People expected religious leaders to speak in parables. The teachers who were better storytellers developed a larger following.
Parables make teachings easier to remember and apply.
Parables are more enduring than telling it like it is.
Parables allow you to make statements that would otherwise get you in trouble.
Parables have a time-release effect; they plant seeds that sprout later.
Jesus taught the public in pithy and memorable parables, so that people would remember them, discuss them, and try to figure out what they meant; and in this way the parables spread far beyond their original audience.
LOL. Exactly none of your explanations as to the reason for Jesus using parables is true or Scriptural. Read the text for yourself and find out why Jesus spoke in parables.
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them." -- Mark 4:11-12"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:
These EXACT SAME WORDS are spoken by Jesus Christ in three of the four Gospels when He was asked "why do you speak in parables?"
The RCC is just making it up as it goes along, Mark. Read the Bible for yourself and learn the truth.
The Bible is of great value but even that of the greatest value is not worth anything if misinterpreted.
[3] In parables: the word “parable” (Greek parabole) is used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew mashal, a designation covering a wide variety of literary forms such as axioms, proverbs, similitudes, and allegories. In the New Testament the same breadth of meaning of the word is found, but there it primarily designates stories that are illustrative comparisons between Christian truths and events of everyday life. Sometimes the event has a strange element that is quite different from usual experience (e.g., in Matthew 13:33 the enormous amount of dough in the parable of the yeast); this is meant to sharpen the curiosity of the hearer. If each detail of such a story is given a figurative meaning, the story is an allegory. Those who maintain a sharp distinction between parable and allegory insist that a parable has only one point of comparison, and that while parables were characteristic of Jesus’ teaching, to see allegorical details in them is to introduce meanings that go beyond their original intention and even falsify it. However, to exclude any allegorical elements from a parable is an excessively rigid mode of interpretation, now abandoned by many scholars.
4 [11] Since a parable is figurative speech that demands reflection for understanding, only those who are prepared to explore its meaning can come to know it. To understand is a gift of God, granted to the disciples but not to the crowds. In Semitic fashion, both the disciples’ understanding and the crowd’s obtuseness are attributed to God. The question of human responsibility for the obtuseness is not dealt with, although it is asserted in Matthew 13:13. The mysteries: as in Luke 8:10; Mark 4:11 has “the mystery.” The word is used in Daniel 2:18, 19, 27 and in the Qumran literature (1QpHab 7:8; 1QS 3:23; 1QM 3:9) to designate a divine plan or decree affecting the course of history that can be known only when revealed. Knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven means recognition that the kingdom has become present in the ministry of Jesus.
5 [12] In the New Testament use of this axiom of practical “wisdom” (see Matthew 25:29; Mark 4:25; Luke 8:18; 19:26), the reference transcends the original level. God gives further understanding to one who accepts the revealed mystery; from the one who does not, he will take it away (note the “theological passive,” more will be given, what he has will be taken away).
6 [13] Because “they look . . . or understand’: Matthew softens his Marcan source, which states that Jesus speaks in parables so that the crowds may not understand (Mark 4:12), and makes such speaking a punishment given because they have not accepted his previous clear teaching. However, his citation of Isaiah 6:9-10 in Matthew 13:14 supports the harsher Marcan view.
7 [16-17] Unlike the unbelieving crowds, the disciples have seen that which the prophets and the righteous of the Old Testament longed to see without having their longing fulfilled.
8 [18-23] See Mark 4:14-20; Luke 8:11-15. In this explanation of the parable the emphasis is on the various types of soil on which the seed falls, i.e., on the dispositions with which the preaching of Jesus is received. The second and third types particularly are explained in such a way as to support the view held by many scholars that the explanation derives not from Jesus but from early Christian reflection upon apostasy from the faith that was the consequence of persecution and worldliness respectively. Others, however, hold that the explanation may come basically from Jesus even though it was developed in the light of later Christian experience. The four types of persons envisaged are (1) those who never accept the word of the kingdom (Matthew 13:19); (2) those who believe for a while but fall away because of persecution (Matthew 13:20-21); (3) those who believe, but in whom the word is choked by worldly anxiety and the seduction of riches (Matthew 13:22); (4) those who respond to the word and produce fruit abundantly (Matthew 13:23).
Context and interpretation.
By the way, where are those (2) and (3) people in Reformed theology?