0.3 Introduction
THE PARABLES OF JESUS
INTRODUCTION
I. THE Hebrew word for parable, mashal, the root idea of which is that of resemblance, has an application extensive enough to include figurative language of every kind. We find it more than once in Ezechiel (xvii. 2, 24:3) in the ordinary sense of parable. It also stands as the equivalent of aphorism, gnome (e.g, Proverbs 1:1, Proverbs 1:6, Proverbs 1:10:1; Ecclesiastes 12:9; Job 13:12); and thence by a natural transition it acquires the sense of proverb (e.g, Ezech. 18:2 /.). Finally, on account of the laws of parallelism of Hebrew poetry, each verse of which consists of two or more members in which much the same idea is repeated in a different form and which members must in consequence have a mutual resemblance, various classes of poetry are designated by
1 2 THE PARABLES OF JESUS the term “ parable.” It is applied to the poetic prophecy of Balaam (Numbers 23:7, Numbers 23:18); to the didactic speech of Job (xxvii. 1, 29:1). The magnificent ode, partly paean, partly elegy (Isaiah 14:3 - Isaiah 14:20) bears the same title. In the New Testament, the term “ parable “(Greek parabole, a placing beside or opposite, comparison) is likewise used in different senses.
Sometimes it stands for type or symbol (e.g, Hebrews 9:9); but it is most extensively used to denote a real or fictitious history related more or less in detail, and intended as the vehicle of some moral or religious truth. Sometimes, instead of a history, a similitude in the form of a simple natural phenomenon (e.g, the budding of the fig-tree, Matthew 24:32); or some image from everyday life (e.g, the man allotting to his servants their various duties before he sets out for another country, Mark 13:34) serves the same purpose and receives the name of parable.
We have seen that parables in the ordinary New Testament signification of the term already existed several centuries before Christ. These, however, are few in compari son with the parables derived from rabbinic THE PARABLES OF JESUS 3 sources which are still extant, and which furnish much help toward the understanding of Our Lord’s parables. Some of them are the work of His contemporaries; others belong to later periods. The parable differs from the fable in this respect, that, while in the former the speakers and actors are usually human, in the latter they are as a rule irrational or even sometimes inanimate beings represented as endowed with reason and the faculty of speech. In the Bible we have a specimen of the fable in that of the Trees (Judges 9:8 ff.). A distinction more important for the interpretation of the parables of Jesus is that between the parable in the strict sense of the term, and allegory. The term “parable” often includes the parable proper and the allegory; but we should frequently fail to understand Our Lord’s real meaning if we mistook for an allegory what He intended either as a parable, or and this is often the case as something partaking of the nature of both. In parable and in allegory alike, and, indeed, in all figurative language used for an ethical or spiritual purpose, two ele- 4 THE PARABLES OF JESUS merits are found: one figurative, the other real the former being the narrative, phenomenon, or other object of actual or possible observation, the latter, the moral or religious truth which it illustrates. Some hold that the difference between parable and allegory consists in this, that the allegory needs interpretation, while the parable at least, once the situation envisaged is known is selfexplanatory. We are obliged to reject this view for the simple reason that it does not stand the test of practical application, and, besides, it seems to constitute something external to parable and allegory the ground of the intrinsic distinction between them.
Broadly stated, the difference between them consists in this, that, whereas in the parable only one point in the figurative half is formally relevant, in the allegory all the leading points have their counterpart in the corresponding real half. We shall return later to the subject.
II.
While the parabolic method of teaching was not confined to the Hebrews, their adoption of it was quite in conformity with the THE PARABLES OF JESUS 5 national mentality, or, to speak, perhaps, more correctly, with the stage of intellectual development which they had reached. The Hebrew- mind as such finds in philosophy nothing alien to it. This is sufficiently proved by the success with which medieval Jews studied the Greek philosophers, notably Aristotle; and in more recent times men like Baruch Spinoza and Moses Mendelssohn, grandfather of the celebrated composer, and styled the Jewish Socrates, have demon strated that the Hebrew intellect is capable of original thinking in the domain of philo sophy. In ancient times, however, the out look of the Jews on life was not so much reflective as intuitive and eminently practical.
