The Interpretation of Parables, Allegories and Types

by Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) March 2, 1997 Visitor #

1. Introd ction
Figurative language is used in various ways in both testaments and is an integral part of Biblical literature. The most common and most important forms of figurative language are parables, allegories and types. Although there may be some overlap in the nature of these language forms there are also important distinctions particularly in the function they perform. The purpose of this essay is to examine the nature and characteristics of parables, allegories and types. Their significance for Biblical interpretation and their limitations and dangers will also be examined.

2. Parables ! Allegories
2.1. The "ifferences #et$een Parables ! Allegories
Parables are short stories that are told in order to get a point across and occur in both testaments of the Bible. The word "parable" !". parabole# was generally used in reference to any short narrative that had symbolic meaning $ouw % &ida '()(, p. *('#. There are many stories and saying of +esus in the &ew Testament that are identified as parables, but not all of these are parables in the true sense. The !ood ,amaritan $u"e '-.*-/*0# may be regarded as a true parable because it is a complete story with a beginning, ending and plot, but the $eaven in the 1eal is a similitude, "2ou are the salt of the earth" is a metaphor and "3o people pic" grapes from thorn bushes" is an epigram Fee % ,tuart '((*, p. '*4/'*5#. 6hen "parable" is used in this section it refers to the true parables. A true parable then may be regarded as an extended simile Blomberg '((-, p. *7#. 8t is a story that resembles real/life natural situations and does not contain any mythical or supernatural elements 9us"e '((0, p. (5#. These stories were told in order to catch the listener:s attention and provo"e a response. ;. <. 3odd '(4', p.'4# defines a parable as. "a metaphor or simile drawn from nature or common life, arresting the hearer by its vividness or strangeness, and leaving the mind in sufficient doubt about its precise application to tease it into active thought." They often embody a message that may not be communicated in any other way 1arshall % Tas"er, in &ew Bible 3ictionary.Parables#. An allegory, however, is =uite different. 8t is essentially an extended metaphor 9us"e '((0, p. (># and uses a story or event often mythical and supernatural# to illustrate a point 1arshall % Tas"er, in &ew Bible 3ictionary.Parables#. They are stories with 7 levels of meaning. human activity and spiritual reality Blomberg '((-, p. '0#. Allegories encode relatively static series of comparisons that the author wishes to communicate and always need to be interpreted Blomberg '((-, p. *0#. Allegories are much less common in the &ew Testament but are more fre=uent in the ?ld Testament. 8n an allegory virtually every person, thing, place and event has a symbolic meaning

Fee % ,tuart '((*, p. '>-#. @xamples of allegories are the visions in 3aniel ).'/'' which is interpreted in 3aniel ).7-/74#, and @Ae"iel '. 8n the &ew Testament, nearly every chapter of Bevelation contains allegorical visions. Throughout the history of the church, there has been great debate over the level of allegory used in parables. ,ome have suggested that they are essentially allegories Blomberg '((-, p. 4), my emphasis#, while others emphatically state the opposite Fee % ,tuart '((*, p. '*)#. <owever, it must be admitted that the line between parables and allegories is a fluid one 1arshall % Tas"er, in &ew Bible 3ictionary.Parables#.

