01.09. Chapter 8. The Hours, the Talents, and the Pounds
Chapter 8.
The Hours, the Talents, and the Pounds Or, Work and Wages in the Kingdom of God. The parable of Extra Service considered in the last chapter, when superficially viewed, makes, as we saw, the unpleasant impression that in the kingdom of heaven service is rendered to a thankless, unappreciative Master, who receives all work done for Him as a matter of course, possessing no merit, and entitled to no reward. The hastiest glance at the three parables now to be studied suffices to show that this impression is a very false one. From these parables we learn that the kingdom of God is a kingdom of perfect equity; that the Lord of this kingdom is one who knows how to value and repay all faithful, devoted labour, and in all His dealings with His servants approves Himself to be at once just and generous; and that in this kingdom rewards are bestowed on principles which commend themselves to right reason as in entire accordance with the eternal laws of righteousness.
All three parables manifestly relate to the problem of Work and Wages. Their common theme is the political economy of the kingdom. On this account alone they might fitly be made the subject of one connected study. But we have a better reason than this for taking them up together as forming conjointly a single topic The parables do not merely bear upon the same general theme; they are mutually complementary, and constitute together a complete doctrine on the important subject of work and wages in the kingdom of God. To see this we have but to remember that three things must be taken into account in order to form a just estimate of the ethical value of men’s work: viz. the quantity of work done, the ability of the worker, and the motive. Where ability is equal, quantity determines relative merit; and where ability varies, then it is not the absolute quantity of work done, but the ratio of the quantity to the ability, that ought to determine value. But however great the diligence and zeal displayed or the amount of work done may be, no work can have any real value in the kingdom of God which proceeds from an impure motive. In this world men are often commended for their diligence irrespective of their motives, and it is not always necessary even to be zealous in order to gain vulgar applause. If one does something that looks large and liberal, men will praise him without inquiring whether for him it was a great thing, a heroic act involving self-sacrifice, or only a respectable act, not necessarily indicative of earnestness or devotion. But in God’s sight many bulky things are very little, and many small things are very great; for this reason, that He seeth the heart and the hidden springs of action there, and judges the stream by the fountain. Quantity is nothing to Him unless there be zeal, and even zeal is nothing to Him unless it be purged from all vainglory and self-seeking—a pure spring of good impulses, cleared of all smoke of carnal passion; a pure flame of heaven-born devotion. A base motive vitiates all.
Each of the three parables now to be considered gives prominence to a distinct element in this complex doctrine of moral value. The parable of the Pounds illustrates the proposition that where ability is equal quantity determines relative merit. In this parable each servant receives one pound, but the quantity of work done varies; one servant with the one pound gaining ten, while another gains only five. In right reason the rewards ought to vary accordingly, and so in fact they do in the parable. The first gets ten cities to govern, the second only five. Not only so, but, what is more remarkable, words of commendation are uttered by the master in addressing the first servant which are not repeated to the second. To the former he says, "Well, thou good servant, because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities;" to the second no praise is given, but only the bare commission, "Be thou also over five cities." The parable of the Talents, on the other hand, illustrates the proposition that when ability varies, then not the absolute quantity of work done, but the ratio of the quantity to the ability, ought to determine value. Here the amount of work done varies as in the parable of the Pounds, but the ability varies in the same proportion, so that the ratio between the two is the same in the case of both servants who put their talents to use. One receives five and gains five, the other receives two and gains two. In right reason the two should be held equal in merit, and so they are represented in the parable. The same reward is given to each, and both are commended in identical terms; the master saying to each in turn, "Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will set thee over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord." The purpose of the parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard, or, to use a briefer expression, the parable of the Hours, is to emphasise the supreme importance of motive as a factor in determining moral value. It teaches in effect that a small quantity of work done in a right spirit is of greater value than a great quantity done in a wrong spirit. One hour’s work done by men who make no bargain, but trust to the generosity of their employer, and who seek by ardent devotion to make up for lost time, is of more value than twelve hours’ work done by men who regard their doings with self-complacency, and who have laboured all along as hirelings. That this is the drift of the parable will appear more clearly hereafter; meantime we content ourselves with briefly stating our opinion, our present purpose being to point out how, on the hypothesis that the view just given is correct, the parable of the Hours completes the doctrine of Christ concerning the relation of work to wages in the kingdom of heaven, by setting forth that not the quantity of work done alone, nor even quantity combined with zeal, but above all things quality, pure motive, right affection, determines moral value. The fact just pointed out, that the three parables before us constitute together a complete doctrine on the subject of rewards, suffices to settle the question as to the originality and independence of these parables; to prove, that is, that they are three distinct parables, and not two. The question concerns the parables of the Talents and the Pounds, for the originality and distinctness of the parable of the Hours is not disputed. It is held by many interpreters that the two former parables are simply different versions of one and the same parable, opinion being divided as to which of the two comes nearer to the original form as spoken by Jesus. The most plausible view is that of those who maintain that Matthew’s version approaches nearest to the primitive form, and that Luke’s parable is simply Matthew’s transformed, and combined with another parable about a king and his subjects, which was spoken at a different time, and appears in Luke’s narrative only in a mutilated state.[1] With all deference to the learned commentators who treat the two parables as one which had assumed two different forms in the course of tradition, we must express our firm belief that they are two, spoken by our Lord on different occasions and for different purposes. That the parables are very similar we do not deny; we will even admit that they are simple variations on the same theme. But they are, in our judgment, variations originating with the Master Himself,[2] not due to the blunders of reporters, or to the modifying influence of inaccurate tradition. And we base this judgment on the remarkable manner in which the three parables as they stand fit into each other, and together form a complete doctrinal whole. It is not by accident or blundering that variations arise which fit so well to each other and to the didactic significance of a third parable. Such fitness bears witness to a single mind in which the three parabolic representations took their origin, and formed together a whole. In saying this we but apply to these parables the well-known argument of design. Even as the theist in enforcing the teleological argument maintains that by the adaptations of the different parts of an organism to each other, and of the whole organism to its environment, he is constrained to rise above the action of chance or mere mechanism to a designing mind, in which the idea of this organism pre-existed, and by which its function was pre-determined; so we, having regard to the indubitable fact that these three parables as we find them in the Gospel records do form as it were an organism of thought on the subject to which they relate, feel constrained to conclude that they owe their origin not to the accidents of tradition, but simply to the fact that they constituted a unity in the mind of the Great Teacher, and were each and all spoken by Himself as occasions occurred.
[1] This is the view of Unger. He thinks that the image of the king and his subjects does not agree with the remaining image, either in itself (princeps enim bellum gesturus, et negotiatores porro, hi atque urbium præfecturæ, minus congruunt) or in illustrating the matter in hand. He makes an attempt at restoring the mutilated parable of the king and his subjects. The king goes to a distant land, to return afterwards (
[2] So also Schleiermacher, who regards the inequality of endowment as an essential feature of the one parable, and equality of endowment as an equally essential feature of the other.—’Über die Schriften des Lukas.’
While maintaining with some measure of confidence that these parables form a didactic whole, and on that ground asserting their originality, we do not therefore feel justified in asserting that the sole design of the Speaker in each case was simply to make a contribution to a scientific doctrine on the subject of work and wages in the Divine kingdom. Had Christ been animated by a purely theoretic interest, He might have uttered all three parables at one gush, as all bearing on one theme, and have taken care so to construct them that they should all be strictly confined to one topic, and serve only one end. But such was not His way as a teacher. He was never guided by a purely theoretic or scientific interest; His utterances, however capable of being systematised, were not systematic in method, but occasional; and the motive to speech being often not simple, but complex, the words spoken frequently served more than one purpose. So it was in the case of these parables. They were in all probability spoken at different times, to different audiences, and from mixed motives, and were meant to teach not one truth only, but several;[1]
[1] This statement applies chiefly to the parables of the Talents and the Pounds. and not merely to teach, but to warn, admonish, comfort, stimulate.
