Published on 28 Jan 2015
The Meaning of Life with Gay Byrne, Sunday 1st February, 10.30pmSee more at: http://www.rte.ie/player
31.1.15
26.1.15
Marcus Borg, Leading Liberal Theologian And Historical Jesus Expert, Dies At 72
Marcus Borg, Leading Liberal Theologian And Historical Jesus Expert, Dies At 72
(RNS) Marcus J. Borg, a prominent liberal theologian and Bible
scholar who for a generation helped popularize the intense debates about
the historical Jesus and the veracity and meaning of the New Testament,
died on Wednesday (Jan. 21). He was 72 and had been suffering from
pulmonary fibrosis.
Borg emerged in the 1980s just as academics
and theologians were bringing new energy to the so-called “quest for the
historical Jesus,” the centuries-old effort to disentangle fact from
myth in the Gospels.
Alongside scholars such as John Dominic
Crossan, Borg was a leader in the Jesus Seminar, which brought a
skeptical eye to the Scriptures and in particular to supernatural claims
about Jesus’ miracles and his resurrection from the dead.
Like
other scholars, Borg tended to view Jesus as a Jewish prophet and
teacher who was a product of the religious ferment of first-century
Judaism.
But while Borg questioned the Bible, he never lost his
passion for the spiritual life or his faith in God as “real and a
mystery,” as he put it in his 2014 memoir, “Convictions: How I Learned
What Matters Most,” the last of more than 20 books he wrote.
(RNS) Marcus J. Borg, a prominent liberal theologian and Bible
scholar who for a generation helped popularize the intense debates about
the historical Jesus and the veracity and meaning of the New Testament,
died on Wednesday (Jan. 21). He was 72 and had been suffering from
pulmonary fibrosis.
Borg emerged in the 1980s just as academics
and theologians were bringing new energy to the so-called “quest for the
historical Jesus,” the centuries-old effort to disentangle fact from
myth in the Gospels.
Alongside scholars such as John Dominic
Crossan, Borg was a leader in the Jesus Seminar, which brought a
skeptical eye to the Scriptures and in particular to supernatural claims
about Jesus’ miracles and his resurrection from the dead.
Like
other scholars, Borg tended to view Jesus as a Jewish prophet and
teacher who was a product of the religious ferment of first-century
Judaism.
But while Borg questioned the Bible, he never lost his
passion for the spiritual life or his faith in God as “real and a
mystery,” as he put it in his 2014 memoir, “Convictions: How I Learned
What Matters Most,” the last of more than 20 books he wrote.
16.1.15
Pope sides with Muslim faithful in Charlie Hebdo debate: 'You cannot insult other people's faith'
Pope sides with Muslim faithful in Charlie Hebdo debate: 'You cannot insult other people's faith':
Paris: Pope Francis said there are limits to freedom of expression, weighing in on the side of those in France and elsewhere who say Charlie Hebdo's cartoons of prophet Muhammad went too far.
"You cannot insult other people's faith," he told reporters on Thursday aboard a plane taking him from Sri Lanka to the Philippines as part of his Asian tour. "You can't make fun of other people's faith," The Pope also said killing in the name of God was "an aberration." The comments were broadcast by Radio Vatican.
Speaking his mind again ... Pope Francis attends a press conference aboard a plane during his trip to the Philippines. Photo: AFP
Nine journalists at Charlie Hebdo were among those killed by two self-proclaimed Islamist terrorists who stormed the offices of the satirical magazine in eastern Paris on January 7. The assailants said their actions were meant to "avenge" the prophet, a popular subject for cartoons at the magazine. The Charlie Hebdo shootings were among three such attacks in and near Paris last week that claimed 17 lives before police killed the three gunmen.
The attacks rekindled debate on how far publications can go with religious images that some may find offensive. That came as rallies across France with signs saying "Je suis Charlie," or "I am Charlie," on January 11 drew a record 3.7 million people to the streets to pay homage to the victims and defend freedom of expression.
In its first publication since the attacks on Wednesday, Charlie Hebdo put the prophet Muhammad on its cover, raising hackles in Turkey and Iran. The special issue featured a cartoon of Muhammad, crying, against a green background, holding a board saying "Je suis Charlie" or "I am Charlie." Above his image is written "All is Forgiven." Publishers are printing about 5 million copies in more than 16 languages.
Tributes of drawings, flowers, pens and candles are left in front of the Charlie Hebdo offices.
France's L'Express magazine published an editorial by a professor at Namur University in Belgium, who said there is "a distinction to be made between what one says and how one says it." While Jean-Michel Longneaux agreed on the right to debate everything, he said Charlie Hebdo's "mocking" way of doing things should be off limits.
French comic Dieudonne, who has had several run-ins with the law for what are seen as anti-Semitic comments, was arrested on Wednesday at his home in north France for posting "Je Suis Charlie Coulibaly" on his Twitter account. Amedy Coulibaly was one of the three gunmen in last week's attacks. He will be prosecuted for defending terrorism.
In 2011, Charlie Hebdo published a special edition called "Charia Hebdo" featuring Muhammad as a "guest editor." The cover showed the prophet threatening readers with "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter." Shortly thereafter, Charlie Hebdo's Paris offices were firebombed in an overnight attack. No one was injured.
In 2006, the magazine reprinted cartoons of Muhammad originally published by a Danish newspaper, which had prompted violent protests. Muslim tradition deems the depiction of the prophet as blasphemous. Islamic organisations sued the magazine over the drawings, a case dismissed by a French court in 2008, according to the Charlie Hebdo website.
"In France, one can draw everything, including the prophet," Justice Minister Christiane Taubira said on Thursday after attending a memorial service for one of Charlie Hebdo's cartoonist.
10.1.15
After A Year Without God, Former Pastor Ryan Bell No Longer Believes
After A Year Without God, Former Pastor Ryan Bell No Longer Believes
Religion News Service
Posted:
(RNS) Ryan Bell — the former Seventh-day Adventist pastor who spent 2014 living as an atheist — is ready for his big reveal.
After chronicling the last 12 months on his blog Year Without God, Bell — who
now works as director of community engagement at People Assisting the
Homeless in Southern California — announced in an interview with NPR
that he no longer believes in God.
Bell talked with Religion News Service about his decision and what it will mean to him and his loved
ones. Some answers have been edited for length and clarity.
Q: This weekend you told NPR: “I don’t think that God exists.” Can you elaborate?
A: I think the best way I can explain the conclusion I’ve come to — and
conclusion is too strong a word for the provisional place I now stand
and work from — is that the intellectual and emotional energy it takes
to figure out how God fits into everything is far greater than dealing
with reality as it presents itself to us.
