Why Jesus Taught in Parables

Parables, by their very nature, are not easy to understand… at least, not at first.

A parable is a unique type of story designed to promote observation, meditation, and action. A parable that does not invite this sort of deep thinking and eventual active response to the meaning contained within the story is not a parable after all. Although parables are challenging to understand, they are not impossible to understand. In fact, Jesus told his parables expecting his hearers to understand after they had reflected deeply enough on it. We can see this point made in two particular places within Matthew and Mark. We’ll look at Mark first.

After Jesus tells his parable about a very small seed that becomes a very large tree, Mark gives us some insight into Jesus’s motivation with his parables. “With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand” (Mk 4:33, NIV). Interesting, huh?

We can sometimes get into the habit of thinking that Jesus told parables with one motivation in mind—to keep his hearers from understanding. But it’s not that simple. One of the results of the parables is that some do not hear and thus do not understand. Another is that some folks do hear and understand because of the nature of the parables. Jesus wanted people to hear and understand his message about the kingdom of God and their place in it. So he told parables in pursuit of this goal, all the while knowing that there would be some who closed their ears (and eyes) to the message he was announcing. Even though Jesus knew and made it clear that there would be plenty of people who refused to listen to what he was saying, we must not suppose that Jesus’s sole motivation in speaking in parables was to keep people from understanding what he meant.

If Jesus wanted to he could have made it impossible for anyone to understand anything he was saying (Jn 3:12). But he didn’t do that. On the contrary, he told stories his hearers could understand. He talked about farmers, and land, and seed, and families, and houses, and money, and weddings, and kings. Things the people of his day were immediately and intimately aware of. And the things that in our day are pretty well known, too.

Matthew is quite helpful here as he reaches back to the psalms to explain why Jesus taught like this. He writes, “So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: ‘I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden from the creation of the world’ ” (Mt 13:35, NIV). If we thought Jesus’s only goal with parables was that things would remain hidden forever, Matthew helpfully corrects us.

According to him, Jesus told parables because there were things hidden for a long time that he was now making known to the world. Jesus wanted people to know these realities that could only be expressed in stories that invited its hearers to reflect and wonder—so he told parables. Stories that require us to think and meditate on what was said. Stories that offer to show us things we haven’t seen before. We’re able to do this because that’s what parables do, and that’s why Jesus told them.

Did Jesus Only Teach in Parables?

I was listening to a podcast on Jesus’s parables and, as the host introduced the episode by giving a quick rundown of what was going to be discussed—as all good hosts do—he said something that caught my ear. While setting up the importance of Jesus’s parables he referenced a place in Mark’s gospel where the evangelist writes about Jesus’s teaching style and this host said, “It even says specifically that when Jesus taught the masses…he taught exclusively in parables.”

Really? Did Jesus only teach in parables? It seems like there were plenty of places throughout the gospels (John included, which doesn’t have any “parables”) where what is recorded isn’t a parable. Think of the Sermon on the Mount, or the Olivet Discourse, or the famous extended teaching and prayer in John 14-17. Whatever those are, they are different from: “A farmer went out to sow his seed.” So, where did the host get this idea?

If we look at the text in question—Mark 4:33-34 (also, see the parallel in Matthew 13:34)—we can see quickly where this idea comes from. The text reads, “With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything” (Mk 4:33-34, NIV). Even if I didn’t bold that sentence you would see it right away.

I’ll confess that for a long time I was in lock-step agreement with the host because it seemed to be saying right there in Mark (and Matthew) that Jesus only used parables. But is that what Mark was actually saying? After a closer look, I think we must say, no.

Mark isn’t telling us that Jesus exclusively taught in parables—that’s obvious from looking at other places in the gospels where a teaching is recorded and it’s not a parable—instead, Mark is telling us that parables were Jesus’s main way of teaching to the crowds (and, sometimes, just the disciples). In fact, he valued this parabolic way of teaching so much that every time Jesus taught the crowds, he would use parables.

This makes sense of those places where a parable might not be recorded. This isn’t a contradiction in the text; it simply illustrates the selection process of the gospel writers. They (other than John) included lots of parables, but there were most certainly times when Jesus was teaching when he used a parable, and they didn’t record it. Perhaps because he had already told that parable, or they decided to leave it out for another reason.

The fact remains, though, that Jesus loved teaching in parables. Did he only teach in parables? No. But it seems to be that he never taught without them.