Book 2: Discerning and Discovering The Meaning of Holy Scripture
Part 1: Discerning the Meaning of Scripture
Treatise 2: The Meaning of Scripture in Specific
Section 5
Parables
So far I have treated allegories and types; the parabolic meaning remains, about which I shall again explain: (1) the definition, first of the term and then what it refers to, (2) distinctions, and (3) canons.
Article 1
Definition of the Word
Onomatology includes etymology, polysemy, and synonyms.
(1) Some people quite ridiculously fetch the etymology and origin of this term from another language, as if a parable is so-called because it ‘prepares a bolus’, making it easy to eat, so that what is said is understood and inwardly digested. Others explain it like this: that it is called a parable, as if it ‘prepares a veil’, because it covers and conceals, and obscures its meaning. But the origin of the term – which is naturally Greek – is also to be found in the Greek language. They say, therefore, that it comes from the verb paraballein, which – apart from other meanings, which do not pertain to this (because it means to throw in the way, throw together, cast down, put together, approach, send across, and so on) – is endowed with the meaning of comparing, placing side by side, or juxtaposing two different things at the same time. For this reason Cicero, in book 1 of his work On Invention, translates parable as ‘collation’, and others translate it as ‘similitude’. Jerome writes (Ep. 121 ad Algasiam, q. 6), “A Parable, that is, a similitude, which gets its name from the fact that it is ‘put together’ with something else, that is, it is likened to something else, and is a shadow, as it were, that goes before the truth.”
(2) Polysemy. In the Septuagint Old Testament, the translation ‘parable’ corresponds with the Hebrew word mashal (with the one exception of the passage in Ecclesiastes 1:17, where it is used for holeluth, which means follies, madness, rages); therefore ‘parable’ is signified as often as this word mashal is used, about which I shall say more shortly below.
In the New Testament writings, it is used: (1) for any similitude and comparison. Thus in Matthew 24:32, Christ sets before his disciples this similitude (which they call a ‘parable’): Just as you can tell by the germination of the trees that summer is near; so you can tell, from the signs that Christ did, that the last day is near. In the same way, in Mark 3:23 and following, another such similitude is presented, which is called a parable: Just a kingdom that is divided against itself cannot stand, so that neither home nor family remains, so also Satan, being at odds with himself, cannot stand for long, and so on. (2) for something that is stated somewhat obscurely and figuratively, as in Matthew 15:15. Peter uses the word ‘parable’ for Jesus’ words in verse 11, “It’s not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man, but who comes out of the mouth – this defiles a man.” Because the apostles thought that he spoke quite obscurely, they use the word ‘parable’, and seek an explanation, which Christ gives them in verse 17 and following. (3) for a proverb, or adage. In Luke 4:23, Christ calls a parable that proverb or saying, which people commonly used, “Physician, heal thyself.” (4) for a type in the Old Testament, which prefigures something in the New Testament. In Hebrews 9:9, the Levitical rites of the Old Testament are called ‘parables for the appointed time’, and so on. We find the same also in Hebrews 11:19. Abraham is said to have received his son, ‘in a parable’, that is, so that he would be a ‘type of the one to come’. See above. (5) For a teaching concerning something specific, but which should be understood more broadly, and more widely extended. Thus in Luke 14:7, where Christ is setting forth his teaching concerning not taking the best seat at a feast, he is said to be setting forth a parable. The implication, by using this word, is that Christ’s warning contains more than it seems at first glance. For the general teaching about walking humbly is understood, as the explanation says in verse 11. (6) Finally, this word is strictly and properly used for a fictional story of something that happens in such a way as to signify something else, as it is used in Matthew 13:3, 10, 13, etc.; 21:33, 45; 22:1, and in many other passages. I shall say more about this meaning in the pragmatic definition.
(3) Synonyms. There are Hebrew and Greek words that are used to mean ‘parable’. In Hebrew the most frequently used is the word mashal (in Syriac and Chaldean, matlah, the shin being replaced with a tahl, which happens in Matthew 13:18, 24, etc., 15:15; 21:33, 45; 22:1; Mark 3:23), from the root verb, which includes the semantic ranges of ruling and likening. Thus mashal, by its original meaning, signifies either a “lordly saying,” like a well-known and wise proverb, or a similitude and comparison. In Hebrew, however, this word also has many meanings, denoting: (1) A comparative sentence, in which one thing is compared with another, as in Ezekiel 24:3. (2) A well-known saying, which is commonly used and accepted, as in 1 Samuel 10:12, “Because of these events, it became a saying – lemashal – ‘Is Saul also one of the prophets?’” And in Ezekiel 18:2, “Why do you quote this proverb – mashal – about the land of Israel, saying ‘The fathers ate sour grapes, and the teeth of their children have been set on edge’?” (3) An obscure saying that is complicated and lacking an explanation, as in Ezekiel 20:49 (or 21:5), “They shall say to me, Isn’t this man a riddler of riddles?” or “This man speaks parables parabolically,” that is, he speaks obscurely. Luther translates it, “This man speaks nothing but hidden words.” (4) A weighty saying, which addresses matters of great importance and significance with a few words. In Numbers 23:7 and 18, and 24:3 and 15, Balaam is said to have taken up his parable (meshalo) that is, a speech of great significance, and a divine prophecy concerning the most important coming events. It is also used this way in Psalm 49:4 and 78:2. (5) A sad speech and complaint, or a grave lamentation and complaint, as in Micah 2:4, “In that day, the mourner will take up over you a parable (mashal) and will sorely lament, with lamentation, saying,” and so on. (6) Ironic and scornful speech, as in Isaiah 14:4, where the prophet calls that happy singing of the pious, their celebration of God’s beneficence, and their scorning of the impious, a parable – mashal – against the king of Babel, and so on. Likewise in Jeremiah 24:9, Deuteronomy 28:37, and 1 Kings 9:7, God threatens to make the sinning Israelites a parable – lemashal – that is, an insult, an object of scorn, and a curse word to the nations. Likewise also in Psalm 44:15 and 49:12, Jeremiah 24:9, Ezekiel 14:8, and Habakkuk 2:6.
