Why did Jesus Speak In Parables?
That Jesus was known for using parables as perhaps the most preferred method of teaching He employed is non-debatable. What it seems many miss though is the primary purpose for why He did so. This article, using His own words quoted for us in the 4 gospels, will seek to decisively answer that question. In fact, it was a question His own disciples wanted an answer to and for as well. As will become evident, the purpose of the parables, according to Jesus Himself was to express the truth of sovereign-grace. Does this surprise you? Read on and see for yourself.
"When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside...But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.” (Matt 13: 19, 23)
One would have to be “blind” (sic) to not “see” the obvious correlation which Jesus here gives, between the ability to understand the message of the kingdom and its natural corollary of faith, compared to one’s not being able to understand it, and therefore, having it “stolen” from them by the evil one. In this parable, Jesus does not tell us, where this ability to “understand” the message comes from. He only tells us that those who do "understand the message" (without any explanation here of why or how they are able to do so), will believe and bear fruit. Those who do not understand, do not believe. So to answer the question of where those who do understand the message get it from, we must look to other things He said.
The Ability To Understand The Message: From Whence Does It Come?
When Peter made his confession of faith in Jesus as God’s “Son”, Jesus did not say, “Good for you Peter! You were able to put ‘two and two together' and figured this out. Well done!” Rather, what He said revealed the truth of sovereign grace. He said, “Blessed are you Peter, for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven” (Matt 16: 17). “Flesh and blood” are never responsible for the insight and understanding we who believe in Jesus possess, but did not produce. God alone, by His grace alone is! Therefore, we who believe cannot "boast" (which means either assume or take credit for the fact that we do believe. We can however give thanks to God for that though).
“Why do You speak in parables?”
Upon witnessing His frequent usage of parables to teach the masses with, His disciples inquired about why He did that. In Matthew’s account, Jesus, in answering that question said,
“Because to you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them, it has not been given…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, ‘Hearing you will hear and 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, and I should heal them’.” (Matt 13: 10 - 15 - emphasis added).
Four times here, Jesus plainly tells us that the people do “not understand”, or that it has “not been given to them” to be able to do so. This now begs the question: Even if it were conceded that they were responsible for their own hardness of heart (which part of the way Matthew words this quote from Isaiah could imply, although Mark, Luke and John‘s rendering make it quite clear that God is), since by all accounts they do not understand the gospel (which is God’s method of saving sinners), how can they be saved? Does God not want to save them? Unless God chooses to “give it to them” to be able to understand the message and thereby accept it, they cannot be saved, because they do not understand the message. And they cannot “choose to accept” a message they do not understand and hence, do not believe. So the argument is circular here anyway. But if we compare Matthew’s account of this discussion between Jesus and His disciples with both Luke’s and John’s something will become increasingly clear. Luke’s record of Jesus’ answer to His disciples question is thus,
“And He said, ‘To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest I speak in parables, that ‘Seeing they may not see and hearing they may not understand.’” (Luke 8: 9 -10).
Mark is in complete agreement with this profound, and for many, disturbing truth. When recording Jesus' answer to the very question of why He spoke in parables, Mark says,
"But when He was alone, those around Him with the twelve asked Him about the parable. And He said to them, “To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, so that Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn And their sins be forgiven them.’” (Mark 4: 10 - 12)
Neither Luke nor Mark quote the entire phrase from Isaiah, but what they do quote is sufficient to show the intent behind the parables. It is beyond contestation that Jesus here, according to Luke and Mark, says that the parables were given, so that “seeing they will not see and hearing they will not understand.” In this context, this “so that” can only mean, “to prevent them from being able to do so”. In Mark's rendering the "lest they should see.." means exactly the same thing - "to prevent them from seeing..."There is simply no other legitimate way to understand this phrase here, without doing violence to this text. But John’s account is even stronger!
“He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts”
John records this same prophecy from Isaiah. But he does not include it only as an explanation for why Jesus’ parables were not grasped by the Jews en mass. He also uses it to explain why they did not believe, in-spite of His numerous miracles. John says,
“But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, so that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: ‘Lord who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?’ Therefore also, they could not believe, because Isaiah said again:
‘He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, lest they should see with their eyes, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn so that I would heal them.’” (Jn 12: 37- 40).
