Did Jesus use parables to entertain?

[jubilationtcornpone]

I've often heard people assert that Jesus used parables to entertain the crowds, and that we must likewise strive to entertain the congregations. Is this true, though?

Jesus himself answered this question. He used parables in order to confuse non-believers. As Matthew 13:10-15 says,

And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” ​

He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:

‘ Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,​

And seeing you will see and not perceive;​

For the hearts of this people have grown dull.​

Their ears are hard of hearing,​

And their eyes they have closed,​

Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,​

Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn​

So that I should heal them.’​

Some would say, "But Jesus used parables to entertain! He knew that he had to entertain in order to draw a crowd!" That's not what the Bible says, though. Moreover, his parables were illustrative, but hardly entertaining. There's very little entertainment value in hearing about a woman who loses a coin, for example, only to find it again. Calling this "entertainment" is a huge stretch.

Besides, Jesus himself used parables sparingly. He occasionally told these stories, but he did not rely on them for all of his teaching. Jesus did not treat his listeners like idiots. He did not assume that they were so addled as to require an illustrative story for every teaching.


Moreover, there's a huge difference between using parables -- short, illustrative stories -- and acting these stories out before a crowd. Did Jesus instruct his Apostles to construct a stage and act out the Parable of the Good Samaritan, for example? Certainly not! It would not have been wrong to do so, but Jesus did not feel that his listeners required the constant use of dramatic reenactments.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with using parables to entertain, just as drama is not inherently wrong. Ultimately though, dramatic skits appeal to one's emotions, rather than one's mind. There is a time and place for emotional appeals, but this provides a poor foundation for doctrinal understanding. How does one use a dramatic skit to convey Trinitarian doctrine, for example? Or to illustrate end-times theology? Or to discern whether speaking in tongues is valid for today? Emotions can help motivate people, but when it comes to grasping doctrine, they are ultimately a hindrance rather than a help.

Besides, do you really need a dramatic enactment in order to illustrate that homosexuality is wrong? Or dishonesty? Or adultery? If a church truly needs such tactics in order to comprehend these simple, fundamental truths, then the pastor has not done a proper job of teaching his flock. Moreover, beliefs that are rooted in emotional appeals lack any firm foundation. What happens when a movie like Brokeback Mountain or The Bridges of Madison County comes along -- movies that portray the glories of homosexuality and adultery? If we rely on drama and emotional appeal to instill one's beliefs, then those beliefs can be readily led away by dramas that convey the opposite worldview.

 

[IamAdopted]

He used the parables for the reason He stated and not what anyone else says..

 

[TamaraLynne]

Is there a site that will list all the parables .........just the parables?


And if someone can see the meaning of the parables.....is it wrong for them to talk about it?



Do some things just need to be sought on ones own?

 

[IamAdopted]

http://www.biblegateway.com/topical/topical_resource.php?source=2&tid=7953 This has a list of the parables. I hope it is okay to put this one here?

 

[TamaraLynne]

Thank you.. I put it in my favorites.

Love
Tam

 

[IamAdopted]

Thank you.. I put it in my favorites.

Love
Tam

Awe it was my pleasure.. God Bless

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

And if someone can see the meaning of the parables.....is it wrong for them to talk about it?



Do some things just need to be sought on ones own?

Why do you ask? I don't think anyone would suggest that it's wrong to talk about the meaning of these parables. Did Jesus not explain their meanings himself?

 

[Kristos]

Which parable is about homosexuality?

Jesus spoke about money more than anything, but that didn't make your list

 

[JTLauder]

Hmmm...I've never heard the assertion that Jesus used parables to entertain. You're the first I've heard that from, and frankly, I don't know if you were really asking a question, or if you were just trying to be preachy.

In any case, the purpose of parables were to convey a single truth rather than to expound on any complex theological issues. Since Jesus' disciples spent a lot of time with him, being witness and gaining more of an insight into his deity, Jesus is able to teach them directly straight to the matter.

But with the masses, almost all of which who probably had little formal scripture teaching, Jesus had to talk to them at a level they would understand. Such as with the parable of the sower, most people would immediately understand what he was talking about because it was an agricultural society.

Same teaching principles apply today. You would not teach calculus amd differential equations to school kids until they've mastered at least basic math and algebra. And most of us living in urban environments all our lives would have little experiential knowledge of the agriculural world and examples.

If you were going to teach someone something, you want to talk to them at their level so they can understand.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

Hmmm...I've never heard the assertion that Jesus used parables to entertain. You're the first I've heard that from, and frankly, I don't know if you were really asking a question, or if you were just trying to be preachy.

