Parable

VIEW:48 DATA:01-04-2020

PARABLE (IN OT)
1. The word represents Heb. mâshâl, which is used with a wide range of meaning, and is very variously tr. [Note: translate or translation.] both in LXX [Note: Septuagint.] and in EV [Note: English Version.] . The root means ‘to be like,’ and Oxf. Heb. Lex. refers the word to ‘the sentences constructed in parallelism,’ which are characteristic of Heb. poetry and gnomic literature; i.e. it refers to the literary form in which the sentence is cast, and not to any external comparison implied in the thought. Such a comparison, however, is often found in the mâshâl, and, according to many scholars, is the main idea underlying the word. We are concerned here with the cases where the EV [Note: English Version.] tr. [Note: translate or translation.] ‘parable’; it is important to notice that in OT ‘parable’ has the varying senses of mâshâl, and is never used in the narrow technical sense of the NT. In Num_23:7 etc. it is used of the figurative discourse of Balaam (cf. Isa_14:4 [RV [Note: Revised Version.] ], Mic_2:4, Hab_2:3); in Job_27:1; Job_29:1 of Job’s sentences of ethical wisdom, differing little from the ‘proverbs’ of 1Ki_4:32, Pro_1:1; Pro_10:1 (the same word mâshâl). So in Luk_4:28 (RV [Note: Revised Version.] ) it is used of a proverb. Pro_26:7-9 speaks of ‘a parable in the mouth of fools,’ which halts and is misapplied. In Psa_49:4; Psa_78:2 ‘parable’ is coupled with ‘dark saying’ and implies something of mystery; cf. the quotation in Mat_13:35 and Joh_16:25 AVm [Note: Authorized Version margin.] , RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] , where it represents a Gr. word usually tr. [Note: translate or translation.] ‘proverb.’ In Wis_5:3 (AVm [Note: Authorized Version margin.] , RV [Note: Revised Version.] ), ‘parable’ means ‘by-word,’ a sense which mâshâl often has. In Eze_17:2 we have ‘the parable’ of the eagle, really an allegory (see below); cf. the use in Joh_10:3, Heb_9:9 RV [Note: Revised Version.] , Heb_11:19 RV [Note: Revised Version.] , where it represents a figure or allegory. Closely connected is Eze_24:3, the parabolic narrative of the caldron; the action described was probably not actually performed. Such mysterious figures are characteristic of Ezekiel, and he is reproached as ‘a speaker of parables’ (Eze_20:49).
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 [Note: Septuagint.] and in the Gospel of John indicates that a proverb or parable, being drawn from common objects and incidents, was available and meant for public use. What was once said in any particular case could always be repeated under similar circumstances.
(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.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

Hebrew maashaal, Greek parabolee, a placing side by side or comparing earthly truths, expressed, with heavenly truths to be understood. (See FABLE.) The basis of parable is that man is made in the image of God, and that there is a law of continuity of the human with the divine. The force of parable lies in the real analogies impressed by the Creator on His creatures, the physical typifying the higher moral world. "Both kingdoms develop themselves according to the same laws; Jesus' parables are not mere illustrations, but internal analogies, nature becoming a witness for the spiritual world; whatever is found in the earthly exists also in the heavenly kingdom." (Lisco.) The parables, earthly in form heavenly in spirit, answer to the parabolic character of His own manifestation. Jesus' purpose in using parables is judicial, as well as didactic, to discriminate between the careless and the sincere.
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 (paroimia). Parabolic sayings, like the paroimia) in John (Joh_10:1; Joh_10:6-18; Joh_16:25; Joh_15:1-8), occur also in Mat_15:15; Luk_4:23; Luk_6:39; Mar_3:23, "parable" in the sense "figure" or type, Heb_9:9; Heb_11:19 Greek Fable introduces brutes and transgresses the order of things natural, introducing improbabilities resting on fancy. Parable does not, and has a loftier significance; it rests on the imagination, introducing only things probable. The allegory personifies directly ideas or attributes. The thing signifying and the thing signified are united together, the properties and relations of one being transferred to the other; instead of being kept distinct side by side, as in the parable; it is a prolonged metaphor or extended simile; it never names the object itself; it may be about other than religious truths, but the parable only about religious truth.
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. (See LUKE.)
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.
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.

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.
Smith's Bible Dictionary
By Dr. William Smith.Published in 1863

παραβολη, formed from παραβαλλειν, to oppose or compare, an allegorical instruction, founded on something real or apparent in nature or history, from which a moral is drawn, by comparing it with some other thing in which the people are more immediately concerned.
(See Allegory.) Aristotle defines parable, a similitude drawn from form to form. Cicero calls it a collation; others, a simile. F. de Colonia calls it a rational fable; but it may be founded on real occurrences, as many parables of our Saviour were. The Hebrews call it משל , from a word which signifies either to predominate or to assimilate; the Proverbs of Solomon are by them also called משלים , parables, or proverbs. Parable, according to the eminently learned Bishop Lowth, is that kind of allegory which consists of a continued narration of a fictitious or accommodated event, applied to the illustration of some important truth. The Greeks call these αινοι, allegories, or apologues; the Latins fabulae, or “fables;” and the writings of the Phrygian sage, or those composed in imitation of him, have acquired the greatest celebrity. Nor has our Saviour himself disdained to adopt the same method of instruction; of whose parables it is doubtful whether they excel most in wisdom and utility, or in sweetness, elegance, and perspicuity. As the appellation of parable has been applied to his discourses of this kind, the term is now restricted from its former extensive signification to a more confined sense. But this species of composition occurs very frequently in the prophetic poetry, and particularly in that of Ezekiel. If to us they should sometimes appear obscure, we must remember, that, in those early times when the prophetical writings were indited, it was universally the mode throughout all the eastern nations to convey sacred truths under mysterious figures and representations. In order to our forming a more certain judgment upon this subject, Dr. Lowth has briefly explained some of the primary qualities of the poetic parables; so that, by considering the general nature of them, we may decide more accurately on the merits of particular examples.
