The clarity of parables?

[Vanellus]

Mark 4:1-33 seems to be an organised whole rather than disparate passages brought together.

This is one of those parables that does need an interpretation to understand it. The original audience may have understood the sowing of seed as preaching the message of the kingdom but it's not obvious from the OT

So we have:
He replied, “The mystery of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to those on the outside everything is expressed in parables
followed by a quote from the relevant passage in Isaiah 6
then after the interpretation:
Jesus also said to them, “Does anyone bring in a lamp so he can place it under a basket or under a bed? Doesn’t he set it on a lampstand? 22For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be brought to light.

So which is it: "not perceive" or disclose?

Looking more closely at Is 6 is Jesus' apparent negativity merely reflecting the hardness of heart of many of his audience?

 

[public hermit]

You're asking a difficult question and I have wondered the same. Is Jesus purposely hiding the truth, or is it simply that they refuse to see? I'm not sure. It does strike me that Jesus was a horrible evangelical. Or at least, not at all seeker sensitive.

 

[A_Thinker]

You're asking a difficult question and I have wondered the same. Is Jesus purposely hiding the truth, or is it simply that they refuse to see? I'm not sure. It does strike me that Jesus was a horrible evangelical. Or at least, not at all seeker sensitive.

The kingdom of God is for those who seek it. Jesus' parables were designed to be understood by ... God seekers.

There remains a key to understanding the gospel which is conditioned upon ...

"And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart."
Jeremiah 29:13

Those with a heart for God's kingdom will SEEK for it, ... and will thus, understand the messagings of God.

Those without a heart for the things of God ... will not get it ...

 

[public hermit]

The kingdom of God is for those who seek it. Jesus' parables were designed to be understood by ... God seekers.

There remains a key to understanding the gospel which is conditioned upon ...

"And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart."
Jeremiah 29:13

Those with a heart for God's kingdom will SEEK for it, ... and will thus, understand the messagings of God.

Those without a heart for the things of God ... will not get it ...

I don't disagree. However, I would consider the disciples seekers and yet they did not always understand what Jesus was saying.

 

[renniks]

Mark 4:1-33 seems to be an organised whole rather than disparate passages brought together.

This is one of those parables that does need an interpretation to understand it. The original audience may have understood the sowing of seed as preaching the message of the kingdom but it's not obvious from the OT

So we have:
He replied, “The mystery of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to those on the outside everything is expressed in parables
followed by a quote from the relevant passage in Isaiah 6
then after the interpretation:
Jesus also said to them, “Does anyone bring in a lamp so he can place it under a basket or under a bed? Doesn’t he set it on a lampstand? 22For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be brought to light.

So which is it: "not perceive" or disclose?

Looking more closat Is 6 is Jesus' apparent negativity merely reflecting the hardness of heart of many of his audience?

IMO, he presented the truth in a way that made it necessary for them to truly seek. Which do people appreciate more? Food that they work for, or food that is just handed to them?

 

[A_Thinker]

I don't disagree. However, I would consider the disciples seekers and yet they did not always understand what Jesus was saying.

The disciples knew to ask Jesus ... and were content to rest upon their faith when understanding was not forthcoming ...

John 6

60 Many of his disciples said, “This is very hard to understand. How can anyone accept it?”

61 Jesus was aware that his disciples were complaining, so he said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what will you think if you see the Son of Man ascend to heaven again? 63 The Spirit alone gives eternal life. Human effort accomplishes nothing. And the very words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But some of you do not believe me.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning which ones didn’t believe, and he knew who would betray him.) 65 Then he said, “That is why I said that people can’t come to me unless the Father gives them to me.”

66 At this point many of his disciples turned away and deserted him. 67 Then Jesus turned to the Twelve and asked, “Are you also going to leave?”

68 Simon Peter replied, “Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words that give eternal life. 69 We believe, and we know you are the Holy One of God.

P.S. I think that I finally understand what Jesus was saying here ...

John 6:61 Jesus was aware that his disciples were complaining, so he said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what will you think if you see the Son of Man ascend to heaven again?

I think that what He is saying here is that it will require FAITH to continue to be His follower, ... particularly AFTER He has ascended back to the Father ... and therefore, is no longer physically present with them ...

 

[Vanellus]

I'm yet to see an explanation as to why Jesus gave a rather cryptic parable to the people and only explained it to his immediate followers. It's not unreasonable to deduce that Jesus didn't want those "outside" to understand the message of the parable.

 

[JackRT]

H. Dodd defines a parable as "a metaphor or simile drawn from nature or common life, arresting the hearer by its vividness or strangeness, and leaving the mind in sufficient doubt about its precise application to tease it into active thought."

Many Bible passages and especially the parables cannot be correctly understood without first understanding the cultural context in which originated. Let me give three short examples:

Matthew 5:39 --- “But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” --- In an honour/shame, domination/submission culture such as existed in the first century in the Middle East, this saying has a far different meaning than a straightforward reading of it might indicate. If a man were to strike a social equal, he would strike him with the palm of his right hand on the left cheek. However if a man were to slap a social inferior he would do so with the back of his hand to the inferior’s right cheek. If the inferior were then to turn his other cheek it would force his assailant to treat him as a social equal by striking with the palm of his right hand. Since slapping is no longer a widespread cultural practice, it can be helpful if you could actually act this out with another person. Jesus’ audience likely would have had a good laugh at his comment. Jesus is not counseling humility here, he is counseling a covert defiance.