They thought and spoke in the concrete; they did not trouble themselves about questions which had no direct bearing on life or action. This was especially true of the Jews in earlier Old Testament times. Still, when a people has arrived at a certain stage of in tellectual development, it is only to be expected that they should be moved to search for a solution of some at least of the difficult problems which force themselves on the C THE PARABLES OF JESUS attention of men who are more thoughtful than the ordinary run of their contempora ries. We see, however, from the Old Testament that, when a Jew took a problem of this kind in hand, he treated it in a char acteristic manner. An example will make this plain. In earlier times the pious Hebrew rested content with the conviction that here below the good received in temporal pros perity the reward of their virtuous deeds, while, on the other hand, trouble and adver sity were sure sooner or later to overtake the wicked on this side of the tomb; or, in case they themselves were fortunate enough to escape, it was believed, on account of the prevalent idea of the solidarity of the family, that retribution would fall upon their descendants. In course of time experience showed that as a rule earthly prosperity and adversity were not dealt out to men according to their merits; and, besides, it was felt that punishment to be just and real must light upon the guilty man himself, not upon his children or children’s children. To this conviction Job feelingly gives expression: “ God, ye say, reserveth his (the sinner s) calamity for his children. Let THE PARABLES OF JESUS 7
Him requite himself that he may feel it, let his own eyes see his destruction, and let him drink of the wrath of the Almighty. For what concern hath he for his house after him, when the number of his months is accom plished?” ] Hence it was that men began to look for a solution that would reconcile the seeming injustice of the temporal lot of many with the wisdom and justice of God. This is the problem of the Book of Job, and we see how it is treated in a manner as little abstract and as concrete as possible. The simple view of life sufficient for preceding generations, and which still found defenders in Job’s friends, is shown to be false. The wisdom which is essential for man to know, and which suffices him, is eminently practical, it consists in the fear of God and the avoidance of evil. 2 The problem proposed is not solved; but in effect the conclusion arrived at, and given virtually though not stated formally, is that man must acquiesce in his lot as ordered by One whose power and wisdom are set forth in magnificent language. In Ecclesiastes a problem of a different order, Wherein 1 Job 21:19 ft. 2 Job xxviH. 28| 8 THE PARABLES OF JESUS does true wisdom consist? is handled in a similar manner. The time had not yet come when knowledge would be largely based on the careful, prolonged, and co-ordinatedobservation and investigation of phenomena; but the ancient Hebrews resembled the modern scientist in this, that their knowledge was less the result of deductive processes than of experience. in.
It is no wonder, then, that in Our Lord’s time the parable was a popular means of religious instruction amongst His country men. It presented in a vivid manner the lessons it was intended to convey. It made no fatiguing demands on the mind; the truth of which it was the medium was set before the hearer in such a manner that he could readily grasp its meaning; and as the figurative half of the parable was represented to him under the form of sensible images, what he thus learned was easily remembered.
It was only natural that Jesus should speak in parables. Just as His manners and cus toms were those of His country, so between His mode of speaking and teaching and that THE PARABLES OF JESUS 9 of the llabbins of His day there was a striking agreement in point of form, great as was the dii I erence between them in point of matter.
Though His doctrine was to hold good for all time, it was cast in a Jewish mould. His manner of teaching was in harmony with His mother-tongue, which allowed, or rather demanded, a freer mode of expression than the Greek; and we look in vain for anything in His utterances which would compel us to regard them as possessing any kinship with those of the ancient philosophers. Just as, if we had a faithful portrait of Him, we should find that His features were of the Syrian type of those times, even so His speech and action reflected those affinities in the intellectual order which attached Him to His fellowcountrymen.
IV. The Synoptic Evangelists give another reason why Jesus taught the people in parables. When the disciples had heard the parable of the Sower, they came and asked Him: “ Why speakest Thou in parables unto them?” He answered: “ Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to them 10 THE PARABLES OF JESUS that are without all things are done in parables, that seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand, lest they should be converted and forgiven.” 1 The answer refers to Isaiah 6:9/.; indeed, St. Matthew states that Our Lord regarded the situation as a fulfilment of this prophecy. The whole incident is related differently by the three Synoptists, but there is substantial agreement between them. The words of Jesus undoubtedly create difficulties. Why was it that in addressing the people He deliberately adopted a style of speaking that was unintelligible to them? Was this action of His the punishment of some sin or infidelity of theirs; or was it merely a part of Providence, of the scheme of Pre destination and Reprobation, affecting the individual or the nation or humanity at large, involving only the denial of a grace which was not their due? No Catholic can accept the solution of many critics namely, that the words in question as well as the subsequent interpretation of the parable did not originate with Jesus, but simply reflect the mind of the 1 Matthew 13:10 ff.; Mark iv. ll/.; Luke 8:9/. THE PARABLES OF JESUS ll
Church at a later date. The solution of the problem is not to be sought for exclusively in the passages referred to. As in so many other points, an obscure passage in Holy Scripture receives light from other passages where the meaning is clearer. Further, statementscate goric in form, which if met with in authors of the present day would have to be taken strictly as so intended, need not be accepted in the same light when made by Biblical writers or speakers.
All Our Lord’s teaching was connected with the Kingdom of Heaven: its primary and immediate aim was to prepare men’s minds for its coming. He spoke fully and freely of this preparation and of the need of it; but of the nature of the Kingdom itself He spoke sparingly and with reserve, and only as people could hear it. This appears evident, not only from the absence of any clear statement on the subject in the Gospels, but also from the wellascertained fact that even to the last the disciples themselves laboured under a complete misconception of the nature of the Kingdom. We may not draw a sharp line between His public teaching and the instruc- 12 THE PARABLES OF JESUS tion which He imparted in private to His disciples, as if the former was exoteric and the latter esoteric; we cannot, however, ignore the fact that, when it was a question of the know ledge of the “ mysteries of the kingdom of God,” 1 He spoke with less reserve to His disciples, without, at the same time, wholly lifting the veil which temporarily obscured the subject. On the whole we may regard His teaching as clear or obscure according to the nature of the subject which he treated.