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.
Biblical and Theological Dictionary by Richard Watson
PRINTER 1849.

par?a-b'l:
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? (παραβάλλω, parabállō) signifies a placing of two or more objects together, usually for the purpose of a comparison. In this widest sense of the term there is practically no difference between parable and simile (see Thayer, Dictionary of New Testament Greek, under the word). This is also what substantially some of Christ's parables amount to, which consist of only one comparison and in a single verse (compare Mat_13:33, Mat_13:44-46). In the more usual and technical sense of the word, ?parable? ordinarily signifies an imaginary story, yet one that in its details could have actually transpired, the purpose of the story being to illustrate and inculcate some higher spiritual truth. These features differentiate it from other and similar figurative narratives as also from actual history. The similarity between the last-mentioned and a parable is sometimes so small that exegetes have differed in the interpretation of certain pericopes. A characteristic example of this uncertainty is the story of Dives and Lazarus in Luk_16:19-31. The problem is of a serious nature, as those who regard this as actual history are compelled to interpret each and every statement, including too the close proximity of heaven and hell and the possibility of speaking from one place to the other, while those who regard it as a parable can restrict their interpretation to the features that constitute the substance of the story. It differs again from the fable, in so far as the latter is a story that could not actually have occurred (e.g. Jdg_9:8 ff; 2Ki_14:9; Eze_17:2 f). The parable is often described as an extended metaphor. The etymological features of the word, as well as the relation of parables to other and kindred devices of style, are discussed more fully by Ed. Koenig, in HDB, III, 660 ff.

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 ecclesiola in ecclesia, which was eventually to develop into the world-conquering church. One part of this general withdrawal of Christ from a proclamation of His gospel to the whole nation was this change in His method of teaching and the adoption of the parable. On that subject He leaves no doubt, according to Mat_13:11 ff; Mar_4:12; Luk_8:10. The purpose of the parable is both to reveal and to conceal the truth. It was to serve the first purpose in the case of the disciples, the second in the case of the uncleserving Jews. Psychologically this difference, notwithstanding the acknowledged inferiority in the training and education of the disciples, especially as compared with the scribes and lawyers, is not hard to understand. A simple-minded Christian, who has some understanding of the truth, can readily understand figurative illustrations of this truth, which would be absolute enigmas even to an educated Hindu or Chinaman. The theological problem involved is more difficult. Yet it is evident that we are not dealing with those who have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, for whom there is no possibility of a return to grace, according to Heb_6:4-10; Heb_10:26 (compare Mat_12:31, Mat_12:32; Mar_3:28-30), and who accordingly could no longer be influenced by an appeal of the gospel, and we have rather before us those from whom Christ has determined to withdraw the offer of redemption - whether temporarily or definitely and finally, remaining an open question - according to His policy of not casting pearls before the swine. The proper sense of these passages can be ascertained only when we remember that in Mar_4:12 and Luk_8:10, the ἵνα, hı́na, need not express purpose, but that this particle is used here to express mere result only, as is clear too from the passage in Mat_13:13, where the ὅτι, hóti, is found. The word is to be withheld from these people, so that this preaching would not bring about the ordinary results of conversion and forgiveness of sins. Hence, Christ now adopts a method of teaching that will hide the truth from all those who have not yet been imbued by it, and this new method is that of the parable.

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.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.

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.'




The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.

Parable
a word derived from the Greek verb παραβάλλω, which signifies to set side by side, and thus comes easily to have attached to it the idea of doing so for the purpose of comparison. A parable therefore is literally a placing beside, a comparison, a similitude, an illustration of one subject by another. Parables or fables are found in the literature of most nations. They were called by the Greeks αι῏νοι, and by the Romans fabuloe. In the following discussion we treat the whole subject from a Scriptural as well as rhetorical point of view, as developed by modern criticism. SEE FIGURE.
I. Signification of the Terms in the Original. — “Parable” is the rendering in the A.V. of the following Hebrew and Greek words.
1. In the Old Testament it answers to מָשָׁל, mashal, usually rendered “proverb,” which denotes
(a) an obscure or enigmatical saying, e.g. Psa_49:4 :
“I will incline mine ear to a parable; I will open my dark saying upon the harp;” Psa_78:2.
“I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old.”
(b) It signifies 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); that in which Jotham exposed the folly of the Shechemites (Jdg_9:7-15); and that addressed by Jehoash to Amaziah (2Ki_14:9-10). To this class also belong the parables of Christ.
(c) A discourse expressed in figurative, poetical, of 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). Under this general and wider signification the two former classes may not improperly be included. SEE PROVERB.
2. In the New Testament it is employed by our translators as the rendering of παραβολή (derived as above), a word which seems to have a more restricted signification than the above Hebrew term, being generally employed in the second sense mentioned above, viz to denote a fictitious narrative, under which is veiled some important truth. It has been supposed, indeed, that some of the parables uttered by our Savior narrate real and not fictitious events; but whether this was the case or not is a point of little consequence. The fact that in one instance only (the parable of Lazarus and “Dives”) an actual name is given — though probably but a conventional one commonly indicative of a class — is evidence that our Lord had no particular individual in view. Each of his parables, however, was essentially true; it was true to human nature, and nothing more was necessary. Another meaning which the word occasionally bears in the New Testament is that of a type or emblem, as in Heb_9:9, where: παραβολή is rendered in our version figure. According to Macknight, the word in Heb_11:19 has the same meaning, but this is probably incorrect. SEE EMBLEM.
