•icMJE-'VMViEKainnr- DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

CLARK'S

FOREIGN

THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY.

NEW SERIES.
VOL. XV.

%$t $araute3 of $tstui.

EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 3 8 GEORGE STREET.
1883.

PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB,
FOR
T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.
LONDON  ' HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.
DUBLIN,  GEO. HERBERT.
NEW YORK, .... SCRIBNER AND WELFORD.

THE

PARABLES OE JESUS

A METHODICAL EXPOSITION.

BY

SIEGFRIED GOEBEL,
COURT-CHAPLAIN IN HALBERSTADT.

SEransIateti fig ,^ \^ /\ [^fi?
PROFESSOR BANKS. ,

HEADINGLEY.

V SG»

EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
1883.

PREFACE.

THE immediate occasion of the following exegetical work on
the Parables of Jesus was a want which I felt in the
exercise of the ministerial office. The homiletic and cate
chetical treatment of the Parables of the Lord is a task to
which every minister of the word finds himself ever called
afresh. And this not merely because many of them form part
of the public lessons, but because the unchanging attraction
and popularity of their form, along with the depth and fulness
of their contents, necessarily give them unique importance in
relation to the edification of the Christian Church and the instruc
tion of Christian youth. All the more to be regretted is the
unlimited caprice with which they are often, and one must almost
say traditionally, handled and interpreted. Under cover of an
appeal to the infinite many-sidedness of the word of God, exposi
tors think themselves justified in straining the figurative form of
the Parables for any purpose and to any extent, and in foisting on
them all imaginable references and comparisons. But in reality
such a mode of treatment by no means accords with the reverence
due to the language of Holy Scripture and the words of our Lord.
Not, indeed, that the preacher or teacher is to be denied the right
of a free application and many-sided employment of the Parables
Mor the purposes of edification and instruction in general. But
¦ v. he is only justified in doing this, and able to do it, after he has,
J first of all, assured himself of their true, original, and simple
^meaning, and thus laid a firm basis for his application, defined
0|the simple bearing of the Parables, and fixed the limits of sobriety.
And here the want mentioned above makes itself felt. Any one
who desires to avoid the usual arbitrariness in the treatment of
the Parables, and to investigate their original meaning under the
guidance of a thorough, methodical, and exact exposition, will at
present seek in vain in modern exegetical literature for a work

VI PREFACE.
that meets this desire. At least such is my experience. I there
fore attempted to help myself, and undertook the present work.
I publish it in the hope that it may render the same help to one
or another of my ministerial brethren which it has rendered to
myself, perhaps also that here and there among non-theological
readers of the Greek New Testament it may find a friend to whom
it may prove instructive, and not without pleasure. Beyond this
the design of its publication does not extend. But should it turn
out that the work is not without value, even in a scientific aspect,
in opening the way to a methodical treatment of the Parables in
general, and to greater certainty in their still very divergent
interpretation in detail, I shall especially rejoice in this as a
welcome addition.
It will be self-evident that in what has been just said no
disparaging judgment is meant to be passed on the works which
have previously treated monographically of the Parables of Jesus
in one way or another. Only they cannot satisfy the need of a
methodical and exact exposition, because they do not even pro
pose to do this. I quote them here, so far as they are known to
me. Older ones are : Unger, De, Pardbolarwm Jesu natura, inter- |
pretatione, usu, 1828 (an elaborate treatise, but without thorough ,
exposition); Lisco, Die Parabeln Jesu, ed. 4, 1841 (" exegetico-
homiletic"), in it is also found an elaborate list of still older
works, from 1717 onwards; de Valehti, Die Parabeln des Herm,
1841 (a practical exposition "for Church, School, and Home");
Arndt, Die Gleichnissreden Jesu Christi, 1842 (sermons). In
more recent days : Thiersch, Die Gleichnisse Christi nach ihrer
moralischen und prophetischen Bedeutung (Bible hours) ; Behrmann,
Die Gleichnissreden des Herm, first half (Bible hours) ; Mangold, ,
Populare Auskguny sammtlicher Gleichnisse Jesic Christi (" in cate
chetical order").
The modern exegetes on the synoptical Gospels have been
everywhere compared, even wheie not specially quoted by name.

TRANSLATOR'S NOTE.

THE following work has won considerable favour in Germany.
Dr. Weiss commends the " solid exegesis, sound judgment,
and sober, skilful interpretation " of the author (Theol. Ldteraturzei-
tung, Aug. 28,1880). His adverse criticism relates to three points.
He blames the author for his inadequate discussion of the nature
of the parabolic mode of teaching, his disregard of the results of
" Criticism," and his diffuse, involved style. The first point
might be conceded without detracting from the value of the work
as a whole. The author's discussion of the nature of parabolic
teaching in the Introduction is quite subordinate to his main
purpose. The views there expressed on this general question
have comparatively little influence on the detailed exegesis of
the individual parables. The second fault in the critic's eyes will
be a merit in the eyes of many. Until two members of the
advanced " Critical " school can be found to agree, the expositor
may justly decline their guidance. The truth of the third charge
is freely conceded. The translator has done what he could so
far to modify this feature as to secure clearness.
To English students the absence of all reference to English
works of exposition may appear a more considerable defect. On
the other hand, this very circumstance gives the work a freshness
and independence which it could not otherwise have.
The method of interpretation sketched at the close of the
Introduction should be especially noticed, as it is the one applied
to each parable in succession.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION.
The Word " Parable " in the New Testament,
The Parables in the strict sense,
Distinction between Symbolic and Typical Parables,
Parable and Fable,
Fable and Parable in the Old Testament,
Rabbinical Parables, .
Purpose of Parables, .
Distribution of the matter in the Gospels,
Classification ofthe Parables according to their Import,
Method of Exposition, ....

PAGE 1
3469
131417 20
24

PART I.
THE FIRST SERIES OF PARABLES IN CAPERNAUM.
The Parables to the People by the Sea, ..... 29
The Sower, or Divers Soils, ... . 37
V The Tares in the Wheat, ....... 57
y The Fruit-bearing Earth, . . • . 80
v The Grain of Mustard Seed, ...... 93
The Leaven, ......... 99
The Parables in the Conversation with the Disciples, . . 106
, The Hidden Treasure, ....... 107
, The Pearl of Great Price, ..... Ill
, The Fishing-Net, ....... 115
Review, ......... 122

PART II.
THE LATER PARABLES ACCORDING TO LUKE.

Introductory, .
v The Merciful Samaritan,
V The Importunate Friend,

124127140

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

^ The Rich Fool,
* The Fig-Tree,
\ The Great Banquet, .
The Three Parables in Luke xv.
The Lost Sheep, .
The Lost Coin,
The Lost Son, .
n The Unjust Steward, .
The Rich Man, . '
The Unjust Judge,
The Pharisee and the Publican,

PAfiS 149 159169190
191197
200215
232 257
269

PART III.
THE PARABLES OF THE LAST PERIOD.
General View, ........ 281
The Unmerciful Servant, ....... 281
The Labourers in the Vineyard, ...... 298
The Wicked Vinedressers, ... ... 324
The Royal Marriage- Feast, ....... 349
The Eschatological Discourse up to the Eschatological Parables, 379
The Ten Virgins, ....... 382
The Talents in Trust, ....... 405
The Pounds in Trust, ....... 432

Arrangement of the Parables in Systematic Order,
List of Scripture Passages discussed, .

457

459

THE PARABLES OF JESUS.

INTRODUCTION.
THE word " parable " has in the New Testament, in its applica
tion to the discourses of Jesus, a considerably wider meaning
than the one in which we speak of the parables of the Lord in the
current phraseology of the Church. The designation irapafiokri,
from irapafidWeiv (therefore = placing side by side, comparing),
belongs to every utterance containing a comparison of any kind.
Thus, in Luke v. 36 the maxim of the old garment, which does
not fit in with a new patch, is introduced as a parable.1 In the
same way, in Luke vi. 3 9, the maxim, " If the blind lead the
blind, will not both fall into the ditch ?" is called a parable (elire
TrapafioXrjv). Eurther, in Mark iii. 23 ff., the appeal of Jesus to
the impossibility of a kingdom or household at variance within
itself standing, is described as a speaking " in parables." And in
Matt. xxiv. 32, Mark xiii. 28, Jesus Himself calls His allusion to
the budding of the leaves on the fig-tree, which announces the
approach of summer, a parable.2 All these maxims are called
parables, because in a visible fact, belonging to the sphere of
physical or human life, they picture a corresponding truth in the
sphere of religious life. Thus, in the incompatibility of an old
garment with a new patch, they depict the incompatibility of the
old Pharisaic legal system with the new nature and life mani
fested in Christ ; in the obvious impossibility of one blind man
leading another, the impossibility of one who is himself imper
vious to divine truth guiding others in divine things ; in the
notorious impossibility of a kingdom at variance within itself
standing, the impossibility that Satan's kingdom, strong as it is,
1 "E^iyt Tt xx) *u.fn$i>\ii* vr/ias ainis; cf. also the two following maxims of the new
wine and old skins (vv. 37, 38), and the old and new wine (ver. 39), which, placed
on a parallel with the first, are also clearly parables in the same sense as the first.
GOEBEL. A

2 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
should stand, if hostile to itself; and finally, in the infallible
certainty with which the bursting leaves of the fig-tree announce
the approach of summer, the infallible certainty with which the
events foretold by Jesus indicate the approach of His second
coming. A still more general use of " parable " is seen in the passage
Matt. xv. 15, where it refers to the utterance of the Lord in
ver. 11 (cf. vv. 16-20) : "Not what enters into the mouth (food)
defiles the man ; but what proceeds out of the mouth (evil speech),
this defiles the man." Here, therefore, it refers to a concrete maxim
without a properly figurative character, simply of an enigmatical
stamp. A similar use under another aspect is found in the pas
sage Luke iv. 23, where the proverb, "Physician, heal thyself,"
is called a parable, and that, as it seems, not so much because of
its figurative, as rather merely because of its proverbial character.
Both passages follow the correspondingly general use of the word
parable as a translation of ?B>'o in the Septuagint, where not merely
abstract and concrete maxims (Prov. i. 6), but also in general
every favourite saying that has passed into popular use is called
a parable, whether figurative in form (Ezek. xviii. 2, 3) or not
(1 Sam. xxiv. 14 ; Ezek. xii 22). But if, passing by this latter
use of the word, in which it has departed far from its fundamental
meaning as " comparison," we direct our attention merely to all
those utterances of Jesus which, as embodying comparison and
figure, come under the category of parable, it is self-evident that
a separate exegetical treatment of all Christ's utterances and brief
discourses, which might be called parables in this wider sense of
the word, is an impossibility. They are so numerous and, more
over, so interwoven with the structure of Christ's discourses, that
an attempt at their complete treatment must inevitably swell
into a treatment of His discourses in general. Let any one, for
example, consider the following parables in the Sermon on the
Mount merely : the Salt that has- lost its Savour (Matt. v. 13); the
City on a Hill (v. 14) ; the Light, not under the Bushel, but on
the Stand (v. 15) ; the Two Adversaries on the Way to the Judge
(v. 25, 26) ; the Plucking out of the Eye, etc., for the good of the
whole body (v. 29, 30); the Treasures which neither Moth nor
Rust consume (vi. 19, 20); the Eye the Light of the Body (vi. 22,
23); Serving Two Masters (vi. 24); the Censorious Man (vii. 3-5);
the Swine and Pearls (vii. 6) ; the Children asking Bread or Eish
(vii. 9-11); the Two Gates and Two Ways (vii. 13, 14); the Wolves

INTRODUCTION. 3
in Sheep's Clothing (vii. 1 5) ; the House built on Rock or Sand
(vii. 24-27).
Accordingly,- we have in the first instance to Emit our matter
by distinguishing the parables in the stricter sense, known by this
name in the phraseology of the Church, from the parables in the
wider sense, corresponding to the Biblical use of the word parable.
It is incorrect to say that the parables of Christ, so called teat3
e%oyr]v, are merely detailed comparisons,1 which would leave no
characteristic mark distinguishing them from other figurative dis
courses and utterances of Jesus. For no one, for example, assigns
the very detailed figurative discourse of the Good Shepherd in
contrast with the thieves and hirelings (John x. 1-16) to the
stricter circle of parables, whereas the parable of the Costly Pearl
(Matt. xiii. 45, 46), although consisting of but two brief sentences,
without doubt belongs to the circle. Thus, there must be a
definite distinguishing element constituting the idea of the parable
in the stricter sense. The correct view is as follows : — It is the
distinction obvious to the eye, between the figurative language.
occasionally interwoven and the figurative history expressly
imagined, which is the cause of the latter only being called the
parables of Jesus by pre-eminence. Accordingly, the character
of a complete figurative history or narrative is to be regarded as
the distinguishing mark of the parables strictly so called. Not
merely an allusion to some fact belonging to the sphere of
physical or human life, or to some relation obtaining there, but
the invention and narration of a connected series of particular
events, combined into a single whole, serves here as a pictorial
representation of doctrine belonging to the religious sphere.
Certainly there are some among the parables, bearing this name
universally in Church usage, to which the narrative-form is want
ing, e.g. the two parables of the Lost Sheep and Lost Coin (Luke
xv. 3-1 0). But still both, although merely clothed in the form
of a question referring to an imagined case, give in the contents
of the parabolic question the matter for a narrative so definite
in detail and complete in itself, that the absence of the narrative-
form is lost to the consciousness of the hearer and reader.
The same is true of the parable of the Importunate Eriend
(Luke xi. 5-9). Introduced merely in the form of a parabolic
question, it still gives as to substance a narrative completely
worked out. On the other hand, again, among the parables so
1 Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lexicon, p. 125 (Clark).

4. THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
called tear e%. there are some which, regarded as to their contents,
present less the narration of a specially imagined history that
once happened under definite conditions, than a descriptive picture
of events actually taking place daily by necessity of natural law,
or else by a necessity grounded in the nature of the case. This
holds good of the parables of the Sower, the Mustard Seed, the
Leaven, the Fishing Net. But, nevertheless, in all these, not the
descriptive, but the narrative -form is chosen (in that of the
Mustard Seed, Matthew drops it in the second part, while Luke
retains it to the end). Thus, not the entire body of events of
the same kind is comprised in a descriptive picture, but — in
order to picture the subject with greater directness to the hearers
(for only in the special can the general be contemplated) — out
of the series' of events of the same kind a particular one is
selected, and this is narrated independently as a particular event
that somewhere took place. And it is precisely this retention of
the narrative-form which in usage has given to this class of
parables also a place among the parables in the stricter sense.
But by far the greatest number of the parables coming under
this head, along with the narrative-form, exhibit also as to their
contents the character of a history specially imagined for the
didactic purpose present to the author's mind. The incidents of
the history, while borrowed from actual life, form in this particular
arrangement and combination into a whole, an event, unique in
kind, which, as the fiction supposes, once took place somewhere.
Accordingly, the idea of the parable may in the first instance
be generally defined to this effect : A narrative moving within ,
the sphere of physical or human life, not professing to communicate
an event which really took place, but expressly imagined for the
purpose of representing in pictorial figure a truth belonging to the
sphere of religion, and therefore referring to the relation of man or
mankind to God.
But then, in reference to the manner of the figurative repre
sentation, an essential distinction is observable among the parables
of Jesus lying before us in the Gospels. To commence with a
definite designation, they are either symbolic or typical. The
first class forms by far the greatest number. The general back
ground here is the presupposition of an all-pervading harmony
between the entire sphere of the physical world and man's,
physical life on the one hand, and the higher sphere embracing
the relations of man to God on the other, so that in virtue of

INTRODUCTION. 5
this divinely-established harmony, states and relations, incidents
and operations, belonging to the former sphere of life, mirror
something of a like kind in the latter sphere. In this way, not
by accidental similarity, but by the inner coherence subsisting,
the visible becomes a symbol of the invisible, the earthly of the
heavenly, the temporal of the eternal. Viewed from this stand
point, the nature of the symbolic parable is to represent in
figure those truths belonging to the religious sphere which it
wishes to illustrate, in a narrative freely composed out of sym
bolically significant relations, incidents, and operations in physical
or human life. In order, therefore, to ascertain the true meaning,
the hearer or reader first needs the interpretation, i.e. the transla
tion of the figure into the thing symbolized, of the image into the
counterpart, to which, however, in most cases some interpreting
word of the narrator himself gives a clue. Sometimes, again,
allegory is mixed with the symbol forming the basis of the
symbolic parable, namely, wherever particular features are added
to the figurative history, which, without having symbolic signifi
cance in themselves, or at least blending as more precise details
with the main symbolic circumstances of the parable, only shadow
forth something of like kind in the higher sphere in virtue of an
outward similarity. But in such cases the chief circumstances
always remain of a symbolic nature, and purely allegorical
features occur but rarely. It is not allegory, but symbol, when
sowing, growth, ripening, and reaping in the field, or the opera
tions of the fisherman in fishing, or the toil of the shepherd
about his sheep, are used as figurative representations of similar
incidents and operations in the sphere of God's kingdom ; or when
earthly treasures are made an image of spiritual blessings, an
earthly feast of spiritual happiness, or the relation between king
and subjects, master and servants, proprietor and steward, father
and son, bridegroom and bride, creditor and debtor, judges and
administrators, etc., is made an image of the relation between God
and man, or Christ and the people of God, and incidents moving
within the lines of such a relation serve as a figurative repre
sentation of what takes place between God and man. On the
other hand, it is no longer symbol, but allegory, when (for
example) the interpretation of the parable of the Sower places
over against the coming of the birds of heaven to devour the
seed, the coming of the devil to carry off the word from man's
heart ; or when in the parable of the Tares the devil is described

6 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
as an enemy who of set purpose sows tares among the wheat ; or
when in the parable of the Mustard Seed the birds nesting in the
branches of the tree are made an image of the nations of the
earth entering into the kingdom of God. Many other traits,
mostly allegorical, which have been assumed in the parables of
Jesus, rest on arbitrary explanations.
But alongside these symbolic parables we find a number of
others, which we have called typical; "type" here, however,
being taken, not in the specific sense of Rom. v. 14, as a pro
phetic representation of something future, but in the usual sense
of exemplum, either as a model summoning to imitation (Phil.
iii. 17; 1 Tim. iv. 12), or as a warning and terror (1 Cor.
x. 6, 11). These are the parables which illustrate the teaching
they wish to give, not in the way of symbolical clothing, but in
that of direct exemplification. Such are the parables of the
Merciful Samaritan, the Rich Fool, the Rich Man, the Pharisee
and Publican (Luke x., xii., xvi., xviii.). In all these cases a
irapafiakXew, or comparative setting side by side, takes place in
so far only as the author introduces a particular case in the shape
of an artificial history by way of comparison with the general
truth meant to be taught. The particular case so confirms the
truth that the religious truth in question is intuitively recognised
in the history as in a striking example. Thus the narratives
themselves as such bear a religious character. Their chief per
sonages, after whom they are named, are not symbolic images,
but are themselves the typical representatives of an ethico-religious
disposition. And, on the other hand, the name and person of God
may enter directly into the narrative without figurative clothing ;
divine acts, invisible to sense, may form an essential ingredient
of the action (both hold good of the parables of the Rich Fool and
the Pharisee and Publican) ; or, as in the parable of the Rich Man,
the history of human persons may be followed into the next
world, — all which is impossible in the symbolic parable by its
very nature. Here, what is necessary in order to give expression
to the moral of the narrative is not the interpretation of a symbol,
but merely the generalizing application of what is said and
narrated of a particular case to all cases of a like kind, so that
the special events of the history related are traced back to the
universally valid law executed and the universally valid truth
confirmed in them.
In the profane literature of antiquity the iEsopian fable is very

INTRODUCTION. 7
similar as regards rhetorical form to the New Testament parable
in the stricter sense.1 Like the parable, the fable also is a
history, not professing to communicate an event that really took
place, but expressly imagined for the purpose of representing a
general truth in pictorial figure. Certainly the form of repre
sentation in the two is for the most part different, but by no
means always so. In respect to the form of representation,
parable and fable may also perfectly coincide, so that no really
decisive distinction exists between them in a formal respect. The
following common definition of the distinction is not to the point :
The fable moves in the sphere of fantasy, because it introduces
irrational creatures (beasts, trees, etc.), thinking, speaking, and
acting rationally ; whereas the parable always borrows its matter
from actual life, and never transgresses the limits of the possible.2
Here it is overlooked that there are also purely human fables, in
which only rational creatures are the actors ; 3 that there are other
fables which hover, indeed, between man and beast, but without
anything being said of the latter but what really lies within the
animal nature ; 4 and finally, such fables as treat, indeed, only of
beasts, but without attributing to them other properties than
those which they really possess.5 Thus the first-named class of
fables agrees as respects its means of representation with the
numerous parables taken from the relations of man's natural- life,
the second with those treating of the relations between man and
beast (the Lost Sheep, the Fishing Net), and also a parable corre
sponding to the third class of fables, although not actually met
1 The distinction drawn by Aristotle (.Rhetoric, ii. 20) between parable (xxpufio*.*)
and fable (x'oyos), in contrasting them with each other as two different species of
artificial proof-example (^xpxisiy/ix), does not come into view here, because his
vxpufaXri, of which for the rest he does not speak, as it is different in his view from
xSym, is in any case something quite different from the New Testament parabolic
narrative. The two examples which he gives of his " parable " are1 the following : o"m
tl rts Xtyot on oh til xXvtpurovs ap*rtiv' b'/tototi yap uavip av it rts <rovs MX'/i<ro\s xhvpoiti /tr)
oi ctv iuvatvTUl ayojvi^irSoii o\XX' o'i ac Xu^ojffiv, n tojv tfXoirvpoiv ov nvx Oil xufitpva.v K\npuainv,
us o*iov rov \a%6vra aXXu pM tov liritrroipsvov. Here, therefore, we have no narratives
at all, but simply the alleging of conceivably possible cases from other spheres in
proof of a political principle.
2 Unger, Lisco, de Valenti, Cremer, et al.
- E.g. Fab. jfflsop., Triibner's ed., by Halm, 98, 169, 351, 412 : The Countryman
and his Sons, the Physician and Invalid, the Thief and his Mot1- or, the Miser, etc.
1 E.g. Fab. JEaop. 97, 111, 192, 374 : The Countryman and the Serpent, the
Woman and the Hen, the Dog and the Gardener, the Sheep and the "Wolf.
. 5 E.g. Fab. Mso-p. 21, 228, 233, 421 : The Two Fighting Cocks and the Eagle,
the Dog and the Horse, the Dog with the Bone, the Geese and the Cranes.

8 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
with, is at least not absolutely unthinkable, as is seen in the
symbolic-parabolical allusion to the act of the hen in gathering
her chickens under her wings (Matt, xxiii. 37 ; Luke xiii. 34).
There is, in fact, a decisive distinction between the parable of
the New Testament and the fable of antiquity, but it is of an
inward, not outward kind. It lies primarily in the difference
of the didactic matter represented, not in the different mode of
representation. The New - Testament parable is religious, the
JEsopian fable profane. There, the truth represented always refers
to the relation of man to God, and only refers to the moral rela
tion between man and man from the standpoint of religious
obligation to God ; here, it is merely rules and precepts of natural
utility and morality, and therefore either rules of a virtuous but
natural prudence, or rules of common worldly policy, or even
mere precepts of experience, often of a thoroughly trivial nature,
which constitute the " moral " of the fable. From this difference
of the matter follows next a manifold diversity in the outward
mode of representation, which, however, is not without exceptions.
Thus the parable is predominantly symbolic, only occasionally
merely typical ; whereas the fable is for the most part typical,
and therefore presents its teaching only in the form of ex
ample, for which reason it chooses animals by preference, not as
symbolic, but as typical figures.1 Only when its moral is not
a universal precept, but simply refers to a historically given
case, may it also be allegorical,2 but never symbolic in the sense
in which the parable mostly is ; because the higher, invisible
world, of which the parable sees and exhibits the symbol in the
visible world of nature and man, lies far from it. Hence arises
a further difference, that the parable which illustrates its religious
truth either by means of the symbol, and therefore of a symbolic
fact found in the life of nature or man, or by means of direct
example, which must itself, as an example of a religious truth,
be of a religious nature, can never work with mere fantastic
figures like thinking and speaking animals, trees, etc. ; whereas
the fable, to which the diversified nature of its precepts gives the
widest scope in the choice of examples, takes them, not always
indeed, but still by preference, from the world of fantasy.
1 The fox is not a symbol, but a type of policy, the lion of strength, the wolf of
gluttony, etc.
2 Cf. the fable of the Horse and Stag in Aristotle, ut ante, and Halm, Fab. JSsop.
175.

INTRODUCTION. 9
Finally, it follows from the sacredness of the subject-matter of
the parable, that the character of severe simplicity and sober
earnestness is everywhere appropriate to its narrative ; whereas
again the purpose of the fable, bearing merely on natural worldly
prudence and experience, implies that its narrative frequently has
a ludicrous, not seldom even a licentious character.1
Outside the New Testament the parable is found also in the
Old Testament and in the Rabbins of the Talmud.
In the Old Testament we meet both with fable and parable.
Of the former we have only one example, Jotham's fable of the
trees and the bramble, Judg. ix. 7-15. The trees, so Jotham
tells the Shechemites, wished to anoint a king over them. The
olive, the fig-tree, and the vine, to whom they applied, declined.
Through their own worth they had enough reputation both with
God and man. Why should they leave their useful work for a
tottering authority over the trees ? But the useless, wretched
bramble, having nothing to give up and nothing to lose, accepts
the royal dignity, and promises them its shadow, in which, how
ever, they find no protection against the sun, but merely stinging
prickles ; or fire may easily break out in it, and spreading from
it consume them. It is a fable of political wisdom, warning
against the perilous ambition of political adventure, and is directed
against the folly of the Shechemites, who, although none of the
great heroes of Israel had hitherto stretched out his hand to the
royal dignity, and a Gideon had even declined it, made the
cruel adventurer Abimelech their king.2 Some have attempted to
find another Old-Testament fable in the passage 2 Kings xiv. 9
(=2 Chron. xxv. 18), where Joashking of Israel replies scornfully
to the challenge of Amaziah king of Judah : " The thistle that
was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying,
Give thy daughter to my son to wife ; and there passed by a wild
beast that was in Lebanon, and trode down the thistle." But the
fable here lacks the essential character of narrative as a connected
series of events combining to form a single whole. Instead of
this we have simply a scornful contrasting of two unconnected
occurrences, namely, of the proposal for a marriage alliance,
implying the claim of equality, made by the thistle to the cedar,
1 Cf. the Prologue of Phsedrus to his revision of Msoy'a Fables : Duplex libelli
dos est : Quod risum movet. Et quod prudentis vitam consilio movet.
2 Cf. the not dissimilar fable of Msop of the fox impaled by the bramble, when
he wished to hold on by it, Halm, Fab. JSsop. 8.

10 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
and of the thistle being trampled on by the wild beast, to which
fate it was exposed because of its little height.
On the other hand, the parabolic narrative is found in two Old-
Testament examples, and indeed one of each of the two classes
of typical and symbolical parables, which we have distinguished
from each other. The first is the parable (2 Sam. xii. 1-6)
uttered by the prophet Nathan to King David, when the latter
had taken Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, to wife. The prophet
there tells of a rich man, possessed of sheep and cattle in great
abundance, who nevertheless took from a poor man his only lamb,
tenderly reared and beloved, to make provision for a guest. The
requisite conclusion of the narrative is given in the words of
King David himself, when he says angrily to the prophet : " As
the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely
die," etc. (vv. 5, 6); upon which the prophet at once makes the
application of the parable to the historically given case in the
words : " Thou art the man," and in the further address which
follows (vv. 7—1 2). But it is not a symbolic, partially allegorical
parable which we have here before us, but merely an exemplary,
typical parable. By the example of a particular case, it exhibits
directly the general truth of the great guilt incurred by the rich
man, who, not content with all the possessions which God has
given him, with insatiable avarice robs even the poor man of the
trifling possession which is dear to his heart because it is all he
has. Solely to exemplify this general truth, the applicability of
which to the case given here of David's sin is obvious of itself, is
the parable invented, and it is only adapted to this end. But it
is not an allegorical and figurative representation of what took
place between David and Uriah, as if the many sheep and cattle
of the rich man were meant to " signify " the many wives at the
disposal of the king, and the solitary lamb of the poor man the
one wife of Uriah, in which case one would be compelled also to
ask who are to be understood by the children of the poor man
mentioned in ver. 3, and the guest of the rich man in ver. 4.
The other parable of the Old Testament, Isa. v. 1-6, is of a
symbolic nature. There the prophet tells of a friend of his, who
had a vineyard in the • best situation, and, having spent all con
ceivable toil and care on it, expected it to bring forth grapes,
when it brought forth wild grapes (vv. 1, 2). Upon this the
master of the vineyard, suddenly introduced speaking in the
animated style of prophetic speech, himself calls on the people of

INTRODUCTION. 11
Jerusalem to judge between him and the vineyard, announcing
that he will withdraw his hand from the vineyard and abandon
it to desolation (vv. 3-6). And after the last clause in ver. 6 :
" And I will command the clouds that they Tain not thereon," —
no longer a word of man, but a word of divine power, — has
broken through the figurative shell of the language, in ver. 7 the
interpretation follows at once : " The vineyard of the Lord of
Hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah His pleasant
plant : and He looked for judgment, but behold oppression ; for
righteousness, but behold a cry." The relation of the human
cultivator to his field or vineyard, in virtue of which he justly
expects it to bear fruit in return for all the toil and care expended
on it, is symbolic of the justice of the divine demand on man,
that he now bear the moral fruit of righteousness in return for
all the benefits and care he has received from God. This
generally symbolic relation is here applied especially to the
. relation of Jehovah to His covenant-people, from whom, after all
the great things which He has done for them, He now expects
the fruit of righteousness. But instead of this he only finds the
evil fruit of unrighteousness. What else can follow, but that He
will withdraw His hand from them and abandon them to destruc
tion ? In what relation Christ's parables of the Fig-Tree and the
Wicked Labourers in the Vineyard stand to this parable will be
shown in the exposition of the former.
No parabolic narratives are found elsewhere in the Old Testa
ment, but only, apart from the very numerous figurative sayings
and phrases occurring everywhere, a number of detailed para
bolic passages of a predominantly allegorical kind, resting, however,
partially at least on a symbolic basis. There is an example of
this, when in the parabolic discourse, Ezek. xv., just as in Isaiah's
parable of the vineyard, the degeneration' of the noble vine into
an unfruitful, useless trunk, as a symbol of the moral degeneracy
of Israel planted by God, is made the basis of the announcement
of judgment ; x or when in Ezek. xvi., xxiii, the marriage-covenant
between man and wife, as a symbol of the relation of God to His
people, serves as a basis for the elaborate allegorical descriptions
of the adultery of the people of God, or of the two sisters,
Samaria and Judah;2 or when the prediction, Ezek. xvii. 22—24,
uses and allegorizes the growth of the tender shoot into a
1 Cf. the parabolic exposition of Christ, John xv. 5, 6.
2 See on the counterpart in the discourses of Christ in Matt. xxii. 1.

12 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
great tree in reference to the extension of the theocratic kingdom
of the Messiah -,1 or when the allegory in Prov. ix. 1-6 makes the
nourishment and refreshment of the feast a symbol of the spiritual
blessings prepared by God for man's enjoyment.2 On the other
hand, other parabolical passages of the Old Testament move
exclusively in the sphere of allegory, and have therefore next to
no affinity with the parables of Christ. Thus the vine becomes
a mere allegorical figure of Israel in the figurative discourse, Ezek.
xix. 10-14, and of Zedekiah the king of Judah in the figurative
account of the two great eagles, one of which planted the vine,
which then grew and strengthened and stretched toward the
second eagle, Ezek. xvii. 1-8. Here, therefore, we have a formal,
figurative history, which yet has next to nothing in common with
the parabolic narratives of Christ, because it is not- an artificial,
didactic narrative, like the fable and parable, but a historic
narrative, only loosely veiled in an allegorical garb as picturesque
as it is transparent ; it is, in short, a historic picture with alle
gorical figures.
But, finally, there is one parabolic description in the Old
Testament which, while it lacks the form of narrative, stands
very near to those parabolic narratives of Jesus which, as regards
their contents, are merely descriptive pictures of the circumstances
of husbandry. It is the description of the conduct of the hus
bandman in ploughing and threshing, Isa. xxviii. 23-29. The
description aims at two points. First, at showing that in scoring
the earth with the sharp ploughshare, the husbandman merely
prepares it for the good seed of various kinds, which he then
sows (vv. 24, 25) ; and secondly, at showing that in threshing the
grain he does this with no more severity, and no longer, than the
grain in question will bear without bruising (vv. 26-28). In
this the prophet sees, not merely an accidental similarity, but a
divinely-appointed symbol of what God does in His dealings with
men, for he expressly refers this conduct of the husbandman to
God's ordinance (ver. 29, and also in ver. 26, if we translate
there, " and he prepares it according to the law which his God
teaches him;" cf. Drechsler here). In the proceedings of the
husbandman in the field he sees the truth symbolized, that God
causes His blessings to follow the sharp chastisements with which
he visits men, after the way of the one has been prepared by the
1 Cf. Christ's parable of the Mustard Seed.
2 Cf. Christ's parables of the Great Supper and Royal Marriage-Feast.

INTRODUCTION. 13
other; and in the. proceeding of the thresher with the grain, that
God' will not chastise men longer and more severely than they
are able to bear, and than is needful for the purpose of chastise
ment. Here, then, is a twofold symbolic parable which, without
deserving the name of parable in the strict sense, shows, next to
the two parabolic narratives of the Old Testament already quoted,
most affinity with the parables of Christ.
A series of parabolic narratives is found also in the Rabbins
of the Talmud, exceedingly like the parables of Christ in form,
save, of course, that they bear no sort of comparison with the
latter either in depth and truth of meaning, or in simplicity and
convincing force of representation. This applies even to those
among them which show a striking resemblance to certain
parables of Christ. This circumstance has been explained by
supposing either that Christ used current Rabbinical parables,
improving and deepening their meaning for His purposes, or that
the authors of the Rabbinical parables knew and used the Gospels,
or again from mere accident, and therefore from the mere
accidental employment of the same figurative circumstances' as
instruments of representation for a like didactic purpose. The
latter supposition, however, is not sufficient everywhere. To me
the supposition, that certain leading forms and phrases in several
parables of Christ passed over into Rabbinical tradition without
consciousness of their origin, seems best to correspond to the
mutual relations of the parables in question. Two instances may
be given here, in which the resemblance is the most striking.
They may serve, as examples of the Rabbinical parables generally,
to show the vast distance which, with all the conformity, exists
between them and the parables of the Lord. The one certainly
is merely related to a comparison of Christ, not to a proper
parabolic narrative ; but just here the similarity is closest.
Compare with Christ's parabolic saying of the wise man who
built his house on the rock, and the foolish man who built on
the sand (Matt. vii. 24-27), the following one of Rabbi Nathan
from the treatise Aboth : 1 "Si quis opera bona habet multumque
in lege didicit, is similis est homini, qui domum ita exstruit, ut
inferius saxa ponat, iis vero postea laterales imponat. Licet
postmodum aquas multae veniant et ad latus ipsorum consistant,
tamen ilia loco movere non possunt. Homo vero, qui non habet
1 Quoted by Unger, De Parabolarum, Jesu natura, p. 157, from Sohoettgen, Harm
Talm.

14 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
bona opera multumque legi operam dedit, similis est ei, qui
inferius lateres coUocet, iis vero saxa imponat ; si aquse sensim
tantum adveniunt, statim illam evertunt." Whereas, therefore,
Jesus simply contrasts building on the sand with building on
the rock, here the scarcely conceivable " bricks below and stones
above" is artificially contrasted with the " stones below and bricks
above." And as concerns the thing compared, hearing and doing
(in reference to hearing and not doing the words of Christ) are
mechanically changed into multum in lege discere and bona opera
habere (or non habere). Further, compare with Christ's parabolic
narrative of the Labourers in the Vineyard the following one from
the treatise Berachoth {Gem. Hieros.) : 1 " Cum R. Abia f. Chias
mortuus esset, R. Seira adventans eoncionem habebat, quod R. Abia
paucis diebus tantum profuerit, quantum alii vix multis annis.
Subjecit parabolam banc : Erat rex qui conduxit operarios.
Eratque ibi operarius rectius agens in opera sua prse omnibus.
Ecquid fecit ipsi rex ? Secum eum tulit, atque cum eo ambulavit
hinc illinc. Tempore vesperse congregabantur operarii ad
auferendam mercedem, atque hie etiam mercedem suam accepit,
aeque ac ipsi. Murmurarunt autem operarii, dicentes : nos
defatigati sumus toto die, et hie nonnisi duabus horis.2 Respondit
Dominus : hie duabus horis plus laboravit, quam vos toto die."
Here too, with all the similarity, what a distance between this
parable and that of Christ ! Whereas Christ contrasts the
sovereign freedom of divine grace, which gives to the last as to
the first, with all such mechanical reckoning as would make the
more or less of human performance the standard for measuring
the divine reward, in the Rabbinical parable this thought is so
superficialized and distorted as, with the mechanical measuring of
the reward by the standard of the time of labour, to contrast, as
the professedly divine standard, merely the just as mechanical
measuring of the reward by the standard of the amount of labour
done. Other Rabbinical parables, which have been ranked with
the New-Testament ones of the Merciful Samaritan, the Rich
Man, the Ten Virgins, etc., have, in fact, merely incidental traits
in common with them.
After thus defining the idea of the parable as a narrative
expressly imagined for the purpose of representing a religious
truth in a pictorial figure, we need not specially inquire into the
purpose of the parabolic form of teaching. It is one lying in the
1 Unger, ut ante. 2 Cf. Matt. xx. 10-12.

INTRODUCTION. 15
nature of the parable, namely, to present directly to tlie nearer' s /
view the teaching to be imparted, either by exhibiting it in the
concrete image of the individual case (typical parables), or in a
symbol taken from the world of nature or man (symbolic parables).
The parable is therefore essentially pictorial instruction. But
there are two different cases, which make the employment of the
parabolic mode of teaching necessary or useful, in place of the
abstract and direct. Either an inadequate degree of the power
of apprehension is presupposed in the hearers, incapacitating them
for understanding the teaching to be imparted, or an evil tendency
of the will, disclining them to receive it. In the former case,
the parable serves the purpose of facilitating the apprehension of
the teaching even to feeble power of intelligence; and in the
second case, of convincing even the reluctant will of its truth.
The former purpose naturally predominates in the parables' spoken
by Jesus to His disciples, the second in those spoken to His
enemies. It is self-evident that the two coalesce in so far as
the intellectual is combined with a moral defect, or conversely
the moral with an intellectual. But whichever of the two
preponderates, the primary end everywhere is to place the doctrine,
as yet unknown to the hearers, so directly before their eyes, that
they shall intuitively recognise its truth. And as to the other
ends alleged, as, for example, that the parable is meant to excite
attention, awaken reflection, impress the memory, or even to
soften the harshness of unwelcome truths by temperateness of
form,1 these are only single elements, subordinate to that general
and everywhere identical end. The last-named element especially
is only present in so far as the parable, even where it speaks
most harshly to opponents, always does this with the intention
of convincing them, and is therefore never absolutely repellent,
but always appeals to a remnant of susceptibility to the truth in
their own conscience.
Certainly another purpose of the parable, which has been put
on a level with that first and primary one, as if it held good just
as generally and were just as necessarily grounded in the nature
of the parable, is of a directly opposite kind. The parable, it is
supposed, is meant to do two things, namely, to reveal the truth
to the receptive, and to conceal it from the unreceptive.2 But,
1 Cf. Lisco, de Valenti, Lange in Herzog's Encycl., art. " Gleiehniss."
2 So Weiss, Zeitschr.f. christi. Wissenscha.fi, 1861, p. 322, and Lisco, de Valenti,
Lange, ut ante; Keil, etc.

16 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
stated thus generally, this assertion is incorrect, for it is far from
applying to all the parables. /" Under this head, of course, merely
the symbolic parables can come into account at all, since the
merely typical ones possess no figurative veil, such as might
operate as a means not merely of illustration, but also of conceal
ment, and might serve the author for this end. How, for
example, can any one conceive to himself that in the example
of the Merciful Samaritan, by which the Lord so strikingly
illustrates the true meaning of the command to love one's
neighbour, He also meant to conceal it ? But even among the
symbolic parables, which actually clothe what they wish to say
in a figurative dress, so that along with the purpose of illustration
an intention of concealment is also possible and conceivable,
there is still a series, in which as matter of fact no intention of
this kind is present along with the other. Such is the case with
all those which Jesus uttered, not before a mixed circle of
hearers, but simply before a narrower circle of His disciples, as,
for example, that of the Treasure in the Field, the Costly Pearl,
the Fishing Net, and a series of others ; for here, while the
narrative does not lack the figurative veil, which might serve to
conceal, the persons are wanting among the hearers, to whom the
purpose of concealment could apply. But even those parables,
in which Jesus does not address His disciples and adherents, but
His opponents, — the Pharisees or Sanhedrists, — in order to strike
at their conscience and convince them (as, e.g., that of the Great
Feast, the Wicked Labourers in the Vineyard, the Royal Marriage-
Feast, etc.), cannot possibly mean also to conceal from them what
is meant to be said to them. Moreover, in many parables the
symbolic veil is so transparent, or it is so directly drawn aside
by the appended explanatory statement of the Lord Himself, that
for this reason there can be no question of an intention to conceal
anything by them. The former, e.g., is the case in the parable of
the Lost Son, the latter in that of the Importunate Friend, the
Unmerciful Servant, etc. On the other hand, certainly, the
intention to conceal is definitely expressed in the first series of
parables, which Jesus spoke both to His disciples and a mixed
crowd of people on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias. Here He
purposely chose the parabolic form of teaching, for the double
purpose of disclosing the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven to
His disciples on the one hand by means of symbolic illustration,
and on the other hand of hiding them from the dull-minded

INTRODUCTION. 17
populace by means of the figurative dress. That this was His
intention, He says Himself to His disciples in the answer to the
question : " Why speakest Thou unto them in parables V'1 But
both question and answer primarily refer merely to the case in
hand, which is very significantly distinguished from all other cases
in which Jesus uses the parable, by the circumstance, that here
only does Jesus give a series of parables in continuous discourse,
without prefixing to them any introductory saying, or linking
them together by any intermediate remarks, or appending to
them any explanatory statement. That this method of spjaking
exclusively in a series of unconnected, closely successive parables
was peculiarly strange in Christ's teaching at that time, is
shown by the special concluding remark recurring in all three
evangelists : 2 Tavra trdvra ekaXnvev . . . iv irapapSoXals toIs
6'^Xot? Ka\ %w/)t? trapafioXfjt; ovSev eXaXei ainols. It is certainly
true that the same intention, which according to the Lord's own
saying then led to the choice of the parabolic form of teaching,
may have influenced Him also in other similar cases. But,
at any rate, it only follows from this, that in special cases
before a mixed circle of hearers Jesus combined with the above-
mentioned chief end, lying in the nature of the parable, the other
end of concealing by figurative clothing from the unreceptive and
impenitent, disclosures suited only to receptive and earnest
hearers, in the spirit of His saying : " Give not that which is
holy to the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine "
(Matt. vii. 6).
Let us now come nearer to the matter lying before' us for
treatment. This matter embraces the parables of Jesus in the
strict sense of the word already explained. It offers itself to us
in the synoptical Gospels exclusively. The Gospel of John con
tains no parabolic narrative. Even here, indeed, more or less
extended symbolic comparisons are not wanting in our Lord's
discourses. This holds good in one passage of the mysterious
blowing of the wind (iii. 8), in another of the refreshing power
of water (iv. 10-14), and again of nourishing bread (vi. 27-35,
47-58), or the grain of wheat deposited in the earth (xii. 24),
or the work of sowing and reaping (iv. 35-38), or the relation of
the vine to the branches (xv. 1-8), or that of the shepherd to
the sheep (x. 1-16), etc., as symbols of like things in the sphere
1 Matt. xiii. 11-17 and parallels.
2 Matt. xiii. 34 and parallels. Cf. the exposition.
GOEBEL. B

18 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
of the spiritual life. But everywhere these comparisons only
occur in the shape of parabolic maxim or more extended
parabolic discourse, without anywhere assuming the shape of
parabolic narrative. All the more frequently does the latter
meet us in the first three Gospels, especially in Matthew and
Luke. And here, indeed, three groups at once strike the eye,
embracing all the parables of this kind. First, the first series of
parables delivered together by Jesus, according to the account of
Matthew, chap, xiii., on one day at Capernaum, and to which the
accounts of the other evangelists supply partial parallels. Secondly,
the series of parables recorded by Luke as examples of the teach
ing of Jesus in the section forming the centre of his Gospel,
and usually, although erroneously, taken as the account of Christ's
last journey to Jerusalem. They are almost all peculiar to Luke's
Gospel. Finally, the series of parables belonging to the Last
Period of Christ's teaching and work, and contained in chaps.
xviii.-xxv. of Matthew's Gospel,' — these again, for the most part,
are peculiar to this Gospel, t/thus, if we simply follow the order
of the parables in the accounts of the evangelists, a chronological
point of view naturally presents itself from which to arrange the
matter, namely: 1. The First Series of Parables at Capernaum ;
2. The Later Parables according to Luke; 3. The Parables ofthe Last
Period. To the first series we also add in its place the parable
(Mark iv. 26-29) of the Growing Seed, or, more correctly, of the
Fruit-bearing Earth, which takes the place in Mark's parallel
account of the parable of the Tares in Matthew. For although
the character of narrative, which we have seen to be the dis
tinctive mark of the parable in the strict sense, is wanting to "the
former parable peculiar to Mark, not only as regards contents, but
also as regards form, still it cannot be passed over in a connected
investigation of the first series of parables in Capernaum. Stand
ing as it does midway between the parable of the Sower and that
of the Mustard Seed as a description of a similar kind, it yet
forms a whole of itself as original as it is complete. This one
being added to the seven in Matthew, the first series will embrace
eight parables. With the second series, beginning with the parable
of the Merciful Samaritan (Luke x.), that of the Two Debtors,
found in Luke vii., might have been connected. But it is so
closely interwoven with the narrative of the woman that was a
sinner, who anointed the Lord's feet in the house of Simon the
Pharisee, and, consisting only of the one trait that a creditor forgave

INTRODUCTION. 19
his two debtors their debt, — to the one a great debt, to the other
a small one (vv. 41, 42), — it forms so clearly the mere basis
of the longer address delivered thereupon by Jesus to Simon
(vv. 43-47), that it cannot with propriety be treated apart as
an independent passage. Thus the second series of the Later
Parables, according -to Luke, will be composed of the following:
the Merciful Samaritan (chap, x.), the Importunate Friend (chap.
xi.), the Rich Fool (chap, xii.), the Fig-Tree (chap, xiii.), the Great
Feast (chap, xiv.); then the group of five parables in chaps.
xv., xvi. : the Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, the Lost Son, the
Unjust Steward, the Rich Man; finally, in chap, xviii. follow
the two parables of the Unjust Judge and the Pharisee and
Publican, — altogether, therefore, twelve parables. The parable of
the Pounds, given by Luke in chap, xix., after he has actually
begun in chap, xviii. 31a continuous account of the last journey
of Jesus through Jericho to Jerusalem, belongs to the parables of
the Last Period, and thus to the third series. And since this
parable, although belonging in Luke to another and somewhat
earlier situation, is very similar both as regards its figurative form
and its contents to Matthew's parable of the Talents, which forms
in the latter evangelist the conclusion of the series of parables of
the Last Period, in this third series, which will comprise the
parables of the Last Period, we follow first of all the chronological
lines of Matthew's account, in order next in the last place to com
bine with the exposition of the Talents in Matthew that of Luke's
parable of the Pounds. Accordingly, the third series will consist
of the following parables : the Unmerciful Servant (Matt, xviii.),
the Labourers in the Vineyard (chap, xx.), the Wicked Labourers
(chap. xxi. with parallels in Mark and Luke). Immediately before
the last-mentioned in Matthew stands the short and simple parable
of the Two Dissimilar Sons of a Father (xxi. 28-30), with the
explanatory application made at once by Jesus Himself (vv. 31,32),
which will be touched on in the introduction to the exposition of
the parable of the Wicked Labourers. Next follows the Royal
Marriage-Feast (chap, xxii.), so essentially different from the
similar parable in Luke of the Great Supper belonging to the
second series, that we leave each one in its own place. Finally,
in chap. xxv. we have the parable of the Ten Virgins and the
Talents, and along with the latter Luke's parable of the Pounds
(Luke xix.), — altogether seven parables in this third series. Some
times also Christ's prediction of the Judgment of the Son of Man

20 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
at His coming in glory (xxv. 31-46), which follows immediately
upon those two last parables in the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew,
has been reckoned among the parables, and in the wider sense rightly,
since it is a prophetic parabolic discourse. But it does not belong
to the parabolic narratives with which we have to do. For the
same reason also parabolic discourses like that of building on rock
and on sand (Matt. vii. 24-27), the cost of building a town
(vv. 31, 32), the servants looking for their lord (Luke xii. 35-38),
the good or bad steward (vv. 42-46 ; Matt. xxiv. 45-51), etc.,
are excluded from discussion, because they are either not narrative
or furnish no connected narrative. It is thus, for example, with
the first-mentioned one of building on rock and on sand, which
certainly assumes a narrative-form, but not in order to give a
connected history, but only to place in contrast the proceedings of
two builders and the different result of their proceedings, without
the two men being otherwise placed in any relation to each other.
\j In following the division just indicated, we renounce the
attempt to take as the basis of our discussion of the parables a
classification of them according to their contents. Such attempts
indeed have been made in various forms.1 But in all attempts of
this kind one is compelled first of all to acknowledge that they
lack a scientific aim, and therefore scientific value. They would
only have such value if the end in view were to formulate on
Biblical and theological grounds the special doctrinal system of
the parables of Jesus. But in relation to the work of Biblical
theology the parables can only come into view as an integral
constituent of the synoptical discourses of Jesus generally. If
Biblical theology desired to settle the doctrinal system of the
latter, it is impossible to separate the parables delivered by Jesus
*E.g. by Lisco, de Valenti, Arndt, Lange, etc., and by each in a different manner.
Lisco distinguishes three main classes'of parables : 1. Such as describe the kingdom
of heaven as a divine force ; 2. Such as represent it as a Church founded by the
divine forces of the "Word ; 3. Such as consider the members of the kingdom as
regards disposition, walk, and destiny. In de Valenti there are two main classes:
1. Such as treat of the kingdom of heaven in the proper sense as a vast moral asso
ciation ; 2. Such as treat of it in the improper sense, and represent it as the inner
moral condition of the members of the kingdom. Arndt comprises his studies of
the parables under three heads : 1. The glory of the kingdom of heaven ; 2. Con
ditions of entrance into the kingdom ; 3. Hindrances. Finally, Lange tries to
point out a threefold cycle : 1. The seven parables showing, as is supposed, the
historical development of the kingdom of God from the beginning to the end ;
2. Such as depict the government of divine grace ; 3. Such as depict God's judicial
righteousness.

INTRODUCTION. 21
at different times and on various occasions from the non-parabolic
discourses. Thus, the only scientific justification for a separate
treatment of the parables, apart from practical needs, is simply
their pecuUar form, which requires a correspondingly pecuUar
method of exposition ; but this does not justify us in assuming a
doctrinal import peculiar to them in contrast with the other dis
courses of Jesus. It is said, indeed, that the kingdom of God is
the central idea of the parables, and consequently Christ's teach
ing about the kingdom of God is contained in them. But the
kingdom of God is precisely the central idea of Christ's teaching
generaUy. And a direct reference to the idea of the kingdom of
God is wanting not merely in many non-paraboUc discourses, but
just as much also in many parables. The only value, therefore,
of such attempts is, that they give a synopsis of the parables,
arranged in the order of their contents with more or less success ;
and in this sense such an attempt may be made here. While
retaining the central idea of the kingdom of God, we distinguish
between such parables as describe the kingdom of God in its
nature and development, and such as refer to the conduct of its
members, either exhorting to what is right, or warning against the
opposite. The first class, again, falls into — 1. Such as have for
their subject the founding of /God's kingdom by the actual labour
of Jesus ; 2. Such as describe the progressive development of the
kingdom actually founded; 3. Such as relate to the future com
pletion of the kingdom at the end of its temporal development.
In the same way the second class, bearing on the conduct of the
members of the kingdom, falls again into — 1. Such as relate to
their conduct to God ; 2. Such as relate to their conduct to the
world. The scheme here given is certainly simple and clear, and
all the parables enumerated above may without difficulty be
included in it as foUows : —
I. Nature and Development of the Kingdom of God.
1. Founding of the Kingdom.
The Sower, or Divers Soils: The result of preaching
dependent on the hearers.
2. Development of the Kingdom.
a. The Immediate Future.
The Fig-Tree : Last respite for Israel.
f,e ^ ? f f : 1 From the Jews to the Gentiles.
I he Wicked Labourers : J

22 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
b. The Entire Development to the End.
The Fruit-bearing Earth (Mark iv.) : Through the per
sonal labour of members of the kingdom.
The Tares : Intermingling of impure elements.
The Mustard-Seed : 1 Growth until the whole world is
The Leaven : J embraced, Interpenetration.
The Fishing-Wet : First gathering, then sifting.
The Royal Marriage-Feast: First called, then neverthe
less rejected.
3. Completion of the Kingdom.
The Ten Virgins : Exclusion of those not found ready at
the hour of Christ's coming.
The Labourers in the Vineyard : Strange adjudging of the
reward in the future kingdom.
The Pounds in Trust: ( The "^ °f ff thf™f , and
The Talents in Trust : ) Punishf ent f . unfaithfulness
(_ m the future kingdom.
II. The Right Conduct of Members of the Kingdom.
1. Towards God.
The Pharisee and the Publican : Humility before God.
The Treasure in the Field :^Uch dneli-ht in ,God as
The Pearl of Great Price: ) SfCrfCf eYe^thmS f«
(_ the highest good.
The Importunate Friend : ( Perseverance in prayer to
The Unjust Judge : ^ God.
2. Towards the World.
a. To Men.
The Merciful Samaritan : Practical proof of love for one's
neighbour to one needing help.
The Unmerciful Servant : Unlimited placability towards
wrong-doers.
The Lost Sheep : \
The Lost Coin : } Unselfisn delight in the sinner's con-
Tlie Lost Son: j ^rsion.1
b. To Earthly Goods.
The Rich Fool (Luke xii.) : Folly of reliance on perish
able goods.
1 The justification of this classification as to this and all the other parables can, of
course, only be supplied by the exposition.

INTRODUCTION. 23
The Rich Man (Luke xvi.) : Selfish employment of earthly
wealth criminal.
The Unjust Steward: Wise employment of temporal
means in reference to eternity.
But however attractive such a classification may be in ap
pearance, it must always be unsuited to be the basis of an
exegetical treatment of the entire material. Directly this is
done, two evil results follow, which place such a course at a
disadvantage beside the one proposed by us. In following the
path marked out for him by an arrangement according to the
matter, the exegete is compelled, whenever he approaches a new
parable, to assume its doctrinal import, and therefore to assume
the result which is the aim of his entire work beforehand as a
text. The only use in this case of the exposition itself is to
serve as a supplementary proof of a result already given, instead
of, as it ought, interesting the reader in the work, perhaps con
ducting him step by step to new results, and enlisting his
convictions on their side. But even if this is not thought
mischievous, the other evil result remains, which is certainly
more serious in character, namely, that in foUowing such a
systematic division the exegete is compeUed to break up the
connected groups found in the Gospels in favour of the scheme
laid down by himself, and thus to tear a considerable number of
single parables from the relation in which they stand to each
other. Thus, in de Valenti, the parable of the Fishing-Net in
the group Matt. xiii. is placed beside that of the Ten Virgins in
the eschatological discourse Matt. xxv. ; and finaUy, the parable of
the Sower, the first in Matt, xiii, is placed among the last on his
scheme, side by side with that of the Unjust Steward in the
group Luke xv., xvi. And on the scheme advanced by Lisco,
the parable of the Tares in Matt. xiii. is placed beside that of the
Royal Marriage-Feast in chap. xxii. Even a Lange has not
succeeded, although plainly he has not kept this aim in view in
the interest of his scheme of division, in framing an arrangement
of the parables according to their contents which coincides with
the groups found in the Gospels and with the order of the parti
cular parables there given. Even he (e.g.) is compelled to pass
by two of Luke's parables — that of the Rich Fool and the Fig-
Tree — and place them at last among the final parables in Matthew.
And so, on the classification attempted by us, it was impossible

24 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
to avoid dislocating and throwing into confusion the groups of
parables joined together in the text. And if, nevertheless, the
context in which the particular parable stands is to hava
justice done to it, considering its essential importance so often to
the exposition, wearisome repetitions are unavoidable, without
compensation being realty obtained for the loss of a coherently
progressive exposition of the groups of parables given in the
text. Before passing to the exposition itself, it still remains to settle
its method. The fact that fixed principles and a certain method
are still for the most part wanting in the exposition of the
parables is incontestable.1 Certainly the general principle, that
every particular ingredient in a parable must not be interpreted
separately, that, on the contrary, in explaining a parable, its
essential elements must be held fast, is too obvious for general
agreement to be wanting on this point ; and every expositor is
compelled occasionally to appeal to such a principle. Chrysostom
early gave apt expression to this general rule with special refer
ence to the parable in Matt. xx. 1-1 6 : ov&e yjprj irdvra ra iv
Tat? TrapaBoXats Kara Xe^tv Trepiepya^eadat, aXXa tov a/coTrov
fj.a96vTe<;, St ov avverkdn, tovtov 8peTrecr8ai, ical finBev iroXvirpay-
fioveiv TrepaiTepco. But however great the agreement on this
general principle, the manner and extent in which it is applied
differ in almost every parable and every expositor ; and thus,
considering the want of unity and certainty existing in the ex
planation of the parables, scarcely anything has been gained by
the acknowledgment of this canon.
We have accordingly to seek more definite rules for interpret
ing the parables, and for this end take into consideration the two
bypaths into which interpretation may faU. The first of these
bypaths, and the most commonly frequented one, is the trans
gression of the due bounds of interpretation by confounding the
edifying application of a parable with the simple original sense
which the parable had in the mouth of Jesus in relation to those
to whom He delivered it. Although particular features in a
parable may here and there lend themselves obviously to a
definite application to Christian life, or serve suitably and
strikingly as a figurative representation of definite Christian
truths or particular facts of the sacred history, this by no means
proves that they had this sense originally in the context of the
1 Cf. Weiss, Marcuwvangelium, preface, p. v.

INTRODUCTION. 2 5
parable. On the contrary, the interpretation of a parable is often
led grievously astray through an expositor at the outset isolating
a certain particular, assigning it a meaning perhaps exceedingly
probable, although not in fact originally intended, and then
finding himself compelled to bring everything else into unison
therewith. In opposition to such a course, the simple principle
is to be most rigidly maintained: "NihU amplius quaerendum
est quam quod tradere Christi consilium fuit." 1 In interpreting
a parable, we must first of aU ask what Jesus meant to say to
those to whom He dehvered it, what doctrine, exhortation, or
warning He meant to give ; and with strict reservation of this
point of view, we must judge how far the particulars in the
parable require, according to the fundamental plan, a definite
counterpart in the interpretation, and, in effect, how they are to
be interpreted.
But, of course, we must not make too light of such judgment.
Were we to be content with the general purpose of the parable,
and then lightly to pass over its particulars, so far as their inter
pretation did not readily fit into the compass of the general
purpose, simply taking them for byplay and ornament, we should
merely fall into the opposite bypath. Strictly understood, there is
no mere byplay and empty ornament in the parables of Jesus.
This second principle must be everywhere maintained as a
supplement to the first one. For we can nowhere seriously
accept the opinion that Jesus wove particular ingredients into
His parables which serve no purpose, or no other purpose than
to give the narrative a more pleasing outward form. On the
contrary, it must be presupposed that all particulars in a parable,
in so far as they are not meant to find a special counterpart in
the interpretation, have nevertheless some important position of
their own in the connection of the whole, and thus serve the end
of the whole, either helping by delineation in detail to picture a
truth vividly, or fitting as essential ingredients into the systematic
structure of the narrative. The expositor must therefore never
say that this or that particular Ues outside the compass of the
intended comparison, and therefore cannot be explained, without
at the same time indicating what purpose it serves in its place in,
the connection of the whole.
But if, in the appUcation of these principles, the problem of
ascertaining the original meaning of a parable with equal purity
1 Calvin on Matt. xx. 1-16.

26 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
and completeness is to be really solved with approximate cer
tainty, the exposition must pursue such a logical course as is
dictated by the nature of the problem. And the course which
seems to me to be prescribed to the expositor of a parable by the
nature of his task, because leading most accurately and certainly
to the goal, is the foUowing.
Before approaching the parable itself, we must first of aU settle
with the greatest possible exactness, so far as the text supplies
indications on the point, on what occasion, or in what connec
tion, and to whom Jesus uttered the parable. Next, we must
follow the figurative history itself in its natural course, word by
word and step by step, seeking in the first instance everywhere
to understand the simple verbal sense lying in the sphere of
physical or human life, without entering at present, as is com
monly done, on the field of interpretation, without asking in
every verse and at every step what is meant to be symbolized, — to
speak generally, without letting ourselves be disturbed and misled
in the understanding of its course and connection by thoughts of
the interpretation and its supposed difficulties. For only by thus
putting aside prejudice, and letting the narrative in its natural
course up to the conclusion, on which everything depends, influence
us, is a secure basis laid for a consistent interpretation of the
parable.. Now, in such a consecutive study of the text as to its
verbal sense, those ingredients in the figurative history, which
decisively influence its inner course, and therefore form its
essential contents, and also those which merely serve the purpose
of pictorial delineation or the formation of its outward structure,
wiU spontaneously stand forth before the expositor in their true
character ; and thus the necessary postulates wiU be gained for
solving, in the next place, easily and surely, all merely apparent
difficulties in the work of interpretation on the basis of such
previous labour. And, on the other hand, in this way the danger
wiU be avoided at the outset of getting rid of real difficulties,
which the interpretation perhaps presents, by forcing on the text
of the narrative a sense which its literal meaning of itself does
not give, for the sake of the interpretation which we think our
selves bound to bring out.
But even after having thus laid the secure basis for interpret
ing the parable, we cannot yet enter immediately on its specific
interpretation, but must first ascertain, in the third place, its
general didactic purpose, by comparing the course and contents

INTRODUCTION. 2 7
of the narrative thus discovered with what may previously have
been settled respecting the connection in which Jesus delivered
it, and the persons to whom it was delivered. In the case of
most parables an interpreting statement of Jesus, appended to the
figurative history, aids the exposition.
And now only, after we are certain of the purpose lying at the
basis of the whole, and of the point of view under which the
whole must be placed, can the proper interpretation be carried
out in detail, and that with unbroken continuity. The exposition
wiU again strike back to the beginning of the figurative history,1
and, following it once more step by step to its conclusion, wiU
estimate each one of its particular elements in its significance for
the whole, and set the thing symbohzed in definite contrast with
the symbol.
1 [Figurative history or figurative story is always, of course, =fignrative narrative.]

PAET I.
THE FIRST SERIES OF PARABLES IN CAPERNAUM.

