Parabolic Figures or Narrative Fictions?: Seminal Essays on the Stories of Jesus

Table of Contents

Preface

Introduction

Abbreviations

Part 1: Foundations

Chapter 1: Prolegomena to Reading Parables

Chapter 2: Parable and Kingdom

Chapter 3: The Parables and the Synoptic Problem

Chapter 4: Survivors of the Crucifixion

Chapter 5: Realism in Western Narrative and the Gospel of Mark

Part 2: Studies

Chapter 6: Kingdom Sayings and Parables of Jesus in the Secret Book of James

Chapter 7: An Unfinished Story about a Fig Tree in a Vineyard (Luke 13:6–9)

Chapter 8: Flawed Heroes and Stories Jesus Told

Chapter 9: A Story about a Fired Manager

Chapter 10: Two Short Notes on the Parable of the Samaritan (Luke 10:30b–35)

Part 3: Critiques

Chapter 11: Stories with Intent

Chapter 12: Critiques

Epilogue

Bibliography

Parabolic Figures or Narrative Fictions?

Seminal Essays on the Stories of Jesus

Charles W. Hedrick

Parabolic Figures or Narrative Fictions?

Seminal Essays on the Stories of Jesus

Copyright © 2016 Charles W. Hedrick. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Cascade Books

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

paperback isbn 13: 978-1-4982-2485-7

hardback isbn 13: 978-1-4982-2487-1

ebook isbn 13: 978-1-4982-2486-4

Cataloguing-in-Publication data:

Name: Hedrick, Charles W.

Title: Parabolic figures or narrative fictions? : seminal essays on the stories of Jesus / Charles W. Hedrick.

Description: Eugene, OR: Cascade Books | Includes bibliographical references and indexes.

Identifiers: isbn: 978-1-4982-2485-7 (paperback) | isbn: 978-1-4982-2487-1 (hardback) | isbn: 978-1-4982-2486-4 (ebook)

Subjects: LCSH: Jesus Christ—Parables. | Bible. N.T.—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Bible. Gospels—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Gospel of Thomas (Coptic Gospel)—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Apocryphon of James—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Title.

Classification: BT375.2 H381 2016 (print) | BT375.2 (ebook)

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

Dan Otto Via Jr.

In memoriam

Gathering the fragments left over that nothing be lost. (John 6:12)

Preface

Every book begins with largely unexplored ideas that become clearer as the work progresses. Inevitably, however, not everything contributing to the work is included in the book, either from the initial phase of the work or from the period in which the work finally matures and is eventually published. There may be many reasons why not everything is included, but in the case of my two books on the parables certain related issues arose later that needed addressing to further support the main thesis of the books. My early published work on the parables of Jesus was included either as chapters or as an appendix in the first book, Parables as Poetic Fictions: The Creative Voice of Jesus (see page xi). What did not get included in either book were some of the early unpublished studies I used in the classroom and certain other published articles related to narrative and parable.

This book brings together my work on the parables both published and unpublished not included in the first two books. The published works have been edited to accommodate any changes in my thinking since their first appearance, and the unpublished early studies have been revised.

The material in this book appears in three sections. The first section, Foundations, is composed of several previously published papers on parables that challenged conventional ideas related to the study of the parables of Jesus. The second section, Studies, includes previously published essays on particular parables or essays about parables in general. The third section, Critiques, publishes for the first time my own review of a recent book publication on the parables and brief unpublished responses of reviews of my books on parables done by others.

Introduction

Engaging Parables as Poetic Narrative:A Summary

¹

I make the basic assumptions of critical scholarship. The authors of the Synoptic Gospels² used oral tradition ultimately originating with those associates of Jesus who survived the crucifixion event during the prefecture of Pontius Pilate. A period of around fifty years and a change in culture from Judean to Graeco-Roman³ culture separates the later synoptic master narrative⁴ from the death of Jesus.⁵ The authors of the Synoptic Gospels were not eyewitnesses to the events they describe, and reliable tradition contemporary with the public career of Jesus depends ultimately on the memories of those who witnessed the events and passed them on with a minimum of interpretation.

