A Dissertation on the Nature and Use of Parabolical Writing.
A DISSERTATION ON THE NATURE AND USE OF
PARABOLICAL WRITING.
As parables occupy so distinguished a place in the Old and New Testaments, especially in the latter, and as the most important information relative to the nature of God, the economy of heaven, the state of separate spirits, the punishment of the wicked, the beatification of the godly, and the doctrines of salvation, is conveyed to mankind in parables, it becomes a matter of the utmost importance fully to understand their nature and their use.
The word parable we have from the Greek parabolh, which comes either from para, near, and ballw, I cast or put, or paraballein to compare, properly, different things together, so as to discover their relations and similarity; in order to which, the things to be compared are placed or put together, or near to each other, that, by a close inspection of both, the relations and likenesses may be the more accurately ascertained. Parable and proverb are called in Hebrew lvm mashal, from lvm mashal, to govern or rule, either because the parabolic and proverbial mode of instruction was of general use, and had a sort of universal precedency, which we know was the case among the Hebrews; or because a parable or proverb was the chief or principal illustrative point in the discourse. Hence we may discover the proper meaning of a proverb - it is a word or saying, forming a maxim for the government and regulation of a man’s conduct in domestic, civil, religious, or political life. Parable has been generally defined, “A comparison or similitude, in which one thing is compared with another; especially spiritual things with natural, by which means these spiritual things are better understood, and make a deeper impression on the attentive mind.” This definition is pretty correct, especially in reference to the parables of our blessed Lord. Or parable may be more generally defined, “A representation of any matter accommodated in the way of similitude to the real subject, in order to delineate its different parts with the greater force and perspicuity.” This definition is applicable to parables in their more general and extended sense.
The method of conveying instruction by parables or moral fictions, sometimes in the form of similitudes, allegories, fables, or apologies, was very common, and in high esteem, among all ancient nations: but the Asiatics used it most frequently, and brought it to a higher degree of perfection than any other people on the earth. The despotic and tyrannical nature of their government led them often to make use of this method. Reproof and censure, which it might not on many occasions be expedient or safe to deliver in explicit language, and which might exasperate, when too plainly spoken, rather than correct, could be conveyed with delicacy and success under the disguise of parable. Even to the present time, information concerning grievances, oppressive acts of government, &c., is conveyed to the despotic Asiatic rulers under the guise of parable. An ancient instance of this we find in the reproof conveyed to the heart of David, by the Prophet Nathan, in the parable of the poor man’s ewe lamb. Persons thus addressed, not perceiving at first the relation, under this artificial form, to be directed against themselves, lost sight of their selfishness and prejudices, and were frequently indeed, by their unsuspecting replies, to acknowledge the justice of the reprehension, and to pronounce the condemnation of their conduct, from their own mouth; as in the case of David above referred to. This, therefore, was one important use of this mode of instruction.
Though fable, similitude, and parable are nearly of the same nature, and have been indifferently applied to the same purposes, yet it may not be amiss to examine the meaning of each distinctly.
SIMILITUDE implies a proper resemblance between two subjects, the one well known, the other not at all, or less known; the leading properties of the one serving clearly to illustrate those of the other. Five rules have been given by the ancients, for the regulation of similitudes.
1. The first is, that the similitude must be clearer than the subject it is brought to illustrate.
2. That it be not in general derived from common or well known things, which are in themselves uninteresting; as it is well known, the more novelty a thing possesses, the more it is calculated to excite the attention and impress the mind.
