Craig L. Blomberg, in his Preaching the Parables, wrote: “Preaching a parable is a novice preacher’s dream, but often an experienced preacher’s nightmare .... At first glance, the parables appear familiar and straightforward, but thoughtful students soon realize they have fallen into a quagmire of interpretive debates.”[1]
Warren Wiersbe gave this advice in studying parables: “Because you find different kinds of literature in the Bible, it is important to know how to deal with each kind [genre].”[2]
Robert Stein, in his book entitled: A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible: Playing by the Rules (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1994; 75-76). I want to read a passage of this book for you and as I do, think particularly of the subtitle of the book "Playing by the Rules". Stein writes: "Think for a moment of a European soccer fan attending his first American football and basketball games. In football the offensive and defensive players can use their hands to push their opponents. In basketball and soccer, they cannot. In basketball players cannot kick the ball, but they can hold it with their hands. In soccer the reverse is true. In football everyone can hold the ball with his hands but only one person can kick it. In soccer everyone can kick the ball but only one person can hold it. Unless we understand the rules under which the game is played, what is taking place is bound to be confusing. In a similar way, there are different 'game' rules involved in the interpretation of the different kinds of biblical literature. The author has played his game, that is, has sought to convey his meaning under the rules covering the particular literary form he has used. Unless we know those rules, we will almost certainly misinterpret his meaning."[3]
There are different kinds or genres of Scripture with their own set of unique characteristics: Narratives have scenes, Psalms have stanzas, and the Epistles have paragraphs. In narratives, you have heroes and villains, plots, problems, and solutions, but not in Psalms and Proverbs.
There is a debate among biblical scholars over whether parables are allegories or not. This debate affects how you interpret the parables.
1. Some contend that parables should be allegorically interpreted.
There are allegories in Scripture. Paul refers to an “allegory” in Galatians 4:24 to show the difference between salvation by grace and salvation by works of the law advocated by the Judaizers who were invading the Galatian churches, he had just started. Hagar is the bond woman who symbolizes the law and its spiritual slavery. Ishmael her son was born naturally, just like every sinner. Hagar and Ishmael are Judaism in this allegory. Sarah is the free woman and symbolizes the liberty of salvation by grace. Her son Isaac was supernaturally born because God promised his birth. Believers are not just naturally born but supernaturally born again. Sarah and Isaac represent Christianity in this allegory.
The details in an allegory are important, yet Paul did not deny the historicity of Abraham, Hagar, Ishmael, Sarah, and Isaac. Paul used them to illustrate the difference between salvation by works and salvation by grace through faith in Christ. There is a difference between a parable being an allegory and allegorically interpreting a parable.
Origen, for example, in Homily 34 converted the metaphor of an allegory into a method of hermeneutics. Origen allegorized the parable of the good Samaritan and unlike Paul made every detail important and unrelated to any historical precedent.
One of the elders wanted to interpret the parable as follows. The man who was going down is Adam. Jerusalem is paradise, and Jericho is the world. The robbers are hostile powers. The priest is the Law, the Levite is the prophets, and the Samaritan is Christ. The wounds are disobedience; the beast is .... the Church. And further, the two denarrii mean the Father and the Son. The manager of the stable is the head of the Church, to whom its care has been entrusted. And the fact that the Samaritan promises he will return represents the Savior’s second coming. All of this has been said reasonably and beautifully.
Dr. Robert Stein gives a history of theologians in Hermeneutics for Parables (click to open). who allegorized the parable of the good Samaritan: Marcion, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Saint Augustine, John Cassian, Thomas Aquinas, Luther, and R.C. Trench.
Another example is Tertullian’s allegorical interpretation of the parable of the prodigal son. According to Tertullian, the older son, the Jew, is jealous of salvation being offered to the Gentiles, the younger son, the Christian, the father is God, the inheritance squandered, the natural human ability to know God, the citizen in the far country, the devils, the swine are the demons, the robe represents original righteousness lost by Adam, the ring represents Christian baptism, and the fatted calf represents the Saviour present at the Lord’s supper.[4]
Some parables are biblical allegories that have figurative meanings, which are identified, such as, in the parable of the sower. In these parables, the sky is not the limit, with every detail meaning whatever the preacher imagines. The seed is identified as symbolizing “the word of the kingdom” (Mt 13:4 and 19). In the parable of the wicked tenants in Matthew 21:33-46, Jesus refers to Isaiah’s parable of the vineyard in Isaiah 5:1-7. Jesus in Matthew 21:33 almost quotes verbatim Isaiah 5:1 and identifies the owner of the vineyard as God. In both parables, Israel, as depicted in the Old Testament and the New Testament, rebelled against God. It is obvious that in this allegory, the owner is God, the vineyard is Israel, the servants sent are prophets rejected by Israel, and the son slain is Christ. This interpretation is far from allegorizing each detail.
