01.11. Introductory

Introductory In an early chapter of his Gospel Luke tells of a discourse delivered by Jesus in the synagogue of Nazareth on the Acceptable Year of the Lord, and records that His hearers wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth.[1] That scene was thoroughly congenial to the taste of the Pauline Evangelist, and he took it out of its historical connection and put it in the forefront of his narrative of our Lord’s public ministry, assigning to it the same place in his Gospel which is occupied by the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s, that he might introduce Christ to his readers at the very outset as the preacher of glad tidings. Not less congenial to his liking was the phrase he employs to describe the character of the Nazareth discourse: Words of Grace, λόγοι τῆς χάριτος. One recommendation of it doubtless was that it suggested a connection between the doctrine of Christ and the doctrine of Paul, in which the idea of grace occupies a very prominent place. But it was, apart from that consideration, a well-chosen title or motto. For though the word grace, χάρις, is of very rare occurrence in the Gospels, the thing signified is manifest in every page: Jesus as He appeared among men in His public ministry was indeed, as the fourth evangelist says, full of grace. And of all the evangelists Luke has done most to justify the representation by the account he has given of our Lord’s teaching; for many words of Jesus that are peculiarly and emphatically words of grace have been reported by him alone. Among the words of grace spoken by Jesus a prominent place belongs to the group of parables now to engage our attention, much the larger number of which are peculiar to Luke, among that number being some which are the very poetry and quintessence of the gospel of pardon and of Divine love; very specially those to be studied in the next two chapters, to which may be justly given by way of eminence the title of the Parables of Grace.[2] [1] Luk 4:16-30.

[2] Godet gives this title to the three parables in Luke xv., but the parable of the Two Debtors may well be classed along with these. The four form a distinct group connected together by one aim, as shall appear forthwith. A peculiar charm surrounds the doctrine of grace as taught by Jesus, not in dogmatic formulae defended by controversial dialectics as in Paulinism, but in poetic utterances of exquisite simplicity and beauty, yet infinitely suggestive. The doctrine is of course less developed, less dogmatically complete, but just on that account the more attractive. To the gospel of grace as preached by Jesus belongs the charm of the dawn, which is a delight to all mankind, which our Aryan ancestors in their childish wonder even went the length of worshipping under the name of Ushas. Christ’s preaching was the dawn of the era of grace, when the Dayspring from on high visited this world, to give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.[1]

[1] Luk 1:78-79. Let us turn our eyes towards the mild sweet light of this morning of our eternal hope with awestruck humble gratitude. In many of the parables belonging to the class now to be considered there is a striking union of the true, the good, and the beautiful. Jesus appears in them the Artist, the Sage, the Philanthropist, and the Hero, all in one. From the parables of grace we may learn the genius of genuine evangelic piety, the beau ideal of a truly evangelic ministry. The term ’evangelical’ ought to signify a Christ-like spirit of love for the ’lost,’ combined with a wide, genial culture, and a manly type of character. In actual use the term sometimes denotes something widely different—a type of religion which combines strenuous advocacy of the doctrines of grace with an attitude of hostility or at least of indifference to culture, and with an ethical character which, in respect of scrupulosity, censoriousness, and narrowness of sympathy, bears a painfully close resemblance to Pharisaism as we know it from the Gospels. Going to the fountain-head of evangelic life we discover that this unattractive combination is not necessary, but only an accident; due probably to the circumstance that the evangelical faith united to such heterogeneous attributes has been received not as a revelation from heaven, but by tradition from a former generation. The parables of grace are in their substance intensely evangelical. But in the form of thought homage is done to æsthetics; taste, culture, art receives due recognition, not perhaps intentional but only instinctive, but for that very reason the more effectually vindicating for these things a place of their own. Whether from deliberate design or from the unconscious action of a happy genius matters not, the fact is that in these parables we find displayed a literary taste and grace unsurpassed, inimitable. Then, when we consider the occasions which called forth many of these parables, we see how utterly antagonistic to Pharisaism the true evangelic spirit is. The most remarkable were spoken in self-defence—in defence of a habitual disregard of superstitious scruples, and of an unconventional charity and width of sympathy most offensive to the Pharisaic mind; were, in short, Christ’s apology for a way of life utterly anti-Pharisaical; holy, but not severe towards the unholy; pure, but not puritanic; conscientious, but unfettered by the commandments of men; wearing a noble aspect of liberty, and breadth, and power. This is only what we should expect from One in whom dwelt Divine charity in all its fulness. For charity brings liberty to the conscience, and largeness to the heart, and light and beauty to the mind; banishes feebleness, narrowness, and fear, and endows the character with health, vigour, and courage. The Parables of Grace may be distributed into groups as follows:

1. The Two Debtors, and the Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, and the Lost Son—four, constituting Christ’s apology for loving sinners.