In Proverbs 1:1, the sentences of Solomon are called mishlay – parables, or proverbs, first because of the first meaning, since many things are contained in them that compare similar and dissimilar things; and then again because of the third meaning, since some of them are said quite obscurely, on account of the terse style, and lack an explanation. For this reason in Proverbs 1:6, the word meliytsah, ‘interpretation’, is added to the word mashal, which some translate as ‘elegance’ or ‘elocution’. Then again, they are called parables because of the fourth meaning, because they set out and reveal precepts and matters of the highest importance, in a terse and succinct style of speech.
I have discussed the many meanings of the word mashal. What I mean by it in this section, however, is that meaning which is used in Ezekiel 17:2, where the word chiydah, ‘enigma’, is used to denote the same thing.
In the New Testament, apart from the word ‘parable’, the word, homoiosis,‘similitude’, is used. So quite often, the kingdom of God is said to be ‘like’ (homoia) what is being narrated, as in Matthew 20:1, and so on. In John 10:6, the word paroimia is used to mean the same thing, which elsewhere means ‘proverb’, and ‘a common, well-known saying’, coming from either (1) hoimos, a ‘way’, as if saying, ‘a wayside saying’ (as Basil calls it), or a ‘common saying’, which wayfarers use to pass time, or, as some say, because it passes all the time from one person to the next by word of mouth; or from (2) hoime, a ‘saying’, so that paroimia corresponds to the Latin word for proverb. In this section, however, as will become self-evident, it means the kind of parabolic story that Christ told.
Article 2
The Nature and Definition of a Parable
So far I have discussed the term ‘parable’. What follows is its definition, over which there is some dispute.
(1) Some people think that parables are the same as continuous metaphors or an allegory of words or speech, which is a continuous passage of tropes and especially metaphor. Subscribing to this opinion are the Jesuit Azorius (inst. moral. lib. 8. c. 2, §. quinto quaeritur), Gillius S.J. (l. 1. comm. Theol. tract. 7. c. 2. p. 307), and Thomas Morton (in apol. cath. part 2, book 5, ch. 4, § 1).
But [there are problems with this definition:] (1) If this understanding of parables were true, it would follow that absolutely all of the words in the parabolic stories could and should be applied to what the parables signify. But this consequence is absurd, therefore so is its premise. This conclusion is clear from the nature of a continuous metaphor. For just as a simple metaphor (which consists of one word) signifies something other than what it means, thus, if a metaphor is continuous, or if many metaphors are joined together, then all of them collectively and individually express what the speech is about. It is self-evident that this cannot be the case. For in parables, not everything can or should be applied to what is primarily understood, but only to those things that most closely point in the direction of the speaker’s intent. (2) A similitude is not a continuous metaphor. But a parable is a similitude, as I will explain shortly. Therefore, [a parable is not a continuous metaphor]. The first part [that a similitude is not a metaphor] is proven by the following: (1) In a similitude of one thing to another, what is similar is the application. In a metaphor, however, whether it is simple or continuous, one object with a modified meaning takes the place of another. (2) A similitude is an explanation of a metaphorical word or phrase, not the extension of a metaphor. For example, in John 6:48 and 51, Christ is called the bread of life. This is a metaphorical name. If it were explained, it would be done through an explicit similitude like this, “Just as bread nourishes the bodies of men unto life on this earth, so Christ feeds the faithful with his own living flesh, and nourishes them unto life celestial.” This likening cannot be called a continuous metaphor, but is rather an exegesis and explanation of a metaphor. Each part of it, however, both the protasis and the apodosis, comes with its own particular literal meaning. In the protasis, the literal meaning is that bread (when used according to its proper definition) nourishes the bodies of men (according to the proper meaning). In the apodosis, the literal meaning is that Christ spiritually feeds believers. (3) In metaphors, the meaning is derived from words that are understood in a modified way, not according to their proper meaning. In parables, however, what is being signified through the parable is taken not from the words, but from the events in the story, as they are narrated. For example, the lesson that we get from the parable of the unjust steward in Luke 16:1 and following should be taken not from the words, but from the events and efforts that he employed as a manager. We should consider the other parables in the same way.
