"H. & S." DOLLAR LIBRARY Similar to this Volume THE TRAINING OF THE TWELVE. By Prof. A. B. Bruce, D. D. THE PARABOLIC TEACHING OF CHRIST. By Prof. A. B. Bruce, D. D. THE MIRACULOUS ELEMENT IN THE GOS- PELS. By Prof. A. B. Bruce, D. D. THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST. By Prof. A. B. Bruce, D. D. THE LIFE OF HENRY DRUMMOND. By Princi- pal George Adam Smith. GESTA CHRISTI. By Charles Loring Brace. THE APOCRYPHAL AND LEGENDARY LIFE OF CHRIST. By J. DeQuincy Donehoo. INDIA: ITS LIFE AND THOUGHT. By John P. Jones, D.D. THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE CHRISTIAN RELI- GION. By Principal A. M. Fairbairn. PULPIT PRAYERS. By Alexander Maclaren, D. D. LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF PREACH- ING. By John Ker, D.D. RELIGIONS OF AUTHORITY AND THE RELI- GION OF THE SPIRIT. By Auguste Sabatier. THE LIFE OF CHRIST AS REPRESENTED IN ART. By Dean Frederick W. Farrar. THE ^Parabolic Teachi of Christ A Systematic and Critical Study OF THE PARABLES OF OUR LORD BY ALEXANDER BALMAIN BRUCE, D.D. M Professor of Apologetics and New Testament Exegesis, Free Church College, Glasgow. Fourth Revised Edition HODDER & STOUGHTON NEW YORK GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY Ll< 6 /<%/ The Sower ... * m. 13 3. The Tares ... n M ... 43 3. The Drag-net ... ... ... 63 - 4. The Treasure ... ... M 70 5. The Pearl _ ... . ... 71 6. The Mustard Seed ...... 93 7. The Leaven ^. 106 8. The Blade, the Ear, and the Full Corn . 117 9. The Selfish Neighbour 149 10. The Unjust Judge 157 11. The Parable of Extra Service (Unprofitable Servants) 168 12. The Hours (Labourers in the Vineyard) M . 183 13. The Talents M ... M . 200 14. The Pounds ... ... ... ... ... 215 X$. The Two Debtors 237 16. The Lost Sheep ... ... ... ... 264 rj. The Lost Drachma ... w 274 18. The Lost Son ... 279 19. The Children of the Bride-chamber 295 20. The Lowest Seat s at Stasia ... ... 309 21. The Pharisee and the Publican ... ... 312 22. The Great Supper ... m* ... 32$ 23. The Good Samaritan ... M 342 34 The Unjust Steward M ... .- 35$ ill Table of the Parables. 2$. Dives and Lazarus ... ... ... 26. The Unmerciful Servant 27. The Children in the Market-Place ... 28. The Barren Fig-tree 29. The Two Sons 30. The Wicked Husbandmen 31. The Wedding-Feast and the Wedding-Robe 32. The Unfaithful Upper Servant 33. The Ten Virgins ... m* m* 376 400 413 427 438 w# U7 459 ">^ 490 496 ' l PARABLE-GERMS. The Physician The New Patch on the Worn Garment The New Wine in the Old Skins ... The Rejected Stone The Porter The Waiting Servants ; The Good-man and the Thief ... The Wise and Foolish Builders 234 302 302 457 486 487 487 505 INTRODUCTORY. The Paiables of our Lord were of an incidental character; and perhaps the best way of studying them is not to isolate them from the general history of His ministry for separate consideration, but rather to look at them as parts of a larger whole in connection with the particular occasions which called them forth. And yet it is, to say the least, a very natural and legitimate procedure to take these parables, which form so large, so peculiar, and so precious a portion of Christ's teach- ing, apart by themselves, and make them the subject of a special study. This, accordingly, has often been done already, and doubtless it will often be done again while the world lasts. We propose to add one more to the number of the attempts which have been made to ascertain the meaning of the para- bolic utterances of Incarnate Wisdom. We enter on the task with much diffidence, yet not without the humble hope of being useful. Our one desire is to get at the kernel of spiritual truth enclosed within the parabolic shell : to get at it for our- selves, and to communicate it at the same time to others The beauty of the parables we, in common with all readers 01 the Gospels, greatly admire ; their fidelity to nature, and to the customs of the time in which they were spoken, we fully appreciate ; but we should not think of undertaking an exposi- tion of them if we had nothing more important to do than to play the part of an art-critic showing how skilfully the para- bolic picture is painted in all its details, or of an antiquarian showing how conformable is the parabolic representation to all customs of the time and place. In entering on an exposition of the parables, we are confronted at once with the question of method. In what B a rhe Parabolic Teaching of Christ, order shall we consider the subjects of our study ? Shall we take them up as they occur in the several Gospels, beginning with Matthew, then going on through Mark and Luke, as has been done by some writers ? l or shall we attempt a classification on a principle ? and if so, on what principle is the classification to be made ? A merely casual method of arrangement is certainly not desirable, if there be any thought- affinities between the parables, any recognisable characteristics common to several of them, according to which they can be arranged in groups ; for disregard of such affinities means loss of the light which related parables are fitted to throw upon each other. Now, several writers have thought they could discover certain resemblances between certain parables, and on the basis of such real or supposed resemblances have built schemes of classification by which they have been guided in their exposition. One writer, for example, the author of an elaborate and voluminous work on the parables, takes note of the fact that some of the parables have ex- planations attached to them, while others remain unexplained ; and, asking himself the question what may be the reason of the difference, comes to the conclusion that the unexplained parables are allegories and prophecies meant to hide the truth, the truth hid being not so much a doctrine as a future event, which before the time is a mystery, arcanum, or secret, while the explained parables teach a doctrine or moral lesson having a bearing on present practice. In this way the writer referred to arrives at a distribution of the parables into two great classes the prophetic and the moral, the former containing an esoteric and the latter an exoteric system of doctrine. 2 This classification has met with very little approval, and perhaps its failure has had a considerable effect in deterring other writers from all attempts at method- ical arrangement as futile. It does not follow, however, that because one attempt has proved a signal failure, all others must be equally abortive. We believe, for our part, that a grouping of the parables based on real and important re- semblances, and at least approximately correct and complete, 1 Archbishop Trench, and after him Mr. Arnot. 1 Greswell : ' An Exposition of the Parables aud of other parts of the Gospels/ in five vols. Introductory, 3 is possible ; and without staying to enumerate all the methods of grouping which we have met with in books, we shall proceed at once to indicate the principle of distribution on which we ourselves mean to proceed. We observe, then, that the teaching ministry of our Lord \ falls naturally asunder into three divisions. Christ was a Master or Rabbi, with disciples whom He made it His busi- ness to instruct ; x He was an Evangelist, going about doing good among the common people, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom to the poor ; and He was a Prophet, not merely ) or chiefly in the predictive sense of the word, but specially in the sense that He was one who proclaimed in the hearing of His contemporaries the great truth of the moral government of God over the world at large, and over Israel in particular, and the sure doom of the impenitent under that righteous government. Now, the parables may be conveniently, and as we believe usefully, distributed into three groups, correspond- ing to these three departments of Christ's ministry. Indeed, we might go further, and say that the whole public life of Jesus, as related in the Gospels, might without forcing be ranged under the three heads : the Master, the Evangelist, the Prophet. Under the first head comes all that relates to the training of the twelve for the apostolate ; under the secondj Christ's miscellaneous activity as a Teacher and Healer among \ the general population, as the Good Shepherd seeking to save* the lost sheep of the house of Israel ; under the third, the ex- tensive materials relating to His bitter conflict as the witness for truth and righteousness with the unbelieving political and religious leaders of Jewish society. When all that belongs naturally to these three divisions has been taken up, not much of the Evangelic narrative remains. But our business at present is with the parables only, not with the whole public ministry of Jesus; and we repeat the statement already made, that the parables may be distributed into three groups answering to the three titles, the Master, the Evangelist, the Prophet. First there is a class of parables which may be distinguished as the theoretic, containing the general truth, 1 Schoettgen, in his ' Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae,' enunciates, and seeks to establish, the thesis Christus Rabbinorum Summits: vide ' Rabbi nicaruin Lectionum/ cap. L B i 4 The Parabolic Teaching of Christ. or what has been called the r metaphysic ' l of the Divins kingdom. Then there is a large group which may legiti- mately claim to be called distinctively the evangelic their burden being grace, the mercy and the love of God to the sinful and the miserable in some more obviously and directly, in others by implication rather than by express statement, but none the less really and effectively. Then, lastly, there is a group which may be characterised as the prophetic ; using the term, let it be once more explained, not in the predictive so much as in the ethical sense, to convey the idea that in this class of parables Jesus, as the messenger of God, spoke words of rebuke and warning to an evil time. Proceeding upon this classification, we in effect adopt as our motto the words of the Apostle Paul : " The fruit of the light is in all goodness and righteousness and truth," 2 the last word, 1 truth,' answering to the first group ; the second, ' righteous- ness,' answering to the last group ; and the first, ' goodness,' answering to the middle group. Christ was the Light of the world ; and in His parabolic teaching He let His light shine upon men in beautiful prismatic rays, and the precious fruit is preserved for our use in three groups of parables : first, the theoretic parables, containing the general truth concerning the kingdom of God ; second, the evangelic parables, setting forth the Divine goodness and grace as the source of salvation and the law of Christian life ; third, the prophetic parables, pro- claiming the righteousness of God as the Supreme Ruler, rewarding men according to their works. The foregoing classification has not been got up for the occasion, but has insinuated itself into our mind without any seeking on our part, in connection with our studies on the Gospels. Nor do we lay claim to any originality in con- nection therewith, except such as consists in independently arriving at a conclusion which has commended itself to other minds. We are happy to find that we do not stand alone in recognising the distinctions indicated, and that there is an increasing consensus of opinion in favour of a classification based thereon. 8 Differences of opinion, of course, may 1 Keim, Jesu von Nazara,' ii. 447. * Ephesians v. 9, where the approved reading is, i ydp Kapirbe rof fdtrbc iv wafffl ayaOwoi'ivy Kai StKaionvvy Kal a\f)0up. Among writers who group the parables in a way similar to that givea Introductory* 5 obtain as to the precise terms by which the different classes are to be described, or even as to the number of separate classes to be recognised, as also in regard to the class under which this or that parable -is to be ranged ; but there is a general concurrence among recent writers as to the reality and the importance of the threefold distinction above indi- cated. Not only so; another interesting fact has attracted the attention of many: viz. that the Evangelists more definitely Matthew and Luke, for Mark has very few parables in his Gospel stand in distinct relations to the several groups of parables. Most of Matthew's parables belong to the first and third groups ; most of Luke's to the second. This fact \rai signalised long ago by one whose name will ever be held in honour in connection with the literature of our subject; 1 and it has recently been proclaimed with remarkable emphasis and felicity of language by Renan, in his charming chapter on the Gospel of Luke, in the fifth volume of his work on the ' Origins of Christianity.' " There is hardly," he remarks, " an anecdote, a parable peculiar to Luke, which breathes not the spirit of mercy and of appeal to sinners. The only word of- Jesus a little hard which has been preserved, becomes with him an apologue full of indulgence and patience. The un- fruitful tree must not be cut down too quickly. The good gardener opposes himself to the anger of the proprietor, and demands that the tree be manured before it be finally condemned. The Gospel of Luke is by excellence the gospel of pardon, and of pardon obtained by faith." * The fact is unquestionable, though the use made of it by the Tubingen school of critics, and partly by M. Renan himself, may be very questionable indeed. We cannot approve of the opinion which regards the third Evangelist as a theological partisan, whc not only selected, but manufactured or modified, facts tm serve the cause he had espoused that of Pauline universalism as against Judaistic exclusivism.* But we do most cordially above, may be named Plumptre, in Art. Parable in ' Smith's Dictionary,* and Lange, ' Bibelwerk,' on Matthew xiii. Vide also his ' Leben Jesu,' voL I., book ii. 1 Archbishop Trench, ' Notes on the Parables,' Intro iuctory Essay, p. 29, Ed. xiv. <-*i * Les Evangiles,' p. 266. Hilgenfeld, in his ' Einleitung in das Neue Testament,' p. 573, finds 6 The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, m recognise Luke as an earnest believer in the gospel Paul preached a gospel of pure grace, and therefore a gospel for all the world on equal terms ; and we perceive clearly traces of his Paulinism, using the word not in a controversial but in a descriptive sense, throughout his Gospel. In searching among the literary materials out of which he constructed his story, he manifestly had a quick eye for everything that tended to show that the gospel preached by Christ was really and emphatically good news from God, a manifestation of Divine philanthropy and grace, and a manifestation in which the whole world was interested. Hence the prominence given to such narratives as exhibited Jesus as the Friend of the poor ; hence the introduction of incidents in which Samaritans appear to advantage in comparison with Jews, or as attracting Christ's compassion while objects of Jewish prejudice and hatred ; hence the preservation in the third Gospel of such parables as those which together constitute Christ's apology for loving the sinful : the Two Debtors, the Straying Sheep, the Lost Piece of Money, and the Prodigal Son ; and such others as the Good Samaritan, the Supper, the Pharisee and Publican, and even, we will venture to add, the Unjust Steward, and the Rich Man and Lazarus. It is of the utmost importance to recognise this peculiarity of Luke's Gospel in all its breadth, not merely as a fact of literary or critical interest, but as one having a direct practical bearing on interpretation. One who leaves this fact out of view runs great risk of frequently missing the right track as an inter- preter, while one who ever keeps it in his eye will often be guided at once to the true meaning of a narrative. We must, of course, be on our guard against giving a one-sided pre- dominance to the characteristic in question, as if Luke had only one idea in his mind in writing his Gospel ; and gener- ally in our interpretation of the different Gospels we must beware of imagining the writers to have been so much under the influence of a particular purpose as to have excluded everything that did not directly or indirectly bear thereon. It is characteristic of the negative school of criticism thus to treat the Gospels as exclusively writings of tendency, to the a trace of a dogmatic leaning to Paulinism, in the expression " lest they should believe and be saved " (Luke viii. 12). Introductory, 7 great Impoverishment of their value ; even as it has more Of less been characteristic of believing interpreters to ignore too much the distinctive features of the Gospels, and to treat them all as colourless chronicles of the life of Jesus. The truth lies between the two extremes. The Gospels have their distinctive features, and yet they have much in common: they have all the great essentials of Christ's teaching in common. Matthew's Gospel is theocratic ; Luke's is Pauline, humanistic, universalistic. But the theocratic aspect of the Divine kingdom is not wanting in Luke, neither is the universal aspect thereof wanting in Matthew. Bearing this in mind, we shall not expect to find only evangelic parables in the third Gospel, but shall be prepared to meet with others of a different description ; neither shall we be surprised if we find in Matthew not only parables didactic and prophetic, but also such as speak to us not of judgment but of mercy. This caveat against too rigorous definition of the different Gospels in relation to the parables requires to be repeated in connection with the heads under which we propose to classify the latter. It must not be imagined that every parable so decidedly comes under one head that it could not with pro- priety be ranged under any other. This holds good probably of most, but not of all. Some parables are, if we may so express it, of an amphibious character, and might be ranged under either of two categories, because partaking of the nature of both. Such, for example, is the parable of the Great Supper, which, while full of mercy towards the home- less, hungry wanderers on the highway, presents an aspect of stern judicial severity towards those who accepted not the invitations sent to them ; and might be classed either as an evangelic or as a prophetic parable, according as we took for its key-note the word of mercy, " Compel them to come in," or the word of judgment, " None of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper." As another instance, we may refer to the parable of the " Unprofitable Servants," as it is commonly called, or, as we prefer to call it, the parable of " Extra Service." If we start in our interpretation from the words "We are unprofitable servants," we shall regard the parable as intended to teach that there is no room for merit in the kingdom of God, that all is of grace, and so relegate 8 The Parabolic Teaching of Christ. it to the evangelic category. If, on the other hand, we regard it as the purpose of the parable to impress on the servants of the kingdom the exacting nature of the service to which they are called, and that no man is fit for that service who is dis- posed to murmur, or who ever thinks he has done enough, then we may not improperly range the parable under the first of the three categories, and treat it as one setting forth one of the properties of the kingdom of heaven. After these explanations we now propose the following distribution of the parables, to be justified by the exposition. I. Theoretic or Didactic Parables. Under this head we include the group of seven parables in Matt. xiii. : The Sower, the Tares and the Drag-net, the Hid Treasure and the Precious Pearl, the Mustard Seed and the Leaven, with the parable in Mark iv. 26 29, the Blade, the Ear, and the Full Corn in all forming a group of eight relating to the general nature of the kingdom of God. And besides these, the parables of the Selfish Neighbour and the Unjust Judge relating to the delays of Providence in fulfilling spiritual desires, or to perseverance in prayer (Luke xi. 5, xviii. 