The Parables to the People by the Sea.
(Matt. xiii. 1, 2, 10-17.)
IN the thirteenth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel we meet with
the first series of parables, to which the fourth chapter of St.
Mark's Gospel supphes an obvious, although incomplete, parallel
both as to situation and contents.1 And indeed, in agreement
with Mark iv. 1, Matthew (w. 1, 2) relates the precise
circumstances in which Jesus spoke the foUowing parables, i.e.,
according to him, first of all the four recounted in the paragraph
w. 3-33. But in beginning to give this account the evangelist
expressly mentions that what follows took place " on that day,"
therefore on the same day to which the events related previously
belong. If, then, we inquire what these events were, the way in
which both the paragraph chap. xii. 46-50 and that reaching
from vv. 38 to 45 are closely connected with the preceding
w. 22-37 — the former by ert, avrov XaXovvros, the latter by
tot6 aireicptdTjo-av aiirm — refers us back to ver. 22. Regarded
from this standpoint, Matthew's account gives us the foUowing
picture of the previous events of the day : Jesus had healed one
possessed with a devU in the presence of the people, upon which
the Pharisees, in order to suppress the commotion thus excited
among the people, spread abroad the charge, that He only cast
out devils through Beelzebub, their prince, vv. 22-24. Jesus
had then rebuked the Pharisees for this blasphemy in severe
¦The parallel in St. Luke (viii. 4 ff.) gives only the first of the parables, and
according to ver. 4 represents it as merely addressed to a great crowd of people in
general. 29

30 . THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
language, which culminated in the warning against the sin of
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, for which there is no
forgiveness, vv. 25-37. And when some of them demanded
of Him a special miraculous sign in evidence of His authority,
ver. 38, His complaint had extended from them over the entire
contemporary generation as one which merely asked after signs
(in this taking up the keynote of its leaders), more impenitent
than the heathen Ninevites in the days of Jonah, and less earnest
about salvation than the Queen of the South in the days of
Solomon, vv. 39-42 ; a generation, therefore, whose merely
superficial and transient awakening from wickedness would end
in a far worse state than the one in which it was before,
vv. 43-45. But while He was yet speaking to the people,
word was brought Him that His mother and brethren stood
without desiring to speak to Him, vv. 46, 47, which gave Him
occasion — in notable contrast with the previous language of
rebuke to the people and to His tempters — to acknowledge His
disciples (in the wider sense, cf. Mark iii 33—35) as His mother
and brethren, because they did the wiU of His Father in heaven,
vv. 48-50.
This glance at the previous events of the day, suggested to us
by the evangelist himself by the words " on that day," sets in a
clear light the kind of success which Christ's public work had so
far met with, and indicates the feelings of Jesus at this time, and
especially on the day on which He uttered the following parables.
It was a time of division and decision. On the one side stood
the Pharisees, who had already weU-nigh advanced to the
extremest degree of obduracy, and the mass of the people, who,
while crowding around Him from curiosity and eagerness after
miracles, showed themselves increasingly insensible to His call to
repentance, and increasingly unsusceptible to His preaching of
the kingdom ; and, on the other side, a Uttle band of disciples,
separating themselves from the rest and gathering around Him,
with whom He knew and felt Himself to be in intimate union,
because they were ready to do the wiU of His Father.
We have thus to think of Jesus as under the influence of
these circumstances when it is said of Him (xiii. 1) : " On that
day went Jesus out of the house (scil. out of the house where
He was accustomed to dwell, and where also thd events of this
day previously related took place1), and sat by the (Galilean)
1 Cf. the %lu, xii. 46 and Mark iii. 19.

THE PARABLES TO THE PEOPLE BY THE SEA. 3 1
sea." This going out, however, is not viewed as following
immediately on the events related in chap. xii. In that case a
different mode of connection with what precedes would have
been chosen from the actual one, which merely notices the
identity of the day. Nay, Jesus has meantime dismissed the
people, as ver. 2 shows. On going out He is not from the first
accompanied and beset by a multitude of people, but at first is
only followed by the smaU band of disciples so intimately united
with Him. To give Himself up to friendly converse with them
wiU be a refreshment to Him after the toUsome, exciting work of
the day. For this reason He sits down in their midst by the
seaside. That we are right in understanding the ifcddnro
(ver. 1), not of taking a seat apart in order to -rest, but of a
teacher sitting amid a circle of hearers, follows from ver. 2 : ical
avvrf)(Pr\aav 7rpo? avrov oyXoi, iroXXoi, wore airbv eh irXoiov
ififidvTa KaOrjaQai, teal 7ra? o 6'^\09 eVi avyiaXbv ela-TijKei.
The Kadrjadat, in ver. 2 plainly resumes the i/eddnro in ver. 1.
The iicddnro there must therefore be understood in the same
sense as the /cadrja-dai here, which is a taking a seat in order to
teach. So many people gathered round Him — such is the
meaning of the account — that He found Himself compeUed to
exchange the seat taken at first on the sea-shore for another more
suited to the increased number of hearers. And thus He went
into a boat lying near the strand,1 and sat down there, where
He was saved from the pressure of the crowd, whUst the latter,
spreading along the shore (eVt rbv alyiaXov), were able to keep
the speaker in view. Thus, sitting opposite the people, He
discoursed to them.
But before the evangeUst repeats the discourse of Jesus, he
calls attention to its pecuUarity, ver. 3 : " And He spake to
them many things in parables." And, in fact, a glance at the
discourse thus introduced makes the " speaking in parables,"
such as is found here, seem strange enough. Without any
preparation in the hearers for the subject to be treated of, the
discourse begins at once with a figurative history ; and when
this is finished, Jesus does not even add any word of interpreta
tion or application, such as might be likely to give the hearers
a key to the hidden meaning of the figurative language. Rather,
in merely adding, ver. 9 : b e%a)v &ra a/coverm (i.e. he that has
capacity for doing so, let him mark and learn the meaning of
!'Cf. Mark iv. 1.

32 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
the discourse), it is as if He wished expressly to put aside their
eager desire for explanation. And the strangeness of this
observation is enhanced when, looking beyond the paragraph
(vv. 10-23) interposed here (as will be shown afterwards merely
for incidental reasons), we consider the discourse of Jesus up to
its conclusion. For alongside the first parable appears at once a
second (vv. 24-30), unconnected with the former by remark
between ; and just in the same unconnected way a third foUows
on the second (vv. 31, 32), and a fourth on the third (ver. 33),
each one merely linked to the preceding one by the remark of
the narrator : " Another parable set He before them " or " spake
He unto them," and introduced by the speaker himself simply by
" the kingdom of heaven is likened," or " is like," and then worded ,.*'
in such figurative form that the veU of the figurative language is
nowhere lifted. And that we must not put this strange way of
speaking in parables, and in parables loosely joined together, to
the account of a redaction by the evangelist, who desired to
weld a number of parables into one collection, that this strange
method of teaching was rather just the distinctive feature of
Christ's speaking to the people at this time, is expressly
emphasized at the close of the discourse, ver. 34 : ravra trdvia
iXaXvaev 6 'Inaovs iv TrapaBoXal? roh o^ois, ical %(opU
irapaSoXrj'i oiSev iXdXet, avTofc. The emphasis of the first
clause lies wholly on iv irapaBoXals — how much, is shown by
the second clause, in which the evangelist, still more minutely
describing the mode of teaching referred to, and therefore
continuing in the imperfect, says, that He spoke only in parables
without any exception.1 And this mode of speech is so signi
ficant to him, that he sees in it a fulfilment of Scripture, an
1 The imperfect iXxXu, which "Weiss (Marcusev. p. 165) finds so strange here, is,
on the contrary, thoroughly in place. It might also stand in ver. 34a, and even in
ver. 3, instead of the aorists there, because in both these passages as well the
subject is not merely that Jesus spoke and what He spoke, but also the nature of
His speaking. When, therefore, in Mark we actually find the imperfect in all tho
three parallel passages, we ought not, with Weiss, to draw the marvellous conclusion,
that according to Mark the parables were not spoken in the situation definitely
marked out in ver. 1, but are only introduced as an example of Christ's method of
teaching generally. What then becomes of the picturesque situation described in
ver. 1, which is left altogether floating in the air ? And why should not Christ's
method of teaching in a situation already definitely marked out be just as well
described by the imperfect as His method of teaching generally ? The language must
then be supplementarily limited in some way, and that arbitrarily, because the xu!'s
vxpKpoXiis ohx \\&.%ii avToli, ver. 34, does not apply absolutely to Christ's general mode
of teaching.

THE PARABLES TO THE PEOPLE BY THE SEA. 33
antitypical analogue to the mode of speech in the seventy-eighth
Psalm (ver. 35).
But if, as we are obliged to suppose after the express and
unanimous declarations of the evangelists, this method of
speaking exclusively in loosely - connected parables — we may
even, with Strauss, call it an " overwhelming with parables " —
was reaUy the character of the discourse of Christ delivered to
the people in the situation described in vv. 1, 2, a definite
purpose on the part of the speaker must necessarily have under
lain such a course ; and it wUl not be without value for the
understanding of the parables themselves, if we first assure
ourselves why Jesus then spoke to the people in precisely this
manner and no other. When, then, we compare the present
method of parabolic speech with Christ's method of speaking in
parables elsewhere, this difference at once strikes us, that every
where else Jesus uses the parable, as its very nature implies,
primarily as a means of illustration, in order by the figurative
dress to bring the subject in hand directly home to the
understanding and heart of His hearers, whether friends or foes.
Hence the figurative history for the most part runs out into a
non-figurative saying helpful to interpretation; whereas in the
present method of speaking paraboUcally and only parabolically,
passing rapidly from one figure to another in appearance without
uniformity and connection, the primary purpose is not to bring
the subject in hand home to the understanding of the hearers,
but the very opposite purpose seems to prevail, namely, to conceal
the true subject by a veil of figurative language that is never lifted,
and remove it to a distance from the understanding of the hearers.
And that this purpose was really the motive for choosing the
present mode of teaching, we are assured by an express declara
tion on the point given by Christ to His disciples.
After the two evangelists Matthew and Mark have set down
the first parable, they hasten to interrupt the recording of the
discourse delivered to the people from the boat for the purpose
of mentioning a later conversation between Jesus and His
disciples, in which Jesus gave them information respecting the
reason and aim of this parabolic teaching (vv. 10-17).1 To
this they naturally join the explanation of the first parable given
by Jesus to the disciples in the same conversation (vv. 18— 23).2
Mark, moreover, adds two sayings of Jesus in reference to the
1 Mark iv. 10-12. 2 Mark iv. 13-20.
GOEBEL. C

34 THE PARABLES OE JESUS.
information given to the disciples (iv. 21-25). Only then do
the evangelists resume the discourse broken off after the first
parable. That the conversation here mentioned only took place
as matter of fact afterwards, is not merely specially noted by
Mark, when he puts it in the time " when Jesus was alone "
(ver. 10), and therefore after Jesus had ended His discourse to
the people and dismissed them ; 1 but it is also obvious from the
question of the disciples introducing the conversation, because
the wording of the question presupposes the delivery of a number
of parables. According to Mark, the reason of Jesus giving the
explanation in question was, that the disciples " asked Him about
the parables." 2 In Matthew the wording of the question intro
duces the answer more distinctly and with greater logical
precision : " Why speakest Thou unto them (scil. unto the people)
in parables ? " (ver. 10). Thus questioned, Jesus replies to His
disciples, that He does it because knowledge of the mysteries of
the kingdom of heaven is vouchsafed by God only to them — the
questioners, not to those, i.e. the multitude (ver. 11). The
meaning then is, that in hiding the mysteries of the kingdom of
heaven from their understanding by a figurative form of language,
He is fulfilling a divine behest, according to which the knowledge
of these mysteries is vouchsafed only to the disciples, but refused
to the rest. This divine behest is based, as is explained in ver.
12, by yap on the general maxim, borrowed from the 'circum
stances of earthly possessions, but also embodying a divine
appointment : " Whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he
shall have more abundance ; but whosoever hath not, from him
shall be taken away even that he hath." The SodrjcreTai, evidently
explains the divinely-appointed BeSorai in ver. 1 1 ; and in the
same way the still more intense apdrjcrerat, air avrov corresponds
to the oi> SeSorai in ver. 11. The sense, therefore, in which that
general rule apphes here is this : They who possess and manifest
receptiveness and capacity of understanding for the word of the
kingdom, shaU be increasingly placed in a position for knowing
the mysteries of the kingdom ; while they who show themselves
unreceptive and incapable of understanding, wiU be confirmed
and hardened in their spiritual obtuseness until they reach the
extremest degree of ignorance. This is God's appointment, and
1 Cf. Matt. xiii. 36.
" The reading of the Rec. rm vxpxfaXM is clearly a correction for the stronglj
attested and original ras ¦xapafioxis.

THE PARABLES TO THE PEOPLE BY THE SEA. 35
because it is God's appointment, " therefore " proceeds Jesus in
ver. 13, recurring with the Sia rovro to w. 11, 12, " Therefore
speak I to them in parables, because they seeing see not, and
hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." Thus, on
the ground of the divine appointment declared in vv. 11, 12,
He conceals from them — those incapable of understanding — the
mysteries of the kingdom of heaven by figurative language, which
apparently depicts before them merely sensuous things in
confused succession, thus aggravating their state of seeing and
yet not seeing, of hearing and yet not hearing, to the highest
degree. And so the prophecy of Isaiah finds its fulfilment in
them (vv. 14, 15), — quoted after the wording of the LXX., which
differs from the original text, — in which the people are threatened
with a state of hearing with the ears without hearing, and of
seeing without seeing, because by hardening their hearts and
stopping their ears and Minding their eyes they resisted
conversion and the healing which it brings. It is now obvious
of itself that when Mark (and Luke also in his wake), in whom
the answer of Christ runs differently and more briefly, describes
the inability to see and hear by "va as the end which Christ has
in view in the paraboUc mode of teaching (iv. 12),1 he does not
thereby reaUy contradict Matthew, in whom in ver. 13 it is
described by on as the reason impelling Christ to this mode of
teaching. For even in Matthew this state of inability to see and
hear is not merely described as the reason of such teaching, but
in its aggravation is also viewed as its end, according to the rule :
" Whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that
he hath ; " and only by means of an utter exegetical perversion
can we find in Matthew the opposite thought, — a thought,
moreover, least of aU compatible with the form which the
parabolic discourse takes in him, — namely, that Jesus adapted
Himself by the parabolic mode of teaching to the people's
feebleness of apprehension in order to their further understanding
and final conversion.2 After Jesus has thus disposed of the
question why He speaks to the people in parables, in contrast
with the people given over to judicial blindness He pronounces
the disciples aU the more blessed (vv. 16, 17), because their
eyes are permitted to see and their ears to hear what many
prophets and righteous men desired in vain to see and hear,
namely, those mysteries of the kingdom of heaven which it is
1 Cf. Luke viii. 10. 2 Meyer.

36 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
given to them to know. For this reason in ver. 1 8 He begins
to explain to them, and only to them (vptels ovv), the figures
concealing these mysteries.
To sum up the results of the previous investigation : when we
remember the circumstances detailed in chap, xii., under the
influence of which Jesus stood at that time, and especially on
that day, on one hand seeing opposite Him His foes, the Pharisees,
and the impenitent populace so unreceptive to His words, and on
the other, embracing with all the greater affection, the small
band of disciples gathered around Plim ; when we remember,
further, the more precise circumstances in which this discourse of
His was spoken, — how, sitting at first by the sea, surrounded by
His disciples, He saw Himself compelled by the gathering of
great numbers of people to address His discourse to them from
the boat; and finally, when we compare herewith the strange,'
purely parabolic form of the discourse and the declarations on the
subject given by Christ Himself to the disciples, declarations
based entirely on the contrast between the disciples and the
people, — from all this the purpose becomes clear with which
Jesus begins to deliver the series of parables lying before us.
Jesus wishes to unfold to His disciples — to the Twelve, and to
those who, like them, have, gathered round His person with
penitent desire for salvation — the mysteries of the kingdom of
God. But wishing to do this, He finds Himself, through the
pressure of the crowd, in presence of listeners already hardened
in impenitence against His former preaching of repentance and
the kingdom, and therefore whoUy unfitted to grasp with inner
intelligence teachings which go farther and deeper. In order,
then, to give the disciples the intended teachings, while still pro
fessing to be speaking to the people, who are unprepared for such
teaching, He says what He wishes to say entirely in a series of
parables, so that on one hand the multitude hear something with
out hearing or understanding, whilst the disciples on their part
can either understand or fall back on the interpretation. Thus
the exclusively parabolic form of the discourse here is designed for
the multitude, whilst the contents belong to the disciples, and to
them only. He desires to impart to them " the mysteries of the
kingdom of heaven," i.e. the parables are meant to unfold to them
new, previously unknown and unknowable truths respecting the
nature and development of the kingdom of God.
We proceed, therefore, to consider the first of these.

THE SOWER, OR DIVERS SOILS. 37
The Sower,1 or Divers Soils.
(Matt. xiii. 3-8, 18-23, and parallels.)
Arousing attention with "Behold," Jesus begins to narrate:
"Behold, the sower went forth to sow." 'O utrelpwv is he whose
caUing it is to sow.2 Hence we may translate " the sower," but not
" a sower" (Luther), nor, which comes to the same thing, " the
sower whom I have in view " (Meyer). The thought is not that
of a certain individual sower, who did so and so in distinction
from others, and who fared so and so. The subject is simply a
sowing done by one whose business it is to sow.3 In the sequel,
also, the person of the sower is left out of sight. The narrative
speaks simply of the fate of the seed sown, the different kinds of
soU on which it fell, and the corresponding effect it produced.
This account begins in ver. 4 : " and as he sowed, some seeds fell
by the wayside." Now this must not be understood to mean that
as he sowed some grains of seed fell beyond the limits of the field
upon the way leading past,4 and therefore upon ground altogether
outside the purpose of the sower, — a meaning also which irapa. rrjv
6S6v could not have, but which would require trapa, rbv wypov.
It is self-evident that by Trapa rrjv 6B6v a portion of the field
itself is meant to be characterized in accordance with the nature
of its soil, namely, the strip of soil lying alongside the boundary-
path, usuaUy trodden hard and smooth by the feet of passers-by,
so that the seed falling there is left lying on the hard surface.
The consequence which may be expected is : " and the birds came
and devoured it." The hard-trodden edge of the field, because
unable even to admit the seed dropped there into the bosom of
the earth, exposes it by this very fact to speedy destruction ; for,
attracted by the grains lying exposed, the birds come and eat it
up. And no less certain is its destruction in the other way, of
which mention is made in Luke (viii. 5), along with and previous
to the being eaten by birds, in the words koI /careirarijOr). The
seed beside the path must necessarily be crushed by the feet of
the people passing and repassing afterwards as before.
1 It will be seen in the following exposition that the author objects to this title.
It is prefixed here simply in deference to English usage.
2 Cf. 1 Cor. ix. 13 : ei ra h?a ipytt^oiAivet.
3 On roi <r*tipw, "to sow," cf. Winer, Gram. A^ T. Greek, p. 408.
4 Weiss, Lange, et al.

'3'8 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
Of a different kind was the soil upon which another part of the
seed feU (ver. 5): "and others fell em ra TrerpcoBv," i.e. upon the
rocky parts of the field, — with the article, because the existence of
such soil is assumed as something not unusual. This pregnant
description is then more fully explained by the addition : " where
they had not much earth." Therefore, such soil is meant as under
a slight layer of earth conceals massive rock, a kind of soil
frequently met with on such shelving coasts as lay before the
eyes of the speaker, which is therefore characterized in Luke
(ver. 6), sufficiently for the hearers, by the brief em rr)v nrkrpav
without explanatory addition. The fate of what was sown there is
what might be expected from soil of this kind : " and, straightway
they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth!' Because
the soU is wanting in depth, the grain is unable to strike root
vigorously into the bosom of the earth before emerging into the
light, but comes out and up forthwith, as is very strikingly
described by the double compound i^avereCKev. With this
apparently favourable beginning its ultimate fate stands in sad
contrast (ver. 6) : "and when the sun was risen, they ivere scorched."
The dvareXXetv of the sun is here, as everywhere else, the sunrise,
and cannot be arbitrarily changed into the higher ascent of the
sun at mid-day or in summer.1 The thought is simply this : The
grain, so quickly sprung up, is unable to bear the risen sun, but,
tender and weak as it is, is scorched by the sun's rays. "And"
so it is said further, " because they had no root, they withered aviay!'
Thus, this second clause says that the grain, once scorched, is
unable, having no vigorous roots in the bosom of the earth, to
recover itself by drawing new moisture from the earth, but of
necessity withers away utterly and for ever. Luke emphasizes
the want of moisture (ver. 6) when, without mentioning the sun,
he briefly says : koX <pvev i&pdvOy Bta to p.r) eyeiv i/cfidBa.
The grain again finds another hindrance in the soil characterized
in ver. 7 : " and others fell upon the thorns." As in Luke im ttjv
rrkrpav stood for em ra rrerpmBy, so also here the hindrance to
prosperity, hidden in the soil, is put for the soil itself. " Upon
the thorns," is the same as " upon the thorny ground," under the
surface of which a crop of thorns lies already concealed. The
article is to be taken as in ver. 5. And in this way the fate of
the seed is again decided, as the second half of the verse tells :
" and the thorns grew up and choked them." The word dvaBalveiv,
1 Lange, Stier, et al.

THE SOWER, OR DIVERS SOILS. 39
like dvareXXetv, of itself signifies primarily the coming up of the
grain simply, not the shooting aloft.1 But certainly as regards
the thought, thorns being the matter in question, shooting up in
rank luxuriance after the manner of thorns naturally joins on to
the dvaBaiveiv, so that /cat aireirvi^av avrd may be at once added
to dveBno-av as its effect. Alongside the thorns, growing up and
multiplying luxuriantly after their manner, the good grain is
unable to spring up, it is choked. At what stage of its develop
ment this choking is viewed as taking place, is not clearly evident
from the text in Matthew. But according to Luke's text (ver. 7),
koX crvfupveiaat (i.e. grown up along with) at aicavdat, diriirvi^av
aiiro, a previous growth in common is to be supposed ; and when
in Mark (ver. 7) it is added : ical tcaptrbv ovtc eBaicev, when, there
fore, as the consequence of the choking of the grain, it is said
that it bore no fruit, — this implies the thought that the growth
of the grain had already approached the point of fruit-bearing.
Accordingly, in the description so far the progress must not be
overlooked, that in the hard-trodden soil first-named, the seed
perishes without coming up at aU ; that in the second loose but
not deep soil it springs up indeed, but only at once to wither
again ; that, finally, in the third deep but not pure soU, it grows
up indeed, but is again choked before bearing fruit.
And this threefold advance in the description reaches its goal
when, in the fourth place, that kind of soil is mentioned which
permits the seed to attain to actual fruit-bearing (ver. 8) : " and
others fell upon the good ground ;" good in opposition to the three
kinds of ground previously mentioned, namely, loose in opposition
to the first, deep in opposition to the second, pure in opposition
to the third, and thus raising hindrance neither to the coming up
nor growth, nor to the final fruit-bearing. Hence of the seed
sown there it can be said: " and it yielded fruit."2 But this fruit-
bearing of the seed which fell upon the good ground is again
different in respect of its multiplication. The aXXa is here in
turn divided into a threefold 6 fiev . . . o Be . . . o Be: " and yielded
1 Cf. below .on Mark iv. 8, where the kwfaum* is expressly distinguished from the
av^etviffSxi. 1 Cf. Mark iv. 8, where also the special contrast with the fate of the seed sown
on the first and second kinds of soil is indicated by the participles xtx/Sxlmrx xx)
ah%xro/ii>x added to iSi'Sou xapmv, i.e. "and yielded fruit, springing up andincreas-
ing." Such is the reading according to N B, instead of avgswvva or alZ,a,>ipM*. Cf.
Weiss here.

40 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
fruit, some a hundred, some sixty, some thirty," i.e. grains. Thus,
even in the good ground again, there is diversity in the nature
of the ground, which shows itself in a corresponding variety in
the fruit- bearing, so that some bears a hundred-fold, another
merely sixty-fold, and even merely thirty-fold. Or, as the thought
in Mark is reversed : It bore up to thirty (eh rpiaKovra), and even
to sixty, and still more to a hundred ; whereas in Luke this
feature is wanting, the hundred-fold wealth of fruit being simply
set in contrast with fruitlessness (ver. 8) : ical iiroirjcrev Kaptrov
eKarovrarrXaaiova} On a review, then, of the entire parable, the first thing arresting
attention is that, although deUvered in narrative form, the parable
is not as regards contents a real narrative, not an account of
special events which happened but once in a certain order, but
a description of what often, nay always, takes place by necessity
of nature under the same conditions. It is a description, clothed
in narrative form, of that order of nature, according to which,
when a sowing takes place, the effect of the sowing depends on
the actual nature of the ground sown, and is therefore just as
widely different as the actual difference in the nature of the
ground necessarily involves. Since, then, we know from the
declarations of Jesus Himself that He meant by this parable to
unfold " mysteries of the kingdom " to His disciples, we must first
of all ask : What new truth it is in reference to the nature and
growth of the kingdom of heaven which Jesus wishes to set before
His disciples by His description of this order of nature. And the
right answer to this question has been already suggested by the
insight we have gained from chap. xii. 22-50, into the different
kinds of success which Christ's Messianic work had hitherto met
with among the people, and into the corresponding influences,
under which Christ stood when He spoke this parable. As we
have seen, His preaching of repentance and the kingdom had its
designed effect in the case of a small band of disciples only. In
the case of the great multitude and of their leaders, the Pharisees, '
it either remained without effect altogether, or was only attended
by transient success. This, then, is the phenomenon, just then
becoming clearer and clearer, which Jesus wishes to point out to
His disciples in the present parable, that they may not be deceived
1 On the hundred-fold increase, in which the exuberant fertility of Galilee is to be
taken into account, cf. also Gen. xxvi. 12, and Winer, Biblisches Real-Wbrterbuch,
art. "Ackerbau;" Smith's Bible Diet. "Agriculture."

THE SOWER, OR DIVERS SOILS. 41
by it as if it had its reason in the nature of the kingdom of heaven,
and in the manner of its realization determined by that nature.
For this end, in opposition to the prevailing expectation, that
when the Messiah appears He wiU set up the kingdom of heaven
in glory by means of a display of outward power, certain and
universal in effect, He discloses the mystery, that the kingdom
of heaven must be realized by means of a sowing which is depen
dent for its effect on the actual nature of the soil, and therefore
by no other means than the insignificant one which they have
previously seen in operation — of preaching the gospel of the king
dom (iv. 23, ix. 35), the effect of which by its very nature as a purely
spiritual agency is dependent on the condition of heart of those to
whom the preaching comes, and must be just as widely different as the
actual condition of heart in the hearers}
But, then, we must not think that in indicating this or any
similar fundamental thought we have exhausted the original
meaning of the parable, or reject a special interpretation of the
four different kinds of soil, and the correspondent fourfold effect
of the sowing, as a construction having no basis in the original
plan of the parable.2 On the latter view the explanation given,
according to the account of all three evangelists, by Jesus Him
self must be regarded as originating in a later misunderstanding,
and wrongly ascribed to Jesus Himself by tradition. For in the
first place this at least is certain, that in the interpretation we
must distinguish between the fourth kind of ground mentioned
in the parable on the one hand, and the first three on the other,
as between a condition of heart which allows the word preached
to have its full effect unhindered, and one which does not aUow
this through one or another hindrance contained in it. But then,
the description itself is not so arranged, either as to form or
contents, that the class of soil which proves fruitful is simply
contrasted with that which proves unfruitful; but "it is so
arranged that each one of the three unfruitful classes of soil
stands in contrast with the two others and with the fourth
fruitful class just as definitely as the fourth with the first three.
For, as regards first the form, we see the description everywhere
1 Certainly this also indirectly implies an intimation to the disciples " of whnt
they are to expect as to the success of their preaching of the word," but not as the
real design of the parable (so Hofmann on Luke viii. 4 ff.). For here the matter in
question is. primarily the strange fact lying" before their eyes, and therefore merely
the very diverse results of Christ's own labour.
s So especially Weiss.

42 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
pass from one class of soil to the other uniformly with an aXXa
Be e-rrea-ev, and thus from the third to the fourth in no other way
than from the second to the third, and from the first to the
second. And as regards contents, the description of each
successive class of soil exhibits a definite advance on the pre
ceding one in respect of its nature, and the effect of the seed
dependent thereon ; and this is done in uniform succession,
ascending from the first to the second, and from the second to
the third, in just the same way as from the third to the fourth.
Thus the whole is seen to fall, as regards form and contents,
into four co-ordinate parts, each one of which claims a special
interpretation. For these reasons the parable just as definitely requires a
special interpretation of the first three kinds of soil as of the
fourth in distinction from the first three ; and our confidence is
justified that we do not go beyond its original design in asserting
that every one of the four kinds of soil is meant to symbolize a
condition of heart of like nature, which allows to the preached
word an effect like that of the seed. And, according to the
designed construction of the parable, this takes place in such
order that in the first case the condition of heart in question
makes any effect of preaching altogether impossible, whereas in
the second case it permits to the preaching an initial but quickly
vanishing effect, in the third an effect apparently more perma
nent, but at last coming to nought, and only in the fourth case a
right effect.
Thus there is no ground whatever for violently setting aside
by a critical verdict the fourfold interpretation which, according
to the account of the evangelists, Jesus Himself gave to the
disciples, and which even a critic like Ewald finds " so full of
life, so pregnant and distinctive," that " with good reason we may
recognise therein the words of Christ Himself." Rather in the
interpretation of particulars we may confidently commit ourselves
to the guidance of Christ's interpretation — of course not without
independent examination. For it must always be taken into
account, that when Jesus, Himself the author of the parable,
interprets it to His disciples, His standpoint is not that of the
exact expositor, who aims at ascertaining the meaning of the
parable, at exactly defining it to the extent to which it belongs
to the figurative history, and reproducing it without any additions.
His is the higher standpoint of the practical expositor, who

THE SOWER, OR DIVERS SOILS. 43
desires to impress the meaning of the parable, of which He is
sure, on the hearts of others, in which course He is at Uberty to
avail Himself, in the interpretation of further details, of con
crete appUcations, and also of using additional analogies, provided
only the original sense of the parable is not deranged and
confused. We turn then to the interpretation, which, as we saw, Jesus
first gave to His disciples afterwards in a special conversation.
After explaining to them the reason and aim of His paraboUc
discourse (w. 10-17), He proceeds in ver. 18 : "Hear ye then
the parable of him, who sowed." So it is said, according to the
true reading toO arrelpavro^, in aUusion to the o-nrelpeiv used at
the opening of the parable, and not according to the altered
reading rod a-tretpovro<i : " The parable of the Sower," with mis
taken reference to 6 <nreipav. The parable is named after the
sowing, which is the subject, and not after a particular person
supposed to be treated of. Hence, too, in the interpretation now
following, in noteworthy distinction from the interpretation of
the second parable (ver. 37), the person of the sower is not
specially taken into consideration.
Whereas, now, in the other evangelists the detailed interpreta
tion of the parable is preceded by the general statement, prefixed
by way of theme, that the seed sown is the word (Mark, ver. 14),
or the word of God (Luke, ver. 11), the text of Matthew begins
at once with the special interpretation of the first of the four
parts of the parable. But this is done in such a form, that in
the first words of the passage referring to the question, the seed
sown is here also described, and that more definitely than in
Mark and Luke, as " the word of the kingdom," the word having
the kingdom of God for the subject of its announcement.1 Thus,
at the very outset of the interpretation, the same is affirmed as
we indicated above to be the fundamental thought of the parable :
The only way in which the kingdom of heaven is reaUzed is, that
word of it comes to men, and this word by its nature exercises
different effects, according as the hearers to whom it comes are
different. This is seen in the first case (ver. 19): Travrbs
a,Kovovro<s rov Xoyov rr}<s BaariXelas Kal p,rj avvikvro'i, epyerai o
irovijpos Kal dprrd^et, rb ecnrapp,kvov iv rfj xapBia avrov. This
construction is usually but wrongly pronounced anakoluthic, which
it could only be if the evangelist had meant at first to write in
1 Cf. TO ivxyyiXiot rris 9>xtri>.lUs, iv. 29, ix. 35, xxiv. 14.

44 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
as complicated a manner as e.g. Meyer (and Keil) supposes: iravrh
dicovovros r. Xoy. r. /8ao\ Kal /Mr) avvikvro'i, eK rrj<; KapBia<; dpTrd^et
6 rrovnpb'i to icnrapp,evov. On this theory, in order to make
such an intention at all conceivable, the iv rfj KapBiq, belonging
to iarrapp'evov is always arbitrarily changed into e'« rrj? KapBiaif
which is joined to aprrd^et. Rather the genitive rravrb<i aKov-
opto? K.r.X. is to be taken with the following ep^erat, as every
reader or hearer is inclined at first to take it, as a genitive
absolute prefixed to the finite verb. Thus : " When any one heareth
the word of the kingdom and understandeth it not, then cometh th
evil one and snatcheth away that which liath been sown in his heart"
Certainly this mode of expression is not quite correct logically,
but every one at once understands its meaning, namely, that it
is the same as saying : When any one hears the word and under
stands it not, in every case the evil one, etc. To ia-irapfievov iv
rfj KapBla. is that which is present in the heart through the
sowing which has taken place, or without figure, through the
preaching which has taken place. The occurrence of figurative
language again within the interpretation is a phenomenon lying
in the nature of popular interpretation, and hence always recurring
in the sequel.
Let us then compare this interpretation with the text of the
first part of the parable. The hindrance which the seed sown
encountered in the first kind of soil was the inability of the soil,
due to its having been trodden hard, even to admit the seed into ¦
the body of the earth. The like hindrance, which the preaching
of the word meets with in one class of hearers, is plainly meant
to be described by the words Kal ptrj avvie'vros added to Travroi
aKovovros, Thus the hearers of the word, corresponding to the
first kind of soil, are they who are do-vveroi, without the qualifi
cation for receiving with the inner intelligence the word which
falls on their ears.1 The natural consequence in relation to the
seed not received into the earth, but left lying on the surface,
was that it perished without having any effect, being either
trodden to pieces or devoured by birds. The like fate befalling
the word, which was not admitted into the heart with inner
1 According to this view, the words «»! /*b nubr* are so essential and indispens
able in the interpretation, that, although Mark and Luke have nothing corresponding,
they must be held to be, not an explanatory addition by Matthew, but original.
They have disappeared elsewhere because of their seeming unimportance in addition
to what is said of the devil taking away the seed.

THE SOWER, OR DIVERS SOILS. 45
intelligence, but remained outside the understanding, is indi
cated in the apodosis : " Then cometh the evil one, and taketh
away that which was sown in his heart," namely, the word,
which, although not understood, was at all events present in the
heart. But we must not, on the ground of this clause, say that
the birds of the air in the parable signify the devil or his angels,1
or his delegate spirits — evil thoughts.2 The birds which devour
the seed can just as little signify anything special as the people
who tread it to pieces. Both traits simply describe in a plastic
way how the seed, not admitted into the earth, must necessarily
perish. The interpretation is : The word, not understood, is lost
to the hearer, as if he had never heard it. And when in the
interpretation this general thought of the parable is more precisely
explained to mean, that the devil at once3 carries away the word
present in the heart, " that," as the text of Luke (ver. 1 2) further
adds, " they may not believe and be saved " (an explanation
unmistakeably allied to what is said of the birds in the parable),*
the analogy is one not taken from the parable itself, but drawn
from the actual circumstances of the case, and first added in the
interpretation. For, as matter of fact, the case is just this, that
as the seed not admitted into the earth is liable to be eaten by
the birds, so the word lying in the heart without being under
stood is liable to be carried away by the devil, because, busy as
he is everywhere in neutralizing the effect of the word, he is
able in this case to carry it away from the heart, i.e. to cause the
man to forget it. Here, then, we have, it is true, an allegorizing
explanation, but one consciously given as such on good grounds,
and such an one as must always be open to the practical expositor,
because, while it goes beyond the original and general meaning,
it really exists in fact, and adds an analogy thoroughly suiting
the framework of the parable, without introducing confusion into
the sense.
Thus, leaving out of sight this explanation, the meaning of
the first part of the parable is this : Just as in the first case the
seed faUs on hard-trodden soU, which does not allow it to
penetrate the earth, so in one class of hearers the word of the
kingdom preached lights on inabUity to understand it. And just
as on such soil the seed must perforce perish, so wUl the word,
1 Bengel. 2 Stier. 3 Mark, ver. 15 : iMs.
* Cf. ver. 4 : Ja.&» tx trimva xxi xariqixyi*, with ver. 19 : ipxirai I rompbs xxi
xpvtuZ,u,

46 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
because not understood, be again lost to such hearers, as if they
had never heard it.
But before the interpretation of the second part of the parable
is entered upon, it is specially remarked by way of supplement,
that what has just been said is meant for an interpretation of
the first part of the parable, in the words : oStos eariv 6 waph,
ryv 6Bbv crirapeh. That is, literally : " This one," to whom it
happens as has just been said, " is he who was sown by th
wayside," plainly (and this without formally supplying 6 airopos
•nap. 6B. crwapeh x) a compressed form of expression for : He is
the counterpart of the seed sown by the wayside. Certainly at
the first glance it must seem extremely singular that the seed,
which was just now the word preached, is here at a stroke-
identified with the person of the hearer, who was just now the
counterpart of the field. Nor can it avail to take 6 cnrapek,
as many do, to be the counterpart here, not of the seed sown in
the field, but of the field sown with seed ; because while arrelpeiv
in itself may also have the latter meaning, it can never have
this meaning when the place where the seed falls is added with
a preposition like irapd, em, eh. In the same way it is an
inadmissible expedient to paraphrase : " This is he, in whose
case the seed was sown upon the road." 2 One might perhaps
acquiesce in such inaccuracy of expression as this paraphrase
supposes, if the identification of the seed with the persons
occurred only in this one passage. But a glance at the sequel
shows that this identification recurs in the interpretation of each
one of the four parts of the parable. Not only is the interpreta
tion of each separate part introduced in just the same way as
here the interpretation of the first part is concluded (with 6 he
im ra rrerpaiBy . . . 6 Be eh ra? a,Kav6a<; . . . 6 Be im ryv KaXyv yrjv
o-Trapeh, ovro<; ianv K.r.X.3), but also in the detailed interpreta
tion what is said of the seed sown is often transferred direct to
the persons.4 If we add, further, the preliminary observation,
that in the parable immediately following, which treats in like
manner of the sowing of seed and its growth, the seed is from
the first expressly interpreted of persons and persons only,5 it
remains without doubt that the present passage can only he
1 "Weiss. - Meyer, Keil. 3 yv. 20, 22, 23, and parallels.
4 Cf. ver. 21 and parallels : oix 'iXu Hi fl^xv ; ver. 23 and parallels : xapvotpopu *»
niii'o fih ixuro'l x.r.X. ; and in Luke, ver. 14 : o-up.WiynTV.1 xx) oh nXlo-ppouo-iv.
s See ver. 38.

THE SOWER, OR DIVERS SOILS. 47
explained in the light of this general phenomenon. But we
need only carefully consider the relation of the occurrence used
as a figure in the sphere of nature to the occurrence symbolized
in the spiritual sphere, in order to see that this identifying of
the seed first with the word preached and then with the person
of the hearer, and again the identifying of the person of the
hearer first with the soil of the field and then with the seed
itself, lies in the nature of this relation, and does not spring
from any incongruity between the interpretation given and the
figure.1 Where the act of sowing is compared to that of
preaching, there, of course, the seed as the means and instrument
of the sowing corresponds primarily to the word as the medium
of the preaching, whUe the person on whose ear the preaching
falls corresponds to the field on which the seed is strewn. But
the relation is changed directly the effect of the sowing is further
compared to the effect of preaching. In the natural sphere the
effect of sowing is not an effect on the soil itself, which receives
the seed, but the very seed, which in the first case was the
means of the sowing, now appears on the other hand as its effect.
From the same grains of seed, which served as the means of
sowing, springs also the grain, the production of which is the
aim of the sowing. But the field is and remains merely the soil
which keeps the grain concealed, and then according to its own
nature puts it forth and causes it to develope as something
distinct from itself. But in the spiritual sphere the effect of the
preaching is an effect on the person of the hearer himself, and
consists, so far as it is realized, in. a transformation of his most
peculiar and intimate personal life. It is, therefore realized and
manifested nowhere but in and upon himself. Hence the man,
who as the hearer of the word is in the first instance the soil
which receives the seed, on the other hand, inasmuch as he does
not put forth the effect of what he has heard as something
different from and alien to himself (this effect rather being
nothing else than a transformation and re-creation of himself),
may also be identified with the grain which is the product of the
sowing. And the seed, which is in the first instance the word,
may also, where it no longer appears as the means, but as the
result of the sowing, — the grain which is the aim of the sowing,
— be- just as weU identified with the persons in whom the word
heard is effective as the principle of a new personal life. When
1 So Weiss.

48 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
this general relation of the, natural occurrences used as a figure
to the thing symbolized is taken into account, everything strange
in the identification in the present passage of the seed sown by
the wayside with persons of the kind described vanishes. True,
in this case the word heard exercises the same as no effect on the
person of the hearer. But at all events, after he has once heard
the word, he carries in himself the potent principle of a new
personal life, how long makes no difference. For this reason the
hearer of this kind also may be identified with the seed, but
only with that sown by the wayside, i.e. which perishes before it
reaches any stage of development.
With ver. 20 begins the interpretation of the second part
of the parable, and in such a form that this time o eVt ra
irerpmBy a-wapeh (i.e. he who answers as counterpart to the seed
sown on the rocky ground) is made from the first the
subject of the foUowing description : 6 Be im ra Trerpwhrj, •;
ovtos icrriv o rbv Xoyov Akovcov Kal ev6ii<; ptera %apa<; XapBavav
avrov. In this case, therefore, not simply a mere passive hearing,
but also an active reception, takes place ; and, indeed, the
word is received straightway with joy (ev8vs belongs to pen
^apa?). But with this is set in contrast in ver. 21 the inner
nature of a hearer, who receives the word straightway with joy,
as a nature which must of necessity bring to a speedy end the
commencement that seemed so full of promise : ovk e%et he
pi^av iv eavrw aXXa Trpoa-Katpof ianv. In the first clause the
inner nature of such a hearer is characterized first of all
negatively by transferring what was said of the grain in the
second case — namely, that it had no root in the rocky ground,
which failed to afford room for such roots because of its want of
depth — immediately to the hearer, without changing the figura
tive form, and in such a way that in one and the same sentence
he is identified just as well with the grain as with the soil — a
striking illustration of what was said in ver. 19. The figurative
saying as to the grain having no root in the soil is transferred
thus : He has no root in himself, i.e. without figure : As a
believing follower of the word, in which capacity he corresponds j
to the grain, he is not firmly grounded, because, as a hearer of
the word, in which capacity he corresponds to the soU, he has
not allowed the word to penetrate deeply enough into his heart.
Hence now the antithesis : " but endureth only for a while." He
is, of course, the subject of this statement in the same capacity

THE SOWER, OR DIVERS SOILS. 49
in which he was the subject of the first clause, to which the
second forms the antithesis. As a beUeving follower of the
word, he is not firmly grounded in himself, " but endureth only
for a while." It is obvious that •n-poaKaipot in this its literal
and ordinary sense is here quite in place, supplying a thoroughly
pertinent antithesis to the first clause ; and, accordingly, there is
not the slightest reason for foisting on the word in this con
nection a special and elsewhere undemonstrable signification like
" fickle." x
In what case the falling away of such a hearer, which is to
be expected in these circumstances, foUows, is then stated in
the sentence joined on by the metabatic Bk : namely, yevopevys
Be #\A|re&>9 rj Biarypov Bta rbv Xoyov eu#u? ffKavBaXi^erai. By
y the narrower idea " persecution " is distinguished from the
more general " tribulation." For although the idea " tribulation "
is limited by the qualification Bia, rbv Xoyov belonging to
yevoptevys (and therefore referring just as much to 6\fyi$ as to
Bicoypos:), to a signification similar to that of the latter word,
still the distinction remains, that 6Xtyi<s embraces everything
bad, which a follower of the word has to submit to indirectly or
directly for the word's sake (e.g. evil report, disrespect, isolation,
etc.), whereas Biaypog includes only the sufferings inflicted
on the followers of the word with conscious intention by its
enemies. 2Kav8aXl%eo-0ai, although passive, has not here really a purely
passive signification, " to suffer an offence," 2 but means " to take
offence." 3 And this here indeed, as also in the exactly corre
sponding passage xxiv. 9, 10, in the pregnant sense of some one
actuaUy falling through taking offence, letting himself be led to
apostasy thereby. Hence we must translate, with Lange :
" When, then, tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word,
lie straightway falls at the offence." Instead of this whole
sentence, Luke has more briefly : koI iv Kaipa> rreipaapov
d<pt,aravrai, but without a really divergent meaning. For
7retpacrp,6<; there is not so much temptation (as in 1 Tim. vi. 9)
as rather hostility, assaults of an outward kind,4 by which any
one is put to the test. Thus here also as to substance nothing
is thought of but the tribulation with which the follower of the
1 Luther, Lange, Stier. z As e.g. in 2 Cor. xi. 29. 3 As e.g. in ver. 57.
4 As almost everywhere in the New Testament ; cf. xxvi. 41 and parallels ; Acts
xx. 19 ; 1 Pet. iv. 12 ; 2 Pet. ii. 9.
GOEBEL. D

50 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
word is attacked from without by way of test. Luke's
expressing himself merely in this brief, general way is in keeping
with the circumstance, that in his text of the parable nothing
at all was said of the heat of the sun, which occasioned the
withering of the grain. In him, therefore, the words iv KatpQ
rreipaapov are merely an explanatory addition to the interpreta
tion, whereas in Matthew (and similarly in Mark) the mention
in the parable itself of the scorching heat of the sun, in allusion'
to the figurative language of the Old Testament,1 points
definitely to the pressure of tribulation, by which the foUower
of the word must be tested just as necessarily as the grain
by the heat of the sun. Hence the interpretation here:
yevopkvys Be dXtyecDs k.t.X., exactly corresponding to yXlov he
avareiXavros. Thus the interpretation given of the second case, in exact
conformity with the meaning of the parable everywhere, is as
foUows : Like as the seed in the rocky ground, while not
encountering impenetrable hardness in the soil, falls into too
shallow earth, so in other hearers the preached word meets with,
not indeed entire want of understanding, but such superficiality
of mind as does not allow the word to Uve and be treasured
deep in the heart. And Uke as it is involved in the nature of
the too shallow earth, that the effect of the sowing there comes
at first quickly to light in the grain springing up forthwith,
while the grain, directly its capacity of life is tested by the heat
of the sun, withers away, because it has no root ; so it is implied
in the nature of superficial hearers, that in virtue of the
excitability pecuUar to them the effect of the word comes quickly
to view, since they receive it with visible joy ; but when it
becomes necessary to approve themselves its followers under the
pressure of the tribulation or persecution inevitably befalling
them for the word's sake, then they at once fall away, because
in their character as followers of the word they are not firmly
grounded in themselves.
Now begins the interpretation of the third case in perfect
analogy with that of the second, ver. 22 : " And he that was sown
among the thorns,2 this is he that heareth the word" . . . And
now the cause is forthwith mentioned, which in this third case
1 Ps cxxi. 6 ; Isa. xxv. 4, xlix. 10, etc.
* Here the iu-i txs xxxiixs, ver. 7, is exchanged for the better form sis -rots otxailm,
which Mark has already in the text of the parable.

THE SOWER, OR DIVERS SOILS. 51
also at last neutralizes the effect of the word, when it is said
immediately : Kal y fikpipva rov al&v&i 1 Kal y dirdry rov
trXovrov avprrviyei rbv Xoyov, i.e. Uterally : " and the care of the
age and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word." 'H pepipva
rov aia>vo<; is the care pertaining to the present age, inasmuch as
its object does not lie beyond the sphere of the age, thus care for
the earthly and perishable. To this care Kal subjoins y dirdry
rov irXovrov, i.e. the deceit practised on man by riches, when that
which is an empty, because a merely earthly and perishable good,
palms itself off on him as an exceedingly desirable good. In so
far as the man aUows this deceit to be played on him, there
awakens in him the desire for the possession of riches, and for all
the worldly enjoyments offering themselves in that possession.
Thus, " the deceitfulness of riches," awakening the worldly lust
slumbering in the heart, stands beside worldly care as a cor
relative ; and there is no need to recur to the other meaning of
airdry, undemonstrable elsewhere in the New Testament, and
only in appearance more suitable in the present passage —
delight (passing delusion). The two^ — care and lust — o-vpwrvtyei
rbv Xoyov. What was said in the parable of the seed being
choked is therefore again immediately transferred, both here and
in Mark, to the preached word, without being divested of the
figurative form, in so far as the word produces an effect in the
heart. In Luke it is transferred to the persons of the hearers
themselves (avpsirviyovrai, see below), in so far as they exhibit
the effect of the word in their own person.
Mark, hitherto almost identical with Matthew, now adds by
way of supplement a third subject of the verb (ver. 19) : koX at
irepl ra Xonra emOvpiai, elarropevopevai. So according to a.2
Thus, in Mark, " the deceitfulness of riches " is not understood of
worldly lust kindled by riches, but only of the particular lust
1 According to B D Sin. toutou must be erased as a needless addition, although
a correct explanation ; cf. w. 39, 49.
2 The reading of the Sinait. must here be taken as the original : xx) xl pipi/wxi nv
alaivos xal r\ xvxrn <T6U TTkoUTOV <fvp.tfviyu tov Xoyov, xx) at Vtp) rx XotTa ttfiffv/Aixi
iiirTopsviftivxi. For it is easy to suppose that the halting addition xx) xl mp) . . •
sle-irop'.vi/titxi was inserted after « xvxm roa xXovrov, and the singular of the verb,
which appears strange after the plural xl pipipsxi, changed accordingly into the
plural trup.xriyooai ; whereas the origination of the Sinaitic reading out of the usual
one is well-nigh impossible. We must in that case, with Weiss, suppose that the;
words xx) xl «%pl . . . ilgmptvifiivx, dropped out by accident ; then— utterly without
reason, in the most surprising way — the plural of the verb was changed into the
singular ; and finally, those omitted words were then restored after the verb.

52 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
referring directly to riches as a possession, and therefore of avarice.
Hence by way of supplement he describes " the lusts referring to
other things" (i.e. to good living, sensuous enjoyment, power,honour,
etc.) as belonging to the same class, joining them to the verb
crvpirvtyei already prefixed by the supplementary participle
elaTropevopevai. Accordingly, we must translate : " and also the
lusts referring to other things, entering " (i.e. the man), scil. choke
it. But the expression " entering '' does not imply the notion
that the desires come into the man from without,1 which would,
of course, be incompatible with the meaning of the parable;
but here again the man is viewed equally as the soil from
which the thorns spring, and the grain into which they rankly
penetrate. Awakened and kindled by the goods and joys of the
world, the desires spring from the heart of the man himself, where
they slumber in secret, and penetrate into him whUe under the
influence of the word.
Luke also has a triple division of the choking factors in sub
stantial agreement with that of Mark, since he says in freer
language, less closely following the structure of the parable (ver.
14) : Kal vtto piepipvoiv Kal rrXovrov Kal yBovmv rov Biov iropevo-
pevot avpirviyovrai. Nevertheless the yBovai are not here, like
the imOvplai in Mark, viewed subjectively as desires, as the
qualification tou Biov shows, but are viewed objectively. Side
by side with the riches as the outward worldly possession, appear
the yBovai as the sensuous enjoyments of life. The meaning
therefore is : " And coming under the influence of care and riches,
which awaken avarice, and of the pleasures of life, which awaken
in them the corresponding desires, they are choked."
After it has been stated how the effect of the word is neutralized
in this case also, according to the analogy of the first and second
cases, the interpretation would seem to be exhausted. But as in
Mark we found already in the parable (ver. 7) the special clause:
Kal Kaprrbv ovk eBwKev after crvvkrrvi^av avro, so in the interpre
tation in all three evangelists a corresponding clause is found,
the figure being retained. This is done with the difference, that
in Matthew and Mark it is said of the word Kai aKapiro'; yiverai,
not of the man,2 since in Mark tbe allusion to ovroi elaiv K.rX
Would require the plural, whereas Luke says of the hearers them
selves : Kal ov reXea<popovo-iv. But as in the parable in Mark
the clause " and it yielded no fruit " started from the idea that
1 Weiss, Meyer. « Meyer.

THE SOWER, OR DIVERS SOILS. 53
the seed in this case was near bearing fruit, so the corresponding
clause in the interpretation rests on the supposition that in the
hearers of this class, in distinction from those previously described,
the word seemed to be about to have its full effect. This sup
position is seen in the mode of expression : " and it (the word
which is on the point of yielding fruit) becomes (yiverai) unfruit
ful." And in Luke also the fruit is clearly viewed as already set,
when it is said : " and they bring no fruit to perfection," i.e. they
bring not the fruit already set to maturity. Thus stripped of its
figurative form, the clause affirms : Although in such hearers, in
distinction from those previously described, the word may have a
more enduring effect, stiU even in them it fails finally to accom-
pUsh the end at which the preaching of it aimed, the effect being
neutralized in the way indicated.
Accordingly, the interpretation of the third part of the parable
is this : Like as the seed this time falls, not indeed upon soil
trodden hard or wanting in depth, but upon impure soil, — impure
through the thorns and weeds concealed in it, — so in hearers of
another kind the preached word meets with, not indeed entire
want of understanding or superficiality of mind, but the impurity
of heart which secretly cherishes sinful inclinations. And as it
is involved in the nature of such soil that the seed grows up
indeed, but still yields no fruit, because the thorns grow up
thickly with it and choke it ; so it is involved in the state of
heart of such hearers, that the word has in them a more enduring
effect, but still even in them does not finally accomplish its end,
because the sinful inclinations cherished in their hearts graduaUy
increase in strength, and finally gain such complete possession of
the man, that the new direction of thought produced by the word
has no room by their side, and is choked by them. Thus the
thorns, as the weeds which poUute the soil, symbolize generaUy
the sinful inclinations polluting the heart.1 That these appear
and dominate the man in the form of care about what belongs to
the world, or of lusts kindled by the goods and enjoyments of the
world, is not, of course, thus definitely contained in the figure, but
is stated independently in the interpretation in accordance with
the actual circumstances of the case.
Now begins the interpretation of the fourth part of the parable,
again in conformity with that of the second and third parts (ver.
23) : " And he that was sown upon tlie good ground, this is he that
1 Jer. iv. 3.

54 THE TARABLES OF JESUS.
heareth the ivord!' The good reception which the word finds
in the hearer now in question, in distinction from the one previ
ously pictured, is described, by the clause Kal avvi&v} The other
reading crvvieh arose out of a-vievrot in ver. 19. Thus, although
it was only in the hearer of the first class that it was pointed
out as a distinctive peculiarity that he understood not the word,
still even in those of the second and third class the understanding
really befitting the contents of the word is regarded as wanting.
Only of the hearer of the fourth class can it be said in the full
sense : " he that hears and understands it." The same full sense
is also meant when such hearers are characterized in Mark
(ver. 2 0) as they who " hear the word and accept it " («ai
irapaBk^ovrai). It is true that in the second (Xap,8dveiv perd
¦)(apa<;) and in the third case a reception of the word in some
sense took place. But only the hearers of the fourth class actually
receive it in the way in which it seeks to be received and ought
to be received according to its nature. The contrast with the
hearers of the second and third classes appears more sharply marked
only in Luke, when the bearers of the last kind are defined as
they oirtves iv KapSiq, KaXfi Kal dya6fj aKovaavre? rov Xoyov
Kark^ovaiv, "which in an honest and good heart," corresponding
in nature to the fourth kind of soil, because concealing none of
the hindrances to the effect of the word previously described,
" having heard the word, keep it," without again becoming apostate
at once, as in the second case, or at last, as in the third case.
The result attained in such a case is introduced by the evan
gelist in a different form from the one adopted in the first three
classes of hearers — namely, by the relative construction, and with
a certain solemnity : o? By Kaprro<popei, i.e. " who verily beareth
fruit." Here, then, again what is said of the grain in the parable
is transferred to the person of the hearer himself. And this
transference is carried out farther in reference to the different
degrees of fruitfulness mentioned. To this end certainly an inde
pendent sentence was necessary, since the singular 6'?, although
denoting not a single hearer, but the species, could not fitly be
divided immediately into a threefold 6 pt,kv ... 6 Si ... 6 Be. For
this reason the interpretation concludes with a separate sentence :
Kal rroiel 6 pev eKarov k.t.X., i.e. " and bringeth forth one a hundred
fold, another sixty, another thirty." Because of their rhythm with
the last words of the parable (ver. 8), the words form a conclusion
On this form, comp. Winer, Gram. p. 97.

THE SOWER, OR DIVERS SOILS. 55
full of emphasis. But this emphasis, which consists in the rhythm
of something corresponding and yet different, would be utterly
spoilt if the view were right, that the transference preserved
hitherto of what is said about the grain is here broken off, that
the conclusion is a mere repetition of the last words of the
parable,1 and that we must here accentuate not, as the context in
this passage requires, 6 pkv ... 6 Se as the masc. of the art., but
as in ver. 8, 6 pkv . . . b Be, as the neuter of the relative.2
In Mark, too, what is said of the diverse fruit-bearing is trans
ferred to the person of the hearers, only in reverse order, in
accordance with his text of the parable, since we must write
there thrice, not ev, but iv : Kal Kapiro<popova~iv iv rpiaKovra Kal
iv e^yKovra Kal iv eKarov. On the other hand, in Luke, who
only mentions in the parable the hundredfold fruit-bearing, this
is simply explained by Kal KapTrocpopovaiv iv iiropovfj. The
viropiovy is not to be referred to the perseverance, in virtue of
which they bring forth fruit simply,3 which would be a mere
repetition of the rbv Xoyov Kark^pvcriv, but, with Weiss, to the
perseverance which they show in fruit-bearing, the fruit becoming
richer and richer.
Accordingly the interpretation of the fourth part of the parable
is this : Like as the seed in the fourth case faUs upon good ground,
and therefore on soft, deep, and pure ground, in opposition to the
first three kinds ; so the preached word in other hearers finds a
weU-prepared heart, i.e., in opposition to the first three classes of
hearers, a heart capable not only of the first understanding, but
also of the deeper apprehension of the word, and unpolluted by
hidden propensity to sin. And as in such ground the grain
springs up, grows, and actually bears fruit unhindered ; so such
hearers aUow the word to have not merely an initial, but also an
enduring and finally abiding effect in them, and aUow it to pro
duce in and upon them that transformation of life at which the
preaching of the word of the kingdom aims, i.e. the righteousness
of the kingdom of God. But as, again, — this is the concluding
feature of the parable, — even the fruitful grain differs in fertility
according to the relatively different goodness of the soil,
so even in such hearers the relatively different preparation of
heart has for its consequence, that the transformation of life,
at which the word aims, is carried into effect in a different
degree, falling more or less short of perfection (the descending
1 Bengel, Meyer, Weiss. s Tischendorf, Lachmann. 3 Bengel, Meyer, Godet.

56 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
order of Matthew), or more or less approximating to it (the
ascending order of Mark).
We are at the end of the interpretation of the parable. But
another general remark is necessary in order to guard it against
misunderstanding on one side. If our interpretation is right, the
fourfold difference of soil in the parable represents not merely a
fourfold difference in the attitude of the hearers to the word, but
also a fourfold difference in the state of heart which the preached
word already finds, so that the different attitude to the word
always has its ground in the already existent inner nature of the
hearer. The non-understanding of the word had its ground in
the already existing incapacity to understand it ; the speedy
falling away after a joyous reception at first its ground in the
already existing superficiality of mind ; the final falling away
through complete subjection to worldly and sinful inclinations
seemed determined beforehand by the existing impurity of heart ;
and finally, even the holding fast of the word up to a more or
less perfect accomplishment of its end seemed determined before
hand by already existing preparation of heart. But at the same
time we must not leave out of sight the distinction necessarily
presupposed in the comparison between the relations and events
borrowed from the unconscious life of nature on the one hand,
and those moral relations and events ¦ compared with them on
the other, which are based on the self-consciousness and self-
determination of man. There, the ground to be sown is in an
unconscious and involuntary way always of the same nature as
it now is ; here, the inner nature of the hearer of the word has
not become what it now is without conscious self-determination.
And again, there the different reception which the seed finds in
the soil, and its further fate in this soil, is merely the consequence
of the different nature of the soil, following by unconditional
physical necessity ; here, on the other hand, while the different
attitude of the hearers to the word is determined beforehand by
the difference of their inner nature, this is not so in the sense
that the former must follow from the latter by irresistible neces
sity, but in the sense that man's own self-determination is exerted
in reference to the word in the direction which it has given to
itself. On this view, the possibility at least of another attitude
than the one to be expected after what has been said can never
be regarded as entirely precluded.

the tares in the wheat, 57
The Tares in the Wheat.
(Matt. xiii. 24-30, 36-43.)
After the interpolation reaching from ver. 10 to ver. 23,
inserted here for incidental reasons only, the words dXXyv mxpa-
BoXyv irapkdyKev avroh Xkycov (ver. 24) resume, in Matthew's
account, the discourse begun in ver. 3, and consisting exclusively
of parables. Thus the persons before whom another parable is
" set " (i.e. delivered) are they to whom the first parable was
spoken, namely, the people assembled on the shore. When the
parable begins this time with the formula : wpomdy y BaaiXeia
rav ovpav&v dv9pd)7rq> cnveipavn k.t.X., the comparison, of course,
must not be taken so literally as to make the avOpanro? alone
symbolize the kingdom of heaven, but the comparison applies to
the whole narrative. The meaning of the formula, often recurring
in Matthew, is, that the foUowing narrative is one which the
kingdom of heaven is like, that it represents corresponding cir
cumstances and events in the sphere of the kingdom of heaven.
And the articulation of the phraseology is so loose, that the subject
or main idea of the first sentence is isolated from the narrative
beforehand, and set over against the kingdom of heaven — the
thing compared. Next, the ' narrative itself usually begins with
a relative sentence joined on to the isolated subject or main
idea (vv. 31, 33, chaps, xviii. 23, xx. 1, xxii. 2, xxv. 1), or as
here and vv. 45, 47, etc(, with a participial sentence occupying the
place of the relative sentence. But whUe in all the succeeding
parables of this chapter and xx. 1 the formula simply runs:
optoia iarlv y /Sao-, r&v ovp. K.r.X., here and in xviii. 23, xxii. 2, it
is said : o}p,ota0y y /3ac\ rwv ovp. K.r.X.,1 i.e. : " The kingdom of
heaven has become like." Whereas, therefore, the first formula
says only generally that the kingdom of heaven is like what
follows, the second says definitely, that in the then stage of its
development the kingdom of heaven has assumed the shape in
which it is delineated in the following narrative. In this sense
it is said : The kingdom of heaven has become like dvdpanrcp
cnrelpavn2 KaXbv arreppa iv to) dr/pS> avrov. The preposition
iv is to be observed. It does not stand here for eh, nor does it
1 Cf. XXV. 1 : a//tota>0r{ffirxi -h {&xff. tuv elpxvwv.
4 So we must read, with Lachmann and Teschendorf, instead of mipmn.

58 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
anywhere.1 'Ev ra> ayp£> is not indeed for that reason to be
applied, with Bengel, to the person of the sower (in quo ipse est),
but it denotes the place where the seed now remains and rests,
after coming there through sowing.2 But the use of the prepo
sition iv was especiaUy apposite in the present passage, because
from the first the seed is viewed here, not as the means, but as
the result of the sowing.3 The point in question is not what
kind of seed the man scattered as he sowed in the field, but what
kind of grain he had in view in sowing in and on the field.
That wireppa, as it signifies the sum-total of the seed first to he
sown, may also just as well signify the seed (sata) lying in the
ground and developing there, which is the aim of the sowing, is
implied in the nature of the case. Compare passages Uke 1 Sam.
viii. 15, Isa. xxiii. 3, where the LXX. uses anveppa, and Job
xxxix. 12, where they use the synonymous arropo? to reproduce
the Heb. jnt in this sense, and also aU passages where aireppd is
used of human seed = " posterity." And that airkppa here too has
this meaning is clear from the antithesis in ver. 25 : irrko-weipev
fy^dvia dva pAaov rov crirov. For what is here caUed koXov
areppa is there caUed o-Zto9, and the antithesis to the sowing of
the KaXbv aireppa is there not the sowing of bad seed, but of a
bad crop — darnel. In the same way KaXbv arreppa and ty£dvui
are opposed to each other in ver. 27, and in the interpretation
ver. 38. The translation therefore is: "The kingdom of heaven
has become like a man who sowed good grain in his field." The
emphasis of the sentence lies on " good." The fact above all to
be kept in view is, that it was a crop of pure wheat which the
man's sowing aimed at.
This being premised, the narrative now proceeds (ver. 25):
iv Be r& KaOevBeiv rov? dv6pd>7rov<; y\6ev 6 ey6pb<s avrov ml
eirka-Treipev i %it,dvia dva pieaov rov airov, Kal diryXOev, i.e. : Sid
at the time when men sleep, his enemy came and sowed tares therm,
among the wheat, and went away. The owner of the field, there
fore, had an enemy, as tacitly implied in the narrative. This
enemy " came and sowed tares thereon," i.e. on the pure wheat,
Zi£dviov = darnel or wild corn (lolium temulentum), "is the only
grass which also in the East very frequently grows as tares
1 Winer, Gram. p. 514 (Clark).
2 Cf. e.g. vv. 19, 31 ; Luke viii. 7 ; 2 Cor. viii. 16.
3 See the previous parable, on ver. 1 9.
' So we must read, with Lachmann and Tisehendorf, instead of "evupir.

