Why parables?

[Brian Mickelsen]

Why parables?


I have given thought to this question and have looked for the answer in the Bible. The parables themselves are not really the object of my inquiries but the reason why the parable format is used.

The Bible is (from my understanding) the basis for all opinions on the biblical use of parables. The reasons however are generally not specified in the text but are employed by Christ and others as they relate truth in parable form. The principles or reasons for the parable format await our discovery of those principles as we try to understand how and why the parable format is used.

Some of the reasons for the use of parables are stated in Matthew 13:10-17. I am pasting the KJV below simply because it is widely read, not necessarily because it is the final word in interpretation.

KJV - Matthew 13:10. And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11. He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15. For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
16. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

17. For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.
What differentiates a parable from a non-parable?
What doctrinal misunderstanding results when a parable is not recognized as a parable but is taken literally?
In this discussion I do not know the answers. I have however formed preliminary opinions. I will admit that I am a student of the bible who does not have all the answers. I am looking forward to learning from this discussion. I hope that the truths will present themselves as this issue is expanded upon. I would please invite participation from all that read this posting. Please feel free to go beyond these three questions if you are so inclined.

Christ Jesus did not want non-believers to understand His words based on a comparison of the above pasted scripture and the following verses.

The so called "multitude" of Matthew 13:34 (pasted below) would contain both the intended audience of disciples and the unintended audience of unbelievers. So the veiling process called of parables kept the truths hidden from those that did not believe in Christ Jesus.

Mt 13:34 All these things spake Jesus in parables unto the multitudes; and without a parable spake he nothing unto them:

Mr 4:34 and without a parable spake he not unto them: but privately to his own disciples he expounded all things.(ASV)

I would answer question number one this way – a parable is not a straightforward statement but an intentional veiling of the truth. That is the best I can do at this time – I know it is an insufficient answer to the question and I am looking forward to further insight from the participants in this discussion.

I would answer question number two this way – If a parable is not recognized as a parable then the misunderstanding that is intended for non-disciples (or as Matthew 13:34 puts it "the multitude") of Christ, creeps into the doctrinal life of the Church.

By explaining a parable to His disciples when they were alone or privately Jesus showed us that he knew that some of His disciples would not understand the parable. This was not the intention according to the stated purpose of using parables, it was however an inevitable result of veiling the truth in parable form. In spite of this possible misunderstanding by His disciples, Jesus used the parable format and tried to head off the problems of misinterpretation by privately explaining the parable. Which brings me to question number 3.


3. How then can a modern day follower of Christ obtain a correct interpretation or explanation of a parable?

My answer/opinion to question number three would be to accept the interpretation of a parable only if it the interpretation that I accepted was compatible with the straightforward statements of scripture that are not veiled. Within this answer I am also stating my opinion that parables do not introduce new truths but conceal the truths so as to intentionally mislead some people.

I have tried to communicate my belief that the straightforward truths or straightforward statements of the bible are veiled to unbelievers to promote a misunderstanding by unbelievers. If these unbelievers did understand Jesus would not have to in turn "heal them", Matthew 13:15, and He did not intend healing or truth to be conveyed apart from a belief in the Christ.

Mt 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

I think that the misapplication of parables explains the dominate (or denominational) condition of the Church.

A misunderstanding of parables and their purpose has promoted confusion within the worldwide community of believers.

In Christ –
Brian

[Father David Moser]

The following may be useful - an article by Fr Victor Potapov of St John Cathedral in Washington DC. I apologize for not just posting the link, but due to the nature of the website, the link only takes you to the main page (http://www.stjohndc.org/Russian/english.htm) and you have to navigate from there. This is the Introduction to his series of essays on the various parables of the Gospel

Introduction

Since the time of the primitive Christian Church, a story told by Jesus Christ as an illustration of His teaching has been called a parable (in Greek, "parabole"). At the root of the Greek word "parabole" is the idea of comparison. A parable is a kind of "expanded metaphor," a comparison; an illustration of the spiritual based on an example from the everyday. It is characteristic of the eastern cast of mind to speak and teach in the form of comparison; it is characteristic of it to express itself by means of riddles, which stimulate inquisitiveness and dispose one toward reflection. It is necessary to understand a parable as a kind of utilization of symbols, that is, images, taken from earthly realities, in order to designate by them realities divinely revealed and in need of a profound explanation in the majority of cases. In His parables, Christ not infrequently took examples from nature or from social, economic and religious life contemporary to Him.



The Saviour set forth His teaching in the form of proverbs for several reasons. He spoke of profound spiritual truths, which were not easy for His hearers to comprehend. But a concrete and vivid story, drawn from life, could long be remembered, and a man, trying to understand the meaning of this story, could reflect on it, delve deeply into its content and, in this manner, gradually understand the wisdom concealed in it. Jesus Christ also used parables partly in order to conceal the true meaning of His words, and to create the impression of a double meaning, in order to conceal for the time being that which it behooved Him to disclose. The Church, which Christ intended to create, differed so sharply from all that was expected of the Messiah, that He had to be extraordinarily reserved and careful. And therefore, He made use of parables in order to illustrate the true origin, development, mixed character and completion of the Church or Kingdom, which to our understanding seems very simple, but which presented itself as a riddle to the contemporaries of Jesus. Moreover, people who did not fully understand the teaching of Christ could misinterpret it in their own way, spreading it in a distorted form. The parables preserve the purity of Christ's teaching by clothing its content in the form of a concrete narrative.



Yet another advantage that parables have over direct instruction is that they not only contain the general Divine law, but they demonstrate its applicability in both private and public life. Christ's parables are also remarkable in that they have not in the least lost their clarity, actuality and beauty, despite the passing of centuries and the fact that they were spoken in another civilization, in another tongue. The parables are living witnesses of the close unity which exists between the spiritual and the physical worlds, between the inner cause and its manifestation in life.



"...Books and words, created quite recently * yesterday and the day before," writes Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann, "have become outdated, have fallen into non*existence. They no longer say anything to us; they are dead. But these ingenuous stories, so simple in appearance, live on, full of life. We listen to them * and it is if something happens with us, as if someone has glanced into the very depth of our life and said something * which relates only to us, to me ("Sunday Talks").



If we remove ourselves to the biblical and eastern milieu, in which Jesus taught, and take into account His method of progressively instructing His teaching, it becomes easier to interpret the parables. Their traditional themes, which are easily grasped by listeners, have their roots in the Old Testament and therefore are already saturated with a rich content when Jesus Christ turns to them. The parables received a special perfection and beauty on the lips of the God*Man.



As a literary work, the Gospel parable is one of the most capacious literary genres. In one parable, consisting of a few lines of typographical text, so much can be said that it suffices afterwards for millennia. In the parable of the prodigal son, for example, there is present in a few lines a colossal, generalized experience of life, thanks to which we may apply a particular * or so it would seem * case to thousands of cases in all times and with all peoples.



When interpreting a parable it is important to distinguish between essential details and accidental details necessary for constructing the story. Usually, each parable demonstrates one definite truth, and therefore one should not attempt to find a lessen in each of its details. Christ made use of diverse parables in order to illustrate one and the same truth. Sometimes one and the same parable indicates several truths to us.



Most of the parables are Christ*centered. Whatever character a parable*allegory might bear, in the end the central personage must personify most often the Heavenly Father or Christ Himself * either in His historical mission, or in His future glory; whenever two main personages are spoken of, they are the Father and the Son. Truly, the Father's love, evidenced to men by the sending of His Son, is the main revelation brought by Jesus. The parables serve Him, showing the ultimate completion, given through a new kingdom, of God's plan for the world.



The number of parables fluctuates from 27 to 50. What one calls a parable, another calls a metaphor. It is possible to divide them in accordance with the three periods of the Saviour's earthly preaching. To the first group belong the parables told by Christ soon after the Sermon on the Mount, in the period between the second and third Passovers of His public ministry. In these initial parables, the conditions for spreading and strengthening the Kingdom of God or the Church among men are spoken of. Here belong the parables of the sower, of the tares, of the seed growing secretly, of the mustard seed, of the pearl of great price, and others.



The second group of parables was told by the Lord toward the end of the third year of His earthly preaching. In these parables the Saviour told of God's endless loving kindness toward repentant people, and He set forth diverse moral precepts. Here belong the parables of the lost sheep, of the prodigal son, of the unmerciful servant, of the good Samaritan, of the fool*hardy rich man, of the wise builder, of the unrighteous judge and others.