1); the parable of Extra Service (Luke xvii. 7) ; and finally the three parables which relate to the subject of work and wages in the kingdom : viz. the Hours of Labour (Matt. xx. 1), the Talents (Matt. xxv. 14), and the Pounds (Luke xix. 12). In all, fourteen. II. Evangelic Parables. To this class belong the four parables in Luke's Gospel which together constitute Christ's apology for loving the sinful : the Two Debtors (chap. vii. 40), the Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, and the Lost Son (chap, xv.) ; the Children of the Bride-Chamber (Matt. ix. 14 17 et para//.), being an apology for the joy of the children of the kingdom. Under the same category fall the Lowest Seats at Feasts (Luke xiv. 7 11), and the Pharisee and the Publican (Luke xviii. 9 14), teaching that the kingdom of God is for the humble; the Great Supper (Luke xiv. 16), teaching that the kingdom is for the hungry ; the Good Samaritan (Luke x. 30) ; the Unrighteous Steward (Luke xvi. 1) ; the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke xvi. 19), and the Unmerciful Servant, the two last together teaching which aro the unpardonable sins. In all, twelve. Introductory, 9 III. Prophetic or Judicial Parables. This clasa includes the following: The Children in the Market-Place (Matt. xi. 16), containing Christ's moral estimate of the generation amidst which He lived ; the Barren Fig-tree (Luke xiii. 6), the two Sons and the Wicked Husbandmen (Matt. xxi. 28 44), and the Marriage of the King's Son (Matt. xxii. 1), exhibiting more or less clearly the action of Divine judgment upon the nation of Israel ; the Unfaithful Servant (Matt. xxiv. 45), and the Ten Virgins (Matt. xxv. I). exhibiting similar judicial action within the kingdom of God. In all, seven. It will be observed that the foregoing groups do not include all the parabolic utterances of our Lord recorded in the Gospels. To those omitted belong the parabolic conclu- sion to the Sermon on the Mount, consisting of the metaphors of the wise and foolish builders, the similitudes of the incon- siderate builder of a tower, and the king who would wage war (Luke xiv. 28 35), and the Rich Fool (Luke xii. 16), which appears in most treatises as one of the regular parables. These and the like are excluded, not chiefly because they cannot easily be brought within our scheme of distribution, but more especially because they are of no independent didactic importance. The parables we propose to consider have all this in common, that they embody truths deep, unfamiliar or unwelcome " mysteries of the kingdom." Such a parable as that of the Rich Fool, on the other hand, con- veys no new or abstruse lesson, but simply teaches in concrete lively form a moral commonplace. Parabolic utterances of that description were not distinctive of Christ as a Teacher : they were common to Him with the Jewish Rabbis. He spake these merely as a Jewish moralist ; but the parables now to be studied were uttered by Him as the Herald of the kingdom of heaven. BOOK I. THEORETIC PARABLES' *r CHAPTER L I) THE SOWER, OR, THE WORD OF THE KINGDOM TO BE DIVERSELY RECEIVED ACCORDING TO THE MORAL CONDITION OF HEARERS. SITTING in a boat on the Sea of Galilee near the shore, on which a great multitude was assembled to hear Him, Jesus said 1 : Behold I the sower* went forth to sow. And as he sowed f some seeds fell by the wayside, and the fowls came and devoured them. And ether seeds fell upon the rocky places? where they had not much earth, and forthwith they sprang up, because they had no deepness of earth; and when the sun was up they were scorched, and because they had not root they withered away. And other fell upon the thorns* and the thorns sprang up and choked them. And other fell upon the gooa ground, and brought forth fruit, some* an hundredfold, some 6 sixty- fold, and some* thirtyfold. Who hath ears, let him hear. Matt. xiii. 3 9. Christ's hearers would have no difficulty in understanding the letter of this parable. At their side, as modern travellers who have been on the spot tell us,* t they might see an 1 We give the parable and its interpretation as contained in Matthew all points of importance in the other Gospels will be noticed as we proceed. * 6 (TTTupuv the man whose function it was to sow, or the sower of my parable. * iwi r& wrrp&ri not soil mixed with loose stones (which might be good), but soil resting on a rocky substratum a little below the surface. 4 Upon a soil with thorn or thistle seed in it, which afterwards sprang up 8 ptv, 8 Si, 8 H in this case, in that, and in a third ease. Vide Stanley, ' Sinai and Palestine,' p. 425, in a chapter on the local connections and allusions of Christ's teaching. 14 The Parabolic Teaching of Christ [book i. agricultural scene which would enable them to comprehend all the details of the picture at a glance. They would know perfectly what was literally intended by the four kinds of ground distinguished in the parable ; that the way-side signi- fied the hard-trodden path running through the cornfield ; that the rocky places signified that part of the field where the soil was shallow, and the rocky stratum below came near the surface ; that the thorns denoted, not thorn bushes actually growing in the field at the time of sowing, but soil with thora seeds latent in it, which in due course sprang up, disputing possession with the grain ; and that the good ground meant that portion of the field which was free from all the faults of the other parts, and was at once soft, deep, and clean. They would know also that the fate of seed falling upon these different places respectively would be just such as described in the parable : that the seed falling on the hard path would never even so much as germinate, but either be picked up by the birds or trodden under foot; that the seed falling on shallow soil, with rock immediately beneath, might germinate, and even spring up rapidly for a short while, but for want of sap and depth of earth must inevitably wither under the heat of the sun, and so come to nothing ; that the seed which fell on soil full of thorn or thistle seeds might not only germinate and spring up, but continue to grow with vigour till it reached the green ear the fault of the ground not being poverty, but foulness but would never ripen, being choked, smothered, and shaded by the overgrowing thorns ; and finally, that seed which fell on good, generous soil, soft, deep, and clean, could not fail, under the genial influences of fostering sap beneath and of a bright sun above, to yield a bountiful harvest, richly rewarding the husbandman's pains. But what might the spiritual meaning of the parable be ? Why did Jesus speak this parable ? What did He mean to teach ? These questions His hearers were not able to answer. That the parable was designed to teach something, that it meant more than met the ear, they would of course under- stand ; for common sense would teach them ihat Christ was not likely to describe a sowing scene for its own sake, and the closing words, Who hath pars , Jet him hear." was a hint t a hidden meaning that could not fail to be understood ch. 1.3 Theoretic Parables. The Sower. 15 even by the most obtuse. It is even possible that the people standing on the shore had a shrewd suspicion thtt the preacher was speaking about themselves, and describing the various sorts of hearers of the word of the kingdom who were mingled together in that great crowd, and the correspondingly diverse issues of the preaching of the word. But beyond that point we may be sure their comprehension did not go. They might have a dim impression that the various sorts of soil signified spiritual states ; but they could not discriminate the spiritual soils on which the word of the kingdom fell, as they could at once and with ease apprehend the literal points of the parable. How should the multitude at large understand what even the disciples, the twelve, and others who had been constantly in Christ's company, failed to Understand ? That even they were puzzled, the record informs us. When they were alone, we are told, the disciples asked their Master what might this parable be. 1 One of the Evangelists gives the question thus : " Why speakest Thou unto them in parables ? " meaning, in such a parable as this of the Sower. The two forms of the question convey a pretty definite idea of the state of mind of those who put it. It was a state intermediate between perfect knowledge and total ignorance. They did not know clearly the meaning of the parable, else they would not have asked for an interpretation ; they were not totally ignorant of its meaning, else they would not have asked, Why speakest Thou unto them in parables ? " They knew enough to be surprised that their Master addressed such a parable to the eagerly-listening multitude a parable not setting forth any truth concerning the kingdom, like that of the Precious Pearl, which teaches the incomparable value of the kingdom but animadverting on the various classes of hearers. That, as we believe, was the cause of surprise : not the general fact of teaching in a new way (viz. in parables) taken abstractly and by itself, but that fact taken in conjunc- tion with the peculiar character of the parable by which the new method was inaugurated. If such was indeed the feeling in the minds of the disciples, we cannot wonder at their question. For even now we wh understand the parable, as they could not before it wai 1 Luke viii. 9. * Matt xiii. ia 1 6 The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, [book l explained to them, are constrained to ask ourselves the question, Why spake Jesus such a parable as that of the Sower to the crowd of people assembled on the shore of the Sea of Galilee a parable in which the Speaker preached not to the people, but at them, or over their heads ; not about any important truth of the kingdom, but about the reception truth was likely to meet with ; not glad tidings to men, but very sombre, depressing tidings concerning men in their relation to the gospel ? One could at once understand how such a parable as this might at any time have been spoken to the disciples ; because to them it was given " to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven," and specially because it was desirable that they, as the future apostles of the kingdom, should know what reception they were to meet with, to prevent disappointment when they learned by experience, as their Master had already learned, that the effect of the word was conditioned variously by the moral state of the hearer. Ante- cedently to experience, men of sanguine temper, ardently devoted to the kingdom, might anticipate a very different result, and expect the intrinsic excellence of the doctrine to insure in all cases a harvest of beneficent effects. A warning to the contrary was therefore by no means superfluous. But was it not wasting a precious opportunity thus to speak to the common people ? and if the Preacher must speak in parabolic form, why not utter an " evangelic " parable, reserving didactic parables for the twelve, and prophetic parables for unbelieving hostile Pharisees and Sadducees ? We put the question strongly, because we wish to force ourselves and our readers to reflect and go in quest of an answer ; believing that the answer, when found, will lend greatly enhanced interest to the parable, and help us to understand its import, and may even lead to discoveries as to the design and what we may call the psychological genesis of the whole parabolic teaching of our Lord. Without doubt, then, to answer our question at once, the reason why Jesus spoke such a parable as that of the Sower, and such other parables as these of the Tares and the Net, in the hearing of the multitude is to be sought in the moral tituation of the hour} Travellers and interpreters have been Farrar, in his ' Life of Christ,' takes this view : " The great mats oi ch. i.] Theoretic Parables. The Sower. if at gre.it pains to explain the physical situation the natural surroundings of the Speaker that day when He began to open His mouth in parables. And this is well, though it is possible to have too much of it, leading to a sentimental style of treating the parables which is rather tiresome and unprofit able. The moral situation is undoubtedly the principal thing to be determined ; for we cannot believe that Christ was led to speak as He did by merely picturesque influences, any more than we can believe that He then and there opened His mouth in parables from a merely intellectual liking for that symbolic manner of expressing thought. The motive must have come from the spiritual composition and condition of the crowd. Jesus must have lifted up the eye of His mind, and seen, not a literal field, with the characteristics described in course of being sown with grain, but a spiritual field with analogous characteristics, which had been sown with the seeds of Divine truth by Himself, even that very crowd which was assembled before Him. But have we any evidence that the spiritual condition of that crowd was such as this hypothesis requires ? We have. First there is the statement made by Jesus Himself, in reply to the question of His disciples, which presents a very gloomy picture of the spiritual condition of the people : " For this people's heart is waxed gross," etc. 1 When Jesus said that, He did not merely quote a prophetic commonplace in a haphazard, pointless way, without meaning to imply that it had any very definite applicability to the multitude before Him. He believed, and He said, that in the case of that very multitude the spiritual state described by the prophet Isaiah was very exactly fulfilled or realized. 8 Then, secondly, there is the great historical melancholy fact of the Capernaum crisis recorded in John vi., in which the Galilean revival came to a deplorable end : ** From that time many of His disciples went back and walked no more with Him." * hearers," he remarks, " must now have been aware of the general features in the new gospel which Jesus preached. Some self-examination, some earnest, careful thought of their own, was now requisite, if they were indeed tincere in their desire to profit by His words" (vol. i. p. 322). 1 Matt xiii. 15. Matt. xiii. 14. Kat ivatrXripovTcu. The ava is intensive. John vi. 66. C 1 8 The Parabolic Teaching of Christ. book. i And, finally, the minute particular? of information supplied by the Evangelists as to the circumstances amid which Jesus spake our parable, show that the Galilean enthusiasm is at its height, and therefore that the crisis, the time of reaction, must be near. Matthew tells us that so great were the multitudes who gathered together unto J^sus that He was obliged to go into a ship in order to escape pressure, and have a position from which He could be seen and heard of all. 1 Mark says : "And He began again to teach by the seaside," implying eagerness in the people thereabouts to hear ; and he characterises the audiences not merely as great, but as very great. 2 Luke informs us that the congregation assembled was composed of people coming " out of every city," 8 that is, from all the towns and villages by the shores of the lake. The crisis, then, is approaching, and it is in view of that crisis Jesus speaks the parable of the Sower. He sees it coming, and is sad, and He speaks as He feels. The present enthusiasm, because He knows how it is likely to end, gives Him no pleasure, it rather causes Him trouble. He wishes to be rid of it. We might almost say He speaks the parable for that end ; using it, as He used the mystic sermon on the Bread of Life, in the synagogue at Capernaum, as a fan to separate wheat from chaff. 4 At the least, we may say He speaks the parable to foreshadow the end. The parable is a prelude to the sermon, uttered to satisfy the Speaker's sense of truth ; to throw hearers back on themselves in self-examin- ation ; to warn disciples against being imposed on by fair appearances, and cherishing romantic expectations doomed to bitter disappointment; and to insure in all ages, for an enthusiasm of humanity ' not blind to the weakness of human nature, a respect which it is impossible to accord to a shallow philanthropy without moral insight. 