Transcription
[Music] [Applause] This is Dr. Mark Jennings in his teaching on the Gospel of Mark. This is session number eight on Mark 1:1 through 34, on the [Music] Parables.
Hello, good to be back with you as we continue our study through the Gospel of Mark. Up to this point in the first three chapters, uh, most of our attention has been focused on actions that Jesus did, uh, in his public ministry. We've seen a wide, um, variety of miracles, exorcisms, and confrontations between him and religious leaders. With Mark chapter 4, uh, we shift a bit, um, to a particular form of his teaching, uh, which is done in parables.
Now, one of the things is we see Mark typically—Mark with his parables—he uses them throughout; you'll see Jesus use them throughout his ministry as, um, ways of speaking against, if you will, the religious leaders. In Mark chapter 4, though, the use of parables is a bit different; uh, it has a more teaching aspect, quality designed for his disciples as well. And Mark does something similar to Matthew, which is take these parables and locate them primarily in one chapter. Matthew does this with Matthew chapter 13, and we see this with Mark 4. So we shift a little bit from, uh, Jesus' actions to some of Jesus' teaching in a specific form of his teaching, which is the parables. And for that reason, maybe it's useful for us to spend a little bit of time just thinking about parables, uh, and Jesus' use of parables before we look at a couple of the examples in Mark chapter 4.
The parables of Jesus are perhaps the best known of his teachings. Even, uh, if one doesn't know anything about Jesus, there's a chance that someone—that they know something about his parables. For example: Good Samaritan, prodigal son, mustard seed. These are terms that have found their way into our vernacular, our understanding of things. There are societies or groups, for example, who call themselves Good Samaritans; that's now a compliment. Or the "prodigal son returns" is a phrase now often used, uh, in conversation and in, in—Snod Professor Snodgrass, who does some wonderful work on parables, uh, he has a book out there called, um, *Stories, uh, with Intent*, which is, I think, a very good summary. He makes the following statement: "If it's true that Jesus is the receptacle in which every theologian pours his or her ideas, parables are the picture they often use to do the pouring." The point being that there's something about parables that is an entry point, if you will, into discussing Jesus, and you can understand why they're effective. They're effective in part because they're stories, and, and, and a narrative. They envision a world—a world where a person can be confronted with an idea, absorbed into an idea. They're a specific form of discourse in which the truth is, is clothed in story. You know, I think of good preaching; often good preaching has an illustration that is, that is powerful, that communicates a truth, or a story, um, or communicates a truth in story. And so it conveys an idea through a method other than just the direct proclamation of a truth, and, and, and I think that's one of the draws of parables. There's an indirect route that happens between a teacher, uh, and, uh, their disciples, in the case of Jesus, or the crowds, with parables. You know, it's very easy to make a statement, and when one makes a statement, there's resistance that almost becomes natural. I live in, in New England, uh, in the part of the United States—northeastern part of the United States—and, and, uh, suspicion and skepticism are a virtue, uh, in this area. If one says something, the natural response is probably "not true." But story does something different; story gets in the back door, if you will, uh, there—Kirar talks about the force of story, where you almost become a part of the truth-telling without even knowing it. There's something about story that is less offensive or more engaging. But, of course, a parable is not simply a story in its broadest sense; it refers to an expanded analogy, and I'll come back to talking about parables' definition a little bit later, but it's an expanded analogy; it seeks to make a rhetorical point. You know, the parables of Jesus assume a common reference for the most part; they presuppose the kingdom of God. Jesus will often use parables to explain the, the nature and the quality, or the characteristics of the kingdom of God, or, or to at least present a picture of the kingdom of God. They are told with intent, in other words, and they're historically anchored; they come from within the, uh, the context of the first century. They make sense in the context of the first century, and that's always one of the challenges in interpreting parables is, is trying to understand the historical context of the parable without simply pouring in a 21st-century understanding of things. Some are rather straightforward, some are nuanced. You know, there's a great variety; others are not so easy to determine exactly what the intent is. And even parables that are mostly about understanding something, um, they, they—it—there—it's not a rootless knowledge; they're interacting with the hearer in a way that the hearer would, would understand.