Having regard to these facts, we will not pursue what might be called the scientific order in studying our parables, which would require us to consider first the parable of the Talents, then that of the Pounds, and lastly that of the Hours; setting forth in connection with the first the function of ability in determining value, in connection with the second the function of diligence, and in connection with the third the function of motive. We will rather take them up in the order in which they occur in the evangelic records, which may with some degree of probability be regarded as also the order in which they were delivered,[1] beginning with
[1] On such questions it is unsafe to dogmatise, but there seems no good reason to doubt that Matthew gives us the parable of the Hours in its proper historical connection, though some have been led to think otherwise by the difficulty of finding in the parable an illustration of the saying, "Many that are first shall be last, and the last first" (Neander, Bleek, Reuss). There seems also good reason to regard the other two parables, from their contents, as belonging to a later time; and of the two, Matthew’s is probably the earlier, though it is brought in by him at a later period. This is the opinion of Schleiermacher, who thinks that the parable of the Talents cannot be regarded either as an imperfect understanding of that of the Pounds, or as a remodelling by Christ Himself of the latter on a later occasion. The contrary he thinks the more natural. He thinks, further, that the parable in Mat 25:1-46, where it stands, does not suit the connection. The probability, according to Schleiermacher, is that Christ, on an unknown occasion, spoke the parable of the Talents, in which unequal endowment was an essential feature, and then took it up again, introducing the noteworthy difference of equal endowment.—’Uber die Schriften des Lukas.’ The Labourers in the Vineyard; Or, the Supreme Value of Motive in the Divine Kingdom For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that was an householder, who went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. And when he had agreed with the labourers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And going out about the third hour, he saw others standing idle in the market-place, and said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give unto you. And they went their way. Again going out about the sixth and the ninth hour, he did likewise. But going out about the eleventh hour, he found others standing,[1] and saith to them, Why stand ye here all the day idle? They say unto him, Because no man hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard (and whatsoever is right that shall ye receive).[2] So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first. And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received each a denarius. But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius. And having received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house, saying, These last wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, who have borne the burden of the day and the heat. But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I wrong thee not: didst not thou agree with me for a denarius? Take up thine,[3] and go. It is my pleasure to give to this last even as to thee. Is it not lawful to do what I will with mine own? Or is thine eye evil, because I am good? So the last shall be first, and the first last (for many be called, but few chosen).—Mat 20:1-16.
[1] The best MSS. omit
[2] A doubtful reading, omitted in R. V. and by Westcott and Hort.
[3]
Such is the meaning which one naturally puts upon the moral saying with which Mat 19:1-30 closes, viewing it in connection with all that goes before. But when the reader passes on to the parable in the next chapter, which seems designed to illustrate that saying, he is tempted to doubt the correctness of his first impression. For what he finds on the surface of the parable is not a change of places, but an abolition of distinctions by putting all on one level; not first ones in one respect becoming last in another, and last ones in the former respect becoming first in the latter, but first and last in respect of length of service becoming equal in respect of pay. This, we say, is what one finds on the surface; and the superficial aspect has misled many interpreters into the opinion that the design of the parable is to teach the doctrine that in the kingdom of God all shall be rewarded alike.[1] But if that be indeed its design, then one of two things must follow. Either the parable as originally spoken by Christ stood in no connection with the proverbial saying in question, or that saying must be made to bear a different meaning from that which it naturally suggests. Not a few interpreters have felt themselves shut up to the adoption of one or other of these alternatives; those who adopt the latter putting upon the gnome this sense: the first shall be as the last, and the last shall be as the first; that is, first and last shall be alike, all distinctions of first and last shall disappear.[2]
[1] So most recently Reuss in ’Histoire Evangelique.’ He thinks the parable is not in its true place or setting, and that it is designed to teach the equality of Divine grace in face of the inequality of the human condition in respect of the gospel promises—diversity in hours of labour, but above all in the fact of a covenant in the case of one of the parties (the Jews).
[2] So Unger: per se probabiliter explicantur: postremi atque primi pari loco erunt. Meyer takes the same view.
Either of these courses appears to us violent, and not to be followed except under direst compulsion. For our own part, we much prefer trying to bring the parable into conformity with the gnome as naturally understood, than to force upon the gnome a meaning which shall bring it into accord with the supposed didactic import of the parable. For of the two things, the import of the parable and the import of the proverb, the latter seems to us much the clearer. There is little room for doubt that the proverb points not at a levelling of distinctions, but at an exchange of places. Several considerations might be adduced in support of this position. In the first place, the word many is in its favour. "Many that are first shall be last." Why not all, if the purpose of the proverb be to teach the general truth that in God’s sight the distinctions between men vanish into nothing? Does the term many not suggest the thought that what actually happens too often is what ought not to be; that it is a departure from the normal and desirable state of things due to the action of some disturbing cause; that if all things were as they ought to be, the first in respect of sacrifice would also be first in respect of reward; that in fact there is no law in the Divine kingdom that all must share alike? Then, secondly, it is only when thus understood that the saying has any relevancy to the question of Peter. The words are a pointless commonplace in the connection in which they stand if they signify, all shall be alike in respect of the reward; not to say that they are in manifest contradiction to the terms of the foregoing promise: for these are "shall receive an hundred-fold," an expression implying a proportion between the reward and the sacrifice. So manifest is the incongruity, that a recent commentator, who understands the saying when it recurs at the close of the parable as teaching the doctrine of equality, finds it necessary to invent a meaning for it in its first position different from either of those already indicated, to the following effect: Many who are first (in a worldly point of view) because they have not forsaken their goods, will be last when they lose salvation in Messiah’s kingdom; while such as through sacrifice of all have become last (in a worldly point of view), will be first because they attain unto the highest salvation.[1] That this is not the sense of the saying is proved by the simple fact that it is not introduced by a ’for’ (
[1] Weiss, ’Das Matthäus-Evangelium,’ p. 441.
[2] Luk 18:14.
We regard it as a settled point then, that what the apophthegm points to is not a levelling of distinctions, but an exchange of places, by which the first in the amount of service and sacrifice becomes, through pride, or vainglory, or self-seeking, last in the esteem of God; and what we have now to do is to ascertain by careful examination whether the parable cannot be brought into harmony with the saying thus understood, so as to serve as an illustration of the doctrine that quality, not quantity, determines the value of work in the Divine kingdom.
1. First we must fix our attention very closely on the householder; as we may find that to understand him is the nearest way to an understanding of the parable. This man is no ordinary employer of labour; by no means the first man of the kind you happen to meet. Before the kingdom of heaven can be likened to a man who possesses a vineyard, the man has to be assimilated to the kingdom; and the man in the parable has actually been so assimilated. Such men as he may possibly be found among this world’s employers of labour, but they are rare; men like the gifted author of a charming tractate on political economy, which takes its title from a sentence in our parable, and which has for its burthen that in the business relations of men you cannot without fatal results ignore the social affections, and for its unconscious scope to turn the commercial world into a kingdom of God.[1] Our householder is not of this world, any more than Plato’s republic, nor are his ways the ways of the world, or likely to be approved by the world, but rather certain to be found fault with; as in point of fact they are represented as having been found fault with by the parties who were most closely related to him, who doubtless thought they did well to be angry. Were such a man to appear among us, he would probably give similar offence to parties similarly related; and to the outside world he would, in all likelihood, appear an eccentric humorist, to be laughed at rather than to be imitated. And this judgment would not be very much to be wondered at For in truth our householder is a humorist, and his ways are in some respects very peculiar. Two peculiarities especially are notable in his character. One is, that besides hiring men in the ordinary way, and at the ordinary time, to work in his vineyard, he now and then takes it into his head to go at an advanced time of the day in search of labourers, from benevolent motives; not for his own advantage, but for the advantage of those who have the misfortune to be unemployed. For what other motive could move any one to go to the marketplace at the eleventh hour, when the working portion of the day was about to close? What evidence is there that in this procedure our householder followed ordinary usage? Commentators have been able to cite from books of Eastern travel passages proving that the parabolic picture of an employer of labour going out in the morning to hire labourers, is in accordance with Oriental custom.[2] But we have not met anywhere with anything tending to prove that the quest of workers at the close of the day is in accordance with the customs of any part of the world. The learned Lightfoot indeed quotes certain phrases from the Talmud which he thinks may tend to throw some light on this feature in the parable. The Talmudists distinguish between persons hired for the day, and persons hired for so many hours,[3] and they direct hirers of labour to note whether those to be hired come from various places; for, say they, there are places where people come earlier to work, and other places where they come later.[4] The author of the ’Horæ Hebraicæ’ suggests that the fact referred to in this last observation may serve to explain how there came to be persons in the market-place to be hired at such different times of the day. But in any case, the fact stated cannot explain the hiring of workers at the eleventh hour, for it is not credible that it was the custom of any place to begin work at so late an hour; and besides, both the question of the master addressed to those then hired, and their reply, imply that they had been present in the market-place all the day, ready to work for any one who engaged them. The compassionate tone of the master’s question suggests the true explanation of his conduct. Not custom, and not need of more labourers, but pity for the idle moved this eccentric landlord to go at the eleventh hour in search of new labourers.[5] The very manner in which this part of the narrative is introduced, reveals a purpose on the part of the Speaker to signalise the action of the master as something peculiar and exceptional, indicative of a moral characteristic deserving attention. The sentence begins with the adversative particle (
[1] ’Unto This Last,’ by John Ruskin.
