Study of the Parables – Baptist Education

Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth.

Among the students of the Bible nearly all have different views, opinions, interpretations, or applications of the parables. While many authors agree on certain points in their interpretations, they are more often in contradiction. Because of the existing contradictory nature of the general study of the parables, confusion, rather than clarity, ensues. Thus the student of the parables is usually left with the option of arbitrarily choosing the author or interpretation which appeals to him the most, and accepting that view. This is not the way to study or rightly divide the Word of Truth.

By applying arbitrary meanings, a person is simply assigning a meaning to the scriptures in harmony with his notions. Many use the parables to support preconceived ideas and theology. Often parables are used as a “proof text” when no other text will do, or for that matter, can be found. If we are to know and understand the truth, then we must allow the truth to teach us. Error comes from reading into the Word (forcing it) rather than learning from the Word. To understand the parables a valid model of interpretation must be determined and applied.

With the exception of a few rare authors, all resort to the practice of allegorizing the parables. But here is the problem with the allegorical method of interpretation. If allegories are not explained or easily understood, then how can we know with certainty what they represent? Consider this point, when a person uses an allegory, it is only in his mind as to what he means by it. Unless that person explains it or gives evidence as to what the meaning is, we can only guess what is represented. If Jesus used unexplained allegories in His parables, how can we know with any certainty what was in His mind, what He meant by them? We cannot know unless we receive divine revelation explicitly explaining them. Otherwise, we are left to guessing.

So, is the use of allegorizing the components of the parables a valid method to interpret them? Or should only the literal meaning be applied? If we resort to allegorizing, then we are open to all kinds of problems of explanation. Countless times allegorizations eventually conclude in contradicting the cardinal truths of the Bible. Also, they are often contradictory within the context of the same parable.* Those who realize this problem resort to inconsistencies. That is, they say the allegory is not consistent everywhere or cannot be applied literally in all points of the parable story. They imply that parable stories themselves are inconsistent. For example, a popular interpretation of the parable of the Treasure Hid in the Field, Some say the treasure is salvation, others say that it is the aggregate of all who will be saved, still others say that it is Jesus Christ. These contradict Biblical truth, can salvation be bought? Rather than admit that the allegories are wrong, almost all either ignore the conclusion or they make the meaning inconsistent and resort to “explaining away” the problem. Here is a quote by Alfred Edersheim, a very well-known and respected author in his interpretation of the Parable of the Ten Virgins: “And here we must remind ourselves of the general cannon (law), which, in the interpretation of a Parable, details must not be too closely pressed.”** There is no such law, except in the minds of those who insist in the use of allegorizing.

*This will be illustrated when the Parable of the Leaven is examined.
** Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah, Part 2, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973), Page 455.

The best valid model of interpretation of the parables is not to allegorize any of the elements of their stories. When the prodigal son is mentioned, he just that, and only that – a wasteful son. He represents no one, he stands in place for no others, his actions are his own, his character has no double meaning, and he is not a “type” signifying an example of any group.

Once this practice of allegorizing is cast aside, it becomes amazingly simple to understand the truths of the parables. They really are very simple stories, without any hidden, secret code or meaning.

The Audience

This is a point that is often lightly treated or misapplied. Great consideration must be given to those who heard these parables when they were first spoken. Why? It is because parables were given to teach particular audiences in particular circumstances. Nearly every parable was a response to a specific situation encountered by Christ. This is contrary to the popular view that what Jesus said was primarily for us today, our understanding, and not for the original hearers, or their edification. As it was defined, parables are meant to teach! They were intended to bring men to the understanding of truths concerning the Kingdom of God. The original audience, hearers of the parables, had a limited understanding of many things which are well known by us who now have the completed New Testament. We must ask exactly how much knowledge would they have had of the Church, the New Covenant, the new Priesthood, the new form of worship, and new system of commandments and ordinances? They knew of the Temple and the Synagogue, but these were very different from the church which Jesus was building. Would they have understood things of which they had no knowledge? The preferred approach is to assume that Christ spoke to them on their level and not beyond them. When an interpretation is assigned, the question needs to be asked, would they have understood this meaning? If they almost certainly did not, then the interpretation is probably not valid. Remember, Christ was teaching them, and we now learn from their lessons. So we must put ourselves in their position, at their level of understanding, knowledge, and circumstances. This is a consistent principle of hermeneutics (the study of biblical interpretation).

Our valid model of interpretation should include the two questions: What did they know? What didn’t they know? The best assumption is that Christ was revealing (teaching) to them truths of the Kingdom of God that they could understand and needed to understand.

Features of Parables

Within each parable there is usually a point of exaggeration. It may not be readily apparent to us unless we are familiar with the customs or culture of the people. As an example, consider the growth of the mustard seed into a tree. Mustard is an herb and would have grown into a bush, not a tree. Also the woman with three measures of meal, that amount of batter would have made enough bread to feed a hundred people. Whereas, it was the custom for the wife or maidservant to make only the required amount of bread that would have been eaten by the household that day. These are just two; there are many more. Why did Jesus include these exaggerations or overstatements? Exaggerations or unexpected events in the stories would immediately capture the attention and interest of those people, drawing their minds to what He was saying. Exaggerations, in no way, made the story unrealistic, but remarkable. Roy Zuck observed, “Exaggerations, hyperboles, reversals, and atypical circumstances increase the impact of many of the parables.”

