CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY BT375 .G59"'l89t''''*' '*^^^ Parables of Jesus: M Cornell University B Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029312927 T. and T. Clark's Publications. W^QRKS BY PROFESSOR HEINRICH EWALD. In dmn/y &yo, j^ce 10s. 6rf., OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY- By HEIIsrKICH EWALD, LATE PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GOTTINGEN; AUTHOR OP 'THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL,' 'REVELATION, ITS NATURE AND RECORD,' ETC. STransIateli from t^e (ietman By Professor THOMAS GOADBY, B.A., Nottingham. 'Leading principles whicli can never be out of date enforced with the energy of genius. ' — Spectator; * Suggestive on every page, and therefore essential to every student of theology.' — Record. ' We have no scruple in characterising it as a noble and useful work, full of luminous and suggestive teachin'g. . . . No thoughtful or intelligent man can study it as it deserves to be studied without receiviDg from it both mental and spiritual stimulus, and being confirmed in the belief of the truth of the gospel of Christ.' — Baptist Magazine. In demy 8vo, price 10s. Qd., REVELATION: ITS NATURE AND RECORD, TRANSLATED by Rev. Prof. THOS. GOADBY, B.A. Contents. — Introductory : The Doctrine of the Word of God. — Part I. The Nature of the Revelation of the Word of God. — Part II. Revelation in Heathenism and in Israel. — Part III. Revelation in the Bible. Note. — This first volume of Ewald's great and important work, 'Die Lehre der Bibel von Gott,' is offered to the English public as an attempt to read Revelation, Rt^ligion, and Scripture in the light of universal history and the common experience of man, and with constant reference to all the great religious systems of the world. The task is as bold and arduous as it is timely and necessary, and Ewald was well fitted to accomplish it. . . . The work has not simply a theological, but a high and significant apologetic value, which those who are called upon to deal with the various forms of modern scepticism will not be slow to recognise.' — Extract from Translator's Preface., * This volume is full of nervous force, eloquent style, and intense moral earnestpess. There is poetry of feeling in it also ; and, whilst it manifests an original mind, it is accompanied by that spirit of reverence which ought always to be brought to the study of the Holy Scripture. A masterly intellect is associated in Ewald with the humility of a child.* — Evangelical Magazine. * Ewald is one of the most suggestive and helpful wi'iters of this century. This is certainly a noble book, and will be appreciated not less than his other and larger works. . . . There is a rich poetic glow in his writing which gives to it a singular charm.' — Baptist Magazine. In demy 8vo, price 8s. 6c?., SYNTAX OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. TRANSLATED FROM THE EIGHTH GERMAN EDITION By JAMES KENNEDY, B.D. * The work stands unique as regards a patient investigation of facts, written with a profound analysis of the laws of thought, of which language is the reflection. Another striking feature of the work is the regularly progressive order which pervades the whole. The author proceeds by a natural gradation from the simplest elements to the most complex forms.' — British Quarterly Review. * It is well known that Ewald was the first to exhibit the Hebrew Syntax in a philosophical form, and bis Grammar is the most important of his numerous works.' — AthenxBum. T, and T, Clark's Publications. 'For devotional warmth and practical application, Qodet is perhaps unsurpassed by any modern commentator amongst foreign Protestants.'— Gvardian. PROFESSOR GODET'S WORKS. (Copyright, toy arrangement with the Author.) Preparing for Publication, INTRODUCTION to the NEW TESTAMENT. The authorised English translation of Professor Godet's * Introduction to the New Testament' will be published by Messrs. Clark shortly. The original Edition is to form three large volumes, Vol. I. containing 'St. Paul's Epistles,' Vol. II. *The Gospels, and Acts of the Apostles,' and Vol III. ' Hebrews, Catholic Epistles, and the Apocalypse.* In Two VolumeSf demy 8uo, price 21s., A COMMENTARY ON ST- PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. By Pkofessor F. GODET, D.D., Neuchatel. 'We do not know any better commentary to put into the hands of theological students.' — Gixardian. * A perfect masterpiece of theological toil and thought. . . , Scholarly, evangelical, exhaustive, and able.* — Evangelical Eeview. In Three Volumes, 8vo, price 31s, 6df. (A New Edition, revised throughout by the Author.) A COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. ' This work forms one of the battle-fields of modern inquiry, and is itself so rich id spiritual truth that it is impossible to examine it too closely ; and we welcome this treatise from the pen of Dr. Godet. We have no more competent exegete,and this new volume shows all the learning and vivacity for which the author is distinguished.' — Freeman. In Two Volumes^ Svo, price 2l5., A COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE. * Marked by clearness and good sense, it will be found to possess value and interest as one of the most recent and copious works specially designed to illustrate this Gospel.* — Guardian. In Two Volumes, Svo, price 21s., A COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, *Wo prefer this commentary to any other we have seen on the subject. . . . We have great pleasure in recommending it as not only rendering invaluable aid in the critical study of the text, but affording practical and deeply suggestive assistance in the exposition of the doctrine.' — British and Foreign Evangelical Review. W.B.— Profeasor Godet's • Commentaries ' are issued in The Foreign Theological Library, from which selections of eight or more volumes may be had at half published price. In crown 8vo, Second Edition, price Qs., DEFENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. Translated by the Hon. and Rev. Canon LYTTELTON, M.A. * There is trenchant argument and resistless logic in these lectures ; but withal, there is cultured imagination and felicitous eloquence, which carry home the appeals to the heart as well as the head.'— ^worc? and Trowel. CLARK'S FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY. WEW SEKIES. VOL. XV. %f)t l^axahhs of ^tiui. EDINBUEGH: T. & T. CLAEK, 38 GEORGE STEEET. 1894. PBrNTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB, FOR T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. LONDON : SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, AND CO. LIMITED. NEW YORK : CHARLES SCRIBNER's SONS. TORONTO : THE PRESBYTERIAN NEWS CO. THE PARABLES OF JESUS: A METHODICAL EXPOSITION. BY SIEGFRIED GOEBEL, COUKT- CHAPLAIN IN HALBEESTADT. CCtanslatetr bg PEOFESSOE BANKS, HEADINGLET. EDINBUEGH: T. & T. CLAEK, 38 GEOEGE STEEET. 