direct assertion. Of this sort is the parable by which Nathan reproved David (2Sa 12:2-3). To this class also belong the parables of Christ.
Any discourse expressed in figurative, poetical, or highly ornamented diction is called a parable. Thus it is said. ’Balaam took up his parable’ (Num 23:7); and, ’Job continued his parable’ (Job 27:1).
In the New Testament the word seems to have a more restricted signification, being generally-employed in the second sense mentioned above, viz., to denote a fictitious narrative, under which is veiled some important truth. Another meaning which the word occasionally bears in the New Testament is that of a type or emblem, as in Heb 9:9, where the original word is rendered in our version figure.
The excellence of a parable depends on the propriety and force of the comparison on which it is founded; on the general fitness and harmony of its parts; on the obviousness of its main scope or design; on the beauty and conciseness of the style in which it is expressed; and on its adaptation to the circumstances and capacities of the hearers. If the illustration is drawn from an object obscure or little known, it will throw no light on the point to be illustrated. If the resemblance is forced and unobvious, the mind is perplexed and disappointed in seeking for it. We must be careful, however, not to insist on too minute a correspondence of the objects compared. It is not to be expected that the resemblance will hold good in every particular; but it is sufficient if the agreement exists in those points on which the main scope of the parable depends.
If we test the parables of the Old Testament by the rules above laid down, we shall not find them wanting in any excellence belonging to this species of composition. What can be more forcible, more persuasive, and more beautiful than the parables of Jotham (Jdg 9:7-15), of Nathan (2Sa 12:1-14), of Isaiah (Isa 5:1-5), and of Ezekiel (Eze 19:1-9)?
But the parables uttered by our Savior claim pre-eminence over all others on account of their number, variety, appositeness, and beauty. Indeed it is impossible to conceive of a mode of instruction better fitted to engage the attention, interest the feelings, and impress the conscience, than that which our Lord adopted. Among its advantages may be mentioned the following—
It secured the attention of multitudes who would not have listened to truth conveyed in the form of abstract propositions.
This mode of teaching was one with which the Jews were familiar and for which they entertained a preference.
Some truths which, if openly stated, would have been opposed by a barrier of prejudice, were in this way insinuated, as it were, into men’s minds, and secured their assent unawares.
The parabolic style was well adapted to conceal Christ’s meaning from those who, through obstinacy and perverseness, were indisposed to receive it. This is the meaning of Isaiah in the passage quoted in Mat 13:13. Not that the truth was ever hidden from those who sincerely sought to know it; but it was wrapped in just enough of obscurity to veil it from those who ’had pleasure in unrighteousness,’ and who would ’not come to the light lest their deeds should be reproved.’ In accordance with strict justice, such were ’given up to strong delusions, that they might believe a lie.’ ’With the upright man thou wilt show thyself upright; with the froward thou wilt show thyself froward.’
The scope or design of Christ’s parables is sometimes to be gathered from his own express declaration, as in Luk 12:16-20; Luk 14:11; Luk 16:9. In other cases it must be sought by considering the context, the circumstances in which it was spoken, and the features of the narrative itself, i.e. the literal sense. For the right understanding of this, an acquaintance with the customs of the people, with the productions of their country, and with the events of their history, is often desirable. Most of our Lord’s parables, however, admit of no doubt as to their main scope, and are so simple and perspicuous that ’he who runs may read,’ ’if there be first a willing mind.’ To those more difficult of comprehension, more thought and study should be given, agreeably to the admonition prefixed to some of them by our Lord himself, ’Whoso heareth, let him understand.’
Derived from a Greek word, which signifies, to compare things together, to form a parallel or similitude of them with other things.\par What we call the Proverbs of Solomon, which are moral maxims and sentences, the Greeks call the Parables of Solomon. In like manner, when Job answers his friends, it is said he took up his "parable," Job 27:1 29:1. In the New Testament the word parable denotes sometimes a true history, or an illustrative sketch from nature; sometimes a proverb or adage, Luk 4:23 ; a truth darkly or figuratively expressed, Mat 15:15 ; a type, Heb 9:9 ; or a similitude, Mat 24:32 . The parabolical, enigmatical, figurative, and sententious way of speaking, was the language of the Eastern sages and learned men, Psa 49:4 78:2; and nothing was more insupportable than to hear a fool utter parables, Pro 26:7 .\par The prophets employed parables the more strongly to impress prince and people with their threatening or their promises. Nathan reproved David under the parable of a rich man who had taken away and killed the lamb of a poor man, 2Sa 12:1-31 . See also Jdg 9:7-15 2Ki 14:9-10 . Our Savior frequently addressed the people in parables, thereby verifying the prophecy of Isa 6:9, that the people should see without knowing, and hear without understanding, in the midst of instructions. This result, however, only proved how inveterate were their hardness of heart and blindness of mind; for in no other way could he have offered them instruction more invitingly, clearly, or forcibly, than by this beautiful and familiar mode. The Hebrew writers made great use of it; and not only the Jews, but the Arabs, Syrians, and all the nations of the east were and still are admirers of this form of discourse.\par In the interpretation of a parable, its primary truth and main scope are chiefly to be considered. The minute particulars are less to be regarded than in a sustained allegory; and serious errors are occasioned by pressing every detail, and inventing for it some spiritual analogy.\par The following parables of our Lord are recorded by the evangelists.\par Wise and foolish builders, Mat 7:24-27 .\par Children of the bride-chamber, Mat 9:15 .\par New cloth and old garment, Mat 9:16 .\par New wine and old bottles, Mat 9:17 .\par Unclean spirit, Mat 12:43 .\par Sower, Mat 13:3,18 Luk 8:5,11 .\par Tares, Mat 13:24-30,36 -43.\par Mustard-seed, Mat 13:31-32 Luk 13:19 .\par Leaven, Mat 13:33 .\par Treasure hid in a field, Mat 13:44 .\par Pearl of great price, Mat 13:45-46 .\par Net cast into the sea, Mat 13:47-50 .\par Meats defiling not, Mat 15:10-15 .\par Unmerciful servant, Mat 18:23-35 .\par Laborers hired, Mat 20:1-16 .\par Two sons, Mat 21:28-32 .\par Wicked husbandmen, Mat 21:33-45 .\par Marriage-feast, Mat 22:2-14 .\par Fig tree leafing, Mat 24:32-34 .\par Man of the house watching, Mat 24:43 .\par Faithful and evil servants, Mat 24:45-51 .\par Ten virgins, Mat 25:1-13 .\par Talents, Mat 25:14-30 .\par Kingdom divided against itself, Mar 3:24 .\par House divided against itself, Mar 3:25 .\par Strongman armed, Mar 3:27 Luk 11:21 .\par Seed growing secretly, Mar 4:26-29 .\par Lighted candle, Mar 4:21 Luk 11:33-36 .\par Man taking a far journey, Mar 13:34-37 .\par Blind leading the blind, Luk 6:39 .\par Beam and mote, Luk 6:41-42 .\par Tree and its fruit, Luk 6:43-45 .\par Creditor and debtors, Luk 7:41-47 .\par Good Samaritan, Luk 10:30-37 .\par Importunate friend, Luk 11:5-9 .\par Rich fool, Luk 12:16-21 .\par Cloud and wind, Luk 12:54-57 .\par Barren fig tree, Luk 13:6-9 .\par Men bidden to a feast, Luk 14:7-11 .\par Builder of a tower, Luk 14:28-30,33 .\par King going to war, Luk 14:31-33 .\par Savor of salt, Luk 14:34-35 .\par Lost sheep, Luk 15:3-7 .\par Lost piece of silver, Luk 15:8-10 .\par Prodigal son, Luk 15:11-32 .\par Unjust steward, Luk 16:1-8 .\par Rich man and Lazarus, Luk 16:19-31 .\par Importunate widow, Luk 18:1-8 .\par Pharisee and publican, Luk 18:9-14 .\par Pounds, Luk 19:12-27 .\par Good shepherd, Joh 10:1-6 .\par Vine and branches, Joh 15:1-5 .\par
Parable. (The word parable is, in Greek, parable (parabole), which signifies placing beside or together, a comparison, a parable is therefore, literally, a placing beside, a comparison, a similitude, an illustration of one subject by another. -- McClintock and Strong. As used in the New Testament, it had a very wide application, being applied sometimes to the shortest proverbs, 1Sa 10:12; 1Sa 24:13; 2Ch 7:20, sometimes to dark prophetic utterances, Num 23:7; Num 23:18; Num 24:3; Eze 20:49, sometimes to enigmatic maxims, Psa 78:2; Pro 1:6, or metaphors expanded into a narrative. Eze 12:22.
In the New Testament itself, the word is used with a like latitude in Mat 24:32; Luk 4:23; Heb 9:9. It was often used in a more restricted sense to denote a short narrative, under which some important truth is veiled. Of this sort were the parables of Christ. The parable differs from the fable
(1) in excluding brute and inanimate creatures passing out of the laws of their nature and speaking or acting like men;
(2) in its higher ethical significance.
It differs from the allegory in that the latter, with its direct personification of ideas or attributes, and the names which designate them, involves really no comparison.
The virtues and vices of mankind appear as in a drama, in their own character and costume. The allegory is self-interpreting; the parable demands attention, insight, and sometimes, an actual explanation. It differs from a proverb in that, it must include a similitude of some kind, while the proverb may assert, without a similitude, some wide generalization of experience. -- Editor).
For some months, Jesus taught in the synagogues and on the seashore of Galilee, as he had before taught in Jerusalem, and as yet without a parable. But then, there came a change. The direct teaching was met with scorn, unbelief, and hardness, and he seemed, for a time, to abandon it for that which took the form of parables.
The worth of parables, as instruments of teaching, lies in their being, at once, a test of character, and in their presenting, each form of character with that which, as a penalty or blessing, it is adapted to it. They withdraw the light, from those who love darkness. They protect the truth, which they enshrine, from the mockery of the scoffer. They leave something, even with the careless, which may be interpreted and understood afterward. They reveal, on the other hand, to the seekers after truth. These ask the meaning of the parable, and will not rest until the teacher has explained it.
In this way the parable did work, found out the fit hearers and led them on. In most of the parables, it is possible to trace something like an order.
There is a group, which have for their subject, are the laws of the divine kingdom. Under this heading, we have the sower, Mat 13:1; Mar 4:1; Luk 8:1, and the wheat and the tares. Mat 13:1; etc.
When the next parables meet us, they are of a different type, and occupy a different position. They are drawn from the life of men rather than from the world of nature. They are such as these -- the two debtors, Luk 7:1, the merciless servant, Mat 18:1, and the good Samaritan, Luk 10:1; etc.
Toward the close of our Lord’s ministry, the parables are again theocratic, but the phase of the divine kingdom on which they chiefly dwell, is that of its final consummation. In interpreting parables, note --
(1) The analogies must be real, not arbitrary;
(2) The parables are to be considered as parts of a whole, and the interpretation of one is not to override or encroach upon the lessons taught by others;
(3) The direct teaching of Christ presents the standard to which all our interpretations are to be referred, and by which they are to be measured.
Hebrew
In His earlier teaching, as the Sermon on the Mount, He taught plainly and generally without parables; but when His teaching was rejected or misunderstood, He in the latter half of His ministry judicially punished the unbelieving by parabolic veiling of the truth (Mat 13:11-16), "therefore speak I to them in parables, because they seeing see not ... but blessed are your eyes, for they see," etc. Also Mat 13:34-35. The disciples’ question (Mat 13:10), "why speakest Thou unto them in parables?" shows that this is the first formal beginning of His parabolic teaching. The parables found earlier are scattered and so plain as to be rather illustrations than judicial veilings of the truth (Mat 7:24-27; Mat 9:16; Mat 12:25; Mar 3:23; Luk 6:39). Not that a merciful aspect is excluded even for the heretofore carnal hearers. The change of mode would awaken attention, and judgment thus end in mercy, when the message of reconciliation addressed to them first after Jesus’ resurrection (Act 3:26) would remind them of parables not understood at the time.