⁶

A literary relationship exists between the Synoptic Gospels, and this fact means that multiple versions of some parables exist.⁷ There are only fourteen stories that exist in multiple versions.⁸ The differences between the versions of the same story are due to changes made to them in their early oral period and the later editing of the story at its inscription by the author of the gospel in which the story appears. The usual theory is that Mark’s gospel is the earliest, and Matthew and Luke used Mark and another written text as sources.⁹ The earliest sources for the stories of Jesus are Mark, Matthew, Luke, the Gospel of Thomas,¹⁰ the Secret Book of James,¹¹ and the now lost written source (i.e., Q) that Matthew and Luke used as a source in addition to their use of Mark.¹² The Gospel of John either does not know, or does not choose to use, the stories (i.e., brief fictional narrative vignettes usually designated parable) attributed to Jesus in the synoptic tradition, Thomas, and the Secret Book of James.

We have no primary sources for the career of Jesus. A primary source is a source that originates from the time period contemporary with the events being described in the source. The Synoptic Gospels, which are usually accorded the status of primary sources, at best represent the views of a third generation of the heirs of the Jesus tradition.¹³ The Synoptic Gospels represent what the early synoptic communities thought about the Judean roots of the gospel they proclaimed approximately a generation or more after the events they describe.

My views on the stories of Jesus break with mainstream parables scholarship,¹⁴ and in many ways they take a different path from even recent critical studies of the parables.¹⁵ In my view we have no idea how Jesus used his brief narratives. While Mark’s view of the purpose of the parables (Mark 4:10–12) is likely pre-Markan,¹⁶ it does not go back to Jesus.¹⁷ Hence, if anything comes from Jesus, it is the stories alone. And that means literary settings, and the comparative frames introducing the stories, along with their appended interpretations derive from the early communities, the gospel writers, or both, as part of their strategy for understanding the stories.¹⁸ Even their designation in the gospels as parables derives from the early Christian strategy for understanding the stories.

What the synoptic writers describe as parables are in form narratives—realistic fictional narratives that disclose aspects of Palestinian antiquity. Describing them as allegory, metaphor, or similitude does not describe their form, but rather such terms are strategies for understanding the parables in terms of how interpreters think they did and do function. ¹⁹ The question of how they function is a second-order question, however, and the answer should arise from what the narratives are in themselves, rather than simply from accepting the synoptic interpretive strategy that they are generally figurative.²⁰ Successful fiction narrative, on the other hand, draws attention to itself and is not deliberately referential, even though it can be, and has been, read in that manner.²¹

Referentiality can never be assumed. An interpreter who wants to treat the parable as figurative should specifically identify the trigger in the story that deliberately pushes the mind onto a different plane of reality. Does this trigger derive from the internal force of the narrative? Is it validated by specific language in the narrative? If the trigger lies only in the mind of the reader and in the personal existential baggage the reader brings to the story, or in both, then the leap outward to some other plain of reality must be judged invalid.

The parables, however, became successful precisely because they were thought to be referential and full of truths about the kingdom of God, among other things. Interpreters have been able to find their own theological values in the parables when treating them as figurative. The stories responded to this way of reading them because narrative is essentially polyvalent or polysemous, and, given that a lot of things are going on in the narrative, multiple responses were thereby encouraged from readers who had a predisposition to treat them as figures. In short, narratives can be understood and used in ways never imagined by their authors.²² It remains to be seen whether or not the stories Jesus told will be successful when read simply as first-‎century Palestinian fictional narratives.

Amos Wilder noted that the parables have ever afresh witnessed to Jesus in their own way and to the concrete language‎-‎world which conditioned his proclamation and fate.²³ And that is true, but this openness of the parables to individual interpretation, to which Wilder called attention, has proven to be both a strength and weakness of the parables. The history of parables interpretation has shown that any element in the parable can reference virtually whatever the interpreter wants it to reference.²⁴

Wilder further argued that the parable should be allowed to evoke its own horizon and its meaning in that horizon, independently of its interpreters²⁵—by which I understand him to be saying that the parable itself establishes the ground rules for its own interpretation, although Wilder never explained what he took to be those ground rules. The only real controls on the parabolic narrative lie in its poetic construction; beyond that, the inventor of the parable loses all control of the story, whatever the original intent may have been. There are at least four constraints on interpreters built into the parable:

1. The realism of the parable undermines and exposes idealistic readings that ignore the parable’s realism.

2. The language used in the parables establishes the limits of its dialogue with the reader. The use of different language in discussing the parable is a reader’s response that describes what the reader thinks about the parable; it is not what the parable says.