1894. PREFACE. T HE immediate occasion of the followinc:^ exegetical work on the Parables of Jesus was a want which I felt in the exercise of the ministerial office. The homiletic and cate- chetical treatment of the Parables of the Lord is a task to which every minister of the word finds himself ever called afresh. And this not merely because many of them form part of the public lessons, but because the unchanging attraction and popularity of their form, along with the depth and fulness of their contents, necessarily give them unique importance in relation to the edification of the Christian Church and the instruc- tion of Christian youth. All the more to be regretted is the unlimited caprice with which they are often, and one must almost say traditionally, handled and interpreted. Under cover of an appeal to the infinite many-sidedness of the word of God, exposi- tors think themselves justified in straining the figurative form of the Parables for any purpose and to any extent, and in foisting on them all imaginable references and comparisons. But in reality such a mode of treatment by no means accords with the reverence due to the language of Holy Scripture and the words of our Lord. Not, indeed, that the preacher or teacher is to be denied the right of a free application and many-sided employment of the Parables for the purposes of edification and instruction in general. But he is only justified in doing this, and able to do it, after he has, first of all, assured himself of their true, original, and simple meaning, and thus laid a firm basis for his application, defined the simple bearing of the Parables, and fixed the limits of sobriety. And here the want mentioned above makes itself felt. Any one who desires to avoid the usual arbitrariness in the treatment of the Parables, and to investigate their original meaning under the guidance of a thorough, methodical, and exact exposition, will at present seek in vain in modern exegetical literature for a work VI PREFACE. that meets this desire. At least such is my experience. I there- fore attempted to help myself, and undertook the present work. I publish it in the hope that it may render the same help to one or another of my ministerial brethren which it has rendered to myself, perhaps also that here and there among non-theological readers of the Greek New Testament it may find a friend to whom it may prove instructive, and not without pleasure. Beyond this the design of its publication does not extend. But should it turn out that the work is not without value, even in a scientific aspect, in opening the way to a methodical treatment of the Parables in general, and to greater certainty in their still very divergent interpretation in detail, I shall especially rejoice in this as a welcome addition. It will be self-evident that in what has been just said no disparaging judgment is meant to be passed on the works which have previously treated monographically of the Parables of Jesus in one way or another. Only they cannot satisfy the need of a methodical and exact exposition, because they do not even pro- pose to do this. I quote them here, so far as they are known to me. Older ones are : linger, De Parabolarum Jesit natwra, inter- ^retatione, ttsii, 1828 (an elaborate treatise, but without thorough exposition); Lisco, Die Parabeln Jesu, ed. 4, 1841 (" esegetico- homiletic"), in it is also found an elaborate list of still older works, from 1 7 1 7 onwards ; de Yalenti, Die Fardbeln des Herrn, 1841 (a practical exposition "for Church, School, and Home"); Arndt, Die Gleiclinissreden Jesu Christ% 1842 (sermons). In more recent days : Thiersch, Die Gleichnisse Christi nach Hirer moralischen U7id prophetischen Bedetttung (Bible hours) ; Behrmann, Die Gleichnissreden des Herrn, first half (Bible hours) ; Mangold, Fopiddre Auskgiiny sdmmtlicher Gleichnisse Jesto Christi (" in cate- chetical order"). The modern exegetes on the synoptical Gospels have been everywhere compared, even where not specially quoted by name. TRANSLATOR'S NOTE. THE following work has won considerable favour in Germany. Dr, Weiss commends the "solid exegesis, sound judgment^ and sober, skilful interpretation " of the author {Theol. Literaturzei- tung, Aug. 28, 1880). His adverse criticism relates to three points. He blames the author for his inadequate discussion of the nature of the parabolic mode of teaching, his disregard of the results of " Criticism," and his diffuse, involved style. The first point might be conceded without detracting from the value of the work as a whole. The author's discussion of the nature of parabolic teaching in the Introduction is quite subordinate to his main purpose. The views there expressed on this general question have comparatively little influence on the detailed exegesis of the individual parables. The second fault in the critic's eyes will be a merit in the eyes of many. Until two members of the advanced " Critical " school can be found to agree, the expositor may justly decline their guidance. The truth of the third charge is freely conceded. The translator has done what he could so far to modify this feature as to secure clearness. To English students the absence of all reference to English works of exposition may appear a more considerable defect. On the other hand, this very circumstance gives the work a freshness and independence which it could not otherwise have. The method of interpretation sketched at the close of the Introduction should be especially noticed, as it is the one applied to each parable in succession. TABLE OF CONTENTS. INTRODTTCTION. The "Word *' Parable " in the New Testament, The Parables in the strict sense, Distinction between Symbolic and Typical Parables, Parable and Pable, I'able and Parable in the Old Testament, Rabbinical Parables, . Purpose of Parables, . Distribntion of the matter in the Gospels, ■Classification of the Parables according to their Import, Method of Exposition, PAGK 1 3 4 6 9 13 U 17 20 PAET I. THE FIRST SERIES OF PARABLES IN CAPERNAUM. The Parables to the People by the Sea, . . , , 29 ' The Sower, or Divers Soils, . 37 The Tares in the "Wheat, . ... 67 The Fruit-bearing Earth, . • . . 80 The Grain of Mustard Seed, . . . 93 The Leaven, . . . .... 99 TnE Parables in the Conveesation with the Disciples, . . 106 - The Hidden Treasure, . ... .107 .The Pearl of Great Price, . . ... Ill ^ The Fishing- Net, . . . .115 Review, ......■•• 122 PART 11. THE LATER PARABLES ACCORDING TO LUKE. Introductory, . The Merciful Samaritan, The Importunate Friend, 124 127 140 TABLE OF CONTENTS. pAcn The Rich Fool, .... . . 14i> The Fig-Tree, ...... 159 The Great Banquet, ...... 16& The Three Parables in Luke xv.. 19a The Lost Sheep, . .... 191 The Lost Coin, ..... 197 The Lost Son, ..... •200 The Unjust Steward, ..... 215 TheKichMan, . ... 232 The Unjust Judge, ...... . 257 The Pharisee and the Publican, .... 269 PART III. THE PARABLES OF THE LAST PERIOD. General View, . . 28J The Unmerciful Servant, . . . . . 281 The Labourers in the Vineyard, . . . 298 The Wicked Vinedressers, . . 324 The Royal Marriage- Feast, . . 349 The Eschatological Discourse up to the Eschatological Parables, 379 The Ten Virgins, . . 382 The Talents in Trust, 405' The Pounds in Trust, . . . 432 Arrangement of the Parables in Systematic Order, 457 List of Scripture Passages DiscussEi), . 459' THE PARABLES OF JESUS. IITTEODUCTIOK THE word " parable *' has in the New Testament^ in its applica- tion to the discourses of Jesus, a considerably wider meaning than the one in which we speak of the parables of the Lord in the current phraseology of the Church. The designation irapa^oXr), from irapapaXkeiv (therefore = placing side by side, comparing), belongs to every utterance containing a comparison of any kind. Thus, in Luke v. 36 the maxim of the old garment, which does not fit in with a new patch, is introduced as a parable.^ In the same way, in Luke vi. 39, the maxim, "If the blind lead the blind, will not both fall into the ditch ?" is called a parable (etTre irapa^oXriv). Further, in Mark iii. 23 ff., the appeal of Jesus to the impossibility of a kingdom or household at variance within itself standing, is described as a speaking " in parables." And in Matt. xxiv. 32, Mark xiii. 28, Jesus Himself calls His allusion to the budding of the leaves on the fig-tree, which announces the approach of summer, a parable.