In His last parables, set forth not long before His Passion on the Cross, Christ speaks of God's grace and of man's accountability before God, and He also foretells of the punishment that will befall unbelievers, of His second coming, of the dread judgment, of the reward for the righteous, and of eternal life. Into this last group enter the parables of the fruitless fig tree, of the wicked husbandmen, of the great supper, of the talents, of the ten virgins, of the laborers in the vineyard, and certain others.

[D. W. Dickens]

Parables have been good for me in that they hid things from me until I was ready to deal with them.

In my protestant past I was quick to want to shove on a person all knowledge (as I saw it) as quickly as possible. It has come to my mind that this isn't helpful and often hurtful (to both people, the speaker and the listener). Discovery is a violent process, you cannot properly grow crops in unfallowed ground.

My own spiritual father was quick to teach me about all manner of things when coming to the Church, but wisely slow in other things which required time to unfold. Even today there are topics I can sense him avoiding (or rather that he is avoiding something on his mind) and sometimes its something as simple direct as suggesting I spend my effort in one area of my spiritual life than another.

I cannot do it all, yet. Besides the withholding of some gifts the Father has for us is His invitation to our hearts to draw inward closer to Him. It's part of the dance.

[Brian Mickelsen]

Hi DW - That is a very common thought. I have entertained it myself and considered the benefits of withholding knowledge from someone because it may harm them or because I judged them to young in the faith to grasp the information. I know Jesus did this with His disciples.

I have also been on the receiving end where a teacher or mentor of mine wanted to withhold information from me to spare me confusion.

He did expose me to the writing of bohnhoffer. In particular the book "The Cost of Discipleship" by Bohnhoffer.

After giving me the book he regretted it and told me so. Upon reflection He told me that He may have been mistaken to introduce a new believer to the thinking of bohnhoffer.

Brian

[D. W. Dickens]

Nearly everywhere I inquired about Orthodoxy online, I was offered three lists of resources. One was the sort of "safe for everyone" list (like Bishop Ware's books, several Priest's blogs, the OCA website). Then there were the "you might want to wait on these" list (certain websites like Orthodoxinfo, discussion forums in general, Lossky/Patristics or other challenging academic writers). Then there were the "you'd better not until you get permission from a priest and even then consider not reading these" (the Rudder, the Philokolia, controversial publications and groups).

Even with the great praise Met Jonah has gotten for his more ... blunt? ... remarks. He is no fan of some of his greatest "supporters". And made it clear that ecclesial controversies and discussions concerning them, particularly those that border on gossip and tainted with pride, are most definately NOT salvific.

We must all confront the fact that some things are not good for us, or at least not good for us yet. Even if eating meat is better than milk, giving meat to an infant is irresponsible at best and criminal at worst.

[Brian Mickelsen]

Goodmorning DW - One reason why I personally stick to the bible instead of commentaries is so I do not have to first digest the material and then determine its accuracy.

No other book is brilliant beyond definition. It speaks to everyone on so many levels at the same time.

It was quite a discovery for me to understand that unbelievers are intentionally confused by the parables. In fact that is the reason for them. Most books and authors try to be understood by the reader.

Another reason why I admire the bible is that when studying it I can be sure that my progress in spiritual understanding is not only accurate but directed by God. He gives understanding to the reader. The pace at which I see new truth is not directed by me or anyone else but by the actual author (the Spirit of God).

The "Why parables" question was associated with my current study of the scapegoat doctrine and and particular the phrase -

"I gave them for you" as it is read in Isaiah 43.

Isa 43:4 Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been honourable, and I have loved thee: therefore will I give men for thee, and people for thy life. {life: or, person}

It is interesting to think on the fact that God uses unbelievers to mature or grow His people.

I think Christians need conflict or as you put it --

Discovery is a violent process, you cannot properly grow crops in unfallowed ground.

This violence is like the violence or determination necessary to push into the kingdom of God.

Mt 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. {suffereth...: or, is gotten by force, and they that thrust men}

=========

Most of the doctrines that I presently profess are challanging, as Iron sharpning Iron. I have not written to new believers. This article itself is one such theme. Most people initially are taught that God wants everyone to be saved (which is true) - they are not taught however that God does not want people who are unbelievers to be recognized as believers, Lamantations 1:10.

La 1:10 The adversary hath spread out his hand upon all her pleasant things: for she hath seen that the heathen entered into her sanctuary, whom thou didst command that they should not enter into thy congregation. {pleasant: or, desirable}

To come to God they must conform to God's laws. If they do not they are not Christians.

The adversary has been allowed in the congragation of the church and is trying to corrupt it. So that God will be forced to judge his people harshly.

The distinction is to be very clear and the modern politically correct attitude has little benefit for Christians except to toughen them up for confrontation.

In fact much of what I write is very challanging to people who have been christians for decades. The necessary determination to progress in scriptural knowledge is developed through violent confrontation.

You would not believe how mean spirited Christians can be when challanged on their own biblical interpretations.

This is in my view a reason to preach - not opinion - but the bible and specifically parables in the church house. Because God specifically designed parables to confuse unbelievers and thus purify the church --

Just as Jesus purified His group of followers in John 6:60-66.

In John 6:66 the conveying of truth resulted in people leaving or quitting. Jesus of course designed His dialog to accomplish this. The result of the preached message was no surprise to him in these verses.

Most church groups are so evangelically biased that they compromise the bible. Compromise does not have to be so called "watering down the truth". It can be as simple as not preaching hard truths.

For example the truth about the woman in Matthew 26:1-13 is commanded to be preached -- How often have you heard it preached? No other message that I can recall right now is specifically commanded to be preached with such a determined voice.

Many preachers avoid the hard sayings of Jesus. This is appropriate if man teaches the truths using His own wording.

However if preached the way it is written the bible can be relied upon to present the hard truths in such a way so as to seperate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. This is not a failure of the preacher if people leave when the word of God is preached but a validation of the gospel - just as it was when Jesus preached the hard sayings.

Jesus did not lament the loss of the people who left His group after the message of John 6:60-66. Preachers are inclined to regret the shrinking of their various church groups and tend to preach popular sermons. If they would simply repeat the parables of Jesus they could be assured that the word of God would not return void but accomplish that which it was sent to do.

Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
(KJV)

brian

[Vasiliki D.]

I havent really read the first post ..it scared me a bit.

So, I just wanted to post a random commentary on Parables. It might be relevant it might not ... it does no harm either way:

Saint Augustine reflecting on Psalm 48:4 "I will incline my ear unto a parable, I will unfold my problem on the psaltery"


"I will incline my ear unto a parable"

... and why 'to a parable'? Because 'now we see through a glass darkly?' (I Cor 13:12), as the Apostle says, 'whilest we we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord' (2 Cor 5:6). For our vision is not yet that face to face, where there are no longer parables, where there no longer are riddles and comparisons... Yet a man may cultivate his heart and apply himself to comprehend mysteries, so long as we see through the corruption of this flesh, we see but in part ...But as He was seen by those who believed, and by those who crucified Him, when He was judged, so will He be seen, when He shall have begun to be judge, both by whom He shall condemn, and by those whom He shall crown. But that vision of divinity, which He has promised to those who love Him, when He says, 'He that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father, and he that loveth Me keepeth My commandments, and I will love him, and will manifest Myself to him'(Jn 14:21): this the ungodly shall not see.

[Brian Mickelsen]

DW -- One more thing along these lines. The Parables are the "magic", if preachers do not understand them and find that they cannot interpret them completely that is beside the point.

Simply repeating the parables before the congregation is sufficient - God will do the work.

As Timothy was instructed --

1Ti 4:13 Till I come, give attendance to "reading", to exhortation, to doctrine.

I just wanted to add that little bit. A person may think that if they don't have all the answers concerning a parable that they are not qualified to preach it.

In fact that is incorrect - mankind does not save in the first place. God saves a person and if the parable is simply repeated before the congregation it will have the desired effect of purifying the body of Christ--- of this we can be sure.

Brian

[Brian Mickelsen]

Good Morning Vasiliki -- I agree wholeheartedly with your post. I think it is very relevant. The unbeliever will not understand - this knowledge is not intended for them --.

As Augustine said in the last sentence of your posting -- "they will not see", in this life or the next.

Sorry I cant find the scriptural verification/referances for this statement right now- but this is very relevant, as I understand it.

It is also a little scary only because it is not common knowledge as it should be. Jesus told us the purpose of parables thousands of years ago. That being -- "To cleanse the sanctuary or church through the application of the word of God".

Possibly the need for the cleansing of the church - removing the "heathen" from the sanctuary was not necessary in former times, but now in modern times is becoming necessary.

