Rusty briefly addressed this earlier, but I feel compelled to revisit it. The line of definition between a fable, a myth or a parable is tenuous, but a parable is a literary or oral device to make a moral point. So is a fable. In many cases, so is a myth. But the words come loaded with all sorts of baggage that get people riled up. If everyone agrees that the parables of Jesus are fictional stories created by Him for the purpose of illustrating a greater spiritual principle (and some here may not agree even with that), then why on earth is it necessary to believe that God never, ever used that same literary device in other places in His Word? Honestly, parables are such efficient teaching devices that it's hard to imagine that their use is solely confined to use by Jesus only.
One more thing: any study of the early church fathers, including such luminaries as Athanasius, who risked his life fighting the terrible Arian heresy, shows they have an innate assumption that metaphorical, figurative truth is way more important than bare, wooden literal truth. Granted, that era of Biblical interpretation carried it too far (for instance, the weird and contorted interpretations of song of Solomon that attempt to make it solely an allegory of God's love for His church), but in general, I think they were correct. If you think they were crazy, then you better start wondering about the doctrine of the Trinity, because they were the ones who fleshed it out.
Nowadays, mostly as a result of the so-called "Enlightenment", we have exactly the opposite view in the West: dead literal, wooden truth is the most important, because it's somehow more "true". Yet, to invoke my earlier illustration, the figurative, metaphorical truth of Jesus being seated at the right hand of God is far more meaningful and more revealing about the nature of God than a dry, literal image of Jesus sitting in an armchair next to God the Father. For that matter, we can say that marriage is important just because God said so, but how much more it begins to make sense (and beauty) when we see that marriage is a symbolic, earthly manifestation of Christ, the Bridegroom, and his Bride, the church. This is one of the conversations that comes up with all these girls who have worked for me, and when I point out that, just as Christ's mission is to present His bride, the church, spotless and without blemish before the throne of God at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, so it's the responsibility of their current boyfriend to do exactly the same with them. When she arrives at the end of that aisle, resplendent in her wedding dress, the groom ought to be able to proudly say that he has kept his bride unsullied and pure up to this day. In that sense, at least, he is already becoming the Christ-like head of the house, a goal that way more young men need to aspire to.
When you tell them that, instead of just saying, "keep your legs together", their eyes light up: sometimes they cry a little when the realization of this big picture takes their breath away.
That's figurative truth, and no amount of dead, literal sermonizing can take the place of it.
So I just don't understand the fear and hostility to the idea that somewhere else in the Bible, besides just in the actual words of Jesus, there may be a nice, plump, meanigful parable.
Anyway, it's back to, as my wife calls it, manning the twinkie brigade after this long weekend of respite. So you guys are gonna leave me in the dust.
Theo
(good little message there, got me thinking)