THE MEANING OF THE GOSPELS
Most readers might agree that the specific story of the Good Samaritan need not represent a factual event; the truth Jesus taught with that parable stand, irrespective of its historicity. Why not approach the rest of the material in the Gospels the same way? Most readers might agree that the This way of reading the Gospels and Acts—or at least some of the narrative material in them—is attractive to many people, including a minority of evangelical scholars, because it frees them from having to worry about historical discrepancies. Those who have given up belief in the supernatural but wish to continue being identified as Christians find a way out of their dilemma here. Such a solution faces two major problems—one theological and one literary.
Theological. Biblical faith has a historical character at its very foundations; in contrast to other religions, this feature is one of its mot significant distinctives.
Trying to affirm the religious teachings while rejecting the Bible’s historical claims would be the equivalent of claiming allegiance to the Declaration of Independence while disavowing, as antiquated, the principle of political freedom. When reading any kind of literature, nothing is more important than doing justice to its character. Winston Churchill, when writing his History of the English Speaking Peoples, intends to describe a factual event, the historical referent is very much part of his meaning. For the reader to ignore or reject that intent is destroy the writing.
In the case of the Gospels, every indication we have is that the writers expected their statements to be taken as historical. Luke in particular, as he begins both Luke and Acts, makes that purpose quite explicit.
Luke 1:1 –4... “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write {it} out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.” (NASB)
Acts 1:1 –3... “The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up {to heaven,} after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over {a period of} forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.” (NASB)
And, other writers give no clue that their intent is different.
The reason many students of the Bible believe they can downplay the historicity of The New Testament narratives is that they do not always conform to the patterns of modern history writing. Therefore, if we want to do justice to the literary character of the Gospels and Acts, we must not only take note of their historical character but also of some additional features. Note how the gospel of John expresses its aim: “Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). The author had more in mind than the reporting of facts; he wanted to change the lives of his readers. But John hardly minimizes the historical truth of his narrative: “The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true” (19:35). On the other hand, it would be a mistake to appreciate other aspects of the gospel that may have affected its composition. It is not a history textbook—much less a biography—in the usual sense. Nothing is said about Jesus’birth or childhood. In spite of some chronological references, we read most of the gospel with only a vague sense of its time setting. Almost one-third of the book (chaps. 13 – 19) is devoted the last twenty-four hours of Jesus’ life. The style is interesting; in John (but not in the other gospels), Jesus speaks the way John writes.
These and other features cause us to understand that the historical trustworthiness of The Gospels is not to be described in terms of modern historiography, which stresses clear and strict chronological sequence, balanced selection of material, verbatim quotations, etc. Gospel writers select the events of Jesus’ life and teachings, guided not by comprehensiveness but by their purpose in writing. They arrange the material not always on the basis of sequential order but with a view to impress upon the readers certain specific truths. If Matthew had given every detail moderns expect, with the exhaustive precision necessary to answer all potential problems, his narrative would have been impossibly long and the impact of his message would have been swallowed by an information overload.
Some scholars, eager to demonstrate the historicity of Jesus and his work, try to get “behind” the Gospels and reach the authentic Jesus. That implies that what matters is what Jesus “really” said as opposed to what the gospels report him as saying. If Luke paraphrases one of Jesus’ teachings, it is Luke’s account of those words—not the historian’s reconstruction of what Jesus “really” said—that is inspired. If we make all three Gospels say the same thing, we may miss a very important point Matthew wants to get across. Careful study may demonstrate that the changes Matthew introduced are not intended to deceive, nor are they the result of careless error. Rather he is interpreting under divine inspiration, the significance of Jesus’ encounter with the rich young ruler. It is not an accident that God gave us four gospels, even though there is much overlap among them. The life and message of Jesus is so rich that we need more than one perspective. It is misguided to overlook the gospel differences on the one hand or to try to minimize them on the other. We should rather focus on those distinctives and appreciate what each writer is try to tell us.
History or theology?
This is a false question. The gospel writers are both historians and theologians. They recount the facts, but they also interpret them so that we may believe.