^ All these maxims are called parables, because in a visible fact, belonging to the sphere of physical or human life^ they picture a corresponding truth in the sphere of religious life. Thus, in the incompatibility of an old garment with a new patch, they depict the incompatibility of the old Pharisaic legal system with the new nature and life mani- fested in Christ ; in the obvious impossibility of one blind man leading another, the impossibility of one who is himself imper- vious to divine truth guiding others in divine things ; in the notorious impossibility of a kingdom at variance within itself standing, the impossibility that Satan's kingdom, strong as it is, ^ "E^-sT-e 3e xa.) ^BtpttfioXnv Tfos avrous; cf. also the two following maxims of tlie new wine and old skins (w. 37, 38), and the old and new wine (ver. 39), which, placed on a parallel with the first, are also clearly parables in the same sense as the first. GOEBEL. A 2 THE PARABLES OF JESUS. should stand, if hostile to itself; and finally, in the infallible certainty with which the bursting leaves of the fig-tree announce the approach of summer, the infallible certainty with which the events foretold by Jesus indicate the approach of His second coming. A still more general use of " parable " is seen in the passage Matt. XV. 15, where it refers to the utterance of the Lord in ver. 11 (cf. vv. 16-20): "Not what enters into the mouth (food) defiles the man ; but what proceeds out of the mouth (evil speech), this defiles the man." Here, therefore, it refers to a concrete maxim without a properly figurative character, simply of an enigmatical stamp. A similar use under another aspect is found in the pas- sage Luke iv. 23, where ih^ proverh, "Physician, heal thyself," is called a parable, and that, as it seems, not so much because of its figurative, as rather merely because of its proverbial character. Both passages follow the correspondingly general use of the word parable as a translation of 7^9 ^^ ^^ Septuagint, where not merely abstract and concrete maxims (Prov. i. 6), but also in general every favourite saying that has passed into popular use is called a parable, whether figurative in form (Ezek. xviii. 2, 3) or not (1 Sam. xxiv. 14; Ezek. xii. 22). But if, passing by this latter use of the word, in which it has departed far from its fundamental meaning as " comparison," we direct our attention merely to all those utterances of Jesus which, as embodying comparison and figure, come under the category of parable, it is self-evident that a separate exegetical treatment of all Christ's utterances and brief discourses, which might be called parables in this wider sense of the word, is an impossibility. They are so numerous and, more- over, so interwoven with the structure of Christ's discourses, that an attempt at their complete treatment must inevitably swell into a treatment of His discourses in general. Let any one, for example, consider the following parables in the Sermon on the Mount merely : the Salt that has lost its Savour (Matt. v. 13); the City on a Hill (v. 14) ; the Light, not under the Bushel, but on the Stand (v. 15) ; the Two Adversaries on the Way to the Judge (v. 25, 26) ; the Plucking out of the Eye, etc., for the good of the whole body (v. 29, SO); the Treasures which neither Moth nor Eust consume (vi. 19, 20); the Eye the Light of the Body (vi. 22, 23); Serving Two Masters (vi. 24); the Censorious Man (vii. 3-5); the Swine and Pearls (vii. 6) ; the Children asking Bread or Eish (vii 9-11); the Two Gates and Two Ways (vii. 13, 14); the Wolves INTRODUCTION. 6 in Siieep's Clothing (vii. 15); the House built on Eock or Sand (vii. 24-27). Accordingly, we have in the first instance to limit our matter by distinguishing the parables in the stricter sense, known by this name in the phraseology of the Church, from the parables in the ■wider sense, corresponding to the Biblical use of the word parable. It is incorrect to say that the parables of Christ, so called kut' i^o')(r)v, are merely detailed comparisons,^ which would leave no characteristic mark distinguishing them from other figurative dis- Kjourses and utterances of Jesus. Por no one, for example, assigns the very detailed figurative discourse of the Good Shepherd in contrast with the thieves and hirelings (John x. 1—16) to the stricter circle of parables, whereas the parable of the Costly Pearl (Matt. xiii. 45, 46), although consisting of but two brief sentences, without doubt belongs to the circle. Thus, there must be a definite distinguishing element constituting the idea of the parable in the stricter sense. The correct view is as follows : — It is the distinction obvious to the eye, between the figurative language occasionally interwoven and the figurative history expressly imagined, which is the cause of the latter only being called the parables of Jesus by pre-eminence. Accordingly, the character of a complete figurative history or narrative is to be regarded as the distinguishing mark of the parables strictly so called. Not merely an allusion to some fact belonging to the sphere of physical or human life, or to some relation obtaining there, but the invention and narration of a connected series of particular events, combined into a single whole, serves here as a pictorial representation of doctrine belonging to the religious sphere. Certainly there are some among the parables, bearing this name universally in Church usage, to which the narrative-ioTm. is want- ing, e,g, the two parables of the Lost Sheep and Lost Coin (Luke XV. 3-10). But still both, although merely clothed in the form ■of a question referring to an imagined case, give in the contents of the parabolic question the matter for a narrative so definite in detail and complete in itself, that the absence of the narrative- form is lost to the consciousness of the hearer and reader. The same is true of the parable of the Importunate Priend (Luke xi. 5-9). Introduced merely in the form of a parabolic question, it still gives as to substance a narrative completely worked out. On the other hand, again, among the parables so ^ Cremer, Biblico- Theological Lexicon, p. 125 (Clark). 4 THE PARABLES OF JESUS. called Kar' i^. there are some which, regarded as to their contents, present less the narration of a specially imagined history that once happened under definite conditions, than a descriptive picture of events actually taking place daily by necessity of natural law, or else by a necessity grounded in the nature of the case. This holds good of the parables of the Sower, the Mustard Seed, the Leaven, the Fishing N'et. But, nevertheless, in all these, not the descriptive, but the narrative -form is chosen (in that of the Mustard Seed, Matthew drops it in the second part, while Luke retains it to the end). Thus, not the entire body of events of the same kind is comprised in a descriptive picture, but — in order to picture the subject with greater directness to the hearers (for only in the special can the general be contemplated) — out of the series of events of the same kind a particular one is selected, and this is narrated independently as a particular event that somewhere took place. And it is precisely this retention of the narrative-form which in usage has given to this class of parables also a place among the parables in the stricter sense. But by far the greatest number of the parables coming under this head, along with the narrative-form, exhibit also as to their contents the character of a history specially imagined for the didactic purpose present