Bibliotheca
Sacra 155 (Jan.-Mar. 1998) 29-38.
Copyright © 1998 by
GUIDELINES FOR INTERPRETING
JESUS' PARABLES*
Mark
L. Bailey
A turning point in the study of
Jesus' parables came with
the work of Adolf Julicher,l who sought to expose the inadequacies
of the allegorical method of interpretation and
asserted that each
parable taught a single moral truth. In answer to Julicher, C. H.
Dodd
and Joachim Jeremias sought to discern more specific
lessons from Jesus' parables by focusing on
their major referent,
the
the parables in their historical contexts in the
life of Jesus and in
the gospel records.
More recent trends have tended to
see the parables as literary
art at the expense of historical interpretation.3
Consequently
some writers have returned to the approach that sees
multiple
meanings based on the subjective philosophical
self-understand-
ing of the interpreters
rather than the historical objectivity of Je-
sus and His message. The
past fifteen years or so have been dom-
Mark
L. Bailey is Vice President for Academic Affairs, Academic Dean, and
Professor of Bible Exposition,
*This
is article one in an eight-part series, "The Kingdom in the Parables of
Matthew
13."
1 Adolf
Julicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, 2 vols.
(
senschaftliche, 1963).
2 C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (New York:
Scribner & Sons, 1961);
and Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, trans. S. H. Hooke, 2d ed. (New
3 For example Dan Otto
Via, The Parables: Their Literary and
Existential Di-
mension (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1967); John Dominic Crossan, In Parables: The
Challenge of the
Historical Jesus (New
York: Harper & Row, 1973); idem, "The
Servant
Parables," Semeia
1 (1974): 17-62; and idem, "Parable and Example in the
Teaching
of Jesus," Semeia
1 (1974): 63-104.
29
30 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA /
January—March 1998
inated by a
"sophisticated" literary criticism and structuralism
which seems to be more concerned with the style of argumentation
than the historical interpretation. From the pendulumlike ex-
tremes of Julicher
and the multiple meanings allowed by the ex-
tremes of the philosophical
linguistic movement, a more cautious
balance is being sought by recent conservative
writers. Though
authors such as Robert Stein, David Wenham,
Craig Blomberg,
and John Sider4 have sought to interpret
Jesus' parables more
conservatively, it remains to be seen
how many will join their ef-
fort.
Parables are distinguished from
other literary figures in that
they are narrative in form but figurative in
meaning. Parables
use both similes and metaphors to make their
analogies, and the
rhetorical purposes of parables are to inform,
convince, or per-
suade their audiences.
Pedagogically Jesus utilized parables to
motivate hearers to make proper decisions. To
Jesus' original
audiences the parables both revealed and concealed
new truths
regarding God's kingdom program. Those who rightly
re-
sponded were called disciples
and to them it was granted to un-
derstand the mysteries of the
kingdom. The same truth was con-
cealed from those who, because
of hardened hearts, were unrecep-
tive to the message of
Jesus.
A parable may be briefly defined as
a figurative narrative
that is true to life and is designed to convey
through analogy some
specific spiritual truth(s) usually relative to
God's kingdom pro-
gram.
A proper interpretation of Jesus'
parables should give atten-
tion to the following five
steps.
UNDERSTAND THE SETTING OF THE
PARABLE
Conservative hermeneutics proceeds on the premise that lan-
guage is meaningful and that
the words in God's biblical com-
munication carry "historical,
cultural, spiritual, and moral
meaning and values."5 As an
interpreter approaches the Scrip-
tures, he is conscious of the
words and endeavors to discover the
meaning carried by them. Sometimes Jesus
supplied the interpre-
tation (e.g., Matt. 22:14;
25:13), and on other occasions the Gospel
4
Robert
H. Stein, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus (
InterVarsity, 1990); and John W. Sider, Interpreting
the Parables (
Zondervan, 1995).
5 A. T. Cadoux, The Parables of Jesus:
Their Art and Use (London: Clarke, 1930),
45.
Guidelines for
Interpreting Jesus' Parables 31
writer made an editorial comment. Often the key to interpreta-
tion can be found in the
prologue to the parable (e.g., Luke 18:1, 9;
19:11).
Other times the epilogue gives a clue to the proper interpre-
tation (Matt. 25:13; Luke
16:9). And in some parables the prologue
and epilogue form an interpretive parenthesis
around the story
(e.g., Matt. 18:23-24, 35; Luke 12:16-21).