He practised a prudent economy in accommo dating His teaching to the capacity and reeeptiveness of His hearers; and at the same time He charitably lessened their responsibility in proportion to the difficulty of understanding Him which naturally, though not necessarily, resulted from that particular medium of instruction which He employed. We see the immense difficulty which the Apostles them selves had in assimilating His teaching as to the real nature of His mission and of the Kingdom which He preached men who had
1 The word “ mystery “ here is not to be taken in the sense of something incomprehensible, but rather in the usual New Testament sense of something hidden, a secret. THE PARABLES OF JESUS 13 been admitted to close and constant companionship with Him: how hopeless, then, it would have been to expect that the people at large would exhibit an intelligence and a spiritual receptiveness which the Apostles themselves were so far from showing! It would be unbecoming of us to think that Our Lord in His parables simply propounded to the people a series of enigmas on which they might unsuccessfully exercise their ingenuity. Such a notion would be inconsistent with His character of Shepherd and Saviour of the perishing sheep of the house of Israel as exhibited to us throughout the New Testament. His immediate task was to produce a moral and religious change in the hearts of His people, and thus prepare them to acknowledge Him as the Messiah and to accept His teaching as coming from God. When it was a question of effecting this transformation, His teaching was sufficiently clear; and if His hearers remained unmoved, this was due to the want of a good will on their part rather than to any uncertainty as to what their duty really was. Their failure to accept His teaching in practice where its meaning was obvious rendered them 14 THE PARABLES OF JESUS unworthy of enlightenment on points which were obscure, and in this way “ blindness befell Israel.” 1 This blindness, or rather “ hardening,” though not intended directly in the Divine purpose, served the useful end of the vocation of the Gentiles, and in this way it may be regarded as a part of the scheme of Providence. v. In point of form, the parables of Jesus exhibit certain peculiarities which they have in common with those of the Rabbins. We notice in them an absence of that severity of form and exactness of expression which stamp in a greater or less degree the Greek and Roman classics and other works written under their influence. The parable of the Marriage Feast (Matthew 22:2 - Matthew 22:14), for instance, is introduced with the words: “ The Kingdom of Heaven is likened to a king who made a marriage feast for his son.” Here, in the comparison of the Kingdom of Heaven to a king, we remark a construction foreign to our manner of expression, the resemblance really
Romans 11:25. THE PARABLES OF JESUS 15 existing between the Kingdom of Heaven and the marriage feast, not between the Kingdom of Heaven and the king who gives the feast. In the same parable we also remark thepreference given to the oratio directa: “ Say to them that are invited, Behold I have prepared my dinner,” etc.; “ Friend, how earnest thou in hither not having a wedding garment?”
“ the wedding is ready “; “ bind his feet and hands,” etc. Here we are not told indirectly what the king said: his very words are given. A characteristic of a different nature consists in a certain brevity, or rather scantiness, of language, words being omitted that are apparently necessary for the explanation of the meaning of the parable. In this same parable, and the remark holds good of many others, while the figurative half is given in considerable detail, with the circumstances of the action helpful to its realization, the real half i.e, the spiritual lesson illustrated by the figurative element is barely indicated, the full interpretation of the parable being left to the hearer or reader. Jesus avoids the abstract, and uses to the full a wealth of concrete individual representations and sen- 16 THE PARABLES OF JESUS sible images quite in harmony with contemporary Jewish habits of thought and expression.
Even we ourselves, whose psychology is so different from that of the Jews at the beginning of our era, continue to be affected by the individualization in question, which, in addition, contributes much to our retaining in memory the lessons thus impressed upon us.
Connected with this is a certain fondness for numbers where the history did not seem to call for any numbers in particular e.g, the ten virgins, of whom five were foolish and five wise, the three bushels of meal, the three loaves, etc. We also find a parallelism e.g.
“ Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles? a Sometimes a further instance of this parallelism is given in pairs of parables conveying the same lesson. Of this kind are the parables of the Garment and the Wine skins, the Mustard-seed and the Leaven. We find examples, too, of a process very common in the rabbinical writings, that called a minori admajus, where the consequent clause of a conditional sentence is introduced with words equivalent to our “ how much more?” Thus, 1 Matthew 7:16; Luke 6:44. THE PARABLES OF JESUS 17 when endeavouring to inspire His hearers with confidence in the love of their Heavenly Father He instances the love and care with which a human father provides for his children’s wants, and from this deduces the inference: “If ye then, though evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him?” (Luke 11:13). Cf. Matt. x.
25, etc. We are familiar with the same process in the Epistles of St. Paul e.g, Romans 11:12, Romans 11:24; Philemon 1:16.