That probably sounds very nonrational, and I want people to know that I have read several
dozen books and understand a good many of the arguments. I’d just say
that the existence of God seems like an extra layer of complexity that
isn’t necessary. The world makes more sense to me as it is, without
postulating a divine being who is somehow in charge of things.
Q: You also said that you’re “still the same person deep down that I was
before.” What was valuable about the past year? Would you do it again?
A: I would definitely do it again! And I’ll go a step further: I think
others should do it, too. Anytime you can step outside your comfort
zone, you will learn important things about yourself and the world. I’ve
learned that atheists are not the miserable nihilists that many
Christians think they are.
I’ve also had a few remarkable moments
of irony. Once I was in a gathering of atheists and the speaker referred
to “seeing the light” and “finding freedom at last.” It struck me then
that most people really are searching for the same thing.
Q: Do you still plan to write about, speak and work in the atheist community?
A: I do, in some capacity. I don’t think I’ll be joining a crusade to
destroy all religion anytime soon, though some days I’m tempted. I just
know too many good people of faith to see religion as any kind of
universal evil. But I do think that there is much work to be done with
and among atheists.
I have a special interest in post-theists —
people who are in the in-between phase that I’ve been inhabiting for the
past year. There are thousands and thousands of people who are betwixt
and between, and there is next to nothing for them in the world of
religion. I’d like to be a part of that conversation.
Q: After a year, what do you think about the priorities and actions of the atheist movement in the U.S.?
A: On the whole, I love the no-holds-barred search for truth. I love
the honesty and clarity of speech that is so often lacking in religious
circles, where everything is couched in metaphor and innuendo.
On the other hand, I recoil from a one-track-minded scientism that I
sometimes encounter — as though science has all the answers for every
question that a person has ever asked. There is also a kind of smug
condescension that is hard for me. I still have scores of Christian
friends who are not dumb. Their faith is not like believing in Santa
Claus. The more the atheist movement behaves like the traveling
evangelists I encountered as a conservative Christian, the more I cringe
— and for the same reasons.
Q: Your significant other is a Christian. How are you navigating that?
A: It’s challenging sometimes, but she is an open-minded, thoughtful
person. I’d call her a Christian Humanist, or a Humanist in the way of
Jesus, if that makes any sense. I still share a love for the stories of
the radical Jesus preferring the poor and downtrodden, so we’re not as
different as it may seem on the surface. Besides, our relationship is
about more than debates about God’s existence.
Q: What would you like to say to people who question your motives or sincerity?
A: There’s not much I can say. I don’t feel like I need to defend
myself. I’ve only lost money and earning potential this year, but I
wouldn’t change a thing. I guess I can’t prove I’m not being dishonest
any more than I can prove that God doesn’t exist. People will just have
to evaluate the evidence and decide for themselves.
Q: You’ve lived as a Christian and an atheist. What’s one thing you wish
more Christians knew about atheists? One thing you wish more atheists
knew about Christians?
A: I wish more Christians knew that atheists are not nihilists who have
no meaning to their lives or people with no moral compass. They’re not
stubbornly rejecting God. All the atheists I have met have seriously hit
a brick wall while trying to know God.
I wish more atheists knew that Christians care very deeply about knowledge and truth. They are not
stupid. In every group there is a percentage that are ignorant — but if you take a wider view, Christian intellectuals have contributed a great deal to the body of human knowledge through history.
Religion News Service
Posted:
After chronicling the last 12 months on his blog Year Without God, Bell — who
now works as director of community engagement at People Assisting the
Homeless in Southern California — announced in an interview with NPR
that he no longer believes in God.
Bell talked with Religion News Service about his decision and what it will mean to him and his loved
ones. Some answers have been edited for length and clarity.
Q: This weekend you told NPR: “I don’t think that God exists.” Can you elaborate?
A: I think the best way I can explain the conclusion I’ve come to — and
conclusion is too strong a word for the provisional place I now stand
and work from — is that the intellectual and emotional energy it takes
to figure out how God fits into everything is far greater than dealing
with reality as it presents itself to us.
That probably sounds very nonrational, and I want people to know that I have read several
dozen books and understand a good many of the arguments. I’d just say
that the existence of God seems like an extra layer of complexity that
isn’t necessary. The world makes more sense to me as it is, without
postulating a divine being who is somehow in charge of things.
Q: You also said that you’re “still the same person deep down that I was
before.” What was valuable about the past year? Would you do it again?
A: I would definitely do it again! And I’ll go a step further: I think
others should do it, too. Anytime you can step outside your comfort
zone, you will learn important things about yourself and the world. I’ve
learned that atheists are not the miserable nihilists that many
Christians think they are.
I’ve also had a few remarkable moments
of irony. Once I was in a gathering of atheists and the speaker referred
to “seeing the light” and “finding freedom at last.” It struck me then
that most people really are searching for the same thing.
Q: Do you still plan to write about, speak and work in the atheist community?
A: I do, in some capacity. I don’t think I’ll be joining a crusade to
destroy all religion anytime soon, though some days I’m tempted. I just
know too many good people of faith to see religion as any kind of
universal evil. But I do think that there is much work to be done with
and among atheists.
I have a special interest in post-theists —
people who are in the in-between phase that I’ve been inhabiting for the
past year. There are thousands and thousands of people who are betwixt
and between, and there is next to nothing for them in the world of
religion. I’d like to be a part of that conversation.
Q: After a year, what do you think about the priorities and actions of the atheist movement in the U.S.?
A: On the whole, I love the no-holds-barred search for truth. I love
the honesty and clarity of speech that is so often lacking in religious
circles, where everything is couched in metaphor and innuendo.
On the other hand, I recoil from a one-track-minded scientism that I
sometimes encounter — as though science has all the answers for every
question that a person has ever asked. There is also a kind of smug
condescension that is hard for me. I still have scores of Christian
friends who are not dumb. Their faith is not like believing in Santa
Claus. The more the atheist movement behaves like the traveling
evangelists I encountered as a conservative Christian, the more I cringe
— and for the same reasons.
Q: Your significant other is a Christian. How are you navigating that?
A: It’s challenging sometimes, but she is an open-minded, thoughtful
person. I’d call her a Christian Humanist, or a Humanist in the way of
Jesus, if that makes any sense. I still share a love for the stories of
the radical Jesus preferring the poor and downtrodden, so we’re not as
different as it may seem on the surface. Besides, our relationship is
about more than debates about God’s existence.
Q: What would you like to say to people who question your motives or sincerity?
A: There’s not much I can say. I don’t feel like I need to defend
myself. I’ve only lost money and earning potential this year, but I
wouldn’t change a thing. I guess I can’t prove I’m not being dishonest
any more than I can prove that God doesn’t exist. People will just have
to evaluate the evidence and decide for themselves.
