Why Did Jesus Use Parables?
Why Did Jesus Use Parables?
(avg. read time: 3–7 mins.)
As we have noted, parables are not unique to Jesus’s way of teaching. But narrative parables are uniquely characteristic of Jesus’s way of teaching in a fashion that they were of no Jewish teacher before him. And even beyond the narrative parables, he had a proclivity for parables that was unmatched by any of his successors among the Christians. Why, then, did Jesus use parables like he did? To answer this question, we must briefly consider the parables more broadly, Jesus’s purpose statement in its various forms in Matt 13:13–17 // Mark 4:10–12 // Luke 8:9–10, and Matthew’s unique Scripture citation in 13:35 that points to how Jesus’s use of parables fulfilled Scripture.
As indicated in the previous entry, part of what makes parables so useful for Jesus is their indirectness, which made them fitting to function as summons and warnings. Even if Jesus was explicit about his subject in beginning a parable with saying “the kingdom of God/heaven is like,” the “like” element would pique curiosity, as people wondered in what ways it was like the analog. After people are drawn in, the “punch line” or resolution of the analogy has increased impact compared to stating the point outright. The indirectness also acts as both concealment and an opportunity for revelation, as those who do not wish to know more or who are not willing to make the proper response will walk away, but those who grasp the analogy and/or wish to understand further will be drawn further in to receive insight from the teacher.
As N. T. Wright says:
The parables are not simply information about the kingdom, but are part of the means of bringing it to birth. They are not a second-order activity, talking about what is happening at one remove. They are part of the primary activity itself. They do not merely give people something to think about. They invite people into the new world that is being created, and warn of dire consequences if the invitation is refused. Jesus’ telling of these stories is one of the key ways in which the kingdom breaks in upon Israel, redefining itself as it does so. They also function, for the same reason, as explanation and defence of what Jesus is doing.1
This brings us to the purpose statement of Matt 13:13–17 // Mark 4:10–12 // Luke 8:9–10, which cites Isa 6:9–10 and comes in between the parable of the sower and its interpretation. As I have noted elsewhere, Matthew alone provides the direct citation of Isa 6:9–10 (13:14–15), including with an introductory formula, while each of the Synoptics quote Jesus as using the language of this text in a more allusive fashion (Matt 13:13 // Mark 4:12 // Luke 8:10). In the former case, Matthew’s Greek text matches the LXX/OG. In the latter case, the Greek of Luke is the most abbreviated, matching the subjunctive mood of the purpose clause that is also reflected in Mark. Mark’s quote of Jesus borrows the most vocabulary from the Isaiah text, but it also is condensed, and the grammatical mood is subjunctive for a purpose clause. But Matthew maintains indicatives in place of the purpose clause, since he attaches the purpose more directly to the fulfillment of the words of Isaiah.
In light of the use of the verbs for “perceive” and “understand” elsewhere, as well as the contrast to verbs for “see” and “hear,” it is likely that more than cognitive grasping is at issue here. After all, elsewhere in the Gospels, the enemies of Jesus understood the parables well enough cognitively (such as in Mat 21:33–45 // Mark 12:1–12 // Luke 20:9–19), but they were unwilling to accept the call contained therein. As in the rest of his ministry, the parables pose a moment of decision that can lead to discipleship or repulsion by clear rejection, a point further aided by the indirect mode of communication.2 This also fits with OT precedents in the messages and the problems surrounding blindness/deafness/hard-heartedness, where their opposites are faith and repentance (Deut 29:2–4; Jer 5:21; Ezek 2:4–5, 7; 3:7).
Klyne Snodgrass’s analysis of this passage is especially helpful here. From the outset, he notes that at least since John Chrysostom’s day, it has been pointed out that if Jesus wanted to prevent understanding, the more effective means would be to remain silent.3 When the wider context of the quote and the significance of identifying with Israel’s prophetic tradition are considered, the meaning of Jesus’s use in Mark becomes clearer.
This portion of Isa 6 comes in the commissioning story of Isaiah to a ministry that will involve critiquing and calling to repentance. While the passage, of course, asserts that many will not respond to this ministry properly and there will be judgment in the hardening of hearts towards the prophetic message—as Isaiah’s audience becomes more like the idols they worship in having eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear—it is both a warning and a provocative challenge in which Isaiah still expects and seeks some to hear and follow.4 There is, after all, the promise of a holy remnant here (Isa 6:13). Furthermore, to quote Snodgrass, “The ideal reader wants to be part of that remnant. Further, reversing the images of Isa 6:9, the promise for the future is that the deaf will hear and the blind will see (Isa 29:18; 35:5). The use of the words of Isa 6:9-10 by later writers shows that this passage became the classic depiction of the refusal to hear.”5
In line with the logic of texts such as Mark 4:24–25 (and others such as 2 Bar 51:1–6), the ones who respond appropriately are given more from Jesus because they are responding to the word of God. Overall, Snodgrass summarizes the logic of this citation and its context like so:
Parables by their very metaphoricity have a veiling quality, some more than others, and especially in a context of opposition they say indirectly what cannot be said openly. They can be mysterious, but if so, it is to stimulate thought. They both hide and reveal, and to say ‘to those outside all things happen in parables’ is to say what [Mark] 4:33 and 3:23 imply: Jesus taught in parables, like any good prophet, to appeal and to enable hearing. Where parables find a willing response, further explanation is given. Where there is no response the message is lost.6
In line with his prophetic predecessors, though to a much greater extent than any of them, Jesus used parables to stimulate response. Like with the prophets before him, and in signification of the whole history of Israel (as Jesus exemplifies in other teachings, such as the parable of the wicked tenants), this explanation from Jesus resonates with his ministry as a whole. Thus, his use of parables is most apropos as a synecdoche for his ministry, which brought the rising and falling of many in their responses to him, leading some to turn aside to tread further the path to destruction and others to come closer and follow Jesus on the path to life.
In this same vein of Jesus describing himself in terms of following the biblical prophetic pattern of Isa 6, so too does Matthew describe Jesus’s parabolic teaching as fulfilling Scripture in Matt 13:35. Specifically, this activity is said to fulfill Ps 78:2. This is another case of fulfilling a pattern, albeit in a climactic fashion befitting the one who is the awaited climax of Israel’s story. Indeed, as with the original text, Jesus’s parables are often related to Israel and its story, and the parables are emblematic of his ministry that serves as the climax of Israel’s story. In these multiple ways, it was fitting for Jesus to fulfill Scripture in how he taught, even as he fulfilled Scripture in so many other ways through his life, ministry, death, resurrection, and exaltation.
N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, vol. 2 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 176.
Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 45–46; Boucher, Mysterious Parable, 60, 83.
Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 159.
Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 160–61.
Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 160 (emphasis original).
Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 162–63.