PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Parables of Jesus



ChangedByHim
Oct 1st 2013, 04:52 PM
This thread is started in order to discuss the subject of the parables of Jesus. I do not have an "opening position." The subject is so broad that I would like for the discussion to dictate the flow, instead of an OP.

Some possible questions to get it started:

Do you have a model of interpretation that you use to interpret all parables?
Do you base your eschatology, in large part, on specific parables?
Is there a particular parable that you find difficult to understand?
Is there a particular parable that you believe is largely misinterpreted by others?
Anything thing else, parable related...

keck553
Oct 1st 2013, 04:55 PM
Parables are seeped in Hebraic thought all the way back to the ancient times, so a general study of eastern Hebraic content and context is helpful. Western Greek concepts and thought is not generally enlightening in the context of eastern thought.

ChangedByHim
Oct 1st 2013, 04:56 PM
That's a good point keck.

Scooby_Snacks
Oct 1st 2013, 04:59 PM
What a great thread ChangedbyHim!



Parables are seeped in Hebraic thought all the way back to the ancient times, so a general study of eastern Hebraic content and context is helpful. Western Greek concepts and thought is not generally enlightening in the context of eastern thought.

I just can't wait to see what transpires here. School cap on. :)

ChangedByHim
Oct 1st 2013, 05:01 PM
In other threads that are active, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus has been a hot topic of conversation. Some believe that the reference to Abraham's Bosom/ Hades to be figurative and not in any way literal. I stand on the opposite side of the fence and fully believe that there was such a place known as Abraham's Bosom, which Christ emptied at His resurrection. I also believe that the torment that Jesus spoke of in Hades was and is real, as well.

ChangedByHim
Oct 1st 2013, 05:05 PM
I don't subscribe to the only one main point school of thought. While there is some truth in that approach, I find that some very rich truth gets passed over in the process. I can go along with the idea that the other points need to be interpreted based on the central point.

I also find that some parables have more of an allegorical aspect to them than others. The Good Samaritan for example, has many allegorical components that are very rich.

I try to look at each parable individually and understand the context instead of running them all through the same cookie cutter model.

Walls
Oct 1st 2013, 05:10 PM
Parables are seeped in Hebraic thought all the way back to the ancient times, so a general study of eastern Hebraic content and context is helpful. Western Greek concepts and thought is not generally enlightening in the context of eastern thought.

The problem with this is that then only Easteners will be able to understand the bible. I think the emphasis should be on language and logic rather, with scripture interpreting scripture.

Slug1
Oct 1st 2013, 05:16 PM
The problem with this is that then only Easteners will be able to understand the bible. I think the emphasis should be on language and logic rather, with scripture interpreting scripture.Just so I understand your comment that I underlined... does this mean we trust man's logic through a personal understanding of language and not trust "context" of the Bible, by dividing scripture with scripture for understanding?

keck553
Oct 1st 2013, 05:19 PM
I guess what I am trying to say is that Jesus spoke in the vernacular of His people. For examples when missionaries go deep into, let's say the Brazilian jungle, it can take two years for them to understand the culture well enough to clearly communicate the Gospel to them. Missionaries don't just walk in and "speak tongues" and viola, we have western converts.

Just as an example, walking up to an isolate people-group, and reading from John "behold the lamb of God...," they wouldn't have a clue about the reality of that. There are many, well meaning Christians who have rushed in, converted people-groups, and they truly believe that the Christian God is just another spirit they must appease. They believe a Christian is someone who goes to a building, sings, listens to someone talk and then leave. Some of these languages as so complex that tone defines informational juice. A smile might be taken as a solicitation to someone's daughter for purchase.

We don't get this part of eastern communication in our Bibles; except Paul understood the nuances and they are pretty evident in his writings. In my opinion, that is why it is important for us to not only read the letters Paul addresses to the gentiles in our western mind set, it is important to consider the man who wrote them under the guidance of the Holy Spirit., his zeal, his stubborn nature, keeping in mind that he knew the law and traditions of the elders better.than any contemporary person today does. I think, knowing Paul's ability to speak "into western culture" that we take advantage of that gift.

keck553
Oct 1st 2013, 05:21 PM
The problem with this is that then only Easteners will be able to understand the bible. I think the emphasis should be on language and logic rather, with scripture interpreting scripture.

Who's logic would that be? Logic does not exist in a vacuum, for example like math. For example it is not logical for a man to willingly get himself crucified. We need a lot more information and understanding to make sense of it.


.



.

Walls
Oct 1st 2013, 05:23 PM
In other threads that are active, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus has been a hot topic of conversation. Some believe that the reference to Abraham's Bosom/ Hades to be figurative and not in any way literal. I stand on the opposite side of the fence and fully believe that there was such a place known as Abraham's Bosom, which Christ emptied at His resurrection. I also believe that the torment that Jesus spoke of in Hades was and is real, as well.

Well, here is a good place to start. Which part of a parable, or which scriptures do do use to show that Christ emptied Abraham's Bosom at His resurrection?

Walls
Oct 1st 2013, 05:28 PM
Who's logic would that be? Logic does not exist in a vacuum, for example like math. For example it is not logical for a man to willingly get himself crucified. We need a lot more information and understanding to make sense of it.


.



.

I did not know that logic is owned by any person. Logic is a series of facts leading unwaveringly to a conclusion.

keck553
Oct 1st 2013, 05:31 PM
I did not know that logic is owned by any person. Logic is a series of facts leading unwaveringly to a conclusion.

Logically explain the instant conversion of water to wine then.

Walls
Oct 1st 2013, 05:40 PM
Logically explain the instant conversion of water to wine then.

If we are to establish the basis on which parables are interpreted, shall we not first establish the ground rules? You have advocated Hebrew and Eastern study, and I have advocated strict adherence to the language the Holy Spirit has used and the logical outcome of a sequence of facts that are established by other scriptures. If we both approach water being changed into wine by different fundamentals, who is right? You reject my mechanism of interpretation, and I yours. What is the point then of discussion?

A man is murdered by stabbing. You investigate his murder on his culture, and I investigate his murder by DNA, fingerprints, autopsy, blood spatter and possible motives. Will we ever reach the same conclusion?

keck553
Oct 1st 2013, 06:32 PM
If we are to establish the basis on which parables are interpreted, shall we not first establish the ground rules? You have advocated Hebrew and Eastern study, and I have advocated strict adherence to the language the Holy Spirit has used and the logical outcome of a sequence of facts that are established by other scriptures. If we both approach water being changed into wine by different fundamentals, who is right? You reject my mechanism of interpretation, and I yours. What is the point then of discussion?

A man is murdered by stabbing. You investigate his murder on his culture, and I investigate his murder by DNA, fingerprints, autopsy, blood spatter and possible motives. Will we ever reach the same conclusion?

You and I both claim we listen to the Holy Spirit, yet reach different conclusions? Is that logical?

(I do have an answer)

MaryFreeman
Oct 1st 2013, 06:48 PM
Walls and Keck.... How about using the whole counsel of God? Which has room for both methods.... Put your results together and see what you come up with....

ChangedByHim
Oct 1st 2013, 06:53 PM
Well, here is a good place to start. Which part of a parable, or which scriptures do do use to show that Christ emptied Abraham's Bosom at His resurrection?

Mostly through deduction Walls. The way has now been made by the blood of Jesus. There are a few verses that are not explicit, such as:


Ephesians 4:
8 Therefore He says:
“When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”
9 (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)

This passage taken with Luke 23:43 about Jesus going to Paradise along with the book of Hebrews about Jesus being the forerunner, support this position. Again, I'm not claiming that it is explicit, but implicit.

Bro Berryl
Oct 1st 2013, 07:06 PM
This thread is started in order to discuss the subject of the parables of Jesus. I do not have an "opening position." The subject is so broad that I would like for the discussion to dictate the flow, instead of an OP.

