The New Testament is filled to the brim with new information accounts following the life of Jesus. When talking about his life and what the world was like at the time, nothing is more influential or informative than the parables we see throughout each of the gospels. These parables all have different messages and there are numerous different stories told in the medium of parables between the four gospels. These stories have obvious religious implications as they are material in the Bible. However, there is a lot more to these stories than many would initially consider outside of their common religious interpretations. These parables offer invaluable insight into society at the time, from norms, context, values, and more, which will be explored in this blog through the different aspects and characteristics of the parables in the New Testament.
One parable that provides some of the best information is one of the most well-known, and that is the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). A phrase so widespread that people who aren’t even familiar with the story know the phrase. However, this story has more significance than just a phrase used today, as it is vital for historical analysis. First though, a little bit of context. The story of the Good Samaritan is a relatively straightforward one. A man approaches Jesus and asks him “who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29). With this, he provides the following story to answer the Question. Jesus says there is a man, who is Jewish, and that this man is traveling to Jericho. While he is on his course, he is beaten by robbers, so badly to the point he is left for dead. A priest passes, and he doesn’t help him. A priest’s assistant does the same. A third man passes, someone from Samaria, and the two groups (Samaritan people and Jewish people) have a sort of hatred towards one another. However, in the story, they are the only neighborly person, as he bandaged him up and brought him to a shelter to ensure the injured man would survive. He even paid the expenses for the injured man. After the story, Jesus asks the man who came to him, “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” The expert in the law replied, ‘The one who had mercy on him.’ Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.” (Luke 10:36-37). Jesus explains here that a neighbor is not one based off of their appearance, or what you can see about the individual. Rather, it is how the person acts, and their appearance has no effect on the quality of the individual’s character.
When looking at the story of the Good Samaritan, the first bit of discussion I want to start with is that this story presents historical aspects concerning the societal norms of the time. Robert L. Plummer, who is an Associate Professor of New Testament Interpretation, points out the fact that Jesus in this story is condemning those who believe love and care should only be shown to certain individuals based on external qualities. He adds that the Samaritan is the only one in the story who fits the description of being neighborly, and by doing this, “Jesus condemned his hypocritical contemporaries who delimited love to exclude certain races or persons.” (Plummer). To begin breaking this down, for one the parable shows the status quo for the time as the interaction alone is looked down upon, as both sides have a mutual disdain for one another and it is normalized to the point where they are expected to not interact.
Second, it shows a challenge of societal norms, pointing out just how ridiculous the standards are at the time. It presents the message that no matter who the person is, or what differences they may have, every one of them is worthy of respect. The parable criticizes how people see others at the time, and instead shows that anyone can be good or “neighborly” based on the way that they act, even if you wouldn’t expect that person to. This is in part why the parable used people of these conflicting statuses. It very deliberately utilizes this conflict to drive the message home as effectively as possible. At the time when this parable takes place, people were looked down upon for all sorts of things, like race, gender, lineage, place of origin, social status, and more. Although this message of equality and respect doesn’t seem too significant in today’s day and age since it has come such a long way, for the time this is not the case. It is very significant to have someone not only believe this message but also write it down and spread it to others is monumental in expressing a problem and trying to start a change. The parable of the Good Samaritan does exactly that.
In the gospel according to Luke, Jesus provides a series of three parables in Luke 15. These culminate in the story of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32). Essentially, two sons work with their very wealthy father. The youngest son asks for his inheritance, and goes off, squandering what he had. He goes to work as a man whose job is to feed someone’s pigs. He was hungry, yet no one gave him anything. He returns to his father, and asks for his forgiveness, saying that he has sinned. The father immediately tells his servants to bring the best robes, sandals, and to kill the fattest calf, to celebrate his son no longer being lost and being found. However, the older brother becomes angry and confronts his father. He tells him how he has never disobeyed an order and has worked hard for years, yet he never received anything like this. His father responds, telling him everything that he owns, the son does as well as he was always with him. The father adds that the day is one to celebrate, as the youngest son was dead but is now alive, was lost and now he is found. With this context, what I find more interesting about the topic of the interpretation of the New Testament as a whole is why this story was brought up. The reason is important enough to be brought up by Luke himself. He says, “Now the tax collectors and ‘sinners’ were all gathering around to hear him. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, ‘This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.’ Then Jesus told them this parable” (Luke 15:1–3). Plummer looks at this inclusion by Luke, and breaks down what exactly he is trying to get across by including this, saying, “This introduction helps us see that these parables are given as a response to religious hypocrisy which fails to understand the graciousness of God toward sinners.” (Plummer). Whereas the parable of the Good Samaritan had a lot to offer in terms of cultural expectations for the time, this parable helps to show some of the religious tensions at the time. Additionally, it can show what the New Testament authors believed concerning acceptance in terms of religion. The Pharisees, who hold significant influence over the politics and practices, do not approve of those whom they deem “sinners.” Even allowing them to listen to you or eat with them is, for lack of better words, looked down upon greatly. However, Jesus through his parable shows that these sinners should be accepted into the embrace of the teachings, they should be applauded and celebrated for seeking forgiveness and change. He does all of this while still acknowledging that this doesn’t in any way take away from those who have followed the Word of God from the very beginning, and that they shouldn’t be upset for they too will inherit his Kingdom of Heaven. He even implies based on the parable that they too should celebrate, as someone who was “lost” is now considered to be “found.”