The word παραβολή therefore does not of itself imply a narrative. The juxtaposition of two things, differing in most points, but agreeing in some, is sufficient to bring the comparison thus produced within the etymology of the word. The παραβολή of Greek rhetoric need not be more than the simplest argument from analogy. You would not choose pilots or athletes by lot; why then should you choose statesmen?” (Aristot. Rhet. 2:20). In Hellenistic. Greek, however, it acquired a wider meaning, coextensive with that of the above-mentioned Hebrew mashal, for which the Sept. writers, with hardly an exception, make it the equivalent. That word (=similitude), as was natural in the language of a people who had never reduced rhetoric to an art, had a large range of application, and was applied (as seen above) 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 Ecclesiasticus the word occurs with a striking frequency, and, as will be seen hereafter, its use by the Son of Sirach throws light on the position occupied by parables in our Lord's teaching. In the N.T. itself the word is used with a like latitude. While attached most frequently to the illustrations which have given it a special meaning, it is also applied to a short saying like “Physician, heal thyself” (Luk_4:23), to a mere comparison without a narrative (Mat_24:32), to the figurative character of the Levitical ordinances (Heb_9:9), or of single facts in patriarchal history (Heb_11:19). The later history of the word is not without interest. Naturalized in Latin, chiefly through the Vulgate or earlier versions, it loses gradually the original idea of figurative speech, and is used for speech of any kind. Mediaeval Latin gives us the strange form of parabolare, and the descendants of the technical Greek word in the Romance languages are parler, parole, parola, palabras (Diez, Roman. Worterb. s.v. Parola). SEE SIMILE.
II. Definition and Distinctions. — From the above examinations we are prepared to find the word frequently used both by the evangelists and by the disciples of Jesus, with reference to instructions of Christ which we should call simply figurative, or metaphorical, or proverbial. In Luk_6:39 we read. “And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? Shall they not both fall into the ditch?”(comp. Mat_15:14-15, where Peter speaks of the saying as “this parable”). In Mar_7:17, after Jesus had taught that not the things entering into, but those coming out of a man defile him, we are told that, “when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable;” and, in Luk_14:7, the warning against taking the chief seats at table is introduced as “a parable put forth to those which were bidden.” In all these sayings of our Lord, however, it is obvious that the germ of a parable is contained. We have only to work upon the hint given us, and we have the perfect story. Two blind men, for example, are seen leading each other along the road, and, after struggling for a time with the difficulties, of doing so, both fall into the ditch by the wayside. A pure and noble-spirited man takes his food with unwashed hands, while a hypocrite and oppressor of the poor is careful to cleanse them before he eats; both rise up from table and return, the one to his career of benevolence, the other to his wrongs land his injustice: which is the one deserving condemnation? The banquet is spread, a vain guest enters, and takes the highest seat, a meritorious but humble one follows and takes the lowest, the master of the house notes the impropriety, and requests the former to go down, the latter to come up, the attention of the whole company is directed to them, the one is shamed, the other is honored. Thus in each case we have the substance, although not the form, of the parable; in each an incident of common life is employed for the illustration of higher truth. But while comparison is thus the general meaning of the word before us, it has acquired a special sense in distinction from those other words, similitude, metaphor, allegory, fable, etc., which also imply comparison. Let us endeavor to distinguish it from these.
1. The parable is not a mere similitude, in which the mind rests simply upon the points of agreement between two things that are compared, and experiences that pleasure which is always afforded by the discovery of resemblances between things that differ. In such a case both terms of the similitude must be enunciated, and the pleasure springing from their agreement is all that the speaker or writer looks to as what will lend force to his instructions. SEE SIMILITUDE.
2. Nor is the parable a mere metaphor, in which a word familiar to us in the region of sensible experience, and denoting some object possessed of particular properties, is transferred to another object belonging to a more elevated region, in order that the former may impart to us a fuller and. livelier idea of the properties which the latter ought to possess. Were we to speak of the Word of God as a seed we might be said to use a metaphor, but in that case we transfer the properties of the seed to the Word; the seed itself, having suggested the particular property upon which we wish to dwell, vanishes from our thoughts. But when as a part of instruction by parable we use the same expression, the idea of the seed abides with us, and, the keeping before our minds of its actual history, that we may ascend from it into another sphere, is a necessary part of the mental process through which we pass. SEE METAPHOR.
3. It is more difficult to draw the distinction between parable and allegory. It can hardly be (as in Trench, On the Parables, p. 8) that in the latter there is a transference of the qualities and properties of the thing signifying to the thing, signified, so that the mind blends the two together, while in the former it keeps them separate. This distinction proceeds upon the idea that an allegory is only an extended metaphor, an idea which cannot be regarded as correct, for the allegory seems to differ from the metaphor especially in this, that no transference of qualities, and properties takes. place. In the allegory the circumstances employed for, the purpose of comparison remain in their real or supposed existence; the mind does not, as in metaphor, rest at once in the final object of thought, and only travel backwards to the figure employed for giving liveliness to the representation, in order that it may fill out its idea of the higher by recalling the attributes of the lower. It starts from the facts, whether real or imaginary, which form the basis of the similitude it employs; it leaves them as they are; and only hastens to the conclusion that a corresponding order of things is to be found in the other sphere to which it ascends. The allegory thus corresponds, strictly to what is involved in the derivation of the word. It is the teaching of one thing by another thing, of a second by a first a similarity of properties is supposed to exist, a like course of events to be traceable in both; but the first does not pass off in the second; the two remain distinct. Viewed in this light, allegory, in its widest sense, may be regarded as a genus, of which the fable, the parable, and what we commonly call allegory are species. It only remains for us, therefore, to note the differences of these.