Q: You’ve lived as a Christian and an atheist. What’s one thing you wish
more Christians knew about atheists? One thing you wish more atheists
knew about Christians?
A: I wish more Christians knew that atheists are not nihilists who have
no meaning to their lives or people with no moral compass. They’re not
stubbornly rejecting God. All the atheists I have met have seriously hit
a brick wall while trying to know God.
I wish more atheists knew that Christians care very deeply about knowledge and truth. They are not
stupid. In every group there is a percentage that are ignorant — but if you take a wider view, Christian intellectuals have contributed a great deal to the body of human knowledge through history.
Jesus 'Never Existed,' says Historical Researcher - Billionaires Australia
Jesus 'Never Existed,' says Historical Researcher
Jesus of Nazareth was a mythical character who never really existed, according to historical researcher, Michael Paulkovich.
Mr Paulkovich said that he found no verifiable mention of Christ
amongst the writings of 125 authors during the ‘time of Jesus,’ from the
first to third centuries.
Instead, followers of Christianity created him as a figure to
worship, the historian says in an article entitled ‘The Fable of the
Christ’ and a book called ‘No Meek Messiah.’
Despite the supposed global miracles’ carried out by Jesus, there was
a distinct lack of evidence for his existence in the historical texts,
he said.
“When I consider those 126 writers, all of whom should have heard of
Jesus but did not – and Paul and Marcion and Athenagoras and Matthew
with a tetralogy of opposing Christs, the silence from Qumram and
Nazareth and Bethlehem, conflicting Bible stories, and so many other
mysteries and omissions – I must conclude that Christ is a mythical
character.
“Jesus of Nazareth was nothing more than urban (or desert) legend,
likely an agglomeration of several evangelic and deluded rabbis who
might have existed.”
In fact, Mr Paulkovich found just one mention within the writings he
studied, and that was fabricated and added later by editors, he claims.
The book called The Jewish Wars by Roman historian Josephus Flavius, was
written in 95 CE. However, Mr Paulkovich says that the mention of Jesus
was not in fact written in the original text, but rather added at a
later stage.
The historian also says that the Bible contains no evidence of the
actual existence of Jesus, saying that Paul, who is often thought of as
the person who spread the religion that would become Christianity, never
mentions Jesus as a real person.
“Paul is unaware of the virgin mother, and ignorant of Jesus’
nativity, parentage, life events, ministry, miracles, apostles,
betrayal, trial and harrowing passion. Paul knows neither where nor when
Jesus lived, and considers the crucifixion metaphorical.’
Mr Paulkovich also says that Jesus himself would have written
personal accounts had he been real, but that the silence proves his
theory that he was a fictional character.
The highly controversial views are likely to be disputed by the
majority of scholars, who agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew born
between 7 to 4 BC.
Comments
Jesus of Nazareth was a mythical character who never really existed, according to historical researcher, Michael Paulkovich.
Mr Paulkovich said that he found no verifiable mention of Christ
amongst the writings of 125 authors during the ‘time of Jesus,’ from the
first to third centuries.
Instead, followers of Christianity created him as a figure to
worship, the historian says in an article entitled ‘The Fable of the
Christ’ and a book called ‘No Meek Messiah.’
Despite the supposed global miracles’ carried out by Jesus, there was
a distinct lack of evidence for his existence in the historical texts,
he said.
“When I consider those 126 writers, all of whom should have heard of
Jesus but did not – and Paul and Marcion and Athenagoras and Matthew
with a tetralogy of opposing Christs, the silence from Qumram and
Nazareth and Bethlehem, conflicting Bible stories, and so many other
mysteries and omissions – I must conclude that Christ is a mythical
character.
“Jesus of Nazareth was nothing more than urban (or desert) legend,
likely an agglomeration of several evangelic and deluded rabbis who
might have existed.”
In fact, Mr Paulkovich found just one mention within the writings he
studied, and that was fabricated and added later by editors, he claims.
The book called The Jewish Wars by Roman historian Josephus Flavius, was
written in 95 CE. However, Mr Paulkovich says that the mention of Jesus
was not in fact written in the original text, but rather added at a
later stage.
The historian also says that the Bible contains no evidence of the
actual existence of Jesus, saying that Paul, who is often thought of as
the person who spread the religion that would become Christianity, never
mentions Jesus as a real person.
“Paul is unaware of the virgin mother, and ignorant of Jesus’
nativity, parentage, life events, ministry, miracles, apostles,
betrayal, trial and harrowing passion. Paul knows neither where nor when
Jesus lived, and considers the crucifixion metaphorical.’
Mr Paulkovich also says that Jesus himself would have written
personal accounts had he been real, but that the silence proves his
theory that he was a fictional character.
The highly controversial views are likely to be disputed by the
majority of scholars, who agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew born
between 7 to 4 BC.
Comments
8.1.15
Religion is a “medieval form of unreason”: Salman Rushdie responds to Paris attacks - Salon.com
Religion is a “medieval form of unreason”: Salman Rushdie responds to Paris attacks - Salon.com
In a statement, the author defended satire
Salman Rushdie is the latest figure to publicly respond to Wednesday’s attacks on Paris’ satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo which left 12 dead.
In the statement, published on the website for English PEN, an organization that promotes freedom of speech, Rushdie not only condemns the shooting, but religion as a whole.
“Religion,
a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry
becomes a real threat to our freedoms,” he wrote. “This religious
totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and
we see the tragic consequences in Paris today.”
Rushdie expresses
his support for the publication and calls for the defense of satire,
“which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny,
dishonesty and stupidity.”
Joanna Rothkopf is an assistant editor at Salon,
focusing on science, health and society. Follow @JoannaRothkopf or email
jrothkopf@salon.com.
In a statement, the author defended satire
and called for "fearless disrespect" of all religions
Salman Rushdie is the latest figure to publicly respond to Wednesday’s attacks on Paris’ satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo which left 12 dead.
“Religion,
a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry
becomes a real threat to our freedoms,” he wrote. “This religious
totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and
we see the tragic consequences in Paris today.”
Rushdie expresses
his support for the publication and calls for the defense of satire,
“which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny,
dishonesty and stupidity.”
Joanna Rothkopf is an assistant editor at Salon,
focusing on science, health and society. Follow @JoannaRothkopf or email
jrothkopf@salon.com.
Demoted Catholic cardinal blames “feminized” church for priest pedophilia - Salon.com
Demoted Catholic cardinal blames “feminized” church for priest pedophilia - Salon.com
Cardinal Raymond Burke says the women's
Cardinal Raymond Burke(Credit: AP/Tom Gannam)American
cardinal Raymond Burke is not a progressive guy. The controversial
religious leader was demoted from his powerful position as the head of
the Vatican’s highest court after criticizing Pope Francis last year,
and has not been shy about spewing vitriol at the LGBT community, women’s rights advocates or the Obama administration. In a recent interview with The New Emangelization Project,
a website dedicated to attracting men to the church, Burke focused his
attention on the “radical” feminists whom he believes have disrupted
catholicism, blaming them for the prevalence of priests molesting
children.
