The parables of the Lord Jesus according to S. Matthew, arranged, compared, and illustrated

Front matter

.

THE

PARABLES

Preface

It was not until about the close of the second year of His sacred ministry that our Lord began to teach regularly by parables. It is true that we meet with parabolic sayings and illustrations, not only singly, but in pairs, before this. Nothing, however, is to be found of regular, systematic teaching by parables, as at a later period. We naturally ask, Why was this ? Why should the earlier ministry be hortatory and didactic in its character, while the later is parabolical and marked by reserve ?

The difference between the two methods of teaching is to be accounted for by the change which, as the second year of our Lord’s ministry was drawing to its close, began to manifest itself in the attitude of the nation and its leaders toward Him. So long as He was content to be recognized simply as a prophet, the Jewish people heard Him gladly. But no sooner did He begin to assert Elis higher claims, and to intimate that He came not only to fulfil the old, but also to establish a new order, than opposition began to manifest itself. The Scribes, and Pharisees, and the leaders of the Theocracy, were ready to acknowledge that Jesus, like John the Baptist, was a

IV

PREFACE.

teacher come from God. When they had to face the question, however, of the founding of a universal kingdom upon the ruins of the old Theocracy — that was more than their national pride, and the exclusive claims based upon their descent from Abraham, could possibly bear. Now, it was at this crisis, and with the special object of bearing witness to this larger truth — the dawn of a new spiritual order, and the setting up of a universal kingdom — that our Lord began to teach regularly by parables. There are, indeed, occasional glimpses given at an earlier time, in more than one notable parabolic saying, of the spiritual character of the new era, and of the difference between it and all that has preceded it, whether among Jews or Gentiles ; but it is not until the latter half of the three years’ ministry that this becomes the great burden of our Lord’s teaching, and is dealt with systematically and in detail.

Even as we are accustomed to make use of pictures, and to illustrate by means of object-lessons things not familiar to untutored minds, so did our Divine Master deal with His disciples and the men of His day and generation. When He is compelled to deal with things that are in their very nature spiritual and supernatural, He has recourse to images taken from nature and selected out of the sphere of man’s moral and spiritual relationships, in which, as well as by means of outward things, God reveals Himself to us, in order that He may make the mysteries of His kingdom plain to the feeblest apprehension, while the gainsayer is

PREFACE.

V left without excuse. As the relations hereafter to be represented are new, and bound up with His own divine person and work, it is fitting, also, that they should find a new vehicle of expression. Not as the completion of the old, but as the beginning of a new dispensation, does Jesus now set Himself forth. It is no longer as a Jew to Jews that He speaks, but to men as men. It is meet and right that the language which He makes use of, accordingly, should not be that of any school, or sect, or party, but a language taken from the symbolism of nature itself, and common to all men. The appeal He makes, in like manner, is to the conscience and heart of man, and not to the intellect or logical faculty, for the reason that the kingdom which He comes to establish in the world is a spiritual kingdom, and one whose foundations are to rest upon the moral convictions of men.

Parables, it will be seen, then, are neither more nor less than pictures taken from nature and the divinely ordered relationships of human life, which the moral sense, still true to nature, is capable of seeing through at a glance. They are pictures, moreover, which man’s moral nature, if only actively engaged in the duties which belong to the sphere of home, and the every-day occupations of domestic life — steward and house-servant, and laborer in the field ; or taking part in things belonging to commercial pursuits, as trader, or debtor, or creditor ; or called to discharge the higher duties of king, or judge, or advocate— can readily appreciate and understand. Then, as in a picture, with a view to the heightening of the effect, we have the contrasts

VI

PREFA CE.

of light and shade; so in the parable (more especially, as we shall see, in the parables of S. Luke) it is not the divinely established relationships only that are used for purposes of illustration, but oftentimes the perversion of these relationships by sinful men, in order to secure the effect of greater contrast.

