Introduction to the Parables of Jesus
Setting Some Context - The First Century Jewish Lens
In this lesson, we aim to provide an overview by asking some fundamental questions about the parables. As we explore them, it's important to think about how a first-century Jew would have understood these teachings. Our goal is to establish a solid foundation as we delve into the parables throughout the study of Jesus’ ministry.
Part of establishing a foundation for understanding parables through the lens of a first century Jew is to address some of the common points of confusion and the various ways the parables have been interpreted over the years. The parables are often seen as versatile, capable of supporting almost any perspective on Jesus and the New Testament. Because of this, there are more studies on the parables than on any other subject in the New Testament, as scholars frequently use them to justify their own interpretations. In modern academia, the parables are particularly used to support realized eschatology and to shift away from the traditional Jewish apocalyptic narrative. However, the key to understanding the parables is to read them within their historical context, specifically within the framework of Jewish apocalypticism.
When viewed in their historical context, the parables make much more sense, as they align with the assumptions that were already understood by a first-century Jewish audience—such as the concepts of the two ages, the Day of God, and Jewish eschatology. These elements provide the framework within which the parables find their true significance and meaning. While the parables aren’t solely about Jewish eschatology, this context is essential for interpreting them correctly.
Two key works that serve as foundational texts in seminaries are Craig Blomberg’s book on the parables and Klein Snodgrass’s Stories with Intent (not recommended reading here but serves as a point of discussion). Snodgrass emphasizes in his introduction that the goal of our interpretation should be to capture the intent of Jesus, the storyteller, with all the power and creativity of His teachings. Any other approach is a reinterpretation of Jesus’s parables. Throughout history, both the ancient church and modern Christians have often rewritten the parables to create new meanings that fit their own perspectives. Instead of following those paths, Snodgrass argues for seeking to understand the original intent of Jesus as it was heard by His contemporaries—His disciples and fellow Jews—who were steeped in Jewish apocalyptic ideas. However, it's unfortunate that many scholars conclude that the parables show Jesus reinterpreting these apocalyptic ideas, which leads to significant debates in the academic world.
There is a pattern that epitomizes much of evangelical scholarship in New Testament studies. Scholars frequently claim they are returning to the original context to understand how a first-century Jew would have heard these teachings. Yet, despite these intentions, they often end up diverging from that approach, each taking a different direction. This is evident even in the works of respected scholars like Klein Snodgrass and Craig Blomberg, where despite starting with the same premise, the end result tends to follow familiar patterns.
N.T. Wright is a good example of a scholar who stresses the importance of understanding the original context, especially the apocalyptic ideas that shaped Jewish thought at the time of Jesus. He talks a lot about how language and concepts are tied to this framework. However, by the time you finish his work, nothing significant has changed—he ends up reinforcing the same ideas that were already accepted, without challenging them or offering any new insights. It's as if everything is neatly packaged to fit the traditional views, leaving the original assumptions unchallenged.
This observation isn't meant to criticize these scholars harshly. The observation is simply trying to navigate this idea of Jewish context honestly, asking tough questions and exploring possibilities without the pressure of institutional constraints. As Christians, we're free to ask, "What if the original meaning wasn't redefined?" That's the spirit in which we can approach the scriptures.
Setting Some Context - Who is Jesus Talking To?
Let’s start by asking some fundamental questions. First, who is Jesus actually speaking to in the parables? Many evangelicals, and even some scholars and commentaries, often assume that Jesus is directly addressing believers or the church in these teachings. For instance, when reading a parable, someone might think, "Oh, this is about me; I’m the seed that falls on good ground."
But let’s consider the context. Some might initially feel that if we strictly interpret these teachings within their original context, they won't be relevant to modern disciples, especially Gentile believers. But that’s not true at all. Understanding the original context actually gives us a clearer, more honest understanding of what Jesus was saying.
So, when we emphasize being faithful to what Jesus said, to whom He was speaking, and how His words were received, we’re not downplaying the importance of following Jesus. In fact, we’re trying to clarify exactly what He’s calling His disciples to do. So, if Jesus isn’t talking directly to me, the church, or a generic believer in these parables, then who is He actually addressing?
