And another of my pointers, which forms the basis for this post: “Understand the genre of parables in rabbinic literature.” And the golden text for learning about this subject: David Stern, Parables in Midrash (note: this is not the David Stern who is famous in the Messianic Jewish community, but the Professor of Classical Hebrew Literature at the University of Pennsylvania).

WHAT IS THE RELATION BETWEEN RABBINIC PARABLES AND YESHUA’S?
This is a tricky question that needs to be addressed. Rabbinic parables started being written down in the fourth century in the land of Israel. That’s quite a long time after Yeshua. Some books and studies have unwisely blurred the lines between the first and fourth century.

Stern sums it up simply: “They were both part of a single genre” (188). This conclusion is based on the work of David Flusser (a scholar whose work, in my opinion, has flaws, but on this specific issue he must have made his point well) who demonstrated that literary characteristics of rabbinic parables have much in common with parables in the gospels.

People were telling parables already before Yeshua’s time and the genre continued with much similarity for hundreds of years.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF PARABLES IN RABBINIC WRITINGS?
Rabbinical parables in most cases originated “in public contexts (sermons or preaching), and as an instrument for praise or blame, often directed at persons in the audience” (200). They “tend to be phrased in terms of praise or blame, or as a variation upon these opposites: approbation or disapproval, appreciation or disappointment, pleasure or pain” (52).

Among the purposes mentioned by Stern for parables are apologetics (defending the idea of faith against ideas that undermine it) and polemics (urging a point of view in opposition to others).

WHAT PARABLES ARE NOT
They are not primarily about doctrine. They may reflect on doctrinal themes. But they are primarily about praise or blame.

They are not riddles intended to confuse outsiders. Stern argues this in spite of Yeshua’s sayings about “to you has been given the secret of the kingdom” and “in order that they might not see” in Mark 4:11-12 (and parallels in Matthew 13:11-13 and Luke 8:10).

Stern thinks Yeshua (or Mark) has been misunderstood. The point is not that the parables were too hard to understand rationally. The point is that outsiders, those who do not remain near to Yeshua and ask questions and learn from him, will not be able to apply them. They will not penetrate the deeper message of the parables, which are mysteries, truths of a complex nature, involving more than interpretation: “To understand correctly, one must be a member of the community” (204).

TIPS FOR READING PARABLES
Who is Yeshua praising and why?

Who is he blaming and why?

How does the praise and blame from the parable receive added information from Yeshua’s teaching and actions with the disciples?

In other words, the parables are persuasive pieces of rhetoric designed to encourage action or belief in a certain direction. They are not primarily about information or revealing doctrine. The rabbinic parables may be later, but they provide a wealth of additional contexts in which we can see the same patterns as in Yeshua’s parables. They confirm for us the way parables were used in public speaking to persuade hearers to a new course of action or to stand firm in a good course of action or belief. We should look for Yeshua’s parables to function the same way.

This will largely keep us from reading too much later Christian theology into the parables, to imagine that they are about a timeline for the last days or a foretelling of Christendom or anything of the kind. They are persuasive sermons delivered to Jews in Galilee and Judea about Jewish life and faith.

Avoid all false assumptions of Jewish vs. Christian antagonism.

Look for a both-and reading instead of either-or.

Avoid anachronisms (assuming rabbinic literature describes Yeshua’s time, etc.).

Have a rich and thematically rich understanding of the Hebrew Bible.

Assume a positive view of Law and tradition.

Learn or at least reserve for further study words and concepts that may have had Jewish background.

Know social realities of the time and the groups involved.

Understand the symbols and hopes of Israel in Yeshua’s time.

Look for relation of gospel narratives and sayings to Jewish theological arcs.

Understand that Yeshua’s culture valued concrete images over abstractions.

Whether or not the Pharisee in the famous (and dangerous for its readers and hearers, since the parable tempts us to judge the Pharisee) Pharisee and Tax Collector parable (Luke 18:9-14) was supposed to be prototypical or not, Yeshua has more to say about Pharisees being lax in lawkeeping than rigid.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Yeshua says he comes to fill up the Torah (Matthew 5:17, “fulfill” is a misleading translation best done away with). He proceeds to give six examples in Matthew 5:21-47 of what the “filled up” Torah looks like. In each case, Yeshua’s interpretation and application of Torah is thoroughgoing, extending the meaning to the most selfless, humble, faithful, holistic interpretation possible. The Torah’s requirement is seen to penetrate to the level of motives. Hatred and insult are a kind of murder. Lust is a kind of sexual sin. Marriage requires total commitment and there is no license to lightly abandon marriage vows. Attempts to evade oaths or give them insincerely are not valid. Love must be for all, even enemies, and neighbor in the Torah does not mean only those we like or who are like us. Retribution is not sanctioned by any law of Torah.