If in point of form the parables of Jesus closely resemble those of the Rabbins, they differ widely from them in point of matter. The latter have for themes, often though not exclusively, subjects of national or merely temporary interest e.g, unimportant scho lastic questions, exegetical problems treated in a fantastic manner, or trivial ceremonial points. What a difference, for instance, exists between the parables of the King’s Throne and Footstool and the Building of the Royal Palace on the one hand, each of them advanced in favour of an opposing view of the relative priority of the creation of heaven and earth
2 18 THE PARABLES OF JESUS respectively, and any one of the parables of Jesus on the other. We have chosen these parables for instances as dating from the time of Jesus. The school of Shammai held that the heavens were first created and then the earth, and this they attempted to prove by a parable. They likened the matter to a king who made himself a throne, and subsequently a footstool, and they appealed to Isa. Ixvi. 1, “ Heaven is My throne, and the earth My foot stool,” in support of their view. The school of Hillel held a contrary opinion. They likened the matter to a king who was building a palace, and who naturally built first the lower part of the edifice and then the upper; and in confirmation of this opinion they cited Genesis 2:4: “on the day that Jahweh Elohim made earth and heaven.” On the other hand, the central theme of the parables of Jesus is the Kingdom of God, as, indeed, it is of all His teaching.
Many of them open with the words: “ The Kingdom of Heaven is likened,” etc, and even where we find no such introduction, the lesson conveyed has a more or less direct reference to the Kingdom and to the dispositions of soul which fitness for it presupposes. There is no THE PARABLES OF JESUS 19 parable of His which has not a permanent interest: they all teach religious or ethical truths whose significance is equally valid for every age and every country. The duty of forgiveness, the love of the Heavenly Father for erring and repentant souls, the efficacy of persevering prayer, the necessity of the robe of grace, the duty of making the best use of the gifts entrusted to us, the obligation of watching and of being always ready, charity the test of acceptableness, the duty of thankfulness for pardon received- such are some of the weighty subjects with which Our Lord’s parables deal.
It is a characteristic indication of the in credulous spirit of the age that in recent years the parables of Jesus have been used for a novel purpose, that of demonstrating His historical existence. And the validity of this demonstration depends not only on the fact that all the parables breathe the spirit of one Personality, but also on the employment in them of precisely those images and figures which what we knew of Him besides would lead us to expect images and figures far removed from the life of court, and camp, and taken from the everyday life of the lowly.
20 THE PARABLES OF JESUS
We meet with the husbandman scattering the seed in the fields, the fisherman dragging his nets to land and sorting what he has taken, the labourer returning from the field and serving his master’s table before attending to his own wants. We see the ploughman behind his animals, his eyes steadily fixed on the ploughshare as it turns up the soil before him. The shepherd seeks diligently the sheep that has gone astray, or, when evening comes, separates the sheep from the goats, which all day long have grazed or browsed together in the fields or on the hills. The trees budding in the spring and giving promise of the approaching summer furnish a reminder of the signs that shall precede the coming of the Son of Man, the flowers of the field which bloom so bravely to-day, and to-morrow are cast as fuel into the oven, and are thus more shortlived still than man, inspire us with confidence in Our Heavenly Father Who clothes them, frail and evanes centas they are, with a beauty which excels the glory of Solomon himself. Everywhere we meet the same humble images, the same local colouring; and even when kings and THE PARABLES OF JESUS 21 courts are mentioned, they are spoken of in terms that betray no close personal acquaintance with them. Beyond all this, varied as the images are, we find everywhere a unity in variety, the same outlook, the same spirit and purpose animating the whole; and if sometimes in the figurative half the figures are local or temporary, the spiritual truths which they illustrate belong to no one age or nation, but have a value which is not affected or circumscribed by the limits of time or space.
VI.
If we abstract from the matter of Our Lord’s parables, and leave out of consideration such of them as are mere similitudes, they may be divided into three classes: The parable pure and simple; the allegory; and mixed parables which partake of the nature of both. 1 We have
1 This division is scarcely adequate. There is a group of four narratives, all found in St. Luke’s Gospel the Good Samaritan (x. 30-35); the Foolish Rich Man (xii. 16-21), the Rich Man and Lazarus (xvi. 19-31); the Pharisee and the Publican (xviii. 9-14) each of which conveys immediately and directly a moral or religious csson by means of an example, any figurative element they may contain being merely accidental or subsidiary.
22 THE PARABLES OF JESUS
Already given definitions of the pure parable and the allegory, and stated the difference between them. It is of vital importance for the correct interpretation of any parable in particular to know to what class it belongs, and to this each parable in itself will give the clue. As regards the general question of interpretation, two mistaken courses are to be avoided. On the one hand, we must not pedantically insist on treating all the parables of Jesus as pure parables; and, on the other, we must not allow our imagination to run riot in seeking and finding (at least in our own belief) spiritual meanings in subordinate points where in reality they do not exist. Those who deny that any of the parables of Jesus are allegories are confronted with the allego rical explanation of the parable of the Sower which we owe to Our Lord Himself, and to evade the difficulty they have no option but to deny the genuineness of the interpretation, and to regard it as the reflection of the mind
Though, strictly speaking, they do not belong to any of the above classes,they are styled parables, two of them, indeed, the history of the Foolish Rich Man and that of the Pharisee and the Publican, by the Evangelist himself.
\ THE PARABLES OF JESUS 23 of His followers at a later period. Theunjustifiable and arbitrary nature of such a view is patent on the face of it, and its falsity is rendered still more evident by an examination of the rabbinical parables of the time of Jesus, many of which are in the nature of allegories. On the other hand, we must guard against an allegorical interpretation of those parables which do not admit of it.