HISTORICAL
SETTING
In recent years many writers have
misunderstood the parables
because they have not given adequate attention
to their historical
setting. Doerksen
notes forcefully that "the modern critical
method is to remove the parable from the
setting."6 Whether alle-
gorized or taken with a totally
aesthetic bias, the historical set-
tings of the parables have been overlooked in favor
of seeking to
find existential implications for the present. In
contrast to the lib-
eral tendency to generalize
the lessons of the parables, Dodd
maintained, "The task of the interpreter of
the parables is to find
out, if he can, the setting of a parable in the
situation contemplated
by the Gospels, and hence the application which
would support it-
self to one who stood in that situation."7
Stein correctly commends
the contribution of Dodd, who stressed the parables
for Jesus’ ini-
tial hearers and for the
initial readers of the three Gospels.
It was Dodd, who, more than anyone
else, pointed out that to
understand
the parables correctly one needed to interpret them
first of
all in their original Sitz im Leben, i.e., in their original
setting in
the life of Jesus and in the context of his ministry. In
other
words, before one should seek to understand the signifi-
cance of the parables for one's own situation today,
one should
seek the
original meaning of the parables and their application for
Jesus' audience in
the first century. If we were to reword this in
still
another way, we could say that Dodd demonstrated that the
question,
What is the meaning of this parable for me/us today?
must be
preceded by the question, What did the parable mean
when it was
uttered by Jesus during his ministry?8
Hunter spoke of a double historical
setting: "The parables, in
the earliest context, had two settings—their
original setting in the
life of Jesus, and their secondary one in the life
of the early
church."9 The context concerns both
the events recorded and the
recording of those events, that is, both the
historical and the liter-
6 Vernon D. Doerksen, "The Interpretation of the Parables," Grace Journal 11
(Spring
1970): 11.
7 Ibid.,
13-14.
8 Stein, An Introduction to the Parables, 59.
9 Archibald Hunter, Interpreting the Parables (
1960), 76.
32
BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / January—March
1998
ary settings. The timing of
the parables in the historical devel-
opment of Jesus' ministry is
not accidental. He spoke a number of
His
parables in response to the national leaders' rejection of
Him,
and so those parables were weapons of controversy in
exposing the self-righteousness of the opposition
and in extolling
the
of instruction for encouraging the disciples to be
faithful. The
parables can be interpreted properly only by
understanding the
audience and the occasion that promoted them.
Most of Jesus'
parables are clustered around scenes of
controversy, found
especially in the final year of His training the
disciples, as found
in the Lucan travelogue
(Luke 9:51-19:27).
It is not by accident that some
[parables] appear in one Gospel
and are
omitted from others, for on closer examination it will gen-
erally be seen that their record is in keeping with the
character
of the
Gospel in which they appear. . . . The Evangelists were in-
structed by the Holy Spirit not only what to record,
but when to
record it,
and all attempts to "harmonize" produce discord if we
forget
this.11
The
human authors were led by the Holy Spirit to arrange the
material of each of their Gospels for theological
as well as chrono-
logical purposes.
CULTURAL
SETTING
Understanding the cultural
background also is essential for in-
terpreting the parables properly.
As Ramm stated, "In the inter-
pretation of every parable it is
necessary to recover as much as
possible the local color employed in it."12
Each parable Jesus
spoke was taken either from analogies to nature or
from people's
reasonings and judgments. These
were taken out of the thought
and mind-set of ordinary persons living in
local color of the parables have turned up a rich
store of informa-
tion. Russell contended,
"Most of the stories involve customs,
conditions, and ideas peculiar to the Jews of
Palestine in Jesus'
time and therefore require explanation before an
American
reader fully understands them."13
10 Peter R. Jones, The Teaching of the Parables (Nashville: Broadman, 1982), 37;
cf.
Cadoux, The
Parables of Jesus, 11-13. Apparently Cadoux
coined the idea of the
parables as "weapons of controversy. "
11
12 Bernard Ramm, Protestant
Biblical Interpretation, 3d ed. (
Baker, 1970), 282.
13 Elbert Russell, The Parables of Jesus (
Association, 1912), 10.
Guidelines for
Interpreting Jesus' Parables 33
Addressing the problem of
"cultural foreignness"14 Bailey
proposed what he called "Oriental
Exegesis."