2. Others distinguish parables from allegories. These scholars argue that each parable has only one meaning.
Adolf Jülicher, in 1899, in his "The Parable Talks of Jesus," taught that parables tend to have one basic point of comparison, and the details are merely there to make the story interesting. Jesus preached a very short parable of the hidden treasure: "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which someone found and covered up; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field" (Mt 13:45). The one main truth is: The kingdom of God is the greatest treasure you can have.
Alan Cole advised: “A good general rule of interpretation is to remember that a parable is normally designed to convey one central truth only. We should therefore not try to find a spiritual meaning in every fine point, recognizing that some details are only the ‘background’ of the parable. Otherwise, it would become an allegory, not a parable, and allegory has little place in the New Testament, and none at all in the teaching of Jesus.[5]
Dwight Pentecost taught that parables are not allegories and teach one main truth.
In an allegory, in contrast to a parable, a story is constructed that is not based on reality .... This requires the interpreter of an allegory to be concerned with every detail. In contrast, a parable is designed to teach one essential truth; the details of a parable may be merely incidental. Let us note that the Lord Jesus Christ did not use allegories as figures to transfer truth.[6]
Jesus preached the parable of the ten virgins (Mt 25:1) in the setting of the coming of Christ. The one main point: Be ready for the Coming of Christ.
3. Some scholars teach that each main character in a parable provides a meaning.
Therefore, there can be multiple meanings, not just one main truth, but not every detail should be allegorized. Craig L. Blomberg, for example, taught: “I argued that Jesus’ parables made one main point per main character.”[7] “My own thinking on interpreting the parables with one main point per main character began with the prodigal son.”[8]
Blomberg argues that parables are allegories.
The main character (and often only the main character) in Jesus’ parables does ‘stand for something.’ They have symbolic referents in the spiritual realm. This is part of what the term ‘allegory’ has regularly meant. If it seems too misleading to call the parables allegorical, and to safeguard against the overly elaborate and anachronistic allegorizing of other eras, we may label them ‘symbolic’ instead. Either way, it is not wrong to see, for example, in the father of the two sons an image of God, to view the prodigal symbolic of all wayward sinners in need of repentance (including the tax collectors and prostitutes, most notoriously, in Jesus’ world), and to regard the older brother as representing those who think they are God’s followers yet who respond with envy when he lavishes grace on the most obviously undeserving (including many Pharisees in Jesus’ world). Other elements in a passage should not be given symbolic significance unless clear textual indicators point in that direction.[9]
Luke informs us in Luke 15:1 that “the tax collectors and sinners” came to hear Jesus. In Luke 15:2, “the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, ‘This man receives sinners and eats with them.’” Obviously, the prodigal in Luke 15:11-19 symbolized “the tax collectors and sinners.” The self-righteous older son in Luke 15:25-32 symbolized “the Pharisees and scribes.’ Based on Bloomberg’s view, a sermon outline could reflect each main character:
I. The Rebellious Sinner in 15:11-19
II. The Loving Father in 15:20-24
III. The Religious Sinner in 15:25-32
4. Then, some contenders see one main point to a parable, but the characters supply the main divisions.
In my opinion, this is the preferable of the four views. Craig Blomberg refers to one of his colleagues, Professor Elodie Emig, who “once suggested to me a remarkably concise big idea that incorporates all three lessons of the similarly structured parable of the two sons in Matthew 21:28-32. In this parable in which a son who refuses to work in his father’s vineyard later changes his mind and goes to the vineyard, in which a son who says he will work in fact doesn’t, and in which the father pronounces the former rather that the latter as having done his will, the three prongs of the passage can be neatly summed up with the affirmation, “Performance takes priority over promise.”[10]
Parables with three main characters
Many scholars see one parable in Luke 15 because in 15:3, Luke wrote, “He spoke this parable [singular] unto them.” The one big idea or main point of the sermon could be: Sinners must respond to the Father who seeks their salvation.
The three main divisions could be drawn from each main character and answer the interrogative Why must sinners respond to the Father who seeks their salvation?