(2) Jerome defines a parable like this (in his commentary on Mark, ch. 4, t. 6): “A parable is a comparison of things that are naturally different – a comparison made under some similitude.”
This definition is indeed true and correct, insofar as it indicates that with parables we focus not on the words—whether they are used properly or metaphorically—but on the events that are signified by the words. At the same time, however, [there are two problems]: (1) His definition is too broad. For whenever there is a comparison of things that are naturally different, which is made under some similitude, we do not always have a parable, as I shall explain later. (2) In the words that follow, Jerome employs the word “parable” for metaphorical sayings, when he writes: “Parable is the Greek word for a similitude, when we indicate through comparisons what we want to be understood. So we say that something is iron, when we want it to be understood to be hard and strong,” and so on.
The definition of Varinus is the same as the last one. “A parable is a comparison, indicating a similitude, for the clarification or explanation of what is really being discussed.”
And Thomas, in his commentary on Isaiah 14, write, “A parable is speech that contains a similitude, which says one thing and means another thing.
Alphonso Salmeron (tom. 7. tract. 1.) defines it like this: “A parable is a fitting artistic narrative of events—either true or seemingly true—to signify something else.” Flacius (Clavis part 1, col. 821) writes, “Parables are similitudes, in which some things are signified and taught under a speech that seems to depict and express other things.” Justin (in quest. et. resp. ad orth. resp. 60) defines it like this: “A parable is a speech that includes a likening of something that has happened to something that will happen.” Salmeron misreads this (tom. 7. tract. 1. p. 4) when he is trying to prove that a parable is an account of a fictitious event, not of an actual event, and claims that Justin’s words say what he asserts, that a parable is a speech of a fictitious event, and so on. But Justin’s text reads ‘actual’ not ‘fictional’, as the Greek word shows. Otherwise, in Justin’s description, he seems to confuse a type with a parable. Jacob [Parez] de Valentia, bishop of Christopolis writes (in proleg. super Psal. tract. 1. cap. 2.), “A parable is nothing other than an account of something that took place, or as if it took place, for the sake of pointing by way of example and similitude to some truth; and thus it is always used for something else.”
We describe the nature of a parable by this definition:
A parable is a similitude or likening, in which something is appropriately invented and told as if it already happened. Then it is compared to something spiritual, or applied to signify something spiritual.
(1) A parable, therefore, is different from a history: (a) with respect to the object. A history is an account of something that truly took place; a parable, however, is an account of something fictitious that is fit and appropriate for teaching. Nor does it follow from this that such fictitious and artificially constructed events are lies. For, as Augustine replies in his Questions on the Gospels (book 2, q. 41), “Not everything that we invent is a lie. But when we invent something that means nothing, then it is a lie. When, however, our fictitious words are used to signify something, then it is not a lie, but a kind of figure of the truth. Otherwise, everything that has been spoken figuratively by wise, holy men, or even by the Lord himself, will be considered lies, because the truth in such words does not conform to the usual meaning.” That verse of Horace’s Ars Poetica pertains to this, “Things for the sake of pleasure feigned are closest to truths.” And if fictitious stories that are useful for teaching are not lies, how much less are parables lies?
[A parable is also different from a history:] (b) with respect to its use. History is narrated simply. A parable is narrated not only as if the events truly happened, but also it is used to teach something else, either implicitly or explicitly.
(2) [A parable is different from an example, which the Greeks call paradeigma. For an example is a part of history, when something is defended as right, in comparison with a similar event. Or something is shown to be bad by the example of another dreadful crime. Or else a useful teaching is either explicitly drawn or silently inferred from some action, or from reading the history. Thus the Lord defended the disciples, who were accused of plucking grain on the Sabbath in Matthew 12, by the example of David, who ate the loaves of proposition when he was hungry, in 1 Samuel 21. Likewise in Matthew 12:41-42, he convicts the Jews, who do not want to hear the Word of God, with the examples of the Ninevites who listened to the Prophet Jonah, and of the Queen of the South. Thus in Luke 13, Christ uses the examples of the bloody act of Pilate, and the men who died because of the collapsed tower of Siloam, with which he wanted to exhort his listeners to repentance by pointing to the rod that God uses against hardened sinners. Relevant to this discussion is the example of the man who fell among robbers on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho in Luke 10. For properly speaking, this example cannot be described there as a parable, but as something that truly happened, which was well known to that lawyer. Brugensis says that if this story had been invented, the lawyer would not have been obliged to reply as he does in verse 37, but would have said that the fabrication would never happen and was invented only out of envy of the priests and Levites. But Christ uses this event as an example, and transfers it from a hypothesis, as it were, to a thesis, to show (1) who a man’s neighbor is, to whom the divinely mandated love of neighbor is due, and (2) how far the Pharisees and scribes were from the true meaning of the divine law, and from loving their neighbor. The first purpose is evident from the question of the lawyer in verse 29, “And who is my neighbor?” Christ satisfies this question by the history that he provides. A man’s neighbor is whoever needs his help or counsel, just as the man who fell among robbers was the neighbor of the Levite and the priest who avoided him, as well as the neighbor of the Samaritan who helped him at the right time. The second purpose is evident from the final exhortation of Christ and the adjoining sentence in verse 39, “Go and do likewise,” namely, not as the Levite and Priest did (in whose company you find yourself, if you do not in even the slightest degree understand the precept about loving your neighbor, much less conduct yourself well like the Samaritan, as the example of the priest and the Levite shows), but as the Samaritan did, who had pity upon his neighbor who had been struck by robbers (and perhaps indeed he was a Jew, belonging to a different religion, and an enemy), cared for him with a compassionate heart, provided him with an extraordinary level of help, and so on.