6 1 Matt. xiii. 2. * oyko$ 7rXoroc (ch. iv. 1). Ch. viii. 4. tSiv kqtA ir6\iv iirnroptvofiivutp wp^c ahrov. * For our view of the effect of that sermon see ' The Training of the Twelve,' cap. ix., section 4. " Godet says : " The end of Jesus is first to show that He is under no Illusion in view of that multitude in appearance so attentive ; next to put His disciples on their guard against the hopes which the present enthusiasm might inspire ; lastly, and above all, to fortify His hearers against the perils to which their presort religious impressions were exposed " (' Comm* CH. I.] Theoretic Parables. The Sower. 19 So we account for the utterance of the parable ot the Sower, and of at least some others of the group contained in Matt, xiii. 1 But can the same or a similar account be given of the parabolic teaching of Christ in general ? A remark of Jesus to His disciples reported by Mark seems to imply that it can : " Know ye not this parable ? and how then will ye know all the parables ? " 8 The remark, taken by **tself, might be understood to mean that men who could not comprehend so simple a parable would be still more at a loss with other parables, spoken or to be spoken, more difficult of comprehension. But, taken along with the reference going before to the words of Isaiah, it seems rather to signify that the parables in general are to be regarded as associated more or less with the mood of mind which these prophetic words express. And close observation of the parables recorded in the Gospels shows that this is really to a large extent the case. It will be found, on inspection, that very many of the parables are of an apologetic or defensive character. The position of Christ when He uttered them was that of one found fault with, misunderstood, or despairing of being under- stood ; conscious of isolation, and saddened by the lack of intelligence, sympathy, and faith on the part of tho'se among whom He exercised His ministry. Such seem to have been the psychological conditions under which the mind of the Saviour betook itself to parable-making. The question why He spoke in parables as a public teacher is a wide one, to which a full answer is not given in the Gospels. Doubtless temperament and the genius of race had something to do with it ; and a certain class of writers would emphasise such sur FEvaiigile de St. Luc,' L 396). The last remark in the sentence in the text to which this note refers may be illustrated by an anecdote told of Frederick the Great. When one of the apostles of eighteenth-century Illuminism spoke to him with enthusiasm of the results to be expected from an education based on the assumption of the goodness of human nature, his reply was, " You don't know the race." Christ did know the race, and vet loved man with an ardour and steadfastness to which no philanthropy, deistic or other, can be compared. Vide Kahnis' * History of German Protestantism,' p. 49. 1 The question whether all the parables in Matt xiii. were spoken at one time will be noticed in a future chapter. * Mark iv. 13. ao The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, [book l causes. But while they may be admitted to have been joint causes, we do not believe they were sole causes. There is not only a parabolic temperament and a parabolic genius that delights to wrap thoughts up in symbolic envelopes ; but there is, moreover, a parabolic mood, which leads a man now, rather than then, to present his thoughts in this form. It is the mood of one whose heart is chilled and whose spirit is saddened by a sense of loneliness, and who, retiring within himself, by a process of reflection frames for his thoughts forms which half conceal, half reveal them, reveal them more perfectly to those who understand, hide them from those who do not: forms beautiful, but also melancholy, as the hues of the forest in late autumn. If this view be correct, we should expect that speaking in parables would not form a feature of the initial stage of Christ's ministry. And such, accordingly, was the fact. Jesus opened His mouth first, not in parables, but in plain speeches ; or if He used parables previously, it was only such as were common among Jewish teachers : figures meant to enliven moral commonplaces, like that of the wise and foolish builders at the close of the Sermon on the Mount. He uttered beatitudes before He uttered similitudes, and He uttered similitudes because the beatitudes had not been understood or appreciated. 1 In His own words, as reported by the first Evangelist, Jesus began to speak in parables because His hearers, seeing, saw not, and hearing, heard not, neither did they understand. They had seen His miracles, and had been led by them to form false conceptions of His mission ; they had heard His teaching on the mount and elsewhere, and had formed erroneous ideas of the king- dom ; and therefore now He wraps His thoughts in forms by /which those who do see shall be enabled to see more clearly, and to him who hath light shall come a still higher measure of illumination, and those, on the other hand, who see not (shall be made still more blind, 2 simply mystified and perplexed as to what the strange Speaker might mean. Such, doubtless, were the results in many instances of 1 Ebrard maintains that the parables in Matt. xiii. were spoken before the Sermon on the Mount ; but this view has met with little or no approval. See his 'Gospel History.' * Matt. xiii. 12 ; Mark iv. 25. ch. 1.3 Theoretic Parables. The Sower. 21 Christ's parabolic teaching : some who so far already under- stood Him were led into a clearer comprehension of His mind ; others who understood Him not were conducted into deeper darkness. Take, e.g., the parables which contain the apology for loving sinners. One who understood the motive of Jesus in frequenting the company of sinners would get a most instructive glimpse into the heart of the Son of Man on hearing those charming, pathetic parables of the Lost Sheep the Lost Coin, and the Lost Son. But what effect would these beautiful poetic parables have on the mind of unsympa- thetic, hostile Pharisees ? Not to make them comprehend at last the true spirit of a much misunderstood and calumniated man, but to harden them into more intense antipathy, the very beauty and poetry and pathos of the sayings making them hate more bitterly one with whom they were determined not to be pleased. Such were the results in that case, and doubtless in many others. But werethese results was the latter result, that is to say intended '? Did Jesus Christ, the Saviour of men, speak parables that blind men might be made blinder, and deaf men deafer, and hard hearts harder ? According to the report of what He said to the disciples in answer to their question " Why speakest Thou in parables ? " given by two of the Evangelists, we may seem forced to the conclusion that He did. For while Matthew makes Him say, ** Therefore speak I to them in parables, because they seeing, see not " 1 suggesting the thought that the parabolic mode of instruction was adopted that men who saw not might see at least a little, since they had failed to see on any other method, Mark and Luke ascribe to Him the sentiment, "To others (I speak) in parables, in order that seeing, they might not see, and hearing, they might not understand."* Some critics, deeming the two accounts irreconcilable, prefer Matthew's as the more correct, and regard the aim ascribed to Christ by the other two Evangelists simply as " the hypochondriac con- struction put upon His words in Gospels written in a pessi- mistic spirit by men despairing of the Jewish people." 8 But that the two points of view are not mutually exclusive may be inferred from the fact that even Mark, who puts the darkef 1 Matt. xiii. 13. * Mark iv. 12; Luke viii. 10. So Keim, after Strauss, in ' Jesu von Nazara,' ii. 439. 22 The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, [book l view most strongly, winds up his record of Christ's parabolic teaching by the lake-side with a reflection which plainly implies that the design of that teaching was not to produce blindness, but, if possible, vision. "And with many such parables spake He the word unto them, as they were able to hear it." x And we may lay it down as a fixed principle that what is implied in Mark's reflection is the truth. The direct primary aim of all Christ's teaching was to illuminate human minds and to soften human hearts. Such was both the aim and the tendency of His parabolic teaching in particular. The parable of the Prodigal Son, e.g., was surely both fitted and intended to enlighten the minds of even scribes and Pharisees as to the motive of the Speaker in associating with the sinful, and to soften their hearts into a more kindly tone of feeling towards Himself! But, on the other hand, that very parable might have just the opposite effects on minds full of prejudice and on hearts full of bitterness, and produce a more complete misunderstanding and a more inhuman and pitiless antipathy. And in uttering the parable Jesus could not but be aware of the possibility of such a result, and yet might utter it with that possible result consciously in view. Nay, we can conceive Him erecting the possible and undesir- able result into the position of an end, and saying, " I speak such and such parables in order that they who see not may become more utterly blind." Only we must be careful not to misunderstand the temper in which such words might be spoken by Jesus, or by any true servant of God. No true prophet could utter such words in cold blood as the expres- sion of a deliberate purpose. All prophets desire to illumine, soften, and save, not to darken, harden, and destroy; and without entering into the mystery of Divine decrees, we may add, God sends His prophets for no other purpose, whatever the foreseen effects of their labour may be. But a prophet like Isaiah may nevertheless feel as if he were sent, and represent himself as sent, for the opposite purpose. And when he does so it is not in the way of expressing direct aim or deliberate intention, but in irony, and in the bitterness of frustrated, despairing love. Baffled love in bitter irony announces as its aim the very opposite of what it works for, 1 Mark iv. 33. ch. i.l Theoretic Parables. The Sower. 23 and it does so in the hope of provoking its infatuated objecti to jealousy, and so defeating its own prophecy. " I go," says Isaiah in effect, " to prophesy to this people, that hearing they may understand not, and seeing may perceive not, that I may make their hearts fat, and their ears heavy, and their eyes dim, lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their hearts, and convert and be healed ; " l and he goes forth to fulfil these strange ends by using means fitted and designed to produce just the opposite effects, warn- ing them of the consequences of persisting in evil ways, and preaching unto them a gospel of rest for the weary with such plainness, emphasis, and iteration, as to expose himself to the mockery of drunkards, who said : " With this prophet it is ' precept upon precept, precept upon precept ; line upon line, line upon line ; here a little, there a little,' wearisome itera- tion of lessons fit only for children." 8 In the light of these observations we can understand in what spirit Jesus appro- priated to Himself the harsh terms in which the prophet expressed his Divine mission, and how we are to view His parabolic teachings. He served Himself heir to Isaiah's com- mission in the ironic humour of a love that yearned to save, and was faithful to its purpose even to death. He spoke parables, one now, another then ; here a little, there a little, if by any means He might teach men the truth in which they might find rest to their souls. The parables were neither deliberate mystifications, nor idle intellectual conceits, nor mere literary products of aesthetic taste : they were the utter- ances of a sorrowful heart. And herein lies their chief charm : not in the doctrine they teach, though that is both interesting and important ; not in their literary beauty, though that is great ; but in the sweet delicate odour of human pathos that breathes from them as from Alpine wild flowers. That He had to speak in parables was one of the burdens of the Son of Man, to be placed side by side with the fact that He had not where to lay His head. 1 Isaiah vi. 9, 10. * Isaiah xxviii. 9 12. The words in the original are at once a clever caricature of elementary teaching for children, and an imitation of the thick, indistinct speech of an intoxicated person : Ki tsav-la-tsav, tsav-la* tsav; kav-la-kav, kar-la-kav ; zeer-sham, zeer-sham. 24 The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, [book l We proceed now to the interpretation of our parable, Christ's own interpretation was as follows : Hear ye then the parable of the sower. In the case of every one hearing the word of the kingdom and not understanding it, cotneth the wicked one and catcheth away that which has been sown in his heart. This is the one sown by the wayside. 1 But the one sown upon the rocky places is he who heareth the word and anon with joy receiveth it. But he hath not root in himself but is only temporary? and when tribula- tion or persecution ariseth because of the word, straightway he is made to stumble. And the one sown among the thorns is he who heareth the word, and the care of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he become th unfruitful. And the one sown upon the good ground is he who heareth the word and understandeth it y who accordingly* bringeth forth fruit and produces now an hundred- fold, now sixty, now thirty. Matt. xiii. 18 23. The parable, according to this authoritative interpretation, Is meant to teach that among those to whom the word of the kingdom is spoken are diverse classes of hearers four at least * corresponding to the four sorts of ground on which the seed falls. A record of observation in the first place, it is, moreover, a prophetic picture of the future fortunes of the kingdom. In relating under a parabolic veil His own sad experience, Jesus forewarned His disciples what they had to expect when they were called on as apostles to sow the word of the kingdom. They should find among their hearers classes of persons of which these sorts of ground were the types. Now, the matter of chief importance here is, to form just conceptions of these classes, that the moral lesson may come home to all. Many interpreters grievously offend here. Greswell, e.g., makes the wayside hearer one characterised by an absolute hardness, whose state of mind " may be the most deplorable to which human frailty is exposed and the most horrible to which human wickedness is liable to be reduced, 1 Elliptical for "he who is meant in the part of the parable which speak* of seed sown by the way." Similarly in all the other cases. * irpooicaipog. * Hi, expressive of self-evident result. See p. 36. 4 Greswell labours to prove that there can be no more than four classes. Such discussions are not in the spirit of the parable, which expresses facts that had come under the Speaker's observation, not necessary psycho* logical truth. ch. i.] Theoretic Parables. The Sower. 45 the last stage in a long career of depravity, and the judicial result of perseverance in obstinate wickedness with impunity and impenitence." l This is surely to confound weakness and wickedness, and so to render the parable useless for the purpose of warning to a very common class of hearers. We must remember, in the quaint words of a wiser expositor, that " the trodden path is after all not a rock," 2 and generally give heed to the remark of a greater than either : f In order that the admonitions of the parable may benefit us the more, it must be kept steadily in view that no mention is made therein of despisers of the word, but only of those in whom appears a certain measure of docility." 3 Doubtless there were ' wayside ' hearers in the crowd to whom the parable was addressed ; yet all present had come with more or less desire to hear Christ preach, and learn at His lips the doctrine of the kingdom. We shall best learn to discriminate accurately the different classes of hearers by giving close attention to the manner in which they are respectively characterised by our Lord. K The wayside hearer hears the word, but does n .of Ufl4flg" j stand it,-^ or, to use a phrase which expresses at once the literal and the figurative truth, does not take it in. 4 Thought- lessness, spiritual stupidity, arising not so much from want of intellectual capacity as from preoccupation of mind, is the characteristic of the first class. Their mind is like a footpath beaten hard by the constant passage through it of " the wishes of the flesh and the current thoughts " 6 concerning common earthly things. For a type of the class we may take the man who interrupted Christ while preaching on one occasion, and said : M Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inherit- ance with me." ft He had just heard Christ utter the words, And when they bring you into the synagogues, and unto 1 ' Parables,' vol. ii. 37. Stier, 'Reden Jesus,' ii. 83. Calvin, ' Comment, in Quatuor Evangelistas,' in loc. "Our language is capable in this instance, like the Greek, of express- ing by one phrase equally the moral and the material failure : ' Every one that hears the word of the kingdom and does not take it in (p4 *wvelvroc).' " Arnot, 'The Parables of our Lord,' p. 52. ' So Mr. M. Arnold renders the Apostle Paul's phrase ri fcXtjpara rife wapKOi; ra! raiv liavoidv (Eph. ii. 3). Vide * Literature and Dogma,' p. 202 Luke xii. i\. a6 The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, [book l magistrates and powers," and these suggested to him the topic on which his thoughts were habitually fixed his dispute with his brother about their patrimony. And so it happened to him according to the parable. The truth he had heard did not get into his mind, hardened as it was like a beaten path by the constant passage through it of current thoughts about money ; it was very soon forgotten altogether, caught away by the god of this world, who ruled over him through his covetous disposition. It may be regarded as certain that there were many such hearers in the crowd by the lake, men in whose minds the doctrine of the kingdom merely awakened hopes of worldly prosperity, who, as Jesus afterwards told them, laboured for the meat that perisheth, not for the meat that endureth unto everlasting life. 2 Such were they who " received seed by the wayside." 