But if the parable, because it is true to nature and to the divinely ordered relationships which Christ, in taking our nature upon Him, came to sanctify and renew, is capable of being used as an educator of the moral sense in things above nature, the opposite of all this is true. If so be that the light which lighteth every man which cometh into the world, through carelessness or pride, has become darkness, and, as a consequence thereof, the soul has lost the power to see God as He manifests Himself in nature and the moral relationships of our human life, then the parable acts as a moral test; it is of the nature of a judgment upon unbelief, and conceals rather than reveals the truth. It is not that our Lord does not will men to come to the knowledge of the truth, but in dealing with those who through their own wilfulness have become blind, He puts the higher truth in such a way as to convict the gainsayer and prove that it is not the heavenly mystery he is disposed to reject, but he has, in truth, become insensible to the teachings of nature itself, and is no longer faithful to the moral instincts which God implanted in the soul at the first. Nor does the parable thus only serve the purpose of a moral test in the case of the blind and the hardened, but it is for the very same reason capable of being

PREFACE.

vii

used to help the weak and develop the moral sense where even the least spiritual insight still remains. As it suggests rather than reveals the truth, it is of the nature of a riddle or enigma (S. Matt. xiii. 24) which stimulates curiosity ; and is to be valued as an educational help which puts the inquirer into the way of finding out for himself the truth.

The parable, it will be seen then, is of the nature of a picture as to its form ; while in substance , and by reason of the materials out of which it is composed, it is of necessity a moral instrument, which probes to the very heart the moral receptivity of the hearer. It is never to be forgotten, that the beginning to teach by parables marks a moral crisis in the relation between our Lord and the men of His day and generation. It is the presence of the moral element which gives to the parables properly so called, as contra-distinguished from the parabolic sayings of the earlier ministry, and the paroemeac discourses of S. John, their distinctive character, and that in three ways more especially :

1. As a moral test, discriminating between such as had eyes to see, and those who had become blind. We have a notable instance of the use of the parable as a moral test in the case of the multitudes who had begun to follow Jesus in His journeyings, but were influenced by mixed motives in their attachment to His person. As many as had profited by the earlier teaching were made to feel the necessity of self-appropriation, as opposed to mere mechanical and outward devotion, and were prepared by the

Vlll

PREFA CE.

intimations thrown out under the figures of the buying of the field, and the purchase of the pearl of great price, for the great act of self-surrender, which in the course of events now rapidly hastening on was not long hence to be required of them ; while such as were moved by a spirit of vain curiosity, and were led to join themselves to the band of disciples because they ate of the loaves and were filled, were made to feel that it was no longer safe to tread in the footsteps of One who reckoned persecution among His promised rewards, and who demanded the absolute surrender of the most coveted earthly possessions for the sake of His kingdom.

2. As a blind, forcing upon the attention of concealed or avowed enemies truths they were not disposed to hear, and leaving them without excuse. The most notable instance of this use of the parable is the series of apologetic parables in S. Matthew, in which the leaders of the Theocracy are forced to pronounce their own condemnation, and their hypocrisy is at the same time mercilessly exposed. The parable of the Good Samaritan, in S. Luke, is another instance of the same kind. Here, again, the moral element in the parable works in two ways. While the exposure is of a kind to take away from gainsayers the least shadow of excuse, it is never, as Goebel observes, absolutely repellent, but always appeals to a remnant of susceptibility to the truth in their own conscience.

3. An educational purpose, by speaking of things unseen, through things seen and familiar. It is to be remembered that the Apostles and first disciples, with all

PREFACE.

IX their earnestness and simplicity of character, were men who had been brought up under the influence of Jewish prejudices and traditions. They were under the influence of carnal and worldly notions regarding Christ’s reign and kingdom. The parable furnished the needed picture, or object-lesson, which the imperfectly developed spiritual apprehension of the disciple could readily grasp. It was a kind of teaching which was calculated to linger in the memory, and gave the opportunity for time and experience to make plain the things which at first were seen only as in a glass.

Jebb, in his “ Sacred Literature,” and Archbishop Trench, in his “ Studies in the Gospels,” direct attention to the way in which the parabolic sayings of the earlier ministry run almost invariably in pairs, and are so arranged that the second and supplementary illustration presents the subject under treatment in a new light, and serves the purpose of bringing to view some deeper aspect of the truth. It would be natural to expect that if the supplementing of one illustration by another was characteristic of our Lord’s earlier parabolic teaching, the same care would be taken to guard against partial and one-sided views of truth when He began to teach regularly by parables. Nor are we disappointed in looking for a recurrence of this notable feature of our Lord’s teaching. Meyer (without attaching any very special importance to the matter) observes that the word i rapa^oXy, when technically applied, is hardly ever to be found in the singular,

X

PREFA CE.

