I would like to take a look at a parable that you are all probably
familiar with, but one where much of the meaning gets lost by our modern
thought and lack of cultural background. Most bible readers these days are
quick to just accept their initial surface level reading, and end up missing
much of what is actually being taught.
This
is of course one of the root problems in the modern church; they take a real
generic understanding, add to that the habit of ripping verses out of their
context. Then compile this error with ignoring audience relevance as well as the
historical and cultural backgrounds to what they are reading. Once we start to
see the cultural understanding of things, we can begin seeing much more and
things start to make more sense in the whole scheme of things.
Before
we jump into the parable, let me just go over some background information on
parables as a review. First off, what exactly is a parable? Here are some
technical definitions given by various sources:
…denotes a
placing beside...It signifies a placing of one thing beside another with a view
to comparison….It is generally used of a somewhat lengthy utterance or
narrative drawn from nature or human circumstances, the object of which is to
set forth a spiritual lesson. (W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of Old &
New Testament Words, pg. 830)
The Dictionary
of Judaism in the Biblical Period tells us parables are:
Instructional
narrative, metaphors, or similes, which appear throughout Mediterranean and
Egyptian literature of antiquity.
Important to the
discussion today, is that this last definition refers to the fairly common
place of the use of parable with ancient literature. Speaking in parables was
more of a cultural practice back then that it is in our time, and for that
reason, we may not grasp as much from them without a little work in
understanding them.
Scholars and historians speak of two types of
theologians; the conceptual and the metaphoric. A conceptual theologian is
typically what we in the West have practiced for centuries – it is one who
constructs theology from ideas held together by logic. Theologians like this
tend to be more serious, abstract and write in a scholarly manner, making them
harder to understand by the average person.
Paul works with both ideals and metaphors – but
in the West we tend to emphasize his ideas and concepts, and push to the side
his metaphors – thus making him out to be more of a conceptual theologian in
our minds.
On the opposite side, most people view Yeshua as
purely metaphoric – or as Kenneth Bailey put it – “a village rustic creating
folktales for fisherman and farmers.” Yeshua’s primary way of teaching was
through metaphor, simile, parable, and dramatic action, rather than through
reasoning and logic.
For some people, this takes Yeshua out of the
category of a serious theologian or philosopher, and puts him strictly in a
category of being more like a dramatist or poet. They turn him into a man who
gave lots of nice little teachings about love and good living, and not much
about deep theology.
However, for those who have seriously examined
his parables and metaphors more closely, have found that they are filled with
serious theology. Much of this theology is easily missed due to our minds being
filled with our own modern cultural thoughts which miss the application of what
he is saying.
Metaphors are used to communicate ideas in a way
that rational arguments are not always able to do. As the saying goes, a
picture is worth a thousand words. Well, metaphors are like picture stories to
help get points across. We sometimes use them today when we speak using stories
and examples to get our point across.
A metaphor though, is not just an illustration of
the idea, it is a form of theological discourse, and a parable is an extended
metaphor that sets the scene for viewing things through a new worldview lens.
We tend to want to view these parables as a good
launching point for a general idea being put across, but that is not really the
proper way to view them, or not really the way they were viewed historically in
that culture. I like the way Bailey states it:
The
listener/reader of the parable is encouraged to examine the human predicament
through the worldview created by the parable. The casing is all that remains
after a shell is fired. Its only purpose is to drive the shell in the direction
of the target. It is easy to think of a parable in the same way and understand
it as a good way to “launch” an idea. Once the idea is “on its way” the parable
can be disregarded. But this is not so. If the parable is a house in which the
listened/reader is invited to take up residence, then that person is urged by
the parable to look on the world through the windows of that residence. Such is
the reality of the parables created by Jesus of Nazareth, a reality that causes
a special problem. (Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels)
He
goes on to describe how - when it comes to the logic and reasoning as modern
theologians do, the understanding of the theology involved requires a clear mind and a little hard work. However,
for the theology presented by Yeshua, grasping what is being portrayed in his
stories and dramatic events is not always grasped by contemporary readers, and
to fully understand, requires knowledge of the culture of the storyteller.