4. Between fable and parable the difference appears to be determined by the object which they severally propose. It is the business of the fable to enforce only some prudential maxim, some common-sense principle, some wise saw founded on the experience of the world, and to do this in such a way as shall awaken surprise and pleasure. Hence it deals. mainly with plants or the lower animals, and, by clothing them with all the powers of reflection which lie within the compass of its aim, it gives not only interest but force to its lesson. If even animals or plants, we reason, can display such prudence or be the victims of such folly, how much more ought we, with our higher powers, to exhibit the one or to avoid the other? The parable has a nobler end. It would teach either religious or high moral truth. It deals with the loftiest aspect of man's being, with the nobler side of his character, with his relation not to mere earthly experience, but to a spiritual, an ideal world. Hence it cannot admit into its story those actors in which the fable mainly delights. The lesson which it would enforce is too solemn for that. It would jar upon our sense of propriety and would be unnatural. That such actors should appear in the fable produces no feeling of incongruity, because we know that there is a side of our nature which is possessed in common with us by the beasts of the field. But it is not so with that side of it which the parable would instruct, and to introduce therefore the lower animals as our instructors there would be to destroy our sense of what chiefly distinguishes us from them, and would only produce disgust. The correctness of what has been said may still further appear if we consider that we would take no offense at a parable in which angels were actors, because, whatever points of difference there may exist between the human and angelic nature, they agree in this, that they are fitted for moving amid the same spiritual realities, and cherishing the same spiritual emotions. These considerations will also show us that, while a fable may proceed upon facts palpably fictitious, the parable can only proceed upon those which are or may be true. It deals so much with the severe majesty of truth that it cannot accept the aid of anything plainly false. It is the truthfulness, in short, of the lower side of the representation that makes it the fitting vehicle for the conveyance of the higher. Thus also we remark, in conclusion upon this point, that the parable might take the place of the fable, but not the fable of the parable. As to the distinction again between the parable and the allegory commonly so-called, it is probably to be sought in this, that the latter is the offspring simply of a poetical imagination, while the former is conversant with the actual realities of life. SEE FABLE.
Thus, distinguished both from similitude and metaphor, and regarded as a species of allegory, the parable may be said to be a story which, either true or possessing all the appearance of truth, exhibits in the sphere of natural human life a process parallel to one which exists in the ideal and spiritual world. It differs from the “story” of the modern romantic tale chiefly in the fact that its incidents are. drawn from ordinary life, while the latter deals with unusual and marvelous conjunctures, such as rarely if ever occur in reality. The moral effect therefore is very different. SEE ALLEGORY.
III. Use of Parables by our Lord. — It will help us, however, still further to understand the meaning of the parable, and its high significance as a method of tuition, if we consider the grounds upon which its power to instruct us rests. For that power is not simply dependent upon the pleasure which an aptly chosen similitude always affords. It is rather dependent upon the truth, of which we become gradually more sensible as our views of religion rise, that the whole of nature and providence, the whole constitution of human life, and the laws which regulate the progress both of the individual and of society, spring. from one God, and are maintained by him. All outward things thus become transfigured to us — are not merely what they are to the bodily eyes, but are pregnant with a fuller meaning, colored with a richer light to the eye of faith. Beneath the outward we see the inward; beneath the material, the spiritual; beneath the visible, the invisible; beneath the temporal, the eternal. Everywhere the same perfections of God's being, the same rules of his government appear. We feel ourselves placed in the midst of a grand harmonious system, all the lines of which spring from the same center, and return to it again. Whatever lesson, therefore, is associated with any one part of the Almighty's works or ways, comes to us with the weight, not of that one part only, but of all. If God reveal himself in this way here, he will reveal himself, we reason, in this way elsewhere. We call in the universe to bear witness to the truth which we may be considering; and we rest in the assurance that, could we explore it all, we should find analogous principles at work in it.
It may be said indeed that this view of parables is Christian, and that our Lord's parables were addressed to Jews. The statement is true. The feeling which we have expressed belongs, in its most developed form, to Christianity alone. In its thoroughness and completeness it was first revealed in Christ. He alone has taught us to behold in everything the tokens of our heavenly Father's presence, and yet to avoid the pantheistic error of merging the Father in his works. But although fully developed only in Christianity, this lesson was one also of Judaism. The Jew believed in a personal God, and looked upon the world as his handiwork. What he lacked was that well-grounded belief in the love of God which could alone guide him through the many perplexities and reconcile the many apparent contradictions by which he was surrounded. Still he knew enough to make him in a great degree alive to this power of the parable. Further, we must bear in mind that our Lord, as the great Teacher of man, could not, while he sought to be understood by the Jew, be limited in his teaching by the capacity of the Jew to understand. He had to speak for all ages, and all stages of advancement; for the spiritual as well as for the carnal, for full- grown men as well as babes. More than all, we must remember that in his teaching the Savior had to present himself — that his lessons were not like those of an ordinary teacher, who may be more or less taught by others to speak what he himself is not. Christ was to embody in himself the highest conception of Christianity. He was to exhibit our faith in living reality, by showing how he himself felt and lived — how he himself looked on heaven and earth, on God and man. Therefore, even although the Jew might have been less favorably situated than he was for owning this particular element of the parable's power, such a method of instruction would still have possessed a divine and beautiful appropriateness in the lips of Jesus.
