I’ve been thinking about the parables since we started studying them here–well, that implies only; I’ve been thinking about them for a long time. To wit, I’m always on the lookout for some new bit of information that will help me get a better grasp on the content of Scripture. I came across this important bit of study from RC Sproul which, I believe, helps make, at least, part of the point I was making in my previous post in the De-Sanitizing the Parables series we are writing here at CRN.info.**
This is from Sproul’s book Knowing Scripture. It’s an older book, published in 1977, by IVP. I confess I haven’t read the entire book–I’m confessing since I have criticized those who make judgments about books without reading them entirely–but I don’t believe I am taking Dr Sproul out of context when I cite his work here. And these words are important because they echo what I said in my first post about that parables: We should approach them with caution.
In chapter 4, Sproul gives 10 practical rules for biblical interpretation. I am concerned here with number 9: Be Careful with the Parables. Thus,
Of all the various literary forms we find in Scripture, the parable is often considered the easiest to understand and interpret. People usually enjoy sermons that are based on parables. Since parables are concrete stories based on life situations, they seem easier to handle than abstract concepts. Yet, from the viewpoint of the New Testament scholar, the parables present unique difficulties in interpretation.
What is so hard about parables? Why can’t these pithy stories simply be presented and expounded? There are several answers to this question. First is the problem of the original intent of the parable. Jesus was obviously fond of using the parable as a teaching device. The puzzling question, however, is whether he used parables to elucidate his teaching or to obscure it. The debate focuses on Jesus’ cryptic words found in Mark 4:10-12:
10When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12so that,
” ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’”Jesus continues by giving a detailed explanation of the Parable of the Sower to his disciples. What does he mean by saying that the parables are not to be perceived by those who have not been given the secret of the kingdom of God? Some translators are so offended by this saying that they have actually changed the wording of the text to avoid the problem. Such textual manipulation has no literary justification. Others see in these words an allusion to the judgment of God upon the hardened hearts of Israel and is an echo of God’s commission to the prophet Isaiah. In Isaiah’s famous vision in the temple (Is. 6:8-13) God said to him, ‘Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Isaiah volunteered by saying, ‘Here am I. Send me!” God responded to Isaiah’s words by saying,
9 He said, “Go and tell this people:
” ‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’10 Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull
and close their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.”Here God’s judgment involves giving the people ‘fat hearts’ as a judgment on their sin. It is punishment in kind. The people did not want to listen to God, so he took away their capacity to hear him. (94-95)
In fact, I shall argue in my next post (on the parable of the Sower/soils) that an understanding of what took place in Isaiah 6 is essential for understanding what Jesus said in Matthew 13–not just of the sower, but all of the parables.
Sproul makes two important points here. First, he notes that the parables are not as easy to understand as we are want to think they are. We must, as he will conclude, be cautious. Second, he argues for understanding them in context, especially with reference and deference to their Old Testament predecessors and backgrounds. I agree. Much (all?) of what is written in the New Testament is an unfolding or exposition of what is written in the Old Testament. You’ve now doubt heard the old saying, “The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed; the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.”
I think this is a fine example where understanding the context, the culture, and the Scripture (OT) is essential to understanding the meaning of the parables Jesus spoke. Another example, building on Eugene’s post from the other day, confirms this idea of understanding the culture and context and Scripture. How would we listen to Jesus’ parable of the mustard seed differently if we had first listened to Ezekiel 31 where the tree in which all the birds make their home is Pharoah, king of Egypt?
1 In the eleventh year, in the third month on the first day, the word of the LORD came to me: 2 “Son of man, say to Pharaoh king of Egypt and to his hordes:
” ‘Who can be compared with you in majesty?3 Consider Assyria, once a cedar in Lebanon,
with beautiful branches overshadowing the forest;
it towered on high,
its top above the thick foliage.4 The waters nourished it,
deep springs made it grow tall;
their streams flowed
all around its base
and sent their channels
to all the trees of the field.5 So it towered higher
than all the trees of the field;
its boughs increased
and its branches grew long,
spreading because of abundant waters.6 All the birds of the air
nested in its boughs,
all the beasts of the field
gave birth under its branches;
all the great nations
lived in its shade.