to the author's mind. The incidents of the history, while borrowed from actual life, form in this particular arrangement and combination into a whole, an event, unique in kixad, which, as the fiction supposes, once took place somewhere. Accordingly, the idea of the parable may in the first instance be generally defined to this effect : A narrative moving within the sphere of physical or human life, not professing to communicate an event which really toolc place, hut expressly imagined for the purpose of representing' in pictorial figiire a truth belonging to the sphere of religion, and therefore referring to the relation of man or manJdnd to God. But then, in reference to the manner of the figurative repre- sentation, an essential distinction is observable among the parables of Jesus lying before us in the Gospels. To commence with a definite designation, they are either symholic or typical. The first class forms by far the greatest number. The general back- ground here is the presupposition of an all-pervading harmony between the entire sphere of the physical world and man's physical life on the one hand, and the higher sphere embracin.c? the relations of man to God on the other, so that in virtue of INTKODUCTION. 5 this divinely-establisTied harmony, states and relations, incidents and operations, belonging to the former sphere of life, mirror something of a like kind in the latter sphere. In this way, not by accidental similarity, but by the inner coherence subsisting, the visible becomes a symbol of the invisible, the earthly of the heavenly, the temporal of the eternal. Viewed from this stand- point, the nature of the symbolic parable is to represent in figure those truths belonging to the religious sphere which it wishes to illustrate, in a narrative freely composed out of sym- bolically significant relations, incidents, and operations in physical or human life. In order, therefore, to ascertain the true meaning, the hearer or reader first needs the interpretation^ i.e. the transla- tion of the figure into the thing symbolized, of the image into the counterpart, to which, however, in most cases some interpreting word of the narrator himself gives a clue. Sometimes, again, allegory is mixed with the symbol forming the basis of the symbolic parable, namely, wherever particular features are added to the figurative history, which, without having symbolic signifi- cance m themselves, or at least blending as more precise details with the main symbolic circumstances of the parable, only shadow forth something of like kind in the higher sphere in virtue of an outward similarity. But in such cases the chief circiiiTistances always remain of a symbolic nature, and purely allegorical features occur but rarely. It is not allegory, but symbol, when sowing, growth, ripening, and reaping in the field, or the opera- tions of the fisherman in fishing, or the toil of the shepherd about his sheep, are used as figurative representations of similar incidents and operations in the sphere of God's kingdom ; or when earthly treasures are made an image of spiritual blessings, an earthly feast of spiritual happiness, or the relation between king and subjects, master and servants, proprietor and steward, father and son, bridegroom and bride, creditor and debtor, judges and administrators, etc., is made an image of the relation between God and man, or Christ and the people of God, and incidents moving within the lines of such a relation serve as a figurative repre- sentation of what takes place between God and man. On the other hand, it is no longer symbol, but allegory, when (for example) the interpretation of the parable of the Sower places over against the coming of the birds of heaven to devour the seed, the coming of the devil to carry off the word from man's heart; or when in the parable of the Tares the devH is described 6 THE PARABLES OF JESUS, as an enemy who of set purpose sows tares among the wheat ; or when in the parable of the Mustard Seed the birds nesting in the branches of the tree are made an image of the nations of the earth entering into the kingdom of God. Many other traits, mostly allegorical, which have been assumed in the parables of Jesus, rest on arbitrary explanations. But alongside these symbolic parables we find a number of others, which we have called typical; "type" here, however, being taken, not in the specific sense of Eom. v. 14, as a pro- phetic representation of something future, but in the usual sense of exemplum, either as a model summoning to imitation (Phil, iii. 17; 1 Tim. iv. 12), or as a warning and terror (1 Cor. X. 6, 11). These are the parables which illustrate the teaching they wish to give, not in the way of symbolical clothing, but in that of direct exemplification. Such are the parables of the Merciful Samaritan, the Eich Fool, the Kich Man, the Pharisee and Publican (Liike x., xii., xvi., xviii.). In all these cases a TTapa^oKkecv, or comparative setting side by side, takes place in so far only as the author introduces a particular case in the shape of an artificial history by way of comparison with the general truth meant to be taught. The particular case so confirms the truth that the religious truth in question is intuitively recognised in the history as in a striking example. Thus the narratives themselves as such bear a religious character. Their chief per- sonages, after whom they are named, are not symbolic images, but are themselves the typical representatives of an ethico-religious disposition. And, on the other hand, the name and person of God may enter directly into the narrative without figurative clothing ; divine acts, invisible to sense, may form an essential ingredient of the action (both hold good of the parables of the Rich Pool and the Pharisee and Publican) ; or, as in the parable of the Eich Man, the history of human persons may be followed into the next world, — all which is impossible in the symbolic parable by its very nature. Here, what is necessary in order to give expression to the moral of the narrative is not the interpretation of a symbol, but merely the generalizing application of what is said and narrated of a particular case to all cases of a like kind, so that the special events of the history related are traced back to the universally valid law executed and the universally valid truth confirmed in them. In the profane literature of antiquity the ^sopian /a&Ze is very INTKODUCTION. / similar as regards rlietorical form to the ITew Testament parable in the stricter sense."^ Like the parable, the fable also is a history, not professing to communicate an event that really took place, but expressly imagined for the purpose of representing a general truth in pictorial figure. Certainly the form of repre- sentation in the two is for the most part different, but by no means always so. In respect to the form of representation, parable and fable may also perfectly coincide, so that no really decisive distinction exists between them in a formal respect. The following common definition of the distinction is not to the point : The fable moves in the sphere of fantasy, because it introduces irrational creatures (beasts, trees, etc.), thinking, speaking, and acting rationally ; whereas the parable always borrows its matter from actual life, and never transgresses the limits of the possible.^ Here it is overlooked that there are also purely human fables, in which only rational creatures are the actors ; ^ that there are other fables which hover, indeed, between man and beast, but without anything being said of the latter but what really lies within the animal nature ; * and finally, such fables as treat, indeed, only of beasts, but without attributing to them other properties than those which they really possess.