The culture that informs the text of
the Gospel parables can be
delineated
in a relatively precise manner by bringing together
three
tools. The culture of contemporary conservative peasants
must be
examined to see what the parables mean in their setting.
Oriental versions need to be studied
to see how Oriental church-
men through
the centuries have translated the text. Ancient lit-
erature pertinent to the parables must be read with
the insights
gained from
these other two sources, not in isolation from them.
This text must be examined against
the background of information
gleaned
from these three sources. These three tools need to be
used along with and not in isolation from the
other skills of mod-
ern scholarship.
Thus "Oriental Exegesis" is a method of studying a culturally
conditioned
text. The method is to use the standard critical tools
of Western
scholarship in combination with cultural insights
gained from
ancient literature, contemporary peasants, and Ori-
ental versions.15
Although
Bailey offers fresh perspectives for the parables from a
literary-cultural approach, he seems at
times to reconstruct the
social background at the expense of the text and
context. Never-
theless his emphasis on
cultural interpretation is a welcome cor-
rective in countering the
existential tendencies of some modern
interpreters. Kelley rightly
criticizes the tendency to ignore the
culture. "The danger we see in this sort of
orientation is that it
yields a picture of Jesus not as a wandering Jewish
rabbi who in-
structs disciples, replies to
opponents, and stimulates crowds, but
rather of an existentialist theologian, wearing a Bultmannian or
Heideggerian face, who by parabolic
speech dramatizes ontologi-
cal possibilities for hearers.”16
Augmenting the historical foundation
with an awareness of
first-century culture allows the
parables to retain their true-to-life
nature and unlocks the parabolic references to the
religious and
social cultures of the original settings of the
parables. "By
‘cultural’ is meant the total ways, methods, manners, tools, cus-
toms, buildings, institutions, and so forth, by
means of which,
and through which, a clan, a tribe, or a nation
carry on their exis-
tence."17 The proper understanding of
a parable's historical and
cultural contexts is the beginning point for
proper interpretation.
14 Kenneth E. Bailey, Poet and Peasant: A Literary-Cultural
Approach to the
Parables (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 29.
15
Ibid., 29–30 (italics his).
16 Robert Kelley, "The
Significance of the Parable of the Prodigal Son for Three
Major Issues in Current Synoptic Study"
(Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1971), 132.
17 Ramm,
Protestant Biblical Interpretation,
152.
34
BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / January—March
1998
UNCOVER
THE NEED THAT PROMPTED THE PARABLE
Jesus
often told parables to answer a question, meet a challenge,
or invite the hearers to change their thinking. To
discover the
need that prompted the parable is a significant step
toward un-
locking its meaning within its original context.
Often that need
in the original historical and/or literary
audience is shared by
current readers. Thus the supporting braces for
the
plication can begin to be formed
at this point in the interpretive
process. The need may be seen in the material
that introduces the
parable (e.g., Luke 18:1) or it may not be
revealed until after the
parable is told (e.g., 16:8). Zuck suggests nine
kinds of occasions
or purposes that led to Jesus' parables, with
examples of each:
parables in answer to questions, parables in
answer to requests,
parables in answer to complaints, parables given
with a stated
purpose, parables of the kingdom given because
of
tion of Jesus as Messiah,
parables following an exhortation or
principle, parables that illustrate a situation,
and parables with
the purpose implied but not stated.18
ANALYZE
THE STRUCTURE AND DETAILS OF THE PARABLE
Traina suggests a most helpful means of analyzing the
structure
of narrative discourse. In his discussion of the
observation step of
Bible
study, he notes the importance of understanding the struc-
ture of the passage being
studied. He discusses five ways the lit-
erary structure is arranged
to carry along the thought process of
the reader:19 biographical progression,
which tracks the lives of
people; historical progression, which follows the
sequence of
events; chronological progression, which unfolds the
narrative
with time indicators; geographical progression,
which journals
the changes of place; and ideological progression,
which focuses
on the development of ideas.
To understand the communication of a
narrative properly,
narrative art must also be appreciated. The
contribution of set-
ting, characters, and plot all relate to this step
of the hermeneuti-
cal process, and valuable insights are gained by
not sidestepping
the values of narrative composition and the means
("progres-
sions") an author used
to move readers through the narrative to a
desired impact.
Details in the parables serve as
background for the central
truth in the foreground. Defining the parable as
"truth carried in
18
19 Robert Traina, Methodical
Bible Study (1952; reprint,
van, 1980), 51-52.
