Intended to confuse?

By His own testimony, the main reason Jesus suddenly adopted the parabolic style had more to do with hiding the truth from hard-hearted unbelievers than explaining the truth to simple-minded disciples.

John McArthur, Parables

The parables of Jesus were more about confusion than clarity? That idea, argued by John McArthur in Parables (2015),  runs counter to the prevailing assumption — that Jesus told his stories to make his message easier to understand.

Yet Jesus rarely spoke in parables early in his ministry, such as in the Sermon on the Mount. He attracted many followers, but also many powerful enemies who tried to use his words to trap him. McArthur points out that Jesus switched to parables to make his teaching more challenging for those in the religious hierarchy who were out to get him, while at the same time making it easier for his followers to understand and remember.

It is worth pointing out, however, that some of his parables, especially the one about the good Samaritan, were easy enough for the religious leaders to understand and, in fact, were intended to challenge them.

McArthur dissects that parable and a number of  others, explaining in detail what each one means. Also controversial is the author's argument that each parable has but one meaning and that all other interpretations are problematic. "He was not inviting His hearers to interpret the stories any way they liked, and thus let each one's own personal opinions be the final arbiter of what is true for that person," he writes.

My own view allows for secondary interpretations. The parable of the prodigal son means this, for example, but it can also suggest something else. Otherwise all preachers would have to preach the same sermon.