I submit to you that perhaps the parable makes better sense, or at least a different sense, when we consider this passage of Scripture. Those who heard Jesus’ parable that day about the mustard seed would surely have known about Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning Pharoah. See then how Jesus transformed a parable in the Prophets from one of judgment to one of blessing; destruction of Pharaoh, construction in Jesus. It’s really a beautiful thing. This is but one example though, and is by no means conclusive or exhaustive. (Nor, for that matter, is it meant to upend Eugene’s fine exposition of the parable. It is simply to demonstrate that Jesus was not entirely thinking outside of what he knew when he did speak the parables. It is to show that perhaps the answers are ‘there’ and that we need to know where to look.)
Sproul goes on:
If Jesus is to be taken seriously about the use of parables, we must acknowledge an element of concealment in them. But that is not to say that the only purpose of a parable is to obscure or conceal the mystery of the kingdom to the impenitent. A parable is not a riddle. It was meant to be understood, at least by those who were open to it. There is also the consideration that Jesus’ enemies did have some understanding of the parables. At least enough to be infuriated by them. (96)
Yes. Consider this:
He went on to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, rented it to some farmers and went away for a long time. 10At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants so they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 11He sent another servant, but that one also they beat and treated shamefully and sent away empty-handed. 12He sent still a third, and they wounded him and threw him out.
13“Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him.’
14“But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. ‘This is the heir,’ they said. ‘Let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ 15So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
“What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? 16He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When the people heard this, they said, “May this never be!”
17Jesus looked directly at them and asked, “Then what is the meaning of that which is written:
” ‘The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone‘ Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.”19The teachers of the law and the chief priests looked for a way to arrest him immediately, because they knew he had spoken this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people.
Well, if it is true that Jesus spoke this parable ‘against them’, then how are we to understand it? To whom does it apply in our culture? Are there ‘them’ in our culture? Who would ‘them’ be? These are important questions to ask before we go off half-cocked and slap any old meaning on the parable we wish. It may not be as cut and dry as we think. We may need to be extra cautious: they knew the meaning, that doesn’t guarantee that we do. And how did they get this one right and so many others wrong?
Sproul concludes:
In dealing with the ‘concealment’ aspect of the parables there is one very important factor to keep in mind. The parables were originally given to an audience that lived before the cross and the resurrection. At that point in time people did not have the benefit of the entire New Testament as a background to aid them in interpreting the parables. Much of the parabolic material concerns the kingdom of God. At the time the parables were given there was much popular misconception of the meaning of the kingdom in the minds of Jesus’ hearers. Thus, the parables were not always easy to understand. Even the disciples had to ask Jesus for a more detailed interpretation of them. (96)
[...]
Again, the basic rule is one of care in dealing with them. (97)
Well, I think Sproul is correct. And if the people who lived in that culture, and understood that culture, misunderstood the parables Jesus spoke, how much more are we who do not live in that culture, and know little about that culture, susceptible to misunderstanding the parables Jesus spoke? I submit that we are even more susceptible precisely because we don’t want to take the time to know the context in which the parables were spoken.
I’ll note two resources that I have found particularly helpful. The first is a DVD series of lessons published by Zondervan: The Parables of Jesus, general editor, Matt Williams. From amazon.com customer review:
The Teachers featured on the series are : Dr. Gary Burge, Wheaton College; Dr. David Garland, Truett Theological Seminary; Dr. Mark Strauss, Bethel Seminary; Dr. Michael Wilkins, Talbot School of Theology; Dr. Matt Williams, Biola University; Dr. Ben Witherington III, Asbury Theological Seminary.
Hosted by Jarrett Stevens and filmed in locations as diverse as Gloucester harbor, the Holy Land, Boston’s Old North Church, and Chicago’s lakefront, each volume consists of six fascinating sessions. Each session is taught by a different instructor and consists of three components:
1. Historical and cultural background
2. An engaging, close look at the biblical text and its meaning
3. Accurate, encouraging, and challenging applications of the Bible’s message to life today
This is a most helpful set of six lessons that can be used in Bible School, small groups, or other venues.
Another resource that is most helpful for understanding the geographical, political, social, economic, scriptural, and cultural background to many of the pericopes in Scripture is the work of Ray Vander Laan. His work is exceptional–especially his ‘That the World May Know’ series of lessons. You will find Vander Laan’s work most insightful in your efforts to understand the Scripture. From the ‘Our Philosophy’ page at his website:
God’s people settled in the land and developed customs and tradition and culture. And so when God’s Word became human in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus lived like a Jew, talked like a Jew, and worshipped like a Jew. Jesus was a Jew. Thus, Jesus’ words, actions and teaching methods, for example, were in keeping with the customs, traditions and religions of the Semitic culture into which he was born.