3. It should not be false in itself, as in this case the mind revolts not only against the thing itself, but against the conclusion drawn from it. On this rule I shall take the liberty of making the following observations: Several of the ancients illustrated and endeavoured to prove the truth and certainty of the resurrection, by the history of the phoenix, a bird supposed to be produced in Arabia once in one hundred years, there never being more than one at a time. It is reported that, when this bird finds its end approaching, it builds itself a nest of the most fragrant spices and aromatic plants, which, being set on fire by the rays of the sun, the bird is consumed in it; but from its ashes a worm or grub is formed, out of which another phoenix, in process of time, arises; others say that it dies in the nest, and a grub is formed out of the marrow of its bones. Both these relations are equally true. Herodotus, Dion Cassius, Tacitus, and Pliny, mention this fabulous animal; and I have met with this account seriously produced by Clemens Alexandrinus, and other Christian fathers, to prove the resurrection of the body. Now, it is well known no such bird ever did, or ever could, exist; that the supposed fact is impossible; and that the conclusion drawn from it is not only not solid and convincing, but absurd, because the premises are all false. The same objections would lie against a similitude which is dubious in its nature; because if it be brought to enforce conviction, and impress truth, this is impossible, as the conclusion must rest on the premises. If, then, the premises be dubious, the conclusion will be uncertain; and, consequently, the hesitancy of the mind must necessarily continue.
In like manner, the similitude must be useless if it be absurd; for as soon as the mind perceives this, it becomes armed both against the similitude and the subject it was intended to illustrate or prove.
4. A fourth rule of similitude is, that the mind should gain real information and useful knowledge from it. Let the similitude be ever so true, clear, and correct; yet, if it convey no more information than was before known, it is useless, and the time is lost which was employed in proposing it.
5. It should be calculated to make deep impressions on the mind, by leaving such images on the imagination as may become, in all cases to which they apply, motives of conduct. As many preachers and public speakers delight in the use of similitudes, I thought it necessary to make these observations on the subject, that we might be preserved from copying bad examples, or that, if we followed the custom at all, we might make it truly useful, by subjecting it to its proper rules.
FABLE is very nearly allied to similitude and parable, and has been applied exactly in the same way, to convey lessons of moral instruction by pleasing images and interesting dialogue.
But fable, in its nature, differs widely from the others. Every subject of inanimate creation may be employed by similitude and parable; but the grand subjects in fable are borrowed from the animate and rational creation only. Of this sort are the Heetopades commonly called the fables of Pilpay, written originally in Sanscrit, the oldest fables, probably, in the world; and the fables of Lockman, the Arabian AEsop. In all these, human actions, speech, and intelligence, are transferred to brute and irrational animals. Though the former methods have been long, often, and successfully used to convey miscellaneous instruction, yet the parabolic method has been chiefly employed to illustrate Divine subjects, and to convey instruction to the heart on those matters which concern the salvation of the soul. The most important truths are by our Lord conveyed both to the disciples and to the multitude in parables; not that they might not be discovered, but that they might be sought earnestly after. In this, our Lord, who was well acquainted with all the springs and secret movements of human nature, consulted a well - known propensity of the mind, which leads a person always to esteem that most which is, or appears to be, a discovery of his own. Christ speaks a parable, and in it gives a clue by which we may discover the will of God. He that loves his soul’s prosperity, takes up the thread, and, guided by it through all the labyrinth of error, he safely arrives at the fountain of truth. We must not, however, suppose that the word parable always conveys the same meaning: I have taken some pains on this subject, and, if I mistake not, I find the word has the ten following significations in Scripture:—
1. It means a simple comparison (as I have already noted when defining the Greek word.) Which comparison is intended to show the relation between two dissimilar things; or, how one fact or circumstance may be fitly introduced to illustrate and explain another. Such is that comparison of our Lord, between the state of the Jewish nation, and that of the world in the days of Noah, mentioned Matthew 24:32 - 38.
2. It signifies an obscure similitude, such as that mentioned Matthew 15:13 - 15, where the whole system of Pharisaism, with all its secular and spiritual influence, is represented under the notion of a plantation not planted by God, and which was shortly to be rooted up.
3. A simple allegory, where one thing is represented by another, the leading circumstances and principal design of that one being produced to illustrate and explain the design and leading circumstances of the other. Such is our Lord’s parable concerning those invited to a marriage supper— of the sower—tares and wheat—grain of mustard seed—leaven—hidden treasure—precious pearl—drag—net, &c., contained in the preceding chapter, Matthew 13.
4. A maxim, or wise sentence, to direct and govern a man in civil or religious life. In this sense we have already seen the Hebrew word lvm mashal employed. In 1 Kings 4:32, we are informed that Solomon spoke three thousand of this kind of parables or proverbs; and in this sense the original word is frequently used.
