Even though Jesus directed his parables specifically to Israel in the first century AD, there is much that we can learn from them.
I appreciate there is great danger in creating theology from those parables, or his miraculous events.
To illustrate this let's consider a farcical example.
Take two cases of Jesus' healing ministry as recorded in the Gospels.
He took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village. When he had spit on the man's eyes and put his hands on him, Jesus asked, "Do you see anything?"
He looked up and said, "I see people; they look like trees walking around."
Once more Jesus put his hands on the man's eyes. Then his eyes were opened, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly.
[Mark 8 : 23 - 25 NIV]
and
After saying this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man's eyes.
"Go," he told him, "wash in the Pool of Siloam" (this word means "Sent"). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.
[John 9 : 6 - 7 NIV]
Theological conclusion?
How about this?
If you want instant healing you must use mud.
Indeed we could go further and absurdly suggest that the first two Christian denominations could be created from such theology - the muddites and the anti-muddites.
Although we need to be careful not to use parables to create our theology, parables can be interpreted and applied in various ways.
Some people consider one way is the correct way and any other ways are incorrect.
However I suggest that most ways have value and show different aspects of the teaching Jesus is presenting in the parable.
A bit like looking at a mountain. You get different views when looking from different sides or looking up from the bottom or from half way up or from an aeroplane or an overhead drone.
All the views are different. Not one is right and the others wrong. But just different views - each giving a bit more information about the mountain.
Let's consider a different interpretation than is usual for a mini-parable Jesus told.
The disciples knew from Jesus’ teachings that He was constantly talking about the Kingdom of Heaven (or the Kingdom of God as some New Testament writers called it).
So they asked Him to tell them what the Kingdom of Heaven was like.
Matthew Chapter 13 records nine parables Jesus used to answer their question.
We’ll focus on the one described in verse 44.
The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field. [NIV]
May I suggest this mini parable (one verse) has at least two views.
The usual interpretation is that the kingdom of heaven is such a precious treasure that we, like the man, should give up everything we have to lay hold of it.
Of course, that’s absolutely true.
—but possibly that is not what Jesus was talking about on this occasion when answering the disciples’ question about what the kingdom was like.
What if this isn’t a parable about something we must do to possess the kingdom?
What if we are not the man in the parable.
What if Jesus is talking about himself?
What if Jesus is the one who finds the treasure and buys the field?
What if we human beings are the treasure?
What if the field is this world, as Jesus described it in an earlier parable?
And what if it is Jesus who gives up everything He had to purchase this world and reclaim it as His possession?
What if that’s what the kingdom of heaven is actually like?
Our Concept of Salvation Enriched
This second way of looking at the parable gives us another way of looking at the gospel of salvation.
Probably, for the first thousand years of Christendom this view was likely the more common way of understanding the concept of salvation.
It is sometimes described as Christus Victor (Christ the Victor).
Today the more common view of salvation is penal substitution: that is, Jesus died in our place to pay for our sins.
It’s not that Christus Victor is right and penal substitution is wrong.
They simply represent different ways of looking at the gospel.
God’s work of salvation is so great, like a huge mountain, that we must view it from many angles to gain a more comprehensive picture.
Interestingly, as Augustine put it centuries ago, Christ is both Victor and Victim.
By becoming the Victim and dying on the cross, he also became the Victor by defeating sin and Satan there, being resurrected three days later to conquer death, then ascending to the Father to establish his kingdom.
That used to be a more common way to understand the gospel of salvation.
Other Biblical Support for Christus Victor View
This view of the parable of the treasure in the field – that we are the treasure Jesus found and bought – is supported in other parts of Scripture.
Indeed, this short parable seems to condense several verses about Jesus’ death found in Hebrews and Paul’s letters:
.... is so happy that he goes ...
—“because of the joy that was waiting for him, he thought nothing of the disgrace of dying on the cross, ...”
(Heb. 12:2 GNB).
.... and sells everything he has ...
—“of his own free will he gave up all he had ...”
(Phil. 2:7 GNB).
.... and buys that field
—“You do not belong to yourselves but to God; he bought you for a price.”
(1 Cor. 6:19–20 GNB).
Just in passing, let’s note that Jesus didn’t just purchase the treasure, he bought the whole field – the whole world.
The kingdom of heaven contains the treasure and the rest of the field. Which again can also be supported Biblically:
“And Christ himself is the means by which our sins are forgiven, and not our sins only, but also the sins of everyone.”
(1 John 2 : 2 GNB)
“Through the Son, then, God decided to bring the whole universe back to himself.”
(Colossians 1 : 20 GNB)
Penal substitution is certainly one way to understand the gospel, but so also is Christus Victor. They both contribute to our understanding of the extent of God's love for this fallen world.
Blessings, Barry