[2] Trench quotes ’Morier’s Travels in Persia’ to this effect, p. 177, note.
[3] Distinguunt canones Hebræorum de conducendis operariis, prout ratio postulat, inter conductos in diem, et conductos in horas quasdam.
[4] Observandum an veniant ex locis variis; sunt enim loca ubi citius ad opus pergitur, et sunt ubi serius.
[5] So Olshausen, with his usual insight: "Less out of need than out of pity for the idle, did the true Hausherr from time to time call new labourers into his vineyard." Similarly Goebel says: "An unusual proceeding, which shows that the master is concerned not merely about the amount of work, but about employing as many as possible." The other peculiarity of our householder is that he seems to attach importance not so much to the work done as to the spirit in which it is done. He delights in the spirit of grateful devotion, and he abhors with equal intensity the spirit of envious, selfish calculation. The parable supplies evidence of this assertion. The master’s abhorrence of the mercenary spirit comes out very clearly in his reply to the murmuring of those first hired, in which every word breathes indignation and disgust. But not less truly, though less obviously, does the narrative reveal the action of an opposite feeling of delight in the spirit of uncalculating devotion. For, to this feeling in the breast of the employer we must ascribe the fact of his paying the last hired first, and also the fact of his paying them a full day’s wage. The commentators indeed endeavour to rob both facts of all moral significance. As to the former, one commentator tells us that the expression, "beginning from the last unto the first," signifies: No order being observed among them, but so that no one may be omitted.[1] Others assure us that the sole reason why the last are paid first, is that the first hired might observe what was done, and have their expectations awakened.[2] But they forget that the motive leading the Speaker of the parable to tell His story in a certain way is one thing, and the motive of the actor in the parable is another. It may be that the Speaker’s reason for telling the story as He does is, that He may be able to exhibit a certain class of workers behaving in a particular way. But the landlord must be conceived to act from a motive of his own, all unconscious of the use that is to be made of his action to point a moral. And what could his motive be but a desire to manifest special interest in those who, having come into the vineyard at the close of the day, must have cherished very humble expectations as to what they were to receive, although they had done their best during their one hour of work to show their grateful appreciation of the master’s kindness?[3] And if this was indeed his motive, then the action was not so insignificant as some would have us believe. In itself, to be paid first was a small advantage to the last hired; too small to bear the chief stress in the illustration of the principle: the last first, and the first last. But the paying of the last first was a very significant circumstance as an index of the master’s mind, for in that connection we have to consider not merely the action itself, but what it may lead to.
[1] Grotius.
[2] So Calvin and Bleek.
[3] Morrison refers to Löfler, author of a monograph on this parable, published in the early part of last century, as suggesting that the words of the murmurers concerning the last hired,
[1] The passage cited is from ’Antiq. Jud.,’ xx. ix. 7, and is as follows:—
"An eccentric man, most unlike other people, and by no means to be imitated!" Yes; but how like is this man, with his strange humours, to the Divine Being as depicted by the sweet singer of. Israel: "With the merciful Thou wilt show Thyself merciful; with an upright man Thou wilt show Thyself upright; with the pure Thou wilt show Thyself pure; and with the froward Thou wilt show Thyself froward. For Thou wilt save the afflicted people; but wilt bring down high looks."[1] How true to this poetic picture of God is the character of our householder in the parable I He, too, is froward with the froward. How sharp and curt his words to the grumbling churls. "Friend, I wrong thee not: didst thou not agree with me for a penny? Lift thine, and go;" the last words accompanied, we may imagine, with an imperative wave of the hand. Then how good he is to the meek, the afflicted people who had hung about all day in the marketplace till they had become utterly disheartened because no man had hired them, and who work during the last hour like men mad with joy! His conduct towards them well entitles him to apply to himself the august title
[1] Psa 18:25-27.
[2] The use of the word here (Mat 20:15) supplies the best evidence possible that it really represents a different idea from
Such then, according to our reading of his character, were the characteristics of the householder in our parable; characteristics not only admirable, but useful, if the possessor’s chief aim in life were the culture of right affections in those about him. For benevolence tends to produce in its objects gratitude, and grateful devotion generously rewarded rises to still higher heights of devotion. But if the possessor’s chief aim in life were the culture of grapes, these characteristics, however admirable, are not so obviously useful. For in that case chief importance must be attached to the work, not to the spirit of the worker; and it may be as well not to be too sentimental, lest the indulgence of good feeling breed disaffection in men who, however defective in temper, have nevertheless proved themselves good workers, and borne well the burden of a long day, and the scorching heat of a broiling sun.[1] Manifestly it is right affections rather than grapes that this householder is mainly concerned about, and it is this peculiarity which fits him to be an emblem of the kingdom of God.
[1]
2. Having ascertained with tolerable certainty the character of the householder, we shall find little difficulty in proving that the aim and effect of the parable is to illustrate the supreme importance in God’s sight of motive as a measure of value. Two objections may be taken to this view. First, that the parable itself contains no trace of right motive in those who are favoured; and, second, that all receive the same sum, whereas the supposed design of the parable requires that the last should be not merely put on a level with the first, but placed above them.
Now as to the former of these objections, it is true that the parabolic representation contains no express allusion to the existence of right feeling in the last hired, or to the influence of such feeling on the master’s conduct. But was such express mention really necessary? That such feeling existed goes without being said. It was probable, natural, almost inevitable in the circumstances. Then we must assume its existence in order to render the master’s conduct intelligible and reasonable. Reasonable, we say; for although this householder was from the world’s point of view eccentric, he was not foolish. He must be assumed to have acted from motives thoroughly rational, regarded from his own point of view. But if we assume that his action had no relation to the state of mind of those whom it concerned, then it ceases to be rational, and becomes purely arbitrary. But surely it is not Christ’s intention to represent the principal actor as arbitrary, though He does make him use language which has a sound of arbitrariness in rebutting the pretensions of unreasonable men, when He puts into his mouth the question, "Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?"[1] We cannot, therefore, agree with the opinion expressed by a respected commentator, that "when we rise above the particular sphere of ideas with which the parable deals the quality element of character comes into account; but the parable itself does not lift us into this sphere, it leaves us simply in the sphere of the negative ideas that the time consumed in working and the quantity of work performed do not determine absolutely the amount of glory that shall be enjoyed."[2] It seems to us plain that the parable does lift us into this sphere. The principal actor in the parable rises into this sphere, and has his being in it, and he lifts the parable itself and all the subordinate actors therein along with him. In order that the situation may suit his character, we must assume that the first and last hired represent two classes of men morally distinct: the first being the self-complacent and calculating; the last the humble, self-forgetful, trustful, grateful. The first are the Simons, righteous, respectable, exemplary, but hard, prosaic, ungenial; the last the women with alabaster boxes, who for long have been idle, aimless, vicious, wasteful of life, but at last, with bitter tears of sorrow over an unprofitable past, begin life in earnest, and endeavour to redeem lost time by the passionate devotion with which they serve their Lord and Saviour. Or, once more, the first are the elder brothers who stay at home in their father’s house, and never transgress any of his commandments, and have no mercy on those who do; the last the prodigals who leave their father’s house and waste their substance in riotous living, but at length come to their senses and say, "I will arise and go to my father," and having met him, exclaim, "Father, I have sinned, and am no more worthy to be called thy son."