5. It means a by - word, or proverb of reproach: such God threatened to make the disobedient Jewish people. See 2 Chronicles 7:20: I will pluck them up by the roots out of my land - and this house I will cast out of my sight, and will make it a proverb and a by - word among all nations, where the original word for proverb is lvm mashal. Such we may conceive the following to be: As rebellious as Corah - as covetous as Judas - as wicked as the Jews - as bad as the devil. In all which parables or proverbs, respect should be paid to the similitude between the object of comparison, and the thing with which it is compared. In this sense it is used Psalm 44:14; 69:11; Jeremiah 24:9.
6. As parables, proverbs, and useful maxims for the regulation of life, and instruction in righteousness, had, before the Babylonish captivity, lost all their power and influence among the wicked Jews, so they were generally disregarded, and those who made use of them became objects of reproach and contempt; hence, parable, at that time at least, was used to signify a frivolous, uninteresting discourse. In this sense alone, I suppose the word to be used, Ezekiel 20:49, “Then I said, Ah, Lord God! They say of me, Doth he not speak parables?” i.e. He delivers frivolous discourses, of no weight or importance.
7. It seems a simple proverb or adage, where neither comparison nor similitude was intended: such as that mentioned by our Lord, Luke 4:23, “And he said, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, thn parabolhn tauthn, this parable, Physician, heal thyself.” In this, neither comparison nor likeness is intended. The same kind of a proverb is found Luke 6:39, “Can the blind lead the blind,” &c.
8. It means a type, illustration, or representation. See Hebrews 9:9, where the first tabernacle is said to have been a figure, parabolh, a parable, for the time then present; i.e. a thing which, from the peculiar use to which it was appropriated, shadowed forth or represented the human body of our Lord, and the Christian Church which he should establish.
9. It means a daring exploit, an unusual and severe trial, or a case of imminent danger and jeopardy. In these senses it is used by some of the best and, most correct Greek writers, such as Polybius and Xenophon; and by the best Greek lexicographers, such as Hesychius and Suidas; with whom parabolov signifies a daring, bold, rash person; and parabola, things extremely dangerous. In this sense the verb is evidently used 2Mac 14:38, where it is said, that Razis, one of the Jewish elders, did “boldly jeopard (parabeblh menov) his body and life, with all vehemency, for the religion of the Jews.” I know no place in the sacred writings in which it has this sense, unless it be in Hebrews 11:19, where, speaking of the intended sacrifice of Isaac, and his rescue, Abraham is said to have rescued him from the most imminent death, en parabolh, which we translate, in a figure. Now, if we may suppose that the death here referred to, is not that metaphorial death implied in the deadness of Sarah’s womb, and the superannuation of Abraham, but the imminent death to which he was exposed when Abraham drew his knife to slay his son, Genesis 22:10, and was only prevented by the sudden and miraculous interposition of God; then it is probable that the word here has the above meaning, which, I must own, I think likely: if so, the text may be read thus: “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: of whom it was said, In Isaac shall thy seed be called; accounting that God was able to raise him up even from the dead, from whence he received him, en parabolh, he being in the most imminent danger of losing his life.”