Now, when we look at the interpretation of parables, for example, historically speaking, I think we need to be aware of, uh, two general tendencies in recent centuries. First, uh, the tendency of most interpreters of parables until the end of the 19th century was to allegorize them; that is, to make them—the different elements of the parable stand for something or represent symbolically something. This, this is a reading into the story and wasn't necessarily there—something that wasn't necessarily there—part of Jesus' intent. Now, the allegorizing approach does seem to have some root in Jesus himself; there are some parables, uh, one we'll look at today, where Jesus very much, uh, gives symbol and meaning. When we look at the parable of the sower, for example, he gives representative meanings, and that would seem at some point to justify an allegorizing approach. The difficulty with that is that Jesus doesn't offer an interpretation for all of his parables, uh, in that same way, and there's a great variety of parables, and I, and I tend to, uh, take the assumption, uh, that, uh, those parables which necessitated a, an allegorical approach, Jesus gave the interpretation for that, and those that did not, he did not. But also, we need to understand that this allegorizing tendency to the end of the 19th century was largely based on the assumption that there was a four-fold meaning of scripture. For a long period of the church, um, scripture could be interpreted to have a literal—what it sort of actually might have said—an allegorical meaning, uh, that is, that symbolic meaning of what different elements might represent; an ethical approach, which we talk about how one then changed or understood their, their world; and a heavenly, um, idea, which is how it might describe, um, a, a, a spiritual existence. And so you had, in this four-fold meaning of scripture, um, all of scripture being interpreted for many centuries according to an approach that included allegorical understanding. So it's, it's not surprising that the parables, especially, would, would find, um, would be found to be very supportive or receptive to competing allegories. Interestingly enough, competing allegories could be accepted, uh, the—these, um, there—it was not uncommon to have different allegorical interpretations of parables, and that somehow seemed to be a, a fine and acceptable approach. So for most of the centuries of the, of the church, interpretation of parables, uh, you interpret them by allegorizing them.
A second approach, though, that started to come, uh, about the 19th century, uh, was a, um, a rejection of allegorizing by modern scholars. Most notably, Adolf Jülicher, in the late 19th century, posed the question of how could, uh, Jesus, as a simple Galilean, have even taught in such a complex manner. This was the beginning of the, the—with the response to the Enlightenment and, and a challenge to Jesus as a, um, a teacher who would have a, a method that would allow for larger allegorical teachings. So especially those parables that were long and drawn out, of which symbolic meaning was given to, started to be the idea that this must be the product of the church. Perhaps the very simple parables, the ones that seem more proverbial in nature, might make more sense from a simple Galilean. And in many respects, um, even though Jülicher's arguments no longer hold sway, the debate for interpreting parables has been set between allegorizing and a, uh, rejection of allegorizing, or allegorical, uh, methods of any part of Jesus' intent with the teaching. And, and, and I bring this up because this debate then centers around the question of how much a parable—how much of a parable is significant for understanding. Do the elements in the parable actually stand for something? Is there a correspondence between image and reality? If there is a correspondence, who's responsible for that correspondence? Is the reader responsible for that correspondence? Is Jesus responsible for that correspondence? Which gets me back to this question: What is a parable? Keep in mind, there's hardly anything that I could say that would be true for all parables. In fact, any definition that is so broad to cover all parables may hardly be helpful at all, and each parable must be examined in its own right. We just can't settle, for example, for definitions that parables are earthly stories with heavenly meanings. That's true, but there's more; it's not as helpful. Many of the parables aren't about heaven; they're about life on this earth. They're more than illustration; they certainly are that. Some parables are metaphors, some are similes, but some parables do more than that. They can be vivid, they can be strange, and sometimes they can be quite plain and boring. Kenneth Bailey, a poet, perhaps, I think provides the best definition I've ever heard of a parable. He called them "imaginary gardens with real toads in them." I like that. I like the idea of imaginary gardens with real toads in them, because I think that creates a picture in my mind about what a parable is, and that is what a parable is trying to do, which is to create something in the mind of the audience, uh, that is both fictional and imaginary, but yet true as well. Parables are designed to prompt thinking and consideration. That's one of the things that we see in parables; they aren't, uh, simple fables, but they're provoking a response; they desire to stimulate and prompt an action, specifically an action towards God or Jesus. We see that throughout