Also pertaining to this topic is the example of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16, about which we should note: (1) How the poor man’s name, which was included, is famously remembered; how at that time the beggarly state and extreme poverty of Lazarus was publicly known, as was the avarice, luxury, impiety and heartlessness of the rich man, whose name Christ does not mention; it also became known how the rich man treated the beggar, and that each of them ultimately met his death in this earthly life. (2) The state and condition of each man after death (what was unknown to men, but well known to Christ who is omniscient). Our mediator, using the device we call prosopopoeia, expresses and declares that the rich man is suffering the pangs of Hell, while Lazarus enjoys the blessings of Paradise or heaven. It seems to correspond with this that a history is being given in verses 19-23, and from verse 23 to the end, Christ is inferring prosopopoeically and metaphorically the state of each man. (3) All of this is used as an example, to teach men both about the correct use of riches (which Christ had spoken about parabolically as much as openly, from the beginning of the chapter up to verse 14), and about the punishments of Hell, which are prepared and waiting for the throng of wicked and merciless men.
Article 3
The Division of Parables
In parables, there are two parts. One is the reality, to which the parable points through similitude. The other is the application of that reality, which is, as it were, its ‘formal’ and nucleus, and the mystical meaning.
(1) The reality, which the similitude presents, or the parable itself, is either in-written, or unwritten. It is in-written, when the sacred words themselves explicitly state it. In this section we are especially concerned with this category. It is unwritten, when interpreters put it together apart from the Scriptures, and apply it to signify spiritual things. To this category belongs the explanation of Damascenus, which Stapleton relates (prompt. Moral. Domin. 3. Adventus), “A certain man had three friends. He treated two of them with great loving affection, and the third with a little kindness. This man was summoned to a trial, at which his rank and possessions were at stake. He went to the first friend, as he wanted him to help, and he only gave him some clothes to wear on the way to court, but gave him no other assistance. Going to the second friend, he received from him this one comfort, that he would accompany him on the way to the trial. Compelled by necessity, therefore, to approach the third friend, and blushing greatly, he begged for his help, and that friend alone—contrary to all expectations—when asked for assistance, went to the judge himself on his friend’s behalf, and diligently presented his case.” Stapleton (in the place mentioned above) applies this parable like this: that the first friend stands for the love of riches; the second stands for wife, children and family of the flesh; and the third stands (although incorrectly) for one’s virtue and store of good works. But, as I have said, we care very little (if at all) about this kind of parable.
Three categories of in-written parables occur in Scripture. Some contain an actual event, which is made into a similitude, such as the parable of the yeast. Yeast, after all, is mixed with flour every day to knead bread. Some do not contain an actual event, but one that is possible, such as the parable of the father who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard, in Matthew 20:1. And some contain an impossible event, such as the parable of the trees that went to anoint a king for themselves [Judges 9]. Parables like this are rare in Scripture, but there are many of them in the writings of other authors. Becanus adds, in his discussion of this third category of parable (Theol. Scholast. Part. 2. Tom. 2. C. 3. Quaest. 4), “This, however, does not prevent the meaning of the parable from being fully true and literal; for that which is presented in the parable or similitude is not presented in such a way as if the event actually happened or could happen, but so that through this kind of similitude another reality might be explained, which can happen without deception.
(2) The ‘formal’ or meaning and application of the parable (which is in-written and expressly contained in the sacred words), according to the previously given distinction of allegory and type, can be distinguished as being either innate or imported.
It is innate when Scripture itself renders an explanation and application of the individual (or at least the most important) aspects of the parable. Parables of this kind include those of the sower of the seed that falls in different ways in Matthew 13 and Luke 8, and of the tares that an enemy sows among the good grain in Matthew 13, where Christ himself explains just about every part.
The meaning is imported when interpreters apply the parables. And an imported meaning is either substantiated, or it is forced and distorted.