10. It signifies a very ancient and obscure prophecy, Psalm 49:4, I will incline mine ear to a parable: I will open my dark saying upon the harp. Likewise in Psalm 78, I will open my mouth in a parable: I tell utter dark sayings of old. Probably this kind of dark, ancient, enigmatical prophecy, is what is spoken of Proverbs 1:6, To understand a proverb (or parable) and the interpretation; the words of the wise and their dark sayings. Now, a proverb, in the common acceptation of that word, is neither dark, nor requires any particular interpretation; it being a plain maxim, easy to be understood by the mass of the people, for whose instruction it is chiefly designed. But parable, in this sense, evidently refers to the ancient prophecies which were delivered concerning Christ and the nature of his kingdom. And to this very subject the words are applied, and quoted by the Evangelist Matthew in the preceding chapter. (Matthew 13:35.) Having traced the word parable through its different meanings in the sacred writings, it may be now necessary to inquire for what purpose our blessed Lord used that mode of speech so frequently: as many have supposed from his own words, Matthew 13:11 - 13, that he addressed the people in parables merely that they might not understand. To you, said he, addressing his disciples, it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given: therefore I speak to them in parables, &c. Now, to do justice to this passage, we must observe, that by mysteries, here, we are to understand, not only things concerning the scheme of salvation which had not been as yet fully revealed, but also the prophetic declarations concerning the future state of the Christian Church, as they are signified by the different parables mentioned in the succeeding parts of the chapter. It was not given to THEM to know the purport and design of these things. “They,” said our Lord, “are gross of heart:” they are earthly and sensual, and do not improve the light they have received; so that, when many of them might have been preachers of this truth to others, they are found destitute of salvation themselves, notwithstanding the means of it were all within their power: but, said he, “to YOU it is given:” because I have appointed you, not only to be the first preachers of the Gospel to sinners but also the persons who shall transmit accounts of all these things to posterity. The knowledge of these mysteries, in the first instance, could be given only to a few; but when these faithfully wrote and published what they had heard and seen unto the world, then the science of salvation, being fully revealed, was addressed to all.
From Matthew 13:17 we learn, that many prophets and righteous men had desired to see and hear these things, but had not that privilege: to them it was not given: not because God designed to exclude them from salvation, but because He who knew all things knew either that they were not proper persons, or that that was not the proper time; for the choice of the PERSONS by whom, and the choice of the TIME in which it is most proper to reveal Divine things, must ever rest with the all - wise God. But it is not intimated that our Lord spoke to the Jews in parables that they might not understand: the very reverse, I think, is plainly intended. It was to lead them, by a familiar and appropriate mode of instruction, into the knowledge of God and the interests of their souls. I speak to them, said he, in parables, i.e. natural representations of spiritual truths, that they might be allured to inquire, and to find out the spirit which was hidden under the letter. Because, said he, seeing the miracles which I have wrought, they see not, i.e. the end for which I have wrought them; and hearing my doctrines, they hear not, so as to profit by what is spoken; neither do they understand, oude suniousi, they do not lay their hearts to it, so as to consider it with that deep attention which such momentous truths require. But that they might not continue in their ignorance, and die in their sins, he adds parable to parable, to make the whole science of salvation as plain and intelligible as possible. Is not this obviously our Lord’s meaning? Who that is not most miserably warped and begloomed by some Jewish exclusive system of salvation, can suppose that the wise, the holy, the benevolent Christ, would employ his time in speaking enigmatically to the people, on purpose that they might not understand what was spoken? Could the God of truth and sincerity act thus? If he had designed that they should continue in darkness, he might have saved his time and labour, and not spoken at all, which would have as effectually answered the same purpose, viz. that of leaving them in destructive ignorance, as his speaking in such a way as should render his meaning incomprehensible.
On the whole I conclude, that the grand object of parabolical writing is not to conceal the truth, but to convey information to the hearts of the hearers in the most concise, appropriate, impressive, and effectual manner. In preaching on parables and similitudes, great care should be taken to discover their object and design, and those grand and leading circumstances by which the author illustrates his subject. There are few, if any, parables, whose every circumstance was designed to apply to the subject in reference to which they were proposed. Maimonides, in his Moreh Nevochim, gives an excellent rule on this head: “Fix it as a principle,” says he, “to attach yourself to the grand object of the parable, without attempting to make a particular application of all the circumstances and terms which it comprehends.” This shows us that we should not attempt to find a spiritual meaning, or pointed reference, in all the parts of the parable, to the subject which it is intended to illustrate. And this maxim of Maimonides is the more to be regarded, because it comes from a person who was perfectly well acquainted with the subject, and who lived, if I might so term it, in the very country of parables, and was best qualified to decide on their use in the Sacred Writings, and the proper mode of interpretation. By not attending to this rule, many have disgraced both themselves and the Scriptures. The most dignified subjects, in such hands, have been rendered contemptible by their injudicious modes of elucidation. See the notes at the beginning of this chapter.