THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST IS A DOCTRINE OF PARABLES

[Eddie Ramos]

Mark 4:2 (KJV (WS))
And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine,

If the doctrine of Christ (the Word of God) is a doctrine of parables, then why do people take his words (the Word of God) as if they were plainly spoken words?

Matthew 13:34–35 (KJV (WS))
All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: 35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.


If the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ (the Word of God) did not speak without parables, then why do people take his words (the Word of God) as if they were plainly spoken words?

Proverbs 1:6 (KJV (WS))
To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.

If the Bible tells us that parables (proverbs) need interpretation, then why do people take his words (the Word of God) as if they were plainly spoken words?

Proverbs 25:2 (KJV (WS))
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing (A WORD): but the honour of kings is to search out a matter (A WORD).

If it's God's glory to conceal his Word (which is precisely the purpose of parables), then why do people take his words (the Word of God) as if they were plainly spoken words?

Matthew 13:10–11 & 13 (KJV (WS))
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 (that are without) it is not given.

13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

Mark 4:11 (KJV (WS))
11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, ALL [these] THINGS are done in parables:

If the purpose of Christ (the Word of God) speaking in parables, was so that the mystery of the kingdom of God would not be able to be understood by those outside of the kingdom of God, then why do people take his words (the Word of God) as if they were plainly spoken words?

Where is the biblical justification for claiming that we are to take the Word of God at face value unless the immediate text informs us to take it another way? Did not the Bible tell us that Christ did not speak without parables? That God hides his Word so that kings (true believers) could search them out? That parables are for the express purpose of preventing understanding of what is meant by what is said? That parables are the doctrine by which Christ (the Word of God) speaks?

[Eddie Ramos]

These are not my opinions ... they are facts.

To say that Jesus spoke only in parables is an absurd reduction of all of Jesus' education during his ministry. Jesus had such simple teachings that the common people would sit for hours listening to him, as in the Sermon on the Mount.

Actually, the vast majority of his followers were simple people without much scholarship, whom his teachings educated to the point of taking the message of the Kingdom of God far beyond just the Judean region.

But to whom did Jesus speak in parables? To the religious leaders mostly, because they would not accept the message they were receiving anyway. Their ears were dull and they were such proud people that not even seeing Jesus' miracles were they convinced that he had Jehovah's full support and approval.

An opinion is: "the doctrine of Christ is a doctrine of parables" ... and it is totally erroneous, because Jesus was the best teacher someone can have.

That opinion (that the doctrine of Christ is a doctrine of parables) is very common among Bahais because they say the Bible is totally metaphorical. Beware when someone says that ... his intention may be to draw people to himself by giving personal meanings/interpretations to the Scriptures.

But what does Scripture say about that practice? It says:

2 Pet. 1:20 (...) no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.

So NO; the doctrine of Christ is not parabolic, and the message of the Bible is not metaphorical.

So when you read Mark 4:2 in your Bible, (as well as all the other verses I gave in the O.P.) do you just look past it and say, "Nah, can't be, Jesus was the best teacher".

Mark 4:2 (KJV 1900)
And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine,


The fact that Jesus (The Word of God) spoke in parables doesn't change who Christ was as a teacher. And the true test of our faithfulness tot he Word of God is never to ignore a single word that God has placed there.

Proverbs 30:5 (KJV 1900)
Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Proverbs 3:5 (KJV 1900)
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; And lean not unto thine own understanding.

Trusting in JEHOVAH is the same as trusting in His Word. This is why we can't read something that goes against everything we have ever believed to be true and simply ignore it. Everything has to be factored into our doctrines. The Bible is full of things that doesn't make sense to us, but we're not to try and comprehend those things based on our own understanding. And the passage you quoted in 2 Peter 1:20 fits perfectly in this discussion. No man can approach the Bible and give a private (his own) interpretation as to what something means ( I believe some religions actually do this).

But those who do this, are of no concern to the Bible student. A true child of God is not looking for followers, but only to share truths from the scriptures for anyone to examine with the scriptures. This is why it's extremely important to learn the hermeneutic that the Bible has provided in order to come to truth. And a big part of that hermeneutic (Bible study method) is to acknowledge that Christ (The Word of God) did not speak without parables. And that the doctrine of parables is the doctrine of Christ (the Word of God). I didn't invent this verse, I only pointed it out (as well as all the verses that teach the same thing in the O.P.) for anyone willing to examine it.

[Eddie Ramos]

1213 has rightly pointed out that Jesus did speak plainly to his disciples.

John 16:29 even says, “Then Jesus' disciples said, "Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech.”

Jesus did use parable. He did not exclusively use parables. The scriptures tell us that, especially with his disciples who recorded his words, he both taught in parables and spoke plainly without parables.

I can only find 1 place where we're specifically told that Christ spoke plainly to his disciples,

That should be all we need right? ...however what comes next?

but even that is teaching us a spiritual truth.

It still can't be accepted at face value. Something must be added every time eh? It's like the drive to add something to scripture can't be turned off.

I think you misunderstood my response. For those who emphatically believe and declare that Jesus spoke plainly most of the time, here we have a verse that tell sus specifically that he spoke plainly, in this one instance, to explain what he meant by what he said, in parables.

