01.0.4. Introductory

Introductory The Parables of our Lord were of an incidental character; and perhaps the best way of studying them is not to isolate them from the general history of His ministry for separate consideration, but rather to look at them as parts of a larger whole in connection with the particular occasions which called them forth. And yet it is, to say the least, a very natural and legitimate procedure to take these parables, which form so large, so peculiar, and so precious a portion of Christ’s teaching, apart by themselves, and make them the subject of a special study. This, accordingly, has often been done already, and doubtless it will often be done again while the world lasts. We propose to add one more to the number of the attempts which have been made to ascertain the meaning of the parabolic utterances of Incarnate Wisdom. We enter on the task with much diffidence, yet not without the humble hope of being useful. Our one desire is to get at the kernel of spiritual truth enclosed within the parabolic shell: to get at it for ourselves, and to communicate it at the same time to others The beauty of the parables we, in common with all readers 01 the Gospels, greatly admire; their fidelity to nature, and to the customs of the time in which they were spoken, we fully appreciate; but we should not think of undertaking an exposition of them if we had nothing more important to do than to play the part of an art-critic showing how skilfully the parabolic picture is painted in all its details, or of an antiquarian showing how conformable is the parabolic representation to all customs of the time and place. In entering on an exposition of the parables, we are confronted at once with the question of method. In what order shall we consider the subjects of our study? Shall we take them up as they occur in the several Gospels, beginning with Matthew, then going on through Mark and Luke, as has been done by some writers? or shall we attempt a classification on a principle?—and if so, on what principle is the classification to be made? A merely casual method of arrangement is certainly not desirable, if there be any thought-affinities between the parables, any recognisable characteristics common to several of them, according to which they can be arranged in groups; for disregard of such affinities means loss of the light which related parables are fitted to throw upon each other. Now, several writers have thought they could discover certain resemblances between certain parables, and on the basis of such real or supposed resemblances have built schemes of classification by which they have been guided in their exposition. One writer, for example, the author of an elaborate and voluminous work on the parables, takes note of the fact that some of the parables have explanations attached to them, while others remain unexplained; and, asking himself the question what may be the reason of the difference, comes to the conclusion that the unexplained parables are allegories and prophecies meant to hide the truth,—the truth hid being not so much a doctrine as a future event, which before the time is a mystery, arcanum, or secret,—while the explained parables teach a doctrine or moral lesson having a bearing on present practice. In this way the writer referred to arrives at a distribution of the parables into two great classes—the prophetic and the moral,—the former containing an esoteric and the latter an exoteric system of doctrine. This classification has met with very little approval, and perhaps its failure has had a considerable effect in deterring other writers from all attempts at methodical arrangement as futile. It does not follow, however, that because one attempt has proved a signal failure, all others. must be equally abortive. We believe, for our part, that a grouping of the parables based on real and important resemblances, and at least approximately correct and complete, is possible; and without staying to enumerate all the methods of grouping which we have met with in books, we shall proceed at once to indicate the principle of distribution on which we ourselves mean to proceed.