2. The Children of the Bride-chamber (including the New Patch on an Old Garment, and New Wine in Old Skins) being Christ’s apology for the joy of disciples.

3. The Lowest Seats at Feasts, and the Pharisee and the Publican; or the kingdom of God for the humble.

4. The Great Supper, or the kingdom for the hungry and the needy.

5. The Good Samaritan, or charity the true sanctity.

6. The Unrighteous Steward, or that charity covers a multitude of sins.

7. The Rich Man and Lazarus, and. the Unmerciful Servant, or implacability and inhumanity the unpardonable sins. Twelve in all. The first group being the evangelic parables par excellence, some general observations on them may here be added as a contribution towards the illustration of the genius of the whole class. These four parables, as already hinted, are connected together by a common aim, that being to furnish an answer to those who found fault with Jesus for associating with the disreputable classes of Jewish society. They are Christ’s apology for loving sinners, and only when this fact is steadily kept in view can they be fully understood and successfully expounded. It is somewhat difficult for us to keep the fact in view, so completely has Christian civilization advanced beyond the stage at which such conduct as was found fault with in Jesus could be regarded as needing defence. We can hardly realise that the Founder of our faith was seriously put upon His defence for an "enthusiasm of humanity" which we now regard as His glory, and as the most effective evidence of the Divinity of His doctrine. And when we do by an effort succeed in realising it, we are apt to think that the fault-finders were a peculiarly barbarous and heartless class of men. But in truth it was perfectly natural that they should find fault; they had a perfectly good conscience in doing so; they thought they did well to be angry with Jesus, and with the ideas then current in the world they could hardly do otherwise. For the charity of Jesus was a new thing under the sun, alien not only to the spirit of Pharisaism, but also to the aristocratic genius of ethnic religion. Hence Christ’s love for the lost appeared a fault quite as much to the heathen philosopher Celsus as to the holy men of Judaea. In his attack on Christianity he alluded to it as a characteristic fact that the chosen companions of Jesus were disreputable persons, publicans and sailors, and he represented the preachers of the gospel in his own day as saying in effect: Let no one who is wise or educated approach; but if any one is illiterate, foolish, or untaught, a babe in knowledge, he may confidently come to us; and as aiming at making converts of the silly and senseless, of slaves, women, and children. In honest amazement and disgust he asked: "Whence this preference for the sinful?" contrasting with this strange procedure of Christians the more rational practice of Pagans in inviting to initiation into their mysteries only men of pure and exemplary lives. "While Christians address to men this call: Whosoever is a sinner, whosoever is unwise, whosoever is a babe, in short, whosoever is a κακοδαίμων, him the kingdom of God will receive—we, calling men to participation in our sacred rites, say: Whoso has pure hands and is wise of speech, whoso is clean from all impiety, whoso has a conscience void of offence, whoso liveth a just life, let him come hither."[1] If Origen had to defend Christianity against such a charge brought by a philosopher of the second Christian century, we cannot wonder that Christ had to meet a similar charge as advanced by his Jewish contemporaries, who deemed it a positive religious duty to keep themselves aloof from the unholy, in accordance with the negative notion of holiness which not unnaturally had been bred in their minds by the election and the whole past history of Israel, and the peculiar character of her religious institutions. All new things have to fight for their right to existence, and there never was a greater novelty, never a more audacious innovation, than the charity of Jesus; and therefore it was, as a matter of course, violently and repeatedly assailed, and the question often asked: Why eatest thou, why consortest thou, with publicans and sinners?

[1] Origen, ’Contra Celsum,’ lib. i., c. 62.