Burke
charged the feminist movement with commandeering the church and forcing
leaders to “constantly address women’s issues at the expense of
addressing critical issues important to men,” and said that it was
“feminization” that led some priests to sexually abuse children:
Jenny Kutner is an assistant editor at Salon, focusing on sex, gender and feminism. Follow @jennykutner or email jkutner@salon.com.
More Jenny Kutner.
Cardinal Raymond Burke says the women's
movement has left religious men "very marginalized"
Cardinal Raymond Burke(Credit: AP/Tom Gannam)cardinal Raymond Burke is not a progressive guy. The controversial
religious leader was demoted from his powerful position as the head of
the Vatican’s highest court after criticizing Pope Francis last year,
and has not been shy about spewing vitriol at the LGBT community, women’s rights advocates or the Obama administration. In a recent interview with The New Emangelization Project,
a website dedicated to attracting men to the church, Burke focused his
attention on the “radical” feminists whom he believes have disrupted
catholicism, blaming them for the prevalence of priests molesting
children.
Burke
charged the feminist movement with commandeering the church and forcing
leaders to “constantly address women’s issues at the expense of
addressing critical issues important to men,” and said that it was
“feminization” that led some priests to sexually abuse children:
The
Church becomes very feminized. Women are wonderful, of course. They
respond very naturally to the invitation to be active in the Church.
Apart from the priest, the sanctuary has become full of women. The
activities in the parish and even the liturgy have been influenced by
women and have become so feminine in many places that men do not want to
get involved. [...]
We can also see that our seminaries are
beginning to attract many strong young men who desire to serve God as
priests. The new crop of young men are manly and confident about their
identity. This is a welcome development, for there was a period of time
when men who were feminized and confused about their own sexual identity
had entered the priesthood; sadly some of these disordered men sexually
abused minors; a terrible tragedy for which the Church mourns.
Jenny Kutner is an assistant editor at Salon, focusing on sex, gender and feminism. Follow @jennykutner or email jkutner@salon.com.
More Jenny Kutner.
The Language of Analogy
The Language of Analogy
If we seriously examine the speech forms used in scripture we see that
our Lord Jesus in his earthly ministry, as well as the writers of the New
Testament books, all used various forms of the language of analogy. These
are the communication modes which use comparison, resemblance, or correspondence
(whichever term best expresses it) to lead us from familiar ground to new,
unexplored realms of thought.
Analogy is "similarity in some respects between things otherwise
unlike, a partial resemblance." Use of the language of analogy is seen
in parables, allegories, and types, all of which employ this
feature of resemblance, or correspondence. To my mind these represent the
ultimate in pedagogy on God's part. In them he reveals truth in concealed
forms, thus intriguing the human mind. He knows we all love a mystery, so
he couches his truth in enigmatic terms. By this he also separates those
who are merely toying with ideas from those others who are determined to
pursue the clues to ultimate understanding of truth. Because of the very
nature of these expressive literary forms, their interpretation is correspondingly
more difficult and intensely challenging.
The word parable is from para (alongside) plus bole
(throw), or, "to throw alongside." As we observe our Lord's
use of this figure, we see that it is spiritual truth concealed in a story--the
two being laid side-by-side.
Allegory is from allos (another, of the same kind) and agoreuo,
"to speak" (originally in the Greek agora, the marketplace),
thus, a story told in the marketplace. The dictionary says it is "a
story in which the people and happenings have a symbolic meaning used for
explaining or teaching ideas or moral principles."
Type is a term borrowed directly from the Greek tupos (the
mark left by a blow, thus, imprint). We get our word typical from
it, also typeface and typewriter. The dictionary says a type
is "a model, a symbol, a person or thing that represents or symbolizes
another, especially another that it is thought will appear later."
Here are these three figures in chart form, phrased a bit differently.
expression, if we view their usage in the Bible we find that they seem to
defy exact and specific classification but rather blend into each other.
I would suggest that they are so normal to the expression of thought that
they are not meant to be rigidly categorized. They so flow out of the normal
analogies of life's realities that God has chosen to use them as normative
for the expression of truth. It would appear that the Bible is not concerned
to make exact, sharp distinctions between these various forms.
In his Notes on the Miracles and Parables of Our Lord, Trench
comments on parable as compared to allegory: "It remains to consider
wherein parable differs from allegory. This it does in form rather than
in essence; in the allegory an interpenetration of the thing signifying
and the thing signified finding place, the qualities and properties of the
first being attributed to the last, and the two thus blended together, instead
of being kept quite distinct and placed side by side, as in the case of
the parable." (1)
As I understand this statement, Trench is saying that the parable is
a more direct side-by-side comparison, while the allegory is more an interweaving
of parallel features blending together in the implied force of the words
used. In other words, an allegory, with its implied comparisons is related
to a parable, with its more formal, identifiable comparison just as a metaphor
(an implied comparison) is related to a simile (a formal comparison). Add
to this that a type combines the features of metaphor (as an implied comparison)
with parable (a realistic story with a moral or spiritual lesson), the whole
being implanted by God in historical fact. In this case, history is designed
by God to teach a spiritual truth, and usually takes the form of Old Testament
history as having an identifiable' counterpart in the New Testament teaching
of spiritual truth.
To illustrate: the Lord Jesus himself says to Nicodemus, "...as
Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be
lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life" (John
3:15). Here our Lord is clearly referring to the incident in Israel's history
recorded in Numbers 21:9, "And the Lord said to Moses, 'Make a fiery
serpent and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten when he sees it
shall live.' So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if
a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live"
(Num. 21: 8, 9).
Here is what I would call a type. Call it just an illustration if you
will--whatever we call it, the important thing is to see the truth it is
designed to convey. Clearly God ordered the event in Israel's history so
that the Lord Jesus was prefigured in becoming God's remedy for sin. The
coinciding features are too evident to be denied:
allegory or type, are biblical terms right out of the Greek vocabulary of
the New Testament. On that basis, if none other. we should seriously seek
to gain what we can learn from these God-given expressions of truth. I hope
you noticed, too, that all these words by their very definition express
some form of correspondence, that is, the idea of laying one thing alongside
another for the purpose of gaining additional understanding.
Now that we have this descriptive data, let's look at each of these modes
of expression in more detail.