Some possible questions to get it started:

Do you have a model of interpretation that you use to interpret all parables?
Do you base your eschatology, in large part, on specific parables?
Is there a particular parable that you find difficult to understand?
Is there a particular parable that you believe is largely misinterpreted by others?
Anything thing else, parable related...



The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is one that is largely misinterpreted. I have heard many sermons from this text that have to do with what happens after we die, but not many that fit the context of the parable.

Jesus is teaching the Pharisees about using what God has blessed them with in such a way that when they pass this life they may find favor with God. Not because they earned it, but because they loved the Lord and their neighbors as God has said to do.

The rich man would walk by Lazarus every day that he went out since that is where Lazarus was laid. He would see the sores and the condition of this man but would not show compassion. Jesus shows that being covetous with what we have and being unwilling to share is against the will of God.

TrustGzus
Oct 1st 2013, 07:13 PM
Some think that Lazarus and the rich man isn't a parable because they say that Jesus didn't give names to people in parables.

Old man
Oct 1st 2013, 07:36 PM
" The subject is so broad that I would like for the discussion to dictate the flow, instead of an OP.
Perhaps you ought to just pick one or roll a dice, draw it out of a hat, etc. to decide which one to discuss fresh from start. :idea:


Do you have a model of interpretation that you use to interpret all parables?
Although I can agree with Keck to a point I think more importantly is to interpret them in light of the situation or circumstances occurring at that time which Christ felt the need to address in the form of a parable. The circumstances going on are a huge determining factor in the proper interpretation of the parable and the limits to which it should be applied. Generally when Jesus taught in a parable He did so in light of a particular circumstance or mindset of the listeners. Starting from that point the correct interpretation is much easier to figure out.


Do you base your eschatology, in large part, on specific parables?
Only when the parable is being used in an eschatological context by Christ when He addresses that topic.


Is there a particular parable that you find difficult to understand?
Not if I can interpret it anyway I choose and apply it similarly. ;)


Is there a particular parable that you believe is largely misinterpreted by others?
Actually yes there is. The parable of the fig tree in Matt 24:32-34 “Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; (33) so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. (34) Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” :hmm:


Anything thing else, parable related...
I’m right and everyone else is wrong!!!!! :D

Walls
Oct 1st 2013, 07:37 PM
Walls and Keck.... How about using the whole counsel of God? Which has room for both methods.... Put your results together and see what you come up with....

I understood that the words of the Holy Spirit were the whole council of God. And I would be surprised if you find more, or less, than that.

keck553
Oct 1st 2013, 07:48 PM
Walls and Keck.... How about using the whole counsel of God? Which has room for both methods.... Put your results together and see what you come up with....

I am sure both of us would agree to that. And there is room for both. From my experience, the Holy Spirit doesn't expose all He has to give us on one passage all at once. He gives us what we can eat. That depends on our focus, maturity our ability to listen to Him at any given time and what He chooses to reveal to us through His Word according to His wisdom.

I have yet to read about the wedding at Cana and not come away with something new. The last time I read it I spend most of the day focused on the fact that the wine came from jars who's purpose was for ritual purification (hand washing). God never opened my eyes specific to that passage before, and no one taught me about that aspect, but in that reading it was all I could think about, so I had to study all the halackah about it, and its relationship with the Law of Moses, how 1st Century Judaism practiced fulfilling the law, how Jesus was applying their religious rituals to spiritual truths, and of course the aspects of the New Covenant coming soon to a Jerusalem near them.

Now I am sure, positive in fact that this "trivia" is not essential in the Christian life or walk, but it gave me joy, first of all that God actually spoke His Word into me, which strengthens my confidence, and it gave me hope and bolstered Jesus' "contentment awaits" theme of the Beatitudes.

But first I had to have some knowledge of tamar/tahor as it was applied in everyday Jewish life to even get to that point. Again, not essential, but neither is the understanding of parables to salvation. But both are profitable and we are commanded to study to show ourselves approved. Now I am sure God does not want us all to be the same in all these things, but for each of His people, He certainly does give them something to bring to the table, so after all this blah I've been posting, yes, you are correct in your statement.

Walls
Oct 1st 2013, 08:03 PM
Mostly through deduction Walls. The way has now been made by the blood of Jesus. There are a few verses that are not explicit, such as:


Ephesians 4:
8 Therefore He says:
“When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”
9 (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)

This passage taken with Luke 23:43 about Jesus going to Paradise along with the book of Hebrews about Jesus being the forerunner, support this position. Again, I'm not claiming that it is explicit, but implicit.

I am astounded. These verses neither imply nor state that Abraham's Bosom is emptied at Christ's resurrection. Nor do any others.

The contrary is the case in scripture. The only other captivity in the bible that was led captive was the Babylonian captivity. Nebuchadnezzar carried Judah into captivity. It was the Jews in Babylonian captivity. Some years later Cyrus of Persia took Babylon captive. The Jews were still captive in Babylon, and thereafter, as the book of Esther testifies. About 97% never left Babylon for the Good Land. Thus, the captivity of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar was led captive by Cyrus. The Jews did not move.

The one captivity in the bible that was led captive, shows that the subjects of the captivity did not change position, the exact opposite of what you suppose.

ChangedByHim
Oct 1st 2013, 08:46 PM
I am astounded that you are astounded.

Your response makes absolutely no sense to me.

Walls
Oct 1st 2013, 09:23 PM
I am astounded that you are astounded.

Your response makes absolutely no sense to me.

OK. Let's leave it to the other readers to decide if you gave proof of your supposition., and if "leading captivity captive" means emptying Abraham's Bosom. But if this is the way to approach parables, then they could mean anything.

ChangedByHim
Oct 1st 2013, 09:43 PM
OK. Let's leave it to the other readers to decide if you gave proof of your supposition., and if "leading captivity captive" means emptying Abraham's Bosom. But if this is the way to approach parables, then they could mean anything.

Let's do this exercise first Walls... You and anyone else who cares to, please read through my post and find where I said that I was "proving" my position.


Mostly through deduction Walls. The way has now been made by the blood of Jesus. There are a few verses that are not explicit, such as:


Ephesians 4:
8 Therefore He says:
“When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”
9 (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)

This passage taken with Luke 23:43 about Jesus going to Paradise along with the book of Hebrews about Jesus being the forerunner, support this position. Again, I'm not claiming that it is explicit, but implicit.

Back to my position, again, it is simple deduction. They were there before Jesus was resurrected. Now when saints die, they go where Jesus is (to be absent from the body is to be PRESENT WITH THE LORD), and the Lord is in the third heaven at the right hand of the Father. Therefore, Abraham's bosom is no longer the destination of saints. As for the Eph. 4 passage, it speaks clearly enough to me that Jesus after descending into the lower parts also ascended and led captivity captive.

ChangedByHim
Oct 1st 2013, 09:55 PM
Old man, how is it that you think that the parable of the fig tree is misinterpreted?

Old man
Oct 1st 2013, 10:28 PM
Old man, how is it that you think that the parable of the fig tree is misinterpreted?
Because every time I see this parable discussed most people seem to think that the “when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near” represents Israel becoming a nation again. When it actually is referring to “so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door.” The “all these things” are the previously mentioned signs earlier in the discussion. And nowhere in the earlier part of the chapter where He is listing the; “all these things” is the Israel becoming a nation again even mentioned.

It could be assumed to already be in existence at the time because of the AofD standing in the holy place. But this does not mean that Israel becoming a nation again is being referred to by the parable. This is why so many people who have predicted the end based on the idea of “this generation will not pass away” being linking with Israel once again a nation have been wrong when “this generation will not pass away” and “recognize that He is near, right at the door” is linked to the actually mentioned signs.

ChangedByHim
Oct 1st 2013, 10:38 PM
My favorite parables are:


Prodigal Son
Good Samaritan
The Sower



I love them all, but especially these.

ChangedByHim
Oct 1st 2013, 10:48 PM
I do not subscribe to the "only one main point" approach to all parables. While there may be a key point, and everything should be in harmony with that point, there are also some very rich truths aside from the main point. I use the Good Samaritan parable as an example. I put this summary together a while back. It is compiled from multiple sources. More than any other parable perhaps, this parable has an allegorical aspect that I can't deny. It does not replace or conflict with the more overt meaning of the parable.