The Holy Spirit would "bring all things to their remembrance" (Joh 14:26). When explained, the parables would be the clearest illustration of truth. The parable, which was to the carnal a veiling, to the receptive was a revealing of the truth, not immediate but progressive (Pro 4:18). They were a penalty era blessing according to the hearer’s state: a darkening to those who loved darkness; enshrining the truth (concerning Messiah’s spiritual kingdom so different from Jewish expectations) from the jeer of the scoffer, and leaving something to stimulate the careless afterward to think over. On the other hand, enlightening the diligent seeker, who asks what means this parable? and is led so to "understand all parables" (Mar 4:13; Mat 15:17; Mat 16:9; Mat 16:11), and at last to need no longer this mode but to have all truth revealed plainly (Joh 16:25). The truths, when afterward explained first by Jesus, then by His Spirit (Joh 14:26), would be more definitely and indelibly engraven on their memories.
About 50 out of a larger number are preserved in the Gospels (Mar 4:33). Each of the three synoptical Gospels preserves some parable peculiar to itself; John never uses the word parable but "proverb" or rather brief "allegory," parabolic saying (
The parable is longer carried out than the proverb, and not merely by accident and occasionally, but necessarily, figurative and having a similitude. The parable is often an expanded proverb, and the proverb a condensed parable. The parable expresses some particular fact, which the simile does not. In the fable the end is earthly virtues, skill, prudence, etc., which have their representatives in irrational creation; if men be introduced, they are represented from their mere animal aspect. The rabbis of Christ’s time and previously often employed parable, as Hillel, Shammai, the Gemara, Midrash (Lightfoot, Hor. Hebrew, Mat 13:3); the commonness of their use was His first reason for employing them, He consecrated parables to their highest end. A second reason was, the untutored masses relish what is presented in the concrete and under imagery, rather than in the abstract. Even the disciples, through Jewish prejudices, were too weak in faith impartially to hear gospel truths if presented in naked simplicity; the parables secured their assent unawares.
The Pharisees, hating the truth, became judicially hardened by that vehicle which might have taught them it in a guise least unpalatable. As in the prophecies, so in parables, there was light enough to guide the humble, darkness enough to confound the willfully blind (Joh 9:39; Psa 18:26). A third reason was, gospel doctrines could not be understood fully before the historical facts on which they rested had been accomplished, namely, Jesus’ death and resurrection. Parables were repositories of truths not then understood, even when plainly told (Luk 18:34), but afterward comprehended in their manifold significance, when the Spirit brought all Jesus’ words to their remembrance. The veil was so transparent as to allow the spiritual easily to see the truth underneath; the unspiritual saw only the sacred drapery of the parable in which He wrapped the pearl so as not to cast it before swine. "Apples of gold in pictures (frames) of silver." The seven in Matthew 13 represent the various relations of the kingdom of God. The first, the relations of different classes with regard to God’s word.
The second, the position of mankind relatively to Satan’s kingdom. The third and fourth, the greatness of the gospel kingdom contrasted with its insignificant beginning. The fifth and sixth, the inestimable value of the kingdom. The seventh, the mingled state of the church on earth continuing to the end. The first four parables have a mutual connection (Mat 13:3; Mat 13:24; Mat 13:31; Mat 13:33), and were spoken to the multitude on the shore; then Mat 13:34 marks a break. On His way to the house He explains the parable of the sower to the disciples; then, in the house, the tares (Mat 13:36); the three last parables (Mat 13:44-52), mutually connected by the thrice repeated "again," probably in private. The seven form a connected totality. The mustard and leaven are repeated in a different connection (Luk 13:18-21).
Seven denotes "completeness"; they form a perfect prophetic series: the sower, the seedtime; the tares, the secret growth of corruption; the mustard and leaven, the propagation of the gospel among princes and in the whole world; the treasure, the hidden state of the church (Psa 83:3); the pearl, the kingdom prized above all else; the net, the church’s mixed state in the last age and the final separation of bad from good. The second group of parables are less theocratic, and more peculiarly represent Christ’s sympathy with all men, and their consequent duties toward Him and their fellow men. The two debtors (Luk 7:41), the merciless servant (Matthew 18), the good Samaritan (Luk 10:30), the friend at midnight (Luk 11:5), the rich fool (Luk 12:16), the figtree (Luk 13:6), the great supper (Luk 14:16), the lost sheep, piece of silver, son (Luke 15; Mat 18:12), the unjust steward (Luk 16:1), Lazarus, etc. (Luk 16:19), unjust judge (Luk 18:2), Pharisee and publican (Luk 18:9), all in Luke, agreeable to his Gospel’s aspect of Christ.
Thirdly, toward the close of His ministry, the theocratic parables are resumed, dwelling on the final consummation of the kingdom of God. The pound (Luk 19:12), two sons (Mat 21:28), the vineyard (Mat 21:33), marriage (Mat 22:2); the ten virgins, talents, sheep and goats (Matthew 25). Matthew, being evangelist of the kingdom, has the largest number of the first and third group. Mark, the Gospel of Jesus’ acts, has (of the three) fewest of the parables, but alone has the parable of the grain’s silent growth (Mar 4:26). John, who soars highest, has no parable strictly so-called, having reached that close communion with the Lord wherein parables have no place. For a different reason, namely, incapacity to frame them, the apocryphal Gospels have none.
INTERPRETATION. Jesus’ explanation of two parables, the sower and the tares, gives a key for interpreting other parables. There is one leading thought round which as center the subordinate parts must group themselves. As the accessories, the birds, thorns, heat, etc., had each a meaning, so we must in other parables try to find the spiritual significance even of details. The mistakes some have made are no reason why we should not from Scripture seek an explanation of accessories. The fulfillment may be more than single, applying to the church and to the individual at once, both experimental and prophetic. But
(1) The analogies must be real, not imaginary, and subordinate to the main lesson of the parable.
(2) The parable in its mere outward form must be well understood, e.g. the relation of love between the Eastern shepherd and sheep (2Sa 12:3, an Old Testament parable, as the vineyard Isaiah 5 also) to catch the point of the parable of the lost sheep.
(3) The context also introducing the parable, as Luk 15:1-2 is the starting point of the three parables, the lost sheep, etc.; so Luk 16:14-18 (compare Joh 8:9) introduces and gives the key to the parable of the rich man and Lazurus.
(4) Traits which, if literally interpreted, would contradict Scripture, are coloring; e.g. the number of the wise virgins and the foolish being equal; compare Mat 7:13-14. But there may be a true interpretation of a trait, which, if misinterpreted, contradicts Scripture, e.g. the hired laborers all alike getting the penny, not that there are no degrees of rewards (2Jn 1:8) but the gracious gift of salvation is the same to all; the key is Mat 19:27-30; Mat 20:16. So the selling the debtor’s wife and children (Mat 18:25) is mere coloring from Eastern usage, for God does not consign wife and children to hell for the husband’s and father’s sins.
Parable (from a Greek word signifying comparison) is used in the Bible in both the wide and a narrow sense. In the first case it comprises all forms of teaching by analogy, and all forms of figurative speech, and is applied to metaphors, whether expanded into narratives, Eze 12:22, or not, Mat 24:32; to proverbs and other short sayings, 1Sa 10:12; 1Sa 24:13; 2Ch 7:20; Luk 4:23; to dark utterances or signs of prophetic or symbolical meaning. Num 23:17-18; Num 24:3; Eze 20:49; Heb 9:9, etc. In the second case it means a short narrative of some every-day event, by which some great spiritual truth is conveyed to the hearer. For list of parables of Christ see Appendix.
In the O.T. the word is mashal, ’a similitude,’ and is also translated ’proverb.’ In the N.T. it is
The word ’parable’ is used many times in the O.T. for figurative language where no distinct parable is related, as when Balaam ’took up his parable,’ Num 23:7; Num 23:18, etc.; and Job ’continued his parable.’ Job 27:1; Job 29:1. The word
From the fact of the Lord connecting ’the mysteries of the kingdom’ with the parables He uttered, we may be sure that there is much instruction to be gathered from them if rightly interpreted: they need the teaching of the Spirit of God as much as any other part of scripture.
It will be seen by the annexed list that some of the parables are recorded only by Matthew; two ’similes’ are found in Mark only; several parables are given only by Luke; and none are recorded by the evangelist John. There must be divine reasons for this, and wisdom is needed to discern and profit by it. All is doubtless in harmony with the character of each of the Gospels. The word ’parable’ occurs in Joh 10:6 in the A.V., but it is not the same word, and signifies ’allegory.’ The teaching is not in the form of a parable: the Lord is speaking of Himself as the good Shepherd.
Some of the parables are grouped together. Thus in Matthew 13 there are seven parables, four of which were delivered in the hearing of the multitude, and three in private. The first was introductory, namely, the SOWER. The Lord came seeking fruit, but finding none He revealed that He had really been sowing ’the word of the kingdom,’ and explained why much of the seed did not produce fruit. The next three parables give the outward aspect of the kingdom during Christ’s absence, that which man has made of it. The second is the WHEAT AND THE TARES. The Lord sowed the good seed, but Satan at once sowed his seed, and both grew up together until the harvest at the end of the age. The third is the MUSTARD SEED. This grows up into a tree large enough for the birds (which caught away the good seed in the parable of the sower) to lodge in its branches. The fourth is the LEAVEN. A woman hid leaven (always a type of what is human, arid hence of evil, because sin is in the flesh) which diffused itself unseen amid the three measures of meal until all was leavened.
Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and in private explained first to His disciples the parable of the Wheat and the Tares, and then added parables that show the divine object and intent in the kingdom. The first is the HID TREASURE, for the sake of obtaining which a man buys the field in which it is hid. The second is the PEARL OF GREAT PRICE. The merchant-man seeks goodly pearls, and having found one pearl of great price, sells all that he has to be possessed of it. Christ renounced all that belonged to Him as man after the flesh and as Messiah on earth, in order that He might possess the church. The third is the parable of the NET, which gathers out of the sea of nations good and bad, as the gospel has done in Christendom. When the net is drawn to shore the servants make a selection of the good from the bad, but at the end of the age (it is added in the exposition) the angels will separate the wicked from the just, and cast them into the furnace of fire.
Another group of parables is in Luke 15, or in one sense a parable in three sections (Luk 15:3). It answers the charge brought against the Lord, "This man receiveth sinners."
1. THE LOST SHEEP was followed by the shepherd until it was found.
2. THE LOST PIECE OF MONEY. The piece of money was lost in the house, even as many persons in God’s sight were lost in the outward profession of being Abraham’s children (as many indeed are lost now in Christendom). The lost piece was sought by the light of the candle till it was found. It was precious, a piece of silver.
3. THE PRODIGAL SON was joyfully received by the father, a feast was prepared, and the recovery of the lost one was celebrated by music and dancing. This is the climax - the celebration of grace. In all three the joy is that of the finder. It is the joy of heaven over the recovery of lost sinners.