^ Thus the first-named class of fables agrees as respects its means of representation with the numerous parables taken from the relations of man's natural life, the second with those treating of the relations between man and beast (the Lost Sheep, the Fishing !N"et), and also a parable corre- sponding to the third class of fables, although not actually met 1 The distinction drawn by Aristotle [Ehetoric, ii. 20) between parable (!ra^a)3ax«) and fable {Xoyos)^ in contrasting them with each other as two different species of artificial proof-exanaple (^apdhtyfice,), does not come into view here, because his vrapEt^oX^^ of which for the rest he does not speak, as it is different in his view from Xoyos^ is in any case something quite different from the New Testament parabolic narrative. The two examples which he gives of his "parable " are the following : olst it VIS X'tyot on oh ^it xXtipwrovs ap^itv' oftoiov yap atr'^sp etv it ^t}piuer£nVf 01$ Seo» .>.k fith rov i^ttrra.fi.ivov. Here, therefore, we have no narratives at all, but simply the alleging of conceivably possible cases from other spheres in proof of a political principle. 2 linger, Lisco, de Valenti, Cremer, et al. 3 Kg. Fab. ^sop., Triibner's ed., by Halm, 98, 169, 351, 412 : The Countryman and his Sons, the Physician and Invalid, the Thief and his Mother, the Miser, etc. * E.g. Fab, ^sop. 97, 111, 192, 374 : The Countryman and the Serpent, the Woman and the Hen, the Dog and the Gardener, the Sheep and the "Wolf. ^Rg. Fab. JSsop. 21, 228, 233, 421 : The Two Fighting Cocks and the Eagle, the Dog and the Horse, the Dog with the Bone, the Geese and the Cranes. 8 THE PAEABLES of JESUS. with, is at least not absolutely unthinkable, as is seen in the symbolic-parabolical allusion to the act of the hen in gathering her chickens under her wings (Matt, xxiii. 37 ; Luke xiii. 34). There is, in fact, a decisive distinction between the parable of the New Testament and the fable of antiquity, but it is of an inward, not outward kind. It lies primarily in the difference of the didactic matter represented, not in the different mode of representation. The N&w - Testament parable is religious, the j^so;pian fable ;pj^ifwrie. There, the truth represented always refers to the relation of man to God, and only refers to the moral rela- tion between man and man from the standpoint of religious obligation to God ; here, it is merely rules and precepts of natural utility and morality, and therefore either rules of a virtuous but natural prudence, or rules of common worldly policy, or even mere precepts of experience, often of a thoroughly trivial nature, which constitute the " moral " of the fable. From this difference of the matter follows next a manifold diversity in the outward mode of representation, which, however, is not without exceptions. Thus the parable is predominantly symbolic, only occasionally merely typical ; whereas the fable is for the most part typical, and therefore presents its teaching only in the form of ex- ample, for which reason it chooses animals by preference, not as symbolic, but as typical figures.-^ Only when its moral is not a universal precept, but simply refers to a historically given case, may it also be allegorical,^ but never symbolic in the sense in which the parable mostly is ; because the higher, invisible world, of which the parable sees and exhibits the symbol in the visible world of nature and man, lies far from it. Hence arises a further difference, that the parable which illustrates its religious truth either by means of the symbol, and therefore of a symbolic fact found in the life of nature or man, or by means of direct example, which must itself, as an example of a religious truth, be of a religious nature, can never work with mere fantastic figures like thinking and speaking animals, trees, etc. ; M'hereas the fable, to which the diversified nature of its precepts gives the widest scope in the choice of examples, takes them, not always indeed, but still by preference, from the world of fantasy. ^ The fox is not a symbol, but a type of policy, the lion of strength, the wolf of gluttony, etc. 2 Cf. the fable of the Horse and Stag in Aristotle, ut cmtef and Halni) Fab. j^sop. 175, INTRODUCTION. 9 Finally, it follows from the sacredness of the subject-matter of the parable, that the character of severe simplicity and sober earnestness is everywhere appropriate to its narrative ; whereas again the purpose of the fable, bearing merely on natural worldly prudence and experience, implies that its narrative frequently has a ludicrous, not seldom even a licentious character/ Outside the New Testament the parable is found also in the Old Testament and in the Eabbins of the Talmud. In the Old Testament we meet both with fable and parable. Of the former we have only one example, Jotham's fable of the trees and the bramble, Judg. ix. 7—15. The trees, so Jotham tells the Shechemites, wished to anoint a king over them. The olive, the fig-tree, and the vine, to whom they applied, declined. Through their own worth they had enough reputation both with God and man. Why should they leave their useful work for a tottering authority over the trees ? But the useless, wretched bramble, having nothing to give up and nothing to lose, accepts the royal dignity, and promises them its shadow, in which, how- ever, they find no protection against the sun, but merely stinging prickles ; or fire may easily break out in it, and spreading from it consume them. It is a fable of poHtical wisdom, warning against the perilous ambition of political adventure, and is directed against the folly of the Shechemites, who, although none of the great heroes of Israel had hitherto stretched out his hand to the royal dignity, and a Gideon had even declined it, made the cruel adventurer Abimelech their king.^ Some have attempted to find another Old-Testament fable in the passage 2 Kings xiv. 9 (=2 Chron. xxv. 18), where Joash king of Israel replies scornfully to the challenge of Amaziah king of Judah : " The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying. Give thy daughter to my son to wife ; and there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon, and trode down the thistle." But the fable here lacks the essential character of narrative as a connected series of events combining to form a single whole. Instead of this we have simply a scornful contrasting of two unconnected occurrences, namely, of the proposal for a marriage alliance, implying the claim of equality, made by the thistle to the cedar, * Cf. the Prologue of Phsedrus to his revision of jEsop's Fables : Duplex lihelli dos est : Quod risum rriovet. Et quod prudentis vitam consilio movet, " Cf. the not dissimilar fable of ^sop of the fox impaled by the bramble, when he wished to hold on by it, Halm, Fab. JSsop, 8. 