Jesus often expressed his teaching in the form of parables. If we consider all of his instructions contained in the four gospels, a third (or rather almost 35%) consists of parables.
Jesus Christ: His Life and Teaching, Vol.4 - The Parables of Jesus, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev
In this volume, Metropolitan Hilarion (MHA will often be employed) examines the parables of Jesus as presented in the three synoptic gospels. This is one of six volumes he has written (or plans to write, from what I can tell) on the life of Jesus, one of which – covering the Sermon on the Mount – I have already studied.
Per MHA, there has never been another teacher who has used the genre of parables as extensively as Jesus. Within the remainder of the New Testament, there is not a single parable in the book of Acts, nor in any of the letters or epistles. There are no parables coming from the Fathers of the Church; there are cases that are more like similes or metaphors, which aren’t really true parables.
Jesus also used similes or metaphors – for example, you are the salt of the earth. But this is no parable. The Sermon on the Mount contains only one parable – that of the man who built on sand and the other who built on rock.
The parables will be presented in order, as much as can be done. These will be divided in three sections: those spoken in Galilee, those spoken on the way to Jerusalem, and those spoken in Jerusalem in the final days of His earthly life.
What is a parable? There is no easy answer. Certainly, an essential element is metaphor – it can be considered a short narrative that uses metaphorical language. The purpose is to express a moral truth.
Why did Jesus speak in parables? They are, after all, quite difficult to interpret. Even His disciples at the time had trouble understanding the meaning. Jesus was aware of this, yet He continued to speak in this form. These are difficult to understand for those who have closed their eyes and shut their ears.
There are different methods of interpretation, and one does not necessarily preclude another. Jesus Himself offered a metaphorical approach (for the few He interpreted). As early as the third century, an allegorical approach was taken – this primarily in the Alexandrian School (St. Cyril and Maximos the Confessor, for example). John Chrysostom tried to first take the most important moral lesson from the parable.
John Chrysostom offers that Jesus spoke in parables to make the discourse more emphatic. Metropolitan Hilarion offers that the understanding is available to those who come to the parables with faith – as opposed to those with closed eyes and shut ears.
Those who came to him with faith received illumination; those who came with doubt in their heart not only did not become illumined, but on the contrary only demonstrated their blindness to a greater extent.
Both His parables and His miracles provoked two extreme reactions in His listeners: some were strengthened in faith; others were repulsed and angered. While Metropolitan Hilarion offers that the key to understanding the parables is faith, it strikes me that both groups understood, to some degree, the parable: for one, taken as a lesson for growth; for the other, taken solely as a condemnation.
Each reader or listener can see himself somewhere in the parable. This might mean something different to each reader; it might mean something different in different generations and different cultures. In other words, the parables never grow old, nor does the understanding become exhausted with one explanation or via one method of interpretation.
Conclusion
As Metropolitan Hilarion counts these, there are more than thirty full parables in the three synoptic gospels. He presents different lists, grouping these in different ways: by gospel, which, in this case, some parables are found in all three, some in only two, some just in one; by the availability of interpretation in the text; by time and place of the telling (which is the grouping chosen by MHA); or by content subject.
I will present these in one or two parables per post, depending on the length of Metropolitan Hilarion’s examination. I suspect this will take twenty posts, plus or minus.
I was taught that parables must be interpreted in a specific way do to the nature of what a parable is. The concept is that a parable teaches one lesson and one lesson only. The elements in the parable serve that purpose and they don't always have a definition. When Jesus explains his interpretations you see that some elements are analogous to something in the real world and some things are left undefined. In those cases that element is just there to lead you to the lesson. It should not be further interpreted and/or you should not search for a real world identity.
Not sure where I heard this but it was a part of a sermon in a church at some point of my life. That concept has been fruitful trying to understand parable when I have studied them.