It is doubtless best to study each parable or each group, with its context, as the Holy Spirit has given them. Attempts have, however, been made to classify them according to the truth conveyed by them thus:
1. The setting aside of Israel. THE TWO SONS, of which the Lord gives the interpretation. THE WICKED HUSBANDMEN: the rulers of Israel were among the Lord’s hearers, and He explained the parable thus: "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." The BARREN FIG TREE: the Lord came seeking fruit in Israel as representing man under culture, but found none. He gave time for repentance, but the fig tree yielded no fruit and was to be cut clown: the destruction of Jerusalem was its actual removal.
2. The introduction of the kingdom and Satan’s opposition to it. The SOWER. The WHEAT AND TARES. The GROWTH OF SEED: notwithstanding the opposition of Satan, God in His own secret way makes His seed fructify and bring forth fruit. The LEAVEN; the HIDDEN TREASURE; the PEARL OF GREAT PRICE; and the NET.
3. God’s way of bringing into blessing. The LOST SHEEP; the LOST PIECE OF MONEY; and the PRODIGAL SON. The MARRIAGE FOR THE KING’S SON: God will do honour to His Son. The Jews were invited to the feast, but would not come. Others, the Gentile outcasts, were invited. One without the wedding robe (Christ) was cast out. He had no sense of natural unfitness. The GREAT SUPPER: the feast of heavenly grace in contrast to the earthly things of the kingdom of God. All who were invited made excuses, not as prevented by evil but by earthly things; they were indifferent to the gracious invitation. Some, the poor and afflicted of the city, were brought in, and others were to be compelled to come in. God will have His house filled. The PHARISEE AND PUBLICAN: the Pharisee thanked God that he was not as other men; the publican cried for mercy, and went down to his house justified rather than the other. The TWO DEBTORS: the poor woman was forgiven much, and she loved much; not forgiven because she loved much. The UNJUST JUDGE: the Lord’s point was that men "ought always to pray and not to faint." God will answer in His own time, and the earthly elect will be saved. The LABOURERS IN THE VINEYARD: God in His sovereignty asks, "Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?" Man claims this liberty for himself, yet murmurs against the sovereignty of God. "Many are called, but few chosen." Notice also in this parable the Lord’s reply to Peter’s question in Mat 19:27; Mat 20 continues the subject and shows us sovereign grace in contrast with the mercenary spirit of man’s heart.
4. The various responsibilities of men. The GOOD SAMARITAN: this was given in answer to "Who is my neighbour?" The Lord was really the good Samaritan, and after describing the course He took He said, "Go thou and do likewise." The FOOLISH RICH MAN: the moral is, "So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God." The UNJUST STEWARD: he sacrificed the present for the future, for which his master commended him, not for his injustice but his wisdom. The Lord applies the parable thus: "Make to yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness [worldly possessions] that when it fails ye may be received into eternal tabernacles." Giving to the poor is lending to the Lord, and laying up treasure in heaven. The Lord exhorted His hearers to be (unlike the unjust steward) faithful in their stewardship of the unrighteous mammon (which does not belong to the Christian), that the true riches might be entrusted to them.
The RICH MAN AND LAZARUS. Nothing is said of the moral character of either of these men. It had been taught in the O.T. that outward prosperity should mark the upright man. Psa 112:2-3. In the kingdom in its new phase, consequent upon Christ’s rejection, the possession of riches is no sign of divine favour. This was a needful lesson for the Jew. It was very difficult for a rich man to be saved, but the poor had the gospel preached unto them. The poor man was carried into Abraham’s bosom, and the rich man fell into perdition. Another world reverses the conditions of the present one. The teaching in the parable of the Unjust Steward is continued here: the rich man was not sacrificing the present for the future. It also gives a vivid picture of the unalterable condition of the lost.
The UNMERCIFUL SERVANT. This illustrates the government of God, which is not set aside by His grace. It is revealed that God will recompense to His people according as they act towards others. Mat 7:2. Doubtless this parable has another application, bearing upon the Jews as to their jealousy of grace being shown to the Gentiles. The debt of the Gentiles to them is expressed in the hundred pence [perhaps a few months wages]; whereas the indebtedness of the Jews to God is seen in the ten thousand talents [millions of pounds or dollars]. Pardon was offered to them by Peter in Act 3:19-26; but it was rejected, and their persecution of Paul and those who carried the gospel to the Gentiles showed that they could not forgive the Gentiles the hundred pence. They must now pay the uttermost farthing. Compare Isa 40:2; Mat 5:25-26; 1Th 2:15-16.
The TEN VIRGINS. The explanation of this is simple. The normal attitude of Christians is that they have gone forth to meet the Bridegroom. This was the hope and expectation of the apostles. After their days all in this respect fell asleep. There may have been times of awakening, but when the last call goes forth it reveals the solemn fact that some have a profession only, without Christ - lamps without oil - who will be for ever shut out. "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour." The virgins signify Christians, and not the faithful Jewish remnant, for these will not sleep (persecution will prevent that), nor be a mixed company, nor have to wait a long time for their Deliverer.
The TALENTS. This parable is similar in character to that of the POUNDS. The talents were distributed according to the ability of each servant, so that one had five, another two, and another one. This parable follows that of the Ten Virgins, showing that while the Christian waits for his Lord, he should be faithfully using the gifts entrusted to him. The POUNDS show the Lord Jesus leaving the earth to receive a kingdom, and giving to each of His servants a pound to trade with during His absence. All gifts are for the glory of the Lord, and the servant is responsible to Him for the faithful use of them.
Another arrangement of the principal parables has been suggested, namely, in three groups corresponding to different periods of the Lord’s ministry.
1. In His early ministry, embracing the new teaching connected with the kingdom, and the mysterious form which it takes during His absence. This extends to Mat 13 and Mark 4. These parables will be easily distinguished in the following table.
2. After an interval of some months. The parables are now of a different type, and are drawn from the life of men rather than from the world of nature. They are principally in answer to questions, not in discourses to the multitude. Most of them occur in Luke only, in which gospel the Son of man is for man. They fall chiefly between the mission of the seventy and the Lord’s last approach to Jerusalem.
3. This group falls towards the close of the Lord’s ministry. They concern the kingdom in its consummation, and are prophetic of the rejection of Israel and the coming of the Lord.
In Mat 13 the Lord asked His disciples if they understood what He had been saying to them. They said, "Yea, Lord." He added, "Every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven, is like unto a man that is a householder which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old."
PARABLES AND SIMILES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
Parables By whom spoken References
Trees choosing a King Jotham to the Shechemites Jdg 9:7-15
The Ewe Lamb Nathan to David 2Sa 12:1-4
The two Brothers and the Avenger of Blood Widow of Tekoah to David 2Sa 14:4-7
The Escaped Captive Man of the sons of the Prophets to Ahab 1Ki 20:37-40
The Thistle and Cedar Jehoash to Amaziah 2Ki 14:9
The Vineyard and Grapes Isaiah to Judah and Jerusalem Isa 5:1-7
The Eagles and a Vine Ezekiel to Israel Eze 17:3-10
The Lion’s Whelps Ezekiel to Israel Eze 19:1-9
The Boiling Pot Ezekiel to Israel Eze 24:3-5
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
Parables Mat Mark Luke
Houses on the Rock and on the Sand Mat 7:24-27 Luk 6:48-49
New Cloth in Old Garment Mat 9:16 Mar 2:21 Luk 5:36
New Wine in Old Bottles Mat 9:17 Mar 2:22 Luk 5:37-39
The Sower Mat 13:3-9 Mar 4:3-9 Luk 8:5-8
Candle under a Bushel or a Bed Mat 5:15 Mar 4:21 Luk 8:16
The Wheat and the Tares Mat 13:24; Mat 13:30
Growth of Seed Mar 4:26-29
Mustard Seed Mat 13:31-32 Mar 4:30-32 Luk 13:18-19
The Leaven Mat 13:33 Luk 13:20-21
The Hidden Treasure Mat 13:44
The Pearl of Great Price Mat 13:43; Mat 13:46
The Drag Net Mat 13:47-50
Unmerciful Servant Mat 18:23-35
The Two Debtors Luk 7:41-43
The Good Samaritan Luk 10:30-37
Friend at Midnight Luk 11:5-8
The Rich Fool Luk 12:16-21
Serants waiting for their Lord Luk 12:35-48
The Barren Fig Tree Luk 13:6-9
The Great Supper Luk 14:16-24
The Tower, and King making War Luk 14:28-33
Lost Sheep Mat 18:12-13 Luk 15:4-7
Lost Piece of Money Luk 15:8-10
Prodigal Son Luk 15:11-32
Unjust Steward Luk 16:1-13
Rich Man and Lazarus Luk 16:19-31
Master and Servant Luk 17:7-10
Importunate Widow Luk 18:1-8
Pharisee and Publican Luk 18:10-14
Labourers in the Vineyard Mat 20:1-16
Sons sent to Labour Mat 21:28-32
The Vineyard and Husbandmen Mat 21:33-46 Mar 12:1-12 Luk 20:9-19
Marriage of the King’s Son Mat 22:2-14
Young Leaves of Fig Tree Mat 24:32-35 Mar 13:28-31 Luk 21:29-33
Household watching Mar 13:31-37
Ten Virgins Mat 25:1-13
The Talents Mat 25:14-30
The Pounds Luk 19:12-27
Sheep and Goats Mat 25:31-46
Simile; specifically, a short narrative making a moral or religious point by comparison with natural or homely things
PARABLE
1. Definition and Classification.—The word ‘parable’ is an oft-recurring one in the Synoptic Gospels, appearing altogether 48 times. Otherwise it is found in the NT only in Heb 9:9; Heb 11:19 (Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ), where it has the meaning of ‘type’ or ‘symbol’ (Authorized Version ‘figure’). The Evangelists use of it suggests that for them it was a technical term designating a certain form of discourse or method of teaching, and they report Jesus as employing it in like manner. It is always introduced as something well known, and nowhere denned. The readers are assumed to be as familiar with it as are the writers. This occasions no surprise, for we know that the term had long been current in the circle to which the Evangelists belonged, appearing, as it does, often in the LXX Septuagint . The connexion between the NT usage and that of the LXX Septuagint is expressly pointed out by St. Matthew (Mat 13:35), who sees in Jesus’ use of parables the fulfilment of Psa 78:2.
In the LXX Septuagint
The modern understanding of the word ‘parable’ has not as yet become well defined. One naturally expects this to follow the Greek conception, but in many definitions one finds a considerable infusion of the Semitic point of view.
That the Synoptists should entertain this narrower and more definite view of Greek and Roman writers is not to be anticipated. One expects to find in them rather the wider and more indefinite application of Semitic authors, and in this one is not disappointed. Proverb (Luk 4:23), paradox (Mar 7:17), similitude (Mar 4:30), allegory (Mar 4:13), and example or illustrative instance (Luk 12:16) are so named. The word appears with sufficient frequency to make evident its wide application. This does not prove, of course, that in the NT it has a meaning identical with that which it bears in the OT. It is Jülicher’s view that a new element entered in during the period of the Jewish-Hellenistic literature. Besides being a complete thought and expressing or implying comparison, the parable is now understood to veil a hidden meaning. The real teaching is not in what the words seem to say, but in their deeper import. We shall have occasion to return to this topic after reviewing the range of the parabolic material.
