Parables are even more tricky. Probably Jesus' favorite literary technique. A parable is a story with two levels of meaning, where certain details in the story represent something else (eg. parable of the lost son, the father represents God). The difficulty is to know how many details in the story should stand for other things.
Throughout the centuries some Christians have taken great liberty with the parables by making almost every detail in each story stand for something. Perhaps the most famous example of such allegorization is the treatment of the Good Samaritan parable. Augustine among those who are most guilty
He had every object and person in that story representative of something else. His writings on this are everywhere online.
We end up with many interpreters have a rather wide variety of interpretations, some clearly contradicting others. Also, by ignoring the context, the interpreters could read into almost any parable a meaning that would have nothing to do with what Jesus intended for his original audience. Augustine, as detailed as he was, completely misses Jesus' point for us to love our neighbor.
Since about the 16th Century, majority of NT scholars have insisted that every parable makes essentially one point, which usually comes at the end. This has been a welcome corrective to the absurdity of unrestrained allegorization. But does the "one point rule" restrict meaning more than Jesus would have intended? Take the parable of the lost son, for example. What is the one point? Does the one point that comes to your mind deal with the rebellious son, the resentful brother, or the forgiving father? Do you really want to pick just one and say that Jesus did not intend to make a point about the other two? The one-point approach appears to be inadequate IMO. After all, not many stories of any kind make only one point. So what is a medium between the two extremes?
I quote Craig Blomberg:
Jesus' parables are not to be allegorized down to the last microscopic detail, but neither are they to be limited to only one point. Following, Blomberg, we can have two principles for interpreting Jesus' parables:
1) Look for one main point for each main character or group of characters. Most parables will make one, perhaps two, but usually not more than three main points. All the other details are there to enhance the story.
Rebellious son: Sinners have hope, they can turn to God and he will receive them, despite the mess they make in their lives.
Forgiving Father: God offers forgiveness for undeserving people.
Resentful brother: Those who claim to be God's people should not be resentful when God extends Grace to the undeserving.
2) In addition, the main points you discover must be ones that Jesus' original audience would have understood! If we come up with a point that Jesus' audience would not grasp, we have probably missed the point. This guidelines is intended to keep us from reading into Jesus' parables what he never intended in the first place.
Those primary meanings have implicit truths.
In the case of the Lost Son, there seems to be a shift from the other stories that Luke puts together. And Luke is careful to tell us the audience (a benefit).
Tax Collectors and Sinners
Pharisees and the teachers of the law
The focus at the end of the Lost Son story is different than the other two. He turns the attention to this character of the elder brother. This should be a red flag that there is more to the meaning of this parable, and who the characters can be identified with. It's all using information provided in the Text.
Threaded Mode