A substantiated [inferred meaning] has its foundation in the text of the parable itself. This foundation includes the speaker’s purpose and the analogy of faith, and if the interpreter keeps a close eye on both of these in his explanation of parables, he will hold a true course and walk without stumbling. For example, in Matthew 22:2 and following, Christ tells the parable about the king who is preparing a wedding feast for his son, and he does not add any explanation or application at all of the individual elements of the parable. Only the scope is indicated by that strikingly clear sentence, “For many have been called, but few have been chosen,” in verse 14. This scope of the parable is its foundation, upon which an interpreter may construct a fitting explanation, and will not fall into error, if he observes the analogy of faith.
An explanation is forced and distorted when it is no clear foundation in Scripture itself, and when it departs from the speaker’s intention and from the analogy of faith. The following explanation by some of the pontifical writers of Mark 13:34 fits this category: “The man who went abroad signifies the soul, which leaves this world through death. He left authority with his servants, that is, he orders them by his last will and testimony to purchase suffrages from what he leaves behind, by which he may be freed from purgatory. But he tells the one at the door to keep watch, that is, he bequeaths his possessions to his pastor, so that he may attentively make sacrifices for him.”
How truly exceptional is such hot fervor for the fire of Purgatory, and for stocking the cupboards of sacrificing priests! Yet this is quoted from the writings of pontifical authors by Chemnitz, in part 3 of his Examination of the Council of Trent, in the chapter on Purgatory.
Article 4
Canons for Parables
Canon 1
Parables occur in both the Old and New Testaments, but more rarely in the former and more frequently in the latter.
The parables that occur in the Old Testament are approximately as follows:
- In Judges 9:8 and following, Jotham tells a story at the top of Mount Garizim about the trees that are looking to choose a king for themselves, to which he adds the application in verse 16 and following.
- In 2 Samuel 12:1 and following, the prophet Nathan lays out a parable before David, who had become an adulterer and a murderer, and after King David heard it as an actual event, and thought it was real, the prophet (in verse 7 and following) showed that it was a parable, and applied it to David.
- In Isaiah 5:1 and following, the prophet tells a parable about the vine that is cultivated well by the land owner, but bears bad fruit, and its explanation and application to God’s people follow in verse 7 and following.
- In Ezekiel 17:2 and following, the Lord through the prophet tells a parable about two eagles, and its explanation is given in verse 12.
- In chapter 33:2 and following, God presents the parable and similitude of the watchman, which is applied in verse 7 to the prophet.
Parables are more frequent in the New Testament. The main ones are as follows:
- The parable of the sower, who sows onto the four kinds of earth, in Matthew 13:3 and following, Mark 4:3 and following, and Luke 8:4 and following;
- The tares, in Matthew 13:24 and following;
- The seed that is sown and grows, even when man does not know it, in Mark 4:26 and following;
- The mustard seed in Matthew 13:31, Mark 4:30, and Luke 13:18-19;
- The yeast, in Matthew 13:33, and Luke 13:21;
- The treasure hidden in a field, in Matthew 13:44;
- The merchant who is looking for good pearls, in Matthew 13:45-46;
- The net that is thrown into the sea, and gathers all kinds of fish, in Matthew 13:47 and following;
- The king who leaves authority with his servants, in Matthew 18:23 and following;
- The two debtors, who both had their debts cancelled, in Luke 7:41 and following;
- The true shepherd, who enters by the gate and not some other way, in John 10:1 and following;
- The rich man, whose land produces large crops, in Luke 12:16 and following;
- The wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his household, to give them their measures of grain at the right time, in Luke 12:42, Matthew 24:45, and Mark 13:34;
- The man who has a fig tree in his vineyard, and looks for fruit on it, and finds none, in Luke 13:6 and following;
- The man who prepares a great feast, and invites many, in Luke 14:16 and following;
- The shepherd who has a hundred sheep, and one of them is lost, in Matthew 18:12 and following, and Luke 15:4 and following;
- The woman who has ten coins, and finds the one that she lost, in Luke 15:8 and following;
- The son who is lost and brought back to his father, in Luke 15:11 and following;
- The wicked steward, in Luke 16:1 and following;
- The unjust judge who finally helps the widow who persistently pleads at his bench, in Luke 18:2 and following;
- The landowner who hires workers for his vineyard, and gives them the same wage, even though they worked for different hours, in Matthew 20:1 and following;
- The nobleman who goes abroad, and entrusts different minas to his servants, in Luke 19:11 and following;
- The two sons who are sent by their father into the vineyard, in Matthew 21:28 and following;
- The landowner who plants a vineyard, and the nasty vinedressers, in Matthew 21:33 and following;
- The king who prepares a wedding feast for his son, and severely punishes the ungrateful invitees, in Matthew 22:2 and following;
- The ten virgins who are waiting for the bridegroom, in Matthew 25:1 and following;
- The parable of the talents that the Lord entrusts to his servants when he is going abroad, in Matthew 25:14 and following.
Canon 2
In his own preaching, Christ frequently employed the parabolic method of teaching for good reason.