Therefore, when Yeshua says in 5:20 that his disciples’ righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees, he means it literally.

It is a common assumption that: (1) the Pharisees are highly devoted and rigidly perfect in lawkeeping, (2) that Yeshua could not literally mean for anyone to be a better lawkeeper than them, and thus, (3) that Yeshua means the way of faith is better than the way of lawkeeping.

But none of Yeshua’s examples in vss. 21-47 make such a point. Rather, they define the “filled up” interpretation of Torah (vs. 17) and require the disciples to follow this way rather than looking for evasions and loopholes.

Another question might be, “Why don’t the gospels ever depict Yeshua offering a sacrifice or mention that he did so?”

From the point of view of many Christians, if someone were to ask, “Would Jesus do that?” it would be hard for most to imagine it: Jesus, bringing an animal so its blood could be poured out as a cleansing for sin?

One objection might be: since Yeshua never sinned, there is no way he would offer a sacrifice. To this objection we can offer two answers:
(a) Yeshua was baptized by John in a baptism for repentance, which seems a rather parallel case.
(b) Sacrifices were offered for worship and for the festivals, so one did not require a sin issue to bring an offering.

On the other side of the question, we might note a few things Yeshua said about the sacrifices and the Temple:
– He believed in the sanctity of the Temple: Didn’t you know that I must be in my Father’s house? (Luke 2:49).
– He believed in the sanctity of the altar and its offerings: For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it (Matt 23:19-20).
– He spoke as if bringing sacrifices was a normal part of life with God: leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother and then come and present your gift (Matt 5:24).

We might argue as follows:
1. Yeshua was obedient in all things to his Father.
2. The offerings in the Temple were commandments.
3. Yeshua would have offered them as commanded.

Paul’s statement about Yeshua, that he was born under the Law (Gal 4:4) further backs this up.

But, that leads to an even more interesting point, once we can agree that, definitely, Yeshua offered gifts on the altar of God at the Temple in Jerusalem:
1. Yeshua surely would have brought sacrifices on various occasions to the Temple.
2. The gospels never depict him doing so.
3. There must be a reason, which we could possibly guess, why the gospels do not show Yeshua doing something he certainly must have done.

What could that reason be?

Let’s suggest that the reason is simple: the gospels assume many things about the Jewish world in which its characters lived and moved and assume the readers will share in these assumptions.

Put another way: it did not occur to the evangelists that any audience would ever imagine Yeshua as something other than a Torah-keeping, Temple-worshipping Jew. Things like the sacrifices are part of the shared world which did not seem to require any notice in the accounts of Yeshua’s life.

This is a principle which should be applied across the board to the life of Yeshua and the disciples and apostles: their covenantal practices of obedience to Torah should be assumed even where not specifically stated.

Two of my favorite New Testament scholars, great thinkers about historical issues and the life of Yeshua, are N.T. Wright and Raymond Brown. Alas, both are prone to make anti-Temple statements at times:

He [Jesus] was simply declaring that it [the Temple] was on its way to being redundant. . . . I think that Jesus saw himself, and perhaps his followers with him, as the new Temple (Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, p. 426).

The first theme [in the Fourth Gospel, book of signs, chs. 2-12] is that of replacing Jewish institutions and religious views . . . the replacement of the water for Jewish purifications . . . the Temple . . . worship at Jerusalem (Brown and Moloney, An Introduction to the Gospel of John, p. 305).

Part of my aim in chapters 7 and 14 is to show that Yeshua was not opposed to the Temple itself, did not indicate that its purpose was coming to an end, and would not have disagreed with the promises in the prophets of Israel of a beautiful role for the Temple in the coming age (see Isaiah 2 as one example).

I offer here a few of several references to keep in mind when considering Yeshua’s reverence for the Temple. You can find more in the book:

(1) Yeshua called the Temple his Father’s house (Luke 2:49; John 2:16; 14:2).

(2) Yeshua acted out of zeal for God’s house (John 2:17).

(3) Yeshua upheld the ongoing sanctity of the Temple and altar (Matthew 23:19-22).

(4) There is a difference between being against the Temple and sacrifices (which he was not) and against the Temple state (the leadership with all its compromises and injustices). See my coming Audio-Commentary on Mark for more about Yeshua’s major emphasis on opposing the Temple state.