La 1:10 The adversary hath spread out his hand upon all her pleasant things: for she hath seen that the heathen entered into her sanctuary, whom thou didst command that they should not enter into thy congregation. {pleasant: or, desirable}

In keeping with the need, the truth about this tool called parables and their preaching is becoming necessary since the heathen/unbeliever has been allowed into the sanctuary.

Brian

[Olga]

One reason why I personally stick to the bible instead of commentaries is so I do not have to first digest the material and then determine its accuracy.

Brian, I may have misunderstood the tenor of your posts on this thread, but Orthodox Christianity is not a "me and my Bible and Jesus" denomination.

[Andreas Moran]

Matthew chapter 13 is full of parables and sayings about parables, including the passage in which the disciples ask Jesus why he spoke in parables (Matthew 13:10). The most perplexing passage is Christ's answer (Matthew 13:11-17). It surely cannot be the case that Christ was deliberately being obscure so that the people could not understand. Christ quotes from Isaiah 6:9-10. This passage is different in the translations from the Masoretic text than those from the LXX. In the former, God there seems to be telling the prophet to make sure the people will not understand him! In the LXX, the passage makes much more sense to us, and God is really saying, preach to them but don't expect much of a response but if any are converted they will be healed.

St John Chrysostom (Homily XLV on Matthew), writing of where Christ says that it is given to the disciples to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven (and most parables are about that), tells us that people are the authors of their own misfortune. Gifts are bestowed, he says, but our free will remains. We must respond; 'He signifes the beginning to be with ourselves' (though presumably not in any Pelagian sense!). St John admits that Matthew 13:12 is obscure but it really just describes human nature, and if a person is genuinely seeking, he will be given more, but if he is merely curious, any impulse he had will wither.

The parables are in the eastern tradition of story telling and the passing down of wisdom orally which existed until very recently. They make use of the homely and familiar. They are vivid word pictures. Some parables were readily understood: the scribes and elders certainly understood the meaning of the parable of the wicked husbandmen (see Luke 20:16)! Truth was embedded in the parables like 'treasure hid in a field' (Matthew 13:44). The humble and trusting hearts of those seeking the truth would see, hear and understand, at least in part, and they would act to lay hold of that treasure. This takes us to the Orthodox Christian notion of synergy: we must open our eyes and ears. Then, according to our desire and determination, understanding will be given.

[Herman Blaydoe]

God did not give us a book. The Bible did not fall out of the sky written on golden pages as the Mormons believe, nor was it dictated by an angel to a single mortal as the Moslems teach. Christ our Lord left no corpus of written works behind. He was not a "noted author" of His day. He IS the Word, the Logos. And the Logos left behind, not an advice book, not a manual, not a reference, but the Church. It was the Church that decided which extant writings would become the standard to which all other writings would be measured from. But it is only within the Church, which assembled Holy Scripture, that it can be properly understood. Any interpretation that diverges from the understanding of the Church is suspect, at best. Holy Scripture is synergistic, even as the Apostles said in Jerusalem "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us ..." (Acts 15:28). God inspired Holy Scripture, but, as far as we know, the only actual written work attributed to Him directly is what we often refer to as "the Ten Commandments" and the original manuscript (OK, tablets) is not readily available.

There were many "gospels" that were written after the Resurrection. There is the spurious "Sayings of Jesus" that the Gnostics used, the "Gospel of Thomas" and other Gnostic writings. Who decided what was of God and what was not? THE CHURCH did! The Church existed before the Bible did. The Church assembled the writings that we call the Bible. Therefore, it seems fitting that it is only within the context of the Church that the true context of its Book can be understood.

The parables, as already mentioned, work on many levels, but we need to be careful. If we look too hard for "secret meanings" revealed only to an elite few, then we start down the gnostic path, and that path does NOT lead to salvation.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain
Herman the Pooh

[Brian Mickelsen]

Hi - As a group I have to say that you orthodox people seem to be more anti-bible than most unbelievers.

On one hand you take credit for being the group whose ancestors decided which scriptures were to make up the holy bible. On the other you are very quick to dismiss its teachings.

Most of your revered writers were (judging from your responses) all devoted to the Bible and it's teachings. You however are not, but quickly try to dismiss the bible as a referance in favor of the opinions of those who studied it.

I am certain you can easily explain away this verse --

11. He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

The real question is why would you want to?

You are a curious group.

I know most cultic groups claim to have special knowledge. This notion originated with, and was perverted through the misuse of, Jesus words. Most cultic groups are filled with half truths - why should it be surprising that they have corrupted this notion of "special knowledge" as well.

That this truth is misused should not be a reason to abandon the scriptural truth.

Brian

[Andreas Moran]

I would respond as follows to Brian's post.


you orthodox people seem to be more anti-bible than most unbelievers.

I know of no other Church which reveres the Bible as the Orthodox do. It is on the altar in the sanctuary. It is solemnly carried from the sanctuary at the Little Entrance during the liturgy. The Epistles and Gospels are read with great reverence. It is venerated and kissed after the Gospel reading at Matins. It is a sin to leave a Bible on the floor or to put anything else on it. Everything we believe and do is based on Holy Scripture. It is our duty to read from the Gospels every day. We know that it is 'inspired by God' as St Paul says in his letter to Timothy. But it is true that so far as the New Testament is concerned, the Book and the Church cannot be separated.


Most of your revered writers were (judging from your responses) all devoted to the Bible and it's teachings.

Indeed they were.


You however are not, but quickly try to dismiss the bible as a referance in favor of the opinions of those who studied it.

But if the Fathers were so devoted to the Bible, would it not follow that their opinions about it must be worth reading? Generations of Christians over the centuries - and not only Orthodox Christians - have studied the writings of the Fathers and found them profitable. The first Methodists were steeped in the Early Fathers. It is not correct to say that we favour those opinions over the Bible itself - that would make no sense. It is widely accepted that we need help in understanding the scriptures. Scripture itself tells us this as in the story of Philip and the Ethiopian who said to Philip, 'how can I [understand], except some man should guide me?' (Acts 8:31) St Peter admits that St Paul's epistles contain 'things hard to be understood' and warns, 'which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction' (2 Peter 3:16).


I am certain you can easily explain away this verse --

11. He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

As I indicated in my previous post, St John Chrysostom does comment on this passage. I'm happy to accept that he understood it better than I would on my own. Could anyone be so confident that they could understand such a passage with no guidance from anyone?


I know most cultic groups claim to have special knowledge. This notion originated with, and was perverted through the misuse of, Jesus words. Most cultic groups are filled with half truths - why should it be surprising that they have corrupted this notion of "special knowledge" as well.

I presume this does not apply to the Orthodox Church since what its members know is open to everyone to know.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Hi - As a group I have to say that you orthodox people seem to be more anti-bible than most unbelievers.

That is a totally unfounded and hyperbolic charge.


On one hand you take credit for being the group whose ancestors decided which scriptures were to make up the holy bible. On the other you are very quick to dismiss its teachings.

Nobody here is "dismissing" Holy Scripture or its teachings! I challenge you to provide one quote that indicates otherwise.


Most of your revered writers were (judging from your responses) all devoted to the Bible and it's teachings. You however are not, but quickly try to dismiss the bible as a referance in favor of the opinions of those who studied it.

This is a totally specious charge. Once again, I challenge you to present one instance where an "opinion" of the Holy Fathers contradicts Holy Scripture, just one will do.


I am certain you can easily explain away this verse --

11. He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

The real question is why would you want to?

Indeed, why would we want to explain "away" any Holy Scripture? We don't. Do you understand or even know what gnosticism is?


You are a curious group.

I know most cultic groups claim to have special knowledge. This notion originated with, and was perverted through the misuse of, Jesus words. Most cultic groups are filled with half truths - why should it be surprising that they have corrupted this notion of "special knowledge" as well.

That this truth is misused should not be a reason to abandon the scriptural truth.

Brian

Nobody here is advocating abandoning the Truth of Holy Scripture. Again please provide even one instance where anybody advocated such a thing other than you.

Herman who does not abandon or explain away one jot nor one tiddle of Holy Scripture.

[Olga]

Hi - As a group I have to say that you orthodox people seem to be more anti-bible than most unbelievers.

Oh my, Brian. Have you taken the time to look even briefly at the text of the Divine Liturgy, or of any other liturgical service of the Orthodox Church, such as Vespers, Matins, the Hours or Compline? You will find in them so much biblical (OT as well as NT) content, it is truly staggering. Do not presume that the Orthodox are unbiblical. The proper thing for you to do is to take the time to examine what the Orthodox Church believes and proclaims through its liturgical expression, and then, with honesty, judge us.