Theological. Biblical faith has a historical character at its very foundations; in contrast to other religions, this feature is one of its mot significant distinctives.
Trying to affirm the religious teachings while rejecting the Bible’s historical claims would be the equivalent of claiming allegiance to the Declaration of Independence while disavowing, as antiquated, the principle of political freedom. When reading any kind of literature, nothing is more important than doing justice to its character. Winston Churchill, when writing his History of the English Speaking Peoples, intends to describe a factual event, the historical referent is very much part of his meaning. For the reader to ignore or reject that intent is destroy the writing.
In the case of the Gospels, every indication we have is that the writers expected their statements to be taken as historical. Luke in particular, as he begins both Luke and Acts, makes that purpose quite explicit.
Luke 1:1 –4... “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write {it} out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.” (NASB)
Acts 1:1 –3... “The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up {to heaven,} after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over {a period of} forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.” (NASB)
And, other writers give no clue that their intent is different.
The reason many students of the Bible believe they can downplay the historicity of The New Testament narratives is that they do not always conform to the patterns of modern history writing. Therefore, if we want to do justice to the literary character of the Gospels and Acts, we must not only take note of their historical character but also of some additional features. Note how the gospel of John expresses its aim: “Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). The author had more in mind than the reporting of facts; he wanted to change the lives of his readers. But John hardly minimizes the historical truth of his narrative: “The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true” (19:35). On the other hand, it would be a mistake to appreciate other aspects of the gospel that may have affected its composition. It is not a history textbook—much less a biography—in the usual sense. Nothing is said about Jesus’birth or childhood. In spite of some chronological references, we read most of the gospel with only a vague sense of its time setting. Almost one-third of the book (chaps. 13 – 19) is devoted the last twenty-four hours of Jesus’ life. The style is interesting; in John (but not in the other gospels), Jesus speaks the way John writes.
These and other features cause us to understand that the historical trustworthiness of The Gospels is not to be described in terms of modern historiography, which stresses clear and strict chronological sequence, balanced selection of material, verbatim quotations, etc. Gospel writers select the events of Jesus’ life and teachings, guided not by comprehensiveness but by their purpose in writing. They arrange the material not always on the basis of sequential order but with a view to impress upon the readers certain specific truths. If Matthew had given every detail moderns expect, with the exhaustive precision necessary to answer all potential problems, his narrative would have been impossibly long and the impact of his message would have been swallowed by an information overload.
Some scholars, eager to demonstrate the historicity of Jesus and his work, try to get “behind” the Gospels and reach the authentic Jesus. That implies that what matters is what Jesus “really” said as opposed to what the gospels report him as saying. If Luke paraphrases one of Jesus’ teachings, it is Luke’s account of those words—not the historian’s reconstruction of what Jesus “really” said—that is inspired. If we make all three Gospels say the same thing, we may miss a very important point Matthew wants to get across. Careful study may demonstrate that the changes Matthew introduced are not intended to deceive, nor are they the result of careless error. Rather he is interpreting under divine inspiration, the significance of Jesus’ encounter with the rich young ruler. It is not an accident that God gave us four gospels, even though there is much overlap among them. The life and message of Jesus is so rich that we need more than one perspective. It is misguided to overlook the gospel differences on the one hand or to try to minimize them on the other. We should rather focus on those distinctives and appreciate what each writer is try to tell us.
History or theology?
This is a false question. The gospel writers are both historians and theologians. They recount the facts, but they also interpret them so that we may believe.
Parables
There are some obvious reasons by Jesus might have chosen to use parables.
They are simple and interesting, so that a general audience could follow easily.
They deal directly with the realities of daily life so a reader can “identify.”
They have a way of disarming those who would be offended by their message.