One way for us to know Jesus—and thus God the Father and the Holy Spirit—more intimately, is to carefully assess our 21st-century culture and Western attitudes in relation to and in light of the 1st-century world of Jesus. Immersing ourselves in the culture of Scripture and Jesus of Nazareth often brings additional insights to our understanding of the text. It is helpful to learn to “think Hebrew”? in the way that the original writers of the Text thought.
There are surely more resources available for study, but these are two that I have personally used in my own ministry work. As always, my goal here is to help you better understand the Scripture by whetting your appetite…creating a hunger for Christ, a hunger that can only be satisfied by Christ.
May you be blessed in your efforts and satisfied by His.
**Some of this post is question asking. Please be careful to note where I am asking questions as opposed to making definitive statements. I am interracting here with Dr Sproul’s work which I found to be particularly helpful.
29 Comments(+Add)
R.C. Sproul as a reference on this site. A real hoot!
Jerry – The Ezekiel reference is actually incongruous with the parable. The simple teaching was the smallness of the mustard seed producing a large and useful tree which corresponds to the power of faith.
The birds are immaterial to the principle being taught. They are just part of the story but not representative of evil or good. I agree with Sproul, be careful with parables and do not see a metaphor in every aspect of the individual parable.
The overall principle is what should be unpacked.
And then came Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit indwells the believers.
This may sound overly harsh but that is not my intent.
When I began work in a Reformed church R.C. Sproul was touted as “The” guy when it came to theological discussion. After witnessing/evaluating much of what he has done I find him to be a lightweight when it comes to apologetics/exegesis. Not that I’m some genius but I know of much better theologians.
Wow. So, Jesus put that in there just to confuse some?
Gene – Most parables has specifics in the story that are not material to the principle. The inn keeper in the parable of the Good Samaritan was not a metaphor for something else since he is not material to the overall principle.
The birds reference is just to illustrate the size of the tree which a little seed produced; nothing more.
Rick,
I respectfully disagree. If there are not birds to rest in the tree, the size of the tree is irrelevant.
Nor, for that matter, do I agree with you that the Ezekiel reference is incongruous to the parable. I think it wonderfully demonstrates the Kingdom principle of the first being last and the last being first.
That is, the kingdoms of man are brought down to size; the kingdom of Christ expands and grows. If nothing else, it serves as a contrast to the Jesus parable. In other words, it preaches.
jerry
I didn’t quote RC Sproul because he is reformed. I quoted him because, at least in this instance, he is right and I agree with him.
Then again, there are also times when I think John Dominic Crossan is right. It’s not too often, but it has happened.
How do you know that, Rick?
Because the principle has nothing to do with birds. The focus is upon the smallness of the seed and the largeness of the tree as it is compared to faith.
The birds are not an essential element of the principle. To expand the birds is without merit, even if you use it to teach truth. That is why we must not elongate the principle of parables by dissecting the unimportant particulars of the story.
The ten virgins have nothing to do with virgins.
That is unless the virgins represent the virgin bride of Christ, and our relationship to Him (among other things). If that’s the case, the virgins are very important to the parable. How do you know the birds aren’t important?
In Matthew 20 Jesus again uses the mustard seed to illustrate the power of faith in a direct answer to the question by the disciples. In that answer Jesus never mentions any birds, but uses the same metaphor of the mustard seed.
If the birds were material to the principle why were they not mentioned here? And which virgins were the church, the foolish or the wise? Remember, they were all virgins so the principle is wisdom and follish actions as it pertains to the coming of the bridegroom. The inference is obvious. Verse 13 sums it up.
Rick is right here guys.
Just like the RR-BB group, who sees the devil behind every bush, your constant and incessant trust in “lawyers and doctors” of the scripture can lead you to ‘discover’ things that aren’t even there or aren’t part of the key message.
Not to say that the parables don’t have depth, but your scholarship can uncover what was never buried, if you see what I’m saying. This is common. We make the simple complex to validate ourselves.
