BTW – I’ve heard N.T. Wright say that Jesus was doing such odd things, such wonderfully odd things, that it required stories to explain the meaning. I’m not explaining this well, because it’s been a while, but have you heard this from him? He argues then, that the Church should be about the work of doing wonderful things that nevertheless stand the world’s understandings on their head such that it will require stories/parables for us to explain to a watching and inquisitive world our own behavior. Any thoughts on that?

Thanks for the good post, Jeff. It should be noted that what you’ve outlined does not exhaust the concept of the mashal in Scripture, but rather focuses on what a mashal means in the mouth of a prophet–those who were commissioned as the covenant prosecutors for YHWH. The book of Proverbs shows another function of the mshalim which is instructive, not judgment. So, if pastors and teachers were to model their communication on Solomon (and the others in the inspired book of Proverbs) in using elegant, metaphorical, even poetic language to get their point across, that would not be bad.

The other element, and maybe you’ll get to this in your other posts, is that the “parable” was also a recognized prophetic genre: parables were about God and Israel. This is clear in Psa. 78, Ezek. 17, and Isa. 5 especially. This means that when Jesus taught in parables, he was not chiefly simply using details from the daily life of his audience, nor was he telling “earthly stories with heavenly meaning” as is often said, but he was telling stories about God and Israel, and his audience would recognize that that’s what he was doing. They didn’t always understand the ending (or didn’t like it, as in Matt. 21), but they did realize, in general, what kinds of stories he was telling.

One other thought: In that parables are designed to confuse the wicked while illuminating the humble, such is true of all of the Bible. In a large sense, the Bible is parable. And in another large sense, creation is parable. The faithless look at creation and see all kinds of evidence and proof of “evolution.”

The parabolic nature of revelation has something to say about apologetics, and what it says is pretty Vantillian. When a Christian scholar tries to be “neutral” in his investigation of creation, he will misread it as surely as do his atheist colleagues.

However, back to what you have said; I do remember a wisely or was that willy old saint who once said (Dr. Vasholz) “always” and “never “are terms that when we apply them to Scripture mean maybe 90% of the time and so I was wondering if this might apply here? When I think of the parable of the persistent widow, that one seems to be more illustrative than judgemental in nature. I think it still in the end follows your conclusion but I am not sure that is its primary purpose. What do you think? Also, I have been teaching through Judges of late and have come upon the curios history of riddles and how this practice was an accepted practice…almost a sport…in the Middle east for at least a couple of millenium and as I read your “proof texts” I was brought back to how similar these two art forms are and I began to wonder…

Thanks for seeking to aid in my sanctification.
pastordad

When people assume that parables are meant to be illustrative, throwing light on truth, they then conclude that we should do the same (= illustrate our teaching). As you say, that is not what parables are, but illumination still has value.

The question I’m left with is, given parables have the purpose you describe, should we still do emulate them? Are there instances when parabolic teaching is the most appropriate form of teaching today? Would that be apposite for instructing a congregation? Sometimes? Never? Depending on the topic?

I await parts 3, 4, … with interest!