Such a course, by making the signification of the details of the parable uncertain, would tend to empty it of its meaning. A single example will make this plain. In the parable of the Ten Virgins, the figurative half is given in considerable detail, while the real half which it illustrates is expressed in a single sentence: “ Watch ye, therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour.” And yet we cannot regard it as a pure parable free from all element of allegory. It is, how ever, one thing to allow this, and another to take it as intended by Jesus as an allegory pure and simple. It has, indeed, been often treated as such by men whose genius compels us to pay homage to their authority; but the history of its interpretation shows how widely 24 THE PARABLES OF JESUS they have differed among themselves as to what precisely the details stand for, and how hopeless in consequence it would be for us to look for any assured certainty on the points in question. The general lesson, the need of watchfulness, a need based on our ignorance of the day and hour of Our Lord’s Coming, is, however, obvious and simple, and sufficient for all practical purposes. A further consideration will tend, at least for some, to confirm what has been said. Commentators ofundoubted learning, orthodoxy, and critical acumen, have regarded as identical parables which at first sight would seem different e.g, the parable of the Talents (Matt. xxv.
14-30) and that of the Pounds (Luke xix.
12-27). The lesson which both parables teach is in the main the same; but the variations in point of detail between them are numerous. Obviously, therefore, whoever accepts their identity must likewise acknowledge that the points of detail where they differ should not be so interpreted as if they had a particular significance.
It might be objected that, if we rejected the allegorical interpretation (of course, only THE PARABLES OF JESUS 25 where it was not based on solid grounds), the exposition of some of the parables would necessarily be dry and uninteresting, and that the allegorical method of interpretation had at least the merit of imparting a certain vividness and force to the exposition. To this we may answer that, even though we should explain the parables without going beyond the bounds that a sane exegesisprescribes, there is sufficient room for the legiti mate play of fancy and imagination inpresenting at least the figurative half in such a manner as would impress the modern mind without at the same time violating the canons of good taste. This is a point of no small importance: it may be said that in proportion to our vivid realization of the figurative half will be the strength of the appeal which the spiritual lesson derived from it makes to our intelligence.
VII.
We have seen how the parables of Jesus are largely concerned with the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven, and with the dispositions required in those who are to have a share in it. The English word “ king- 26 THE PARABLES OF JESUS dom “ would naturally suggest to most people a geographical notion or idea of locality, inasmuch as the notion which we attach to the word is primarily a geographical one. When we speak of the United Kingdom, we mean certain islands in the West of Europe; and by the term Kingdom of Spain we desig nate the territory over which the King of Spain rules. And the use of the term “ Kingdom of Heaven “ instead of “ Kingdom of God “ tends to confirm the misapprehension, since the word “ Heaven “ suggests an idea of locality. Both terms, however, are identical.
We learn from some of the later books of the Old Testament, from several passages in the New, and from the rabbinical writings, that the Jews very often substituted the word “ heaven “ or some other word for the Divine Name, and that out of reverence for the Deity. We all remember the words addressed by the Prodigal Son to his father: “ Father, I have sinned against heaven,” -that is, against God” and before thee.” 1 Jesus Himself, when adjured by Caiaphas, foretold that the high-priest would yet see Him “ sitting at 1 Luke 15:18,Luke 15:21.
Till: PARABLES OF JESUS 27 the right hand of the power “ that is, of God; and in the Epistle to the Hebrews He is said to have sat down “ on the right hand of the Majesty on high. 1 - The Greek word Basileia, rendered “ Kingdom,” primarily signifies sovereignty; its concrete sense is derivative. The Jewish contemporaries of Jesus were quite familiar with the term Kingdom of God, a term which had its origin in Old Testament times.
Israel differed from other nations in this respect, that whatever form its government might assume, God Himself, at least through out the entire period over which the activity of the prophets extended, was its King in a special and visible manner. We here take the term “ prophets “ in a wide sense. They were His ambassadors to His people, who were in a very special sense His subjects, they spoke in His name. They rebuked them when unfaithful, and conveyed to them the Divine warnings; they showed them how the wrath of God might be appeased; and in difficult political emergencies they pointed out to them what course they should take. i Mark 14:62:2 Hebrews 1:3.
28 THE PARABLES OF JESUS At the time their mission was by no means invariably successful, and yet it never wholly failed of its effect. Even though their contemporaries often turned a deaf ear to warning, threat, and promise alike, the descen dants of these contemporaries revered their memory, and in many cases preserved their writings, which they regarded as inspired by God Himself. The history of Israel was a chequered one: sometimes it seemed as if God had utterly forsaken them, as if they were a people over whom He had never borne rule. 1 And yet when the fortunes of His people were at their lowest ebb, in the consciousness of many Jahweh was still King, His Kingdom was an everlasting kingdom, His promises were sure. In this way the term “ Kingdom of God,” with the idea which it represented, continued to exist till New Testament times. A term of the kind, in volving as it does a certain vagueness, is liable in the course of centuries to have its meaning modified, and this was the fate of the term “ Kingdom of God.”