the parables; they compel, in other words. And so I get back to this idea of parables as an expanded analogy used to convince or persuade. As an analogy, it makes sense that they can easily become allegorical; there is some sort of correspondence between what is being said, um, and what is being desired to be known. You have different types of parables; you have similitudes, extended similes, little plot development, and those—they tend to be straightforward. Some par—parables are very much question parables, where the entire parable is a question: "Who among you, etc." is often the form such a parable would engage, and these, these interrogative parables force the reader to answer the question, often with a, with a "no"—no, I would not act like the person in that parable. There are parables that are more expansive, that have plots that narrate a particular event that often create a problem or possibility. There's usually dialogue that indicates where resolution begins. Some parables, uh, very much hide their reference; in other words, they—the parable is told in such a way that it is only at the end that the readers receive a self-condemnation of what the story was told, but not realizing till the end that they are, in fact, standing in judgment of themselves. There's many other types of parables. A very common parable is the "how much more" type. This would have been common, uh, both in Jesus' teaching and in Second Temple Judaism. This is the "how much more than would God" type of parable. And so when we look at it with definitions of a parable, we just need to realize that that what could be called a parable has no very specific form; that parables exist in very different structures; and so each parable, in a lot of ways, has to stand on its own.
Now, this doesn't mean that we can't identify any characteristics of parables. Some of the things we can, uh, say about many parables is that they are often brief, sometimes even curt; it often excludes unnecessary details. Parables are very thin, if you will; even in the larger stories, there aren't thick storytelling in parables. Motives are rarely given; rarely do we get a reason why certain characters in a parable act the way they do, though sometimes we get, get some. They're marked by simplicity; rarely, if ever, are more than two groups or two persons together in the same scene; it's usually a very simple structure, often balanced. Parables focus mostly on humans, unlike sort of Aesop's fables, for example, where, where the—it's animals that tend to play the main role. Parables, for the most part, will focus on humans, and it's this humanness that makes them a useful mirror for people. They're fictional, but they're from everyday life; there can be, of course, some pseudo-realistic elements to it, some extreme elements that are part of the story. One of the key things, I think, in interpreting parables is trying to find the question that's implied that this parable is attempting to answer. So, for example, when a parable begins with "The kingdom of God is like…" what is the question driving that answer? We'll talk about that a little bit in looking at some of Mark's parables. Parables often carry elements of unexpectedness or reversal. To see the unexpectedness, though, one has to be aware of the historical context; often the surprise moment is from, uh, the context of which it's being told. In very often, the crucial matter is at the end. If you want to know where the climax of a parable—usually it comes towards the end. With Jesus' parables, they are, um, almost always theocentric, about God and his kingdom. There will be frequently an allusion to the Old Testament in it. Often a parable, uh, is best understood as a whole and not in individual parts, especially if I return back to the idea of "The kingdom of God is like…" Parables—a mistake that is frequently made in interpreting those parables is to then start, start to allegorize all the different individuals, when really it's the sense of the whole thing—"The kingdom of God is like a woman who," you know, then fills in—who lost and searches and frantically finds. And so we, we, we don't want to say, well, the pearl represents this, the woman represents this, the house represents this; it's the whole picture of that event that is what the kingdom of God is like. There is an exactness in parables; there are limits in them. We have to be very careful about filling in what we might think is omitted. Parables do not want us to impose real time on them. We have to be very careful when thinking about a parable, saying, well, this—there had to be in a passage of time between when the servant could get there and report back and get back, and all of a sudden we end up making a big deal about what was left out instead of what was stated. And I think often parables, at the end, we have to realize they're a teaching element of Jesus. This is extremely helpful because the assumption then is that we can find connections between what, uh, Jesus said in his non-parabolic statements with the parables; that they should coincide together. And so if we find interpretations of parables that have, uh, little to no connection at all with any of other Jesus' teaching, um, we probably—on delicate, dangerous ground—in terms of interpreting the parables. Again, assuming that Jesus was a consistent teacher. These are just a couple of the elements I just wanted us to think about a little bit as we get into parables—parables which can seem, uh, so simple yet also so problematic.
