Dr. Robert J. Cara Summer 2011 HOW TO READ YOUR BIBLE or IMPROVING YOUR HERMENEUTICS Lectures 4-5 PARABLES Biblical Usage of terms * OT - mashal (LXX uses parabolē & paroimia) * proverb, taunt, riddle, metaphor allegorical stories (1 Sam 24:13, Book of Proverbs, Isa 14:3-4, Ez 17:2, Ez 24:25) [Parable of Nathan (2 Sam 12:1-4) has no term concerning its genre.] * NT - parabolē * proverb, metaphor, riddle, allegorical stories (Luke 4:23, Mark 7:14-17, Luke 15, Heb 9:9), Only used in Matt, Mark, Luke, Heb. * NT - paroimia * “figurative language,” refers to allegorical story in John 10:6 (only in John 10:6, 16:25, 16:29, 2 Pet 2:22) * General linguistic conclusion: parabolē = two levels of meaning History of Exegesis * Before Reformation: 1) excessive allegorizing (tended to find a meaning for every detail) 2) parables related directed to Church (bypassed historical audience Sitz im Leben). Augustine (354-430 AD) is prime example. * Augustine in Good Samaritan: wounded man = Adam after fall, Samaritan = X, robbers = devil, Jerusalem = paradise * Augustine in Great Supper (Luke 14:15-24), buying farm = sinful ambition in life, five oxen = lust of “eyes” with five senses, married wife = lust of flesh, go to streets and lanes = gentiles * Exceptions: Chrysostom (347-407 AD) Matthew Homilies 45-48, 69. Tertullian (160225 AD) (On Modesty 7-9) “. . . in that case, you make the Lord to have given no answer to the Pharisees’ muttering (chap 7).” “There are some points which are just simply introduced with a view to the structure and disposition and texture of the parable (chap 9).” 1

* Reformation: mixed bag, Calvin interprets w/ historical audience in mind; Luther sounds like Augustine. * Critical Scholarship from 1850-1950 * one-point theory; distinction between parable and allegory. Parable has one main point; allegory, all details mean something; stressed historical audience (parable had no reference to X’s future life); many saw the one-point as the same one point in every parable. One Point vs Allegorical (many points) * Some thought that each parable had one-point and that one-point was always the same. Interestingly, the one-point always matched their theological bias. (Note Ladd’s one point is always about eschatological nature of K.) * Most conservatives from late 1800's through 1970's agreed w/ one-point theory. * e.g., R. McQuilkin Studying Our Lord's Parables for Yourself 1933, S. Kistemaker, The Parables of Jesus 1980, R. Stein, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus 1981. * But most conservatives did not agree there was the same one-point for each parable. * Currently, many conservatives are allegorical (e.g., C. Blomberg Interpreting the Parables 1990). Within the liberal world, the literature oriented exegetes (e.g., M. Boucher The Mysterious Parable, 1977) are allegorical with most others still being one-point . Argument for Allegorical * How do one-point exegetes get away from 1) Parable of the Sower (Mark 4:1-20) and Parable of the Wheat and Tares (Matt 13:24-33) which have undeniable allegorical elements; 2) the Sower parable gives the reason for Jesus’ parables and 3) these are the only parables which Jesus gives any interpretation? (Note, Jesus gives interpretation of short proverbs in Matt 15:11, 1520). * Liberals: Jesus did not say this. * Conservatives: These are the exceptions, not the rule. (Cara: What about Mark 4:13?) * An allegorical interpretation does not necessarily mean every detail has a special meaning. Does everything in Pilgrim's Progress have a meaning? * Many parables have more than one point! Prime e.g., prodigal son. Also, most parables have three characters which relate to God, good person and bad person. e.g., Mt 21:28-32 2

* One point vs many point is confusing because the many points may relate to one point. No one in ancient or modern world, except for modern biblical scholars, use Jülicher’s distinctions. * Allegorical nature best fits with mysterious aspect of parables. * Cara’s conclusion: Parables should be considered as allegorical. Some of the details are to be pressed but not all. Why did Jesus use Parables? * Parable of the Sower, Mk 4, Luke 8, Matt 13 * Curse function of hearing Scripture if one does not listen to Jesus. (Deut 28:15, Isa 6, 2 Cor 2:14-16, Heb 6:4-6) * Different people react to parables based on their heart attitude. If you do not understand Jesus, you do not understand parables. * Fulfills OT prophecy concerning curse function, Matt 13:14-15 // Isa 6:9-10 * All but Calvinists have problems w/ this! * Parable about itself, Jesus is farmer sowing W of G (Matt 13:37) and some seed is falling in rocky soil and some in good. * Parables are mysteries as both the K and parables themselves are mysteries (Matt 13:11) * Messianic Secret reasons, Mark 4:11 * OT said so, Matt 13:35 // Ps 78:2 Interpretation of Parables * Parables referred to Jesus himself! * Matt 13:37, 21:45-46 * Parables implicitly about the King of the K of G. * Parables have redemptive-historical character. * about Jesus, growing K, Tenants, seed = word of God (Luke 8:11 w/ Acts 6:7)