2. He that received seed into stony places > on the other hand, is he that heareth the word and anon with joy receiveth it. The characteristic of this class is emotional excitability, in- considerate impulsiveness. Thegjaasefaae thpi wnrH read'ty with joy but without thought . The latter trait is not indeed specified,' but it is clearly implied in the remark con- cerning the effect of tribulation, persecution, or temptation on this class of hearers. They had not anticipated such experi- ences, they did not count the cost, there was a want of deliberation at the commencement of their religious life, and by implication a want of that mental constitution which ensures that there shall be deliberation at all critical periods of life. It is this want of deliberation that is the fault of the class now under consideration, not the mere fact of their receiving the word with joy. Joy by itself does not define the class ; for joy is characteristic of deep as well as of shallow natures. Absence of joy in religious life is a sign, not of depth, but of dulness. The noble, devoted heart that attains to high measures of faithfulness has great rapturous passionate joy in connection with its spiritual experiences. But the joy of the good and honest heart is a thoughtful joy, associated with and springing out of the exercise of the intel- lectual and the moral powers upon the truth believed. The joy of the stony ground hearer, on the contrary, is a thought* 1 Luke xii. n. John vi. vj. ch. l] Theoretic Parables. The Sower. 17 less joy coming to him through the effects of what he hears upon the imagination and the feelings. Joy without thought is his definition. Of course a religious experience of this character cannot last : it is doomed to prove abortive. For tribulation, perse- cution, temptation in some form, will come, not to be with- stood except by those whose whole spiritual being mind, heart, conscience is influenced by the truth ; and even by them only by the most strenuous exertion of their moral energies. A man who has been touched only on the surface of his soul by a religious movement, who has been impressed on the sympathetic side of his nature by a prevalent enthu- siasm, and has yielded to the current without understand- ing what it means, whither it tends, and what it involves, such a man has no chance of persevering under the conditions of trial amidst which the divine life has to be lived in this world. He is doomed to be Trpoo-Kcupos, a temporary Christian, to be scandalised by tribulation, to apostatise in the season of temptation. For he hath not root in himself y in his moral personality, in the faculties constituting personality the reason, conscience, and will which remain hard, untouched, unpenetrated by the fibres of his faith ; his root is in others, in a prevalent popular enthusiasm ; his religion is a thing of sympathetic imitation. He is not only irpocrKaipos in the sense of being temporary, but likewise in the sense of being a creation of the time, a child of the Zeitgeist} He comes forth as a professor of religion " at the call of a shallow enthusiasm, and through the epidemic influence of a popular cause." 1 And this fact largely explains his temporariness. When the tide of enthusiasm subsides, and he is left to himself to carry on single-handed the struggle with temptation, he has no heart for the work, and his religion withers away, like the corn growing on rocky places under the scorching heat of the summer sun. If a type of this class is sought for in the Gospel records, it may be found in the man who said unto Jesus, " Lord, I will follow Thee whithersoever Thou goest," and to whom Jesus 1 So Lange, ' Bibelwerk ' ; and also Volkmar, ' Die Evangelien,' p. 284. Edward Irving, ' Sermons on the Parable of the Sower.' Collected writings, voL L p. 169. a 8 The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, [[book i replied, " Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have roosts, but the Son of man hath not where to lay His head." 1 The reply clearly implies that this would-be disciple was under some sudden impulse proposing to follow Christ, without considering what the step involved. He had received the word of the kingdom with joy, and came to offer himself as a disciple in a spirit of romantic enthusiasm, without the smallest idea what he was undertaking, utterly unaware of the hard- ships of disciple life. But what need to point to the scribe as if he were a solitary instance of inconsiderate profession! Was not the crowd by the lake to which the Parable of the Sower was spoken full of such professors? There was a great religious enthusiasm what in these days might be called a ' great revival ' in Galilee, and there were many in that crowd who had come under its influence. Infected by the spirit of the time, they followed Jesus, by whose preaching of the kingdom the movement had been created, whithersoever He went ; delighted to hear Him speak, feeling as if they could never hear enough of the precious words which fell from His lips. But. alas ! their religion consisted largely in sym- pathy with their fellows, and in vague romantic dreams concerning the kingdom that was coming ; and so when the time of disenchantment came, and they learnt that their dreams were not likely to be realised, they " went back and walked no more with Him."* How often has the same tragedy been repeated in the history of religious movements of a popular character ! It is persons whose spiritual natures resemble the rocky ground who are chiefly influenced by such movements. Others of deeper character and more promise may be touched in small numbers, but these are sure to be touched in large numbers. 8 And so it comes to pass that the melancholy history of many hopeful religious movements is this : many converts, few stable Christians ; many blossoms, little fruit coming to maturity. 1 Luke ix. 57 ; cf. Matt. viii. 19. * John vi. 66. "Such men," says Godet, "form in almost every awakening a con- siderable portion of the new converts." ' Comment, sur Luc,' i. 399. Deeper natures are less influenced by sympathy, and their religious decisions are come to for the most part in solitude and after earnest consideration of the subject on all sides. jh. i.J Theoretic Parables. The Sower. 29 3. He that received seed among the thorns is so described as to suggest the idea o f a double-minded^ man the avi\p bC\lnrxpt >{ St. James. 1 This man is neither stupid, like his brother nearer of the first class, nor a mere man of feeling, like those of the second class. He hears in the emphatic sense of the word, hears both with thought and with feeling, understanding -vhat he hears and realising its solemn importance. The soil in his case is neith.er.jj ard on the surface nor shallow ; it is ^ood soil so far as softness and depth are concerned. Its one 'ault (but jr is * very serious one) is that it 18 im p" re ; there ire oth er seeds in it besides those being sown on it, and the r esult wi \\_h&Jl VO Crops Stra ffing for rhe ma^ery, with the inevitable result that the better crop will have to succumb. This man has two minds, so to speak, we might almost say he is two men. His will is divided not decided for good and against evil, but now on one side, now on the other; serving God to-day, serving mammon to-morrow ; very re- ligious, and also very worldly. Such he is at the beginning, though not very obviously ; such he will be more manifestly in the after course of his religious career ; such he will be to the end. To the end, we say ; for it is not this man's nature to begin with enthusiasm and by and by to leave off. He is too grave, too serious, too strong-natured a man, to be guilty of such levity. What he begins he will go through with. He will not apostatise, as a rule (for there may be exceptions) ; he will keep up a profession of religion till he dies. His leaf will not wither, it will continue growing till it reach the ear ; but the ear will be green when it should be ripe. Only in this sense is it said of him that " he becometh unfruitful." 8 He ) bringeth forth fruit, but he bringeth " no fruit to perfection." 1 ^ He never attains to ripeness in his personal character. Any one can see that he is a misthriven Christian, a man not victorious over the world, but defeated by the world in one form or another, by carking care, by the vanity and pride of wealth, by some form of selfish or sensual indulgence, such as 1 James i. 8. Double-mindedness in this text is not to be confounded with hypocrisy. 1 Matt. xiii. 22. Mark iv. 19. Luke viij. 14- Kai oh n\ia Bengel, Greswell, etc ch. ii.j The Tares and the Drag-Net, 39 citizens of the holy commonwealth, and others counterfeit The third and fourth parables of the series those of the Mustard-seed and the Leaven exhibit the history of the kingdom on its bright side as a spiritual movement destined to advance, by a steady onward course of development, from a small beginning to a great ending, worldwide in its extent, and thoroughgoing in its intensive pervasive effect. The remaining two parables those of the Hid Treasure and the Precious Pearl exhibit the kingdom in its own ideal nature as a thing of absolute, incomparable worth, the highest good, worthy to be received, loved, and served with the whole heart as the summum bonum t whatever reception it may in fact meet with at the hands . f men. The fact of a connection is thus apparent, but it does not settle the disputed question alluded to. Two alternatives are possible. The connection between the parables might have led Christ to speak them all at one time, but it may also merely have led Matthew to relate them all in one place, though not all spoken at the same trme ; in accordance with his habit of grouping together materials connected by affinity of thought. That we are not shut up to the former of these alternatives, is sufficiently evinced by the fact that other parables can be pointed to which are undoubtedly closely connected in their subject-matter, and which nevertheless we have no reason to regard as uttered together ; as for example, those relating to the subject of work and wages in the kingdom, the parables of the Talents, the Pounds, and the Hours. 1 These together constitute a complete doctrine on the subject to which they relate, and a teacher of methodic habit would probably have spoken them all at once ; but Christ uttered them as occasion required. And that they fit into each other is due to their truth, not to their being parts of one lesson given in a single didactic effort. While thus content to leave the question undecided as regards the whole group of seven taken collectively, we are strongly of opinion that at least three of the seven were spoken at one time ; even on the day when Jesus opened His mouth in parables sitting in a boat on the Galilean Lake. The three are the parable of the Sower and the two to be 1 Matt. xxv. 14; Luke xix. 12; Matt, xx, 1. 40 The Parabolic Teaching of Christ. |_book l considered in the present chapter. These three are connected not merely in a general way, as relating to the chequered fortunes of the kingdom in this world, but specially, as all illustrating the aspect of the kingdom then present to the Saviour's thoughts, the dark, melancholy side of things; and as suitable alike to the moral and the physical situation : to the moral, as addressed to a multitude comprising examples of all the various classes of hearers described in the parable of the Sower, and exhibiting the mixture of good and evil, of genuine and counterfeit discipleship, typified by the wheat and tares in the same field, and the good and bad fish in one net ; to the physical, as spoken amid scenes where agricultural and piscatorial operations were daily carried on. 1 Tolerably sure as to the historical connection of these three parables, we are still more confident as to the propriety of grouping together for joint consideration the latter two of the three those of the Tares and the Net. They are so like that on a superficial view one might be inclined to pronounce their didactic import identical. They do certainly teach the same general truth, viz. that a mixture of good and evil will prevail in the kingdom of God on this earth while the world lasts ; and that this mixture, while in itself to be deplored, is nevertheless a thing which for wise reasons is to be patiently borne with in view of the great final separation. This being 1 Keim takes the same view. He thinks that parables 3 and 4 (Mustard-seed and Leaven) went originally together ; also 5 and 6 (Treasure and Pearl); likewise 1 and 2; perhaps also 7 (Sower, Tares, and Net), thus forming one group visibly related closely in fundamental view and expression. He thinks it not improbable that the Treasure and the Pearl went along with the last group of three, because it was not Christ's way in a popular discourse to give merely the facts or the meta- physics of the kingdom, but to aim at calling forth a movement of the human will, which would be done by the parables of the Treasure and the Pearl. On the other hand, he thinks the parable of the Mustard-seed and the Leaven were certainly spoken at another time ; founding not only on the fact that they occur in different historical connections in Luke's Gospel, but also on their hopeful, triumphant character, so different from those of the Sower, the Tares, and the Net {Vide 'Jesu von Nazara,' ii. 446-9). Farrar thinks that along with the Sower went no other parables, "except perhaps the simple and closely analogous ones of the Grain of Mustard- seed, and of the Blade, the Ear, and the Full Corn in the Ear, . . . per- haps with these the similitude of the Candle " ('Life of Christ,' i. 324-5). ch. ii.] The Tares and the Drag-Net. 41 the leading lesson of both, the two parables really constitute but one theme ; and to treat them in separate chapters were simply to repeat thoughts that can be most effectively uttered once for all. These parables, however, are not without their distinctive features, which forbid us to regard the one as a mere repetition of the other. A minor point of difference is that in the parable of the Tares the presence of evil in the kingdom is regarded as due to the deliberate action of an evil-minded agent, while in the parable of the Net it appears due rather to accident A more important distinction is that while in the former parable the separation of the evil from the good is represented as for certain reasons not desirable^ in the latter it is tacitly treated as impossible. The good and the bad fish must remain together in the net till they have been dragged to land. This difference if pressed would lead to another, viz. as to the character of the evil element. The tares might be held to represent manifested recognisable evil, the bad fish unmanifested hidden evil a distinction answer- ing to that taken by the Apostle Paul in the words : " Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment, and some men they follow after." l Another point of distinc- tion has been indicated, viz. that while both parables teach a present mixture of evil and good, and an eventual separation, they differ as to the truth emphasised in each respectively, the foreground of the one picture showing the temporary mixture, that of the other the ultimate separation. It is, however, possible to exaggerate this distinction ; for in the parable of the Tares the future judgment is very distinctly described, and in the parable of the Net the idea that the mixture must last till the process of development is com- pleted is not without recognition. The net is not drawn to the shore till it is full. The filling of the net answer* to the ripening of the grain as the sign that the crisis has come. It is, doubtless, a far less apt sign ; still the thing |o be noted is that it is intended to serve that purpose. The net is not to be pulled prematurely to shore ; it must be let fully out and allowed to have its full sweep, that it may catch as many as possible. We now proceed to the interpretation of the two parables. 1 1 Tim. v. 24. 41 The Parabolic Teaching of Christ. [_book, l Our attention shall be first and principally occupied by the Parable of the Tares. The place and the time being probably the same as in the case of the parable of the Sower, Jesus put before His hearers another parable, saying : The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed ' tares ' l among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade sprang up and brought forth fruit, then appeared also the tares. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? Whence, then, hath it tares t And he said unto them, An enemy* did this. - And the servants say unto him, Wilt thou, then, that we go and gather them up t But he saith, No ; lest while ye gather the tares, ye root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and in the season of harvest I will say to the reapers, Collect first the tares, and bind them into bundles to burn them ; but gather the wheat into my barn. MATT xiii. 2430. This is one of the most difficult in the whole series of our Lord's parables. As Luther remarks, it appears very simple and easy to understand, especially as the Lord Himself has explained it and told us what the field and the good seed and the tares are ; but there is such diversity of opinion among interpreters that much attention is needed to hit the right meaning. 