Something interesting about the parables that aren’t explicitly about the content is brought up by Vernon K. Robbins and John H. Patton, a New Testament Scholar and professor of pastoral theology respectively. They speak about the parables as a whole in their paper and the metaphoric style in which they are written. They write “As extended metaphors, parables modify tradition by taking a thing ‘out of its customary context’ and putting it ‘into an alien (to the everyday mentality) context.’” (Robbins and Pattern). Essentially what is being illustrated here is that these parables were intentionally crafted to not only be something of a lesson based upon old traditions and standards but also easily understood by the masses. The “everyday mentality” allows for these stories to be relatable and easy to understand, therefore spreading the message and forwarding the message and causes for change that was outlined above in the specific parable intentions. This means that the messages and the stories themselves were all very deliberate. However, there’s more to it than just that. The methods of delivery, that being metaphors, were also completely intentional. Every part of the parable was created with the intent of being accessible to anyone who was simply willing to listen to Jesus when he told these parables. This supports the claim made by Luke when regarding the delivery of the Prodigal Son parable, as the goal was to spread the message that was within the stories, to everyone willing to listen, and that is the purpose of the stories.
While specific examples have been mentioned above, I thought it would be of value to list off some of the other things that Jesus criticizes in his parables. This serves to show these two parables aren’t outliers and to see if a common theme can be taken away from these stories. Ernest Van Eck and Meshack Mandla Mashinini are both professors of New Testament studies, and together in one paper they list out some of the meanings behind parables, “The parables of Jesus, as symbols of social transformation, address some of the societal issues … the parable of the Minas (Lk 19:12b-24, 27) addresses the question of exploitation and how to wage protest against such conditions… The parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Mt 18:23–33) brings to our attention Jesus’ critique of privilege, status and honour, and promotes… interaction based on mutual respect… the parable of the Feast (Lk 14:16b-23), a story of Jesus in which the socially marginalised are treated as honoured guests at an abundant table.” (Van Eck and Mashinini). Based on what we see from each of the parables that have been mentioned, the common denominator is the desire for social changes to provide opportunities and kindness to every individual. Whether it is regarding religious practices, social norms, privilege, or respect, Jesus calls out unfair treatment of individuals whenever he sees it. Then, he provides a story as to why this shouldn’t be commonplace, trying to get people to join him in this endeavor. Even if these things aren’t obtained, he promises they will be in everlasting life as long as his followers continue to learn and heed his message.
The parables above provide another interesting glimpse into the time, and in this case, they show us what some of the early Christian values were built upon. In short, it is the virtue of kindness and respect, to everyone regardless of their status in society, or what is considered to be standard. The focus on the Kingdom of God becomes one of forgiveness, redemption, and acceptance. No matter the walk of life one comes from, the mistakes that have been made, or the differences and hardships one may have, as long as one strives to be good to oneself and others one will attain everlasting happiness. The mistakes you’ve made, the things you wish you hadn’t done, none of it is an issue as long as you strive to follow the teachings Jesus demonstrates, and this is what early Christianity is built upon. Unfortunately, not everyone who considered themself a Christian lived their life selflessly and with kindness as expected. Individuals like Apostle Paul would observe this, and send letters to groups such as the Galatians, to try to get them to remember what Christ was all about. He tells them, “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel.” (Galatians 1:6). Scholar Alan F. Johnson further demonstrates Paul’s sentiment, by stating that Paul believes in Corinthians that, about the divisions within the church “they should have the “mind of Christ” (2.16). Their party spirit has “divided Christ” (1:13). Factions and rivalries are characteristic of human gatherings in which people define themselves by their knowledge, power, or prestige. In God’s church, such measurements do not apply.” (Johnson). Here, it is acknowledged that the factions that people create are natural. However, in the eyes of God and Jesus, things such as power or prestige are meaningless, and this is constantly reflected in the parables of Jesus, where everyone is of equal worth and deserves equal opportunity.
In conclusion, the parables of Jesus in the New Testament serve as more than religious teachings. They are a glimpse into the societal norms, values, and tensions of their time. Through stories like the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son, Jesus challenged the status quo and called for acceptance, kindness, and respect for all, regardless of their social or religious background. These parables were not only metaphoric but intentionally crafted to be accessible to a broad audience, spreading messages of compassion and change. Early Christianity was built on the virtues of forgiveness and redemption, a message that still resonates today. While divisions and factions within the Christian community were, and are, inevitable, these parables remind us of the core principles of equality and love that Jesus wanted people to implement in their daily lives.
Bibliography:
Johnson, Alan F. 1 Corinthians. IVP Academic, 2010.
Mashinini, M., & Van Eck, E. (2016). The parables of Jesus as critique on food security systems for vulnerable households in urban townships. Hervormde Teologiese Studies, 72(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v72i3.3252
New International Version. Biblica, 2011. BibleGateway.com,
Plummer, Robert L. Parables in the Gospels: History of Interpretation and Hermeneutical Guidelines, sbts-wordpress-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/equip/uploads/2009/10/sbjt_v13_n3_plummer.pdf. Accessed 2 Nov. 2023.
Rhetoric and Biblical Criticism: Quarterly Journal of Speech: Vol 66, No 3, www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00335638009383530. Accessed 3 Nov. 2023.