Many people start with the wrong assumption, thinking that Jesus is speaking to His followers, when in reality, He is addressing His adversaries. The parables are not primarily about imparting new knowledge; rather, they serve as a subtle but pointed accusation toward those who refuse to believe. This is evident in Matthew 13, where the disciples ask Jesus why He speaks to the people in parables. Jesus responds in verse 11, saying, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them, it has not been given." Mark 4 adds, "to those outside." Jesus goes on to explain that "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."
So, while followers of Jesus can certainly gain insight from the parables, their primary purpose is to confront those who do not believe, those who are unrepentant and refuse to accept Jesus as the Messiah. The aim of the parables is to provoke repentance in the unrepentant. This purpose aligns with the history of parables in the Tanakh and Second Temple literature, where parables were used to call the calloused and unrepentant back to God.
When we talk about the "unbelievers" or "unrepentant adversaries" in this context, it's crucial to understand that during Jesus's lifetime, these terms referred to something specific. Jesus had a direct and urgent message for His generation in Israel, not just an eternal message for all people and all times. In some cases, He was warning of the impending destruction in AD 70; in others, He was announcing the coming Day of the Lord and the certainty of judgment. His teachings, like the Sermon on the Mount, were meant to urge that generation to reconsider their ways and to consecrate themselves to God.
When we refer to the "outsiders" or "unrepentant," we're not talking about atheistic Jews. Instead, we're referring to those who were unwilling to accept Jesus's apocalyptic message about the Kingdom of God.
During this period, various groups were forming—not just one, but multiple movements—similar to those described in John 3 and the Book of Acts with figures like Theudas and the Egyptian. These different factions sought to expedite God's redemption through diverse methods. Some were highly zealous, while others followed a more pietistic form of Judaism, believing that their righteousness and piety could hasten the Lord's day. This variety of ideas set the stage for Jesus's message.
Jesus's teachings often directly confront His contemporaries. When He shares parables, He is addressing a people who have become calloused or hardened. I particularly appreciate the term "calloused," as used by Mark Nanos in his interpretation of Romans 11. "Calloused" suggests a temporary hardening resulting from habitual behavior, rather than a permanent state.
Jesus is not merely speaking against Jews who do not believe in Him, reject His message, or insist on strict Torah obedience. Instead, He is addressing those who are specifically unwilling to hear the message He brings to their generation. These individuals are calloused and resistant to His teachings. Therefore, the parables carry an implicit critique of the delay of the kingdom's arrival and its implications for discipleship, challenging listeners to examine the depth of their commitment.
As we strive to understand whom Jesus is addressing, we must remember Jews were grappling with over 400 years without a Davidic king or prophets, struggling to comprehend how redemption would come. The writings of the Second Temple period reflect this tension, questioning the arrival of the Davidic Messiah and the Day of the Lord. Jesus's parables, therefore, speak directly to this context, urging His generation to recognize and respond to the impending redemption of Israel.
All these ideas were swirling in the minds of Jews in the first century when John the Baptist and Jesus appeared on the scene. Jesus's words echoed those of the prophets, which is why he asked, "Who do men say that I am?" Some thought He might be one of the prophets, John the Baptist, or even Jeremiah. We need to understand Jesus's teachings, parables, and preaching as part of this continuous prophetic tradition.
However, as we discussed earlier there’s a tendency to acknowledge the importance of viewing Jesus’s words in their original context but then to revert to the familiar interpretations that reimagine His teachings as a new, spiritualized version of Jewish apocalyptic eschatology.
Why Does Jesus Speak in Parables?
Now, let’s move on to Matthew 13:13, where Jesus explains why He speaks in parables. He says, "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." Here, Jesus quotes the well-known passage from Isaiah 6, explaining that His use of parables is intentional. But what does this mean?
To understand this, we need to recognize the development of parables within the prophetic tradition. Just as the prophets were sent repeatedly to Israel to address the nation’s waywardness and to call them back to covenant faithfulness, the parables serve a similar purpose. Isaiah 6, for instance, is a call to a people who claim to see but are spiritually blind, who profess to walk in the covenant but fail to live it out. The parables continue this tradition, aiming to bring people back to truth and righteousness.
John the Baptist’s ministry is a good parallel to this. Like the prophetic tradition, his message was clear and direct: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." He warned of the coming judgment with vivid imagery—"the axe is at the root of the trees" and "His winnowing fork is in His hand." The purpose of Jesus’s parables is the same as that of the prophets: to provoke repentance and a genuine response to God's call, not to redefine eschatology or spiritual concepts.