8 The expositor's task is none the less arduous that the parable has been mixed up with great controversies on such momentous topics as Church discipline and religious toleration, and the duty of civil and ecclesiastical rulers in reference to heresy and heretics. On such questions a man's opinions are very apt to be influenced by the time in which he lives and the community to which he belongs, and his interpretation of any portion of Scripture that has been made to do service on either side is only too likely to exhibit * The word tares is a most misleading rendering of r& ZtZ&vta, and we have printed it within inverted commas to indicate the fact. The R. V. retains the rendering of the A. V., probably from the difficulty of finding another word that exactly conveys the meaning. For remarks on th nature of the plant intended see further on. 1 i%6pAc av8patwot, a hostile man. Hauspostillen, ' Predigt iiber das Evangelium Matt. xiii. 24 30/ ch. ii.] The Tares and the Drag-Net. 43 manifest traces of the bias thence received. With refeience to the parable before us it may be said that no one has any chance of understanding it who is not prepared to admit that the Christian Church in general is in many respects very different from what her Head desired, and that the particular branch of the Church to which he himself belongs nay, that he himself as an individual office-bearer therein may have sinned grievously against the spirit of wise patience which the parable inculcates. Trying to bear these things duly in mind, let us inquire what is the primd facie impression produced by the parable. Is it not this ? That a mixture of good and evil men of genuine and counterfeit disciples is to be expected in the kingdom of God on earth, and to be regarded, as inevitable, with patience, though not with complacency ; and that as this mixture is in itself, if not in all respects, yet at least in the main, an evil, the children of the kingdom are to comfort themselves under it with the expectation of an eventual separation, which they are assured will certainly come to pass in due season. Thus far the parable seems plain enough, but there are points on which one would gladly receive explana- tions. The tares, who precisely are they ? Then, as to the toleration of the tares, is there to be no limit thereto ? and if there is, where is the line to be drawn ? Then what does the toleration amount to ? Does it exclude Church discipline fat frro r<; '*" "p^ion and faults in conduct ? or is Church disci- pline to take its course even to the extent of thrusting offenders out of the Church, the toleration prescribed consisting simply / in permitting the excommunicated to remain in the wn ^ld f LI^Y Ufr We eagerly turn to Christ's own explanations for a solution of our doubts, but only to be disappointed. These explana- tions are too elementary to meet the wants of those who, like ourselves, look back over a long course of historical development, and wish to know how far that course is in accordance with Christ's mind as expressed in the parable. They were meant for those who had no idea of the import of the parable, and therefore contain little more than the mere alphabet of interpretation. A slight inspection will suffice to convince us of this. After dismissing the multi- tude, Jesus, in answer to a request from His disciples, gav 44 The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, [book i. the following interpretation of 'The Parable of the Tares of the Field.* He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man ; and the field is thi world; and the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; but the tares are the sons of the wicked one} and the enemy that sowed them is the devil ; and the harvest is the end of the world, and the reapers are angels. As then the tares are collected and burned in the fire, so shall it be in the end of the world. The Son of man shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who do iniquity, and they shall cast them into the furnace of fire j there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeths Then shall the righteous shine out as the sun in the kingdom of theit Father. Who hath ears, let him hear. Matt. xiii. 37 43. From this explanation, we learn that in the present parable the wheat and the tares are persons, while in the last parable that of the Sower the wheat is the word of the kingdom ; and that the soil is the world in which such persons live, while in the Sower, the soil is the mind of those who hear the word. We learn, further, that the tares are the chilaren of the wicked one, the good seed being the children of the kingdom. Now this is a very general and indefinite statement, which leaves us free to regard the tares either as spurious Christians, or as evil men, whether professing Christianity or not. If the more general meaning be taken, then the juxtaposition of wheat and tares is in the world, as the common abode of all sorts of men, not in the Church ; and the lesson to Christians is the very general one of patience under the trials inseparable from life on earth. Yet, again, we learn from this explana- tion of the parable given by Christ, that the reapers who make the final separation are the angels ; but we are not told who the servants were who inquired Whence these tares ? Are the angels the servants also ? If so, then the parable contains no direct instruction as to the duty ot the Church, but simply an intimation of God's purpose in providence to 1 Or of wickedness. The R. V. here, as in the Lord's Prayer, renders row 7Tovjpoi " the evil one." Goebel (* Die Parabeln Jesu,' p. 80) adduces in favour of its being neuter, that o\ viol t. it. is parallel to d viol rijc fiaotkiiae ; also that a special clause is introduced to indicate the devil as the source of the wild growth. * The articles indicate that these were familiar features in the picture of Gehenna. ch. ii. J The Tares and the Drag-Net, 45 permit a mixture of good and evil men in the world until the end of this dispensation. The only lesson for the Church is the implied one of acquiescence in God's will. The only thing in the explanation which turns the scale in favour of a more specific conception of the drift of the parable is the expression, "gather out of His kingdom" x If the things that offend, and they who do iniquity, are to be gathered out of the kingdom, it is a natural inference that they were previously in it ; in other words, that the tares are Christians at least in profession. We are thus thrown back on the parable itself to see whe ther we cannot find more precise indications of the character of the evil element. And on looking narrowly, we do find certain particulars which tend to prove that the evil element consists not of bad men in general co-existing with Christians in tne same world till the state of probation closes, but of counterfeit Christians. First and chief, there is the name of the noxious plant which spoils the crop 0-ia.via ; than which none better could be found, if the intention were to describe counterfeit sons of the kingdom, and none less felicitous, if the design were merely to denote bad men in general. The word is one for which it is difficult to find an English equiva- lent the nearest approach to it is darnel ; 8 but there can be no doubt as to the kind of plant it is employed to designate. It is a plant so like wheat, that in the early stages of its growth the two can scarcely be distinguished ; so like that it could even be imagined that the stalks of it, which appeared in fields sewn with wheat, sprang not from separate seed, but from wheat grains that had suffered degeneracy through untoward influences of soil or season. This opinion actually was entertained by the inhabitants of Palestine in our Lord's day, as it is still ; and it is reflected in the Hebrew name for the plant in question, from which the Greek word is formed. The Talmudic equivalent for (i(dvia is Vflh signifying the Dastard plant, from ,-nT, to commit adultery ; the idea under- 1 Ver. 41. trvWiZovaiv Ik rfc parr i\iiag. 1 Greswell thinks we have no equivalent, and simply transfers tha Greek word, putting it into English form zizan. Scripture botanists identify ZtZavia with loliutn temulentum, so called because it produces vertigo. 46 The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, [book i lying the word being that the earth, in producing from good seed such a degenerate crop, played the harlot, so to speak. Those who have the best means of knowing, say that this ides is a mistaken one ; 2 but it is at least of value as a testimony to the close resemblance between the wheat and the ' tares ' , implying, as it does, that the plants are so like, that the theory that tares are simply wheat in a degenerate form, sprung from good wheat seed, might be plausibly entertained. This theory is certainly not proceeded upon in the parable, which represents the tares as springing from separate seed sown after the wheat seed had been cast into the ground. But a resemblance is implied in the description of the tares not less close than if the theory were true ; and this is the second point to which we ask attention. " When the blade," we read, "was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also." 3 In other words, when the wheat and the tares had got the length of being in ear, then, and not till then, did the tares appear as tares, and were clearly seen to be tares. This description, which well-informed travellers declare to be very exactly in accordance with fact, 4 surely suggests a closer connection between the two classes of men, represented by the two crops respectively, than sub- sists between good and bad men living together in the same world. If by the bad crop had been meant merely bad men in general, why emphasise so pointedly the non-distinguish- ableness of the two crops till the time of the earing ? and we may add, why select a plant to represent the evil element so 1 So Wunsch, ' Neue Beitrage zur Erl'auterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrasch,' Gottingen, 1878. He remarks : " Of the earth in which one sows wheat, and which brings forth a bad crop, it is said that it plays the harlot.'' He gives an instance of the metaphorical use of the idea, quoting a Rabbi as saying that at the time of the flood the earth proved herself faithless, because, whereas a good seed had been committed to her, she brought forth a degenerate kind (of men), (p. 165). 1 Thomson, ' The Land and the Book,' p. 421, argues against the notion as incredible. * Ver. 26. r<5r tyavt) Kal rd ZtZavm. They then appeared as tares. 4 Thomson, 'The Land and the Book,' p. 420, says: "In those parts, where the grain has headed out, they have done the same, and there a child cannot mistake them for wheat or barley ; but where both are less developed, the closest scrutiny will often fail to detect them. I cannot do it at all with any confidence." ch. ii.] The Tares and the Drag-NeU 47 like wheat in the early stage of growth ? why not be content with the thorns, which in the parable of the Sower choked the good seed, and prevented it from bringing forth fruit unto perfection ? It is impossible for any unbiassed mind to refuse acquiescence in the opinion so well expressed by Lightfoot, 1 that the wheat and the tares signify not simply good and bad men, but good and bad Christians both distinct from other men as wheat grain is distinct from all other seeds, but distinct from each other as genuine is distinct from bastard wheat. The subsequent sowing of the field with tares, 2 and the ascription of this act to an enemy, are two additional features of the parable which point towards the same conclusion. What need of an additional sowing in order to get a crop of bad men in the world, living side by side with the children of the kingdom ? Bad men abounded before the kingdom of God, which Christ came to found, appeared ; and they were certain to abound after its appearance, without one taking pains for that purpose. But if what was meant by Jesus, when He spoke of tares as likely to arise when His kingdom was planted, was counterfeit forms of Christianity forms of evil which would not have appeared had not Christianity appeared, and manifesting themselves as perversions of Christian truth then we can understand why He spoke of an after-sowing of the field. Then, too, we can understand why He said with such emphasis " an enemy " or still more strongly in the interpretation, " the devil " " hath done this." For it is characteristic of an enemy animated by diabolical malice, not only to do mischief, but to do it in the most vexatious possible manner. But what more vexatious than to have one's crop of wheat spoiled, not merely by a crop of noxious plants growing up in the midst of it, but by a crop which mocks the husbandman's hope by its specious resemblance to the crop of genuine grain he has taken all needful pains to raise ? To do this is a feat worthy of him who for wicked 1 Horae Hebraicae, in Evangelium Matthsei. That the tares were sown after the wheat is evident even from the T. R., which represents the enemy as sowing them among the wheat ; but it is made specially prominent when, in place of the loiruQt of the T. R. in ver. 25, we substitute the reading Moirtipiv approved by critics, rendered in the Vulgate super seminaruit sowed upon the wheat previously sown. 48 The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, [book i. ends transforms himself into an angel of light, and who, in the quaint words of Luther, cares not to dwell in waste dry places, but prefers to sit in heaven. 1 Taking these features of the parable, then, along with the statement in the interpretation that the scandals are to be gathered out of the kingdom, we cannot doubt that the mix- ture of good and evil elements spoken of is a mixture to be exhibited, not in the world merely, but in the kingdom itself as it appears on this earth ; and that the evil element is not bad men in general, but counterfeit Christians ; or, if you please, anti-Christian tendencies, perversions of Christian truth into forms of error kindred in appearance, utterly diverse in spirit ; as, for example, of spiritual authority into priestcraft, of salvation by grace into Antinomian licence, or of self-denying devotion into a gloomy asceticism. We do not, of course, mean that the tares are to be restricted to corruptions in doctrine. It is more probable that Christ had in view chiefly, not to say exclusively, men of evil life, by their conduct an offence and stumbling-block to faith. It is indeed a natural enough suggestion that the two expressions, "the scandals," and "those that do iniquity," refer to two classes of evil ; the former to heresies, the latter to all forms of un-Christian practice : possibly united in the same persons, men at once errorists and evil livers. 2 But we admit that we learn to put this double construction on the words from history rather than from the words themselves. The dog- matic idea of heresy is a creation of a later age ; the word in the New Testament denotes a moral offence. At the same time it has to be remembered that there are some opinions which have their root in a corrupt moral condition, which may therefore be included under the scandals alluded to. The tares then are in the kingdom. But if so, how is the direction to let the tares alone until the harvest to be con- strued ? absolutely or relatively, to the exclusion of Church 1 Hauspostillen, ' Predigt fiber Matt. xiii. 24 30.' * So Grotius. He remarks that after the first pure stage of the Church's existence there began to mix themselves with Christians: " Duo hominum vitiosorum genera, alii prava docentes, alii puram professionem vita turpi dehonestantes. Prioris generis homines oKavtaka hie vocantur." Annota- tions in Novum Testamentum. Goebel finds in the text a reference only to evil life. The scandals are the deeds of wicked men. ch. ii. J T/ie Tares and the Drag-Net. 49 censures, or, these being assumed as in their own sphere valid, at once lawful, beneficial, and obligatory ? This is the quaestio vexata a question all the harder to answer that the conflicting interests of purity and patience are both worthy of all respect, so that no solution of the difficulty which sacrifices either interest to the other can satisfy any earnest mind. Various attempts, at once historically and exegetically inter- esting, have been made to solve the problem. We may note some of the more outstanding. 1. First comes the Donatist solution. The Donatists, whose aim was to make the Church as pure in reality as it is in idea, got over the difficulty very simply, by denying the view of the tares which creates it, viz. that they signify spurious Christians known to be such, yet for certain reasons to be tolerated. The point in the parable and its interpretation on which they laid chief stress, was the statement, " the field is the world," and the lesson they drew from the parable was, Bear patiently the evil that is in the world, a duty involving no obligation to tolerate evil in the Church. When their opponents pointed to the parable of the Net in proof that Christ contemplated a mixture of good and evil in the Church as a characteristic of its state antecedent to the end, they admitted that such a mixture was implied in that parable, but they evaded the force of the fact as an argument against their position by saying that it was only such a mixture as was due to ignor- ance on the part of the Church authorities. No one can tell what sort of fish are in a net while it is under the water, and in like manner there may be men in the Church of unholy character not known to be unholy, and their presence argues nothing in favour of tolerating within the Church men known to be unholy. 1 For the reasons already given we cannot acquiesce in this solution. The tares, we have seen, are counterfeit Christians subsisting side by side with genuine Christians within the kingdom. Nor does the statement " the field is the world " in the least invalidate the argument in support of that position. The field indeed is the world, and the statement is one of the numerous passages in the teaching 1 Augustine gives an account of this controversy as to the interpretation of the parable between the Catholics and the Donatists in the tract ' Ad Donatistas post Collationem,* 5 5 fj^ e sword against heretics . . The > 1 former question h e answers in tfcs a ffi rma<-1 ' w : and he recon - v enes his view w ith \ h( * ptahihitJQH l' n the par ahlf by remarking that what is prohibited is the destruction of the tares. Those who exercise authority in the Church may excommunicate but not kill heretics. His second question Luther also answers in the affirmative, reconciling his answer with the parable by remarking that the Lord speaks of the kingdom of God, and of what those who exercise authority there may do ; so that the prohibition does not mean heretics shall not be slain, but merely they shall not be slain by the ministers of the Gospel. 