Luke 10:30-35

30 Then Jesus answered and said: “A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

Certain man = Adam
Jerusalem = Heaven
Jericho = Earth
Thieves = Satan
Stripped of clothing = Poverty
Wounded = Sickness and Disease
Half-dead = Spiritual Death

31 Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side.

Priest and Levite = The Law
Samaritan = Jesus

34 So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

Oil = Holy Spirit
Wine = The Blood of Jesus
Inn = The Church

35 On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.’

He Departed = Jesus’ Ascension
The Innkeeper/Host = The Holy Spirit
Two Denarii = Two Day’s Wages (a day is as a thousand years)
When I Come Again = The Second Coming of Jesus

So in the story of the Good Samaritan, we can see the entire presentation of the Gospel.

Bandit
Oct 1st 2013, 10:55 PM
This thread is started in order to discuss the subject of the parables of Jesus. I do not have an "opening position." The subject is so broad that I would like for the discussion to dictate the flow, instead of an OP.

Some possible questions to get it started:

Do you have a model of interpretation that you use to interpret all parables?
Do you base your eschatology, in large part, on specific parables?
Is there a particular parable that you find difficult to understand?
Is there a particular parable that you believe is largely misinterpreted by others?
Anything thing else, parable related...


Hello CBH,

The interpretation of Jesus' parables is an interesting topic. I am sure we won't all agree on all points, but here are my thoughts.

1) Do you have a model of interpretation that you use to interpret all parables?

My primary "model" of interpretation, if you will, is that each parable was generally intended to drive home a single, major point (truth). If we over-analyze the parable (by trying to assign "meaning" to each and every detail of the parable), we can miss the major point.

2) Do you base your eschatology, in large part, on specific parables?

I see significant support from, and definition from, certain parables for my understanding of eschatology.

3) Is there a particular parable that you find difficult to understand?

The Parable of the Shrewd Steward in Luke 16 has always been somewhat of a challenge. I think I have a better handle on it now, but it is still a challenge.

4) Is there a particular parable that you believe is largely misinterpreted by others?

Well, there are actually a number I could cite here - but here are a couple. 1st, the Parable of the Unforgiven Servant in Matthew 18; many refuse to see any connection between this parable and salvation (and possible loss thereof). 2nd, is the Parable of the Sower; this parable, in my opinion, is misunderstood in a number of ways by many people.

5) Anything thing else, parable related...

Yes, Matthew 24 (and its related parables) are said by many to apply to national Israel and not to the church; I believe this is a great misunderstanding.

Bandit

Bro Berryl
Oct 2nd 2013, 01:47 AM
The parable of the shrewd steward is one that takes a different view than most of Jesus' parables. In this parable Jesus commends actions that we would normally think Jesus would condemn. It goes like this;

Luke 16:1 And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
Luke 16:2 And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward.
Luke 16:3 Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.
Luke 16:4 I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.
Luke 16:5 So he called every one of his lord's debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord?
Luke 16:6 And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty.
Luke 16:7 Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore.
Luke 16:8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.
Luke 16:9 And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.
Luke 16:10 He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
Luke 16:11 If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?
Luke 16:12 And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?
Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Why did Jesus commend the unjust steward in verse 8? I think because he was wise enough to figure out a way (using the rich mans possessions) to be prepared when the inevitable happened.

He found himself in a position where there was nothing he could do of his own, he couldn't work his way out, he was too proud to beg, the only course of action for him was to use what was provided to him by the rich man.

The application for us is to also be prepared when the inevitable (death) happens. Let us be wise enough to use what the Lord has blessed us with that when it is His time to call and our time to answer we can be found to have used our possessions to benefit us and not hurt us.

Curtis
Oct 2nd 2013, 02:31 AM
This thread is started in order to discuss the subject of the parables of Jesus. I do not have an "opening position." The subject is so broad that I would like for the discussion to dictate the flow, instead of an OP.

Some possible questions to get it started:

Do you have a model of interpretation that you use to interpret all parables?
Do you base your eschatology, in large part, on specific parables?
Is there a particular parable that you find difficult to understand?
Is there a particular parable that you believe is largely misinterpreted by others?
Anything thing else, parable related...


This is just a suggestion. Jesus speaking to his disciples said to them....

(Mar 4:13) And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?
(Mar 4:14) The sower soweth the word.

This is the grand Daddy of all parables, "the sower soweth the word"

With out understanding this one, you can not know any of the others. This could be a good place to start, I think.

ChangedByHim
Oct 2nd 2013, 02:33 AM
Curtis, I love the parable of the sower.

Balabusha
Oct 2nd 2013, 05:35 AM
The parables are interesting..believe it or not they work in the same manner of a joke-they introduce recognizable characters and situations that draw a person in, and just like a joke-it is the reaction of the intended audience that is the main point and meaning of most parables.
-Like the good Samaritan, we need to know the audience and the context in which the parable is given, this is identified by the verses previous to the parable-this is a scribe who gives all the right answers to Jesus..but to try to justify his actions, he asked Jesus "who is my neighbor" this is because the scribe knew to love your neighbor but only loved those who were not his enemies.
So Jesus said a Priest went by and left the man for dead..this justified the Priest because they were not as holy as a scribe in his mind
Then Jesus sent a Levite who passed by the man leaving him for dead..again justifying the scribe, In his mind the next one is going to be a scribe-he just knew a scribe would save the man...
BANG! the person who saved the man and showed him charity was a hated Samaritan..showing the man that he did not love his neighbor.

Has anyone ever read Augustines allegory of the good Samaritan? He destroys the meaning of it by not identifying and reading it literature properly.
Even in parables, there are different types of parables that have to be read differently from one and another..I don't know the names in English..I will get back to this if anyone is interested.
Keck is very correct, it is a very ancient way of writing to convey a point in eastern thought-some parts of Genesis especially the early parts are written in a type of historical parable..to drive the redemptive point home very quickly with the element of story for memorization and recitation. Most will knee jerk lynch me as thinking I am making Genesis an allegory..but this is not reality or the intent of the author.

Matthew does a superb job in organizing the parables..each one gives a progressive insight into the kingdom of God

Curtis
Oct 2nd 2013, 06:20 AM
It appears the purpose of parables is to reveal mysteries of the Kingdom of God to his disciples, but to keep it hidden from the rest.

Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

Redeemed by Grace
Oct 2nd 2013, 12:41 PM
It appears the purpose of parables is to reveal mysteries of the Kingdom of God to his disciples, but to keep it hidden from the rest.

Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.


That is so true... and to take it a step further, When asked by the disciples, Jesus then explained it to them... and then to take it another step further, when Jesus died and arose... and went to His disciples, He also open up their eyes and gave them understandings of all scriptures...

Luke 24:44 Now He said to them, " These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,

I submit for consideration that everyone can read the text, but not everyone will understand the text unless the Holy Spirit is within one's heart and that He guides the heart to wisdom....

For James also declares:

James 1:5 But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him. 6 But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For that man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord, 8 being a double- minded man, unstable in all his ways.

Curtis
Oct 2nd 2013, 01:51 PM
That is so true... and to take it a step further, When asked by the disciples, Jesus then explained it to them... and then to take it another step further, when Jesus died and arose... and went to His disciples, He also open up their eyes and gave them understandings of all scriptures...

Luke 24:44 Now He said to them, " These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,

I submit for consideration that everyone can read the text, but not everyone will understand the text unless the Holy Spirit is within one's heart and that He guides the heart to wisdom....

For James also declares:

James 1:5 But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him. 6 But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For that man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord, 8 being a double- minded man, unstable in all his ways.

