What Are Parables?

(avg. read time: 6–13 mins.)

My next short series will be three parts on parables, particularly Jesus’s parables. This will be based on research I did some years ago, but which nothing in writing ever came of. With this Substack, I now have an opportunity for this work to bear some kind of fruit.

Much of Jesus’s teaching that has been passed on in the Gospels exists in the form of parables. These teachings have excited the imaginations of many and have spawned many a sermon and much diversity in the vast history of interpretation. They are clearly designed as revelation by use of analogies to describe something (usually the kingdom), but they also have a concealing function for others, as we see in Jesus’s explanation for his use of parables (Matt 13:13–17 // Mark 4:10–12 // Luke 8:9–10). The history of interpretation of the parables has certainly borne out this dual purpose and function. Even in those cases where Jesus is recorded as providing the interpretation of some of his parables, there has still been controversy about the interpretation, particularly where people have taken the approach to the text of, “I reject your interpretation and substitute my own.” As such, the parables have also spawned extensive scholarly literature expounding not only different interpretations of particular parables, but also different approaches to parables altogether.¹

I do not fancy myself as a grand interpreter of parables, but I would like to help my audience, insofar as I am able, to get some foothold on some of the basic issues in the study of parables. This series will thus proceed in three parts addressing three general questions. First, what are parables? Second, how do parables work? Third, why did Jesus use parables?

The first question would seem to have the most straightforward answer. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Our label of “parable” is ultimately derived from those things described as mashal (משׁל or mathla/מתלא in Aramaic) in the OT, for which παραβολή is the primary translation in the LXX. In fact, it is the direct translation of משׁל in Num 23:7, 18; 24:3, 15, 20–21, and 23, where the term describes Balaam’s prophetic speech. It has a sense akin to “object lesson” (though in many cases translated as something like “byword”) in Deut 28:37, where it describes what Israel will become to the nations as part of a curse, which is also reflected in Pss 44:14 [43:14 LXX]; 69:11 [68:11 LXX]; and Jer 24:9. The same sense is conveyed in 2 Chr 7:20, though it is the land that is described, instead of the people. It refers to a proverb or popular saying in 1 Sam 10:12; 24:13; Ps 49:4 [48:4 LXX]; Prov 1:6; Eccl 12:9; Ezek 12:22–23; 16:44; and 18:2–3. Solomon is said to compose thousands of them in 1 Kgs 4:32. It also refers to some kind of saying of wisdom that is not necessarily a proverb in Ps 78:2; Ezek 17:2; 20:49; 24:3; Mic 2:4; and Hab 2:6.

Several issues complicate forging a simple definition from this relationship. First, there is a case in which παραβολή translates something other than משׁל in Eccl 1:17. In this case, this is more than a disagreement between the MT and LXX, as Aquila translates the Hebrew with πλάνη and Theodotion translates the term with παραφορά. Second, there are two instances in which the three-letter root appears, but it has been misconstrued by the LXX translators as a noun when it is the verb meaning “to rule” (2 Sam 23:3; Ezek 19:14 [though this translation error does not appear in Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion]). Third, there are several cases in which the LXX/OG does not translate משׁל with παραβολή: 1 Kgs 9:7; Job 13:12; 27:1; 29:1; Prov 1:1; 10:1; 25:1; 26:7, 9; Isa 14:4; Ezek 14:8. This is further complicated by the other Greek versions, as Aquila uses the term for this translation in Prov 1:1; 25:1; and Isa 14:4; Symmachus uses the term in Prov 26:7 and Isa 14:4; and Theodotion uses the term in Prov 25:1 and Isa 14:4. But there are also cases in which they prefer to use terms such as παροιμία (“proverb”), as in Eccl 12:9; Ezek 12:22–23; 18:2–3; and 24:3. This is also the most typical term the LXX/OG uses in the aforementioned cases for translating משׁל.

Fourth, as should be clear already, משׁל applies to a variety of sayings; there is no genre it refers to. Nor is it entirely clear what unites all of these different kinds of sayings under one label, just as it is not clear what unites all of the different things Jesus or the Gospel authors describe as parables (Matt 13:3 // Mark 4:2 // Luke 8:4; Matt 13:10 // Mark 4:10 // Luke 8:9–10; Matt 13:13 // Mark 4:11 // Luke 8:11; Matt 13:18, 24, 31, 33–36 // Mark 4:33–34; Matt 13:53; 15:15// Mark 7:17; Mat 21:33 // Mark 12:1 // Luke 20:9; Matt 21:45 // Mark 12:12 // Luke 20:19; Matt 22:1; 24:32 // Mark 13:28 // Luke 21:29; Mark 3:23; 4:13, 30; Luke 4:23; 5:36; 6:39; 12:16, 41; 13:6; 14:7; 15:3; 18:1, 9; 19:11). Fifth, moreover, even the texts we might be inclined to regard as direct precedents for Jesus’s parables do not have the key labels in Hebrew or Greek attached to them. These include Judg 9:7–18; 2 Sam 12:1–7; 14:4–13; 2 Kgs 14:8–10 // 2 Chr 25:6–16; Isa 5:1–7; Ezek 19:1–9, 10–14. All of these texts certainly resemble Jesus’s parables, but they are not designated as such in the texts. Likewise, not all of Jesus’s parables are designated with such terminology either.