10 THE PARABLES OF JESUS. and of the thistle being trampled on by the wild beast, to which fate it was exposed because of its little height. On the other hand, the parabolic narrative is found in two Old-* Testament examples, and indeed one of each of the two classes of typical and symbolical parables, which we have distinguished from each other. -The first is the parable (2 Sam. xii. 1—6) uttered by the prophet !N"athan to King David, when the latter had taken Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, to wife. The prophet there tells of a rich man, possessed of sheep and cattle in great abundance, who nevertheless took from a poor man his only lamb, tenderly reared and beloved, to make provision for a guest. The requisite conclusion of the narrative is given in the words of King David himself, when he says angrily to the prophet : " As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die,'' etc. (vv. 5, 6); upon which the prophet at once makes the application of the parable to the historically given case in the words : " Thou art the man," and in the further address which follows (vv. 7—12). But it is not a symbolic, partially allegorical parable which we have here before us, but merely an exemplary, typical parable. By the example of a particular case, it exhibits directly the general truth of the great guilt incurred by the rich man, who, not content with all the possessions which God has given him, with insatiable avarice robs even the poor man of the trifling possession which is dear to his heart because it is all he has. Solely to exemplify this general truth, the applicability of which to the case given here of David's sin is obvious of itself, is the parable invented, and it is only adapted to this end. But it is not an allegorical and figurative representation of what took place between David and Uriah, as if the many sheep and cattle of the rich man were meant to " signify " the many wives at the disposal of the king, and the solitary lamb of the poor man the one wife of Uriah, in which case one would be compelled also to ask who are to be understood by the children of the poor man mentioned in ver. 3, and the guest of the rich man in ver. 4. The other parable of the Old Testament, Isa. v. 1-6, is of a symbolic nature. There the prophet tells of a friend of his, wha had a vineyard in the best situation, and, having spent all con- ceivable toU and care on it, expected it to bring forth grapes, when it brought forth wild grapes (vv. 1, 2). Upon this the master of the vineyard, suddenly introduced speaking in the animated style of prophetic speech, himself calls on the people of INTEODUCTIOK 1 1 Jerusalem to judge between him and the vineyard, announcing that he will withdraw his hand from the vineyard and abandon it to desolation (vv. 3-6). And after the last clause in ver. 6 : "And I will command the clouds that they rain not thereon," — no longer a word of man, but a word of divine power, — has broken through the figurative shell of the language, in ver. 7 the interpretation follows at once : " The vineyard of the Lord of Hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah His pleasant plant : and He looked for judgment, but behold oppression ; for righteousness, but behold a cry/' The relation of the human cultivator to his field or vineyard, in virtue of which he justly expects it to bear fruit in return for all the toil and care expended on it, is symbolic of the justice of the divine demand on man, that he now bear the moral fruit of righteousness in return for all the benefits and care he has received from God. This generally symbolic relation is here applied especially to the relation of Jehovah to His covenant-people, from whom, after all the great things which He has done for them. He now expects the fruit of righteousness. But instead of this he only finds the evil fruit of unrighteousness. What else can follow, but that He will withdraw His hand from them and abandon them to destruc- tion ? In what relation Christ's parables of the Fig-Tree and the Wicked Labourers in the Vineyard stand to this parable will be shown in the exposition of the former. !N"o parabolic narratives are found elsewhere in the Old Testa- ment, but only, apart from the very numerous figurative sayings and phrases occurring everywhere, a number of detailed para- bolic ^assa^es of a predominantly allegorical kind, resting, however, partially at least on a symbolic basis. There is an example of this, when in the parabolic discourse, Ezek. xv., just as in Isaiah's parable of the vineyard, the degeneration of the noble vine into an unfruitful, useless trunk, as a symbol of the moral degeneracy of Israel planted by God, is made the basis of the announcement of judgment ; ^ or when in Ezek. xvi., xxiii., the marriage-covenant between man and wife, as a symbol of the relation of God to Hi& people, serves as a basis for the elaborate allegorical descriptions of the adultery of the people of God, or of the two sisters, Samaria and Judah ;^ or when the prediction, Ezek. xvii. 22—24, uses and allegorizes the growth of the tender shoot into a ' Cf. the parabolic exposition of Christ, John xv. 5, 6. 2 See on the counterpart in the discourses of Christ in Matt. xxii. 1. 12 THE PAKABLES OF JESUS. great tree in reference to the extension of the theocratic kingdom of the Messiah;^ or when the allegory in Prov. ix. 1-6 makes the nourishment and refreshment of the feast a symbol of the spiritual blessings prepared by God for man's enjoyment.^ On the other hand, other parabolical passages of the Old Testament move exclusively in the sphere of allegory, and have therefore next to no affinity with the parables of Christ. Thus the vine becomes a mere allegorical figure of Israel in the figurative discourse, Ezek. xix. 10-14, and of Zedekiah the king of Judah in the figurative account of the two great eagles, one of which planted the vine, which then grew and strengthened and stretched toward the second eagle, Ezek. xvii. 1—8. Here, therefore, we have a formal, figurative history, which yet has next to nothing in common with the parabolic narratives of Christ, because it is not an artificial, didactic narrative, like the fable and parable, but a historic narrative, only loosely veiled in an allegorical garb as picturesque as it is transparent ; it is, in short, a historic picture with alle- gorical figures. But, finally, there is one parabolic description in the Old Testament which, while it lacks the form of narrative, stands very near to those parabolic narratives of Jesus which, as regards their contents, are merely descriptive pictures of the circumstances of husbandry. It is the description of the conduct of the hus- bandman in ploughing and threshing, Isa. xxviii. 23-29. The description aims at two points. First, at showing that in scoring the earth with the sharp ploughshare, the husbandman merely prepares it for the good seed of various kinds, which he then sows (vv. 24, 25) ; and secondly, at showing that in threshing the grain he does this with no more severity, and no longer, than the grain in question wiU bear without bruising (w. 26-28). In this the prophet sees, not merely an accidental similarity, but a divinely-appointed symbol of what God does in His dealings with men, for he expressly refers this conduct of the husbandman to God's ordinance (ver. 29, and also in ver. 26, if we translate there, " and he prepares it according to the law which his God teaches him ; " cf. Drechsler here). In the proceedings of the husbandman in the field he sees the truth symbolized, that God causes His blessings to follow the sharp chastisements with which he visits men, after the way of the one has been prepared by the ^ Cf. Christ's parable of the Mustard Seed. ^ Cf. Christ's parables of the Great Supper and Royal Marriage-Feast. INTRODUCTION. 