2 This interpretation of the great German reformer needs no elaborate refutation. It may be answered in a single sentence. What the Master in the parable prohibits is not, as Luther alleges, the destruction of the tares, but their removal from the field, their separation from the wheat. 4. Beza, while acquiescing in Luther's doctrine that heretics 1 Comment, in Matthaeum. Hauspostilleo, Predigt iiber das Evang. Matt, xiii 243,' 2 52 The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, [book i may be proceeded against by the censures of the Church and the sword of the civil magistrate, adopted an entirely different method of harmonising that doctrine with the teaching of the parable. He expounded his views of the parable in a tract in defence of the use of the sword against heresy by the civil magis- trate, in connection with the burning of Servetus ; his purpose being to reply to an argument drawn from the parable by his opponents in favour of religious toleration. These were, in brief, as follows: The tares are not heretics merely, but all sorts of offenders, and therefore if the parable contains a prohibition against the killing of heretics by the civil magistrate, it equally contains a prohibition against the execution of all sorts of evil-doers, which is absurd. But the parable in reality con- tains no prohibition, at least none directed either to ecclesi- astical authorities or to the civil magistrate : the servants are the angels, and the parable represents God as telling them on what method He is to conduct His ordinary providential government. " As in the beginning of the history of Job, so here, the Lord is shown conversing with His angels concern- ing the future state of His Church in this world." That state in general is to be one of tribulation, the children of the kingdom mingling in the intercourse of life with unbelieving and ungodly men, and enduring much at their hands. The only lesson for Christians to be inferred from the parable is the duty of bearing patiently with this general condition of things. Against the appropriate punishment of individual evil-doers, whether in Church or in State, it says not a word. It is assumed that such punishment is to be inflicted as far as possible ; only we are given to understand that when ecclesi- astical and civil officers have done their utmost, the world will after all be a most ungenial home for the children of the kingdom. After the remarks already made in discussing the question who are the tares, we deem it quite unnecessary to enter into detailed criticism of this interpretation. We only observe how unlikely it is that Christ should utter a parable teaching so very general and commonplace a truth at the time and in the circumstances in which there is reason to believe the parable was spoken ; and how unlikely, if He desired to convey such a lesson, that He would put the truth iu so unsuitable a form. Why call wicked men in general CHv ii.] The Tares and the Drag-Net. 53 tares f why not rather, as on other occasions, speak of them as wolves, to whose violence His sheep are to be exposed in 1 this world ? If we desire to know how our. Lord spoke to His disciples of the tribulations they should encounter in the world, we must turn not to this parable, but to His discourse to the twelve in connection with the Galilean mission, 1 or to His farewell address to them on the eve of His Passion. 2 5. Only one other solution of the problem now under consideration calls for mention, viz. that hinted at by Jerome and favoured by many modern theologians of high reputation. This view finds the key to the interpretation of the parable in the likeness of the tares to the wheat and the risk thence arising of pulling up wheat by mistake* The words, " lest while ye gather up the tares ye root up also the wheat with them," it takes to mean, not "lest ye pull up that which though tares to-day may be wheat to-morrow," but " lest in pulling up that which ye fancy to be tares ye uproot that which in reality is wheat." The reason for the prohibition being thus understood, it is of course assumed that when there is no room for doubt as to the noxious character of the plants mixed with the wheat, they may at once be removed. Now it is undoubtedly true that there is a close resemblance between the tares and the wheat, and that there is an intention in the parable to emphasise the fact. It is meant that we should note that tares, as Bengel remarks, have a much better appearance than thorns and thistles. 4 It may also be ad- mitted, as the same writer observes, that from the toleration of tares we may not argue for the toleration of thorns 6 and thistles, which, as we are told by another patron of this view, only a wretched farmer would suffer in his fields. 8 Nor is it difficult to imagine forms of spiritual evil answering to the tares which have to be tolerated, as distinct from forms answering to thorns and thistles which may not be tolerated. 1 Matt x. 16. * John xvi. Jerome says : * Inter triticum et zizania, quod nos appellamus lolium, quamdiu herba est, et nondum culmus venit ad spicam, grandis similitudo est, et in discernendo aut nulla aut perdifficilis distantia." ' Comment, in Matthaeum.' 4 " Zizania majorem speciem habent quam cardui et spinae." Gnomon, "A tolerantia illorum ad horum non valet consequential' Gnomon. De Valenti, Die Parabeln des Herrn.' 54 Th* Parabolic Teaching of Christ, [book u We are quite willing to accept the description of the spiritual tares given by the author last referred to : " They are the false brethren, ' the " dogs," the "concision," the" lying apostles who, like the devil himself, transform themselves into angels of light men, in short, whose corrupt conduct is not alto- gether hidden from the true servants of the Lord, but who yet, with all their badness, show a certain skill and moderation, so that no truly Christian society has the courage to subject them to Church censures." l But the difficulty which stands in the way of our accepting this interpretation is that in the parable it seems plainly implied that at the stage of growth at which the crop had arrived, the difference between wheat and tares could be plainly recognised, so that if it had been desirable the servants could have taken out each individual stalk of tares without mistake, at least without mistake arising from ignorance, for of course mistakes through carelessness would be very likely to happen. And further, the evil apprehended does not appear to be that wheat may be pulled up by mistake, but that wheat may be pulled up along with the tares, owing to the intertwining of their roots in the soil It is not said, Lest ye root up wheat instead of tares, but, Lest ye uproot the wheat along with them. 2 We cannot avoid the conclusion, therefore, that whatever lesson our Lord desired to teach, He meant to apply not merely to forms of evil of doubtful tendency, but to forms of evil whose character and tendency can no longer be doubted. 3 But how, then, are we to get over the difficulty with which all the foregoing interpretations unsuccessfully grapple? Simply by bearing duly in mind this very elementary con- sideration, that Christ is not here laying down a rule for the regulation of ecclesiastical practice, but inculcating the 1 De Valenti, i., p. 163. * S/ia avroie : cifta is not a preposition but an adverb. Meyer translate* the words "at the same time by them " (zugleich durch sie), taking avrolf as an instrumental dative. The idea is that the uprooted tares carry along with them the wheat, owing to the solidarity of the two in the soil. Besides Bengel and De Valenti, may be mentioned as supporting the foregoing interpretation, Tholuck, who in an interesting discussion of the parable in the ' Literarischer Anzeiger' for 1847, m a review of Trench'i w*>rk on the Parables, goes very fully into the history of opinion. Trench himself favours this interpretation, though not adopting it exclusively. ch.il] The Tares and the Drag-Net. 5$ cultivation of a certain spirit the spirit of wise patience ; a spirit to be cherished by all men in all spheres, civil and ecclesiastical, but especially by Christians, the children of the kingdom. What has been well said concerning the Sermon on the Mount applies to this parable: everything in this discourse refers -us to the world of temper and disposition. 1 Beza was not wrong in saying that the lesson of the parable is a lesson of patience ; his error lay in restricting the scope of the lesson to the tribulations Chris- tians encounter in the world. The lesson applies not only to the evils in the world, but also, and more particularly, and chiefly, to the evils in the Church; it applies to the bearing and behaviour of Christians towards these evils, however exhibited, whether in formal Church discipline, or in private and social intercourse. The parable neither pro- hibits nor fixes limits to ecclesiastical discipline, but teaches a spirit which will affect that part, as well as all other parts, of religious conduct ; and which, had it prevailed in the Church more than it ever has prevailed, would have made the Church's history very different from what it is. A recent writer on the parables, who interprets this parable as Beza did, while of course having no sympathy with the persecuting principles advocated by the sixteenth century divine, tries to shut into a corner those who hold that the parable inculcates a tolerant attitude towards evil in the Church by a peremp- tory logic of alternatives, thus : the prohibition against pulling up the tares is absolute; therefore either Church discipline is absolutely prohibited, or it does not bear upon discipline at all. 2 The futility of this Either-or logic may be very easily 1 Martensen, ' Christian Ethics,' p. 382. * Arnot on the ' Parables of our Lord,' p. 95. This respected author accuses Dr. Trench of an Erastian bias in his way of applying the parable to the subject of discipline. But bias in an opposite direction is very manifest in his own case. He assumes that the ecclesiastical practice of his own Church in such matters is unquestionably right : the possibility of the contrary does not seem to have entered into his mind. This is the secret of his partiality for the Donatist interpretation of the words, u the field is the world.' This example may illustrate what we said at the commencement, that a man has no chance of understanding this parable who is not prepared to admit the possibility of his own Church, yea, of himself, sinning against the Lord's mind as set forth therein. There are $6 The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, [boo* i. shown by a parallel case. In the Sermon on the Mount th Preacher says, " Swear not at all." Are we to say, This is either an absolute prohibition of oath-taking, or it has no bearing on the subject of oaths ? Certainly not. The pre- cept does not absolutely prohibit oaths, and yet it does bear most closely on the subject of oaths. It means, let there !& no occasion, so far as you are concerned, for swearing oaths ; let your utterances be absolutely truthful, your yea, yea, and your nay, nay. It is a precept whose importance every Christian acknowledges, yet few dream of its being incom- patible with the actual swearing of oaths on proper occasions for confirmation of one's word, and to put an end to doubt and strife. For however truthful I may be, I know that there are many false men in the world, and that therefore distrust is excusable distrust even towards myself, seeing it is hard to know true men from knaves. Even so, while the world lasts, there will be need and room in the Church for the exercise of discipline, that the reality of Christian life in the holy commonwealth may come as near as possible to its high ideal ; and yet the lesson of our parable will always be valid as a protest against all Church censures springing out of an impatient view of the evils inseparable from the kingdom of God in its present earthly state, and as an admonition to those who have authority in the kingdom to exercise their authority in accordance with the rule so well expressed by Augustine : "Let discipline preserve patience, and let patience temper dis- cipline, and let both be referred to charity, so that on the one hand an undisciplined patience may not foster iniquity, and on the other hand an impatient discipline may not dissipate unity." 1 The philosophy of this patience with evil prevalent in the visible Church is not fully given in the parable ; at most we have but a hint of the rationale, though it is a hint which suggests much more than it says to those who understand. Before remarking on this pregnant hint we cannot but advert in passing to the marked contrast between the implied teach- ing of the parable of the Sower and that of this parable, as to the mode of dealing with evil appearing in connection with certainly two sides to the question how far a jealous exercise of discipline is wise or unwise. 1 ' Ad Donatistas post Collationem.' iv. 6. ch. ii. J The Tares and the Drag-Net. 57 the work of the kingdom. The implied teaching of the former parable, in reference to the thorns, is : Get rid of them, else there will be no crop of good grain. The expressed teaching of the present parable with reference to the tares is : Let them alone till the good grain is ripe. Whence this difference ? Hence : the evil in the one case is within ourselves, in the other case it is without us, in other men. The doctrine of the one parable is, Tolerating evil in ourselves is deadly to our spiritual interest ; that of the other, Tolerating evil in others is not necessarily so may even be profitable as an exercise promoting the growth of the graces of patience and charity. Thus viewed, the lessons of the two parables are not only mutually compatible, but in harmony with the whole tenour of our Lord's ethical teaching. On the one hand, He ever inculcated inexorable severity in self-judgment, saying, e.g. in the Sermon on the Mount, " If thy right eye or thy right hand offend thee, pluck it out, or cut it off and cast it from thee ; " ' on the other, with reference to our fellow-men, He gave this counsel in the very same discourse, "Judge not, that ye be not judged." 8 Many are slow to understand the grounds of these diverse counsels, and appear to think themselves as responsible for the sins of their brethren as for their own ; not to say more, for there are some of whom more could be said, viz. that they behold a mote in their brother's eye, and con- sider not the beam that is in their own eye. 8 It is, indeed, a question deserving serious consideration on the part of all Christians, what are the limits of responsibility in connection with the sins of fellow-members of the same religious com- munion ? That there is a certain amount of responsibility cannot be denied, for the Church is not an hotel in which men may sit side by side at table, without knowing, or caring to know, anything about the character of a fellow-guest. But, on the other hand, the responsibility is a strictly limited one, coming far short of the responsibility lying on each man for his own conduct ; for if the Christian Church is not an hotel, as little is it a club whose members may claim and use the right of excluding from membership every one who is not in all respects a person according to their taste and fancy. This 1 Matt. v. 29, 30. See also Matt xviii. 8, 9, where the counsel it repeated in the sermon on Humility. Matt vii. 1. Matt. vii. 13. 58 The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, [book i. club theory of Church fellowship, however, is much to the liking of many. It was the theory in favour with the Dona- tists, who held that mixed communions were infectious, and that the pious were polluted by fellowship with the profane. Against this ultra-puritanic theory the quaint observations of Fuller may aptly be cited : " St. Paul saith, ' But let a man examine himself y and so let him eat of that bread] but enjoins not men to examine others, which was necessary if bad com- municants do defile. It neither makes the cheer or welcome the worse to sit next to him at God's table who wants a wedding garment ; for he that touches his person, but dis- claims his practices, is as far from him as the east from the west, yea, as heaven from hell. In bodily diseases one may be infected without his knowledge, against his will : not so in spiritual contagions, where accediturad vitium corruptionis vitio consensionis, and none can be infected against their consent." s Let us now look at the hints contained in the parable at a philosophy of the patience it inculcates towards the evil existing in the visible Church. " Nay," said the householder to the servants who proposed that the tares should at once be gathered out ; " lest while ye gather up the tares ye root up also the wheat with them." Then, to explain wherein the harm of such a result lay, he added : " Let both grow together until the harvest!' That is, the uprooting of the wheat is an evil when it happens during the process of growth. When that process is complete no harm can be done, the time for uprooting or cutting down having arrived. The doctrine of the parable therefore is : The matter of prime importance is fot that the tares be got rid of, but that the wheat pass through the natural course of development till the process of growth reach its consummation. If both ends cannot be ac- complished together, beware of sacrificing the more important to the less important. 