2nd Samuel 12:1 – 10... “Then the LORD sent Nathan to David. And 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 except one little ewe lamb Which he bought and nourished; And it grew up together with him and his children. It would eat of his bread and drink of his cup and lie in his bosom, And was like a daughter to him. "Now a traveler came to the rich man, And he was unwilling to take from his own flock or his own 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.“ Then David's anger burned greatly against the man, and he said to Nathan, "As the LORD lives, surely the man who has done this deserves to die. "He must make restitution for the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing and had no compassion.“ Nathan then said to David, "You are the man! Thus says the LORD God of Israel, 'It is I who anointed you king over Israel and it is I who delivered you from the hand of Saul. 'I also gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if {that had been} too little, I would have added to you many more things like these! 'Why have you despised the word of the LORD by doing evil in His sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword, have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the sons of Ammon. 'Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.‘” (NASB)
Questions...
If they are so simple, why has there been so much debate over them and such a vast body of scholarly literature written about them?
How can Jesus commend the dishonest behavior of the crafty steward? (Luke 16:1 – 15..."Now He was also saying to the disciples, "There was a rich man who had a manager, and this {manager} was reported to him as squandering his possessions. "And he called him and said to him, 'What is this I hear about you? Give an accounting of your management, for you can no longer be manager.' "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; I am ashamed to beg. 'I know what I shall do, so that when I am removed from the management people will welcome me into their homes.' "And he summoned each one of his master's debtors, and he {began} saying to the first, 'How much do you owe my master?' "And he said, 'A hundred measures of oil.' And 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?' And he said, 'A hundred measures of wheat.' He *said to him, 'Take your bill, and write eighty.' "And his master praised the unrighteous manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind than the sons of light. "And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by means of the wealth of unrighteousness, so that when it fails, they will receive you into the eternal dwellings. "He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much. "Therefore if you have not been faithful in the {use of} unrighteous wealth, who will entrust the true {riches} to you? "And if you have not been faithful in {the use of} that which is another's, who will give you that which is your own? "No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and were scoffing at Him. And He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God. (NASB))
We need “hermeneutical skills”to understand the parables no less than we need them for appreciating other parts of Scripture. In addition, Jesus’ use of parables reflects certain theological concern that cannot be ignored.
They are simple and interesting, so that a general audience could follow easily.
They deal directly with the realities of daily life so a reader can “identify.”
They have a way of disarming those who would be offended by their message.
2nd Samuel 12:1 – 10... “Then the LORD sent Nathan to David. And 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 except one little ewe lamb Which he bought and nourished; And it grew up together with him and his children. It would eat of his bread and drink of his cup and lie in his bosom, And was like a daughter to him. "Now a traveler came to the rich man, And he was unwilling to take from his own flock or his own 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.“ Then David's anger burned greatly against the man, and he said to Nathan, "As the LORD lives, surely the man who has done this deserves to die. "He must make restitution for the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing and had no compassion.“ Nathan then said to David, "You are the man! Thus says the LORD God of Israel, 'It is I who anointed you king over Israel and it is I who delivered you from the hand of Saul. 'I also gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if {that had been} too little, I would have added to you many more things like these! 'Why have you despised the word of the LORD by doing evil in His sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword, have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the sons of Ammon. 'Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.‘” (NASB)
Questions...
If they are so simple, why has there been so much debate over them and such a vast body of scholarly literature written about them?
How can Jesus commend the dishonest behavior of the crafty steward? (Luke 16:1 – 15..."Now He was also saying to the disciples, "There was a rich man who had a manager, and this {manager} was reported to him as squandering his possessions. "And he called him and said to him, 'What is this I hear about you? Give an accounting of your management, for you can no longer be manager.' "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; I am ashamed to beg. 'I know what I shall do, so that when I am removed from the management people will welcome me into their homes.' "And he summoned each one of his master's debtors, and he {began} saying to the first, 'How much do you owe my master?' "And he said, 'A hundred measures of oil.' And 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?' And he said, 'A hundred measures of wheat.' He *said to him, 'Take your bill, and write eighty.' "And his master praised the unrighteous manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind than the sons of light. "And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by means of the wealth of unrighteousness, so that when it fails, they will receive you into the eternal dwellings. "He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much. "Therefore if you have not been faithful in the {use of} unrighteous wealth, who will entrust the true {riches} to you? "And if you have not been faithful in {the use of} that which is another's, who will give you that which is your own? "No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and were scoffing at Him. And He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God. (NASB))
We need “hermeneutical skills”to understand the parables no less than we need them for appreciating other parts of Scripture. In addition, Jesus’ use of parables reflects certain theological concern that cannot be ignored.