13 other ; and in the proceeding of the thresher with the grain, that God will not chastise men longer and more severely than they are able to bear, and than is needful for the purpose of chastise- ment. Here, then, is a twofold symbolic parable which, without deserving the name of parable in the strict sense, shows, next to the two parabolic narratives of the Old Testament already quoted, most affinity with the parables of Christ. A series of parabolic narratives is found also in the Rabbins of the Talmud, exceedingly like the parables of Christ in form, save, of course, that they bear no sort of comparison with the latter either in depth and truth of meaning, or in simplicity and convincing force of representation. This applies even to those among them which show a striking resemblance to certain parables of Christ. This circumstance has been explained by supposing either that Christ used current Eabbinical parables, improving and deepening their meaning for His purposes, or that the authors of the Eabbinical parables knew and used the Gospels, or again from mere accident, and therefore from the mere accidental employment of the same figurative circumstances as instruments of representation for a like didactic purpose. The latter supposition, however, is not sufficient everywhere. To me the supposition, that certain leading forms and phrases in several parables of Christ passed over into Rabbinical tradition without consciousness of their origin, seems best to correspond to the mutual relations of the parables in question. Two instances may be given here, in which the resemblance is the most striking. They may serve, as examples of the Eabbinical parables generally, to show the vast distance which, with all the conformity, exists between them and the parables of the Lord. The one certainly is merely related to a comparison of Christ, not to a proper parabolic narrative ; but j ust here the similarity is closest. Compare with Christ's parabolic saying of the wise man who built his house on the rock, and the foolish man who built on the sand (Matt. vii. 24—27), the following one of Eabbi Kathan from the treatise Aboth : ^ "Si quis opera bona habet multumque in lege didicit, is similis est homini, qui domum ita exstruit, ut inferius saxa ponat, lis vero postea laterales imponat. Licet postmodum aquse multse veniant et ad latus ipsorum consistant, tamen ilia loco movere non possunt. Homo vero, qui non habet ^ Quoted by Unger, De Pardbolarum Jesu natura, p. 157, from Schoettgen, Ilorcp Talm, 14 THE PARABLES OF JESUS. bona opera multumque legi operam dedit, similis est ei, qui inferius lateres collocet, iis vero saxa imponat ; si aquae sensim tantum adveniunt, statim illam evertunt." Whereas, therefore, Jesus simply contrasts building on the sand with building on the rock, here the scarcely conceivable " bricks below and stones above" is artificially contrasted with the " stones below and bricks above." And as concerns the thing compared, hearing and doing (in reference to hearing and not doing the words of Christ) are mechanically changed into multum in lege discere and bona opera habere (or non habere). Further, compare with Christ's parabolic narrative of the Labourers in the Vineyard the following one from the treatise Berachoth {Gem. Hieros.) : ^ " Cum E. Abia f. Chise mortuus esset, E. Seira adventans concionem habebat, quod E. Abia paucis diebus tantum profuerit, quantum alii vix multis annis. Subjecit parabolam hanc : Erat rex qui conduxit operarios. Eratque ibi operarius rectius agens in opera sua prse omnibus. Ecquid fecit ipsi rex ? Secum eum tulit, atque cum eo ambulavit liinc illinc. Tempore vesperse congregabantur operarii ad auferendam mercedem, atque hie etiam mercedem suam accepit, eeque ac ipsi. Murmurarunt autem operarii, dicentes : nos ■defatigati sumus toto die, et hie nonnisi duabus horis.^ Eespondit Dominus : hie duabus horis plus laboravit, quam vos toto die." Here too, with all the similarity, what a distance between this parable and that of Christ ! Whereas Christ contrasts the sovereign freedom of divine grace, which gives to the last as to the first, with all such mechanical reckoning as would make the more or less of human performance the standard for measuring the divine reward, in the Eabbinical parable this thought is so superficialized and distorted as, with the mechanical measuring of the reward by the standard of the time of labour, to contrast, as the professedly divine standard, merely the just as mechanical measuring of the reward by the standard of the amount of labour done. Other Eabbinical parables, which have been ranked with the I^ew-Testament ones of the Merciful Samaritan, the Eich Man, the Ten Virgins, etc., have, in fact, merely incidental traits in common with them. After thus defining the idea of the parable as a narrative expressly imagined for the purpose of representing a religious truth in a pictorial figure, we need not specially inquire into the 'purpose of the parabolic form of teaching. It is one lying in the ' Unger, ut ante, 2 ^f^ -^^^^^ j^_ 10-12. IKTEODUCTION. 1 5 nature of the parable, namely, to present directly to the hearer's view the teaching to he imparted, either by exhibiting it in the concrete image of the individual case (typical parables), or in a symbol taken from the world of nature or man (symbolic parables). The parable is therefore essentially pictorial instruction. But there are two different cases, which make the employment of the parabolic mode of teaching necessary or useful, in place of the abstract and direct. Either an inadequate degree of the power of apprehension is presupposed in the hearers, incapacitating them for understanding the teaching to be imparted, or an evil tendency of the will, disclining them to receive it. In the former case, the parable serves the purpose of facilitating the apprehension of the teaching even to feeble power of intelligence ; and in the second case, of convincing even the reluctant will of its truth. The former purpose naturally predominates in the parables spoken by Jesus to His disciples, the second in those spoken to His enemies. It is self-evident that the two coalesce in so far as the intellectual is combined with a moral defect, or conversely the moral with an intellectual. But whichever of the two preponderates, the primary end everywhere is to place the doctrine, as yet unknown to the hearers, so directly before their eyes, that they shall intuitively recognise its truth. And as to the other ends alleged, as, for example, that the parable is meant to excite attention, awaken reflection, impress the memory, or even to soften the harshness of unwelcome truths by temperateness of form,-^ these are only single elements, subordinate to that general and everywhere identical end. The last-named element especially is only present in so far as the parable, even where it speaks most harshly to opponents, always does this with the intention of convincing them, and is therefore never absolutely repellent, but always appeals to a remnant of susceptibility to the truth in their own conscience. Certainly another purpose of the parable, which has been put on a level with that first and primary one, as if it held good just as generally and were just as necessarily grounded in the nature of the parable, is of a directly opposite kind. The parable, it is supposed, is meant to do two things, namely, to reveal the truth to the receptive, and to conceal it from the unreceptive.