It is not to be assumed that the Synoptists have prefixed a title to all the sections that they regarded as
This divergence of opinion makes it evident that it is not easy to determine the precise extent of the parabolic material. Nor is it easy to discover a satisfactory principle for classifying it. This has been attempted from various points of view. Some have sought to make the truth taught a standard for grouping. So Bruce distinguishes (1) Theoretic parables, or those embodying a general teaching regarding the Kingdom of God; (2) the parables of Grace; (3) the parables of Judgment. Others have made the realm from which the illustration was taken the criterion of division. More satisfactory results are obtained by paying heed to the form of the parable, that is, to the character of the illustration and the manner of its introduction. From this point of view a large portion of the material falls within one general division. To this belong all the sections in which a spiritual or moral truth is established or enforced by the use of an express or implicit comparison. An appeal is made to common experience, to what is recognized and accepted by all, in support of less evident truths pertaining to a higher realm. The tacit assumption is that the same laws are valid for moral and religious as for daily practical life. If assent is yielded without hesitation in the one case, it cannot be withheld in the other.
At times the comparison is expressly made by some formula, or by some word or particle (e.g.
The following inferences regarding the character of a Similitude are possible in view of what has been said: (1) Fundamentally it is a comparison. Often this is expressly indicated, as above. (2) It is a comparison of relationships and not of details. There may chance to be some suggestive resemblance in details, but this is immaterial to the real purpose of the illustration. (3) In each Similitude there is one main comparison and one application, one truth that is unfolded. (4) Since there are two parts, the statement needing proof and the illustration supplying this, it is wrong, as is often done, to speak of the illustration alone as the Similitude. (5) The purpose of the Similitude is manifestly to elucidate or to prove, to win assent for what is unfamiliar by an appeal to what is well known.
A group of passages of lesser extent than the one just considered makes a like use of sayings which were apparently proverbial. Luk 4:23 is an instance of this: ‘And he said unto them, Doubtless ye will say unto me this parable, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done at Capernaum, do also here in thine own country.’ Jesus, conduct is likened to that of the physician in question. The proverb by itself does not constitute the parable, but the proverb used as an illustration. Since such proverbs are the concise and pointed formulations of the truths of common experience, we need not differentiate these parables from those last discussed—no further, at least, than to make them a subdivision of the Similitudes. Besides the passage quoted, others, such as Mat 5:14 b, Mat 6:24 (Luk 16:13) Luk 15:14 (Luk 6:39) Luk 24:28 (Luk 17:37), Mar 2:17 (Mat 9:12 f., Luk 5:13 f.), would be included.
Often the illustration from experience is not stated as a general inference, recognized always and by all, but is embodied in the form of a specific incident, in what was done by some person or persons, or in what happened to them. Thus Luk 15:11-32 begins, ‘A certain man had two sons,’ and Mar 4:3-9 ‘Behold, the sower went forth to sow.’ In purpose and in the way the illustration is employed there is close resemblance between this group and the Similitudes. The difference is mainly in the definiteness of the experience. Here it is presented as a single occurrence. It may still be, and no doubt usually is, wholly imaginary. All that is required is a degree of naturalness and probability sufficient to command unhesitating assent. Such a story, formed by the imagination from the material of actual experience, might be classed as a Fable, had not this name gained in the course of time a restricted meaning. By many writers it is looked upon as applicable only to the small group of animal fables in which the main actors are animals or inanimate objects. Since such stories often serve merely to entertain or to teach worldly prudence and discretion, the difference between parable and fable is made by some to consist in the kind of truth enforced. The latter is restricted to the lower realm of worldly knowledge, while the former is assigned to the service of the higher truths of morality and religion. We need not further discuss the distinction, because fable has become exclusively associated in most minds with the type of teaching attributed to aesop. To connect it with any of the discourses of Jesus would occasion misunderstanding. Jülicher’s proposal is to retain for this group the name Parable in its narrower meaning. Until a better designation is found, it will be well to accept this.
The Gospel of Lk. contains at least four sections differing in character from any previously considered. They have the narrative form, but the illustration is taken, not from a different realm, but from that to which the truth under discussion belongs. A specific instance wherein this is exemplified is recited to win the approval or call forth the disapprobation of the hearer. The application is made, not through analogy, not by some word expressing likeness or resemblance, but by simple affirmation: ‘So is it’ or ‘so should it not be.’ The Good Samaritan (Luk 10:30-37), the Foolish Rich Man (Luk 12:16-20), the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luk 16:19-31), and the Pharisee and the Publican (Luk 18:9-14) belong to this group. Possibly, as Heinrici suggests (PRE
On the basis of the reference in Mar 7:17 (Mat 15:15) it has been proposed (cf. Bugge, op. cit. i. pp. 59, 15, and 16) to regard the Paradox as a class of parable. That the name might be so applied may, in the light of Semitic usage, be assumed as probable, though there is wide difference of view regarding this particular passage in Mk. and Mt. Expositors have not, however, generally made paradoxes a distinct group in their treatment of the parables.
It now remains to ask whether there is another class of passages that should be brought together under the head of Allegory. This question has recently been much discussed, and opinion is still widely divided. It is variously affirmed that, even according to the Synoptists, Jesus never spoke in allegories (Weinel, Die Gleichnisse Jesu, p. 30); or that He is mistakenly reported by them as so doing (Jülicher, op. cit. i. 61 ff. etc.); or that He did make use of allegories, and is correctly reported in this respect (Bugge, op. cit. i. 40 ff. etc.). Allegory (
In addition to these passages there are numerous others where little doubt can exist that the Evangelists understood some details allegorically, for they suggest, even if they do not give, such an interpretation. By way of illustration the reference to the whole and the sick (Mar 2:17) may be cited, so also the taking away of the bridegroom (Mar 2:20), and the blind who lead the blind (Mat 15:14, Luk 6:39). Jülicher maintains that they looked on all parables as allegories. They have given, it is true, few allegorical interpretations, and have not often indicated that they felt such treatment necessary, but this is only because their practice is not in accord with their theory. Whenever they reflect (as they do in Mar 4:10-12; Mar 4:33-34 || Mat 13:10 to Mat 15:34 ff., Luk 8:9-10), they think of parables as always veiling a hidden meaning, one hard to be understood and intelligible to the disciples themselves only after interpretation. This conception, as was stated above, is not held to be their own creation, but is thought to be one that came to them from the age of the Jewish-Hellenistic literature. It was the product of scribal activity. Such an explanation is open to serious question. It may be doubted whether existing evidence proves that the notion of mystery belonged so exclusively to this later period. It is true that with the decadence of prophecy men looked for the message of God in what had been said rather than in what was being said, and that the allegorical method of exegesis was assiduously cultivated. It may also be true that the Gospels indicate that, at the time when the Evangelists wrote, the words of Jesus received to some extent like treatment; but that it went to the length that this theory supposes is not attested. Such a claim could be more reasonably made for the Church Fathers and the interpreters of later generations. From post-Apostolic days even down to the present the prevailing method of exegesis has been allegorical. (On its prevalence in Alexandrian and Palestinian circles before and after Christ, see Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible , art. ‘Allegory,’ i. p. 64). Representatives (e.g. Chrysostom, Calvin, Maldonatus) of sounder interpretation have not been altogether wanting, but they have been little heeded. There is no parable or detail of a parable that has not received many and conflicting interpretations. The judge of Luk 18:2, for example, according to some stands for God, and according to others for the devil. Elsewhere results are no less incongruous (e.g. Mat 24:28, Luk 17:37; Mat 24:43 f., Luk 12:39 f.; Luk 11:5-8). So great was the contradiction, that in the 17th cent. the thesis was proposed that parables should not be used as a source of doctrine, but only to illustrate and confirm what was otherwise established (‘theologia parabolica non est argumentative,’ cf. Jülicher, op. cit. i. p. 277). The form of the disciples’ question (Mar 4:10 f., cf. Mar 4:33-34) might at first incline us to agree that the Church Fathers were but following the Synoptists, were it not that so many parables are recorded without even suggestion that they need interpretation. Julicher finds it a priori improbable that a popular teacher, who expressed himself without any considerable deliberation or preparation, should employ such a highly artificial, rhetorical form as the allegory. This tends to veil rather than to reveal, and belongs to the writer rather than to the speaker. He concedes that Jesus may on occasion have made metaphorical or allegorical application of certain suggestive details of some parable, but finds little or no evidence of His having done so. Everything indicates, rather, that all the passages to which we have alluded derive their allegorical features and interpretations from the writers. Originally, as spoken by Jesus, the Synoptic accounts were parables in the narrower meaning of the term.
This extreme position of Professor Jülicher has been opposed by many, and unqualifiedly approved by few. Admitting the proclivity of Jesus’ hearers, by reason of their traditions, to give an allegorical interpretation to many details, admitting that this might be increasingly done as men recalled these discourses and reflected on their import and sought to apply them to existing conditions, still to deny to Jesus all allegorical application of details and restrict Him to simple comparison, is unwarranted. If along with comparison (e.g. Mat 23:37 [Luk 13:34] Mat 10:16 [Luk 10:3], Luk 10:18) He made frequent use of metaphor, as the Gospels indicate (e.g. Mar 5:34; Mar 10:21 [Mat 19:21, Luk 18:22] Mat 12:40 [Luk 20:47]), and if He expanded comparison into parable, is it unwarrantable to assume that occasionally metaphor might be so extended as to become virtually an allegory? As long as such an interpretation of suggestive particulars contributes in a natural way to the enforcement of the main lesson, it cannot be considered irrelevant or artificial. Weinel has pointed out (Die Bildersprache Jesu in ihrer Bedeutung für die Erforschung seines inneren Lebens2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , 1906) that in its psychological origin the parable is closely akin to the allegory. It springs often from some suggestive analogy of detail which might well be made evident in the progress of the discourse. Such an assumption does not, to be sure, account for all the allegorical features that a sound exegesis will discover in the Gospels, but it enables us to understand how Jesus may, in the case of some parables, have added an application distinctly allegorical, as, for example, in the account of the Sower. And if He wished to address to His enemies such thoughts as are contained in the Wicked Husbandmen, could they have been more suitably presented? The great service of Jülicher and of B. Weiss before him in effectually discrediting false methods of interpretation and establishing true, can hardly receive too great recognition. But past extravagances and present danger of their perpetuation do not furnish adequate reason for denying to Jesus the use of allegory, or of parables so developed as to be hardly distinguishable therefrom. We accordingly admit allegory as a division of our classification.
2. Purpose.—Why did Jesus make use of parables? It would occur to hardly any reader of the Gospels to-day to be in doubt as to their purpose, were it not for the statements of the Synoptists. Parables have been used by teachers of all ages to unfold and enforce their instruction. Was it otherwise with Jesus? Is it otherwise, for example, in His use of the story of the Prodigal Son? The passage which occasions the perplexity is as follows: ‘And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parables. And he said unto them, Unto you is given the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all things are done in parables: that [
A different explanation is proposed by those who see here the enunciation of a pedagogical purpose. No class of hearers, not even the disciples, can understand the truth so presented, but the receptive will reveal themselves by their questions as to the meaning of the parable, while the unreceptive remain indifferent, and thereby make clear the hopelessness of their condition. Plain speech would have been equally unintelligible to such hearers, whereas the parable was calculated to quicken in them a spirit of inquiry, if anything could. This, again, is a very improbable supposition. Another interpretation sees in these words a reference not to intellectual comprehension, but to the inner spiritual appropriation of the truth set forth. Jesus seeks for this on the part of all, but finds it wanting in those who were dulled and hardened in their short-sighted self-righteousness and superficial self-satisfaction. Their hearing is as though they heard not. The parables are thus a summons to the conscience of the hearer, and bring about a separation between the receptive and the unreceptive.