The Theological Significance of the Parables
Responding to the disciples’question about the parable of the sower, Jesus make a statement is one of the most difficult in the Gospels: “And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, so that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN.“” (NASB) (Mark 4:11 –12, quoting Isaiah 6:9 – 10).
He appears to be saying that his purpose for telling parables to those who do not belong to his group of disciples was the same (retributive) purpose behind the call of Isaiah—to harden their hearts in unbelief.
What was Jesus’mission? While he was a baby Simeon declared that the child was “destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel” (Luke 2:34... “And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary His mother, "Behold, this {Child} is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed...” (NASB)).
In other words, Christ is both cornerstone and a rock of stumbling (Romans 9:32 – 33... “Why? Because {they did} not {pursue it} by faith, but as though {it were} by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written, "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.“” (NASB))
In Mark 3 we are told that some Pharisees, enraged at Jesus’ healing on the Sabbath, began to plot his death.
In this context, we can see that the parables serve the purpose of discriminating among those who heard Jesus. These stories do not “create sin” in the hearts of otherwise innocent people. Rather, the parables, when address to those who have set themselves against the Lord, become instruments of judgment.
Any attempt to interpret the parables without into account this (the above) factor will fail to do justice to Jesus’ teaching.
There is another theological point to be made with regard to Jesus’ use of parables.
According to Matthew 13:35(“{This was} to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: "I WILL OPEN MY MOUTH IN PARABLES; I WILL UTTER THINGS HIDDEN SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.” (NASB)), this method of teaching was a fulfillment of prophecy.
Psalm 78:2... I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old...” (NASB).
The main point seems to be that Jesus’ parables fulfill God’s eternal plan to reveal his truth to his people.
Secondarily, these words suggest a close relationship between creation and redemption; God’s truths are, as it were, “built into” the created order.
He appears to be saying that his purpose for telling parables to those who do not belong to his group of disciples was the same (retributive) purpose behind the call of Isaiah—to harden their hearts in unbelief.
What was Jesus’mission? While he was a baby Simeon declared that the child was “destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel” (Luke 2:34... “And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary His mother, "Behold, this {Child} is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed...” (NASB)).
In other words, Christ is both cornerstone and a rock of stumbling (Romans 9:32 – 33... “Why? Because {they did} not {pursue it} by faith, but as though {it were} by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written, "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.“” (NASB))
In Mark 3 we are told that some Pharisees, enraged at Jesus’ healing on the Sabbath, began to plot his death.
In this context, we can see that the parables serve the purpose of discriminating among those who heard Jesus. These stories do not “create sin” in the hearts of otherwise innocent people. Rather, the parables, when address to those who have set themselves against the Lord, become instruments of judgment.
Any attempt to interpret the parables without into account this (the above) factor will fail to do justice to Jesus’ teaching.
There is another theological point to be made with regard to Jesus’ use of parables.
According to Matthew 13:35(“{This was} to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: "I WILL OPEN MY MOUTH IN PARABLES; I WILL UTTER THINGS HIDDEN SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.” (NASB)), this method of teaching was a fulfillment of prophecy.
Psalm 78:2... I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old...” (NASB).
The main point seems to be that Jesus’ parables fulfill God’s eternal plan to reveal his truth to his people.
Secondarily, these words suggest a close relationship between creation and redemption; God’s truths are, as it were, “built into” the created order.