None of this is to contradict the idea that mashal and “parable” are related, but it is to recognize that the relationship is complicated, even as both categories are complicated. Most likely, Jesus did originally call this kind of teaching a mashal or mathla, for this was the most fittingly ambiguous name for various forms of figurative or, more accurately, indirect/tropical speech.² The divisions scholars today use to categorize parables are modern inventions; they are not native to biblical language. This by itself is not an issue, but when scholars make the popular distinction, popular at least since the days of Adolf Jülicher, between “parables proper” and other kinds of parables (in the case of Jülicher, similitudes and example stories), it is a problem. In fact, what makes them “proper” is the scholar’s preference, not the applicability of the terminology. It would be better to say that there are “narrative” parables, which represent what is typically associated with the concept of “parable,” and various non-narrative parables that consist of proverbial statements, analogies, riddles, and so on.

While it does not seem proper to operate with a notion of what a parable “proper” is, we would be on safer ground working with a definition of parables that is centered-set (rather than closed-set) and looks for prototypical characteristics. In this approach, various ways of speaking could still fall within the realm of “parable” without conforming to the prototype, but there are certain forms of speech that are closer to and further from that prototype than others. As such, it would be better to start with where the key terms in Hebrew and Greek are applied.

Not all of the prophetic speeches of Balaam with this label involve direct comparison, but some do (Num 23:18–24; 24:3–10) and others involve the use of metaphor and metonymy (24:15–19, 21). As I said above, several cases involve the sense of becoming an object lesson (Deut 28:37; 1 Kgs 9:7 // 2 Chr 7:20; Pss 44:14; 69:11; Jer 24:9; Ezek 14:8). That is, the object becomes an example one points to for illustration or comparison. In the various examples of proverbs or popular sayings, the saying itself does not involve comparison, but such sayings are typically invoked to establish a likeness of some fashion that exists beyond the saying itself (1 Sam 10:12; 24:13; Ezek 12:22–23; 18:2–3), though in one case it does involve explicit comparison in the saying of Ezek 16:44. In Isa 14:4, it refers to a taunt against the king of Babylon at the point that the truth has been shown of the king, and it involves multiple cases of metaphor and metonymy (including comparison; cf. Hab 2:6). However, the taunt of Mic 2:4 is much more straightforward. Finally, it serves as a description of an imagistic analogy or riddle in Ezek 17:2 and 24:3.

For the OT, at least, it seems that the prototype for the mashal is thus the proverb, the riddle, or the lesson involving comparison that is the mark of the speech of the wise/sage. This could explain why the speeches of Balaam and Job (27:1; 29:1) are designated as such for all their differences. It makes sense of why it is listed among the words of wisdom in Ps 49:4 and Prov 1:6. It also fits with the characterizations of Solomon’s works in 1 Kgs 4:32 and Prov 1:1 (cf. 10:1; 25:1). Likewise, the statement of Ps 78:2, quoted as it is in the NT (Matt 13:35), makes sense of this characterization, given its parallelism of parables with things hidden, implying the connection to wisdom/insight (cf. Prov 26:7, 9; Eccl 12:9; Ezek 20:49). As such, the mashal often, but not always, involves figures of speech used to characterize or compare things.

What, then, can be said about the use of “parable” language in the NT? In many cases, it applies to extended analogies via stories with plot development, akin to examples we see from Ezekiel (Matt 13:3 // Mark 4:2 // Luke 8:4; Matt 13:18, 24, 36; Mat 21:33 // Mark 12:1 // Luke 20:9; Matt 21:45 // Mark 12:12 // Luke 20:19; Matt 22:1; Mark 4:13; Luke 12:16, 41; 13:6; 14:7; 15:3; 18:1, 9; 19:11). Almost all of these cases either have an accompanying explanation, serve as an illustration of a point, or have an aim that is considered clear enough in cases without explanation (as in the case of the parable of the wicked tenants). The term also applies to less extensive analogies that do not involve multiple stages of development (Matt 13:31, 33; 24:32 // Mark 13:28 // Luke 21:29; Mark 4:30; Luke 6:39) or a series of such analogies (Mark 3:23; Luke 5:36). As noted previously, there is an understanding of parables as related to things hidden (Matt 13:34–35 // Mark 4:33–34; cf. Matt 13:10 // Mark 4:10 // Luke 8:9–10; Matt 13:13 // Mark 4:11// Luke 8:11). Relatedly, it may have the sense of a riddle or potentially a difficult teaching (Matt 15:15 // Mark 7:17). It may refer to a proverb, as in Luke 4:23.³

