PARÁBOLA
One of the methods of the art of oratory to illustrate a moral or religious truth by a comparison drawn from ordinary life.
There are no strict boundaries between parable, similarity and metaphor, although the latter are shorter than the parable:
Metaphor: «You are the light of the world. »
Similarity: “Like a sheep before her shearers, she was silent and did not open her mouth.”
Parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took, and she hid it in three measures of flour, until everything was leavened” (Mt. 13:33).
The parable has great advantages. The truth presented in this way remains more engraved in the memory than a mere didactic exposition: no teaching about the Lord’s mercy toward repentant sinners would have produced the effect of the parable of the prodigal son (Lk. 15:11-32).
On the other hand, when a prophet or preacher had to rebuke an important person who would not accept his guilt, they could use a clever parable to captivate them and illuminate his conscience.
The prophet Nathan used a parable to reproach David for her adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite.
Main parables of the OT:
The trees choose a king (Judg. 9:8-20);
the poor man’s sheep (2 Sam. 12:1-14);
the widow with two sons, one of whom had killed the other (2 Sam. 14:4-20);
the soldier who lets his prisoner escape (1 Kings 20:35-42);
the thistle who asks the daughter of the cedar as a wife for his son (2 Kings 14: 9-11);
the vineyard (Is. 5:1-7);
two eagles and a vineyard (Ez. 17:1-10);
the young lions (Ez. 19:1-9);
Ahola and Aholibah (Ez. 23:1-49);
the boiling pot (Ez. 24:1-14).
Just as in the OT the term that denotes a parable is “mashal”, “a similarity”, and can also mean a “proverb”, in the NT it is “parabolê”, which denotes “a comparison”.
From the example of the parables in the OT we see that they usually require an expositor. The Lord once stated that He spoke in parables so that the crowd would “not” understand His teaching (Matt. 13:10-16).
The reason for this is that they had already virtually rejected their Messiah, and were therefore not in a moral condition to receive teaching.
Thus, the Lord, acting as an expositor, privately explained the meaning of the parables to his disciples, because it was given to them to know “the mysteries of the kingdom” (Mt. 13:11).
However, some of the Lord’s parables are so sharp and clear that they were understood by his enemies themselves, as was undoubtedly his intention (cf. Mt. 21: 33-46).
From the very fact that the Lord relates “the mysteries of the kingdom” to the parables he spoke, one can be certain that there is much instruction that can be gleaned from them if they are rightly interpreted.
This requires the leading of the Spirit, the same as any other section of Scripture.
In the table given it will be seen that some of the parables have been recorded only by Matthew; two “similarities” are found in Mark alone; There are several parables that are only given by Luke; none of them have been recorded by Juan.
There are divine reasons for this arrangement and the harmony is undoubted when the character of each of the four Gospels is considered.
Some of the parables appear in groups.
One case is that of Mt.13, where seven parables appear, four of which were spoken in the ears of the crowd, and three of them in private to the disciples.
The first is introductory, that of the sower. The Lord came in search of fruit, but when he did not find it he revealed that he had been sowing “the word of the kingdom,” explaining that much of the seed had not produced fruit.
The next three parables expose the external aspect of the kingdom during the absence of Christ, what man has made of said kingdom. The second is that of wheat and tares.
The Lord had sown the good seed, but Satan immediately sowed his bad seed, and both must grow together until the end of the age. The third is that of the mustard seed.
It grows until it becomes a tree large enough for the birds (which in the parable of the sower are the ones that snatch the good seed from the heart) to take shelter in its branches.
The fourth is that of yeast. A woman hid yeast (always a symbol of what is human, and therefore sinful, due to sin in the flesh) which she spread unseen into three measures of flour, until everything was leavened.
Then Jesus dismissed the crowd, and privately explained to his disciples the parable of the wheat and the tares, adding afterwards some parables exhibiting the divine object and intention in the kingdom.
The first of this second group is that of hidden treasure, to obtain which a man buys the field in which he is hidden. The second is that of the pearl of great price.
The merchant looks for good pearls, and having found a pearl of great price, he sells everything he owns to obtain it. Christ renounced everything that belonged to him as a man and as Messiah on earth, in order to possess the Church.
The third is the parable of the net, which gathers good and evil from the sea of nations, as the Gospel has done in Christianity. When the net is pulled ashore, the good is separated from the bad; Thus, at the end of the century, the angels (according to the Lord adds in his exposition) will separate the evil from among the righteous, and the evil will be cast into the fiery furnace.