So when we look at Mark chapter 4, when—which we have a collection of parables, um, I want to look a little bit at Mark 4:1-20, and then at a couple of parables in 21 through 34. I'm not going to go through, through each of them, but to, to, to get us a sense of how parables work in, in Jesus' teaching, I want to point out just a few, few highlights. So let me again, by starting with the parable of the sower, which incidentally I've always thought is a misnomer; uh, it has less to do about the sower than it does the soils, but publishers in church history have all called it the parable of the sower, and so thus we get—we go with that. Again, Jesus began to teach by the lake; the crowd had gathered around him, so large that he got into a boat and set it on the lake, while the people that were along the shore, at the water's edge. This is in the first verse, and this is consistent with what we've seen in the Gospel of Mark, which is popularity as a teacher, um, and so the setting up of, of this teaching, uh, is consistent with what we know, and this is—we gets his first summary statements: "He taught them many things by parables," and in his teaching said, "Listen: A farmer went out to sow his seed, and as he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up; some fell on rocky places where it did not have much soil; it sprang up quickly because the soil was shallow, but when the sun came up, the plants were scorched and they withered because they had no root; other seed fell among thorns which grew up and choked the plants so they did not bear grain; still other seed fell on good soil; it came up and grew and produced a crop, um, multiplying 30, 60, or even 100 times." First eight verses. So the, the sense of the, the first eight verses here is this description of, uh, seed falling on different soils. It's interesting; there's lots of, um, time that's spent on trying to figure out exactly how this reflects Palestinian agricultural practices or not, and again I think there's a little bit of, uh, trying to force, uh, into what is clearly an analogy, and what is, is describing seed falling on prepared and unprepared soil, and the sense of the parable then is this question of external conditions. Notice it's the same seed; it's the same sower; the only variable is where the, the, the soil is falling. Following verse nine, uh, the yield, I find it—find to be interesting; it's not an absurd yield; there's 30, 60, or even a 100 times; it's certainly an abundant harvest. It reminds me a little bit of Genesis 26:12, where Isaac—the Lord blesses Isaac with a bountiful harvest of a hundredfold. And so there is even perhaps a, a hint or echo there. But then very interesting is after this parable, verse 9, Jesus said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear," which recalls Jeremiah 5:21 and Ezekiel 12:2, where the people of Israel are said to have eyes but cannot see and have ears but cannot hear. Now, the meaning of that statement has been widely debated, and there are generally two options: Is it that anyone who has ears—everyone—should pay attention and respond? Or is it anyone who is given ears—spiritual ears—ought to listen and, and, and even Mark isn't as clear necessarily on, on, on which of those options—on the one hand, the context of this is to the crowds; he's speaking to everyone; this—he's making that statement to everyone. Yet in verse 11, uh, and 12, um, he, he talks about how to the disciples the secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to those on the outside everything is said in parables, which might indicate that maybe there's a spiritual reception. Interestingly enough, when we look at the Jeremiah and Ezekiel passages, there is a sense of both in these as well—that the people should be responding but aren't—that puts it more in line with everyone should be listening to this as well as a, a, uh, almost purposeful hiddenness that is being created, and maybe we would be wrong to press too much into that. I think the sense of the passage here is that there is this call to the crowds of, if you know—you should be hearing this and responding—that there is a sense of everyone should be listening. We look through here, um, uh, you know, again verse 10: "When he was alone"—so again, not in the crowds; the scene has changed—verse 12, which we've already spoken about. These are the 12 that, uh, Jesus prayed and then considered and, uh, chose for him, and the others around him. So you have the 12 and the others, which would indicate, uh, followers of Jesus who were not the 12, asked him about the parables. "He told them the secret or mystery of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to those on the outside everything is said in parables," and then he gives a reason, which I'll talk about in a second. But notice what's fascinating here is when we, when we talk about secret, this isn't the idea of something mysterious or something strange. When, when the New Testament speaks of secret or mystery being revealed, it's about something