The parables of Jesus are often confusing for interpreters. These stories are symbolic and the authors of the gospels often use the symbolism for their own literary purposes. In all likelihood these parables unfolded from how Jesus used them to how the evangelist used them.
That being said, does it bother you if someone today does the same thing to a parable as found in the gospels? For instance, does Augustine or Origen infusing the parable of the prodigal son with various meanings bother you? If so, why? If a parable could unfold from Jesus’ meaning to the authorial meaning why not once again for another interpreter?
the archives near Emmaus 
In order to answer/think about this, I need an example of how any specific parable was given a new meaning from the one Jesus related (if he explained the meaning). I assume you are saying that the Biblical authors “unfolded” new meanings from what Jesus had already stated, and are not talkiing about extra biblical authors – except to ask if it bothers us when they (the extra biblical authors) unfold.
Kirei: For the evangelist it is more a “placement” issue than whether or not they interpreted each symbol differently. One quick example: Mt. 7.15-23 deals with false prophets and false disciples and Mt. attaches the parables of the wise one who built on Jesus’ words and the foolish one did not. The placement allows the reader to see that the false prophets and the false disciples are like those who did not build on Jesus’ words.
Lk. 6.27-41, meanwhile, strings together Jesus’ teachings on loving one’s enemies and not judging others with the parables about a tree’s fruit showing what kind of tree it is. Lk. 6.46-49 inserts the parable of the wise man and the fool here indicating that the wise man is the one whose fruit is loving the enemy and not judging others while the fool hates the enemy and does judge others.
Brian,
If we’re talking multiple meanings here, here’s a question: Were the authors intending such? I don’t think this matter has yet been settled.
T.C.,
Good question. It does seem the authors wanted the parables understood a certain way based on the order within the text where they are placed. But they did this by recontextualizing how Jesus likely used it. Augustine’s symbolism or a modern sermon may make this move of “recontextualizing” from a different vantage point, but there do seem to be similarities.
Brian,
The more I read the parables the more I’m realizing that each fits into a thematic construct by the particular evangelist. So yes, the “recontextualizing” has been done for us, at least in that way. With that said, I tend to reject the allegorization of an Augustine. I believe we have to.
Brian, if the general rule that context is always king in interpretation – so long as the immediate context is recognized (i.e., the parable of the lost son being a rebuke to the jewish leadership for complaining about Jesus being with sinners and tax collectors (cf. 15:1-2)) then maybe other options can be explored – but I do feel uncomfortable if the immediate context is overlooked (if it is discernable).
@TC: What principle would you apply that gives the evangelist a sort of “poetic license” but not Augustine? I want to agree with you but I am not sure why. I can’t find a good reason myself.
@Brian: Would you be upset with Augustine adapting the images if he did not seem to indicate that either Jesus or the evangelist meant what he meant when he interpreted it?
Brian,
A few years ago I agreed on Matthew 11:4 as containing the interpretive principle of the ministry of Jesus – the Kingdom motif, with what you “hear” and “see” as the midwives, if you will. “See” applies to his actions, which are charged with kingdom realities. So I consider his miracles as “signposts” to the kingdom reality in its consumate state. Now regarding “hear,” we’re talking his discourses and parables. His “parables” serve the kingdom motif as word-pictures, for lack of a better term.” Consider the oft “The kingdom of heaven is like…”
@T.C.: I can see that. And I think that ties the evangelist to Jesus’ proclamation. Nevertheless, we still have a “usage” issue that does effect meaning.
Because the primary is under Inspiration; and secondary, tertiary, ad infinitum are under Illumination. In other words, Augustine isn’t an Apostle.
@Bobby: Would you see this as causing any trouble for the “truthfulness” of Scripture in that the evangelist adopted Jesus’ parables for their own literary purposes? Does it matter?
@Brian,
For me this doesn’t really cause any problems in re. to truthfulness or veracity. It’s my view of “inspiration” which would mitigate any apparent problems. My thinking would be that they weren’t using these parables outside of the original intent; insofar as the Holy Spirit was the one at work in both Jesus and them (the Gospel writers). There might be a bit of sensus plenior in what I’m assuming, but maybe not (it could be referensus plenior as well 😉 ).
The Holy Spirit would then be the source of both Jesus’ use and the evangelist’s. I’ll have to ponder that response.
🙂