To understand the relation of the parables of the Gospels to our Lord's teachings, we must go back to the use made of them by previous or contemporary teachers. We have sufficient evidence that they were frequently employed by them (see Horwitz, Hebrew Tales, Lond. 1826; N. Y. 1847; Levi, Parabole dai libri Talmudici, Florence, 1861). They appear frequently in the Gemara and Midrash (comp. Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. in Mat_13:3; Jost, Judenthum, 2:216), and are ascribed to Hillel, Shammai, and other great rabbins of the two preceding centuries. The panegyric passed upon the great rabbi Meir, that after his death men ceased to speak parables, implies that upon that time there had been a succession of teachers more or less distinguished for them (Sota, fol. 49, in Jost, Judenthum, 2:87; Lightfoot, l.c.). Later Jewish writers have seen in this employment of parables a condescension to the ignorance of the great mass of mankind, who cannot be taught otherwise. For them, as for women or children, parables are the natural and fit method of instruction (Maimonides, Porta Mosis. p. 84, in Wetstein, On Matthew 13), and the same view is taken by Jerome as accounting for the common use of parables in Syria and Palestine (Hieron. In Mat_18:23). It may be questioned, however, whether this represents the use made of them by the rabbins of our Lord's time. The language of the Son of Sirach confines them to the scribe who devotes himself to study.
They are at once his glory and his reward (Sir_39:2-3). Of all who eat bread by the sweat of their brow, of the great mass of men in cities and country, it is written that “they shall not be found where parables are spoken” (38:33). For these, therefore, it is probable that the Scribes and teachers of the law had simply rules and precepts, often perhaps burdensome and oppressive (Mat_23:8; Mat_23:4), formulae of prayer (Luk_11:1), appointed times of fasting and hours of devotion (Mar_2:18). They, who would not even eat with common people (comp. Wetstein and Lampe, On Joh_7:49), cared little to give even as much as this to the “people of the earth,” whom they scorned as “knowing not the law,” a brute herd for whom they could have no sympathy. For their own scholars they had, according to their individual character and power of thought, the casuistry with which the Mishna is for the most part filled, or the parables which here and there give tokens of some deeper insight. The parable was made the instrument for teaching the young disciple to discern the treasures of wisdom of which the “accursed” multitude were ignorant. The teaching of our Lord at the commencement of his ministry was in every way the opposite of this. The Sermon on the Mount may be taken as the type of the “words of grace” which he spake, “not as the Scribes.” Beatitudes, laws, promises, were uttered distinctly, not indeed without similitudes, but with similitudes that explained themselves. So for some months he 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 comes a change. The direct teaching was met with scorn, unbelief, hardness, and he seems for a time to abandon it for that which took the form of parables. The question of the disciples (Mat_13:10) implies that they were astonished. Their Master was no longer proclaiming the Gospel of the kingdom as before. He was falling back into one at least of the forms of rabbinic teaching (comp. Schottgen's Hor. Heb. vol 2 “Christus Rabbinorum Summus”). He was speaking to the multitude in the parables and dark sayings which the rabbins reserved for their chosen disciples. Here, for them, were two grounds for wonder. Here, for us, is the key to the explanation which he gave, that he had chosen this form of teaching because the people were spiritually blind and deaf (Mat_13:13), and in order they might remain so (Mar_4:12). Two interpretations have been given of these words.
(a.) Spiritual truths, it has been said, are in themselves hard and uninviting. Men needed to be won to them by that which was more attractive. The parable was an instrument of education for those who were children in age or character. For this reason it was chosen by the Divine Teacher, as fables and stories, “ad minicula imbecillitatis” (Seneca, Epist. 59), have been chosen by human teachers (Chrysostom, Hom. in Johann. 34).
(b) Others, again, have seen in this use of parables something of a penal character. Men have set themselves against the truth, and therefore it is hid from their eyes, presented to them in forms in which it is not easy for them to recognize it. To the inner circle of the. chosen it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God. To those who are without, all these things are done in parables. Neither view is wholly satisfactory. Each contains a partial truth. All experience shows, first, that parables do attract, and, when once understood, are sure to be remembered; secondly, that men may listen to them and see that they have a meaning, and yet never care to ask what that meaning is. Their worth, 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, 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 afterwards. They reveal, on the other hand, the seekers after truth. These ask the meaning of the parable, will not rest till the teacher has explained it are led step by step to the laws of interpretation, so that they can “understand all parables,” and then pass on into the higher region in which parables are no longer necessary, but all things are spoken plainly. In this way the parable did its work, found out the fit hearers and led them on. It is also to be remembered that even after this self-imposed law of reserve and reticence, the teaching of Christ presented a marvelous contrast to the narrow exclusiveness of the Scribes. The mode of education was changed, but the work of teaching or educating was not for a moment given up, and the aptest scholars were found in those whom the received system would have altogether shut out.