2.2. Interpreting Parables

2.2.1. %onte&t ! 'etting +esus told parables to be understood and he told them to common people $u"e '0.*, ').(, '(.''# Fee % ,tuart '((*, p. '*4#. The telling of parables are historical events but it is unli"ely that the content of the parable was historical 9us"e '((0, p. (5#. <owever, this does not mean they are irrelevant or that the truth and message they communicate is unreliable. The points of reference or points of comparison also called the tertium# of a parable are usually indicated by the historical setting and situation and by the literary context 9us"e '((0, p. (0#. The original audience would have immediately understood the points of comparison when +esus spo"e them Fee % ,tuart '((*, p. '*(/'>-#. Therefore the interpreter needs to hear the parable as the original audience heard it. The original audience and their customs and culture needs to be studied in order to grasp how they would have heard, understood and reacted to a particular parable. The interpreter needs to understand what the various people, places and obCects meant and the significance they had to the audience 6enham '()(, p. '4#. For example, most people are not aware of the dangers of putting new wine into old wines"ins or the dangers of travelling the +ericho road 6enham '()(, p. '0#. The interpreter must also be aware of any ?ld Testament allusions in parables eg. 1ar" '7.'/'7 and 8saiah 0#. The difficulty in interpreting parables is because our modern western society is so far removed in time and culture from the original audience Fee % ,tuart '((*, p. '*5#. The historical distance is not only chronological but social, political and religious 6enham '()(, p. '0#. Parables always occur as part of a larger context 9lein et al '((*, p. 757#. Therefore they need to be interpreted within this larger literary context and with respect to other parables and other sayings and events. This is particularly true of the parables of +esus, which must be interpreted in relation to his proclamation of the 9ingdom of !od 6enham '()(, p. '4#. 8t should also be noted that no one parable contains the entire gospel 1arshal % Tas"er in &ew Bible 3ictionary. Parables#. 2.2.2. The Meaning of Parables <istorically, most ;hristians have interpreted parables as allegories but modern scholarship has reCected this practice Blomberg '((-, p. '0/'4# because it ignores the realism, clarity and simplicity of parables Blomberg '((-, p. *7#.. Although parables do have some allegorical elements, these are the exceptions not the general rule Blomberg '((-, p. '5#. These allegorical elements are called the points of reference or points of comparison 9lein et al. '((*, p. **5#. ,ome parables go very close to being allegories, because most of the details in the story are intended to represent something or someone else ie. they have many points of comparison#. <owever even these parables are not allegories because of the function they perform Fee % ,tuart '((*, p. '*)#. The parable in $u"e 5.>-/>7 is not allegorical although it appears that way. The purpose of the story is not found in the points of comparison but in the intended response of ,imon and the woman# Fee % ,tuart '((*, p. '>-#.

The details of a parable must be interpreted with strict reference to the points of comparison so the focus remains on the central meaning of the parable. ,ometimes none of the details are important and do not need interpreting eg. The !ood ,amaritan#. ,ometimes a few of the details are significant eg. Parable of the Tenants# and sometimes all the details are important eg. Parable of the 6eeds# 9us"e '((0, p. (0/(4#. The interpreter must also be sensitive to the shape and form of parable. The assumption of ' single point per parable is not always true 6enham '()(, p. '5#. ,ome parables are simple and some are complex. ,imple parables will Cust have one central message but complex ones may have a central message and several related messages 6enham '()(, p. '5#. For example, the Prodigal ,on teaches that !od accepts repentant sinners and also that !od wants faithful people to accept repentant sinners 9us"e '((0, p. (5#. 8n fact the maCority of parables ma"e exactly * points Blomberg '((-, p. 7'#. A parable may also have multiple shades of meaning depending on the perspective of the hearer. 6hen +esus told the parable in $u"e 5.>-/>), the messages received by ,imon and the woman would have been very different 9lein et al. '((*, p. **)#. ,imon received a message of rebu"e but the woman, a message of acceptance and forgiveness. Also, +esus told some parables with modifications# on different occasions to different audiences in order to provo"e a different response eg. Parable of '- minas / $u"e '(.'-/74 and Parable of '- talents / 1atthew 70.'>/7)# 9us"e '((0, p. ()#. 2.2.(. The ) nction of Parables Parables do not serve to illustrate +esus teaching with :picture words: and they were not told to serve as vehicles for revealing spiritual truth / although they most certainly end up doing this. Parables were told to provo"e a response / to address the audience, capture their attention, show them up and cause them to decide and act Fee % ,tuart '((*, p. '*)#. The parable &athan told to 9ing 3avid in 7 ,amuel '7 is a clear example. 3avid "burned with anger" at the man who stole the poor man:s ewe and wanted immediate and summary Custice. 6hen &athan revealed that this was what 3avid had done, he felt remorse and repented. 8n this respect a parable is li"e a story with a punchline. The unusual twist in the story is what gives the parable its impact and biting force 6enham '()(, p. '>#. Parables Colt people into seeing things in a new way, bringing them to a point of decision and action 1arshall % Tas"er in &ew Bible 3ictionary. Parables#. +esus parables capture the listeners attention, bringing them face to face with his message, which would have been much less effective if stated normally 6enham '()(, p. '*#. <e did not use them to illustrate general truth but to force people to determine their attitude toward <im and his message of the 9ingdom of !od 1arshall % Tas"er in &ew Bible 3ictionary. Parables#. This is reflected in the fact that parables often brea" the grounds of realism and conventional expectation. For example, no +ewish father would lovingly greet and accept a wayward son as in the Prodigal ,on# 9lein et al. '((*, p. **5#. 8nterpreting a parable in some ways destroys what the parable is. 8t is li"e interpreting a Co"e. The immediacy of the parable is what ma"es it so effective in provo"ing people. @xplaining the points of comparison of a parable is li"e explaining a Co"e. The impact is lost Fee % ,tuart '((*, p. '*)/ '*(#. 1ar" >.'-/'7 seems to be a difficult passage to understand regarding the function of parables. This passage seems to indicate that parables cloud and hide the message rather than ma"e it clear in contrast to the parallel passage in 1atthew '*.'*#. <owever, the conCunction translated as "that", "so that" or "in order that" in modern translations !". iDna#, is in fact a result clause not a purpose clause 1oule '(0*, p. '>7/'>*#. Therefore it would be better translated as "as a result of the fact that". +esus told parables as a result of the fact that "they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding."

