What if the parables Jesus taught were not to cause one to reflect in meditation, but to challenge the congregation in discussion? What would it mean for a 1st century Jew hearing the parables?
Types of Parables
Dominic Crossan’s The Power of Parable describes three types of parables; riddle parables, example parables, and challenge parables.
- Riddle parables were used to further confuse those who were outsiders, opponents, so they would not be able to understand what was spoken. Only those who were inside, disciples, with special instruction, were able to understand the parables appropriately. For Mark in his gospel, those who rejected Jesus were unable to understand parables because they were outside of the group. Parables were used to confound.
- Example parables are “moral models or ethical stories that consciously and deliberately point metaphorically beyond themselves from literal microcosm to macrocosm, from one clear content to far, far wider implications and applications.” (Chapter 2) Example parables can be 2 Samuel 12:1-4, the parable of the Poor Man’s Lamb. This hit at the heart of David when he realized that the rich man who took the one lamb from the poor man was himself. It was showing him his ethical behavior, or lack of it, when he took Bathsheba from Urriah.
Both parables are profound: one confuses, the other leads one to something beyond the story. But are these the majority of parables that Jesus told? Are they riddle parables and example parables? Crossan, the author of The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus argues that when Jesus spoke parables, they were challenge parables.
Setting the Context
To put this in context, let us look at Luke 19:12-26:
Therefore he said, “A nobleman went to a distant country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. 13 And he summoned ten of his slaves, gave them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Do business with these until I come back.’ 14 But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to be king over us!’ 15 When he returned after receiving the kingdom, he summoned these slaves to whom he had given the money. He wanted to know how much they had earned by trading. 16 So the first one came before him and said, ‘Sir, your mina has made ten minas more.’ 17 And the king said to him, ‘Well done, good slave! Because you have been faithful in a very small matter, you will have authority over ten cities.’ 18 Then the second one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has made five minas.’ 19 So the king said to him, ‘And you are to be over five cities.’ 20 Then another slave came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina that I put away for safekeeping in a piece of cloth. 21 For I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man. You withdraw what you did not deposit and reap what you did not sow.’ 22 The king said to him, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked slave! So you knew, did you, that I was a severe man, withdrawing what I didn’t deposit and reaping what I didn’t sow? 23 Why then didn’t you put my money in the bank, so that when I returned I could have collected it with interest?’ 24 And he said to his attendants, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has ten.’ 25 But they said to him, ‘Sir, he has ten minas already!’ 26 ‘I tell you that everyone who has will be given more, but from the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away.
Let us also look at Matthew 25:19-29
19 After a long time, the master of those slaves came and settled his accounts with them. 20 The one who had received the five talents came and brought five more, saying, ‘Sir, you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.’ 21 His master answered, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You have been faithful in a few things. I will put you in charge of many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 22 The one with the two talents also came and said, ‘Sir, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more.’ 23 His master answered, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You have been faithful with a few things. I will put you in charge of many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 24 Then the one who had received the one talent came and said, ‘Sir, I knew that you were a hard man, harvesting where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed, 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’ 26 But his master answered, ‘Evil and lazy slave! So you knew that I harvest where I didn’t sow and gather where I didn’t scatter? 27 Then you should have deposited my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received my money back with interest! 28 Therefore take the talent from him and give it to the one who has ten. 29 For the one who has will be given more, and he will have more than enough. But the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.
These two parables sound identical. It seems as if the first two slaves, or groups of slaves, who invested the money to receive a return, were rewarded by the master, and the third were rejected by the master. We have traditionally seen it as this: If we are in Christ, we are called to work in the kingdom of God. Our work will bring great benefit to God and we will be rewarded in the end.
But this would be an example of a riddle parable or example parable. It could be an example of a riddle parable because only those within the group would understand it’s metaphorical value: it could be an example of an example parable with the suggestion of the coming kingdom of God.
Challenge Parables
I would like to say no to both of these. I think to understand the concept of the master’s money, we need to look at the function of a challenge parable, how it can be used in Jesus’ time, and what it could mean.
Challenge parables “challenges us to think, to discuss, to argue, and to decide about meaning as present application”(p. 47).
With this in mind, we would have to consider that Jesus was speaking to a 1st century Jewish audience. And they are sitting around for more than a 20 minute sermon. This is a time when they are all seated, listening, talking, discussing, arguing, to come to a conclusion of the story that teachers told. This is a common style of teaching during this period. So how would the Jews hear this story? Who would they side with?
Going Against the Grain
Let me insert this into the discussion (referencing p. 104):
“What does the Torah think about taking interest from one’s fellow Jews? The answer is very clear in all three of the oldest law codes— in Exodus 22– 23, Deuteronomy 12– 26, and Leviticus 17– 26— within the five books of the present Torah:
- If you lend money to my people, to the poor among you, you shall not deal with them as a creditor; you shall not exact interest from them. (Exod. 22: 25)
- You shall not charge interest on loans to another Israelite, interest on money, interest on provisions, interest on anything that is lent. (Deut. 23: 19)
- Do not take interest in advance or otherwise make a profit from them, but fear your God; let them live with you. You shall not lend them your money at interest taken in advance, or provide them food at a profit. (Lev. 25: 36– 37)”
The Jews would have known this very well. No interest or profit can be collected from ones own people. So if Jesus brings this parable of the master who rewards those who profited a large sum because of interest earned, would have serious issue. As a matter of fact, they would side with the third person, the one who collected no interest, who did not want to take advantage of those around him.
The 4 Maccabees 2:8 (an Apocryphal text which speaks on the history of the Jews), written around 40 CE, requires that one remain faithful to the law, to act contrary to the world around us and “lend without interest” 2:8)
So with this added into the picture, what do you think Jesus was trying to do here? Because challenge parables are made to provoke discussion and challenge current ways, Jesus was causing his audience to discuss the issue of the Roman pro-interest tradition within the empire and the Jewish anti-interest tradition within the Torah. This parable is not simply about interest, but about world. Or, better, “it is about world as embodied here in interest, as incarnated here in profit. The parable challenges you to think about these questions. What about interest and gain? Whose law do you follow? Do you live by the Torah or the practices of Rome? Do you live in a Jewish or a Gentile world? Do you live under God or under Rome? Do you accept God’s laws or Rome’s customs? Who is in charge of Israel— is it God or Rome? Are you Roman or Jewish? How can you be both?”(pp. 105-106).
Conclusions
To sum, I believe Jesus parables were challenge parables, provoking discussion about the world the Jews lived in, on how they lived, if they followed the tradition of Rome or Jews, the Roman law, or the Torah, Jewish law. The third person who collected no interest was not the evil one, but the one who upheld Jewish law in spite of the Roman law that allowed for interest and profit.
I hope that this will cause you to rethink the gospel parables. Consider them challenge parables, not to give you the answer, but to cause you to think, argue and reflect on its practical applications.
This article references concepts and ideas from Crossan, John Dominic (2012-03-06). The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus. Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
You must be logged in to post a comment.