Hebrew Tradition of Parables

Most Christians, and perhaps all Christians, have been taught that the parables of Jesus were a unique teaching form that he created during the period of his ministry on earth.  The standard meaning to the term in Christian circles is that a parable is a story about common earthly events with a deeper spiritual meaning.  In the Gospels the explanation as to why Jesus spoke in parables was this: To you (the disciples) it is granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom, but it is not granted to those outside your circle (Mat 13:11). 

The idea that Yeshua presented much of his teaching to the masses in the form of parables is well founded based on the content of the Synoptic Gospels; however, the idea that he came up with this methodology on his own without precedent from the Hebrew bible or cultural example is completely false.  The term 'parable' is merely a transliteration of the Greek term παραβολη, which literally means place beside, comparison.  A different Greek term – παροιμια – is used for 'proverb'.  The single Hebrew term משל is used for both parable and proverb; in modern Hebrew the expression למשל means for example. Christians with even the most superficial knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures know that there is a whole book of Hebrew proverbs in the bible, but most people, including many Jews, seem to be unaware of the pervasiveness of משלים in the entire Hebrew bible.  In point of fact, משלים can be found from the earliest chapters of Genesis through nearly every book in the Hebrew bible.  In addition, many if not all of the Midrashim are stores about life experiences designed to teach spiritual lessons – i.e., what the New Covenant Gospels call parables.  In short, the parabolic method of teaching has been a characteristic of the Semitic mindset from antiquity to the present day.

There are far too many examples of parables/proverbs in the Hebrew bible to be comprehensive, but this article will present examples from various portions of scripture to illustrate how extensive and flexible the use of משלים actually is in the Hebrew text.  In some instances (e.g., in the case of names) the didactic point is missed by readers due to cultural expectations, in some cases it is missed because the passage is read by rabbinic tradition as a law, and in some cases it is missed because of translation.  To catch the force of a משל within the text, one must return to the original language and attempt to reconstruct the mindset of the original author and audience.  This is neither easy nor foolproof.  Consequently, I will first present a list of my presuppositions.

1.      God superintended all that was recorded in the Hebrew bible for our instruction from lives of those who preceded us.

2.      The historical narratives were accurate in their original autograph content.  Over the period of roughly 2000 years of manual copying various changes were introduced by scribes either intentionally or by accident.  These changes include complete replacement of the original orthography, uneven introduction of vowel letters, replacement of archaic vocabulary, introduction of explanatory glosses and anachronisms, and occasional intentional changes of content based on theological biases.

3.      The historical content of the bible though accurate in its original autograph texts is far from comprehensive.  All events recorded present a single point of view – God is in control, and human experiences, whether pleasant or not, are the direct consequence of their own choices as well as circumstances beyond their control; but everything is in accordance with the specific will of God.

4.    Based on historical references within the bible, the text of the books that constitute the Hebrew bible were composed over a period of nearly 1000 years.  No living language remains static for such a period of time.  (For example, the original Middle English text of Chaucer would be unintelligible to anyone who only knows Modern English without either a translation into modern English or detailed notes from a Middle English expert.)  Consequently, the language of earliest biblical texts would necessarily have been different from that of the last texts composed.  However, no such dramatic difference has been preserved in the bible as we have it.  There are two scholarly approaches to explain this situation.  Wellhausen asserted that the Torah and all the other books were assembled in their present form from various traditions during a period of a few hundred years following the Babylonian Exile.  The other alternative is that scribes updated the language and vocabulary of their received texts on a hit or miss basis with the result that some archaic forms are preserved within a generally uniform textual tradition.  I accept the latter view.

These presuppositions are the basis for understanding essentially all of the historical narratives as parables for our instruction.  In addition, as anyone familiar with the various uses of the parables of Yeshua will know, any single parable may have a wide variety of specific applications.

Names

Originally, nearly every Semitic name had a meaning, and this continues to be practiced to some degree to this day in Israel.  For example, BDB translates the name Nebuchadrezzar (נבוכדראצר) from Nibu-kuduirru-utsur, or Nebo protects the boundary.  When I was studying Babylonian, this name was presented as Nibo-kudur-utsar, or Nebo has granted an heir.  In either case, the name was culturally significant to the people and time.  The same can be expected of other names found in the fabric of the Hebrew bible.  Sometimes the meaning of the name is significant to the content of the narrative.