The Historical Setting of the Parables
The parables must be understood historically, that is, by identifying the specific situation in which they were used. For example, the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15 has often been used evangelistically. Luke gives us the historical setting specifically: “But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, ‘This man welcomes sinners and eats with them’” (vv. 1 – 2). Jesus proceed to tell three parables—the lost sheep, the lost coin and the lost (prodigal) son—to those who were complaining. While the conversion of the Pharisees would naturally have been part of the aim in telling the stories, it is clear that Jesus is using those stories primarily to rebuke them. The finder of the sheep and of the coin experienced great joy, yet the Pharisees complain rather than rejoice when a sinner is “found.” The story of the lost son functions as a powerful climax; the elder son represents the grumbling Pharisees, who are unable to share in the joy of God and the angels in heaven.
Attention to the historical setting also includes sensitivity to the cultural background of the parables. Inevitably, modern western readers miss some of the nuances of the story. “Give me my share” in that setting likely would have been interpreted as a wish for his father’s death; it would have caused a rift with the family and with the town. Another detail is the fact that the elder brother would have been expected to do all he could to reconcile his brother to the father; not only does he not, he even accepts his own share of the inheritance.
Attention to the historical setting also includes sensitivity to the cultural background of the parables. Inevitably, modern western readers miss some of the nuances of the story. “Give me my share” in that setting likely would have been interpreted as a wish for his father’s death; it would have caused a rift with the family and with the town. Another detail is the fact that the elder brother would have been expected to do all he could to reconcile his brother to the father; not only does he not, he even accepts his own share of the inheritance.
The Literary Context of the Parables
Biblical writers present historical events from a particular angle; in doing so, they interpret the events for us. We should be interested not only in their function during the ministry of Jesus but also in the way they are used by the gospel writers. Under divine inspiration they bring to bear the teaching of Jesus on the later situation in the churches. A careful study of this feature sheds light on how we may use the parables as well. Matthew in particular arranged his material in a thematic way and seems to make a special effort to apply the words of Jesus to the churches to which he is writing. It is evident that Matthew is concerned about the lack of genuine commitment among some Christian groups, and so the theme of true verse false discipleship becomes a major emphasis in the gospel.
Matthew relates the parable of the laborers in the vineyard (20:1 – 16).
"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. "When he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius for the day, he sent them into his vineyard. "And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the market place; and to those he said, 'You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.' And {so} they went. "Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did the same thing. "And about the eleventh {hour} he went out and found others standing {around;} and he *said to them, 'Why have you been standing here idle all day long?' "They *said to him, 'Because no one hired us.' He *said to them, 'You go into the vineyard too.' "When evening came, the owner of the vineyard *said to his foreman, 'Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last {group} to the first.' "When those {hired} about the eleventh hour came, each one received a denarius. "When those {hired} first came, they thought that they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius. "When they received it, they grumbled at the landowner, saying, 'These last men have worked {only} one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the scorching heat of the day.' "But he answered and said to one of them, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? 'Take what is yours and go, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. 'Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?' "So the last shall be first, and the first last." (NASB)
This story too is a weapon by which Jesus rebukes his opponents from complaining about God’s grace to sinners. This parable then strongly resembles the main point of the parable of the prodigal son. Matthew, however, applies it to the church by the way he places the story in the context of the gospel as a whole. At the end of chap. 19 he had related the incident of the rich young ruler. After Jesus’comments at the end of the incident, Peter expressed his commitment to discipleship and Jesus responded that true disciples will receive many blessings and inherit eternal life. He then ended with the saying, “But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first” (v. 30). By placing the parable of the laborers immediately after that incident and repeating the saying of 19:30 at the end of the parable, Matthew appears to be teaching the church lessons on grace and discipleship.
In summary, a careful study of the parables involves not only seeing them in the historical context of Jesus’ ministry but also understanding how they function in the narrative of each gospel.
The writers were not journalists who avoided interpreting the facts, but preachers whose own presentation of Jesus’ work is an essential key in our appreciation of the biblical text.
Matthew relates the parable of the laborers in the vineyard (20:1 – 16).