2.2.*. +i,itations ! "angers The basic danger with interpreting parables is mista"ing their function and context. ?ften, too much is read into the details of the story and instead of functioning to provo"e a response it becomes an allegory which is essentially a vehicle for truth. The Parable of the EnCust +udge intends to communicate that we should be persistent in our pleading to !od for Custice / not that !od is unCust or that we can change his mind by constantly hassling him. Therefore it is far more li"ely that parables will be overinterpreted than underinterpreted 9us"e '((0, p. ()#. The problem with this "ind of allegorical interpretation is that rarely do two interpreters agree on the meaning of every detail in the story. Too often the meaning given to details reflects understandings of ;hristian doctrine from a later period than +esus ministry. &o one in +esus time could have expected to associate the inn/"eeper in the !ood ,amaritan with the Apostle Paul Augustine:s interpretation# Blomberg '((-, p. *'/*7#.

2.(. Interpreting Allegories

Allegories are illustrations and always re=uire interpretation. They are generally interpreted by the Biblical text itself. A clear example can be found in 3aniel ). 3aniel sees a vision of a ram with 7 horns, one being longer than the other and a goat with ' prominent horn between his eyes, that brea"s off giving rise to > smaller horns. From one of these horns another horn came which eventually became extremely powerful and caused great destruction. These images are precisely interpreted later in the chapter. The ram represents the "ings of 1edia and Persia 3aniel ).7-# and the goat represents the 9ing of !reece, the large horn being the first "ing 3aniel ).7'# which history records as Alexander the !reat. The four horns represent the four "ingdoms that emerge from Alexander:s "ingdom and the single horn which eventually becomes very powerful, represents a stern faced "ing who is a master of intrigue.