My liturgical archive is comprehensive. If you're truly interested in confirming what I have just stated, you're most welcome to PM me. I would be glad to provide you with any materials you wish for your perusal.

[Brian Mickelsen]

Mr. Blaydoe - I will give you one very quickly. You say that God did not leave us a book.

Yet in the same posting you say He did.

God inspired Holy Scripture, but, as far as we know, the only actual written work attributed to Him directly is what we often refer to as "the Ten Commandments" and the original manuscript (OK, tablets) is not readily available.

Is this not a contradiction?

Mr. Moran said --

It surely cannot be the case that Christ was deliberately being obscure so that the people could not understand.

Why not, especially since Jesus said that the knowledge (of which they had little) would be taken from them.

2Co 3:14 But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away.
(RSV)

Olga you said something truly surprising --

I may have misunderstood the tenor of your posts on this thread, but Orthodox Christianity is not a "me and my Bible and Jesus" denomination.

Olga to be honest it does seem that you are correct - this orthodox group does not seem to be a - believer -bible and Jesus denomination. I think that it is unfortunate that it is not such a denomination.

Jesus is life to us and the scripture was given to us for instruction correction etc.

I have to say that I am certain the Bishop Chrysotome would be disappointed that His words seem to be accepted to the exclusion of the bible in some cases.

There is no substitute for personal study. The Ethopian was an unbeliever who had not even been baptised at that point. Not a believer who had the Holy Spirit to instruct Him.

===========

I know I am being harsh and I also know that you are all seeking to know Jesus, making you my family. But please understand that I posted my original post (which I think is a fairly straightforward scriptural truth) and some you did nothing but criticize either me or my reliance on the bible.

Why would you do that?

I did phrase the posting in the form of a question and asked for help and additional instruction.

You should not have reacted that way. Why would you suggest that a person who relies only the bible is not doing the correct thing? This is wrong from an evangelical perspective (regardless of denominational affiliation) even if you do feel that I should have extra-biblical instruction.

Could it be that you have relied on Bishop Chrysotome to study the bible for you and then simply adopted his opinions?

It is clear that you feel that the Bible is hard to understand.

When I encounter a hard saying I keep studying until I understand myself instead of adopting another persons opinion without understanding it.

Brian

[Ryan]

Dear Brian- You are ripping people's words out of context to make them say what they are not saying.

For example, Herman's point was that God did not simply send down a completed Bible from the heavens. He is not denying the inspiration of scripture; he is only pointing out that scripture was created and discerned in the context of the Church. If we recognize that scripture is inspired, then we should also recognize that the Church is inspired. The sola scriptura approach severs the scriptures from that context; it "mutilates the Gospel," as St. Basil said. Christ came, not as a book, but as a person, to save people. He entrusted his message to people; those people wrote his words down but also passed on his message in many other ways which are not restricted to words, just as Christ taught not only by words but by his actions. It follows that a full encounter with Christ cannot be confined to, or even mediated by, a mere encounter with his words. His message is embodied not merely in a book but in a living community of persons, the Church. Starting from the Bible alone to interpret God's revelation or where his Church is today is like picking up a $100 bill on a crowded street and asking random people, "is this yours?"

Similarly, Olga's point had nothing to do with denying the centrality of scripture; she simply meant that we do not pretend to be able to discern everything about the faith simply by reading the Bible by ourselves. We are not a "me and my Bible and Jesus" denomination, because we recognize that we are unable to interpret the Bible ourselves. Quite contrary to neglecting or dishonoring the scriptures, it is out of our tremendous reverence toward the scriptures that we don't dare to interpret it independently, lest we misinterpret it according to our whims and thereby blaspheme God's revelation by trying to have it serve a personal idolatry.

If you are seriously interested in understanding Orthodoxy, and not simply making a snap judgment because some of us choose the wrong words on a discussion board, there are far better ways to do so than sparring with some of us on the internet. Olga has provided some great suggestions.

The problem with these discussion boards, as opposed to, say, a face-to-face discussion or a Church service is that we have only our words to share with each other, even though we human beings learn and communicate in many other ways. If our words are consistently misconstrued, there is not much else to be done. In our daily lives, our judgment is clouded by our passions- they affect our perception far more than we realize, even if we have some rational understanding of this.

How much more so if we encounter disembodied text whose background we are unfamiliar with; we are quick to attempt to fit it into our existing paradigms. But if we want genuine understanding, we need to resist this urge and seek out more information, to grasp the context, otherwise we will be left with a distorted picture that conforms to our prejudices.

That's why I urge you to adopt some caution and humility in approaching scripture, and I worry when you say this:

When I encounter a hard saying I keep studying until I understand myself instead of adopting another persons opinion without understanding it.

The other person may have spent as much or more time studying the same words as you. What makes you so sure you have the right understanding and he doesn't? Countless other people (myself included, in times past) have approached the same texts in the same individualistic way and, with utter certainty, come up with vastly different interpretations, but suddenly you've sprung upon the right one?

Likewise, I would urge you to not rely on our poor words on an internet forum in forming your opinion of Orthodoxy. There are far more representative texts you can start with, which Olga has pointed out. Even better, if it is possible for you, I would recommend experiencing an Orthodox service on a coming Sunday.

[Paul Cowan]

Hebrews 13:7 Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. 9 Do not be carried about[c] with various and strange doctrines.

Verse 8 is one of the main reasons I converted to this faith. If this verse is true, so is the church he founded at Pentecost. If this verse is not true, then God is a liar and the Christian faith is a sham. The Protestant Reformation set out to "correct" the errors of the church. What it set out to fix was the errors of the Western church which by this time had deviated some 700 years from its origins. It probably did need to be corrected, but not in a new direction. It needed to return to its original understanding of God.


Acts 5:33 When they heard this, they were furious and plotted to kill them. 34 Then one in the council stood up, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in respect by all the people, and commanded them to put the apostles outside for a little while. 35 And he said to them: “Men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do regarding these men. 36 For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody. A number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was slain, and all who obeyed him were scattered and came to nothing. 37 After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all who obeyed him were dispersed. 38 And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; 39 but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God.”


There is no such thing as a 2000 year old cult. God has not overthrown the Orthodox Church neither has satan.

I am 42 years old and have been a member of numerous faiths. They each told me the previous one I belonged to was wrong. If they are all Christian and they are all wrong, who is right? I depend on the early church fathers to rightly divide the word of truth for me. Yes, I read my bible and I search for pearls of wisdom. But when I find them, I also seek out their true meaning by the fathers. I can't relate to you how many verses I have thought to read one way only to read St. John Chrysostom or St. Basil or some other church father to say, "Oh, that's what that means. That makes more sense." Left to my own devices. I thought I really had to cut off my right hand and pluck out my eye. I am so glad this is not a literal instruction.

It is a blessing to have access to the original Greek so I as a 21st century unilinguil american can understand the difference between homoiousios meaning "similar essence" and Homoousios meaning "same essence." Yes, you are right, it is all about Jesus. It is also all about God the Father, God the Holy Spirit and Holy Tradition which gave us these things to believe in in the first place.


13 But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. 14 Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch.”

Tell me, why are there more than 38,000 Christian denominations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations)in the world today? They can't all be right or they would all be one. Where is the one? It is the Eastern Orthodox faith (http://www.antiochian.org/orthodox-church-history)based on the 7 ecumenical councils.

If one is interested he will research. if one is not, he will chide. Take Olga up on her offer. Read our services. Find out about us first hand and not just from the computer. My priest is a little more direct. "Bubba in the basement with a Bible" is not going to find fulfillment in a community or understand rightly what he reads. How can I compare my 42 years understanding with the centuries of collaborating priests, heirarchs, theologians and scholars? Who am I do try to refute them? Who are you?

Paul

[Father David Moser]

I would like to remind all the participants in this thread that the topic here is the use of the parable as a form of teaching in the Gospel. The topic here is not about whether or not the Orthodox Faith is Bibliocentric or the definition of what that might mean. Please keep our posts on topic. Off topic posts - especially those which are seen as distorting the words of or attacking another member - will result in a warning or an infraction and the possible suspension of unmoderated posting privileges.

Fr David Moser

[Irene]

The parables are wonderful, known to most (Christians) our whole lives and then suddenly whilst standing and listening in Church you suddenly understand how it relates to you and some difficulty in your life at the moment.