Guidelines for
Interpreting Jesus' Parables 35
a vehicle," Ramm
speaks of the presence of "accessories." These
details "are necessary for the drapery of
the parable, but are not
part of the meaning."20 Various
details often play important
roles, but on the other hand they may be given simply
to add back-
drop to the story.
Interpreters have often wrongly
suggested that the presence of
details in the parables calls for allegorical
interpretation. Bouch-
er, though not a conservative
exegete, makes a helpful distinction.
I would suggest that it is more
accurate and helpful to speak of
the meaning
of the whole parable and the meaning of its parts
than to
speak of "one point" and "many parts." . . . Once the
whole
meaning is apprehended, the small constituent meanings
fall into
place; or conversely, once the small, constituent mean-
ings are understood, the meaning of the whole
emerges.21
The
background details of a parable help focus attention on the
main point(s) in the foreground of the parable. A
parable may be
compared to a wheel, with the central point being
the hub, and the
details being the spokes. The central truth(s)
in a parable may be
supported by a cast of subordinate or coordinate
truths.22
STATE
THE CENTRAL TRUTH OF THE PARABLE
AND
ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE KINGDOM
Understanding
the central analogy of the parable is a safeguard
against excessive allegorizing. As stated
earlier, this was the
major contribution of Julicher.
But a weakness of his work was
that he viewed the central point of each parable as
a general moral
truth unrelated to the historical context. Dodd
called this empha-
sis on the central truth "the most important
principle of interpre-
tation."23 Linnemann
also discussed the importance of the cen-
tral truth in a parable.
Like the similitude, the parable is
so arranged that the point of
comparison
comes out clearly. The narrative of a parable has a
strong
direct flow, which is determined by the point of compari-
son.
Without halts and detours the narrative runs on to the
point of
comparison. All the individual features of the narrative
join in
this dramatic movement, and have a function in the devel-
opment of the narrative. Only when the flow of the
narrative has
reached its
goal is the listener released from suspense. The point
of
comparison forms the end of the parable.24
20 Ibid.,
283.
21 Madeleine
22 See Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, 215-17.
23
Dodd,
The Parables of the Kingdom, 7.
24 Eta
Linnemann, Parables
of Jesus: Introduction and Exposition, trans. John
Sturdy, 3d ed. (New York: Harper & Row,
1966), 11.
36
BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / January—March
1998
THE
CENTRAL TRUTH
The
goal of each parable is to point up an analogy between the
story and the intended lesson or appeal. Trench
writes, "It will
much help us in the matter of determining what is
essential and
what is not, if, before we attempt to explain the
parts we obtain a
firm grasp of the central truth which the parable
would set forth,
and distinguish it in the mind as sharply and
accurately as we
can from all cognate truths which border upon it;
for only seen
from that middle point will the different parts
appear in their true
light."25
The central truth can be identified
by understanding what
question, occasion, problem, or need is portrayed
in the historical
setting. This question or problem will usually
relate to Jesus' dis-
ciples or to His opponents,
and therefore is related to the revealing
and concealing purposes of the parables.
Stein suggests asking seven
questions to help identify the
main point of the parables.
1. What terms are repeated in the
parable? Which are not?
2. Upon
what does the parable dwell, i.e., to what or to whom
does the parable devote the most space?
3. What is the main contrast found
in the parable?
4. What comes at the end of the
parable? [This has been called
"the rule of
end stress."]
5. What is spoken in direct
discourse in the parable? [Frequently
what is most important in the parable appears
in direct dis-
course.]
6. What characters appear in the
parable? Which are the least
important? Which are the two most important
characters?
[Usually a parable focuses on two characters to establish its
main point.]
7. How would you have told the
parable? If Jesus told it differ-
ently, does this
reveal anything?26
Also
the context of a parable sometimes reveals the main point, as
in Luke 18:1, 9.
Blomberg
has recently argued for as many major points as
there are central characters in the narrative. He
calls this a con-
trolled use of allegory.27 However,
the interpretations he suggests
are stated in the form of theological correlation
and not exegetical
interpretation in the historical or
literary context. His statements
are, however, invaluable for the bridge between
interpretation
and contemporary application.
25 Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord (
1948), 35.
26 Stein, An Introduction to the Parables, 56.
27 Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 166.