(. Types
(.1. Types ! Typology
",uccessive epochs of salvation/history disclose a recurring pattern of divine activity, which the &T writers believed to have found its definitive expression in their own day" Bruce in &ew Bible 3ictionary. Typology#. Typology is "a way of setting forth the Biblical history of salvation so that some of its earlier phases are seen as anticipations of later phases, or some later phase as the recapitulation or fulfilment of an earlier one." 8n the language of typology the earlier series of events is called the type and the later series of events is called the antitype Bruce in &ew Bible 3ictionary. Typology#. 9lein et al. '((*, p. '*-# defines typology as "the recognition of a correspondence between &ew and ?ld Testament events, based on a conviction of the unchanging character of the principles of !od:s wor"ing.". Buchanan '()5, p. *# notes that typology relates one historical event to another, not in details, but in basics. A type is a picture or pattern of something that lies in the future 9us"e '((0, p. ((#. Types can be people eg. 1oses / 3euteronomy ').'0#, places eg. 1ost <oly Place / <ebrews (.*, ), '7#, an office eg. <igh Priest / Psalm ''-.>, <ebrews (.4/5#, festivals eg. 3ay of Atonement / <ebrews (.70/74#, an event eg. 8srael being called out of @gypt / 1atthew 7.'0#, an obCect eg. bronAe sna"e / +ohn *.'># or an animal !enesis 77# 9us"e '((0, p. ((/'--#.

(.2. Interpreting Types

(.2.1. Meaning, P rpose and ) nction of Types Ese of typology rests on belief that !od:s ways of acting are consistent throughout history. ;hrist and the &ew Testament writers considered many of !od:s former actions recorded in the ?ld Testament as :types: of what <e was now doing in ;hrist. This does not mean that the ?ld Testament writers intended to communicate a typological message and probably were not even conscious that what they wrote had any typological significance 9lein et al. '((*, p. '*-#. Types would most probably not have been recognised by the original audience either, but were pointed out by ;hrist and the &ew Testament writers $u"e 7>.75, >>, ' ;orinthians '-.4/''#. Typology see"s to discover and ma"e explicit the real correspondences in historical events which have been brought about by the :recurring rhythm: of divine activity $ampe '(05, p. 7(#. The typological relationship between the two testaments is summarised by the epigram "The &ew is in the ?ld concealedF the ?ld is in the &ew revealed." The Bible is a unity and through typology the Bible spea"s of ;hrist in almost every part $ampe '(05, p. '7#. 8n the &ew Testament, ;hristian salvation is presented as the climax or culmination of !od:s mighty wor"s in the ?ld Testament Bruce in &ew Bible 3ictionary. Typology#. Therefore, types are in a sense a vague "ind of prophecy. Types teach us how !od wor"s and saves. They prepare us to recognise the person and wor" of ;hrist. 1any events in the ?ld Testament were not recorded primarily for themselves but for what they foreshadowed. They were images in and through which the <oly ,pirit indicated what was to come in the &ew ;ovenant $ampe '(05, p. '-#. <owever, this does not mean that typological events were not historical $ampe '(05, p. '*#. The presence of types is a clear indication of !od at wor" in history and that <e divinely inspired the ?ld Testament writers to record these typological events. Typological study is a necessity if the full meaning of the &ew Testament is to be grasped and appreciated. The interpreter needs to see the ?ld Testament scripture through the eyes of the &ew Testament writers $ampe '(05, p. ')/'(#. Although, the &ew Testament writers appear to attach strange and out of context meanings to ?ld Testament scriptures, these meanings were assigned under inspiration and in the light of their experiences of ;hrist 9lein et al. '((*, p. '*'#. !enerally most types are in the ?ld Testament and their antitypes are in the &ew Testament Buchanan '()5, p.*#. 8n fact, most ?ld Testament types are pictures of some aspect of the life of ;hrist 9us"e '((0, p. ((#. <owever, there are two archetypal epochs in the ?ld Testament. the creation and the exodus from @gypt. The exodus is viewed as a new creation in the way that !od constrained the waters on both occasions cf. !enesis '.(f and @xodus '>.7'/7(# Bruce in &ew Bible 3ictionary. Typology#. The restoration of 8srael from the Babylonian captivity is viewed as both a new creation and a new exodus. The <ebrew words used for !od:s wor"manship in !enesis ' and 7 are the same ones used to describe the restoration 8saiah >*.5f#. Also, as the @xodus generation was led by cloud and fire, which moved behind them when threatened from the bac", so also the exiles received the promise "The $ord will go before you, and the !od of 8srael will be your rear guard 8saiah 07.'7# Bruce in &ew Bible 3ictionary. Typology#. +esus and the &ew Testament authors pointed out many types of ;hrist including the high priest <ebrews 0#, the priest:s duties <ebrews '-.'/77#, the blood from animal sacrifices <ebrews '*.''/'*#, the ?ld Testament sacrifices <ebrews#, the red heifer <ebrews (.'*/'>#, the Passover lamb ' ;orinthians 0.5#, the braAen altar <ebrews '*.'-#, the bowls of bronAe @phesians 0.74/ 75#, the 1ercy seat <ebrews >.'4#, the veil <ebrews '-.7-#, the manna +ohn 4.*7/*0#, cities of refuge <ebrews 4.')#, the bronAe serpent +ohn *.'>/'0#, the tree of life +ohn '.>, Bevelation 77.7#, Adam Bomans 0.'>, ' ;orinthians '0.>0#, Abel <ebrews '7.7>#, &oah 7 ;orinthians '.0#, 1elchiAede" <ebrews 5.'/'5#, 1oses Acts *.7-/77, 5.*5, <ebrews *.7/4#, 3avid Philipians 7.(#,