Again we see the obvious, but only John adds something crucial omitted by Matthew and Luke. John adds that it was not merely they themselves who had “hardened” their own hearts, but that “He” did! The “He” John refers to is God, not Satan. He also said, “For this reason, they could not believe.” This fact has to be included in our theological perspective of “free will” in this context. For John here does not merely claim they were unwilling to believe. He states they were “blinded and hardened” and thus, could not believe. Why did God do this to them? John picks up the same theme Luke and Mark record. It was to essentially prevent them from being able to “turn to Him and be healed”. He says, “lest they should see, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn so that I would heal them.” Clearly, these passages reveal that if the people did understand and turn to Him, God would have healed them. But in order to prevent them from doing just that, they were not enabled to understand. In fact, they were prevented from doing so!
Think about this staggering thought! They were prevented by God Himself, not merely Satan. How can this be? I thought God wanted to save them? I thought He loved them. Why would He then actually cause them to not be able to understand His own message which alone could save them if they understood it and thereby accepted it? Can any “Free-will” based answer, honestly answer this question? Because I thought God wanted to save "sinners"! Therefore, since He understood what He was "getting Himself into" when He undertook to plan and purpose our salvation and knew what we were, why would He then turn around and "harden" someone just because they are a "sinner"? Does this make any sense to anyone?
Consider this well: Since they were prevented from being able to do what was needed to enable them to understand and believe and turn and be healed, they were not “free” to do so! Thus, their will in this context, was not “free”. In which case, “free-will” in this context, is irrevocably and irrefutably shown to be invalid! And it is so shown to be, in and by the very words of the Saviour Himself, who knew and understood the human condition better than anyone else did. And the very same bible which people use to support their assumptions about “free-will” in this, the salvation context, here unmistakably and without apology, refutes precisely that false assumption!
Are they worse sinners than others?
Again, arguing something like, “Well they were stubborn sinners, who loved their sin and willfully chose to reject the message and that is why God hardened them”, really answers nothing here. In fact, it actually evades the real questions and begs a host of others. Because I had thought (according to my previously held "free-will" viewpoint), that the whole purpose behind the coming of Jesus was that, even though we were all lost spiritually, though we all “fall short”, and though we had “all – each of us turned to his own way” (Rom 3: 10 – 12), God still wanted to save us all! Therefore, if God is wanting to save everyone without exception, He should not be hindering them, “so that” they will not be able to “turn to Him and be healed”! People in the “free-will” model often quote, “God is not willing that any perish, but that all come to repentance” (2 Pe 3: 9). Yet those actions by God of “hardening, blinding” etc., would at best qualify the verse just quoted above from Peter’s epistle, or at worst contradict it! At least the way those in the “free-will” model interpret it.
Furthermore, there have been many people who heard the gospel and who initially rejected it (like Saul of Tarsus). But they were not “hardened” by God so as to prevent them from being able to come in the future. Thus, rejecting the gospel once it is heard is not the reason for why God “hardens” anyone. So once again, we see the fact that “free-will” arguments not only do not properly answer the really “tough” questions, but their own answers all too often “beg the question”. Which one? The question of why God does not “harden” every sinner who hears and initially rejects the gospel. In fact, Thomas himself initially chose to disbelieve the gospel (which by definition, is the story of Jesus death and resurrection), when he was personally told it by the women and the other apostles who testified to having seen Jesus alive again! But he was not “hardened” either. How many times did you hear the gospel before you were brought to a place of true understanding and acceptance of it by God’s matchless grace?
“God is not willing that any perish but that all come to repentance”
The way the “free-will” model usually interprets Peter’s statement (above) is to take it out of its legitimate and only intended context – which is spoken of, for, to and about believers. They try to make what was a true statement about God’s desire and intention for them, to be true of His desire and intention for all men without exception. This is simply not factual, nor is it supported by the text itself. Peter says, “But God is patient towards you… (the “dear brothers” he mentions in vs 8), not wanting anyone (which in context means, “any of you whom He considers beloved” ) to perish, but that they all (or “you all”) should come to repentance”. To whom does Peter write? He writes “To those who have obtained a like precious faith with us” (2 Pe 1:1). That is his audience! He is writing to the church, not to the whole world! His statements there can only be applied therefore to those to whom he intended to apply them. His intended audience was believers - those who have “received/obtained” the same faith he possessed.
Why write to them about God’s desire for them not to perish, if it is not possible that they could perish in the first place? The answer is to comfort them and give an explanation for the apparent “delay” in the Lord’s 2nd coming. Peter wants his readers to understand that it is because of those whom the Lord loves, whom He has foreknown and chosen (1 Pe 1: 2) that the coming of Jesus is “delayed”. So that none of them whom the Lord has so foreknown and chosen perish, but rather so that all of them come to repentance, God delays the coming of His Son to facilitate that singular end! That is the purpose of God in the earth today. That is what He is currently doing among the nations and peoples of the world, using His church as a part of that process. He waits and works within time, to fulfill and accomplish what He purposed in eternity. Because He is Lord over time itself, being Sovereign over all things, He knows He can “delay” as long as He chooses to fulfill His purpose here. As such, there is no doubt or ambiguity in His mind about the success of His purpose here.