Matthew 5:40 ---“If someone sues you for your coat, give up your shirt as well.” --- In Jewish law if you fail to repay a debt you may be taken to court and if you are still unable to repay, the lender is entitled to take your coat. The lender holds the coat during the day but he is obliged to return it at night because the coat or cloak doubled as a blanket at night. In a two-garment society this would be highly embarrassing to the debtor. However it would be even more embarrassing to the court and the lender if the debtor were to turn over both garments and stand there naked. Remember this was a society with a strong taboo against public nakedness. Using this somewhat risque humour Jesus is once again counseling covert defiance and taking the part of the poor against the rich. I'll bet his audience laughed out loud. Humour is a great aid to the memory.

Matthew 5:41 --- “If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.” --- In Roman law a soldier had every right to have a civilian carry his pack for one [Roman] mile but no further. For the civilian to carry the pack a further distance would be to embarrass the soldier and possibly to get him in trouble with a superior officer. Once again Jesus takes the part of the small against the powerful by suggesting covert defiance. I suspect that Jesus’ listeners ‘got the message’ especially since it was couched in such sarcastic humour.

 

[A_Thinker]

I'm yet to see an explanation as to why Jesus gave a rather cryptic parable to the people and only explained it to his immediate followers. It's not unreasonable to deduce that Jesus didn't want those "outside" to understand the message of the parable.

Those wishing to understand Jesus' message ... would PURSUE understanding of Jesus' message.

Note that Jesus explained the parable to His disciples when they asked (i.e. pursued understanding).

Recall Jesus' parable about a man buying a field ... to obtain the treasure contained in that field ...

 

[Ahermit]

...So we have:
He replied, “The mystery of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to those on the outside everything is expressed in parables
followed by a quote from the relevant passage in Isaiah 6
then after the interpretation:
Jesus also said to them, “Does anyone bring in a lamp so he can place it under a basket or under a bed? Doesn’t he set it on a lampstand? 22For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be brought to light.

So which is it: "not perceive" or disclose?

Looking more closely at Is 6 is Jesus' apparent negativity merely reflecting the hardness of heart of many of his audience?

Parables speak to the spirit (from God/Truth) in a person, and those that hear the truth know that it is about truth and spirit. In its truth it cannot be claimed by the hearer, for it has not been for the ego-self (false-self), but for the spirit.

So don't let your left hand know what the right hand is doing (don't claim it or boast about it). The ego-self says: "Look what I know", and in that focus of self the meaning of the parable ceases to go any deeper towards God.

Truth is illumination. It is the uncreated light (invisible light) that is over, and through, all things. Nothing is hidden to the truth.

Those on the outside are conditional and only hear what their ego-self wants to hear - its own validity.
Those on the inside are unconditional and hear what their spiritual being wants to hear - the truth.

 

[JackRT]

Parables speak to the spirit (from God/Truth) in a person, and those that hear the truth know that it is about truth and spirit. In its truth it cannot be claimed by the hearer, for it has not been for the ego-self (false-self), but for the spirit.

So don't let your left hand know what the right hand is doing (don't claim it or boast about it). The ego-self says: "Look what I know", and in that focus of self the meaning of the parable ceases to go any deeper towards God.

Truth is illumination. It is the uncreated light (invisible light) that is over, and through, all things. Nothing is hidden to the truth.

Those on the outside are conditional and only hear what their ego-self wants to hear - its own validity.
Those on the inside are unconditional and hear what their spiritual being wants to hear - the truth.

Now, the question is "Just who is on the inside and who is on the outside." I think that the actual answers to the question will astonish a lot of us.

 

[Ahermit]

Now, the question is "Just who is on the inside and who is on the outside." I think that the actual answers to the question will astonish a lot of us.

Our life purpose is to make the lower like the upper, and the outer like the inner, and to be united in this way in that place of serenity.
Uppermost is also innermost, which is fullness of Light, i.e., unconditional truth, love and faith.
Lowermost is also outermost, which is empty of Light (darkness), i.e., conditional deception, fear and doubt.

 

[Vanellus]

I dont think Mt 5:39-41 counts as a parable - rather it is part of Jesus' teaching on how the 10 Commandments work in the Kingdom of God he was preaching.

Now I get the idea of pursuing Jesus' message. However, I'm concerned with what's in the Bible.

So for instance, Lk 14:7-11, about taking the lowest place at a banquet, is a parable given to non disciples where Jesus explains the meaning of the parable which is in plain language. This doesn't fit the pattern of:

The mystery of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to those on the outside everything is expressed in parables, 12so that, ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven'

 

[AvisG]

"otherwise they might turn and be forgiven'

Isn't THAT the most troubling part of all of this? He doesn't say "They wouldn't understand anyway" or even "They've been predestined to damnation." This language suggests they might well repent and be forgiven if the message weren't veiled in parables.

The typical explanation that I've seen is that Jesus is paraphrasing Isaiah 6:9–10, where Isaiah was to preach a message the people wouldn't understand and that would make them even more blind and hardened. But "otherwise they might turn and be forgiven" suggests the opposite - the hearers weren't hardened to the message, so it had to be veiled in parables.