Adam and Eve

According to Genesis 2, God formed אדם – Red – from the dust of the ground (אדמה) and then brought all of the animals to him in order for him to name them and to seek a helper companion.  When no helper corresponding to him (עזר כנגדו) was found, God put him into a deep sleep, took one of his ribs and the surrounding flesh, built a woman, and brought her to him.  He recognized the correspondence immediately and named her אשה because she was taken from איש.  The last verse of chapter 2 states that the man and the woman were naked (ערומים) but not ashamed.  The next verse (Gen 3:1) states that the snake (נחש) was more ערום than all of the other beasts of the field.  The ערום here is normally translated subtle, but a play on words seems to be clearly intended.  The serpent deceived אשה intending that she should die, but איש chose to accept the same judgment as his wife.  As the consequence God imposed a judicial sentence on all three.  After that the man changed her name from אשה to חוה – Life – because she would be mother of all living.

I accept this narrative as historical, but it also forms a parable having direct application for human relationships.  God made woman to be a helper corresponding to man, and that relationship is reflected in the name first given: she is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh, a helper corresponding to me.  The first part of chapter 3 describes how she failed to fill her intended role effectively after being deceived by the snake.  The judicial consequence imposed by God on the woman was this: the number of conceptions and the pain of child birth were greatly increased, her desire would be for her husband, and he would rule over her.  This changed the fundamental relationship between the man and the woman, and this change is reflected by the change in the name he gave her.  The man's role was also changed.  Rather than the two of them living in the garden of Delight that produced abundant fruit without requiring hard physical effort on their part, they were expelled, and the man was compelled to obtain food through strenuous effort for the rest of his life.

Cain, Abel, and Seth

The beginning of Genesis 4 is the first example of the new relationship between the man and his wife. Adam had sexual relations with his wife Eve, she conceived and gave birth to a son.  At his birth, she made the peculiar statement קניתי איש את יהוה.  This is usually translated 'I have acquired a man with יהוה.'  However, this is not the only possibility.  When God pronounced judgment on the woman, he had promised that she would produce a seed who would crush the head of the snake.  Her statement above could be understood to say 'I have acquired a man, even יהוה,' indicating that she thought that this child might be the realization of God's promise.  The name she gave the child was קין.  The name קין has bad connotations today because of this narrative, but it is not a bad name.  It means 'forger, fabricator, metal worker'.  Some interval of time later she had a second son she called הבל.  This term literally means 'breath, vapor, mist', but it is most commonly used metaphorically in the bible to describe something transitory or insubstantial.  Evidently, the interval between the two sons was long enough that Eve could see that her great expectations for Cain would not be realized.  Mr. Fabricator turned out to be a man without personal faith in יהוה, and he resented the favor that יהוה bestowed on Mr. Insubstantial because of his faith.  After Cain killed Abel, God expelled him from his presence and then gave Adam and Eve a replacement son they named שת – ותקרא את שמו שת כי שת לי אלהים זרא אחר תחת הבל כי הרגו קין (So she named him Seth, because God has appointed me another seed in place of Abel, for Cain has killed him).  Both the name שת and the verb in the first subordinate clause are derived from the root שית.  The narrative also states that Adam and Eve had other children, none of whom are identified.  Consequently, Seth is the one appointed for the continuation of the line to the promised seed, but there is no longer any hint of expectation as to who this individual might be or when he might appear.

Viewed as a parable, one lesson that might be drawn from it is as follows: God's promises are certain to be realized, but human expectations based on experiences have no capacity to compel divine activity.

Narratives

The Torah and the former prophets are filled with selected narratives that describe the lives of individuals.  At the surface level, these narratives are presented as historical events describing how specific individuals dealt with the vicissitudes of life and how they responded to God.  However, because God does not change, these same narratives present reliable cause-effect principles that are as significant today as they were at the time that the original events occurred.  The book of Ruth is presented as a specific example.