According to St. Matthew, the Baptist 1 Isa. Ixiii. 19. THE PARABLES OF JESUS 29 himself announced to the people that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand. 1 When John had been cast into prison, Jesus entered on His public ministry in Galilee, and the burden of His preaching may be summed up in the words: “ The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand: repent and believe the Gospel.” 2 This, too, was the message which He commissioned His Apostles to deliver. It was not only in the early stages of His ministry that He gave the chief place in His teaching to the Kingdom of God, and to this Kingdom as at hand: it retained even to the end the same prominent position in His Gospel.
We look in vain to Our Lord’s words for any definition of the term, or for any description of it that would be equivalent to a definition. He contented Himself with the statement that it was near at hand, and with exhorting His hearers to prepare for its approach; but the nature of the Kingdom lay shrouded in a certain obscurity which He did not feel called on to dispel. To His hearers the term presented no difficulty. For them the inau- 1 Mutt. iii. J. 2 Mark 1:14 f.
30 THE PARABLES OF JESUS guration of the Kingdom meant the liberation of their country from the yoke of Rome, the restoration of the sovereignty to Israel, the spiritual regeneration of the people, the return of the Diaspora to the Holy Land, and the resurrection of their dead. They believed that the Kingdom would be ushered in by a catastrophe which would destroy their ene mies such a judgment the prophets had foretold 1 and they further looked for the fulfilment in a more or less literal manner of the predictions which proclaimed the future greatness and happiness of the chosen people, in a golden age, on the sacred soil hallowed to them by a thousand memories, and secured to them and to their children by a covenant which might not be disannulled. We may suppose that in the conception of the Kingdom as a whole, with all its implications, the material or the spiritual element preponderated according to the mind of the individual.
Such being the popular idea of the Kingdom, it was only natural that it should be eagerly desired. We find the Pharisees asking Jesus when the Kingdom of God should come, 2 and 1 Joel 3:1 ff., Agg. 2:21 /. 2 Luke 17:20 THE PARABLES OF JESUS 31 on His last journey to Jerusalem His hearers were of the opinion that the Kingdom of God would immediately appear. 1 The Apostles shared the popular notions of the nature of the Kingdom and of its imminence: they hoped that Jesus was the destined Saviour of Israel. His crucifixion indeed shattered their dreams; but when they beheld Him risen, the hopes that had been wrecked by His ignominious death sprang into life once more. The last recorded words which they addressed to Him took the form of that question on the answer to which so much for them depended, 14 Lord, dost Thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 2 The sequel falsified their expectations; and we, the heirs of the experience of so many centuries, must interpret otherwise the burden of Our Lord’s teaching, the Kingdom of God.
It is an old objection that in the Gospels Jesus is represented as speaking in a manner that would lend a certain colour to the popular belief. He promised the Apostles that in the new birth, when the Son of Man should sit upon the throne of His glory, they also 1 Luke 19:11:2 Acts y G 32 THE PARABLES OF JESUS should sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 1 And, again, He told them: “Verily, I say unto you, there is no one who hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for My sake and for the Gospel’s sake, who shall not receive a hundredfold now at this time; houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions: and in the world to come life everlasting.” 2 When sending His Apostles to preach, He assured them: “ Verily, I say unto you, ye shall not finish the cities of Israel till the Son of Man come.” 3 At another time He told His disciples that some were standing there who should not taste death till they saw the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom. 4 A few days before His death, after describing the events which should accompany the consummation of the world, He added: “ Verily, I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass away till all these things take place.” 5 And after His resur rection, in answer to Peter’s inquiry as to 1 Matthew 19:28:2 Mark 10:29 /. Mark 10:3Matthew 10:23.
4 Matthew 16:28:5 Matthew 24:34. THE PARABLES OF JESUS 33 what was reserved for John, He used words whfch Peter might pardonably interpret of His speedy return: “ If I will have him to remain until I come, what is it to thee1
Whatever difficulties these and similar sayings of Jesus may create, there can be no doubt that a serious examination of His utterances leads forcibly to the conclusion that He intended the Kingdom in a wholly spiritual sense, and that His language, rightly understood, does not oblige us to construe it as pointing to His speedy return. The Old Testament prophecies concerning the Kingdom of God had this in common with many other prophecies namely, that they were not destined to be fulfilled according to the letter and as understood by those to whom they were immediately addressed. The history of revelation shows that God has always acted like a wise and loving father who practises a prudent economy in communicating infor mation to his children. He revealed Himself and His will to His people, not all at once, but, so to speak, by instalments, adapting not
1 Johnxxi.22.
3 34 THE PARABLES OF JESUS merely the matter, but also the manner, of His revelation, to the stage of spiritual development which they had reached. 1 Many of the prophecies concerning the future of Israel would lead one to believe that the coming Kingdom would be a temporal one and such a view would contain this element of truth, that the Kingdom was to be inaugurated here on earth by the Messiah, the personage whom the Jews conceived as exercising dominion in it. Jesus in His teaching used the terms with which His hearers were familiar, but He gave to what was earthly or temporal in their in tuitions a spiritual meaning. The Jews as heirs of the promises of the Kingdom had a prior right to the invitation to enter it; and it was only when they had judged themselves unworthy of eternal life that the Apostles felt themselves constrained to turn to the Gen tiles. 2 The narrow circle of the Apostles and their first followers developed into the Christian Church, the members of which began here below a life in the Spirit, a life which was to receive its consummation and its crown in the world to come. The Kingdom, then, is not 1 Hebrews 1:1,? Acts 13:46. THE PARABLES OF JESUS 85 exclusively a kingdom existent here on earth or in the life to come, but one which, begun here, is perfected and eternized for the indi vidual in the hereafter. To our minds the existence of the individual is divided into two periods, with a well-marked line between them: the period of our earthly existence, and that of our life beyond the grave. To the mind of Jesus, which in one act took in heaven and earth, no sharp line seemed to separate these periods of our existence; and this fact will help to clear the confusion which results from the apparently varying meanings which the term “ Kingdom of God “ assumes according as it refers to this present life or to that which is to come.