John 11:11–14 (KJV 1900)
These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. 12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. 13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. 14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

Whenever we look at accounts like this one, where Jesu spoke, yet we're not told that this was a parable, we always see the disciples make the same mistake. What mistake is that? They kept taking his words at face value and arrived at incorrect conclusions. So, when Jesus explained what he meant by what he said in parables, we're told that he spoke plainly in this one instance. And he says, "Lazarus is dead". And that was 100% literal. Lazarus wasn't actually sleeping like the disciples thought, he was in fact physically dead and he stunk after being dead 4 days already. But, there is much more truth that God is teaching us, even by speaking plainly here. God is tying together the word "sleep" with the word "dead". And this physical death was done purposefully by Christ (remember, he waited for 2 additional days to go see Lazarus even after hearing the news of his illness). But Jesus says something strange, he says that this sickness is not unto death, yet he knows that Lazarus is going to die.

John 11:3–6 (KJV 1900)
Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick. 4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby. 5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus. 6 When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he abode two days still in the same place where he was.

So, Lazarus' physical death was allowed to take place by God in order that Christ would preform the miracle of raising him from the dead. And this miracle is exactly the main theme of the gospel. Lazarus, although physically dead, represented someone who was spiritually dead and the resurrection represented salvation. This is what I meant by saying that even literal language conceals spiritual truth, which is exactly what a parable does. And this continues to take into account that Christ did not speak without parables and that his doctrine is a doctrine of parables.

I don't think I could say to myself, "that can't be what it is saying" every time I read any scripture in the Bible. If I'm not deducting what the scripture says based on reading comprehension, then where am I getting my meanings to scripture from?

The Bible interprets the Bible, but this can't be done on our own terms and with our own understanding because we are finite creatures with limited understanding, who are reading a living book that is spiritual and came from the mouth of God.

Romans 7:14 (KJV 1900)
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Colossians 1:9 (KJV 1900)
For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;

Spiritual understanding requires the Holy Spirit within us. And the Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, because the Word of God is spiritually discerned.

1 Corinthians 2:13–14 (KJV 1900)
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

So, anyone can read the Bible and obtain historical knowledge of biblical events, and even moral knowledge of right and wrong, but the spiritual truth is the truth that's concealed within the literal, the historical, the parabolic and the moral language of the Bible. It's the truth that the natural man cannot see and doesn't understand because the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God and so it's foolishness unto him.

So, yes, every time we read the Bible (like a historical account, for example), we can be sure that that historical account is 100% literally true and accurate (like creation), yet when we read that account, we always want to ask ourselves, where is the gospel message in this account? And we find it using only the Bible to explain the Bible, and to confirm our understanding if it's correct (harmony), or to contradict our understanding if we're incorrect (by contradictions). I would be happy to explain where the gospel message is in the creation account if you're interested.

[Eloi]

These are not my opinions ... they are facts.

To say that Jesus spoke only in parables is an absurd reduction of all of Jesus' education during his ministry. Jesus had such simple teachings that the common people would sit for hours listening to him, as in the Sermon on the Mount.

Actually, the vast majority of his followers were simple people without much scholarship, whom his teachings educated to the point of taking the message of the Kingdom of God far beyond just the Judean region.

But to whom did Jesus speak in parables? To the religious leaders mostly, because they would not accept the message they were receiving anyway. Their ears were dull and they were such proud people that not even seeing Jesus' miracles were they convinced that he had Jehovah's full support and approval.

An opinion is: "the doctrine of Christ is a doctrine of parables" ... and it is totally erroneous, because Jesus was the best teacher someone can have.

That opinion (that the doctrine of Christ is a doctrine of parables) is very common among Bahais because they say the Bible is totally metaphorical. Beware when someone says that ... his intention may be to draw people to himself by giving personal meanings/interpretations to the Scriptures.

But what does Scripture say about that practice? It says:

2 Pet. 1:20 (...) no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.

So NO; the doctrine of Christ is not parabolic, and the message of the Bible is not metaphorical.

So when you read Mark 4:2 in your Bible, (as well as all the other verses I gave in the O.P.) do you just look past it and say, "Nah, can't be, Jesus was the best teacher".

Mark 4:2 (KJV 1900)
And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine,
(...)

Oh, I never said 'nah can't be' ... because what you are trying to imply is not in the texts you are quoting. As I said before and you are ignoring, saying that all Jesus taught was in parables is an absurd reduction of all his education work.

You are using and implying words like always, to everyone, all he taught, etc. Obviously you are wrong because none of your quotes imply any of that.

[Eddie Ramos]

Oh, I never said 'nah can't be' ... because what you are trying to imply is not in the texts you are quoting. As I said before and you are ignoring, saying that all Jesus taught was in parables is an absurd reduction of all his education work.

You are using and implying words like always, to everyone, all he taught, etc. Obviously you are wrong because none of your quotes imply any of that.

Ok, I suppose it's your turn then to post some scriptures that support your words. Please show me to whom Jesus did not speak in parables to, because you obviously don't agree with the Bible when it says that he did not speak without parables. And because you obviously disagree with the Bible when it says that the doctrine of Jesus was that of parables.

Matthew 13:34 (KJV 1900)
All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

Mark 4:2 (KJV 1900)
And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine,

Here is a small list of those to whom Christ spoke in parables, and I'll wait to see your list of those to whom he didn't.

The multitude (Mat 13:34)
His disciples (Matt 16:6-12)
The Pharisees (Matt 21:45)
Great multitudes (Matt 13:1-13)
The scribes and chief priests (Mark 11:16-18)