Outside of the Gospels, our only examples of the terminology appear in Heb 9:9 and 11:19. They are certainly not prototypical in the NT or otherwise, but they may help illustrate the language in any case. In Heb 9:9, the rituals described were indirect revelations by the Holy Spirit that he had not yet revealed the way into the heavenly sanctuary while the first (earthly) one still had standing. Rather, the rituals were an analogous symbol or sketch (παραβολή) of the eschatological time that has now arrived (v. 9). Hebrews is the only text in the NT that uses the term in this more prophetic/typological sense. In this sense, though the παραβολή is only an outline of the reality it signifies, much like a clay model or an architectural blueprint, it contains important connections of continuity with the analogous signified reality that make it able to communicate that reality in a partial way. In this case, the rites in question foreshadowed the time that has arrived, the climactic, eschatological time in which the covenant has been inaugurated, the consciences of the worshippers have been completed by being purified, and the complete forgiveness of sins has been instituted through the supreme blood sacrifice.

Likewise, in Heb 11:19, it signifies something figurative or prefigurative. Abraham demonstrated his faith when he responded to God’s test by offering up Isaac, his one and only son. Isaac was the son of promise, the chief, living evidence of God’s loving faithfulness to him, and God had made further promises that Isaac would be the one through whom further descendants of promise would come, yet now Abraham was being told to offer him as a sacrifice. The author explains this climactic expression of faith, in which Abraham acted despite potentially not being able to see how this might be consistent with the aforementioned promises of God, as faith in the God who raises the dead and that, by extension, God could raise his son from the dead if that is his will. And figuratively speaking—in a way that prefigures the true resurrection—Abraham did, in fact, receive back from the dead the son he was willing to sacrifice in devotion to the God who promises and enacts those promises with fidelity.

The element of analogy receives more stress in the NT parables than in the OT meshalim, and it should thus be considered part of the definitional prototype. The application of the term most often appears in the context of stories, but the element of analogy is more frequent and more central. It is also associated with wisdom and revelation across the different forms.

By way of summary, we could thus say a mashal is a characteristic form of wisdom speech or text using indirect modes of meaning, which is exemplified by proverbs, riddles, or object lessons involving comparison (whether within the communicative act itself or in the context in which it is spoken or written). A parable, being something that grows out of the form of mashal, is likewise a characteristic form of wisdom speech or text using indirect modes of meaning to form an analogy that serves to enlighten and reveal, which can also conceal due to its character as indirect speech, and which appears most often in the NT in the form of a story, but it can also take other forms of shorter similitudes, riddles, proverbs, and so on. This definition of “parable” is in line with what one can find in Klyne Snodgrass’s massive Stories with Intent, “‘Parable’ in its broadest sense refers to an expanded analogy…. Such analogies first and foremost are comparisons or contrasts used to explain or convince. Parables by their very nature seek to make a rhetorical point.”⁴ I think such a definition, while lacking in precision—like the category itself—is better than that of Madeleine Boucher, a parable scholar whose work I otherwise highly recommend, who says, “It is a structure consisting of a tropical narrative, or a narrative having two levels of meaning; this structure functions as religious or ethical rhetorical speech.”⁵ Boucher’s work and others all too frequently treat narrative as a definitive characteristic of parables. Parables most frequently appear in the form of narrative in the NT, so it could help if she defined her scope in that fashion rather than making a more general definition like this, but even in the NT, it is the aspect of analogy that is more prevalent than the narrative form. Indeed, narrative parables are able to operate with the two levels of meaning precisely because of the central characteristic of analogous correspondence.

With this rough sketch of a framework established, next time we will look at how parables work, which has invited further controversy in the history of interpretation, especially in more recent centuries.

1. See Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2012), 40–81; Klyne R. Snodgrass, “From Allegorizing to Allegorizing: A History of the Interpretation of the Parables of Jesus,” in The Challenge of Jesus’ Parables. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 3–29.

2. Madeleine Boucher, The Mysterious Parable: A Literary Study, CBQMS 6 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1977), 17–18.

3. Cf. Robert H. Stein, “The Genre of the Parables,” in The Challenge of Jesus’ Parables, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 42–47.

4. Klyne R. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 2.

5. Boucher, Mysterious Parable, 23 (italics original).