Guidelines for Interpreting Jesus'
Parables 37
RELATIONSHIP
TO THE KINGDOM
Most
expositors agree with Hunter that the concept of the kingdom
is the primary referent of Jesus' parables.28
This is confirmed by
the frequent usage of the introductory formula,
"The kingdom of
heaven is like...." The reason for the centrality
of the kingdom
in the parables is the priority it held in Jesus'
entire ministry. It
was the message of John (Matt. 3:2), Jesus (4:17),
and the disciples
(10:5-7).
As Hope observed, "all of [the parables] deal
with one
great subject, and one great subject only, namely,
the kingdom of
God."29 Or as Ramm states,
Many of the parables directly state
that they are about the king-
dom, and others not specifically stated cannot be
divorced from
the
kingdom. Adequate interpretation of the parables must now
be based
upon an understanding of the
relationship
of Jesus Christ and His gospel to that kingdom.30
The definition of the kingdom has
been one of the most wide-
ly debated issues in
Synoptic scholarship. However, the study of
the kingdom in relationship to the parables has
often been ne-
glected. Studying the parables
in this light helps interpret the
kingdom within the progressive revelation of the
life and teach-
ing of Jesus Christ as He
presented Himself and the message of
the kingdom to
kingdom, it is difficult to dispute that the
kingdom is the primary
referent of the majority of the parables. Too
often the interpreter's
bias about the kingdom has been forced into
parabolic exegesis
rather than allowing the parables to inform theology
of the king-
dom. More work is needed to allow the parables to
unfold the bib-
lical doctrine of the kingdom
as the message of Jesus contributed
to it.
RESPOND
TO THE INTENDED APPEAL OF THE PARABLE
Critical
scholarship has tended to overlook the historical setting
of the parables in the life of Jesus. Also the
presuppositions of crit-
ical scholars who see
parables as only metaphors cloud their in-
terpretation. However, these
scholars' discussions of the nature of
parable as "language-event" can be
appreciated to a point, for this
emphasis calls for a decision by the literary
audience in the days
28 Hunter, Interpreting
the Parables, 39.
29 Norman Hope, "The
Interpretation of Christ's Parables," Interpretation
6 (July
1952):
303. Some parables, like those in Luke 15, are more remotely related than
those that explicitly mention the term or describe
the concept.
39 Ramm,
Protestant Biblical Interpretation,
153.
38
BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / January–March
1998
of early hearers as well as present-day hearers.
While valuable
in emphasizing the need for making a decision,
these discus-
sions have often missed the
proper application which relates the
parables to the person of Christ and His kingdom.
Their view of
polyvalent meanings—that the parables are
open-ended—has
tended to remove the objectivity of interpretation
with historical
validation. Therefore the door has been opened for
all kinds of
opinions. Stein rightly states the need to ground
application in
historical, interpretation.
Only by attempting to understand the
parables in their original
Sitz im Leben shall
we be able to free ourselves from the chains of
modern-day
fads or trends, whether they be liberalism's general
moral truth
or existentialism's language event. The greatest rev-
erence we can give to the parables of Jesus is not to
treat them as
literary
accounts that are ends in themselves, but rather to treat
them as the
parables of Jesus, i.e., as parables
Jesus taught and
which are
filled with his meaning and insight! What he means to-
day by his
parables cannot be treated apart from the question of
what he
meant by them in the first Sitz im Leben.31
Proper application is based on the
timeless principles con-
tained in the message of the
parables. Principles "summarize the
essence of a Bible passage in terms that are
applicable to a broad
spectrum of readers and situations."32
"To principalize is to dis-
cover in any narrative the basic spiritual, moral, or
theological
principles."33 This principle of
truth may then be applied to many
situations in the reader's life.
SUMMARY
A
proper hermeneutical methodology for the parables must take
into account the nature and purpose of the parables
as both a par-
ticular genre of literature and
the reasons Christ employed them.
From
the historical, literary, and cultural contexts, the structure
and details of the parabolic narratives may be
studied to exegete
the central truth of the parables, which usually
have as their refer-
ent some specific aspect of
God's kingdom program. The in-
tended appeal for ancient as well as present-day
readers provides
the framework for proper application. Additional
articles in this
series will discuss these aspects of the kingdom in
Jesus' seven
parables in Matthew 13.
31 Stein, An
Introduction to the Parables, 69 (italics his).
32
voord: A Tribute, ed. Donald
K. Campbell (Chicago: Moody, 1982), 26.
33 Ibid.,