8 Thomas Fuller : * The Profane State,' bk. v. chap ii., on The Rigid Donatists. The Latin quotation in the above extract is from Augustine 'Contra Donatistas post Collationem.' In the same tract Augustine expresses the principle of limited responsibility in terms first used by the Donatists in self-defence, and then turned against them by the Catholics : "Nee causae causa, nee personam persona praejudicat." * Keim says, " The parable shows the deep wisdom of Jesus forbidding all violent attacks against evil as an interference not only with the Divine ch. ii.] The Tares and the Drag- Net. 59 But headlong zeal for purity is ready to ask, Why cannot the two ends be accomplished together? how should the growth of the wheat be imperilled by the uprooting of the tares ? Thoughtful minds have suggested various answers to these questions. Perhaps the case in which the risk is most obvious is that in which the tares are represented not by a few individual instances of men holding unwholesome opinions, and indulging in unchristian practices, but by an evil tendency, widespread in society, such as the rationalism which prevailed so extensively in the churches in the eighteenth century. It is such a case that is contemplated in the parable. The wild crop is so abundant as to make the question of the servants M Didst thou not sow wheat ? ", implying a shade of doubt, not an impertinence. The corresponding state of things in the kingdom indicated thereby is such as to be a stumbling-block to faith, and to give rise to doubt whether it be the kingdom of God at all, and not rather the kingdom of darkness and evil; 1 such as to demand Satanic influence for its explanation, This must be borne in mind in connection with the prohibition to uproot the tares, which has reference to the special case supposed, that of a crop of tares growing from seed sown over the whole field, and is compatible with a contrary practice when the tares are merely stray stalks growing accidentally in the field. In such a case they are actually gathered out of a growing crop at the present hour, 2 and probably were also in our Lord's time, as the proposal of the servants to uproot them implies. If so, then we must conclude that an exceptional order of judgment, but with the order of the earthly development in good and evil ; the fine thought being quietly insinuated that the undeveloped good can easily appear to the human eye as bad, and the bad as good, so that both can assume a fixed definite character only through the tolerating of the process of development" ' Jesu von Nazara,' ii. 450. 1 This ii implied by the expression rd oKdvSaXa, v. 41. So GoebeL No stress is to be laid on the etymological meaning of the word trapstick, as if the evil men in the kingdom were deceivers. * So Stanley reports, ' Sinai and Palestine,' p. 426. My esteemed friend, Dr. Robertson Smith, late Professor of Hebrew in the Free Church College, Aberdeen, now Lord Almoner's Professor of Arabic in the Uni- versity of Cambridge, and Librarian of that University, informs me that during a recent visit to the East he ascertained the present practice to be as stated above. I cannot refer to his name without expressing my deep re- gret that his great talents have been lost to the Scottish Church. 60 The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, [book t. case is smpposed in the parable, to convey an adequate idea of the extent to which corruption would prevail in the Church, and also the special need for care in the spiritual sphere not to uproot anything good. For such a state of things as that implied in the parable tne only remedy is patience a patience inspired and sustained by the hope that a new time will come, bringing a new spirit, a new faith, and a new life ; a hope that maketh not ashamed, and which has never been disappointed from the beginning of the Christian era till now. In such a state of things impa- tience, prompting to stamping-out measures, is folly, and has been condemned as such by the wisest in the Church from the time of Augustine downwards. Such a policy of impatience forgets the solidarity of men living together in the same religious community: the many ties, spiritual and social, by which they are knit together ; and the penalty of its heedlessness is dismemberment, schism, the extensive up- rooting of wheat and tares together. Far better tolerate the evil, even if it were in your power to get rid of it, than uproot it at such a cost. And if the evil should be so prevalent as to outnumber and overpower the good and this is quite a possible case equally to be condemned is the form which the policy of impatience is then apt to assume ; that, viz. of the wheat pulling up, not the tares, but itself, even when the tares are quite willing to live side by side with it. In such a case the wheat should remain among the tares, and grow there as long as the tares will permit it. The Donatistic spirit dictates another course. It says, " Come out from among them, and be ye separate." Alas that it should have found so many at all times ready to obey its summons, and forsake the Church in disgust because all goes not according to their wish, and because nowhere appears absolute purity j 1 heedless of the warning that " they may fly so far from mystical Babylon as to run to literal Babel, bring all to confusion, and founder the commonwealth ! "* * Calvin says : " Plerique zeli praetextu, plus aequo morosi, nisi omnia ad eorum votum composita sint, quia nusquam apparet absoluta puritas, tumultuose ab ecclesia discedunt vel importuno rigore earn evertunt M perdunt" 'Comment, in Harmoniam Evang.' 1 Thomas Fuller : * Profane State,' bk. v. chap. ii. ch. ii. J The Tares and the Drag-Net, 6? In pursuing this policy of impatience, whether in the way of pulling up the tares or in the way of pulling up itself, the wheat does itself much spiritual harm, quite distinct from the external evil of separation into sects. The policy tends to foster pride and uncharitableness, and so prevents the wheat from ripening, or causes it to degenerate into something not better than tares, whose fruit is poisonous. The children cf the kingdom become too conscious of being the wheat, boast of their purity, thank God they are better than others, and by doing so make themselves worse, banish from their hearts the spirit of Christ, and bring on their souls the curse of im- poverishment and barrenness. How small the harm done by the mere juxtaposition of the tares to that which self-righteous zealots thus inflict upon themselves ! For such reasons as these ought the tares to be borne with even when tJiere is no room for doubt as to their being tares, which is the case supposed in the parable. It is evident that from the injunction to practise tolerance even in such a case an argument a fortiori may be drawn in favour of the tolera- tion of plants whose character is doubtful. There is an addi- tional reason for tolerance in such a case viz. that the wheat may be pulled up not along with but instead of the tares ; that being mistaken for a noxious plant which is in reality a stalk of genuine grain. This danger is not imaginary ; the mistake has often happened, and it may often happen again. There is a constant risk of committing the mistake arising out of this circumstance, that every new visitation of God in His grace to His Church is apt, when new, to appear anything but a good gift to those familiar with the grace of the king- dom under its old forms. " Every new thing," it has been well said, "which appears in the life of the Spirit, every thought which moves the world for the first time, looks dan- gerous ; one knows not what to make of it, and is troubled. Even Christ with His apostles appeared to the Jews and heathens as an impious rebel against Divine and human right." x For this reason we should be slow to suspect new things and in no haste to judge them. "Judge nothing before the time," allow it to develop itself, and to reveal its charac- ter ; and if it turn out to be tares, it will be time enough then * Arndt, ' Die Gleichnissreden Jesu Christi.' ii. 204. 6a The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, [book u to consider what is to be done with it. This seems so obvious a dictate of reason, that those who act otherwise may be suspected of being actuated by by-ends, or even of being themselves tares ; for there is truth in the shrewd observation of Bengel, " Often tares pass themselves off as wheat, end endeavour to eradicate wheat as if they were tares." * At the least they are chargeable with great folly ; for who that is wise would act like those empirics " that would cut off a man's head if they see but a wart upon his cheek, or a dimple upon his chin, or any line in his face to distinguish him from another man." 2 To these arguments in favour of a policy of patience towards evils prevalent in the visible Church on earth, must be added one that will carry more weight with all true Chris- tians than all the rest, viz. the example of Christ. He who spake this parable, Himself complied with its teaching, and took patiently the marring of His work as the Founder of the kingdom by Satanic influences ; of which we have a witness in His behaviour towards the counterfeit disciple Judas, whom He bore with meekly till the hour came when He was ready as a grain of wheat to fall into the ground and die. How significant in connection with this patient bearing of our Lord the name which He gives Himself in the interpretation of our parable. "He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man."* It is the name we all know and value so much as the symbol and pledge of Christ's meekness and of His sympathy with men, the name appropriate to His state of humiliation and to His work as the Saviour of the lost. The use of the name here suggests an argument in support of the doctrine of the parable to this effect : " I, the Son of man, find an enemy busy sowing bad seed in the field where I have sown the good seed. It is saddening and disappointing, but I know it will be, and I am content that it should be, till the end. When the end comes, then the Son of man, who is now humbled by the counterworking of the evil one, will be glorified by being placed at the head of a kingdom wherein shall be none that 1 " Saepe et pro tritico se venditant, et triticum tanquam zizania eradicate conantur." Gnomon, in loc. * Jeremy Taylor, ' Epistle Dedicatory to the Liberty of Prophesying.' Matt xiii. 37. ch. ii.] The Tares and the Drag-Net, 6$ offend or that commit iniquity. Be ye like Me in this : beal patiently the mixture of evil with the good in the kingdom, and the obscuration thence arising to the children of the kingdom from the difficulty of knowing who are such indeed. The time will come when ye shall at length along with Me shine out as the sun shines out from behind a cloud 1 in the kingdom of your Father." How happy for the Church if all the children of the kingdom felt the power of this appeal I But, alas ! it is hard to imitate the patience of Christ ! Need we wonder at the impatience of many young Christians, who are naturally prone to severity, and even of not a few old ones, in whom patience might have been expected to have had its perfect work, when we think of the immense contrast between Jesus and His contemporary and forerunner John in this respect ? Jesus is content that good and evil should grow together during the long course of development through which He knows His kingdom has to pass. John demands an instant severance of good from evil, of wheat from chaff, and conceives of Messiah as coming with a fan in His hand for this judicial purpose, and on finding that He has come with- out the fan, sends to Him to ask the doubting question, "Art thou He that should come, or do we look for another?" 8 The Drag-Net. Having discussed at such length the parable of the Tares, a very few sentences will suffice to complete the exposition of the kindred parable of the Net, which is as follows : Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind; which, when it was filed, they drew 1 UMfiyf/ovatv o>c ri ^JXcoc (v. 43). Calvin has a fine thought here : " Nee dubium est quin ad locum Danielis respexerit quo magis ad vivum afficeret auditores : acsi dixisset, Prophetam ubi de futuro splendore concionatur, simul notare temporalem caliginem; ideoque ut locus detur vaticinio patienter ferendam esse mixturam quae electos Dei reprobis ad tempus involvit" 'Comment, in Harmoniam Evang.' The Jews had a doctrine concerning the shining bodies of the righteous in the life to come. Vide on this Langen, * Judenthum in Palastina zur Zeit Christi,' p. 507, where reference is made to our parable, as also to Paul's doctrine in 1 Cor. xv. But in the parable the glory is ethical, being the shining forth of the true character of the righteous, obscured in thij world by their being mixed with counterfeits. * Matt xi. 3. 64 The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, [book i. upon the beach ; and they sat down and gathered the good in to vessels, but cast the bad 1 away. So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire : there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Matth. xiii. 47-50. After what has been said it is unnecessary to discuss the debated question whether the mixture of good and evil spoken of in this parable be within or without the kingdom. No one convinced by the reasoning whereby we have attempted to show that the mixture is within in the case of the parable of the Tares, will think it worth while to contend for the thesis that it is without in the case of the parable of the Net. To show how pointless and inapposite to the affairs of the king- dom the parable becomes in the hands of those who maintain that position, nothing more is needed than to allow one of its most strenuous recent advocates to state it in his own words. * The net is not the visible Church in the world, and the fishes good and bad within it do not represent the true and false members of the Church. The sea is the world. The net, almost or altogether invisible at first to those whom it sur- rounds, is that unseen bond which by an invisible ministry is stretched over the living, drawing them gradually, secretly, surely, towards the boundary of this life, and over it into another. As each portion or generation of the human race are drawn from their element in this world, ministering spirits, on the lip of Eternity that lies nearest Time, receive them, and separate the good from the evil." * A very graphic and solemn representation, but what has it to do specially with the kingdom of God ? The process described, the drawing of human beings out of the sea of Time to the shore of Eternity, goes on all the world over, in pagan as well as in Christian lands. Doubtless the parable contains the important doctrine of an Eternal Judgment, the only doctrine which on this view it teaches. But that doctrine is not a specific truth of the kingdom of God ; it is a doctrine of natural religion, and as such was taught in the religions of Egypt, 1 k oavpi: literally, putrid; more generally, worthless, useless for food : " oairpa sunt nugamenta et quisquilije piscium, quod genus ut servat* indignum videmus a piscatoribus abjici." Grotius, ' Annotationes in Nov. Test.' * Arnot, ' The Parables of our Lord,' p. 170, ch. ii.] The Tares and ihe Drag-Net, 65 Persia, and Greece. To make it a specific doctrine of the kingdom it would be necessary to point out the principle on which the final separation takes place, as is done, for example, in the parabolic representation of the last judgment in the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew, where men's eternal destiny is made to turn on the way in which they treat Christ, in the person of His representatives, the poor and needy. But the parable now under consideration enunciates no specifically Christian principle of judgment, no principle of judgment at all, indeed, beyond the very general one that men shall be disposed of according to their moral characters. The parable, therefore, becomes one relating to the kingdom only when it is assumed that the casting of the net has reference to the work of the kingdom, and the goodness and badness of the fish to the moral qualities of those who are the subjects of that work. This parable asserts even more emphatically than that oi the tares that not now but at the end of the world is the time for separation of the good and evil mixed together in the kingdom. It so puts the matter that separation is seen to be not merely undesirable but impossible ; for till the fish are landed it cannot be known which are good and which are worthless. The graphic representation has a manifest tendency to act as a wholesome sedative on impatience and anxiety. Why fret over a mixture of the evil with the good, which is pronounced on authority to be in present circum- stances inevitable in some form, if not in the form of open scandal, at least in the form of hypocritical religious profession on the part of men who have a form of godliness without the power ? We might be better employed than in fretting over what cannot be helped viz. in casting a net and in striving to bring as many as possible within the kingdom. That is the business of the present hour ; not to judge or sift, but to catch fish, using a large net and giving it as wide a sweep as possible. The proportion of good fish to bad may be very small, it was so in Christ's own experience ; for of that crowd on the shore which listened to His parables, and which represented the result of His past labours, all but a few, when the day of crisis and sifting came, " went back, and walked no more with Him." It is a sad spectacle, and all the more that F 66 The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, [book l it may be taken not as an isolated but almost as a typical case ; nevertheless, the duty of Christians is plain. It is not to ask wistfully shall many or few be saved, but to strive with might and main to bring into the Church as many as possible of such as are at least in the way of being saved. 1 In this connection it is important to note the kind of net referred to in the parable. It is a seine-net 2 of vast length, such as men use in the sea where there is ample scope for a wide sweep with a view to a great haul. The word is aptly chosen so as to be in congruity with the Catholic aim and hopeful spirit of Christianity, which is a religion for the world, and the Author of which gave it as His last injunction to those whom He had chosen to be fishers of men : " Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." 