Jesus was ready with His answer; and as the incapacity of those who interrogated Him to understand His conduct was great and their ignorance deep, the answer he gave was ample, and his apology varied. It is to be gathered from the four parables of the first group, and from another word which may be called a parable-germ, a proverbial saying needing only to be expanded into a history to become a parable; that, viz., spoken at Matthew’s feast, in reply to those who expressed surprise at Jesus being a guest among a gathering of publicans: They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.[1]

[1] Mat 9:13. The apology embraces three great ideas, which in general terms may be expressed thus:

1. Christianity is a remedial system, and therefore it busies itself with those who most manifestly need remedy.

2. It has faith in the redeemableness of human beings however sunk in sin and misery; nay, it believes in the possibility of extremes meeting, of the last becoming first, of the greatest sinner becoming the greatest saint.

3. It thinks the meanest and lowest of mankind worth saving, has such joy in saving the: lost, that it can take delight in saving one sinner repenting, not a picked sample, but any one taken at random. In other words, man at his worst is a being of priceless worth in God’s sight, as a moral personality. The first of these thoughts was the truth hinted at by Jesus in the word spoken in the house of Matthew, under the form of a personal apology. The point of the saying lies in the suggested comparison of Himself to a physician. That comparison accepted, all the rest follows as a matter of course. No one wonders at a physician visiting most frequently the houses of those who are afflicted with the gravest maladies. In doing so he is only showing a becoming enthusiasm in his profession, an enthusiasm which all regard as a virtue, the want of which would cause him to be lightly esteemed as one whose heart was not in his vocation. Neither is any one surprised that a physician, though refined in his personal tastes and habits, is not nice and dainty in the pursuit of his calling, avoiding with disgust loathsome diseases; but goes without hesitation wherever duty calls, though every sense should be offended. All that is in the spirit of his profession. He is a physician, and therefore cannot afford to be fastidious. Even so would men have thought of Christ’s behaviour, had it occurred to them to regard Him as a Spiritual Physician, and the religion He came to establish as before all things redemptive. A spiritual physician must visit those who are spiritually diseased, and a religion of redemption cannot consistently be exclusive and dainty, but must address itself to the million, and be ready to lay its healing hand even on such as are afflicted with the most repulsive moral maladies. Had Christ come to be a mere rabbi or teacher of the law, then He might consistently have said of the ignorant multitude: This people that know not the law are accursed. Had He come as a philosopher, He might appropriately enough have addressed Himself exclusively to the cultivated, disregarding the illiterate vulgar. Had He come offering to initiate men into a system of religious mysteries, then He might have confined His invitations to the privileged few, neglecting the many as unworthy of initiation, as Celsus thought He and His followers should have done. But He came not as a rabbi, or a philosopher, or a mystagogue, but as a Healer of human souls; and that was an occupation with which the world was unfamiliar, and hence the need for those apologetic proverbs and parables. The parables of the Two Debtors spoken at another feast, taken along with its application, has for its didactic kernel the second of the three foregoing truths. That Jesus, while ostensibly defending the woman against the evil thoughts of His host, was in reality on His own defence on that occasion also, for the same offence of loving the sinful, there can be no reasonable doubt. The evangelist evidently introduces the story in the place where it occurs to illustrate by what kind of conduct He earned for Himself the sneering epithet, or nickname, "the friend of publicans and sinners,"[1] to which he alludes in the immediately preceding context, and how He justified that conduct when it was called in question. And the parable must be studied from this point of view, and when so studied it will be found to contain a most important contribution to the apologetic of redeeming love. Its drift is to teach that vast capacities for discipleship are latent in the depraved and despised classes of society, that thence in truth may be obtained the best citizens for the Divine kingdom. A very good reason for attending to these classes, if true; and the virtue of the parable is to show how easily it may be true; for what more likely than that those who are forgiven most should love most?

[1] Luk 7:34. The three parables concerning the joy of finding things or persons lost complete the apology of Jesus for loving the sinful, by emphasising the truth that the lowest of men are worth saving. After you have said the worst of these "publicans and sinners," whom all morally-respectable persons shun, what does it amount to? Simply to this, that they are lost; lost to God, to righteousness, to wisdom, to all the chief ends and uses of life. But if so, what a joy if they could be found! All men have joy in finding things lost; shepherds in finding lost sheep, housewives in finding lost pieces of money, fathers in finding lost sons: why then should there not be joy also in finding morally-lost men? It is the desire of such joy that moves me to mix with the depraved and the disreputable. Surely a very good reason, if there be a tolerable hope of success in the quest.

These preliminary hints will prepare us for studying sympathetically the whole class of parables which are next to engage our attention, and specially the four which come first.