I love the way everything is done in the Orthodox Church, I now know much more of the Bible and especially the Psalms, off by heart, because of the attention given to them in our Church.

In Christ
Irene

[Brian Mickelsen]

Thank for the reminder --- my apologies to everyone who may have been offended.

As I study I do find that all (I chose to say all and not some) of my opinions are forcefully withstood. Yet I can see them so clearly that I do not deviate. I am speaking from a position (I am a caregiver 24/7) in which church attendance with any denomination is not possible.

So of course I wonder about my biblical interpretation. That is why I ask for your opinions.

Does God show people new things or not? Have we simply not seen certain things in the bible which have been there all along?

Having been reminded in a private message of your perspective and why you have it, I can see your points.

Back to parables.

The three questions that I had were answered from my mind and I am looking for specific correction - to validate the opinions that I came to.

I would appretiate help.

Mr. Moran before we deviated you posted this paragraph:

"St John Chrysostom (Homily XLV on Matthew), writing of where Christ says that it is given to the disciples to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven (and most parables are about that), tells us that people are the authors of their own misfortune. Gifts are bestowed, he says, but our free will remains. We must respond; 'He signifes the beginning to be with ourselves' (though presumably not in any Pelagian sense!). St John admits that Matthew 13:12 is obscure but it really just describes human nature, and if a person is genuinely seeking, he will be given more, but if he is merely curious, any impulse he had will wither."

Matthew 13:12 describes human nature?

That may be, but how is the human nature dealt with if the human is not persuing God in a correct manner. That is what Jesus address in the next verses. The knowledge of the kingdom is "taken" from such a person. It does not simply wither.

Mt 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mt 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

The knowledge is here given based on a persons desire to receive but the point is not that it (the knowledge) will wither but that it will be taken from Him. The implication is of course that the giver (God) will also act as the taker of knowledge if necessary.

I think that this is the aspect of Gods character that most people have problems with.

Would God actually do this? Well it is written in verse 12, and this subject has arisen in a discussion between Jesus and his disciples concerning why Jesus spoke in parables.

It just seems reasonable that Jesus is answering the question that he was asked. Parables are the mechanism that Jesus is saying will be used to remove or take knowledge from those who do not have it in the first place.

Now - if they "hath not" then the knowledge of God was not given to them by God. In other words they were not chosen to receive knowledge (of God) because they did not approach God in the manner necessary to receive that knowledge from God.

In other words they were unbelievers (The seed/word did not grow for any length of time) or stony ground. The preceeding verses illustrate the condition of the heart of such a person and refer to it as stony.

I can also see why the vigerous reaction to my post would/did happen.

A person who is accustomed to thinking that God would not remove knowledge from a person would be very offended by the suggestion.

I am not a person who thinks this way. My concept of God includes the fact that he will remove knowledge from a person if he deems it necessary - based (I think) on which group the particular person belongs to. The two groups mentioned by Jesus in Matt 13:11 seem to be --

1. good ground - the group the disciples belonged to
2. stony places - the group the disciples did not belong to

Brian

[M.C. Steenberg]

The good Lord spoke in parables for a number of reasons. One was to prevent His hearers from attempting to convert His message, the Truth, into a mere series of factual, analysable statements as if they were on par with some philosophical system. To perceive the true meaning of a parable, one must engage with it, and with the One who tells it; one cannot simply read it, or think it, or study it.

Which is precisely what is done when one attempts to understand the parables apart from the living tradition of the Church.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Brian,

You've misread Matthew 13 rather pointedly. Christ is not saying that if one does not want knowledge, he will remove it from one (though the idea that God would prevent / remove knowledge is not as controversial as you seem to think it is; though I'm not certain you understand what it means). Rather, Christ is speaking of a living engagement with Himself, possessed by the Apostles. They are given to 'know the mysteries', for they live in utter communion with the Lord; while to others this intimate knowledge 'has not been given', for their relationship to Christ is different (if still laudable in some ways).

Christ's words - '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' - relate to the nature of man in relation to his God. The parable speak to this mystery, as Christ says.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Brian Mickelsen]

Hello Deacon Matthew -- nice to hear from you again. I have bookmarked (from previous discussions) the Church fathers site.

I have just printed out Homily 45 on Matthew by Bishop Chrsyotome. I find that the language takes me a while to decipher, but I will look over the 4 page document.

Even though Bishop Chrysotome is long dead, would I be correct in saying that His opinion on Matthew 13 represents the living tradition of your church on this matter?

brian

[Ryan]

For those who are curious, here is Blessed Theophylact's commentary on the passages from Matthew 13 (and he owes a lot to St. John Chrysostom):

Matthew 13: 10-12:

The disciples found great obscurity in the words spoken by Christ, and being solicitous of the common people came to Him and asked the question. And he said, "It is given unto you to know the mysteries," that is, since you have willingness and zeal to learn, it is given to you. But to those who do not have zeal, it is not given. For it is he that asks who receives. Ask therefore, He says, and it will be given to you. See here how the Lord told the parable and only the disciples, who asked, received. So we can truly say that to him who has zeal, knowledge is given and in abundance. But from him who does not have zeal and a worthy wind, even that which he imagines he has will be taken away. That is to say, if he has even the slightest spark of good, he extinguishes it if he does not blow on it with the Spirit and spiritual deeds, and kindle it.

Matthew 13: 13:


Take heed. Here the problem is solved of thos who say that some are evil by nature, or by God's intent. For they argue that Christ himself said, "It is given unto you to know the mysteries, but to the Jews it is not given." But we say, with God, to those who speak such things, that God makes everyone by nature to understand what is necessary. For God "enlighteneth every man that cometh into the world." (John 1:9) But is is our own will and inclination that casts us into darkness. This is made clear even here. For Christ says that although they see by nature, that is, they were created by God to understand, they by their own choice do not see. And hearing, that is, by nature created by God to hear and to understand, they by their own choice do not hear, nor do they understand. Tell me, did they not see the miracles of Christ? Yes, they did, but they made themselves blind and condemned Him. So this is the meaning of "seeing they see not." Then he brings forward the prophet as further witness to his argument.

Matthew 13 :14-15:


Do you see what the prophecy is saying? You do not understand, not because I created your heart fat and dull, but because it has grown fat, although it is obvious that before it was fine and subtle. For something which grows fat was first thin. And when their heart had grown fat, then they closed their eyes. He did not say that God closed their eyes, but they did, of their own choice. They did this, He says, so that they would not turn back and be healed by Me. For they chose evil and went to great lengths to remain unhealed and unrepentant.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

I would like to take St John Chrysostom’s comments on Matthew 13 (his Homily 45 on St Matthew), which have been mentioned above, to respond to the question of why Christ speaks in parables. When we have questions such as this, we must fear greatly the temptation to manufacture ideas and explanations from our own insufficient and sinful minds, and run to Christ’s Body, His Church, which has always preserved for us the truth of His words and their meaning. In the words of St John, we have a beautiful exposition of Christ truly pastoral nature, using parables to tend to the faithful as well as the faithless; and St John’s words are echoes of the same explanation given by so many others over the course of the centuries.

To remind all, here is the section of St Matthew’s Gospel in question, in which Christ responds to the question as to why He speaks in parables:
“And the disciples came and said unto Him, Why do You speak unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, but to them it is not 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.” (Matthew 13.10-13)
In understanding St John’s consideration of Christ’s response to His disciples’ query, we have to look also at St Luke’s Gospel, where Christ comments:
“For whoever has, to him more will be given; and whoever does not have, even what he seems to have will be taken from him.” (Luke 8.18)
When the disciples ask after the purpose of Christ speaking in parables, the Lord’s first response is to note the approach to Mystery. What Christ offers is knowledge of the mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven – a knowledge that comes not from the rational mind, but from the experience of the living God. Before directly answering their query as to why parables in particular are used, He makes this emphatic statement of context; and it is framed in terms of a certain dichotomy. ‘To you it is given to know the mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven… to them it is not given…’. Why this variation? On this point, St John expounds:
“What then says Christ? ‘Because it is given unto you’, so He speaks, ‘to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, but to them it is not given.’ But this He said, not bringing in necessity, or any allotment made causelessly and at random, but implying them to be the authors of all their own evils, and wishing to represent that the thing is a gift, and a grace bestowed from above.”
Here the saint has shown that Christ’s words indicate, not a division in the way he treats some versus others (i.e. he specifies that Christ does not ‘have’ to act this way to some and that way to others, as if He were bound ‘by necessity’; nor are His actions ‘made causelessly and at random’); rather, that the knowledge of the Kingdom is a gift; and as a gift, it is the response to the gift that dictates how it is received. The fact that ‘to them it is not given’ is due to the fact that they do not truly seek. This is brought out by Blessed Theophylact, in a passage that Ryan helpfully quoted above, and which harks to Christ’s words elsewhere, that ‘everyone who asks, receives’ (Matthew 7.8):
“And he said, ‘It is given unto you to know the mysteries’, that is, since you have willingness and zeal to learn, it is given to you. But to those who do not have zeal, it is not given. For it is he that asks who receives. Ask therefore, He says, and it will be given to you.” (Blessed Theophylact, Homily on Matthew, 13)
For his part, St John stresses that Christ’s words do not indicate that the Lord arbitrarily chooses to reveal Himself to some and not others. He takes pains to emphasise the role of freedom intrinsic in Christ’s words:
“It by no means follows, however, because it is a gift, that therefore free will is taken away; and this is evident from what comes after. To this purpose, in order that neither the one sort may despair, nor the other grow careless upon being told that ‘it is given’, He signifies the beginning to be with ourselves .”
That is: what is given, or what is not given, ‘begins with ourselves’: the Lord responds to the heart that seeks the Kingdom or does not. He neither refrains from granting the knowledge of the Kingdom to those who seek it (for ‘he who asks, receives’); nor does He force such knowledge upon those who would not have it. This latter point is critical, and is directly related to Christ’s confession of why He often speaks in parables.