Professor Jülicher, together with other recent writers, accepts the verses in their most obvious meaning, but assigns them to the Evangelists. When Jesus’ words were collected after His death, the large proportion of parabolic material attracted attention. An explanation was sought, and it was found in the character of those to whom the parables were addressed, and in their attitude toward Jesus. The multitude had not accepted Him as the Messiah. What had happened must have been in accord with the Divine plan. This plan had been fulfilled through the use of parables. Paul’s teaching in Romans 9-11 is here applied by the Evangelists to the history of Jesus. J. Weiss, indeed, holds that Mk. was acquainted with Romans, and followed St. Paul (Die Schriften des NT, i. p. 101). Whatever may be thought as to the dependence, the likeness of conception is obvious.
This explanation has in its favour a full and frank recognition of the difficulty as well as the avoidance of forced and unnatural interpretation. Many who think that the passage goes back to Jesus admit that the Evangelists in their report have been in some measure influenced by the hostility and opposition of unbelieving Israel, so pronounced at the time when they wrote. The explanation gains added support from the fact that the existing difficulty is not confined to the words of Jesus, but is occasioned in part by the appended comments of the Evangelists. Still, it cannot yet lay just claim to the validity of a demonstration. That the Evangelists should feel the need of accounting for the large proportion of parabolic material in Jesus’ teaching is not obvious. The proportion in Mk., with whom we have primarily to do, is not striking. We should need to postulate, what many deny, his acquaintance with the Logia. Again, if the Evangelists evolved this whole conception, it is certainly strange that they should make so little use of it. Writers are not wont thus to forget or neglect their own pet hypotheses, as Mk. apparently did, even in the course of ch. 4. Could he fail to notice, too, how his theory was contradicted by the readiness with which Jesus’ hearers understood the account of the Wicked Husbandmen? With all their freedom in transmitting Jesus’ words, is it probable that the writers would venture upon an entirely new creation of this kind at so late a date?
There is greater likelihood that we have to do in this passage with a saying of Jesus that, in the course of time, has been modified, or received a false emphasis. At what stage of the development of the Gospels the change took place we cannot be certain. The lack of responsiveness on the part of His hearers and the growing opposition of which we learn in the Gospels, may have caused Jesus to apply to His ministry the words of the prophet Isaiah (Isa 6:9 f.). The outcome of His mission might appear, on first thought, to be a repetition of this experience; but a deeper insight revealed as true what the parables of this chapter (Mark 4) teach. The despair of the prophet’s words receives its answer. That it was the Evangelists who first brought this OT quotation into such connexion can be doubted, though we can no longer be certain of its exact application, and though the text does not seem here to be in order. If Jesus used the words ironically, they might be cherished by the Christians of the later days of conflict as a statement of the Divine purpose. There is, in any case, too much contradictory evidence to admit of our receiving them as the deliberate statement of Jesus’ intention.
3. Interpretation.—In what sense is it permissible to speak of the interpretation of a parable? If we mean thereby an allegory, the need of translating its terms into their equivalents is evident. This will be required by the hearer in more or less fulness, according to circumstances. The statements of the Synoptists (Mar 4:10-13; Mar 4:33-34 ||) are then comprehensible so far as they may refer to allegories, but can the same be claimed if the remaining parabolic material is likewise included? By some it is said that it can be for the narrative parables, or parables in the restricted meaning of the term. Similitude and Illustrative Instance are excepted, as necessarily clear from the way in which they are introduced, but narrative parables, being complete and independent accounts, require interpretation. The hearer is as little aware of their real significance as was David when listening to Nathan’s story of the poor man and his lamb (2Sa 12:1 ff.). This view evidently represents Jesus as wont to relate incidents that had no apparent connexion with what was being said or done, and then to add an application, as the moral is appended to the fable. One, for instance, who heard about the Treasure in the field (Mat 13:44), or the Two Debtors (Luk 7:36-50), would have no reason to think of the Kingdom of heaven, or the duties of the sons of the Kingdom, until it was demanded by the application. The Gospels are not responsible for this theory, for they do not give the impression that Jesus kept His hearers in suspense. Either an explicit statement, as in the first example, or the occasion, as in the second, left commonly no doubt as to the topic under discussion. Furthermore, there seems to be no good reason for making such a distinction between this group of parables and the Similitudes and Illustrative Examples. Two parts are here essential to constitute a parable, the illustration and the truth illustrated. That the illustration appears in a slightly modified form does not involve a change in the parable’s essential character. And can we suppose that Jesus ever told the people one story, or a series of stories, and withheld all indication of His purpose? What could be expected to result therefrom beyond a little entertainment? And even this would be of short duration, unless the stories were longer than most of our parables. How can we harmonize the fact that the parables, as they now stand, set forth in unparalleled clearness and beauty the deepest truths of the gospel, with the assumption that they were used by Jesus as a means of punishing the unrepentant by hiding the truth?
It is not improbable that oftentimes the illustrative half of a parable alone was preserved by tradition. In such cases we can speak of interpretation if we mean thereby the discovery of the original setting and application, whether this service is performed by the Evangelists or undertaken by their interpreters. Such an understanding of the term is, however, misleading, as it obviously does not represent the thought of Mark 4 and parallels. The demand of these passages is satisfied only when we assume that interpretation means an unfolding of details such as is provided for the story of the Sower. This would not be required for all parabolic material, but only for those parables that were considered to be allegories. We have found above that it is not easy to decide how many were included by the Synoptists in such a point of view. A priori considerations or ingenious conjecture cannot decide the question, but only the internal evidence discovered by detailed exegetical study.
4. Transmission and Value.—Have the Evangelists rightly understood and faithfully reported Jesus’ parables? Had the tradition, upon which they were dependent, preserved an exact recollection of His words and their application? The parables were quite certainly spoken originally in Aramaic, and many of them, after being preserved for a time by oral tradition, may have first been written down in this same language. But even if the bulk of them were first written in Greek, we should, of course, still possess them only in translation. The possibility of modification accordingly exists, even if an earnest endeavour at historical accuracy, as we conceive of it, could be postulated. A comparison of the records of even the shortest parable appearing in all the Gospels, or in two of them, reveals many variations. While the major part are trifling, others may affect materially the meaning and structure of the parable. In the description of patching the old garment, for instance (Mar 2:21, Mat 9:16, Luk 5:36), the casual reader of the English notes the striking variation in Luke. The defenders of the validity of the several accounts in all their details have been wont to explain the divergences by advancing the hypothesis of the use of the same parable on different occasions. In some parables common to Mt. and Lk. such a view may be advocated with a show of reason, but when these two Gospels are following Mk. it has little support. There are parables, furthermore, like the one just noted and the Sower and the Wicked Husbandmen, that are spoken under conditions and with applications so much alike and at the same time so peculiar as to exclude any thought of repetition. The differences in the accounts of the Evangelists are unquestionable, and they leave the interpreter no choice. He must seek to ascertain the original form of the parable. If we say that these differences existed in the sources, we simply carry the problem back to an earlier stage and contribute nothing to its solution; and even then the personal equation of the Evangelist enters in, through the choice and arrangement of the details of his narrative. When we observe Mt.’s tendency to group material, revealed in so many connexions, we can but conclude that this purpose, rather than special knowledge of the occasion, has often determined the setting of his parables. A comparative study shows that each of the Synoptists has peculiarities which reveal themselves in his report. Lk.’s interest in the individual and his love of the beautiful are as noticeable as Mt.’s regard for the OT and discovery of allegorical meanings.
If the existing evidence proves that Jesus’ words were not at first treated as unalterably holy, it does not, on the other hand, show that there was such freedom as to cast doubt on all His reported sayings, or justify giving them a value secondary to that of the narrative portions of the Gospels. Notwithstanding differences, the Synoptists show such essential agreement that we feel little doubt regarding most parables. The wonder is that there should be so little divergence, even though so short a period separated our records and their Aramaic sources from the original utterances. It can be urged in explanation that Jesus’ teaching was too well remembered to admit of the incorporation of new creations. What He had said became early a precious heritage for all believers, and, besides, the parables are of a character to make them especially well remembered. Their freshness, beauty, and earnestness attest their originality and faithful transmission, as does also, in a special degree, their suitability to explain and enforce the teaching in whose service they are employed. That they can be so varied and at the same time so simple, excites wonder. One turns from Rabbinical literature to the parables of Jesus with an increased appreciation of their literary excellence, to say nothing of the marked contrast in dignity and grandeur of theme. Nor is there any writer of early Christian literature worthy of a place in this field beside the Master. An observation of the details and relationships of common life and an appreciation of their significance is revealed that is unparalleled. We gain an insight into the inner life of Jesus Himself, as well as into His teaching, that is afforded by hardly any other portions of the Gospels. The parables are rightly regarded as a most valuable part of the Evangelical tradition, and they will so continue when their right to be heard in their simplicity is generally recognized.
Literature.—The most important work of recent date on the Parables and their exposition is A. Jülicher’s Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, Freiburg, 1899. See also C. A. Bugge, Die Haupt-Parabeln Jesu, Giessen, 1903; Heinrich Weinel, Die Bildersprache Jesu in ihrer Bedeutung für die Erforschung seines inneren Lebens2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , Giessen, 1906; ‘Die Gleichnisse Jesu, zugleich eine Anleitung zu einem quellenmässigen Verständnis der Evangelien,’ Leipzig, 1904 [a volume of the series Aus Natur und Geisteswelt]; Paul Fiebig, Alt-jüdische Gleichnisse und die Gleichnisse Jesu, Tübingen u. Leipzig, 1904; S. Goebel, Die Parabeln Jesu methodisch ausgelegt, Gotha, 1879–80 [English translation (Edin. 1883) The Parables of Jesus]; A. B. Bruce, The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, London, 1882; F. L. Steinmeyer, Die Parabeln des Herrn, Berlin, 1884; R. Winterbotham, The Kingdom of Heaven (1898); A. L. Lilley, Adventus Regni (1907); artt. in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible , the EBi
W. J. Moulton.
(Hebrew, 
; Greek,
By: Wilhelm Bacher, Jacob Zallel Lauterbach
A short religious allegory. That the Hebrew designation for "parable" is "mashal" (comp. David Ḳimḥi's commentary on II Sam. xii. 1-4 and on Isa. v. 1-6) is confirmed by the fact that in the New Testament the Syriac "matla," corresponding to the Hebrew "mashal," is used for
Biblical Parables.
The Old Testament contains only five parables,corresponding to the definition here given, aside from a few symbolic stories, such as Ezek. iii. 24-26, iv. 1-4, and xxiv. 3-5. These parables are as follows: (1) Of the poor man who had raised a single lamb which a wealthy neighbor took to set before a guest (II Sam. xii. 1-4); intended to illustrate the sin which David had committed with Bathsheba, Uriah's wife. (2) Of the wise woman of Tekoah, who induced David to make peace with his son Absalom (ib. xiv. 6-8). (3) Of the prophet's disciple, showing Ahab the wrong course which he had adopted toward Ben-hadad (I Kings xx. 39-40). (4) Of the vineyard which does not thrive despite the care bestowed upon it (Isa. v. 1-6), illustrating Israel's degeneracy. (5) Of the farmer who does not plow continually, but prepares the field and sows his seed, arranging all his work in due order (Isa. xxviii. 24-28); intended to show the methodical activity of God. All these parables were based on conditions familiar at the time; and even the event described in II Sam. xiv. 6-8 was probably no rare occurrence, in view of the custom which then prevailed of avenging bloodshed.
In the Talmud.