3. The horizon of the parable extends only to the social world of Palestinian village life.²⁶ When readers leave the Palestinian village, they are no longer dialoging with the parable.

4. Because the parables are not closed off with authoritative solutions, there will always be a range of plausible readings.

Within these limits the parable invites the engagement of every reader.²⁷

The parables are the creative inventions of the mind of Jesus and as such reflect his historical situation.²⁸ But what an interpreter thinks about him and his perceived situation are not the primary contexts within which to read the parables; rather, judging by the confidence scholars have that the parables originated with Jesus makes them a primary means of interpreting him and his situation.²⁹ Hence, the Christ of Christian faith is subordinate to the parables. That is to say, an interpreter’s confessional ideas about Jesus should be subordinated to, and informed by, the secularity of the stories.

Each narrative is a fragment of Jesus’s fictional view of reality. The proper way to read them is not to ask about their meaning but rather to ask, what is going on in the narrative, and what do I as a reader think about its plot, action, and characters? Parables/stories are open-ended and make no value judgments whether on an action in the narrative or on the characters performing the actions. Auditors and readers are called upon to make those value judgments. The stories do not teach, reference a transcendent symbol, or push Christian morals. They come closer to revealing in the sense that they have the potential to open up new ways for people to understand themselves and their situation in the world.

The stories work by resonating in the context of a first-‎century Judean world. When Jesus presented them orally to individuals or groups in the first century, they made sense or not in terms of that world. I use the term resonate in the sense of subvert, affirm, or challenge. They resonate in such a way that an auditor’s field of vision is lifted beyond the specific narrow confines of the story: thus, pondering the narrative lifts an auditor’s personal horizon of understanding. These discoveries are made in the nexus between the story and what the reader brings to it. As Frank Kermode says, Fictions are for finding things out.³⁰

1. See my summary of how to let a parable speak in its own way: Hedrick, Many Things in Parables,

89

–

99.

2. The Synoptic Gospels are the best sources we have for the public career of Jesus; John is unreliable as a historical source. See Hedrick, Introduction.

3. The evangelists were not Judean, but they wrote from the perspective of the broader Graeco-Roman culture. See the arguments of Feine et al., Introduction, Mark,

68

–

70

; Matthew,

84

–

86

; Luke,

102

–

5

; John,

165

–

75

.

4. The synoptic master narrative is the story about Jesus as represented in the agreements between Matthew, Mark, and Luke in their common description of Jesus’s career.

5. I am estimating the death of Jesus at around

30

CE, and the composition of Luke around

80

CE.

6. Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition,

1

–

7

; Hedrick, History and Faith,

110

–

25

.

7. The classic form of a parable of Jesus is narrative; that is to say, it is a brief fictional story. Hence, the terms parable, story, and narrative are interchangeable in this book.

8. See Hedrick, Parable,

371

.

9. Hedrick, History and Faith,

48

–

94

.

10. Hedrick, Unlocking the Secrets,

32

.

11. For the translation of the text see Williams, Apocryphon of James,

29

‎–

37

. For the stories in the Apocryphon of James, see chapter

6

below.

12. This lost text, called Q (from the first letter of the German word for source, Quelle) is thought by many scholars to be recoverable in the common material shared by Matthew and Luke, but lacking in Mark. See Hedrick, History and Faith,

95

–

109

.

13. The second generation is represented by the survivors of the crucifixion, and the third is represented by the authors of the Synoptic Gospels.

14. Mainstream parables scholarship I consider to be traditional ecclesiastical scholarship on the parables, which in many ways is still mired in the allegorical mud of the Middle Ages.

15. Hedrick, Many Things in Parables,

57

–

88

. For the most recent survey of the critical study of the parables see Zimmerman, Puzzling the Parables,

3

–

174

.

16. Carlston, Parables of the Triple Tradition,

99

–

109

; Jeremias, Parables,

15

; Hultgren, Parables,

453

–

60

.

17. Hedrick, Many Things in Parables,

31

–

35

.

18. Ibid.,

10

‎–

22

.

