07 - Chapter 07
CHAPTER VII SOME QUESTIONS RAISED BY A STUDY OF THE PARABLES IN the general discussion of the parables, some questions remain.
(i) Have the parables that artistic perfection that is so often claimed for them? In a powerful defence of the authenticity of the parables, Buzy lays down the thesis that the imperfect is not necessarily the unauthentic. He gives examples of the ’ ’ gaucheries ’ ’ of the Rabbinic parables and insists that, even in the case of Jesus, the Semitic genius preserves its independence over against the classical ideals, refuses to be imprisoned within our intellectual trammels, and declines to conform to the laws of strictly logical thought. It is a useful warning, yet in this connection perhaps hardly called for. We have discussed the cases in which the story is supposed to make too great a demand on the imagination, and shown that the idea that these ’ improbabilities ’ are an artistic defect is due to a misconception of the nature of the argument. The military interlude in Matthew’s Wedding Feast and the rebellion in Luke’s version of the Talents detract from the beauty of the story, but there is no need to ascribe either to Jesus. The conclusion of the Ten Bridesmaids somewhat jars upon us; we shall leave that point for discussion till we come to the exposition of the parable. It is sometimes said that in the Talents “ Enter thou into thy master’s joy ’ (perhaps ’ into thy master’s feast “) is more in place in the interpretation of the parable than in the story. Has anyone ever felt that that interfered with his enjoyment of the parable? The true critic of art is Time: Time riddles the dross and lets the metal remain. Some of the parables of Jesus are among the richest treasures, not only of the Christian Church, but of mankind. The Prodigal Son, the Good Samaritan, the Great Supper, the Ten Bridesmaids, the Talents, are the final answer to the question why Jesus taught in parables. Our Lord has his own way of telling a story; there is no “ padding,” no background, no description. The hearer is expected to do his part of the work, and it is a large part. In the parables, as in all the rest of the teaching of Jesus, he that hath ears to hear must use them. In the experience of nineteen hundred years, the plan has more than justified itself. In the Pharisee and the Tax-collector, perhaps more than anywhere else, the parable method is seen in the perfection of its power. There in a few unforgettable words is the teaching which others with less success have striven to give in pages or chapters or even in whole volumes.
(2) Has the Church always been wisely guided in its choice of names for the parables? In his book on the parables Mr. Lithgow in a most interesting way has called attention to this subject, and the point is one of some importance.
Just as in our search for the appropriate definition of a word, we are learning the nature of the thing indicated by the word, so our study of the meaning of a parable should be crowned by an appropriate name for it. The title given to a parable inevitably colours the popular conception of its message. Some of the names in common use seem to have been chosen simply for reference; others are in greater or less degree misleading. The names ’ The Hid Treasure ’ and “ The Pearl of Great Price ’ conceal the fact that the stories centre round the lucky peasant and the pearl-merchant. ’ The Lost Sheep ’ and “ The Lost Coin ’ distract our attention from the point that the story is primarily concerned, not with the experiences of the sheep or the coin, but with the shepherd who lost and found the sheep, the woman who lost and found the coin. “ The Unmerciful Servant “ fails to make prominent that it was not as a servant but as a creditor that he showed mercilessness. The parables have given us a new word in the language, namely “talents,” and a new use of an old word, “ prodigal.” The fact that he was prodigal or a spendthrift, is one of the accidents of the story: the point is that he was an unfilial son, a son who recognized none of the obligations of sonship. The word “ prodigal ’ has been given a new sense to correspond with the life of the young man in the far country. The common, misleading title of this parable has done us this disservice, that in the popular mind the story has its lesson only for those guilty only of that kind of “ wildness ’ which involves some measure of public obloquy. For the Labourers in the Vineyard (Mat 20:1-16) the titles “ The Hours ’ and “ Equal Pay for Unequal Work ’ have also been suggested. The former designation suggests nothing, and the latter conveys an idea the reverse of the truth.