that, uh, God had kept hidden that now is being made open. Paul, for example, usually refers it to something that was hidden in the Old Testament that now is being revealed to be accurate and true, uh, namely—so, for example, the gospel going to the nations. What is, what the secret that's being revealed here, here in Mark, which is the kingdom of God, is that the arrival of Jesus is the arrival of the kingdom of God; that is a secret that's now being revealed, and, and the disciples are clearly being told plainly. There's a distinction; we're getting this continual in-group, out-group distinction between the 12 and the disciples and the outsiders. We've been seeing that in Mark. "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to those on the outside everything is said in parables." And so, uh, um, there is—our—even in the teaching, Jesus is about to give some interpretation that is being uniquely bestowed to the 12 and those around, and then he gives perhaps one of the most controversial statements about parables in, in the Gospels. So that verse 12: "They may be ever seeing but never perceiving and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven." Now, this language, uh, it recalls Isaiah 6:9-10, and the debate is—the question is—is Jesus speaking in parables to purposely keep the outsiders from becoming insiders? We—again, when we look at the Isaiah reference, though, I think that helps us understand how Jesus intends this passage. In Isaiah 5-6, the context there is judgment that is coming upon Israel because—and there's a parable; it's even told in Isaiah—the, or of the vineyard, because Israel failed to produce fruit because they had already demonstrated a rejection of God. God removed his protection of them, uh, and now the Assyrians have become an agent of God's judgment on Israel. Isaiah's warnings then will fall on deaf ears for two reasons: first, because of Israel's already demonstrated unfaithfulness; and second, because now their unfaithfulness becomes an agent of God's judgment against them. So what we see here is God, um, both responding in Isaiah to Israel's rejection and then solidifying their rejection to achieve his purpose and judgment. We've talked about this idea already a little bit in Mark with the hardening idea—some, uh, from earlier in the gospel—connected to with Pharaoh, of course, as the classic example. He was hard; he had a hardened, stubborn response, and then his response was then solidified to allow the sovereign plan of God, uh, to be demonstrated—to allow God to be demonstrated as the one who brings his people out from bondage. So I think here, in many ways, Jesus' words are a, a judgment statement that results, uh, from the rejection of him—that he's speaking in parables to a group that is—especially if this is, um, thought about in terms of the religious leadership—in the way the Isaiah passage also works with—to a group that has already rejected him. We saw this earlier, uh, with the controversy over Beelzebul, and now that, uh, rejection, uh, becomes a, a hardened reality which will be part of God's purpose. The rejection of the, of the religious leaders of Israel is part of, of the walk to the cross, and, and, and so you even see that play out. And so I think as we, we look at this very difficult passage of, of why Jesus speaks in parables, it, uh, it has this idea of first demonstrating who actually is responding positively. They—the parables provoke a desire to know; we see that in the disciples where the disciples ask, you know, and they're wanting to know what…
The Parables mean so there is a a. The Parables provoke a response that's either towards Jesus or against Jesus. We'll see this become more and more profound, but also that they uh, the parables are another way of Jesus issuing judgment against the current religious leadership. That is akin to what the prophets had done as well. Uh, and Jesus says this in Mark, um, comparing often the religious leadership uh and and his people with those who had rejected God in Israel's history. And so then, so then uh, Jesus poses the question to the 12 and those with them: "Do you not understand this Parable? How then will you understand any Parable?" Um, uh, sort of uh, in I think they're even highlighting the ignorance on the disciples' part still to understand exactly what is being said, which we will see throughout the gospel of Mark. And then he he proceeds to give uh the explanation. The farmer sows the word; some people are like seed along the path where the word is sown; as soon as they hear it, Satan comes and takes away the word that was sown in them. Others like the seed uh sown in the rocky places hear the word and and at once receive it with joy, but since they have no root, they last only a short time; when trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. So others like seed sown on thorns hear the word, but the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful. Others like the seed sown on good soil hear the word, accept it and produce a crop