A large number of parables are found in post-Biblical literature, in Talmud and Midrash. The Talmudic writers believed in the pedagogic importance of the parable, and regarded it as a valuable means of determining the true sense of the Law and of attaining a correct understanding thereof (Cant. R. i. 8). Johanan b. Zakkai is said to have studied parables and fables side by side with the Miḳra, Mishnah, Halakah, Haggadah, etc. (B. B. 134a; Suk. 28a), and R. Meïr used to divide his public discourses into halakah, haggadah, and parables (Sanh. 38b). In the Talmud and Midrash almost every religious idea, moral maxim, or ethical requirement is accompanied by a parable which illustrates it. Among the religious and moral tenets which are thus explained may be mentioned the following: the existence of God (Gen. R. xxxiv. 1); His manner of retribution, and of punishing sins both in this world and in the next ('Ab. Zarah 4a; Yalḳ., Lev. 464; Shab. 152a); His faithful governance ('Ab. Zarah 55a; Sanh. 108a); His impatience of injustice (Suk. 30a); His paternal leniency (Ex. R. xlvi. 6), and His relation to Israel (ib. xlvi. 4; Ber. 32a); Israel's sufferings (Ber. 13a); the folly of idolatry ('Ab. Zarah 54b-55a); the Law as the guardian and faithful protector in life (Soṭah 21a); the sin of murder (Mek., Yitro, 8 [ed. Weiss, p. 78a]); the resurrection (Sanh. 91a); the value of benevolence (B. B. 10a); the worth of a just man for his contemporaries (Meg. 15a); the failure of popularity as a proof of intrinsic value (Soṭah 40a); the evil tendency of freedom from anxiety (Ber. 32a); the limitations of human knowledge and understanding (Sanh. 39a); the advantage frequently resulting from what appears to be evil (Niddah 31a); conversion (Shab. 153a); purity of soul and its reward (ib. 152b).
Although the haggadists took the material for their parables from conditions of life with which their hearers were familiar, yet they selected details to which Biblical allusions were found to apply; since in certain cases the idea underlying the parable was already well known to their auditors. Thus parables dealing with kings were frequently chosen to illustrate God's relation to the world in general and to Israel in particular, as in Num. R. ii. 24, since the idea of the God-king had been made familiar to the people by the Bible (Ps. x. 16; Zeph. iii. 16; Zech. xiv. 16-17; Mal. i. 14). Israel is the first-born of the Lord (Ex. iv. 22; Deut. xiv. 1); there are accordingly many parables of a king who had a son who was very dear to him (Ber. 13a; Deut. R. iii. 12; Ex. R. xix. 8), which illustrate God's relation to Israel. This relation is also frequently illustrated by the parable of a king who had a beloved or a wife (e.g., Num. R. ii. 14-15; Deut. R. iii. 9, 11, 16), since, according to Isa. liv. 5, Jer. ii. 2, and Hosea ii. 18, 21-22, Israel is the bride of God, His wife, whom He loves, and whom He always takes back, although He may at times disown her and cast her off. The attitude of God toward Israel is illustrated with especial frequency by the parable of a king who had a vineyard in which he planted fine vines (e.g., Num. R. xv. 18, and in Tanḥuma in most of the weekly sections), on account of the comparison of Israel to the vineyard of God (Isa. v. 1-7), and to the noble vine which He planted (Jer. ii. 21). Similarly the flight of the prophet Jonah from God is illustrated by the parable of the servant who runs away from his master (Mek., Bo, i. [ed. Weiss, 1b]), since the idea that a prophet is a servant of God was familiar to the people from Isa. xx. 3, 1. 10.
The following Talmudic parables may be quoted to show the manner in which the writers employed this form of argument:
Examples.
A pagan philosopher once asked R. Gamaliel why God is angry with idolaters and not with idols, whereupon R. Gamaliel answered him with the following parable: "A king had a son who raised a dog which he named after his royal father; and whenever he was about to swear he said, 'By the life of the dog, the father.' When the king heard of this, against whom did his anger turn, against the dog or against the son? Surely only against the son" ('Ab. Zarah 54b).
Once Akiba was asked to explain why persons afflicted with disease sometimes returned cured from a pilgrimage to the shrine of an idol, though it was surely powerless. His answer was the following parable: "There was a man in a certain city who enjoyed the confidence of all his fellow citizens to such a degree that without witnesses they entrusted deposits to him, with the exception of one man in the city who always made his deposits before a witness. One day, however, this distrustful man forgot his caution, and gave the other a deposit without a witness. The wife of the trustworthy man attempted to induce him to deny having received a deposit from the distrustful man, as a punishment for his suspicion; but the husband said: 'Shall I deny my rectitude because this fool acts in an unseemly fashion?' Thus it is with the sufferings inflicted by Heaven upon man, which have a day and an hour appointed for their end. If it happens that a man goes on that day to the idol's shrine, the sufferings are tempted not to leave him, but they say, 'Shall we not fulfil our obligation to leave this fool, although he has behaved with folly?'" (ib. 55a).
Emperor Antoninus asked Rabbi how there could be punishment in the life beyond, for, since body and soul after their separation could not have committed sin, they could blame each other for the sins committed upon earth, and Rabbi answered him by the following parable: "A certain king had a beautiful garden in which was excellent fruit; and over it he appointed two watchmen, one blind and the other lame. The lame man said to the blind one, 'I see exquisite fruit in the garden. Carry me thither that I may get it; and we will eat it together.' The blind man consented and both ate of the fruit. After some days the lord of the garden came and asked the watchmen concerning the fruit. Then the lame man said, 'As I have no legs I could not go to take it'; and the blind man said, 'I could not even see it.' What did the lord of the garden do? He made the blind man carry the lame, and thus passed judgment on them both. So God will replace the souls in their bodies, and will punish both together for their sins" (Sanh. 91a, b). La Fontaine, in his "Fables," ascribes this parable to Confucius.
The Parable of the Banquet.
Johanan b. Zakkai illustrates the necessity of daily conversion and of constant readiness to appear before God in heaven by the following parable: "A king invited his servants to a banquet without stating the exact time at which it would be given. Those who were wise remembered that all things are ever ready in the palace of a king, and they arrayed themselves and sat by the palace gate awaiting the call to enter, while those who were foolish continued their customary occupations, saying, 'A banquet requires great preparation.' When the king suddenly called his servants to the banquet, those who were wise appeared in clean raiment and well adorned, while those who were foolish came in soiled and ordinary garments. The king took pleasure in seeing those who were wise, but was full of anger at those who were foolish, saying that those who had come prepared for the banquet should sit down and eat and drink, but that those who had not properly arrayed themselves should stand and look on" (Shab. 153a). Similar parables expressing the same thought are found in the New Testament (Matt. xxii. 10-12, xxv. 1-12; Luke xii. 36), but the Talmudic fable shows the finer and more striking elaboration.
Another parable may be cited from the Palestinian Talmud, which is found in the New Testament also. When R. Ḥiyya's son, R. Abin, died at the early age of twenty-eight, R. Zera delivered the funeral oration, which he couched in the form of the following parable: "A king had a vineyard for which he engaged many laborers, one of whom was especially apt and skilful. What did the king do? He took this laborer from his work, and walked through the garden conversing with him. When the laborers came for their hire in the evening, the skilful laborer also appeared among them and received a full day's wages from the king. The other laborers were angry at this and said, 'We have toiled the whole day, while this man has worked but two hours; why does the king give him the full hire, even as to us?' The king said to them: 'Why are you angry? Through his skill he has done more in the two hours than you have done all day.' So is it with R. Abin b. Ḥiyya. In the twenty-eight years of his life he has learned more than others learn in 100 years. Hence he has fulfilled his life-work and is entitled to be called to paradise earlier than others from his work on earth; nor will he miss aught of his reward" (Yer. Ber. ii. 5c). In Matt. xx. 1-16 this parable is intended to illustrate the doctrine that the heathen who have accepted Christianity have equal rights with the Jews in the kingdom of heaven. Other interesting parables of the Talmud are found in Ḳid. 2b; Niddah 31b; B. Ḳ. 60b; B. B. 16a; Ber. 7b, 9b; Yoma 38b-39a; Suk. 29a; Meg. 14a; M. Ḳ. 21b; Ḥag. 12b; Ta'an. 5b-6a; Sanh. 96a.
In the Midrash.
Parables occur with even greater frequency in the Midrash than in the Talmud, one or more parables being found in nearly every section in Midrash Rabbah as well as in Tanḥuma. It is not necessary to quote any of these, since they are used in the same way as in the Talmud, and the examples cited from the Talmud may serve also as specimens of midrashic parables, especially as nearly all of those quoted are found in the Midrash as well. The parables of both the Talmud and the Midrash, reflecting the characteristics of the life of their time, are a valuable aid in studying the cultural history of that period; Ziegler has shown, e.g., that the parables dealing with kings reflect the conditions of the Roman empire. The same statement holds true in the case of the other parables of the Talmud and Midrash, which likewise mirror their time; for it may be assumed that the haggadists who made use of the form of the parable were intimately acquainted with the conditions upon which they drew for illustration, although they may have colored those conditions to suit their purposes.
The teachers, philosophers of religion, and preachers of the post-Talmudic period also had recourse to the parable to illustrate their meaning, such as Baḥya ibn Paḳuda in his "Ḥobot ha-Lebabot" (ii. 6, iii. 9), Judah ha-Levi in his "Cuzari" (i. 109), and Leon of Modena (comp. Azulai, "Shem ha-Gedolim," s.v.). In the eighteenth century Jacob Kranz of Dubno (Dubner Maggid) was especially noted as a composer of parables, introducing them frequently into his sermons. His homiletic commentaries on the Pentateuch and on certain other books of the Old Testament contain many parables taken from life and which serve to illustrate the condition of the Jews of his time. See Maggid.
Bibliography:
König, Stylistik. Rhetorik, Poetik in Bezug auf die Biblische Literatur, 1900, pp. 89-91;
M. Zipser, in Orient, Lit. viii. 733 et passim, ix. 61 et passim;
I. Ziegler, Die Königsgleichnisse des Midrash Beleuchtet Durch die Kaiserzeit, Breslau, 1903;
Hamburger, R. B. T. ii. 887 et seq.;
P. Fiebig, Altjüdische Gleichnisse und die Gleichnisse Jesu, Tübingen, 1904.
PARABLE (IN OT)
1. The word represents Heb. mâshâl, which is used with a wide range of meaning, and is very variously tr.
2. The meaning of ‘parable’ in the technical sense.—If Christ did not create the parabolic type of teaching, He at least developed it with high originality, and gave it a deeper spiritual import. His parables stand as a type, and it is convenient to attach a technical sense to the word, as describing this special type. As distinguished from fable (wh. see), it moves on a higher ethical and literary plane. Fables violate probability in introducing speech of animals, etc., in an unnatural way, and their moral is confined to lessons of worldly wisdom. The allegory, again, is more artificial. It represents something ‘other’ than itself (the Gr. word means ‘speaking other’), the language of the spiritual life being translated into the language, e.g., of a battle, or a journey. ‘The qualities and properties of the first are transferred to the last, and the two thus blended together, instead of being kept quite distinct and placed side by side, as is the case in the parable’ (Trench, On Parables, ch. 1). Hence each detail has its meaning, and exists for that meaning, not for the sake of the story. In the parable, particularly in those of the NT, the story is natural and self-sufficient as a story, but is seen to point to a deeper spiritual meaning. The details as a rule are not to be pressed, but are simply the picturesque setting of the story, their value being purely literary. In the allegory, each figure, king or soldier, servant or child, ‘is’ some one else without qualification; each detail, sword or shield, road or tree, ‘means’ something perfectly definite. It is not so in most of the parables; the lesson rests on the true analogy which exists between the natural and the spiritual world. Without requiring any fictitious ‘licence,’ the parable simply assumes that the Divine working in each sphere follows the same law. Like an analogy, it appeals to the reason no less than to the imagination.