1 The Friend at Midnight ’ is a designation which would not have appealed to the man who was roused from his midnight slumbers. The name ’ The Ten Virgins ’ emphasizes their virginity, which is no part of the point of the story. The title ’ The Unjust Steward ’ puts the stress in the wrong place. The steward’s vice was not injustice but dishonesty; and, as commonly interpreted, the parable invites us to imitate the steward in respect not of any of his vices, but of a certain virtue he was supposed to have. ’ The Importunate Widow ’ conveys the lesson of the parable, if not accurately, at least much less inaccurately than ’ The Unjust Judge.” The name “ The Seed Growing Secretly “ involves an unfortunate mistranslation of the last word, which has displayed wonderful vitality. It should be either ’ mysteriously ’ (if we look to the end of Mark 4:27) or ’of its own accord’ (“of itself,” Weymouth) (lit. “automatically”) if we take the title from the beginning of the next verse.
(3) In connection with each of the parables, at least of the longer parables, there are five questions that might be profitably discussed:
(4) What was the parable as actually spoken by Jesus? That is a question for literary criticism. We have already given some attention to this matter and it will come up for further consideration.
(5) What did the parables mean for those who first heard them? On that subject, speaking generally, we have no information. In the Gospels Jesus is represented as giving, in response to a request, an interpretation of the Sower and of the Darnel among the Wheat, and a voluntary interpretation of the Fishing-net; while Mark tells us it was the custom of Jesus to expound his parables in private to the disciples (Mark 4:34).
Apart from these references we hear of no difficulty experienced by an audience in understanding the general bearing of a parable. In some cases, like the Unjust Steward and the Wicked Vinedressers, the evangelists tell us that the religious leaders saw the point at once.
Judging from the analogy of a modern nonChristian audience, it is reasonable to suppose that a popular audience would catch the drift of a number of the parables, like the Prodigal Son, the Good Samaritan, the Pearl, the Fishingnet. The disciples at least would see at once the meaning of the Seed Growing Automatically, the Mustard Seed and the Leaven. It was only in later times, when the whole meaning and purpose of the parable method became obscured, that the original and obvious interpretations were dropped. Other parables, like the Talents and the Bridesmaids, could hardly be called self-explanatory. The difficulties of expounding them and the diverse interpretations given, doubtless contributed to the spread of the conception of the parables as ’ hidden mysteries.”
(c) How did the evangelists who gave us the parables understand them? In many cases this question is much easier to answer. Whether the interpretations given of the Sower, the Darnel and the Fishing-net are genuine or not, the Gospel-writers must have regarded them as genuine. We have seen also of how many other parables the evangelists either give interpretations of their own or ascribe such to Jesus. In other cases the context in which they place, a parable indicates their conception of its point.
(/) How have the parables fared in the history of the Church? We have already given some account of Julicher’s thorough study of this subject.
(e) What do the parables mean for us?
There is no irreverence in suggesting that we may see applications of the parables which were hidden from the Gospel writers, which were not fully within the view of our Lord himself. The modern robber, for example, knows cleaner and more scientific ways of getting at his victim’s money-bags than by lying in wait for him on a lonely road and bludgeoning him. But the Church of our day has not been content with trying to bring a fresh mind to bear on the teaching of the individual parables.
It has sought to apply to the moral and spiritual problems of our day the spirit that lies behind the whole parable method, that appeal to the imagination which lies behind the conception of the parable. The Salvation Army, the Boys’
Brigade, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Guides and similar movements have enlisted psychology in the service of ethics and religion. These movements are only carrying into practical effect the ideas behind the parables of Jesus, who taught us to think of ourselves as farmers contending against difficulties, as the children of the Father, as stewards to whom has been committed a trust, guests at the feast of a gracious host, bridesmaids who must uphold the honour of the bride. In the moral life an appealing pictorial representation of the issues at stake is half the battle.