Another group of parables is that of Luke. 15. It could also be said that it is a single parable that consists of three sections (cf. Luke 15:3). With it the answer is given to the accusation directed against the Lord: “This man receives sinners, and eats with them.”
(a) The lost sheep was followed by the shepherd until it was found.
(b) The lost coin. The coin was lost in the same house, just as many people were lost in the sight of God despite their outward profession of being children of Abraham (this can be applied to the many who are currently lost in the bosom of the Christendom).
The lost coin was searched for with a lamp until it was found. It was a price coin, made of silver.
(c) The prodigal son was joyfully received by the father, who prepared a great party, with music and dancing, to celebrate the return of the lost son. This is the climax: the celebration of grace. In all three stories, joy belongs to those who find what was lost. It is the joy of heaven for the salvation of lost sinners.
There is no doubt that the best method is the study of each parable, or each group of them, in its own context, as they have been given by the Holy Spirit in inspiration. However, it is also useful to classify them according to the truths communicated by them, and one of the classifications made has been the following:
(a) The rejection of Israel:
The two sons, of which the Lord Himself gives the interpretation (Mt. 21:28-32).
The wicked husbandmen: The leaders of Israel were among the Lord’s hearers, and He explained the parable to them thus: “The kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and will be given to a people (lit.: “to a nation”) who produce the fruits of it” (Mt. 21:33-46).
The barren fig tree: The Lord came in search of fruit to Israel, which represented man receiving cultivation from God; he found nothing. He gave time to repent, but the fig tree bore no fruit, and had to be cut down. The destruction of Jerusalem was the actual felling of it (Lk. 13:6-9).
(b) The introduction of the kingdom and Satan’s opposition to it:
The sower (Mt. 13:3-9, cf. Mt. 13:18-23; Mr. 4:39; Lk. 8:58).
The wheat and the tares (Mt. 13:24-30).
The growth of the seed (Mark 4:26-29).
Despite Satan’s opposition, God, in his secret working, causes his seed to bear fruit and bear fruit.
The leaven (Mt. 13:33; Lk. 13:20-21).
The hidden treasure (Mt. 13:44).
The pearl of great price (Mt. 13:45-46), and
the net (Mt. 13:47-50)
(c) The way in which God introduces the blessing. The following parables would enter this section:
The lost sheep (Mt. 18:12-13; Lk. 15:7).
The lost coin (Luke 15:8-10).
The prodigal son (Lk. 15:11-32).
The wedding of the king’s son (Mt. 22:2-14). God wants to give honor to his Son. The Jews were invited to the wedding feast but did not want to attend. Others, the despised Gentiles, were invited.
One who did not have the wedding garment (who had not put on the righteousness of Christ) was cast out. He had not realized his own incapacity and that only the salvation given by Christ could qualify him to be at the party.
The great supper (Lk. 14:15-24): The feast of heavenly grace in contrast to the earthly aspects of the kingdom of God All those who were invited excused themselves, not prevented by bad things in themselves, but by earthly things.
They showed indifference to the gracious invitation extended to them. Some, the poor and afflicted of the city, were introduced, and others forced to enter. God will fill his house.
The Pharisee and the publican (Lk. 18:10-14).
The Pharisee thanked God that he was not like other men, while the publican cried out for mercy, and went to his house justified before the other.
The two debtors: Much was forgiven to that woman, and she loved much: she was not forgiven much because she loved much (cf. Luke 7: 36-47).
The unjust judge (Lk. 18:1-8). What the Lord presents here is that we have “the need to always pray and not lose heart” (cf. Luke 18:1). God will give the answer at the right time and the elect of the earth will be saved.
The workers of the vineyard (Mt. 20:1-16). Here God asks, in his sovereignty, “Is it not lawful for me to do what I want with what is mine?” Man claims this freedom for himself and instead murmurs against the sovereignty of God: “Many are called, but few are chosen” (Mt. 20:15, 16).
Note also that in this parable the answer to Peter’s question in Mt. 19:27 is given; Chapter 20 continues the theme and shows the spirit of sovereign grace in contrast to the mercenary spirit of the heart of man.
(d) The various responsibilities of men. Here we find:
The good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37). This parable was given in response to the question: “Who is my neighbor?” The Lord was truly the Good Samaritan, and after having described the course He had taken, He added: “Go and do likewise” (v. 37).
The rich fool (Luke 12:16-21). The moral that emerges from this parable is: “So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and he is not rich toward God” (Lk. 12:21).
The unfaithful steward: he sacrificed the present for the future, so the owner praised him, not because of his injustice, but because of his wisdom (Lk. 16: 143). The Lord applies this parable in the following way: “Win friends through unrighteous riches (possessions of the world), so that when these fail you, they may welcome you into eternal mansions.”