3. OT parables.—There are five passages in the OT which are generally quoted as representing the nearest approach to ‘parables’ in the technical sense. It is noticeable that in none of them is the word used; as we have seen, where we have the word, we do not really have the thing; in the same way, where we have the thing, we do not find the word. The first two passages (2Sa 12:1-4 [Nathan’s parable], 2Sa 14:6 [Joab’s]) are very similar; we have a natural story with an application. The first is exactly parallel to such a parable as ‘the Two Debtors,’ but the second has no deep or spiritual significance. The same is true of 1Ki 20:39 [the wounded prophet], where the story is helped out by a piece of acting. In all three cases the object is to convey the actual truth of the story, and by the unguarded comments of the listener to convict him out of his own mouth. The method has perhaps in the last two cases a suspicion of trickery, and was not employed by our Lord; the application of the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Mat 21:33) was obvious from the first in the light of Isa 5:1-8. This passage is the fourth of those referred to, and is a true parable, though only slightly developed. It illustrates well the relation between a parable and a metaphor; and a comparison with Psa 80:8 shows how narrow is the border-line between parable and allegory. The last passage is Isa 28:24-28, where we have a comparison between the natural and the spiritual world, but no story. It should be noted that post-Biblical Jewish literature makes a wide use of parable, showing sometimes, alike in spirit, form, and language, a remarkable resemblance to the parables of the NT.
C. W. Emmet.
PARABLE (IN NT). 1. Meaning and form.—(1) The constant use of a word, meaning resemblance both in Hebrew and in Greek, makes it evident that an essential feature of the parable lay in the bringing together of two different things so that the one helped to explain and to emphasize the other. In the parables of Christ the usual form is that of a complete story running parallel to the stages and divisions of a totally different subject. Thus in the parable of the Sower (Mat 13:1-8) the kinds of soil in the narrative are related to certain distinctions of character in the interpretation (Mat 13:19-28), The teaching value thus created came from an appeal to the uniformity of nature. In the Oriental thought of the Bible writers this contained a factor or field of illustration often grudgingly conceded by the materialistic provincialism of modern Western science. It was recognized and believed by them that the Lord of all had the right to do as He pleased with His own. Instead of being an element of disruption, this was to them the guarantee of all other sequences. He who gave to the frail grass its form of beauty could be relied upon with regard to higher forms of life. The attention given to the fall of the sparrow would not be withheld from the death of His saints. The conception gave solidarity to all phenomenal sequences, and forced into special notice whatever seemed to be subject to other influences. Such was the parable value of contrast between the behaviour of Israel towards God and the common seotiment of family relationship, and even the grateful instincts of the beasts of burden (Isa 1:2, Isa 1:3). Thus also Christ spoke of His own homelessness as a privation unknown to the birds and the foxes (Mat 8:20). This effect of contrasting couples formed a literary feature in some of Christ’s parables where opposing types of character were introduced side by side (Mat 21:28; Mat 25:2, Luk 18:10).
(2) The use of the word paroimia in LXX
(3) Occasionally the public parable value was reached by making an individual represent all others of the same class. The parable then became an example in the ordinary sense of the term (Luk 14:8; Luk 14:12-13). In Joh 10:1-8; Joh 15:1-7, there is no independent introductory narrative dealing with shepherd life and the care of the vineyard. Certain points are merely selected and dwelt upon as in the interpretation of a parable story previously given. Here there is all the explanatory and persuasive efficiency of the appeal to nature and custom, but, as in this case the reference is to Christ Himself as Head of the Kingdom, the parable has not the general application of those belonging to its citizenship. It is nevertheless a parable, though ‘the Door’ and ‘the Vine’ are usually called emblems or symbols of Christ.
2. Advantages and Disadvantages.—In the parable two different planes of experience were brought together, one familiar, concrete, and definite, the other an area of abstractions, conjectures, and possibilities. At the points of contact it was possible for those who desired to do so to pass from the known to the unknown. Imagination was exercised and the critical faculty appealed to, and sympathy was enlisted according to the merits of the case presented. A moral decision could thus be impartially arrived at without arousing the instinct of self-defence, and when the parallelism was once recognized, the hearer had either to make the desired application or act in contempt of his own judgment (2Sa 12:1-4). In Christ’s parables, as distinct from the ordinary fable which they otherwise completely resembled in form, the illustrations were always drawn from occurrences that were possible, and which might therefore have belonged to the experience of the hearer. When the meaning was perceived, this fact gave to the explanation the persuasive value of something sanctioned, by the actualities of life. But, on the other hand, the meaning might not be understood. Its acceptance was limited by the power to discover it. Only he who could see the prophet’s chariot could use the prophet’s mantle. The transition of responsibility from the speaker to the hearer was sometimes indicated by the words, ‘He that hath ears to hear, let him hear’ (Mat 13:9). Christ’s most solemn utterances were directed towards the insensibility that took its music without dancing, and sat silent where the wail for the dead was raised (Mat 11:17). His last act towards such imperviousness was to pray for it and to die for it (Luk 23:34; Luk 23:37, Rom 5:8).
3. The special need of Parables in Christ’s teaching.—If the teaching of Christ had been devoted to matters already understood and accepted as authoritative, such as the conventional commentary on the law of Moses, such a presentation of moral and spiritual truth, while imparting the charm of freshness to things familiar, would not have been actually necessary. The Scribes and Pharisees did not require it. Even if, passing beyond the Jewish ceremonial observance and externalism, He had been content to speak of personal salvation and ethical ideas after the manner so prevalent in the Western Church of to-day, He would not have needed the vehicle of parable instruction. But the subject which, under all circumstances, privately and publicly, directly and indirectly, He sought to explain, commend, and impersonate, was that of a Kingdom that had for its destiny the conquest of the world. Alike in His preaching and in His miraculous works, His constant purpose was to reveal and glorify the Father (Joh 15:8; Joh 16:25) and to unfold the mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven (Mat 4:23; Mat 13:11, Luk 8:10). These mysteries were not in themselves obscure or remote (Mat 16:1-4, Luk 17:21; Luk 18:16), but its principles and motives and rewards were so opposed to all that had entered the mind of man, that it had to be characterized as a Kingdom that was not of this world (Joh 18:36). It was this Kingdom of Messianic expectation that united Christ with the historic past of the elected nation to which according to the flesh He belonged. Its appearance had been the chief burden of prophecy, and its expansion and attendant blessing to humanity had been dwelt upon as the recompense for the travail of Zion. The Messiah was to be the Prince of Peace in that Kingdom of exploded and exhausted evil, where in symbol the wolf and the lamb were to feed together (Isa 65:25). The princes of the people of the earth were to be gathered together to be the people of the God of Abraham (Gen 12:3, Psa 47:9). But the same mysteries of the Kingdom, which connected Christ with the prophetic utterances and developed history of Israel, also brought Him into a relationship of antagonism towards the religious teaching of His own time. The people recognized in His words the authority that belonged to Moses’ seat, but they saw very clearly that another than Moses was there. The point of distinction between Him and the Pharisees was that in His hands the Law was no longer an end in itself, but became a minister to what was beyond and greater than itself. While the Rabbinical teaching boasted that the world had been created only for the Torah, He taught that the Law had been created for the world. This radical opposition appeared in what He said about the proper use and observance of the Sabbath day, and in His condemnation of those who would neither enter the Kingdom nor allow others to do so. They taught with pride and complacency that the Kingdom of God had reached its final consummation and embodiment in their own exclusive circle, whereas the message of Christ was to be borne over new areas of progress and expansion until it reached and conquered the uttermost parts of the earth. It was a parting at the fountain-head. One teaching meant the extinction of the other. Of this Kingdom and its mysteries Christ spoke in parables. He thereby turned the thoughts of men from the Mosaic succession of Rabbinical precedents and their artificial mediation of the Law of God, and discovered a new source of illumination and authority in the phenomena of the seasons, the relationships of the family, and the industries of village life. Faith, obedience, and love took the place of technical knowledge and official position. The Kingdom of heaven was at hand, and the King’s invitation to enter was always wider than the willingness to accept it. To His disciples He more intimately explained that it was a Kingdom of relationship to God, and of men’s relationship, in consequence, towards one another. This, along with the story of His own life and ministry and resurrection, was to be the gospel they were to preach, by the power of the Spirit, as the message of God’s salvation to the whole world. In the Sermon on the Mount those mysteries of the Kingdom were indicated in outline, and in the parables the theme was still the same, whether the story started from the initiative of the Teacher in the presence of the multitude, or was suggested by some incident of the hour. In the long warfare of the world’s kingdoms men had grown familiar with the cry, ‘Woe to the vanquished!’ but, in that Kingdom of which He spoke, a new social instinct, created and nourished by its citizenship, was to inflict an intolerable pain on those who could relieve misery and uplift the down-trodden and cheer the despairing, and did it not. It was to take upon itself the world’s estrangement from God and hardness of heart, and make its own the Christless shame of moral defeat, and social discord, and all unloveliness of life. In the citizenship of that Kingdom the sorest impoverishment would not be in the humble byways of the lame and the blind, but in the homes of selfish luxury and privileged exemption. The chief crime of the Kingdom, involving a complete negation of discipleship, would be an evaded cross. ‘I was sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not’ (Mat 25:43). Both from the novelty of the vision thus presented, and from its hostility to the spirit and authority of the religious leaders, it is evident that teaching by parable was the form best adapted to Christ’s purpose and subject, and to the circumstances of the time. It was an efficient and illuminating method of instruction to those who were able to receive it. The petition once presented by two of His disciples indicates what might have become general if the rewards of the Kingdom had been announced to those who had not the true spirit of its service (Mat 20:21). By leaving altogether the traditions and controversies of the exhausted Church of that day, He gave a fresh positive re-statement of the nature and dimension of the Kingdom of God.
4. The following selection from Christ’s parables Indicates some of the points of relationship to the Kingdom. Whatever is stated generally applies also to the individual, and the latter should not regard anything as essential and vital which he cannot share with the whole membership. The humblest service is regarded as done directly to the King. (1) The parable of boundaries, the conditions and environment of the Kingdom: the Sower and the Seed (Mat 13:1-23); difficulties and dangers arising from in attention, superficiality, and divided allegiance. Failure abnormal. (2) Accepted circumstance: Wheat and Tares (Mat 13:24-30); malignity progressively revealed in the advancing stages of the Kingdom; the patience of the Spirit. (3) Continuous development and adaptation: Growing Seed (Mar 4:26-29); union in the service of the Kingdom not an artificial pattern commending itself to a particular age, but a new circle of growth around the parent stem which moves onwards and upwards towards flower and fruit. (4) The appointed task: Talents (Mat 25:14-30), Pounds (Luk 19:12-27); faith accepting personal responsibility; the servant of the Kingdom, being relieved from the dangers of success and failure, labours so that he may present his account with joy in the presence of the King, being prepared for that which is prepared for him. (5) The parable of office: The Husbandmen in the Vineyard (Mat 21:33-46, Luk 12:42-46); names and claims in the Church that dispossess and dishonour Christ. (6) The King’s interest: Lost Sheep (Luk 15:3-7), Lost Coin (Luk 15:8-10), Lost Son (Luk 15:11-32); forfeited ownership sorrowfully known to the owner; social relationship to the Kingdom indicated by the fact that the sheep was one of a hundred, the coin one of ten, and the son a member of a family. (7) Cost and recompense of citizenship: Hid Treasure (Mat 13:44), Pearl of Great Price (Mat 13:45); self is eliminated, but ‘all things are yours.’ (8) Fulfilment: The Great Supper (Luk 14:15-24): the King’s purpose must be carried out; if individuals and nations of civilized pre-eminence hold back, others will be made worthy of the honour of the service. (9) Rejected membership and lost opportunity: Rich Fool (Luk 12:16-21), Rich Man and Lazarus (Luk 16:19-31). (10) Personality in the Kingdom: (a) humility (Mat 18:1-4, Luk 18:9-14); (b) sincerity (Mat 7:15-27); (c) usefulness (Luk 13:3-8); (d) gratitude (Mat 18:28-35, Luk 7:41-43); (e) readiness to help (Luk 10:30-37); (f) assurance of faith (Luk 11:5-13; Luk 18:1-8); (g) patient hope (Mar 13:34-37, Luk 12:35-39).
