Robert van Mourik
When we interpret a parable, the goal should not be to “explain it” in clearer language than Jesus used, but to reawaken the experience it provoked when Jesus first told it. José Pagola
Introduction
In his book Jesus: An Historical Approximation, the Spanish theologian, José Pagola writes the principal reason Jesus lived on earth was to proclaim the existence of the reign of God, a phrase connoting a life of mercy, compassion, and justice for all.[1] Pagola writes:
“Jesus did not directly explain his experience of the reign of God. Apparently, it was hard for him to describe conceptually what he felt within him. He didn’t use the language of the scribes in his dialogue with the Galilean peasants. He didn’t use the solemn style of the priests in Jerusalem. He used the language of the poets. With infinite creativity he invented images, constructed beautiful metaphors, and suggested comparisons; above all he was a master storyteller whose parables captivated his listeners. The best way to get inside Jesus’ experience of the reign of God is to take a walk through the fascinating world of these stories.”[2]
However, these stories may not be as simple as they first appear. Life is more than meets the eye. Pagola:
“Jesus had to teach them (the Galileans) to grasp the saving presence of God in a different way, and he began by suggesting that life is more than meets the eye. While we go on distractedly living the life we see in front of us, something mysterious is happening at the heart of existence. Jesus showed them the Galilean fields: while they were walking along the paths without seeing anything special, something was happening in the soil; the seeds were being transformed into a beautiful harvest. The same thing was happening at home. Daily life went on as usual, but something was secretly happening in the bread dough the women mixed every morning; soon the whole loaf would rise. That’s the way the reign of God works. Its saving power was already at work in their lives, mysteriously transforming everything. Can life really be like that? Is God quietly acting in the inner core of our own lives? Is that the ultimate secret of life?” [3]
Pagola’s comments are apt, is God quietly acting in the inner core of our own lives? Is that the ultimate secret of life? Perhaps it is. As the 15th century mystic, Meister Eckhart wrote, “God is a great underground river that no one can dam up and no one can stop.” [4]
The structure of the parables
As the Irish writer and priest, Diarmuid O’Murchu explains [5], there are three categories to consider when dealing with a parable:
a) The Story – oftentimes easily told and remembered
b) The Allegory – a further explanation using the story to teach a moral or religious lesson
c) The Parable – the hidden, subverted meaning that the adult hearer must discover for oneself.
O’Murchu observes that many parables in the bible are only allegories; parables are for adults, not intended for children. With hidden and subversive meanings, the parables are meant to challenge preconceived assumptions and beliefs. O’Murchu quotes Sean Freyne:
“Just at the point in the story line when the reader is lured into its internal logic, the parable takes an unexpected and unforeseen twist, and one is left wondering what the point really was. As a pedagogic device, this unusual twist in the story line engages the hearer’s imagination to rethink their own presuppositions and re-evaluate their notions of what the “Kingdom of God’ might really be like.” [6]
Further, we need to be aware of potentially inaccurate reporting of the parables; O’Murchu:
“Catechists try to simplify parables to make them more accessible to children (preachers tend to do the same thing), when Jesus actually used such stories to engage adult followers in adult-based discipleship in the service of an adult God. The call to mature adulthood is deeply inscribed into the parabolic landscape. To honour their subversive intent, along with their adult challenges, the following elements of parables need more discerning attention:
The Gospel writers themselves seem to have departed significantly from the original purpose of the parables as Jesus told them.
The Gospel writers – or other editors – tend to spiritualise and moralise the original stories, undermining their foundational; political, economic, and spiritual counter-culture.
The tendency to allegorise the parables – that is, make ethical or spiritual comparisons based on them – frequently undermines and distorts the liberating empowerment of the original story.
Interpretations that equate Jesus (or God) with the leading character (the king, the landlord) not only distract from the foundational message but mark a serious departure from the nonimperial vision of the new reign of God.
Colonial mimicry – depicting God or Jesus as an imperial figure – features in many of the parables. This is more likely an editorial gloss rather than behaviour that the historical Jews would have adopted.
Many parables adopt dualistic splitting (sheep v. goats; wise v. foolish virgins), a literary and cultural tactic of the time that the Hebrew Jesus is unlikely to have used.” [7]
An example.
Rethinking presuppositions requires the adult to ask discerning questions. Drawing on Luke 11:5-8 as an example (the story of a traveller seeking assistance late at night when the household is asleep, see appendix), O’Murchu explains that our identity is all inclusive, expanding far beyond ourselves [8]:
• Initially, my view of myself is I belong and I am - but
• my identity is interwoven with my household, and
• each household belongs to a village, and
• each village is part of a bioregion, and
• all bioregions together make up Planet Earth, and
• the Earth is sustained by the Universe.
Jesus operated out of an expansive, large worldview undeniably rooted in the whole of creation. Who has thought of their own identity in these terms? What are the consequences of such an expansive sense of one’s identity?
O’Murchu claims that all parables ultimately point to the interconnectedness of us all, our planet and our ecology. Searching for deeper meaning, beyond cultural values and individualistic thinking founded in “I am” leads to a deeper appreciation of the universe and the story of creation. The initial story expands into a parable and ultimately into the cosmic horizon of our faith, a faith that is not about the human person and the salvation of our soul, but a person in relationship with others and integrated more deeply into the story of God’s creation.
Pope Francis, Laudato Si:
“It cannot be emphasised enough how everything is interconnected. It follows that the fragmentation of knowledge and the isolation of bits of information can actually become a form of ignorance, unless they are integrated into a broader vision of reality. (no. 138).
Nature cannot be regarded as something separate from ourselves or as a mere setting in which we live. We are part of nature, included in it and thus in constant interaction with it. (no. 139).”