8 Of the final separation so solemnly asserted and described in those two parables we do not here speak. We close with a single word concerning a notion of sceptical critics as to the alleged ecclesiastical party tendencies of the parables, which scarce deserves notice save for the great names with which it is associated. The Tubingen school, who find tendency every- where in the New Testament, will have it that traces of the great struggle between Pauline and Antipauline views of Christianity are clearly discernible here. The parable of the Tares is directed against Paul, who is the enemy that came by night and sowed bad seed in the field.* On the other hand, the parable of the Net is Propauline ; the capacious net taking in all sorts of fish being intended as a justification for Paul's two- leaved door of universalism thrown wide open to admit all comers. 6 Surely this is criticism gone mad. The two parables are in perfect accord, and they both bear the stamp of one mind, the mind of Him who soared above petty party strifes and dwelt habitually in the serene region of 1 Acts ii. 47. The Lord added daily to the community of Christians (iirl rb aM) such as were being saved (roie auZou'evovc). 2 Say^vij (v. 47). Vide Trench's note on this word in his work on the Parables, p. 140. 8 Mark xvi. 15. 4 So Volkmar and Hflgenfeld, also Renan (in 'Les Evangiles,' p. 273). Keim refers to this opinion with disapproval, vide 'Jesu von Nazara,' ii. 449- ' Renan, ' Les Evangiles,' p. 201. ch. ii.] The Tares and the Drag-Net 67 Divine wisdom and charity. The spirit of the two parables is the same, it is the spirit of universalism, not in the contro- versial sense, but in the sense in which we ascribe that attribute to all Christ's teaching. The Kingdom of God as Jesus preached it was a kingdom whose blessings were de- signed for the whole human race. In perfect accord with the whole drift of His teaching is the doctrine contained in these parables. The field is the worlds the net is cast into the sea, and the net itself is the largest possible, to be employed for the purposes of a gracious economy by men animated by Christ's own catholic spirit. CHAPTER TIL THE TREASURE AND THE PEARL | OR, THE KINGDOM OF GOD THE SUMMUM BONUlf. These two parables constitute together but one text, and teach the same general lesson, namely, the incomparable worth of the kingdom of God. They show us how the kingdom ought to be esteemed, in whatever esteem it may in fact be held. They are thus an important supplement to the parable of the Sower. That parable teaches that the kingdom of heaven is far enough from being the chief good to many. To some it is simply nothing at all, the word of the kingdom awakening no interest whatever in their minds ; to others it is but the occasion of a short-lived excitement ; to a third class it is only one of many objects of desire ; only to a chosen few is it the first thing worthy to be loved above all things, with pure, undivided, devoted heart. The two parables now to be considered teach us that the kingdom deserves to be so loved by all. It is a treasure of such value that all other possessions may reasonably be given in exchange for it ; a pearl of such excellence that he who sells all his property in order to obtain it may not justly be accounted a fool. How quietly and simply is this momentous truth insinuated in those two little similitudes! One is tempted to say that so important a doctrine should have been taught with more emphasis and at greater length. We might have said this with some show of reason had these two sayings been the only texts in the recorded teaching of Christ containing the doctrine in question. But they are not ; they are simply the only recorded instances in which the Great Teacher set forth that doctrine in parabolic form. The truth that the kingdom of heaven is the summum ch. in.] The Treasure and the PearL 69 bonutn to which everything else must be subordinated, and if necessary sacrificed, occupied the foremost place in His doctrinal system. He taught that truth on many occasions, to many persons, to individual followers, to the collective body of disciples, to the multitude at large, and often in most startling terms. " Let the dead bury their dead, but go thou and preach the kingdom of God." 1 " If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come and follow Me." 2 " If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me." 8 " If any man come to Me, and hate not his father and mother .and wife and children and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple."* What are these, and many other kindred sayings, but an emphatic proclamation of the truth taught in our parables that the Kingdom of heaven or its King (the two are practically one) is entitled to the first place in our regard, as at once man's chief good and chief end ? When and to whom these parables were spoken cannot with perfect certainty be decided. From the manner in which they are recorded by the Evangelist, there is, of course, a presumption in favour of the view that they were uttered at the same time as the preceding four, but to the disciples, after the multitude to which the parable of the Sower was addressed had been dismissed. But it is quite possible that they be- longed originally to another connection, and formed part of a discourse having for its aim to enforce the precept, " Seek ye first the kingdom of God." The abrupt and disconnected way in which, according to the reading approved by critics, the former of the two is introduced, seems to favour this view. "The kingdom of heaven is like unto a treasure hid in a field ; " so, without any mediating word like the irdkiv in the received text, does the narrative pass from the interpretation of the parable of the Tares to the wholly dissimilar parable of the Hidden Treasure, suggesting the idea of a water-worn pebble which has been rolled away by the stream from its original bed. And as the parable might have been uttered on a different occasion, so it might have been addressed to a 1 Luke ix. 60. * Matt. xix. 21. 1 Matt. xvi. 24. * Luke xiv. 26. 70 The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, [book. i. different audience than Matthew's narrative seems to imply ; not to the disciples, but to a miscellaneous group of hearers like that which listened to the parable of the Sower. Such a view, indeed, would be inadmissible if we could attach as much importance as Origen did to the circumstance that the last three parables in the group of seven are not called parables. 1 That Father, in his commentary on the passage, suggests as the reason of the fact stated that the last three were spoken to the disciples, not to the multitude ; proceed- ing on the assumption that parables were meant exclusively for those without, and therefore holding that we ought not to call the three last figurative representatives of the Divine kingdom parables, but similitudes.* If this opinion were correct, we might infer, from the simple fact that the name parable is not applied to these similitudes, that they were spoken not to a miscellaneous audience, but to a closer circle of the disciples. But it is not true that parables were spoken to the multitude alone, and therefore the non-use of the name in the case of the last three parables can have no such sig- nificance as Origen alleges. It is indeed incredible that the Evangelist can have seriously meant to withhold the name from these parables as inapplicable, when he had previously applied it to the equally brief similitudes of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven. The omission of the name must be regarded as purely accidental. We proceed to the consideration of our two parables those of the Treasure and the Pearl, placing them as of kindred significance side by side, and treating them in the first place as one text in the exposition of the great truth which they teach in common, reserving for the close observ- ations on the points in which they differ. 8 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a treasure hid in the field* which a man having found hid, and in his joy 6 he goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field. 1 They are introduced with opola fori*. * opoiwouc from Ipoia. * The same method of treatment is adopted by Greswell and Arndt. * iv tu &yp$ ; " in the field in which it lies" (Meyer). "The field in which the finder was working* (Greswell). "The article implies that in the mind of hearers the idea of a hidden treasure would be associated with that of a field as the usual hiding-place " (Goebel). * The abrov is genit. subj., not obj. So Meyer. Vide also Trench. ch. iiij The Treasure and the PearL 71 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchantman seeking goodly pearls, who when he had found one pearl of great price went and sold all that he had, and bought it. Matt. xiii. 44 46. The two emblems here employed by Jesus were fitly chosen to impress an ancient Eastern audience, and to serve in their case the purpose intended that of representing the kingdom of heaven as the Absolute Good, and as such worthy that all should be given in exchange for it. In our day and land such emblems would be less appropriate. The finding of a treasure hid in a field is so rare an occurrence in modern European experience that to employ it as a parabolic repre- sentation of the finding of the Divine kingdom would be to commit the mistake of making that which ought to be an object of desire and hope to all appear so improbable as to be practically unattainable. It was otherwise in the age and country when and where the parable was spoken. Then to hide treasure in the earth, in sepulchres, or any other place where the owners deemed their property would be secure, was a not uncommon practice ; and to find such a hidden treasure was by no means an unexampled felicity. 8 Equally apt to the circumstances of the time is the emblem employed in the second parable. In our day a pearl could not properly be selected as the fittest representative of the highest good. The diamond is our most precious stone. But in ancient times the diamond, though not unknown, and though highly valued, was too rare to be a suitable emblem of the kingdom of heaven in a popular discourse. The pearl was the more appropriate object for such a purpose, because it was to the ancients what the diamond is to us well known, highly prized, and, when of large size and pure quality, exceeding costly. The romantic theory current in ancient times respect- 1 avOpwwi/t IfiTTopif). The idea of travelling is involved in the term IfiiropoQ. Bengel defines Ipiropoe as one " qui mercaturae causa peregrinatur et navigat." Greswell says, * His proper character is that of a collector of pearls, and probably of a trader in them, though this is no necessary supposition " (vol ii. p. 226). For additional remarks see p. 88. ' On this view that the treasure was hidden needs no special explana- tion. A hid treasure was simply in those days a natural emblem of a thing of great value. Goebel thinks the kingdom is compared to a hid treasure, to describe its character in opposition to the outward and sensuous ideas oi the kingdom current among the jews. 1% The Parabolic Teaching of Christ* ([book l ing the origin of pearls served to enhance their fitness to body forth the things of the kingdom. It was believed that the pearl was formed by the dew of heaven entering into the shell wherein it was found, the quality and form of the pearl depending on the purity of the dew, the state of the atmo- sphere, and even the hour of the day at the time of its con- ception. 1 There is reason to think that the true cause of pearl formation is of a much more prosaic character ; the probable account offered by modern science being that pearls are the result of a process of animal secretion provoked by the intrusion of a foreign substance, such as a grain of sand, within the shell, the fish covering the alien particle with pearly matter to protect itself from irritation. But the ancient theory, however baseless, is still full of interest as serving to show the esteem in which pearls were held. Worthless as science, it is valuable as poetry, as a standing evidence that the pearl was to the ancients an object of admiration, wonder, almost of worship ; for it is only noble, precious, worshipful things that the human mind seeks to glorify by bringing into play the resouroes of its imagination. Here then were two emblems fitly chosen to set before an ancient Jewish audience the absolute worth of the Divine kingdom, a hidden treasure, and a very precious pearl, the best of a precious kind. The former of the two is indeed not so apparently apt to the purpose, as a treasure may be great or small, and it is not said that the treasure was a great one. But that is only not said because it is taken for granted. The presumption is that a hidden treasure will be of great value something worth hiding, and also worth finding. That the treasure in the parable was of great value is further implied in the joy of the finder. He sees at a glance the vast extent of his treasure-trove, and his cunning in hiding it, and his joy in going to take steps towards securing it for himself, unerringly reveal the estimate he has formed. The second of the two emblems is self-evidently fitly chosen. The best and fctost precious of all existing pearls signified an immense, almost fabulous sum of money. The two famous pearls pos- sessed by Cleopatra, according to Pliny the largest known, 1 For an account of the opinions of the ancients on the origin of pearls, vuii Origen's commentary on the parable. ch. in. J The Treasure and the Pearl. 73 were valued each at about .80,000 in our money. Surely a sum fit to represent infinite wealth to the popular mind, though the profligate Queen of Egypt could afford to drink one of the pearls dissolved in a menstruum at a supper given to her lover ! l The comparisons of our parables, while naturally suggesting the thought that the kingdom of heaven is the summum bonum, at the same time felicitously demonstrate the reasonableness of the demand that all be sacrificed for the kingdom. The conduct of the actors in the two parables was thoroughly reasonable. Both were gainers by the transaction of selling their all for the sake of obtaining the precious object The buyer of the field containing the hid treasure was manifestly a gainer ; for the field itself, apart from the treasure, assuming that the bargain between him and the seller was a fair one, was a full equivalent for the whole of his property which he realised in order to purchase it. The hidden treasure, whose existence was unknown to the seller, and therefore not taken into account, he had into the bargain. Provided the purchase of the field made his right to the treasure-trove secure? loss in that transaction was impossible. The buyer of the high- priced pearl was likewise a gainer from a mercantile point of view. It might indeed seem a precarious proceeding to put all one's property (not merely all his other jewels, but all he had 8 ) into one single article, however precious. But the very preciousness of that one article implies that pearls of excellent quality were much in demand, so that a purchaser might safely be counted on. The merchantman was sure of his money whenever he wished to realise, and in all probability would receive for the pearl a sum far exceeding what he had 1 For numerous particulars respecting the value of pearls in ancient times, consult Greswell's note in his work on the Parables, voL ii. p. 220. ' That it did so seems implied in the incident recorded of R. Emi, referred to by Meyer in his commentary, that he bought a rented field in which he had found a treasure, "ut pleno jure thesaurum possideret omnemque litium occasionem pracideret." Of the treasure-finder, Alford remarks, u he goes, and selling all he has, buys the field, thus (by the Jewish law) becoming the possessor also of the treasure." * Owe iliriv on irinpaKi icavTai; oii i'x tv ' b 7&C ftovovQ. ovq 6 Jr/riiv caXovC ftapyapirae Jwvi/rai, niirpcuuv, d\\a gal travra oaa ity**- Origen, ' Comment. In Evangelium Matth.' 74 The Parabolic Teaching of Christ. bqok i. paid for it ; for he had gone to a far-off land to buy it from the pearl-fisher, at a moderate though great cost, and had brought it, let us say, from India 1 to the Western centres of wealth, where rich men abounded and luxury prevailed. In saying this we go upon the assumption that the purchaser of the pearl in the parable was really a merchant If he was no merchant, but only a pearl-fancier and collector, who went to the ends of the earth in quest of the rarest samples, and having found one of incomparable excellence, hesitated not, in his passion for such valuables, to give all that he had that he might become its possessor, the case is altogether different He was then a fool from the mercantile point of view ; if he was a gainer at all, it was certainly not in money, but in the gratification of aesthetic taste and romantic desire. We shall not now decide peremptorily between these two views of the pearl-collector's conduct, for in either aspect it might serve as a parable of the kingdom. He who gives all for the kingdom of God is truly wise, but in the world's view he is a fool ; and of his folly a man with a craze for collecting pearls for the bare pleasure of possessing them were no unapt emblem. If now men could only be convinced that the kingdom of heaven is like the treasure hid in the field and the precious ^. pearl, and that in giving up all for its sake they were or^jf ' acting as the buyers of the field and the pearl acted, all would be well. They would then go and do likewise. For men never hesitate to sacrifice all for what they believe to be the chief good. Devotion all the world over is reckless of expense, and acts as if it reckoned the demand of the loved object, that it be first and all else second, no grievous com- mandment, but a perfectly reasonable requirement. No matter what the object of devotion may be, whether earthly or heavenly, material or mental, its language is that of the impassioned lover : " By night, by day, afield, at hame, The thoughts of thee my breast inflame, 1 The best pearls were found there or in the Red Sea. On the localities where pearls were found, see Origen, as above ; also Greswell's note, already referred to. Among the localities is our own land or its environ* ing sea. Origen says the second best were found here. Atvnpivovot it iS iv papyap'iTcus oi Ik tov k