The parables, however, approach this purpose differently. While John the Baptist’s message was direct and confrontational, the parables deliver the truth in a more indirect, subtle way. This approach can sometimes be more effective, as it allows the message to penetrate deeper without immediate resistance. It’s akin to Emily Dickinson’s idea of telling the truth "but tell it slant," where the truth is more easily received when it approaches from an unexpected angle.
Ultimately, the parables are part of an intra-Jewish conversation, a movement of renewal within Judaism, rather than a broad criticism of Judaism as a whole. This is crucial to understand because, as we’ve seen, many interpretations mistakenly view Jesus’s parables as a critique of Judaism in general. Instead, they should be seen as part of a Jewish reformation or revival movement. Jesus’s teachings, therefore, speak directly into this context, rather than offering a sweeping condemnation of Judaism.
Judaism in the first century was far from ideal—there were many problems and conflicts, and it was quite a complex situation. However, there was a general consensus about the future and shared expectations within the Jewish community. The parables, as you mentioned, serve as an intra-Jewish critique, with Jesus aiming to inspire repentance and renewal. Much like John the Baptist, Jesus used parables to challenge the religious leaders of the time, particularly those who were unrepentant, prideful, and hypocritical.
For instance, in Matthew 23, Jesus condemns the religious leaders, calling them hypocrites and questioning who will save them from being sentenced to Gehenna. The parables work in a similar way—they expose pride and pretense rather than seeking to redefine overarching beliefs. In Matthew 21, when Jesus tells the parable of the vineyard and the tenants, the Pharisees recognize that He is speaking about them. This realization forces people to confront the fact that they may be on the wrong side of history, especially as it moves toward the Day of the Lord.
It's also important to remember that first-century Judaism was not monolithic—just as it is today, there was a wide variety of beliefs and practices among Jews at that time. A good example of this is provided by Josephus, who notes that by the time of the Temple's destruction, the Pharisees—despite being quite influential—numbered only about 4,000. This is a small fraction of the 1.2 million Jews estimated to have lived in the Roman Empire around AD 70.
So, when we read about the Pharisees, it's crucial not to equate them with all Jews of the time. Even within the Pharisee movement, there were competing factions and differing views. Our Christian upbringing might lead us to oversimplify, lumping everything into a "Jews bad, Christians good" dichotomy, but that's an inaccurate and unhelpful approach. The intense responses from Jesus, John, and others were directed at specific intra-Jewish issues, not simply because some Jews refused to renounce their Jewish identity. Understanding these nuances is essential as we move forward in our study.
So why did Jesus speak in parables? It wasn't to introduce some new kind of secret knowledge or Gnostic revelation, as later interpretations like the Gospel of Thomas might suggest. Instead, Jesus used parables to provoke a moral response, urging repentance from Jews who were not fully committed to the covenant. As we've discussed, and as John mentioned, the prophets spoke as a form of covenantal maintenance, reminding Israel of their responsibilities under the covenant made at Mount Sinai—to be a light and a blessing to the nations, a role dating back to Abraham. This foundational story remains the context in the Gospels.
Jesus, like John the Baptist, exposed the true condition of people's hearts, asking, "Are you committed to the covenant or not? Will you be faithful to what God has called you to do?" The parables were designed to bring about conviction and guide the Jewish people toward faithfulness to the covenant. Understanding this purpose helps us grasp what Jesus was trying to convey in His parables.
The key idea here is that the parables are grounded in a moral reality, not in secret knowledge. When we recognize that Jesus was speaking to the unrepentant, calling for a moral response rather than offering hidden revelations, we can begin to understand the parables as they were intended. Without this understanding, we risk missing their true meaning.
Two illustrations come to mind. First, in the prophets, especially the later ones, it's not as though the people had never heard about the coming Day of Vengeance and Justice—they had. But the prophet would come and declare, "The Day of the Lord is at hand; repent!" Those with soft hearts would realize, "Oh no, it's true—we're not living with integrity," and they would repent. The prophet's message, by reaffirming the certainty of the Day of the Lord and judgment, called the people back to righteousness. The same principle applies to the parables: they emphasize the coming kingdom and judgment, calling people to repentance. Those who are hardened or calloused resist the message and fail to respond.
The second illustration is the hypocrisy that had crept into some communities. While outwardly displaying piety, some were more interested in gaining a following, authority, or seats of honor. Jesus's parables were aimed at exposing this hypocrisy and calling people to genuine repentance and faithfulness to God.