But before He comes to that, he offers the comment which in St Matthew reads:
“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.”
And which in St Luke’s Gospel is:
“For whoever has, to him more will be given; and whoever does not have, even what he seems to have will be taken from him.”
In St Matthew’s narrative, the Lord has just emphasised that knowledge of the Kingdom is given as a gift to the heart which truly seeks it; and to the heart which does not seek it, it is not given. Here He has gone on to stress that this relationship of the heart to the living Lord is watered and fed—as well as pruned—by that same Lord. When one lives in true communion with God, when one seeks Him with a whole heart, then the ‘little’ knowledge one may have is greatly increased by God’s mercy and loving-kindness. But if one does not so love the Lord with a true heart, then what ‘knowledge’ one has of the Kingdom is in fact no true knowledge at all, and in His mercy and love the Lord will take this away. Once again, this is because of God’s love. He will not force the Kingdom upon man; but he will tear down the walls of false knowledge that stand in the way of authentic understanding, of real relationship. That which such a man ‘has’ is a false knowledge; and so in His mercy the Lord strips him of this, that the man may have a truer freedom with which to seek the Lord rightly, or (fearfully) to reject Him more fully.

It is clear that Christ is not saying He removes true knowledge of Himself from some people (as Blessed Theophylact reminds, Christ is He who ‘enlightens every man that comes into the world’ [John 1.9] – He does not remove truth from some). He is declaring, rather, that what some ‘know’ is in fact false knowledge. In His pastoral love, He will—by one means or another—make them bereft of such false knowledge; He will remove it from them, that they might more clearly see the truth.

This is what comes out in the text of St Matthew; but it is even clearer in St Luke’s words, where Christ says ‘and whoever does not have, even what he seems to have will be taken from him.’ For this reason, St John focuses on that statement in his own remarks:
“And although the saying be full of much obscurity, yet it indicates unspeakable justice. For what He says is like this: When any one has forwardness and zeal, there shall be given unto him all things on God's part also: but if he be void of these, and contribute not his own share, neither are God's gifts bestowed. For even ‘what he seems to have’, so He says, ‘shall be taken away from him’ – and God is not so much taking it away, as counting him unworthy of His gifts. This we also do; when we see any one listening carelessly, and when with much entreaty we cannot persuade him to attend, it remains for us to be silent. For if we are still to go on, his carelessness is aggravated. But him that is striving to learn, we lead on, and pour in much. And well said He, ‘Even that which he seems to have’—[I]for he has not really even this.” (emphasis mine)
All of this exposes the deeply pastoral, relational reason why Christ at times speaks in parables. In His love, He will not deny the truth to those who genuinely wish to hear and encounter it; but, equally, in His love, He will not force it upon those who would not have it. Yet he does not leave the rebellious to suffer their foolishness unaided: He will not force His truth upon them, but He will work to strip them of the falsehood they have manufactured for themselves. He will take away what knowledge they think they have, opening up to them the possibility of receiving the truth.
“‘Therefore’, says He, ‘speak I to them in parables; because they seeing see not’ (Matthew 13.13).
Thus Christ answers directly. He is quoting from Isaiah (cf. Isaiah 6.9-10), as He later makes clear; and that quotation emphasises that it is man’s sin which causes him to see, yet not see; to hear, yet not hear. It is the terrible misuse of freedom. And as such, Christ preserves human freedom in the parable: He offers truth in a manner that causes one to draw out of error through engagement, rather than simple, wrote, declarations. The parable, by nature, can take a small seed of understanding and water it into a much greater plant of divine knowledge (‘To him who has, more will be given…’); but at the same time, responding to questions of religious belief and practice with parables pre-empts and disallows ‘stock answers’, expected responses, and challenges common presumptions that are based on false knowledge (‘but to him who has not, even what he seems to have will be taken away…’).

In the words of St John:
"One might then protest that it would be better to have opened their eyes, if they see not. Nay, if the blindness were natural, it were meet to open them; but because it was a voluntary and self-chosen blindness, therefore He said not simply, ‘They see not’, but, ‘seeing, they see not’; for the blindness is of their own wickedness. For they saw even devils cast out, and said, ‘By Beelzebub, prince of the devils, He casts out the devils’ (Matthew 12.14). They heard Him guiding them unto God, and evincing His great unanimity with Him, and they say, ‘This man is not of God’ (John 9.16). Since then the judgment they pronounced was contrary both to their sight and hearing, therefore, says He, the very hearing do I take away from them. For they derive thence no advantage, but rather greater condemnation. For they not only disbelieved, but found fault also, and accused, and laid snares. However, He says not this, for it is not His will to give disgust in accusing them. Therefore neither at the beginning did He so discourse to them, but with much plainness; but because they perverted themselves, thenceforth He speaks in parables.”
We see how St John, again and again, draws emphasis upon the cause of human freedom, of sin. Christ’s speaking in parables is an act of love. It ministers to those who ‘have’, by feeding their knowledge in true holiness; but it ministers also to those who ‘seem to have’, but in reality have not, by stripping them of error and opening to them the way of life.

Responding to specific points

The above is my admittedly weak and insufficient summary of the exposition of Christ’s words given by the God-bearing father, St John Chrysostom, and echoed in the words of so many other fathers. But now let me respond, briefly, to a few specific points raised in the discussion, above.

Firstly, what is absolutely clear from the scriptures, and which echoes across all the fathers when they comment on the scriptures, is that Christ is not seeking to ‘hide’ the truth from certain people based on their sin. So we cannot agree with the following:


“Christ Jesus did not want non-believers to understand His words”.This simply makes a mockery of Christ’s repeated statements about bringing light into the world, bringing truth to all, etc.; as well as the countless descriptions of Him thus in the scriptures and fathers. Christ is the Son of God ‘who desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth’ (1 Timothy 2.4).

As St John’s exposition makes abundantly clear, Christ’s explanation demonstrates His unwillingness to destroy human freedom and force truth upon those who will not hear it; yet at the same time, his ‘taking away’ the false-truth such people possess is a deeply pastoral act which is, at its very heart, aiming to bring them to a right understanding of His words.

Secondly, we cannot really accept this definition of a parable:


“I would answer question number one this way – a parable is not a straightforward statement but an intentional veiling of the truth.”It may well be accurate that a parable is not ‘straightforward’ (though this is a fluid term; parables are quite straightforward indeed from some perspectives); but we ought to resist strongly the temptation to speak of Christ ‘veiling’ or hiding His meaning. The fathers again and again regard this tendency of interpretation as essentially Gnostic. Christ reveals, He does not hide. He is the God of Apocalypse (lit. ‘Unveiling’), not concealment.

The parable is a way of conveying truth that builds up the heart of faith, yet confounds the heart of stone. It conveys truth that is accessible to the child-like heart, but which takes an unbelieving heart—or rather, a heart that is not so much un-believing as falsely-believing—and simply ‘doesn’t work’ with the pretended knowledge upon which such a heart insists. Its intention is not to ‘veil’ the truth from the false-believer, but to challenge and overturn the false belief, so that the truth can be seen.