but almost invariably in the plural, in connection with a series or cycle of parables, forming, as it were, a complete discourse. Accordingly, we find that the parables in the Synoptic Evangelists lie (for the most part) in groups, and are arranged in such a way as to furnish us with a system qf connected teaching on the cardinal mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. It appears upon examination that the parables of S. Matthew fall into four groups, and are so arranged that in each series a separate and distinct subject is illustrated. S. Mark and S. Luke also have their groups of parables ; not, however, to the same extent as S. Matthew. It is needless to say, in connection with such a method of arrangement, how all-important it is to familiarize ourselves with the principle of grouping and arrangement, wherever it occurs, if we would arrive at any definite understanding of the subject under consideration in all its parts and details. We are dealing, as it were, with a series of allegorical pictures. The displacing of any one member of the series must of necessity have a fatal result. If it be true that it is the method of our Lord’s teaching, for the most part, first to present one aspect of His kingdom in one parable or picture, and then to supplement it by bringing to light another and different view of the subject in a twin picture, and soon in regular succession in a series of three, or four, or even seven pictures — then, to neglect the order of arrangement, or to miss the exact point at which the subject is taken up anew in the second or supplementary parable, must inevitably result in our mixing and mingling things which ought to be kept

PRRFA CE.

XI separate, and to come short, at last, of our being able to grasp in order and detail the significance of the whole. Newland, in his “Postils,” observes that many of our Lord’s parables are arranged in sequences, with a view that wherever there is any opening for misapprehension in one parable, the deficiency may be supplied and the misapprehension removed in the parable that follows after. “ It is very possible,” the same writer adds, “ for us to do ourselves serious injury by taking as a detached and complete lesson that which our Lord meant merely as a part of one.” Stier, in his “Words of the Lord Jesus,” and Arnot, “ On the Parables of our Lord,” have given special attention to the matter of grouping and arrangement. Edersheim, in his “ Life of Christ,” appreciates the value of following up the connection and progress of our Lord’s teaching by parables, but excuses himself from working it out in detail as beyond his task. We have made, as it will be seen, the matter of grouping and arrangement a cardinal feature of our own interpretation, and with wonderful results.

The failure, hitherto, to secure anything like an exact numbering and scientific arrangement of our Lord’s parables, is one of the most noteworthy lapses in the history of New-Testament interpretation. And no wonder, when we consider the utterly vicious nature of the methods pursued. Any arrangement or numbering of the parables, based upon the notion of a harmonizing of the gospels, must inevitably result in failure. It is now needless xii

to say that the four gospels are as diverse, one from another, as the four rivers which flowed out of the Garden of Eden, or the four living creatures in Ezekiel’s vision. What possible proportion is there between the members of an eagle, an ox, a lion, and a- man ? They are, indeed, homologues one of another, and are all built up on the model of a typical vertebrate skeleton ; but beyond this they have no likeness to each other. It may, without hesitation, be affirmed, then, that an indiscriminate treatment of our Lord’s parables, without regard either to the particular evangelist in which they are to be found, or to the order in which they are presented, is a method which is as unscientific in its origin as it has proved hitherto unsatisfactoiy in its results. We cannot, without serious loss, both in the way of numbers and the ignoring of characteristic traits, lump together in one indiscriminate mass the parables of S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke. They are as diverse, one from another, as the gospels in which they stand. S. Matthew wrote for the Hebrews, and his parables have upon them a theocratic stamp. S. Luke wrote for the Gentiles, and his parables have more of a human and universal character. The very same parable, it will be found, upon careful examination, is capable of an altogether different interpretation, according as it is applied to the Gentile in the state of nature, or the Jew in covenant relationship with God. The “ stray sheep ” of S. Matthew becomes a “ lost sheep” in S. Luke, for the reason that the Jew is within the fold, while the Gentile stands without. Judgment, like an undertone, prevails in S. Matthew; mercy and for-

PREFA CE.

xiii

giveness are characteristic of S. Luke. The cardinal defect in the attempts at classification of the parables, on the part of expositors generally, is that they are based upon some artificial principle of arrangement, arising out of the doctrinal prepossessions of the author, and are not the result of the following up of the order of the gospel narrative itself. The consequence has been the confounding of the parables of S. Matthew and S. Luke, and the serious loss of all the advantages of the cross-lights which the several evangelists furnish by their diverse methods of treatment. The plan of taking the parables as they stand in the evangelical narrative itself, and treating each gospel by itself, would seem to be the only way of arriving at a satisfactory result.

