Tom Shepherd
The literature on the interpretation of parables is extensive. A number of crucial issues surface within the discussion—what is the genre of the parables of Jesus, what is their linkage to Jewish parables of the same pe-riod, what is the purpose Jesus had for telling parables, and what method should be used to interpret the parables?
The Genre of the Parables.11 In today’s popular vocabulary “parable” has a rather specific definition, usually a short story that illustrates some truth. However, the NT term parabolē and its OT counterpart mashal have a rather broad meaning. Parabolē can mean “proverb” (Luke 4:23), “met-aphor” or “figurative saying” (Mark 7:14-17), “similitude” (expanded simile) (Mark 4:30-32, Matt 13:13), “parable” (story parables or example parables, Luke 12:16-21, 14:16-24), or “allegory” (Mark 12:1-11). Thus, the meaning of the term parabolē is rather broad. However, at the heart of the meaning of both parabolē and mashal is the idea of a comparison between two dissimilar things. The reality of our world is brought into contact with the story world of the parable for some comparison that pro-duces a new understanding.
But we must ask if all the parables of Jesus are similes or if, perhaps, some of them might be allegorical? A simile makes a comparison between two things and places each before us for our examination. An allegory, on the other hand, creates a metaphoric world in which the story stands for something else. This “something else” must be explained by some inter-preter or interpretive key.
Looking at all the parables that Jesus told and the varied situations in which He told them, it is reasonable to say that He used a variety of parables, some that were pure similes that did not need much if any explanation (their point struck everyone immediately) and others that could best be described as metaphoric or as allegorical in nature and needing explanation.
But parables do more than convey information via simile or metaphor. They also create emotion and touch the imagination, inviting the listener into the setting of the story and thereby creating, within the lis-tener, feelings that call for decision and for change in preparation to meet God. Thus, the genre of parables brings together common everyday life and the eschatological Kingdom of God. It presents us with truth content while at the same time calling forth emotions that inspire (or warn) us to change.12
The OT contains the literary style of the parable under the term mashal.13 There are approximately ten OT parables, ranging from Jotham’s parable of the Trees Seeking a King, in Judges 9, to Ezekiel’s Seething Pot (chap. 24). Craig Evans, in his article, “Parables in Early Judaism,” notes OT backgrounds to Jesus’ parables and presents the following conclusions.14
1. Many of the parables are in a judicial setting—the hearer pronounces judgment on what he has heard in the parable, and it turns out to be a judgment on himself! (e.g., the story of David and the parable of the one ewe lamb, 2 Sam 12).
2. Some of the parables are taken by the hearers initially as fact, which catches them off guard and they condemn themselves.
3. Parables are true to life.
4. Some of the parables contain allegorical elements.
5. Parables are all addressed to leaders.
Evans notes four characteristics of rabbinic parables from about Jesus’ time to around A.D. 150. They shed light on Jesus’ parables.15 The rabbinic parables often speak of a king, and this figure almost always stands for God. “Kingdom” in the rabbinic parables usually refers to God’s reign. The characters in rabbinic parables sometimes act illogically. And rabbinic parables use terminology and follow themes that also often appear in Jesus’ parables.
Evans concludes that Jesus’ teaching with parables would be right at home in first century Palestine.16 Our Lord’s parables find their roots in OT parables, and parallels in rabbinic parables of approximately the same period.
These parallel texts help illustrate several important points about how the Gospels report Jesus’ parables. OT parables are, at times, accompanied by explanations. This same phenomenon appears in the Gospel parables (e.g., the parable of the Weeds). At times, an explanation is essential to understand the OT parable because of the hidden character of the original story. This too finds a counterpart in the Gospel parables (e.g., the Sower). At times allegorical features are included in the OT parable, and again this occurs in Gospel parables (e.g., the Weeds). Thus, these OT texts illustrate how Jesus’ teaching with parables was fairly similar to methods used in Jewish history.