So,
we will never truly grasp the nature and implications of his sayings without
having a grasp on the surrounding culture of which he spoke those things.
In
order to truly unlock the truths in the parables, we must first consider a few
necessary steps. First, we must realize that digging for the true meaning is
necessary and important. Sure, anyone
can read the Bible and be blessed by much of what is said; we may even receive
blessing from a misapplied use of the stories and events we read. However, an
ear better trained in the language and culture of the Bible will hear and
understand much more from the text and its true intent.
To
avoid doing the work required to get this understanding, the modern church
tends to “indigenize” them – figuring the first century people thought and
acted much like we do today, and we interpret based on modern understandings.
We look at these stories as just little ditties that have a universal appeal to
all men for whatever they can get from them. This makes the understanding of
the Bible to be more of a relative book of teachings that varies from person to
person, with no absolute meaning. I believe this type of mentality is one of
the main causes of all of the disagreements, debates, and divisions in the church
that leads to a new church on every corner that cannot get along with the
church down the street.
We
read stories like that of the prodigal son, and we see a rebellious teen, a
jealous brother, and a loving father, and we just take the nice story as
application for what we can. However, we totally miss the fact that in the
Middle Eastern culture where this story was taking place, for a son to ask for
his inheritance while the father was still alive, was equal to telling the father
you wished he would just drop dead. This greatly heightens the loving response
of the father in the story, who normally should have gotten mad and cast the
son out of the house.
Secondly, in order to get a better understanding,
we need to realize the historical nature of the Word of God. The Bible is truly
the Word of God, but it is also to be seen as the Word of God spoken through
real people in real historical settings. Ignoring the historicity of it will
mean missing the original intent and audience relevance. It is interesting how
most people remember and apply the historical settings of other literature we
read, but ignore it when it comes to the Bible.
Thirdly, we must seek to find the meanings in the
parables that are legitimate, and not seek to stretch the boundaries of the
metaphor too far. In other words, we cannot over examine every jot and title of
a story looking for meanings and parallels in everything it says. This again is
where audience relevance comes in – for we cannot force a meaning or
understanding into the story that would have been totally alien to the original
audience.
People throughout the centuries have found
interpretations within the stories of Yeshua that have enforced their own views
and ideas, ideas like Marxism, Existentialism, etc. – but that would have been
totally foreign to anything Yeshua ever intended or thought to convey to his
audience.
So, in essence, I think Bailey put it best when
he summarized by saying:
Simply stated,
our task is to stand at the back of the audience around Jesus and listen to
what he is saying to them. Only through that discipline can we discover what he
is saying to any age, including our own.
Look with me please at Mat 13:10 where we are
told why Yeshua chose to speak in parables, or as the literal translation puts
it, similes:
Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in
parables?” And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets
of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who
has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who
has not, even what he has will be taken away.
This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not
see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their
case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:
‘You will indeed hear
but never understand,
and you will indeed see but
never perceive.
For this people’s heart has
grown dull,
and with their ears they can
barely hear,
and their eyes they have
closed,
lest they should see with
their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their
heart
and turn, and I would heal
them.’
But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear.
Truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you
see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it. (Matt
13:10-17 ESV)
So, we can see from Yeshua’s own words that he was intentionally
speaking in such a manner that made it more difficult to understand, because
the main target audience he came to speak to, were already pretty much blind
and deaf to the truth. And he was instead coming to those who were given the
ears to hear, that the plans of God would be fulfilled through them instead.
In the next part I will begin looking at the parable itself now that we have a basic background established.
Part 1 |
Part 2 |
Part 3 |
Part 4
, and it takes a look at the accusations that Christianity and its elements are simply a relabeling of pagan religions. This is a very fascinating section, since it is one of the root issues even today among Christians who oppose a celebration of Christmas for similar reasons; a group of which I was formerly a member of.