Critiquing: #074 — Confused by Parables

July 15, 2021 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

Persistent neighbor — Shrewd manager — Lazarus and the rich man — Prayer interpretation — Jewish parables

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	B	The episode offers a generally accurate interpretation of parables, grounded in Wright’s extensive biblical knowledge. However, some interpretations, like those of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, may be contested among scholars due to varying theological perspectives.
Degree of Coherence	B+	The discussion follows a logical structure, with clear connections between Jesus’ use of parables and their intended messages. Wright effectively ties historical context to modern application, ensuring a coherent narrative throughout.
Absence of Fallacies	B	The content largely avoids logical fallacies, though some of Wright’s arguments may exhibit confirmation bias, as they predominantly support his theological views without substantial counter-evidence.
Degree of Evidence	C+	While Wright references biblical texts effectively, there is a lack of external scholarly evidence to bolster his claims. Incorporating more diverse theological and historical sources could strengthen the arguments presented.
Degree of Testability	C	Many interpretations are theological and thus not empirically testable. This makes it challenging to objectively verify the claims, as they rely heavily on faith-based reasoning and doctrinal interpretation.
Rational Confidence	B	Wright’s confidence is justified by his expertise and experience in theology. However, the subjective nature of some interpretations means that rational confidence should be tempered by an understanding of alternative scholarly views.

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Degree of Evidence:

The episode primarily relies on biblical texts without substantial external evidence. This can be seen in the discussion of Lazarus and the rich man, where the interpretation is largely based on traditional readings rather than supported by broader theological scholarship.

“And many people have pointed out in olden days as now that actually if it’s a parable, it’s not meant to be a literal description of life after death.”

The discussion would benefit from referencing more scholarly works that analyze the parable from different theological and historical perspectives. Including evidence from early church writings or contemporary theological research could provide a more robust foundation for the interpretations offered.

2. Degree of Testability:

The interpretations offered by NT Wright often reflect his theological stance, making them difficult to empirically test or verify. For instance, the notion that parables are meant to reflect God’s kingdom on earth is a theological interpretation that cannot be tested for accuracy in a scientific sense.

“The gospel is about how God brings his life and love to birth on earth as in heaven.”

To enhance the testability, the discussion could explore how different Christian denominations and religious traditions interpret these parables. Presenting case studies or historical examples where parables influenced real-world actions and outcomes could also offer a more tangible way to evaluate these interpretations.

---

Formulations of Major Arguments

Argument 1: Misunderstanding Parables

1. Premise 1: Parables are not meant to be literal descriptions.
2. Premise 2: Many interpret the parable of Lazarus and the rich man as a literal account of life after death.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, these interpretations are misunderstandings.

Counter-Argument:
Parables can carry both metaphorical and literal elements. While they are primarily metaphorical, they might still convey some literal truths about spiritual realities. The traditional interpretation of Lazarus and the rich man as a glimpse into the afterlife is not necessarily a misunderstanding but an alternative perspective that aligns with certain doctrinal teachings. For example, some theological traditions hold that Jesus used parables to communicate complex truths about the afterlife in a way that was accessible to his audience. By dismissing the literal interpretation entirely, we risk overlooking the multifaceted nature of Jesus’ teachings.

---

Argument 2: Purpose of Parables

1. Premise 1: Jesus used parables to teach about God’s kingdom on earth.
2. Premise 2: Interpreting parables as descriptions of the afterlife misunderstands their purpose.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, parables should be interpreted in the context of earthly teachings.

Counter-Argument:
While parables do focus on earthly teachings, they may also provide insights into the afterlife as part of their broader message. Interpreting parables solely as earthly teachings limits their potential to convey comprehensive theological truths. Parables can serve a dual purpose of teaching about both the present and the future kingdom of God. For instance, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus could be seen as addressing both social justice issues on earth and moral accountability in the afterlife. Acknowledging this dual purpose allows for a richer and more nuanced understanding of Jesus’ messages.

---

Argument 3: Persistence in Prayer

1. Premise 1: The parable of the persistent neighbor teaches persistence in prayer.
2. Premise 2: God responds to persistent prayer.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, believers should pray persistently.

Counter-Argument:
Persistence in prayer is a common theme, but the interpretation that God responds solely because of persistence can be problematic. It may imply that God is reluctant or needs to be persuaded, which contradicts the understanding of a benevolent deity who listens to prayers willingly. The lesson might also include trusting in God’s timing and wisdom rather than just persistence. For example, the emphasis could be placed on the quality and sincerity of the prayer rather than its frequency. Additionally, other biblical texts suggest that God’s response to prayer also depends on His will and the alignment of the prayer with divine purposes.