I was taking a stand on the matter, not asking a question. Are you implying that I was wrong to do so?

At any rate, I've heard this assertion numerous times--typically from those who try to excuse the use of entertainment-driven tactics to increase church attendance. At this very moment, one such discussion is underway on one of the message boards of this Christian singles site to which I belong.

If you were going to teach someone something, you want to talk to them at their level so they can understand.

I agree with that; however, I think the point remains-- his goal was not to entertain.

In fact, I think it's kinda foolish to suggest that the parables were meant to be entertaining. After all, they were just brief narrative snippets--no significant plots, no amount of high drama, and virtually no dialogue to speak of. Heck, the characters in his parables didn't even have names! To say that these were meant to be entertaining is clearly a huge stretch.

 

[JTLauder]

I was taking a stand on the matter, not asking a question. Are you implying that I was wrong to do so?

It's just that you started out the post sounding like you were asking a real question and wanted a discussion about it, but it turned out to be a proclamation instead. You can do that, but many times, such proclamations are meant to start flame wars, and such things should not be tolerated in discussion groups.

If you wanted to make a stand, it would be less misleading to state it with a reason for your desire to make a public proclamation, rather than mislead people into a discussion when you've already reached your conclusion.

At any rate, I've heard this assertion numerous times--typically from those who try to excuse the use of entertainment-driven tactics to increase church attendance. At this very moment, one such discussion is underway on one of the message boards of this Christian singles site to which I belong.

I agree with that; however, I think the point remains-- his goal was not to entertain.

In fact, I think it's kinda foolish to suggest that the parables were meant to be entertaining. After all, they were just brief narrative snippets--no significant plots, no amount of high drama, and virtually no dialogue to speak of. Heck, the characters in his parables didn't even have names! To say that these were meant to be entertaining is clearly a huge stretch.

Depends on what you mean by "entertaining". Should it be a circus show? No. Should it be engaging enough so that people stay awake? Yes. I agree that going to church is not meant to be a leisurely entertainment activity. But there is a purpose for other programs such as evangelism programs to be "entertaining" to reach out to other people. Look at the Billy Graham crusades and all the contemporary musicians he uses to bring people in. But it's all to serve a purpose--to bring people to God.

I also agree that Jesus' parables were not for entertainment purposes (although I've never heard it used in connection with "entertaining" church services). But it's you still need to reach people by connecting with them at a level they will understand.

 

[TamaraLynne]

I just went back and reread ...........and I was a bit confused about the part where Jesus says in seeing they do not see.....................


and then I realized he was fulfilling another prophecy.

hmmmmmmm................the parables have been figured out? Because I'm still working on them.........I didn't know they were all figured out.(scratching my head).

Love
Tam

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

It's just that you started out the post sounding like you were asking a real question and wanted a discussion about it, but it turned out to be a proclamation instead. You can do that, but many times, such proclamations are meant to start flame wars, and such things should not be tolerated in discussion groups.

And in this case, it was not designed for the purpose of starting a flame war. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

If you wanted to make a stand, it would be less misleading to state it with a reason for your desire to make a public proclamation, rather than mislead people into a discussion when you've already reached your conclusion.

With all due respect, you are reading WAY too much into this. I opened with a question, but I also made it clear that I was offering an answer to that question. This is a time-honored literary device, and it's quite common.

Charles Spurgeon use the same technique when he asked, "Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats?" Did he ask a question? Certainly... but no sane person would think that he was merely asking for opinions. Melody Green did the same thing when she asked, "Why Aren't More People Getting Saved?" and "Children... Things We Throw Away?" And just last month, ABC news used the same technique when they asked, "Is Congress Working Too Hard or Not Hard Enough?" They opened with a question, but clearly, this was not an attempt to solicit opinions.

Jesus himself asked a great many questions... not with the intent of soliciting opinion, but as a way to lead into his chosen topic. I'm sorry that you intepreted my question as some sort of public poll. With all due respect though, I think one should avoid the notion that such questions are necessarily an attempt to solicit public opinion. Oftentimes, they are not.

Depends on what you mean by "entertaining". Should it be a circus show? No. Should it be engaging enough so that people stay awake? Yes.

One can be engaging without striving to entertain. Earlier, I mentioned Jonathan Edwards. No reasonable person would declare that his Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God sermon was an attempt at entertainment -- but it definitely got people's attention!

The goal should be to engage, not to entertain. If a sermon happens to have a few entertaining elements--an occasional joke here or there--then that's fine, provided that they are kept in moderation. That is vastly different from specifically striving to entertain, however -- and there is no reason to believe that Christ's parables were an attempt at entertaining.

