Ep. 33: Parables

CLICK HERE for the corresponding devotional in Yeshua Adored

MATTHEW 13:1-52, MARK 4:1-34, LUKE 8:4-18

We are once more with Jesus and his disciples by the Lake of Galilee. It is later in winter, perhaps a few weeks before Passover. Jesus had left the house with his disciples and so many people had come to hear him that he had to address them from a boat.

Now he spoke to them many things in parables, the first of three such occasions. It was a time, as we saw earlier, of early opposition by the Pharisees that was based on his supposed demonic connections. This first series of parables were spoken to demonstrate the elementary truths concerning the planting of the Kingdom of God, its development, reality, and value.

There is an internal connection between the parables and the various stages of the life of Jesus. One thing is common to all of them and forms a point of connection between them. They are all sparked off by some lack of response on the part of the hearers, even when the hearers are professing disciples.

This seems indicated in the reason given to his disciples for his use of such teaching; that to them it was ‘given to know the mystery of the Kingdom of God, but to the others, all these things are done in parables.’

Let’s examine the word parable. The verb from which it is derived means ‘to project’ and the term itself concerns the placing of one thing by the side of another. Perhaps no other mode of teaching was so common among the Jews as that by parables. Usually, they were almost entirely illustrations of what had been said or taught while, in the case of Jesus, they served as the foundation for his teaching. In them, the light of earth was cast heavenwards and that of heaven earthwards. With Jesus, they were to convey spiritual teaching in a form adapted to the standpoint of the hearers.

This may be illustrated by the later parable of the woman looking for her lost coin (Luke 15:8-10), for which there is an almost literal Jewish parallel. In the Jewish parable, the moral is that a man ought to take much greater pains in the study of the Torah than in the search for a coin, since the former promises an eternal reward, while the found coin is just a bit of cash in the pocket! Jesus’ version is far more satisfactory.

his parable is intended to highlight the compassion of the Saviour in seeking the lost, and the joy of heaven in their recovery, rather than the merit of study or of works.

In Jewish writings, a parable (mimshal) is introduced by some such formula like this, ‘I will tell you a parable’ or ‘to what is the thing like?’ Jewish writers esteem parables as devices to place the meaning of the Law within range of the comprehension of all men. The ‘wise King’ had introduced this method, the usefulness of which is illustrated by the parable of a great palace which had many doors so that people lost their way until one came who fastened a ball of thread at the chief entrance when all could readily find their way in and out. Even this will illustrate what has been said of the difference between Rabbinic parables and those employed by our Lord.

In the Gospels, illustrations and even proverbial sayings, such as ‘Physician. Heal thyself,’ or that about the blind leading the blind are designated ‘parables’. But the term must be here restricted to special conditions. The first of these is, that all parables bear reference to well-known scenes, such as those of daily life or to events.

Such pictures, familiar to the popular mind, are in the parable connected with corresponding spiritual realities. Yet. Here also, there is that which distinguishes the parable from the mere illustration. The latter conveys no more than that which was to be illustrated; while the parable conveys this and a great deal beyond it to those who can follow up its shadows to the light by which they have been cast.

In truth, parables are the outlined shadows, as the light of heavenly things falls on well-known scenes, which correspond to and have their higher counterpart in spiritual realities.

So, we have a scene from nature or from life serving as a basis for exhibiting the corresponding spiritual reality. In these first series, the fact that Jesus spoke to the people in parables and only in parables is strongly marked. It appears, therefore, to have been the first time that this mode of popular teaching was used by him. Accordingly, the disciples not only expressed their astonishment but asked him why.

He answers by making a distinction between those to whom it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom (the disciples) and those to whom all things were done in parables (everyone else). Here we see three parables directed just to his disciples, the rest having already been dismissed. Jesus also explains his methodology, that speaking in parables to the people was to complete that hardening which had been caused by their voluntary rejection of what they had heard.

The key factor was not so much the content of the parables but the different standpoint of the two classes of hearers toward the Kingdom of God. This explanation removes what otherwise would be a serious difficulty. For it seems impossible to believe that Jesus had adopted a special mode of teaching to conceal the truth, which might have saved those who heard him. The hardening lay not in this method of teaching but in the state of spiritual deadness that they had found themselves in, despite clear teachings that they had already heard. They were already hardened before they even heard the parable, so they had already decided their own fate.