We observe, then, that the teaching ministry of our Lord falls naturally asunder into three divisions. Christ was a Master or Rabbi, with disciples whom He made it His business to instruct; He was an Evangelist, going about doing good among the common people, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom to the poor; and He was a Prophet, not merely or chiefly in the predictive sense of the word, but specially in the sense that He was one who proclaimed in the hearing of His contemporaries the great truth of the moral government of God over the world at large, and over Israel in particular, and the sure doom of the impenitent under that righteous government. Now, the parables may be conveniently, and as we believe usefully, distributed into three groups, corresponding to these three departments of Christ’s ministry. Indeed, we might go further, and say that the whole public life of Jesus, as related in the Gospels, might without forcing be ranged under the three heads: the Master, the Evangelist, the Prophet. Under the first head comes all that relates to the training of the twelve for the apostolate; under the second Christ’s miscellaneous activity as a Teacher and Healer among the general population, as the Good Shepherd seeking to save the lost sheep of the house of Israel; under the third, the extensive materials relating to His bitter conflict as the witness for truth and righteousness with the unbelieving political and religious leaders of Jewish society. When all that belongs naturally to these three divisions has been taken up, not much of the Evangelic narrative remains. But our business at present is with the parables only, not with the whole public ministry of Jesus; and we repeat the statement already made, that the parables may be distributed into three groups answering to the three titles, the Master, the Evangelist, the Prophet. First there is a class of parables which may be distinguished as the theoretic, containing the general truth, or what has been called the ’metaphysic’ of the Divine kingdom. Then there is a large group which may legitimately claim to be called distinctively the evangelic—their burden being grace, the mercy and the love of God to the sinful and the miserable—in some more obviously and directly, in others by implication rather than by express statement, but none the less really and effectively. Then, lastly, there is a group which may be characterised as the prophetic; using the term, let it be once more explained, not in the predictive so much as in the ethical sense, to convey the idea that in this class of parables Jesus, as the messenger of God, spoke words of rebuke and warning to an evil time. Proceeding upon this classification, we in effect adopt as our motto the words of the Apostle Paul: "The fruit of the light is in all goodness and righteousness and truth," —the last word, ’truth,’ answering to the first group; the second, ’righteousness,’ answering to the last group; and the first, ’goodness,’ answering to the middle group. Christ was the Light of the world; and in His parabolic teaching He let His light shine upon men in beautiful prismatic rays, and the precious fruit is preserved for our use in three groups of parables: first, the theoretic parables, containing the general truth concerning the kingdom of God; second, the evangelic parables, setting forth the Divine goodness and grace as the source of salvation and the law of Christian life; third, the prophetic parables, proclaiming the righteousness of God as the Supreme Ruler, rewarding men according to their works. The foregoing classification has not been got up for the occasion, but has insinuated itself into our mind without any seeking on our part, in connection with our studies on the Gospels. Nor do we lay claim to any originality in connection therewith, except such as consists in independently arriving at a conclusion which has commended itself to other minds. We are happy to find that we do not stand alone in recognising the distinctions indicated, and that there is an increasing consensus of opinion in favour of a classification based thereon. Differences of opinion, of course, may obtain as to the precise terms by which the different classes are to be described, or even as to the number of separate classes to be recognised, as also in regard to the class under which this or that parable is to be ranged; but there is a general concurrence among recent writers as to the reality and the importance of the threefold distinction above indicated. Not only so; another interesting fact has attracted the attention of many: viz. that the Evangelists—more definitely Matthew and Luke, for Mark has very few parables in his Gospel—stand in distinct relations to the several groups of parables. Most of Matthew’s parables belong to the first and third groups; most of Luke’s to the second. This fact was signalised long ago by one whose name will ever be held in honour in connection with the literature of our subject; and it has recently been proclaimed with remarkable emphasis and felicity of language by Renan, in his charming chapter on the Gospel of Luke, in the fifth volume of his work on the ’Origins of Christianity.’ "There is hardly," he remarks, "an anecdote, a parable peculiar to Luke, which breathes not the spirit of mercy and of appeal to sinners. The only word of Jesus a little hard which has been preserved, becomes with him an apologue full of indulgence and patience. The unfruitful tree must not be cut down too quickly. The good gardener opposes himself to the anger of the proprietor, and demands that the tree be manured before it be finally condemned. The Gospel of Luke is by excellence the gospel of pardon, and of pardon obtained by faith." The fact is unquestionable, though the use made of it by the Tubingen school of critics, and partly by M. Renan himself, may be very questionable indeed. We cannot approve of the opinion which regards the third Evangelist as a theological partisan, who not only selected, but manufactured or modified, facts to serve the cause he had espoused—that of Pauline universalism as against Judaistic exclusivism. But we do most cordially recognise Luke as an earnest believer in the gospel Paul preached—a gospel of pure grace, and therefore a gospel for all the world on equal terms; and we perceive clearly traces of his Paulinism, using the word not in a controversial but in a descriptive sense, throughout his Gospel. In searching among the literary materials out of which he constructed his story, he manifestly had a quick eye for everything that tended to show that the gospel preached by Christ was really and emphatically good news from God, a manifestation of Divine philanthropy and grace, and a manifestation in which the whole world was interested. Hence the prominence given to such narratives as exhibited Jesus as the Friend of the poor; hence the introduction of incidents in which Samaritans appear to advantage in comparison with Jews, or as attracting Christ’s compassion while objects of Jewish prejudice and hatred; hence the preservation in the third Gospel of such parables as those which together constitute Christ’s apology for loving the sinful: the Two Debtors, the Straying Sheep, the Lost Piece of Money, and the Prodigal Son; and such others as the Good Samaritan, the Supper, the Pharisee and Publican, and even, we will venture to add, the Unjust Steward, and the Rich Man and Lazarus. It is of the utmost importance to recognise this peculiarity of Luke’s Gospel in all its breadth, not merely as a fact of literary or critical interest, but as one having a direct practical bearing on interpretation. One who leaves this fact out of view runs great risk of frequently missing the right track as an interpreter, while one who ever keeps it in his eye will often be guided at once to the true meaning of a narrative. We must, of course, be on our guard against giving a one-sided predominance to the characteristic in question, as if Luke had only one idea in his mind in writing his Gospel; and generally in our interpretation of the different Gospels we must beware of imagining the writers to have been so much under the influence of a particular purpose as to have excluded everything that did not directly or indirectly bear thereon. It is characteristic of the negative school of criticism thus to treat the Gospels as exclusively writings of tendency, to the great impoverishment of their value; even as it has more or less been characteristic of believing interpreters to ignore too much the distinctive features of the Gospels, and to treat them all as colourless chronicles of the life of Jesus. The truth lies between the two extremes. The Gospels have their distinctive features, and yet they have much in common: they have all the great essentials of Christ’s teaching in common. Matthew’s Gospel is theocratic; Luke’s is Pauline, humanistic, universalistic. But the theocratic aspect of the Divine kingdom is not wanting in Luke, neither is the universal aspect thereof wanting in Matthew. Bearing this in mind, we shall not expect to find only evangelic parables in the third Gospel, but shall be prepared to meet with others of a different description; neither shall we be surprised if we find in Matthew not only parables didactic and prophetic, but also such as speak to us not of judgment but of mercy. This caveat against too rigorous definition of the different Gospels in relation to the parables requires to be repeated in connection with the heads under which we propose to classify the latter. It must not be imagined that every parable so decidedly comes under one head that it could not with propriety be ranged under any other. This holds good probably of most, but not of all. Some parables are, if we may so express it, of an amphibious character, and might be ranged under either of two categories, because partaking of the nature of both. Such, for example, is the parable of the Great Supper, which, while full of mercy towards the homeless, hungry wanderers on the highway, presents an aspect of stern judicial severity towards those who accepted not the invitations sent to them; and might be classed either as an evangelic or as a prophetic parable, according as we took for its key-note the word of mercy, "Compel them to come in," or the word of judgment, "None of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper." As another instance, we may refer to the parable of the "Unprofitable Servants," as it is commonly called, or, as we prefer to call it, the parable of "Extra Service." If we start in our interpretation from the words "We are unprofitable servants," we shall regard the parable as intended to teach that there is no room for merit in the kingdom of God, that all is of grace,—and so relegate it to the evangelic category. If, on the other hand, we regard it as the purpose of the parable to impress on the servants of the kingdom the exacting nature of the service to which they are called, and that no man is fit for that service who is disposed to murmur, or who ever thinks he has done enough, then we may not improperly range the parable under the first of the three categories, and treat it as one setting forth one of the properties of the kingdom of heaven.