What this is driving at is that a complacent approach to faith inevitably leads to a life of compromise and hypocrisy. This situation is quite similar to modern politics. For example, when politicians first enter office, especially in the past—say in the 70s or 80s—they often start with strong convictions and a genuine desire to make a difference. But after just one term, they find themselves caught up in the system, driven by the need to secure a paycheck and get reelected. This means keeping allies happy, securing nominations, and raising funds, which often leads to compromising their original values. The same kind of institutionalization can occur within religious authority structures.
In Jesus’s time, this institutionalization manifested in both leaders and followers. His parables, therefore, were designed to provoke a moral response—a call to repentance. The purpose of the parables was not to offer special revelations to those already following Him, which is a common but misguided interpretation. If you start with that assumption, you end up missing the true intent of the parables.
Fortunately, we don't have to make that mistake. As we continue reading in Matthew 13, we see that Jesus Himself connects the purpose of His parables to the tradition of parables in the Tanakh. This connection is crucial. In verses 34 and 35, it says, "All these things Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed, he said nothing to them without a parable. This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet: 'I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world.'" This passage directly references Psalm 78, showing that Jesus’s use of parables is deeply rooted in the prophetic tradition.
Matthew emphasizes this connection to underscore that Jesus’s parables are not just moral stories or new teachings, but a continuation of the prophetic call to Israel—calling them back to their covenant with God, as the prophets of the Tanakh did. Understanding this link between Jesus and the prophetic tradition is key to grasping the full significance of His parables.
A well-known example is Nathan’s parable to King David. When David was in an unrepentant state, Nathan told him the story of the poor man’s lamb, leading to the punchline, "You are that man." Nathan was not revealing anything new to David but was instead using the parable to evoke repentance by approaching the truth from a different angle, making it hit home more effectively.
Another example is found in Isaiah 5, with the parable of the fruitless vineyard, where God, through Isaiah, speaks about Israel’s unfaithfulness. Similarly, in Ezekiel, there are multiple instances of parables, such as the parable of the two eagles in Ezekiel 17, the lioness and her cubs in Ezekiel 19, and the boiling pot in Ezekiel 24. In total, Ezekiel contains about nine parables, all serving to communicate God’s message in a way that would resonate deeply and lead to a change in behavior.
These prophetic parables were not merely stories but divine messages intended to explain Israel’s fruitlessness and the consequences that would follow. Whether God was speaking directly through a prophet or using a vision as a parable, the goal was always the same: to achieve the desired response of repentance and transformation. This use of parables is deeply rooted in prophetic literature, showing the power of storytelling in bringing people back to righteousness.
Parables in Apocalyptic Literature
If the purpose of parables in prophetic literature is to provoke repentance and convey deep spiritual truths, it makes sense that we would find similar themes in apocalyptic literature. However, parables within Jewish apocalyptic literature often receive less attention in scholarly works, despite their prevalence. There is a significant overlap in apocalyptic literature where parables and visions are sometimes interchangeable—what one text may call a parable, another might refer to as a vision, and vice versa.
Take, for example, 4 Ezra. In chapter 4, there's the parable of the forest and the sea, where the forest and the sea attempt to conquer each other, but ultimately, they can't because of divine boundaries. This parable illustrates the depravity of the human heart and the limitations of human understanding regarding divine plans and redemptive history. It reveals to Ezra that history is progressing toward a climactic end, orchestrated by divine sovereignty.
In chapter 8 of the same text, there's another parable, this time about seeds, which has a strong connection to the New Testament parables. The angel tells Ezra that "the Most High made His world for the sake of many, but the world to come for the sake of few." The parable goes on to describe how a farmer sows many seeds, but not all will sprout, and even fewer will take root and thrive—an analogy for how many people exist, but only a few will be saved. This imagery directly parallels the parable of the sower, the wheat and the tares, and the farmer in Mark 4, where agricultural metaphors are used to depict the apocalyptic view of history moving towards an ultimate judgment.
The underlying presumption of these agricultural parables is an apocalyptic worldview, anticipating a final harvest at the end of time. If this apocalyptic perspective isn't recognized as a common understanding among the original hearers of the parables, then these parables risk being interpreted out of context, leading to non-Jewish, non-apocalyptic interpretations that miss their intended meaning.