Why did Jesus talk in parables? Was it to illustrate truths about the Kingdom of God? Was it to hide information from enemies? Or did He have both of these purposes? Perhaps, the variation in forms of parables that we noted above gives a clue. In Mark 4:11-12, Jesus gives an explanation for why He spoke in parables. This passage comes within the context of the parable of the Sower. We should note that it may not be the only reason that He spoke in parables.17 But here is what He says:
And He said to them, “To you the mystery of the Kingdom of God has been given. But to those who are outside everything is in parables, in order that when they look, they may look and not see, and when they hear, they may hear and not understand, lest perhaps they turn and it be forgiven them.”18
Understanding several phrases in the passage helps to explain its meaning. The term “mystery” in this context refers to a secret that can be understood only by God revealing it to you. It is the secret of the Kingdom of God that is revealed in Christ to the disciples but will become evident to all only at the end of the world.
“In order that” (Gr. hina) introduces a quotation from Isaiah 6:9-10 about people not understanding. Some interpreters take the “in order that” to indicate purpose—Jesus tells parables to keep people in the dark. However, such a position stands in contrast to Mark 4:33-34 in which Jesus teaches in parables to the crowd “as they were able to hear.” That sounds like instruction rather than keeping people in the dark. Another way to translate hina is with a sense of result—“with the result that.” This would mean that the misunderstanding of parables was not inherent in Jesus’ teaching per say, but instead arose from the obduracy of the hearers’ hearts. The seed the Sower casts is always the same, the difference is on what kind of soil it falls. “Outsiders,” those who are hostile to Jesus, see only puzzling parables, since they are not open to the revelation from God. But “insiders” with their openness to God can receive the revelation. It is not that outsiders are permanently excluded; they can change.
Jesus’ purpose in speaking in parables was multifaceted. He used them to teach His disciples, and He used them to keep enemies in the dark. But He also used them to warn His enemies as in Mark 12:1-12. And in Mark 4:33-34, He used parables to teach the people the word “so far as they were able to hear it.” Jesus’ multifaceted use of parables goes along with the variations in the parables themselves. Some are illustrations of how disciples are to live. Others illustrate the characteristics of the eschatological kingdom of God. Some are warnings to His enemies of where their steps are leading. Some have allegorical characteristics, while others do not. Their varied patterns together make them the versatile tool in Jesus’ hand to establish the Kingdom of God.
To summarize what we have said to this point—the parables of Jesus are stories from everyday life, used to make a comparison with God’s reality. More than just information, the characters and the plot of these stories draw the reader into the story world and generate the emotions and feelings that call the listener to decision and to change. Jesus used these stories both to teach His disciples and to challenge His enemies. Sometimes they are riddles meant to keep outsiders in the dark so as to protect Jesus from attacks, but they are also meant to instruct the open listener in the ways of the Kingdom of God. The parables arise from the everyday life experience of first century Palestinian life, using the commonplace to explain the eternal realities of God’s Kingdom.
It is not necessary to limit parables to similitudes; nor is it necessary to call the gospel interpretations of the parables the invention of the early church. Although some parables are allegorical, we should avoid allegorization for the same reasons noted above under the interpretation of allegories. Allegorization lacks controls and imposes on the text a meaning the author never intended. While we can trust the Evangelists’ settings for the parables, it is extremely important to research their Palestinian setting and background so as to interpret rightly the actions that take place within their story world.
1. Avoid Allegorization—Allegorization is the process of redefining every term and character within a parable by a code from a different period from the author’s (such as Augustine did with the parable of the Good Samaritan in which the man going down to Jericho equals Adam, the Samaritan represents Christ, etc.).
2. Gather Historical, Cultural, Grammatical, and Lexical Data—Our modern world differs significantly from the world of Jesus. However, excellent archeological, historical, and cultural data available in good Bible dictionaries and commentaries throw light upon the meaning of the parables. As an example, in the parable that has come to be called “The Good Samaritan,” it is important to note that for Jews of Jesus’ day that title would be an oxymoron. Samaritans were thought of as anything but good. Information about the meanings of words and about their relationships to one another enhances a clear explanation of the parables.
3. Analyze the Story of the Parable—First, read the story several times. Parables have characters, actions, settings and props, and time relationships; they have a narrator and an implied reader, a point of view, and a plot. Analyzing these helps the reader to see, in objective form, the way in which the emotional impact of the story is created and helps to delineate the themes and emphases of the story (see chapter 9 on Narrative Analysis).
4. Apply the Parable to Today’s Situation—Once a careful analysis has been made of the parable, it is possible to imagine modern settings to which it speaks. This application should flow from the analysis of the parable rather than being imposed upon it.