It is not, at a first glance, easy to draw the line between the parabolic sayings and illustrations of the earlier and the parables (properly so called) of the later ministry. But the explanation of the difference upon consideration is plain and simple enough. Words, as Hooker has reminded us, have at first a general and then (when the time for differentiation has taken place) a technical signification. napa/ 3 o\r) is used in general to designate every utterance containing a comparison of any kind. Maxims taken from common life, like “ the blind leading the blind,” and “ the putting of a new patch on an old garment,” are called parables (S. Luke v. 3 6; vi. 39), because they are capable of being used to represent a corresponding truth in the sphere of the religious life, But in the later ministry the

XIV

PREFA CE.

broader and more general meaning of the term is made to assume a more technical signification, for the reason that what was before occasional and accidental now becomes the distinctive feature of our Lord’s teaching. The differentiation took place when, in consequence of the growing hostility of the Scribes and Pharisees and the leaders of the people, Jesus was compelled (as a rule) to adopt the plan of speaking by similitudes and comparisons, and not as heretofore, plainly and directly. It is true that in the parabolic sayings of the earlier ministry, the images are often of profound significance ; but it is not true that the images used were purposely chosen with the express intention of proving the moral fitness of the hearer, and of testing whether they are walking in the darkness or in the light. The marked characteristic of the later, as contrasted with the earlier ministry, is that it moves all the time in a sphere which is deliberately chosen, with the design of car* rying reward to the inquiring, and penalty to the froward.

There is, then, to sum up all that is needful to be said on this portion of our subject, a larger and a more restricted use of the word parable. In its wider sense it covers any comparison or proverbial saying ; in its narrower and more technical signification it is limited to that particular kind of teaching by pictures, deliberately chosen for moral purposes, which characterizes the latter half of the three years’ ministry.

It was, we may believe, not without design that our Lord Himself has left us an example of the true method

PREFACE.

XV of interpreting His parables. It is often said that we are not to look for a hidden meaning in every detail of the parable; but how are we to reconcile such a statement with the careful working out of the details of the parable of the Sower, by our Lord Himself ? There is undoubted truth in the saying of S. Chrysostom, so often quoted : ouSe %pr) irdvra ra iv rais 7rapa/3o\ae ; Kara \e%Lv irepiep<yd- £ eaOai , dXka tov a/coirov pLaOovres, hi ov crvveredr], tovtov hpeireaQai real pLrjhev r iroXv r irpa r ypioveZv 'irepairepa), and we may accept it as confirming the opinion already expressed, that as in a picture there are prominent features, and subordinate accessories, so in the parable there are things of greater and of less importance. Notwithstanding, we must endorse the strong affirmation of Goebel, that “ strictly understood there is no mere byplay and empty ornament in the parables of Jesus.” It is, in our judgment, little short of blasphemy to entertain “ the opinion that Jesus wove particular ingredients into His parables which serve no purpose, or no other purpose than to give the narrative a more pleasing form.” “ On the contrary, it must be presupposed that all particulars in a parable, in so far as they are not meant to find a special counterpart in the interpretation, have, nevertheless, some important position of their own in the connection of the whole, and thus serve the end of the whole, either helping by delineation in detail to picture a truth vividly, or fitting as essential ingredients into the systematic structure of the narrative. The expositor must, therefore, never say this or that particular lies outside the compass of the intended compari-

XVI

PREFACE.

son, and therefore cannot be explained, without at the same time indicating what purpose it serves in its place in the connection of the whole.” The rule thus laid down by Goebel is admirably stated, and we have made it our aim to adhere to it in every case in our treatment of the parables.

Contents

PAGE

Preface, . . . . . . iii

I.— THE SEVEN FUNDAMENTAL PARABLES: Addressed partly to the Multitude , partly to the Disciples. Introduction, ....... 3

I. V

f

II WSM fei I £K|! \

THE SEVEN FUNDAMENTAL PARABLES.

It is the aim of S. Matthew, in his first seven parables, to set forth in outline the fundamental laws of the kingdom of heaven, in its relation (i) to the world at large, and (2) to its disciples in particular. The number seven in this connection is not without meaning. Whatever we may think of such a use of numbers, the number seven to the Jew was a sacred number, and full of mystical significance. S. Matthew, it is to be remembered, wrote his Gospel for the people of the Jews, and in his arrangement and grouping of our Lord’s first great parabolic discourse, he would be understood as intimating, that in these seven parables we have a discourse, on which the Holy Spirit has set his seal as perfect and complete in every particular. We are not at liberty, then, to regard these first seven parables as ordinary parables; we may not disintegrate them, or treat with neglect the organic relation which they bear to each other. They are a complete whole in themselves. They hold a fundamental place in our Lord’s teaching. They are so arranged as to give us a general outline or sketch of the kingdom which Christ came to establish in the world, from its first beginning, through the varied stages of its development and growth, to its ultimate consummation and close.