Absolutely true, Wisdom is needed to be able to understand any parable, and that Wisdom only comes from the mouth of God, "the Lord giveth wisdom, out of his mouth comes knowledge and understanding."
Even Jesus said that the most important parable that unlocks all others is the , "sower soweth the Word" parable. In that parable the only person who profits is the one who hears the Word of the Kingdom, and understands (Wisdom) it. "Wisdom rests in the heart of him who has understanding." So, with out a intimate relationship with the Lord all we have is speculation, and guess work.

Eyelog
Oct 2nd 2013, 02:57 PM
1) Do you have a model of interpretation that you use to interpret all parables?

My primary "model" of interpretation, if you will, is that each parable was generally intended to drive home a single, major point (truth). If we over-analyze the parable (by trying to assign "meaning" to each and every detail of the parable), we can miss the major point.

2) Do you base your eschatology, in large part, on specific parables?

I see significant support from, and definition from, certain parables for my understanding of eschatology.

3) Is there a particular parable that you find difficult to understand?

The Parable of the Shrewd Steward in Luke 16 has always been somewhat of a challenge. I think I have a better handle on it now, but it is still a challenge.

4) Is there a particular parable that you believe is largely misinterpreted by others?

Well, there are actually a number I could cite here - but here are a couple. 1st, the Parable of the Unforgiven Servant in Matthew 18; many refuse to see any connection between this parable and salvation (and possible loss thereof). 2nd, is the Parable of the Sower; this parable, in my opinion, is misunderstood in a number of ways by many people.

5) Anything thing else, parable related...

Yes, Matthew 24 (and its related parables) are said by many to apply to national Israel and not to the church; I believe this is a great misunderstanding.

Bandit

Bandit, this is just an excellent post. Thank you.

I did want to comment that, just as sometimes a parable "was generally intended to drive home a single, major point (truth)[, and i]f we over-analyze the parable (by trying to assign "meaning" to each and every detail of the parable), we can miss the major point," the opposite can be true as well. We can ignore important information in the parable exposition bc we have adopted a paradigm of only looking for the punch line. Of course, the punch line is only understandable in the context of the exposition, and the exposition very well may speak spiritual truths as well. Yes?

Eyelog
Oct 2nd 2013, 03:00 PM
I do not subscribe to the "only one main point" approach to all parables. While there may be a key point, and everything should be in harmony with that point, there are also some very rich truths aside from the main point. I use the Good Samaritan parable as an example. I put this summary together a while back. It is compiled from multiple sources. More than any other parable perhaps, this parable has an allegorical aspect that I can't deny. It does not replace or conflict with the more overt meaning of the parable.

Luke 10:30-35

30 Then Jesus answered and said: “A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

Certain man = Adam
Jerusalem = Heaven
Jericho = Earth
Thieves = Satan
Stripped of clothing = Poverty
Wounded = Sickness and Disease
Half-dead = Spiritual Death

31 Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side.

Priest and Levite = The Law
Samaritan = Jesus

34 So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

Oil = Holy Spirit
Wine = The Blood of Jesus
Inn = The Church

35 On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.’

He Departed = Jesus’ Ascension
The Innkeeper/Host = The Holy Spirit
Two Denarii = Two Day’s Wages (a day is as a thousand years)
When I Come Again = The Second Coming of Jesus

So in the story of the Good Samaritan, we can see the entire presentation of the Gospel.

Simply, ChangeByHim, an excellent post!

I wholeheartedly agree that a one size fits all paradigm of so-called 'parable' interpretation, on a generic level, is unfounded. Generic considerations are often a factor, and often a secondary one, at that. : )

Eyelog
Oct 2nd 2013, 03:04 PM
Let's do this exercise first Walls... You and anyone else who cares to, please read through my post and find where I said that I was "proving" my position.



Back to my position, again, it is simple deduction. They were there before Jesus was resurrected. Now when saints die, they go where Jesus is (to be absent from the body is to be PRESENT WITH THE LORD), and the Lord is in the third heaven at the right hand of the Father. Therefore, Abraham's bosom is no longer the destination of saints. As for the Eph. 4 passage, it speaks clearly enough to me that Jesus after descending into the lower parts also ascended and led captivity captive.

This could be true, that Abe's bosom is no longer the destination of the Saints. There are infinite possibilities for the truth, since so little information is given. But based on what we know, this could still be true. But there are those who don't think the Word really says that to be absent with the body is to be with the Lord. ....

Eyelog
Oct 2nd 2013, 03:09 PM
OK. Let's leave it to the other readers to decide if you gave proof of your supposition., and if "leading captivity captive" means emptying Abraham's Bosom. But if this is the way to approach parables, then they could mean anything.

Walls, I agree you are asking the right question about whether parables can "mean anything."

But to suggest that trying to reconcile their text, including their expositions of the punch line, is improper as a rule is clearly not right. (Not saying you take it that far, brother).

What 'rules' or guidelines would you propose, good Walls?

Eyelog
Oct 2nd 2013, 03:14 PM
How about using the whole counsel of God?

MaryFreeman, I can't rep you every time you post bc of the settings the admins have saddled us with (fake resentment).

But this is a good line that those with interpretive techniques in their quiver must always balance with their subjective sensations of certainty. : )

Eyelog
Oct 2nd 2013, 03:18 PM
I think the emphasis should be on language and logic rather, with scripture interpreting scripture.

Walls, this sounds like a distinction without a difference to me. Each alternative requires the other. Please explain in more detail. : )

fewarechosen
Oct 2nd 2013, 04:16 PM
one of the first things to note is He spoke in parables for a reason

Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mat 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mat 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

the underlined is very important, its not for everyone, some its given to them to understand and some its not.

thing is everyone will claim they understand it, but just like pharisees thought they understood God and did his will, they do the same today, all the while not knowing he is far from them.

i often see people trying to explain their understanding of a parable to another and it turns into a debate or argument and one is often striving to "prove" their point, but if God doesnt give them the ability to understand the parable, you sure arent going to convince them of it with your argument.

simple logic and understanding and common interpretation methods and so on wont do you a lick of good if its not for you to understand, you will sit and think you understand it but you do not.

thats the reason there are so many varied opinions on what a parable means, cause its not for most to understand.

Bandit
Oct 2nd 2013, 04:51 PM
Parables are seeped in Hebraic thought all the way back to the ancient times, so a general study of eastern Hebraic content and context is helpful. Western Greek concepts and thought is not generally enlightening in the context of eastern thought.

Hello keck,

Actually, I think I might disagree (just a bit). I believe Greek thought based in logic would agree with the premise that a parable is a story designed to communicate a message in a context that the hearer could understand. Now a Greek may not have a full appreciation for the Hebrew culture in which a particular story (parable) was laid out, but a Greek would nevertheless agree with the method of delivery of the parable. Remember, parables, or wise sayings, were not unique to Israel.

MaryFreeman
Oct 2nd 2013, 04:58 PM
Well, there are actually a number I could cite here - but here are a couple. 1st, the Parable of the Unforgiven Servant in Matthew 18; many refuse to see any connection between this parable and salvation (and possible loss thereof). 2nd, is the Parable of the Sower; this parable, in my opinion, is misunderstood in a number of ways by many people.
How so? IOW.... What are some examples?



Yes, Matthew 24 (and its related parables) are said by many to apply to national Israel and not to the church; I believe this is a great misunderstanding.

Bandit
I take it you aren't pretrib.... Or premil.... Or what ever label folks attatch....

But do you not believe that God has unfinished business with Israel as a nation (Daniels 70th week)?

I want to figure these things out so I know where to go with your understanding.... Instead of just making assumptions....

Another probe is does assigning those parables to Israel cause them to seem less valuable to the church? As if they have nothing to impart to the church? Perhaps there is a nugget for both?