19. Ibid.,

1

–

9

.

20. Not all of the stories of Jesus are used figuratively by the synoptic evangelists. Some are used as examples, illustrations, and warnings. See the summary of how the stories are used by the synoptic evangelists in Hedrick, Poetic Fictions,

16

–

21

.

21. Via, Parables,

74

–

75

.

22. For example, see Murfin, Joseph Conrad, as an example of multiple ways of reading a text.

23 Wilder, Parables and the War of Myths,

99

.

24. See, for example, the imaginative excesses of interpretation to which the openness of the parable can lead in Trench’s treatment of the deeper meaning of the parable of the Samaritan: Trench, Parables,

320

–

28

.

25. Wilder, Parables and the War of Myths,

99

.

26. By horizon I mean to indicate the limits of the story’s interest

27. Hedrick, Many Things in Parables,

53

–

54

.

28. Ibid.,

25

–

26

.

29. Via, Parables,

37

; Hedrick, Wisdom of Jesus,

119

.

30. Kermode, Sense of an Ending,

39

.

Abbreviations

General

BCE Before the Common Era

CE Common Era

n note

n.f. neue Folge (new series)

n.s. new series

p. page

para. paragraph

pgs. pages

pl. plural

Ancient Sources

Ap. Jas. Secret Book of James

Arb. De arboribus

Agr. De agricultura

2 Bar Second Baruch

Caus. plant. De causis plantarum

Cels. Contra Celsum

Civ. De civitate Dei

1 Cor First Corinthians

2 Cor Second Corinthians

2 Chr Second Chronicles

Dan Daniel

Deut Deuteronomy

Did. Didache

Eccl Ecclesiastes

1 En. First Enoch

Exod Exodus

Ezek Ezekiel

Gal Galatians

Gen Genesis

Gos. Thom. Gospel of Thomas

Hab Habakkuk

Hist. an. Historia animalium

Hist. plant. Historia planatarum

Jas James

Jdt Judith

Jer Jeremiah

Josh Joshua

Judg Judges

1 Kgs First Kings

2 Kgs Second Kings

L Luke’s Special Source

Lev Leviticus

M Matthew’s Special Source

1 Macc First Maccabees

Matt Matthew

m. B. Bat. Mishnah Baba Batra

Mic Micah

m. Kil. Mishnah Kil’ayim

m. Šeb. Mishnah Šeb‘it

Nat. Naturalis historia

Nat. d. De Natura deorum

Num Numbers

Oec. Oeconomicus

Poet. Poetica

Prov Proverbs

Ps Psalm

Q Quelle (Source)

R Revelation

Resp. Respublica

Rhet. Rhetorica

Rom Romans

Rust. De re rustica

1 Sam First Samuel

2 Sam Second Samuel

Sen. De senectute

Sir Sirach

Sol. Solon

Song Song of Songs

1 Thess First Thessalonians

Tob Tobit

Wis Wisdom

Zech Zechariah

Zeph Zephaniah

Modern Sources

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992

BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensum

BibSem Biblical Seminar

BRev Bible Review

BTB Biblical Theological Bulletin

BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

CBQM Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series

EDB Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by David Noel Freedman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000

EvT Evangelische Theologie

FF Foundations and Facets

ForFasc Forum Fascicles

GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten [drei] Jahrhunderte

HeyJ Heythrop Journal

HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament

HTR Harvard Theological Review

IDB Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by George A.Buttrick et al. 5 vols. New York: Abingdon, 1962–1976

IDBSu Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible Supplement

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies

JR Journal of Religion

JRS Journal of Roman Studies

JSHJ Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus

JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods

JSJSup Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism

JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series

LCL Loeb Classical Library

LNTS Library of New Testament Studies

LTQ Lexington Theological Quarterly

Mus Muséon: Revue d’études orientales

NHL Nag Hammadi Library in English. Edited by James M.Robinson. 4th rev. ed. Leiden: Brill, 1996

NHS Nag Hammadi Studies

NHMS Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies

NICNT New International Commentary of the New Testament

NIDB New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld. 5 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 2006–2009

NIV New International Version

NovT Novum Testamentum

NTAbh Neutestamentliche Abhandlung

NTApoc New Testament Apocrypha. 2 vols. Rev. ed. Edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher. English trans. ed. Robert McL. Wilson. Cambridge: Clarke, 1991–1992.