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 Isa_5:1-5, and of Eze_19:1-9? There are other illustrations, like that of the city delivered by one wise inhabitant (Ecc_9:14-15), which are substantially parables, although not in express form. But the parables uttered by our Savior claim pre-eminence over all others on account of their number, variety, oppositeness, 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 recapitulated the following:
(1.) It secured the attention of multitudes who would not have listened to truth conveyed in the form of abstract propositions. It did so in virtue of two principles of human nature, viz. that outward and sensible objects make a more vivid impression than inward notions or ideas; and that the particular and the concrete affect the mind more than the general and the abstract. Thus a virtue or vice may be held up for abhorrence or admiration far more successfully by exhibiting its effects on the character of an individual than by eulogizing or declaiming against it in the abstract.
(2.) This mode of teaching was, as we have seen, one with which the Jews were familiar, and for which they entertained a preference. They had been accustomed to it in the writings of their prophets, and, like other Eastern nations, listened with pleasure to truths thus wrapped in the veil of allegory.
(3.) 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.
(4.) The parabolic style was well adapted to conceal Christ's meaning from those who, through obstinacy and perverseness, were indisposed to receive it. This seems to be 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.” SEE BLINDNESS, JUDICIAL.
Accordingly, from the time indicated in the passage just cited, parables enter largely into our Lord's recorded teaching. Each parable of those which we read in the Gospels may have been repeated more than once with greater or less variation (as, e.g., those of the pounds and the talents, Mat_25:14; Luk_19:12; of the supper, in Mat_22:2, and Luk_14:16). Everything leads us to believe that there were many others of which we have no record (Mat_13:34; Mar_4:33). In those which remain various writers have thought it possible to trace something like an order; but as these classifications must be in any case somewhat subjective and arbitrary, we refrain from presenting them, and give simply a complete list in tabular form (p. 647).
Lastly, it is to be noticed, partly as a witness to the truth of the four Gospels, partly as a line of demarcation between them and all counterfeits, that the apocryphal Gospels contain no parables. Human invention could imagine miracles (though these too in the spurious Gospels are stripped of all that gives them majesty and significance), but the parables of the Gospels were inimitable and unapproachable by any writers of that or the succeeding age. They possess a life and power which stamp them as with the “image and superscription” of the Son of Man. Even the total absence of any allusion to them in the written or spoken teaching of the apostles shows how little their minds set afterwards in that direction, how little likely they were to do more than testify what they had actually heard.
IV. Rules of Interpretation. — It has been usual to consider the parable as composed of two parts: viz. the protasis, conveying merely the literal sense; and the apodosis, containing the mystical or figurative sense. It is not necessary, however, that this second part should always be expressed. It is frequently omitted in the parables of our Lord, when the truth illustrated was such as his disciples were unable at the time fully to comprehend, or when it was his design to reveal to them something which was to be hidden from the unbelieving Jews (comp. Mat_13:11-13). 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. 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.”
It has been urged by some writers, by none with greater force or clearness than by Chrysostom (Rom. in Matthew 64), that there is a scope or purpose for each parable, and that our aim must be to discern this, not to find a special significance in each circumstance or incident. The rest, it is said, may be dealt with as the drapery which the parable needs for its grace and completeness, but which is not essential. It may be questioned, however, whether this canon of interpretation is likely to lead us to the full meaning of this portion of our Lord's teaching. True ,as it doubtless is that there was in each parable a leading thought to be learned, partly from the parable itself, partly from the occasion of its utterance, and that all else gathers round that thought as a center, it must be remembered that in the great patterns of interpretation which he himself has given us there is more than this. Not only the sower and the seed and the several soils have their counterparts in the spiritual life, but the birds of the air, the thorns, the scorching heat, have each of them a significance. The explanation of the wheat and the tares, given with less fullness — an outline as it were, which the advancing scholars would be able to fill up — is equally specific. It may be inferred from these two instances that we are, at least, justified in looking for a meaning even in the seeming accessories of a parable. If the opposite mode of interpreting should seem likely to lead us, as it has led many, to strange and forced analogies and an arbitrary dogmatism, the safeguard may be found in our recollecting that in assigning such meanings we are but as scholars guessing at the mind of a teacher whose words are higher than our thoughts, recognizing the analogies which may have been, but which were not necessarily those which he recognized. No such interpretation can claim anything like authority. The very form of the teaching makes it probable that there may be in any case more than one legitimate explanation. The outward fact in nature or in social life may correspond to spiritual facts at once in God's government of the world, and in the history of the individual soul. A parable may be at once ethical, and in the highest sense of the term prophetic. There is thus a wide field open to the discernment of the interpreter. There are also restraints upon the mere fertility of his imagination. (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. He interpreted two parables, that of the sower (Mat_13:3-8; Mat_13:18-23; Mar_4:3-8; Mar_4:14-20; Luk_8:5-8; Luk_8:11-15) and that of the tares. and the wheat (Mat_13:24-30; Mat_13:36-43). These interpretations must suggest the further rules of which we are in search.