THE TARES IN THE WHEAT. 59
among the wheat, and is very sirmlar to the latter, especiaUy
while still young. The Talmudists take the lolium as degenerate
wheat."1 The separation being troublesome even afterwards,
the full-grown darnel not seldom gets into the bread, spoiling it,
and making its use injurious to health. The malicious design of
the enemy is thus, by mingling darnel with the wheat, to destroy
the grain in the field and the fruit expected from it. With this
intention he does not even sow darnel in straight line merely, as
if he only desired to see darnel growing in the field in addition
to the good grain, but he sows it with such premeditation, as the
words dva pAaov tou airov specially emphasize, that it appears
among the good grain now definitely called wheat. Of set pur
pose the enemy aims in the act of sowing at so intermingling the
two — wheat and darnel — that a separation of the one from the other
shall be made as hard as possible. But in order that he may
not be seen and disturbed in this wicked action of his, he chooses
the time when men sleep (eV Be r& KadeiB. robs dvdp.) ; and as
soon as he has finished his work he makes off again (Kal
diryXdev), as unnoticed as he came. Only by adjusting the
meaning of the narrative to an interpretation settled beforehand
has it been possible to limit the quite general expression : iv r$>
KadevB. roii? dvdp., to the sleeping of the field-watchers,2 or, as
modern writers also wish, to the sleeping of the owner's servants
mentioned afterwards (ver. 27). For neither does the outward
wording furnish the slightest support to such a limitation, nor
the tenor of the narrative any actual occasion for it. The words
simply denote tbe general, therefore the nocturnal, sleeping-time
of men, which as such is especially favourable to one who desires
to remain unseen and undisturbed in what he does.
To Kal diryXdev Bengel well appends the note : " Inde aUquant-
isper latuere zizania." The secrecy in which the enemy suc
ceeded in veiling his action necessarily had for its consequence,
1 Winer, Bibl. WOrterbuch, Zeller's BiU. WOrterbuch, and the Calwer Bibl. Nat.
Gesch., would take Z'Z»"" n°t as darnel, but as creeping wheat or couch-grass
(triticnm repens), especially with reference to ver. 29, because the couch-grass pene
trates the ground with its creeping roots, and intertwines with the roots of the
wheat, which makes its extirpation impossible. But that the supposition of the
couch-grass is needless for the understanding of ver. 29, see on the passage. On the
contrary, the confidence with which the servants (ver. 28) seek permission to root up
the zizanium shows that the uprooting of these tares was neither impracticable nor
unusual in ordinary circumstances.
2 Chrysostom, Bengel.

60 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
through the great likeness of the young darnel to the wheat, that
even on the sprouting of the blade, the presence of the former
among the wheat remained concealed. But in contrast with this
concealment of the tares at first, such as is implied in what is
said in ver. 25, it is now said in ver. 26 : ore Be iBXdaryaev o
j(opro? Kal Kapirbv iiroiyaev, rare i<pdvy Kai ra t,i£,avia. The
jcapirbv iroieiv here, in distinction from Luke viii. 8, can only be
meant to signify the first fruit-forming, the setting of the fruit,
since, according to ver. 30, there is stiU a considerable time to
harvest. But in the forming of the fruit appear the definite
signs distinguishing the tares' from the wheat. " The distinction'
becomes easier, so soon as the slender, bearded stalk is formed,
with the single ears crowning the stem." x Thus the meaning of
the sentence is : " But when the grass 2 (here without distinction
the grass of the field generally) sprang up and brought forth fruit,
then appeared (whereas hitherto all seemed to be wheat) the darnel
also " (i.e. was recognised as such).
This appearance of the darnel then forms the subject of a
conversation between the owner of the field or householder and
his servants, who now figure in the narrative for the first time.
The scene of this conversation is immaterial, nor is it anywhere
definitely indicated. Neither irpocreXdovres, ver. 27, nor o7re\-
dovres, ver. 28, contains such an indication,3 the former simply
denoting the coming of the servants to the master to ask a
question, the latter simply the going away to carry out a com
mand. The occasion of the conversation is the extreme surprise
of the servants at the appearance of the darnel. They know, or
at least assume, that their master sowed good, exclusively good,
grain in his field. And yet amid the good grain they find the
darnel grown so thickly, that it can only have been sown of set
purpose, thus rendering their assumption questionable, although,
of course, in an incomprehensible way. This utterly helpless
perplexity of theirs at the fact lying before their eyes finds apt
expression in their inquiry, ver. 27: "And the servants of th
householder came and said unto him: Didst thou not sow good
grain in thy field ? Whence then hath it darnel 1 " By the first
negative question, expecting therefore an affirmative answer, they
themselves reject as inconceivable, even while stating, the only
possible explanation, in their opinion, of the present phenomenon,
1 Riehm, Bibl. Handworterbuch. 2 [Of course the green com.]
* Olshauscu : the house of the householder.

THE TARES IN THE WHEAT. 61
namely, that their master sowed anything but good grain, and all
that is left to them is to proceed to the second question of helpless
surprise : " Whence then hath it darnel ? "x But the householder,
who is of course conscious of only having sown good grain, at
once perceives the true origin of the present phenomenon, and is
therefore able to give to the perplexed inquirers the simple
explanation of the mystery, ver. 28: "A hostile man (exdpb?
avdpwiro?) has done this." Such is the answer, and not as Luther
translates : " The enemy hath done this." The person of the doer
is not definitely indicated, as if the work of his enemy, related in
ver. 25, had been known to the householder from the first,2 a
supposition only possible by taking the interpretation into account
beforehand, — a course out of harmony with the natural course of
the narrative. All that is said is, that the sowing of the darnel
was the act of a man of hostile disposition. Accordingly, the
entire emphasis of the answer lies on the e^fyos prefixed as an
adjective. To the conjecture expressed, although only in negative
form, that he himself perchance in some way was the cause of
the present state of things, the householder opposes as the only
possibility, and therefore by inference as matter of fact, the
statement that it was a man hostile to him who had done this,
with the malicious intention of injuring him.
But all the more the servants now think they are right in
concluding that he will desire the darnel sown out of enmity to
him to be at once pulled up. Hence their second question, ver.
28 : dkXei? ovv direXdovre? avXXk^copev avrd. The conjunctive
of deliberation trvXXe^apev is here, as is usual in verbs of wishing
or permitting,3 connected directly with deXei?, which may be
reproduced in German thus : "Also du willst, wir sollen hingelien,
und ihn zusammenlesen ? Wilt thou then we go (direXdovre?, go
from here on the instant) and gather it up ? " They speak only
of gathering the darnel, not of rooting it up, which must of course
come first, nor of the burning which usually follows. The choice
of this and only of this word shows, that they are not so much
concerned for the destruction of the darnel as for the purity of
the wheat. Their eager regard is directed to gathering the darnel
1 This question and the following answer should properly have restrained any one
from asserting that originally the parable mentioned only an everyday phenomenon,
and the sowing by an enemy (ver. 25) is a later addition (Weiss), instead of being
bold enough to propose at the same time simply to expunge w. 27, 28.
4 Stier. 8 Cf. xxvi. 17 ; Luke ix. 54 ; Winer, Gram. p. 356.

62 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
from amid the wheat by itself, so that the good may be purified
from the bad grain intermingled with it ; and this, they think,
must also be their master's wUl. But in this they are mistaken.
The answer of the householder runs, ver. 29 : ov, scil. ov deXa.
Little as the growth of the darnel among the wheat lay in his
intention, on the other hand, after the darnel has come into
existence, it is by no means his will that a premature attempt
be made to pull it up. Why not, the appended sentence says :
" Lest haply while ye gather the darnel, ye root up the wheat with
it." Thus they are forbidden to gather the darnel, because they
could not do so without at the same time plucking up the wheat.
But this danger to the wheat does not Ue in the impossibility or
difficulty of distinguishing the two growths from each other, since
their simUarity at first has already, according to ver. 2 6, given
place to a definite distinction. The servants have already distin
guished the two ; and in the harvest, ver. 3 0, the reapers also
must distinguish the two, to whom a higher gift of discrimination
can only be ascribed in comparison with the servants by an inad
missible anticipation of the interpretation. The danger lies
rather in the fact that, after the darnel has been carefully sown
among the wheat for the very purpose of making separation
difficult, ver. 25, it has intertwined its roots with those of the
wheat in the twice-sown earth, and, mingling everywhere thickly
among the latter, and as it were identified with it, has overspread
the whole field. Thus the uprooting of the darnel, although it
may be done without material injury where tares are found here
and there by chance in the wheat-field, would be impossible in the
present case, without at the same time uprooting the genuine
wheat, unripe as it stiU is, and thus destroying it while in process
of development. What, then, is to be done ? What is to be the final outcome
of this mixing of the bad with the good grain? The house
holder's answer to this question, unexpressed indeed, but neces
sarily foUowing from what precedes, forms the conclusion of the
parable. He first gives the servants instructions as to how long
the mingling of the darnel among the wheat, once it exists, is to
last, and secondly as to when and how the separation is to take
place ; and this in so certain and thoroughgoing a manner, that all
anxiety about the final issue must needs disappear. He says
first, ver. 30: "Let both grow together until the harvest" The
emphasis lies on the last words, which add something new, saybg

THE TARES IN THE WHEAT. 63
as they do how long the present state of things is to last. UntU
the harvest (i.e. as long as the time of growth and ripening lasts)
they are to let both — darnel and wheal; — grow together, and let
each one separately bring forth the fruit already set according to
ver. 26. And then, when the harvest comes, wiU be the time
when alone the separation can and will take place with certain,
thoroughgoing completeness. That it wiU then take place, and
how, he says in the second place : Kal iv Kaipo) rov depiapiov ipu>
rol<s depiarah K.r.X. Then, iv rcaipqj rov deptapov, he — the
householder himself — will provide for the severance of the bad
grain from the good ; then wiU he himself issue orders to separate
the two. The article before Kaipm is to be erased on decisive
testimony. But it is not on this account necessary to apply here
the usual meaning of the formula iv naipm, " at the right time," 1
in which case the genitive rov depio-piov, as a more precise defini
tion added appositionally, would be grievously limping. For, that
the article may be absent before Kaipo? not only when, standing
alone, it has the above general signification, but also when, as
here, it is a time more precisely defined by a genitive or adjective,
is proved by passages like Luke viii. 13 ; 1 Pet. i. 5 ; Heb. ix.,
xi 11. 'Ev Kaipw rod dep. is therefore simply "at the time of
the harvest." But that this particular time of the harvest is not
fortuitously chosen, but is alone the right time for effecting the
separation, which is most closely connected with the work of the
harvest, is implied of itself in the wording of the householder's
command, nay, even in the naming of the persons to whom the
command is addressed. It is not issued to servants at random,
but to those to whom the work of harvest belongs, "to the
harvesters."2 And indeed for this reason, because, as the
command itself shows, the separation is to be effected by them in
connection with their harvest- work. The command thus runs :
" Gather up first the darnel and bind it in bundles s to burn it ;
but gather the wheat into my barn." The harvest then is come,
the reapers stand ready to do the work (i.e. to gather the corn
from the field, where it stood hitherto, into the barn) ; this is the
situation in which the command is issued. But when the
harvesters stand ready to do what belongs to their office, the
householder's v command intervenes with its irp&rov. The
grain is not to be gathered into the barn without thought and
1 Bengel, Stier, Lange. 2 'O hptcrm here and in ver. 39 is = i hpi%u\.
3 The tis before hr/tds is to be erased, with Tischendorf.

64 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
discrimination. For only the genuine grain, which he himself
sowed, belongs to his barn (el? ryv dirodyKyv pov), not the bad,
which his enemy sowed. First, therefore, the reapers must
gather together the darnel, an act no longer dangerous to the
wheat which is fully ripened and only awaits the barn, — and,
binding it into bundles, prepare it for the fire, to which it belongs
by reason of its thoroughly worthless, even harmful nature. But
the wheat, and the wheat only, they are to gather into his barn.
With the promulgation of this command the parable has reached
its conclusion, there being no need to mention that the reapers
wiU do as they are commanded.
If, then, we review the entire course of the figurative history,
there meets us at once, as the one fact treated of from beginning
to end, the appearance of the darnel among the wheat crop. The
entire parable groups itself around this one fact ; the first part,
vv. 24-26, giving information as to its real origin, whereas in the
second, vv. 27—30, the fact becomes the subject of a conversation
in which the householder first of all brings to light the concealed
fact of its origin, then intimates the conduct to be pursued'in
relation to the mixed state, and finally, explains the wheu and
how of the final severance. Accordingly, the gaining of the right
standpoint for the explanation of the parable all depends on
ascertaining what fact in the sphere of the heavenly kingdom is
meant to be represented by the appearance of the darnel among
the wheat.
And we shall learn this without difficulty by considering the
context in which the parable stands, by comparing it with the
one which it foUows in Christ's discourse according to Matthew's
account. The first thing meeting our view in this comparison
is, that tbe figurative setting, within which the two narratives
move, is exactly the same. Here as there, a sown field, in
which the wheat crop grows and ripens, is equally pictured — an
identity of background in the two paraboUc figures, which not
merely justifies us in starting from the interpretation of the first
one in interpreting the second, but even compels us to do so.
But the characteristic feature, presented in the process of the
growth of the grain, consisted in the first case in this, that it
attained fuU ripeness only in one part, because disturbed and
spoilt sooner or later in the process of development by various
hindrances. In tlie development of the heavenly kingdom, the
fact corresponding to this physical occurrence is, that only in a

THE TARES IN THE WHEAT. 65
portion of those called through the preaching of the word to the
kingdom of heaven is the issue that form of life which makes
them actual members of the kingdom. Comparing with this the
contents of the present parable, we find that those various
hindrances to the development of the grain are here left quite
out of sight. On the contrary, the uniform undisturbed develop
ment of the grain in natural course up to the harvest is
presupposed ; and thus, in distinction from the first parable, the
crop forms a united whole, springing from the same soil, going
through the same development, ripening to the same end. For
this reason it cannot, as in the first parable, be meant to
symbolize merely those called to the heavenly kingdom as hearers
of the word, but the calling to the kingdom here coincides with
belonging to it, the hindrances to the effect of the call being
ignored. And thus the counterpart of the grain here is a united
whole, it is the members of the kingdom absolutely, the body of
members or the community of the kingdom of heaven. And to
the other phenomenon attracting attention in this second parabolic
figure, namely, that a second and different crop appears among
the wheat-crop, everywhere intermingled with it, which, similar
as it seems, has really nothing in common with it, being mere
darnel, a worthless, nay, harmful weed, — to this phenomenon
the only possible corresponding fact in the development of the
heavenly kingdom is, that amid the community of God's kingdom,
everywhere intermingled with its true members, there are found
those who belong to it in appearance, but in reality have nothing
in common with it, being inwardly alien and hostile to the nature
of the heavenly kingdom.
The way in which we saw Jesus, introduce the parable with
the preterite d>p,oia>dy = " has become like," shows that this fact
of a mingling of alien elements in the circle of disciples gathered
round Him was not merely foreseen by Him as something future,
but was already experimentally present to His consciousness.
With the glance of the Heart-searcher He had discerned among
those who passed as His disciples, nominal disciples, like the
darnel among the wheat. On the other hand, it is scarcely to be
supposed that this fact had then occurred to the disciples them
selves ; in any case it was reserved for them to learn it soon
enough by experience. And they all the more needed to be
forewarned in reference to it, as it stood in opposition to their
expectations of the Messianic kingdom presently to be set up,
GOEBEL. E

6 6 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
just as much as the fact of the conditional and therefore diverse
success of Christ's Messianic work, that formed the subject of
the first parable. For not merely did the language of the
prophets seem to them to sanction the expectation that the
community of the Messianic kingdom, in opposition to the blend
ing of righteous and unrighteous, true and false members, existing
previously in the IsraeUtish national Church, would be exclusively
pure and holy in form,1 but also the voice of John the Baptist,
scarcely as yet silent, definitely foretold that the Messiah coming
after him would thoroughly carry out the purifying work
requisite for such an end (Matt. iii. 12). Thus the truth, thai
righteous and unrighteous, true and false members, would again
exist together even in the Church of the Messianic kingdom, was in
fact to them a mystery, respecting which they needed instruction,
— and to give this to them we recognise as the one aim of the
present parable. But the way and order in which this instruction
is given, according to the structure of the figurative narrative
explained above, is, that first the origin of this state of things is
disclosed to them, then instruction is given as to the conduct to le
pursued in relation to it, and lastly, it is shown when and where
this state of things will find its final solution.
In proceeding to gather these disclosures from the parable one
after another by interpreting the details, we have again, as in
the first parable, the help of an explanation given afterwards,
according to the evangelist's account, by Jesus Himself to His
disciples. In the conversation of Jesus with the disciples in
private after the dismissal of the multitude, the contents of
which have been partially anticipated by the interpolation
vv. 10-23 for incidental reasons, and which is further related in
the place (from ver. 36 on) to which it belongs in order of time,
¦the disciples requested an interpretation of the second parable,
probably in allusion to the extended one given them of the first
parable. They rightly name it after the subject of which it
treats throughout. In ver. 36 they ask: <ppda-ov ypiv rr]v
irapaBoXyv rwv £i£avicov rov dypov. $pd£eiv is such a telling
as makes another know or understand something, thus here:
" Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field." On this
request Jesus gives them the explanation, vv. 37-43. True, the
originality of this explanation has been denied,2 and it has been
called the work of the evangelist, both because of the style of
1 Cf. Isa. Ix. 18, 21. 2 Ewald, Holtzmann, Weiss.

THE TARES IN THE WHEAT. 67
the explanation and because of the alleged discrepancy between
it and the parable itself. What is to be thought of this assertion
can only be seen from a complete examination. We have
accordingly first of all to take this explanation into consideration,
without, of course, thinking that we are thereby raised above the
necessity of independent investigation and explanation.1
The assistance given to the interpretation of the first part of
the parable (vv. 24—26) embraces ver. 37 up to the words in
ver. 39 : 6 Be e%dpb? 6 aireipa? avrd eanv 6 SidBoXo?. The
assistance to the interpretation — we say advisedly. For a glance
at this section shows that the method of interpretation here differs
considerably from the way in which we saw Jesus interpret the
first parable. Whereas there from beginning to end He placed
the corresponding events in the sphere of the kingdom of heaven
over against the events described in the sphere of nature, thus
giving an interpretation in the proper sense, expressing and
working out the thoughts of the parable; here at first He merely
selects the particular ideas occurring in the figurative history,
and leaves the hearers to construct for themselves the proper
interpretation of the events from the material thus given into
their hands. The motive for this course is His wish to lead
the disciples, after completely explaining the first parable to
them, to an independent and spontaneous interpretation of His
parables. This design is especially apparent from the fact, that
He forthwith deUvers to them a number of new parables
(w. 44-50), without any explanation whatever, and at the end
asks them, ver. 51:" Have ye understood all these things ? "
to which they are able to reply with a simple " Yea." The man
in the parable, the field, the good grain, the darnel, the enemy,
— these are the five ideas taken from the parable, over against
which a counterpart is placed in succession. First of all it is
said : " Me that (according to the narrative delivered) soweth the
good grain is the Son of man." This is not the place to
investigate more carefully the meaning of Christ's designation of
Himself as " the Son of man," as it would contribute nothing to
the understanding of the parable. Suffice it to recall the fact,
which may pass as undoubted, that it is a designation of Himself
as the manifested Messiah. He says that He — Jesus — in His
character as the manifested Christ, is He who sowed the good
grain, that to do so is His Messianic calling, in the performance
1 Cf. what was said on the interpretation of the previous parable.

68 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
of which He is engaged. For such is the meaning when, instead
of the crireipavn in ver. 24 being simply resumed in 6 crirelpa?,
the aorist is changed into the present 6 crireipcov. " And the field "
— so it is said further in ver. 38, that field therefore which is
mentioned in the parable of the Sower, and in which He sows
the good grain — " is the world," 6 Koapto?, viewed according to
New-Testament usage as the abode of mankind in the present
aeon. And of the good grain, standing on the ground of the
world, it is said in the third place : rb Be KaXbv airkppa, ovroi
eiaiv oi viol ry? BacriXeia?. On account of the plural predicate
the singular subject is again resumed with ovroi. Tio?, as
often, denotes the relation of belonging to ; oi viol rfjt
BacriXeia? are therefore the adherents of the kingdom of Messiah
•or of heaven, belonging to it in so far as the word and will of
¦God have become the ruling principle of their life. But as
members of the one organized kingdom — this lies, of course, in the
•case — they are not merely an aggregate of individuals, but an
interconnected whole, the community of the kingdom or the
Church of the kingdom of God. But their being identified with
to KaXbv airkppa confirms to us the fact, if it needs further con
firmation, that " the good seed " in the figurative story was not
meant as the means, but as the result of the sowing, as the grain
to be produced in and upon the field. Then, again, the bad crop
of the tares is placed beside the KaXbv airkppa and explained in
parallelism with it, and is then for the first time traced back to
the enemy who sowed it; for, so it is said in the fourth place:,
ret Be t,tt,dvid elcriv oi viol rov irovypov. The genitive rov
irovypov is not here, as is almost universally supposed, to he
taken as a genit. masc, but as a genit. neut., hence with
Luther : " but the tares are the children of wickedness!' Per se
both senses are equally possible. For as 6 irovypo? is a
designation of the devil (ver. 19, etc.), so also to irovypov =
wickedness, moral badness, is an expression common in the New
Testament.1 Moreover, the combination viol rov irovripov
presents just as little difficulty in the neuter acceptation of the
genitive as in the masculine.2 But decisive in favour of
the neuter acceptation here is first the parallel ol viol ttjs
BacriXeia?, and again principally the circumstance that a special
sentence is added for the purpose of mentioning the devil, in
1 Chap. v. 37 ; Rom. xii. 9 ; 1 John v. 19.
2 Cf. vU) ns imiiuas, Eph. ii. 2, v. 6 ; Col. iii. 6 ; -Ax,x ilxlxs, Hos. x. 9.

THE TARES IN THE WHEAT. 69
correspondence with the enemy in the - parable, as he with
whom the distinctive nature of the class of men symbolized by
ra £i%dvia originates. If, then, rd %i£dvia may here be already
interpreted of the children of -the devil, the following sentence
becomes thoroughly tautological. Accordingly, " the sons of
wickedness " in the present sentence is meant to describe the
class of men corresponding to the tares, not according to the
person from whom they spring, but merely according to their
own distinctive nature, in virtue of which they are the counter
part of the tares. To the bad darnel-growth correspond the
children of (moral) badness or wickedness, the latter being
regarded as a substantive principle, by which their distinctive
nature is determined. Then only does the following sentence
come in easily and naturally, giving the fifth explanation,
ver. 39: " And the enemy that sowed them is the devil."
With the aid of these hints, then, let us work out the interpre
tation of the first part of the parable, which reveals in the form
of a narrative of definite events the origin of the fact, that true
and false members are found together in the Church of the
Messianic kingdom. As the sowing of the man in the parable
aims only at a good crop, which is to stand in his field, so the
Messianic work of the Son of man is only directed and adapted
to establish for Himself on the ground of this world, which is His
world, a holy church and kingdom, consisting of such members as are
constituted members in the true sense by the righteousness of the
kingdom of heaven distinguishing them. It is evident that this
interpretation of the first statement of the parable, as on one hand
it assigns its proper force to each of the single hints given by the
Lord with respect to the interpretation, so on the other hand it
corresponds exactly to the wording of the figurative story.
Only in one point have those important hints added something
new, not lying directly and necessarily in the parable, namely, in
relation to the interpretation of the field. Of course the field,
which is set down in the narrative as the property of the man,
which he has a right to sow, requires a definite counterpart in
the interpretation. But whether it is to be explained of the
nationality of Israel, or of the human world generally, the
narrative of itself does not say with certainty ; and from their
standpoint the disciples might, without opposition from anything
in the parable, be inclined to understand the former. Christ's
explanatory words have made it certain that He wished the

70 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
human world generally, not Israel, to be understood. Not the
IsraeUtish nationality, but the world generally, so far as it is the
dweUing-place of men, is to Him the field to be sown, i.e. the
ground to which He has a right, and on which He is about to
estabUsh for Himself a holy Church and kingdom. But the field
sown, in which the pure crop already stands, is the world, inas
much and in so far as at any time it has become in fact the
ground of God's kingdom ; and, where the field occurs further in
the parable (cf. ver. 2 7), in the nature of the case it can only be
" the world " in the latter reference and limitation, i.e. only so far
as upon and in it the kingdom of heaven has come to realization.
But as the man in the parable, so the interpretation continues,
had an enemy, so the Son of man has in the devil an antagonist,
who is bent on destroying His work. For, like the enemy of the
householder, who sowed darnel — so like wheat, and yet so bad —
in the midst of the pure wheat, so the devU strives with earnest
zeal to bring even into the new Church of the heavenly kingdom1
false members, who outwardly belong to it, whereas in truth they
have nothing in common with the kingdom of heaven and its
righteousness, being determined and ruled by the opposite prin
ciple of sin. And again, like as the enemy sowed the darnel so
secretly that, at first unknown, it was only known on the growth
of the blade by the setting of the fruit, so Satan is able to veil
his evU action in such secrecy that its effects remain concealed
in the beginning, and the introduction of false members into the
Church is first known as an accomplished fact by the fruit of evil
works found in its midst. All special interpretations assigned
to the words iv ra> KadevSeiv roii? dvdpcoirov? beyond the general
thought of the secrecy of the devU's action, either by trying to
find in them a special accusation against the ecclesiastical office,1
or an image of indifference to God's word and of a state of
spiritual indolence generally,2 have been already rendered ques
tionable by settling the sense of these words in the context of
the narrative, where the sleeping involves neither a special nor a
general reproach. On the other hand, in the circumstance that
the recognition of the darnel is placed expressly in the forming
ofthe fruit (ver. 26), and in the often-recurring emphasis of the
good or evil fruit as the mark of the good or evil nature of the
tree in other figurative speeches of the Lord,3 we believe we' see a
special allusion to the truth, that the existence of false members
1 So the ancients. 2 Keil. 3 Cf. vii. 16-20, xii. 33 ; Luke vi. 43, 44.

THE TARES IN THE WHEAT. 71
in the kingdom wUl be known by the scandal arising from wicked
works.1 After the origin of the state of things in question has been
revealed in the first part of the parable in the form of an account
of definite occurrences, the further teachings to be communicated
on the point are given in the second part in the form of a con
versation of the householder with his servants. If we observe
the remarks of Christ in His interpretation on this second part of
the parable, we find that He makes the interpretation of the
"harvest" and the "reapers" follow immediately on the five
single indications in ver. 39 already noticed, thus passing at once
to the last declaration of the householder, which forms the con
clusion of the conversation, and thus of the entire parable. And
this cannot surprise us in view of the character of the interpre
tation which bears only on the single ideas, such as we have
observed hitherto. For apart from the servants, who do not
interfere in the action of the parable itself, but merely appear
on the scene as persons astonished at and receiving instruction
on the fact lying before them, up to that concluding declaration
of the householder, no new persons or ideas emerge in the con
versation, which proceeds exclusively on the basis already given
in what precedes. We have accordingly to continue the interpre
tation exclusively on this basis.
As concerns first the servants, who figure in the narrative as
persons needing and receiving instruction in reference to the
appearance of the darnel, the disciples of Jesus who listen to the
parable, without needing any special indication of the Lord, must
in them have recognised themselves as the persons to whom the
instruction of the parable is addressed, and who caUed it forth.
In the first twofold question of the servants (ver. 27), they find
striking expression given to their surprise at the state of things
disclosed in the parable as something of which they wiU soon
enough have experience. For Uke as the servants, in their
astonishment at the appearance of the darnel, were almost deceived
'respecting the householder and respecting the aim of his work
being a good crop, so the appearance of the chUdren of wickedness
amid the Church of God, estabUshed by Jesus in the world, may
expose them to the danger of mistake respecting Him, their Lord,
and respecting the aim of His Messianic work being the restora
tion of a holy kingdom of God. But let them not be deceived !
1 Cf. tx (TKu.-ila.XaL, ver. 41.

72 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
Such is the answer of the householder (ver. 28), setting the
explanation of the origin of the strange phenomenon, already
given in the matter-of-fact account in the first part of the parable,
once more before them in the form of a retrospective inference
from the existing state of things. In these words of the house
holder, Jesus once more expressly testifies to His disciples : The
impure form, in which the kingdom of heaven is manifested, has
so little to do with His own Messianic labour, whose only aim of
course is to establish a holy kingdom of God, that, on the contrary,
it can only be referred to the agency of a being hostile to Him,
one diligently bent on counteracting His work.
But they must not allow the certainty that the authorship of
the existing mixed state is as stated, to hurry them away to a
mistaken and premature line of action. The danger of this is
disclosed in the second question put into the mouth of the
servants, according to which, with apparent reasonableness, they
e*xpect to be empowered to separate the darnel from the wheat
forthwith. For, if the introduction of false members into the
Church is only to be referred to the irregular agency of an enemy
of Christ and His kingdom, how probable seems the inference,
that the enemy's pernicious work should be counteracted, the
false members removed from the midst of the Church, and' the
Church restored to unsullied purity ! In this way the transition
is made to the second instruction contained in the parable,
relating to the attitude of the disciples towards the form of the
development of the kingdom under consideration. With the ov
(ver. 29), Jesus commands them to abstain from their well-meant
purpose to sever the false from the true members of the kingdom
forthwith, and to renounce the attractive notion of an immediate
restoration of the kingdom of God in unsullied purity. For what
reason He wills this, is said in the telic sentence appended. As
it would be an impossibUity to gather the darnel, everywhere ,
thickly intermingled with the wheat, out of the midst of the
grain, growing and intertwining its roots as it does in and upon
the same ground, without at the same time uprooting the wheat
itself, still unripe, so it would be impossible to exclude from the
midst of the Church the false members everywhere thickly inter
spersed with the true members of the kingdom, and closely
connected and intertwined with them on the same ground in all
the concerns and relations of natural life. It could only be done
by withdrawing the Church itself at the same time from the soil

THE TARES IN THE WHEAT. 73
of worldly life, upon which, however, it has to develope, and from
the sphere of the natural relations of Ufe, within which it has to
gain strength, a course which would cut it off from the possibility
of continuous development, and hand it over to decay. If, then,
we have rightly unfolded the thought of the parable, it has nothing
in common with the notion that the Church must not arrogate
to itself penal authority over the person and life of its false
members,1 for the zeal forbidden in the parable was not directed
so much to the destruction of the darnel, as rather merely to its
severance from the wheat. But the prohibition is not opposed to
any kind of Church discipline, exercised on individual members
for their training, or as an atonement for a special public scandal ;
but it is simply directed against the fundamental attempt, by
summary and absolute exclusion of all false members, to establish
the Church of God's kingdom in complete purity and sanctity
during the stadium of its development on the ground of the
cosmos. And the reason of the prohibition is not placed in the
danger of confounding the false with the true members,2 so that
one might go on with the exclusion without scruple, so far as no
such danger existed, — for the similarity of the darnel to the wheat
no longer came into account in this passage, — but the prohibition
is simply based on the close intermingling of the false among the
true members, and the close connection of the two, which cannot
be broken up without a pernicious effect on the Church itself.
But how long the Church of the kingdom of heaven is to
remain in this mixed state, and when and how its restoration to
full purity and sanctity is to take place, this is stated in the
final words of the householder (ver. 30), where the third instruc
tion is given respecting the issue which the present state of
things wiU have. But here again the interpretation of the Lord
strikes in, and we have first of all to direct our attention to it.
The interpretation (ver. 39o) continuing just, as heretofore, in
the first place two new ideas, which appear here in the action of
the parable, are explained, each one by itself — the harvest and
the reapers. It is said first : 6 Be deptapb? avvrkXeia alasvo? 3
ianv. The harvest in the parable came into view as the
temporal end of the period of growth and maturity, and in this
sense " the consummation of the (current) age " corresponds to it
in the sphere of the kingdom of heaven. It is said secondly : ol Be
1 As many suppose, in the train of Luther.
2 So Jerome, Bengel, Bleek. 3 Rcc. : rov uluvos

74 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
Gepiaral dyyeXoi elaiv, i.e. the reapers, who appear in the parable
at harvest-time as the official agents of the h&vvest-work, in the
sphere of the kingdom of heaven are angels. But now the
discourse of Jesus rises from the previous method of interpreting
single ideas to a proper and complete interpretation of the last
thought of the parable, which is accordingly expounded with
solemn emphasis in elevated language and elaborate detail in
vv. 40-43. Ver. 40 serves to introduce what follows: "As
then the darnel is gathered and burned with fire, so sJiall it be in
the end of the world." The protasis is not to be taken as
reminding of what is usually done with darnel, but according to
the context, as a definite reference to what wiU be done, accord
ing to the words of the householder in the parable, at the time
of harvest with the darnel sown by the enemy. What was there
said (ver. 30) of the gathering together of the darnel is here
resumed with avXXiyerai, and what was said of preparing the
darnel, irpb? rb KaraKavaai avrd, is resumed with irvpl Katerat}
the irvpi being added plerophoricaUy to prepare for the intended
explanation, in which the idea of fire occurs expressly. But no
stress must be laid on the replacing of the compound verb Kara
Kavaai (ver. 3 0) by the simple verb Kaierai, even if this reading
is the right one in ver. 40, because Kaieadai may, and here
must, signify " be consumed" just as weU as KaraKaieadai, since
it is impossible to say of the darnel, " it is set on fire with fire."2
Thus something analogous to the gathering and burning of the
darnel wUl take place in the consummation of the age. And
this is more fully explained ver. 41 : " The Son of man will
send His angels!' His angels, because standing at His command
as their Lord, for the execution of His wiU, as in the parable the
reapers at the command of the lord of the harvest. But the
mandate is not mentioned, for the execution of which they are
sent, as in the case of the reapers in the parable, the execution
itself being assumed, but conversely, the mandate being assumed;
its execution is at once affirmed. On the ground of their mission
they will do two things — the first corresponding to the avXXeyem
of the darnel, the second to the irvpl Kaieiv. To the former
corresponds ver. 415; Kal avXXk%ovaiv e'/c tj?? BaaiXeta? avrov
rrdvra ra aKavSaXa Kal roil? iroiovvra? t^i» dvopiiav. The kingdom
of the Son of man (y BaaiXela avrov), to which this is done, is
1 Or, according to another likewise well-attested reading : -rvpi xxtxxxUtxi.
2 Meyer.

THE TARES IN THE WHEAT. 75'
the kingdom founded by Him, and existing in the present son
on the ground of the cosmos, not the one set up at the avvriXeia
rov al&vo?} For what transformation the present state of things
is to undergo at the awreXeia rov al&vo? remains stiU to be
told. Hitherto, in the seon now ended, the kingdom of God had
only come to realization in such a form that, according to its
empirical appearance, such as was presented in the Church
standing on the ground of the world, it included aKavSaXa and
workers of dvopiia. To this present state an end is now put by
the angels gathering out of the kingdom irdvra ra aKavSaXa Kal
roii? iroiovvra? ryv dvopiiav. But ra axdvSaXa must not be
taken as a designation of persons. The appeal to Matt. xvi. 23 2
does not warrant this, for when Jesus there says of Peter that he
is a aKavSaXov, the word is still merely the predicate attached
to a person,3 by no means the designation of a person. More
over, if the aKavSaXa are meant to be persons, we must either
distinguish those thus designated from the iroiovvre? t^v dvopiav,
as speciaUy scandalous evU-doers, from those sinning merely pro
sua parte (Bengel), which distinction is altogether destitute of
support in the parable, and, if intended, would have been more
clearly expressed, or we must concede a tautology.4 But the
force of the periphrastic expression roii? iroiovvra? ryv dvopiav
is, that the language advances from the actual scandals to their
personal authors, from the scandalous acts to their doers, so that the
scandals are rather to be identified with dvopta than with iroiovvre?.
What was scandalous in the outward appearance of the king
dom was not primarily the false members themselves, but the evil
works by which the existence of the former was made known.5
For this reason also here, where the point in question is the
restoration of the kingdom to an appearance corresponding to its
inner nature, the removal of these actual scandals is primarily
considered, and so a difference is made between the fruit of the
tares and the tares. Every sinful work and thing in antagonism
to God's holy will (called aKavSaXa, because calculated to lead
to error respecting God's holy nature, and the divine origin of
the kingdom itself, where found within the Church of the king
dom), and those who do ryv dvopiav, that which is in opposition
to God's ordinances, and therefore the authors of those scandals,
the angels wUl gather out of the kingdom of their Lord, the
1 Meyer. 2 Meyer, Keil, Weiss. 3 As e.g. also in 1 Cor. i. 23.
4 Meyer. 5 Cf. ver. 26 and its interpretation,

76 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
expression being preserved which is used of what the reapers do
to the darnel, i.e. they will remove and exclude them all from
the kingdom. And, in the second place, they wiU do with them,
the iroiovvre? (for in the punishment, of course, merely the
persons come into view), what corresponds to the irvpl Katetv
(ver. 42) : " They shall cast them into the furnace of fire." 'H
Kapivo? rov irvpo? is Gehenna. But this appellation is not, as
we might be inclined to suppose, specially used here in allusion
to the image of the tares, which are cast into a furnace to be
burnt, for it recurs (ver. 50) in a parable without a groundwork
of this kind, still less is there any reference to the fiery furnace,
into which, according to Dan. iii., Daniel's friends were cast,1
which has not the most remote relation to Gehenna; but the
designation of Gehenna as the " fiery furnace " follows naturally
on the ground of the general conception of Gehenna as the place
of punishment of the condemned burning with fire.2 But the
choice of this particular designation was specially appropriate,
because it clearly emphasizes the point of comparison between
the fate of the evil-doers and that of the tares. Finally, that the
furnace of fire means, as matter of fact, nothing but the well-
known place of punishment of the condemned, is shown by the
words often recurring in similar connections elsewhere in the
discourses of Jesus : " There shall be the weeping and the gnashing
(biting together from pain) of teeth.'' Here, as wherever this
formula occurs, the article stands before KXavdpo? and Bpvypb?,
because the pain of the condemned is not described, but
something well known to the hearers is simply brought to
recollection. But with this addition the explanatory language of Jesus has
already outstepped the limits of what was said in the parable, in
such a way, however, as merely to add something directly result
ing from what precedes. In the same manner he now further
expounds the subject under the other aspect, when, finally turning
from the unrighteous to the righteous, He says of the latter (ver.
43) : rore oi SiKaioi iKXdp<y]rovaiv w? 6 yXio? iv ry BaaiXela
rov irarpb? avrwv. In the parable, after the description of the
measures to be taken in regard to the tares, it was merely said
of the wheat — what is already implied in the idea of reaping—
that it is to be gathered into the barn. The interpretation does
not reproduce this circumstance of the reaping, but mentions the
1 Lange. a Cf. xxv. 41 ; Rev. xix. 20, xx: 15.

THE TARES IN THE WHEAT. 77
counterpart of the barn — the place in which the righteous will
be gathered : iv rfj BaaiXeLa, rov irarpb? aiirwv. This expression
is notably different from the one used in ver. 41 : e'« rfj? BaaiXeia?
avrov, scil. of the Son of Man; and under this difference of
expression here Ues a difference in the thing described. As
certainly as the jSao-tXeia there could only be the kingdom of
God founded by the Son of Man on the ground of the world, and
developing on this ground until the end of the current age, so
certainly can the ySacrtXe/a here, as the dwelling-place of the
righteous after the avvriXeia r. al&v., only be the divine kingdom
of the future seon. And just to characterize it as such is the
purpose of the expression : y Baa. rov irarpb? avroov. Similarly
in xxvi. 9 Jesus calls it jj /3<x<r. toO irarpb? pov, and in xxv. 34
He foretells that the Son of man, when He comes in His glory
with His angels (ver. 31), wUl invite the righteous (vv. 37, 46),
as the blessed of his Father, to take possession of the kingdom
prepared for them (by the Father) from the beginning of the world.
Accordingly there can be no doubt in what sense the expression :
y Baa. rov irarpb? avroov, is chosen in the present passage. It
describes the divine kingdom of the future world as the eternal
home prepared for the righteous by their Father. Their gather
ing there being presupposed, it is now said of the state in which
they wUl be found : " They shall shine forth (ivXap^ovaiv) like
the sun." The words are perhaps used in allusion to the pro
phecy of Daniel in similar terms,1 but their meaning is not
therefore quite the same in the present context as there. There
the meaning is, that the good, after their deliverance from the
darkness of affliction (ver. 1), and their awakening from the
night of death (ver. 2), will shine for ever in the celestial trans
figuration of their natural Ufe, TfP?J} "^i? ; here, that, after the
exclusion by the angels of everything and every one impure, the
righteous wiU rise out of the obscurity to which their righteous
ness was subject through the aKavSaXa, and the unrighteous
found among them, and " wiU shine forth like the sun ; " shine
forth, therefore, in their character as righteous with a briUiance
in a moral respect pure and bright as the sun. Or, in other
words, the subject here is not the glorious reward consisting in
the celestial glorification of their natural life, in which the good
are one day to partake, which would introduce into the interpre
tation an element quite new and altogether foreign to the strain
1 Dan. xii. 3 ; cf. too Wisd. iii. 7.

78 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
of thought in the parable ; but the subject is the glorious effect
which the removal of the aKavSaXa and their authors, previous
to the righteous being brought into the kingdom of the Father,
wiU have on the state of the righteous there, namely, a shining
forth of their righteousness with unsullied purity. Thus, the
thought added in the interpretation is again merely one directly
resulting from the final events of the parable.
It remains for us, founding on these explanatory words of
Jesus, to carry out the interpretation of the last teachings of the
parable itself respecting the issue of the present state of things,
How long the present blending of opposite elements in the Church
of the kingdom is to last, is first stated in ver. 30a? As long,
namely, as the period of the development of the heavenly king
dom on the ground of the cosmos lasts, so long righteous and
unrighteous wUl remain together, and in this state of conjunction,
moreover, unfold their different characters,1 until this period finds
its end in the consummation of the age. This is what is said
figuratively in the words : " Let both grow together until the
harvest." On the other hand, the figure of the darnel and wheat
growing together gives no support fo the thought, that this
conjunction with the unrighteous is a training-school, and thus a
means of growth, to the righteous ; 2 and it must therefore be
excluded from exact interpretation, however suitable it may be
for homiletic purposes. Finally, ver. 306 says when and how
the severance of the unrighteous from the righteous, and thus
the restoration of the Church to complete purity and holiness,
wiU take place. Like as the householder at the time of harvest
issues orders to the harvesters, whose business it is, to gather the
ripe grain into the barn ; so the Son of man at the consummation
of the age will issue orders to the angels, whose office it is, to
bring the Church, which has attained the goal of its development,
into the eternal kingdom of the future world.3 They are not,
without thought and discrimination, to bring the Church, in the
mixed form belonging to it on the ground of the cosmos in the
present aeon, into that kingdom; but previously (avXXkfae
irpmrov) they are to exclude aU the unrighteous from its midst,
1 Cf. Rev. xxii. 11. 2 Augustine, Stier, Nebe (die evang. Perikopen).
3 Weiss overlooks this in supposing that the reapers, as the regular agents of the
harvest, are not to be interpreted of the angels. But the angels are just as much
the regular, official agents of the future o-mxyuyn of believers (xxiv. 31), and for this
precise reason correspond to the reapers.

THE TARES IN THE WHEAT. 79
and commit them to the fire of Gehenna, and then bring the
righteous, and the righteous only, into the eternal homes prepared
for them, into the kingdom of their Father. This is all the meaning
of the avXXk^are irp&rov, which is certainly emphatic. On the
other hand, all such thoughts as that the righteous will behold
the punishment of the unrighteous,1 or that the former will
remain masters of the field,2 lie quite outside the figure. The
same holds good of the opinion, that the binding into (several)
bundles, which simply pictures the manner in which the
accumulated mass of tares is committed to the fire, is meant to
symbolize different punishments according to the different degrees
of wickedness.3 It is evident of itself that the teaching of the final words of
the householder substantiaUy agrees with Christ's own interpreta
tion, only that the latter by additions stiU further expounds the
subject of the figurative discourse on both sides, with respect to
the unrighteous as well as the righteous. But the motive by
which Jesus was led, in interpreting the conclusion of the parable,
not merely to break off the previous mode of interpreting only
single detaUs, but to pursue the subject with such emphasis
beyond the limits of what was symbolized in the parable, is not
hard to perceive. The reason is not, that Jesus here gives
expression to the proper theme He has in view,4 for the teach
ings given at the beginning and in the middle of the parable
respecting the origin of the state of things in question and the
conduct to be pursued towards it stand on a footing of equal
importance with the teaching given at the close respecting its
issue, both as regards their formal exposition in the parable and
also their intrinsic weight. Nevertheless, the Lord must have
been anxious to set this last disclosure respecting the separation,
which the Son of man wUl one day effect through His angels,
with special emphasis before the eyes of the disciples ; for only
by keeping this firmly in view could they be saved from being
deceived by the phenomenon itself and the statement first made
to them as to its origin, as weU as from being hurried away to a
premature line of action in reference to it. We have thus found
nothing, either in the manner in which the interpretation
proceeds in the beginning and at the close, or in its contents,
to justify the assertion that it did not originate with Jesus
Himself. 1 Bengel. 2 Nebe. 3 Augustine, Nebe. * Meyer.

80 the parables of jesus.
The Fruit-bearing Earth.
(Markiv. 26-29.)
Before proceeding to the parable of the Mustard Seed, standing
next in Matthew's account, we have first to direct our attention
to the parallel account in the fourth chapter of Mark. How this
account runs paraUel with that of Matthew, has been already
shown above.1 Just like Matthew, Mark first describes the
situation of the discourse of Jesus, w. 1, 2, next records the
parable of the Sower as the first, vv. 3-9, but then breaks off
the account of the discourse to the people in order to interpolate
from a subsequent conversation with the disciples alone the
explanation of Jesus respecting the design of His strange mode
of teaching and also His interpretation of the first parable,
vv. 10-20. At this point, diverging from Matthew, he subjoins
to this interpolation two sayings of Jesus, of which the first
imposes on them the duty of disseminating the truths disclosed
to them, vv. 21—23, and the second calls on them to take heed
to what they hear, because the amount of further instruction will
be measured by the degree in which they take heed, vv. 24, 25.
In the case of both sayings the koI eXeyev avroi? intimates that
they are to be taken as addressed to the disciples especially, just
as much as the preceding paragraph, vv. 11-20. Here the
interpolation in Mark must be regarded as having come to an
end. For when in ver. 26 with Kal eXeyev without avroi? he
gives another parable, and with a second Kal eXeyev, ver. 30,
without further connection yet another parable, and thereupon in
vv. 33, 34 concludes the entire section (in correspondence with
Matt. xiii. 34, 35) with the statement, that Jesus preached the
word to them (the people) in many such parables, and without
a parable spake not to them, but simply explained everything to
His own disciples in private, it is clear that with ver. 26, like
Matthew with ver. 24, he resumed the interrupted account ofthe
parabolic discourse of Jesus from the boat. But Mark does not
resume the interrupted discourse, Uke Matthew, with the parable
of the Tares in the Wheat, but with another parable ; and the
two evangelists again coincide in giving the parable of the
Mustard Seed as the third. Thus, the parable Mark iv. 26-29
1 Cf. " The Parables to the People by the Sea."

THE FRUIT-BEARING EARTH. 81
stands in this evangelist in exactly the same place as that of
the Tares in Matthew. But that it is in no way identical with
the latter, at least in the form in which it lies before us, but is
a quite different parable, the very first glance leaves no doubt.
Here also, it is true, a sown field is placed before the view ; but
whereas in the parable in Matthew from beginning to end only
the appearance of the tares is treated of, in the present parable
nothing at all resembling this occurs. It requires, accordingly,
separate and independent investigation.
This parable is introduced, like those related in the same
context in Matthew, by prefixing the kingdom of heaven as
the thing compared, only that here the expression y/ B^aiXeta
rod Qeov, usual elsewhere, is found in place of y #ao\ rwv
ovpav&v, common in Matthew. But the manner in which the
subsequent description is used for the purpose of comparing the
kingdom of God is peculiar. It is said, ver. 26 f . : Ovrw?
earlv y /8ao-i\ei'a tou Qeov a>? avdpwiro? B^V tov airbpov iirl
tj)? yfj?, Kal KadevSy K.r.X., i.e. : It is with the kingdom of God
as if a man had done this and that, and then should do so and
so. The d>?, or according to another reading w? idv,1 with the
conj. aorist for the purpose of comparing the relations of the
kingdom of God, puts a case which the hearers are to suppose
has already occurred, and with the foUowing present conjunctive
a case which they are to suppose occurring afterwards. The
case to be conceived as having occurred already is this, that " a
man had cast the seed upon the earth." ^iropo? has the article in
the very beginning, because the figurative use of the seed was
the basis of the first parable in the discourse. As this second
parable also treats of seed, it continues within the Umits of the
figure already employed and familiar to the hearers. The
expression " cast " instead of " sow " sets forth the comparative
insignificance of what the man did with the seed ; it was a
mere " casting " of the seed. And the case which is represented
as occurring afterwards is this, that the man then KadevSy Kal
iyeipyrai vvKra Kal ypApav, Kal 6 airopo? /3Xao-ra Kal pyKvvyrai
cu? ovk olSev avro?, ver. 27. These words characterize the
attitude which the man assumes to the development of the seed,
after he has thrown it down, the first clause describing his
conduct in reference to the development of the seed, whUst the
second discloses his relation to the development, by which his
1 But Ixv is not necessary. Cf. e.g. Homer, II. v. 161, ix. 323, etc.
GOEBEL. P

82 the parables of jesus.
conduct is regulated. " And (as if he) should sleep and rise
night and day " (according as it is time to sleep or wake) is the
first statement. Thus his mode of life is described as determined
by the natural succession of time, and therefore as not disturbed
in its regular course by trouble and toU about the progress of
his work as sower. In the description KadevSy precedes
iyeipyrai, and correspondently vvKra precedes f)p,kpav, because
the unconcern which he permits to himself in reference to the
work commenced appears chiefly in the circumstance, that he
surrenders himself to the rest of sleep whenever summoned to do
so in the natural course of things. And that this unconcern, to
which he surrenders himself, is not arbitrary, but thoroughly in
keeping with his actual relation to the natural order of his work,
is stated in the next clause : " and (as if) the seed should sprout
and become long d>? ovk olSev avro?," i.e. literally = "in what
way," or " in a way which he himself knows not," thus not : so
that the sower has no knowledge of the fact of the growth, but :,
so that he has no knowledge of the how, the manner of the
growth, so that he himself (airo?), the man who yet sowed it,
does not even know how this springing and growth of the seed
come about. The choice of the unusual piyKvveadai (not mid.
but pass.) = " to be prolonged, increase in length," intimates
already something mysterious in the circumstance of growth, a
proof that the words a>? ovk olSev avro?, placed emphaticaUy at
the end, are kept in view from the first in the whole sentence.
That the springing and growth of the seed take place in a way
of which the sower himself has no knowledge, and thus the
springing and growth of what he himself has sown lie altogether
outside his sphere of influence, since he does not even know
the how of this occurrence (to say nothing of its being his
business to bring it about), this and only this is the thought
expressed. But 6 airopo? is not placed in emphatic contrast
with dvdpcoiro? in order to state what the seed on its side does
altogether of itself, whUst the man is idle.1 For, in the first place,
the " altogether of itself," upon which in that case the emphasis
of the thought would lie, is not even found here ; and, in the second
place, the break now made in the construction with ver. 28 (the
construction dependent on a>?, and proceeding to the close of
ver. 27 in one flow, being here broken off and continued with an
independent indicative sentence), shows that here and here first
1 Weiss.

THE FRUIT-BEARING EARTH. 83
the description is varied in order to state by what factor the
development of the seed lying altogether outside the sower's
sphere of influence is brought about.
According to the correct reading, the sentence runs (ver. 28) :
avropdry1 y yij Kapiro<popei, irpwrov %6prov, elra ard%yv, elra
irXrtpy? alro?2 iv ra ard^ui. The want of connection with what
precedes marking the sentence, after the ydp has been erased, is
a new proof that the sentence is by no means a mere confirmation
or detailed explanation of what, it is supposed, was said implicite
in ver. 27, but that it contributes a new, independent statement.
Airopidry stands first with strong emphasis : " Spontaneously the
earth beareth fruit." The Kapiro<popeiv, affirmed of the field or
the earth, is to be taken in the most general sense. Where the
grain is the subject of the fruit-bearing, the fruit, of course, can
only be the wheat. But where the earth is the subject, the
springing blade also stands as its product, its fruit. But the
fact of the fruit-bearing being here attributed to the earth as an
independent action, does not need to be explained by the remark
that the earth conditions the productive power of the seed,3 as if
what is said applied properly, not to the earth, but to the seed.
For the seed has just as little productive power without the earth
as the earth without the seed ; and what might have been said of
the seed, — which, however, is not said here, — that it bears fruit
spontaneously, whereas it cannot do so without the earth in which
it is sown, may just as well be said of the earth, on the assump
tion that it is sown with seed. Add to this, that the latter fact
is not silently assumed, but was already expressly mentioned in
ver. 26. But when here the productive power of the earth,
not of the seed, is spoken of, we must not pass it by unnoticed
upon the pretext that this feature is in conflict with ver. 27*
(whereas there the efficient factor of the growth was spoken of,
not in positive, but in negative terms), but we must keep the
circumstance steadily in view, that in the present parable, in
contrast with the inactivity of the man, not the spontaneous
action of the seed, but that of the earth is made prominent.
The spontaneous action of the earth is now further expounded
in the three stages of its results. It brings forth "first the blade,
then the ear, then — -full wheat (wheat-seeds developed to their full
extent) in the ear!' The first two accusatives are dependent on
1 yip is to be erased on weighty grounds, with Lachmann and Tischendorf.
2 The *\4pn trirov of the Recepta is an obvious correction. * Meyer. * Weiss.

84 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
the <f>kpeiv contained in Kapiro<popelv ; but at the third stage, when
the end of the entire process is seen to be reached, the standpoint
of living contemplation leads the narrator of the parable to
exclaim with wondering delight: "Full wheat in the ear!" But
these words are not meant to emphasize the law of progression,
to which the spontaneous fertiUty of the earth is subject, because
it must of necessity bring forth the blade before the ear, and the
ear before the fully ripe corn; and still less is it true that the
proper point of the parable must be sought in this progression.1
Taken in this sense, the effect of the words would simply be to
qualify and tone down the spontaneous activity ascribed with
such emphasis to the earth, which would need at least to be
expressed by a Be added after irpwrov. But in reality they serve
rather to enhance stiU more what is said of the spontaneous
fertility of the earth by indicating the extent to which the
avropdry Kapirocpopeiv holds good of the earth. What the words
say is, that the earth spontaneously brings forth corn at one stage
of development after another, first the blade, then the ear, up to
the completed stage of the full wheat, and that therefore the
entire process of the growth of the grain in the beginning, middle,
and end, is the uninterrupted, independent work of the earth.
But everything which we have observed in this sentence — the
way in which the construction of the clauses hitherto dependent
on w? is given up, its want of connection with the preceding
sentence, the strong emphasis with which it opens, the exposition
of the Kapirocpopeiv rising climacticaUy from one stage to another,
and finally, the emphasizing of the spontaneously reached end by
an exclamation of joyous wonder, — all this gives such emphasis
and weight to the statement made in the sentence, that in that
statement, standing outwardly in the heart of the description, we
must seek the central meaning, to which what precedes is merely
preparatory, and of which what foUows gives the conclusion.
Over against the statement, that the earth spontaneously
brings the wheat to full maturity, enters, now that this end is
reached in ver. 29 with Si, as a conclusion to the whole, the
statement of what is then done on the sower's part: orav he
rrapaBol 6 Kapiro?, evdii? diroareXXei rb Bpeiravov, on irapearrjicev
6 depiapo?. In translating the disputed irapaSol we must keep
1 Weiss.
2 This unusual conjunctive, formed after the analogy of verbs in -»», must he
held to be original, vxpx%£ (Rec. ) to be a correction.

THE FRUIT-BEARING EARTH. 85
to the usual signification of irapaSiSovai, the only one occurring
in the New Testament : " to give up, offer, hand over," only that
we take it in the present passage intransitively : " to offer oneself."
The counter remark, that no "quite certain" example of this
intransitive use of irapaSiSovai,1 even if it should apply univer
sally,2 does not seem decisive in presence of the fact that in
Greek many verbs unite the transitive and intransitive signifi
cations (and compounds of StSovai with special frequency).3 For
this reason it seems easier to assume the intransitive signification
than, with Klostermann, to take the word in the present passage
as an elsewhere unknown term, technicus = " to give up, let go,"
scil. the grains as they become loose. And as to the other
signification " to allow,"4 even if one overlooks the fact that it
is rare and only demonstrable outside the New Testament, as
well as that the object of the verb must in that case be supplied
from what follows, the inner connection of thought of the whole
sentence is decisive against it, because, in face of the correspond
ing meaning of the protasis : " but when the fruit shall have
permitted it" (the sending forth of the sickle), the justifying
clause on irapkaryKev 6 depiapb? does not receive its due. This
clause, as a logical middle term between the protasis and apodosis,
first makes known that which justifies the man in at once sending
forth the sickle on the occurrence of the irapaSiSovai of the fruit.
Therefore — so it is said — he at once applies the sickle on the
occurrence of the irapaSiSovai of the fruit, because with this
irapaSiSovai of the fruit the harvest (i.e. the time for reaping
the corn) is come. But if we translate : " when the fruit permits
(it), he at once sends forth the sickle," we make the act of sending
forth the sickle find its justification directly in the irapaSiSovai
itself, the effect of which is, that the clause : " because the
harvest is come," which professes to justify the timeliness of the
sending forth of the sickle, is deprived of meaning. Accordingly
we must translate thus: "But when the fruit offers itself" (scil.
to the sower waiting for it), " he at once sends forth the sickle,
because the harvest is come." Thus, by the fact of the fruit offering
itself, he knows that it is time to gather in the grain ; and because
1 Meyer.
2 In the passage 1 Pet. ii. 23, irxixSiSimi is not to be taken intransitively, with
Winer, but transitively ; cf. Huther here.
8 Cf. Kriiger, Griechische SpracMehre, § 52, ii. 8 ; Buttmann, Griechische
Urammatik, § 130, v. 2 ; Winer, Gram. p. 314.
* Accepted by Bleek, Weiss, Lange, Grimm, after the example of Meyer.

86 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
the harvest-fo'me is come he does' the harvest-wo?7i;, he sends forth
the sickle. This is the only interpretation which explains the
strange circumstance that, after the action of the earth has been
treated of with such weighty emphasis, no remark is made on
the recurrence of the description to the action of the sower, an
airoarkXXeiv being at once mentioned without the subject being
named, just as if the sower only had been spoken of throughout.
The sower is again silently present to the thought in the protasis :
" but when the fruit offers itself," because this statement rests on
the presupposition that, although inactive, the sower followed the
development of the grain with interest, and eagerly awaited the
fruit now offering itself to him.
With o Kapirb? the idea irXypy? airo? iv rep ard-^yi is resumed,
the fruit being viewed in its full maturity. The expression
diroarkXXei rb Bpeiravov is formed after the Hebrew ?|0 Iw,1 and
is therefore not to be taken as the act of sending forth the reapers,2
but, according to the secondary meaning of npe> ; " to stretch out,
apply," transferred by a Hebraism to the Greek diroarkXXeiv, as
the personal stretching out and application of the sickle. But
the circumstance that, when the fruit offers itself to him, the man
at once applies the sickle, shows anew that his previous inaction
was not owing to want of concern about the grain, but was pre
scribed to him by the nature of the case. When the time comes
for him to intervene, he acts without delay.
A glance back at the course and contents of the description
enables us at once to discern with certainty its single thought.
The element in the process of the growth of the corn to which
the present description calls attention is this, that the earth,
once sown with seed (left to itself by the farmer who sowed it,
because the carrying on of the growth of what is sown lies
altogether outside his sphere), then brings forth fruit by spon
taneous action, and this continuously and without break through
every stage of growth, until the end is reached, until the wheat
in the ear has attained full development, so that the agency of
the sower has only to intervene again at the harvest. Or, in
other words, after the work of sowing, the sower's only business
is to reap. AU that lies between the sowing of the seed and the
gathering of the fruit (namely, the unfolding of the seed and its
development through every stage of growth up to the ripe fruit),
1 Joel iv. 13, Sept.: l^x^roimikxri to Spiiratn ; cf. Rev. xiv. 15 : srea^an to Sfsmwfc
2 Matt. xiii. 30, 41.

THE FRUIT-BEARING EARTH. 87
is the business of the soil to which it is committed.1 This
simple and yet pecuUar thought is so clearly and certainly
expressed in the words of the description, that a different con
clusion is only comprehensible on the supposition that the
interpreter aUows himself to be prematurely influenced in inter
preting the words, either by partiaUty for the explanation he
desires, or by interest in the critical question as to the relation
of this parable to that of the Tares. The opinion of Strauss,
moreover, who calls the parable "a thing without hands and
feet," can only be pronounced altogether inconsiderate.
In order to answer the question, what mystery of the kingdom
of God, ver. 1 1 (i.e. what truth hitherto concealed in reference to
the nature and growth of the kingdom of God), is presented to
view in the description of this side of the process of the growth
of corn, it is necessary to go back, as in Matthew's second parable
of the Tares, to the first parable in the discourse to the people,
that of the Sower. For what holds good of the second parable in
Matthew, that the lingering of the discourse on the natural
process of the development of the seed marks it out as related to
the first parable, and mutatis mutandis to be interpreted in a
similar way, holds good stiU more of this second parable in Mark,
— "stiU more" for this reason, because the second parable in
Matthew is essentiaUy distinguished from the first as to its
paraboUc character by the fact, that it is not again a bare
description of the natural circumstances of husbandry, but a
narrative of a definite case, in which the development of the
grain took a special form through human interference, whereas
this second parable in Mark, exactly Uke the first, is confined to
the natural course of the development of the grain. That first
parable in the discourse and this second parable in Mark are only
distinguished in their parabolic character by this, that they
emphasize different sides of one and the same natural process, —
the first emphasizing the fact that the actual result of the sowing
is naturally dependent on the actual character of the ground
sown, and the second parable the other fact, that — the good
character of the ground being assumed — the seed scattered by
the sower is not developed to fruitfulness by any exertion of
power on the sower's part, but by the spontaneous action of the
ground sown. The parables thus bear upon elements related in
their very diversity, because they both in Uke manner bear upon
' Cf. also KISpper, Jahrb.f. deutsche Theol. 1864, p. 141 ff.

88 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
the dependence of the development of the seed on the soil to
which it is entrusted. But if the mystery of the kingdom set
forth by emphasizing that first element, according to Christ's own
explanation,1 was this, that the result of Christ's work in founding
the kingdom is dependent by its very nature on the state of
heart of those whom the preaching reaches, on the other hand
nothing can be meant to be set forth by emphasizing this second
and different element in the process of the development of the
grain but this — that tlie development of the new principle of life
implanted in believing hearers of the word by the founding work
of Jesus, which consists in preaching the word of the kingdom, and
the working out of that principle until it issues in a form of life
in perfect correspondence with the nature of the kingdom of God,
are not to be looked for from an exertion of power by Christ, but
are the work of the independent moral activity of the believing
liearers. And it is now clear that this second revelation is in
opposition to the same error in the prevailing expectation
respecting the kingdom as the first, only under another aspect.
Just as, in opposition to the expectation that the coming Messiah
would establish the kingdom of God in glory by means of an
exercise of outward power, the first parable showed that Christ's
Messianic work by its very nature rejects all outward constraint,
and, on the contrary, depends from the first for its success upon
the receptiveness of human hearts ; so the second parable now
shows that even where this receptiveness is present, and where,
therefore, the development of the kingdom is not hindered from
the first by a wicked state of heart, the progress and carrying
through of the foundation-work begun by Christ are not to be
expected from an exercise of Messianic power on His part, but
in the nature of the case are the work of the independent activity
of those in whom the kingdom of God has made a beginning./
Thus, the parable does not so much counteract an erroneous
expectation in reference to the time of the establishment of the
kingdom in glory,2 as rather an erroneous expectation in reference
to the manner in which this will be done, namely, not by means
of an exercise of Messianic power, but by the independent moral
labour of those called to the kingdom of God by the Messiah.
It is only indirectly implied that the final establishment of God's
kingdom in glory, which can only be accomplished in this way,
wiU be still delayed.
1 Cf. vv. 13-20. 2 Weizsacker, Klbpper.