ChangedByHim
Oct 2nd 2013, 04:59 PM
The parables of Jesus recorded only in Matthew (10 parables)

The weeds (Matthew 13:24-30)
The treasure (Matthew 13:44)
The pearl (Matthew 13:45-46)
The fishing net (Matthew 13:47-50)
The workers in the harvest (Matthew 20:1-16)
The loaned money (Matthew 25:14-30)
The ten virgins (Matthew 25:1-13)
The two sons (Matthew 21:28-32)
The wedding feast (Matthew 22:1-14)
The unforgiving servant (Matthew 18:23-35)


The parables of Jesus recorded only in Mark (2 parables)

The wheat (Mark 4:26-29)
The traveling owner of the house (Mark 13:34-37)


The parables of Jesus recorded only in Luke (14 parables)

The noble man’s servants (Luke 19:11-27)
The servant’s role (Luke 17:7-10)
The friend at midnight (Luke 11:5-8)
The unjust judge (Luke 18:1-8)
The Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37)
The wedding feast (Luke 14:7-11)
The proud Pharisee and the corrupt tax collector (Luke 18:9-14)
The rich fool (Luke 12:16-21)
The Great Feast (Luke 14:16-24)
The shrewd manager (Luke 16:1-9)
The lost coin (Luke 15:11-32)
The lost son (Luke 15: 11-32)
The forgiven debts (Luke 7:41-43)
The unproductive fig tree (Luke 13:6-9)


The parables of Jesus recorded two Gospels (2 parables)

The yeast (Matthew 13:33; Luke 13:20-21)
The lost sheep (Matthew 18:12-14; Luke 15:3-7)


The parables of Jesus recorded in three Gospels (4 parables)

The wise and faithful servants (Matthew 24:45-51; Luke 12:42-48)
The soils (Matthew 13:3-8; Mark 4:4-8; Luke 8:5-8)
The mustard seed (Matthew 13:31-32; Mark 4:30-32; Luke 13:18-19)
The wicked tenants (Matthew 21:33-34; Mark 12:1-9; Luke 20:9-16)

Curtis
Oct 2nd 2013, 05:02 PM
one of the first things to note is He spoke in parables for a reason

Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mat 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mat 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

the underlined is very important, its not for everyone, some its given to them to understand and some its not.

thing is everyone will claim they understand it, but just like pharisees thought they understood God and did his will, they do the same today, all the while not knowing he is far from them.

i often see people trying to explain their understanding of a parable to another and it turns into a debate or argument and one is often striving to "prove" their point, but if God doesnt give them the ability to understand the parable, you sure arent going to convince them of it with your argument.

simple logic and understanding and common interpretation methods and so on wont do you a lick of good if its not for you to understand, you will sit and think you understand it but you do not.

thats the reason there are so many varied opinions on what a parable means, cause its not for most to understand.

I do agree with you. I do have to say though that people can see different things in each parable. I might see it one way, and another see it in a different way, but that does not make one right and other wrong as long as they both come to the same conclusion then they are both right. I think the problem we have today is we think there is only one way to see things. Jesus used parables as a method to teach spiritual truth by using the things of this world as examples.

percho
Oct 2nd 2013, 05:18 PM
First: I believe because Jesus was, "the prophet," and even as implied here, ( Heb 1:1,2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,) that written in red should be primarily be understood in that context. One example. Where Jesus states in John 11 of being the resurrection and the life. Was he such at the moment of speaking, or was he prophetically speaking of himself after the resurrection?

Second: This was a statement made by a prophet maybe around 700 BC. Hear this word that the LORD hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.Amos 3:1,2

Spoken to two groups of people who had become two about 200 years before this was written. Before the split all these people considered themselves to be just that God stated that they were the people of God.

After the split, what was the attitude of those in the south toward those in the north. Did those in the south still consider those in the north as the people of God. After all those in the north had even changed the time of the feast of tabernacles. Then shortly after the statement made in Amos 3 was made by Amos those of the north taken away and other people put in the land in there place. Did those in the south still think those of the north had been the people of God or did they think God had cast them away, as the foreskins of the circumcised were cast away?

About 150 years later the people of the south were taken away and 70 years later some of them returned to the land, rebuilt the city walls and then the temple itself.

These were the people in the land when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea.

Who was the Christ the Christ of? Who did these people believe Christ was the Christ of? Did they still believe the people of the north to be cast away?

That is the context I believe the parables should be seen in. It for sure is the context of the story of the rich man and Lazarus which begins in verse 16 and shows the divorced northern group and even thoses of the faith of Abraham, Lazarus can be in the kingdom of God and the Judeans could be left out.

Who are the two sons in the parable of the prodigal son.

The children of the kingdom are the children of the faith of Abraham, that is the children in Christ are the seed of Abraham and heirs. From the Jews and Gentiles which are inclusive of the northern kingdom and the heathen called by God.

Most put the northern kingdom in with the Jews when in reality they are scattered among the heathen.

Bandit
Oct 2nd 2013, 05:46 PM
The problem with this is that then only Easteners will be able to understand the bible. I think the emphasis should be on language and logic rather, with scripture interpreting scripture.


Just so I understand your comment that I underlined... does this mean we trust man's logic through a personal understanding of language and not trust "context" of the Bible, by dividing scripture with scripture for understanding?

Hello all,

As I see it, the universe is full of "logic". God is not only a loving being, but a logical one; He created all the physical universe to follow universal "logical" laws. I do not find logic and faith to be necessarily contradictory - in fact, I believe true faith to be completely logical, and true logic to be completely faithful.

Walls
Oct 2nd 2013, 05:47 PM
Walls, I agree you are asking the right question about whether parables can "mean anything."

But to suggest that trying to reconcile their text, including their expositions of the punch line, is improper as a rule is clearly not right. (Not saying you take it that far, brother).

What 'rules' or guidelines would you propose, good Walls?

Hi Eyelog,
I'm a bit snowed under by work and I'm in a part of the world with bad internet, so forgive my barebones answer. Basically I did not want to derail the thread and so have held back on Abraham's Bosom and other disagreements here to honor ChangedbyHim's serious attempt at a good thread. Winning an argument does not always edify. Much more I would have loved to contribute to the parables as I have studied them extensively. But posting is all but impossible with the problems on the server plus bad internet. Hope you, and others understand.

Bandit
Oct 2nd 2013, 05:53 PM
Who's logic would that be? Logic does not exist in a vacuum, for example like math. For example it is not logical for a man to willingly get himself crucified. We need a lot more information and understanding to make sense of it.

But self-sacrifice for the lives of others is both loving and logical; that is the backdrop to the crucifixion which needs to be explained.

Bandit
Oct 2nd 2013, 05:57 PM
Logically explain the instant conversion of water to wine then.

The "logic" here is that the One who alone has creative powers has re-creative powers; The Creator reveals Himself through what He does.

Bandit
Oct 2nd 2013, 06:01 PM
.... Jesus shows that being covetous with what we have and being unwilling to share is against the will of God.

This is a true observation.

percho
Oct 2nd 2013, 06:07 PM
I am astounded. These verses neither imply nor state that Abraham's Bosom is emptied at Christ's resurrection. Nor do any others.

The contrary is the case in scripture. The only other captivity in the bible that was led captive was the Babylonian captivity. Nebuchadnezzar carried Judah into captivity. It was the Jews in Babylonian captivity. Some years later Cyrus of Persia took Babylon captive. The Jews were still captive in Babylon, and thereafter, as the book of Esther testifies. About 97% never left Babylon for the Good Land. Thus, the captivity of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar was led captive by Cyrus. The Jews did not move.

The one captivity in the bible that was led captive, shows that the subjects of the captivity did not change position, the exact opposite of what you suppose.

An excellent and accurate post. The Jews were in captivity by Babylon. Babylon was taken captive by Persia. And the Jews were still in captivity.

Those who have died are in captivity by death. Jesus by his death and then resurrection has taken captive death. Those who were in captivity to death are still dead.

That is exactly what Jesus says concerning the church. Even though the Church Jesus builds will succumb to the gates of Hades, Death. That death, the gates of Hades, will not prevail against her.
There is coming a time when she shall lead captivity, captive also.

Bandit
Oct 2nd 2013, 06:15 PM
This is just a suggestion. Jesus speaking to his disciples said to them....

(Mar 4:13) And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?
(Mar 4:14) The sower soweth the word.