3

* Parables are to be interpreted in light of further revelation. Jesus intended that interpretation would grow. e.g., tenants and crucifixion (Luke 20:9-19). * Hence, parables have both a historical and reading audience perspective. * Rejected stone = crucifixion, capstone = resurrection, others = Gentiles * Hence, early church interpretation not totally wrong. * While many details are true life style portrayals of AD I Palestine, many times the key details are surprisingly unrealistic. e.g., parable of the great banquet, Luke 14:15-24. * Invites audience to judge themselves. * E.g., Tenants. Audience agrees that tenants are wrong until they figure out that Son is Jesus and they are tenants! * Mixed audiences provide different meanings depending on one's view of Jesus. * “End stress rule.” * Involves either 1) last part of parable or 2) Jesus’ summary. * Cara does put some stock in # 1 but pays more attention to # 2. Cara would rather say let context rule. (What about Luke 19:11?) * Don’t over do. * Persistent Widow (Luke 18:1-6). Is this about God/Jesus or humans? * Many liberals do not use end stress of Jesus’ summary because later addition. * tis ex hymōn (“which one of you”) usually introduces parables which use a lesser to greater argument. e.g., Luke 14:28-33. * anthrōpos tis (“a certain man”) many times introduces parables. e.g., Luke 15:11, 16:1, especially note Luke 16:19. * Always ask how this parable might refer to the person of Jesus and his death/resurrection. * Change detail to test if it has relevance. * e.g., Good Samaritan or Roman Gentile or Jewish Tax Man * In the parable of the Tenants, Son or Daughter 4

* Jesus does not always use a metaphor in the same way. E.g., “treasure” is good in Matt 13:44 and bad in Luke 12:21. * Many times several characters are really just one type of character. * e.g., priest/Levite in Good Samaritan; various excuses of not coming to Great Banquet (Luke 14:15-23), wise and foolish virgins * Cara suggests separating the parables into one, two, and three character parables (see Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 171-287). * One Character: E.g., Hidden Treasure / Pearl of Great Price (Matt 13:44-46), Tower / King (Luke 14:25-33), Mustard Seed / Leaven (Matt 13:18-21), the Physician (Luke 5:31-32). Note, many of these are in groups. * Two Character: E.g., Unjust Judge / Widow (Luke 18:1-8), Rich Fool and God (Luke 12:16-22), Two Builders for Storm (Matt 7:24-27), Pharisee and Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14). * Three Character: E.g., Ten Virgins (Matt 25:1-13), Prodigal Son (Luke 15), Sower— fruitful and unfruitful seed (Mark 4:3-9), Great Supper (Matt 22:1-14), Landlord—new and wicked tenants (Mark 12:1-12). * Possibly stretching Tenants parable * All three-character parables reduce to 1) God/Jesus, 2) good guy, 3) bad guy. * Cara recommends structuring a “main point” concerning each type of character. Let the end stress / context regulate how much to emphasize. e.g., The Two Sons (Mt 21:28-32). Three characters: Father, son who initially disobeyed, son who initially obeyed. 1) Like father who commanded both sons, God/Jesus commands all. 2) Like son who ultimately obeyed, some rebel but later submit and are accepted. 3) Like son who ultimately disobeyed, some only promise but are eventually rejected by God. Note, end stress emphasizes group 3. e.g., Friend at Midnight (Luke 11:5-8). Two characters: man sleeping and friend. 1) Even more than man sleeping, God honors bold, persistent prayers abundantly. 2) Like the friend, Xns should boldly & persistently request from God. End stress of v 8 and 9 emphasize # 2. But v 11-13 emphasize # 1. [Note, tis ex hymōn]

5

Poythress' Two Evidence Rule (classroom lectures) * How does one determine if detail is representing anything? Poythress suggests “two evidence rule.” Each element with two meanings should have two evidences for it. (Note also Cara's suggestion above about changing details.) 1) Constructional Evidence. * Does surface level detail match deep level? * e.g., lost sheep wander away like humans do (Lk 15:4), treasure is worth everything like K of G (Matt 13:44). 2) Class Evidence. * Elsewhere in Bible (or non-canonical evidence) does this particular detail function similarly? Would the original audience (historical or reading) pick this up? * E.g., Do sheep represent lost humans? - Yes. Do brooms (Lk 15:8) represent anything? - No. Do vineyards (Luke 20:9) represent Israel? - Yes.

6