Erasmus, in his Paraphrase of the New Testament, on Mark 4:2, speaks eloquently on this matter, as follows:
“[Christ] set forth parables, that is, similitudes of the best known things. For this is the simplest kind of teaching, and most fitting for uneducated people. For it seems at first glance to be childish and ridiculous, to the wise of this world; but this kind of teaching was pleasing to eternal Wisdom. With great skill, philosophers offered torrents of obscurity to their listeners, in complex syllogisms; with marvelous abundance of learning, rhetoricians held sway over the souls of men; and the Pharisees collected what was hidden and far beyond the people’s ability to comprehend. In addition, Jesus chose for himself this most simple kind of teaching, which was free from all ostentation, so that all the glory for the renewal of the world through the Gospel would belong to God’s own strength. He roused their souls, therefore, with many parables, so that they would receive the Gospel message with simple believing and with pure minds, and thereby establish the beginning of our salvation.” The same author refers to Christ’s parables with the term, “oxymoron,” because they are “subtle yet simple, wise yet foolish, and hidden yet crystal clear, since they conceal the Wisdom of heaven under a subtle and ridiculous covering.”
Besides this, the reasons why Christ adopted the parabolic genre may be distinguished like this, in that some of them concern God, and some concern men; and among the latter, some concern gentle and pious men, and others concern cruel, harsh, and impious men.
The reason that concerns God is the fulfillment of Scripture. Matthew 13:34 points to this cause:
“Jesus spoke all these things in parables, and he did not speak to them without parables (verse 35), so that it might be fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet who said, ‘I shall open my mouth in parables; I shall utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world.’”
This prophecy may be found in Psalm 78:2. Tertullian, in his work Against Marcion (at the end of book 4, ch. 2), writes: “And this is not a new way of speaking in Christ, when he speaks in similitudes, when he is dispelling questions; from the seventy seventh Psalm come the words, “I shall open my mouth,” it says, “in parable,” that is, in similitude, “I shall speak riddles,” that is, I shall put away their questions.
As for men, as I mentioned above, there are two kinds. Some men are gentle and pious, and some are cruel and harsh.
For the gentle and pious, the use of parables serves: (1) to inform. Mark 4:33 indicates this, where it says that “Christ spoke in so many parables, as they were able to hear,” that is, “according to their ability to hear or understand,” which indicates that Christ adjusted his manner of speaking so that the audience would understand, so that they might be informed by these similitudes about the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven. In John 3:12, Christ says, “If I have told you earthly things, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” By this he means that parables and similitudes that are drawn from commonly known earthly matters go a long way towards informing men, and that in addition, we observe (something that is self-evident) that the common people are more fittingly instructed when a reality is presented to the intellect in similitudes, and described as if it is right in front of their eyes, than when it is treated with weighty rational arguments and subtle syllogisms. Jerome in his commentary on Matthew 18 writes, “It is normal for the Syrians, and especially the inhabitants of Palestine, to add parables to everything they say, so that the hearers can retain through similitude and examples what they cannot comprehend through teaching alone.” Besides, the hearers remember similitudes of this kind for longer, as they go back to seeing those things on which the parables were based.
[For the gentle and pious, the use of parables also serves] (2) to rouse their zeal for learning. Christ testifies to this by his admonition, and the apostles and other saints by their example. After setting forth a parable, Christ often proclaimed, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear,” as in Matthew 13:9, Mark 4:9, and Luke 8:7, by which he consistently encouraged his hearers to have a greater zeal for understanding and inquiring earnestly into the mysteries of heaven. His disciples obeyed this admonition, as did others who were with Christ and diligently inquired from him the meaning of the parables, as in Matthew 13:10 and Mark 4:10.
The reasons [for using parables] that concern the cruel and harsh despisers of the word either stand alone, or they are incidental.
The stand-alone reasons are: (1) to inform them, and encourage them to learn. For although they self-confidently despise Christ when he is teaching in parables, nevertheless they are not absolutely and categorically shut out from a salutary understanding of his word. Indeed, to the contrary, Christ tried to call back by his grave exhortation those who would rather go away, when he said, “He who has ears for hearing, let him hear,” in Matthew 13:9, as if he was saying, “Do not despise my parable, but wait and listen to the explanation.” Certainly, therefore, that teaching which was uttered in parables also pertained to those who were unable to be instructed by them, but meanwhile they would not, out of their own ill will. Chrysostom, in his sermon on Psalm 48, said: “For this reason also Christ was doing this, and speaking in parables, in order to rouse and incite them to desire to hear, who were flatly asleep.”
(2) To refute and convict them. When the Lord wanted to, so that the Jews would utter a judgment against themselves without their knowledge, he extracted it from them through parables. Thus in Matthew 21:33, in the parable he sets forth about the vineyard, without knowing why the Lord presented it, to his question in verse 40, “When therefore the Lord of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” they reply in verse 41, “He will severely punish the wicked, and he will give his vineyard to other tenants, who will render to him the fruit in its season.” In this way, they were condemning themselves, whereby in verse 43 Christ adds, “So I say to you, that the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and given to a people who will produce its fruit.” Compare this to Luke 7:43. In the very same way, after Nathan had set forth his parable, David replied, “As the Lord lives, the man who did this, whoever he be, is a son of death!” Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man who has done this thing” in 2 Samuel 7:6-7. Compare this to 1 Kings 20:39-42.