This is the grand Daddy of all parables, "the sower soweth the word"

With out understanding this one, you can not know any of the others. This could be a good place to start, I think.

Yes, I think this one would be a good place to start. How one understands this parable dictates their approach to all the others.

Walls
Oct 2nd 2013, 06:15 PM
An excellent and accurate post. The Jews were in captivity by Babylon. Babylon was taken captive by Persia. And the Jews were still in captivity.

Those who have died are in captivity by death. Jesus by his death and then resurrection has taken captive death. Those who were in captivity to death are still dead.

That is exactly what Jesus says concerning the church. Even though the Church Jesus builds will succumb to the gates of Hades, Death. That death, the gates of Hades, will not prevail against her.
There is coming a time when she shall lead captivity, captive also.

AMEN brother! 1st Thessalonians Chapter 4 guarantees that the dead Christians only rise AT CHRIST'S SECOND COMING, not at His resurrection!

Bandit
Oct 2nd 2013, 06:23 PM
It appears the purpose of parables is to reveal mysteries of the Kingdom of God to his disciples, but to keep it hidden from the rest.

Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.



That is so true... and to take it a step further...
I submit for consideration that everyone can read the text, but not everyone will understand the text unless the Holy Spirit is within one's heart and that He guides the heart to wisdom....

For James also declares:

James 1:5 But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him. 6 But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For that man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord, 8 being a double- minded man, unstable in all his ways.

Hello all,

I just wanted to point some things out here. Luke 8:10 does not mean that God "hides" truths from some who never had opportunity to access the truth. Those for whom the truth is hidden are those who did not seek it. As Proverbs 1 makes it very clear, God (through His wisdom) calls aloud to any and all who will hear. Wisdom and its benefits are hidden from those who do not seek it.

Balabusha
Oct 2nd 2013, 06:35 PM
I do not subscribe to the "only one main point" approach to all parables. While there may be a key point, and everything should be in harmony with that point, there are also some very rich truths aside from the main point. I use the Good Samaritan parable as an example. I put this summary together a while back. It is compiled from multiple sources. More than any other parable perhaps, this parable has an allegorical aspect that I can't deny. It does not replace or conflict with the more overt meaning of the parable.

Luke 10:30-35

30 Then Jesus answered and said: “A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

Certain man = Adam
Jerusalem = Heaven
Jericho = Earth
Thieves = Satan
Stripped of clothing = Poverty
Wounded = Sickness and Disease
Half-dead = Spiritual Death

31 Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side.

Priest and Levite = The Law
Samaritan = Jesus

34 So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

Oil = Holy Spirit
Wine = The Blood of Jesus
Inn = The Church

35 On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.’

He Departed = Jesus’ Ascension
The Innkeeper/Host = The Holy Spirit
Two Denarii = Two Day’s Wages (a day is as a thousand years)
When I Come Again = The Second Coming of Jesus

So in the story of the Good Samaritan, we can see the entire presentation of the Gospel.

This is very sound theologically, but not warranted by sound exegesis, or any sound rules of interpretation
1 there is no warrant to do to the text what you just did-you have to look for the words "like" and then a contrasting term to compare.
A.For example "the kingdom of heaven is Like a mustard seed". We knoww that the Kingdom is compared to a mustard seed-a mustard seed is small.
2. When a person relies on their own imagination and creates their own allegory-they the become inspired writers of the bible instead of illuminated readers of the Bible. What is there to stop a Mormon or JW from inserting something from their own imagination into the text?
-if we can create our own allegory then you have to accept someone elses allegory-like making the Fall an allegory or the 7 churches into an allegory-we just are not allowed to to this out of thin air.

Bandit
Oct 2nd 2013, 06:38 PM
Bandit, this is just an excellent post. Thank you.

I did want to comment that, just as sometimes a parable "was generally intended to drive home a single, major point (truth)[, and i]f we over-analyze the parable (by trying to assign "meaning" to each and every detail of the parable), we can miss the major point," the opposite can be true as well. We can ignore important information in the parable exposition bc we have adopted a paradigm of only looking for the punch line. Of course, the punch line is only understandable in the context of the exposition, and the exposition very well may speak spiritual truths as well. Yes?


Simply, ChangeByHim, an excellent post!

I wholeheartedly agree that a one size fits all paradigm of so-called 'parable' interpretation, on a generic level, is unfounded. Generic considerations are often a factor, and often a secondary one, at that. : )

Hello Eyelog,

Well, I think ChangeByHim's post of the Good Samaritan went well beyond the original meaning. Yea, it may make for a good read, but I believe it far exceeds what the original intent was. This would be an example of what I would call over analysis. Such an analysis may sound good, and may have good intentions, but it is simply without warrant. This would be an interpretation where I would say man has added to what God has written - and though the intent may have been honorable, this is the kind of thing that we should be careful not to do. So I do not share you enthusiasm over CBH's reading of the Good Samaritan. (Sorry, CBH. :dunno:)

Old man
Oct 2nd 2013, 06:55 PM
This is very sound theologically, but not warranted by sound exegesis, or any sound rules of interpretation
1 there is no warrant to do to the text what you just did-you have to look for the words "like" and then a contrasting term to compare.
A.For example "the kingdom of heaven is Like a mustard seed". We knoww that the Kingdom is compared to a mustard seed-a mustard seed is small.
2. When a person relies on their own imagination and creates their own allegory-they the become inspired writers of the bible instead of illuminated readers of the Bible. What is there to stop a Mormon or JW from inserting something from their own imagination into the text?
-if we can create our own allegory then you have to accept someone elses allegory-like making the Fall an allegory or the 7 churches into an allegory-we just are not allowed to to this out of thin air.
Well put! :thumbsup:


Well, I think ChangeByHim's post of the Good Samaritan went well beyond the original meaning. Yea, it may make for a good read, but I believe it far exceeds what the original intent was. This would be an example of what I would call over analysis. Such an analysis may sound good, and may have good intentions, but it is simply without warrant. This would be an interpretation where I would say man has added to what God has written - and though the intent may have been honorable, this is the kind of thing that we should be careful not to do. …
I agreed. :yes:

fewarechosen
Oct 2nd 2013, 07:09 PM
I do agree with you. I do have to say though that people can see different things in each parable. I might see it one way, and another see it in a different way, but that does not make one right and other wrong as long as they both come to the same conclusion then they are both right. I think the problem we have today is we think there is only one way to see things. Jesus used parables as a method to teach spiritual truth by using the things of this world as examples.

i completely agree, i have also noticed there is a certain depth to parables that one may grasp certain points to start then learn there is more depth to what is in the parable later. almost like you may understand one part of an equation now and learn of the rest later, yet the part you understood now doesnt change or wasnt in error yet you still learn more.

Balabusha
Oct 2nd 2013, 07:11 PM
How so? IOW.... What are some examples?


I take it you aren't pretrib.... Or premil.... Or what ever label folks attatch....

But do you not believe that God has unfinished business with Israel as a nation (Daniels 70th week)?

I want to figure these things out so I know where to go with your understanding.... Instead of just making assumptions....

Another probe is does assigning those parables to Israel cause them to seem less valuable to the church? As if they have nothing to impart to the church? Perhaps there is a nugget for both?


Hello all,
I just wanted to point some things out here. Luke 8:10 does not mean that God "hides" truths from some who never had opportunity to access the truth. Those for whom the truth is hidden are those who did not seek it. As Proverbs 1 makes it very clear, God (through His wisdom) calls aloud to any and all who will hear. Wisdom and its benefits are hidden from those who do not seek it.