Nor is it without significance that four of the seven parables were addressed to the multitude upon the shore, while three were spoken privately to the disciples in the

THE SEVEN FUNDAMENTAL EATABLES.

house. Four is the number of the world, and gives its impress to the parables which have to do with the universal relations of the kingdom; three is the number of the sacred name, into which the disciples, at their entering into the kingdom, were baptized and sealed unto the life everlasting.*

THE FOUR PARABLES.

The first four parables addressed to the multitude bear upon their very face in the choice of the images selected — seed-corn and leaven — the two main features of the subject they were designed to illustrate, viz., the growth and extension of the kingdom of heaven in the world.

In the Sower who has gone forth to sow, we have it declared that the first great step has been taken in the evangelical dispensation, through the preaching of pIraMe*™* th e wor< ^j U P and down the length and breadth of Judea. And the fact is not only declared, but the result is also intimated. In three cases out of four the result has been a failure. And this, as the parable declares, is owing to the nature of the kingdom. The instrument of propagation is not to be the sword, but the word. It is a kingdom which is to be founded not upon force by an outward display of power, but upon moral suasion. As seed needs soil in which to strike root and grow, and the return in every case will depend upon the nature of the ground, so the word preached, being of the nature of “ a purely spiritual agency, is dependent on the condition of heart of those to whom the preaching comes, and must be just as widely different as the actual condition of heart in the hearers.” t “ Not by the authority of law, not by some mighty display of power, but by germinal

* See Archbishop Trench : The Epistles to the Seven Churches, p. 89.

f Goebel.

THE SEVEJV FUNDAMENTAL EATABLES.

truth, taking root in the minds of men, and unfolding themselves into new dispositions and affections, into a new life with its corresponding fruits, is the kingdom of heaven to be established.” *

“ The divine word is sown like grain which fructifies or remains unfruitful, according to the nature of the soil which receives it. Everything depends on the moral disposition. The soul, according to the manner in which it listens, may resemble the stony ground, or the trodden highway where no seed can germinate, or the field of thorns and thistles, or the good ground which, from a single grain, brings forth a hundred-fold.” t

But if the kingdom of heaven, in the beginning, is to be founded upon moral suasion, so throughout all the stages of its development and growth it recognizes pJraMe C ° nd the fact of man’s moral probation. The founder of the kingdom is not God in the plenitude of His power, but the Son of Man, whose it is, in the mystery of his incarnation, to overcome evil not by force but by moral agency. Already had there been introduced into the circle of the twelve, one Jesus knew not to be His, but the child of the devil. While, as Son of God, Jesus knew the end of the traitor Judas from the beginning, yet, as Son of Man, he bore with him, in order that he might himself fill up the measure of his iniquity, and go at the last to his own place. And so it is to be to the end. Satan, as long as time shall last, will dog the footsteps of the sower. False prophets, at the bidding of the evil spirit, will rise up in every age to counterfeit the true. Nor will it be possible to root them out. Error is to be overcome by the manifestation of the truth. The kingdom of Christ, and the kingdom of Antichrist cannot be separated by any di- * Cottrell. t Pressense.

THE SEVEN FUNDAMENTAL PA FABLES.

viding line, so that men can recognize at a glance the one from the other. The power to discriminate depends upon moral considerations, not upon external appliances. It is part and parcel of the condition of time, and the law of moral growth, that Satan, whose power is broken but his reign not yet ended, is able, by reason of their inexperience and immaturity , to deceive those who are advancing onward through trial and manifold experiences to perfection ; loyalty to Jesus, even unto death, is the only safeguard against Satan’s wiles. When the mystery of probation is ended, and the mediatorial kingdom of the Son of Man brought to a close, then God will send his angels and separate between the true and false. The temporal economy, with its intermingling of good and evil, light and darkness, will give place to the millennial era ; and “ the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their father.”

“ In the first parable we see represented the foundation of the Church. We see how the Son of Man walked the earth and sowed the seed of the word of God. We learn how, from the beginning of His ministry to the end, He met a varied experience, according to the efforts made by the enemy and by men to frustrate the growth of the good seed, until at length the Lord found a fruitful ground in which the seed could thrive and give the promise of a rich return. In the next parable we see the Church, under the management of the servants to whom the Lord, after the accomplishment of His personal work on earth, intrusted the care of the growing seed during the time of his absence. Their task is to watch over and keep the field of the Lord, that the wheat may ripen undisturbed, and that in the time of the harvest they may receive their full reward.” *

Thiersch.

THE SEVEN FUNDAMENTAL FA FABLES.