Towards an adult faith
O’Murchu writes:
“The Gospel writers themselves allegorise many of the parables, using them as stories to highlight the salvation wrought by Jesus over against the rejection he suffered at the hands of the Jews – an anti-Semitic interpretation that several scholars today reject.” [9]
“Parables…. a kind of wake-up call from passive dependency to proactive collaboration, a new level of adult maturity of faith, with substantial implications for life then and now. Rarely have commentaries even named this central feature of the parables. Commentators as well as preachers and teachers tend to emphasise the ordinariness and simplicity of the parable narratives, even making them accessible to children. But to discern the deeper, complex, and subversive meaning of the parable requires a great deal of adult intellect and a well-developed capacity for adult discernment.”[10]
His remarks are supported by Levine[11]:
“The parable should disturb. If we hear it and are not disturbed, there is something seriously amiss with our moral compass. It would be better if we perhaps started seeing the parable not as about heaven and hell or final judgement, but about kings, politics, violence, and the absence of justice. If we do, we might be getting closer to Jesus.”
Consider the parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Matt. 20:1-16, see appendix). Pagola and O’Murchu present alternative views. The landlord is frequently depicted as God, exemplifying a sense of justice and generosity that defies the normative practice of paying people in accordance with the service they have rendered. Pagola acknowledges that the rich vineyard owner (rather than his administrator as one would expect) comes personally to the square to recruit the workers and returns during the day to recruit additional workers to ensure their employment. However, Pagola also writes “He goes up to a group of workers, settles with them on the wage of one denarius, and puts them to work in his vineyard. It’s not much, but it’s enough to supply the needs of a peasant family for at least one day.” [12]
O’Murchu presents a different view. “When one better understands the exploitative employment practices of the time, and the precarious plight of the expendables; then we expose the blatant exploitation and economic oppression embodied in this narrative. In the name of companionship of empowerment, another interpretation is needed, one more likely to be congruent with the historical Jesus as champion of the poor and oppressed. While the story at its face value can be heard in rhetorical prose, the truth of the parable is much more subtle and subversive.” As demonstrated by O’Murchu’s use of poetry: [13]
The Generous Extortionist
The money he promised was not very much,
But at least ‘t would keep hunger at bay.
Nor did I expect we would still be at work
Right through to the end of the day.
Nor did any foresee the trick he would play
Exploiting our meagre resource.
CHORUS: ‘I’ll do what I like with what is my own,
My generous spirit you treat with such scorn.
Take what is yours and go!’
Because we complained, we’re often denounced
As selfish and greedy beside.
To question the power of a system in place
Yourself you set up to deride.
To destabilize the values supreme
And scorn the rhetoric so cruel:
CHORUS:
Most sickening of all is the rhetoric’s twist,
Depicting a generous crook.
We saw through the bullshit he sought to exploit
Whatever our ultimate luck.
And we tried to maintain a dignified stance
As he ranted imperial spake:
CHORUS:
Despite all our setbacks and daily despair,
The Gospel still honours our plight.
And our yearning for justice will one day outwit
The Ravage who seeks to exploit
Exposing corruption we must never cease,
The truth for our lives we will risk.
CHORUS:
Although we’re the victims who lost once again
And some feel embittered to rue.
Our hunger for justice is strongly enforced
For a freedom we further pursue.
We believe in our hearts a new day will dawn,
God’s justice will surely break through.
CHORUS:
Conclusion
Perhaps the final word should be as expressed in this personal reflection by O’Murchu:
“It strikes me that the parables are archetypal stories that evoke a fierce awakening in the hearers. The intention of the narrator seems to be one of shaking people out of complacency, particularly seeking to transcend the numbness of spirit that is consequent upon the disempowerment of oppression.
Volumes have been written about Jesus’s parables, with divergent views on their interpretation. Throughout much of Christendom we have sought to make the parables simple, and particularly accessible for children to understand, which I consider a very dangerous, even idolatrous accommodation. The parables were likely never intended for children but rather for adults coming of age, invited to engage the demoralising powers of oppression and exploitation. These stories are dangerously disturbing, ultimately aimed at liberation and empowerment of all who feel weighed down by injustice and powerless.
Scholars will probably never come to terms with the vision of the parables, and neither will the hearers. At stake is an unceasing invitation to transgressive engagement and subversive empowerment.” [14]
And this observation:
“The evangelists themselves seem to have missed the subversive, empowering, liberating message of the parables. Perhaps they knew Jesus’s original intent but found it too explosive to retain; instead, they opted for the safer, milder engagement of the allegory.” [15]
Discussion Questions
1. Is God quietly acting in the inner core of our own lives? Is that the ultimate secret of life?
What do you think? If you agree, how do you think this happens?
2. In the light of this information, do you have a different view on any of the parables?
3. What is your favourite parable and why?
Footnotes:
1 Pagola, Jesus: An Historical Approximation, 99-100
2 ibid, 123
3 ibid, 128
4 Meister Eckhart, Wrestling with the Prophets, Matthew Fox
5 See O’Murchu’s video “The Wisdom of the Parables”
6 Sean Freyne, The Jesus Movement and Its Expansion: Meaning and Mission, 2014, 161
7 Diarmuid O’Murchu, When the Disciple Comes of Age, 133-4
8 For a fuller discussion see also, 137-138
9 O’Murchu, ibid, 136
10 O’Murchu, ibid, 132
11 Amy-Jill Levine, Short Stories of Jesus, 282
12 Pagola, ibid, 139
13 O’Murchu, ibid, 134-6
14 O’Murchu, ibid, 143
15 O’Murchu, ibid, 145
August 2023
Comments