[1] Mat 20:15. The force of this question is increased if we insert the
[2] Morrison, ’Commentary on Matthew,’ in loc. The other objection to our view of the parable may also be disposed of without much difficulty. It is true that all receive the same sum, the denarius, which was the ordinary pay for a day’s work in those times. But this fact is not fatal to the view that the purpose of the parable is to illustrate the truth that diversity of spirit may cause men to change places, so that the first in the amount of work or sacrifice shall be last in the reward, and vice versa. In making this assertion we do not insist either on the fact that the last were paid first, which in itself is of no great moment, or on the fact that the last were paid at a far higher rate than the first, which nevertheless deserves serious consideration; but simply on this, that the point of importance is not what each received at the end of the day, but the will of the master manifested in making payment, and what that will involved and must lead to. In the sentence "I will give unto this last even as unto thee," the part to be accentuated is not the "even as," but the "I will" (
[1] The use of the future (
It only remains to add that no parable could possibly supply an adequate illustration of the action of the great moral law enunciated by Jesus in the close of His reply to Peter’s question, for the results therein pointed at are realized only gradually, through the slow but sure operation of tendencies. In making this remark we have in view such fulfilments of the law as fall within our observation in this present life. We do not of course mean to limit the operation of the law to this life. The question has been much discussed by commentators, What does the denarius denote? Does it refer to the life eternal, or to something experienced in this world? In our way of looking at the parable the question is not of such cardinal importance as some suppose. But if we must answer it, our reply is, The denarius denotes what ever comes under the category of reward, and that, as we see from our Lord’s own words to Peter, embraces both the life eternal and experiences of this present life. And we believe that the law, the last first and the first last, applies to the eternal as well as to the temporal side of the reward. We do not believe in the equality of men’s conditions in the life to come any more than in the life that now is. The general felicity of the life eternal common to all the saved will embrace much variety of special condition corresponding to the spiritual histories of individuals: some will receive a full reward, others a less ample recompense; and then, too, it will be seen that some last ones will take precedence of some who in this life were reputed to be first. But of the life to come and its conditions our thoughts are dim, and we are perplexed when we attempt to apply to eternity the graduated distinctions of time. The category, of the absolute dominates all our thoughts of the eternal world. We think of the good as absolutely good, and of the evil as absolutely evil, and of the blessedness and misery of the two classes as admitting of no degrees. Therefore it is easier for us to understand the application of the law to this present life, where the distinction of good and evil is relative, and where the action of spiritual law reveals itself in the form of tendencies. Under this form we may confidently expect to find every law, valid for the eternal world, exercising its influence unceasingly. For with respect to the action of moral law, the two spheres, the eternal and the temporal, are virtually one. As the blue sky is but the omnipresent atmosphere projected by the eye to an indefinite distance in space, so the eternal judgment is the incessantly active moral order of the world, projected by the conscience to an indefinite distance in future time. This general observation applies in full force to the law now under consideration. It is a law amply illustrated in history. In the parable the will of the householder has a very narrow platform on which to exhibit itself, but God’s will has the whole history of the world in which to display its purposes. The moral order of the world serves that will, and unfolds to view its contents. And to a wise observer the law, first last and last first, can be seen slowly but certainly fulfilling itself both in individuals and in communities. It is possible even to classify the cases in which the first tend to become last. The law fulfils itself in such cases as these: when those who make sacrifices for the kingdom of heaven manifest the spirit of self-devotion in occasional acts rather than in a fixed habit; when any particular species of Christian activity has come to be in fashion, and therefore in high esteem among men, involving consequently temptations to vanity, spiritual pride, and presumption; or when, as in the case of the ascetics, self-denial is reduced to a system practised, not for Christ’s sake, but for its own sake.[1] When we consider how much Christian activity comes under one or other of these heads,—occasional spasmodic efforts, good works in high esteem in the religious world, and good works done, not so much from interest in the work, as from their reflex bearing on the doer’s religious interests,—we must feel that Christ did not speak too strongly when He said many that are first shall be last. Far from charging His language with exaggeration, we rather admire its moderation in virtually admitting that there are exceptions. Exceptions unquestionably there are. There are some first ones who shall not be last; and there are some last ones who shall not be first. If it were otherwise—if to be last in length of service, in zeal, or in devotion gave one an advantage invariably and of course, it would be ruinous to the kingdom of God; as in effect putting a premium on indolence and encouraging men to stand all the day idle. But it is not so. It is no advantage in itself to be last, and it is no disadvantage to be first. The first in sacrifice may also be first in reward; the Church’s noblest ones are men who have been first in both respects. But the number of such is comparatively few. "For many are called, but few are chosen." Many, that is,—for so we, with Bengel and others, understand the reflection wherewith the parable concludes,—many are called to work in God’s vineyard, and many are actually at work; but few are choice workers, few work for God in the spirit of the precepts taught by Jesus; with ardent devotion, yet with deep humility.[2] [1] For more extended observations on this topic, vide ’The Training of the Twelve,’ cap. xvi. sec. 3.
[2] The words in question are of doubtful authority, and Calvin thought they should be omitted. If retained they must bear the meaning given to them in the text, as the only one in harmony with the connection of thought It is the sense put on the words by Bengel, Grotius, Unger, Olshausen, &c. Bengel says:
Taking the householder in this parable, benevolent towards those whom no man had hired, and showing favour to those who gratefully appreciated his kindness, as a type of God, the lesson taught by the parable is that God is a God of grace, and that He giveth His grace to the lowly. The lesson is a perfectly general one, susceptible of many historical illustrations, no one of which is entitled to be regarded as the one principally intended. Some think the parable refers especially to the case of the Jews and the Gentiles; the Jews being represented by the men hired in the morning, the Gentiles by the men engaged at the eleventh hour. It has been suggested by others that the parable primarily relates to grudges within the circle of disciples on the part of the first called against those called at a later period.[1] Such suggestions are legitimate and useful when they are put forth simply for the purpose of exemplifying the operation of a principle, but they ought not to be regarded as exhausting the scope of the parable.
[1] So Weizsäcker, ’Untersuchungen,’ p. 429. The Talents; Or, Equal Diligence in the Use of Unequal Endowments Equally Rewarded in the Divine Kingdom For [the kingdom of heaven is][1] as a man travelling into a far country,[2] who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and then he took his journey. Then he that had received the five talents went straightway[3] and traded with the same, and made other five talents. And likewise he that had received the two, he gained other two. But he that received the one went away and dug in the earth, and hid his lord’s money. And after a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. And he that received the five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained five talents more. His lord said unto him. Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will set thee over many things:[4] enter thou into the joy of thy lord. And he also that received the two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: lo, I have gained other two talents. His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will set thee over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. Then he also that received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou didst not sow, and gathering where thou didst not scatter: and I was afraid, and went away and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, thou hast thine own. But his lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I scattered not: thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the bankers, and at my coming I should have received back my own with interest. Take the talent from him, and give it to him who hath the ten talents. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken even that which he hath. And cast ye out the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.—Mat 25:14-30.
[1] There are no words in the original answering to those within brackets. We may fill up the hiatus either as in the A. V. or, as some prefer, the return of the Son of man will be, so connecting the parable closely with the previous verse. The formula of the A. V. is to be preferred, as it takes nothing for granted as to the historical connection.
[2] Rather into a foreign country, leaving his own.
[3] Vide further on for justification of this arrangement of the words.
[4] This does not signify a change of sphere, as in the parable of the Pounds (from traders to rulers), but advancement within the same sphere. The rendering in the A. V. betrays the influence of the other parable. The alternative title above indicated is not proposed as an exhaustive statement of the didactic significance of the parable of the talents. The parable manifestly springs out of two motives, and we run no great risk of too much subtlety in our analysis if we represent it as the outcome of three. It teaches these three distinct if not equally important truths concerning work for the kingdom of God:—
1. The consummation of the kingdom will be long enough deferred to leave ample time for work.
2. The kingdom imperatively demands work from all its citizens.
3. The work done will be valued and rewarded according to the principle above enunciated: equal diligence in the use of unequal endowment receiving an equal reward.