Several parables have also been discovered in the Qumran texts, many of which repurpose themes and ideas from the prophetic parables. One notable example is found in Cave 4, known as 4Q302, often referred to as the Parable of the Bountiful Tree. This parable echoes a common motif seen in other parables. It tells the story of a tree that once produced excellent fruit for its owner, but suddenly stopped bearing good fruit. The parable then poses the question: should the owner not cut down the tree that is no longer fruitful? Should he allow it to waste the land? The message is clear, especially when we consider it in light of John the Baptist’s warning about the axe being laid to the root of the tree.
Qumran serves as an important resource because it reflects contemporary thought and the linguistic devices used during that time. Parables were a common way to communicate, and the recurring theme of fruitfulness and judgment—especially in the face of unfruitfulness or bad fruit—was prevalent.
Another significant aspect of Jewish apocalyptic literature is the overlap between parables and visions. Visions often functioned like parables from God. This is particularly evident in the Book of Enoch, specifically in the section known as the Book of Parables (chapters 37-71). First Enoch, which is divided into five books, wasn’t compiled into a single collection until later, but four of the five books have been found in Qumran. The Book of Parables, introduced in chapter 37, is structured around three parables.
Chapter 37 opens with, "The vision of wisdom that Enoch saw, the son of Jared...," setting the stage for the recounting of these parables to those on earth. Enoch describes the unique wisdom given to him by the Lord of Spirits, which had not been revealed before. He states that three parables were imparted to him, which he then shares with those who dwell on the earth. The first of these parables begins in chapter 38 and spans six chapters, describing visions of heavenly journeys and the final judgment.
The second parable begins in chapters 45 through 57, where Enoch has visions of the messianic figure, referred to as the Chosen One or the Righteous One, and the eschatological judgment of sinners along with the reward of the righteous. The third parable, spanning chapters 58 through 69, focuses on more generalized eschatological judgment and the resurrection of the righteous. While these parables lack the heavy use of metaphor or analogy found in other texts, they are still described as parables because they reveal future events and the conclusion of history through storytelling.
Later in 1 Enoch, this storytelling method continues with the "Animal Apocalypse," described as a dream vision. Here, different animals represent key figures and events in Israel’s history as it progresses toward its climax. Similarly, in 2 Baruch, there are parables such as the "Forest Apocalypse" and the "Cloud Apocalypse," which recount Israel’s history in metaphorical terms. In the New Testament, this might be expressed as “the kingdom of heaven is like light and dark clouds,” a metaphorical way of describing a sequence of events, echoing the same tradition.
In 4 Ezra, there are seven visions, each containing parables, such as the "Eagle Vision" in chapter 12, the "Man from the Sea" in chapter 13, and the "Distressed Woman" in chapter 10. These divine revelations are presented in a parabolic form, a common mode of communication and thought within the Jewish apocalyptic tradition.
When Jesus tells parables, such as the "Parable of the Wicked Tenants" in Matthew 21, He is drawing directly from this tradition. His audience would immediately recognize the connection to Isaiah 5, where God describes Israel as a vineyard He has tended, only to see it produce bad fruit. They would understand that Jesus is referencing the prophetic tradition, where God sent prophets to call Israel to repentance, but they were rejected. Now, in the same way, the unrepentant within Israel are rejecting the Son, the Messiah. Jesus’s parables, therefore, are firmly rooted within the Jewish apocalyptic tradition, aimed at bringing about repentance and renewal in that specific context.
It's crucial to understand that parables in the prophetic tradition, the Tanakh, and Second Temple literature all serve the same purpose.
Parables are not Secret Mysteries for a Select Few - A Closer Look at Matthew 13:11
As we approach the parables in the New Testament, particularly those of Jesus in the Gospels, keeping this context in mind is absolutely essential. As we conclude this lesson, there’s one more phrase in Matthew 13 that’s worth examining due to its frequent misinterpretation. In Matthew 13:11, Jesus says, "To you it has been given to know the secrets or the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them, it has not been given."
This phrase, "the secrets of the kingdom," is often interpreted through the lens of realized eschatology—the idea that Jesus was revealing a new, mystical knowledge that contrasted with the Jews' expectation of an earthly, Davidic king. This interpretation suggests that Jesus came to introduce a hidden, spiritual revelation that only a select few could understand. However, what did Jesus actually mean by "the secrets or mysteries of the kingdom"?