The parables were designed to get an emotional response to most of them-again there are a couple categories of Parables.
The reaction is what counted-some may have reacted with "whatever" or with emotion, or some would have headed the message given.
For example: the shrewed Manager
Some would have been perplexed, some confused and angry that Jesus is talking positively of a man who short changed his boss-this is because we think in terms of the flesh-but if we are to think in Spiritual terms that what was shocking to us is the point of the parable-the manager took action in the face of certain doom-he did not just sit idly by and do nothing.
-the majority of the parables have a "urgency" to them. This one is no different.
You would have to ignore the same urgency throughoiut the Gospels-in like manner-to feel ripped off that these are not all about the church leads to Eisegesis-a predetermined out come decided in advance. Just look at the threads in this section-you see people debating genetics and dinosaurs in Genesis-this is reading the book in the flesh-just like Jesus said the spiritual truths will be hid in the parables. Nothing could be more true when you get to revelations, look in the end times forum-this book of the bible becomes less about Jesus revealing himself-and becomes "artificial intelligence and end times" one world orders,nuclear bombs,apache helicopters and consiracy theories. The revelation of Jesus gets hidden when read in the flesh...It is hidden to those who don't think of spiritual things in the Spirit

ChangedByHim
Oct 2nd 2013, 07:17 PM
This is very sound theologically
Indeed it is. Do you believe it to be coincidence?


but not warranted by sound exegesis, or any sound rules of interpretation
According to whose rules? Man? Can you present a verse of Scripture that says it is not sound? It neither replaces not conflicts with the overt meaning of the parable.

Who is our Teacher? Is it man or the Holy Spirit?




2. When a person relies on their own imagination and creates their own allegory-they the become inspired writers of the bible instead of illuminated readers of the Bible. What is there to stop a Mormon or JW from inserting something from their own imagination into the text?
-if we can create our own allegory then you have to accept someone elses allegory-like making the Fall an allegory or the 7 churches into an allegory-we just are not allowed to to this out of thin air.

This is your opinion. You are certainly entitled to it. I do not rely upon my imagination to interpret the Bible.


Hello Eyelog,

. (Sorry, CBH. :dunno:)

No apology needed brother :).

Bandit
Oct 2nd 2013, 07:28 PM
How so? IOW.... What are some examples?

Hello Mary,

I am assuming you are asking about the Parable of the Sower (and different "understandings" of that parable). Some assume the parable is meant to teach that people are like dirt; one kind of dirt is what God created it to be, and as such, it's "fate" is predetermined. So some say that one cannot choose how they will respond to the gospel, just like one kind of soil cannot change itself into another kind of soil... but that is not what the parable was intended to teach. Others say that those soils in which the seed grew for a while were never saved. This is another "interpretation" which does not jive with the parable. The ultimate point of this parable is for people to determine to be the kind of soil which perseveres and produces a crop. If we have no ability to learn and respond from Jesus' teaching, then He was nothing more than a fool wasting both His and our time. (I would really like someone to quote me on that last line.)



I take it you aren't pretrib.... Or premil.... Or what ever label folks attatch....

But do you not believe that God has unfinished business with Israel as a nation (Daniels 70th week)?

God is not finished with the world. Only those who think Israel is not a part of the world would think that God is finished with them.



I want to figure these things out so I know where to go with your understanding.... Instead of just making assumptions....

Another probe is does assigning those parables to Israel cause them to seem less valuable to the church? As if they have nothing to impart to the church? Perhaps there is a nugget for both?

Yes, those who think that certain parables (especially warning parables) have nothing to do with them, have made a grave mistake. Those who make this mistake risk becoming those whom fall short in such parables.

Slug1
Oct 2nd 2013, 07:40 PM
I do not subscribe to the "only one main point" approach to all parables. While there may be a key point, and everything should be in harmony with that point, there are also some very rich truths aside from the main point. I use the Good Samaritan parable as an example. I put this summary together a while back. It is compiled from multiple sources. More than any other parable perhaps, this parable has an allegorical aspect that I can't deny. It does not replace or conflict with the more overt meaning of the parable.

Luke 10:30-35

30 Then Jesus answered and said: “A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

Certain man = Adam
Jerusalem = Heaven
Jericho = Earth
Thieves = Satan
Stripped of clothing = Poverty
Wounded = Sickness and Disease
Half-dead = Spiritual Death

CbH... this is pretty much how I understand this parable. Concerning the "clothing"... I've always associated clothing with righteousness or blamelessness before God... your though(s)?



31 Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side.

Priest and Levite = The Law
Samaritan = JesusI've always associated the priest and the levite to represent the "religeousness" of faith and how it is powerless and without any concern for mankind.


34 So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

Oil = Holy Spirit
Wine = The Blood of Jesus
Inn = The ChurchI guess "church" or "Body of Christ" are the same in association for many... I've always used Body of Christ.



35 On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.’

He Departed = Jesus’ Ascension
The Innkeeper/Host = The Holy Spirit
Two Denarii = Two Day’s Wages (a day is as a thousand years)
When I Come Again = The Second Coming of JesusSame on this end.

Balabusha
Oct 2nd 2013, 07:43 PM
Indeed it is. Do you believe it to be coincidence?
-it is not even in context-so how can it be coincidence-this is forced into the text-but it is very sound theologically and beautiful in itself.


According to whose rules? Man? Can you present a verse of Scripture that says it is not sound? It neither replaces not conflicts with the overt meaning of the parable.
-i just have to give one-the grammatical rule-there is no prompt to make an allegory out of this-we are not allowed to allegorixe scripture-then we add or subtract to the intended meaning-a private interpretation.
-the parable is to love your neighbor-even those you conflict with.


Who is our Teacher? Is it man or the Holy Spirit?
-i don't think it is right to start throwing God into the mix as a spiritual hammer.


This is your opinion. You are certainly entitled to it. I do not rely upon my imagination to interpret the Bible.
-you relied on augustine and other sources-so this is not your imagination-you just read someone elses imaginative allegory-from this viewpoint I don't understand why you would bring in the Holy Spirit.


Indeed it is. Do you believe it to be coincidence?
-it is not even in context-so how can it be coincidence-this is forced into the text-but it is very sound theologically and beautiful in itself.


According to whose rules? Man? Can you present a verse of Scripture that says it is not sound? It neither replaces not conflicts with the overt meaning of the parable.
-i just have to give one-the grammatical rule-there is no prompt to make an allegory out of this-we are not allowed to allegorixe scripture-then we add or subtract to the intended meaning-a private interpretation.
-the parable is to love your neighbor-even those you conflict with.


Who is our Teacher? Is it man or the Holy Spirit?
-i don't think it is right to start throwing God into the mix as a spiritual hammer.


This is your opinion. You are certainly entitled to it. I do not rely upon my imagination to interpret the Bible.
-you relied on augustine and other sources-so this is not your imagination-you just read someone elses imaginative allegory-from this viewpoint I don't understand why you would bring in the Holy Spirit.

ChangedByHim
Oct 2nd 2013, 08:36 PM
Karaite, you seem to be very intellectual and well read. This is easily recognizable. With that, there is a tendency to begin to think that everything must pass through the rules that you have personally approved. I appreciate your feedback. Saying that the Holy Spirit is my Teacher is not using God as a hammer. The allegory that I presented is secondary to the primary interpretation. You have not presented anything other than your opinion and some man made rules to pose a conflict.

And most importantly, by your own declaration, it is theologically correct :).

Curtis
Oct 2nd 2013, 08:41 PM
Hello Mary,

I am assuming you are asking about the Parable of the Sower (and different "understandings" of that parable). Some assume the parable is meant to teach that people are like dirt; one kind of dirt is what God created it to be, and as such, it's "fate" is predetermined. So some say that one cannot choose how they will respond to the gospel, just like one kind of soil cannot change itself into another kind of soil... but that is not what the parable was intended to teach. Others say that those soils in which the seed grew for a while were never saved. This is another "interpretation" which does not jive with the parable. The ultimate point of this parable is for people to determine to be the kind of soil which perseveres and produces a crop. If we have no ability to learn and respond from Jesus' teaching, then He was nothing more than a fool wasting both His and our time. (I would really like someone to quote me on that last line.)




God is not finished with the world. Only those who think Israel is not a part of the world would think that God is finished with them.




Yes, those who think that certain parables (especially warning parables) have nothing to do with them, have made a grave mistake. Those who make this mistake risk becoming those whom fall short in such parables.