I. Certain features in the parable seem intended to teach that there will be time to work—to work as well as to wait.[1] The chief points bearing on this topic are the following:—(a) The householder travels into a far country, and returns not till after a long time.[2] The phrase is an elastic one, and may denote either a large portion of the life of an individual, or an age in the history of the world. We now naturally put the latter interpretation on the words, but it is probable that they suggested the former sense to the first hearers of the parable.[3] Even on the narrower interpretation they contained an important hint to those who belonged to the first Christian generation. The mind of that generation was fixed, with an intensity which we have difficulty in conceiving, on the second coming of the Lord; and some seem to have expected that event so soon that they abandoned all worldly business, and gave themselves up to an attitude of passive waiting, or to feverish, restless excitement. The demoralising effect of the belief in the near approach of the second advent manifested itself to such an extent in the Church at Thessalonica, that the Apostle Paul found it needful to interpose, and to endeavour by seasonable counsels of Christian wisdom to bring the fanaticised community to a soberer state of mind. The sum of his advice was, Work, and do not merely idly wait. The disease and the remedy are admirably hit off in a couple of verses: "We hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busy-bodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread."[4] Nowhere does the apostle’s good sense appear more conspicuously than in his manner of dealing with the spiritual malady that had broken out in that community. We know not whether he was acquainted with our parable when, at an early stage in his apostolic career, he wrote his Epistles to the Thessalonians, but in any case he was in full sympathy with the mind of Christ as revealed in the parable. For by the use of the suggestive phrase after a long time Jesus significantly hinted just what Paul afterwards more plainly said: that the day of the Lord would not come so soon that there would be no use setting oneself deliberately to any task; that, while ever watching, disciples must also ever cultivate a sober temper, and give themselves earnestly to Christian work, as if all things were to follow their wonted course till the end of their lives.
[1] Trench has some good remarks on the affinities and contrast between this parable and that of the ten virgins (Mat 25:1-12), the object of which is to inculcate the duty of watching and waiting. As we deem it undesirable to be over-confident as to the historical connection, we refrain from indulging in a similar line of reflection, while sensible of its fruitfulness in edification.
[2]
[3] Olshausen says the phrase does not exclude a return of the Lord in the time of the apostles.
[4] 2Th 3:11-12.
(b) There will be time enough, according to the parable, for diligent servants to double the capital entrusted to them.[1] How long that process may take depends on circumstances; it may be a year, or it may be well on for a lifetime. But beforehand the longer period is more likely than the shorter one; and a prudent trader who starts with a capital equal to about a thousand pounds sterling[2] will think of such a substantial increase only as the result of a long-continued course of industry.
[1] Mat 25:16-17.
[2] The value of a talent was in round numbers about £200, so that five talents would amount to about £1000.
(c) The lapse of a considerable period ere the master’s return is implied in the absence of all reference to a speedy return in the excuse of the slothful servant. It may be taken for granted that that servant would have been glad to excuse himself in a less impudent way if he could. He could not but know the risk he ran in speaking of one who had absolute power over him, to his face, as he did, calling him an hard man, reaping where he had not sowed, and gathering where he had not strawed;[1] in other words, as an arbitrary, exacting tyrant, who expects his servants to perform impossible tasks; to make bricks without straw, to produce a harvest of results where he had not supplied them with the seed out of which such a harvest might naturally grow. It was not in wanton recklessness that he thus spoke, but because nothing more plausible in the way of excuse occurred to him at the moment. How gladly would he rather have pleaded, I was just about to begin to work when your arrival took me by surprise; I did not expect your return so soon;[2] or, I did not think it worth while to begin trading, for I knew that you would return so soon that there would be no time to buy and sell and make gain—that is to say, make the very same excuse for idleness with which the religious busy-bodies of Thessalonica justified to their own consciences their neglect of the ordinary duties of their calling.
[1] It is doubtful whether the two parts of this proverbial saying employed to describe a curmudgeon mean the same thing or different things. Trench paraphrases the second clause, "gatherest with the rake where others have winnowed with the fan," thus finding in it a reference to threshing. Weiss is of the same opinion; also Olshausen. It seems likely that the proverb contains reference to two forms of keen dealing: one drawn from reaping, another from winnowing. So viewed it has a greatly intensified strength.
[2] The fact that such an excuse is not represented as being advanced is used by Schleiermacher as an argument to prove that the parable is not in its proper historical place. He thinks if the parable had been spoken to enforce the duty of watching, such an excuse would have been put into the mouth of the unprofitable servant.
2. The second lesson—that the kingdom imperatively demands work from all its citizens—is taught by several outstanding features of the parable.
(a) First[1] we note the minute but significant touch about the servant who had received five talents proceeding straightway to trade with the money lent him. For we cannot but agree with those interpreters who think that the adverb (
[1] We do not make a point of the fact that the talents were given to trade with, for that is not said in this parable, though a similar statement is made in Luke’s parable of the Pounds. But in reality what is not said is implied in the nature of the case. The talents were not gifts to friends, but loans to slaves, who belonged themselves to the master, and traded solely for his benefit. Such a procedure as the parable supposes was in accordance with custom.
[2] Mat 25:16.
[3] So Meyer.
[4] Weiss, ’Matthäus-Evang.’ Fritsche takes the same view of the verbal connection.
[5] Weiss points out that in Matthew
(b) The rigour with which the unfaithful servant is judged points In the same direction. The epithets applied to him are very significant in this connection. He is called wicked (
[1] Mat 25:26.
[2] Mat 25:30.
Then observe, as another index of rigour, the declinature to sustain any excuse on the part of the unprofitable servant. If a servant fear his master’s anger in case he lose his money in some unfortunate venture, and on that account shrink from running ordinary business risks, he must find out and follow some other method of turning his capital to account. He may not content himself with digging a pit in the earth and burying his talent there, where it will be safe at least, if not in the way of making increase. If the master is to be regarded as a hard man, he must get the benefit of his bad character, and his money must be laid out to usury at least, if it is not to be employed in commerce.[1] This stern rejection of excuses is specially instructive when it is considered that the excuses are offered by the man who received only one talent. It is natural to inquire why he is selected to play the part of the unprofitable servant. The explanation which most readily occurs to one is, that those who receive small endowments are most tempted to negligence by a depressing sense of the insignificance of their powers and the valueless-ness of any results which they may be able to achieve. And there is certainly some truth in this view. Yet second thoughts breed doubt as to whether this be indeed the true rationale of the matter. For one who reflects on the history of mankind cannot but feel that sloth is by no means confined to the poorly endowed; that indeed some of the most tragic examples of negligence and unprofitableness have been exhibited among the most highly-gifted of men. Probably the true reason of the selection is to enforce the doctrine of universal and exceptionless obligation. The man of one talent is represented as playing the part of idler, just because he is the man who would be thought most easily excusable; the purpose being to teach that excuse for negligence will be accepted in no case, not even in the case of those whose power of service is a minimum.[2]
[1] On
[2] So Unger.
(c) Another most significant feature in this connection is the taking of the talent from the unprofitable servant and giving of it to him that had ten. It is taken from the one because he is unprofitable, because he has already shown that he can make no use of it; and it is given to the other because he has shown that he can make most use of it. Both facts indicate most forcibly the urgency of the demand for work and profit; and, we may add, both facts are in most exact accord with the moral order of the world as revealed in human history. It is not merely in the parable that unto every one that hath much is given more, so that he hath abundance, and from him that hath nothing which he can show as the fruit of his own industry is taken away even that which he hath in the form of stock in trade.[1] This stern law verifies itself with inexorable rigour in the history of individuals and of communities, and in giving utterance to the remarkable saying Christ but read off accurately one of the great moral conditions of human life.
[1] The sentence is thus explained by Weiss.
(d) Note finally under this head the doom of the unprofitable servant. "And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth." An awful doom, however mildly interpreted. A commentator whom we often quote with approval remarks thereon, "The punishment of the slothful one is not eternal damnation. The Bible is very exact in its speech on the subject. The unfaithful children of light are cast into darkness; the children of darkness are cast into eternal fire, each being punished through his own opposite."[1] Another commentator of sound judgment and unimpeachable orthodoxy says, "Outer darkness is opposed to domestic light; for as in ancient times feasts were held commonly in the night, Christ represents those who are cast out of the kingdom of God as thrust forth into the darkness."[2] Be it so; the least doom of the unprofitable one is to be left out in the cold and the darkness of night, while the faithful ones who have done well share the joy of their returned lord within the bright festive halls; and while they enjoy the good cheer, there is for him, poor wight, nothing but "weeping and gnashing of teeth"—tears of regret over a wasted life and lost opportunities, and bitter chagrin at thought of the joy he too might have had, had he only been faithful. And all this for no greater offence than burying his talent in the earth. He has not squandered it in riotous living, he has simply been timid, over-cautious, too nervously afraid of responsibility, too gloomy in his views of God’s character and of life’s risks. How hard that the "fearful,"[3] the cowards, should fare as the vilest of sinners! How needful, this being so, to remember that God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind; how valuable the virtue of manly courage to face the stern responsibilities of life and the inexorable demands of the Divine kingdom!