A consistent purpose
That purpose of God, which Peter speaks of is consistent with His desire that those whom He chooses, come to repentance. However, those actions of “hardening and blinding” by God (mentioned earlier) are therefore, utterly incompatible with the assumption that He truly wants to save them. If He wanted to save them, He would not be actively hardening and blinding them so as to prevent them from being able to “turn to Him and be healed”! This is a staggering and in fact unanswerable point, for those who cling to the “free will” rather than the sovereign-grace model. For if the “free-will” assumption is correct, He should be doing all within His sovereign power to do just the opposite! To make it so evident in their hearts and minds that the message of the kingdom is the only thing that can save them (so that they will truly understand this). That by means of this understanding, they will in the very least, be predisposed to accept it. That would at least be consistent with His desire (supposed) to want to save them all (meaning all humanity without exception). But to harden, blind and prevent them - even if just one of them at any time - from being able to understand and believe the message, lest by understanding it they turn to Him for His mercy, that action by God is mutually incompatible and therefore, utterly irreconcilable with the assumption that He is both wanting and trying to save them! There is simply no way to logically dispute this fact. At least while holding to the authority and inspiration of the scriptures which explicitly teach it! It is what God’s word plainly says He did and does in this particular context.
If God intended to save all ‘sinners’, why “harden” someone for being one?
Therefore, insisting that it is “their sin” in some way, which causes God to so harden them is also fundamentally illogical in light of these significant biblical facts. Because, I thought that the whole purpose of sending His Son was to save “sinners”! Why then would He harden or prevent someone from being able to come to Him, just because they are a sinner? Some suggest that the principle of a “darkened conscience” – which states that the more we resist the truth and engage in sinfulness, the “darker” or “harder” our heart gets, is the answer here. Thus, God only “hardens” those who have hardened themselves by their continual rejection of His truth. This would be the common “free-will model” answer here.
Spiritual death is an absolute, not a relative condition: Dead is dead
My answer to this argument is that once again, it “begs the question”. Here’s how and why: Whether or not their conscience is “darkened”, “deceived” or “hardened” by ongoing sin is utterly irrelevant! Because by “granting them repentance so that they can acknowledge the truth, come to their senses and escape the snare of the evil one who has them held captive to do his will”, God overcomes all such issues in their conscience and or, “heart”! Remember, as we saw earlier, the fact is “spiritual-death” is not relative. It is absolute. “Dead in sin” is dead. Period! So there is no way that an unregenerate sinner’s “heart” goes from a lesser to a greater degree of depravity or “death”. “The heart is desperately wicked and deceitful above all things” (Jer. 17: 9). Thus, it was already “deceitful above all things”. Notice Jeremiah says “the” heart. Not some hearts, but the heart (internal nature). It is not merely deceitful above some things, allowing for it to grow or become “worse” in this regard. It is deceitful above all things!
We are all “born in sin and shaped in iniquity”. We are born unfortunately into spiritual death! Now, even if for the sake of argument, it was conceded that we were not born into “spiritual death” (allowing for the “innocence” of mere babies and infants), but only “die spiritually” the moment we consciously choose sin, the fact is, all have done and do so with no exceptions (It is beyond the scope of this article to discus the nature of persons born severely mentally retarded God alone knows each heart and sense of understanding. And the scripture states, "There is none righteous, no not one. There is none that do good, none that understand and none that seek God."). Thus, God knows that every baby who is born, and is killed prematurely by whatever means, will do so. There is therefore no escaping the depravity of human nature, even if it is conceded that we are not born as “spiritually dead sinners”. The moment any person becomes aware in any degree of “right” or “wrong”, at whatever age that becomes realized in each person, and to whatever degree it does, they (we) all commit sin.. with no exceptions, except Jesus Himself of course. Therefore, “spiritual death” , even if not a condition we are "born into" (said merely for the sake of argument), is an ultimately unavoidable fact for every single human being! Otherwise some humans would not require a saviour and not be “sinners”.