Incidentally, outside of the intention of the person presenting the parable, there is the cause of a parable, or rather its effect, which is the concealing of the divine mysteries, and the blinding of the wicked. For because the unbelieving Pharisees and Jews did not want to listen to Christ when he was setting forth in parables the mysteries of the Kingdom, in Matthew 13:11 he says, “To you”, namely, to you who remain and do not stubbornly reject my parable, “it has been granted to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven; but to them”—to those who are “outside”, as in Mark 4:11, not “those who are outside of the unity of the elect,” as Piscator and Tossanus would have it in their marginal glosses, but “those who are outside of the unity of the disciples and others, who have followed me humbly and faithfully sought from me an explanation of the parable,” that is, to those who despise the word—“it has not been given”, namely, because they reject my word (see Acts 13:46, and so on).
And in Mark 4:11-12 he says, “To those who are outside, everything is said in parables, so that seeing they may see and not understand,” and so on. Here we must understand the purpose clause, the “so that,” as denoting the result, not the intention, as if he is saying, “To you who desire to learn from me the meaning of the parable, this fruit will be abundant, that you will learn and understand the mysteries of the Kingdom; for the remaining scoffers, however, only this follows, that they indeed hear, but understand less. But so that the mysteries and my teachings may remain hidden to them, which they despise so much, let them continue in their blindness of their own volition.”
This is enough about the causes for which Christ often used parables.
Canon 3
In parables, when we consider them in their entirety, there are three parts: the root, the outer husk, and the kernel or fruit.
The root is the scope for which the parable is intended. The outer husk is the material similitude that is presented, and corresponds with its literal meaning (which is found in the words themselves). The kernel or fruit is the mystical meaning of the parable, or the reality to which the application of the parable is made, the reality signified by the parable that is presented.
Jerome, on his commentary on chapter 12 of Ecclesiastes, writes, “Parables have for their kernel something different to what they offer superficially. And as it is with the gold hidden in the ground, like the flesh in a nut, like the fruit hidden under the hairy shells of chestnuts, so the divine meaning in parables must be discerned on a higher level,” and so on.
In order, therefore, for us to be able to uncover the kernel, nut or fruit from the shell, and use it for our strength and nourishment, we must first and foremost look at the root, and afterwards at the shell itself, as the following two canons will teach.
Canon 4
To establish the explanation and application of parables properly, first we must pay attention to the intention of the speaker.
Just as the Greeks teach that the meaning of the apologies [of their fables] is to be found in the introduction or conclusion to the fable, or—where those are lacking—in the fable itself, likewise with a parable, we should discern its purpose in the proparabola (preface to the parable), or the epiparabola (conclusion of the parable), or—if these are lacking—we must consider the text of the parable itself.
The proparabola, however, includes both what comes before it, to which the narration of the parable is bound; and at the same time any bold saying that sometimes comes before the parable, which contains the reality that the parable was presented to convey. Thus those emphatic words of Matthew 19:30, “Many of the first shall be last, and the last shall be first,” come before the parable of the landowner who sends workers into his vineyard, in Matthew 20 (which also come after the parable, in Matthew 20:16). We are therefore supposed to find the purpose of this parable in these words, taken together with what comes before. Thus the proparabola is often indicated by the words, “The Kingdom of Heaven is like,” and so on, so that it is easy to make an accurate comparison and explanation, as in Matthew 13:31.
The epiparabola is the conclusion of the parable, the bold saying that comes after the parable. Thus the following words are added to the parable just mentioned, “Thus the first shall be last, and the last shall be first; for many have been called, but few are chosen,” in Matthew 20:16. In this way, to the parable of the ten virgins, this little sentence is added, “Keep watch, therefore, because you do not know the day nor the hour, in which the Son of Man is coming.” From this, we learn the point of the parable quite clearly. The explanation for other parables is similar.
Canon 5
With parables, there is no need to put too much stock in the individual words; the use and application of a parable to a spiritual reality is not to be found by searching too carefully into its individual parts.
This is Chrysostom’s canon, from his sermon 16 on the Epistle to the Romans. The same author, in sermon 65 on Matthew 20, says, “[Christ] spoke a parable, and with parables, it does no good to torture oneself by caring too much about individual words. But when we have learned what he means to say through the parable, then we know its usefulness, and we need not investigate further by strenuous efforts.”
The reasoning behind this canon is that there are many things woven into the narrations of parables, which do not pertain in any way to the purpose for which they are put together. We are not, however, to consider them useless or gratuitous parts of the parable.