Also, do you actually think that these parables have been ‘hidden’ for the last 2000 years until now, when our information age – not the inspiration of the Spirit – gives us access to Jewish thought millenia ago?
Parables are spiritually discerned and are not the sole property of scholars.
Paul,
That is just the sort of nonsense that makes me want to puke.
What is the point of having a kingdom with no subjects?
What is the point of having a tree if there are no birds sitting in the tree.
Now this thread is already on a tangent that has nearly nothing to do with the OP. Out of all the words I wrote and quoted above, Rick has managed to get bent out of shape because he doesn’t think the birds in the parable are important–which is completely beside the point since I wasn’t even focusing on the birds in the parable anyhow. In fact, I said nothing about what the birds ‘represent’ or ‘mean’ at all–if you actually take time to read what I wrote. Rick’s the one concerned about the birds.
Sometimes I think some of you are so contrary that you want to argue simply for the sake of arguing. I wasn’t even talking about birds. All I said was the parable makes better sense in light of Ezekiel’s prophecy.
PS–Paul, #14, Rick is not right. He is contrary.
And you have set up a totally false point. No one here is saying ‘trust in doctors and lawyers’–at least not in the sense that you think.
Sproul’s point is one of how to interpret Scripture, not necessarily where that interpretation leads us in the end. He is elucidating principles of hermeuntics. Your obtuseness in this instance is stupefying.
Oh, that’s right. “Come let us reason together” means ‘come be stupid because sheep are stupid and you are sheep.’ Read the post and I think you will see that it has very little, if anything, to do with what you are complaining about.
I am not bemt out shape about this. I believe you are familiar with my “bent out of shape” verbiage. I am actually agreeing with Sproul’s “be careful with parables” warning, only in a different way.
Parables have one major theme, and to cull out insignificant parts of the story and unfold other themes is not correct.
Jerry – Please tell me why Matthew 20 says nothing about birds even as Jesus uses the mustard seed in the exact same way.
The tree itself is the kingdom, representing the subjects. What I think the point of the parable is is to show how something so insignificant at the time Jesus was speaking, will inexplicably grow into a tree that dwarfs the other herbs. To demonstrate the gap between the tiny seed and mature tree, I believe He mentioned the birds. Digging into Ezekiel might be a bit much, but if it works for you…
Umm… you may want to take this up with Phil & Neil who spent the better part of yesterday trying to defend Purgatory only to arrive at the conclusion, “We don’t even believe this teaching, we’re just playing devil’s advocate for fun.”
BTW, I also agree with Sproul (as you do). We need to be careful with the parables.
From the littlest seed the tree becomes so big that birds can lodge in it. That is what He was saying, and that is the power of faith He was illustrating.
Rick,
once again, you are the only one here hung up on the birds. i said nothing about them one way or another in my post.
i merely suggested a way of reading the parable that connects it to Scripture and demonstrates the kingdom principle that the first will be last and the last will be first.
you are the only one hung up on the birds, not me.
I am speaking of unpacking parables, not birds. The birds were part of your connection to the section of Ezekiel, were they not? That is why the birds came into the conversation.
I hate birds.
No. The birds were not brought into this because of Ezekiel. Ezekiel was brought into this because his parable mirrors the parable that Jesus told. Or, perhaps, the parable Jesus told mirrors the parable Ezekiel told.
I am speaking here of a principle of hermeneutics. I’m not even approaching the actual interpretation yet. My point in bringing in Ezekiel is that Scripture interprets Scripture–I think we agree on this.
Jerry – The reference in Ezekiel deals with the Assyrian nation and its power and the huaghtiness of Pharoah, and both of them being brought down by God. It deals with the pride of man and the power of God. It is not related to the parable about faith.
Rick, I’m not denying that, but I am denying that it is not related; it is–even if only to demonstrate a contrast. And you are being quite stubborn in your efforts to miss my point. So let’s call it quits since you are evidently going to continue refusing to see the contrast I am making between the two parables–the one by Jesus and the other by Ezekiel. jerry
As are you mine.
There is no reference in Matt 20 to the mustard seed parable at all. It is in Matt 13, and it mentions the birds of the air, just as do the other two synoptic accounts (Mark 4, Luke 13).
I would disagree with you, as well, Rick.