The Nag Hammadi texts, also known as the Nag Hammadi library, are a collection of early Christian and Gnostic manuscripts discovered in 1945 near the town of Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt. These texts, written in Coptic and dating from the 3rd and 4th centuries AD, include a variety of gospels, epistles, and philosophical treatises that reflect the diverse beliefs and practices of early Christian and Gnostic communities. The Nag Hammadi texts are significant because they provide insight into early Christian and Gnostic thought, including beliefs that were later deemed heretical by the orthodox Christian Church. These writings offer a different perspective on Christian theology, emphasizing mysticism, the inner spiritual journey, and the idea that salvation comes through secret knowledge (gnosis) rather than through faith alone.
Especially since the discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts, it’s puzzling that this Gnostic interpretation has become so prevalent. Many Gnostic texts rely heavily on the notion that Jesus came to reveal something that had been hidden from the Jews and misunderstood by all previous generations—something that finally unveils the true nature of God and the universe. This view implies that the Jewish understanding of the Tanakh was entirely misguided because the mystery had not yet been revealed.
However, that’s not what a mystery signifies, particularly within the prophetic and parabolic traditions. The "mystery" or "secret" refers to the divine plan for the administration of history, especially regarding eschatological or apocalyptic events. A clear example of this is found in Daniel 2, where Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar, "There is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and He has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will take place in the latter days" (Daniel 2:28).
Daniel further explains that this mystery was revealed not because of any special wisdom in him, but for the purpose of making known God’s plan for the last days. The mystery in Daniel 2 involves a vision of various empires and a stone cut out of a mountain that smashes a statue representing these kingdoms. This stone then grows into a mountain that fills the whole earth, symbolizing God's eternal kingdom, which will ultimately govern over all nations.
The revelation of this mystery wasn’t meant to seek agreement or consensus from Nebuchadnezzar—it was a call for repentance and humility. Similarly, when Jesus speaks of the "secrets of the kingdom," He is revealing how God plans to bring about redemption and administer the end times, not introducing a new, hidden knowledge for a select few. Understanding this is vital to correctly interpreting the parables and their significance within the broader Jewish apocalyptic tradition.
He's not saying, "If you would just get with the program, I could bring about redemption faster." Instead, God is giving these rulers an opportunity to repent by revealing how He alone will orchestrate the redemption of history and the cosmos at the end of the age. Through the revelation of this mystery, they are given a chance to turn to the God of Israel. This reminds me of when Jesus, in Mark and Luke, tells His disciples that He will send them out to speak to kings and rulers, not to speed things up, but as a testimony to them. The only time this really happened was when the disciples were on trial, facing death. But the point was that God cared enough about these wicked rulers to send His beloved disciples to testify to them, just as Nebuchadnezzar was given the chance to understand the mystery of what God would do on the last day and the opportunity to repent.
This approach is consistent with how Jesus used parables in the Gospels. He communicated these divine mysteries—how God would govern history—to the people of Israel, especially those who resisted this plan and sought alternatives. But it was the same mystery, the same context, not a new form of knowledge or gnosticism. Jesus was revealing the full picture of how God would manage history and what that meant. Many of the parables address the concept of delay, prompting a response in light of this delay.
This ties back to the late prophetic tradition, particularly in Daniel, where divine mysteries and secrets are always linked to eschatology within the Jewish tradition. This theme runs heavily through apocalyptic literature, such as the books of Enoch, Ezra, Baruch, and the Testaments. The secrets of God are consistently associated with the ultimate conclusion of Israel's history and the fulfillment of the covenant. So, when people of that time heard terms like "mysteries" or "secrets," they naturally thought of eschatology.
Jesus, however, emphasized the response to this eschatological revelation more than the apocalyptic literature did. Jesus’ parables put the reality of the end times front and center, demanding a response from His listeners. Without a clear indication that Jesus was redefining the narrative or changing the eschatology, it's historically inaccurate to assume that He was.
Unfortunately, parables were used in Gnostic literature. After the time of Jesus, parables were later used in Gnostic traditions as vehicles for secret knowledge. There is no evidence in the Gospels that Jesus was changing the traditional Jewish narrative. The "secrets" or "mysteries" of the kingdom that He spoke of were rooted in the established Jewish eschatological framework and demanded a response from His listeners.