of 30, 60, or even 100 times what was sown. I won't uh, you know, go through all of the uh different ideas there; the explanation seems pretty clear, but notice it's answering the question of why why are people receiving, rejecting, or somewhere in the middle the teachings of Jesus. And so Jesus creates a picture of what is happening here: that the fault is not with the sower and the fault is not with the seed uh, it's the soil that determines the response uh and some uh uh of the the different um descriptions then are to create a picture trying to explain why not everyone is following Jesus, why some follow Jesus very enthusiastically at first and then fall away when troubles come. A I believe a hinting there a little bit of what we can expect with the disciples: that they receive with joy but then when the troubles come they they falter. We'll see that not only in the passion but even even even throughout um and then and ultimately the what is evidence of good soil is sustained fruit, which in this idea here would be faithfulness and commitment. Then we we move on um uh with verse 21-34 uh we get a series of Parables. I won't go through all of them uh at this point; I just want to highlight a few. Let's maybe we look at 4:21 through 22. And he said to them, "Do you bring in a lamp to put it under a bowl or a bed? Instead, don't you put it on its stand? For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear." Again, we're turning to that statement. I think one of things I think is interesting here is how the parable of the lamp on a stand works in the gospel of Mark. It's a little bit different than in the Gospel of Luke. In the Gospel of Luke, the purpose of things that are hidden is that they will one day be revealed; in other words, the stress in Luke is what's hidden now will one day be revealed. Here it's actually speaks to to the purpose of hiding things; it was that it was um uh for whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed. So there is this idea in in uh the Markin uh parable of it that Jesus is saying is divine intent to hide things so it can be revealed; that there's a purpose in keeping things hidden um and that purpose is the reality of Revelation uh and this isn't to say that Luke and Mark necessarily disagree with each other; it's to show rather that uh Jesus I I believe could use Parables uh similar parables in in in different reasons in different ways. Verse 31 through 32 it's very very famous Parable. Uh maybe we'll pick it up in verse 30. And again he said, "What shall we say the kingdom of God is like? Or what parable shall we use to describe it? It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest seed you plant in the ground, yet when planted it becomes the largest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds of the air can perch in its shade." And so the question becomes what is this about? The kingdom of God is like it's one of those picture Parables. Well, the emphasis I think isn't on the size that it becomes, though there is language about uh branches and birds of the air; it would be a very uh very strange Parable to use if it was so to talk about how great the kingdom of God is going to be, because if you were to uh look around and look at a mustard seed bush or even a mustard seed tree, it pales in comparison to the size of a great Cedar. And I think the parable, if it was to emphasis that, stress the size and greatness of the kingdom of God, that would have been perhaps a more likely choice. So what is stressed here is actually the smallest nature of its Beginnings. Notice the kingdom of God is like the Mustard Seed, which is the smallest of seed, and and people have quibbled over this scientifically; they say well it's not technically the smallest seed; is Jesus incorrect? Does he not know his seeds? And that's not it's not the point uh, not the accuracy of it, but the recognition that the Mustard Seed was an extremely small seed. And so what this Parable presents a picture of is the uh in supicious beginnings of the kingdom of God; that the kingdom of God is like the mustard plant and that it begins uh with like the smallest of ways, which of course we we've already seen um and then uh grows and continues to grow, and there's an organic relationship. And then finally on uh uh chapter 4 here on um the pares on verses 33 and 34 we get a summary statement: "With many similar Parables Jesus spoke the word to them as much as they could understand; he did not say anything to them without using a parable." This speaks I think to the importance of parables in his teaching, but when he was alone with his disciples he explained everything. And so there is this Parable teaching that's going to everyone, but to the disciples is coming the explanation of The Parables. We'll finish with uh the rest of chapter Mark uh chapter chapter four in Mark next time. Thank you. [Music] [Applause] This is Dr. Mark Jennings in his teaching on the gospel of Mark; this is session number eight on Mark 1:1-34 on The [Music] Parables.