If, then, we examine the various passages in the Gospels where the term Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven occurs, we shall see that no one formula can adequately express the concept that underlies it. At one time the term has an ethical sense, at another an eschatological; now it implies a reference to this present life, now to the life to come.
Still, in spite of the varying senses which the term is used to express, it is plain that the 36 THE PARABLES OF JESUS ethico-religious sense is the really essential sense which is inseparable from it.” Had Jesus, as His followers believed, meant to set up a temporal kingdom, with Jerusalem as its seat, the destruction of the Roman domination would have been a necessarypreliminary or consequence. Yet Jesus nowhere shows any hostility to Caesar. He had but one enemy to face, one opponent to encounter, and that was Satan. Satan was at once the foe of God and of man; Jesus taught His disciples to pray for deliverance from him; 1 and He already saw the overthrow of his power. 2 Indeed, in more than one saying of His, Satan is spoken of as the enemy. If, then, Satan was the enemy of Jesus, and if men were His enemies only in as far as knowingly or otherwise they took part with Satan, it follows necessarily that, as Satan was a spiritual foe, the Kingdom, the establishment and spread of which constituted the object of His mission, must have been a kingdom of the spiritual order.
It is further objected that the conception
1 Matthew 6:13.
2 Luke 10:18; John 12:31, John 16:11. r THE PARABLES OF JESUS 37 of the Kingdom as other-worldly arose in course of time from the non-fulfilment of the dreams of those who looked for the establishment of a temporal kingdom. Specious arguments have been adduced in support of this contention, but the view itself is refuted by the general tenor of Our Lord’s words concerning the Kingdom, and in particular by the conditions for participation in it that He laid down, and by the dispositions which He required of those who were to be members of it. The longest discourse of Jesus found in the Synoptic Gospels is the version of the Sermon on the Mount contained in St. Matthew which extends through three entire chapters.
It contains scarcely a single passage which with any tolerable degree of plausibility can be made to refer to a temporal kingdom. The Beatitudes with which it begins sum up the demands which Jesus made on those who might choose to follow Him, and these demands poverty in spirit, meekness, patience, purity of heart are exclusively of an ethical or spiritual nature. If this is so, and we need not labour the point, the Kingdom itself must be of an ethical and spiritual nature: the 38 THE PARABLES OF JESUS inference is obviously valid. Besides, as in the teaching of Jesus, the alternative to sharing in the Kingdom is, not exclusion from earthly felicity, but condemnation to ever lasting woe, 1 the antithesis to the Kingdom reveals to us the nature of the Kingdom itself. That to the mind of Jesus a considerable space of time would elapse before His Second Coming is evident from the parables. There things are represented as going on in a slow and leisurely manner until the end of the world. Elsewhere we find His words in direct opposition to the popular idea that the Kingdom would be ushered in by a catastrophe visible to all. On the contrary, it would not come in such a way as would attract universal attention: though men were not aware of it, it had already begun. 2 The parables repre sent its growth as corresponding to the manner of its inauguration. Its further progress would be along the lines of a gradual and apparently natural evolution; and the hearts of men, not Palestine or Jerusalem, would be its primary and congenial seat. For this development time was a necessary condition.
1 Matthew 25:41:2 Luke 17:20 /. THE PARABLES OF JESUS 39
Whether there was question of the growth of the seed in the individual soul, or of the action of the word represented as leaven upon masses of people, or of the development of the tiny mustard-seed into a tree, the various processes progressed by almost insensible gradations, without any noticeable interruption or any sudden transformation effected in theirrespective subjects. A little reflection will show us that time is of the essence of the law of growth. In the case of the Kingdom there was besides an extrinsic reason why the Second Coming should be delayed namely, the necessity of allowing time for the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles. 1 With all this, the various indications contained in the parables that the Parousia was not so near at hand as the disciples imagined are in perfect harmony. In the parable of the Virgins we find the bridegroom tarrying; 2 the owner of the talents which he has entrusted to his servants to trade with returns only after a long time; 3 the case is supposed that the servant left in charge may think that he can safely neglect his duty in view of his master’s 1 Mark 13:10:2 Matthew 25:5:3 Matthew 25:19.