Below is an application of this method, in very brief summary form, to two parables—the Prodigal Son and the Rich Man and Lazarus. Space does not permit a full exposition of either parable; however, these brief expositions will illustrate the method.
The Parable of the Prodigal Son—Luke 15:11-32
Historical, Cultural, Grammatical, and Lexical Data. This parable appears in Luke 15 with two other parables, the Lost Sheep, and the Lost Coin. The context indicates that Jesus is answering the charge of the Scribes and Pharisees against Him that He “welcomes sinners and eats with them” (Luke 15:1-2). The “tax collectors,” grouped together with the more general pejorative term “sinners,” were a hated group in Jesus’ day, since they collaborated with the Romans to take tax funds from the general Judean populace. Their work was considered a “despised trade” in which no Jew following the Law was to participate. The Pharisees and Scribes, on the other hand, were respected groups in Jesus’ day.
The three parables of Luke 15 have several characteristics in common that cumulatively drive home Jesus’ point. In each of the stories something valuable is lost. In each case, either a diligent search is made or a rather involved process is involved in recovering that which is lost. In each story, there is reference to repentance, or, in the case of the Prodigal Son, a clear showing of repentance in the younger son’s return. In each case, when the lost is found, there is great rejoicing, with the coming together of friends to celebrate. The last story is the most developed of the three and expands the story to incorporate the discordant note of someone who does not like the celebration—the older brother. But the open ending (we never learn whether the older brother joins the celebration) stands as an appeal to the scribes and Pharisees to change their ways.
Highlights of Story Analysis. The story comes in three scenes, each focuses on one of the major characters. Many props are used in the story, mostly with the purpose of highlighting rank in the social world. For instance, the younger son in the far country refers to the bread the servants eat, an indication that they are above him in status. When the boy returns home, the father lavishes on him all the symbols of family power—best robe, ring, sandals, fatted calf. In contrast to these markers of high status stand the props that point to low status—swine, pods, young goat (what the older brother says he does not even get).
The story characters are briefly, but interestingly, developed in the story. The younger son is rash and rebellious in his actions but sees the errors of his way when he reaches the pig pen. He characterizes himself as a sinner no longer worthy of sonship, along with a plea for servanthood (a step up!). The father, however, refuses this role for the boy and instead graciously characterizes the boy as son. The father’s words about the boy being dead and now alive, of being lost and now found, are echoed by a servant to the older brother, and recur in the conversation between father and older son.
The parable presents the older brother as angry and as jealous of the younger son. There is a strong bitterness in his remarks to his father—the sinner gets it all while the upright gets nothing. In the process, the older son characterizes himself as a slave, but the father rejects this characterization, just as he rejected the younger son’s characterization of himself. To the father, both boys are his sons and the place of fellowship is inside together.
The actions of the first scene of the story are told rapidly to indicate the speedy decline of the younger son. Only when he reaches the pig pen does the action slow down in order to focus on the change that takes place. When the boy returns home, there is a long description of the actions of the father welcoming the lost boy. The undeserved forgiveness that the father bestows on the humiliated boy becomes the most touching aspect of the parable, painted in a most unforgettable way. But the parable does not end there. The scene of the father with the older brother focuses attention on differing interpretations of the meaning of the younger son’s return. To the older brother, it is injustice that calls for bitter anger; to the father, it is grace that calls for rejoicing.
The parable’s expression of time relationships runs mostly as straight forward narrative through the story—events are described as they occur. But there are a few exceptions. At the crucial pig pen scene, the boy says, “I will get up and go to my father.” This foreshadows the important central scene with its surprise of grace. But there are also a number of times that the story characters look back to the past of the younger son. The younger son refers to his past twice (vss. 18 and 21), calling it sin. The father refers to it twice (vss. 24, and 32), calling it dead and lost. The older brother refers to it once (vs. 30), calling the younger son the one who devoured the father’s wealth with prostitutes. The older brother also refers to his own past as an experience of unrequited servitude (vs. 29). Interestingly, the father breaks out of each son’s characterization of himself by calling each one “son” (with the implication stressed to the older son that the younger son is his brother).