While many truths are expressed in the parables, the prudent approach is to look for that primary truth being taught. If there is more than one emphasized truth present in the lesson, it should be apparent. In other words, we should not make too much out of a parable. This can result in confusion and obscuring the whole point Jesus is making. The key is to keep it simple. If an interpretation is complicated, it is most likely too involved. There will be one central truth being taught or focused in every parable. If there are other points of truths, they are usually in consequence and secondary to the central lesson. They are not meant to detract but to augment the subject truth. Some have called these and other non-critical elements of the parables “tapestry,” used to adorn and enrich the story. They make the parable all the more memorable.

Summary of the Rules

Take the words, elements, and characters literally. Do not allegorize!
Understand the parable in the same way the original hearers would have.
Have a good knowledge of the customs of the people, the region, and the country. i.e. Research.
Research also the language; make sure you know what is being said grammatically and the meaning and application of the words (as best you are able).
Question, test, and prove all interpretations; they must harmonize with the entire word of God, and they must make sense. Other scriptures will support the correct meaning of the parables.
Beware of the practices of using parables as “proof text” for points of theology and practices which are otherwise obscure in scripture.
Be consistent. Truth is consistent. If an assertion is made on a meaning, then that meaning must hold consistent in all places.
Do not accept any contradictions within the parable itself or against the unity of the Word of God in its entirety.

A Case Study of a Parable
A study of the Parable of the Leaven.

Matthew 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

There are six points in the parable: the woman, the leaven, the meal, the action of the woman adding the leaven, the action of the leaven on the meal, and the time for the leaven to work. There is nothing remarkable about any of these points with the exception of the enormous amount of meal being used. This exaggerated amount would have caught the immediate attention of anyone in the audience who was familiar with bread making.

Allegorical Interpretations

The two universal interpretations I have found of this parable are in exact opposition to each other. One view is that the leaven is a good thing—the kingdom of God or the Church—and the meal is the world. The second view is that the leaven is evil, and the meal is the kingdom of God or the church.

In one view, the leaven is good (the kingdom of God, the church universal, Christendom, the gospel, etc.). It has been inserted into the world and will eventually, secretly, silently spread until the world becomes converted.

The second view takes the opposite position—that the leaven is evil, and it is inserted into the kingdom of God, or the church, causing it to become entirely as the leaven—evil.

(With this last view, much is said in commentaries about the woman and how wicked she is. Several examples of evil women in the Bible are made as a comparison to her. They make her to be like Jezebel, Ahab’s wife, and the woman in the church of Thyatira (Revelation 2:20–23). These two women seduced God’s people to fornication and idol worship. Some say this woman is equated to the great whore of Revelation chapter 17, suggested to be the Roman Catholic Church. Thus the act of her inserting leaven is evil and treacherous.)

Those who hold this second view believe leaven is absolutely, consistently used as a type of evil throughout the Scriptures. So the leaven hid in the meal was an evil, corrupting agent. The meal represents the kingdom of God and/or the church. The conclusion of this interpretation is that some evil source has secretly introduced diabolical wickedness and defilement into the kingdom of God or his church. Once the evil was planted, its effects were thorough, irreversible, and complete.

Careful consideration must be given to what is being presented in both of these views. They both agree that whatever the meal was originally, it became of the same nature or substance as the leaven. The leaven, once placed, would continue to spread until all was leavened. So if the leaven was good, i.e., the kingdom of God, then the entire world would become as the kingdom of God. But this is contrary to the prophesied world conditions preceding the return of Christ to earth and also the conditions at the end of the millennium. The world is said to wax worse and worse in its spiritual state (2 Timothy 3:1, 13). If the leaven were evil and the meal was the kingdom of God or church, then the entire kingdom of God or church would eventually become evil. Remember, there is no separation in the mass of dough. It is not partially leaven and partially unleavened; the whole becomes leavened. So this view is forced to conclude that all that is godly becomes evil (till the whole was leavened). Neither one of these explanations is acceptable; neither holds true or is consistent with the collective Word of God, therefore, both must be rejected.

The Interpretation

If we consider the story without allegorizing any of the elements (the woman, the leaven, or the meal), we avoid all the pitfalls of misunderstanding the parable. Let the woman just be a woman, the leaven is only leaven, and the meal is simply meal. Allow them to stand for themselves, without any hidden or double meaning. They don’t represent anything else; they are what they are and nothing more.

So what does that leave us? There is a small word that is almost always ignored or is passed over with little consideration by nearly every commentator; it is the word till. Till signifies the passage of time. The kingdom of God is likened to the fact that just as leaven needs and takes time to work the whole meal, so the kingdom of God also takes time to come to its completion in the work that it must and will accomplish.

The subject is not what the kingdom of God will do, but rather the time it takes before it comes into its greatness. The parable of the mustard seed taught the ultimate greatness of the kingdom of God in the world, and this parable teaches that it will not be immediate but sometime in the future. For an observation, the extra large amount of meal takes an extended amount of time, longer than was required for the usual amount of dough prepared for a household. This may be signifying that an extensive amount of time will pass until the kingdom of God is visibly established on earth. In retrospect, we know this to be true.

Return Home