"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. "When he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius for the day, he sent them into his vineyard. "And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the market place; and to those he said, 'You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.' And {so} they went. "Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did the same thing. "And about the eleventh {hour} he went out and found others standing {around;} and he *said to them, 'Why have you been standing here idle all day long?' "They *said to him, 'Because no one hired us.' He *said to them, 'You go into the vineyard too.' "When evening came, the owner of the vineyard *said to his foreman, 'Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last {group} to the first.' "When those {hired} about the eleventh hour came, each one received a denarius. "When those {hired} first came, they thought that they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius. "When they received it, they grumbled at the landowner, saying, 'These last men have worked {only} one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the scorching heat of the day.' "But he answered and said to one of them, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? 'Take what is yours and go, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. 'Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?' "So the last shall be first, and the first last." (NASB)
This story too is a weapon by which Jesus rebukes his opponents from complaining about God’s grace to sinners. This parable then strongly resembles the main point of the parable of the prodigal son. Matthew, however, applies it to the church by the way he places the story in the context of the gospel as a whole. At the end of chap. 19 he had related the incident of the rich young ruler. After Jesus’comments at the end of the incident, Peter expressed his commitment to discipleship and Jesus responded that true disciples will receive many blessings and inherit eternal life. He then ended with the saying, “But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first” (v. 30). By placing the parable of the laborers immediately after that incident and repeating the saying of 19:30 at the end of the parable, Matthew appears to be teaching the church lessons on grace and discipleship.
In summary, a careful study of the parables involves not only seeing them in the historical context of Jesus’ ministry but also understanding how they function in the narrative of each gospel.
The writers were not journalists who avoided interpreting the facts, but preachers whose own presentation of Jesus’ work is an essential key in our appreciation of the biblical text.
HE Taught Them with Authority
The use of parables, while the most distinctive feature in Jesus’ method of teaching, was hardly the only one. One of the most striking descriptions of Jesus’ ministry was the comment that “the people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law”
Mark 1:22... “They were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as {one}
having authority, and not as the scribes.” (NASB)
Matthew 7:28 – 29... “When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as {one} having authority, and not as their
scribes.” (NASB)
For the most part, this verse seems to speak about the power of Jesus’ divine personality.
But it is important to note that Mark in speaking of Jesus’ authority, contrasts Jesus’ teaching with that of “the teachers of the law.” Much of rabbinic teaching consisted of setting against each other the opinion of leading sages, sometimes without clear resolution. Not only Jesus’ teaching style, however, but the very substance of his message was different. A basic feature of rabbinic thought is the emphasis on the twofold Torah: the written law (The Hebrew Bible, especially the five books of Moses) and the oral law (the traditions of the elders). The oral law could be viewed to some extent as an interpretation and application of the written law, yet much of it consisted of debates dealing with technical legal questions, which led to the development of new regulations.
Ironically, many of these regulations had the effect of blunting the force of the biblical commandments. In the opinion of some scholars, Matthew 5 presents Jesus as a new Moses who, from a mountain, delivers the law of the kingdom to his people. Even the beatitudes that introduce this passage arouse our expectations about the newness of Jesus’ work. Truly Jesus “taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law”!
Mark 1:22... “They were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as {one}
having authority, and not as the scribes.” (NASB)
Matthew 7:28 – 29... “When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as {one} having authority, and not as their
scribes.” (NASB)
For the most part, this verse seems to speak about the power of Jesus’ divine personality.
But it is important to note that Mark in speaking of Jesus’ authority, contrasts Jesus’ teaching with that of “the teachers of the law.” Much of rabbinic teaching consisted of setting against each other the opinion of leading sages, sometimes without clear resolution. Not only Jesus’ teaching style, however, but the very substance of his message was different. A basic feature of rabbinic thought is the emphasis on the twofold Torah: the written law (The Hebrew Bible, especially the five books of Moses) and the oral law (the traditions of the elders). The oral law could be viewed to some extent as an interpretation and application of the written law, yet much of it consisted of debates dealing with technical legal questions, which led to the development of new regulations.
Ironically, many of these regulations had the effect of blunting the force of the biblical commandments. In the opinion of some scholars, Matthew 5 presents Jesus as a new Moses who, from a mountain, delivers the law of the kingdom to his people. Even the beatitudes that introduce this passage arouse our expectations about the newness of Jesus’ work. Truly Jesus “taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law”!