Jesus uses two phrases in this parable which are identical to the opening of Ezekiel 31 – and which conceptually continue in the other parables surrounding this. It is not uncommon for Jesus’ parables to have multiple applications and layers of meaning. We’ve covered remez on this site multiple times, and I’d agree w/ Sproul and Jerry that this is a pretty obvious tie to Ezekiel.
NOW – what we make of the tie and how to understand it may be a good discussion – but sticking your thumbs in your ears and asking everyone to play the part of stupid sheep (by pretending it’s not there) is, well, just stupid…
I’m not sure why you’ve become such a recent and ardent supporter of idiotarianism… It seems like, recently, you’ve decided to ignore the basic point of OP’s & discussion, opting out for majoring in the minors, instead.
Was Ez 31 dealing with Egypt & Assyria? Yes. Does that prevent it from being referenced and borrowed in one of Jesus’ teachings to point to something else? No. He did it all the time. As did his disciples. That is one of the ways in which they used Scripture in teaching – both Jesus and his contemporary teachers.
In Hosea 11:1, was the prophet referring to Israel or Jesus? Hosea makes it clear he is talking about Israel. Matthew, however, borrows this and says it was a prophecy about Jesus (which, I would note, is surprising as a ‘proof-text’, as it was not seen by anyone else as a messianic prophecy, so Matthew’s inclusion of it as such is rather interesting…)
The reference is Matt.17:20. I’m sorry.
The OP was how to interpret parables – I thought. I will go back to sticking my fingers in my ears. I appreciate your condescending decription of my participation. You have accomplished your mission of being different than the ODMs.
Disagreement = fingers in ears. What a joke. Carry on with the open and respectful exchange.
But that’s not even the same parable, is it?
My point is, you’ve been harping on Jerry’s citation of the birds since #2, but you’ve never offered any support to this argument (aside from an erroneous reference to a non-parallel parable), so that by #22 you’re still saying the same thing, in both cases with uncharacteristically faulty logic (A is about B, so it cannot be about C, as well…), so that when you say “It is not related to the parable about faith,” your statement has no more weight than if you’d gone ahead and added “…because I said so…”
Now – with the ref. to birds in the mustard bush/tree – one possible interpretation is that the similarity in language is incidental/accidental, with no significance. To say it’s a possible interpretation is a valid to point.
However, the more you read Jesus’ words and those of his disciples, you find that they are very economical with their words (unlike some of us, particularly me), and that within that economy, they refer back to specific parts of Scripture – often w/o calling it out specifically – to fully make their point. They expected their audience to make the connection, which they could do because so many of them knew the Scriptures by heart.
So, I would suggest that it is far more likely that the addition of the language about the birds – using two specific phrases from the same OT text – precisely because it does not seem to be at the core of the short parable – is likely to be significance. How so? That is a good debate that I think would be far more edifying that arguing for Scriptural ignorance and making definitive declaratory claims of a negative that cannot be proven.
So if it says “faith like a mustard seed” it isn’t the same parable and therefore incongruous, but Ezekiel is connected. I get it. I will leave you to your concise exegesis and relieve you of the burden of “stpuidity” and “Scriptural ignorance”.
Yep, you are very different – a breath of fresh air. The truth is you get easily frustrated when I or others do not come around to your side. So when you claim I am plugging my ears or my comments are stupid is that your idea of “edifying”.
I never called anyone’s comments stupid. I guess my perspectives do not fit into the edifying category, I would not want anyone to stumble. I mistakenly assumed the post was about the interpretation of parables, I did not realize you could not respectfully disagree without being called “contrary” or “hung up on birds” or other things.
Carry on with the echo chamber.
My apologies, Rick – my characterization was out of line.
To your point:
Here is what he says:
He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”
If it was “faith like a mustard seed”, I think this would indicate a direct tie back to the parable (which may – or may not- have chronologically occurred before this event). But it says ‘faith as small as a mustard seed’ (going to its size rather than its likeness).
This could (and very possibly for the disciples would) refer back to his previous usage of the mustard seed. It is not the parable, itself, though.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that the parable doesn’t contain a message about the power of faith (either in the OP or in the comments). I see the likelihood that there is additional meaning being culled from the illustration.
I do get too easily frustrated – some times more than others – though I try not to post much when I find I’m feeling that way.
My language was out of line, you are correct, and I am sorry…