We are now in some measure able to understand why Jesus, at this point, for the first time adopted teaching through parables.

The reason is this: all of his former teachings had been plain. In them. He had set forth by Word and exhibited by fact (in miracles), the Kingdom of God that he had come to open to all believers. The hearers had separated themselves into two parties; those who understood this, his professing disciples and those being swayed by the insistence of the Pharisees of the ‘satanic’ origin of Jesus’ teaching. Things had become more serious and the presentation of the Kingdom of God must now be for decision.

These two parties were far apart, leading the one to a clearer understanding of the mysteries of the Kingdom, while the other would now regard these mysteries as wholly unintelligible, unbelievable and to be rejected. This is they who had already hardened themselves!

And the grounds for this lay in the respective positions of these two parties towards the Kingdom. ‘whosoever has, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance; but whosoever has not, from him shall be taken away even that he has.’

Let us now examine this first group of parables. Here we see a pattern; the parables spoken to the people, then the reason and explanation given to the disciples. And, finally, another series of parables spoken to the disciples.

On that bright spring morning, when Jesus spoke to the multitude that crowded the shore. He gave them these four parables; concerning he who sowed, concerning the wheat and the tares, concerning the mustard seed and concerning the leaven. All of these parables refer, as is expressly stated, to the Kingdom of God; that is, not to any special phase or characteristic of it, but to the Kingdom itself.

The first parable is that of him who sowed. The sower has gone forth to sow the good seed. According to Jewish authorities, there was twofold sowing with the seed either cast by hand or using cattle. In the latter case, a sack with holes was filled with corn and laid on the back of the animal, so that, as it moved onwards, the seed was thickly scattered, on a beaten roadway, on stony places but thinly covered with soil, or where the thorns had not been cleared away, or undergrowth from the thorn-hedge crept into the field, as well as on good ground. The result in each case need not here be repeated. But what meaning would all this convey to the Jewish hearers of Jesus?

How could this sowing and growing be like the Kingdom of God? Certainly not in the sense in which they expected it. To us, as explained by the Lord, all this seems plain. But to them, there could be no possibility of understanding, but every possibility for misunderstanding it, unless, indeed, they stood in right relationship to the ‘Kingdom of God.’ They needed to believe that Jesus was the Divine Sower and his Word the seed of the Kingdom. If this were admitted, they had at least the right premises for understanding ‘this mystery of the Kingdom.’ It was as if the parables were a test to see where one stood concerning Jesus and the Kingdom of God. You either didn’t get it and were lost (though hopefully only temporarily!), or you got it and were given a deeper understanding.

According to the Jewish view, the Messiah was to appear by a display of power to establish the Kingdom. But this was the very idea of the Kingdom with which Satan had tempted Jesus at the outset of his ministry. In opposition to it was this ‘mystery of the Kingdom,’ reached through the reception of the seed of the Word and personified by Jesus’ moral purpose in all that he did. That reception would depend on the nature of the soil, that is, on the mind and heart of the hearers. The Kingdom of God was within; it came not by a display of power.

The ‘mystery’ deepens in the next parable concerning the tares sown among the wheat. According to the common view, these tares represent what is botanically known as the ‘bearded Darnel’ (Lolium temulentum), a poisonous rye-grass, very common in the East, ‘entirely like wheat until the ear appears’. But the parable makes more sense if we bear in mind that, according to ancient Jewish ideas, the tares were not from a different seed, but only a degenerate kind of wheat. According to the testimony of travellers, most strenuous efforts are always made in the East to weed out the tares. This parable was, of all others, perhaps the strangest and most unintelligible to Jewish ears. Hence, the disciples especially asked for an explanation here. This was also perhaps the most important for them to understand.

As the subsequent experience of the Church has shown, efforts have been made to create purer wheat by gathering out the tares while they grow together. All such have proved failures, because the field is the wide ‘world,’ because the tares have been sown into the midst of the wheat and by the enemy. For the wheat must be gathered in the heavenly storehouse and the tares bound in bundles to be burned. Then the harvesters shall be the angels of Christ, the gathered tares ‘all the stumbling-blocks and those who do the lawlessness’ and their burning the casting of them ‘into the lake of fire.’