[1] Olshausen.
[2] Calvin.
[3] Vide Rev 21:8, where the cowards (
(e) One other reflection may here be added. Nothing can more strikingly evince the intense desire of Christ, in uttering this parable, to impress upon His hearers the sense of obligation than the manner in which the religious application breaks through the parabolic form of representation. Three times over in the replies of the master to his servants the figurative manner of expression appropriate to the parable is replaced by language belonging to the spiritual interpretation. "To enter the joy of the Lord, and to be cast into outer darkness, are phrases which have nothing in common with the affairs of the bank."[1] [1] Reuss, ’Histoire Evangelique.’ But let us not exaggerate the severity of the demands which the kingdom makes. While certainly exacting, these demands are at the same time reasonable. First, to each man is given and of each man is required only "according to his several ability." This is a very suggestive expression. If we assume that the talents signify spiritual endowments, gifts directly fitting for service in the kingdom of God,[1] then the phrase in question suggests the idea that the spiritual is shaped by the natural, so that the lowest in the scale of natural ability is also the lowest in the scale of grace. That this is the actual fact observation attests, and though at first sight it may appear a hard law, on deeper consideration it will be seen to be merciful. For "the degree of the gift is the measure of accountability. Whether is it fairer to give to a man possessed of one degree of ability five talents or one? Is it fairer to endow him according to his ability or beyond his ability? It is enough to say that in the one case failure is crime, in the other necessity."[2]
[1] This is the usual view; but Weiss thinks that the talents have no reference either to spiritual gifts or to the exercise of a spiritual calling, but are perfectly general, embracing all manner of endowments. Their meaning is explained, he thinks, by the gnome "unto him that hath," &c., and the lesson is that the right use of gifts and goods, both in nature and in the kingdom of God, is rewarded with more, and the neglect with deprivation. That this is true there can be no doubt, and it is an instance of the deep wisdom of Jesus that He thus enunciates a far-reaching moral law. But the primary reference is to spiritual gifts, else what is meant by
[2] ’The Stewardship of Life’ (p. 52), by the Rev. James Stirling, an admirable study on this parable, and a model of homiletic treatment; published by Hodder and Stoughton, 1873.
Next, for the timid and unventuresome there is always an alternative. There are the money-changers (
[1]
[2] So Alford and Godet. The author of ’The Stewardship of Life,’ already quoted, makes the bank the Christian Church, and thinks that the idea intended is that the slothful servant might have retired from the position of leader, and fallen into the ranks of ordinary membership. "We must bear in mind," he says, "that he occupied a representative place, otherwise we are thrown into the perplexities which have vexed interpreters of the
[3] Godet on Luke.
3. We come now to the most specific feature of the parable, its indirectly conveyed yet most definite teaching concerning the principle on which faithful service is valued in the Divine kingdom. The principle is that equal diligence in the use of unequal endowment shall have an equal value set upon it. This principle we infer from the repetition in identical terms of the encomium pronounced on the first servant in addressing the second. To the servant who received five talents and gained other five the Lord said, "Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord." To the servant who received two talents and gained other two he said the same thing, word for word. What now does this imply? Does it signify that both these servants are in future to be put on a level, not only as to joy, but as to power and position, no regard being henceforth had to the difference between them in respect of natural ability? We might fairly enough put this construction on the expression "I will place thee over many things." But it has to be considered that many is an indefinite term, which might mean different things for different men; and that the idea it is intended to express may be the disproportion between the past and the future position of either party, rather than the equality of the future positions of both. In both cases it might be said, "Thou hast been faithful over a few things, henceforth thou shalt have an opportunity of being faithful over many things," though the many things of the future differed in the same proportion as the few things of the past. Then, seeing that a part of the reward of faithful ministry here is opportunity of exercising a higher ministry hereafter,—for such seems to be the import of the word in question, the interests of the Divine kingdom may require that the largest scope for service should be afforded to him who has shown greatest capacity for service. It is in fact on this very ground that the talent is taken from the unprofitable servant and given to him that has ten talents. We cannot, therefore, press the view that many must be held to denote equality of position in all respects. The most we are justified in saying is that the language is so chosen as to throw into the shade any inequality which may still exist. If there is to be inequality in the future, as in the past, the speaker has no wish to emphasise it; the truth to which he desires now to give exclusive prominence is that the two men are in a spiritual point of view peers. On this point we are left in no doubt. If many be a vague word, there is no vagueness or ambiguity in the terms of commendation bestowed in common on the two servants. Both are pronounced to have done well, and both receive the honourable appellation good and faithful servant. There can be no mistake as to what the words mean. The exclamation
[1] Goebel makes it promotion from a servile condition to the friendship of the Lord, and to participation in his position of possession and power.
We conclude our study of this parable by drawing a contrast which enhances our sense of its beauty and wisdom. In the Talmud are found parables similar to this one and to that of the labourers in the vineyard, but similar only as a dead, leafless, barkless tree of stunted dimensions is to a great forest tree with wide-spreading branches clothed with foliage. The Rabbinical parable analogous to that of the labourers in the vineyard is so meagre as not to be worth quoting, and the motive is as petty as its conception is mean. The purpose is to praise a certain Rabbi who made as much progress in the law in twenty years as others could in a hundred.[1] What an insignificant aim compared with that of Christ to illustrate the truth of the wide-reaching moral law that the first may be last and the last first! The other Rabbinical parable analogous to that of the talents is to this effect: "A certain king gave a deposit to each of his three servants. The first guarded it safely, the second lost it, the third defiled it and committed a part of it to another to keep. After a certain time the king came to demand the deposit Him who guarded it he praised, and made prefect of his house. Him who lost it he visited with capital punishment, and ordered that neither his name nor his possessions should remain. To the third the king said, Retain him till we see what the other will do in whose hands he left a part, and meantime let him not depart from my house. If he has treated the deposit rightly, let this one be restored to liberty, but if not let him be punished." The observations of the author from whom we take this miserable sample of parabolic narratives are so just, that we feel constrained to quote them at length. "What more frigid than this parable? what more insipid can be conceived? Almost the same things are related as in the parable of Jesus; but no ornaments are added which give alacrity, so to speak, and a certain vivid movement to the whole. Jesus exhibits a picture; the Talmudist presents the barest outline—not a picture, but a caricature. And the things are so compared as to injure rather than assist verisimilitude and the imagination. A king gave a deposit to his three servants. For what reason? No reason is given; but Jesus says that the master went away into a far distant region. And what sort of deposit was it, and how great? It does not appear. Jesus says ’his goods,’ and accurately indicates the number of the talents. Had the king of the Talmudist’s parable any regard to the disposition or ability of his servants in distributing the deposits? None. Our king gives five to one, two to another, to a third one, to each according to his several ability. With what view was the deposit given? That they might keep it. Our parable says that they might trade with it. And what sentence is pronounced on the servants? For simply keeping the deposit the first is praised and promoted; for losing it the second is put to death; the treatment of the third is made dependent on the behaviour of another man. What prodigality in rewarding, what cruelty in punishing, what injustice in all! Who could believe such trifles, and what influence can they have on the minds and hearts of men?"[2] Such senilities do not deserve to be rescued from the dust of oblivion, but they help to deepen our impressions of the literary charm, and, what is more important, of the profound insight into moral and spiritual truth, displayed in the inimitable parables of Jesus.
[1] For this parable vide Lightfoot, ’Horæ Hebraicæ.’