I. Because God sovereignly seeks sinners who go astray (15:4-7) (Parable of the lost sheep)
II. Because God sovereignly seeks sinners who are valuable (15:8-10) (Parable of the lost coin)
III. Because humans have responsibility (15:11-32) (Parable of the lost son)
In the first two parables, God seeks. In the last parable, the father, who symbolizes the Father, does not seek but welcomes the returning sinner. The sub-points of the third main division could be:
A. The rebellious sinner repents (15:11-19)
B. The loving Father welcomes the repentant sinner (15:20-22)
C. The religious sinner does not repent (15:23-32)
Craig Blomberg notes that “approximately two-thirds of Jesus’ narrative parables presented three main characters or groups of characters in a triangular (or what some have called ‘monarchic’) structure, with a master figure (including kings, fathers, landlords, shepherds, farmers, etc.) interacting with one or more contrasting pairs of subordinates (good and bad servants, sons, tenants, sheep, plants, etc.). One thinks, for example, of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32).”[11] We have already demonstrated how these parables with three main characters could be outlined with the parable of the prodigal son above.
Parables with two main characters
Blomberg states that “The remaining one-third of Jesus’ parables seemed relatively evenly split between two-point and one-point parables. In the former category were those that presented a master and a single subordinate (e.g., the unjust judge in Luke 18:1-8), as well as those that contrasted a good and a bad example but without an explicit master figure (e.g., the Pharisee and tax collector in Luke 18:9-14).[12] The big idea for the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector could be: Sinners must be justified. The interrogative: Why must sinners be justified? The transitional sentence: Because of the following reasons.
I. Because sinners not justified will be humbled (Luke 18:9-12)
II. Because sinners justified will be exalted (Luke 18:13-14)
Parables with one main character
In the latter category of one-point parables were stories that had only one character (e.g., The hidden treasure and the pearl of great price in Matt. 13:44-46). The parables of the hidden treasure and the pearl of great price could be preached in a two-part series. Those who are not seeking but find salvation in the hidden treasure parable. Those who are seeking and find salvation in the parable of the pearl of great price. Alternatively, these could be combined into one sermon.
The main point being: How do sinners find salvation?
Some find salvation who are not seeking (The parable of the hidden treasure)
Others find salvation who are seeking (The parable of the pearl of great price) (because God has first sought them through the gospel and conviction of the Holy Spirit).
Parables with no main character
The main point of the sermon on the parable of the Drag-net could be: Believers and sinners must prepare for the coming judgment. The interrogative: How and Why must believers and sinners prepare for the coming judgment?
I. Believers must prepare for the coming judgment by giving out the gospel (Matthew 13:47)
II. The sinners must prepare for the coming judgment because God will cast the unsaved into the Lake of Fire (Matthew 13:48-50).
John R. W. Stott famously said, “Emotionally, I find the concept [of hell] intolerable and do not understand how people can live with it without either cauterising their feelings or cracking under the strain.”[13] This thinking led him to become an annihilationist. Contrast that with what John Piper wrote, “Jesus said more on Hell than any other person in the Bible” (click to open). Some make the argument of disproportionality or the punishment does not fit the crime. The sinner’s temporal, finite sin on earth does deserve eternal punishment in Hell. This reasoning does not comprehend the magnitude of our rebellious sin against our holy God. When we sin, it is not just against a fellow equally sinful human. David committed adultery, then murdered, and finally covered his sin for nine months. Yet, when he confessed his sin in Psalm 51:4, he lamented: “Against you and you only have I sinned.” It is as if David considered his sin against God so egregious that his sins against Bathsheba, Uriah, and Israel were insignificant. We tell a white lie, and in Heaven it is published: Scandal.
Sinners are not simply rejecting a free giveaway on Facebook at a comment-based giveaway; Sinners are repudiating the offer of eternal life purchased by God the Father with the life of His beloved Son, who suffered our eternal wrath on the cross. If the doctrine of hell bothers you, then flee to the cross and trust Christ as your Savior and be eternally free.
I thank God that the evening I got saved, Evangelist Bill Stafford preached 45 minutes on Hell.
Haddon Robinson stated, “Part of exegesis is to recognize that the form of literature ought to have some influence on the form of the sermon.”[14] The adage is especially applicable for parables: Allow the form of the passage to affect the form of the sermon.
[1] Craig L. Blomberg, Preaching the Parables: From Responsible Interpretation to Powerful Proclamation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 13.
[2] Warren W. Wiersbe, Meet Yourself in the Parables (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1979), 14.
[3] Robert Stein, A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible: Playing by the Rules (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994; 75-76).
[4] Tertullian, On Modesty, chapter eight.
[5] Alan R. Cole on Mark in TNTC in Logos.
[6] Dwight Pentecost, The Parables of Jesus, 13-14.
[7] Craig L. Blomberg, Preaching the Parables: From Responsible Interpretation to Powerful Proclamation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 15.
[8] Ibid., 25.
[9] Ibid., 24.
[10] Ibid., 22.
[11] Ibid., 15.
[12] Ibid., 15.
[13] David L. Edwards and John Stott: Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1988), 313.
[14] Haddon Roberson, “How the Text Can Style the Sermon” in Preaching Today.