NTM New Testament Message

NTS New Testament Studies

OCD Oxford Classical Dictionary. Edited by Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

PRSt Perspectives in Religious Studies

RBS Resources for Biblical Study

RevExp Review and Expositer

RSV Revised Standard Version

SBL Society of Biblical Literature

SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers

SBLSymSer Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series

SBT Studies in Biblical Theology

SCJ Studies in Christianity and Judaism

SecCent Second Century

SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

SV Scholars Version

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976

WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

Part 1

Foundations

1

Prolegomena to Reading Parables

Luke 13:6–9 as a Test Case¹

Introduction

New Testament scholars do not agree on what a parable is and how it functions—and neither did the canonical evangelists.² The designation parable is used in the gospels to describe the following: stories (i.e., narratives having a beginning, middle, and end: Mark 4:2–9); brief images (Mark 13:28); aphorisms (Mark 7:15–17); and traditional proverbs (Luke 4:23). Luke even regards banal advice about table etiquette and seating protocol at a banquet as a parable (Luke 14:8–10). Frequently a given literary unit is described as a parable by one evangelist but is not so described by another. Luke, for example, describes the twin proverbs new patch on old garment and new wine in old wineskins (5:36–38) as a (single) parable, but Matthew (9:16–17) and Mark (2:21–22) do not describe them as parables.

If we limit the term parable to include just the narratives, and then analyze how they functioned in the gospels, there is still no consistency. In general, the evangelists find them to be allegories from which they make whimsical applications to the life of the church, stories from which they draw short morals for the faith of the church, brief images and figures reflecting some point of early Christian theology or morality, and examples illustrating Christian morality.³ They do agree, however, that the parabolic language of Jesus, like virtually everything else he said, was cryptic and arcane. Hence the story, as parable, does not mean what it says, but something else quite different.⁴ In short, the evangelists treat the stories as cryptic discourse in need of religious explanation.

In the history of parables scholarship there have been programmatic shifts in understanding the parables, but not all scholars have shifted their understanding of parables to agree with the new definitions. The new strategies have not eclipsed the former conventional approaches. And so today, at one and the same time, parables are regarded as allegories,⁵ stories that make a one point comparison between a picture world and a substance world,⁶ metaphors,⁷ symbols,⁸ stories that disclose aspects of human existence,⁹ narratives about political power and the exploitation of the peasant class,¹⁰ and nonreferential fictions that should be read in the context of the ways that first-century Judeans understood themselves.¹¹ Today no consensus exists among scholars on what a parable is or how it functions.

This chapter examines various interpretations of the brief story about a fig tree that does not bear figs when expected (Luke 13:6–9) and focuses on the assumptions and methods leading to these interpretations.

The Story

Translation Luke 13:6–9

(

6

) A certain (fellow) had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it, but did not find (any). (

7

) And he said to the vinedresser, Look here, three years now I am coming seeking fruit on this tree, and I do not find (any). Cut it down; why indeed does it uselessly occupy the land? (

8

) And having answered, he says to him, "Sir, leave it also this year, until which (time) I have dug about it, and throw (on) some manure; (

9

) and if it bears fruit in the future . . . , but if not the least, you will cut it down."

A Few Preliminary Observations on the Story

A certain (fellow) (13:6) is typical of Lukan style.¹² Hence, Luke may well have revised the story in other ways as well, assuming that it is traditional, rather than a Lukan creation. The narrative frame introducing the story does not call for a comparison, and Luke does not associate the story with the reign of God. In the story the narrator speaks in past time (13:6–7a), but the dialogue between the owner and the vinedresser is cast in present and future tenses (13:7b–9).¹³ The ellipsis (13:9b) is unusual; many translators are bothered by the incompleteness of the sentence and fill in a clause to complete it.

As it appears in Luke, the narrative is a story that has a beginning, middle, and end, but it lacks a resolution:

• 13:6: The beginning and the problem: a man had a fig tree that did not bear.

• 13:7–8: The middle: the owner instructed his vinedresser to cut it down, but the vinedresser proposed a solution to the problem, i.e. that he dig about it and fertilize it instead.