After these explanations we now propose the following distribution of the parables, to be justified by the exposition.

I. Theoretic or Didactic Parables.—Under this head we include the group of seven parables in Mat 13:1-58 : The Sower, the Tares and the Drag-net, the Hid Treasure and the Precious Pearl, the Mustard Seed and the Leaven, with the parable in Mark 4:26-29, the Blade, the Ear, and the Full Corn—in all forming a group of eight relating to the general nature of the kingdom of God. And besides these, the parables of the Selfish Neighbour and the Unjust Judge relating to the delays of Providence in fulfilling spiritual desires, or to perseverance in prayer (Luk 11:5; Luk 18:1); the parable of Extra Service (Luk 17:7); and finally the three parables which relate to the subject of work and wages in the kingdom: viz. the Hours of Labour (Mat 20:1), the Talents (Mat 25:14), and the Pounds (Luk 19:12). In all, fourteen.

II. Evangelic Parables.—To this class belong the four parables in Luke’s Gospel which together constitute Christ’s apology for loving the sinful: the Two Debtors (Luk 7:40), the Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, and the Lost Son (Luk 15:1-32); the Children of the BrideChamber (Mat 9:14-17 et parall.), being an apology for the joy of the children of the kingdom. Under the same category fall the Lowest Seats at Feasts (Luk 14:7-11), and the Pharisee and the Publican (Luk 18:9-14), teaching that the kingdom of God is for the humble; the Great Supper (Luk 14:16), teaching that the kingdom is for the hungry; the Good Samaritan (Luk 10:30); the Unrighteous Steward (Luk 16:1); the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luk 16:19), and the Unmerciful Servant, the two last together teaching which are the unpardonable sins. In all, twelve.

III. Prophetic or Judicial Parables.—This class includes the following: The Children in the MarketPlace (Mat 11:16), containing Christ’s moral estimate of the generation amidst which He lived; the Barren Fig-tree (Luk 13:6), the two Sons and the Wicked Husbandmen (Mat 21:28-44), and the Marriage of the King’s Son (Mat 22:1), exhibiting more or less clearly the action of Divine judgment upon the nation of Israel; the Unfaithful Servant (Mat 24:45), and the Ten Virgins (Mat 25:1). exhibiting similar judicial action within the kingdom of God. In all, seven.

It will be observed that the foregoing groups do not include all the parabolic utterances of our Lord recorded in the Gospels. To those omitted belong the parabolic conclusion to the Sermon on the Mount, consisting of the metaphors of the wise and foolish builders, the similitudes of the inconsiderate builder of a tower, and the king who would wage war (Luk 14:28-35), and the Rich Fool (Luk 12:16), which appears in most treatises as one of the regular parables. These and the like are excluded, not chiefly because they cannot easily be brought within our scheme of distribution, but more especially because they are of no independent didactic importance. The parables we propose to consider have all this in common, that they embody truths deep, unfamiliar or unwelcome—"mysteries of the kingdom." Such a parable as that of the Rich Fool, on the other hand, conveys no new or abstruse lesson, but simply teaches in concrete lively form a moral commonplace. Parabolic utterances of that description were not distinctive of Christ as a Teacher: they were common to Him with the Jewish Rabbis. He spake these merely as a Jewish moralist; but the parables now to be studied were uttered by Him as the Herald of the kingdom of heaven.