In the Introduction to A Tale of Two Sons, John MacArthur includes a section on interpreting parables:
A good rule for interpreting any parable is to keep focused on the central lesson. It’s not a good idea to try to milk meaning out of every incidental detail in a parable. Medieval theologians were notorious for that. They might expound for hours on the minute particulars of every parable, trying to find very detailed, symbolic, spiritual meanings in every feature of the story—sometimes while virtually ignoring the real point of the parable. That’s a dangerous way to handle any scripture. But it is an especially easy mistake to fall into when it comes to interpreting the various figures of speech in the Bible. Parables are plainly and purposely figurative, but they are not allegories, in which every detail carries some kind of symbolism. A parable is a simple metaphor or simile conveyed in story form. It is first and foremost a comparison. “The kingdom of heaven is like [this thing or that] . . .” (see, for example, Matthew 13:31, 33, 44-45, 47, 52; 20:1; 22:2).
The word parable is transliterated from a Greek word that literally speaks of something placed alongside something else for the purpose of pointing out the likeness or making an important association between the two things. It’s a basic literary form with a very specific purpose: to make a focused analogy through an interesting word picture or story. Interpreters of the parables will always do well to bear that in mind and avoid looking for complex symbolism, multiple layers of meaning, or abstruse lessons in the peripheral details of the parables. The parable of the prodigal son, because of the richness of its detail, has perhaps been subjected to more fanciful interpretations than any other parable. I’ve seen commentators spend page after page expounding on the supposed spiritual and allegorical significance of such incidental features as the swine’s leftovers (symbolic of evil thoughts, according to one writer), the ring the father placed on the son’s finger (a graphic yet esoteric picture of the mystery of the Trinity, if we accept the ruminations of another commentator), or the shoes placed on the prodigal’s feet (these represent the gospel, yet another exegete insists, drawing on Ephesians 6:15 for proof).
As a method of biblical interpretation, that kind of allegorization has been employed to create more confusion about the plain meaning of Scripture than any other hermeneutical device. If you can freely say this really means that and one thing is a symbol for something else based on no contextual clues but wholly invented in the interpreter’s imagination-and especially if you are willing to do that with layer after layer of detail in the biblical narrative-then you can ultimately make the Bible mean anything you choose.
The invention of fanciful and allegorical meanings is never a valid approach to interpreting any portion of Scripture. And the obviously figurative elements in a parable don’t change the rules of interpretation or give us license to invent meaning. In fact, when handling the symbolism of a parable, it is particularly important to keep the central point and the immediate context in clear focus and resist flights of imaginative fancy.
—John MacArthur, A Tale of Two Sons (Thomas Nelson, 2008), xiii–xv.
TrackBack URL: http://www.thirstytheologian.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1904
Share this post:
Posted in: John MacArthur
Link · 0 Comments · 0 TrackBacks
← Previous · Home · Next →