@lia"im Bevelation *.5# and +onah 1atthew '7.>-#. (.2.2. +i,itations and "angers Types have one point of comparison that serves to illustrate something about the antitype 9us"e '((0, p. '--#. Therefore an interpreter must be extremely careful not to :stretch: the type too far. They are not perfect pictures of the real thing, only rough s"etches. For this reason it is unwise to use types as a basis for a doctrinal position.

*. %oncl sion
The diversity of language and literary styles used in the Bible shows it to be a wonderful peace of literature, full of meaning and inspiration. 8f we approach figurative parts of the Bible, li"e parables, allegories and types, with caution and treat their context with full respect then we will avoid ma"ing many interpretive errors. The parables must be interpreted according to their function, not according to their allegorical elements. The tas" of interpreting a parable becomes so much simpler when its context is examined in order to discover the events that led up to the parable being told, the reason why the parable was told and the effect it had on the original audience. This will highlight the parable:s power, force and function. Allegories, although much less common in the Bible, serve to illustrate. They are usually interpreted by the Biblical text itself. Types serve to prepare people for later events or people. They serve to illustrate and also to prophesy.

-eferences.
#lo,berg %. +., Interpreting the arables, 8nter/Garsity Press, $eicester, @ngland, '((-. # chanan /. 0., Typology and the !ospel, Eniversity Press of America, '()5. "odd %. 1., The arables o" the Kingdo#, Fontana Boo"s, '(4'. "o glas 2. "., The $ew Bible %ictionary, Tyndale <ouse, '()7. )airbairn P., The Typology o" Scripture, Hondervan, !rand Bapids, 1ichigan. )ee /. ". ! 't art "., How to &ead the Bible "or All its 'orth, Hondervan, !rand Bapids, 1ichigan, '((*. 3lein 0. M., #lo,berg %. +. ! 1 bbard -. +. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. 6ord Publishing, 3allas, '((*. 3 s4e ", Biblical Interpretation( The )nly &ight 'ay, &orthwestern Publishing <ouse, 1ilwau"ee, 6isconsin, '((0. +a,pe /. 0. 1. ! 0oollco,be 3. 2., *ssays on Typology, ,;1 Press, $ondon, '(05. +o $ 2. P. ! 5ida 6. A., !reek+*nglish ,e-icon o" the $ew Testa#ent Based on Se#antic %o#ains, Enited Bible ,ocieties, &ew 2or", '()(. Mo le %. ). "., An Idio# Book o" $ew Testa#ent !reek, ;ambridge Eniversity Press, ;ambridge, '(0*. 0enha, ", The arables o" .esus, <odder % ,toughton, $ondon, '()(.