Book of Ruth

At the surface level, the book of Ruth is a historical narrative describing the physical descent of David from his great-great grandparents, Ruth, a woman of Moab, and Boaz, a man from Bethlehem of Judah.  It also provides a rationale for the interactions between David, his son Absalom, and the king of Moab, even though Moab was a historic enemy of Israel.  At another level it provides a more general lesson that is not necessarily connected with the specific history of Israel.  The meaning of the names in the narrative are significant:

·         בית לחם – House of Bread, the place of sustenance

·         מואב – Moab, not generally translated, but it could be rendered as from father or water of father.  The significance is that the people of Moab arose from the child born to Lot and his eldest daughter.

·         אלימלך – My God is King

·         נעמי – Pleasant

·         מחלון – Rabbinic tradition connects this name with the root חלה and interprets it as Sickly.

·     כליון – Rabbinic tradition connects this name with the root כלה and interprets it as Destruction, Feeble.

·       ערפה – Derived from the female form of  ערף– back of the neck – indicating one who flees, or Departs.

·         רות – Derived from רעות meaning Friendship

·         בעז – Derived from בעוז meaning With Strength

·      פלוני אלמוני – So-And-So.  This is a method of referring to a person without mentioning his name.

·         עובד -- Servant

The overall story using these names can be summarized as follows.

Mr. My God is King leaves the House of Bread during a famine and journeys with his family, Pleasant, Sickly, and Feeble, to Moab, a place where no Israelite should go or dwell.  While there Sickly and Feeble take Moabite wives, Depart and Friendship.  The family remains in Moab about 10 years.  During that time, first My God is King and then Sickly and Feeble all die.

Pleasant hears that YHWH has ended the famine in Israel, so she resolves to return.  Before leaving Moab, Pleasant urges Depart and Friendship to return to their families, because she has no means of providing for their material or emotional needs.  Depart returns to her family, but Friendship professes that she will never leave the side of Pleasant in life or even in death.  When they finally reach House of Bread, the people there recognize Pleasant, but she said, 'Call me Bitter, not Pleasant, because YHWH has made my life bitter.'

After they take up residence in House of Bread, Pleasant tells Friendship that she has a close relative, Mr. With Strength, who may redeem them both.  Friendship went out to collect gleanings from the barley harvest, and by chance she ended up at the field of Mr. With Strength.  Mr. With Strength then showed her favor because of her fidelity to her dead husband and to Pleasant, and she continued gleaning there throughout the period of the barley harvest.

At the time of the barley threshing, Pleasant tells Friendship to go secretly to the threshing floor and lie at the feet of Mr. With Strength during the night, and he would do what was necessary for their welfare.  When Mr. With Strength discovered Friendship at his feet, she asked him to cover her with his wing (protect her).  He instructed her to return to Pleasant before sunrise, and he would take care of the necessary details the following day.

There was a closer relative to Pleasant, Mr. So-and-So, than Mr. With Strength, and So-and-So had the right of first refusal to redeem Pleasant.  The next morning Mr. With Strength collected So-and-So and the village elders at the city gate to deal with the issue.  The requirement was to redeem the field of Mr. My God is King and marry Friendship to raise up an heir for his clan.  Mr. So-and-So was willing to redeem the field, but he was not willing to take Friendship as his wife, because he felt this might jeopardize his own posterity.  Mr. With Strength did so, and in the course of time Friendship became pregnant and gave birth to Mr. Servant, who was the grandfather of David (Beloved) the King.  The name of Mr. So-and-So, who was concerned about his posterity, has been lost to history, but Mr. With Strength has been remembered through the years.  (He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal.  John 12:25)

 Intentional Parables

The previous examples were not obviously presented as parables, but they are often used as such by those who read and apply biblical principles to their lives.  The following examples are more similar to the parables of Yeshua in that they are clearly stories created to present a message obliquely.  As in the case of Yeshua, these parables are sometimes interpreted specifically within the text and sometimes they are not.

2 Sam 12:1-4

Then YHWH sent Nathan to David.  He came to him and said, "There were two men in one city, the one rich and the other poor.  The rich man had a great many flocks and herds, but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb that he bought and nourished.  It grew up together with him and his children.  It would eat his from bread and drink from his cup and lie in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him.  Now, a traveler came to the rich man, and he was unwilling to take anything from his own flock or herd to prepare for the wayfarer who had come to him.  Rather, he took the poor man's ewe lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him."