Parables
In a parable, the lesson is always woven into a story which is true to
reality. There appears to be a time in our Lord's ministry when he shifted
from the simple straightforward declaration of truth to the more veiled
speech in parables. The transition is highlighted in Matthew 13:10-17, where
his disciples, noting the change, asked him why he was speaking now in parables.
Our Lord Jesus says, "This is why I speak to them in parables, because
seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand"
(Matt. 13:13 ). Then he adds a quotation from Isaiah, "...this people's
heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes
they have closed, lest they should perceive...and hear...and understand...and
turn for me to heal them" (Matt. 13:14, 15).
In our day we would say, "There's no way he can confuse them with
the facts they've already made up their minds." So parables were, and
are, designed to reveal the truth to those who really want to know it (as
we see in the further questioning they aroused in the disciples), and to
conceal the truth from men of casual curiosity or immovable commitment to
their preconceived errors, such as we see in the Pharisees. Their having
heard the truth, thus presented, becomes a judgment on their intransigence.
And though Christ's disciples were obviously puzzled at the time, it
is certain that later events, in particular the death and resurrection of
our Lord, must have unveiled much truth that had been stored in their memories
through his parables. The same applies to the Pharisees. After his resurrection
they must have spent some sleepless nights thinking of what Christ had said.
Fortunately, the Lord Jesus interprets some of his parables. This gives
us a handle on our interpretive approach to them. The first one he interprets
is "the parable of the sower" in Matthew 13:3-9. The explanation
is in Matthew 13:18-23, in which Jesus identifies some of the pieces of
the puzzle. Please follow it through in your own Bible.
with reality, and from the immediate context it is clear that the issue
focuses on the unbelief of the Jews as a pointed lesson to his disciples
(and us). Essentially, he is saying, "Where is your heart?"
The next parable he interprets follows in this same chapter (Matt. 13:24-30)
which Jesus' disciples call "the parable of the weeds of the field"
(v. 36).
Again our Lord identifies the figures (Matt. 13:3 ~43):
true and the false to exist side-by-side and let the sower (Christ) do the
sorting out at the end of the age. Jesus is giving a preview of his role
as judge and pointing up the seriousness of men's response to him and to
his word. The prospect is either weeping and gnashing of teeth-or shining
like the sun, in righteousness.
From here on it gets more difficult to interpret our Lord's parables,
for he puts us on our own. However, we can formulate a few guidelines from
these illustrations:
Now, let's try our hand at a parable the Lord has not interpreted
for us. As a matter of fact, let's tackle three of them in Luke 1S.
Our Lord joins these together: the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost
sons. So we see that these three comprise one subject, a parable about lost
things.
I am not going to reproduce the text here, but I assume that you will
read it from your own Bible, as if we were studying together. And as I read
"the parable of the lost sheep" I note first it is set against
the complaint of the Pharisees about the fact that "Jesus receives
sinners and eats with them."
To this the Lord Jesus replies with these parables. The lost sheep story
(Luke 15:3-7) highlights the value of the sheep to its owner and the joy
he expresses at its recovery. The application of the story makes it clear
that the Lord Jesus is the shepherd of the sheep, and his concern is to
seek the lost ones. "Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in
heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons
who need no repentance" (Luke 15:7). This punch line must have hit
hard at the self-righteous Pharisees who didn't lift a finger to help lost
sinners only criticized the one who did. But even stronger than this is
the revelation of God's attitude toward sinners, and the obvious value he
puts on each of us--so much that heaven rejoices when one lost one is rescued
by the Savior.
The Lost Coin
The next one, the lost coin, needs a bit of Hebrew cultural background.
The ten coins were probably part of the woman's marriage dowry. As Fred
H. Wight points out:
this woman's security, since in her Oriental culture she was practically
defenseless against divorce for any capricious reason. In losing the coin,
she lost some of her security.
In application, our Lord says, "Just so, I tell you, there is joy
before the angels of God over one sinner who repents" (Luke 15:10).
The joy is the same in heaven, but the added element of restored security
(for one who was distraught) is the cause of rejoicing.
The Lost Sons
Looking at the third parable in this trio, the lost sons, we discover
another addition. (This parable is usually called "the parable of the
prodigal son," but if we look carefully there were two sons, each lost
in his own way.) The issue here is enjoyment, for the wandering son
had sought pleasure, only to forfeit the joy of his father's house, while
the stay-at-home son had apparently never known the joy that was there with
the father, being filled with self-centered, legalistic resentment (I see
this from his statement in verses 28-30).
The closing scene is one of enjoyment--love, fellowship, music, being
expressed in a merry party. The key figure here is the father, who is clearly
representative of the heavenly Father. The better title for the story is
"The Waiting Father," for the yearning heart of God filled with
concern for his lost ones is beautifully expressed in the narrative. We
don't know whether the older son ever joined the party. He could have done
so at any time, but the Lord Jesus, as the master storyteller, leaves this
an open question.
Can you see how these three stories were designed to hit the Pharisees
right where they lived? They portray the heart attitude of God toward lost
ones. He desires for each of us safety in his fold, security against
all that threatens our peace of mind, and enjoyment of all the good
things of a loving Father's house. His program is all profit, no loss, for
his people. There is much more we could gain from these beautifully expressive
stories, but we have seen, I trust, that it is possible for us to understand
parables.
To add to my own personal observations of parables, I worked through
a basic textbook on the subject, Trench, Notes on the Miracles and the
Parables of Our Lord, seeking to condense and summarize his conclusions
on this subject. Here is what I learned:
Why Jesus Taught in Parables
Our Lord used parables to teach spiritual truth through well-known physical
counterparts. Parables are not just happily-chosen illustrations from a
library of storybooks; they have their ground in the nature of reality.
The corresponding images belong to each other, as Trench says, "by
an inward necessity; they were linked together long before by the law of
secret affinity.
things of God. Here God communicates in terms of human relationships and
natural phenomena--the ordinary stuff of which life is made. Again quoting
Trench:
truth about the imperfection of the present order; poisonous reptiles, natural
catastrophes, diseased and deteriorating bodies, poison oak and gadflies--all
testify of the fact and results of man's fall. And all point to the need
for a better order of things.
In parables, Christ moves our thought processes from familiar ground
to new concepts, from the known to the unknown, from the physical to the
spiritual. In parables he appeals not just to the intelligent reason of
man, but to his imagination and to his feelings. They have all the appeal
of a human interest story. Truth imparted in this form has a lingering quality
not always true of more abstract modes of expression. To quote Trench again
(5):
The values of parabolic teachings seem evident, but we need help in understanding
them. How do we get out of them the truth the Lord intends to teach? Here
are some suggestions:
1. Seek to understand the one central truth the parable teaches, as
distinguished from the corollary truths or facts which relate to it.