THE FRUIT-BEARING EARTH. 89
From this point of view the significance of the particular
features of the parable may now be estimated. The statement
respecting the earth's spontaneous action, which forms the centre
of the parable, was prepared for by the sower's manner of life
being described as undisturbed by any further anxiety about
the growth of the corn after the seed was sown. The corre
sponding fact in the sphere of the kingdom of God is, that after
Jesus, by the preaching of the word of the kingdom, has implanted
in the hearts of receptive hearers the principle of a new life
which submits freely to God's kingly will, He has finished the
work of His historic Messianic calling, and His mode of existence
wiU be no longer conditioned by any historic mission on this
account. This general thought is aU that is expressed by the
"sleeping and rising night and day," ver. 27. There is thus
only an indirect aUusion to His approaching departure from the
world. No clear and definite prediction of this fact in the
future, such as is given in other and later parables,1 occurs in the
present parable. Nor, again, is anything said in ver. 29 of a
coming again. There is therefore no definite allusion to the
Parousia as such.2 Moreover, ver. 276 shows that the nature of
the case impUes that the work of Christ's historic calling does
not extend beyond the implanting of the new principle of life in
the hearts of men. For just as the process of the development
of the grain is withdrawn by its very nature from all influence
of the sower to such a degree that he knows not even the how
of the process ; so, too, the process of the gradual unfolding of the
principle of life implanted in men's hearts by God's word is
withdrawn by its inward nature from aU influence from without,
and therefore even from Christ's, so far as it is exerted through
human means. We have intentionaUy refrained from making
the sower's non-knowledge of the manner in which the seed grows
part of the comparison. For the reason why the w? ovk olSev
avro? in the parable is so strongly emphasized is not that the
non-knowledge has of itself an independent significance, but
simply that this circumstance in the sphere of natural events
is the one which most strikingly illustrates the sower's impo
tence with regard to influence upon the growth. Hence in the
interpretation it is only to be applied under this aspect. The
dogmatic objection which may perhaps suggest itself here, to the
effect that an influence even upon the inner progress of His
1 Matt. xxv. 15 ; Luke xix. 12. 2 In opposition to Weizsacker.

90 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
work in the human heart must in point of fact be ascribed to
the Lord because of the divine character of His person, is
irrelevant, because the purpose here is not to define the degree
of the influences of divine grace upon man's inner life, but
merely to mark out the mission which Jesus has to fulfil towards
receptive hearers within the limits of His historic, human course.
In the nature of the case the limits of this mission coincide with
the Umits of the possibiUty of His influencing them as a man by
means of human discourse.
When Christ, following up what has been already said, makes
known to the disciples that they themselves, like the spontaneously
fruit-bearing earth, must by their own moral effort unfold the
new germ of life implanted in them by His word, He does not
mean this in contrast with the influences of divine grace generally,
but with the influences upon the disciples issuing at present
from His personal manifestation through the word of His mouth.
The disciples must do so, not for half the way merely, but
through every stage of inner growth until their entire inner and
outer life has been shaped into correspondence on aU sides with
God's holy will, and thus into ripeness for God's kingdom in the
future world (irXypy? airo? iv r& ard%vi). And this does not
mean simply the working out of the principles of God's kingdom
in the Ufe of the individual disciple ; but the statement of the
parable is such that in conformity with the nature of the figure
used, in which the development of the single stalk is one with
that of the entire field of corn, the working out of those principles
in the individual Ufe coincides with their working out in the
body of the disciples, in the community of the kingdom.
We must take this circumstance into view in order to
understand the temporal connection in which the prospect
opened out in ver. 29 stands with what precedes. The whole
concludes with a promise annexed to the actual attainment of the
goal of the development, and meant therefore to encourage and
strengthen the disciples for fulfilling the duty that rests upon
their own spontaneous effort. Just as the sower who foUows the
development of his crop with eager interest makes no delay
when the fruit offers itself to him, but at once applies the sickle,
so will the Son of Man, who watches over the development of
His Church, make no delay in what will again be the business
of His Messianic calling as soon as He sees the Church arrive at
the goal of its development, and ripe for the kingdom of God in

THE FRUIT-BEARING EARTH. 91
the future world. On the contrary, because now the time of
consummation is come, He wUl at once accomplish it, i.e. He
will gather the righteous into the kingdom of His Father.1
Thus, the disciples of Jesus, who as hearers of the word were
hitherto represented in the parable under the figure of the earth
receiving the seed, here at the conclusion appear also as the
counterpart of the living corn-crop now fully ripe and awaiting
the sickle, because the hearers of the word do not put forth its
effect as something different from themselves, as the earth puts
forth the effect of the seed, but work out and exhibit its effect
in their personal life. It is the same natural interchange of
figurative representation which we have already observed in the
parable of the Sower and its interpretation in a stiU more striking
form.2 The original meaning of the parable, as thus set forth, cer
tainly differs materially from the exposition of it current in the
Church. According to the latter, Jesus is supposed to exhort
His disciples, with reference to their future calling as preachers
of the gospel, to wait patiently for the fruit of their preaching,
trusting in the Uving productive force inherent in God's word,
which operates in the human heart secretly and slowly, but not
on th?.t account the less certainly, and in due time wUl bring
forth fruit to the light of day, — instead of doubting of the fruit
of their preaching, because it is not visible forthwith, or wishing
with over-hasty zeal to supplement the secret operation of the
Word by artificial means. But against such an interpretation Ues
the objection, first, that everywhere — in the preceding parable of
the Sower, in the following one of the Mustard Seed, and in that
of the Tares standing in Matthew between those two in the
place of the present one — Jesus refers in the sowing to His own
work in founding the kingdom; secondly, that the application
of the sickle to the corn now fully ripe, because the harvest is
come, has no analogy at all in the work of the preacher of the
word, but instead all the more plainly points to the action of
the Son of Man at the end of the world ; finaUy, that in the
parable neither is any emphasis laid, as is done in Jas. v. 7, on
the patience with which the farmer waits for the fruit, nor on the
living productive force inherent in the seed as such, but simply
on the spontaneous fruit-bearing of the earth in contrast with
1 Cf. the parable of the Tares, Matt. xiii. 30, 43.
2 Cf. on Matt. xiii. 19.

92 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
the inactivity of the sower. The sole element in the text, which
seems to favour the former interpretation, namely, that the
w? ovk olSev avro? has no application to the Lord, has already
been explained in the course of the interpretation. On the other
hand, it must be conceded that the thoughts expressed above,
although not constituting the original meaning of the parable, lie
sufficiently near it to permit of their being deduced from it by a
pertinent transference of what is affirmed respecting the limits of
Christ's official work to the like official work of the disciples as
preachers of His word. Those thoughts are also pre-eminently
suited for practical use.
While, accordingly, we must not overlook the connection in
which the present parable stands with the first one in the
discourse to the people, and also indirectly with the parable of
the Tares occupying the second place in Matthew, on the other
hand there are no adequate grounds for the conjectures which
deny to it all independence and originality, alleging that it simply
arose out of the parable of the Tares, either as a spiritless
dilution 1 or a recasting of that parable.2 For as regards, first of
all, substantive purpose, this one has no affinity whatever with
the parable of the Tares, except in the general circumstance that
both parables deal with the development of the kingdom of God.
The one speaks of the appearance of children of evil among the
disciples (Matt. xiii. 38), the other of the duty of spontaneous
effort on the part of the disciples for the realizing of God's
kingdom. That a parable with the latter meaning should be
derived from one with the former either by dilution or recasting,
must be regarded as more than improbable. And as regards
outward form, after putting aside the general circumstance, that
in both parables, as also in the first parable in the discourse to
the people, the growth of corn is used to represent in figure
the growth of the kingdom, and the recurrence naturally
following of words like B~Xaardveiv, x°pro?, Kapiro?, depiapo?, or
synonymous ideas like airbpo? here and airkppia there, yi) here and
aypo? there, with a parabolic reference partially similar, but also
partially, especially in the latter case quite, different,— -only one
tiling is left, namely, that in both parables a sleeping is spoken
of in one place,3 but still in a quite different relation, which must
therefore be regarded as a pure accident. There is nothing
therefore to justify us in departing from the supposition suggested
1 Hilgenfeld. 2 Weiss. 3 Cf. ver. 27 with Matt. xiii. 25.

THE GRAIN OF MUSTARD SEED. 93
from the first by the relation of Matthew's account to that of
Mark, that loth parables form an integral part of the discourse of
Jesus to the people by the sea, beginning with the parable of the
Sower. And if we are to venture stiU further on the uncertain
ground of conjecture, the especially close connection explained
above in which the present parable stands with the first in the
discourse — the former dwelUng on the spontaneous action ; the
latter, on the diverse nature of the soil of the field — would seem
to suggest that the original place of the former was immediately
after the latter, and before the parable of the Tares.

The Grain of Mustard Seed.
(Matt. xiii. 31, 32, and parallels.)

We now return to Matthew's report of the parabolic discourse.
Matthew introduces (ver. 31) the third parable of the Mustard
Seed, just like the second parable of the Tares, with the words:
aXXyv irapaBoXyv irapkdyKev avroi? Xiyeov, whereas Mark (ver.
30) joins it to the parable of the Fruit-bearing Earth merely by
Kal ekeyev. Luke, on the other hand, does not give the parable of
the Mustard Seed along with that of the Leaven, which follows
it also in Matthew, in one context with the parable of the Sower,
which, according to him, too, was delivered to a great multitude
of people (vni. 4 ff.). Nor does he give it in another context,
but merely in another place (xiii. 18-21) as a separate and
independent paragraph, without specifying in any way when and
in what circumstances it was spoken. For by the eXeyev ovv
(ver. 18) he simply joins one example of the teaching of Jesus
to another, without chronological connection, and even without
any certainly discernible connection in matter with the preceding
paragraph (vv. 10-17). The assertion that in him the two
parables stand in their original context, whereas the place which
they occupy in Matthew is merely the result of systematic
arrangement, is therefore doubtful, because in Luke they are not
placed in any definite historical context at all.
Matthew begins the parable again in the way already noticed
in reference to the parable of the Tares ; x i.e.} the chief idea of the
1 See on ver. 24.

94 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
first sentence, which in this case, as also elsewhere in the smaller
parables, is the chief idea of the entire parable, is singled out
beforehand and likened to the kingdom of heaven as the thing
compared, after which the narration of the event begins with a
relative sentence joining on to this chief idea, the relative sentence
presenting a corresponding event in the sphere of the kingdom of
heaven. " The kingdom of heaven" it is said in ver. 31, "is like
a grain of mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field"
The prefixing of the participle XaBa>v to the verb eaireipev merely
sets forth the action of the man in pictorial circumstantiality.1
It does not imply that he was obliged to take up the small grain
carefully because of its almost impalpable minuteness,2 as is
shown by comparison with the XaBovaa (ver. 33). He sowed
the grain of mustard seed ev ra> dypc? avrov, i.e. so that it came
to lie in his field (cf. vv. 19, 24). In Luke it is said in different
yet simUar terms : eBaXev eh Kyirov eavrov, " he cast it into
his garden." Thus, according to both evangeUsts, the field- or
garden-plot where he sowed the mustard seed is definitely
described as belonging to the sower, just like the field in the
parable of the Tares, ver. 24. In Mark, on the contrary, no
mention whatever is made of the concrete circumstance, that a
man took a grain of mustard seed and sowed it in his plot of
ground. The only reference there is a general one to the mustard
seed sown in the earth,3 in order at once to describe the pecu-
Uarity in regard to the size distinguishing it at first and in the
course of its growth.
Then Matthew, giving up his previous narrative style, passes
on with ver. 32 to a simUar description. Whereas Luke proceeds
calmly to relate what became of the particular mustard grain4
which the man sowed in his garden, without entering into a
1 Cf. Meyer here. " Lange.
3 iv. 31 : as xixxy ifivxmoj;, Ss orxv anxpy x.t.x. The reading here is with Teschen
dorf and Weiss, ver. 31 f. : &>s xoxxy irtvx^nus, os orxv trvrxpy l<r) rvs yvs, /axporspov «
Kx<t<run tZi o-Trip/ixToiv tZv tv) tUs yris,- — xx) orxv <r«xpy, xtx/ixltu x.t.x. The anako-
luthon seems to me to be most simply explained as follows. According to the plan
at first the sentence should run: os, orxs e-nxpvj ttrf ¦,. y., xvx$xlm xx) yUiTxi x.t.x.,
i.e. the first otxi o-nxpy already suggests kwfrmm x.t.x. as the apodosis. But the
appositional participial clause : /uxpinpm St vrxvTat Tat trmp/i,. tu> W. r. y., having
been appended to the protasis to lead up by the contrast to the point ofthe apodosis,
the need now arises to resume the protasis before eax$xUu x.t.x., in order to
preserve the close connection between orxv rvxpy and the apodosis now unduly
separated from it ; and this is done by inserting the words xx) SV«» c-vxpS.
* Ver. 19 : xx) nvfyirw, xx) lymro us Ssv^ov (/\yx.

THE GRAIN OF MUSTARD SEED. 95
comparison of the mustard grain as such with other kinds of
seed on the one hand, or other garden herbs on the other,
Matthew leaves off the narrative which he has begun of the
particular mustard grain, and turns aside to a description of
the distinctive pecuUarities of the mustard seed generaUy, from
which the hearer or reader may learn for himself what became of
the grain first-mentioned. He continues, ver. 32: o piKporepov
pikv iariv irdvrcov r&v aireppidrcov. The relative connection with
what precedes is only loose, as is shown by the circumstance that
the relative is governed in its gender not by the kokko?, ver. 31,
but by the foUowing irdvrcov rdov aireppdrcov. The relative
therefore does not resume the particular kokko?, ver. 31, but
borrows from it the generic idea of a airkppia aivdireco?. Hence
the translation is : "a seed (a kind of seed) which is smaller than
all seeds." Of course this statement in reference to the special
smaUness of the mustard seed is made, not from the standpoint
of scientific botany, but merely from that of practical gardening,
comparing the kinds of seed most usual at the time. Its precision
is less to be dwelt upon as the mustard grain served among the
Jews, on account of its smallness, to describe proverbiaUy the
insignificance of anything.1 In contrast with this special small
ness of the mustard seed is now set in what foUows its con
spicuous magnitude when grown : " but when it is grown, it is
greater than the herbs." Thus the same mustard seed, which as a
seed is distinguished from other seeds by its smaUness, as a plant
(orav av%ydfj) excels aU plants belonging to the same category 2
in magnitude. Nor does it stop at the size of a Xd^avov of con
spicuous size, but in its growth assumes a form which makes it
seem to belong to a different class of plants from that of Xdyava.
This it is which the words say : Kal yiverai SkvSpov, i.e. although
belonging to the class of herbs, it becomes a plant like a tree.3
Without using the word SkvSpov, Mark says the same in the
words : koI iroiei kXuBov? pkyaXov?, for the branching of large
boughs from the main trunk is just that which makes the high-
grown mustard plant look Uke a tree. When, on the other hand,
it is said in Luke : Kal iyevero el? SkvSpov peya, it is assumed
that, where a mustard plant is the subject spoken of, no one will
1 Cf. xvii. 20 : is xixxos o-ttxmvs, and the proverbial JslinS among the Rabbins.
2 Cf. Mark : vxnm tS» Xxx.
3 That the mustard plant in the East really shoots up so high as to take the form
of a tree, see the detailed proof in Winer, HandwBrterbuch, art. " Senf."

96 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
understand " a tree, great in proportion to other trees," but that
every one will understand " a tree, great as such in proportion to
the usual size of plants, or to what the mustard plant may reach
in other cases ; " for to the very end Luke speaks of the particular
mustard-grain sown by the man in his garden. The BkvBpov pkya
does not on this account need to be explained by the supposition
that in Luke, not the mustard plant, as in Matthew and Mark,
but the mustard tree is meant1 (Salvadora persica), especially
when by this supposition, if the meaning is "a tree great in
comparison with other trees," the SkvSpov pkya would not really
be explained, since the Salvadora persica is but a tree of very
moderate size. Moreover, this tree, if at all native in Palestine,
in any case is only rare, and its designation by alvam without
proof.2 The consequence of this SkvSpov yiveadat, stated now as the
conclusion of the whole, is, " that the birds of the heaven come and
nest 3 in its branches " (in the branches of the mustard-seed now
become a tree). These branches, because like boughs, are large
enough to afford them the shelter requisite for building their
nests. Mark specially emphasizes this state of things by sub
joining to his iroiei KXaSov? peydXov? as a consequence : wore
Bvvaadai virb ryv aKidv avrov ra irereiva rov ovpavov Karaam\-
vovv, where aKid is not merely a shelter from the heat of the sun,
but in the wider sense a shelter from wind and weather in
general. Finally, Luke mentions also the dweUing of the birds
in the narrative style; and he does not relate it, we should
observe, in subordination to the iyevero el? SkvSpov p,kya as a
mere consequence of the same, but in a separate, independent
clause joins on this circumstance, as the last which he has to tell/
to what he has previously related : Kal ra irereiva rov ovpavov
KareaKyvooaev iv roi? KXdBoi? avrov.
In the present parable, accordingly, a different, although similar
physical event is used in figurative representation from that used
in the first parables. True, at first the subject spoken of
(according to Matthew and Luke) is a man who sowed ; but what
he sows this time is a grain of mustard seed. Here, therefore,
what is pictured is not a field of wheat developing from the seed
to ripe fruit, as in the first parables, but the process of growth of
a mustard plant. And the peculiarity pointed out in the growth
1 So e.g. Weiss. 2 See Winer, as before.
3 xxTxcxwom, pitch their tent, build their nest.

THE GRAIN OF MUSTARD SEED. 97
of such a plant consists, on the one hand, in the diminutive
smaUness of the mustard grain, which has passed into a proverb,
and on the other hand in the astonishing, tree-like magnitude of
the plant springing from it, a magnitude excelling that of all
plants of Uke kind. Thus the rule, e minimo maximum, which,
of course, is the rule of all growth in nature, is here illustrated
by the process of growth of the mustard seed particularly, because
it can be illustrated in it by reason of its proverbial pecuUarity
with speciaUy striking effect. In this way the choice of the
mustard plant as the means of parabolic representation is perfectly
explained; and it is empty trifling to refer here to the seasoning
virtue of the mustard.1 The mystery of the kingdom, then, here
revealed to the disciples, can be no other than this, that the
kingdom of God founded by Jesus presents indeed at first an out
wardly insignificant form; but this very beginning, small to
diminutiveness, possesses an inherent force of extension, in virtue of
which it will grow unceasingly until it attains the vastest size,
— a revelation designed to solve for the disciples the contradiction
existing between their expectation, based on the prophetic word,
of the mighty extent of the Messianic kingdom, and the fact that
merely a smaU company of sincere adherents had gathered round
the person of Jesus.
In detaU, the course of thought in the parable is as follows.
Just as what the sower deposits in his field is but a diminutive
mustard-grain, so the kingdom of God in the beginning, imposed
upon it by the founding work of Jesus on the ground of the
world, presents an outwardly insignificant form, being realized at
first merely in an exceedingly narrow and smaU circle of men, in
the diminutive band of disciples gathered round the Lord. The
sowing of the man must here (according to Matthew and Luke)
be referred, as in the preceding parables, to the work of Jesus in
founding the kingdom. And when it is not merely said generaUy
that the man sowed the seed in the earth, but in his field
(Luke, " in his garden "), a definite parabolic reference must under
lie this feature, just as in the case of the similar feature in the
parable of the Tares, ver. 24. And indeed Christ's own explana
tion in reference to the parable of the Tares 2 must be taken as
fixing the sense here, namely, that He meant to describe not
merely, as one might suppose, the IsraeUtish nation, but the world
in general, as the ground belonging to Him, on which He was
1 Stier, Olshausen. ! See on ver. 38 there.
GOEBEL. G

98 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
about to establish the kingdom of heaven. But as the small
mustard-grain, so the thought continues, in virtue of the power
of growth inherent in it, attains an astonishing, tree-Uke magni
tude on the ground in which it is planted, so the kingdom of
God, narrowly limited at first, wUl, in virtue of the power of
unceasing growth inherent in it, extend to a size transcending all
expectation at its beginning. That it wiU at last embrace all
mankind is certainly not said expressly. But what the last
feature of the parable says looks in this direction, so far as the
nature of the figure permits.
When at the conclusion we read of the birds nesting in the
branches, or under the shadow of the mustard plant that has
grown into a tree, at the first glance one might feel tempted to
suppose that this statement, as a mere illustration of the magni
tude of the tree-plant, is not meant to have a special interpreta
tion.1 But a more careful consideration makes this supposition
seem doubtful. First of all, the formal circumstance should be
noted that, despite the otherwise not inconsiderable diversity of
the accounts, this feature recurs in aU three evangeUsts, — An the
narrative of Luke, not in subordination to, but co-ordinately with
the previous events, — and everywhere its position as the con
clusion of the whole gives it unmistakeable emphasis. In the
second place, unless it reaUy required a definite counterpart in
the interpretation, it would not as to its substantive meaning
even contain an iUustration of the main thought ; for after the
plant has been once called a tree, its greatness receives in fact no
new light from emphasizing the circumstance that birds make
their nests in it. This feature would then be an incidental
ornament of the description, possessing no value at aU in reference
to the thought expressed in the parable. And again the repeated
occurrence of this feature in precisely similar connections in the
figurative language of the prophets, and that with an undoubtedly
definite meaning, is decisive. When Ezekiel predicts of the
Messianic Branch of David's royal house, that He wiU grow from
a tender shoot into a great tree, that therefore His regal power
will extend far, he adds, xvii. 23 : "And under it shaU dwell all
fowl of every wing, in the shadow of the branches thereof shall
they dweU."2 And the prophet connects a quite definite thought
with this dwelling of the birds under the shade of the branches
1 'So "Weiss.
2 YTlivl PS3, of. viro tw axixt in Mark, and h to7s xXxiois in Matthew and Luke,

THE LEAVEN. 99
of the tree, meaning thereby the dwelling of the nations under
the shadow of the regal power of the Son of David. This is
proved by comparison with xxxi. 6, 12, where, in a similar
description of the kingdom of Assyria under the figure of a great
tree, it is said : " AU the fowls of heaven made their nests in his
boughs ;" and this figure is at once expressly interpreted thus :
" Under his shadow dweU aU great nations!' Compare also Dan.
iv. 9, where, in the description of the royal power of Nebuchad
nezzar under the figure of a great tree, the addition again is not
wanting : " The fowls of the heaven dweU in its boughs." When
therefore here, in a similar description of the extension of God's
Messianic kingdom under the figure of a tree, the coming
and dwelling of the birds of heaven 1 in its branches and under
its shadow is spoken of, the prophetic figure implied for the
hearers of the parable, to whom its meaning was weU known, is
the definite promise that the kingdom of God in its extension
wiU embrace the nations, that the nations of the earth will enter
it and partake of its blessings.

The Leaven.
(Matt. xiii. 33 ; Luke xiii. 20, 21.)

With the words aXXyv irapaBoXyv iXdXyaev avro??, only
slightly different from the formula used in vv. 24, 31, Matthew
makes the transition (ver. 33) to the fourth and last of the
parables constituting the discourse to the people, — that of the
Leaven, — which is wanting in Mark, whilst Luke puts it in the
same place as the parable of the Mustard Seed, appending it to
the latter, xin. 20, 21 ; and does so with a irdXiv elirev, which
intimates that the discourse Ungers on a subject previously
discussed, so that in Luke the two parables join to form an
independent and mutuaUy related pair.
The incident employed in figurative representation is intro
duced (ver. 33) in the same way as in the preceding parables : 2
bpoia iarlv y /3aa-4\e/a rwv ovpavwv £vp,y, yv XaBovaa ywy
1 Not here, as in Ezek. xvii. 23, "all birds," simply because the "figure of the
mustard plant does not suffice for this.
2 See on vv. 24, 31.

100 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
iveKpvtyev el? dXevpov adra rpla, ew? ov i^vpwdy oXov. In
Luke, apart from the somewhat different introduction, and the
reading eKpvyjrev preferable there, the words have just the same
tenor. Here, then, the kingdom of heaven is compared to a lump
of leaven, " which a woman took and hid in three sata of meal."
Three sata of meal make exactly an ephah, an ordinary quantity
of meal.1 Although the measure of such a quantity cannot he
determined with full certainty, so much is established that it is a
very considerable amount of meaL Thus an ordinary, and at
the same time the greatest possible quantity is chosen to define
the amount of the meal. Bengel : " Quantum uno tempore ab
homine portari, vel ad pinsendum sumi soleret." The word
iyKpvirreiv, occurring only here in the New Testament, describes
as the business of the woman a simple working of the leaven
into the mass of the meal, so that it is hidden therein. There is
therefore here no intimation that a continuous and strenuous
mixing and kneading of the leaven into the meal takes place.
Hence we must not translate : knead in.2 And in this case also
the clause ew? ov i^vpwdy cannot mean that the woman persevered
in her work " until it (rb dXevpov) was entirely leavened!' Neither
the expression iyKpvirreiv, nor the meaning of gvpovadai, counte
nance this meaning. For ^vpovadai cannot denote the blending
of the meal with the leaven, which takes place during the act of
mixing, but is the process of the leavening of the meal taking
place gradually in the fermentation after the act of mixing is
ended, by which the meal assumes the properties of the leaven,
and itself becomes leaven. The clause ew? o5 efrp&dy oXov cannot
therefore be meant to define the duration of the act of iyKpvirreiv,
but merely the duration of the state thereby induced. The
woman hid the leaven in the meal, and left it hidden until the
meal was thoroughly leavened.
In order to ascertain the thought of the parable, the relation
of this parable to that of the Mustard Seed must chiefly be taken
into consideration, forming, as they do, a pair of parables in
Matthew, and stUl more plainly in Luke. And this all the more,
that their close mutual relation plainly appears also in the
paraUelism of the figurative incidents in the two parables. For
although the figure used in the second parable is quite different
from that of the first, still the two chief incidents finding
1 Gen. xviii. 6 ; Judg. vi. 19 ; 1 Sam. i. 24.
8 van Oosterzee.

THE LEAVEN. 101
expression in the two passages are unmistakeably parallel. There,
a mustard grain which a man took and sowed in his field (bv
XaBwv avdpwiro? eaireipev K.r.X.) ; here, a lump of leaven, which
a woman took and hid in a mass of meal (yv XaBovaa 7^
iveKpv^rev K.r.X.). And whereas there it is shown how the small
mustard-grain, when sown in the field, grows to vast size on this
ground ; so here, how the small lump of leaven, when inserted in
the great mass of meal, exerts a transforming influence on this
mass, communicating to it its own nature, until the entire mass
has become a great leaven. Here, therefore, the rule e minimo
maximum — the chief thought of 'the parable of the Mustard Seed
— as such recurs, only with the difference that there the small
thing becomes great in virtue of the power of self- extension
inherent in it ; here, on the other hand, in virtue of an assimilative
power inherent in it, which converts the surrounding mass into
its own nature. This parallelism of the figurative events in the
two parables, which form a pair, requires then of necessity for
the second an interpretation running paraUel with that of the
first. And if the first was intended to teach the disciples that
this very beginning — small even to insignificance, — belonging to
the kingdom of God at present on the ground of the world,
possesses a power of extension, in virtue of which it will grow to
a vastness embracing all nations, the second is meant to show
them that this very beginning — small almost to the vanishing-point
— assigned to the kingdom of God in the broad human world,
possesses a transforming power, in virtue of which, becoming more
and more pervasive, and advancing without interruption, it will
exert a transforming influence on humanity, communicating to it
its own nature, until the whole of humanity has assumed the nature
of the kingdom of God. Thus the thought here expressed is not
in fact essentially different from the one expressed in the parable
of the Mustard Seed. The distinction is simply this, that there
the world appears in a merely general sense as the ground on
which the kingdom of God is founded and extends; here, on the
other hand, as the material which the kingdom of God concealed
in its midst pervades with its own nature, and thus absorbs into
itself. Both parables serve likewise to remove the surprise of
the disciples, arising from their intense expectation of a mighty
extension of the Messianic kingdom in the world, at the beginning
of that kingdom outwardly so insignificant and limited ; and they
do this by bringing to view the truth, that this very beginning,

102 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
so sUght at present, is the condition and security of its greatness
in the future. And precisely for this reason the contents of the
two parables are especiaUy appropriate to the situation,1 which
was characterized by a thoroughgoing severance between a small
band of sincere disciples of Jesus on the one hand, and the body
of the people receding more and more into inveterate unbeHef on
the other.
Accordingly, the exact interpretation of the parable is as
foUows. Like a small lump of leaven which a woman hid in a
great heap of meal, so Christ's founding work. plants the kingdom
of God in an inconsiderable, insignificant form amid the great,
wide human world, so that it disappears in that world. But as
that sUght quantity of leaven, in virtue of its assimilative power,
appropriates and works in the great mass of meal until the latter
is thoroughly leavened, so the kingdom of God, in virtue of the
renewing and transforming forces inherent in it, will exert an
unceasingly progressive influence on the human world surrounding
it, pervading it with God's word, and subjecting it to God's holy
wiU, and by this means transforming it, until in its entirety it
shall have assumed the nature of the kingdom of God, until
humanity as a whole shall have become the community of God's
kingdom. Thus, in the hiding the leaven, as the act which gives
the impulse to the subsequent development, Jesus refers to His
own Messianic work as in the former parables in the sowing.
The reason why the founding work is here ascribed, not to a man,
but to a woman, is plainly the obvious one, that an employment
commonly falling to woman in domestic life is referred to, not a
work falling to men. This circumstance, therefore, gives no right
whatever in the interpretation to make the Church at once the
subject of the " hiding." And just as little as the woman is
the Church, is the leaven the word of God or the gospel. The
leaven is not merely the means and instrument for leavening the
mass of the meal, it is itself a small quantity of already leavened
matter in the midst of a vast mass of matter to be leavened by
it in the way of assimilation. Hence the word of God may be
called the leavening virtue in the leaven, but not the leaven
itself. The latter, in exact correspondence to the mustard seed,
is rather the kingdom of God in the stUl limited form in which
it was established by Jesus, or in other words, the small circle of
the disciples of Jesus planted in the great, wide human world,
1 Cf. " The Parables to the People by the Sea. "

THE LEAVEN. 103
to whom the word and will of God have become the governing
principle of life, and from whom the influences above described
do and wiU issue.1 Further, not without intention is the working
of the leaven into the meal described by the unusual expression
" hiding," which makes prominent the vanishing of the leaven
in the mass of meal. It Is thereby intimated that the kingdom
of God in the World is at first hidden and unmarked. Because
of its insignificant appearance it vanishes, so to speak, in tbe
mass of the human world, in whose midst it is set up. FinaUy,
the three sata of meal are not, as might be interpreted in con
sonance with the wording, the situation, and the standpoint of the
disciples, to be referred merely to the Jewish nation, but in
conformity with the ecumenical desigu of Jesus Himself, as it
appeared in the interpretation of the field in the parable of the
Tares, to the human world in general. But this gives no sort of
warrant to the amusing references of the three sata — which,
however, are only mentioned as the usual amount of a large
baking — to the three parts of the world then known, or to the
three sons of Noah,2 or to the Greeks, Jews, and Samaritans ; 3
and still less does it warrant references to the three orders, or
the heart, soul, and spirit,4 or the body, soul, and spirit.5
The interpretation given certainly differs materiaUy from the
view not unusual in practical exposition. According to the latter,
the leaven is said to be the word of God, and the woman the
Church, whose duty it is to mix the word, so to speak, in the
world and in worldly Ufe, until that life is permeated by it.6
1 Cf. Matt. v. 13 : "Ye are the salt of the earth ; " Matt, xxviii. 19 : /ixhTiiaxtt
ve.xtTx tx '(hn.
2 Stier. 3 Theodore of Mopsuestia. 'Augustine, Melanchthon.
5 See Olshausen. Hofmann (on Luke xiii. 20, 21) declares not merely against
the Jewish-national reference of the meal disclaimed above, but also against the
ecumenical reference. The object of appropriation and transformation is said to be
merely those ' ' destined to be the Church of God at last. " But humanity as a whole
is destined to this. That in the present Eeon it includes such elements as oppose
themselves with invincible dbstinacy to the appropriating and transforming virtue
of God's kingdom, that therefore the positive assimilative virtue will not attain its
goal without.the purifying judicial catastrophe of the end,-— this other side of the
question might remain outside the view of the present parable, which condenses
into one brief sentence, and under one great single point of view, the entire
development of God's kingdom from its smallest beginnings up to its great final
goal, because the necessary exclusion of individuals, however great their number,
makes no change in the certain attainment of the goal itself, namely, humanity as
a whole becoming the community of the kingdom of God.
6 Cf. e.g. Stier.

104 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
That this view misinterprets both the woman and the meal itself,
has been already shown. Moreover, something is deduced from
the " hiding " which it does not contain, namely, the idea of
strenuous, continuous kneading, and with this kneading again is
combined the process of leavening as its immediate and contem
poraneous effect, whereas in reality it is an independent effect,
to which the hiding of the leaven merely gives the impulse.
And again, on this interpretation, the obvious parallelism of the
figurative events in the present and the preceding parable is left
quite out of sight; which is enough alone to make it impossible.
Moreover, this latter point is decisive against the interpretation
advanced by older expositors, and advocated recently by Thiersch,
according to which the meal is said to be the corruption in
doctrine and life invading the kingdom of God. On the other
hand, there is no force in the objection that the meal is likened
by opoia iarlv to the kingdom of heaven,1 for this by no means
affirms that in the parable thus introduced the leaven is intended
as a single idea to symbolize the kingdom of God.2 It is, how
ever, decisive against the interpretation of Thiersch, that in this
way the meal receives an interpretation altogether unlike that of
the Mustard Seed, whereas it is obviously put on a parallel with
that parable. And in what glaring incongruity the entire thought
of the parable would stand with that of the parable of the
Mustard Seed ! By the side of the comforting promise that the
kingdom of heaven wiU grow from its small beginning to a
greatness embracing the nations, would be placed the gloomy,
fateful prediction, that corruption will invade and permeate the
kingdom of God until it faUs a complete prey to this corruption.
Nothing else could be the meaning of the parable, without even
an intimation being given respecting the solution of so dark a
mystery. No analogy for a prediction of such baleful meaning
can be anywhere found in the discourses of Jesus, least of all in
the parable of the tares, where only a temporary combination of
false with true members in the Church was spoken of, which
wiU come to an end with the complete, thoroughgoing exclusion
of the former. And thus the only plausible support which this
interpretation finds in the circumstance that the influence issuing
from the leaven is used figuratively in three passages of the New
Testament 3 in a bad sense, is thoroughly precarious. In itself
i E.g. Stier, Lange. 2 Cf. the parable of the Tares, on ver. 24.
* Matt. xvi. 6 ; 1 Cor. v. 6-8 ; Gal. v. 9.

THE LEAVEN. 105
this influence may be used figuratively just as well in a good as
in a bad sense, or rather more aptly in a good sense, because
within the figurative incident the influence on the baking is not
bad, but good. The more frequent use of the influence of the
leaven in a bad sense only needs the explanation readily present
ing itself in the allusion to the legal prohibition of the leavened
bread in the Paschal Feast, to which the chief passage (1 Cor. v.)
expressly refers. But such a reference is altogether foreign to
the present passage, because here the intention of the woman is
certainly represented to be not the corrupting of the meal, but
the preparation of a wholesome baking.

We have now reached the end of the series of parables
delivered to the multitude gathered near the sea. If we glance
back once more at the disclosures made therein to the disciples
respecting the nature and growth of the kingdom of heaven, they
arrange themselves in the following order. The teaching of the
first parable is, that the founding of tbe kingdom of God takes
place, not by the exertion of an outwardly compelling power, but
in the spiritual way of a preaching of the word of the kingdom,
the effect of which depends on the character of the hearers. The
second parable in Mark adds, that the continuous development
of the kingdom of God founded by the labour of Jesus, until it
reaches the goal of consummation, is not to be looked for from an
exertion of the Messiah's power, but rests with the personal moral
effort of the hearers of the word. This continuous development
of the kingdom of God from the basis laid by Jesus' Messianic
work, up to the goal of its consummation, forms then the subject
of the remaining parables. This development indeed wiU be
stained by the intrusion of false members, — such is the teaching
of the second parable in Matthew, giving the needful revelations
and instructions respecting this strange fact. But, on the other
hand, the third parable says, that this development will exhibit
a continuous progression from a smaU beginning on to world-
embracing magnitude, in virtue of an impulse of self-extension
inherent in the kingdom of God once founded, or, according to
the fourth parable, in virtue of the power peculiar to it to
permeate the surrounding world and transform it into its own
nature.

106 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.

THE PAEABLES IN THE CONVERSATION WITH THE
DISCIPLES.
At Capernaum, on the same day on which Jesus had uttered
the first parables by the sea, the disciples were permitted to
receive a second series of parables from His lips in the course of
the conversation, already mentioned several times, which took
place in private after the dismissal of the people.
The previous course of investigation has already led us to
consider the initial portion of the conversation. When Jesus,
having dismissed the crowds of people and returned to the house,
was alone with the Twelve and other disciples, the latter had
questioned Him as to the reason of His paraboUc method of
teaching, and also requested from Him the interpretation of
particular parables.1 Hereupon Jesus had first instructed them
respecting the reason of His parabolic mode of teaching
(vv. 11-17), then explained at length the first of His parables
(vv. 18-23), and finally, at their request, given an explanation
of the second (vv. 37-43); this time, however, briefly naming
the counterparts of the particular persons and ideas in the
narrative, and leaving to them the interpretation proper of the
figurative incidents on the same lines. He expressly inter
preted merely the incident concluding the whole narrative —
for. what reason has been investigated before. Accordingly,, if
the previous course of the conversation appears governed by
the intention to lead the disciples on to an independent under
standing of the parables, this intention emerges clearly to view
when we now hear Jesus, founding on the first complete and
the second incomplete interpretation, deliver to the disciples a
new series of parables (w. 44-5 0), and then see Him address
the question to the disciples : Have ye understood aU these
things ? (ver. 5 1), — a question to which the disciples can now
reply with the simple affirmative. Therefore the Lord is able
to say to them in the concluding saying, which is clothed in
figurative form (ver. 52): "Because of this acquaintance with
1 Cf. Matt. xiii. 36 with ver. 10 and Mark iv. 10.

THE HIDDEN TREASURE. 107
the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven (Sia rovro), a treasure
of new knowledge Ues at the service of every teacher who is a
disciple of the kingdom," in addition to the traditional teaching
to which the scribes of Israel were previously limited ; and this
treasure he is to use in free and independent activity.

The Hidden Treasure.
(Matt. xiii. 44.)

'Opoia iarlv y ficuriXeCa rwv ovpavwv dyaavpw KeKpvppivw
iv ra> dypw; thus begins the first parable of the new series
(ver. 44). The irdXiv before bpioia (Eec.) is (with Tischendorf)
to be erased on weighty authority. In aUusion to the immedi
ately preceding interpretation of the parable of the Tares, the
word is borrowed from vv. 45, 47, the new independent start
made here by the tliscourse being overlooked. The kingdom of
heaven is compared to " a treasure hid in the field." To para
phrase the article before dypo), " in the (definite) field," x or to
take it without further ado as generic,2 is not to explain it, but
to render it uninteUigible. The use of the article rests on the
assumption, that to the hearers with the notion of a treasure not
merely preserved,8 but hidden, the notion of a garden or field
where it is buried is naturally associated, burial being the usual
way of securely conceaUng a treasure of gold or sUver. The
foUowing relative sentence says of this hidden treasure : bv evpwv
avdpwiro? eKpv^rev. Thus, a man found the treasure, in what
way is not said, the conjunction of circumstances which caused
him to find the treasure being left out of view. With the
participle aorist the narrative passes quickly over the finding
to state what he did with the find: evpwv eKpvyfrev. One'
might feel tempted to take this eKpvtyev as identical with the
Kpvirreiv already mentioned in KeKpvpipevw, and therefore in the
sense of the pluperfect as a supplementary explanation of that
participle, so that the treasure would not be found in the field,
but somewhere else, and then buried by the finder in the field.4
But this attempt is inevitably wrecked on the confusion thus
1 De Wotte. 2 Meyer, Keil.
3 In opposition to Weiss. * Fritzsche.

108 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
introduced into the simple flow of the narrative. For wheu a
treasure hidden in the field, which some one found, was first
spoken of, the finding could not possibly be meant to refer to
any other than the hiding-place just described ; and when a
second Kpvwreiv is spoken of, in the circumstances of the case
this can only be a second hiding of the treasure, and, no other
place being mentioned, in the same field in which it was hidden
before. The apparently enigmatical character of this act is
explained so soon as we learn from what follows that the inten
tion of the finder is directed to the acquiring of the field. He
leaves the treasure in its hiding-place in order that he may be
able to acquire it for himself in this its hiding-place. He
cunningly says to himself that it would be dangerous were he
to publish his find before he is able really to call it his own ;
and that, buried as it is, the treasure wiU remain secure to him
whUst he goes to make it his own.
In what follows the relative construction is given up, the
narrative continuing in an independent sentence with a vividly
descriptive present tense. Moreover, the action stated in this
final sentence is specially emphasized by the introductory clause :
Kal dirb ry? xapa? avrov iiirdyei, a plain indication that the
special emphasis of the narrative lies on this final sentence. In
connection with emotions Uke %apd, <£o/3o?, Xviry, the preposition
a7ro denotes the inner motive of an action, in which case the
article may be absent (Luke xxi. 26), but is more frequently
present (Matt. xiv. 26 ; Luke xxii. 45, xxiv. 41 ; Acts xii. 14).
But even when the article, wanting in the corresponding German1
expressions, " from joy, fear," etc., is present, the avrov added here
has still nothing strange about it, and there is no reason for
depriving it of its obvious reference to the finder as the subject of
the joy, and referring it, as many do, to the treasure as the object
of the joy. Hence : "And moved by his joy he goes,'' Kal iroiXei
iravra oaa i^ei Kal dyopd^ei rbv dypbv eKeivov. In addition,
then, to prudence and cunning, in his joy he exhibits a determi
nation that renounces and sacrifices everything in acquiring the
treasure. It is no difficulty to him that he must pay a price
which he can only command by seUing the whole of his posses
sions. He acts without hesitation, " sells all that he possesses and
buys that field" thus putting himself, at the sacrifice of all the
rest of his property, in possession of the hidden treasure.
1 So too in English.

THE HIDDEN TREASURE. 109
The design of the parable is plain. For when a description is
given here of the way in which a man gets a treasure he has found
into his own possession, the intention can only be to say in what
way we must appropriate the kingdom of God, which Jesus brings
to men, and make it our own possession. Thus the kingdom of
heaven or of God stands over against the individual man,
not so much as an order of things fixed by the divine wiU, to
which the individual has to submit, and of which he has to
become a member, but as an order of things replete with divine
blessings, and therefore as a state of blessedness, a precious good
which offers itself to his possession, and summons him to make
it his own.
When, then, the description of the way in which the man
obtains the treasure is introduced in the parable by the state
ment that the treasure which the man found is hidden in the
field, and therefore buried, this can only mean that the blessings
of the kingdom of heaven are not, as the Jewish expectation in
its externalizing conception of the Messianic promises was inclined
to suppose, blessings obvious to sense, and lying on the surface of
things, but that they belong to the sphere of the inner life of the
spirit hidden to the outward gaze — they are the purely spiritual
blessings of the divine fellowship offering itself to man in Jesus.
This interpretation of the buried state of the treasure, so opposed
to the Messianic hopes of the age which looked for a kingdom of
public, outward glory, is clearly the only natural one ; whereas
the interpretation, favoured by many, of the hiding of the treasure
in the bosom of the Church, falls to the ground with the erroneous
reference of the field to the Church -1 and the reference, favoured
by others, to the concealment of the treasure before the appear
ance of Christ 2 is irrelevant, because the treasure in the parable
was not merely hidden previously, but is found hidden, and
remains hidden even after it is found. When, then, the blessing
of God's kingdom, hidden in that sense, is so brought home to a
man that the blessing is made known to him (i.e. that he sees
and feels its inestimable worth), this is a piece of good fortune,
like the finding of treasure buried in a field. But whoever
enjoys such good fortune (as was the case with the hearers of
the parable — the disciples of Jesus) must turn it to profit. For
as one cannot call a buried treasure his own simply because he
has found it, but must first acquire it for himself, so also it is
1 See below. 2 Kuinoel.

110 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
not enough to have received an impression of the kingdom of
heaven and its priceless worth ; on the contrary, it must be made
a personal possession. And to this end there is needed, on one
hand, thoughtful prudence ; on the other hand, and chiefly, a
moral determination which foregoes and sacrifices everything.
Just as the man in the parable prudently leaves the treasure in
its hiding-place until he can reaUy caU it his own, so also the
man to whom the hidden blessing of God's kingdom has presented
itself is not to boast and brag prematurely, before he really
possesses it, else he would be in danger of losing it before he
has it ; but he is to leave the costly blessing of God's kingdom,
so secret and inward in nature, in this its Mding-place, by aUow-
ing the impression of it which he has received to nestle in the
hidden depths of his heart, and by cherishing it in quiet feeling.
Thus wUl it remain assured to him whUe he strives for its posses
sion with aU his strength. This definite interpretation of the
circumstance, that the finder again hides the treasure, and
acquires it for himself in its hiding-place, is required, because
the strange addition of so peculiar a feature — by no means indis
pensable to the rest of the context — is only explained by the
reference to such an interpretation. Nevertheless, the chief
purpose has reference to the last thought, to the aU-sacrificing
determination by which the kingdom of God must be acquired.
For as the man in the parable goes and seUs aU that he has in
order, instead, to buy the buried treasure, so whoever would
secure the treasure of God's kingdom must inwardly give up
every other possession, everything otherwise dear to him to which
his heart clings, must inwardly renounce affection for every other
possession whatever, in order instead to gain that highest good;
for at no lower price wiU it become his. It can only be possessed
by one who renounces the desire to possess anything else beside
it. Thus it is an inward act that is expressed and required by
the seUing of every possession in the parable, as is impUed in
the nature of a comparison representing the inward by the out
ward ; but it is not for this reason a mere depreciation of every
thing else in comparison with the blessing of the gospel that is
meant,1 but an act of renunciation which, although inward, is
none the less actual and complete. After this act is done, the
outward, Uteral giving up of any possession, wherever requisite,
is no longer a matter of hesitation. 1 Kuinoel.

THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE. Ill
If, then, we have correctly reproduced the original meaning of
the parable, every special interpretation of the twice - mentioned
field is excluded. And this rightly. For at the beginning of
the parable the mention of the field merely served to intensify
the idea of hiding by the more definite and picturesque idea of
burial, which is the surest, and therefore the usual, way of
concealing a treasure. Its second mention at the close of the
parable, where the field is bought as containing the treasure, was
unavoidable, if the thought was to be carried out, that the hidden
treasure of God's kingdom also must be acquired as a hidden
one. Especially must we reject the frequently attempted
reference of the field to the Church, because the relation of the
Church to the blessings of God's kingdom treasured by it in no
way corresponds to the relation of a field to the treasure buried
in it. For instead of concealing and hiding the blessings of
God's kingdom, the Church's calling is rather in every way to
make known and pubUsh those blessings, which in themselves
are of a hidden nature. And if we attempt to apply the field to
the secularized Church, in which the true blessings of salvation
are buried under the rubbish of external worldly aims and human
ordinances, the re-burying of the treasure in the field and the
buying of the field at the conclusion wiU not at aU harmonize
with such a view. For on no account can the meaning be, that,
in order to obtain the blessings of salvation, one must accept a
church, which has perverted its true caUing into its opposite,
into the bargain. To accept this interpretation is to attribute to
the parable ex eventu a prophetic signification, having reference
to particular periods in the history of the Church, to which the
text gives no manner of support.

The Pearl of Great Price.
(Matt. xiii. 45, 46.)
Beside the parable of the Hidden Treasure now appears
(ver. 45 f.) a second, resembling the former in the main — that of
the Pearl of Great Price. Its resemblance to the former is
indicated at the outset by the introductory irdXiv suggestive of
repetition. UdXiv bpoia iarlv y BaatXeia rwv ovpavwv dvdpwirtp

112 THE parables OF JESUS.
epiropw. That the kingdom of heaven is not at once likened to
the pearl as the parallel-idea to the treasure, but that instead of
this an epiropo? is put first, cannot surprise us after what has
been already remarked on ver. 24 of this chapter. Whether
then the single idea put first as such answers to the kingdom of
heaven or not, the meaning of the introduction is simply this,
that the following narrative is meant to serve as a comparison to
corresponding circumstances and events in the sphere of the
heavenly kingdom. 'Avdpwirw is prefixed to ipiropa as an
antithesis to rwv ovpavwv. Thus special attention is called to the
fact that the nature of the kingdom of heaven is meant to be
illustrated from the sphere of the natural Ufe of man} 'Epiropa
is in apposition, thus : " The kingdom of heaven is like a man
(namely) a merchant." An epiropo? is a mercJiant, then more
precisely a wholesale dealer, whose work lies principally in the
purchase of goods, the procuring of transmarine or other foreign
wares, whilst leaving the sale to the retailer. Then to the
designation as epiropo? corresponds the kind of mercantile
activity ascribed to the one so designated. It is so in the
appended participial sentence, which here, as in ver. 24, takes
the place of the relative sentence occurring elsewhere in similar
introductions to parables : %yrovvn KaXoii? papyaplra?. Thus,
the mercantile activity here considered does not relate to the
disposing of wares, but lies in the region of inquiry. The object
which his inquiry has in view is pearls, an article of trade of
great importance in the ancient world, — and pearls of special
beauty and excellence. The adjective KaXov? cannot be meant
in the present context to describe pearls generaUy as excellent in
comparison with other things, but distinguishes the pearls, which
are the objects of his search, as exceUent from pearls of inferior
order. The merchant is therefore a man skiUed in the value
of pearls, making it his special business to seek pearls of pre
eminent exceUence.
Then in what foUows the finding at once responds to the
seeking ; for, putting evpwv first with emphasis, and opposing it
by Be to fyrovvn, the narrative proceeds, ver. 46 : evpwv Be eva
iroXvnpov papyaplryv. Such is the correct reading, which, in
order to give this emphasis to the evpwv, somewhat harshly
breaks off the construction scarcely begun, and begins an
independent sentence ; whereas the reading b? evpwv K.r.X. (Kec),
1 Just so in ver. 52, xviii. 23, xx. 1, xxii. 2.

THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE. 113
which perhaps arose from a reference to the bv evpwv in the
parallel parable, ver. 44, is smoother, although less pregnant.
But that which he found is nevertheless highly surprising to the
finder, leaving his expectation far behind. The seeker after
goodly pearls found " one pearl of great price." The excellence
of this pearl, far surpassing all other pearls, is expressed not
merely by the adjective iroXvnpo?, still further heightening the
designation koXo?, but chiefly by the prefixing of the numeral eva.
Not merely has he found a pearl of special costliness, but a unique,
costly pearl, which presents itself to him — a connoisseur on this
subject — as unique of its kind, alone and incomparable in its
costliness. And after he has found the costly pearl, and finding
it has perceived its unique value, he acts accordingly : direXdwv
iriirpaKev K.r.X. The introductory direXdwv, corresponding to the
introductory clause dirb ry? xaP^ avrov iirdyei in the paraUel
parable, ver. 44, signaUzes the following act as specially worthy
of notice. And at the same time in the present connection it
denotes the instantaneous breaking off and giving up of his
previous work of seeking. Now that he has found the one pearl
of great price, his search after goodly pearls is at an end ; he has
but one thing to aim at, actuaUy to possess the one of great
price. And this possession he strives after with the same all-
renouncing, all-sacrificing determination with which the man in
tbe previous parable puts himself in possession of the treasure ;
iriirpaKev irdvra oaa efyev Kal yybpaaev avrov. Here the
narrative does not, as in the previous parable in the corresponding
place, pass into the present of vivid realization. But here also
the perfect irkirpaKev before the aorist yybpaaev lays a specially
vivid emphasis on the decisive act, the selling of aU his property :
He has sold all that he had, and bought the same. It only
corresponds to the incomparable value of the pearl, that it cannot
be purchased at a lower price than the sale of every other
possession. And thus the merchant, perceiving its unique value,
without delay pays this price in order to become possessor of the
one pearl.
The general design of the parable is obviously the same as in
the preceding parable. For as there the point in question is the
acquiring of a treasure found, so here it is that of a pearl found.
Thus, here as there the way is explained in which man must
acquire and make his own the blessing of the kingdom of heaven
offered to him in the person and words of Jesus.
GOEBEL. H

114 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
But the way in which this final thought is prepared for is
materially different here from what it is there. For whereas
there the finding of a treasure was at once spoken of as an
unexpected piece of fortune happening to a man, here, while a
similar find is spoken of, the personality of the finder is briefly
and sharply characterized, so that we see what enabled him to
find it. The intention here, therefore, is to intimate what is
requisite on the part of man in order even to find the costly
blessing of God's kingdom. What caused the merchant to find
the one costly pearl was this, that he, a man skilled in the
pursuit, instituted zealous search with critical intelligence after
pearls of special worth. Had he not been what he was, and had
he not done what he did, he would not have found the pearl of
great price, or, what amounts to the same, would not have
perceived its worth. In the sphere of the heavenly kingdom
this merchant can only be the man who finds no satisfaction in
the blessings of life offered him by the world, but, recognising
their insignificance, with critical intelUgence and earnest spiritual
longing seeks after better, more precious blessings, whose
possession will yield true, abiding satisfaction. Accordingly, the
goodly pearls as such have no definite reference, as often supposed,
to the blessings of inteUectual culture, science, art, and the like.
They are objects of search merely, and therefore stiU indefinite.
Only such a man is able to find the kingdom of heaven, for only
such an one is able to estimate its worth. Like as the merchant
in his search meets with a pearl, which he perceives to be of
unique costliness, so to the man who seeks and inquires with
earnest longing for salvation the kingdom of God presents itself
as the one supreme good of absolute, infinite worth, beside which
everything else which a man may possess appears worthless,
But it is not enough, when we have found the kingdom of God,
to recognise it in its absolute worth as the one supreme good,
but, in order to become its actual master, moral action corre
sponding to such knowledge is required. Thus, at the close the
parable reverts completely to the line of thought in the previous
parable. Like as the merchant, after he has found the pearl of
great price, seUs everything in order to obtain it, so the costly
blessing of the kingdom of God, as alone precious, is to he
acquired by renunciation of every other possession. (Cf. the inter
pretation of the corresponding passage in the previous parable.)

THE FISHING-NET. 115
A comparative retrospect of the two parables shows, that they
not merely run up into the same principal and concluding
thoughts, but that they have also something in common in their
first introductory portion. For when Jesus at first describes the
kingdom of heaven as a hidden good, which is found in the same
way as a buried treasure, and then adds by way of cUmax, that,
in order to be able to find it at all, a deeper longing for salvation
must be present, such as is able to distinguish the precious from
the worthless, the two statements suggest in common the difficulty
which man finds in arriving at an inner perception of the supreme
good presented to him in the kingdom of heaven. The difficulty
laid bare in "the first comparison is one having its ground in the
nature, of God's kingdom itself; the difficulty laid bare in the
second is the one lying in the pre-condition requisite on the part
of man. This is the only distinction between the two parables,
not (as e.g. Olshausen supposes x) that the one pictures a more
receptive nature, the second a noble, self-active nature, — a view
which would unwarrantably deprive the parables of their
generality of application. Accordingly, the two parables remind,
in their introductory portion, of the first parable of the Sower.
For, like that one, these parables also serve to explain to the
disciples why the word of the kingdom finds an inteUigent
reception with so few, whilst remaining a mystery to the
multitude.

The Fishing-Net.
(Matt. xiii. 47-50.)

Upon the pair of parables — the Treasure and the Pearl —
follows now a third parable, joined to the former by irdXiv only,
without any connecting words. The connection by irdXiv, indica
tive of repetition, we have already found twice in pairs of parables
closely related in meaning, namely, in addition to the twin
parables of the Treasure and Pearl just noticed, in those of the
Mustard Seed and Leaven in Luke xiii. 20. We are therefore
warranted in expecting that here also the irdXiv wiU not refer
in a purely formal way to a second comparison of the kingdom
of heaven, but is also meant to intimate, in reference to the
1 And Keil in like manner.

116 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
third parable, a similarity in contents to the preceding pair of
parables. In ver. 47 it is said: irdXiv bpola earlv y /3ao\ rwv ovp.
aayrfvy. Here, then, the first thing in the symbolic narrative is
a fishing-net, and that a large drag-net, intended to catch fish in
masses, according to the special meaning of aayrjvy, in distinction
from the more general BUrvov. And, in the first place, the
participles, which supply the place of a relative sentence, recount
the circumstances bearing upon this net : B^-V^^V et? ryv ddXao--
aav Kal e/c iravrb? ykvov? awayayovay. The participles stand
in the aorist. The occurrence is therefore not depicted, as might
indeed have been done also in the present case, as one often
repeated, but is related as of a particular definite fact, " the net
was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind." The word
" gathered," chosen to describe the act of catching, signalizes in this
act the element of bringing together, collecting. What the net
collects is very diverse, it gathers " of every kind," scil. of fish.
The right exposition of the words " of every kind " is of special
importance for the understanding of the entire parable. First of
all, it is certain that the meaning cannot be, that every kind of
fish in existence was caught, — an inconceivable thing, — but every
kind of fish offering itself to the net. The net cast into the sea
— such is the thought — makes no distinction between the fish,
admitting the one sort and leaving the rest outside, but without
distinction gathers of every kind coming in its way. The only
doubt possible is, whether in those words we are to think simply
of different genera of fish in the scientific sense, or of different
kinds in the general sense, without regard to what their difference
of kind consists in, whether in scientific species, or in size or
excellence, or aught else. But whilst the literal meaning of
yho? = " race " by no means necessitates the former view, — for
elsewhere also it expands into the meaning " different kind " in
the general sense,1 — the context decides for the latter. For
obviously the indiscriminate gathering here spoken of is meant
to form a contrast to the separation between the good and
the bad related afterwards. But this contrast only actually
exists if the " gathering of every kind " refers, not merely to
different scientific species, but to any difference of kind whatever,
inclusive of those described afterwards by the distinction of good
and bad. The narrative then continues with an independent
1 E.g. 1 Cor. xii. 10, 28, xiv. 10.

THE FISHING-NET. 117
sentence, although one joined on to the preceding by the relative
pronoun, ver. 48 : rjv, ore iirXypwdy, dvaBiBa-a'avre'> e'7™ T0V
alyiaXbv Kal Kadiaavre? avveXetjav ra KaXa eh ayyy, ra Be aairpd
e|fo> eBaXov. This reading must here be adhered to as by far
the best attested, in opposition to Lachmann's and Tischendorf 's :
rjv . . . dvaBiBo-aaVT&i avrrjv Kal1 iirl rbv alyiaXbv Kadiaavre?
K.r.X. Therefore : " This, when it was full, they drew up on the
beach." It is self-evident that the words " when it was filled" cannot
mean, as Stier supposes : " When the whole sea is fished out, and
aU the fish that swam therein are in the net," a thought just as
impossible as the reference of eVe vavrb? yevov? to every kind of
fish in existence, and still more inconceivable. But Stier's expo
sition is worthy of mention, because it strikingly shows what the
effect is when one lets himself be guided in the exposition of the
literal meaning of a figurative narrative by an interpretation pre
viously decided on. Of course the words " when it was filled" can
only denote the point of time when the space in the net was filled
up, when therefore it had received the number of fish it was de
signed to hold, which is made known by the weight dragging down
the net. When this point of time came, they drew the net to
shore, " and sat down and gathered the good into vessels, but threw
the bad away." The Kadiaavre? put first intimates the thoughtful
care with which the work of separation is performed. It is just
as needless and forced to think of other things present in the net
beside the fish caught,2 because of the generality of the expres
sions rd KaXa . . . ra Be aairpd, as it is with others to supplement
the expressions by l%dvSia. In examining the catch, consisting
-of course of fish, the sitters direct their attention merely to the
distinction of good and bad ; hence the general expression, " the
good, the bad." The latter, according to the literal meaning
of aairpo?, are the corrupt, dead fish, in a state of rottenness,
not " the unclean marine animals," 3 and in contrast with them
rd KaXa are here the sound fish, and therefore fit for use. The
latter they gathered into the vessels standing ready ; the former
they cast e%w, i.e. instead of into vessels, they cast them out and
away, as one throws away worthless things.
Just, then, as in the former parables of the Sower, Mustard
Seed, and Leaven, it is the description of an oft-recurring event
which serves as a comparison to the kingdom of heaven, so here
the description of a draught of fish does the same. But the pro-
1 Tischendorf omits xxi. 2 Kuinoel. 3 Lange.

118 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
ceeding characteristic of such a draught, to which the description
is directed, was the final " casting out " of that which is bad
after the. indiscriminate " gathering of every kind " at the begin
ning. Here is the point of the entire description. Accordingly,
the design of the parable can only lie in the warning allusion to
the fact that everything gathered at first indiscriminately into the
kingdom of God will at last be subjected to a careful testing, by
which the precious will be rigidly severed from the worthless, and
the latter will be excluded. Such is the meaning of the interpreting
word, which the Lord at once appends to the parable, vv. 49, 50 :
"So " — as in the conclusion of the parable — " will it be at the end
of the dispensation. The angels will go forth " — scil. from their
heavenly abode, for the purpose of carrying out the work entrusted
to them — " and sever the wicked from among the righteous!' The
expression Ik pkaov rwv Bucalwv, instead of the simple dirb roiv
BiKaiwv, brings before us the state which the angels will find
at the end of the world, — the unrighteous present among the
righteous. They wUl bring- this state to an end by excluding
the former, " and will east them into the furnace of fire. Thre
shall be the wailing and gnashing of teeth." On this image of
y Kapiivo? rov irvpb? for Gehenna, and also on the sentence eicei
earai K.r.X., cf. the interpretation of the parable of the Tares on
ver. 42. Here also both are independent additions to the inter
pretation, carrying the explanation of the figurative language of
the parable beyond the limits of the figure.
In detail, therefore, the parable is to be interpreted in the
following way : the kingdom of God, like a great net cast into
the sea, is planted in the midst of the world, with the design of
drawing men within its compass, and folding them in its bosom.
The sea only comes into view here as the element inhabited by and
crowded with fish. Hence its counterpart is the Koapo? merely
as the dwelling-place of mankind ; x the sea is not the masses of
the people themselves. The figurative representation of the latter
by waves of the sea and floods of water in several passages of the
Old Testament, often introduced here,2 has nothing in common
with the present passage. As, then, such a net gathers fish of
1 Cf. the field in the parable of the Tares, and the ecumenical interpretation given
by Jesus Himself in ver. 38.
2 E.g. Ps. lxv. 7 ; Isa. viii. 7 ; Jer. xlvii. 2 ; cf. also Rev. xvii. 15, where the point
of comparison lies in the restless roar of the waves, or in the force of the flood
carrying everything with it.