G. M. Mackie.
(Greek: parabole, a placing beside, comparison)
The Greek word occurs frequently in the Greek Old Testament as the translation of the Hebrew word mashal, meaning: proverb, by-word, wise saying, similitude, parable. It occurs with especial frequency in the Synoptic Gospels, where the parable is a characteristic of the teaching of Christ, not in the sense that Christ created the type (for we find parables occasionally in the Old Testament, and, independently, in Rabbinic Literature), but in the sense that Christ made a very special use of the parable; after Him the Apostles do not seem to have used it in their teaching. As used in the Gospels, the word parable means a narrative of more or less fictitious character, but dealing with objects or occurrences taken from nature or the life of man, which serve as terms of comparison to illustrate a supernatural truth of the moral, religious order. In this narrative the expressions are to be understood in their ordinary sense, the words keeping their natural literal sense. The parable thus differs from the allegory in which the words are used in the figurative sense, the allegory being really a series of metaphors, as for instance when Our Lord says: I am the Good Shepherd; the Door; the Vine, etc. (John 10:15). It differs from the fable or apologue (which is not represented in the New Testament) in that the latter uses as actors, plants or animals, etc., which are made to speak and act more or less unnaturally, and in that the fable teaches a truth of the natural order or common sense. In the Gospels we find parables and allegories, and an intermediate class in which both kinds are more or less mixed. To understand a parable correctly, we must ascertain the precise point of the comparison, and subordinate the rest to that point, without trying to find a lesson in each one of the details of the story: several of the details are there simply to give consistency and interest to the narrative, but are not intended to convey a lesson. Thus for instance ill the parable of the Cockle (Matthew 13:24 sq.) the sleep during which the enemy oversows cockle, and the servants of the good man of the house conceal no special mystery. Accordingly one must beware of finding in a parable a lesson about a point which the parable is not meant to illustrate, and of making applications to cases not intended by Our Lord: thus from the fact that one-fourth of the seed yields fruit (Matthew 13:3-9; 18-23) we may not infer that only one-fourth shall be saved. The parables, the number of which is given quite differently by the different authors, according to their more or less strict definitions of "parable," deal with truths of moral religious character, e.g., Prodigal Son, the Two Debtors; or with the Kingdom of God in its various aspects (nature, growth, consummation, etc.): see Matthew 13; these latter parables concerning the Kingdom of God are in fact prophecies of Our Lord concerning the future development of His work. See also,
New Catholic Dictionary
1. Name
2. Historical Data
3. Christ’s Use of Parables
4. Purpose of Christ in Using Parables
5. Interpretation of the Parables
6. Doctrinal Value of the Parables
1. Name:
Etymologically the word “parable” (
2. Histotical Data:
Although Christ employed the parable as a means of inculcating His message more extensively and more effectively than any other teacher, He did not invent the parable. It was His custom in general to take over from the religious and linguistic world of thought in His own day the materials that He employed to convey the higher and deeper truths of His gospels, giving them a world of meaning they had never before possessed. Thus, e.g. every petition of the Lord’s Prayer can be duplicated in the Jewish liturgies of the times, yet on Christ’s lips these petitions have a significance they never had or could have for the Jews. The term “Word” for the second person in the Godhead is an adaptation from the Logos-idea in contemporaneous religious thought, though not specifically of Philo’s. Baptism, regeneration, and kindred expressions of fundamental thoughts in the Christian system, are terms not absolutely new (compare Deutsch, article “Talmud” Literary Remains) The parable was employed both in the Old Testament and in contemporaneous Jewish literature (compare e.g. 2Sa 12:1-4; Isa 5:1-6; Isa 28:24-28, and for details see Koenig’s article, loc. cit.). Jewish and other non-Biblical parables are discussed and illustrated by examples in Trench’s Notes on the Parables of our Lord, introductory essay, chapter iv: “On Other Parables besides Those in the Scriptures.”
3. Christ’s Use of Parables:
The one and only teacher of parables in the New Testament is Christ Himself. The Epistles, although they often employ rhetorical allegories and similes, make absolutely no use of the parable, so common in Christ’s pedagogical methods. The distribution of these in the Canonical Gospels is unequal, and they are strictly confined to the three Synoptic Gospels. Mark again has only one peculiar to this book, namely, the Seed Growing in Secret (Mar 4:26), and he gives only three others that are found also in Mt and Lk, namely the Sower, the Mustard Seed, and the Wicked Husbandman, so that the bulk of the parables are found in the First and the Third Gospels. Two are common to Matthew and Luke, namely the Leaven (Mat 13:33; Luk 13:21) and the Lost Sheep (Mat 18:12; Luk 15:3 ff). Of the remaining parables, 18 are found only in Luke and 10 only in Mt. Luke’s 18 include some of the finest, namely, the Two Debtors, the Good Samaritan, the Friend at Midnight, the Rich Fool, the Watchful Servants, the Barren Fig Tree, the Chief Seats, the Great Supper, the Rash Builder, the Rash King, the Lost Coin, the Lost Son, the Unrighteous Steward, the Rich Man and Lazarus, the Unprofitable Servants, the Unrighteous Judge, the Pharisee and Publican, and the Pounds. The 10 peculiar to Matthew are the Tares, the Hidden Treasure, the Pearl of Great Price, the Draw Net, the Unmerciful Servant, the Laborers in the Vineyard, the Two Sons, the Marriage of the King’s Son, the Ten Virgins, and the Talents. There is some uncertainty as to the exact number of parables we have from Christ, as the Marriage of the King’s Son is sometimes regarded as a different recension of the Great Supper, and the Talents of the Pounds. Other numberings are suggested by Trench, Julicher and others.
4. Purpose of Christ in Using Parables:
It is evident from such passages as Mat 13:10 ff (compare Mar 4:10; Luk 8:9) that Christ did not in the beginning of His career employ the parable as a method of teaching, but introduced it later. This took place evidently during the 2nd year of His public ministry, and is closely connected with the changes which about that time He made in His attitude toward the people in general. It evidently was Christ’s purpose at the outset to win over, if possible, the nation as a whole to His cause and to the gospel; when it appeared that the leaders and the great bulk of the people would not accept Him for what He wanted to be and clung tenaciously to their carnal Messianic ideas and ideals, Christ ceased largely to appeal to the masses, and, by confining His instructions chiefly to His disciples and special friends, saw the necessity of organizing an
5. Interpretation of the Parables:
The principles for the interpretation of the parables, which are all intended primarily and in the first place for the disciples, are furnished by the nature of the parable itself and by Christ’s own method of interpreting some of them. The first and foremost thing to be discovered is the scope or the particular spiritual truth which the parable is intended to convey. Just what this scope is may be stated in so many words, as is done, e.g., by the introductory words to that of the Pharisee and the Publican. Again the scope may be learned from the occasion of the parable, as the question of Peter in Mat 18:21 gives the scope of the following parable, and the real purpose of the Prodigal Son parable in Luk 15:11 ff is not the story of this young man himself, but is set over against the murmuring of the Pharisees because Christ received publicans and sinners, in Luk 15:1 and Luk 15:2, to exemplify the all-forgiving love of the Father. Not the Son but the Father is in the foreground in this parable, which fact is also the connecting link between the two parts. Sometimes the scope can be learned only from an examination of the details of the parable itself and then may be all the more uncertain.
A second principle of the interpretation of the parables is that a sharp distinction must be made between what the older interpreters called the body (corpus) and the soul (anima) of the story; or, to use other expressions, between the shell or bark (cortex) and the marrow (medulla). Whatever serves only the purpose of the story is the “ornamentation” of the parable, and does not belong to the substance. The former does not call for interpretation or higher spiritual lesson; the latter does. This distinction between those parts of the parable that are intended to convey spiritual meanings and those which are to be ignored in the interpretation is based on Christ’s own interpretation of the so-called parabolae perfectae. Christ Himself, in Mat 13:18 ff, interprets the parable of the Sower, yet a number of data, such as the fact that there are four, and not more or fewer kinds of land, and others, are discarded in this explanation as without meaning. Again in His interpretation of the Tares among the Wheat in Mat 13:36 ff, a number of details of the original parable are discarded as meaningless.
Just which details are significant and which are meaningless in a parable is often hard, sometimes impossible to determine, as the history of their exegesis amply shows. In general it can be laid down as a rule, that those features which illustrate the scope of the parable belong to its substance, and those which do not, belong to the ornamentation. But even with this rule there remain many exegetical cruces or difficulties. Certain, too, it is that not all of the details are capable of interpretation. Some are added of a nature that indeed illustrate the story as a story, but, from the standpoint of Christian morals, are more than objectionable. The Unjust Steward in using his authority to make the bills of the debtors of his master smaller may be a model, in the shrewd use of this world’s goods for his purpose, that the Christian may follow in making use of his goods for his purposes, but the action of the steward itself is incapable of defense. Again, the man who finds in somebody else’s property a pearl of great price but conceals this fact from the owner of the land and quietly buys this ground may serve as an example to show how much the kingdom of God is worth, but from an ethical standpoint his action cannot be sanctioned. In general, the parable, like all other forms of figurative expression, has a meaning only as far as the tertium comparationis goes, that is, the third thing which is common to the two things compared. But all this still leaves a large debatable ground in many parables. In the Laborers in the Vineyard does the “penny” mean anything, or is it an ornament? The history of the debate on this subject is long. In the Prodigal Son do all the details of his sufferings, such as eating the husks intended for swine, have a spiritual meaning?
6. Doctrinal Value of the Parables:
The interpreters of former generations laid down the rule, theologia parabolica non eat argumentativa, i.e. the parables, very rich in mission thoughts, do not furnish a basis for doctrinal argument. Like all figurative expressions and forms of thought, the parables too contain elements of doubt as far as their interpretation is concerned. They illustrate truth but they do not prove or demonstrate truth. Omnia similia claudicunt, “all comparisons limp,” is applicable here also. No point of doctrine can be established on figurative passages of Scripture, as then all elements of doubt would not be eliminated, this doubt being based on the nature of language itself. The argumentative or doctrinal value of parables is found in this, that they may, in accordance with the analogy of Scripture, illustrate truth already clearly expressed elsewhere. Compare especially Trench, introductory essay, in Notes on the Parables of our Lord, chapter iii., 30-43; and Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, Part II, chapter vi: “Interpretation of Parables,” 188-213, in which work a full bibliography is given. Compare also the article “Parabel” in Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche.
An illustrative discourse or story that uses common events and culture and is meant to convey a meaning or lesson. Jesus used parables extensively. Some of the OT parables are Trees Making a King (2Sa 12:1-4); The Thistle and the Cedar (2Ki 14:9); Israel, a Vine Planted by Water (Ezek. 24:1014), etc. Some NT parables are The Sower (Luk 8:5-8); the Ten Virgins (Mat 25:1-13); The Good Samaritan (Luk 10:25-37); The Prodigal Son (Luk 15:11-32), etc. See Parables.