 

[tulc]

The goal should be to engage, not to entertain.

...why can't you do both?
tulc(just curious)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by TamaraLynne
And if someone can see the meaning of the parables.....is it wrong for them to talk about it?



Do some things just need to be sought on ones own?

Who would you seek out that knows the meanings of them?
The book of Revelation is also a Hugh Parable and no one has figured that book out yet to this day it seems, even though the Old Testament has the answers to it.


Isaiah 28:18 Your covenant with death will be atoned/covered over, And your agreement with Sheol will not stand; When the overflowing scourge passes through, Then you will be trampled down by it

.(Young) Revelation 18:8 because of this, in one day, shall come her Scourges/plhgai <4127>, death, and sorrow, and famine; and in fire she shall be utterly burned, because strong [is] the Lord God who is judging her;

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

...why can't you do both?
tulc(just curious)

Because entertainment is about providing what people enjoy. In contrast, God's Word is about providing what people need.

Some say that the only way to keep people's attention is to entertain. If that is our goal though, then we must eliminate all sermons that speak about our sinfulness and our depraved condition. We must prohibit preachers from delivering sermons that confront people about their sins. We must avoid any messages that might make people feel grieved about their condition.

Now, there's certainly no harm in having the occasional joke or light-hearted story. In such situations though, entertainment should never be the goal. It must be incidental and should never take center stage.

As I said earlier, it would be a HUGE stretch to say that Christ's simple, brief parables were meant to entertain. There was no sense of epic or drama in these stories, nor was there any humor to be found. The goal of these stories was to educate, to fulfill prophecy, and to disguise the key points from those from the stories were not intended. Entertainment? Not a chance.

 

[Bill777]

Hmmm...I've never heard the assertion that Jesus used parables to entertain. You're the first I've heard that from, and frankly, I don't know if you were really asking a question, or if you were just trying to be preachy.

Well, Rick Warren, America's number 1 pastor wrote in his book the Purpose Driven Church (page 232) that Jesus used parables to entertain the crowd. Rick Warren's belief is shared by all purspose driven seeker-sensitive churches. :

Stuart Brogden refutes Warren's teaching as unbiblical in http://www.forgottenword.org/purposedrivenchurch.html (see quote below)
"Warren thinks (page 232) that the major purpose of Christ&#8217;s parables was to entertain folk and ensure they would remember His story. But in Matthew 15, Mark 4, Mark 7, Luke 8, John 10 and other passages, His very own disciples failed to understand the parable and sought an explanation. And while Pastor Rick cites Matthew 13:34, he did so as a proof-text, as verse 35 makes clear: He spoke in parables to fulfill scripture, not to satisfy the felt needs of unchurched Harry. But if His purpose was as Warren claims, why did so many people need &#8211; and still need &#8211; an explanation of them?"

 

[tulc]

Depends on what you mean by "entertaining". Should it be a circus show? No. Should it be engaging enough so that people stay awake? Yes. I agree that going to church is not meant to be a leisurely entertainment activity. But there is a purpose for other programs such as evangelism programs to be "entertaining" to reach out to other people. Look at the Billy Graham crusades and all the contemporary musicians he uses to bring people in. But it's all to serve a purpose--to bring people to God.

I also agree that Jesus' parables were not for entertainment purposes (although I've never heard it used in connection with "entertaining" church services). But it's you still need to reach people by connecting with them at a level they will understand.

I agree with this!
tulc(well said!)

 

[tulc]

Well, Rick Warren, America's number 1 pastor

...uhmm so? Is this thread about Rick Warren now?
tulc(finds the parables entertaining)

 

[Edial]

Well, Rick Warren, America's number 1 pastor wrote in his book the Purpose Driven Church (page 232) that Jesus used parables to entertain the crowd. Rick Warren's belief is shared by all purspose driven seeker-sensitive churches. :

Stuart Brogden refutes Warren's teaching as unbiblical in http://www.forgottenword.org/purposedrivenchurch.html (see quote below)
"Warren thinks (page 232) that the major purpose of Christ’s parables was to entertain folk and ensure they would remember His story. But in Matthew 15, Mark 4, Mark 7, Luke 8, John 10 and other passages, His very own disciples failed to understand the parable and sought an explanation. And while Pastor Rick cites Matthew 13:34, he did so as a proof-text, as verse 35 makes clear: He spoke in parables to fulfill scripture, not to satisfy the felt needs of unchurched Harry. But if His purpose was as Warren claims, why did so many people need – and still need – an explanation of them?"

So this is where it is coming from ...

Thanks Bill777,
Ed