[2] Limburg Brouwer, ’De Parabolis Jesu Christi.’ The Pounds; Or, Unequal Diligence in the Use of Equal Endowments Unequally Rewarded A certain man noble born went into afar country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. And he called ten servants of his, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them. Occupy till I come.[1] But his citizens hated him, and sent an ambassage after him, saying, We do not wish this person to reign over us. And it came to pass that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know what they had made by trading. And the first presented himself, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds. And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant, because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. And the second came, saying, Thy pound, lord, hath gained five pounds. And he said also to this one, Thou also, be thou over five cities. And another came, saying, Lord, behold thy pound, which I had, laid up in a napkin. For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. He saith to him, Out of thine own mouth I will judge thee, wicked servant. Thou knewest that I am an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow. Why then gavest not thou my money into the bank, and I on coming would have required it with usury? And he said to those standing by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds. (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.) For I say unto you, that unto every one that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away.[2] But those mine enemies, who would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.—Luk 19:12-27.
[1]
[2] This saying is found also in Luk 8:18, slightly altered,
1. Foremost among the peculiar and difficult features of the parable is the union in it of two points of view, which has suggested, not only to negative critics like Strauss, but even to sober and believing interpreters, the hypothesis that, in its present form, it consists of two parables originally distinct blended into one—a lost parable concerning a king and his subjects, and Matthew’s parable of the talents transformed. It cannot be denied that the hypothesis possesses considerable plausibility. For the parable as given by Luke combines traits so diverse, that on first thoughts one is tempted to regard them as incompatible. The main actor appears to be at once a king and a private person, a nobleman and a tradesman; the persons to whom he is related are partly subjects and partly servants; the sum he gives the latter seems unworthy of a king, and the reward he bestows on them, while such as becomes a king, seems inappropriate to the character they have hitherto sustained, which is that of traders. In presence of these incongruities it appears excusable to ask,[1] Can such heterogeneous traits have been brought together by Jesus, all whose other parabolic representations are characterised by unity, harmony, and fitness? Yet we venture to think that, if only the situation be steadily kept in view, the objections to the originality of the parable, which appear at first so formidable, may to a large extent be removed.
[1] As is actually done by Reuss: vide his ’Histoire Evangelique.’ As to the chief difficulty, that respecting the double point of view, the fact is indisputable, and the only question is as to its psychological truth. This question resolves itself into two: first, is it likely that Jesus would attempt in one parable to express His relations to the two sections of Jewish society, those who were hostile to Him and those who were attached to Him? and, second, is it likely that He would use the precise figures which we find employed in the parable before us? The circumstances amid which the parable appears to have been spoken go far to answer the first question in the affirmative. Jesus found Himself surrounded by a mixed multitude of people of diverse tendencies, and variously affected towards Himself. On one side were men of Pharisaic sympathies, to whom it was an offence that He had gone to be a guest with a man like Zacchæus, who, being a chief publican, was therefore of course a chief sinner; on the other side were many who had followed him from Galilee, full of the admiration awakened in their minds by His ministry in that region, and confidently believing that the journey towards Jerusalem portended the near approach of the long and ardently expected kingdom. From the lips of the one class came sullen murmurs; in the countenances of the other were visible the traces of enthusiastic and romantic expectation. By both classes Jesus was utterly misunderstood; the one having no comprehension of, or sympathy with, the yearning love for the lost which was the key to his conduct towards Zacchæus, the other being equally ignorant of the nature and future history of the kingdom whose coming they eagerly desired. He was alone in the midst of that great crowd. Here was a situation fitted to evoke the parabolic mood; for it was, as we pointed out in our introductory observations, when made conscious of isolation, by the stupid or malignant misapprehensions of men, that Jesus spake in parables, A parable, therefore, might be looked for in the circumstances. But if a parable is to be the outcome of the situation, we expect that it will be a faithful reflection of the situation; that it will show on the one hand what the murmurs of the disaffected will come to, and on the other hand, how far the hopes of friends would be fulfilled Or frustrated by coming events. We are not surprised, therefore, to find in the evangelic record a parable said to have been spoken at: this time of the two-sided character which the circumstances called for, with one side turned towards foes, another side towards friends; warning the one of a fearful doom awaiting them if they persisted in their present mind, and seeking to moderate the ignorant enthusiasm of the other by a sober picture of the future that lay before them. But the question remains, Were the figures employed in this two-sided parable appropriate to the purpose on hand? Now there can be little doubt as to the appropriateness of one of the tableaux, that, viz. of a king and his rebellious subjects. That picture was true to the claims of Jesus to be the Messianic King, and to the future doom of Israel, which was indeed to be destroyed before the face of the Lord. It was also true, as has been pointed out by several commentators, to the external, geographical situation; for the parable was spoken in the neighbourhood of Jericho, where was the palace of Archelaus, who had done the very thing the king in the parable is represented as doing, viz. gone to a far country, to Rome, to seek a kingdom; not without opposition on the part of the Jews, who, tired of a dynasty of adventurers, besought the emperor rather to convert their country into a Roman province.[1] But what are we to think of the other picture, that of a man noble born, and expectant of a throne, giving to his servants a pound apiece to trade with? Is it suitable to the dignity of a man of royal birth and hopes to be a trader, or even to be in any way connected with trade? Now here we might plead that the act is the act of a nobleman, not of a trader, and that its purpose is not even to make the servants traders, but simply to test their fidelity. But it must be admitted that the transaction is a most unusual one for a nobleman, suggestive of trade rather than of royalty, and fitted to compromise a high-born person’s dignity. But what then? Was not this very incongruity and indignity most suitable to Christ’s actual position? Was not His life on earth filled with incongruities between His intrinsic dignity and His outward lot? Was not this Nobleman born in the home of a village carpenter? Did He not Himself become a carpenter when He grew to the years of manhood? If He had to endure this extreme indignity, He might well bear the miner indignity arising out of trade associations. Those who are in quest of crowns must not be too fastidious, for they are liable to encounter strange turns of fortune on their way to sovereignty.
[1] Josephus, ’Antiq.,’ 17, 11, 1 But we may be called to vindicate the appropriateness of the figure with reference even to the followers of Jesus. It may be asked, Might not their position have been indicated in connection with the same figure of a king and his subjects by representing them as a minority of loyal subjects who had to endure oppression at the hands of the majority during the prince’s absence? Such, in fact, is the opinion of Ewald, who sees no necessity for the two figures, and thinks that Luke mixed the two together for no other reason than because they both referred to a journeying lord, and because they probably lay side by side in his sources.[1] But this view, in the first place, assigns a more subordinate position to the faithful portion of the Jewish people than seems intended, if we may judge from the parable in which the place of prominence is given not to foes, but to friends. Moreover, a parable constructed as Ewald suggests, while teaching disciples one important lesson often inculcated, viz. that the joys of the kingdom could be reached only through suffering, would have failed to convey another lesson not less important, viz. that the way to the kingdom lay through a life of strenuous activity. For this purpose Jesus must have deemed the other emblem not unapt, for He certainly employed it once (in the parable of the talents); and if once, why not a second time? In the form which it takes in the parable of the pounds the fiction is peculiarly well fitted to dissipate idle dreams, and bring the thoughts of enthusiastic disciples down from the cloud-land of romance to the ground of sober reality. In this connection the paltriness of the sum given to the servants to trade with is significant, as suggesting that what lay before them in the immediate future was a life not merely of activity, but of obscure, inglorious activity, amid hard, necessitous circumstances. By this parable Christ says to His faithful followers, Ye are to be rulers eventually, but ye must be traders first, and for a long time,[2] and in a very small way—village tradesmen, itinerant pedlars, so to speak. I give you each a pound; do with it what you can, use it as opportunity offers, so as to earn a livelihood, and if possible make a fortune. Hard lines surely to have to live upon such a pittance, not to speak of earning money for the master’s benefit! Certainly the lot appointed to these servants is one involving a severe discipline; and the end contemplated is evidently not money-making, but character-making—the development of a hardihood of temper and a firmness of will which can be turned to good account when the obscure traders shall have been transformed into distinguished rulers. Strange transformation doubtless, yet not unexampled even in our own land. How many in this great commercial country have risen from mean obscurity and utter poverty first to wealth, and then to positions of authority, beginning with the pound, and multiplying it into ten, and repeating the process; times without number; and not always bringing to the high position ultimately reached the petty vices of narrowness and hardness which are apt to be contracted in the process of building up a fortune from small beginnings, but sometimes exhibiting a truly princely spirit of generous, free-handed benevolence!