Applying the Story Today. The parable of the Prodigal Son answers the accusation against Jesus, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them” (Luke 15:2, NIV). Our Lord shows that coming back is a deeply humiliating, but nonetheless, necessary action. It is the grace of the father that is so captivating in the story. It is this central display of love that overwhelms the reader—such grace coming in contact with such humiliation. The parable’s appeal is that to love the father we must also love our brother or our sister who has fallen and comes back. The parable does not teach that there is no such thing as sin; nor does it teach that anything one does is alright with God. If the reader misses the point about sin, the point about grace is lost. But if one focuses on holiness, as the Pharisees did, to the exclusion of grace, then the very heart of community is lost. It becomes a lesson we especially need to learn today.
The Rich Man and Lazarus—Luke 16:19-31
Historical, Cultural, Grammatical, and Lexical Data. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus appears only in Luke’s Gospel. The whole of Luke 16 deals almost exclusively with the question of riches and of their meaning in life. The chapter begins with the enigmatic parable of the shrewd manager whom Jesus commends for the sly use of the master’s funds. Lest anyone gather the wrong idea from the parable and from its brief conclusion in verse 9, Jesus follows up with two clear teachings about faithfulness in the small details of life and about the importance of serving God, not money. This is followed by the Pharisees’ scoffing at Jesus. The Lord sternly rebukes them by contrasting their self justification with God’s true valuation of the heart. Then come the two brief sayings of verses 16-17 and verse 18, followed by the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. The context of the parable helps to limit possibilities for its meaning—it is clearly a teaching about how we use our money in this life and the consequences for our future, and its central point may very well be linked to the contrast between self-justification and God’s valuation, as seen in Luke 16:15.
Unique to this parable among all the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels is the idea of life immediately after one dies. Elsewhere in the Gospels, Jesus refers to death as a sleep from which He awakens people (see Matt 9:24, Matt 27:52, John 11:11-12, cf. Acts 7:60, 1 Cor 15, 1 Thess 4:13-15 and 5:10).20 Furthermore, we note the NT’s consistent emphasis on resurrection as vital to the fulfillment of God’s plan of redemption (cf. 1 Cor 15, 1 Thess 4:13-17). These concepts point away from seeing the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus as literally explaining what happens to a person when they die.
If the point of the parable is not life after death, then what is the point? Narrative analysis is helpful here and a brief summary of the narrative data of the story follows.
Highlights of Story Analysis. This parable might better be called the parable of the Rich Man and Abraham, for Lazarus never says a word in the entire parable while Abraham has much to say to the tortured rich man. The story is a demonstration of marked contrasts both in this life and in the life to come. The rich man is well off in this world, with a rich table and beautiful clothes, while Lazarus is poor, hungry, and plagued by dogs that lick his sores. In the story’s world to come there is a great reversal, the rich man is tortured in flame and Lazarus has wonderful repose with Abraham.
Neither the rich man nor Lazarus says a word in the story before death, but, in the afterlife, the rich man calls for mercy from Abraham. The rich man’s attitude remains the same in death. He ignores Lazarus in both the present life and in the afterlife, focusing instead on the exalted and authoritative Abraham for help. Their conversation comes in three rounds. The rich man first pleads for a little water. Abraham refuses on two grounds—first, the rich man had it good during his life while Lazarus suffered, and now things are rightfully reversed; and second, a great chasm has been fixed between heaven and hell.
Having failed to obtain relief, the rich man next pleads for Abraham to send Lazarus back to warn the rich man’s five brothers. Again, Abraham refuses, stating that the witness of Moses and of the prophets is sufficient. But the rich man remonstrates in the third round of speeches, insisting that if one were to rise from the dead, the witness would be irresistible. Abraham refuses yet again, repeating that the witness of the Scriptures is sufficient. At this point, the parable comes to a somewhat abrupt end, leaving the reader with the distinct question in mind as to what happens to the five brothers—do they listen to the Scriptures?
The story presents a clear ideology. The rich man was wrong in neglecting poor Lazarus. The poor man, in contrast, is presented as one deserving pity and comfort—expressing the common biblical ethic of concern for the weak. There seems to be no hesitance about the justice of the reward of both men. Furthermore, it is clear that the parable teaches the present life as the opportunity for change and that God provides the necessary opportunities for repentance in the witness of the Scriptures.