THE FISHING-NET. 119
every kind, — for it stands open to all indiscriminately, whatever
their character, — so the .kingdom of God gathers men of every
kind. However different they may be in other respects, either
outwardly in descent, rank, race, etc., or even inwardly in dif
ference of capacity or difference of moral worth, the kingdom of
heaven lies open to aU without distinction. If we have rightly
understood the words " gathered of every kind," in the con
text of the narrative, this and nothing else must be the meaning
of the first part of the parable. And this interpretation must
also have suggested itself to the hearers in presence of the motley
throng of Christ's disciples, made up of aU kinds of people —
fishermen and pubUcans, sinners and righteous. But we must
not try to find in the words e'« iravrb? yivov? an image of all
nations,1 if, at least, the irdv cannot be referred to every yivo?
existing in the sea, but only to every one coming in the way of
the net, and if ykvo? here expresses not merely the scientific
species, but difference of kind in the general sense. And just as
Uttle can the words "when it was filled" here, according to their only
possible meaning in the context of the figurative description, mark
the time of the end as the time when the kingdom of God shaU
embrace all nations, but only as the time when it shall embrace
the complement which it is meant in God's purpose to embrace,
and thus the time when its mission in and to the world shall be
perfectly fulfiUed. Accordingly the comparison then proceeds:
Like as the net, when full, was drawn to the beach, so the
kingdom of heaven, when in the above sense it shaU have per
fectly fulfiUed its mission in and to the world, shall be withdrawn
from the sphere of the present world-Ufe, and at the same time
— such is the presupposition — the present dispensation shaU find
its end. But by no means — thus foUows now the main thought
of the parable prepared for in what precedes — shaU aU that
was enclosed by God's kingdom in the present dispensation be
gathered into God's kingdom in the future world, as indiscrimi
nately as it was coUected in the present world. Just the con
trary ! Like as the mixed multitude of fish in the net drawn to
the shore is then submitted to a careful testing and separation,
the good and useful being gathered into vessels, while the bad
and useless are cast away, so there wiU take place then a careful
testing of all those who belonged to the kingdom of God as to
its outward form in the present dispensation. And only they
1 Meyer.

120 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
who in this severe testing prove themselves fit by their moral
character, because the righteousness of the kingdom of heaven is
found in them, — only they shall be gathered into God's kingdom
in the future world, while they who are found morally corrupt
(aairpoi), these " wicked," severed from among those " righteous,"
as unfit for the kingdom of heaven, shall be excluded from it for
ever. Thus " the gathering into vessels " is the same here as the
gathering into the barn in the parable of the Tares, i.e. the bring
ing of the righteous into the future kingdom of God.1 On the
other hand, no sort of allusion is found in the present parable to the
circumstance that that sifting and this bringing are the business
of the angels, whereas it was expressly symbolized in the parable
of the Tares by the emphasis laid on the reapers in distinction.
from the servants. Here also, indeed, the interpreting word of
Jesus (ver. 49) mentions the angels, but in this mention He just
as definitely goes beyond the limits of what is symbolized in the
parable itself as in the mention of the furnace of Gehenna. Tor
the question who the persons are who perform the act of sifting,
was just as little thought of in the figurative description as the
question who the persons are who cast out the net, — so little, that
neither in the former nor in the latter act were the agents so
much as named.
But the difference between the two parables in this particular
point is simply an outcome of the difference of their general
purpose. A special reference to this design here will not seem
superfluous if we have regard to the surprising resemblance
between the thoughts finding expression here and there. The
resemblance is in the excision, predicted in both parables for the
end of the world, of the ungodly from the midst of the righteous,
with whom they were associated during the earthly development
of God's kingdom. But the fore-announcement of this fact takes
place here and there under quite different points of view. There
a different and longer exposition precedes, and only as the con
clusion of this exposition is that fact of the future held up before
the disciples for their comfort and the strengthening of their faith
in face of the temptation which the strange appearance of the
ungodly amid the righteous might present to their faith in the
newly founded kingdom of God. In this sense, after the disciples
had been told that it was not their business to carry out the
excision of the ungodly within the present ason, the prospect is
1 Cf. on ver. 43.

THE FISHING-NET. 121
spread before them at the close that this excision wiU be the
work of the angels of God at the end of the world. When, on
the other hand, here simply the general fact is held up before
the disciples, that at the end a strict testing and sifting according
to their moral worth lies before the mixed multitude of those
who were included in the kingdom of God as to its outward form
in the present <eon, this is done for their own warning, in order
that they may not fancy themselves sure of entering into God's
kingdom in the future world by reason of their belonging to
God's kingdom at present, but may strive with unwearying
earnestness to be able for their part to stand in that severe
testing and sifting.

We have now reached the end of the second series of parables
deUvered on one day at Capernaum, and forming a part of the
supplementary conversation of Jesus with the disciples. If we
glance back at the three parables constituting this series, there
can no longer be any doubt, after what has been said, as to the
point of view under which the. third is so closely linked with tbe
first two, to which at first sight it seems so unlike. That which
the third has in common with the first and the second is the
hortatory purpose suited to the then state of their inner life.
All three parables join on to the present standpoint of the
disciples as those who, in distinction from the unbelieving masses
of the people, have already in some way personally entered into
the fellowship of God's kingdom. They it is who have had the
happiness of finding the hidden good of God's kingdom (1) ; they
it is who, with the keen discrimination of a heart thirsting for
salvation, have recognised in the kingdom of heaven the supreme
good (2) ; they it is who in motley throng have been already
enclosed by the net of God's kingdom (3). But to find a
costly good, and recognise its worth, does not render one sure of
its possession, — they must now acquire God's kingdom for them
selves, even at the cost of sacrificing every other possession
(1 and 2). And the fact that they are enclosed by the net of
God's kingdom in this world does not make them sure of salva
tion for the future, — they must strive not to be put to shame in
the testing and sifting reserved for the end (3). Thus, whereas
an objective didactic purpose ruled in the first series of parables
by the sea, seeing they were meant to give the disciples a series

122 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
of objective revelations in reference to the present founding and
future development of the kingdom of God, in this second series
of parables a subjective hortatory purpose rules, seeing they are
meant to set the personal relation of the disciples to God's
kingdom in its right light before them, and to admonish and
warn them in reference to the moral duty binding upon them in
consequence of that relation. Review.
In conclusion, a word must be said respecting the theory
advanced, in the wake of Bengel, by expositors like Stier,
Thiersch, Lange (certainly by each one in a different shape), to
the effect that the seven parables in Matthew are meant to set
forth prophetically seven historical Church-periods in the future,
foUowing each other in the same order. The most attractive
form of this theory is given by Lange, when he arranges and
characterizes the seven supposed historical periods thus : 1. The
Sower = the apostoUc age ; 2. The Tares = the early Catholic
Church flourishing amid heresies ; 3. The Mustard Seed = the
Universal Church of Constantine ; 4. The Leaven = the trans
forming action of Christianity in the mediseval Church during
the national migrations ; 5. The Treasure in the Field = the
period of the Beformation ; 6. The Pearl = the antithesis of
Christianity and the blessings of modern civilisation; 7. The
Net = the concluding Judgment. But, instructive as such an
exposition may seem to many, it fails altogether to hold its
ground upon sober examination, if, that is, the exposition is
meant to imply that Jesus Himself, in uttering these seven
parables in their present order, had regard propheticaUy to a
corresponding succession of historical Church-periods in the future.
In the first place, the text, as regards its form merely, affords no
justification for speaking of a continuous cycle of seven inter
connected parables, for we do not find in Matthew a continuous
series of seven parables, but first a series of four complete in
themselves, and then a second independent series of three. The
latter are part of a conversation held at a later time and in a
different place, a conversation occasioned by subsequent inquiries
of the disciples. Thus there is nothing to warrant the notion
that Jesus there broke off His line of thought with the fourth
parable, and resumed and continued it here with the fifth. But

review. 123
if we wish to combine the four and the three parables, we must
at least add St. Mark's second parable of the Fruit-bearing Earth,
of which no notice is taken in those theories, put it in its original
place among the rest, and assign to it a corresponding period in
Church history. And in the second place, as concerns the
substance of the seven particular parables, their investigation has
shown us that they all equaUy have their starting-point in the
condition of God's kingdom at the time, — the first in the want
of success then attending the Messianic work of Jesus among the
multitude, the second in the mixture of impure elements in the
circle of the disciples, obvious at least to the eyes of the Lord,1
the third and fourth in the insignificance of the beginning made
by God's kingdom, the three belonging to the second series in the
condition of the inner life of the disciples. And where a pre
diction of the future really contrasts with these starting-points
taken from the present,2 the prediction everywhere covers the
entire development of God's kingdom from its beginnings in the
present up to the end of the present dispensation, so that this
entire development is merely placed under another single point
of view and exhibited in another light. But the first, fifth, and
sixth (Sower, Treasure, Pearl) contain no prediction at aU. In
relation to these it is only possible to claim an intended prophetic
reference to definite historical events in the future, by assuming,
with Bengel, a sensus reconditissimus behind the communis ratio,
which robs the exposition of aU certainty, and hands it over to
the ingenious caprice of the expositor. But of course we must
not deny, but acknowledge the truth lying at the basis of these
theories, namely, that the disclosures made in these parables
respecting the nature and growth of God's kingdom in the course
of its historical development upon earth find ever new confirma
tions, and also that especially striking confirmations of one or the
other of these parables may be pointed out in particular periods
of Church history in the past. Only it is not the province of
exposition, but of free application, to point out such historical
confirmations and fulfilments of the universally appUcable truths
contained in particular parables, and such appUcation again wUl
not aUow the freedom which is its right to be limited by the
demands of a particular order of succession.
1 Cf. the upotoh in ver. 24.
a As in the second, third, fourth, and seventh parables (Tares, Mustard Seed,
Leaven, Fishing-Net),

PART II.
THE LATEE PAEABLES ACCOEDING TO LUKE.

INTEODUCTOEY.
THE parables peculiar to Luke's Gospel, of which this second ,
section is to treat, are found all together in the portion of
the Gospel usuaUy caUed Luke's journey-narrative, because it is
asserted that with chap. ix. 51 the evangelist begins to describe
the last journey of Jesus to Jerusalem, aU that follows up to the
account of the entry into Jerusalem (xix. 28 ff.) being on this
view nothing but a continuous description of the journey. Were
this supposition correct, all these parables of Luke would fall
within the last period of the life and teaching of Jesus, and
would all belong to a later period than the first one of the last
parables in Matthew which are to be treated of in the third
section, — we mean the parable of the Unmerciful' Servant, Matt.
xviii. 23 ff, which the latter evangelist makes to have been
spoken in Capernaum immediately before the beginning of the
last journey (cf. xix. 1). But the supposition is wrong. First of
all, it stands in strange contrast both with the space taken up
by the section reaching ostensibly from ix. 51 to xix. 27 in the
evangelist's treatise, and with the character it bears. This
description of the last journey of Jesus would then fill no less
than ten chapters, thus constituting well-nigh half the entire
Gospel, whUst only five chapters would remain for the description
of the entire public work of Jesus previously. And looking at
the contents of this section as a whole, we are met by a compre
hensive collection of discourses and sayings of Jesus on the most
diverse occasions, some of which indeed combine into groups on
chronological grounds, while the different groups combine with
124

INTRODUCTION. 125
each other and with the intermediate passages in such a way that
no continuous chronological connection can be made out. This
does not give the impression that we have to do here with a
single unbroken description of a journey, and only very cogent
reasons can compel us to accept such a notion. Certainly we
can scarcely insist that in that case a number of incidents and
sayings of Jesus, which Matthew places definitely in an earlier
period, would, according to Luke, belong to that last journey;
and that an occurrence, the scene of which, according to John's
Gospel, can only be Bethany, would be transferred by Luke
(x. 38 ff.) to some Galilaean village, — we can scarcely, Ave say,
insist on this without exposing ourselves to the suspicion of
harmonistic fanaticism. Nevertheless, by those who are not
hunting with critical fanaticism after contradictions in the evan
gelists, this should at least be taken into account as an element
in forming a judgment on the present question. But it is a
decisive consideration that the sole basis on which this entire
supposition, so strange in itself, rests is altogether inadequate.
It rests solely on the fact that in that section, comprehensive as
it is, three isolated passages occur in which mention is made of a
journey of Jesus to Jerusalem : ix. 51, xiii. 22, xvii. 11. These
three passages, it is thought, must be so understood that the first
forms a turning-point in the account of the evangeUst, chrono-
logicaUy separating everything which foUows from what precedes,
and that in the two others the evangeUst for the sake of clearness
reminds the reader of the circumstances in which he finds
himself in the journey-narrative there begun.1 But in reality
these passages have not the meaning ascribed to them. When
the passage (ix. 5 1) says that Jesus, when the days of His taking
up (to God) were fulfiUed, set His face directly towards Jeru
salem, and therefore directed His journey straight through
Samaria, the design of these words, as is clear from ver. 53, is
specificaUy to introduce the account of the occurrence that
follows, vv. 52—56. For because His face was directed to Jeru
salem, the Samaritans refused to receive Him, ver. 53, and the
fiery anger of the disciples at the Samaritans is set in sharp
contrast with the disposition which makes Christ encounter
suffering and death, ver. 54. But the words : Kal iropevopevwv
avrwv iv rfj 6Bop elirkv ri? irpb? avrov, ver. 57, at least leave it
doubtful whether Luke here means to give a continuance of the
1 Cf. e.g. Ewald, Meyer, Godet.

126 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
journey mentioned, vv. 51-56, or whether he does not rather
simply link this other incident of a journey to the first on internal
grounds — to say nothing of the question whether it would be
right to take all that foUows as a continued account of that
journey. It is just the same with the second passage, xiii. 22,
as is clear from ver. 33. Because, on the day to be here spoken
of, ver. 31, Jesus uttered a saying, ver. 33 (beside other sayings,
vv. 23-30), having special reference to His journey to Jerusalem
and His death, which He could undergo nowhere but in Jeru
salem, therefore the remark is specially prefixed to the account
of the sayings of this day, that He was then on the way to Jeru
salem. And when, finaUy, in the third passage, xvn. 11, to the
narrative of the ten healed lepers, among whom the Samaritan
alone showed himself grateful, thus giving occasion to the Lord's
sorrowful complaint of the ingratitude of the rest (vv. 17, 18), —
the statement is prefixed by way of introduction that Jesus then
went through the borders of Samaria and GalUee on His (last)
journey to Jerusalem, here also there is no justification for giving
the remark an application reaching beyond the particular incident
thus introduced, not even to what follows, ver. 20 ff, to say
nothing of what precedes, as if the purpose were to remind that
this also belongs to the period of the last journey to Jerusalem.
On the contrary, the expression : " And it came to pass, as He was
on His way to Jerusalem," etc., plainly is so worded that it must
be referred to what foUows in distinction from what precedes.1
Accordingly, this entire section of Luke's Gospel, which begins,
not with ix. 51, but in ver. 46, after the conclusion of the pre
ceding section, with the announcement of the Passion, vv. 44, 45,
and ends with xviii. 30 (from which point Luke then really
describes the last journey to Jerusalem, thus beginning the history
of the Passion in the broad sense), is simply to be regarded as a
coUection of sayings and teachings of Jesus, the combination of
which was not governed by a chronological point of view. That
such a conception is inconsistent with the declared intention of
the evangelist to write Kadeljy? (chap. i. 3),2 could only be asserted
if it were proved, which is impossible, that the Kadegy? cannot
apply to any grouping of material from any point of view, but
only to a strictly chronological enumeration of every particular.
That this section contains so much that is peculiar to Luke, can-
1 Cf. also Hofmann on all three passages, Luke ix. 51 ff., xiii. 22 ff., xvii. 11 ff.
8 Meyer.

THE MERCIFUL SAMARITAN. 127
not surprise us, because he here expressly makes room for the
employment of the material which his careful researches (i 3)
have brought within his reach beyond the well-known material
found in written and oral tradition. At most it might be said
by way of conjecture, in regard to the three passages in which
mention is made of the journey to Jerusalem, that, in the case of
the present coUection of discourses and sayings of Jesus, Luke
perhaps had at command, beside others, an authority treating of
this last journey in detail.
After what has been said we must renounce the attempt, in
treating of the parables peculiar to Luke's Gospel, to define exactly
the chronological position of each individual parable.

The Merciful Samaritan.
(Luke x. 25-37.)
The first of the parables pecuUar to Luke's Gospel meets us
in chap. x. 30-37, — that of the Merciful Samaritan, forming part
of a conversation of Jesus with a scribe. We must therefore
first of aU, in order to understand the parable, glance briefly at
the previous course of the conversation.
According to ver. 25, a lawyer1 arose, putting Jesus to the
test with the question : ri iroiyaa? t,wyv alwviov kXypovopyaw ;
i.e. literaUy : Having done what, shall I inherit eternal life ?
therefore : What must I do in order to inherit eternal Ufe ?
With this question he desires to put Jesus to the test (iKireipd-
t,wv avrov), i.e. to see whether He wiU not give some answer
contradicting the law, and thus afford opportunity to refute
Him from the law. But Jesus at once saw through the man's
intention, and therefore, instead of Himself pronouncing an
opinion on the question proposed, caUs upon him to take the
answer to his question from the law, with which he is acquainted.
In this sense he puts the counter-question (ver. 26): "What is
written in the law? how readest thou?" The answer to this
question, which the scribe takes from the law (ver. 27), contains
the same pecuUar coUocation of the command to love God (Deut.
vi. 5), with the command to love our neighbour (Lev. xix. 18),
1 vo/tixls, as to substance synonymous with ypx/ipxnvs, current elsewhere.

128 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
which we find in another place (Matt. xxii. 37 ff. ; Mark xii. 29 ff.)
in the mouth of Jesus Himself, — there as His answer to the
question put to Him by another lawyer : Which is the greatest
commandment of the law ? And that the combination in this
way of those two passages of the law, as a summary of the entire
law, was a novelty, and by no means something already current,
is clear there from the joyous surprise at the answer on the part
of the questioner (Mark xii. 32 f). Accordingly, we cannot
suppose that the lawyer here framed the answer simply from his
own knowledge,1 or that he gave it in the well-known meaning
of Jesus ; 2 but we must suppose (which may be done without
difficulty) that in the inquiry of Jesus as to the relevant state
ments of the law (an inquiry summarily condensed by the
narrative into the words : What is written in the law ? how
readest thou ?), He more definitely referred the scribe to those
two passages of the law. This view, on the other hand, does not
preclude the thought that the scribe proved his exact know
ledge of the law by a quick and correct apprehension of the
hints given him. And now, in response to his question, what
he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus is in a position to give
him, instead of, as he had expected, an answer disputable on the
ground of the law, an answer in undeniably strict agreement
with the law according to his own words. He does so in the
words (ver. 28): " Thou hast answered right ; this do, and thou
shalt live." Here the question put has found its solution in a
manner disconcerting to the scribe. For not only is his attempt
to involve Jesus in conflict with the law completely baffled, but,
the question proposed being shown to be one scarcely open to
discussion for a man acquainted with the law, the questioner's
impure intention is also laid bare, namely, that something else
than a real desire to learn led him to ask the question.
But just because the man learned in the law plainly feels the
reflection cast on him by such a solution of the question, he will
not let the conversation drop, as it might do here (ver. 29): '0 he . .
dkXwv SiKaiwaai eavrbv ehrev irpb? rbv 'Iyaovv, Kal ri? iarlv pov
irXyaiov ; The first words : " But he, desiring to justify himself"
expressly state the reason why the conversation, which otherwise
would have been at an end, is continued by the scribe. Conse
quently, he cannot from the very beginning have had the question | ;
in view : " Who is my neighbour V 3 And his attempt at justifica-
1 van Oosterzee, Nebe. 2 Meyer. 3 Meyer.

THE MERCIFUL SAMARITAN. 129
tion can only refer to the suspicion of a dishonest intention in
his first question, — the suspicion arising from the previous course
of the conversation, — and not to the reproach, that he had not
fulfiUed the command to love his neighbour,1 a reproach not even
cast upon him in the previous discussion, which is purely objec
tive in character. Moreover, the question which he now brings
forward, merely seeking to point out a difficulty supposed stiU
to lie in the reply given by Jesus, is only in keeping with an
effort to disarm such a suspicion, not with an effort to meet
such a reproach. The subject in hand, he objects, cannot be
settled so simply, i.e. with a bare reference to the legal command
to love God and love our neighbour, for aU depends stiU on the
questionable meaning and limit of the idea "neighbour." The
Kai prefixed to the question is not passionately defiant : " Now
then, who is my neighbour ? " 2 but a mere combative interrup
tion, behind which combativeness the questioner quickly and
cleverly hides his sense of shame. In the question itself some
have wished to take irXyaiov, after Winer's example, as a mere
adverb, because of the absence of the article ("Who is near me ?") ;
wrongly, for the substantivizing of the adverb irXyaiov by the
article prefixed is so common, that the word may retain the
substantival meaning even with the occasional omission of the
article, when the context of the discourse implies it. And here
it must retain the meaning, because the question itself is taken
direct from the command: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour."
But certainly the omission of the article is noteworthy, the ques
tion thereby acquiring the more distinct colour of a controversial
question proposed for discussion. With the article : Who is my
neighbour ? the question would simply ask for some other
appellation of him to whom love is to be shown according to the
command. But in the anarthrous question : Who is neighbour to
me? the desire is expressed for an investigation of the idea
" neighbour," such as will show who falls under this idea. The
comparison with Matt. v. 43, where " and hate thy neighbour "
is cited as a traditional appendix to the command to love
one's neighbour, shows how the Eabbinical exposition of Scripture
not merely applied the command exclusively to members of tbe
IsraeUtish nation, but even tried to limit it to the relations of
private personal friendship, or at least to exclude from it every
personal enemy. The proposal of such a question was therefore
1 Stier, Godet, et al. 2 Stier.
GOEBEL. I

130 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
natural enough for a man like the scribe. And in reply to this
question : Who falls under the idea " neighbour " ? Jesus now
begins the narrative of the Merciful Samaritan.
" Then Jesus answered 1 and said, A man went down from
Jerusalem to Jericho" (ver. 30). The much-discussed question,
whether the man was a Jew, as supposed by most, or even a
heathen,2 or what else, is a strange question to ask, if, as must
be at present assumed according to the analogy of the other
parables of Jesus, we have to do merely with an imaginary
person in an imaginary narrative. All that can be said in refer
ence to this point is, — if the narrator had thought it important
for a definite notion to be formed of the man in this respect,
he would not have omitted a statement on the subject. The
road taken by the man, from Jerusalem in direct line down to
Jericho, went through the wilderness of Judaea, which had an ill
reputation for insecurity, and was gladly avoided. For this very
reason, as is shown in the sequel, this road is chosen as the scene
of the narrative, whereas the definite indication of the direction
of the man's journey down from Jerusalem to Jericho in the
Jordan valley, and not conversely up from Jericho to Jerusalem,
is simply suggested by the need of concrete description. On this
road, then, there happened to the man what is told in the next
words : Kai Xyarai? irepikireaev, i.e. : He fell among robbers, —
o'i ical iKSvaavre? avrov Kal irXyyd? imdkvre? diryXdov. The
Kai before eKSvaavre? is neither to be taken in correlation to
Xyarai?, as though it were meant to mark the conduct of the
robbers as in harmony with their trade, nor is it to be taken .as
a climax to the tacitly assumed stealing of the money on the
man's person, but is most simply explained, with Meyer, as
corresponding to the second Kai before irXyyd? imdkvre?. By
Kal . . . Kai=et . . . et, prominence is given to the twofold injury
inflicted on the man; for eKSveiv must not be limited to the
violent stripping off of the clothes in distinction from a previous
stealing of other objects. In the absoluteness in which it stands
here, it expresses generally, like the Latin exuere, and even the
German " ausziehen," 3 utter, reckless plunder, even to what ihe
wore on his person/ This plunder, however, was only .the least
injury done the man by the robbers. Hence eKSvaavre? comes
first, and irXyyd? imdkvre? follows by way of climax. The
i'bxoXxflojt only here in the New Testament in this sense.
2 Olshausen. s And the English "strip."

THE MERCIFUL SAMARITAN. 131
question, whether as to time the man was first wounded and then
stripped, or conversely, — and whether and when he made resist
ance, although most expositors occupy themselves with it, is just
as singular in the case of a merely imaginary narrative as the
question whether he was a Jew, since the narrative itself makes
no reference of any kind to minute details. But the worst thing
done to the man by the robbers is reserved for the finite verb
still remaining : " who, after they had loth stripped him,, and also
inflicted blows (scil. on him)," dirijXdov dcpkvre? ypidavy rvy^d-
vovra, i.e. "went away, leaving him when he was just half dead."
Tvyxdvovra does not stand simply for ovra, rather is ovra to be
understood along with it. It is the participial form of rvy^dvw
wv, I am just, as, e.g. rvyxavw eywv, I have just; ervypv
irapwv, I was just then present, etc. Emphasis is laid on his
abandonment coinciding with the occurrence of a state perilous
to Ufe, and we are thus made to feel more sensibly, not indeed
the unconcernedness of the robbers,1 whose disposition is not
noticed, but the misfortune of the plundered man. Utterly
stripped and sorely beaten as he is, the unhappy man is
abandoned just when he is exhausted and half dead. He thus
seems left to a terrible death in the lonely wilderness, for it is
not to be expected that another traveUer will come in the nick
of time by this dangerous, unfrequented road. If, however, this
took place, as is now to be further related, it was a avyKvpla, i.e.
a special coincidence of circumstances not to be looked for in the
usual course of things, certainly a special call to render instant
help for one whom such a avyKvpia led this way. In this sense
the narrative proceeds (ver. .31): "And by a coincidence (Kara
ovyKvpiav) a certain priest went down that way!' The " went
down " certainly gives the same direction from Jerusalem towards
Jericho to the journey of the priest as to that of the plundered
man, which, however, is just as satisfactorily explained by the
need of concrete description as in the other case. It is importing
too much into the narrative to wish to find in this an intimation
that the priest is coming from ministering in the temple, which
aggravates his guUt, or that he was not on the way to, but on the
way from his priestly ministry, and that therefore he had not even
a plausible excuse, such as ministerial urgency, or the fear of pollu
tion.2 If we can find nothing special in ver. 3 0 in the indication
of the direction, so definite there, how much less here, where the
1 Meyer. 2 Nebe.

132 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
" from Jerusalem " does not even appear ! What, then, will the
priest do when he comes to the scene of the crime ? His con
duct is briefly and sharply characterized in the words : Kal ihav
aiirbv dvriirapyXdev. The double compound dvriirapyXdev makes
the absence of mercy lying in the irapkp^eadai specially promi
nent, namely, that over against, i.e. in face of one so unfortunate,
lost without his help, he was able to pass by. And a Levite
followed just the same course, ver. 32 : opoiw? Be Kal Aevlr^
yevopevo? Kara rbv rbirov, iXdwv Kal ISwv dvnirapr)XQev.
'Opoiw? is not to be joined to yevop. Kar. r. roir., but to the
finite verb dvriirapyXdev, fixing attention at once on the like
conduct of the Levite. The participial clause : yevop. Kara rov
rbirov intervenes merely as a more precise explanatory definition
in apposition to Aeviry?, whilst the two following participles:
iXdwv Kal ISwv, introduce the finite verb. Therefore : " And in
like manner a Levite also, who had come l towards the place (Kara
with the accus. " in the direction to "), after he had come (by the
way) and seen (scil. him), passed by on the other side." Some
writers have wrongly found in the part. iXdwv here the sugges
tion of a nearer approach in order to a closer inspection,2 which
latter must in this case be expressed by ISwv. This is forbidden,
however, by the consideration that, according to the analogy of
ver. 31 (Kal ISwv avrov), the ISwv here can only express the
catching sight of the unhappy man, not a subsequent closer
inspection of the facts of the case (cf. also the order of the
expressions, vv. 33, 34 : yXdev . . . ISwv, and then only the irpoa-
eXdwv following). Accordingly, the part. iXdwv merely depicts
the nearer approach on the road,3 in vivid realization of the scene
as it unfolds itself in the successive approach of the Levite, his
catching sight of the unhappy man, and his unmerciful passing by.
Thus, priest and Levite have left the unhappy man lying
without help. From whom could he still expect help?
And yet a third one comes by the way. Certainly it is no
priest or Levite, not even a Jew, but a Samaritan, ver. 33:
Xapapeiry? Be n? bSevwv tfXdev Kar avrov. The name
Xapapeiry? stands with emphasis at the head of the sentence.
The participle bSevwv is perhaps to be referred back adjectivally
to Hap., therefore: "But a journeying Samaritan came" not:
"But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came." It is a half-
heathen foreigner who now approaches the sufferer. The
1 ympitos, as in chap. xxii. 40. - Kuinoel, Meyer, et al. 3 De Wette.

THE MERCIFUL SAMARITAN. 133
foreign character is emphasized in " journeying. ' Moreover, as
a Samaritan, he is regarded with hate and enmity of the
bitterest kind by the inhabitants of the land through which
he is journeying. And yet, where priest and Levite had closed
their hearts in cruelty, this Samaritan feels compassion : " He
came to him, and when he saw (him), he had compassion on
him." And where priest and Levite had passed by (dvri
irapyXdev), he goes near (irpoaeXdwv) in order to render quick,
effectual help, ver. 34: "And he came to him, and bound up
his wounds, pouring on them oil and wine." To bind up the
gaping wounds of the man lying there half dead was the first,
most essential requisite. In doing so, he pours on them oil
and wine, which he carries with him as part of the outfit
of his journey. Oil was much used by the ancients as an
external remedy, serving, in the case of open wounds, to assuage
the pain (cf. Isa. i. 6). The use of wine as an external
remedy for wounds is also mentioned elsewhere.1 Here it may
perhaps serve to cleanse the wounds and stanch the blood.
Having taken the first, most essential steps, the Samaritan
proceeds unweariedly in his rendering of help : eVt/St/Sao-a?
Be avrov iirl to 'iSiov Kryvo? yyayev avrov el? iravSo^eiov Kal
iirepeXydy avrov. 'EiriBiB°Xw m itself, indeed, does not
signify " lift up " (Bengel : imponens cum labore), but only
"make ascend" generally. But of course here, where a half-
dead man is in question, the idea of lifting up is supplied by
the context. He lifts him on his own beast; but this does1
not imply that several such beasts were at hand. The adjec
tive iSiov is simply meant to point out that, in placing the
wounded man on his own beast, he thereby renounces the
wonted use of it himself. Thus "he brought him (himself
going on foot) into an inn." IlavBo^eiov denotes one of the
caravanserais, which in those days were set up on the roads,
especially in uninhabited districts. UsuaUy they supplied
travellers with shelter only, and that gratuitously, but often
also with board for payment. So here, according to ver. 35.
They may perhaps have been designed rather for non - Jews
on their way through the country. In the case of the Jewish
inhabitants of the land, there was less need to use such
houses, because of the generaUy prevailing hospitality, from
which, of course, Samaritans were strictly excluded. Accord-
1 Cf. the passage in "Wetstein and Nebe.

134 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
ing to Winer, the hosts also in such caravanserais were
undoubtedly Gentiles.1 This being so, all ground is removed
for any reference to the supposed Jewish nationality of the
host, and his presumed heartlessness to a Jewish fellow-
countryman.2 Such reflection is also without support in the
text of the narrative, in which the host, like the robbers,
comes into notice only in the exercise of his business, and
is a thoroughly subordinate figure. Therefore, without any
reference to the host first named in ver. 35, it is said of the
Samaritan, in simple continuance of the description of his
charity : " and he took care of him." Thus he is not
satisfied with saving the unhappy one for the moment from
death in the wilderness, and bringing him under roof and
shelter, but he continues to show him care. The persistent,
opportune, self-sacrificing character of his thoughtfulness, bent
as it is upon not leaving his work incomplete, but doing it
thoroughly, is especiaUy depicted in the conclusion of the
narrative which follows, ver. 35 : Kal eirl ryv avpiov e^ykQw,
eKBaXwv Svo Syvdpia eSwKev t&> iravSo%ei Kal elirev, 'Eirt-
,peXydyri avrov, Kal o n dv irpoaBairavyar/? iyw ev rip
eiravkp^eadal pe diroSwaw aoi. The genuineness of the
participle e^eXdwv before eKBaXwv, although apparently doubt
ful as regards external attestation, must be maintained, since
the dropping out of an apparently difficult word is easily
conceivable, while the subsequent insertion could scarcely
be explained. It serves to characterize the scene of the
following conversation, namely, that it transpired when the
Samaritan had issued from the caravanserai to begin his
journey, and thus after the actual departure. Hence we
must translate : " And on the morrow? when he had started, h
took out," etc. The meaning is: Even when he is about to
resume his journey, interrupted for the sake of the sufferer,
and to leave him behind, he does not cease to feel concern for
him. He took out (scil. from his girdle) " two denarii, and
gave them to the host, saying, Take care of him; and what
soever thou spendest more, J,4 when I come back again, will repay
thee." The denarius, about equal to ninepence, corresponded
1 Handworterbuch, cf. the arts. "Herbergen'' and "Reisen."
2 Stier, Nebe.
3 if) tijv xuput — towards the break of day, Acts iii. 1 ; Mark xv. 1.
4 iyu emphatic.

THE MERCIFUL SAMARITAN. 135
to the amount of a day's wages at that time (cf. Matt. xx. 2).
The two denarii would therefore only suffice for two days'
maintenance. But the assessment of the amount at so low a
sum can neither be explained by the supposition of a speedy
recovery,1 since the man was represented as suffering under
dangerous wounds ; nor by the supposition of the Samaritan's
speedy return,2 since there is no intimation of a return to the
sufferer himself. The only thing entering into view is a
conversation with the host in reference to a subsequent
discharge of the expense incurred. The two denarii are
merely meant as a payment, to which the promise : o n
dv irpoaSairavyay? K.r.X., forms the necessary supplement.
Again, certainly we must not, with Luther, render o n av
weakly : " If thou shalt prove anything more," but correctly :
"Whatever thou shalt expend more." While making a pay
ment just now as high, as he is able to make for the present,
he at the same time pledges himself to bear the entire cost
of maintenance, however great it may be. When he comes
again by the road, on his return from his present journey, he
wUl reimburse the host.
Here, then, the didactic story has reached its end. It was
delivered as a direct reply to the question of the scribe : " Who
is my neighbour ? " But in what sense it is meant to serve
as a reply to this question is shown in the sequel, when
Jesus, having laid a basis by repeating the story, as it were
gives the lawyer his question back again, calling upon him to
decide the general question proposed by him in the light of
the particular case now put, ver. 36 : ri? rovrwv tow rpiwv
irXyaiov BoKei aoi yeyovkvai rov ip,ireaovro? el? rov? Xr/ard? ;
Here also, in resuming the question of the scribe, irXyaiov
stands again without the article : " Which of these three seems
to tJiee to have become neighbour to him who fell among the
robbers ? " But it at once strikes us as peculiar, that these
words do not simply give back the lawyer's general question
in its bearing on this particular case, but contain also an
amendment of the question. A simple giving back of the
question by way of application must needs have gone to show
to which of these three the unhappy sufferer was neighbour,
with which of them as neighbour he stood in the relation
which involves the duty of exercising love. But this is not
1 Nebe. 2 Meyer.

136 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
the tenor of Jesus' question, and the narrative supplies no
ground for a question in this form. But He asks, Which of th
three became neighbour to the sufferer? therefore, which of then
on his part entered into the relation of a neighbour with him?
To the question so put, the answer was unavoidable. The
Samaritan must of necessity be described as he who became
neighbour to the sufferer. And this even the scribe concedes,
ver. 37: 6 iroiyaa? rb eXeo? per avrov. The preposition
per a is here used Hebraistically = DJ?.1 The conjecture may
be right that the scribe used this periphrasis in order not to
be compelled to mention the Samaritan by name; but this
only makes the answer more pertinent, because the Samaritan
now receives his name from the action by which he became
neighbour to the sufferer. And now, finally, the entire con
versation finds its conclusion in the direction given by Jesus
to the lawyer : elirev Be. 2 avrw 6 'Iyaov?, Hopevov Kai a\>
irolei opoiw?, i.e., " Go and do thou also (Kal av) likewise."
The precept irolei opoiw? points back to the words o irotyo-a?
eXeo?. The first meaning therefore is : Do thou also show
mercy like the Samaritan. But since the complete meaning
of the answer of the scribe, to be supplied from ver. 36, is:
He that showed mercy on him became thereby neighbour to
the man that was robbed, the complete meaning of the direc
tion based on these words is : Do thou in like manner show
mercy, and thou too wilt by this means become neighbour
to him to whom thou showest it. From this it is clear how
by this direction the question (ri? eariv pov irXyaiov) by
which the scribe had tried to make a difficulty of the defini
tion of the idea " neighbour," has in fact found its conclusive
solution. For if it is true, as he himself was compelled to
allow, that one becomes neighbour to another by the mere
fact of exercising love, whoever it may be, the only thing
necessary to the fulfilment of the precept to love our neighbour
is an act of love, no matter to whom.
From this conclusion of the conversation, added by Jesus as a
sequel to the parable, the moral of the parable is now clear. It
is meant to show how the divine command, " Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself," is to be fulfilled, namely, by assiduous
endeavour to unite ourselves through helpful acts of love to any one
needing help, without asking first who he is, and in what relation
1 Cf. chap. i. 58, 72. 2 Not olt, Rec.

THE MERCIFUL SAMARITAN. 137
he stands lo us ; and therefore by actively becoming neighbour to
him, without asking first, Is he also my neighbour ?
If we review the narrative from this point, the first general
observation striking us is, that the mode of pictorial representa
tion here is not, as in all the parables hitherto expounded,
that of symbolic clothing, but simply that of exhibiting a
concrete example. It is the first typical parable, in distinc
tion from the symbolic} which here meets us, for it illustrates
its subject not, as most of the other parables of Jesus, by
means of symbol, but simply by means of example. On the
other hand, we must not go so far as to say that the present
narrative is not imaginary, but that it gives an account of actual
occurrences. There is nothing to suggest that it differs in this
respect from the other parables of Jesus. On the contrary, in
keeping a definite purpose in view from beginning to end in
every part, the narrative plainly exhibits tbe narrator's produc
tive hand, and, just as much as the other parables, bears
throughout the character of a narrative invented in order to set
forth a particular doctrine. And now we have specially to direct
our attention to the way in which all the separate occurrences,
of which the narrative is made up, set forth the doctrine already
stated in the form of example, whereas the task of working out
an interpretation of the figurative occurrences in the proper
sense falls aside because of the merely exemplary nature of the
narrative. When then, in ver. 30, we read of a man who, on his journey
through the wilderness of Judsea, fell into the hands of robbers,
was stripped of everything, wounded and left in his half-dead
state, the image is presented to us of a sufferer whose condition
demands loving and effectual help from any one becoming aware
of it. In fact, what condition could be pictured more imperatively
demanding help of all passers-by than that of a man stripped
naked, with bleeding wounds, in an untenanted wilderness ?
The narrative then leads three persons in succession past the
unfortunate one. First of all a priest, and it makes this priest
pass by without mercy in sight of the sufferer, ver. 31. If we
wish to gain a clear view of the import of the narrative, we must
here ask : Why does Jesus make a priest in particular come that
way ? and how is it conceivable psychologically that he should
pass by such wretchedness without pity '{ The right answer is
1 See the Introduction.

138 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
forthcoming when we remember the grossly legal proclivity of
the man to whom the narrative primarUy refers, and especially
his interpretation of the command to love our neighbour,, as
indicated by his question, " Who is neighbour to me ? " an
interpretation which gave occasion to the whole narrative. The.
priest is introduced as a representative of this proclivity and
this hair-splitting interpretation, of the command, such as was
characteristic of the Jewish hierarchy and scribes of those days..
Like the lawyer, he only deems himself under obligation to. those
whose character as " neighbour " has been first of all settled.
What course of conduct foUows from such a standpoint in. a case
like the one described in ver. 30, the example of the priest is
meant to show. And, in fact, this course of conduct can be.no
other than unmerciful want of concern. For as to the man
lying there naked and wounded, of course nothing was certainly
known but the crying need of help ; and so he remains a stranger;
to the priest, — -Who knows who he is, and how he came here,'?
it does not concern him, no kind of obligation can be proved, —
he passes by. That this want of mercy is not meant in the.
light of a simply individual fault of the priest in question, but
really in the light of an interpretation of the command to* love
our neighbour prevalent in the circles of the Jewish hierarchy,
is confirmed by the addition of the second, quite analogous
example of the Levite, who passes by the sufferer with the same
unmerciful hardness, ver. 32. Thus the truth strikingly
exemplified in these two occurrences, both separately arid in. their
mutual harmony, is this, that the prevailing interpretation of the
command to love our neighbour, which requires the definition of
the relation of neighbour as a postulate of showing., love, leads
practically to a hardness and unmercifulness in glaring contradic
tion with the divine meaning of that command.. Straining out a,
gnat leads to swallowing a camel, Matt, xxiii. 24.
But the narrative then turns to a new and third example, in
contrast with the first two, meant to show in what way the.
command to love our neighbour alone finds its fulfilment. 'It is
a journeying Samaritan whom the narrative now makes to
approach the sufferer, that he may serve as an. example of this,
truth. Thus, he is not merely a foreigner, but,, in addition, one
belonging to that Samaritan race which was an object of special
hatred to the Jew. But precisely as such he was speciaUy suited;
to be an example of a fulfilment of the command quite

THE MERCIFUL SAMARITAN. 139
independent of the question, " Who is neighbour to me ? " For
if the man. lying on the road in the heart of the Judaean country
seemed a stranger even to the priest and Levite, how much more
must he have been a stranger to the Samaritan, if the thoughts
of the latter had been of a like narrow-hearted kind ! If he had
been of the same mind as the two others, he would have said to
himself, that he probably had before him a child of the country,
a son of that Jewish nation so bitterly hostile to his own, and
would, like. the priest and Levite, only with a greater appearance
of justice, have turned coldly from him. But when, instead of
this, it is told of the Samaritan, how he pities the sufferer,
renders him instant and effectual help, and beyond the momentary
assistance cares for him with patient, skilful thoughtfulness,
himself becoming security for him until he is fully restored, we
are taught that the crying need of the man as such goes near
this Samaritan. Whoever and whatever the sufferer may be, his
need brings him near the Samaritan's heart ; because of his
misfortune the Samaritan feels for him as a neighbour ; because
of his misfortune he acts to him as a neighbour. And although
everything which can separate men existed between these two,
by acting in this way to the sufferer the Samaritan really became
neighbour to him, and fulfilled to him the command to love our
neighbour. This it was which even the scribe was obliged to
concede. And thus the aim of the didactic story is reached.
By means of the example given in the history related, it is
proved, alike graphically and incontestably, that only such a
disposition really fulfils the command to love our neighbour
as shows love to every one needing help, simply because he
needs help, without asking who he is ; whereas the opposite
disposition, which would make the fulfilment of the command
dependent on the previous question: "Who is neighbour to
me ? " puts itself in glaring contradiction with the divine
meaning of the command. The direct consequence foUowing
from the parable is, that according to the divine meaning of the
precept the idea " neighbour " wiU brook no kind of limitation,
but is, on the contrary, to be extended to every fellow-man. But
Jesus Himself, avoiding all theoretical discussion, does not give
expression to this consequence. It is rather left to the scribe,
as to every hearer and reader of the parable, to draw this
inference for himself.
A series of ancient expositors, from Origen down to Luther

&

140 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
and Melanchthon, and also moderns like Stier, de Valenti,
Thiersch, Lange, have ascribed yet another and second meaning
to the present parable. Taking it not merely as an exemplary,
but in addition as a properly figurative history, they say, the
Samaritan is Christ Himself, and the man who fell among robbers
is humanity lying in the misery of sin and death ; in com
passionate love Christ came to its succour. This main thought
is then worked out in the most extraordinary way as regards
every particular, e.g. Jerusalem is Paradise, the robbers are the
devU and his angels, priest and Levite are the law and the
prophets, the inn is the Church, the two pence are baptism and
the Lord's Supper, etc. Against this view it is sufficient, while
appealing to the preceding exposition, to remark, that neither the
wording of the narrative, nor the context in which it stands,
gives any sort of justification for the notion of such a double
meaning. As regards especiaUy the allegorical interpretation of
the particulars, we must agree with Calvin when he remarks on
this point : Scripturse major habenda est reverentia, quam ut
germahum ejus sensum hac licentia transfigurare liceat. Certe
praeter Christi mentem has speculationes a curiosis hominibus
fuisse confictas, cuivis perspicuum est. But, on the other hand,
it must of course be acknowledged to be quite within the limits
of a legitimate application of the narrative to point out how, in
the person of the Samaritan, Jesus not merely pictured a graphic
example of true fulfilment of the command to love one's
neighbour, but also in His own person gave us a corresponding
example in act, when He, the Son of God, became neighbour to
us — children of men — by the pitying, self-sacrificing love with
which He came to relieve our wretchedness. But it is obvious
at once that such a thought only has its pure and potent
influence when it is added in the way indicated as an independent
appUcation of the parable, instead of being made part and parcel
of the parable itself as a supposed deeper, hidden meaning.

The Importunate Friend.
(Luke xi. 5-10.)

The parable of the Importunate Friend, meeting us in chap.
xi. 5-1 0, is preceded by the section vv. 1-4, which tells how

THE IMPORTUNATE FRIEND. 141
Jesus, at the request of one of His disciples to teach them to
pray, communicated to them the Lord's Prayer. But the words
" and He said unto them " join the following parable to this
section in so general a manner, that no chronological connection
is indicated, and, considering the compilatory nature of this entire
portion of the Gospels, none is to be supposed. The parable, and
its sequel up to ver. 13, form accordingly an independent para
graph, which the evangelist combines with the preceding one
(w. 1-4) simply on account of their common reference to prayer.
Thus, nothing being said respecting the occasion and original
connection of the parable, we are remitted for its interpretation
simply to the text itself.
The parable opens this time not in the form of calm narrative,
but in the more graphic form of question. The matter treated of
is not a particular incident which took place ; but the hearers are
simply asked whether, in a particular case into which they are
to put themselves in thought, any one of them would not do so
and so. For this must be taken into view at the outset, that
the question left afterwards unexpressed in consequence of the
anacoluthic construction, since it is introduced by "Which of you,"
and appeals, therefore, to the personal decision of each one of the
hearers, can only apply primarily to something which they would
have to decide in the case supposed, and therefore only to some
thing which they would do or not do, not to something which
another would decide to do or not to do to them. (See analogous
questions in ver. 11 f., xiv. 5, 28, xv. 4; Matt. vu. 9-11, etc.)
In this sense the parable begins, ver. 5 : Tl? itj vpwv e%ei <piXov
xal iropevaerai irpb? avrov peaovvKriov. It is obvious that the
futures eljei and iropevaerai do not contain that to which the
question is meant properly to apply, a view which would give
the absurdity found here by Winer •} " None of you would go to
his friend at midnight; such importunity would never occur."
Eather, since the futures here express, as often, not the actual
future, but merely a case possibly occurring in the future, they
stand primarUy in the mere sense of a hypothetic protasis, they
simply put a case to which the final question is meant to refer.
Therefore correctly :2 " Who of you will be in circumstances to
have a friend, and to go to him at midnight ? " . . . Certainly
this mode of inserting the description of the case, to which the
question is meant to refer, in the interrogative form itself, is only
1 Gram. p. 350. s See Meyer here.

142 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
feasible so long as the question proper may be expected to foUow
immediately. But since the speaker here passes on to present a
vivid picture of the case in question by repeating a detailed
dialogue, the language naturally faUs out of the interrogative
future into the hypothetical conj. aorist, more appropriate to such
a preliminary description of the logical position ; and this logical
position of the picture spontaneously suggests to the reader an
edv governing the conjunctive. Hence it is continued : Kal etiry
avrw, <frlXe - . . KaKeivo? eawdev diroKpidel? eiiry . . . Therefore :
" Who of you will be in circumstances to have a friend . . . and
(supposing) he say to him . . . and he answer him from within
and say "... This interpretation, which takes the first etirn of
the dialogue just as hypotheticaUy as the second corresponding to
it, seems to me more natural than the one which makes the first
eiiry, as an interrogative conj. deliberativus, just like the futures
e%ei and iropevaerai, depend immediately on ri? ii; vpwv.1 The
latter interpretation must afterwards, in the case of the cor
responding KaKeivo? eiiry, suppose a change to the hypothetical
construction, and take this second conjunctive, correlative to and
synonymous with the first, in a different sense from the first.
The first Kal eiiry, then, introduces a request with which the
hearer must imagine himself coming at midnight to his friend,
vv. 5, 6 : " Friend, lend mc three loaves, for a friend2 is come tome
from a journey, and I have nothing to set before him." Bengel's
remark on the triple number of the loaves : 3 " Unum pro hospite,
unum pro me, unum supernumerarium," is too fine-spun in concep
tion, the number of the loaves being merely placed at the amount
necessary for the intended meal along with the guest. The
answer, which the hearer is to imagine himself receiving to this
request from his friend within, runs, ver. 7 : " Trouble me not !
The door is shut, and my children are with me into bed ; 4 I cannot
rise and give thee." The circumstances therefore into which
each hearer is required to transport himself are these, that he has
nothing to set before a guest who has come to him unexpectedly
and late from a journey, and accordingly finds himself compelled
to ask from a friendly neighbour, in the middle of the night, the
loan of the necessary bread, but encounters reluctance in 'this
1 Meyer, Winer. = ilxos, without ptv, Tischendorf.
3 Cf. also Stier, Godet, van Oosterzee.
4 Els Tm xo'iTyt ilo-l, the verb of rest joined with us, because the rest is viewed as the
result of the previous motion.

THE IMPORTUNATE FRIEND. 143
neighbour on account of the disturbance to the repose of his
house, which compUance with the request would entail. We see
that the case is so planned in all the several circumstances com
posing it, that on one side a great and unpleasant perplexity im
peratively compels to, the making of a request, all the more when
we consider how inviolable the duties of hospitality were to the
Israelite ; whilst, on the other side, compliance with the request
encounters a hindrance in the no less difficulty which such
compUance would occasion to the person asked.
Thus, according to the original plan of the discourse, in ri? if;
¦ipwv e^ei (piXov Kal iropevaerai irpb? avrov a question is intended
in this sense, whether any one of the hearers in the circumstances
of such a petitioner would not follow. such and such a particular
course, — .not a question in the sense whether any one, approached
with such a request, will do so and so, in which case the hearer
would not have 'been required to transport himself into the
circumstances of the petitioner, but (as in ver. 11 and Matt.
vii. 9, 10) into those of the man petitioned. Accordingly, that
which the question begun is intended to set forth as the sequel
to be expected in every case cannot be the final compliance with
the request by the person petitioned, of which we then read1 in
ver. 8, and stiU less can it be, as Meyer supposes, the first nega
tive answer given already in ver. 7, which rather belongs entirely
to the description of the case to which the question was meant
to refer. But the question must have reference to a course of
conduct on the petitioner's part, which will be the necessary con
sequence of this first .negative answer,, and be the postulate of the
final compUance. And if, nevertheless, a question of this kind is
omitted, the construction here breaking off without coming to a
conclusion, the reason of this is indeed, in the first place, that
the vivid picture of the situation interposed has grown to such a
size as to leave the original plan of the discourse behind, and also
not less, that the conduct to be expected of every one found in
such a situation is so clear, that its further express description
may be omitted as superfluous. It is evident that no one would
readily remain quiet in such circumstances, but every one would
strive by continued and strenuous repetition of the request to
secure its being complied with, — so evident, that the final
sentence of the parable now foUowing expressly recurs to this
conduct,. although its description is iomitted; nay, even 'bases the
declaration which concludes the whole simply upon 'this course of

144 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
conduct to be expected on the petitioner's part. Just as if the
question begun in Tt? ei; vpwv had found complete expression,
Jesus continues, ver. 8 : Xkyw iipiiv, el Kal ov Swaei avrw avaara?
Sid to elvat avrov <piXov, Sid ye t^v dvalSeiav avrov eyepdel?
Swaei avrw oaav %pr/£ei. The et Kal introducing the protasis is
here concessive, like the Latin licet. In the same protasis the
participle avaara? follows the Swaei, although preceding it in time,
and stands immediately before Sid to elvat avrov <piXov, because
the person petitioned does not need a special motive to giving in
itself, but merely to rising up. Observe tbe repeated mention of
the rising (eyepdel?) in the apodosis also, — there, immediately after
the words specifying the motive (Sid ye T^y dvalSeiav), and before
Swaei. The protasis is therefore to be translated : " I say to you,
although he will not give, rising up because he is his friend "...
Here the possibility is again conceded in the case put in the pre
ceding description, that the simple relation of friendship to the
petitioner will not lead the one petitioned to grant the request,
not, however, without its being intimated in the emphasis laid on
the motive disregarded in the present case, that friendship itself
might and should have led to compliance with such a request.
This concession then gives all the more emphasis to the assurance
in the apodosis, that even in the case given, where the more
obvious and nobler motive is disregarded, the petitioned wiU never
theless find himself compelled to comply with the request: " StiU,
on account of his impudence at least (Bid ye), he will rise and give
him as much as he needs." It is the words Bid ye t^v dvalSeiav,
standing first with emphasis, which recur to the conduct imposed
on the petitioner by the nature of his circumstances, and therefore
to the question not completed, but naturally suggested by the
meaning, whether in such a case any one would not steadily
persevere with his request. By this natural conduct of the
petitioner the intentionaUy strong expression signalizes the
element which ensures his final success — the importunity that
knows no shame ; for this importunity must in the course of time
become more irksome to the petitioned than the slight trouble of
rising up. And having once risen, he will then give him oaav
%pflZei, without stint, as much as he needs, for only thus will
he be quickly rid of his importunity. What Jesus therefore
expressly asserts in this final clause by " I say to you" is this, that
an asking so persistent and strenuous, such as no one would omit
in these circumstances, must at last of necessity lead to success.

THE IMPORTUNATE FRIEND. 145
For the one petitioned will find himself compeUed, if not by a
feeUng of friendship for the petitioner, yet certainly by the
annoyance arising from his importunity, to give him everything
he needs.
With Kayw vpiv Xeyw, in ver. 9, Jesus annexes to the
parable a doctrine of His own for the disciples. There is
neither necessity nor warrant for asserting that Kayw vpiv
Xkyw is put inexactly for " and so say I to you," 1 but it
means and must mean, "I also say to you." Standing next
to iyw, and before Xkyw, iipiv also is emphatic. Of course it
is impossible, logically, to make the doctrine introduced by
Jesus in these words simply identical with the final assurance
Swaei avrw K.r.X. (ver. 8), which, however, Jesus Himself gave
with " I say to you." Eather it is the doctrine lying in the
whole of the parable which Jesus now Himself confirms, and
especially to them, His disciples. In first of all clothing the
designed instruction in the form of a parable, He first left the
nature of the case pictured in the figurative description to
speak for itself. But having done this, He now intervenes
with His own personal authority in behalf of the truth set
forth, as a truth especially to be laid to heart by them, His
disciples. And the doctrine which He thus draws from the
parable with the intervention of His authority, consists in an
exhortation, strengthened by a promise annexed, ver. 9 :
atreire, Kal Bodyaerai vpiv t,yreire, Kal evpyaere' Kpovere,
Kal dvoiydyaerai vpiiv. It is self-evident that the exhorta
tion, couched in general terms, has special reference to the
relation to God. The exhortation is in three parts: Ask —
seek — knock! The last two imperatives repeat the meaning
of the first in figurative form. An allusion to the figurative
form of the previous description scarcely lies at the basis of
the exhortation,2 because the description contains no mention
at all of seeking, and none of knocking, at least expressly.
On the other hand, it is certainly the last two imperatives
which give complete expression to the exhortation impUed in
the parable. For not every asking, but only a patient, per
severing one can be figuratively caUed a " seeking ; " and in
the same way, not any asking whatever, but an energetic,
persistent one, is denoted by " knock," which, standing thus
absolutely and independently, cannot mean a timid tapping,
1 De "Wette. * Godet.
GOEBEL. K

146 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
but only a vigorous knocking. The additional imperatives,
"seek — knock," therefore, enlarge and strengthen the exhorta
tion " ask " in such a way as to demand a patient, persevering,
an energetic, persistent asking. To this must be added, that
the threefold utterance of the exhortation is in itself a demand
for an ever -repeated, unwearied asking. Again, the threefold
exhortation is supported by the threefold promise annexed;
and this in such a form that the threefold promise, each time
in correspondence with the preceding exhortation, sets before
the asking the prospect of receiving, before the seeking that
of finding, before the knocking that of the door being opened.
And that the disciples may, in fact, absolutely reckon on the
correspondent hearing in the case of such an asking, seeking,
and knocking, is now confirmed (ver. 10) by the emphasizing
of the infallibility with which the correspondent hearing is
vouchsafed to every one: "For every one that asketh receiveth;
and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be
opened." The emphasis rests throughout on the "every one"
standing at the head, in which word the confirmatory element
Ues. This being duly considered, it is impossible to say that
reference is here made to an experience of daUy Ufe,1 the
" every one," which shuts out every exception, not agreeing with
such experience. Moreover, this confirmatory assurance, just as
in ver. 9, is an instruction given independently by Jesus to the
disciples in reference to their relation to God, and in harmony
with the parable. Thus the doctrine which Jesus, building
on the parable, Himself gives to the disciples in vv. 9, 10,
consists in the exhortation to persevering, persistent prayer in
prospect of the hearing then infallibly certain. And a glance
back at the contents of the figurative description shows at
once that this statement embodies the purpose of the parable.
The divergent opinion, that the purpose of the parable lies
not in this exhortation, but exclusively in the promise of
certain hearing,2 is in conflict both with the words of Jesus,
vv. 9, 10, which, above all, deduce an exhortation from the
parable, to which the appended promise serves as a mere
support, and also with the plan of the parable rightly under
stood. For the graphic question, Which of you? with which
it began, has in view first of all the persevering importunity
to be expected on the part of the petitioner ; and only of such
1 Godet. 2 Meyer.

THE IMPORTUNATE FRIEND. 147
importunity was it then said in ver. 8, that it must at last find
a hearing.1 In what way the exhortation, which we have seen to be
the purpose of the parable, along with the promise annexed to
it, finds effective expression, can only be shown by a more
precise interpretation. To find the correct method of inter
pretation, we observe again, above all, that we have not before
us here a formal figurative history, but merely a question
proposed to the disciples, whether any one of them in a
particular case wiU not do so and so to a friend, and then, by
way of addition, an assurance as to what, in such a case, the
friend will do to them. If then, according to the purpose of
the parable, such as appears in the words of Jesus, w. 9, 10,
we know already that through that question and this assur
ance the hearers are meant to receive instruction as regards
their relation to God, it is self-evident in what way alone the
interpretation of such a parable can be carried out, namely,
by an inference a minori ad majus, — in the same way, there
fore, as in ver. 13, where, to the three parabolic questions
directly following the present parable, and simUar to it,
although briefer, Jesus Himself expressly adds the interpreting
conclusion ; el ovv . . . irbaw pdXXov . . . Therefore the allusion
to what they would do to a human friend is meant to encourage
the disciples all the more to pursue a Uke course towards God;
and the assurance as to what such a human friend would then
do to them, is meant to inspire them with confidence that all the
more would they experience the like from God. Accordingly,
- the first thought of the parable is this : If any one who had
at first encountered a refusal from a human friend, to whom
he had gone with a petition of extreme urgency, instead of
easUy desisting from his request, would only continue to ask
with aU the greater earnestness, how much more does it
become the disciples of Jesus, who have God for their friend,
if at first they seem to find ho hearing with their petitions
1 This, too, against Hofmann, who would take the xxxiitos e'lvy in ver. 7, like the
xxi iliry xvtS in ver. 5, as a continuation of the question begun with rts 11 i^Ht,
which now requires a negative answer ; the final meaning, according to him, being,
that such an excuse as is uttered in ver. 7 is in no case to be expected from a friend.
But why then so detailed an exposition of the excuse here ? In reality it is by
no means improbable, still less — impossible ; and not the friendship of the one
petitioned, but the impudence of the petitioner, is therefore, according to ver. 8,
the element which finally ensures compliance.

148 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
to Him, — petitions with which none made to men can com
pare in urgency, — instead of growing weary in asking this
divine Friend, to ask with all the greater constancy and
persistence ! Should they exhibit less energy and patience in
prayer in presence of God's fatherly love than in presence of
the friendship of a man ? In this final inference Ues the
complete interpretation of the first part of the parable.
Every attempt to give a definite reference to each detail in
the figurative description goes beyond the original meaning of
the question, and mars its simple force. To this class belongs
not merely the attempt to refer the three loaves to three
particular spiritual gifts of some kind,1 but also the attempt often
made to see in the friend who came at midnight the neighbour
for whom intercession is to be made. We cannot even say
offhand that the friend inside the house is God. Eather, all
detaUs of the description serve only to depict with concrete
vividness a situation between friend and friend which, whilst
causing the person petitioned to delay complying with the
request, drives and forces 'the petitioner to persistent asking.
From this picture the hearers at once recognise the final infer
ence before mentioned, bearing upon their relation to God. And
just in the same way is the interpreting conclusion to be drawn
from the assurance appended in ver. 8. If a human friend
finds himself compeUed by patient, persistent asking to grant
the petitioner his request, and to grant him aU he needs, if not
out of friendship for him, yet to rid himself of the annoyance
caused by his importunity, how much more wiU God hear one
who caUs on Him with peristent earnestness, and give him all he
needs, — God, whose unchangeable fatherly love does not need,
like man's precarious friendship, to be reluctantly constrained,
but wUlingly and gladly lets itself be compelled. Thus the
comparison, ascending here also from the less to the greater,
must be correctly limited. The meaning is not, that what
God will not give from loving goodwiU to the petitioner, He
will give in order to be rid of his irksome importunity; but
from the compeUing influence exercised by patient, persistent
asking on the precarious friendship of man, the inference must
be drawn to the certain, infaUible influence which it must have
in presence of God's unchangeably faithful love.
Thus the parable has in the first instance shown that the ask-
1 De Valenti

THE RICH FOOL. 149
ing, seeking, knocking, to which Jesus, building on the parable,
exhorts in His own name, ver. 9, are prescribed by the nature of
the case ; and, in the second place, has proved that the promise
of an infaUible hearing, annexed by Jesus in vv. 9, 10, is
guaranteed by the nature of the case.

The Eich Fool.
(Luke xii. 16-21.)

The occasion of the parable of the Eich Fool was supplied to
the Lord by the request of one of the people, ver. 13:" Teacher,
bid my brother divide the inheritance with me." It is true, the
man himself, who makes this request, is curtly dismissed with
the answer, ver. 14 : " Man, who made me a judge or a divider
over you ? " But from this incident Jesus takes occasion to
warn the listeners generaUy against the disposition that prompted
the man's request, ver. 1 5 : bpdre Kal (pvXdaaeade dirb irday? 1
irXeove^ia?. The persons addressed are the listening " multitude,"
ver. 13.2 The warning is directed against " covetousness."
Covetousness had made the disputed question of inheritance so
important to the man, that he thought he must bring it to the
Lord. Starting from this particular expression of covetousness,
attaching itself to a disputed inheritance, Jesus pointedly warns
the hearers 3 against covetousness in every (iraay?) shape and form.
And He further confirms this warning of His by the words : on
ovk iv rw ireptaaeveiv Ttw y £0)77 avrov iarlv e'/c rwv virapxpv-
rav avrw* The emphatic position of the ovk before iv tw
irepiaaeveiv rivi wiU not aUow the latter words to be taken in
the sense of a protasis, and the negation to be referred merely to
what foUows, making the sense to be : Though any one has
superfluity, his life is not a part of his possessions,8 or : Never
theless life wiU not come to him from his possessions.6 Eather,
1 The correct reading instead of rUs .
2 Cf. ver. 22, where it is specially noticed that the sayings of Jesus, following
there, are again addressed to the disciples.
3 Cf. the twofold imperative op. x. fuX.
* Instead of xutoI, according to Tischendorf, Lachmann ; cf. viii. 3 ; Acts iv. 32 :
vk bxxpxotTx Ttvt — opes alicujus.
• De Wette. * van Oosterzee.