Well, I am one of those who think that the parable of the sower does refer to those hearing the Word as soil. After all we made from the dust of the ground. Isn't there were the Word of God is sown, in dirt?
We are responsible for keeping the weeds out that would choke the Word from producing fruit. We can not change the soil, but we can make sure that the other things growing around us are kept out. God is the Gardner, and we are his garden. We are to keep the garden and hedge it about from intruders. This is just my own opinion, maybe other people can join in and add to this.......

Old man
Oct 2nd 2013, 08:50 PM
It’s my opinion that the parable is more about what we choose to do with the seed (the word of God) that is given. We can allow it to be stolen or the circumstances we find ourselves in to override it. We either choose to believe and trust God’s word or not. We will of course also experience the consequences of the choice we make. But I also believe that the Lord just as He continued to give Israel opportunities to get it right, He will continue to give us His word for us to get it right. But His spirit will not strive with us forever if we continually reject His word or dismiss it as being less than our circumstance. We can learn to accept and apply His word if it is preeminent over our circumstances. As a great servant of the Lord once said,

“If we have no ability to learn and respond from Jesus' teaching, then He was nothing more than a fool wasting both His and our time.”

Redeemed by Grace
Oct 2nd 2013, 09:40 PM
To the Parable of the seed...Good News! We know exactly what Jesus meant, for He then explains to His disciples...

Mark 4:1

1 He began to teach again by the sea. And such a very large crowd gathered to Him that He got into a boat in the sea and sat down; and the whole crowd was by the sea on the land. 2 And He was teaching them many things in parables, and was saying to them in His teaching, 3 "Listen to this! Behold, the sower went out to sow; 4 as he was sowing, some seed fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Other seed fell on the rocky ground where it did not have much soil; and immediately it sprang up because it had no depth of soil. 6 And after the sun had risen, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away. 7 Other seed fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked it, and it yielded no crop. 8 Other seeds fell into the good soil, and as they grew up and increased, they yielded a crop and produced thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold." 9 And He was saying, " He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
10 As soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about the parables. 11 And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, 12 so that while seeing, they may see and not perceive, and while hearing, they may hear and not understand, otherwise they might return and be forgiven."

Explanation

13 And He *said to them, "Do you not understand this parable? How will you understand all the parables? 14 The sower sows the word. 15 These are the ones who are beside the road where the word is sown; and when they hear, immediately Satan comes and takes away the word which has been sown in them. 16 In a similar way these are the ones on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy; 17 and they have no firm root in themselves, but are only temporary; then, when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately they fall away. 18 And others are the ones on whom seed was sown among the thorns; these are the ones who have heard the word, 19 but the worries of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful. 20 And those are the ones on whom seed was sown on the good soil; and they hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold."

Thus anything more is reading into the parable, and anything less is not reading it at all.

Curtis
Oct 2nd 2013, 09:44 PM
To the Parable of the seed...Good News! We know exactly what Jesus meant, for He then explains to His disciples...

Mark 4:1

1 He began to teach again by the sea. And such a very large crowd gathered to Him that He got into a boat in the sea and sat down; and the whole crowd was by the sea on the land. 2 And He was teaching them many things in parables, and was saying to them in His teaching, 3 "Listen to this! Behold, the sower went out to sow; 4 as he was sowing, some seed fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Other seed fell on the rocky ground where it did not have much soil; and immediately it sprang up because it had no depth of soil. 6 And after the sun had risen, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away. 7 Other seed fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked it, and it yielded no crop. 8 Other seeds fell into the good soil, and as they grew up and increased, they yielded a crop and produced thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold." 9 And He was saying, " He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
10 As soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about the parables. 11 And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, 12 so that while seeing, they may see and not perceive, and while hearing, they may hear and not understand, otherwise they might return and be forgiven."

Explanation

13 And He *said to them, "Do you not understand this parable? How will you understand all the parables? 14 The sower sows the word. 15 These are the ones who are beside the road where the word is sown; and when they hear, immediately Satan comes and takes away the word which has been sown in them. 16 In a similar way these are the ones on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy; 17 and they have no firm root in themselves, but are only temporary; then, when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately they fall away. 18 And others are the ones on whom seed was sown among the thorns; these are the ones who have heard the word, 19 but the worries of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful. 20 And those are the ones on whom seed was sown on the good soil; and they hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold."

Thus anything more is reading into the parable, and anything less is not reading it at all.

Amazing what you can learn just by reading the Bible. :)

Eyelog
Oct 2nd 2013, 11:58 PM
Thus anything more is reading into the parable, and anything less is not reading it at all.

Of course, your view might be true, as all things are possible with God.

However, in all likelihood we have to understand what the explanation means, which takes careful interpretation.

For example, what does this mean, and what are its implications?


8 Other seeds fell into the good soil, and as they grew up and increased, they yielded a crop and produced thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold." 9 And He was saying, " He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

Eyelog
Oct 3rd 2013, 12:26 AM
Well, I am one of those who think that the parable of the sower does refer to those hearing the Word as soil. After all we made from the dust of the ground. Isn't there were the Word of God is sown, in dirt?
We are responsible for keeping the weeds out that would choke the Word from producing fruit. We can not change the soil, but we can make sure that the other things growing around us are kept out. God is the Gardner, and we are his garden. We are to keep the garden and hedge it about from intruders. This is just my own opinion, maybe other people can join in and add to this.......

Hi, Curtis. I think the soil is the heart:


12"Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved. … 15"But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance. Luke 8.

Curtis
Oct 3rd 2013, 12:42 AM
Hi, Curtis. I think the soil is the heart:

We can not argue against the Word of God. It stands on it's own. Thanks for reminding me about this scripture.

Bandit
Oct 3rd 2013, 01:34 AM
.... As a great servant of the Lord once said,

“If we have no ability to learn and respond from Jesus' teaching, then He was nothing more than a fool wasting both His and our time.”

That servant is far from great... but is still climbing that upward path. (And as I like to say of myself, I'm that part of the totem-pole, which when looking up, still sees dirt.)

Old man
Oct 3rd 2013, 01:45 AM
(And as I like to say of myself, I'm that part of the totem-pole, which when looking up, still sees dirt.)

Yes but when I look up I see the soles of your shoes.

Bandit
Oct 3rd 2013, 01:54 AM
... in all likelihood we have to understand what the explanation means, which takes careful interpretation.

For example, what does this mean, and what are its implications?

"Other seeds fell into the good soil, and as they grew up and increased, they yielded a crop and produced thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold." And He was saying, " He who has ears to hear, let him hear." [Mark 4:8,9]


Hello all,

I think Eyelog and I are on somewhat the same page here. Even Jesus' explanation of this parable requires careful thought and application. So just what is it Jesus wants us to understand and apply from this parable?

Redeemed by Grace
Oct 3rd 2013, 03:14 AM
Of course, your view might be true, as all things are possible with God.

However, in all likelihood we have to understand what the explanation means, which takes careful interpretation.

For example, what does this mean, and what are its implications?

As with the other thread currently running, there is truth which is God breathed, and interpretations and opinions which are mans responses... (Also remember that mans knowledge in acquired, influenced and learned). So as you know then, interpretation is at the hand of the hearer and not of the speaker, which many times misses that one meaning of the speaker/author.

Curtis
Oct 3rd 2013, 03:49 AM
The parable of the "sower soweth the Word" according to my understanding is, the only way the Word of God will ever produce fruit, or come to maturity is if the hearer understands it. If those who hear the Word and do not understand they will endure for a while, but eventually fall. The only way to get this understanding is from God. You must have a intimate one on one, face to face relationship with God or we will never understand any thing the Bible says. It will always be what our physical mind can come up with. No amount of logical thinking will ever receive understanding by this method. The Wisdom of God only comes down from above. It is not something that you can transfer to another human being. God alone gives it to those who diligently seek him. No relationship no fruit. Man can not believe in something he does not understand. Understanding is the key to faith. Without understanding there will always be doubt about what we believe. The man of faith understands what he believes, so faith is easy for him.