Applying the Story Today. The parable has three clear points—the rich have a responsibility to help the poor in this life, the Scriptures are a sufficient witness to lead us to repent and to follow the Bible’s ethic, and there is no chance for change after death; you will receive the reward you deserve. Is that reward given at death? No, the NT clearly teaches that the reward comes at the return of Christ (see Matt 16:29; 25:31-46), and numerous other passages teach the same. Is the reward of the wicked eternal torment in hell? No again, based on numerous passages that speak of divine retribution ending in the destruction of the wicked (see Mal 4:1-3, Rev 20). John 3:16 indicates that whoever believes on Christ will not perish but have everlasting life. The opposite of eternal life is not an eternally burning hell, but rather eternal death—being destroyed forever by the fires that cleanse the earth in the end. We conclude that this parable uses a popular folkloric presentation of the afterlife21 in order to stress the need to live for God now, blessing and helping others, and listening to the appeals and the rebuke of the Scriptures.
We have looked at types, allegories, and parables in this chapter. It is useful to compare and to contrast each of these literary devices used in Scripture in regard to their relationship to history, to their method of literary presentation, and to their interpretation. Types and their antitype counterparts are rooted in history and historical fulfillment. The types carry out a prophetic role that is realized in the higher and more extensive application in the antitypes. In contrast, allegories have a more timeless role, disconnected from history but focused on a concept of truth in what they teach. Parables fill a role intermediate between types and allegories, because parables are sometimes similes and, at other times, more allegorical in nature. The parables that are similes have a certain timeless quality to them; yet, they are true to life, not as detached from daily life as allegories tend to be.
As methods of literary presentation the types and antitypes come in the form of historical narratives, in both cases. The genius of type and antitype is the way in which two historical events are drawn together as commentary on one another. The linkages between the stories create an interpretation of the two events that exceeds either when read alone. In allegories there are also two levels; but here it is not two historical events but rather a story (usually not historical but timeless in nature) and its interpretive key that form the two levels. The story by itself does not express the author’s point. The interpretive key explains the story’s meaning. Parables, again, hold a somewhat intermediate position. The parables that are similes take reality and compare it to a story (“The Kingdom of God,” the reality, “is like …” the story). The story tells us something about the reality that we did not know before and helps us to grasp the truth about that reality. As with types and allegories, parables have the characteristic of two levels. God’s reality is one level, and it is compared to things in our world.
In relation to interpretation, the three literary devices have in common the importance of analyzing the text and its context carefully. It is important to differentiate between these different literary devices when studying any text. Most of Scripture is rooted deeply in historical realities; thus, it is not surprising that allegories in the Bible are the least common of the three literary devices studied in this chapter. Allegories are also the least historical of the devices.
The three devices also have a similarity in that each of them requires comparing the literary device with some other text or reality to explain the meaning of the device. Types must be compared with antitypes to be understood, allegories must be compared with their interpretive key, and parables require comparing the reality of God’s Kingdom with the story world found in the parable.
Finally, the number of controls necessary to keep the interpretation accurate is highest for the least historical of the literary devices, allegory, and the lowest for the most historically based of the devices, types. The controls needed for parables find a place somewhere between the types and allegories. With both parables and allegories, allegorization is a risk that needs to be resisted. There is so much truth in Scripture as it has been given us that we need not turn to flights of fancy to soar as the eagles. The Word of God, sharper than any two edged sword, must be brought to bear on the human heart so that its deep renewing power can recreate us in the image of our Creator.
Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible.
1 See Richard Davidson, Typology in Scripture (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1981), pp. 184-190, 397-424.
2 G. W. H. Lampe and K. J. Woolcombe, Essays on Typology, Studies in Biblical Theology (Napervile, IL: Alec R. Allenson, Inc., 1957), p. 31.
3 Eta Linnemann, Parables of Jesus: Introduction and Exposition (London: S.P.C.K., 1966), p. 7.
4 See Maureen Quilligan, The Language of Allegory: Defining the Genre (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1979), pp. 29-31.
5 It might be argued that “reading into a text something that was not originally there” is exactly what happens in typology. But what occurs in typology is quite different. Typology takes seriously the original historical setting and then sees its expression at a higher level in the new historical situation. Allegory has none of that since it neither takes the original historical situation seriously, nor derives the new meaning from a link to the new historical event.
6 See Klyne R. Snodgrass, “From Allegorizing to Allegorizing: A History of the Interpretation of the Parables of Jesus,” in The Challenge of Jesus’ Parables, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 4. The example of the parable of the Good Samaritan is from the allegorization of Augustine.