1. Each parable has one leading idea to which all its parts are subordinate. For example, in the parable of the sower, this idea is the manner in which we ought to hear the Word of God. In that of the tares and the wheat, it is the struggle of the good with the evil, till the day when both shall be finally and forever parted. In subordination to these two ideas all the different incidents of the two parables are explained. It is always the same; and when we succeed in forming to ourselves such a conception of the leading idea of the narrative that all its parts easily and naturally arrange themselves around it, we have good reason to believe that our conception is correct. This idea, it may be further remarked, is to be sought in the relation of the human heart to God, and not in any local or temporary circumstances. It was so in the cases before us. Doubtless it would have been possible for the Savior to have specified many causes which specially hindered, in those who then heard him, the true reception of his word. But he does not so. Those which he mentions were not peculiar to that age and country; they belong to every land and to all time. The devil, tribulation, and persecution, the cares of this world, the deceitfulness of riches; how general are they! they embrace the widest and most universal relations between the human heart and outward circumstances. So with the other. The field is not Judaea, but “the world;” “the good seed are the children of the kingdom, but the tares are the children of the wicked one.” Again, how general! we, as well as Christ's immediate hearers, are included there. The lesson is important. What more common than for preachers to find the meaning of a parable, first in the circumstances of the time-for example, in the calling of the Jews and the rejection of the Gentiles — and then to proceed to a more general view of the truth contained in it, thus leaving upon the minds of their hearers the impression that the first is the correct interpretation, the second the wise and happy application of it? The very opposite is the case. The general is the true meaning; the. particular is only one of its applications suitable at the time, just as other applications might be suitable to any age if drawn from the circumstances by which the age is marked. How completely is the beautiful parable of the prodigal son ruined when we are told that the elder son is the Jew, the younger the Gentile. The instinct of a congregation which repels such a method of interpreting is more true to the nature of the parable than the would be archaeological explorations of the pulpit.
It is possible, no doubt, that the individual parts of a parable may be full of instruction. In that of the sower, what a field of thought is opened by the expression, “The seed is the Word of God” (Luk_8:11). In that of the prodigal son, the description of the younger son's wandering from his father's house, of the famine that came upon him in the strange land, of his want and misery, and of the degrading service to which he was subjected, form a striking representation of the nature and consequences of sin, which it is impossible to pass over. But in both cases, as in all others, the particular point to be observed is this, that such lessons must be kept subordinate to the main drift of the parable, and must be so treated as to bring more powerfully home to us its one leading idea. That in themselves they may teach more is possible. Who shall measure the infinite extent of the wisdom of Christ, or the inexhaustible meaning which may lie in the simplest utterance of him “in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” who is “the same yesterday, to-day, and forever?” But, considered as parts of the parable in which they occur, such separate clauses or incidents are to be looked at in the light of the general lesson which it teaches, and may only be so treated as to lend that lesson force. This is the one great principle by which we are to be guided; and, when we hold it fast, we may at once admit that the fuller the meaning which can be naturally imparted to each individual portion of the parable the more justice do we do to it. The danger of forgetting this has been frequently illustrated. It has led to an undue and unscriptural pressing both of specific traits of parables and the want of them. Thus, in that of the laborers in the market- place, we might be easily led, by the last part of it (Mat_20:8-14), to the supposition that in the heavenly state the rewards of all Christ's servants will be equal — a supposition at variance with many other passages of Scripture. How often has it been argued that the doctrine of the atonement was not taught by the Redeemer, because in the parable of the prodigal son there is no mention made of expiation or intercession before the wanderer is welcomed to his father's house, and embraced in the arms of his father's love. It is of the utmost importance, therefore, to fix clearly in the mind the general lesson of a parable, and to keep everything subservient to it.
2. While there is thus one leading idea in each parable, the explanations already referred to as given by our Lord further show that there are even few of its smallest particulars which have not a meaning. The difficulty, indeed, of determining what then meaning in each case is, and the extravagant and fanciful lengths to which some interpreters have gone, has generally led to an opposite conclusion. It has been urged, and not wholly without reason, that every story must have some things in it which serve only to give liveliness and force to the delineation, which are mere transition points from one part of the narrative to another; and that to assign a meaning to these is to substitute simply human fancies for the teaching of God. To this the only reply is that there is danger in either extreme; but that our tendency ought to be to seek a meaning in such traits, rather than the reverse, seems clear. For, in the first place, the aim of the parable is not poetical, but ethical. The story is not told for its own sake, but for the sake of the lesson; and it is reasonable, therefore, to infer that it will be constructed in such a manner as to answer this end as far as possible in all its traits. In the second place, the course followed by our Lord is conclusive upon the point. In the parable of the sower, the field, the birds of the air, the heat of the sun, the thorns and brambles of the bad ground, the thirty, sixty, and hundred fold of the good ground, have all a meaning. Nor is it otherwise in that of the tares and the wheat. How readily might we suppose that the reapers were only subordinate to the harvest. There cannot be a harvest without reapers. Yet “the reapers are the angels;” while the field itself, the man who sowed good seed, the enemy who sowed tares, and the harvest, are each explained. There is hardly a trait in either parable that is destitute of force. The conclusion is irresistible.However difficult it may be to make the application of each, the attempt is to be made, and our main object must be to discover the limits beyond which we may not go. Here, again, we cannot offer rules which promise to be of much use, but attention to the following principles may help us.
(a) Traits which cannot be applied to the relation between God and man belong only to the coloring. In the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, we read that the Master said to one-class of the workers, “Take that thine is, and go thy way” (Mat_20:14). Words like these cannot be literally applied to the relation between God and man. We have nothing of our own, no' claim of our own to reward. After we have done all, we are unprofitable servants. “The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” This trait, therefore, is simply a part of the filling out of the narrative.
(b) Traits which, if interpreted, would lead to conclusions contrary to the analogy of faith belong only to the coloring. In the parable of the unmerciful servant we read, “But, forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife and children, and all that he had and payment to be made.” (Mat_18:25). Shall we infer that wives are to suffer for their husbands', children for their fathers' sins? The analogy of faith answers, No. Such a lesson, then, cannot be associated with the particulars referred to. They spring only from the fact that, after the manner of Eastern nations, the wife and children were considered to be the husband's and father's property. Again we have simply a part of the filling out of the narrative (comp. Scholten, quoted in Lisco, On the Parables [Clark's translation], p. 105).