• 13:9: The end: There is no resolution; the reader is left wondering: does the vinedresser tend the tree, as he proposed, or do his responsibilities as vinedresser take all of his time? Does the tree bear fruit the next year or not? Is it cut down after all? In the story the problem is left unresolved.

The story raises a number of issues for those concerned with the narrative rather than with finding religious applications. While many interpretations have cited the similarity of the parable to the story of Ahikar,¹⁴ only Adolf Jülicher has noted that there is another version of the story attributed to Jesus preserved in the gnostic text Pistis Sophia.¹⁵ Might this second version of the parable cast light on the Lukan narrative? Other issues are raised by the story itself. Is it common for fig trees to be planted in vineyards in Palestinian antiquity? Is it important that there is only one tree in this particular vineyard? Is the application of manure dug in around the tree normally the way one cares for fig trees that do not bear? What is the significance of three years for the productivity of the tree? The concluding statement of the vinedresser is rather odd. He had been ordered by the owner to cut the tree down, but he pleads for another year. One would have expected his final statement to be, and then I will cut it down. But he says You will cut it down. It is also a bit odd to have a vinedresser caring for the tree; why not an orchardist?

Could such questions help to clarify the realism of the story? Alexander Findlay thinks that it has the appearance of a story made up to illustrate a particular truth rather than an observation of what we call the natural processes, or of the behavior of ordinary men and women in actual life.¹⁶ In other words, Findlay calls into question the realism of the story. Thus an investigation of farming methods should be in order—if one is interested in the story. But few of these issues are addressed in the following interpretations.

The Literary Setting in Luke Provides an Early Christian Reading of the Story

Luke’s broader context preceding the story (the following passages appear to be unrelated) focuses on the general theme of the delay of the parousia and the necessity for the church to remain faithful during the delay (Luke 12:35–40): You also must be ready; for the son of man is coming at an unexpected hour (12:40). Hence the church must be ready at all times for their Lord’s return (12:41–48), for he will come on a day when [you do] not expect him (12:46). His coming will bring judgment and division (12:49–53). Hence the church should wisely interpret the signs of the times (12:54–56), and act accordingly (12:57–58).¹⁷

The immediate context (13:1–5) of the parable insists on the necessity for repentance. Following 13:3 and 5 (unless you repent, you will all likewise perish), the story for Luke illustrates the inevitability of judgment in connection with the parousia on both the world and the church, if they do not repent. For Luke, the story and the context come together in the nexus of 13:7 and 9: cut the tree down, since it has borne no figs. This is at once the owner’s judgment on the fruitless tree and God’s judgment on the world and the church, if we read the story contextually.

For Luke, the story is what I would call a simple allegory; i.e., Luke does not compare numerous elements outside the story (from a different context) one to one to numerous features in the story. For Luke the tree represents unrepentant and faithless Christians, as well as an unrepentant world. No one should presume that God’s judgment delayed implies that lives are righteous or that judgment will never come.¹⁸ Luke has no doubt that the fig tree in the parable will be cut down, if it fails to bear figs.

Interpretations in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

A. B. Bruce, The Parabolic Teaching of Christ (1882)

Bruce does not regard Luke’s setting of the parable as its original setting in the life of Jesus,¹⁹ but he nevertheless sees the story as foreshadowing the withdrawal of Israel’s privilege in favor of the Gentiles, as he titles his chapter covering the parable of the Barren Fig Tree. We may safely assume the unfruitful tree to be Israel, he says.²⁰ In the parable what is threatened is Israel’s exclusion from the kingdom of God, and forfeiture of privilege as the elect people.²¹ He ties the replacement of Israel in God’s plan to the comment in the story about the fig tree uselessly occupying land (13:7). The reason the owner wants to cut down the fig tree is to replace it with a productive tree. For Bruce this means God’s purpose is to put [the Gentiles] in the place of an unfruitful elect people.²²