7 See Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 41 (Dallas: Word Books, 1990), pp. 209-210.
8 Ibid., p. 210.
9 R. P. C. Hanson, Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture (London: SCM; Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1959), pp. 82-83, as quoted in Longenecker, Galatians, p. 210. Hanson uses the term “allegory” here rather than “allegorization.” He is referring to the text of Galatians in which Paul has produced an allegory. However, the process Paul used to make an allegory out of an historical text is rightly called allegorization.
10 F. F. Bruce, Commentary on Galatians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), p. 218. The reference to C. K. Barrett is found in C. K. Barrett, “The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians,” in J. Friedrich, ed., Rechtfertigung: Festschrift für Ernst Käsemann (Tübingen/Göttingen: P. Stuhlmacher, 1976), pp. 1-16.
11 See Robert Stein, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1981), pp. 15-21, and Robert Stein, “The Genre of the Parables,” in The Challenge of Jesus’ Parables, pp. 30-50.
12 See Stein, “The Genre of the Parables,” in The Challenge of Jesus’ Parables, pp. 34-36.
13 See Craig Evans, “Parables in Early Judaism,” in The Challenge of Jesus’ Parables, pp. 51-75.
14 Ibid, pp. 65-66.
15 Ibid, pp. 66-72.
16 See Ibid, pp. 72-74.
17 Jesus’ statement in Mark 4:11-12 is given in connection with the parable of the Sower, which, as we have noted, has allegorical characteristics.
18 The translation is my own. The words in italics are a quotation from Isaiah 6:9-10.
19 See Stein, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus, pp. 53-71, and Arland Hultgren, The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), pp. 12-19, for a number of these ideas.
20 Some maintain that the idea of life in heaven after death also appears in Luke 23:43 in which Jesus promises the thief on the cross that he will be with Christ in Paradise. However, it is instructive that in Luke’s writing elsewhere the Evangelist refers to the Christian’s reward as received at the time of Christ’s return (Luke 22:16-18; Acts 1:6-8; and 3:19-21). Furthermore, Luke teaches that judgment occurs at the second coming of Christ (Luke 11:31-32, 22:28-30).
21 Josephus in his “Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades” speaks of a subterraneous region. “In this region there is a certain place set apart, as a lake of unquenchable fire … there is one descent into this region, at whose gate we believe there stands an archangel with an host; which gate when those pass through that are conducted down by the angels appointed over souls, they do not go the same way; but the just are guided to the right hand … . This place we call The Bosom of Abraham. But as to the unjust, they are dragged by force to the left hand by the angels allotted for punishment … . Now those angels that are set over these souls, drag them into the neighborhood of hell itself; who when they are hard by it, continually hear the noise of it, and do not stand clear of the hot vapor itself … they are struck with fearful expectation of a future judgment, and in effect punished thereby; and not only so, but where they see the place of the fathers and of the just, even hereby are they punished; for a chaos deep and large is fixed between them … . (The Works of Josephus, translated by William Whiston [Peabody, MA Hendrickson, 1987], 813). Cf. Hultgren’s comment, “It should be evident that the parable draws upon common folkloric imagery of conditions after death, and the imagery is used only here within the NT. It is not the purpose of the parable to reveal the nature of those conditions” (Hultgren, p. 113).
Davidson, Richard. Typology in Scripture. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1981.
Fletcher, Angus. Allegory: The Theory of a Symbolic Mode. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1964.
Goppelt, Leonard. Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982.
Hultgren, Arland. The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000.
Jeremias, Joachim. The Parables of Jesus, rev. ed. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1962.
Kissinger, Warren. The Parables of Jesus: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography. ATLA Bibliography Series, no. 4. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1979.
Lampe, G. W. H. and K. J. Woollcombe. Essays on Typology. Studies in Biblical Theology. Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, Inc., 1957.
Longenecker, Richard N., ed. The Challenge of Jesus’ Parables. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000.
McArthur, Harvey and Robert Johnston. They Also Taught in Parables. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990.
Powell, Mark. What Is Narrative Criticism? Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1990.
Quilligan, Maureen. The Language of Allegory: Defining the Genre. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1979.
Stein, Robert. An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1981.
Westermann, Claus. The Parables of Jesus in the Light of the Old Testament. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1990.