When Christ, for example, responds to the question, ‘Who is my neighbour’ with the parable of the Prodigal Son (cf. Luke 15.11-32), He is certainly not trying to ‘veil’ the truth of the matter from unbelievers. To a heart which already grasps the foundations of the Kingdom, this parable is immediately clear, and immediately builds up faith and divine understanding. But to a heart which does not, it challenges false belief. Surely Christ’s hearers included those who had all manner of ‘answers’ to such a question at the ready—a ‘neighbour’ is a fellow Jew, a keeper of the Law, a righteous one, an undefiled brother, etc. But these are responses indicative of someone who ‘seeing, does not see’; and they indicate possession of a ‘knowledge’ that is not a genuine knowledge. In order to reveal the truth to such people, it is necessary for Christ to cut down such false-knowledge—to ‘take away’ that which ‘they seem to have’, so that they can come to possess the truth. And so His parable simply cuts out such ready answers. It is the one person in the story who does not meet any of the expected norms or criteria, that is the true neighbour. In engaging with the story, one’s false views are ‘taken away’, even as one’s freedom is preserved—and so by the ‘taking away’ one is drawn toward the truth.

Thirdly, we cannot agree with the following, either:


“If a parable is not recognized as a parable then the misunderstanding that is intended for non-disciples (or as Matthew 13:34 puts it "the multitude") of Christ, creeps into the doctrinal life of the Church.”This comment is based on the idea that parables have two meanings: the true meaning, and a second, false meaning (‘the misunderstanding intended for non-disciples’). This makes Christ to be the author of a lie, which cannot hold under any terms. But that great problem aside, it again misses the point of the parable’s ‘taking away’ of ‘knowledge’, which is in fact not to hide, but to reveal.

I will refrain from commenting on the implied questions about right meanings and interpretation preserved in the Church, as well as amongst contemporary believers. It seems sufficient here simply to speak of parables themselves and their true meaning.

INXC, Deacon Matthew

[Brian Mickelsen]

Deacon Matthew -- My understanding at this time is that speaking in parables was Isaiah's ministry is this correct?

I feel this way because Matthew 13:14 is a direct quotation of the comission God gave to Isaiah in chapter 6 verse 9.


14. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

=====================

8. Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.
9. And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
10. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

I have looked for a Chrysostome homily on Isaiah 6:9-10 but cannot find it. Did he do any homilies on Old Testament Books?

Brian

[M.C. Steenberg]

No: Isaiah's ministry was not to speak in parables, and that isn't what Matthew 13.14 says or suggests. Isaiah was a prophet. Christ speaking in parables to the people confirms Isaiah's prophecy of their hardness of heart - as Christ says.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Brian Mickelsen]

Hello Deacon Matthew --

In refuting your assertions several verses come to mind. I have settled on one verse that may refute your first two points at the same time, Matthew 11:25.


Firstly, what is absolutely clear from the scriptures, and which echoes across all the fathers when they comment on the scriptures, is that Christ is not seeking to ‘hide’ the truth from certain people based on their sin. So we cannot agree with the following:

“Christ Jesus did not want non-believers to understand His words”.

This simply makes a mockery of Christ’s repeated statements about bringing light into the world, bringing truth to all, etc.; as well as the countless descriptions of Him thus in the scriptures and fathers. Christ is the Son of God ‘who desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth’ (1 Timothy 2.4).

As St John’s exposition makes abundantly clear, Christ’s explanation demonstrates His unwillingness to destroy human freedom and force truth upon those who will not hear it; yet at the same time, his ‘taking away’ the false-truth such people possess is a deeply pastoral act which is, at its very heart, aiming to bring them to a right understanding of His words.

Mt 11:25 ¶ At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

Not believing in Christ is a sin, and in view of the redemptive nature of Christ it may be the only sin that is not forgivable, John 16:9.

Joh 16:9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

So God hides the truth of Christ from an unbeliever as a result of the their sin. The sin is their rejection of Christ.

So the statement you made about Christ not hiding the truth based on an individuals sin is unscriptural.


Secondly, we cannot really accept this definition of a parable:

“I would answer question number one this way – a parable is not a straightforward statement but an intentional veiling of the truth.”

It may well be accurate that a parable is not ‘straightforward’ (though this is a fluid term; parables are quite straightforward indeed from some perspectives); but we ought to resist strongly the temptation to speak of Christ ‘veiling’ or hiding His meaning. The fathers again and again regard this tendency of interpretation as essentially Gnostic. Christ reveals, He does not hide. He is the God of Apocalypse (lit. ‘Unveiling’), not concealment.

The parable is a way of conveying truth that builds up the heart of faith, yet confounds the heart of stone. It conveys truth that is accessible to the child-like heart, but which takes an unbelieving heart—or rather, a heart that is not so much un-believing as falsely-believing—and simply ‘doesn’t work’ with the pretended knowledge upon which such a heart insists. Its intention is not to ‘veil’ the truth from the false-believer, but to challenge and overturn the false belief, so that the truth can be seen.

Mt 11:25 ¶ At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.


Thirdly, we cannot agree with the following, either:

This comment is based on the idea that parables have two meanings: the true meaning, and a second, false meaning (‘the misunderstanding intended for non-disciples’). This makes Christ to be the author of a lie, which cannot hold under any terms. But that great problem aside, it again misses the point of the parable’s ‘taking away’ of ‘knowledge’, which is in fact not to hide, but to reveal.




Thirdly you mention that the misunderstanding intended for non-disciples would make Christ the author of a lie. Of course it does not. Not telling a person something does not make you a liar. But the person certainly will develop an opinion and this is the misconception I was referring to. Don’t forget God sent a lying spirit into rebellious people.

1Ki 22:22 And Jehovah said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt entice him, and shalt prevail also: go forth, and do so.

1Ki 22:23 Now therefore, behold, Jehovah hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets; and Jehovah hath spoken evil concerning thee.

2Ch 18:21 And he said, I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt entice him, and shalt prevail also: go forth, and do so.

2Ch 18:22 Now therefore, behold, Jehovah hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets; and Jehovah hath spoken evil concerning thee.
(ASV)
=======

On another note - I was forcefully challanged by in a previous post to illustrate one point where the fathers were incorrect. In point number two you have stated that the fathers agree with the fact that God does not hide things, and you said that it was a gnostic thought. However, it is clear that God does hide things from people because of their sin.

If the opinions that were expressed by Decon Michael are those of the fathers then I have proven (quite easily I might add) that their are unscriptural ideas in the writings.

Respectfully - Brian

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Brian,

You seem rather to have missed the point of just about everything that I said.

And, of course, Matthew 11.25 has to be read in light of Matthew 11.2-24 and Matthew 11.26-30, which reinforce the fathers' demonstration of Christ's meaning.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Ryan]

Not believing in Christ is a sin, and in view of the redemptive nature of Christ it may be the only sin that is not forgivable, John 16:9.

Joh 16:9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

So God hides the truth of Christ from an unbeliever as a result of the their sin. The sin is their rejection of Christ.

Actually, in the very passage you quote, Christ Himself gives the clue to the source of their ignorance: they are "the wise and prudent," that is, they are self-satisfied in their own "wisdom" and do not seek knowledge from God nor would they be able to accept it had it been revealed to them. This is not a punishment for "their rejection of Christ" -how could they accept Christ if they are actively prevented from learning the truth about Him? Rather it is, as Fr. Deacon Matthew indicated before, God's provision for human freedom, that He will not impose His knowledge on those who do not want it. Therefore, God hides, not in the sense of actively veiling, but simply in the sense of not revealing His truth to those who would not hear it.

Blessed Theophylact says:


This is what He is saying: I thank Thee, Father, that the Jews who seem to be wise and knowledgeable of the Scriptures did not believe, while the unlearned and the babes believed and recognized the mysteries. God hid the mysteries from those who seemed wise, not out of malice, or so as to cause ignorance, but because of their unworthiness, stemming from the very fact that they thought they were wise. For he who thinks himself to be wise and is bold in his knowledge does not call upon God. So then God, not having been called upon, gives him neither help nor revelation. Furthermore, God, out of His very love for man, does not reveal the mysteries to the multitude lest they be punished the more for first knowing the mysteries and then scorning them.


If the opinions that were expressed by Decon Michael are those of the fathers then I have proven (quite easily I might add) that their are unscriptural ideas in the writings.