However, throughout the history of the Church, particularly from the 3rd and 4th centuries onward, there was a shift where these parables began to be interpreted as redefining the Jewish narrative into a Greek or Roman eschatological framework. This new interpretation portrayed the Church as the militant arm of divine sovereignty, often under the leadership of the pope as the vicar of Christ. Such readings would have been entirely foreign to a first-century Jew but became dominant in later Christian theology.
This shift in interpretation can be traced back to influential figures like C.H. Dodd, the father of realized eschatology. Dodd’s book, The Parables of the Kingdom, is a key work in this tradition. In it, he argues that Jesus’s parables introduced a new understanding of the kingdom of God—one that had already arrived in a spiritual form, exemplified by the paradoxical events of the Messiah's suffering and death, which Dodd saw as the fulfillment of the prophetic and apocalyptic tradition. This interpretation has become foundational for much of modern Christian theology, which often views the kingdom of God as a present, spiritual reality rather than a future, physical one.
However, this approach deviates significantly from the Jewish eschatological tradition of the first century, which was grounded in the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings—the Tanakh—and further developed in Second Temple apocalyptic literature. Jesus and the apostles built upon this existing tradition rather than creating a new, spiritualized one. The Gospels do not provide any clear evidence of a redefined narrative; rather, they consistently align with the traditional Jewish understanding of eschatology.
In contrast, later Gnostic traditions explicitly redefined these Jewish concepts, clearly stating how they diverged from previous understandings. This kind of clear redefinition is absent in the New Testament. What we see in modern Christian thought, especially since Dodd, is the foundation of Christian eschatology being built on the reinterpretation of these parables, which is fundamentally different from the first-century Jewish foundation that relied on the Tanakh and the apocalyptic tradition.
Playing Soccer on a Tennis Court
The Jewish narrative, as found in the Bible, can be likened to playing soccer on a soccer field. There are established rules, a clear playing field, and specific positions that guide how the game is played. Everything operates within a well-defined framework. However, when the biblical narrative is reinterpreted or altered from its original Jewish context to something entirely different, it’s akin to trying to play soccer on a tennis court. The rules, boundaries, and objectives no longer align, making it difficult—if not impossible—to play the game as it was intended. The change in context creates confusion and forces the narrative into a framework it wasn’t designed for, distorting its original meaning and purpose.
This analogy highlights how essential it is to maintain the original context when interpreting the Bible. Just as soccer is meant to be played on a soccer field, the biblical narrative should be understood within its Jewish framework to fully grasp its message and intent.
Conclusion
As we wrap up this lesson, we hope this discussion has been enlightening. As you read each of Jesus’s parables from the Gospels, focus on their original context, who Jesus was speaking to, and the moral response they were meant to evoke. Next, we’ll explore the parable of the sower in Matthew 13. This parable is crucial because, as Mark 4:13 highlights, Jesus said, "Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?" This indicates the foundational importance of the parable of the sower for understanding the others. If it was essential for Jesus’s disciples to grasp this parable, it’s just as important for us today.
Key Take-Aways
To properly interpret the parables, it's essential to view them through the lens of a first-century Jewish audience. This means recognizing that the parables are deeply rooted in Jewish eschatology and prophetic traditions.
The parables were not meant to introduce new, secretive knowledge but to provoke a moral response, urging repentance and adherence to the covenant God made with Israel.
Over time, particularly from the 3rd and 4th centuries onward, the parables were often reinterpreted to fit Greek or Roman eschatological frameworks, deviating from their original Jewish context. This shift led to a misunderstanding of the parables as introducing a new, spiritualized reality rather than reinforcing the established Jewish narrative.
Influential scholars like C.H. Dodd have furthered the idea of realized eschatology, which suggests that Jesus’s parables redefined the kingdom of God as a present spiritual reality. However, this approach overlooks the consistent alignment of Jesus’s teachings with Jewish eschatology.
The parables served as a continuation of the prophetic tradition, meant to address the spiritual condition of the people, especially those resistant to Jesus’s message. They were designed to bring about repentance and renewal within the Jewish community, not to establish a new doctrine.
By keeping the original Jewish context in mind, we can better understand the parables' significance and avoid misinterpretations that lead to a distorted view of Jesus’s teachings.
Altering the biblical narrative from its Jewish roots to a different context is like trying to play soccer on a tennis court—the rules and objectives no longer fit, leading to confusion and misalignment with the original intent.
It’s crucial to maintain the original context to fully grasp the message and purpose of the biblical narrative, just as soccer must be played on a soccer field to be understood correctly.