(c) Traits which, if interpreted, would teach doctrines not elsewhere taught in Scripture belong only to the coloring. In the parable of the ten virgins, we are informed that “five of them were wise, and five were foolish” (Mat_25:2). Give a meaning to this, and we must infer that the number of the saved and of the lost will be the same. Such a doctrine is nowhere taught us in the Bible, and again we conclude that the circumstance mentioned only fills out the narrative.
(d) Traits to which an interpretation cannot be given without indulging in fancies and conceits belong only to the coloring. In the parable of the prodigal son, ‘ the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand and shoes on his feet” (Luk_15:22). To see in this the general tokens of restoration to all the privileges of a son in his father's house is evidently required. But, to understand by the “best robe” the robe of the Savior's righteousness, by the “ring” the gift of the Spirit whereby we are sealed unto the day of redemption, and by the “shoes” those works of our calling whereby “the penitent shall be equipped for holy obedience” (Trench, On the Parables, p. 412), seems to be pushing interpretation to a fanciful extent. The same thing may be said of Trench's interpretation of Mat_13:33, “The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal,” where he makes the three measures of meal represent the three parts of the then known world, or the three sons of Noah, or the three elements, spirit, soul, and body, which together make up the man (On the Parables, p. 114, 115).
Bearing these cautions in mind, the more minute our interpretation of a parable is, the more do we conform to the example of Him whose parables we interpret. Our great guide, however, must be a spiritual tact and discernment cultivated by close communion with Christ himself, an intelligent perception of Christian principles, a rich experience of the practical power of the divine life as it works in ourselves, and a knowledge of the world and its working there. We must constantly bear in mind that the parables of Christ teach. directly neither history nor doctrine nor morals nor prophecy. They express directly only certain great principles of the Savior's divine kingdom, of the kingdom of heaven or of God, when that kingdom comes into contact with the human heart. History, doctrine, morals, prophecy, may be deduced from them, because the truth of God and the human heart are essentially the same in all ages. But it is with principles alone that the parables deal; with principles which imply doctrines, which result in morals, which appear in the history of the past, and will reappear in the future. To set forth these principles in a sphere which is wider than that of either individuals or churches, in the sphere of divine truth in contact with the heart of man, is the object of the New Testament parables. SEE INTERPRETATION.
V. Literature. — The following are strictly exegetical works on all the parables of our Lord exclusively; we designate a few of the most important by prefixing an asterisk: Roger, Parables (Lond. 1690, 4to; in Germ. Hafn. 1648, 4to); Keach, Exposition (Lond. 1701, fol.; 1856, 8vo);: Bragge, Discourses (ibid. 1711, 2 vols. 8vo); Lyncken, Parabelen (Utrecht, 1712, 8vo); Vitringa, Parabelen (Amst. 1715, 4to; in Germ. Leips. 1717, 4to); Dodd, Discourses (Lond. 1751, 2 vols. 8vo); Bulkley, Discourses (ibid. 1771, 4 vols. 8vo); Gray, Delineation (ibid. 1777, 1818; in Germ. Hanov. 1781, 8vo); Bauer, Parabeln (Leips. 1781, 8vo); Eylert, Homilien (Halle, 1806, 1818, 8vo); Farrer, Sermons (Lond. 1809, 8vo); Collyer, Lectures (ibid. 1815, 8vo); Grinfield, Sermons (ibid. 1819, 8vo); Kromm, Parabeln (Fulda, 1823, 8vo); Upjohn, Discourses (Wells, 1824, 3 vols. 8vo); Mount, Lectures (Lond. 1824, 12mo); Lonsdale, Exposition (ibid. 1825,12mo); Baily, Exposition (ibid. 1828, 8vo); Knight, Discourses (ibid. 1830, 8vo); *Lisco, Parabeln (Berlin, 1832, and often later, 8vo; in Engl. [Clark's Bibl. Cab.] Edinb. 1840,12mo); Mackenzie (Mary), Lectures (Lond. 1833, 2 vols. 8vo); *Greswell, Exposition (Oxf. 1834, 5 vols. 8vo); Cubitt, Conversations (Lond. 1840,18mo); Zimmermann, Gleichnisse (Darmst. 1840-42,2 vols. 8vo); *Trench, Notes (Lond. 1841, and often later; N. Y. 1861, 8vo); Mrs. Best, Tracts (Lond. 1841, 12mo); De Valenti, Parabeln (Basle, 1841, 2 vols. 8vo); Close, Discourses (London, 12mo); * Arndt, Gleichnissreden (Magdeb. 1842-47,1846-60, 6 vols. 8vo); Horlock, Ersition (vol. i, Lond. 1844, 12mo); Burns, Sermons (ibid. 1847, 12mo); Krummacher, Parables (from the Germ. ibid. 1849, 12mo; 1853, 4to); Lord Stanley (Earl of Derby), Conversations (ibid. 1849,18mo); Cumming, Lectures (ibid. 1852, 12mo); Newland, Postils (ibid. 1854, 12mo); Stevens, Parables (Phila. 1855, 8vo); Kirk, Lectures (N. Y. 1856, 12mo); Oxenden, Parables (Lond. 1865,1866, 8vo); Machlachlan, Notes (ibid. 1870, 8vo); De Teissier, Parables (ibid. 1870, 12mo). For treatises and discussions on the nature and other relations of the miracles, and for practical expositions of particular miracles, see the references in Volbeding, Index Programmatum, p. 34; Hase, Leben Jesu, p. 33; Danz, Worterbuch, s.v.; Darling, Cyclop. (see index); Malcolm, Theological Index, s.v.

CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores