Part One
Godās Field
Chapter 1
Parables, and Parables of Growth
Who Has Ploughed These Fields Before Us?
āYou know neither the Scriptures nor the power of Godā (Mark 12:24).
In an essay published during his tenure at the University of Chicagoāto all appearances the text of a sermon from the Divinity College chapelāPaul Ricoeur confronts the challenge of preaching the parables of Jesus:
The way forward, according to Ricoeur, begins with a recognition that parables cannot be reduced to principles, propositions, or concepts. Because they concern āsomething Wholly-Other,ā One who is beyond our immediate experience or control, parables appeal instead to our imagination. In speaking of this ultimate reality, Jesus intends to surprise, even to overwhelm us:
At three levelsāin terms of narrative action, analogical language, and intended referenceāparables point beyond themselves, toward a reality that far exceeds the scope of individual words, intellectual categories, or human experience in general. As to narrative action, parables speak of ordinary events that lead to extraordinary outcomes; with regard to language, parables tell us what Godās kingdom is like rather than what it is. Just as metaphor cannot be reduced to proposition, so parables cannot simply be mined for moral truisms, still less so systematized into conceptual abstractions. Nor, when it comes to their intended meaning, can āthe kingdom of Godā to which these parables refer become a merely human construct, subject to human control. In part by confronting us with the limitations of human language and surprising us with unexpected outcomes, the parables of Jesus tantalize their hearers with the possibilities of Godās reign:
Over the years there have been many approaches to parable interpretation. A good example is the parable of the Good Samaritan, which has been read at different times as an allegory of Adamās journey from this world to the heavenly Jerusalem (Origen), or of the unfolding of salvation history from Israel to Christ and the counsels of Paul (Augustine of Hippo), or else as representing the conflict between law and grace in response to human sin (Martin Luther), the exile and restoration of Israel (N. T. Wright), psychological tension between id, ego, and superego (Mary Ann Tolbert), or dysfunctional family values (Richard Rohrbaugh). Or from another perspective entirely, the parable has been viewed as a ālanguage eventā that confronts its hearers with the values of the kingdom (Eberhard Jüngel, Robert W. Funk). But the acid test for all such interpretationsāhowever congenial they appear to the sensibilities of our dayāis whether they would have made sense to Jesusā contemporaries. Set within their proper social and historical contexts, parables communicate by means of their arresting juxtaposition of familiar and unfamiliar: they speak of a world that Jesusā hearers immediately recognized, populated as it was by fishermen, farmers, and tax collectors; masters and servants; poor workers and ruthless landowners; rural peasants and urban elites. As Ricoeur observes,
Of course, this is not quite true: neither Jesusā parables nor his original audiences consist of āpeople like usā; much that would have been obvious to a first-century Palestinian Jew is utterly foreign in our day. We fail to see the point of the parables at least in part because we are far removed from their most basic social and economic dynamics: the majority of readers in the global North have been urbanized for generations, with little practical experience of sheep and goats, cycles of planting and harvest, rigid social stratification, or the economic constraints of subsistence farming. Still deeper concerns include the pervasive atheism of post-Enlightenment culture, together with the characteristic modern conviction that religion is a matter of private and personalārather than public or politicalāconcern. The most pious North American farmer would not seriously entertain the idea that crop germination, seasonal weather patterns, or the business of the slaughterhouse should be directly theological concerns, as they would certainly have been for Jesusā first hearers. The divide between us is not only cultural and historical, but conceptual and theological as well.
Yet even for Jesusā original audience, recognition of the scenarios he describes might have been short-lived or incomplete, for the characters in his parables behave in ways tha...