Interpretation of Parables

Parables are a near universal figure of speech used by most nations. They appear especially prominent in the East and are used both in the Old and New Testaments. While some proverbs, types, and symbols are sometimes called parables in Scripture (Luke 4:23; Hebrews 9:9) the biblical parable is a unique figure of speech in a class of its own. The parable shares the elements of simile, but differs from it in that a parable is limited to that which is real. Parables are not like fables which make use of trees taking council but represents by its narrative that which is true to the facts and experiences of real life. While parables may be an enigma or riddle to the minds of many, they are not designed to be such. When properly understood, the parable’s purpose is to unveil the mysteries of the kingdom of God. Parables also can be compared to allegories, but here an allegory is an extended metaphor with its interpretation contained within itself, a parable requires the interpreter to move beyond the narrative to discover its meaning. Thus, the parable, as especially seen used by the Lord Jesus Christ, may contain the elements of enigma, type, symbol, and allegory yet differs from them all by operating in the tangible world of men.

The use of parables is not lost to the ancient or modern world. Like other figurative speech they serve to teach truth and mysteries with vivid and absorbing forms. This type of speech is seen to impress the memory that straight didactic teaching or rebukes cannot. The purpose of Jesus’ parables do not need to be guessed at. The disciples of Jesus asking Him plainly why He spoke to the people in parables to which He answered, “Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.” Matt. 10:11 From this we can immediately perceive the Lord’s design in speaking in parables to both conceal, and at the same time, reveal, the great truths of the kingdom. It is evident from Scripture that parables test the character of hearer. Those who hear and persevere to apply themselves to discover the meaning while have what they seek for. But those who hear and do not apply themselves or are lazy in their pursuit to uncover the meaning will have nothing.

It helpful when interpreting parables to understand the three common elements to them: the occasion and scope, the similitude to the real narrative, and the moral and religious lessons. The Lord has given us two examples of interpreting parables that is extremely useful. It is not denied that some parables are difficult to explain, but this is exception and not the norm. In fact, employing three basic principles of hermeneutics while serve greatly to discover the meaning. When interpreting any parable, we should first take notice of the historical circumstance and aim of the parable. We should also observe the things used as imagery and similitude to be accurate regarding the subject. Finally, the interpreter must gain a sense of the general scope and design of the whole parable to illuminate the central truth that is being taught. The several parts should be understood in relation to the whole.

The parable of the sower, being interpreted by the Lord Himself, as a sure guide and example, are seen the aforementioned principles. What was the historical occasion of the parable of sower in Matthew 13? Sitting in a boat by the sea a great multitude had come out to hear Him. Jesus then begins to speak to them a parable consisting of a sower who sows seed, all the while preaching the word of the kingdom to them as the true Sower. Throughout the parable the Lord laid meaning to the various parts as to the soil in which the seed fell and how the seed was received in each kind. Each kind part is explained by the Lord to His disciples culminating in the central truth of the parable, “Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.” v.9

We can compare this parable with that of the wheat and tares spoken seeing the same historical occasion, but carrying a different focus. It would be improper to automatically assume that this parable is picking up where the other left off. Rather, while the imagery is similar, taking notice of the various parts, new imagery is introduced. While there may be said to be a connection between the two and the rest in Matthew 13, we should be careful to interpret each according to the general truth being taught by each parable. Furthermore, caution should be exercised not to go too far in our interpretation of the parts. The Lord ascribed meaning in the parable of the wheat and tares to the sower, the field, the good seed, the tares, the enemy, the harvest, and the reapers. But He did not take notice of the men who slept or the servants of the householder, for example, when He explained the meaning to His disciples. By taking notice of what the Lord emphasizes and what He does not we can guard ourselves from fanciful interpretation of the various parts of a parable that may simply be incidental to fill in the story, and not related to the general scope and design of the whole. This is not to suggest that no meaning at can be gleaned from the parts not given particular meaning, but that we ought to exercise caution.

The three hermeneutical principles mentioned should not be taken rigidly and applied with mathematical precision in every parable. They are general principles to be used in interpretation. The examples we have of the Lord’s interpretation show that most details of a parable have meaning. By careful study and comparison of all the parables we can with confidence understand their meaning and uncover the truths they hold for the learned disciple. Any false interpretation may be noticed from the disharmony it presents to the various parts and the force needed to make such an interpretation stand. As seen in the Lord’s explanation of the sower and the wheat and the tares, there is unity both in the general scope and idea of the parable as well as the parts.

A variety of interpretations have been applied to the parable of the workers and vineyard found in Matthew’s gospel. Some have placed the emphasis on the amount of money the landowner gave to the workers. Others, such as Origen, held that the different hours in which the workers are hired and sent are different epochs of human history. By carefully applying the aforementioned principles we can avoid such varied interpretations. We first take notice that the historical occasion and scope of the parable is found in Matthew 19 in Jesus’ encounter with the young rich man. Jesus told the young man that he must sell all his possessions if he would have treasure in heaven, upon which he went away sorrowful. Jesus then declared to his disciples the great difficulty of the rich to enter the kingdom of God. Upon hearing this Peter said to Jesus, “See, we have left all and followed you. Therefore what shall we have?” He was asking the Lord, since such a promise was offered to the rich man who refused what their treasure would be in heaven. The parable of the workers in the vineyard follows this interchange. The historical occasion which preceded this parable to Jesus’ disciples helps us understand that the scope of the parable is directed to them. While Peter’s question did not receive a rebuke, but an answer, the parable shows that it was necessary to address the spirit in which the question was asked. It may be understood that the disciples are those who are first hired. The central idea of the parable is made clear by recognizing the historical occasion as addressing the motives and attitudes of the different workers. Jesus is admonishing the twelve by this parable not to think to themselves that because they were the first to leave all things and follow Him, that somehow this should afford them a greater honor and recompense than others whom the landowner would hire into His service. By making this clear analysis of the subject matter we can avoid interpretations that make prominent that which is irrelevant to the central idea. Lengthy expositions as to the money paid or who exactly the landowner is serves to distract from the real subject at hand. Now that we do have the central idea and general scope of the parable, we can examine and interpret the several parts. It may be justly noted that the first workers agreed to their wages before going into the vineyard while the last went to their work without regard of payment but only on the promise of “whatever is right you will receive.” Milton Terry rightly summarizes this point, “That is not the noblest spirit which asks, What shall I have? It is better to ask, What shall I do? He who follows Christ, and makes all manner of sacrifices for his sake, confidence that it will be well, is nobler than he who lingers to make a bargain.” P.296-297