150 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
from the position of the ovk, the negation must be referred
directly to iv rw irepiaaeveiv rivi. The negation must be meant
to affirm that something, which according to the fancy of
covetousness is contained iv rw irepiaaeveiv rivi, is really not
contained therein. But this being established, we can no longer
connect the words y £wy airov iariv with the foUowing e'/e r&v
virap%ovrwv avrw. The attempt, while rightly referring the
negation to iv rw irepiaaeveiv rivi, to retain such a connection,
has led to the translation : " Not by the fact of a man's possessing
abundance does his life consist in his possessions" which must
mean, Superfluity is not necessary in order to sustain life by that
which one possesses, One can live on little. But what a round
about way of expressing an almost trivial thought ! And how
Uttle would such an interpretation agree with the foUowing
narrative, the theme of which is not, whether one needs much or
Uttle in order to live, but, that Ufe does not depend at all on
possessions ! Accordingly, the words y £®^ avrov iariv must be
independently and directly connected with ovk iv rw irepiaaeveiv
rivi alone, as is inevitably suggested on the first reading. Thus,
the first statement runs in its simple and complete form : " For
by no means is a man's life included in the superfluity belonging
him" so that the one is secured and guaranteed to him with the
other. The emphasis lies first on ovk and next on t,wy. Then
certainly e/c rwv virap%6vrwv avrw is left over as an addition no
longer fitting into this already complete statement. But the
solution of the difficulty is found in taking these words by
themselves as a supplementary explanation, separated from what
precedes by a comma. It is easily made a complete and inde^
pendent sentence by a repetition of the ovk, understood from
what precedes, whUe preserving the subject y £o>?7 and the copula
iariv. No express repetition of the cvk was necessary, because
the strong emphasis with which it stands at the head of the entire
statement naturally extends its influence to the second supple
mentary clause. In German, of course, the negation must be
repeated, because the copula iariv must be repeated in the second
member, thus : " By no means is a man's life included in the
superfluity belonging to him, — it springs not from his possessions."
Thus the first statement, to the effect that the possession of' life
is not included in the possession of riches, finds its explanation
in the second supplementary statement, to the effect that a man's
Ufe has not its ground and origin in the wealth which he

THE RICH FOOL. 151
possesses ; and we get now a fully' pertinent and striking sense
without necessity or even occasion to interpret " Ufe " here other
wise than of bodUy Ufe, and to understand thereby felicitas 1 or
"true Ufe."2
In the words : " And He spake a parable unto them, saying,"
ver. 16, the evangelist makes the transition to the recital of a
parable deUvered by Jesus on such an occasion. It is beyond
question that these words do not form a transition to a new and
independent paragraph, but to a parable delivered on the occasion
related in vv. 13, 14, and in reference to the utterance of ver.
15, because " unto them " here, just as in ver. 15, can only refer
to the people then gathered round the Lord, according to ver. 13.
We are therefore justified in expecting that the parable wiU serve
as a more precise illustration of the warning against covetousness
in ver. 15, and of the utterance respecting the relation of the
possession of life to the possession of riches, added in confir
mation of the warning.
'Avdpcoirov nvb? irXovaiov yvcpopyaev y %wpa, — thus begins
the narrative, ver. 16. Xwpa here (as in xxi. 21 ; John iv.-35,
et at.) is the land. The notion of special magnitude does not Ue
necessarily in the word, but is here supplied by the context,
w. 1 7, 1 8. It is needless to take the aorist yi<popyaev, in distinc
tion from the following aorists, in the sense of the pluperfect, " had
brought forth weU." On the contrary, it is the simple rendering :
" A certain rich man's land brought forth well," which gives an
effective background to the foUowing description. The man is
not represented as not knowing what to do with the exuberant
produce of the harvest already reaped, but as observing an
unusual fertUity in his ground, and, directly that he perceives
this, beginning anxiously to ask, as we read in ver. 17: " And
he reasoned with himself thus, What shall I do, for I have not
where to gather my fruits ? " He utters the anxious question,
what is to be done, and names as the ground of his anxiety, that
he has not room enough to lay up his fruits. The outward
reason of his anxiety is therefore his comparatively limited
rooms, as to which he fears that they wiU not hold the unusually
rich produce of his ground ; but the true, inner reason is nothing
but his covetousness. Because of his covetousness he at once
calls the fruit still standing in the field his own (roii? Kapirov?
pwv ; cf. ver. 18 : ra yevypara pov), forthwith, so to speak, laying
1 Kninoel. 2 Ewald, Olshausen.

152 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
his hand on the growth of the field as his property. Because of
his covetousness he directs his attention by anticipation only
to laying up the entire mass of the produce in secure keeping,
that nothing of it may be lost. And thus from his covetous
ness springs the anxious question : "What shall- 1 do ? " It is
covetousness then which guides him in his further deliberations,
and suggests to him the plans mentioned in ver. 18. Instead of
deciding to limit his greed by the extent of his rooms, and to
hand over the probable superfluity for the comfort of others more
needy, he resolves to meet the hindrances standing in the way of
his covetousness with special and unusual arrangements : " This
will I do," — KadeXw pov ra? airodyKa? Kal pel^ova? o'lKoBoprjaa,
Kal avvd\;w iKei irdvra ra yevypara pov Kal ra dyadd pov.
KadeXw stands first with emphasis, expressing the violence with
which he has determined to get rid of every hindrance to the
gratifying of his avarice, thus : " Pull down — will I my barns,
and greater will I build, and there will I gather all my pro
ducts" The new barns are to be so large that he will be able
really to bestow therein all his produce (irdvra ra yevypara),
leaving out nothing, and, as he involuntarily adds, with a still
further enlargement of his schemes, " and my goods!' The store
houses are to be such that he will be able to lay up in them,
along with the fruits of the field, his goods in general. And
then, when he shall have collected his entire possessions in safe
custody, he thinks he may surrender himself to rest and the enjoy
ing of his treasures, as he pictures to himself in ver. 19 : koI ep5>
rfj yfrv%fj p,ov "ffvyj), e^ei? iroXXd dyadd Keipeva eh eV?; iroXXa;
dvairavov, <pdye, irie, eii<ppaivov. In thus objectifying to himself
his soul as the animating, and therefore sensitive and enjoying,
principle in him, and resolving to summon it to undisturbed
enjoyment, he paints to himself the full consciousness, and the
consequent delight, with which he wiU then surrender himself to
enjoyment. The summons is preceded by the assurance : "Thou
hast much goods laid up for many years." He intends to refer
his soul to the mass of goods well and safely laid up in the
new large storehouses, intimating that these goods will suffice for
many years, and ensure long enjoyment. Hence the unconnected
imperatives, on the ground of this reference, rushing from one
enjoyment to another: "Best, eat, drink, be merry!' To give
oneself up to delightful rest after all the toil of building and
collecting, to feast to the fuU on the gathered treasures, to

THE RICH FOOL. 153
surrender oneself without reserve to the merriment of such
feasting,1 — to this the first, second, third, and fourth imperatives
rush one after another.
Thus the man stands before his fruitful fields, anxiously pon
dering how he is to manage everything, swelling with vast plans
for securely laying up aU his treasures, and reveUing beforehand
in the enjoyments they wiU give him. To this description the
conclusion of the parable, now suddenly striking in, presents the
sharpest and most effective contrast, ver. 20 : elirev Be avrw 6
Qeb?, "Atppwv k.t.X. The point in question is a speaking on the
part of God, where the subject is pushed to the end for the sake
of emphasis, because the stress of the words lies in the fact that
they are words of God, who effects what He says by simple
speech, according to the canon : He speaks, and it is done ; He
commands, and it stands fast. And when these words are
described as spoken to the rich man, and clothed in the form of
an address to him, one must even then bear in mind that they
are words of God. They are not spoken to the rich man in the
way in which one man speaks to another in conversation, but in
the way in which God speaks to men, namely, in the sense that
in what they do they aim at him, in their effect come to him
as a divine reply to his plans, and are perceived by him in the
way of experience. This is a sufficient explanation of the form
of address. We do not need the supposition, to which the words
literally taken must certainly lead, that a verbal revelation was
made to the rich man by God in a supernatural way ; which
would be a fiction strange in the highest degree, and destitute
of all analogy in the other parables of Jesus,2 and, moreover,
quite superfluous, contributing nothing whatever to the moral
of the parable. Nor do we need the supposition, to which
some then retreat, that God awakened in the rich man a warn
ing presentiment of approaching death.3 This is a dilution, with
nothing to justify it, of the divine address to the rich man
in the second person in quite definite words, and would also
entail an essential dUution of the contents of the divine words
themselves, since they would no longer simply initiate a fact,
i ElQpx!»r0xi here, as often, with special reference to the pleasures of the table ; cf.
e.g. xv. 23, 24, et at.
2 In opposition to Meyer, who, overlooking the sober character of the parables of
Jesus, repeats, after Theophylact : otXxttitxi txutx n xxpxjioXri.
1 van Oosterzee, Godet.

154 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
but only express a presentiment awakened in the rich man,
which certainly has something of a vague character about it.
Accordingly this final sentence of the parable is not meant to
relate a new incident in the rich man's Ufe in continuation of
the previous narrative, but, the description of the rich man being
concluded, Jesus now lifts before the hearers of the parable the
veil hiding the future from the rich man, in order to delineate
with concrete distinctness the blindness of bis course of thought.
Jesus does this by informing them of a divine judgment pro
nounced on the blinded man in reply to his covetous schemes,
and whilst he is revelling in the iUusive prospect of future
enjoyments. The aim in communicating this divine judgment
is to disclose the rich man's infatuated foUy. For this reason
the attention is fixed on this point, and is intensified by the
"Acppwv prefixed, i.e. " Thou fool." x The announcement of the fate
impending foUows : ravry rfj wktI ryv tyvyrp) aov diratrovcriv
dirb aov. " This night " is the night following the day on which
the rich man's observing the fruitfulness of his fields led him to
form such plans. The divine judgment is represented as an
immediate reply to this scheming, and therefore contemporaneous
with it. The expression chosen for the suffering of death (rrjv
-tyvxfjv aov dirairovatv dirb aov) receives its illustration from the
analogous expressions t^z> -tyvyfpj BiSbvai (Matt. xx. 28), ndkvai
(John x. 11, et al.), irapaSiSovai (Acts xv. 26). As the latter
denote a wUling pledging and surrender of life, so the former
denotes a reluctant suffering of death, so that the animating
yjrv%y, which the Uving man would fain retain, is required from
him as something which he is bound to give (diraireiv = debitum
reposcere). It Ues on the surface, that as the former may take
place just as well in the form of a violent as of a natural death,
so the latter may take place just as weU in the form of a natural
as of a violent death ; and thus the word airairovaiv by no means
justifies us in adding in thought, without further support in the
text, robbers and murderers as its subject.2 Nor must we even
think of the angels of death as the subject of airairovaiv? since
the notion that angels require the ¦^-v^y from the departing one,
although within the Biblical mode of contemplation, is certainly
not so common4 as to warrant us in at once understanding the
J Cf. on the nominative instead of the vocative, Winer, Gram. p. 227.
2 Paulus, Bornemann, van Oosterzee. 3 Stier, von Gerlach.
' xvi. 22 is certainly different.

THE RICH FOOL. 155
angels, even where they are not mentioned. Eather, the supply
of a definite subject is not requisite either on grounds of language
or fact. The impersonal active is simply a periphrasis for the
passive, Uke the German periphrasis " man." 1 Finally, the put
ting of the object ryv i^v^yv before the verb dirairovaiv is not
to be overlooked. Advisedly and emphaticaUy, dying is para
phrased as a loss of the " soul." To the man who dreams that
with his treasures heaped up for a long time his life is secured to
him and sets before his soul the prospect of long enjoyment, the
reply comes from God : " This night (this very) thy soul is required
of thee." So fearfuUy is the address " Fool " confirmed by the
fateful announcement foUowing it, after which the disclosure of
the man's infatuation is completed in the question still to be
added : a Be yroipaaa?, rivi earai ; The metabatic Bi passes
over from the loss of life to the property, in order to raise
the question, how it wUl fare with the latter. In a. yroipaaa?
the latter is described as the provision he prepared for himself,
scil. to enjoy it, the supposition being that in gathering his riches
his aim was the same as in the plans for the future in ver. 19.
" Whose shall it be ? " is asked in regard to what is thus prepared,
without any intimation of an answer. Nor, in fact, is the ques
tion one meant to receive an answer, so that its meaning could
only be gathered from the answer supplied, such as : " It will
not be thine, but another's ; " 2 but what is meant to be affirmed
Ues complete in the answerless question itself. Precisely in the
statement that it is uncertain who wiU possess his treasures, lies
the affirmation that, when he is compeUed to give up his soul,
aU his treasures wiU be ownerless property, belonging to no one
knows what possessors.3 And thus the intimation of the divine
judgment exposes the rich man's mode of thought in aU its
foUy. WhUst he dreams of his life being secure for many years
because of his multitude of goods, sufficient for a long time, and
amuses his soul with the picture of long-lasting enjoyment, in
reaUty his Ufe wUl be required of him the same night, and that
moment aU his treasures will be lost to him.
Oiirw? o dyaavpi^wv eavrw Kal p,y el? Qeov irXovrwv, — in these
1 English, one j French, on. 2 Meyer.
3 Cf. with the entire narrative Ecclus. xi. 18, 19. Despite the great diversity
between the vividly concrete narrative of the present parable and the general didactic
sentences of the Son of Sirach, it is unmistakeable that a reminiscence of and allusion
to the passage in the latter writer are felt in the parable.

156 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
words Jesus makes the application of the parable, ver. 21.
Ovrw? is to be referred back to the folly of the rich man, such
as has been exhibited by the intimation of the divine sentence
pronounced on him. Thus it signifies not so much : to fall victim
to the like fate, — which really would not even be a pertinent
generalization of the particular case given, — as rather: entangled
in like folly. The description of him to whom the ovrw? applies
then follows in a twofold manner, first positively : b dyaavplfav
eavrw, then negatively : Kal py eh Oebv irXovrwv. The meaning
of the former words is clear : " He who gathers treasures for
himself," aiming at his own possession and enjoyment. This
first positive characterization is now completed and intensified by
the second on the negative side. UXovrwv is the correlative idea
to dyaavpl^wv, before which el? Qeov stands with emphasis in
antithesis to eavrw. Accordingly irXovrwv cannot be taken in a
different sense from dyaavpi^wv, namely, of temporal, earthly
riches, or the preposition et? otherwise than as meaning the same
as the dat. commodi eavrw, therefore = in commodum alieujus. And
in the present connection it can signify nothing else. nXovreiv
el? rtvd can only mean " to be rich for some one, so that the
riches benefit the latter" (cf. Eom. x. 12). Especially it cannot
mean " to be rich in reference to some one, so that the latter'
preserves the riches for one," 1 a meaning obviously forced upon
the simple words, because it is thought the irXovrwv must perforce
be understood of heavenly treasures. 'O dya. ea. Kal py el? Be.
irXov. is therefore he who in his conduct in regard to earthly
goods only has himself, not God, in view, whose sole study is to
augment his treasures for his own possession and enjoyment, not
to place his possessions at God's service, to employ them "for
divine ends," 2 especially in the practice of mercy (cf. ver. 33).8
From this it is clear why the dyaavpi^wv could not be resumed
in the second clause, but had to be replaced by irXovrwv, namely,
because the restless gathering and heaping up of treasures is of
course appropriate to one who has only his own possession and
1 Meyer. 'DeWette.
3 According to Hofmann (who finds the meaning : ' ' without possessing riches which
are such for God, in God's eyes "), the simple antithetical interpretation of the two
clauses is precluded by the connection by means of xx) pi, (instead of xx) ov). Ka! |Wi,
it is supposed, adds something which is denied in relation to facrxtiplZm IuutS. But
xx) /*.* may also, as a more precise, intensive, and complemental definition, very well
annex merely the denial of the opposite to the preceding ino-xvplZmv ixurS. Cf. e.g.
1. 20 : 'icn utuxut xx) /j.v\ Ovvx/oitos XxXtjtrxi.

THE RICH FOOL. 157
enjoyment in view, not to one who places his possessions at God's
service. Accordingly the wording and context here do not allow
the et? Qebv irXovrwv to be understood of those treasures in heaven
of which Jesus speaks in other places, e.g. ver. 33 ; Matt. vi. 20.
Nevertheless, the thought of those imperishable treasures in heaven
is not on this account alien to the present passage. On the
contrary, the el? Qebv irXovreiv is viewed here as a means and
way to secure an abiding possession beyond the attacks even
of death. For when the py el? Qebv irXovrwv is represented here
as a fool Uke the rich man in the parable, and therefore a fool
in presence of always imminent death and the loss of aU
earthly goods consequent thereon, this also implies the converse,
that a rich man, who is such for God, has no reason to fear
death, and would not be impoverished by the loss of earthly
possessions. In so far the present passage certainly compares
with those passages in which beneficence (ver. 33), or the selling
of earthly property for the good of the poor (xvni 22 and paral.),
or the renunciation of earthly possessions for the Lord's sake
(xvni. 29, 30, and paral.), is mentioned as a means of gaining an
imperishable treasure in heaven, but especiaUy with the passage
(xvi. 9) where, according to the correct exposition, the exhorta
tion urges to a gaining of God's friendship by means of mammon,
and therefore in the most real sense to an et? Qebv irXovreiv, in
order, when mammon ceases, to be received by God into eternal
habitations. If, then, from this final application of the parable we glance
back at the utterance of Jesus (ver. 15), which formed its
starting-point, and at the narrative lying between, it is clear at
once how the narrative serves to Ulustrate that utterance. The
Lord there warned against aU covetousness, by representing it as
an Ulusion that Ufe depends on the multitude of goods, as if life
arose from possessions. In the example of the rich man, which
according to ver. 21 is to be appUed to him that gathers
treasures for himself, and therefore to the covetous generaUy, a
vivid picture is presented of how, on the one hand, the covetous
man really Uves in that iUusion, and of how, on the other hand,
he is terribly deceived. Thus there can be no doubt respecting
the purpose of the parable. It is this, — to characterize the
perilous folly of the illusion in which covetousness lives, as if life
depended on possessions. And to this purpose the narrative in its
two parts is faithful, describing in the first part the manner in

158 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
which covetousness forms pictures of the future, and calculates
upon it, and disclosing in the second the perilous blindness in
which it is entangled. In keeping with this purpose, therefore,
we have to work out the application indicated in ver. 2 1 in the
light of the entire narrative. For the only point in question
here is the working out of an appUcation, not the fiUing up of
an interpretation, seeing that without doubt we have before us
here (as in x. 37 ff. already) not a symbolic, but merely an
exemplary narrative, and therefore not a symbolic, but a typical
parable. First of all, in the first part of the narrative Jesus sketches'
in the example of the rich man a vivid picture of a peculiar
kind of avarice, anxious about the future, framing plans for it,
and eagerly painting it to oneself. As the rich man, in presence
of the fertiUty of his ground, begins at once to be anxious how
ever he is to manage so as to lose nothing, so for the covetous
man anxiety is inseparable from the possessions belonging to
him, as to whether and how he can succeed in securing every
thing and avoiding all loss. And as the rich man does not let
himself be limited by the extent of his barns, but forms plans
for pulling them down and buUding new and large storehouses
in which to lay up all his goods, so it is natural to the covetous
man with boundless greed to frame plans for heaping up treasure
in superfluous abundance, without letting himself be limited by
any hindrances whatever, such as naturally oppose the heaping
up of treasures in the hand of an individual, and without turning
his thoughts to an unselfish use of the superfluity. And as, .
finaUy, the rich man pictures to himself as the end of his plans,
how he wUl show his soul the goods stored up for many years,
and summon it to rest, enjoyment, and pleasure, so it is natural
to the covetous man to dream how, when he shall have heaped
up treasures enough for aU the future, he wiU surrender his soul
wholly to their enjoyment.
• So far the description of the covetous man's train of thought
in reference to the future. There follows in the second part the
disclosure of the foolish illusion in which such a mode of thought
lives. When Jesus concludes the narrative by communicating a
divine judgment that passed sentence of death on the rich man
for this very night, we see suddenly in grimmest Illustration the
foolish, perilous infatuation in which avarice of the peculiar kind,
anxiously planning for the future, and forming pictures of it, is

THE FIG-TREE. 159"
entangled. As the doom is pronounced on the rich man, that
this night his soul and life are required of him, whUst he is
planning the coUection of provision for many years, and promising
his soul enjoyment in life of corresponding length, his treasures
faUing to no one knows whom; so the rich man, amid his
anxieties, plans, and fancied enjoyments in the future, is not sure
of his Ufe for a single day, upon which he calculates for so many
years, or of his soul, to which he promises enjoyments so far
ahead, nor even of his goods, which, instead of securing him life,
are lost to him with life, an ownerless possession, scattered no
one knows where.

The Fig-Tree.
(Luke xiii. 6-9.)

With the words : " And He spake this parable " (ver. 6), a
parable is joined to the foregoing paragraph (vv. 1—5). The
absence of any information respecting the hearers of the parable,
shows that it is meant to be taken in connection with the fore
going discourse. The words just quoted simply intimate that a
parable now foUows, the discourse in the context from ver. 1
being directly continued. According to ver. 1, some among the
bystanders had told of the GalUeans whom PUate slew whUe
they were sacrificing, — an event not mentioned elsewhere. The
words: irapyaav Be rive? dirayykXXovre?, suppose a greater number
of persons present, among whom some are found who relate the
incident. Perhaps the way in which this news was mentioned
and discussed gave Jesus a special occasion for interfering in its
discussion, as He does in w. 2-5. He warns against the infer
ence, only too congenial to popular Jewish ideas, that these
Galileans were special sinners above all Gahleans, because they
suffered such things (ver. 2), and confronts this opinion with the
prediction : " Unless ye repent, ye shall all in like manner (i.e. just
as terribly) perish" (ver. 3). And by adding another similar
case, belonging also presumably to the immediate past, in which
eighteen persons had perished by the faU of a tower in Jerusalem,
He repeats and enforces what He says by this second example.
In regard to this case also He opposes the notion that those

160 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
eighteen were specially guilty above all dwellers in Jerusalem,
and again confronts such an opinion with the prediction: "Unless
ye repent, ye shaU all likewise perish " (vv. 4, 5). But who are
the " all " to whom Jesus predicts such things ? In the first
instance, of course, the bystanders ; but these again not as indi
vidual persons, but — since what is applied to them holds good
both of all Galileans and of all dweUers in Jerusalem — as
members and representatives of a collective body, including both
classes, the dwellers in GalUee and the dwellers in Jerusalem,
therefore as members of the Jewish people lying under like
common guilt. The partial divine judgments — this is the truth
expressed — which the present generation sees executed here and
there are not grounded in the special guiltiness of individuals,
but are meant to remind the members of the nation of their
common, heavy guilt, and are to them, unless they repent, mere
precursors of a general divine sentence of destruction that will
burst over the entire present generation.
And here the parable strikes in (ver. 6 ff.) : avKyv et^eV rt?
ire<pvrevpkvyv iv rw dpiireXwvi avrov1 i.e. : " A fig-tree a certain
man possessed, which was planted in his vineyard." The express
mention of its being planted asserts that it was not a tree which
the owner met with by chance, but one speciaUy planted and
reared. And the statement that it was planted in his vineyard,
signalizes a pecuUar privUege that had fallen to this tree. Vine
yard-soil is pre-eminently favourable to fruit-trees. The legal
enactment (Deut. xxii. 9) forbidding the sowing of the vineyard
with divers seeds, does not necessarily prohibit the planting of
single trees, while the comparison with that passage shows that
it was a privilege for the tree to stand in its possessor's vine
yard. And so the owner was certainly justified in expecting
much and good fruit from this tree planted in his vineyard.
Nevertheless, it is now said further : " And he came seeking fruit
in it, and found none." Then, in presence of the vinedresser (ehev
Be irpb? rbv dpireXovpyov), who is consequently represented as
accompanying the owner in his inspection, he gives expression ;:
to his disappointment in the words (ver. 7) : 'ISoii rpia ery, d<f
ov ep%opai %yrwv Kapirov iv rfj avKy ravry Kal ov% evplam.
The words wanting in many manuscripts (a<p' ov), are all the
more certainly genuine, as they are apparently dispensable. But
in reality they first give to the words preceding them (rpia in)
1 This order of the words is preponderantly attested.

THE FIG-TREE. 161
the full emphasis which they are meant to have, these words
now becoming an independent exclamation, to which the decla
ration proper is then added in the form of a relative clause :
" Behold, (it is) three years since I came (again and again) seeking
fruit" etc. But the meaning of this complaint cannot be the
one obtained by unduly pressing the words, to the effect that
since he came for the first time,, looking in vain for fruit on the
tree, to the present moment three complete years have elapsed.
Then the present year would be the fourth year of fruitlessness,
which certainly is not meant. But the meaning of such a phrase
is this, that the present fruit-season, in which he again sees his
expectation disappointed, is the third in which the tree has
refused fruit, the current year being the third one of fruitlessness.
From what has been said, it is evident that the remark some
times made in explanation of the " three years," that as a rule
the tree bears fruit within three years of its being planted,1 is
out of place here, because the owner has expected and sought
fruit for three years already. On the other hand, the remark of
Baumgarten-Crusius is all the more pertinent : " Three years'
fruitlessness is proof of barrenness." When a tree refuses fruit,
not merely the first and second, but also the third year, we are
justified in inferring its complete barrenness. The owner does
so here, and therefore naturally gives expression to his disap
pointment in the command to the vinedresser : " Cut it down."
He adds, however, a special reason for this command : Xva ti ko.1
t^v 7^1/ Karapyei ; i.e. " Wherefore does it (useless in itself) also
make the ground useless ? " Because already useless in itself, it
would deserve the axe ; but in addition — and this is an especial
offence to the speaker — it makes useless the soil of the vineyard
in which it is planted. His vineyard is too valuable to bear a
barren tree. He wiU have a fruitful tree — this lies unexpressed
but plain in the background — planted in its stead.
But then the vinedresser, to whom the owner of the vineyard
has thus spoken, makes intercession for the tree. The motive
influencing him in this intercession, notwithstanding that the
command to cut it down appears thoroughly weU-grounded
objectively, can only be a special fondness for this tree, leading
him still to hope concerning it, even where, according to ordinary
judgment, there is nothing to be hoped for. Hence ver. 8 :
" But he answered and said : '' Kvpie, a<f>e? airrjv Kal rovro rb 'iro?,
1 Wetstein, Meyer.
GOEBEL. L

162 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
i.e. "Let it alone this year also." For this present- year also,
although as the third year of fruitlessness it seems to decide
the tree's barrenness, the gardener asks the same patience that
was shown to it the two former years. His request is to the
effect that it be not cut down, but left standing this year also.
It is self-evident that, if not cut down this year, the tree is to
remain standing tiU the return of the fruit-season next year.
This is the presupposition when, further explaining and con
firming his request, he more exactly defines the time up to which
he desires the tree to remain : ew? orov aKatyw irepl avryv Kal
BdXw Koirpia : x " till I shall dig about and dung it." He thus
expresses the purpose to do everything possible to the tree in
the way of digging and dunging, and untU this shaU be done (ie.,
according to the meaning, until the effect of his action is seen,
therefore until next year's fruit-season) he implores respite for
the tree. Then, as he now adds in conclusion, according to the
success or failure of these efforts of his, let the fate of the tree
be decided (ver. 9) : kc\v pev iroiyay icapirbv' el Be py ye, et?
rb pikXXov eKKotyei? avryv. In edv pev , . . et Be the two cases —
that of success and that of failure — are contrasted with each
other.2 But in the case of success first taken into consideration,
the apodosis is absent, and this not because it can be supplied
from the foregoing by an d<pe? avryv repeated,3 for in the case of
bearing fruit supposed no such special intercession for the tree
is needed, and were there need of it, it would not be self-evident,
but must be expressly repeated. Eather, the apodosis is absent
simply because in the case supposed the tree's remaining is
entirely matter of course. Therefore, with Meyer et al., some
thing Uke KaXw? e%ei must be suppUed, thus : " And in case it
shall bear fruit, well ! " Even in the classics such aposiopeses
are not rare, and are especially frequent, as here, after the first
of two paraUel conditional sentences, the speaker leaping forward
to the second sentence as the principal.4 So here, by the
aposiopesis of the first apodosis, the second one, in which the
petitioner himself proposes the tree being cut down in the
opposite case, acquires all the greater emphasis : " But if not"
ie. if even then it bears no fruit, " cut it down the next year"
1 So, according to the best witnesses, instead of xovplxt,
2 Respecting the interchange of \xt and il in parallel conditional sentences, see
Winer, Gram. p. 363 f.
3 Kuinoel, et al. * Cf. Winer, Oram. p. 627.

THE FIG-TREE. 163
The words et? to peXXov must not here be taken in general
indefiniteness = " afterwards," as e.g. in 1 Tim. vi. 19; but, since
the words et? rb peXXov eKKo-^rei? avryv here plainly stand in
contrast with a<f>e? avryv Kal rovro rb ero? as a supplement
and limitation, the context necessarily requires the completion
by ero?, therefore " in the next year." The gardener does not
in his request desire the cutting down of the tree to be post
poned to an indefinite future, but definitely proposes the next
year for doing this, if fruitlessness then ensues.1 Something
special has been found in the fact of eKKotyei?, not Skko^w, being
used at the close ; 2 but wrongly, for since the words are stiU a
part of the gardener's request to the master, it is obvious that he
speaks in the second person in the way of mere proposal, and
does not in an unbecoming manner give expression to indepen
dent resolutions in the first person. And this request, now
brought to a conclusion, forms the close of the entire narrative.
It is not even said that the request was granted. We certainly
see that the request is conceived to be effectual from the mere
fact that only as such does it really form a conclusion ; but, on
the other hand, this mode of concluding the narrative strengthens
the impression, how the fate of the tree trembles in the balance.
Nothing stands between the tree and the axe that is to cut it
down save the prayer of the gardener, who desires to make a last
triaL And even this prayer extends only to a brief measured
respite, and in case the respite passes away without effect,
merges into the proposal : " But if not, thou shalt cut it down."
As soon as we compare these contents, and especiaUy this
result of the narrative, with the words of threatening prediction,
to which it directly refers, it is clear that those words of Jesus
contain the very theme of the parable. There Jesus twice fore
told to the bystanders that, unless they repent, they all, namely,
the entire body of the IsraeUtish nation, wiU perish in Uke
manner as those GaUleans and Jerusalemites, therefore that they
wiU incur a divine judgment, involving in destruction not merely
individuals, but the entire generation. And it is precisely this
judgment, only enlarged and intensified into the destruction of the
nation in its national existence, which presents itself as the theme
of the parable. That the nation of Israel, — for we are warranted
1 On the use of the preposition sis of a future time, in which something will or
ought to take place, cf. i. 20 ; Acts xiii. 42.
2 Bengel, Stier, et al

164 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
by the context in provisionaUy assuming that Israel is represented
by the image of the fig-tree, — unless it now repents, will fall victim
to God's sentence of destruction without further delay, — to exhibit
this solemn truth as unchangeable is the design of the parable.
In other words, the design of the figurative history is to show that
what Jesus first of all merely held up before the bystanders as
a menacing prediction, with the weight attaching to His own
testimony,1 is also a fact inseparably bound up with the peculiar
nature of the present circumstances of Israel, so that it must
itself be recognised as such. Let us see more closely how this is
done in detail.
" A fig-tree a certain man possessed, planted in his vineyard ; "
in these words the object, of which the narrative is to treat, is
put first. Even in the Old Testament the fig-tree is an image of
the people of Israel (Joel i 7). Nevertheless, since the same is
certainly true of the vineyard,2 the attempt has been made to
apply the fig-tree not to Israel, but to the individual Israelite,
and then the vineyard to the nation.8 But the fig-tree cannot be
the individual Israelite as a member of the nation, because
throughout the narrative it is single and alone, not an individual
tree among many, which even when taken together do not make
a vineyard. We must therefore adhere to the view that the fig-
tree is Israel. This is required alike by the connection with
what precedes, and by the figurative signification of this tree in
the Old Testament. Then the words: "A certain man had,"
intimate the relation in which God stands to this nation. It is
that of owner to the property belonging to Him in a peculiar
sense. This relation is figuratively described in its distinctive
ness by " planted." Israel is not a nation that has grown in
a purely natural way, but, like a tree specially planted, it was
caUed into existence as a nation by special extraordinary acts
of God.4 And it is just this privUege belonging to it above
other nations, in regard to its relation to God, which now
finds complete figurative expression in the words : " in His vine
yard." There is no necessity,' because the fig-tree is Israel, to
interpret the vineyard in which it is planted of the world in
general,5 in which case nothing would be affirmed of Israel but
what is just as true of aU other nations, that the world is its
dwelling-place. Eather, the figurative signification of the vine-
1 Cf. the xiyo, iuTv, vv. 3, 5. 2 See the passage quoted, and Isa. v. 1-7.
3 Stier. 4 Cfi ps_ kxx. 8, 15. 5 van Oosterzee.

THE FIG-TREE. 165
yard found elsewhere must here be simply adhered to, only, of
course, with the modification it receives in other figurative dis
courses of Jesus. In the Old Testament, where the theocracy on
earth is identical with the IsraeUtish nationality and constitution
as such, the vineyard, because signifying the kingdom of God,
signifies also, of course, " the house of Israel " (Isa. v. 7). But not
so in the figurative language of Jesus. In the parable (Matt.
xx. 1 ff.) Jesus symbolizes by the vineyard the kingdom of God
in itself, without special reference to the IsraeUtish nation ; 1 and
in the parable Matt. xxi. 33 ff, He distinguishes between the
vinedressers as the representatives of the Jewish nation and the
vineyard as the kingdom of God, which indeed they previously
held in possession, but which hereafter will be taken from them
and handed over to others. It is the same here. When it
was affirmed here of the fig-tree as a special privUege, that it
was planted in its owner's vineyard, this can only mean the
privUege belonging to Israel as the nation designed and educated
by God from the first to be the people of His kingdom, and
encircled in the entire course of its growth with all the blessings
of the theocracy.
From this standpoint we can now interpret without difficulty
the single incidents of the narrative. In the first place, this is
certain : As the owner of the fig-tree has a right to expect fruit
from the tree planted in his vineyard, so has God a right to
expect the moral fruit of righteousness from the chosen people of
His kingdom. And as the owner seeks fruit in the tree without
finding it, so does God in His people. Nay, as the owner is
forced to complain respecting the fruitlessness of the tree lasting
through three years, so has God to complain respecting the lasting
impenitence of Israel, — so lasting, that the nation must be
regarded as utterly hardened and incapable of repentance. Here
we arrive at the true interpretation of the "three years."
Against the often attempted appUcation to the three official years
of Christ,2 it is decisive that, if this interpretation of the three
years is accepted here, it must also be accepted in the interpreta
tion of vv. 8, 9, which would lead there to the impossible result,
that Jesus places the occurrence of the judgment on Israel within
the space of a year. Moreover, the work of Jesus in Israel was
not at all in question previously, but merely the relation of God
1 See on that parable.
2 E.g. Bengel, Wieseler, Weizsacker, similarly van Oosterzeo.

166 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
to Israel as the people of His possession. We should then he
compelled, as Stier does consistently, from the first to interpret
the lord of the vineyard of Christ, thus involving the whole in
utter confusion. But on the supposition that what is here said
of the physical life of a tree is to be transferred to the moral life
of a nation, how could the three years as such be incorporated
mechanicaUy in the interpretation ? Three years were named in
the parable, because the fruitlessness of a tree through this
number of seasons seems to prove its incurable barrenness.
Transferred to the moral development of a nation, the correspon
dent period can only be a period of moral corruption and obduracy,
of such prolonged duration as to form a just basis for inferring
the utter incapacity of the nation as such for moral reformation, —
an inference which cannot be based, as with a tree, on years,
but only on centuries or millenniums. Thus, in the present
case, the period corresponding to the three unfruitful years of the
fig-tree is the entire historical past of Israel from its beginning
to its present, during which the nation had never experienced/a
thoroughgoing moral reformation, so that its incurable obduracy
seems proved. It is clear that, after the thought underlying the
mention of three years has thus found its complete appUcation in
the interpretation, the attempts of older expositors to point out a
corresponding triplicity of periods within the past of Israel 1 must
be relegated to the domain of arbitrary conjectures. And, to
proceed with the interpretation, as now, on the ground of the
proved barrenness of the tree the owner issues the command to
cut it down, so Israel, after the centuries of its history up to the
present have established its incurable obduracy, Ues exposed to
the divine judgment. The decree of God, giving it up to judg
ment as an obdurate nation, incapable of repentance, is already
pronounced. And even the special reason for the command:
" Cut it down," added by the owner in the parable, ought not to
be passed over, since the otherwise superfluous addition is only
explained by supposing a corresponding interpretation to be
aimed at. But after the planting of the tree in the vineyard has
been rightly explained, as above, the corresponding interpretation
of this feature easily follows. The cutting down of the tree is
necessary for a double reason, because it is not only useless in
itself, but also makes useless the rich soU, where other fruitful
1 E.g. the age of the Law, the Prophets, and Jesus, or of the Judges, Kings, and
High Priests.

THE FIG-TREE. 167
trees might be planted. So Israel Ues under the doom of
destruction for a double reason, because it is not only in itself
unworthy to exist, but also, as the chosen people of God's king
dom, enjoys in vain the blessings and prerogatives which might
be given instead to other peoples hitherto at a distance from the
kingdom of God.
In the foregoing interpretation of the complaint as to the
barrenness of the tree, and of the command to cut it down, we
have made no reference to the circumstance, that both — the
complaint and the command — are in the narrative uttered
in presence of the gardener. And this with good reason. For
the fact that the owner's disappointment, and his resolve to cut
the tree down, find expression, not in another and simpler form
(e.g. in that of a soliloquy), but as a complaint and command to
the gardener, is without independent significance. This circum
stance obviously has its significance merely as a preliminary to
the conclusion of the narrative, where this very gardener, in
replying to the complaint and command, himself decisively inter
venes in behalf of the tree already condemned to the axe. Here,
then, we must inquire as to the interpretation of the gardener.
Without doubt Jesus intends in the gardener to typify Himself,
and in what the gardener does for the tree to set forth what He
does for Israel. And this not merely in the indefinite generality,
that His work is the last attempt on Israel.1 To express only
this thought an essentially simpler construction of the figurative
history would have sufficed, namely, instead of the express
command skko^ov, crossed and delayed by the prayer d<pe? avryv,
a simple intimation to the gardener to do for the tree whatever
was possible again and for the last time. That the intercession of
the gardener, which delays the cutting down of the tree, impera
tively requires a definite interpretation, is proved decisively by the
analogous historical incidents in the Old Testament, especially the
repeated intercession of Moses for the people, which delayed the
divine judgment,2 an intercession which must necessarily have
occurred to the Jewish hearers in the present case. Accordingly,
without going beyond the original meaning of the narrative,
we have to continue the interpretation to the end as follows:
Like a gardener who, despite persistent fruitlessness, cherishes to
1 Meyer.
2 Ex. xxxii. 7-14 ; Num. xiv. 11-19 ; cf. 1 Sam. vii. 9 ; Amos vii. 2 ; Dan.
ix. 16-19.

168 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
the last the hope of causing a tree dear to him to bear fruit, so
Jesus, in love to His people, is unwilling even now utterly to
abandon hope of them, despite their moral obduracy proved again
and again up to the present moment. As, therefore, the gardener
prays the master, who has already decreed the cutting down of the
tree, to let it stand yet another year, so is Jesus seeking by His
intercession before God to delay for the present the divine judg
ment already passed upon Israel. And as the gardener further
explains his request to mean, that at least the effect may be
awaited of a last extraordinary attempt to be made with the use
of every means, with digging and dunging about the tree, so the
inner purport of the prayer of Jesus for Israel is, that at least a
respite may be granted it, until the final effect of His present
work shall decisively show itself, — work in which everything
possible wUl be done in a way never seen before to arouse the
nation to repentance. That mercy will take the place of judg
ment in case of actual success is self-evident, in regard both to the
fig-tree and Israel. But as in case of renewed failure the
gardener sees himself compelled to propose the cutting down of
the tree next year (namely, as soon as the failure shall be con
firmed), so even Jesus' prayer for mercy to Israel neither will nor
can extend beyond the time when the failure of His present toil
shall be decided, and therefore in no case — this is plainly implied
— beyond the time of the present generation, for which He has
toiled. When the fruitlessness of His present toil shall be mani
fest in them, then the divine sentence of destruction, so long
threatening Israel, will and must infallibly be executed on this
generation, which has filled up the measure of the sins of its
fathers (Matt, xxiii. 32). It wiU see bursting upon it a penal
catastrophe, involving it in destruction, and inflicting on the
nation as such the dissolution of its national existence. And thus
the meaning of the parable merges at last into the threatening
prediction which precedes it, and the unavoidableness of which
follows from the peculiar nature of the present circumstances of
the nation : " Unless ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

the great banquet. 169
The Great Banquet.1
(Luke xiv. 15-24.)
The parable of the Great Banquet was uttered by Jesus when
He was dining with one of the heads of the Pharisaic sect on a
Sabbath day, xiv. 1. This " ruler of the Pharisees " (ap^wv ra>v
$apiaaiwv) and his brother-Pharisees sitting with him at table,
were the hearers. The friendly association into which they had
drawn Jesus was used by them as a cover for watching Him
(ver. 16). In keeping with this relation of the rest of the guests
to Jesus, His conversation with them assumes the form of a series
of admonitions which He gives them. First of aU, the presence
of a man with the dropsy, brought about as it seems by set
arrangement, leads Him to heal the man, and to justify in a
striking manner His act of healing on the Sabbath to the spies
and secret murmurers, so that they are unable to answer Him,
vv. 2-6. Again, when He sees how the guests affect the chief
, places at table, He reproves the arrogant longing for vain honour
in the figurative form suggested by the occasion (eXeye irapaBoXyv,
ver. 7), and exhorts to the modesty which without ostenta
tion gives way to others, instead of trying to raise itseU above
them, vv. 7-11. Again, apparently, it was the exclusiveness
of the host in the selection of the guests which led Jesus
(at the same time suggesting the figurative form) further to
admonish the host to show his liberality, not so much to those
from whom recompense might be expected, as rather to those
who could make no return, ver. 12 ff. "And thou shalt be
blessed, because they have not wherewith to recompense thee ; for
thou shalt be recompensed in the resurrection of the just," ver. 14,
— with this promise Jesus concluded the exhortation. These
words decide the meaning of the exclamation, into which one of the
guests breaks out directly after this discourse of Jesus (aKovaa? Si),
and which gives the Lord the special occasion of the following
parable. Mandpio? b? cpdyerai aprov iv rfj BaaiXeia rov Qeov,
so runs the exclamation, ver. 15. "'Aprov iadieiv (orh i>3N,
1 Respecting the mutual relations of this parable and that of the Royal Marriage-
Feast (Matt, xxii 1 ff. ), which are supposed, according to the judgment of modern
critics (most recently by Weiss), to have been originally identical, see at the close of
the exposition of the last-named parable. This point can only be decided when
each of the two parables has been independently expounded in its context.

170 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
e.g. Gen. xxxi. 54, xliii. 32, et al) means " to take a meal," in
the general sense, "to partake of a meal."1 Here, therefore:
" Blessed is he who shall partake of food in the kingdom of God!'
The exclamation presents itself at first sight merely as an affirma
tive repetition of the last words of Jesus. For, when it was said,
" And thou shalt be blessed, ... for thou shalt be recompensed in
the resurrection of the just," this recompensing was there repre
sented, in keeping with the figurative form of the whole section,
w. 12-14, as a return-invitation2 to the feast in the future
kingdom of God which is set up at the resurrection of the just.
And yet what seems and is meant to seem merely an affirmative .
repetition of the last words of Jesus in a somewhat altered form,
is in reality a complete perversion. For whereas Jesus had
commended the blessedness of God's future kingdom to His
Pharisaic host in the light of a recompense for the fulfilment of
a perfectly definite command, — a command involving for the
Pharisee and aU like him an essential change of mind, — the
Pharisee, seizing simply upon the last words of Jesus, emphatically
commends merely the blessedness in general of partaking in the
feast of God's kingdom, without so much as mentioning that
command of the Lord. This relation in which the Pharisee's
exclamation stands to the preceding words of Jesus as an
apparently affirmative repetition of the blessing pronounced, while
omitting the condition to which it was attached, makes plain the
meaning in which the otherwise unobjectionable and edifying
words are viewed here. The Pharisee commends participation in
the feast of God's kingdom, not as a lofty, attractive goal, worth
every sacrifice and only to be attained by thorough change of
mind, but as a possession supposed to be secure to him and those
like him, and to which he has a right without further condition,
to say nothing of his needing a change of mind in order to reach
the goal. To this statement the parable gives the answer. For
in the story of the parable Jesus especially addresses Himself to
the guest who made this statement, ver. 15 (o Se elirev avrw).
And thus we are warranted in expecting that the purpose of the
parable will be directed against this Pharisaic security, which
glories in the blessedness of God's kingdom as a right.
"A certain man made a great banquet," so the narrative begins,
ver. 16. Aeiirvov here is "banquet" generally. At least no
1 Cf. ver. 1 ; Matt. xv. 2 ; Mark iii. 20.
Cf. ver. 12 : /i4 koti xx) xuto) xtTixxXisualt at xx) yittiTai xtTxvroto/ix set.

THE GREAT BANQUET. l7l
stress is laid on the difference between the principal evening
meal and apiarov as the morning meal,1 because in the following
narrative the time of day is nowhere aUuded to. A banquet is
caUed great or small according to the greater or smaller number
of guests for whom it is prepared, not according to the number
of viands,2 of which there may be many even in a smaU meal, or
according to the costliness of the viands 3 and the dignity of the
host.4 The word " great " only expresses the festive magnitude
of the meal indirectly, namely, in so far as a meal for unusuaUy
numerous guests requires also unusually large preparations, and
is generaUy set out with special pomp. To the greatness of the
feast in preparation corresponds exactly the foUowing : " and He
called many." To the magnitude of the preparations intended
for a multitude of guests corresponds the invitation addressed to
a multitude of guests. This first calling is consequently viewed
merely as a preliminary announcement, contemporaneous with the
preparation of the feast, by which those to whom it is addressed
become " called," ie. invited guests, without the hour of the
feast being as yet precisely indicated to them. Only on this
assumption can it be said further, ver. 17 : Kal dirkareiXev rbv
SovXov avrov rfj wpa rov Seiirvov elireiv rot? KeKXypkvoi?, "Ep^eaOe,
on ySy eroipd iariv irdvra, i.e. "And he sent his 'servant at the
hour of the feast," etc. In the words " his servant " a specially
near relation of the servant to his master has been supposed to
be intimated.5 But this view is based only on a preconceived
interpretation of the servant. The article is the simple generic
article,6 and the servant only comes into consideration here as
bearing the message to the guests, again as reporting their
answers, and finaUy, as executing other commissions, without his
person having independent significance in the context of the
narrative apart from the execution of these commissions. "At
the hour of the feast," i.e. at the hour when the feast was ready,
word is again sent to the guests, in order actually to caU those
who before were only invited preliminarily and without exact
specification of time. That such is the meaning is put beyond
doubt by the wording of the message to be addressed to the
guests : " Come, for all things are now ready." The Uttle word
" now " impUes that those invited did not expect the feast to be
ready just now. The only other possible rendering of the order,
1 Cf. on Matt. xxii. 4. s van Oosterzee et al. 3 Luther. * De Valenti.
8 Nebe. 6 Cf. e.g. Matt. viii. 9, xiyo, . . . t$ touXx /tov.

172 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
" all things are now ready," as a reminding exhortation because
of the negligence of the guests who failed to appear at the hour
already announced to them on the first invitation,1 is inappro
priate, because so important and strange a circumstance as the
non-appearance of all the invited guests at the appointed hour
could not have been passed over in silence in the narrative.
When, accordingly, proof is found that a second invitation to
festal guests is customary in the East, this is simply a confirma
tion of the only meaning admissible here.2 The answers also,
which the invited ones give to the order, ver. 18 ff, represent
them as taken by surprise by the summons : " Come, for all
things are now ready," at a time when they did not expect it.
That in which all the invited ones agree in their answer is
placed first, ver. 1 8 : Kal ypfjavro dirb p,ia? irapatreiadai irdvre?,
Ilapaireiadai, as the immediately foUowing request : e^e pe iraprj-
rypikvov, places beyond doubt, has here the signification "praying
to decline," or " to ask to be excused," therefore what we call " to
excuse oneself" from an invitation. But yp^avro irapatreiadai
is not a mere pleonasm for " they excused themselves," but the
apparently superfluous " began " suggests the new and wonderful
thing implied in the invited guests meeting the call now actually
to come to the feast with excuses. Whereas hitherto, so long as
the invitation was merely preliminary, they seemed to view it as
an honour and delight, now (when they are actually to come)
they began to excuse themselves ! And this is all the more strange
as they do it dirb p,id? irdvre?, " all with one consent." 'Airo with
the genitive stands here 3 with the adverbial significance of the
manner in which something is done. Whether KapSia? or ¦fvyf)^
or yvwpy? is to be supplied to pia? is not worth disputing.
Precisely because the supplement follows of itself in either of
these ways, but always with the same sense of unanimity, the
pia? may stand thus absolutely. Thus their excusing themselves
with one consent certainly means in the first instance: they
showed unanimity in excusing themselves. But reaUy their
unanimity goes still farther, without, however, there being a
trace of concert beforehand.4 While the excuses which they offer
differ according to the different situation in which the call to the
feast finds the individuals, they are all alike as regards the
1 Winer, Realworterbuch, art. "Gastmahl;'' Nebe.
5 Meyer quotes Rosenmiiller, Morgenland, v. p. 192 f.
3 As e.g. in Matt, xviii. 35 ; 2 Cor. i. 14, ii. 5. 4 Godet.

THE GREAT BANQUET.

173

meaning expressed in them. When, then, in what foUows the
refusal of the first, that of a second, and that of a third of the
guests are quoted literally, the intention of this threefold exem
plification may either be to characterize three different classes of
guests by three essentially different grounds of excuse, or in the
intrinsic resemblance of the three answers given by way of
example to indicate the deeper cause lying beneath the reluctance
of all the guests alike, which thus explains the unanimity of
their reluctance. Let us now look at the three examples, vv.
186-20. The first said to him : —

'Aypbv yybpaaa

Kal e^o) avayKyv if;-
eXdeiv Kal ISeiv 1
avrov'
And another said : —

epwrw ae, e^e pe
irapyrypivov.

Zevyy j6o<5i> yyb
paaa irivre
And another said : —
TvvaiKa eyy pa,

Kal iropevopai Boki-
pdaai avrd'

epwrw ae, ej(w pe
iraprjrypevov. Kal Bid rovro ov
Svvapai eXdeiv.
Thus each of the three men invited intimates, in the first place,
that he has acquired a piece of property: the first, "I have bought
afield;" the second, "I have bought five2 yoke of oxen;" the third,
"I have married a wife." For it is plain that in this juxtaposition
the marrying of a wife is regarded as the acquisition of a piece of
property equally with the buying of a field and of five yoke of
oxen.3 To this prefatory statement the first and the second then
add the more precise intimation to what extent the object
acquired has claims on them ; the first, " and I must needs go and
see it " (the field) ; the second, " and I go to prove tliem " (the pairs
of oxen). Because of these words appended, it has been believed,
without reason, that the preceding aorist yybpaaa must be taken
in the sense of a present or future (Kuinoel : emere volo agrum),
or that the purchase is not finally concluded.4 Certainly it is a
dictate of prudence for any one to see and test a thing before
1 Or also, according to good witnesses, \\iXlat liut.
5 The frequent use of the number five, due to the need of concrete, vivid narrative,
is worthy of notice ; cf. xvi. 28.
8 Cf. Ex. xx. 17. i Stier, van Oosterzee, von Hofmann.

174 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
buying it. But this kind of seeing and testing is not here in
question. Here the point is the seeing and proving a newly-
acquired object with the contented feeling of possessing it as
property, which, without being a dictate of prudence, stiU answers
to a natural want based on the relation of the possessor to the
thing acquired, and yields the possessor aU the greater enjoyment
the more he has been wont to attach his heart to the objects of
his possession. Therefore, somewhat as a miser can scarcely wait
to see a newly-acquired treasure, to count it over again and again,
toss it to and fro and test the single coins, so the one is eager to
see his field, and the other to test his five yoke of oxen. But the
strong expression e%w dvdyKyv, which the first one gives to this
eagerness, is on one hand grounded in his subjective attachment,
in virtue of which he must do what he cannot leave, and on the
other hand is the result of his courteous effort to represent the
ground of excuse as compulsory, and therefore conclusive ; whereas
the second, in merely stating the fact, "I go to prove them,"
without aUeging necessity, shows a less degree of courtesy. And
in this respect the third again is' different from the second, since
he curtly and pettishly says nothing in detaU as to the extent of
the claim made on him by his possession, but contents himself with
the statement : " I have married a wife." As matter of fact, it is
clear that here also the preventing element lies in the need of
enjoying the object of his possession, the wife whom he has taken
to himself as his own.1 To the statement of the ground of refusal
aU three again expressly add the refusal itself; and this also with
diminishing courtesy, the first and the second in the courteous
form of the same request : e^e pie irapyrypiivov (i.e. by a Latinism,
habe me excusatum, "hold me excused "2) ; the third, with contempt
for such courteous forms of request, refusing out and out : " /
cannot come." Accordingly, as regards the more or less courteous
form, the refusals certainly vary in a diminishing degree. But as
regards the preventing element on which they insist, they are
thoroughly aUke. The three examples do not present three
essentiaUy different grounds of excuse, characteristic of three
classes of guests different in disposition; but they show that
aU those invited equally decline to leave their property in field
or cattle, farm or house, and prefer enjoying it to partaking in
the pleasures of the feast offered them by the giver of the feast,
1 Deut. xxiv. 5.
2 Cf. the similar use of 'i%ut, Matt. xiv. 5, xxi. 26 ; Phil. ii. 29.

THE GREAT BANQUET. 175
so that the distinction of field, cattle, and wife is simply the
necessary interchange of the threefold exemplification. Upon
this correct interpretation we have no longer to ask whether the
particular excuses are more or less cogent ; but it is clear that aU
these answers, whether more or less courteous in form, involve
one and the same culpable contempt for the householder's feast.
" And the servant 1 came and reported these things to his lord,"
so we hear further, ver. 21. The fact that in these words the
reporting of the guests' answer to the householder, which for its
own sake might just as well have been passed over as the
reporting of the latter's message to the guests, is nevertheless
expressly related, is not due merely to the circumstantial style of
narrative ; but these words are meant to remind the hearer of
the eager curiosity resulting at this point from the course of the
previous narrative : What will the giver of the feast now do,
when these contemptuous answers are reported to him? WiU
he leave his table empty, and reserve their places for those who
stiU were once invited ? And if not, in what other way wiU he
fiU his table ? To this question of eager curiosity an answer is
given in what follows : rore opyiadel? b oiKoSeairory? elirev rw
BovXw avrov K.r.X. The householder is transported with just
anger at the report of the scornful answers of his guests, and
in anger at them (bpyiadei? . . . elirev) gives the servant the
following commission : etfeXde ra%iw? et? ra? irXareia? Kal
pvpa? ry? iroXew?, Kal roii? irrw)(pv? Kal dvairypov? Kal rv(pXoii?
Kal y(wXov?2 eladyaye w8e. The raj(iw? after egeXde is to be
explained from opyiadel? elirev. He does not urge to haste, as
many take it, from the hospitable thought of the long-waiting
meal, — then the raj(iw? must rightly have stood in the case of
the second egeXde, ver. 23, where it is wanting, — but wrath at
those invited makes him take speedy measures for their punish
ment. Without troubling himself further about them, or waiting
for them, or wasting another word upon them, he gives the
servant orders to go quickly after other guests to take the place
of the former ones at his table. And he is to go out et? ra?
irXareia? Kal pvpa? ry? irbXew?, i.e. "into the (broad) streets and
(narrow) lanes of the city." 3 Consequently a city appears here as
the scene, if not necessarUy of the feast, yet of the invitations, so
1 'ExiTtos after ZouXos (Rec.) is too weakly attested.
2 The reverse order xwXohs xx) Tutpxois (Rec.) is taken from ver. 13.
3 Cf. Isa. xv. 3, LXX

176 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
that the guests first invited, whom we see from their excuses to
be owners having fields, cattle, and households, are pictured as
resident citizens of the city.1 The only possible meaning of the
order given by the host is that, after the citizens of the city have
despised the invitation, the servant must now seek the homeless
populace of the city, gathering them, so to speak, from the streets
and lanes, namely, " the beggars, and cripples, and blind, and lame."
Just as in ver. 13, alongside the cripples,2 the blind and lame
embraced under that designation are specially mentioned as the
classes of such unfortunate ones most commonly met with. The
heaping together of such expressions indicates that no class of
wretchedness, whatever it be, is to be passed over. And indeed they
are not simply to be summoned, but the direction runs : eladyaye
wSe, " bring them in here," scil. into this my house,3 certainly a
form of direction such as naturally follows from the situation
here. For if beggars and cripples, such as lie about streets and
lanes, are really to be brought, not merely as recipients of alms
to the door, but as guests into the house and to the festive table
of the wealthy, noble householder, a mere summons, which they
wUl scarcely understand, to say nothing of their venturing to
obey it, is not enough, but they need to be brought in. But,
on the other hand, it is also clear that, besides the shame and
diffidence to be overcome in presence of so honourable and
unexpected an invitation, no other objection, like that of the
guests first invited, is to be anticipated from these unhappy,
homeless people, and that therefore the direction " bring them in
here," while necessary to overcome their shame, is certain of
success. For this reason the execution of the commission itself
may be passed over in silence, the fact of its execution being at
once announced, ver. 22: " And the servant said, Lord, . it is
done as thou didst command." Certainly it has recently been
contested 4 that the execution of the commission may be supplied
between vv. 21 and 22. The servant, it is supposed, in
immediate response to the order of the householder, answers that
he has already done spontaneously as the master orders him.6
But in this case the action of the servant would merely have to
be supplied between vv. 20 and 21, instead of between vv. 21
¦ Cf. Matt. xxii. 7.^ ^ s itinpu, " mutilated."
3 Cf. ver. 23 : pov l olxos. 4 Meyer, van Oosterzee.
5 In the newest (6th) edition of Meyer's commentary, edited by Weiss, the latter
has again set aside this interpretation.

THE GREAT BANQUET. 177
and 22, and this with impossible harshness. Then, too, even if
we are willing to refrain from emphasizing the essential element,
that the servant did it spontaneously, His words at least should
have run yiyovev r;Si? w? emrdaaei?, instead of yiyovev w?
iiriraga?.1 And how is it possible to conceive that, because a
servant has received refusals from the invited guests of his noble,
wealthy lord, he should hit upon the expedient of gathering the
beggars and cripples from the streets and bringing them as guests
to the table, and that without further inquiry he should carry this
suggestion out on his own responsibility ? This view so entirely
contradicts the natural tenor of the narrative, that its advocacy can
only be explained as an adaptation of the text to an interpretation
settled beforehand.2 And even when the servant, after announcing
the execution of his master's commission, makes the addition : " and
yet there is room," this by no means implies an element of initiative
on the part of the servant, such as some have once and again
tried to find in the interests of a preconceived interpretation.
Directly we keep in view the situation created by the previous
course of the narrative, — a great feast is made ready, many were
invited, all refused, the servant was sent forth to fill the empty
table with the beggars and cripples of the streets, — it is evident
that as the servant hitherto was everywhere merely the messenger
going and returning to carry out the behests of his. lord and bring
him back word, so here also he remains in this position, since in
simple duty he announces the fact that, although he has done
his lord's command and brought in the beggars and cripples,
the design of the command is only imperfectly accomplished, the
table instead of being full is still partiaUy empty. As to place,
this announcement of the servant to the householder is not to be
pictured as made within the banquet-room itself; but after the
analogy of the parable, Matt. xxn. 1 ff.,3 we have to think of the
giver of the feast here as a great lord, who does not receive the
guests directly within the banquet - room, but awaits their
assembling without. The last words of the servant : " and still
there is room," bring the narrative again to a similar point of
expectancy as at his first announcement, ver. 21. Will not
the householder now at least pay regard to the men who were
1 Nebe.
2 The truth supposed to be signified thereby is, that Jesus executed the commission
of ver. 21 before His return to God.
3 Cf. ver. 11.
GOEBEL. M

178 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
the invited ones ; wiU he not at least reserve the room stiU left
for them, and if not, in what other way will he fill his table ?
This is the question resulting from the situation in the form it has
taken. The question finds its answer in ver. 23: Kal elirev o
Kvpio? irpb? rbv BoiiXov, "EijeXde et? Ta? 6Sov? Kal (ppaypov? ko\
avdr/Kaaov elaeXdeiv, iva yepiadfj p,ov 6 oIko?. In contrast with
et? rd? irXareia? Kal pvpa? ry? irbXew?, ver. 21, it is said here:
et? rd? oSoii? Kal (ppaypov?. The oSot accordingly are here
meant in the stricter sense as highways, and Kal (ppaypov? is
subjoined for the purpose of more exactly defining the general,
indefinite expression by emphasizing a pecuUarity characteristic
of country-roads. Accordingly we are not to think of hedges
enclosing the vineyards, gardens, and fields,1 or farm-premises,3
nor yet of hedges in general, because vagrants, beggars, etc.,
usuaUy haunt such places,3 for they do this only when such
hedges directly occur in the road. But, according to the context,
we are to think of hedges and fences, inasmuch as they run along
and bound the highways in contrast with the rows of houses
forming the bounds of city-streets. In this sense it is said:
" Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel to come in."
Whom, is not said. But the very fact of the command : " compel to
come in," being put down absolutely without object, says in the
strongest way that the servant is to do so to every one whom he
meets in the road. He is to compel them to come in, of course
in the only way open to him, by pressing entreaty and urgent
address, which may just as weU be signified by avayKa^eiv as
compulsion by threat and violence.4 The words: "compel to
come in," therefore mean essentially the same as "bring in
here," ver. 21, save that the expression is strengthened. If the
beggars and cripples of the city need to be brought in, in order to
their appearing as guests at the festive table of the great lord
perhaps unknown to them, certainly the strangers of the country
roads must be compelled to come in, if they are to be gathered as
guests at the table of the householder hitherto unknown to them,
It is the timid diffidence grounded in the nature of the case
which here as there needs to be overcome, and any other
resistance, springing from contempt, is as Uttle to be thought of
here as there. Hence the " compel to come in " is as certain of
success as the " bring in." The teUc sentence which then foUows
1 Kuinoel. 2 von Hofmann.
3 De Wette, Meyer. " Cf. e.g. Matt. xiv. 22 ; Mark vi. 45.

THE GREAT BANQUET. 179
does not belong specially to "compel," which, being grounded
in the nature of the case, does not need a special definition of
aim. The meaning is not, " In order that my house may be fuU,
even compulsory means are to be employed," a misunderstanding
which results in essential errors. But the telic sentence belongs
to the entire commission : " Go out into the highways," etc.
The words: "that my house may be filled," plainly correspond to the
words of the servant : " and yet there is room," ver. 22. Because
the householder desires to see no empty room in his house, because,
despite the scorn on the part of those invited, he desires to see
his table filled with guests, therefore, without even now paying
any regard to those first invited, he commands the servant to go
forth the second time and compel the strangers of the highways
to come in, — " that my house may be full."
At this point, then, the course of the narrative has reached
a thoroughly complete conclusion. How those who were first
invited to the feast despised it, is told in the first part ; upon
which the second part has shown how the householder repUed to
this contemptuousness with the commission to fetch in the beggars
and cripples from the streets, and next, when the existence of
more room was patent, with the further commission to compel even
the wanderers of the highways to come in, that his house might
be fuU. It has shown, therefore, how the despising of the feast on
the part of those invited had for its consequence their final and
complete exclusion from the feast on the part of the householder.
When, then, to the narrative thus brought to a conclusion, ver. 24,
the asseveration is added : \e7o> yap vpiv on ovSel? r&v avBpwv
rav KeKXypiivwv yevaerai pov rov Beiirvov, the introduction to
this asseveration, which is speciaUy used, pecuUarly in Luke's
parables, for the purpose of appending a confirming declaration
of Jesus after a narrative is closed,1 ought to prevent the attempt
to embody the asseveration here in the narrative itself as an
asseveration added to the commission addressed to the servant,
ver. 23.2 To whom could such an asseveration of the house
holder be addressed ? Because of the plural vpiv resort must be
had to such obvious makeshifts as this, that the servant is
addressed as a coUective individual, or that other chance by
standers, or the beggars already brought in, are included among
those addressed, whereas the coUoquy of the master with the
1 Cf. xi. 9, xv. 7, 10, xvi. 9, xviii. 14, and Matt. xxi. 43.
2 De Wette, Olshausen, Meyer, Godet, Nebe, von Hofmann.