This story constituted Nathan's method for confronting King David with his sin with Bathsheba.  Had he confronted him directly, he might have been rebuffed or even killed.  Instead, David pronounced his own condemnation before he realized that he was himself the guilty party.

Is 5:1b, 7

My well beloved had a vineyard on a fertile hill.  He dug it all around to remove its stones and planted it with the choicest vine.  He built a tower in the middle of it and hewed out a wine vat in the middle of it.  Then he expected it to produce good grapes, but it only produced worthless ones.  And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge between me and my vineyard.  What more was there to do for my vineyard than I have done in it?  Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes, did it produce worthless ones?  So now let me tell you what I am going to do to my vineyard: I will remove its hedge, and it will be consumed.  I will break down its wall, and it will become trampled ground.  I will lay it waste; it will not be pruned or hoed, briars will come up, and I will command the clouds not to rain upon it.  For the vineyard of YHWH of hosts is Israel, and his delightful plant is the men of Judah.  He was looking for justice but there was bloodshed, for righteousness but there was a cry of distress.

This parable is about the godlessness present in both Judah and Israel.  The time of Isaiah extended from c. 740 to 681 BCE.  Israel never responded to the warnings of the prophets, so their end came in 722 BCE.  There were two major revivals in Judah – one under Hezekiah during Isaiah's lifetime and one under Josiah about 60 years after Isaiah's death.  As a result, judgment on Judah was delayed for about 150 years.

Amos 9:11, 12

Parabolic imagery such as that in the above example is very common among the prophets.  Usually the intended significance of the imagery is explained by the prophet himself, but occasionally the oracles contain just the images without explanation.  This has resulted in considerable debate among modern interpreters.  I have addressed my understanding of Amos 9 previously.  The point here is not the intended meaning but the presence of the parabolic method itself.

In that day I will raise up the fallen booth of David and wall up its breaches; I will also raise up its ruins and rebuild it as in the days of old, that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations that are called by my name, declares YHWH who does this.

It is worth noting that this oracle includes a mixed metaphor indicating that its meaning extends beyond what the literal words state.  The fallen booth uses the term סכה, which is a temporary shelter that can be easily assembled and dismantled. The reference to restoring breaches and ruins implies stone walls, which are characteristic of a permanent structure.  This methodology for constructing a parable is quite common in prophetic oracles.

Ecc 9:13-16

The entire book of Ecclesiastes is constructed using proverbs and parabolic passages as the primary fabric of its message.  If these structures are not recognized as such, the author's message becomes convoluted and confused, and this is the response of many modern readers of the book.  The following is one of many examples of a parable in this book.

Also this ­ I considered wisdom under the sun, and it was significant to me.  There was a small city with few men in it; but a great king came to it, surrounded it, and built a great siege works against it.  But a poor wise man was found in it in it, and he delivered the city by his shrewdness.  Yet no man remembered that poor man.  So I said, ‘Wisdom is better than might, but the wisdom of a poor man is despised, and nobody listens (attends) to his words.’ 

This parable occurs in a context asserting that life experiences under the sun may not prove to be fair.  Here the individual responsible for the deliverance of the city and all its inhabitants receives no acknowledgement for his contribution because he is a poor man within the society.  This emphasizes the author's point: everybody is subject to circumstances over which they have no control.

Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation

Rabbinic tradition has developed four levels, or methods, for interpreting biblical passages.  The acronym for these methods is PaRDeS, which signifies the following:

·         פשט – Pashat.  This is the plain meaning of the text.  This corresponds to the literal, grammatical, historical, contextual meaning demanded by most conservative Christians.

·         רמז – Remez.  This literally means clue or pointer.  Within rabbinic thinking, many clues from various passages may be combined together to come up with a construct that forms the basis for a conclusion.

·         דרש – Drash.  This literally means inquire and is the source for Midrash.  One use of this method would be to turn a historical narrative into a parable for instruction of a timeless principle.

·    סוד – Sod.  This literally means secret.  The method uses numerology, bible codes, or other methods for generating hidden or secret meanings of the text.  From the rabbinic perspective, Sod was the highest level of interpretation.  From my perspective, it is the one most susceptible to abuse.

At any rate, the parabolic interpretation of scripture was and is central to the teaching methods used within Israel, so it is hardly surprising that it was employed by Yeshua throughout his ministry.