Thus, once spiritually “dead”, the spirit of a person doesn’t become “more dead” the more they reject the gospel than it was the first time. Because it was already “dead in sin” to begin with! That condition is absolute, apart from grace. The only variable is the external manifestations of sin which can be acted on. But not the internal reality itself. So once again, we see clearly that the common “free-will model” argument is circular. It once again “begs the question”. All “sinners” therefore, have a “darkened conscience” or a “hard-heart”. Trying to make a principle of the need to maintain a “clean heart” and an “enlightened conscience” which is true of a born-again, Spirit-indwelt, saved believer in Jesus, and make it apply to those whose “hearts are desperately wicked and deceitful above all things”, who are “dead in sin” already, is simply neither logical, nor scripturally accurate.
Therefore, if God’s intention in sending Jesus was to save all “sinners”, for Him then to turn around and not “grant” to some what He did and does to others, just because they are “sinners” is profoundly illogical and inconsistent! Yet that is how some “free-will” people will attempt to answer this point. Did God not know what stubbornness resides in the hearts of sinners who are “dead in sin”? Of course He did! Other sinners like Saul of Tarsus who passionately and purposely persecuted the cause of Jesus were certainly stubborn and defiantly opposed to Jesus and His gospel. But God did not harden him though. Rather, as we will examine in depth later on, God granted him precisely the type of Divine manifestation of Jesus which God knew would succeed in subduing (not 'forcing') his will. Thomas was also willful in his stubborn refusal to heed the report of the women and other disciples who told him of the empty tomb and post-resurrection appearances of Jesus to them. He stubbornly claimed, “I will not believe unless…” God did not harden him though! Quite the contrary, God granted him also what he needed in order to bring him to faith!
Which model consistently fits the facts?
In the light of all these facts therefore, which model makes more sense or better fits the facts – all of them? The “free-will” model, which cannot provide a biblically sound nor intellectually satisfying answer to these precise points? Or the sovereign-grace model which has always affirmed precisely these points? The “free will” answers here, which deny or at least practically ignore the truth of God’s sovereign grace on these points are unfortunately fundamentally self-contradictory, because they consistently place the cause/effect in the wrong order. As such, I can’t see how they honour the sovereign God who has revealed His own sovereignty in precisely this context for us to know. God-forbid! Do I mean to come across as arrogant here? May it not be! My heart has been broken before God repeatedly concerning this issue, the pride He exposed in me by this process and the plight of the lost without Him.
Summary:
· Jesus plainly taught that regeneration precedes salvation, because it is essential for anyone to be able to “see” (to perceive, discern or recognize”) the kingdom of God.
· Jesus plainly taught that there is an inescapable parallel between the ability to understand the message of the Kingdom, and the faith which always follows that understanding.
· Those who understand, believe and bear fruit, He said. Those who do not understand, do not believe.
· The ability to understand does not come by means of human wisdom, willpower or diligence, but rather it is “given” to some and withheld from others, as Jesus plainly said to Peter and all His disciples.
· We’re told explicitly and repeatedly by Jesus and the writers of the gospels that the purpose of the parables was “so that” some would be prevented from being able to “see with their eyes, understand with their hearts and turn and be healed.”
· We’re also told that the One in this case who is responsible for some being “blinded and hardened” is God Himself.
· If God wanted to save those whom He so blinded and hardened, His actions in that regard would be utterly incompatible with that desire. For those actions made it impossible for those so hardened to now come to Him.
· The truth that “God is not willing that any perish, but that all come to repentance” while true indeed, is too often removed from its only intended and therefore, legitimate context, which is a statement made to and about believers. God’s actions of delaying the coming of His Son are to facilitate that end. As such, those actions are compatible with that desire. But His actions of “hardening” anyone are utterly incompatible with a supposed desire to want to save them.
· All sinners apart from grace have a heart (internal nature) that God says is “desperately wicked and deceitful above all things”. Therefore all are “dead in sin” before they hear the gospel.
·
God does not “harden” every sinner who hears and rejects the gospel, as He obviously does for some. But rather, for whom He chooses, (like Saul of Tarsus and Thomas, for examples), though they defiantly resist or reject the truth of Jesus’ death and resurrection, He continues to work in and on them, to bring them to faith, using whatever He deems is necessary to do so.Thus, the very reason for why Jesus taught so often in and by parables, was by His own word, and the inspired understanding of the chosen apostles He entrusted with recording it for us, for the express purpose of expressing the very truth of sovereign-grace. Though many object who find this truth so disturbing and who either in their genuine ignorance or spiritual arrogance dognatically state that there is nothing in scripture which supports the doctrine of sovereign-grace, the facts remain. The purpose of the parables was intended to reveal God's sovereign-grace, and as such, they succeed in doing so.
In His grace;
Adapted from: "God I Thank You That I Am Not Like Other Men: Exposing The Pride Inherent In The Free-will Model Of Salvation", (c) 2007, by: John M. Platanitis