40 THE PARABLES OF JESUS prolonged absence. 1 Finally, to one who views thingssubspecie ceternitatis, as Jesus did, a thousand years appear but as one day (2 Peter 3:8). The objection that Jesus believed that His triumphant return would not be long delayed has been mainly, though not exclusively, based upon certain passages in the great eschatological discourse recorded Matt, xxiv.; Mark xiii.; Luke xxi. Critics of the Liberal school must feel that these passages afford no support to the objection, since to their mind they are not genuine utterances of Jesus, with the character of which, they allege, they are quite out of keeping. They look upon the discourse as composite; and they hold that in it is embedded what they term the small or synoptic apocalypse which contains the pas sages in question. In their view this apoca lypse circulated in the form of a fly-leaf before it was inserted in the Gospels, and they appeal in proof of their contention to the words: “ let him that readeth understand “ words which would be inappropriate in a spoken discourse, and would be in place only in a written 1 Matthew 24:48. THE PARABLES OF JESUS 41 document. 1 They allege that the vagueness of the language in this document, which is found in its most primitive form in St. Matthew, points to a date earlier than that which they assign for the appearance of the earliest of the Gospels (St. Mark) in its present shape, the greater precision of the language in Luke showing a dependence on the incipient fulfilment of the prediction (ver. 20) which enabled that Evangelist to write in the light of contemporaneous events. Catholics, of course, are not at liberty to get rid of the objection by adopting this view, which is incompatible with the dogma of inspiration, since it contradicts the statements of the Evangelists, which ascribe the entire discourse to Jesus. In it He treats of two subjects, the Destruction of the Temple and His Second Coming. Whether He spoke the entire discourse on one occasion, as the narrative implies, or whether we have here a combination of two distinct speeches, each with its own subject, is difficult to discover. The fact that St. Luke has elsewhere
1 These words, however, can, to say the least, be just as naturally understood to refer to the passage cited from Daniel as to an independent separate document.
42 THE PARABLES OF JESUS
(chap, xvii.) a separate eschatological speech of Jesus which is in partial agreement with St. Matthew’s version would favour the view that Jesus delivered two discourses, at different times, which the Evangelists fused into one.
It is, however, far from conclusive. We have a Lucan parallel (chap, xxi.) to Matt. xxiv. and Mark xiii, not only for the Destruction of the Temple, but also for the Second Coming; and the ideas and language in the section in chapter xvii. give no ground for believing that it was detached from the source or sources used by the Evangelist for the longer discourse in chapter xxi, and placed in its proper historical setting, as a recent commentator seems to think, especially as there is nothing to indicate with any approach to clearness the time or place of its delivery. We are there forethrown back on taking the discourse in Matt. xxiv. and parallels as we find it. In it, as we have said, Jesus deals with two events, distant in time yet internally connected.
Like the ancient prophets, He did not fully reveal the subjects of which He spoke: He allowed them to remain enshrouded in partial obscurity. Hence we are not always able to THE PARABLES OF JESUS 43 discern with perfect clearness whether he speaks of the one event or of the other. His object was a practical one: not to gratify an idle curiosity, but to prepare men’s minds for what was to happen, and this preparation would remain essentially the same whether in His teaching there was question of His visible Coming or of His invisible virtual Advent in those historical occurrences which would reveal His Father’s plan. Just as some of thepredictions of the Old Testament prophets have been fulfilled in a sense beyond what it was in the power of their contemporaries even to divine, so in the work of Jesus, though still unfinished, we behold a realization of His ideals which His hearers could not possibly have expected. We may therefore say that it is only the fulfilment of His predictions that can enable men to grasp their full meaning.
Besides, as a rule, men can only judge of things by the standards and circumstances of their own times; and when prophecy andful filment are separated by a long interval, as the world does not stand still meanwhile, but is in a continual state of evolution, a new factor is thereby introduced which affects and 44 THE PARABLES OF JESUS modifies the entire situation. The future indeed lay unfolded even to the human gaze of Jesus, but He spoke in language conformable to the habits of thought and intellectual out look of those who heard Him.
We think it well to sum up briefly what we have said on the subject of this section.
1. The near approach of the Kingdom of God was the burden of the preaching of Jesus.
2. He used the old term with which His hearers were familiar, but He gave it a new meaning.
3. He did not at the outset of His public ministry correct the error of His hearers in continuing to understand the old term in its popular sense. He preferred to disabuse their minds gradually and in a manner more or less indirect of the illusions to which they so tenaciously clung.
4. For this purpose He used the parables, in which whatever is obscure receives light from the Sermon on the Mount, especially from the Beatitudes with which it opens.
5. The Kingdom would have the note of universality. Not physical descent from Abraham, nor the scrupulous fulfilment of the THE PARABLES OF JESUS 45 requirements of the Law, but poverty of spirit, purity in heart, and a hunger and thirst after holiness of life, were the essential conditions for entrance into it.
6. Though Jesus nowhere defines His idea of the Kingdom, particular discourses of His as well as the general trend of His teaching leave no doubt that He understood it in a sense essentially spiritual and ethical.
7. The Kingdom would have a double phase: the present here on earth, preparatory and imperfect; the final in Heaven, when it will appear in all its purity and perfection.
Later on the study of particular parables will show how the Kingdom has an inherent power both of organic growth and of expansion in time and space, and how it will contain unclean elements owing to the agency of the devil and its own efforts towards the extension of its membership.