^ But, ^ Cf, Lisco, de Valenti, Lange in Herzog's Encycl., art. ** Gleichniss. " ^ So Weiss, Zeitschr.f. christL Wissenscha/t, 1861, p. 322, and Lisco, de Valenti, Lange, vt ante; Keil, etc. iO THE PARABLES OF JESUS. stated thus generally, this assertion is incorrect, for it is far irom applying to all the parables. Under this head, of course, merely the symbolic parables can come into account at all, since the merely typical ones possess no figurative veil, such as might operate as a means not merely of illustration, but also of conceal- ment, and might serve the author for this end. How, for example, can any one conceive to himself that in the example of the Merciful Samaritan, by which the Lord so strikingly illustrates the true meaning of the command to love one's neighbour, He also meant to conceal it ? But even among the symbolic parables, which actually clothe what they wish to say in a figurative dress, so that along with the purpose of illustration an intention of concealment is also possible and conceivable, there is still a series, in which as matter of fact no intention of this kind is present along with the other. Such is the case with all those which Jesus uttered, not before a mixed circle of hearers, but simply before a narrower circle of His disciples, as, for example, that of the Treasure in the Field, the Costly Pearl, the Fishing IsTet, and a series of others ; for here, while the narrative does not lack the figurative veil, which might serve to conceal, the persons are wanting among the hearers, to whom the purpose of concealment could apply. But even those parables, in which Jesus does not address His disciples and adherents, but His opponents, — the Pharisees or Sanhedrists, — in order to strike at their conscience and convince them (as, e.g., that of the Great Feast, the Wicked Labourers in the Vineyard, the Eoyal Marriage- Feast, etc.), cannot possibly mean also to conceal from them what is meant to be said to them. Moreover, in many parables the symbolic veil is so transparent, or it is so directly drawn aside by the appended explanatory statement of the Lord Himself, that for this reason there can be no question of an intention to conceal anything by them. The former, e.g.^ is the case in the parable of the Lost Son, the latter in that of the Importunate Friend, the Unmerciful Servant, etc. On the other hand, certainly the intention to conceal is definitely expressed in the first series of parables, which Jesus spoke both to His disciples and a mixed crowd of people on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias. Here He purposely chose the parabolic form of teaching, for the double purpose of disclosing the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven to His disciples on the one hand by means of symbolic illustration, and on the other hand of hiding them from the dull-minded INTRODUCTION. l7 populace by means of the figurative dress. That this was His intention, He says Himself to His disciples in the answer to the question : " Why speakest Thou unto them in parables ? " ^ But both question and answer primarily refer merely to the case in hand, which is very significantly distinguished from all other cases in which Jesus uses the parable, by the circumstance, that here only does Jesus give a series of parables in continuous discourse, without prefixing to them any introductory saying, or linking them together by any intermediate remarks, or appending to them any explanatory statement. That this method of speaking exclusively in a series of unconnected, closely successive parables was peculiarly strange in Christ's teaching at that time, is shown by the special concluding remark recurring in all three evangelists : ^ ravra iravra iXd\7](r€v , . . iv irapa^oKat'i Tol /717 -r> 7 /. ^ , T^ ■ < sacriiices everythmg lor The Pearl of Great Price : ) ., , • , ^ -, *^ ^_ the highest good. The Importunate Friend : ( Perseverance in prayer to The Unjust Judge: \ God. 2. Towards the World. a. To Men. The Merciful Samaritan : Practical proof of love for one's neighbour to one needing help. The Unmerciful Servant : Unlimited placability towards wTong-doers. The Lost Sheep : ") ^^ , ^ , , . . , The Lost Coin: (Unselfish delight in the sinners con- The Lost Son: J ^^^^^'^^• h. To Earthly Goods. The Bich Fool (Luke xii.) : Folly of reliance on perish- able goods. ^ The justification of this classification as to this and all the other parables can, of course, only be supplied by the exposition. INTEODUCTION*. 23 The Rich Man (Luke xvi.) : Selfish employment of earthly wealth criminal. The Unjust Steward : Wise employment of temporal means in reference to eternity. Eut however attractive such a classification may be in ap- pearance, it must always be unsuited to be the basis of an exegetical treatment of the entire material. Directly this is done, two evil results follow, which place such a course at a disadvantage beside the one proposed by us. In following the path marked out for him by an arrangement according to the matter, the exegete is compelled, whenever he approaches a new parable, to assume its doctrinal import, and therefore to assume the result which is the aim of his entire work beforehand as a text. The only use in this case of the exposition itself is ta serve as a supplementary proof of a result already given, instead of, as it ought, interesting the reader in the work, perhaps con- ducting him step by step to new results, and enlisting his convictions on their side. But even if this is not thought mischievous, the other evil result remains, which is certainly more serious in character, nam ely, that in following such a systematic division tlie exegete is compelled to break up the connected groups found in the Gospels in favour of the scheme laid down by himself, and thus to tear a considerable number of single parables from the relation in which they stand to each other. Thus, in de Valenti, the parable of the Fishing-iSTet in the group Matt. xiii. is placed beside that of the Ten Virgins in the eschatological discourse Matt. xxv. ; and jB.nally, the parable of the Sower, the first in Matt, xiii., is placed among the last on his scheme, side by side with that of the Unjust Steward in the group Luke xv., xvi. And on the scheme advanced by Lisco, the parable of the Tares in Matt. xiii. is placed beside that of the Koyal Marriage-Feast in chap. xxii. Even a Lange has not succeeded, although plainly he has not kept this aim in view in the interest of his scheme of division, in framing an arrangement of the parables according to their contents which coincides with the groups found in the Gospels and with the order of the parti- cular parables there given. Even he {e.g) is compelled to pass by two of Luke's parables — that of the Eich Fool and the Fig- Troe — and place them at last among the final parables in Matthew. And so, on the classification attempted by us, it was impossible 24 THE PARABLES OF JESUS. to avoid dislocating and throwing into confusion the groups of parables joined together in the text. And if, nevertheless, the context in which the particular parable stands is to have justice done to it, considering its essential importance so often to the exposition, wearisome repetitions are unavoidable, without compensation being really obtained for the loss of a coherently progressive exposition of the groups of parables given in the text. Before passing to the exposition itself, it still remains to settle its method. The fact that fixed principles and a certain method are still for the most part wanting in the exposition of the parables is incontestable.-^ Certainly the general principle, that every particular ingredient in a parable must not be interpreted separately, that, on the contrary, in explaining a parable, its essential elements must be held fast, is too obvious for general agreement to be wanting on this point ; and every expositor is compelled occasionally to appeal to such a principle. Chrysostom early gave apt expression to this general rule with special refer- ence to the parable in Matt xx, 1-16: ovhe ^prj Trdvra ra ip rah Trapa^oXat^ Kara Xe^cv ireptefi^d^eaOai, dXKa rov a/coTTOV fiaOovTe