180 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
servant does not even take place in their presence (see e.g. ver. 22).
And even if this were the case, what sort of meaning could such
a solemn asseveration have for the body of servants or the
beggars ? What could they gather from it ? As an asseveration
of the householder, it would be jttst as unsuitable to them as it is
forcible considered as an asseveration of Jesus to the Pharisaic
hearers of the parable. Some writers, indeed, say that the words :
" none of those men that were called," must necessarily have
this meaning,1 without, however, showing why. Would they
require that on the lips of Jesus " none of you " should have been
said to His Pharisaic hearers in direct address instead of " none
of those men " ? But this would be something quite different.
In this way Jesus would have pronounced an absolutely ex- '
elusive judgment on each individual among the guests actually
present; whereas He pronounces, indeed, an absolutely and
universally exclusive judgment on the category of "the men
invited " because of their • conduct described in the parable, but
withal leaves it to each individual hearer to take the judgment
to himself, and, as far as he is concerned, to withdraw from
solidarity with " the men invited." There : remains only the
statement, that after Jesus had just been the inviting servant in
the parable, He could not immediately describe the feast as His
(" my supper "). But this, again, is to base the exposition of
the words on an interpretation previously settled, whereas, logi
cally, the latter must be based on the former. Accordingly, the
words are to be taken here merely as an asseveration of Jesus
confirming (hence "for I say to you ") the import of the narrative
to the hearers, like the declarations of Jesus simUarly added in
other parables. What Jesus related of the householder at the
conclusion, — that on the announcement, " there is still room," the
latter, without regarding those invited first, sent forth the servant
anew to fill his house with the wanderers of the highways, — this
He now confirms to the hearers with the asseveration : " I say to
you, None of those men who were invited shall taste of my banquet"
He pledges His word to the hearers, that none of the category of
those men who were originally invited, but refused to come, shall
taste His banquet because of room being subsequently found for
them. Bengel well remarks on iKeivwv : Pronomen removendi
vim habet. But the same expositor goes too far in paraphrasing
the yevaerai by gustabit, nedum perfruatur, since the verb
' De Wette, Olshansen.

THE GREAT BANQUET. 181
yeveadai does not retain its fundamental signification, " to taste,"
in contrast with full enjoying, but merges altogether into the
general signification of enjoying, eating, partaking.1
Consequently the declaration of Jesus added here serves not
so much to interpret the figurative form of the narrative as rather
simply to confirm its result. It interprets only in so far as Jesus
now describes the banquet of the householder in the parable as
His feast. But He does so as the Messianic Son of God, the
King of the Messianic kingdom. As the kingdom of God is His
kingdom,2 so also the banquet of God's kingdom is His banquet.8
" My supper " is therefore the feast of God's Messianic kingdom.
And so with this declaration Jesus expressly recurs to that
utterance of one of the guests which furnished the occasion of
the narrative. " Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom
of God," the guest had said, meaning that this enjoyment was
indefeasibly certain to him and his brethren, like a natural right.
To this Jesus replied with the narrative of a banquet, in which
the attitude of those originally invited Avas such that they were
all excluded from the feast, and then, in conclusion, pledges His
word that at His feast — the feast of God's Messianic kingdom —
this general exclusion of the originally invited wiU in fact take
place. The purpose of the parable is now clear. It is this, to
tell His Pharisaic hearers, who think they have a right to enjoy
the blessings of God's kingdom in virtue of their belonging to
God's chosen nation, that the chosen nation, instead of possessing an
indefeasible claim in its separate vocation to tlie blessedness of God's
kingdom, will, on the contrary, be excluded in its entirety from this
kingdom in favour of others because of its present attitude to the
message of the kingdom of God. And to this purpose, as a review
of the course of the narrative at once shows, the parable is faith
ful, exhibiting in its first part, in figurative form, the present
attitude of the chosen people to the message of God's kingdom,
and in its second part describing the consequences which wiU and
must accrue to the nation from this attitude.
From this point of view the interpretation of the course of the
narrative must now be worked out in detail. The fundamental
idea of the parable standing at the head, as supplied to the Lord
by the general situation and the special utterance of the Pharisaic
guest, ver. 15, is that of a banquet. Meat and drink, satisfying
1 Cf. ix. 27 ; Acts x. 10, xx. 11, et al. * Cf. e.g. Matt. xiii. 41.
3 Cf. xxii. 30 and Matt. xxii. 2.

182 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
man's hunger and thirst, and rejoicing his heart, serve already in
the Old Testament as a figure for the spiritual blessings of divine
communion, satiating and fiUing with joy the hungering, thirsting
souls of the good.1 In accordance with this view, the predictions
of the prophets represent the blessedness of the future kingdom
of God and the Messianic salvation under the figure of a rich,
costly banquet,2 which God prepares in order to satisfy the souls
of men.3 This representation suggests, on one hand, the current
Jewish notion of the banquet of Messiah's kingdom, ver. 15, and,
on the other, the corresponding figurative language of Jesus.4
Thus, the banquet prepared by the householder in the parable is
the entire sum of the spiritual blessings offered by God in His
kingdom to men in order to confer perfect satisfaction and
blessedness on the souls starving and perishing in estrangement
from Him (xv. 17). It was a great banquet which the house
holder prepared, i.e. God's preparatory arrangements aimed from
the first at embracing a great number of men in His kingdom,
and at making them happy through its blessings. But when,
according to the narrative, one part of the great preparations
made by the householder was that, before the feast itself was
ready, he " invited many," and when we add that these " many "
figure everywhere in the sequel as " the invited " in the sense of
a privileged class, and, further, in contrast with the homeless in
the streets and the foreign aUens, figure as the resident citizens
of the city, there can no longer be any doubt who the " many "
are, and what is to be understood by the preliminary invitation
addressed to them, — they are the members of the chosen nation,
the citizens of the Old-Testament theocracy, to whom the estab
lishment of God's Messianic kingdom was previously announced
through the word of prophecy, and before whom the prospect of
participation therein was spread. And as, when the hour of the
feast is come, the householder sends the message to the invited
ones : Come, for aU things are now ready, so now, that with the
appearance of Christ the hour of the realization of God's kingdom
has struck, the caU goes forth to the members of the chosen
nation with divine authority to enter by repentance and faith into
the divine kingdom promised of old, but now realized. In this
statement the meaning of ver. 1 7 is fully reproduced, and there
1 Cf. Ps. xxiii. 5, xxxiv. 10, xxxvi. 8, cvii. 9 ; Prov. ix. 1-6, et al.
2 Isa. xxv. 6. s Isa_ lv_ 1_3_
4 Cf. xiii. 29, xxii. 30 ; Matt. v. 6, viii. 11, xxvi. 29.

THE GREAT BANQUET. 183
is no occasion to apply the servant carrying the message to one
or several definite persons. _ For indispensable as was the intro
duction of his person for the construction of the narrative as the
agent of the message, ver. 17, the bringer of the answer, ver. 21,
the organ of the commands, w. 21, 23, on the other hand, his
importance entirely ceases with the execution of these com
missions. The only point treated of everywhere is the execution
of the commissions, never anywhere the character of the person
who executes them. It is not then to be wondered at that all
attempts to assign a definite interpretation to the person of the
servant prove unsatisfactory. The most popular appUcation to
the person of Jesus,1 which in ver. 1 7 at least seems really appro
priate, is untenable, because in ver. 23 the apostles must be
suddenly substituted for Jesus Himself.2 The application to
several persons 3 is impossible, because the servant in the parable
is only one person, and least of aU a "coUective individual."
Only by transgressing the limits of exact interpretation, indeed,
can we say, in more precisely expounding the import of the
parable : To the servant really correspond at each point of the
narrative those persons who at different times, as matter of fact,
executed the divine commission given; and therefore in ver. 17
John the Baptist and Jesus Himself, in ver. 21 again Jesus
Himself, and in ver. 23 the apostles, especiaUy a Paul and all
missionaries to the heathen.
But over against this message of the reaUzed kingdom of God,
as it now goes forth to Israel, appears a strange attitude on the
part of the chosen nation, resembUng that of the " invited " in the
parable. The latter gratefuUy accepted the preUminary invitation.
But in presence of the call actually to come, they aU began with
one consent to excuse themselves. So, too, the members of the
chosen nation in the theocracy. The promise given them of the
future kingdom of God they gratefully accepted, glorying in its
blessedness as a possession reserved for them, to which they have
a claim. But when the announcement of the kingdom of God
already in existence, and the call to enter it, now reach them, they
are deaf to the announcement, and harden themselves against the
call And this is not simply the attitude of a portion of them,
1 Stier, Meyer, van Oosterzee, Nebe.
8 Cf. Meyer : " This commission to the servant was fulfilled by Jesus through the
apostles. "
3 Luther, Lisco (John the Baptist and the apostles).

184 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
with which the wiUing obedience of another portion stands in
contrast, but it is the unanimous attitude of the whole theocratic
hierarchy, and of the entire nation subject to its influence
and within the theocratic ordinances. This unanimity of the
entire official Israel in rejecting the message of the kingdom was
therefore clearly perceived by Jesus when He related this parable.
Certain individual exceptions, simply because of their isolated
character, and therefore not affecting the national unanimity, do
not come into account in the figurative representation.
What the inner reason of this strange phenomenon is, the
narrative now further shows, in the three refusals which it puts
into the mouth of three individuals among the invited ones by
way of characterizing all. The common meaning of the three
answers was this : They feel themselves inconveniently disturbed
in their comfortable occupation with the properties they have
acquired by the call to the feast of the householder, and, in order
to enjoy this possession of theirs, treat the feast with contempt.
Thus, apart from figure, the inner reason of the unanimity of
Israel in rejecting the message of God's kingdom is this:
They have acquired worldly wealth and earthly possessions, and
have become inwardly identified with them ; they have made
themselves comfortable and thoroughly at home in the world, like
a landowner who has made a purchase, or a farm proprietor who
has filled his stalls with cattle, or a householder who, with his
wife beside him, has set up housekeeping. They feel themselves
inconveniently disturbed in the enjoyment of these earthly
possessions of theirs by the call to God's kingdom ; they neither
can nor will tear their heart from these things, as that call
demands of them. And because they are so captivated by their
earthly possessions, because they prefer the temporal gratification
which these things give them to the supreme good of God's
kingdom offered by divine grace, therefore they refuse to enter
into God's kingdom, therefore they despise the call of divine
grace. And this despising is everywhere the same, whatever the
form in which it appears, whether as a courteous, cool declining, or
as an open, hostile contradiction. This it is which Jesus wishes
the hearers to understand by the more or less courteous form in
which He clothes the substantially quite similar answers of the
three invited ones. And He does this, as we may suppose in
conformity with the situation, not without special reference to the
relation to Himself of the Pharisaic host and his guests, who

THE GREAT BANQUET. 185
thought they could unite the outwardly courteous forms of social
intercourse with their inwardly negative attitude to the Lord and
His preaching of the kingdom of God. Therefore it is not three
classes of men, distinguished by essentially different causes of
resistance to the divine call, which are meant to be typified by
the three speakers among the guests, — as Stier supposes, who
distinguishes property, trade, and lust as three grounds of refusal ;
and Nebe, the thorns of care, riches, and lust; while older expositors
refer the three answers to three classes: the priestly class as
cultivators of land, the class of worldly governors as oxen, accord
ing to Ps. xxii. 17, and the famUy state.1 The investigation of
the wording of the narrative has already cut away the ground
from beneath all attempts in this direction. They are wrecked, if
on nothing else, on this circumstance, that the distinction between
the first and the second of the answerers, which ought, of course,
to be just as sharply carried out as that between the first two and
the third, — if any distinction at aU is to be made, — is obviously
a forced one. Eather the purport of the threefold exemplification
is simply to show that, amid the certainly more or less sharply-
manifested opposition, it is everywhere the same inward attach
ment to objects of earthly possession which causes Israel to
despise the invitation to become possessors of the supreme good
of the kingdom of God.
After the first part of the parable has thus exhibited the
present attitude of Israel to the message of God's kingdom as a
unanimous despising of the salvation offered by God, the second
part pictures the consequences which such an attitude must
entail. Like as the despising of his feast on the part of those
invited excited the wrath of the householder, so must such a
despising of His grace on the part of those called before all others
to His kingdom, excite the just wrath of the holy God. And
like as the householder in his wrath quickly sends out into the
streets of the city, and instead of the resident citizens commands
the beggars and cripples of the streets to be brought in, so the
punishment threatened by divine wrath to the citizens of the
IsraeUtish theocracy, and following directly at the heels of their
scorn, is this, that the message of God's kingdom wUl be taken
from them and sent to those unhappy classes who, although living
within Israel, and belonging to it in the natural sense, are yet
destitute of civic rights in the theocratic commonwealth — there-
1 Augustine, Luther.

186 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
fore to the numerous classes of " publicans and sinners," who,
although Israelites in blood, were excluded from the theocratic
community, and put on a level with the heathen (Matt, xviii. 17).
God's wiU and commission is that they be " brought in" ie. that
the timid diffidence in regard to the gospel of God's kingdom,
natural to them in their circumstances hitherto, be overcome by
friendly instruction and guidance, and that they be thus brought
to the blessedness of this kingdom — for no other resistance, no
contempt like that of the called citizens of the theocracy, is to he
feared on the part of these unhappy ones. That we have rightly
interpreted the beggars and cripples of the streets is evident from
the twofold antithesis in which they stand, on one hand, as the
homeless sireei-populace to the resident citizens, and, on the other,
as the c^y-populace to the aliens of the high-roads, ver. 23. The
latter antithesis, so plainly indicated in the narrative, is effaced,
if by the beggars and cripples we understand the heathen.1 But
even the usual distinction made between the invited ones and the
beggars, as between the representatives of the theocracy — the
leaders and heads of the people — on the one hand, and the poor
nation itself on the other,2 does not in this form exactly cor
respond to the parable. For as certainly as the " caUed many "
(ver. 1 6) meant the calling of the nation of Israel in its entirety
(which is undisputed), so certainly the " caUed" afterwards
cannot be limited merely to the leaders and heads of the nation,
and thus to the classes of the Pharisees and scribes ruling
in the days of Jesus ; but we must distinguish, as above, between
the nation of Israel as the body of citizens of the theocratic
commonwealth on the one hand, and the excluded, homeless
classes, in the theocratic sense, on the other. Consequently the
corresponding fact in the historical development to this turn in
the narrative is, that in the same degree in which the message
of God's kingdom encountered resistance and contempt in the
theocratically intact Israel, Jesus addressed Himself with this
message to the rejected, despised classes of "publicans and
sinners." 3 But we need not on this account seek two periods in
the ministry of Jesus, periods separated by a definite point of
time.4 The succession of two missions, in order of time, is
1 Gerlach : " The heathen dwelling near the place and time of the appearance of
Christ ; " Lisco : " The proselytes from the heathen, or the heathen dwelling among
the Jews."
2 Cf. e.g. Meyer, Nebe, van Oosterzee. » Cf. xv. 1 ; Matt. xxi. 31.
' E.g. Hebe : The first ministry in Judea and Jerusalem, and the later in Galilee.

THE GREAT BANQUET. 187
merely the figurative form of the narrative necessary in order to
describe pictoriaUy the inner connection of the second divine
commission with the faUure of the first. And if we have rightly
interpreted the angry words of the householder (" Go out quickly ")
to mean, that the divine wrath makes the bringing in of the
publicans and sinners foUow directly upon the scornful resistance
of the citizens of the theocracy, then the narrative itself contains
here an intimation of the historical circumstance, that the fulfil
ment of the first divine commission in the theocratic Israel, and
that of the second in the rejected classes of the nation, directly
interlace with each other in the ministry of Jesus, since the call
ing of the latter takes place already, whilst the contempt of the
former is stiU consummating itself in inveterate maUgnity.
Consequently, according to what has been said, the caUing of
the despised, outcast classes of the Jewish nation had for theo
cratic Israel the significance of a threat of exclusion by divine
wrath from the Messianc salvation. But that this exclusion of theo
cratic Israel, which with one consent despised the invitation to the
kingdom of God, Mill be final and universal, — this is the meaning
of the second sending forth of the servant, forming the conclusion
of the narrative, ver. 23. Like as it appears, after the beggars
and cripples are brought in from the streets, that the great
table of the householder still contains room for more guests, so
the calUng of the despised outcasts of the Jewish nation wiU
not suffice to conduct to God's kingdom that complement of
members which it • is meant in the divine plan to embrace and
bless. But like as the householder on the announcement of the
fact sends the servant away from the city into the high-roads to
find guests for his food, so, after the rejected unhappy classes of
Israel are gathered, the gospel of God's kingdom will address
itself to the heathen, its messengers wUl by the divine commis
sion traverse "the ways of the Gentiles" (Matt. x. 5), who
hitherto, outside the preparatory Old-Testament theocracy, and
without contact with it, had gone their own ways — the ways of
aUens, without knowing the God of Israel, or being aware of the
promises of His kingdom. And just this distance and estrange
ment of theirs, which must needs make it hard for them to
believe and obey the invitation so unexpectedly given them to
partake of the salvation of God's kingdom manifested in Christ,
are to be overcome by the " compulsion " enjoined. Seeing that
in their case it is not merely a surprise, as it is to the outcast of

188 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
Israel, that the gospel of God's kingdom is addressed to them,
but that this message itself is something new in every respect,
and the God who sends it to them is a God hitherto un
known, the " compel " enjoins a calling and inviting, friendly
and urgent, in a heightened degree, in order to give them courage
to believe and obey. Every interpretation of the command : " com
pel to come in," which goes beyond this point, with a view to
justifying the use of outward compulsion in the sphere of foreign
or home missions, is just as unwarranted by the meaning of these
words given in the context as the certainly worse misinterpreta
tion which Augustine gave them in the strife with the Donatists
in reference to the force to be used in case of necessity against
the disobedience of heretics. Thus the circumstance, that the
gathering of the despised and outcast of the Jewish nation merely
into God's kingdom, does not satisfy the comprehensive purpose
of divine love, will not benefit the theocratic Israel, which with
one consent despised the call of God ; but, the latter being finally
and utterly excluded, the divine end will be realized by the
calling of the heathen. That is, the complement of members,
corresponding to the comprehensive plan of divine love and to
the means devised for its execution, wiU be gathered into His
kingdom and made partakers of the Messianic salvation.
Finally, when at the close, in order to confirm the import of the
narrative, Jesus added the asseveration, that none of those men
invited should taste of His feast, the meaning, apart from figure,
is that none of the members of theocratic Israel caUed in the first
instance, who, under the leading of the Pharisees, with fixed
unanimity despised the call to God's kingdom, shall partake in
the Messianic salvation. To this theocratic Israel therefore, in
its entirety, He expressly announces the doom of exclusion from
the kingdom of God. But to the individual hearers of the parable
it is declared, in allusion to the utterance of the particular guest
(ver. 15), that instead of having an indefeasible claim to the
blessedness of God's kingdom in virtue of their belonging to the
chosen nation, they can only hope to become partakers in it by
withdrawing, as individuals, from solidarity with their fellow-
countrymen, and having the courage to break with the chosen
nation of the theocracy in its inner condition at that time.

A comparison of this parable of the Great Banquet with that

THE GREAT BANQUET. 189
of the Fig-Tree (chap, xiii.), previously examined, is suggested by
the similarity in their purport. That which is common to both
is the announcement of the divine judgment upon Israel, the
chosen nation of the old covenant, — there, positively as a penal
judgment fatal to the national existence of the people ; . here,
negatively as the exclusion of the nation from the Messianic
salvation. On the other hand, the purport of the two parables
differs in this respect, that there the possibility is retained,
although only with faint hope, of a conversion of Israel taking
place at the eleventh hour in consequence of the ministry of
Jesus ; whUe here, on the other hand, the starting-point is Israel's
unanimous obduracy against the message of salvation coming to
them, as an already accepted fact. To this correspond the
further differences, that there the divine judgment is proclaimed
to the nation conditionally ; here, on the other hand, the penal
sentence , of exclusion from the salvation of God's kingdom is
expressed unconditionally, — and again, that there the thought,
that room must.be made by hewing down the fig-tree — Israel —
for planting other nations in its place in the vineyard of God's
kingdom, is only briefly and enigmaticaUy hinted in the words :
" Why does it also cumber the ground ? " 1 whereas here the calling
of the heathen to the kingdom of God instead of Israel is predicted
in the plainest and most definite manner. For these reasons we
must beUeve that the parable of the Great Banquet in chap. xiv.
belongs to a later period in the life and teaching of Jesus than
that of the Fig-Tree in chap, xiii., a conclusion which presents no
difficulty upon the correct view of the section of Luke's Gospel,
reaching from ix. 46 to xviii. 30, as a collection of sayings and
discourses of Jesus not professing to be a chronologically
consecutive account of a journey. 1 See on xiii. 7.

190 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.

THE THEEE PARABLES, LUKE XV.
The first two verses of chap. xv. teU us the occasion of the
parables which follow, and, in the first place, of the three con
tained in this chapter. It is said: yaav Be airw iyyttyvres
irdvre? oi reXwvai Kal oi apaprwXoi aKoveiv avrov. The irdvre}
cannot be a mere hyperbole of the narrative, for to say " all"
instead of " many " would be an inadmissible exaggeration. Still
less may we translate " publicans and sinners of every kind," for
irdvre? is not " of every kind." Eather irdvre? is to be left in
its ordinary Uteral sense : " all publicans and sinners were drawing
near to Him" i.e. there was a general streaming on the part of this
class of people to Jesus. The meaning also of tfaav iyylfyvies
is thus exactly reproduced. For if the coming near to Jesus on
the part of this class of people was general, of course it was also
continuous, which is meant to be expressed by yaav iyyltyvre?.
Then " the Pharisees and scribes murmured " at the reception
which these publicans and sinners found with Jesus, saying:
" This man receives sinners and eats with them" ver. 2. Thus we
have here an altogether simUar situation to the one in Matt.
ix. 10, 11, of which passage we are reminded by the objection,
"eateth with them." Certainly it must be left undecided
whether these words here, as weU as there, are spoken with
reference to the situation at the moment, so that we should have
to think of Jesus here also as sitting at table with people of that
class, or whether they refer to what Jesus usuaUy did at other
times. In any case, we here see the Lord occupied with publicans
and sinners, and, at the same time, certain Pharisees and scribes
who are offended at the spectacle, and who murmur so loudly
that it reaches the ears of Jesus. Jesus then turns to these
Pharisees and scribes, and utters to them, as ver. 3 teUs us, the
parable following in w. 4-7, to which a second simUar one is
immediately Unked, vv. 8-10. Then a third parable is joined to
the former ones by a mere et7rei> Si, vv. 11-32, whereas the
fourth parable and its sequel, chap, xvi 1-13, are introduced
with the phrase : eXeyev Be Kal irpb? roii? padyrd?. Only in this
fourth parable, therefore, does the Lord turn from the Pharisees

THE LOST SHEEP. 191
and scribes to " the disciples," and consequently the three parables
of chap. xv. are all addressed to the Pharisees as the answer of
Jesus to their murmurs. It is in this direction that we have to
seek the central point of the parables.

The Lost Sheep.1
(Luke xv. 4-7.)
"What man among you wUl not do so and so in such and
such a case ? " In this way the Lord begins His first parable
(ver. 4).2 He does not begin a formal figurative story, but caUs
on each one of the murmuring Pharisees to transfer himself in
thought into the position depicted in the two participial clauses :
eywv eKarbv irpoBara Kal airoXiaa? £v if; avrwv, and therefore
into the position of an owner of a flock who has lost one of his
hundred sheep. The Lord then asks : Tt? avdpwiro? e'f vp,wv —
finding himself in this position — ov KaraXeiirei ra ivevyKovra
ivvea iv ry ipypw, Kal iropeverai iirl rb diroXwXo?, ew? eftptj
avro, ie. whether any one of them wUl not leave the ninety
and nine in their pasture in the wUderness, and go after the lost
one (iirl rb diroXwXo?) untU he find it. The number a hundred,
which we see here, is chosen as a round number readily suggest
ing itself for the entire number of the sheep forming a numerous
flock, and is put so high in order to contrast a great number of
sheep not lost with the one lost. And yet — so the persons
interrogated must aUow — every man would do as the Lord says
for the sake of the one lost, because love of his property would
impel him to such a course. In what follows (ver. 5 f.) the form
of interrogation used at first is given up, the language, however,
continuing without change in the direction marked out by the
question. The narrative no longer speaks of a particular man
who did so and so, but simply describes what it would be natural
for a man to do in the circumstances here given, partly from the
love of his property, which must be presumed to exist in every
man, partly from the special tender feeling which a shepherd
usuaUy has for each individual sheep in his flock.3 In this sense
1 Respecting the relation of this parable to Matt, xviii. 12, 13, see at the close of
the exposition.
2 Cf. on chap. xi. 5 ff.
3 That love of property does not enter into the question at all in this parable as
the motive for seeking the lost one, but only tender sympathy for the stray sheep in

192 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
the description proceeds, ver. 5 : " And after he hath found it,
he layeth it on his own shoulders " (iirl rov? wp,ov? eavrov), which
is not meant to emphasize the fact that he did not give it to
another — a servant — to carry, as many explain, but simply
emphasizes the trouble he took in carrying it more strongly
than would be the case with the simple eVt toi>? wpov? without
eavrov. And, indeed, he submits to this trouble "joyfully
(Xalpwv), and after he has come home" he again does what a
man cannot but do who has met with great cause for joy, "he
calls together his friends and neighbours" and calls upon them to
share in his joy with loving sympathy : " Bejoice with me, for I
have found my sheep which was lost" ver. 6.
When, then, Jesus adds to this close of the parable, ver. 7 :
Xiyw vpiv on ovrw? yapd ev rw ovpavw earai iirl evl dpaprwXSt
peravoovvn K.r.X., it is clear that with this ovrw? He refers back
expressly to the avy%dpyri p,oi (cf. vv. 9, 10). In allusion to
the sympathetic joy so graphically requested from the assembled
friends and neighbours, Jesus testifies that a like joy, a thrill,
therefore, of loving sympathetic delight, will run through the
inhabitants of heaven over a repenting sinner. Of course this
declaration of Jesus, as will be shown in investigating it more
closely, does not give the interpretation proper, but merely a
special application of the parable. But this we may already
learn from it, that the theme of the parable is the conversion of
sinners, and that an essential element of its purpose lies in the
summons to sympathetic joy expressed at the close. And this
is placed beyond doubt when we combine with the declara
tion the occasion of the parable, which, according to w. 1, 2,
lay in that which is the opposite of such sympathizing joy
— the murmuring of the Pharisees at the intercourse of Jesus
with sinners. Consequently the purpose of the parable is this—
to tell the Pharisaic hearers that, instead of having a right to
murmur at the trouble which Jesus took with sinners, they ought
rather to rejoice with Him over the conversion of sinners.
Let us see how this purpose is worked out in the parable.
We observed at the outset that in the present parable we have,
its misery (so Godet, similarly von Hofmann), is saying too much, and is not war
ranted in the text. Rather the seeker's effort in ver. 4 is plainly directed to the
recovery of the property that he has lost, and it is in ver. 5 that we first meet
in his action with signs of the tender feeling for the sheep that is lost, such as the
figure used suggested. Accordingly, the inferences drawn from this view to the
specific difference of this parable from the following one are without ground.

THE LOST SHEEP. 193
as to form, no narrative before us, but a question relating to a
supposed case, a question which then takes the form of a descrip
tion of what in this case every one would feel himself impelled
to do. But the- question with which the parable opens is
obviously quite similar to the question of Jesus on another
occasion, Matt. xii. 11:" What man shaU there be of you that
shall have one sheep, and if this faU into a pit on the Sabbath
day, will he not lay hold on it, and Uft it out ? " And the
very words added there by Jesus Himself: irbaw ovv Siaabipei
dvdpwiro? irpoBdrov ware e^ean rot? adBBa<rlv KaXw? iroieiv,
point us to the right way of interpreting the present para
bolic language. " How much better is a man than a sheep !"
Here is the key to the interpretation. To the Pharisees who
murmur at His intercourse with publicans and sinners, Jesus
replies by an inference a minori ad majus. What any one
would do for his sheep, justifies what Jesus does for the children
of men. Accordingly, the first thought of the parable is this :
If for the sake of a lost sheep a man will leave behind ninety
and nine not lost, and take every pains to seek and bring
back the lost one, how should not Jesus take every pains in
going after the lost children of men, i.e. sinners, and restoring
them; and how can it be made a reproach to Him that He
interests Himself in personal intercourse about each individual
among them, and for that individual's sake leaves behind those
not lost? In this comparison it is assumed that sinners are
God's property ; nay, strictly taken, that they are the property
of Jesus ; that they are lost to Him through their sin, and hence
that He seeks lovingly to win them back to Himself. Moreover,
a testimony of Jesus Himself to His divine dignity lies hidden
in this and the following parable. Further, the occasion of the
parable puts it beyond doubt to whom the Lord refers in con
trasting the ninety and nine sheep not lost with the one lost
sheep, so that His seeking the lost one becomes also a leaving
behind the ninety and nine. He can only refer here to the
murmuring Pharisees, into whose thoughts He pierces. To their
pride, the disparagement with which they were treated in com
parison with the publicans and sinners seemed the greatest
scandal. The consideration that the impenitent Pharisees
appear as not lost in comparison with the penitent publicans
and sinners ought not to mislead us, since the Lord, in arguing
with the Pharisees, was obliged in the first instance to speak
GOEBEL. N

194 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
from their point of view. Add to this, that as regards the
righteousness of outward morality, the contrast was not without
real ground. Further, the fact that Jesus not merely speaks of
such a man seeking the sheep until he finds it, but also of his
personal toil in bringing it back, does not warrant the supposition
that He meant by this to symbolize a twofold activity in referenoe
to the sinner. It simply depicts all the trouble which such a man
will take with the lost sheep, so far as the nature of the figure
permits, in order to justify in the manner explained above aU the
trouble which Jesus takes with the conversion of the sinner.
So far, therefore, the parable is a self-justification of Jesus against
the attacks of the murmuring Pharisees. But by this refutation of
the murmurers He has prepared the ground for the rebuke of them
to which He now advances. After showing them that they have
no right to murmur, He then says that, if they were in a right
state, the precise opposite would be natural to them, namely, the
joy of loving sympathy. For in what foUows, ver. 6, it is not
so much the personal joy of the owner of the sheep that is
spoken of, — this is self-evident after what has been said, and is
only cursorily mentioned even in the %aipwv, ver. 5, — but a
summons to others to sympathizing1 joy. Accordingly, the thought
of the parable continues thus : If such a man claims the sympa
thizing joy of his neighbours and friends because he has found
his sheep, how should not Jesus call on us to share His joy at the
conversion of sinners, instead of murmuring? Thus, with the
avyydpyri pot this and the foUowing parable pass over into a
reproachful admonition to the Pharisees.1
Incomparably striking and humiliating is the special applica
tion which Jesus now makes of the parable in the declaration
introduced by the emphatic " I say unto you." The last sentence
of the parable has shown how just is His demand on others to
rejoice with Him over the conversion of sinners. He might now
have appUed this thought expressly and directly to the Pharisees
in some such words as : "I say to you, you ought also to rejoice,"
and so on, which certainly would have been the smoothest
ending of the parable. But He does not do so. On the con
trary, His words run, ver. 7 : Xkyw vpiv on ovrw? x^pa iv r&
ovpavw earai iirl evl dpaprwXw peravooiivn K.r.X. Instead,
therefore, of saying to the Pharisees that it was their duty to
1 In the third parable the entire concluding section corresponds to the present
conclusion.

THE LOST SHEEP. 195
share His joy, He prefers to remind them where His joy over
the conversion of sinners is reaUy shared, namely, in heaven by
the angels of God ; and it is evident what a humiliating effect
this language must have had on the murmurers. That the angels
are referred to in the expression " in heaven," is proved by the
parallel, ver. 1 0, where the expression is somewhat varied: " in the
presence of the angels of God." 1 Certainly the joy of God also is
self-evidently included, since it is the necessary postulate for the
joy of angels. The future eo-T«t is used, because the case of a
sinner's conversion is viewed as one constantly repeated in the
future. It gives, therefore, no materiaUy different sense from
that in the parallel passage, ver. 10, where a present yiverai
occurs. To suppose ourselves obliged to search for a deeper
reason in such diversities of expression, without considering how
natural such slight changes of phraseology are in a statement
recurring after an interruption, is to embark on misleading paths.
The humiliating effect of this appUcation is then essentiaUy
strengthened when to the words : iirl evl dpaprwXw pieravoovvn
the Lord adds, with a backward glance at what was said in the
beginning of the parable, ver. 4 : y iirl ivevyKovra ivvka SiKaioi?
oinve? oi %peiav e%pvat/v peravoia?. That by the "ninety and
nine righteous persons " only righteous persons of the class of
the Pharisees so solemnly addressed in " I say unto you," and
thus the righteous in the outwardly legal sense, are meant,
cannot remain doubtful to us after aU that has been said above
in interpreting the parable generally, and especially the leaving
behind of the ninety and nine sheep not lost, to which figurative
trait there is clear reference here. And when Jesus calls them
righteous persons, " who (o'inve?) need no repentance',' He says this
again just from their point of view. From His point of view
He would speak of no class of men at all in this way.2 As has
been remarked, this is said with a sort of sacred irony. Accord
ingly, in His appUcation to the Pharisees, Jesus reminds them of
two things which may humUiate them, — first, that joy (xapa put
first with emphasis) is in heaven over that very thing from which
1 Cf. on ver. 10.
2 The expression of adherence to -the assumption of the opponents lies precisely
in the word ohms, indicating motive, which Weiss quotes against the above
interpretation (in his revision of Meyer's Commentary). Also in opposition to
Hofmann, who understands such as have abeady yielded obedience to the call
to repentance, it may -be remarked that they who have become what they are by
means of repentance cannot possibly be spoken of as those who do aiot need it.

196 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
they took occasion to murmur — the conversion of the sinner ; and
secondly, that the angels of God have more joy in one sinner who
repents than in ninety and nine righteous persons like them.

The parable of the Stray Sheep in Matthew (xviii. 12, 13)
resembles Luke's parable of the Lost Sheep almost feature by
feature, and yet is essentially different from it. For it not
merely stands in quite a different context, but is also of essen
tially different meaning from Luke's parable. There. (Matt.
xvni. 10) the parable is preceded by a testimony to the provi
dential care exercised by God over every beUever in Jesus, even
the least :1 " I say to you, their angels in heaven (i.e. the angels
charged to watch over them) always behold the face of my Fathr
in heaven," so that everything which concerns them is always
brought before God. To this assurance is then joined the para
bolic question,2 vv. 12, 13 : "How think ye ? If any man have
a hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave
the ninety and nine, and go unto tlie mountains, and seek that
which goeth astray ? And if so be that he find it, verily I say
unto you, he rejoiceth over it more than over tlie ninety and nine
which have not gone astray." And the interpreting words of '
Jesus at once say in what sense the figurative language is here
meant, ver. 14 : "Even so it is not the will of your Father which
is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." We see that
while the same figurative circumstances are worked out in almost
the same way, they are employed to set forth quite a different
point of doctrine. In Luke's parable the matter in hand is, first,
a justification of the special trouble taken by Jesus in winning
and converting each individual of the morally low class of pub
licans and sinners, while disparaging the morally righteous who
thought they had no need of repentance; and secondly, His
claim on others to rejoice with Him, instead of murmuring, at
the conversion of every sinner. Here, on the contrary, the
matter in hand is a testimony, first to the special care which
God takes even of the least believer in Jesus, to save him from
being misled and lost ; and then to the special divine joy at the
preservation of such a " little one " who was in danger of being
lost — both in comparison with those believers who do not need
1 Cf. ver. 6.
2 Even if the eleventh verse : "for the Son of man is come to save the lost,"
should be genuine, contrary to the opinion of Lachmann and Tischendorf.

TOE LOST COIN. 197
care of this kind in the same degree, and for this reason are less
an object of such joy. The position of things, therefore, is not
that Matthew's parable of the Stray Sheep merely occurs in a
different context from the one in Luke, or the converse ; but
Luke's parable of the Lost, and Matthew's of the Stray Sheep,
are two quite different parables in purport. This is the actual
state of the case which exegesis discovers directly that it does
justice to each of the two passages in their connection. And
with this actual state of the case criticism ought to reckon,
instead of pronouncing critical judgment in the usual hasty, off
hand critical way on a mere similarity of sound, without the
essential preliminary toU of independent exegesis.

The Lost Coin.
(Luke xv. 8-10.)

We return to the fifteenth chapter of Luke's Gospel. In ver. 8
Jesus addresses a second question to the Pharisees, similar to the
one put in ver. 4, and joined to the latter by a simple " or." We
are thus confirmed in the view that the description of vv. 5
and 6 was only meant to be a continuation of the question asked
in ver. 4 ; for only on this supposition could a second question
be so directly joined to the first, after the description has inter
vened. Further, this connection of the second question with the
first by a simple " or," leads us to expect that in the following
parable Jesus will merely present the same subject in another
manner, and forbids the attempt to find a special distinction in
the contents of the two parables. And so, in fact, we find this
second parabolic question similar to the first in every respect.
As Jesus then put the case of a man having lost one of a hundred
sheep, so here He puts that of a woman having lost one of ten
drachma? ; and then asks here, as there, whether such a woman
will not take every pains in seeking the lost piece of money ;
whether she will not light a lamp (in order to Uluminate even
the dark corners and rooms of the house) and sweep the house,
and seek diligently until she find it. The fact of the trouble of
seeking being delineated here in vivid detail, otherwise than in
the first parable, is due to the nature of the figure used. The
effort put forth in recovering a lost coin can only consist in seek
ing it, and is at an end when it is found. On this account, the

198 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
stress of the thought lies simply on the trouble of seeking;
whereas, in the first parable, where the labour of bringing back
was added to the trouble of seeking, any special delineation of
the latter was unnecessary. To the same circumstance it is also
due that Jesus here speaks of a woman, not of a man. This has
merely the psychological reason that such unwearied zeal iu
seeking for a lost piece of money is far more natural to a woman
than a man ; and we ought justly to admire this psychologically
fine feature, instead of seeking a special interpretation of the
woman in distinction from the first parable, and understanding
the Church or even the Holy Spirit.1 And the reason is similar
of the number of the drachmae being put much lower than the
number of the sheep in the first parable. There the number
might be placed so high, because to the owner of a flock even the
single lost sheep has a value in itself, and not merely as a part of
his entire property. But the value which a small piece of money
like a drachme 2 has in the eyes of the owner is measured simply
by the number of such pieces forming the entire amount of
his property. And thus here, unless so earnest a search for
a lost drachme was to appear exaggerated, only a small number
of such pieces could be represented as in the woman's possession.
If, then, we have hitherto found the second parable different
from the first only in so far as was involved in the difference of
the figure used, so now we do not find it otherwise with the
conclusion, ver. 9. In keeping with the first parable, the lord
passes on from the question, whether the woman will not seek
the lost piece of money till she find it, to describe what she will
do when she has found it, namely, she will caU together her
neighbours and friends, and summon them to rejoice with her
over the recovery of the lost money. It is to be noticed that
the personal joy of the owner, which we found mentioned, at
least cursorily, in the first parable, by the %aipwv added at the
close of ver. 5, is here merely assumed in silence. Nothing but
the summons to rejoice in common is spoken of, a proof that
we must seek an essential element of the purpose of the two
parables in this summons to rejoice in common.
After all that has been said, we shall not go astray in finding
exactly the same purpose in the present parable as in the parable
of the Lost Sheep, and in interpreting it in the same way : If a
woman, possessing ten drachmae, uses all possible care in finding
1 Stier. 2 -Worth about 8d.

THE LOST COIN. 199
one that is lost, how should not Jesus take all care and trouble in
winning back to Himself lost sinners ? And if such a woman call
on her neighbours and friends to rejoice with her over the drachme
found again, how should not Jesus require that we rejoice with
Him over sinners won back to Him in their conversion ?
Thus we have certainly found in the second parable merely a
recurrence of the thoughts of the first, without essentially new
features. To those who call this a mere repetition, and think
themselves bound to repudiate the very notion of such a thing
in the language of the Lord,1 it is to be replied that a mere repeti
tion, such as might justly be called superfluous, is not found here.
For what we have before us is indeed a recurrence of the same
thoughts, but under another figure. And the force of this second
parable, and the motive for adding it to the first, lie precisely in
the fact of the same thoughts recurring in exactly similar fashion
under another figurative form, and thus being, so to speak,
attested and confirmed anew in the second figure.
In ver. 10, again, the same application meets us as in ver. 7.
Again tbe Lord reminds the Pharisees at the close that His
desire for sharers in His joy, expressed in ver. 9, is fulfilled in
the joy of the angels of God over the conversion of the sinner. It
has certainly been said, in allusion to tbe fundamental meaning
of the preposition ivwiriov, that the angels are not here thought
of as the rejoicing persons, but God Himself, who makes known
His joy in presence of the angels} Such passages, however, as
Acts vi. 5, and the corresponding Hebrew phrase V??> in Ex.
xxviii. 38, Dan. i 9, et al., show that the use of ivwiriov is
diversified enough to do away with the basis of this certainly
forced exposition. In such cases the preposition ivwiriov is not
used differently from the German preposition "bei," originaUy
denoting a local relation.3 Therefore here: "There is (yiverai,
springs lip, arises) joy with the angels of God" i.e. the angels of
God rejoice. That God's joy is certainly not excluded, but
included, was already remarked in ver. 7. " Over one sinner that
repenteth," is this time said without adducing any further com
parison, such as we found in ver. ' 7. With a different numerical
relation in the second parable, the former comparison could only
have recurred here in a flat, insipid form. Instead of this, the
thought here comes out all the more clearly, that the conversion
i1 Stier, and similarly Olshausen. 2 Meyer, van Oosterzee;
3 [The same is perhaps true ofthe corresponding English preposition "with."]

200 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
of but one sinner is enough to move the angels of God to joy,
which thought in ver. 7 was thrown into the shade by the other,
that one repenting sinner is an object of joy to the angels more
than ninety and nine righteous persons.

The Lost Son.
(Luke xv. 11-32.)
With the words elirev Bi, ver. 11, the evangelist makes the
transition to a third parable ; and this transition is characteristic
of the relation of the parable which now follows to the two pre
ceding ones. Whereas we saw the latter, in keeping with their
mutual resemblance in form and substance, foUowing directly one
on the other in continuous flow, the et7rei> Si now interposed
intimates that the discourse has here come to a provisional
conclusion, and takes a fresh start. Transition is made to the
narration of a new parable, independent of the two previous ones
in its plan. But, at the same time, the fact of the transition
being made simply with the brief etTrez' Si, intimates that the
following parable, different as it is from the two previous ones,
is spoken to the same persons and on the same occasion as the
former ones, leading us to expect that it wiU be aUied to them
in contents and purpose.
The parable opens, not in an interrogative, but in a positively
narrative form : "A man had two sons, and the younger of them
said to his father, Father, give me the portion of the 'property
falling to me " (belonging to me). The younger son, therefore,
asks the father to hand over at once to his free disposal the
portion of the property that would fall to him in due time by
the existing law of inheritance. According to the Hebrew law
of inheritance,1 twice as large a portion is due in the distribution
to the firstborn as to the later-born sons. In this case, there
fore, the firstborn son was the chief heir, to whom two-thirds of
the entire property fell, whilst the younger son must be content
with the last third only. Thus the context explains to us why
the younger of the two is described as the one making such a
request. It is evident how easily one who only took the third
place in the household, after the father and after the chief heir,
might conceive the desire to be allowed at least the free disposal
1 Deut. xxi. 17.

THE LOST SON. 201
of the fragment of property falling to him. His position, simply
as a later-born son, must needs have stimulated and strengthened
the impulse of false independence to which he yielded. But the
older and modern exegetes are mistaken who explain the designa
tion of tbe first-mentioned son as the younger by a reference to
the frivolity of youth, and its liability to be led astray. For it
is not even said that the one son is youthful. and the other more
advanced in age, but merely that it was the younger of the two
who made the request, which leaves it quite undecided how old
we are to think him. The conception of the younger brother
as a frivolous youth has been taken only from what is further
related of him.
The father complies with his request, as is said in the words :
6 Be SielXev avroi? rbv /3iW, i.e. " he divided unto them his living"
paying over to the younger brother his share, whilst the bulk of
the property was reserved for the older son abiding in the father's
house as the chief heir. What use the younger one made of the
property assigned him is stated in ver. 13 : Kal p,er oil iroXXd?
ypipa? K.r.X. Within a brief period it came out what prompted
him to make the request to his father, namely, not so much the
abstract right of disposal over his property, as rather the power
to employ it without hindrance for a definite end — the unlimited
indulgence of his sensual lusts. But to such a course the
presence of the father and the morals of the household must
always be an obstacle. Therefore : "After a few days he gathered
everything together, and took his journey into a far country."
There he thought he could indulge his lusts in full liberty.
Hence we read further : "And there he wasted J his substance with
riotous living" (t,wv dawrw?).
But what wretchedness awaited him in the strange country
after brief sensual enjoyment is described to us in vv. 14—16:
"After he had spent all " (his whole property), it is said, " a great
famine came over that country!' The careful emphasizing of the
fact that the famine extended over that country should not be
overlooked. Only by observing this do we solve the difficulty,
that it is the mention of the famine, as an event not due, how
ever, to the lost son, which breaks the connection between his
evil conduct and its evil fruits. The design is to point out how
he found himself bitterly betrayed in the far country, where he
thought he could enjoy his life in unfettered freedom. He might,
1 'intrxipxiirit, he scattered ; observe the antithesis to the preceding trvtxyxyit.

202 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
indeed, there squander his property in brief sensual enjoyment;
but when he has made an end of his property, he is compelled
to find that that country has nothing further to give him but
hunger and want. In the famine stretching over the country he
comes to taste the bitter fruit of his thoughtless forsaking of his
father's house. In what circumstances he is placed by the famine
in the country is told us in the following words : Kal avrb? ypijaro
varepeiadai. The avro? is not to be overlooked. For him, the
stranger in that country, who, after squandering his property,
had no means of help there, the consequence of the famine was,
that he began to starve. Nothing was left to the stranger but
to seek help from the natives of the country. Hence it follows
in ver. 15:" and he went and attached himself to one of the citizens
of that country." We ought not (as e.g. Stier does) to make this
step a new reproach to him, interpreting it to mean that, instead
of at once returning to his father's house, he seeks false self-helps
in blind, settled apostasy. For in the connection of the narrative
at least he is forced to this step by his circumstances ; and the
resolve to return home in the very beginning of his want, before
making the attempt to help himself in that country, would appear
to be without motive psychologically. The general emphasis of
the narrative here lies, not on what the lost son did, but on what
he had to suffer in that far country. Accordingly also the words :
Kal iropevdel? iKoXXydy K.r.X., stand merely in the sense of a
protasis, to which the words : Kal eireptyev avrov K.r.X., form the
apodosis having the emphasis. That it is so is proved by the
sudden change in the subject in the last clause.
When in his need he seeks help from the inhabitants of that
country, he encounters at their hands only insulting harshness
and a want of pity which, instead of alleviating his need, aggra
vates it in the highest degree. This is the general import of
vv. 15, 16. The very word iKoXXydy intimates that the citizen
of that country to whom he applied at first, would fain have
repelled him, and that he was only induced to take him into his
service by persevering and urgent entreaty, and then only to
aggravate his wretchedness in the highest degree. For, on the
one hand, the service to which he appoints him is the meanest
possible, and one most dishonourable to a Jew : " He sent Urn
into his fields to keep swine," ver. 1 5 ; and, on the other hand,
what he gives him by way of recompense so little suffices to
appease his hunger, that his hunger grows tiU he desires to be

THE LOST SON. 203
allowed to satisfy himself with the fodder of the swine : koX iire-
dvpei yepiaai ryv KoiXiav avrov dirb twi/ Kepariwv, wv yadiov oi
"Xpipot, ver. 16. He desired to fiU his belly with the pods of
the St. John's bread-tree.1 The former low expression for
"satisfy himself" specially signalizes the dishonour implied in
appeasing his hunger with such food. When it is added : " and
no one gave to him" we can scarcely supply anything but Kepdna,
although no stress is to be laid on it. For the thought expressed
in these words is not that he could not even obtain Kepdna, but
that no one — not one even — commiserated and appeased his
gnawing hunger. The same pitiless cruelty which he had found
in. one of the inhabitants of that country he found in aU.
Such bitter misery has his forsaking of his father's house and
journeying into the far country brought him. The enjoyment of
the blessings of his father's house was not enough for him, he had
sought unbridled enjoyment of life in the far country ; instead of
this he has found destitution and hunger in that country, ver. 14.
The father's love was a gaUing yoke to him; he had sought
limitless freedom in the far country; instead of this he sees
himself enslaved by the inhabitants of that country under a
disgraceful yoke, with no sympathy for his bitter need, w. 15, 16.
In this state of extremest wretchedness he comes to himself,
and it is precisely the glaring contrast between his state of need
and the comfort of his forsaken home which flashes on his mind
and exercises overwhelming influence over him when he now
comes to himself. Eh eavrov Be iXdwv e(py, so continues the
narrative, ver. 17: i.e. "When he had come to himself," when he
who had hitherto bUndly foUowed his impulses without self-
reflection now reflected on himself and his position, " he said,"
expressing the result of his self-reflection : Iloaoi piadioi rov
irarpb? pov irepiaaevovrai dprwv iyw Be &Se Xtpiw diroXXvpai.
He recaUs how weU off are his father's hired servants, not,
as is usually understood, because he desires to compare his (the
son's) wretchedness with the circumstances of the meanest ser
vants of his father, but because to him as piladio? in his present
wretchedness in this far country the condition of those found in
Uke position with his father presents itself for purposes of
comparison. He compares the lot of the hired servants there
with his lot as pdadio? here ; the former, many as they are
1 Translated by Luther aptly, but perhaps too strongly, Trdber, grains. Cf.
Winer, Handworterbuch, art. " Johannisbrodbaum. "

204 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
(irbaoi piadioi), have superfluity of bread, " while I here (iyw he
wSe) perish with hunger." We thus assume the genuineness of
&Se and its emphatic position before Xipw, and therefore after the
iyw Si ending in similar letters, which position led to its omission
in some manuscripts. And this thought of the superfluity enjoyed
by his father's hired servants, in contrast with the need in
which he is pining here, works so powerfully upon him that he
comes to the determination to go to his father, and ask from him
the favour of the like position as his hired servants possess. He
expresses this determination without hiding from himself that in
order to carry it out he will need to bestir himself. Hence in
ver. 18 the dvaard? comes before iropevaopiai irpb? rbv irarkpa
pov. But that his father may not misunderstand his coming, as
if he hoped for reception into the position of son again, he resolves
to preface the utterance of the intended request by a confession
of the guilt by which he has rendered himself unworthy of such
a blessing. Before he ventures on his request, he will say:
irdrep, ypaprov el? rbv ovpavov Kal ivwiriov aov K.r.X. He
resolves to characterize his sin as directed against heaven, and
done in presence of his father, — the former, because he is conscioua
of having by his sin violated the ordinances of Him who is
throned in heaven ; the latter, because he specially reproaches
himself with having plunged into sin before the eyes of his
father. Heaven can only be meant here as the abode of the
heavenly Being, to whose ordinances man owes obedience, not
as the dwelling-place of angels, as in ver. 7. For although the
angels, according to vv. 7, 10, rejoice over the conversion of
sinners, and may therefore be analogously represented as sorrow
ing over the sin of men, sin cannot for this reason be described
as directed against them, as a sinning against them, as would be
the case on this interpretation of " against heaven." The avoidance*11*'
of the definitely personal " against God," and the choice of the
impersonal expression "against heaven," have their ground in this,
that the relation between the sinner and God, symbolized by the
relation between father and son, could not appear definitely in
the figurative story alongside the human relation. He intends to
prefix this confession in order, on its basis, to say of himself
further, ver. 19 : ovKen elpl afjio? KXydyvai vlb? aov. He will
humbly acknowledge that by his guilt he has rendered himself
unworthy of the name of son, and of the filial position expressed
in the name. And after he has thus paved the way for his

THE LOST SON. 205
intended request, he will venture on the request itself: iroiyaov
p,e w? eva rwv piiadiwv aov, i.e. make me Uke one of thy hired
servants, who are so well situated ; cf. ver. 1 7. Thus the mean
ing of the to? is not : Make me, although a son, as low as one of
thy hired servants, but on the correct reference of the request to
ver. 1 7 : Make me, who am perishing of hunger, as weU off as
one of thy hired servants.
Close on the resolve foUows the execution, ver. 20 : Kal avaara?
yXdev irpb? rbv irarepa eavrov. But before he reaches his father's
house everything is changed from what he had pictured to him
self: eVt Be avrov paKpdv dirkypvro?, elSev avrov b iraryp avrov.
Of course we are not to take this as a remarkable coincidence,
but the circumstance is to be regarded as a proof of the father's
unextinguished love for his lost son. In yearning expectation of
his son's return the father daily looks out along the road, and
when he is now coming, the father, with the keen glance of love,
discerns him from afar. "And he had compassion" his heart
beats with outgushing pity in response to the child returning in
so sorrowful a plight, " and he ran (to meet him), and fell on his
neck, and covered him with kisses " (KarecpiXyaev avrov). With
such unrestrained, overflowing manifestation of tender fatherly
love does he receive the returning son, as if the latter's filial
relation to the father had suffered no interruption — a reception
which puts the son into a quite unexpected position. For he
sees the request for the place of a hired servant, which he had
come to prefer to the father, at once cut short by this reception.
Infinitely more and better is given him than he had come to
ask. And if he now utters the same words, excepting that request,
with which he had resolved to approach his father according to
vv. 18, 19, yet these words in the present circumstances have an
essentiaUy different reference from the one in which he had
meant to utter them. There they were meant to be a penitent
confession of his guilt and unworthiness in presence of a justly
angry father, and were designed to dispose the father favourably,
simply to move him not to refuse the request. Now, coming as
they do from the Ups of the child, whom the father has taken to
his arms and heart, they are meant to tell the father how utterly
unworthy he feels himself of this never-expected reception as a
chUd to the father's heart ; but they have no longer any reference
to the request. We ought not therefore to say, as is often done,
that the request is absent here, because the father did not allow

206 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
the son to finish speaking, all the more that all intimation of
such an interruption is wanting in the text. For the words
of the father which follow cannot be taken in the light of an
interruption, because they are directed to servants, who could
not even have been present on the first meeting between father
and son, which took place on the road outside. These words
are rather to be viewed as spoken when the father brings the
son from the road into the house. But certainly in them lies
the father's actual answer to the confession of his son, on which
account they are joined so directly to that confession. According
to the father's command, ver. 22, the servants are to present three
objects to the son, not merely to reUeve his destitution, but each
one of them a mark of honour, a threefold evidence to the son of
his reinstatement in the filial position. Hence, too, the servants
are not merely commanded to present these objects to him, but to
put them on him, in this way ministering to him as the son of
the house. We must read, with Lachmann and Meyer : rayii
iljevkyKare aroXyv t^ irpwryv. The stola is the upper dress of
the respectable classes, a garment of honour to the wearer.1 Such
a stola the servants are to bring out quickly, scil. from its recep
tacle ; and they are to bring out " the first," in order to enhance
the honour shown (i.e. in this connection the best of those in the
house), and they are to put it on the son. Further, they are to
put a signet-ring on his hand, and sandals on his feet, both in
like manner intended as marks of respect. For even the sandals
are not to the Oriental a matter of pressing necessity. They
belong to respectabUity, and are a necessary part of the treatment
due to a man of rank.
After the father by this order has replied to his son's confes
sion of guilt and unworthiness, and sealed to him his complete
restoration, he gives expression to his great joy by the further
commission to the servants, ver. 32: "And bring the calf, the
fatted one," scil. which, you know well, is quite ready, " and slay
it," to which commission the summons is joined : " and let us
feast and be merry." The father orders a joyous banquet of all
the household, and the best to be provided which the house fur
nishes, and justifies the order by stating the event to be celebrated
in tones of overflowing joy, ver. 24 : 6Vi ovro? b vio? pov veKpo?
yv Kal dveXyaev, isjv AiroXwXw? Kal evpkdy. The two parallel
clauses, plaoed side by side without connecting particle, are meant
1 Cf. Mark xii. 38 ; Luke xx. 46.

THE LOST SON. 207
in any case to affirm one and the same thing. The first there
fore, just like the second, affirms that this his son was lost and
has been found. Of necessity the father is to be thought of as
the one who had lost, and has again come into possession of him.
When the son left the father of his own choice and went into
the far country, the father no longer had this his son, — outwardly
not, for he had disappeared ; inwardly not, for his filial relation to
the father was severed; and this state of privation the father
expresses when he says once : " This my son was dead," and
again : " He was lost." But now that he has returned in peni
tence to the father, he has his son again, and he gives vivid
expression to the joy of recovery when he says once : " He has
become alive again," and again : " He has been found." Therefore
neither are the two .statements,1 nor even the first only,2 meant
in an ethical sense, as if they were meant to state in what moral
condition the son was formerly, and what change has taken place
in him, — a view of the words refuted by a series of other con
siderations. First, let us observe that these words are spoken to
the servants to give a reason for the joyous banquet ordered.
Could the father really speak to the servants of the moral change
in the son, instead of the fact that the son was restored to the
father, and thus, of course, also to the entire household ? Let us
further compare ver. 27, where one of the servants repeats in
prosaic simple style the thought uttered here in the higher tone
of overflowing joy, quoting as the reason of the banquet : 6Vi
vyiaivovra airbv direXaBev. Compare, finally, the analogous
passages in the two preceding parables, vv. 6, 9, respecting the
sheep and the coin found again. It is impossible to understand
the expressions " to be lost " and " to be found " here in a quite
different sense from the one in those two passages. Certainly
in aU three parables a moral state is symbolized by the being lost,
and a moral conversion by the being found ; and this is speciaUy
conspicuous in the third parable, where the being lost is identical
with the departure from the father into the strange country by
the son's own choice, and the being found with the return to the
father by his own resolve. But on this very account it is an
encroaching on the province of interpretation to describe the
words as meant in an ethical sense by the father in the parable.
What the father ordered is now done : Kal yp^avro ei(ppaiveadai.
The narrative of the younger son has now reached its
1 Meyer et al. 2 van Oosterzee, von Hofmann.

208 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
conclusion, but not the entire parable. Two sons of the father
were mentioned in the beginning, ver. 11. We therefore expect
to hear of the elder son, and to him the narrative proceeds. Not,
however, to place a separate history of the elder son beside that
of the younger one, but merely, in close connection with what
has preceded, to say what attitude the elder son took to the
reception of the younger one just related. " But his elder son
was in the field," it is first said, ver. 25. Thus, the elder son is
thought of as absent from the house during the return of the
younger, and accordingly what is to be told about him is laid in
a later period, 'when he comes home. In this way both what has
been related of the reception of the younger son and what is still
to be told of the elder one are entirely distinct from each other,
and a simple advance in the narrative from one to another is
made possible. Nothing else is to be sought behind the . absence
of the elder son in the field. As he is returning home he
observes that something extraordinary has happened, for on
approaching the house he hears music and dancing (avpjxovm
Kal xppwv). Inside the house the joyous banquet is in full
swing with music and dancing, as was usual on festive occasions.
When he hears these sounds of feasting, he calls one of the
servants, and asks what is going on, ver. 26. The latter replies,
ver. 27:" Thy brother is come, and thy father hath slain the fatted
calf, because he has received him sound," — a simple answer in
which he gives the inquirer information about the occasion and
character of the festive meal, whose sounds are heard by the
latter, so that we mark in his words how natural and justifiable
the festivities in progress seem to his simple vision. That he
speaks in heartless mockery of the father, and with a desire to
provoke jealousy,1 is imported without any support in the text.
The son, however, is full of wrath at what the servant says,
ver. 28 : "and would not go in;" and when the father, who
meantime has heard of his return, himself leaves the festive
chamber and with friendly greeting exhorts 2 him to enter and
participate in the festive joy, he will not be moved, but gives
expression to his wrath in harsh words (ver. 29), expressing
plainly enough the feelings of his heart. " Lo, so many years
do I serve thee, and never transgressed a commandment of thine."
Thus he first upbraids his father with the long blameless service
he has rendered to him. " And to me," he continues, putting
1 von Hofmann. 2 xxpxxxXtTn, as in Acts xvi. 39 ; 1 Cor. iv. 13.

THE LOST SON. 209
the ipoi first emphatically, " thou never gavest a young goat
(epi(f>ov), that I might be merry with my friends." The emphatic
position of the ipoi shows that he speaks thus in allusion to the
calf now slain for his brother, and therefore to the festive banquet
prepared with such great array for the latter. The meaning is :
For me thou didst never prepare such a banquet, even with slight
array, that I might even once relieve my toilsome service by
making merry with my friends. And then (ver. 30) he contrasts
the life which his brother has led, and what has been done for
him, with his own long and blameless service without reward.
He describes him simply as " this thy son," scornfuUy omitting
the name of brother, and also bitterly reproaching the father for
acknowledging him as his son. He characterizes the life he has
led in the participial clause : o Kara(paywv aov rbv Biov perd twi>
iropvwv. Whilst he has done the father such toUsome service,
the other has consumed the father's goods in a Ufe of reckless
enjoyment. The perd raji iropvwv is said in bitter contrast to
the honourable ei(f>paiveadai perd rwv (piXwv pov, ver. 29. But
the making of this very contrast reveals that he secretly envies
his brother's past sinful life as a life of enjoyment and pleasure
that has been permitted to him. All the more glaring seems to
him the injustice in the father's conduct to the returning one :
ore Be . . . yXdev, edvaa? aiirw rbv airevrbv poa%pv. Thus, for
the latter, over and above the delights of sin, the joyous banquet
in the father's house with the best provision the house can offer !
To these angry reproaches the father then replies in the most
loving way, vv. 31, 32. The same forbearing love which he had
shown to the younger son is now shown to the elder. He
addresses his son with the tender rkicvov, and condescends to justify
himself; and this first against the reproach raised in ver. 29,
that he has not rewarded his son's long and blameless service,
reminding him that this service carries its reward in itself,
namely in uninterrupted fellowship with the father : ai) irdvrore
per epov el, and in unbroken possession of all the father's goods :
Kal irdvra rd ipd ad iariv. The av is put first with emphasis,
answering to the e^ot, ver. 29. To the complaint respect
ing the supposed disparagement impUed in the emphatic ipoi,
the emphatic av opposes the actual privilege which the elder
son had over the younger. In the words: irdvra ra ip,d ad
iariv, we are not to think, in aUusion to ver. 12, of a future legal
claim to the whole of the paternal inheritance accruing to the
GOEBEL. O

210 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
elder son on the father's death to the exclusion of the younger
son, but of the circumstance that, as the son who had always
been with the father, he stands as matter of fact and always has
stood in joint possession and enjoyment of all the paternal property.
The presents et and iariv in the two clauses combine the past
with the present as one permanent, uninterrupted state.
After the father has thus defended himself against the reproach,
ver. 29, that he has not rewarded the elder son for his service,
in ver. 32 he refutes the reproach, ver. 30, that he has done too
much for the younger son in the feast he had prepared for him.
For when he proceeds, ver. 32 : eixppavdyvai Be Kal yapyvai
eSei, on o dSeXcpo? aov ovro? veKpb? rjv Kal eC,yaev, Kal diroXwXm?
Kal evpkdy, this is certainly said first of aU in reference to the
feast prepared by the father. An event so joyous as the living
again of one who was dead, and the finding again of one who was
lost,1 ought to be celebrated by a joyous feast. We must not,
however, exclude from these words the reference given in Luther's
translation, namely, the disapproval of the elder brother's wrath
and murmuring. Whether the eSei is to be referred to something
done as it ought to be done, or to something omitted which ought
to have been done, can only be shown by the actual context,
But where, as here, the context gives both references at once, the
eSei also may be meant in both references. And that in fact in
the present case the latter reference also is included in the
meaning of the language, is proved first by the emphatic
prefixing of the eixppavdyvai, by which the " to be merry " is
contrasted with the indignation of the person addressed, and
again especially in the verifying clause by the designation of the
one who lives and is found again as " this thy brother." This
designation, in reponse to the scornful and bitter " this thy son,"
ver. 30, suggests to the indignant one, that as the father has
recovered a son in the returning one, so also he has recovered a
brother, and therefore, instead of being angry, he ought to have
taken part in the joy of the household.
The parable then at last finishes in almost the same words
that we found, ver. 24, at the close of the history of the younger
son. That joyous utterance of the father over the return of the
lost son recurs here as an assertion of his right against the anger
of the brother, and a condemnation of that anger.
Let us now glance back at the entire parable and compare it
1 Cf. on ver. 24.