2. Relate all the peripheral details to this central truth, seeking
to grasp how they contribute to the central truth to make it shine more
clearly.
3. Relate the parable to the context which introduces it and that
which follows. Here we often find the key to its meaning--in seeing
how the parable applies to the situation at hand. Again, Trench has a pertinent
word on this subject:
for any doctrine. Do not use parables to establish a doctrinal base;
establish your doctrinal foundations from the clear teaching of scripture
elsewhere, then parables will serve to illustrate and confirm, adding light
and color to truth already discovered.
5. Avoid strained interpretations. If you have to work
hard at justifying your interpretive opinion, it's probably not worth contending
for. A correct interpretation is not easy to arrive at, but having been
discovered, should be easy to live with. It should have a sense of fitness.
6. Extremes of interpretation should be avoided. One extreme is
to seek only the most general, limited significance, the other is to make
every minute detail say something.
7. Hard-and-fast, absolute rules for interpreting parables
have not been given to us. The best we can do is to observe the way
our Lord interpreted the parables in Matthew 13 and seek to learn from him.
Much that we gain from parables will be determined by our own reverent
approach to Scripture as God's Word, our total grasp of biblical truth,
and our spiritually-minded common sense.
References:
1. R. E. Trench, Notes on the Parables and Miracles of Our Lord
Old Tappan, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell Co., n.d.), p. 8.
2. Fred H. Wight, Manners and Customs in Bible Lands (Chicago:
Moody Press, n.d.) p. 128.
3. R E. Trench, Notes on the Miracles and Parables of Our Lord (Old
Tappan, NJ.: Revell Publishing Co., n.d.) pp. 12 and 13 on parables.
4. Ibid., pp. 16 and 19 on parables.
5 Ibid., p. 26 on parables.
6. Ibid., p. 39 on parables
Basics of Bible Interpretation - Chapter 8
If we seriously examine the speech forms used in scripture we see that
our Lord Jesus in his earthly ministry, as well as the writers of the New
Testament books, all used various forms of the language of analogy. These
are the communication modes which use comparison, resemblance, or correspondence
(whichever term best expresses it) to lead us from familiar ground to new,
unexplored realms of thought.
Analogy is "similarity in some respects between things otherwise
unlike, a partial resemblance." Use of the language of analogy is seen
in parables, allegories, and types, all of which employ this
feature of resemblance, or correspondence. To my mind these represent the
ultimate in pedagogy on God's part. In them he reveals truth in concealed
forms, thus intriguing the human mind. He knows we all love a mystery, so
he couches his truth in enigmatic terms. By this he also separates those
who are merely toying with ideas from those others who are determined to
pursue the clues to ultimate understanding of truth. Because of the very
nature of these expressive literary forms, their interpretation is correspondingly
more difficult and intensely challenging.
The word parable is from para (alongside) plus bole
(throw), or, "to throw alongside." As we observe our Lord's
use of this figure, we see that it is spiritual truth concealed in a story--the
two being laid side-by-side.
Allegory is from allos (another, of the same kind) and agoreuo,
"to speak" (originally in the Greek agora, the marketplace),
thus, a story told in the marketplace. The dictionary says it is "a
story in which the people and happenings have a symbolic meaning used for
explaining or teaching ideas or moral principles."
Type is a term borrowed directly from the Greek tupos (the
mark left by a blow, thus, imprint). We get our word typical from
it, also typeface and typewriter. The dictionary says a type
is "a model, a symbol, a person or thing that represents or symbolizes
another, especially another that it is thought will appear later."
Here are these three figures in chart form, phrased a bit differently.
| Parable | A story which is true to reality and teaches a moral or spiritual lesson. |
| Allegory | A story in which people or things have hidden or symbolic meaning. |
| Type | A real parable, the details of which are woven by God into the facts of history. |
expression, if we view their usage in the Bible we find that they seem to
defy exact and specific classification but rather blend into each other.
I would suggest that they are so normal to the expression of thought that
they are not meant to be rigidly categorized. They so flow out of the normal
analogies of life's realities that God has chosen to use them as normative
for the expression of truth. It would appear that the Bible is not concerned
to make exact, sharp distinctions between these various forms.
In his Notes on the Miracles and Parables of Our Lord, Trench
comments on parable as compared to allegory: "It remains to consider
wherein parable differs from allegory. This it does in form rather than
in essence; in the allegory an interpenetration of the thing signifying
and the thing signified finding place, the qualities and properties of the
first being attributed to the last, and the two thus blended together, instead
of being kept quite distinct and placed side by side, as in the case of
the parable." (1)
As I understand this statement, Trench is saying that the parable is
a more direct side-by-side comparison, while the allegory is more an interweaving
of parallel features blending together in the implied force of the words
used. In other words, an allegory, with its implied comparisons is related
to a parable, with its more formal, identifiable comparison just as a metaphor
(an implied comparison) is related to a simile (a formal comparison). Add
to this that a type combines the features of metaphor (as an implied comparison)
with parable (a realistic story with a moral or spiritual lesson), the whole
being implanted by God in historical fact. In this case, history is designed
by God to teach a spiritual truth, and usually takes the form of Old Testament
history as having an identifiable' counterpart in the New Testament teaching
of spiritual truth.
To illustrate: the Lord Jesus himself says to Nicodemus, "...as
Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be
lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life" (John
3:15). Here our Lord is clearly referring to the incident in Israel's history
recorded in Numbers 21:9, "And the Lord said to Moses, 'Make a fiery
serpent and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten when he sees it
shall live.' So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if
a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live"
(Num. 21: 8, 9).
Here is what I would call a type. Call it just an illustration if you
will--whatever we call it, the important thing is to see the truth it is
designed to convey. Clearly God ordered the event in Israel's history so
that the Lord Jesus was prefigured in becoming God's remedy for sin. The
coinciding features are too evident to be denied:
| In The Old Testament Story | In New Testament Truths |
| Sin was the problem (Num. 21 :5) | Sin is still the problem (John 3:19, 20). |
| Serpent originated and personifies sin (Gen. 3). | That old serpent, Satan, still brings sin and death (Rev. 20:2). |
| God sent serpents (picturing sin) to bring death (Num. 21 :6). | Sin still brings death (Rom. 6:23). |
| God provided the antidote and remedy for sin and death (Num. 21 :8,9). | God provided the remedy for sin and death. As the serpent was lifted up so the Son of man (John 3:15). God so loved that he gave (John 3:16). |
| Serpent lifted up on a pole (Num. 21 :8). | Christ was lifted up on a cross (John 19:17, 18). |
| The result: the one who looked at the bronze serpent lived (Num. 21:9). | The result: whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). |
| The Lesson LIFE IN A LOOK BY FAITH |
The Lesson LIFE IN A LOOK BY FAITH |
allegory or type, are biblical terms right out of the Greek vocabulary of
the New Testament. On that basis, if none other. we should seriously seek
to gain what we can learn from these God-given expressions of truth. I hope
you noticed, too, that all these words by their very definition express
some form of correspondence, that is, the idea of laying one thing alongside
another for the purpose of gaining additional understanding.