[1] ’Die drei ersten Evangelien,’ pp. 419, 420
[2] Long enough to allow the one pound to be multiplied into ten, which implies a longer period than the doubling of the capital in Matthew’s parable.
2. These observations have already in part disposed of a second difficulty that has been found in this parable, viz. the smallness of the sum given to each of his servants by the nobleman, which seems altogether unworthy of a man in his position.[1] It might be enough to say, as we have already in effect said, by way of reply to this objection, that it was good tor those who were ultimately to be promoted to positions of authority that they should first pass through a discipline of severe hardship. But another explanation may be offered. What if the smallness of the sum given be due to the necessitous condition of the prince himself? Candidates for crowns, however noble by birth, are apt to be needy. The Nobleman of our parable is in this case. He has the highest prospects, but His present state is one of abject humiliation and poverty; and in this veiled history of Himself Jesus takes care that the picture at this point shall be in keeping with reality. To which we may add, that in any case the very smallness and meanness of the sum given to the servants is an argument for the authenticity of the parable. No one but Christ would have dared to name so small a sum, appropriately described in the parable as a very little. He alone knew how to value the superlatively small, and to estimate the moral worth of those who have been faithful in that which is least. Christian tradition would magnify, not diminish, the amount. We could imagine tradition increasing the pound to a talent; we cannot imagine it reducing the talent to a pound.
[1] The Attic pound was in value somewhat less than four pounds sterling, and the sixteenth part of a talent. Kuinoel refers to an opinion of Michaelis that the translator of this parable from Hebrew into Greek had confounded the Hebrew word for portion (
These remarks, we trust, suffice to show the natural propriety of the parabolic representation at this point. But what, it may now be asked, is represented by the pound? Various answers have been given to the question. The pound, according to one, is the common grace of salvation bestowed on all believers;[1] according to a second, it is the mission of all Christ’s disciples to advance His kingdom;[2] according to a third, it is the word which Jesus had committed to His believing followers,[3] and which Paul in his Epistles to Timothy speaks of as the trust, the noble trust,[4] and which is spoken of in the Acts of the Apostles as increasing and multiplying.[5] The two last opinions are nearly coincident, and may be accepted as the most probable interpretation. What the servants of the nobleman have to trade with and seek to multiply is the word of the kingdom. This association of the Divine word with the idea of trade is legitimated as Scriptural by a text in Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, rendered in our English version, "We are not as many, which corrupt the word of God"; but which may be more exactly translated, We are not as many who deal after the fraudulent manner of huckstering merchants with the word of God.[6]
[1] Godet.
[2] Reuss.
[3] Hofmann, ’Das Evangelium des Lukas,’ p. 462.
[4] 1Ti 6:2; 2Ti 1:14 :
[5] Acts 12:24.
[6] 2Co 2:17. The expressive word is
3. A third peculiarity in this parable is the equality of endowment—all the servants receiving the same sum; whereas in the kindred parable of the Talents the servants receive each a different sum. This feature can cause no difficulty when it is considered what is meant by the pound; for the word of Christ and the commission to teach it was one and the same for all. But without seeking aid from the spiritual interpretation, we may learn from the parable itself, taken in connection with the circumstances amid which it was spoken, the rationale of this equality. The time of trading is a time of preparation for the higher occupation of ruling, when they who have been with Christ in His temptations shall receive kingdoms,[1] and sit on thrones.[2] It is therefore a time of trial, when it has to be ascertained what they are fit for in. the higher ultimate state, to which the lower transitory one is a stepping-stone. But the best way to ascertain this is to put all on a level to begin with, and leave them to determine by their own exertions what place they are worthy to occupy.[3] In a race which is to settle who is to win the prize for greatest speed, all must start in a line, and at the same moment.
[1] Luk 22:28.
[2] Mat 19:28.
[3] So Schleiermacher, ’Uber die Schriften des Lukas.’
4. This brings us to what may be called the theoretic feature of the parable, which, though it comes in only incidentally, is worthy of the prominence we have given it in taking from it our alternative title. The servants equally endowed make an unequal use of their endowments, and unequal use of equal endowment is unequally rewarded. He who with one pound gained ten is made ruler over ten cities, and he who with the same sum gained only five pounds is made ruler over only five cities. It may be said indeed that in bestowing unequal measures of power upon his servants the king does not indicate unequal approbation, but simply adapts their appointments to the ascertained capacity of each, in other words, that this parable ends where the parable of the Talents begins, viz. by treating men according to their several ability.[1] But this view, though in the abstract legitimate, is excluded by another feature in the parable, which plainly shows that what had been ascertained by the time of probation was not the varied ability of the servants, but the unequal measure of their zeal and industry and force of will. What we allude to is the withholding of all expressions of praise in addressing the second servant. He is not said to have done well, and he is not called good. Let it not be supposed that this happens as it were per incuriam. Christ was not likely to commit the mistake of withholding approbation when it was due. He was habitually careful in His use of moral epithets. He was characteristically generous in bestowing them when they were deserved; and, on the other hand, He would not only not ascribe the quality of goodness to others who possessed it not, but He would not even allow it to be ascribed to Himself by persons who were not in a position to speak with intelligence and conviction, and who meant merely to pay a flattering compliment. Why callest thou Me good? He said sternly to the young ruler who inquired concerning eternal life; and from the second servant in this parable He withholds the epithet not inadvertently, but deliberately, because in His judgment he had not earned it. And what does this imply? That the second servant had not done all that it was possible for him to do; that he had been lacking in devotion, perseverance, steadfastness; that his whole heart had not been in the business he had on hand; that he had not been a hero in the struggle of life; that he had acquitted himself only fairly, respectably, not nobly. That the first servant had possessed all the virtues opposed to these defects is signified by the title
[1] So in effect Weiss, who remarks that the
[2] The view we take as to the didactic import of the two parables of the Talents and the Pounds is advocated among others by Dr. Gray, author of a work entitled ’A Delineation of the Parables,’ published about the beginning of this century. He says, "In the one parable we see the two industrious servants are represented as equally diligent in their respective trusts, and therefore were entitled to the same commendation and reward. But in the other, where a greater degree of industry under the same advantages is supposed to produce greater success, we see the reward assigned to each bears a proportionable respect to his diligence and improvement." Gray was parish minister of Abernethy in Perthshire.
5. It remains to advert in a sentence or two to yet another feature in this parable, viz. that in its doctrine of rewards and punishments it seems to have in view chiefly if not exclusively the temporal aspect. The rebellious subjects are slain before the eyes of the king, the allusion being obviously to the ruin which, a generation later, overtook the Jewish people; the faithful are rewarded with appointments to rule over cities, no mention being made of the joy of the Lord spoken of in Matthew’s parable; and the unprofitable servant is punished simply by being deprived of an endowment which he had not known how to use, but had tied up in a napkin, whose proper use was to wipe the sweat from his brow.[1] We read not here of the outer darkness where is weeping and gnashing of teeth. In all these respects the parable is obviously political rather than religious; and it is only a perverse ingenuity which seeks to find out what its expressions mean in reference to eternity, as when it is said that the ten or five cities represent beings who are yet in an inferior moral position, but whom the faithful in glory have a mission to elevate to their destination; or the words, To him that hath shall be given, are made to bear the meaning, Such and such a pagan people, which that young Christian might have evangelised, but did not, remaining here below the slave of ease, will be intrusted in the future economy to the devoted missionary who had here used all his powers in the service of Jesus.[2] As to what that law may mean in reference to the world to come we prefer to confess our ignorance. It is a law as mysterious as it is certain in its operation even in this world. The remark of the bystanders, "Lord, he hath ten pounds," was a very natural expression of surprise that to him who had so much already more should still be given. Who has not in his heart made the same remark many a time! The law on both sides of its operation seems partial, unjust, inhuman. But it is idle to complain of the laws of the moral universe. We shall be better employed in endeavouring to accommodate ourselves to the conditions of our existence as responsible beings, and striving so to live that they shall be for us, not against us. Let us study to be faithful in that which is least, and then we also may have an opportunity granted us of showing fidelity on the great scale, and shall be prepared to make the most of such an opportunity when it comes.
[1]