Normally one would have expected Israel to be represented by the vine, but "Israel and God’s kingdom were synonymous and essentially related to each other as vineyard and vine."²³ The selection of the fig tree to represent Israel was Jesus’ way of saying to his people you have no natural or necessary place in the sphere within which God’s grace manifests itself.²⁴ And if Israel is the fig tree, then the vineyard is the kingdom of God.²⁵ The three years signify the time sufficient for ascertaining the tree’s fruit bearing qualities.²⁶ The time is so short because the purpose is not to emphasize the Divine patience, but to give prominence to the thought that fruit is the thing looked for, and also that God is impatient with Israel.²⁷ Christ is the vine dresser and His ministry of grace and truth is the means whereby it is faintly hoped Israel may yet . . . be made spiritually fruitful.²⁸

The moral lesson of the parable, according to Bruce, is that the supreme motive of Providence in its dealings with man is a regard to fruitfulness . . . The true interest of the interpreter, therefore, is to concentrate interest on the one point and to set forth the lesson of the parable, that as soon as it has been definitely ascertained that a tree planted in the Divine vineyard is barren . . . it ought to be removed and another planted in its room.²⁹

Bruce applies an interesting blend of approaches. His treatment of the story assumes it to be an allegory. Yet he argues that it has a moral lesson as well and that interpreters ought to focus on that one point. The allegorical correspondence between the story and the real world of Bruce’s interest derives from the nexus between his own personal understanding of reality and the story. The values that he applies to features of the parable are not inside the story world of the parable; he brings them to the story. They are evident only to him. His summary moral lesson is his own abstraction of the parable-as-allegory.

Adolf Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu (1888)

At the turn of the twentieth century Jülicher argued that parables were not allegories, but that they were figures of speech expressing a single idea, which contrasted to the many points of allegory.³⁰ Jülicher, therefore, rejects an allegorical approach to the Barren Fig Tree,³¹ and finds that the (single) point or aim of the parable shifts in 13:9 from the figure to the primary idea being addressed: if the fig tree is not fruitful, it will be cut down.³² The cutting down of the fig tree because of its barrenness flows into the idea: if you do not repent, you will perish. While this idea is present in the immediate context (13:1–5), Jülicher rejects these verses as the proper context for understanding the parable.³³

The parable for Jülicher does not merely express a general religious truth, as the context in Luke would have it; rather, Jesus spoke the parable as a warning to Israel. It is not necessary, however, to say that the fig tree represents Israel. Rather one should place the parable in the context of other sayings of Jesus, such as Luke 13:34; 19:41–42; and Matt 11:28–30.³⁴ Thus, the fig tree in the story illustrates to Israel its own precarious position.³⁵ That Jesus spoke the parable to Israel hinges on Jülicher’s assumption that the fig tree and Israel are in some way to be identified. Jülicher’s idea that the story is about judgment derives, at least in part, from the context in which Luke placed it. But in the story a judgment that a barren fig tree needs to be cut down is not a religious and moral judgment, but rather a simple business decision. The leap from the business of farming to religion and moral judgment derives from Jülicher’s assumptions about the stories and about Jesus as parabler.

A. T. Cadoux, The Parables: Their Art and Use (1931)

Cadoux, agreeing with Jülicher’s rejection of allegory, understands a parable to evoke a judgment in one field and secure its application in another. And while there may be several points of contact between the story of the parable and the other field to which we carry the judgment evoked by the story, the parable complex nevertheless has one point to make.³⁶ That point appears to be a statement to Israel: Just as special misfortune does not show special wickedness, so the special activity of God’s goodness in their midst must not be taken as a sign of his approval.³⁷

Again the interpreter seems to have been guided, to some extent, by the context in which the story appears, and a necessary assumption that the fig tree is to be identified in some way with Israel. The one-point summary, he offers, is his own, which derives from the engagement of his religious values with the story. It is not found in the story, but exists parasitically or symbiotically on or alongside the story. The language of the story describes something totally different.

W. O. E. Oesterley, Gospel Parables in the Light of Their Jewish Background (1936)

For Oesterley the parable is intended to teach a specific summary truth. Taken by itself without reference to its context it means either:

1. Unless a man leads an upright life and manifests the fruit of good living, punishment will overtake him.

2. Or it can mean that the long-suffering of God gives even the evil-living man ample chance of reforming.

³⁸

Of course the language of the story mentions none of these rather general moral values. They represent Oesterley’s responses to a story about farming under the assumption that the story is intended to teach a moral truth. The values are not stated as such in the language of the story but come out of the nexus between Oesterley’s religious world and