Now that we have this descriptive data, let's look at each of these modes
of expression in more detail.
Parables
In a parable, the lesson is always woven into a story which is true to
reality. There appears to be a time in our Lord's ministry when he shifted
from the simple straightforward declaration of truth to the more veiled
speech in parables. The transition is highlighted in Matthew 13:10-17, where
his disciples, noting the change, asked him why he was speaking now in parables.
Our Lord Jesus says, "This is why I speak to them in parables, because
seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand"
(Matt. 13:13 ). Then he adds a quotation from Isaiah, "...this people's
heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes
they have closed, lest they should perceive...and hear...and understand...and
turn for me to heal them" (Matt. 13:14, 15).
In our day we would say, "There's no way he can confuse them with
the facts they've already made up their minds." So parables were, and
are, designed to reveal the truth to those who really want to know it (as
we see in the further questioning they aroused in the disciples), and to
conceal the truth from men of casual curiosity or immovable commitment to
their preconceived errors, such as we see in the Pharisees. Their having
heard the truth, thus presented, becomes a judgment on their intransigence.
And though Christ's disciples were obviously puzzled at the time, it
is certain that later events, in particular the death and resurrection of
our Lord, must have unveiled much truth that had been stored in their memories
through his parables. The same applies to the Pharisees. After his resurrection
they must have spent some sleepless nights thinking of what Christ had said.
Fortunately, the Lord Jesus interprets some of his parables. This gives
us a handle on our interpretive approach to them. The first one he interprets
is "the parable of the sower" in Matthew 13:3-9. The explanation
is in Matthew 13:18-23, in which Jesus identifies some of the pieces of
the puzzle. Please follow it through in your own Bible.
The seed = the word of the kingdomIt is clear that our Lord intends a definite correspondence of figure
The birds = the evil one, the devil, who snatches away what is sown.
The soils = various heart responses to the Word.
(1) the path = hardened ground where the seed never takes root and is
eaten by birds, thus hardened hearts.
(2) rocky ground = the shallow commitment which does not endure under
stress.
(3) the thorny ground = the heart so preoccupied with worldly, material
things that it allows them to choke out the seed of the Word.
(a) the thorns are worldly cares and riches.
(4) the fruitful soil = the heart that hears the Word with understanding,
and responds.
with reality, and from the immediate context it is clear that the issue
focuses on the unbelief of the Jews as a pointed lesson to his disciples
(and us). Essentially, he is saying, "Where is your heart?"
The next parable he interprets follows in this same chapter (Matt. 13:24-30)
which Jesus' disciples call "the parable of the weeds of the field"
(v. 36).
Again our Lord identifies the figures (Matt. 13:3 ~43):
The sower = the Son of man (Jesus himself)Once again, the central point is clear. Christ's men are to allow the
The field = the world
The seed (now different) = the sons of the kingdom--now not the Word,
but believers
The weeds = the sons of the evil one
The weed sower = the devil
The harvest = the close of the age (not before)
The reapers = the angels
true and the false to exist side-by-side and let the sower (Christ) do the
sorting out at the end of the age. Jesus is giving a preview of his role
as judge and pointing up the seriousness of men's response to him and to
his word. The prospect is either weeping and gnashing of teeth-or shining
like the sun, in righteousness.
From here on it gets more difficult to interpret our Lord's parables,
for he puts us on our own. However, we can formulate a few guidelines from
these illustrations:
(1) We can expect to see a correlation of the physical features of theParables about Lost Things
parable to the spiritual implications involved.
(2) The point of the parable is designed to speak to the situation at
hand, observable by the context, thus we should seek to gain one solid
point of application to the problem evident in the hearers, as we relate
parable to context.
(3) Our Lord revealed the hidden meaning to believing hearts then; he
will do so for us now, if we seek enlightenment from him as did these early
disciples.
(4) If we have understood what seems to be the central teaching of the
parable, let's apply that truth, and not strain to make all the details
fit some esoteric personal slant.
Now, let's try our hand at a parable the Lord has not interpreted
for us. As a matter of fact, let's tackle three of them in Luke 1S.
Our Lord joins these together: the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost
sons. So we see that these three comprise one subject, a parable about lost
things.
I am not going to reproduce the text here, but I assume that you will
read it from your own Bible, as if we were studying together. And as I read
"the parable of the lost sheep" I note first it is set against
the complaint of the Pharisees about the fact that "Jesus receives
sinners and eats with them."
To this the Lord Jesus replies with these parables. The lost sheep story
(Luke 15:3-7) highlights the value of the sheep to its owner and the joy
he expresses at its recovery. The application of the story makes it clear
that the Lord Jesus is the shepherd of the sheep, and his concern is to
seek the lost ones. "Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in
heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons
who need no repentance" (Luke 15:7). This punch line must have hit
hard at the self-righteous Pharisees who didn't lift a finger to help lost
sinners only criticized the one who did. But even stronger than this is
the revelation of God's attitude toward sinners, and the obvious value he
puts on each of us--so much that heaven rejoices when one lost one is rescued
by the Savior.
The Lost Coin
The next one, the lost coin, needs a bit of Hebrew cultural background.
The ten coins were probably part of the woman's marriage dowry. As Fred
H. Wight points out:
Since a divorced wife in the Orient is entitled to all her wearing apparel,So we start by recognizing that the coin in some measure represented
for this reason much of her personal dowry consists of coins on her headgear,
or jewelry on her person. This becomes wealth to her in case her marriage
ends in failure. This is why the dowry is so important to the bride, and
such emphasis is placed upon it in the negotiations that precede marriage.
The woman who had ten pieces of silver and lost one was greatly concerned
over her loss, because it was doubtless part of her marriage dowry. (2)
this woman's security, since in her Oriental culture she was practically
defenseless against divorce for any capricious reason. In losing the coin,
she lost some of her security.
In application, our Lord says, "Just so, I tell you, there is joy
before the angels of God over one sinner who repents" (Luke 15:10).
The joy is the same in heaven, but the added element of restored security
(for one who was distraught) is the cause of rejoicing.
The Lost Sons
Looking at the third parable in this trio, the lost sons, we discover
another addition. (This parable is usually called "the parable of the
prodigal son," but if we look carefully there were two sons, each lost
in his own way.) The issue here is enjoyment, for the wandering son
had sought pleasure, only to forfeit the joy of his father's house, while
the stay-at-home son had apparently never known the joy that was there with
the father, being filled with self-centered, legalistic resentment (I see
this from his statement in verses 28-30).