Salmeron (vol. 7, tract. 3. p. 16) presents this analogy: “Suppose you have a sword, which you can use to cut bread and meat. Certainly not every part of the sword does the cutting, but only one part; for it does not cut by the handle, nor by the blunt edge opposite the sharp edge, nor by the tip, but it cuts only by the sharp edge. And yet, no one in their right mind would say that the handle or the tip or the blunt part opposite the sharp edge are not needed for cutting. For although they do not cut by themselves, they nevertheless serve their own purpose, so that the sharp part that was made for cutting might be able to cut more strongly and capably. For without them, the sharp edge would hardly be able to cut at all. In this way, many elements are mixed into parables, which—though they do not by themselves produce the spiritual meaning—do nevertheless serve their purpose, that the parable might cleave and cut by one part, to give prominence to what the author had intended by the parable. Likewise the land is cleft in two (as Augustine testifies in book 16 or the City of God, ch. 2) by the plowshare alone, but so that this can happen, other parts of the plow are also necessary. And only the strings in lyres (and other musical instruments like it) are designed to make sound, but so that they can do so, there are also other parts joined together in the structures of instruments, which are not plucked by the musicians, but the strings that make a sound when plucked are connected to them.”
So says Salmeron, who very fittingly applies Augustine’s words to this topic. For the holy Father wants sacred history to be explained allegorically in many places, but he does rightly say, as the words that precede declare, “We should not think that every single thing that is narrated also signifies something; but on account of the things that do signify something, those things that signify nothing are woven in. For by the plowshare alone,” and so on (then follow the words added by Salmeron). Augustine adds to this, “Likewise in prophetic history, other things are also said, which signify nothing, but serve to glue together and bind those things that do signify something.
We have said enough about this already above, on allegories, section 3, article 3.
Canon 6
The theology of parables is not suited for argumentation.
This canon is frequently flouted in the schools of the theologians. We must understand, however, that this canon concerns the explanations and applications of parables that are not innate (contained in Scripture itself; for innate explanations bring forth certain proofs, in the same way as other things that are explicitly stated in the sacred writings), but imported, in addition to being forced from and foreign to the text, when they depart from the intention, or else from the analogy of faith and from orthodoxy; or when they stem from applying individual words and parts.
Morton (apol. Cath. part 2. book 5, ch. 7) accurately refers to this as “The wanton itching of men who have too much time on their hands, who draw blood by pressing the nose too much” (Proverbs 30:33).
These are the chief propositions and canons regarding parables, to which those that here follow can be added, from Salmeron (tom. 7. tr. 3).
Canon 7
To understand parables, it is immensely helpful to have some familiarity with the things that are seen with the eyes, and with the natures and properties of the arts or trades that are described in similitudes.
For example, what is a treasure chest? What is a pearl? What is a mustard seed? What is the nature of grain? What is a tare? What is a net or a seine? What is a lion, snake, fox, and the other things presented in parables? For if these things are not known, then we cannot have any decent or excellent thought about divine realities. For just as a knowledge of language is needed to understand the historic meaning, so an understanding not only of the words themselves, but also of the natural world is needed to understand parables.
Canon 8
When Scripture frequently says that the Kingdom of Heaven is like this or that thing, we should not understand from this that the similitude together with every one of its parts corresponds with the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven. It is sufficient that the similitude serves to describe that part or quality of the Kingdom of Heaven that it was employed to declare.
Some express this more concisely and clearly as follows:
A parable or similitude should not be extended beyond the point of comparison.
So in one parable, Christ is likened to a thief, in Luke 12:38: “If the owner knew,” (he himself says) “at what hour the thief was coming, he would keep watch, and would not allow his house to be robbed.” He likens himself to a thief, certainly not in every respect! After all, how can the thief’s work agree with Christ the Lord, who commanded against theft and allowed himself to be plundered by everyone? But [he likens himself to a thief] only in the respect that, just as a thief comes at an unexpected hour, so Christ will come at an hour we least expect. So in Luke 16, the unjust steward, presented in a parable, is described as someone to be imitated, not in every respect, but in his shrewdness, and not in every way, but according to the speaker’s purpose in that passage. But this observation can be referred to canons four and five.
Canon 9
Not all parables make their point in the same way, but in different ways.
Some parables certainly make their point by a similarity, such as the seven parables in Matthew 13, and many others. Other parables, however, make their point by argument from dissimilarity, such as the parable of the unjust judge, who did not fear God, nor did he honor men; and the parable of the friend, who asked for three loaves of bread; and the unjust steward. For in the first parable, the unjust judge does not reflect God’s person, but through that character we can deduce how much care the good and just God has for those who pour forth their prayers to him, as if it is saying, “If the perseverance of the petitioning widow was effective with an unjust judge, how much more certain should we be that the prayers of the Church and of pious men are effective with God the fount of justice and mercy?” In the second parable a comparison is made from the lesser [to the greater]. For if a worldly friend rises from his bed and gives to the one who asks, not because of his friendship, but because he is compelled and tired of being annoyed, how much more will God give to those who ask, when God both loves us as his own sons, and encourages us to ask? The third parable about the unjust steward is also like this. For if the man can be praised who defrauds his master to look after himself for the future, how much more will he be praised by the Lord God who makes friends for himself with the riches that have been entrusted to him?
This concludes our discussion of parables.