What you have proven is your mastery of the modern art of decontextualized "proof-texting." Instead of flipping through the Scriptures searching for phrases or sentences that support our own ideas, we should humbly, prayerfully, and patiently read them, asking for God's aid and consulting the works of the great Saints whom He has mercifully given us as guides. Otherwise, God may hide His revelation from us, not because He wants to keep us ignorant, but because our preconceptions and pride prevent us from seeking or perceiving His wisdom.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Brian,

Since I originally replied to your post above, you substantially changed its contents via editing (on why this is not a good practice for constructive discussion, please read here (http://www.monachos.net/forum/faq.php?faq=hb_posting#faq_hb_edit); editing your messages after posting should really only be done to correct minor typos).

Your alterations and additions do not really alter my earlier response: you seem rather to have missed the point of everything I wrote above, and everything found in the works of St John, Blessed Theophylact, and others - not to mention the scriptures themselves.

But you did add the following (after several revisions (http://www.monachos.net/forum/edithistory.php?do=viewedithistory&postid=79607)), which was unfortunate, but which warrants a brief response:



On another note - I was forcefully challanged by in a previous post to illustrate one point where the fathers were incorrect. In point number two you have stated that the fathers agree with the fact that God does not hide things, and you said that it was a gnostic thought. However, it is clear that God does hide things from people because of their sin.

If the opinions that were expressed by Decon Michael are those of the fathers then I have proven (quite easily I might add) that their are unscriptural ideas in the writings.

Of course, you have not done so. You have - clearly and convincingly - proven that you do not understand their writings, and that you are essentially unwilling even to try to do so (despite your claims that you are seeking understanding). Rather, you insist that your own deeply flawed interpretations of various scriptural passages (in this and in other threads) are the context for determining that the fathers are 'incorrect' - which is simply a non-starter.

This is not the place for you to assert yourself above the fathers and the Church of Christ. If you simply believe, as a matter of faith, that they are flawed and not sources of divine teaching, that is your right; but do not post here trying to argue this. This is a forum dedicated to Orthodoxy in its patristic heritage, and it is utterly inappropriate for you to use it to your own deeply anti-patristic ends.

The fathers of the Church can help you understand the scriptures - but only if you let them. If that is your goal, let them speak, and learn the humility to listen. But if your aim is simply to 'prove them wrong' and other such things, please do not do so here.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Andreas Moran]

I have read that there was a literary device in the ancient world, especially in Hebrew writings, which added emphasis by treating a consequence as a purpose. This may account for the construction of some of the passages in question. In Matthew 11: 25, Christ 'thanks' the Father that He 'hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes'. The 'wise and prudent' are the Pharisees and scribes. The babes are the disciples and other followers of Christ. By the wisdom and prudence of the Pharisees and scribes is meant their pride, as St John Chrysostom says (Homily XXXVIII on Matthew). Thus they transgressed God's commandment (Matthew 15:3). True wisdom is 'hid' from them by their own pride. As Apostle Paul says, 'Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.' (1 Corinthians 3:17-18). The parables are about the kingdom of heaven, and we can hear of it and enter it only if we 'become as little children' (Matthew 18:3) and humble ourselves.

[Dora Spyros]

I have looked for a Chrysostome homily on Isaiah 6:9-10 but cannot find it. Did he do any homilies on Old Testament Books?



St John Chrysostom on Isaiah 6:9-10:

"I do not believe the words require [further] interpretation, for those who know these questions exactly have dealt with them before [me] and explained them: John, the son of thunder (cf. Mk. 3:17), and Paul, who knows the Old and the New Testment to perfection. This last addresses himself at Rome, to those who gathered together at first, but later departed, not supporting his words. He harangues them in these terms: 'The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah, the Prophet: You shall hear with your ears and you shall not understand (sic - cf. Acts 28:25-26). As for the son of thunder, when the Jews saw some of the miracles and did not believe, heard instructions and paid no attention - Christ had resurrected Lazarus, and they sought to kill him (cf. Jn. 11:43-53); [when] He had cast out the demons, and they had called Him a demoniac (cf. Lk. 11:14-15; Jn. 8:52; 10:20); [when] He had led them to the Father, and they had called Him a deceiver (cf. Jn. 5:43; Mt. 24:11) - he recalled to them this prophecy, saying of it: 'The prophet Isaiah has well said: You shall hear with your ears and you shall not understand, you shall see with your eyes, and you certainly will not see' (sic - cf. 12:38-41).

"Since the inner eyes of their minds were put out, the outer eyes were of no use to them, because their faculty of judgment was corrupted. This is why seeing, they do not see; hearing, they do not understand. Isaiah gives a reason for it at once: it is not their sensory organs that have been altered, nor that their nature has been damaged, but that their heart is mutilated. 'For the heart of this people has become gross,' he says; now the dullness of spirit results from sins and earthly desires. It is in regard to this dullness that Paul says: 'And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal ... for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able.' And he gives the reason for it in these terms: 'For where there are envy, strife, and division among you, are you not carnal?' (1 Cor. 3:1-3). Since they also are consumed by malice and denigration, and besieged by a thousand other passions, they have thereby coarsened the perception of their intelligence; and they can have no clear view henceforth.

"Accordingly, they adopt erroneous and contrary opinions on the things they see. The Prophet, who saw this with lucidity, has denounced in advance the cause of the evil. Mark for your part, I beg you, that there are two prophecies. The seraphim have accepted the one which concerns the Church and the benefits promised to the world, saying, 'Holy, holy, holy, the Lord of Sabaoth; all the earth is full of His glory,' but the one which relates to the captivity and the chastisement of the Jews, they have left to the Prophet in order for him to teach by this the preeminence of the Church."

qtd. in Isaiah through the Ages, 99-100

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Dora,

I am particularly grateful for your first posting to the Communiy, above (and a belated 'welcome'!). You've quoted an extract from the writings of St John Chrysostom on the very passage from Isaiah that Christ quotes, when responding to His disciples' query as to why He speaks in parables.

To put things again in context, here is the scene of Matthew 13.10-17:
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.’ (Isaiah 6.9-10)
But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.
We have already seen, above, how St John comments on this passage, drawing out the fact that it is the condition of the hearer's heart that determines whether they see and hear; and it is the pastoral nature of Christ to respond to that condition of the heart with what is needful for salvation -- so where the hear already sees and hears, He adds to his; but where the heart is hard, neither seeing nor hearing but instead gaining a false knowledge of its own making, Christ takes this away and opens the door to true wisdom. For, should one have eyes to see and ears to hear, Christ makes available to man a knowledge greater than even the most righteous of the past could know (for 'many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it...').

In the passage from St John's writings on Isaiah that you quoted in your contribution, we see him drawing the same meaning out of the words of the prophet himself, quoted by Christ:


"I do not believe the words require [further] interpretation, for those who know these questions exactly have dealt with them before [me] and explained them: [...] Since the inner eyes of their minds were put out, the outer eyes were of no use to them, because their faculty of judgment was corrupted. This is why seeing, they do not see; hearing, they do not understand.

This emphasises exactly what has been mentioned before (including by Theophylact, as many others): namely, that the 'not seeing' and 'not hearing' is occasioned, not by Christ keeping true vision and hearing from these people, but by the condition of their own hearts. Their 'faculty of judgement was corrupted'.

Lest any try to claim that this is due to some natural defect or class of person, St John goes on:


Isaiah gives a reason for it at once: it is not their sensory organs that have been altered, nor that their nature has been damaged, but that their heart is mutilated. 'For the heart of this people has become gross,' he says; now the dullness of spirit results from sins and earthly desires. It is in regard to this dullness that Paul says: 'And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal ... for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able.' And he gives the reason for it in these terms: 'For where there are envy, strife, and division among you, are you not carnal?' (1 Cor. 3:1-3). Since they also are consumed by malice and denigration, and besieged by a thousand other passions, they have thereby coarsened the perception of their intelligence; and they can have no clear view henceforth.This could not be clearer; and it exactly relates what is being said in the scriptures themselves. One's heart conditions one's ability to comprehend the truth, and the Lord preserves the freedom of the person -- even if this means allowing an eye to 'see but see not', or an ear to 'hear but hear not' out of the foolishness of man's pride.

St John carries on to note the end-result of those who maintain their own 'knowledge' over the true knowledge of Christ:


"Accordingly, they adopt erroneous and contrary opinions on the things they see."Once again, this is exactly as Christ says in the scriptures, and as the older prophets had predicted. And this lies behind Christ's response to his disciples' query about parables: they are a tool of responding to this condition of the heart, simultaneously 'adding to' the true knowledge some will have through purity of heart, and 'taking away' the 'erroneous and contrary opinions' of those who 'seeing, see not', by the parable's very ability to cut through pre-conceived worldly knowledge.

INXC, Dcn Matthew