The closing scene is one of enjoyment--love, fellowship, music, being
expressed in a merry party. The key figure here is the father, who is clearly
representative of the heavenly Father. The better title for the story is
"The Waiting Father," for the yearning heart of God filled with
concern for his lost ones is beautifully expressed in the narrative. We
don't know whether the older son ever joined the party. He could have done
so at any time, but the Lord Jesus, as the master storyteller, leaves this
an open question.
Can you see how these three stories were designed to hit the Pharisees
right where they lived? They portray the heart attitude of God toward lost
ones. He desires for each of us safety in his fold, security against
all that threatens our peace of mind, and enjoyment of all the good
things of a loving Father's house. His program is all profit, no loss, for
his people. There is much more we could gain from these beautifully expressive
stories, but we have seen, I trust, that it is possible for us to understand
parables.
To add to my own personal observations of parables, I worked through
a basic textbook on the subject, Trench, Notes on the Miracles and the
Parables of Our Lord, seeking to condense and summarize his conclusions
on this subject. Here is what I learned:
Why Jesus Taught in Parables
Our Lord used parables to teach spiritual truth through well-known physical
counterparts. Parables are not just happily-chosen illustrations from a
library of storybooks; they have their ground in the nature of reality.
The corresponding images belong to each other, as Trench says, "by
an inward necessity; they were linked together long before by the law of
secret affinity.
It is not merely that these analogies assist to make the truth intelligible...theirParables employ a visible world to lead us to understand the invisible
power lies deeper than this, in the harmony unconsciously felt by all men...between
the natural and spiritual worlds, so that analogies from the first are
felt to be something more than illustrations. They are arguments, and may
be alleged as witnesses; the world of nature being throughout a witness
for the world of spirit, proceeding from the same hand, growing out of
the same root, and being constituted for that very end. (3)
things of God. Here God communicates in terms of human relationships and
natural phenomena--the ordinary stuff of which life is made. Again quoting
Trench:
...besides his revelation in words, God has another and an older, andEven the fallenness of God's creation sounds forth its clear but unhappy
one indeed without which it is inconceivable how that other could be made,
for from this it appropriates all its signs of communication. This entire
moral and visible world from first to last, with its kings and its subjects,
its parents and its children, its sun and its moon, its sowing and its
harvest, its light and its darkness, its sleeping and its waking, its birth
and its death, is from beginning to end a mighty parable, a great teaching
of supersensuous truth, a help at once to our faith and to our understanding.
(4)
truth about the imperfection of the present order; poisonous reptiles, natural
catastrophes, diseased and deteriorating bodies, poison oak and gadflies--all
testify of the fact and results of man's fall. And all point to the need
for a better order of things.
In parables, Christ moves our thought processes from familiar ground
to new concepts, from the known to the unknown, from the physical to the
spiritual. In parables he appeals not just to the intelligent reason of
man, but to his imagination and to his feelings. They have all the appeal
of a human interest story. Truth imparted in this form has a lingering quality
not always true of more abstract modes of expression. To quote Trench again
(5):
His words, laid up in the memory, were to many that heard Him like theRules for Interpreting Parables
money of another country, unavailable for present use, --the value of which
they only dimly knew, but which yet was ready in their hand, when they
reached that land, and were naturalized in it. And thus must it ever be
with all true knowledge, which is not the communication of information,
the transfer of a dead sum of capital of facts or theories from one mind
to another, but the opening of living fountains within the heart....
The values of parabolic teachings seem evident, but we need help in understanding
them. How do we get out of them the truth the Lord intends to teach? Here
are some suggestions:
1. Seek to understand the one central truth the parable teaches, as
distinguished from the corollary truths or facts which relate to it.
2. Relate all the peripheral details to this central truth, seeking
to grasp how they contribute to the central truth to make it shine more
clearly.
3. Relate the parable to the context which introduces it and that
which follows. Here we often find the key to its meaning--in seeing
how the parable applies to the situation at hand. Again, Trench has a pertinent
word on this subject:
These helps to interpretation, (that is, the clues derived from the4. A parable should not be the primary, much less exclusive, foundation
context) though rarely or never lacking, are yet given in no fixed or formal
manner; sometimes they are supplied by the Lord Himself (Matt. 22:14;25:13);
sometimes by the inspired narrators of his words (Luke 15: 2,3;18:9;19:11)-
sometimes, as the epilogue, they follow (Matt. 24:13; Luke 16:9). Occasionally
a parable is furnished with these helps to a right understanding both at
its opening and its close; as is that of the Unmerciful Servant (Matt.
18:23), which is suggested by the question which Peter asks (ver. 21),
and wound up by the application which the Lord Himself makes (ver. 35).
So again the parable at Matt. 20:1-15 begins and finishes with the same
saying, and Luke 12:16-20is supplied with the same amount of help for its
right understanding. (6)
for any doctrine. Do not use parables to establish a doctrinal base;
establish your doctrinal foundations from the clear teaching of scripture
elsewhere, then parables will serve to illustrate and confirm, adding light
and color to truth already discovered.
5. Avoid strained interpretations. If you have to work
hard at justifying your interpretive opinion, it's probably not worth contending
for. A correct interpretation is not easy to arrive at, but having been
discovered, should be easy to live with. It should have a sense of fitness.
6. Extremes of interpretation should be avoided. One extreme is
to seek only the most general, limited significance, the other is to make
every minute detail say something.
7. Hard-and-fast, absolute rules for interpreting parables
have not been given to us. The best we can do is to observe the way
our Lord interpreted the parables in Matthew 13 and seek to learn from him.
Much that we gain from parables will be determined by our own reverent
approach to Scripture as God's Word, our total grasp of biblical truth,
and our spiritually-minded common sense.
References:
1. R. E. Trench, Notes on the Parables and Miracles of Our Lord
Old Tappan, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell Co., n.d.), p. 8.
2. Fred H. Wight, Manners and Customs in Bible Lands (Chicago:
Moody Press, n.d.) p. 128.
3. R E. Trench, Notes on the Miracles and Parables of Our Lord (Old
Tappan, NJ.: Revell Publishing Co., n.d.) pp. 12 and 13 on parables.
4. Ibid., pp. 16 and 19 on parables.
5 Ibid., p. 26 on parables.
6. Ibid., p. 39 on parables
1.1.15
Quick Atheist Arguments - An Undeniable Prognosis
Published on 25 Mar 2014
This video demonstrates the intelligence, but mostly common sense, of some of the greatest minds behind atheism. The new REASON website
https://www.TheSecularRoundTable.com
REASON Weekly Newsletter
Sign up! http://eepurl.com/8v8y5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)