These first parables were intended to present the mysteries of the Kingdom as illustrated by the sowing, growing and mixing of the seed. The final two parables set forth another equally mysterious characteristic of the Kingdom; that of its development and power, as contrasted with its small and weak beginnings. The parable of the mustard seed demonstrated the relationship between the Kingdom and the outside World. The parable of the leaven was concerned with the Kingdom and the world within us. The first exhibits the extensiveness, the other the intensiveness, of its power; in both cases at first hidden, almost imperceptible and then … boom!

Once more we say it, that such parables must have been utterly unintelligible to all who did not see the Kingdom in the humble, despised Nazarene and in his teaching. But to those whose eyes, ears and hearts had been opened, they would carry most needed instruction and most precious comfort and assurance. Accordingly, we do not find that the disciples either asked or received an interpretation of these parables. They already had sufficient understanding to get it!

The very idea of parables is not about strict scientific accuracy, but about conjuring up popular pictures. It is characteristic of them to present vivid sketches that appeal to the popular mind. Those addressed were not to weigh every detail, either logically or scientifically, but at once to recognise the aptness of the illustration as presented to the popular mind. Thus, as regards the first of these two parables, the seed of the mustard plant is seen as the smallest of seeds. In fact, the expression, ‘small as a mustard seed,’ had become a popular proverb and was used, not only by Jesus but frequently by the Rabbis, to indicate the smallest amount. Such growth of the mustard seed was also a fact well known at the time and this is the first and main point in the parable. The other, concerning the birds which are attracted to its branches, is subsidiary. It is interesting to notice that birds would be attracted to the branches, when we know that mustard was, at that time, mixed with, or used as food for pigeons. And a tree was a familiar Old Testament figure for a mighty kingdom that gave shelter to the nations. Indeed, it is specifically used as an illustration of the Messianic Kingdom.

Thus the parable would point to this; that the Kingdom of heaven, planted in the field of the world as the smallest seed, in the most humble and unpromising manner, would grow until it far outstripped all other similar plants and gave shelter to all nations under heaven. This is also addressed by the last of the parables addressed at this time to the people, that of the leaven. The point of the parable is that the Kingdom of God, when received within, would seem like leaven, hidden, but which would gradually pervade, assimilate, and transform the whole of our common life. With this most mysterious characterisation of the Kingdom of heaven, the Saviour dismissed the people.

And now he was again alone with the disciples ‘in the house’ at Capernaum, to which they had returned. Many new and deeper thoughts of the Kingdom had come to them. But why had he so spoken to the multitude in such a way? And did they quite understand its solemn meaning themselves? Jesus answered their concerns. The disciples now had knowledge concerning the mysteries of the Kingdom.

This mystery of the Kingdom was explained to the disciples through those first parables. Closely connected are the two parables of the treasure hid in the field and of the pearl of great price, now spoken to the disciples. In the first, one who buys a field discovers a treasure hidden there and in his joy parts with all else to become the owner of the field and of the hidden treasure that he had so unexpectedly found. Some difficulty has been expressed regarding the morality of such a transaction. In response, this was in entire accordance with Jewish law. If a man had found a treasure in loose coins among the corn, it would certainly be his, if he could claim ownership of the field.

In the second parable, we have a wise merchant who travels in search of pearls and when he finds one which in value exceeds all else. He returns and sells all that he has, to buy this unique gem. The supreme value of the Kingdom, the consequent desire to appropriate it and the necessity of parting with all else for this purpose, are the points common to this and the previous parable.

Thus, two different aspects of the Kingdom and two different conditions are here set before the disciples. The closing parable of the net was no less important. It was to show that mere discipleship - mere inclusion in the Gospel net - was not sufficient. That net let down into the sea of this world would include much which, when the net was at last drawn to shore, would prove worthless or even hurtful. To be a disciple, then, was not enough. Even here there would be separation.

So ended that spring day of first teaching in parables to the people by the lake and in the house at Capernaum to the disciples. We have two questions of decisive character to ask. Undoubtedly, these parables were unfamiliar. This appears, not only from a comparison with the Jewish views of the Kingdom but from the fact that their meaning was unintelligible to the hearers of Jesus.

Our first question is; Where did Jesus’ teaching concerning the Kingdom come from? Our second question goes still further. For, if Jesus was a prophet and also the Son of God and if these parables are a fair description of the Kingdom he represented - does this not all point to the inescapable conclusion that Jesus was who he said he was? Decision time was approaching!

This is an extract from the book, Jesus : Life and Times, available for £10 here (Finalist for Academic Book of the year at 2023 CRT awards)