Giving to the poor is lending to the Lord, and laying up treasure in heaven. The Lord thus exhorts his listeners to be (unlike the unfaithful steward) faithful in their stewardship of the riches of unrighteousness (which do not belong to the Christian as property), so that the true riches may be entrusted to them. .
The rich man and Lazarus (Lk. 16:19-31). More than a parable, it is a story. Nothing is expressly said about the moral character of these two men, although great insensitivity and selfishness on the part of the rich man is deduced (cf. Luke 16:20, 21).
In the OT it had been taught that the mark of the righteous should be external prosperity (Ps. 112:2, 3). In the kingdom in its new phase, and consequently to the rejection of Christ, the possession of riches ceases to be a sign of divine favor.
This was a necessary lesson for the Jew. It is very difficult for a rich person to be saved, but the Gospel was announced to the poor (Mt. 11:5; Luke 11:22).
Poor Lazarus was taken to Abraham’s bosom, and the rich man went to perdition. In the other world the conditions of the present world are reversed.
Here the teaching of the parable of the unjust steward continues: the rich man was not sacrificing the present for the future. A vivid image is also given of the unalterable condition of the lost.
The merciless servant (Mt. 18:23-35). Here is illustrated the government of God, which is not overridden by his grace. It is revealed that God will reward his people according to the way they act toward others (cf. Mt. 7:2).
There is also no doubt that this parable has another application, having to do with the Jews and their jealousy of the fact that grace is shown towards the Gentiles.
Their debt to them is given as one hundred denarii, while the debt of the Jews to God is given as ten thousand talents. Peter offered them divine forgiveness in Acts. 3:19-26, but the offer was rejected, and their persecution of Paul and those who brought the Gospel to the Gentiles shows that they could not forgive the Gentiles the hundred denarii.
For this reason they are forced to pay up to the last cent (cf. Is. 40:2; Mt. 5:25, 26; 1 Thes. 2:15, 16).
The ten virgins (Mt. 25:1-13). The explanation of this parable is simple.
The normal attitude of Christians is that they have gone out to receive the Bridegroom. This was the hope of the apostles. After the apostolic age, everyone, regarding this hope, surrendered to the dream.
There may have been times of awakening, but when the last call goes out, the solemn fact appears that there are those who only have a form of profession without Christ, lacking the Spirit, lamps without oil, who will be excluded.
Although this parable can be applied at all times and places to the state of Christendom, it has a special application to Israel (for a more particular consideration, see: Chafer L S “Systematic Theology” vol 1 p 1125, vol. II PP 135- 581).
The talents (Mt. 25:14-30). This parable is similar in character to that of the minas, but in this the talents are distributed to each one according to his ability, so that one receives five, another two, and another one.
This parable follows that of the ten virgins, showing that as the believer awaits the coming of the Lord of his, he must be faithfully using the gifts entrusted to him. In the parable of the minas (Lk. 19: 12-27) it is shown that the Lord Jesus was going to leave the world to receive a kingdom, and that in the meantime he left each of his servants a mina with which to trade while it lasted. the absence of him. All gifts are for the glory of the Lord, and the servant is responsible to Him for his faithful use of them.
Another arrangement of the main parables has been suggested, that is, in three groups, corresponding to different periods of the Lord’s ministry:
(a) In his early ministry, embracing the new teaching relating to the kingdom, and the mysterious form it assumes during his absence. It extends to Mt. 13 and Mr. 4. These parables are easily distinguished in the table.
(b) After an interval of several months. The parables are now of a different kind, and drawn from the lives of men rather than from the kingdom of nature. They are given primarily as answers to questions, not in speeches to crowds.
Most of them appear only in Luke, and are situated mainly between the mission of the seventy and the Lord’s last journey to Jerusalem.
(c) The last group of parables is given towards the end of the Lord’s ministry.
They deal with the kingdom in its consummation, and have a prophetic character about the rejection of Israel and the coming of the Lord.
One of the important consequences that can be drawn from the study of the parables is the fact of the final apostasy of this era of Christianity and the fact that the final establishment of the kingdom of God in its eternal and universal aspect will come through personal intervention.
and direct from Christ, in judgment and power; In any case, the believer must learn from them not an easy optimism, nor an expectation of a universal conversion as a preview of the coming of the Lord, but to wait patiently and with perseverance and prayer, the coming of the Lord, busy in the meantime, in fidelity to Him, in the faithful performance of the responsibilities received for His glory (cf. Tit. 2:11-15).