Below are my top three books on parables. They are academic but accessible. If I were to teach a class on parables, I would probably assign these three, even if it were just an undergrad class.
What would your recommendations be?
Category Archives: Parables
Couriers by Kafka
“They were offered the choice between becoming kings or the couriers of kings. The way children would, they all wanted to be couriers. Therefore there are only couriers who hurry about the world, shouting to each other-since there are no kings–messages that have become meaningless. They would like to put an end to this miserable life of theirs but they dare not because of their oaths of service.”–a parable of Kafka
On Lording
Over at Storied Theology there’s some nervousness about anti-Roman studies within New Testament.
Did Jesus resist Rome? Was Jesus anti-Roman? Would Jesus have taken up arms against Rome if he had the means?
Take this into account:
And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.” (Luke 22:25-27 ESV)
In my opinion, Jesus was anti-lordship, anti-domination of others, and in this way, he was anti-Roman. It’s difficult to say if Jesus would have defended his homeland if he had had the army or weapons. We’d like to think not. But one thing is for sure, Jesus wanted to change hearts, and that’s what he did. Against a Roman way of life.
So, when in Rome, don’t do as the Romans did.
Story Saturday: A Lending Parable
Know where this one’s from?
There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man was wasting his possessions. And he called him and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about you? Turn in the account of your management, for you can no longer be manager.’ And the manager said to himself, ‘What shall I do, since my master is taking the management away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. I have decided what to do, so that when I am removed from management, people may receive me into their houses.’ So, summoning his master’s debtors one by one, he said to the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ He said, ‘A hundred measures of oil.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.’ Then he said to another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ He said, ‘A hundred measures of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, and write eighty.’ The master commended the dishonest manager for his shrewdness. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light. And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings.
The Lectionary Experience: Mark 3:20-35
And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” And he called them to him and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house.
“Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”—for they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”
(Mark 3:20-35 ESV)
Jesus is essentially saying, “if I am the satan (the adversary) and I am casting out demons, then good news, folks, the satan’s kingdom is gonna fall!!! But no, really, if you want to destroy the satan’s kingdom, then you first have to bind up the satan, and then destroy his house.” In other words, Jesus has bound the satan and that’s why he’s cleaning house.
A couple of existential observations. Notably, in the First Testament, the three times the satan is mentioned he is at least twice a prosecuting attorney for God, most memorably in the prologue to Job. With this in mind, it is fascinating, to see Jesus claim that the satan is bound, and then proclaim the forgivness of sins (nothing to do with the cross) over the children of man.
Nevertheless, we know that in the period between the Testaments, that the character of the satan grew in stature and power into the figure we encounter in canonical and non-canonical apocalyptic literature. But here too, the satan is never simply “Satan” as many often imagined, but the satan is connected with the evil political powers of the day (see here for an example).
With the large accusatory Temple scene in Mark 11-12, we know that Jesus is attacking the corrupt powers (especially the scribes, see 12.28-40) of Jerusalem leadership. With these three points in mind, I submit the following as a clue to the existential concerns of the text. First, Jesus is calling out the scribes and other Jerusalem leadership for perpetuating evils, oppression, etc. These evils are built on the premise that they run the system which negotiates sin and retribution between God and the masses. Jesus, having bound the satan, is cleaning house with the forgiveness of sins, emptying the power of the corrupt leadership.
The existential concern is behind the premise that people need forgiveness of sins in order to be right with God. With the existential crisis being that the people have no control over their own destiny, the forgiveness of sins meets crisis in several concerns. First, it is identity with the people of God, a sense of belonging with the other righteous. Second, the cost for peasants to have to participate in the sacrificial culture is an economic strain. The forgiveness of sins, reduces this burden. Finally, corrupt leadership tries to answer the the existential crisis, where they have no control over their own destinies, to try to control the destinies of others. In some ways, the forgiveness of sin breaks their power to control the destinies of the people.
A good existential reading then will first focus on the identity, the economics, and oppression, before making too much of what “blaspheming the holy spirit” might mean.
Are there existential concerns that I missed?
Emmaus never happened.
In Crossan’s new book, The Power of Parable, he harps on a point he always has, but here on the Road to Emmaus story (Lk. 24.13-35). Crossan claims that the story is not historical fact, but a parable about Jesus. Like parables,
“Emmaus never happened. Emmaus always happens.“
Read Crossan to understand the logic of his argument. Not really my concern.
This claim may turn away many Christians, and most will never take the time to consider his methods or logic. The same happened to Bultmann. In fact, some may say that Crossan, as a leading figure of the Jesus seminar, is one of the bearers of Bultmann’s torch. In source and form criticism, perhaps. But in the back of my mind, I hear Bultmann possibly saying, “Meh. Who cares if it’s historical?”
Several points. I think an honest response in a spirit of truth might ponder, could Luke’s original audience have understood it as a parable? Let’s assume that Luke is performed before an urban audience of Jewish and Gentile Christians. Would they necessarily have to believe that this is an actual event that took place? Or could they have interpreted as a parable about Jesus, about themselves having to recognize the risen Christ, especially in the breaking of the bread (v.30-31)? I cannot answer definitively, but I am strongly inclined to say it’s a possibility that if it were a parable, the audience would have had the cultural and contextual clues to understand it as such.
This goes along with what I’ve been saying: you choose to read it as ontological. You choose to read it as historical fact. The text does not always or necessarily force such a reading upon you. You could read it as a parable. That is a valid reading of it. And you could do an existential reading of it (for another day).
This also brings up another one of my pet peeves, one layered with irony. I’ve read it in comments and articles on Bultmann here and there that the members of the Jesus seminar are the ones to continue Bultmann’s legacy. But Bultmann was so vehemently against the liberal theologians of his day, for they were trying to show the Bible to be historically unreliable when there was not enough evidence to do so. Likewise, he stood against the apologists of his day as well, for they too did not have enough evidence. Those who continue Bultmann’s legacy are scholars who show how the text answered the existential concerns of its original audience. Sure some of the Jesus Seminar people do this, but I could never see Bultmann casting a ballot for the historical reliability of the text.
What do you think?