---

Argument 4: Cultural Context of Parables

1. Premise 1: Jesus’ use of parables was influenced by Jewish storytelling traditions.
2. Premise 2: Understanding the cultural context is crucial for interpreting parables accurately.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, interpreting parables requires knowledge of Jewish traditions.

Counter-Argument:
While cultural context is important, parables also transcend cultural boundaries and offer universal lessons. Overemphasizing the Jewish context might limit the broader applicability and relevance of Jesus’ teachings. The parables should be viewed both in their historical context and in their universal spiritual implications. For instance, the moral lessons in parables like the Good Samaritan are universally understood and applicable, regardless of one’s familiarity with Jewish customs. Balancing the cultural context with a broader interpretation can enhance the relevance and impact of the parables across different cultures and times.

◉ Addressing Argument #1

The Problem of Parables: A God of Clarity or Ambiguity?

The parables of Jesus are often celebrated for their depth and richness, but they also pose a significant problem for those who argue that God is a God of clarity. Given God’s presumed omniscience, He would have known that these parables could and would create confusion among believers. If God truly desired to communicate clearly and unambiguously with humanity, it seems highly improbable that He would choose parables—stories filled with symbolism and metaphor—without providing the necessary clarifying caveats and context to ensure their clear understanding. This raises a critical question: What are the odds that a God of clarity would choose such an obscure method of communication? This suggests that a God of clarity is not the author of the Bible.

First, the inherent ambiguity of parables directly contradicts the notion of a God who values clear communication. Parables are open to a multitude of interpretations, and their meanings are not immediately evident. This has led to centuries of theological debate and differing interpretations among scholars and believers. If God’s primary goal was to convey His message clearly, He would have opted for direct and explicit instructions rather than leaving His followers to decipher enigmatic stories. The use of parables, therefore, undermines the idea that God intended to communicate His will and teachings in a straightforward manner.

Second, the confusion resulting from parables suggests a disconnect between the method of communication and the supposed intent of clarity. Many parables, such as the story of Lazarus and the rich man or the parable of the shrewd manager, have been interpreted in various, often contradictory ways. This inconsistency in interpretation has led to significant doctrinal differences and even divisions within the Christian community. If God truly sought to convey a unified and clear message, it stands to reason that He would not have employed a method that inherently leads to such divergence and misunderstanding.

Third, the lack of clarifying context or caveats provided with the parables further exacerbates the issue. While Jesus did explain some parables to His disciples, these explanations were not always recorded or conveyed to the wider audience. This omission leaves a substantial portion of Jesus’ teachings open to misinterpretation. A God who desires clarity would logically ensure that His messages were accompanied by comprehensive explanations to prevent confusion. The absence of such clarifications suggests either an indifference to clarity or an acceptance of the ensuing ambiguity.

Fourth, the reliance on parables could be seen as indicative of a different authorial intent altogether. If we consider that parables were intended to obfuscate rather than elucidate, it raises troubling questions about the nature of divine communication. Parables often served to veil truths from those not deemed worthy of understanding, as seen in Jesus’ own words: “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given” (Matthew 13:11). This selective revelation contradicts the idea of a universally accessible and clear divine message, pointing instead to a form of esoteric knowledge meant only for a chosen few.

Fifth, the argument that parables encourage deeper engagement and reflection fails to justify the resultant confusion and division. While it is true that complex ideas often require thoughtful contemplation, this does not necessitate the use of ambiguous and potentially misleading stories. A God of clarity could have inspired texts that, while deep and rich, remained accessible and unambiguous in their core messages. The choice to use parables, therefore, suggests either a different priority than clarity or a lack of concern for the clarity of His message.

In conclusion, the use of parables as a primary teaching tool raises significant doubts about the notion of a God of clarity. The inherent ambiguity, lack of clarifying context, and resultant confusion among believers all point to the conclusion that a deity truly committed to clear and unambiguous communication would not have chosen such a method. Instead, the presence of parables in the Bible suggests that the authorial intent was either indifferent to clarity or aimed at a different goal altogether, challenging the traditional view of God as a clear communicator.

---

We warmly invite you to share your thoughts and engage in further discussion on this topic in the comments section below. Your insights and reflections are highly valued as we continue to explore the profound implications of this argument together.