THE LOST SON. 211
with the two preceding ones, and further with vv. 1, 2, in order
to see its distinctive purpose alongside those, and interpret it
accordingly. After Jesus, to justify His own action towards
sinners and to shame the murmuring of the Pharisees, has held
up before the latter the image of a man who seeks and finds his
lost sheep, and of a woman who seeks and finds her lost piece of
money, He begins to teU of a father who lost his son, and
describes the father's conduct to the lost one on his penitent
return. The relation between father and son can only be a
figure for the relation between God as the heavenly Father and
man. Therefore, after justifying His own attitude to sinners in
the first parables, He now goes a step farther and deeper, striking
back to the attitude of God to the returning sinner, which is the
ultimate ground and also the ultimate justification of His own
action.1 This advance in the thought is prepared for by the
declarations at the close of the first two parables, in which the
joy of the angels of God in heaven over the repenting sinner was
spoken of, vv. 7, 10. The purpose of the parable accordingly is
this, in contrast with the uncharitable murmuring of human iU-wUl,
to picture the joy with which God Himself accepts and receives back
the sinner returning to Him. But the central section of the narra
tive (vv. 20-24), in which the real purpose of the parable finds ex
pression, is preceded on the one hand by an introductory history, w.
1 1—1 9, and followed on the other by a concluding episode, vv. 25,26.
Since in this instance it is not an irrational animal or dead
coin, but a self-determining person, that serves to represent the
sinner, the mere statement of something lost in the first two
parables extends here to a figurative history, which spreads
before our view the inner history of the sinner who repents. It
does this in its three chief elements, characterizing first his sin
in its beginning and progress, [then the misery into which it
leads him, and then the repentance to which in his misery he
allows himself to be moved. But the narrative receives its
distinctive shape from the reference to the special classes of
sinners and publicans who streamed towards the Lord according
to ver. 1. It is the past of such sinners as Jesus saw
around Him then which is first described in ' the history of the
younger son, and only in the second place, so far as the two
coincide in their main features, the history of the sinner generally.
The reference to the " publicans and sinners " at once gives
1 Cf. John v. 19.

212 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
us the right interpretation for solving the initial relation between
father and son as described in vv. 11, 12. The sinners whom
the Lord has in view in the first instance were Jews, sons by
birth of the theocratic economy as much as the Pharisees. But
the divine law seemed a hard yoke to them, and, longing after
unlimited freedom, they cast from them the limits of the law,
living an independent life outside the divine economy and its
ordinances. And God permitted them to do so, for He does not
use outward means of compulsion towards the man who desires
to emancipate himself from Him, ver. 12. The portion of
property banded over to the son is not to receive a special
interpretation ; but, the desire for the inheritance simply
representing the desire for unlimited freedom of action, the
actual handing over of the inheritance is merely the typical form
for the granting of such unlimited freedom on the part of God.
Of the Uberty granted them they then made the use they longed
for. Eenouncing aU fellowship with God and all relation to
Him, they lost themselves in the heathen world of alienation
from God (the departure into the far country), in order to be
able there in utter forgetfulness of God to indulge the sinful
lusts of their hearts without restraint, ver. 1 3.
Thus did they; but how bitterly they found themselves
betrayed ! They were forced to experience what is described in
yv. 14-16. The world in a state of alienation from God can
only supply a brief sensuous intoxication to the man who has
lost himself in it, and afterwards has nothing to give, nothing
that can appease the hunger of man's soul (the famine in that
country). And thus, instead of the unlimited enjoyment which
he seeks in the world of alienation from God, the sinner finds
himself plunged into a state of starvation, ver. 14, and instead of
the freedom he longs after, he finds himself plunged into bondage
to the children of that world — a shameful bondage without
reward, a bondage harsh to the point of barbarity, in which the
inner pain of starvation rises to its highest climax, without the
sympathy and pity of others to aUeviate the pain consuming him,
vv. 15, 16. The keeping of the swine serves to represent the
shamefulness of the 'bondage; the longing for husks is meant to
picture the aggravation of the pain of starvation to the highest
point. Whether in the description of the bondage any aUusion '
is intended to the services rendered by the publicans to the
heathen power, can scarcely be decided.

THE LOST SON. 213
But in this misery the sinner aUows himself to be moved to
repentance. For so the publicans and sinners who come to the
Lord had done. In their wretchedness they came to themselves,
and then they became conscious how blessed it is to be permitted
to serve God, and how miserable is the service of this world,
ver. 17. And the resolve was awakened in them to return back
to God, not as if they had any sort of right to recover their lost
prerogatives as sons of the theocratic economy, — of this they
frankly confess they have made themselves unworthy by their
sin, — but they come simply with the humble request to be
allowed to serve God like poor servants, vv. 18, 19.
And what then is the attitude of God to sinners, who penitently
and humbly return to Him ? Jesus describes it in the section
forming the centre of the parable, vv. 20-24. First let us
observe that nothing is said in this parable of a seeking of the
lost one on the part of him who had suffered the loss. But this
is at once explained to us by the difference of the figure used
here from that used in the first two parables. As the son's
being lost is a matter of his own choice, the father cannot seek
him as the man sought his lost sheep and the woman her
lost piece of money. The necessary postulate for the display
of love on the father's part is here the return of the lost one by
his own resolve. Nevertheless, even here the circumstance that
the father is looking out for the lost one and discerns him from
afar, indicates that the divine love is turned to the sinner even
during his sinful Ufe and before his conversion, anxiously awaiting
and looking for his conversion. And therefore, scarcely has the
sinner turned again to God in sincere repentance, when God even
anticipates him with heartfelt compassion, overwhelms him with
proofs of His fatherly love, receives him as a beloved chUd to His
father-heart, ver. 20, and reinstates him, unworthy as he knows
himself to be, in all the privileges of a child, vv. 21, 22. And
there is then joy with God and His angels over the converted
sinner, who was lost to God by his sin, but by his repentance is
given back to the life of divine fellowship and won back to God
and the kingdom of heaven, vv. 23, 24. That the putting on of
the stola, the ring, and the sandals is not to be interpreted
separately in each case, but is simply meant to denote the
reinstatement in the filial state in three distinct features, scarcely
needs mention. In the story of the preparation of the banquet,
vv. 23, 24, the truth expressed in vv. 7, 10 without figure at the

214 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
close of the first two parables is now resumed and worked out in
the figurative form supplied by the context of the parable, on
which account we also refer the feast to the joy of God and His
angels, without thereby meaning to affirm that the servants in the
parable are meant to signify the angels generaUy.
There follows now the section concluding the parable, in
which the attitude of the elder brother on the return of the
younger one is described. A glance back at vv. 1, 2 puts it
beyond doubt that in the elder brother Jesus sketches an image
of the murmuring Pharisees and scribes. In speaking at first of
two sons of one father, it was His intention from the outset, under
the image of the elder brother, to contrast the unbrotherly, unlov
ing murmuring of the Pharisees with the fatherly, loving attitude
of God to the returning sinner, which contrast carries in itself a
condemnation of their attitude. This definite reference to the
Pharisees has been objected to because of the saying of the father
in ver. 31, which does not suit the Pharisees,1 but wrongly. For,
of course, the point treated of here is not Pharisaism in itself,
but simply that trait of the Pharisaic nature which had shown
itself in the murmuring mentioned in ver. 2. First, the purpose
is to characterize the mode of thought revealed in the murmur
ing, and secondly, to give a convincing refutation of that
murmuring. This is done in vv. 25-32. In the wrath of the
elder brother when he becomes aware of the joy in the household
and its occasion, and in his refusal to take part in this joy over
his brother's return, Jesus first of all reproduces in figurative form
the murmuring of the Pharisees at the reception accorded to the
returning sinners, vv. 25-28. But He not only heard their
murmuring, but saw through the thoughts of their heart, from
which the murmuring arose. And in bringing the parabolic
story to such a conclusion as to introduce a conversation between
the father and the elder son respecting the reception of the
younger one, He lays bare on one hand, in the language of the
elder son, the thoughts of the Pharisees which are the ground of
their murmuring, and, on the other, in the reply of the lather
discovers the injustice of these thoughts. They think they are
justified in finding in the reception given to sinners a grievous
injustice to themselves. To them, who have rendered to God so
long and unbroken a service, never transgressing one of His com
mandments, no special enjoyment has ever been granted, ver. 29,
1 von Hofmann, also Weiss.

THE UNJUST STEWARD. 215
whilst for these sinners, after they have been permitted to par
take of the joys of life in the most extravagant way, a reception
of such joyous character is prepared by God over and above,
ver. 3 0. So they think, so they reckon, to serve God is to them
hard labour without reward ; sin seems to them to be enjoyment.
In the next place, the answer of the father serves to expose the
utter perverseness of these thoughts, and the injustice of the
accusation raised against God's justice. This is done most gently,
and yet most strikingly. Here, just as much as in the first two
parables, Jesus for a moment admits, for the sake of argument,
the claim of His opponents to blamelessness of walk before God's
law. What He thinks of this claim He teUs them plainly
enough elsewhere. Precisely because they raise this claim, what
the father in the parable says to the son who boasts of his
obedience must be said to them. In the words of the father,
ver. 31, Jesus reminds them that walking in obedience to God
and His commandments carries its incomparable reward in itself,
in uninterrupted fellowship with God, and the unbroken possession
and enjoyment of aU His blessing and grace, ver. 31. How
perverse, therefore, to complain of the withholding of other special
joys as a reward for this walk ! But the special joy with which
returning sinners are received rests on essential grounds, for by
their conversion these sinners are given back to the Ufe of divine
feUowship, are won back to God and His heavenly kingdom,,
ver. 32. Therefore the joy of God and His angels over them
is right, the wrath and murmuring of the Pharisees wrong.
They ought, instead of murmuring, to participate in the joy of
God and His angels.

The Unjust Steward.
(Luke xvi. 1-9.)
With Luke xv. 31, 32 the discourse of Jesus, which com
menced in ver. 4, and reached a provisional conclusion in ver. 10
(only, however, to be at once resumed and continued in ver. 11),
has come to an end. When in xvi. 1 it is further said : " and He
said also unto the disciples," the narrative goes back beyond the
discourse just concluded to the situation described in xv. 1-3,
again joining on to what is there related. These words are there
fore to be explained by what is said there. As we read there

216 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
how the publicans and sinners drew near to Jesus to hear Him,
and how Jesus, influenced by the murmuring of the Pharisees,
directed His discourse to the latter, and, as we hear now that He
spoke " also to the disciples" we must take the word " disciples "
here in the broader sense, and understand not the Twelve alone,
but the multitude of earnest hearers in general, consisting
principally of publicans and sinners. Hitherto their interest as
hearers of the discourse addressed and applying to the Pharisees
had only been indirect, but now Jesus speaks also to them.
Accordingly, in the following discourse, xvi. 1-13, the previous
relation is reversed. The disciples are the persons addressed,
while the Pharisees are those who " also listen," as is expressly
said in ver. 14.
Thus introduced, there begins another parabolic narrative, the
purport of which, we expect, wiU be of especial importance for
the multitude of disciples consisting of publicans and sinners.
" There was a rich man" so the narrative begins, " who had a
steward." Consequently the latter had a large property to
administer. He is not described, like the steward in xii. 42-46,
as a slave, but, as vv. 2, 3 will show, as an officer employed
subject to notice. Moreover, he is entrusted with the most
extensive authority over his master's property, as is shown by
the accusation made against him, of which we hear at once:
Kal ovro? SteBXydy aiirw w? SiaaKopiri^wv ra virdp^pvra avrov.
The accusation does not refer to definite acts of embezzlement in
the proper sense, but says generally that he wasted his master's
property, as may be most naturally supplied in thought, by an
extravagant, luxurious life.1 Whether the accusation really held
good or not cannot be learnt from ver. l,for StaBdXXeiv is indeed
a malevolent, but not necessarily a false accusing. And just so
the w? SiaaKopiri^wv says nothing about the guUt or innocence of
the accused. It only says that he was described by his accusers
as wasting the property, without our seeing whether with or
without reason. From ver. 2, however, we see that the master
at least is convinced of the steward's guilt, for " he called him, and
said to him, What is this that I hear of thee ? 2 give the account
of thy stewardship ; for thou canst be no longer steward!' Whether
we read Bwyay or Svvy is immaterial to the meaning, since the
latter also can only have the future sense.3 According to these

1 Cf. xv. 13. 2 ii touts xxolioi = quid est quod audio ?
3 Cf. the present iipxipuTxi in ver. 3.

THE UNJUST STEWARD. 217
words, the reason of the master requiring from the steward the
account of his stewardship is that he can no longer be steward.
Thus the master by no means makes the deposition depend on
the account to be given, as if the guilt of the accused were first
to be ascertained from the account. But because the steward as
a squanderer is to lay down his office, the master requires from
him the Xoyo? ry? oiKovopia? requisite on account of the transfer.
In view of the union of the two clauses by yap, this is the only
possible meaning of the words. Against this notice so definitely
expressed there is no remonstrance, the matter is at an end, from
which we may learn that the truth of the accusation made against
the steward is presupposed in the narrative.1
In ver. 3 we find the steward considering what he shall do in
. his present position. It is self-evident that we must no longer
think of him as in the presence of his master. The opposite
opinion is refuted by the character of calm, mature deliberation
worn by the foUowing narrative, for which time and recollection
were requisite. "And the steward said within himself, What
shall I do, seeing that my lord talceth away the stewardship from
me ? " By the present d(paipeirai he designates his stiU impend
ing deposition from office, in accordance with the notice given
him in ver. 2, as an already certain fact. Directly he takes his
critical position into consideration, he does not deceive himself as
to the fact that he is on the point of being left without means of
Uving. Then two ways seem possible in which he may hereafter
gain a liveUhood, namely, aither by earning his bread, and that
by severe bodUy toil, as no other means would be open to a dis
missed official, or by begging. He weighs both alternatives, but
only to reject them at once : " To dig I am not able ; to beg I am
ashamed." Of the one the effeminate man sees himself physicaUy
incapable, from the other he is deterred by shame. But is there
no other expedient ? This is now the object of his' further reflec
tion, which reaUy arrives at a result, ver. 4 : " 2" know what I
will do, that, when I am put out ofthe stewardship, they may receive
me into their houses!' The kyvwv, prefixed asyndeticaUy,
expresses not so much the sudden occurrence of the thought as
rather the satisfaction of the speaker at having reached a practical
favourable result in his reflections. He has thought of a course
, of proceeding — so the words say — by which he intends to bring
1 Cf. also the appellation I olxoto/ios Ttis aSixlxs in ver. 8, and what is said
there.

218 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
about, that (fva) they, with whom he thus deals,1 will receive
him into their houses, when he shall be put out of the steward
ship, and thus dismissed from the house which had hitherto given
him support. What kind of a proceeding it is, and on whom he
intends to practise it, he does not say. We learn both first on
hearing how he proceeds without delay to execute his plan,
ver. 5 : "And he called to him each one of his lord's debtors!'
These debtors, accordingly, are the persons whom he had in view
in the proceeding resolved on in ver. 4. According to vv. 6, 7,
they are persons who have borrowed natural products from the
estate managed by the steward, executing and handing over to
the latter a written bond for the amount of stuff borrowed. They
are therefore dealers who obtain their wares from the producer.
That they are to be viewed as contractors, and ra ypdppara,
ver. 6, as the contract, there is nothing in the text to intimate.
It corresponds neither with the word %pew<peiXery? nor with the
question irbaov b(peiXei? (vv. 5, 6), on which the impossible
meaning must be foisted, at what amount was the interest fixed
in the contract ?
How the steward proceeds with these debtors of his master,
when he has gathered them together, is shown in the sequel,
w. 55-7. Turning to the first of them, by the question: "How
much owest thou to my lord ? " he gets him first of all to acknow
ledge the amount of his debt : " A hundred baths of oil." And
having thus first made him feel his position as a debtor, and
aroused in him the sense of the amount of his debt, he says to
him, at the same time handing him his bond: "Take thy writing'
sit down, and write quickly fifty." Consequently the direction is
UteraUy that the debtor shall endorse the bond handed back
again, reducing the amount from 100 to 50 baths of oil. But
this must not be understood to mean that the steward wished
to lead the debtors to falsify the bond, a view with which the
pubUcity of the transaction does not agree. But he acts towards
the assembled debtors as the fully authorized steward of the
property, and on the ground of the authority of his position he.
here permits the first of the debtors to reduce the amount of
debt specified on his bond by a definite sum. Therefore the
injustice done here is not a falsifying of the bond on the part of
the debtor, but an abuse of his powers on the part of the steward,
1 Tims must the subject of "hllatTxt be supplied from the context.
2 tx ypxppxTx = litterse, in this connection the bond.

THE UNJUST STEWARD. 219
and, moreover, a wasting of his master's property, only in a
different way from the one alleged in ver. 1. He has need to
make haste, as indicated in the ra%kw? ypd^rov, knowing as he
does how soon he wUl be deprived of his authority. Forthwith
he does just the same with the second debtor as with the first.
By the question : "But thou, how much owest thou ?" he compels
the former, like the latter, to acknowledge the amount of his
debt: "A hundred cors of wheat" in order then to grant him also
a remission of a portion of his debt : " Take thy writing, and write
eighty!' So in ver. 7. The av Be prefixed shows that directly
after dealing with the first debtor he turns to the second standing
alongside ; and consequently puts beyond doubt that he does not
deal, as has been said, with each individual privately, but with
one after another, and with each one in presence of the rest.
It is to be observed, further, that the number one hundred recurs
also in the case of the second debtor in specifying the amount of
debt, but that the steward orders him to change the 100, not
into 5 0, but into 8 0. Since the amount of the original debt is
both times the same, while that of the reduced debt is different,
the difference in the remission is too conspicuous to allow us to
explain it as a mere change in the concrete description to avoid
monotony. The steward rather gives himself the air — so we are
to understand tins feature — of acting simply by favour and
personal preference, seeking in this way to strengthen the feeling
of obligation to his person in the debtors. That he acts with
each one of his master's debtors in the same way as with the first
and second, is to be supplied in thought from the opening words
of ver. 5. From his dealings with the first and second we are to
learn his dealings with all. Thus in the eleventh hour, according
to vv. 5-7, he has so used the authority of his position, which
gave him the formal right to dispose of his master's property, as
to grant to all his master's debtors a reduction of their debt, by
which means he aimed, as we know from ver. 4, at gaining them
to his side, that after his deposition they might receive him into
their houses.
But now this entire proceeding is by no means arranged with
a view to keeping it concealed from the knowledge of the master,
which, moreover, would have contributed nothing to the end to be
accompUshed. On the contrary, it must necessarily have been
noticed and remarked when the office was laid down and the
account given in according to ver. 2, since it would be at once

220 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
known from the bond, which was not' artificially falsified, hut
simply altered. On the assumption of this state of the case the
narrative at once continues, ver. 8 : Kal iiryveaev 6 Kvpto? rbv
o'tKovbpov rij? aStKia?, i.e. when the general reduction of debt
came to light on the account being given in, " the lord praised th
steward of unrighteousness" The parallels, ver. 9 and xviii. 6,
forbid us to connect the genitive ry? dStKia? with iiryveaev, as
well as the following clause beginning with on, which first
indicates the actual object of the commendation, placing it in
something quite different from the dSiKia. The genitive accord
ingly is the gen. qual., describing the steward as unrighteous, ie.
according to the context here as dishonest, the dishonesty being
represented as a quality characterizing kin. For' this reason the
designation cannot be based only upon the solitary dishonest
action last told of him, vv. 5-7, but refers to the dishonesty of
his stewardship in general,1 upon which he has only, so to speak,
put the crown by the proceeding last related of him and now
revealed. All the more strange certainly it is to hear that the
master commended this steward of unrighteousness. The language
contains an intended antithesis meant to draw the hearer's
attention to the solution of tbe antithesis immediately following
in the clause : oti (ppovipw? iiroiyaev. Therefore : the lord could
not help admiring and praising the steward of unrighteousness,
" because he acted wisely!' And here we suddenly find ourselves
at the conclusion of the narrative, a conclusion sufficient of itself
to indicate that the central point of the entire narrative must he
in this commended wisdom of the course devised and carried out
by the steward. But this is made still plainer by the declaration
of Jesus, lying outside the figurative history, which He adds by
way of verification. In this sense Jesus continues : on oi viol
rov aiwvo? rovrov (ppovipiwrepoi iiirep rov? viov? rov dxoro? ei?
ryv yevedv t^ eavrwv elaiv. Tib? with the genitive denotes in
both cases the relation of belonging to. Oi viol rov al&voi
rovrov are the men belonging to this age, i.e. men whose thoughts
and acts move within the limits of this present world, not stretch
ing beyond it. Such an one the steward has shown himself
everywhere in the parable. To men of this class generally Jesus
ascribes the praise of wisdom, and indeed they are "wiser than the
children of light." Oi viol rod <pwrb? are the men belonging to
the light, ie. those who are enlightened in their thinking and
1 Cf. on vv. l, 2.

THE UNJUST STEWARD. 221
guided in their doing by the light of divine truth. By the choice
of such a designation an apparent contradiction again arises in
the statement of Jesus. For how can the chUdren of this world
be wiser than those whose privilege above the former it is to be
chUdren of the light ? This seeming contradiction finds its
solution in the limiting phrase : et? t^v yeveav ryv eavrwv. The
pron. refl. eavrwv, as the words run, can only be referred back to
the subject of the clause : oi viol rov alwvo? rovrov, not also to
the children of the light.1 Nor are the words placed after virep
roii? vioii? rov (pwrb? on account of this supposed double reference,2
but because to the paradoxical statement intentionally put first
they add the limitation in which it holds good. When a yeved
of the viol rov alwvo? rovrov is spoken of, the yeved can signify
nothing but the generation or famUy formed by these viol as
such. "In reference to their own generation " is therefore the same
as : In reference to those who like them are children of this
world, and as such in affinity with them. Their wisdom is
limited to their relation to the latter, and therefore to the sphere
of the present natural life, which embraces their mutual relations ;
but taken in this limitation, their wisdom is in fact so great that
they far excel the children of light.
Comparing, then, this peculiar conclusion of the paraboUc
narrative with the words introducing it, ver. 1, according to which
it was designed speciaUy for the disciples, we find the foUowing
to be the distinctive purpose underlying the parable : The Lord
desires in the narrative of the steward of unrighteousness to hold
up before His disciples an example of the wisdom exercised
among themselves by the children of this world, that they who
are and profess to be children of light may be shamed by the
wisdom of the former, and may also learn true wisdom. And
when, glancing back at the course of the narrative, we observe
further that the steward's wisdom was shown in the prudent use
of his authority over the property under his management, and
bear in mind the circumstance noted in ver. 1, that many pubUcans
were found among the disciples surrounding the Lord, and there
fore people who had stained themselves with sin for the sake of
earthly wealth, and consequently needed special admonition in
their relation to earthly wealth, since in this matter above all the
sincerity of their change of heart must be shown, — from all this
we learn with what special reference the Lord holds up before
1 De Wette, Olshausen, Godet, et al. " von Hofmann.

222 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
the disciples the wisdom of a child of the world like this steward
From his example they are to gather the right, because truly wise
employment of earthly wealth. This result is expressly confirmed
to us by the interpreting utterance of Jesus, ver. 9, in which He
now Himself teUs the disciples in what the truly wise employ
ment of earthly wealth consists by the example of the steward.
By the prefatory " and I also say to you" Jesus describes what He
has now to say to His disciples on the basis of the parable as
something akin to the praise which the master in the parable
bestowed on the wise course of the steward, ver. 8. He agrees
with the praise, inasmuch as He also commends the wise course
of the man to the imitation of His disciples, certainly, as is
evident of itself, according to the words in ver. 8, only from their
standpoint as children of light. How they are to make a wise use
of mammon, in analogy with the conduct of the steward, He tells
them in the words : 'Eavroi? iroiyaare cplXov? e'/c rov papaiva
t?5? dSiKia?. The Lord does not mention mammon without
characterizing it by the genitive t»}? dSiKia?, which at once recalls
the designation rbv o'tKovopov rij? dSiKia?, ver. 8. Hence we
must not give the word here a different signification from the one
there, and attempt to refer it to the unjust distribution of mammon
or its treacherous inconstancy, but here as there it is injustice in
the sense of unrighteousness or dishonesty. Mammon is named
after unrighteousness as a property essential to it, and therefore
not merely because according to general experience it serves as
an instrument of unrighteous dealing,1 which would be nothing
essentially peculiar to it, nor yet merely because there is no
possession to which injustice in acquisition does not attach, either
of the present or a former possessor,2 which again must have a
deeper reason lying in the nature of the case, but because un
righteousness is reaUy the principle corresponding to the nature
of wealth, coming into action spontaneously, directly wealth is
regarded as an end in itself, and sought after or managed for
its own sake. Accordingly mammon is but a doubtful, nay,
dangerous good for the children of light. All the more therefore
does it seem enjoined on them to deal wisely with this ambiguous
and perUous good in accordance with the admonition: eavroi?
iroiyaare (plXov? e'/e rov papwvd ry? dSiKia?. The eavroi? put
first emphasizes the truth, that the employment of mammon
recommended by the Lord to His disciples is one tending to
' Meyer. 2 von Hofmann. "*\

THE UNJUST STEWARD. 223
their own advantage, and therefore useful in the highest and best
sense. They are to make friends to themselves with mammon,1
in order to obtain from those friends, when necessary, a proof of
their friendship : iva orav iKXiiry Bk^wvrai vpa? el? ra? alwviov?
aKyvd?. "Orav eKXiiry (perhaps also iKXeiiry), i.e. " when it shall
have come to an end, ceased," is to be read, with Lachmann and
Tischendorf, both according to external attestation and also on
grounds of internal probabUity, since the reading iKXiiryre (or
eKXeiiryre), i.e. " when ye shall have died," offers itself as a
simpUfying correction. As to meaning, however, the correction
does not differ materially from the original reading. For when
Jesus speaks to the disciples of a future ceasing of the mammon,
with which they are now to make friends to themselves, plainly
mammon only comes into view here as a possession of its present
owners. Therefore the ceasing of mammon is its loss as a
possession, not a future ceasing of mammon in its essential sub
sistence, such as enters with the Parousia,2 a thought altogether
foreign to the context.3 If we inquire the point of time when
the ceasing of mammon in this sense befalls every one, this is of
course the death of the owner (cf. ver. 22 and xii. 20), and only
in the second place the Parousia (if this is to be included) for
those who Uve to see it.4 With a view therefore to the time
when their earthly property will vanish from them, and they in
and with it wiU lose their earthly temporal dwelling-place, they
are to make friends to themselves, that these may then afford to
them an abiding dwelling-place, " may receive them into the eternal
tabernacles." ~S,Kyvy (in Hebrew ?n&) is a poetic expression,
current in the language of the Old Testament, for " dweUing" gene
raUy. We need not therefore supply to this expression a definite
allusion, such as to the tents of the patriarchs,5 or the tents of Israel
1 Ix here allied to W ; cf. Winer, Gram. p. 460. 8 Meyer.
8 Cf. the otxv /LirxiTTxIu tyis olxoto/iixs, ver. 4, to which, as we shall see, the SW|
ixXmy necessarily corresponds.
4 In opposition to the objection that, according to the Synoptics, Jesus places Has
Parousia in the lifetime of the present generation, and therefore cannot remit His
disciples to a future after their death (Meyer), it is sufficient simply to compare the
passage in which Jesus seems most definitely to place His Parousia in a time so
near, chap. ix. 27 ; Matt. xvi. 28. Supposing that the coming of the Son of man
there is really to be understood of Christ's visible, personal Second Coming, still
that passage would only predict as something special, that some of those standing
around shall not taste death before, which would expressly imply that, apart from
certain exceptions, death is the generally to be expected lot. Cf. also passages like
Matt. x. 21, 39j xxiv. 9. ° Godet.

224 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
in the desert? It rather offered itself naturally as a higher ana-
logon for the "houses" in the parable, ver. 4. What is to be under
stood by the eternal tabernacles is given in the context. They
must be those dwellings, reception into which, beyond their
earthly term of life, is to the disciples of Jesus the aim of their
care and effort, in opposition to the children of this world, ver. 8,
whose care and effort do not extend beyond the limits of this
present seon, — thus the dwellings of the world to come, opening
there to the heirs of eternal life.2 When they are expressly
denominated eternal dwellings, they form an antithesis both to
the ceasing of mammon, and also to the merely perishable
support which the houses in the parable were able to furnish,
ver. 4. And when Jesus so directly annexes the reception into
the eternal dwellings to the ceasing of earthly possession which
occurs at death, this of course implies that the dying. beUever is
warranted in expecting to be made partaker of that promise at
once and immediately, although as yet incompletely.3 But we
must not on this account understand the eternal dwellings them
selves simply of the dweUings of departed souls, with which the
adjective " eternal " will not accord, but here as everywhere else
Jesus directs the glance of His disciples' hope away from their
temporal life within the present aeon to the eternal life of the
world to come. *—f
Whatever is obscure in this utterance of Jesus must be cleared '
up by reference to the parable on which it is based, as conversely
the interpretation of the parable must be worked out from the
basis of this utterance, in connection with the words of Jesus in
ver. 8. But we cannot obtain workable points of view for
interpreting the present parable from what follows in vv. 10-13.
For although what follows stands in close connection with the
admonition uttered in ver. 9 as regards its intrinsic meaning, as
will be shown in the proper place, still the language there no
longer proceeds entirely, as in ver. 9, on the basis of the parable.
Eather, by advancing first of all a general proposition without
connection with what precedes, the truth of which may be
assumed to be acknowledged, ver. 1 0, the Lord lays a quite new
and independent basis for His further monitions. And now
only, recurring to His theme, He makes the application resulting
from that proposition for His theme, vv. 11, 12 ;¦ an application
having its independent basis in ver. 1 0, as ver. 9 has in vv. 1-8.
1 Meyer. 2 Cf. xviii. 30, xx. 35. 8 Cf. xxiii. 42, 43.

THE UNJUST STEWARD. 225
And when again, in ver. 13, a new general proposition is
advanced, and in applying it a final warning is given to the
disciples in reference to mammon, we must least of all take
what is said here as deciding the interpretation of the parable,
especially after the independent series of thoughts has inter
vened, vv. 10-12.
We proceed, then, to the interpretation on the basis of the
words of Jesus, vv. 8, 9. From these words we learn the plan
underlying the parable. Jesus desires to teach His disciples the
really wise employment of mammon. For this end He holds up
before them an example of wisdom, such as the chUdren of this
world are wont to practise among themselves. From the example
of such a man of the world, showing worldly wisdom in his
dealings with mammon, they are to gather what employment of
mammon true wisdom enjoins on them. In order to carry out
this plan, the narrative must, above all, be so arranged that the
man of the world, whose wisdom is to be an example to the
disciples, shall stand in a similar position within the present
world as regards mammon to that in which the disciples of Jesus
find themselves as regards riches in relation to the future world,
so that the disciples may recognise in the position of the man of
the world an image of their own position. To this postulate
corresponds the first part of the parable, vv. 1, 2, which then
forms the groundwork for the main part which follows. Striking
into the heart of worldly life and pursuits, the Lord there told
of the unprincipled steward of a large property, to whom his
master had given notice of dismissal on hearing that the steward
was wasting his property. As matter of fact, within the relations
of worldly life, the position of this man of the world in reference
to the property at his disposal is an image of the position in
which the children of light find themselves as regards the
mammon in their possession in relation to the future world,
lying beyond their earthly life. For, as the former now
definitely foresees that the property under' his management and
at his disposal wUl within a short time be taken from him, and
he will in consequence be stripped of his previous means of
support, so the children of Ught cannot hide from themselves
that the mammon, whose use is now in their hand, wiU within
a short time (ie. for them, at the end of their earthly life) be
taken from them, and beyond this life they will be deprived of
that which was the ground and means of their earthly existence.
GOEBEL. P

226 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
Thus, in the interpretation, we must lay the emphasis simply and
solely on the impending dismissal from the command of the
property, and every interpretation at variance with this chief
point and wandering into detail must, in view of the pecuhar
nature of the parable, be excluded. Thus, we must not interpret
the rich man of God, and find in the responsible position of the
steward in relation to his master the moral responsibUity of the
disciples, as mere stewards of mammon, to God as the true owner,
which would then compel us to find also an interpretation for
the complaint brought against the steward. Both the position
as steward of a rich man, assigned to the man in the narrative,
and the complaint made against him, — viewed, as we saw, as well
founded, — serve merely to obtain the necessary postulates, within
the worldly relations of an unprincipled man of the world, for
the central fact in the interpretation, namely, the impending loss
of the property hitherto at command.
In what has been said the necessary groundwork is gained for
the second main part of the parable. For after the man of the
world is found in a position, in respect to the property under
his command, which is an image of the position in which the
disciples of Jesus stand as regards mammon, the wise course of
conduct which he adopts with the property of his master can
become a pattern of a similar course to the disciples. The
conduct of the man of the world we found described in vv. 3-7.
The wisdom of this conduct, as we saw, consisted in this, that,
after recognising the impossibility of obtaining support hereafter
by his own labour, ver. 3, he hastened to use the time during
which he stiU retained authority over his master's property to
secure beforehand through it other means of support for the
future. And he carried out this plan by seeking with his
master's property, while in his power, to gain friends, with whom
he expected to find a reception hereafter. With what skill and
cunning, under favour of his position in worldly life, he pursued
this course towards other children of this world, directing his
attention to the debtors of his master dependent on him, and
presenting himself to them as their friend and benefactor by an
abuse of his authority as artful as it was shameful, was described
in detaU in vv. 5-7. To this wise course the course of the dis
ciples must correspond, in the way Jesus says in ver. 9. For as
their position is analogous to that of the steward, wisdom enjoins
on them an analogous mode of action. Like the steward, they must

THE UNJUST STEWARD. 227
use the time during which mammon remains at their disposal
(ie. for them, the period of earthly life) to secure beforehand
through it support for the future lying beyond the present life,
when mammon will be taken from them. And indeed they
must do this in the same way as the steward, namely, by making
friends to themselves with mammon, that, when it shall depart
from them, these may afford them a place of refuge ; that place
of refuge for which they hope as those who are not children of
this world — admission into the eternal habitations of the world
to come. So far the Lord goes in the comparison, and farther
we cannot go. The course of action pursued by the steward,
by which " the making to himself friends with mammon " was
carried out, must necessarily remain outside the comparison.
For, as it depended simply upon his worldly position as steward,
so also its description merely serves to characterize the nature
of the worldly prudence, artfully calculating every detail, which
the children of this world practise among themselves.
Accordingly, from vv. 5—7 we can obtain no material for
answering the stiU remaining question : What kind of friends is
Jesus thinking of in recommending the disciples to make lo them
selves friends with mammon ? The demand that the relation of
these friends to the disciples, and therefore the manner in which
they are to be gained, must be analogous to the relation of the
debtors to the steward, and the manner in which the steward
seeks to bind the debtors to himself, ought not to be made at all,
even as no explanation is really true to such a demand, however
the " making to themselves friends " may be explained. On the
other hand, we must certainly adhere to the principle that only
such friends can be thought of as have power to grant or refuse
admission into the eternal habitations. To evade this principle,
indeed, it has been said that Sk^eadai nva simply means to
"receive any one" generally, and it has been understood here
accordingly as a bare welcoming.1 And, certainly, it need not
perforce always have the sense " to grant reception to any one."
It may denote merely : to prepare a reception for any one, whether
in a friendly or unfriendly sense. But in this case the emphasis
no longer lies in the idea of the Bkxeadai, but in the manner of
receiving, which must be more exactly defined.2 But where
Bkxeadai nva stands without more precise definition of this
kind, it has everywhere the pregnant significance, to which oi
1 van Oosterzee. 2 Cf. Gal. iv. 14 : us xyy.Xot eiou QiZptrSi /ti.

228 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
Seyeadai = " to refuse to receive," forms the antithesis.1 More
over, in the present passage this signification of Siyeadai is
rendered certain, first, by the association with et? to? aKyvd?, —
only iv rai? aKyvai? could be said of a mere welcoming, — and
secondly, by the consideration that it cannot here have a different
meaning from the one in ver. 4, where not merely the conjunction
with et? roii? oikov?, but the entire context, admits only the preg
nant significance. Nay, to attempt to understand the Siyeadai
here differently from there, and to make the Lord here say
nothing else and nothing more than that the disciples are to
assure themselves of a friendly, grateful welcome in the eternal
habitations by the friends they are to gain, would be to abolish
the analogy between the parable and the application made of it
in ver. 9 precisely in the decisive point, and to resolve it into a
futile play of words. The same applies to all attempts to dilute
the meaning of Seyeadai in ver. 9 in any way, or even to ascribe
it to the "friends" in an indirect sense only.2 They dissolve the
analogy between parable and application precisely in the point
in which Jesus ratifies it. For this reason the exhortation:
" Make to yourselves friends with mammon," cannot certainly be
meant in the sense (as the majority, however, explain) that with
mammon we are to gain for ourselves friends among men, because
it cannot be said of such friends that they receive into the
eternal habitations. Moreover, so understood, the exhortation
would stand in insoluble contradiction with -other admonitions
of Jesus,3 according to which the charity to be practised by the
disciples of Jesus, whatever other kind of value it may have,
must on no account take as its aim to ingratiate itself with the
recipients of the benefits and earn their thanks, but only to
secure reward with God. But rightly understood, the exhortation
of Jesus in the present passage harmonizes with these directions.
For we cannot here even think of the friendship of the angels?
because even to them only a ministerial service can be ascribed
in the reception to the eternal habitations, not the receiving
itself, which includes decision upon the reception. Consequently,
nothing else can be meant in the present passage than that, by
a charitable employment of mammon, we are to gain for ourselves
the friendship of Him to whom alone that reception pertains,
and who reserves it to Himself one day openly to reward those
1 Cf. ix. 5, 48, 53, x. 8, 10. " Stier, Nebe, von Hofmann, Weiss, et al.
3 E.g. vi. 27, 32-35; Matt. v. 44, 46, 47. * Ewald, Meyer,

THE UNJUST STEWARD. 229
good deeds of His people, which they did to their brethren here
in secret for His sake alone (Matt. vi. 3, 4), therefore the friend
ship of God. There is nothing in the parable to oppose this
view, since the details of the description, vv. 5-7, as we have
seen, lie outside the thing to be compared. And just as little is
the plural form in opposition to this view. For, in the general
exhortation : " make to yourselves friends," the " friends," in any
case, is merely a plural of species, where one may be thought of
just as readUy as several.1 The general nature of the language is
conditioned by the close connection with the parable. In the
first instance, the exhortation is purposely left quite general, as
the parable requires, to the effect, namely, that " the making to
themselves friends with mammon " must be the care of the dis
ciples also. But with the concluding words : " into the eternal
tabernacles," definite aUusion is made to the question, whose
friendship it is that can alone concern the disciples in their
" making to themselves friends," namely, not, as with the children
of this world, the friendship of men, but the friendship of Him
who receives into the eternal habitations.
It is therefore — such is the result of the parable — a precept
of wisdom to the disciples of Jesus, first to regard the ambiguous.
good of mammon merely as a means of securing for themselves
God's approbation, and again to be guided in its use only by His
approbation, that after this perishable possession has ceased they
may obtain admission into the eternal habitations. Let us now
glance at the further statements up to the conclusion of the dis
course commenced in ver. 1, statements which, although no longer
resting, like the utterance of Jesus in ver. 9, on the ground of the
parable, nevertheless stand as regards their intrinsic purport in
such close connection with that utterance that they are not with
out importance for its interpretation. In that utterance, whilst
on one hand mammon was described as an ambiguous ("mam
mon of unrighteousness ") and perishable (" when it shaU fail ")
good, such value was attributed to it in reference to the
disciples, that admission into the eternal habitations seemed to
depend on the manner of its use. The enigma which His hearers
might see in this depreciation of mammon on the one side, and
appreciation on the other, the two being plainly opposed to each
other in ver. 9, Jesus undertakes to solve in what foUows. He
there explains, that as matter of fact no one can expect to be
1 Cf. Matt. ii. 20.

230 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
one day received into the eternal habitations who does not use
the earthly good of mammon here below in accordance with God's
will. On this account He first of all advances the proposition,
that he that is faithful in the least is so also in much ; and again,
he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much (ver. 10), a
proposition which, as it commends itself to every one by its
intrinsic truth, is also confirmed by universal experience. And.
He now applies this proposition to the " unrighteous mammon,"
of which He spoke in ver. 9. Mammon certainly is but an
iXdyiarov, a mere trifle, because it is nothing "true" (dXydivov),
i.e. its possession is only of seeming, not real worth. All the less
is it something true, seeing that the attribute of unrighteousness is
inherent in it, and for this reason it is more a danger than a gain
to its possessor. But on this very account he who has not been.
faithful in the unrighteous mammon cannot expect that the true
riches, having real value for man, will be entrusted to him,
namely, the inheritance of the kingdom of God — the dwelling in
the eternal tabernacles. So ver. 11. And again, mammon is "a
mere trifle," because it is and remains a mere dXXbrpiov to its
possessor, i.e. something foreign to him, having no intrinsic
affinity with him, but standing merely in an external, loose, and
every moment dissoluble relation to him. But on this very
account he who has not been faithful even in that which is
" foreign," cannot expect that that which is a real possession to
its owner — in the closest affinity with and inseparable from him—
will be bestowed on him, namely, the inheritance of God's king
dom (ver. 12). It is now evident how the teaching of vv. 10-12
serves on the one hand to give more urgent intensity to the exhorta
tion uttered in ver. 9, and on the other to explain it in material
respects, and guard it against aU misapprehension. For, accord
ing to the teaching of vv. 10-12, there can be no doubt as to
how the exhortation was meant, namely, not in the sense that
with mammon we can simply purchase God's approbation, and
secure reception into the eternal habitations, but in the sense
that the conscientious use of mammon in accordance with God's
wUl is a natural and indispensable condition of reception into
the eternal habitations. Hence it must be the prudent care of
the disciples to fulfil that indispensable condition so as to obtain
this reception. And now Jesus concludes His admonitions to
the disciples in reference to mammon with a brief, solemn word
of warning. Those of His hearers who fancy they can serve

THE UNJUST STEWARD. 231
God without also putting their mammon, as He required
(vv. 9-12), altogether at God's service, He again confronts with
the universal truth, that no servant can serve two masters, for
either he wUl hate the one and love the other, or (conversely)
wUl cleave to the one and despise the other, — in order, then, in
applying this truth, to conclude with the warning : " Ye cannot
serve God and mammon" (ver. 13).

When we compare the contents of the entire discourse of
Jesus (chap. xvi. 1—13) with the one immediately preceding it
(chap, xv.), this fourth parable, and the admonitions attached to
it, present themselves to us as a necessary counterpart to those
first three parables. The multitude of disciples to whom the
Lord here speaks had indeed been among the listeners to the
preceding parables ; and although the parables were addressed
primarily to the Pharisees, stUl it is certain that Jesus did not
give them the form they have without reference to the listening
publicans and sinners. In particular, this cannot be mistaken
in the third parable, in which Jesus took as the formal theme
of His figurative story the joyous, loving reception which the
returning sinner finds with God. All this the publicans and
sinners also heard, and might apply to themselves. But now
they are to know and ponder that they must not make Ught of
the repenting, which, according to the former parables, is the pre
supposition of God's joy over sinners ; that, on the contrary, it
requires from them a change of mind thoroughly transforming
their previous life and conduct, which must show itself most of
aU in those matters in which they had most sinned. In this
sense Jesus directs His discourse now (xvi. 1-13) to His dis
ciples. It is enjoined on them to prove the sincerity and
earnestness of their change of mind by placing the mammon of
unrighteousness, whose servants they had hitherto been in sin,
from this time without reserve at God's service. Mammon must
henceforth be nothing to them but a means, to be used with
prudent care for gaining for themselves God's friendship, and
securing admission into the eternal habitations (w. 1-9). For
on the employment in a way pleasing to God of this, in itdelf
insignificant and ambiguous good, depends, in fact, the bestowal
of the eternal inheritance (vv. 10—12); whereas, to desire to
serve God and mammon at the same time, as heretofore, would
be to attempt the impossible (ver. 13).

232 the parables of jesus.
The Eich Man.
(Luke xvi. 19-31.)
The section (vv. 14-18) leads over to a new parable (ver. 19 ff.).
In the first place, ver. 14 says: "And the Plwtrisees also hard
all these things" namely, the Pharisees mentioned in xv. 2, to
whom Jesus spoke in chap. xv. They had remained when Jesus
turned to the disciples (chap. xvi. 1), and heard the discourse
addressed to the latter (vv. 1-1 3). But the phrase : " who were
lovers of money," intimates that their listening was by no means
uninterested, but, on the contrary, was accompanied with con
siderable emotion. Although the discourse, in which Jesus
condemned love of the mammon of unrighteousness as -incom
patible with the service of God, was not primarily addressed to
them, they still felt that their love of money was struck at and
exposed to public gaze. This feeling they seek to hide from
themselves and those present by beginning to throw ridicule on
Jesus : Kal i^epvKrypitpv aiirbv, " and they scoffed at Him."
Certainly we are not to understand by this merely the derisive
gesture — turning up the nose — which is the original meaning of
the verb ; but, in keeping with the usual further meaning of the
word,1 a deriding in words. In what words they uttered their
mockery is not said. Enough that they try, by deriding the
words of Jesus, in a lofty way to make it appear as if they were
far above the admonitions, by which they yet feel themselves
inwardly smitten. That we have rightly understood the motive
of their mockery is shown by the rebuke of Jesus, which they
draw upon themselves, ver. 15: "Ye are they that justify yourselves
in the sight of men," scil. while in reaUty and before God they are
unjust. The antithesis, therefore, to the "they that justify them
selves in the sight of men" is not the Pauline SiKaiaai? of
God,2 the being justified by God, in which case it must have
run : " they that justify themselves ; " but the making themselves
just before men is opposed to a being really just, attested as such
before God, who knows the heart. Hence the contrast follows: "but
God knoweth your hearts;" i.e., despite the semblance of righteous
ness with which you surround yourselves before men, God knows
your hearts in their secret unrighteousness. That this in fact is
1 Cf. chap, xxiii. 35. 2 Meyer.

THE RICH MAN. 233
the case is then confirmed by the clause joined on by "for," declar
ing how little the divine knowledge can be baulked and bribed
by the semblance which deceives men. Only by assigning to the
iv dvdpwiroi?, " among men," its pregnant emphasis is the gene
raUy expressed clause : on rb iv dvdpwiroi? vyjryXov BSeXvypuz
ivwiriov rov Qeov, rightly limited. "That which is exalted
among men" is that whose value and essence consists in being
highly esteemed and lauded among men. But such an exalting,
— this is the meaning, — so far from deceiving the divine know
ledge, is rather an abomination before God, because allied by its
very nature with mere hypocritical semblance.
This rebuke administered to the Pharisees (ver. 15) is then
separated from the parable following in vv. 19-31 by vv. 16-18,
the examination of which in detail is of no importance for the
exposition of the parable. It is sufficient to ask, in what sense
these declarations are inserted just here.1 Their purport may be
summed up thus : Jesus maintains an inviolable authority in the
law (ver. 1 7), even during the new period opening with John the
Baptist, when the law and the prophets have made way for the
preaching of the kingdom of God (ver. 1 6) ; this authority He
then iUustrates in a single point (ver. 18), declaring (and as a
comparison with Matt. xix. 3-9 shows, on the basis of Gen. i 27
and ii. 24) that both the man who dismisses his wife and marries
another, and the man who marries her that is dismissed, are
adulterers. And this individual application of the law declared
inviolable, isolated as it may seem at first sight in the context of
the present passage, shows us in what sense the insertion of the
whole paragraph (vv. 16-18) is here meant. For it is precisely
with this individual precept, in the strict form which Jesus
declares to be the original, divine meaning of the law, that the v
Pharisaic laxity stood in flagrant antagonism ; and thus the
Pharisees, who delight to pose before men as blameless observers
of the law, are convicted of standing in antagonism with it
really and before God, and of being under its condemnation.
Thus Jesus aUeges against them (ver. 18) the very law which
they were accustomed elsewhere to allege against Him, and to
which He certainly assumes a different attitude from theirs
(ver. 1 6), while acknowledging its inviolable authority (ver. 1 7).
He makes even the law bear witness against their unrighteous-
1 This question requires an answer in any case, whether Jesus really spoke the
words in this connection, or whether Luke or his authority inserted them here.

'234 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
ness, which they may succeed in concealing from men, but not
from God, who knows their hearts.
And now, in ver. 1 9, the narrative passes immediately to
a new and fifth parable, without any mention of a change in
the subject of discourse ; for the Be with which (ver. 1 9) the
parable is introduced simply expresses the formal turn in the
discourse at the beginning of a narrative. We accordingly
expect to find in the parable a continuation of the rebuke
administered to the Pharisees (vv. 1 5-1 8) on the occasion related
in ver. 14.
The words : " Now there was a certain rich man," 1 in the first
place prefix to the narrative the person of whom it is to treat,
whereupon the sentence, subjoined independently with Kal, opens
the narrative itself with a description of what the rich man
wasted his riches upon : " and he was clothed in purple and
byssus." The first denotes a dark-red material (mostly woollen)
dyed with the juice of the purple-shell, which stood in exceed
ingly high repute for its costly dye, the latter a no less costly
cotton or linen material of brilliant white.2 Hence purple gar
ments were a sign of princely rank, and the garments of the
priests were of byssus, according to Ex. xxviii. 39, xxxix. 27, 28.
This, however, was not so exclusively the case 3 as to warrant us
in finding here an intimation of the rich man's superior rank in
the proper sense.4 It is only said that nothing could satisfy his
boundless love of show but garments of the grandest and costliest
kind. And the additional participial clause : eiKppaivopevo? icaff
ypipav Xapiirpw?, says that this showing off in costly apparel
was not a solitary passion, but was rather in keeping with and
conditioned by his whole sensuous, luxurious mode of life. The
/ eicppalveadai here, as often (xv. 23, 24, 29), has the special
meaning of self-enjoyment in the social pleasures of the table.
He enjoyed himself in gay carousing, and that not merely now
and then, but Kaff ypipav (day by day), with insatiable craving.
In these enjoyments, as the adverb Xapiirpw? shows, he every
where paraded the same pomp and grandeur as was shown in the
sumptuousness of his apparel.
When we read further, in ver. 20, according to the reading
of the Eecepta : irrwyb? Si n? tfv bvbpan Ad^apo? b? K.r.X,
1 Not "A man was rich," Ewald, Bleek, Nebe ; cf. ver. 1.
" Cf. Winer, art. "Purpur," and "Baumwolle."
3 Cf. Prov. xxxi. 22. « E.g. Starke's Bibelwerh.

THE RICH MAN. 235
it seems as if the narrative meant here to break off the
previous description of the rich man, and, beginning as it were
anew, to pass on to the description of another person, in order
to place his character in independent contrast with that of the
rich man sketched in ver. 19. But alongside this reading is
found another, just as well attested outwardly,1 according to which
the narrative, instead of making a new beginning with irrwyb?
Be n? yv . . . 6'?, paraUel with the first words of ver. 19, simply
continues in unbroken and close connection with what precedes :
irrwyb? Be ri? bvopan Ad^apo? iBkBXyro irpb? rbv irvXwva avrov.
In comparing the two readings, it deserves notice, first of all, that
the reference to the rich man (common to the two) by means of
the simple pronoun " his," speaks in favour of the uninterrupted,
and against the newly commencing, form of the narrative. In
the latter case we should rather have expected " the rich man's "
instead of "his," i.e. a second independent mention of the rich
man instead of a direct reference to what precedes by the pro
noun. But the point can only be decided when we see the
answer to the question, whether the sequel really presents a new
character in independent contrast with that of the rich man as
regards its contents, or whether what is said of the beggar does
not merely serve to continue and complete the description of the
rich man begun in ver. 19. If the investigation of vv. 20, 21
should yield the latter result, the reading of the Eecepta would
thereby be proved spurious, because arising from a plausible but
really erroneous conception of the tenor of the narrative.
"And a beggar named Lazarus was cast at his gateway," so it is
said first, ver. 2 0. " Was cast " expresses the helplessness and
also the forsaken condition of the beggar. For it impUes, first,
that he had no power of free movement, and again, that those
who brought him there got rid of him Uke a troublesome burden
which one throws down. Thus he was cast down " at his (the
rich man's) gateway," lying therefore immediately before the
entrance to the interior of the house, where he must have been
seen by the owner of the house as often as he went in and out.
The two participles subjoined intimate how much the state in
which the beggar presented himself to him there was adapted to
claim his sympathy. He lay at the door eiXKwpkvo?,2 i.e. " covered
1 Confirmed by Sinait. and accepted by Tischendorf.
2 In the Recepta riXxai/t'svos ; the usual, but for this very reason suspicious form,
and also less attested.

236 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
with sores," — afflicted, therefore, with a malignant disease obvious
to every one who saw him, and on this account all the more
urgently demanding compassion and care, — " and desiring to be
satisfied with what fell from the rich man's table." The words
rwv tyiylwv should perhaps be erased, on weighty evidence, as a
spurious addition taken from Matt. xv. 27. Thus, in addition
to his uncared-for disease, his unsatisfied hunger appealed to
sympathy, — unsatisfied, for the words imdvpiwv yopraadfjvai
K.r.X., as a more exact definition, like el\Kwp,kvo?, of iBkftXyro
irpb? rbv irvXwva avrov, describe in any case a permanent state
of suffering, a state consequently which, while not precluding a
wretched prolongation of life, does preclude the gratifying of the
desire for sufficiency.
/" The question, indeed, whether he remained lying at the rich
man's door, so helpless and forsaken, sick and hungry, without
finding the compassion which his state urgently demanded, is not
expressly answered in what has preceded. Hitherto his state has
, only been described as deserving compassion. But the answer to
this question is already intimated plainly enough in so far as his
I lying outside, with sickness uncared for and hunger unsatisfied,
1 could not have become a permanent state if those within' had
' been willing to help. Hence the statement now following, that
in fact he found no compassion, instead of being given in a simple
form,1 is given at once with dXXd Kai (but even) in a form of drastic
severity : "But (instead of his finding compassion) even the dogs
came and licked his sores." Thus, so far from the care and attenj
tion being shown to the poor man which his state required, so
little heed was given to him that he was even handed over to the
dogs, which came without hindrance to lick his sores in doggish
fashion. Certainly this does not mean that the licking of his
sores as such caused him special bodily pain.2 The words simply
express the want of compassion, amounting to utter neglect,
which handed him over to the dogs and their doggish ways,
On the other hand, it is an entire mistake to wish to find a
sympathizing alleviation of his pain in the action of the dogs, —
a view underlying even the translation of Luther.3 For apart
from the circumstance that elsewhere in Holy Scripture dogs
occur only as evil animals, and are used as an image of evil, it
is impossible on this exposition correctly to interpret aXXa, Kai
1 In similar language to that in xv. 16 : "and no one had compassion on him."
2 Meyer. 3 De Wette, Bleek, Stier, ei al.

THE RICH MAN. 237
(which supposes an antithesis and at the same time heightens it)
without importing very strange ideas.1
If we now look back at what has been said of the beggar, it
is clear that everything serves in fact to continue and complete
the description of the Rich Man begun in ver. 19. For when,
in the first place, the condition in which a beggar lay before his
door was described, — so helpless, forsaken, and appealing to pity
in so unusual a degree, — and then it was said, in contrast, that
instead of compassionate care he even met with complete indif
ference, obviously the purpose of the whole account is to give a
description of the rich man, who was pictured first (ver. 19) in
his love of pomp and enjoyment, and then in his pitiless cruelty
and selfish indifference to another's woe ; whereas, on the other
hand, there is no feature in the story calculated to throw light
on the beggar's own inner disposition. For what is said of his
humble silence,2 or of his quiet patience,3 — " which certainly is
the more to be surmised because he did not himself parade it," —
is, as the latter clause itself concedes, without support in the
text. There still remains the qiiestion whether the proper name
"Lazarus" assigned to the beggar, is meant to give an intimation
at least respecting his inner disposition, to which no reference is
made elsewhere. A definite intention must in any case underlie
this strange giving of a name, the only instance of the kind in all
tbe parables of Jesus. Accordingly, it has been conjectured that
Jesus meant to refer to a definite person living at the time and
known to the hearers, — perhaps to a beggar of this name living
in Jerusalem in those days, whose existence, however, is only
mentioned in a very uncertain tradition, — or to Lazarus of
Bethany. The description of the beggar would certainly remind
no one of that Lazarus, because, in complete contrast with the
beggar, he rejoiced in a regular household and the care of two
living sisters. Moreover, it is quite impossible to see what value
such a reference to a contemporary person could have in the
tenor of the narrative. Just as Uttle can the name assigned to
1 Hofmann revives this interpretation, alleging against the one advanced above,
that then a negative sentence must have come first, to the effect that the poor man
had not obtained what he desired. But that this may easily be supplied from what
precedes has been shown above. Or is it easier to supply what Hofmann as well as
Stier imports : " The servants gave him something by stealth, — however, the dogs
9nowed interest in him " ?
2 van Oosterzee. 3 Stier.

238 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
the beggar be explained by the conjecture, that the narrative this
time is not imaginary, but really historical,- and therefore the
persons of whom it treats are not fictitious, but historical. For
since the chief person in the whole parable — the Eich Man — is
not mentioned by name, we must again ask, why the proper
name passed over there in silence is here given. In addition,
the conjecture will be shown, in the proper place, on weighty
grounds to be altogether inapt. The only thing therefore left is
to seek the reason of the name being given in its significance,
which seems the most obvious way of explanation, considering
the symbolism of names usual from early times among, the Jews;
and employed also in the New Testament, and even, by Jesus
Himself (Matt. xvi. 1,8). The name Ad^apo?, then, is either
derived from "W &6, "without help," in which case the one so
named would be described as one destitute of help, or from "iJPK,
" God is the help," in this case " one who makes God his help."
Decisive for the latter derivation is the fact that "Wpx is a name
occurring already in the Old Testament, and appearing in the
Talmud in the shortened form "itt6, after which analogy the
Graecized form ' EXedfepo? (LXX.), shortened Ad^apo?, is framed.
But internal reasons also decide for this meaning of the name.
For in the signification " destitute of help," the name would say
precisely the same that is made strongly prominent in the entire
description of the beggar, and would therefore merely contain a
worthless pleonasm for the tenor of the narrative, — certainly an
inadequate explanation of so strange an insertion of a proper.
name. But if, on the other hand, Ad^apo? is synonymous with
the common Eleazar, the insertion serves to intimate to the
hearers something which it did not lie in the plan of the
narrative to make prominent in the story itself, namely, the God-
trusting disposition with which the beggar bore his suffering. ,
For what reason an intimation at least in this direction is
given, is at once shown in the further course of the narrative.
By this means the way seems adequately prepared for what is at
once said of the happy state into which Lazarus was translated
by death. With the iyevero Bk, marking the beginning of a new
section of the narrative, ver. 22, the account of the beggar's
dying is introduced, and only then is the rich man's dying spoken
of. The narrative therefore dwells exclusively (ver. 23 ff.) on
the person of the rich man, — what is said of the beggar's dying
(ver. 22), and the state on which he entered at death, being only

THE RICH MAN. 239
mentioned in reference to the rich man. Hence it is clear that
the preceding account of the dying of the poor man simply forms
the groundwork for continuing the history of the rich man as
intended. "And it came to pass that the beggar died" ver. 22. The
airodaveiv here can signify nothing but what it signifies every
where : the separation of the soul from the body, which becomes
a corpse, and its descent to the place of the dead. When, there
fore, to airodaveiv the words : Kal direveydyvai aiirbv virb rwv
dyyeXwv eh rbv koXttov 'ABpadp,, are added, it is not a special
event that is related in these words, distinct from that of dying
and following it ; as, for example, that the dead man, instead of
being buried, was carried away by angels,1 a view not having
even a plausible support in the circumstance that no mention is
made of the burial. For we so little miss the mention of the
burial here, that, on the contrary, if it occurred, we should have
to ask in vain what it could signify. Eather these words simply
define more precisely the event contained in the idea of the
airodaveiv, showing how death was to him the end of his suffering
and the entrance into blessedness. From the earth, which had
been the scene of his suffering, angels bore him away (direveydyvai)
into the koXtto? 'ABpadp. '0 koXtto? is literally "the bosom,"
hence synonymous with the plural eV Tot? koXitoi? avrov, ver. 23.
" To be in Abraham's bosom " is a designation, common elsewhere
in Jewish theology, for the fellowship of dead believers with
Abraham in Paradise. To the Israelite, Abraham seems the
personal centre and meeting-point of Paradise. Hence his hope
is to be gathered to Abraham, and to be permitted, in fellowship
with him, to enjoy paradisaic bliss. The idea of faMe-fellowship2
is not necessarUy implied in the expression (cf. John i 18), and
must here be renounced, because occurring elsewhere only of the
enjoyment in common of the blessings of the future kingdom of
God. The function of the angels is to bring dying believers into
Abraham's bosom. Hence also Lazarus, the truster in God, is
translated thither by the ministry of angels, without anything
being affirmed of him different from what holds good of every
dying believer.
After, in this way, everything has been said of the beggar that
was necessary to prepare for what follows, the history of the rich
man is continued, his death being first of all related : " the rich
1 Meyer. 2 Bengel et al.

240 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
man also died;" therefore he also — this again is implied in the
dirkdavev — descended into Hades. But before the condition in
which he there found himself is further described, Kal irdty is
added to the dirkdavev. And little as we missed any mention of
the burial in the case of the beggar, where it would have been
quite useless, it seems full of significance in the rich man's case.
But not because, as is usually understood, we are reminded of
the last glimmer of earthly glory vouchsafed to the rich man in a
brilliant funeral, in which case the brilliance of the funeral must
have been emphasized by some more precise definition, as, for
example, by a Xaprrpw?, as in ver. 1 9. On the contrary, the two
words Kal ird(py express with startling brevity the loss of all
earthly glory that befell the rich man on his death. Precisely
in the fact of being buried, the loss of all earthly possession
occurring at death presents itself to the gaze with terrible effect.
When a man is buried, it is obvious to sense that nothing is left
him of all this world's goods but the grave, to the corruption of
which the body is consigned. Accordingly, these words involve,
of course, a preUminary, but not as yet complete antithesis to the
carrying of the beggar into Abraham's bosom, for they signalize
the fact that, as death brought to the one the end of his earthly
suffering, so it brought to the other the end of his earthly felicity.
On the other hand, the notion is quite impracticable, which
Meyer would find here, namely, that the rich man, instead of
being borne away by the angels like the poor man, was buried,
and first came down into Hades from the grave " as to his whole
person," — so impracticable that even the appeal to the aUeged
poetic character of the narrative cannot justify it, since even in a
poetic narrative the incidents ought in some way to be capable of
conception. Upon the impressive conclusion which the earthly history of
the rich man has thus found, foUows now the resumption of his
history in Hades. His coming thither was impUed, as we saw,
not indeed in the irdoby, but in the dirkdavev. Hence, assuming
his having come down there, the narrative can immediately con
tinue, ver. 23 : Kal iv tc3 aSr/ iirdpa? rov? bcpdaXpoii? avrov k.t.X
Hades, the word in the LXX. for biKW, is the general tarrying-
place of departed souls.1 It is divided into two parts, — a place
of felicity for the good, where they sojourn until the resurrection
(called Paradise by Jesus, xxiii. 43 ; and also in the Eabbins,
1 Gen. xxxvii. 35 ; Acts ii. 27, 31.

THE RICH MAN. 241
T^B) ; and a place of torment, represented as a burning in flames
of fire, for the godless, called Gehenna (Oil} ,s.) in the Eabbins.
It is to be observed, however, that the latter designation only
occurs in the discourses of Jesus of the place of eternal damna
tion,1 to which, after the final judgment,2 not merely the soul, but
both body and soul, are consigned (Matt. x. 28). That the rich
man found himself in the place of torment, accordingly follows
not from the words Kal iv t&> aSy . . ., but only from the words
virdpywv iv Bao~"-vo,'S. The sentence is to be construed : "And
in Hades, when he lifted up his eyes, finding himself in torments, he
saw," etc. The second present participial clause explains the first
aorist clause, pointing out the torment in which he found himself
as the occasion of the iiratpeiv. Consequently the opening of his
eyes is to be regarded as a looking up and looking out for
help on the sufferer's part. But when mention is made here of
a lifting up of the eyes, and, further, of the tongue of the rich man,
and the finger of Lazarus, as well as of suffering pain in the
flame and being refreshed by ivater, — when, therefore, to sum up
everything in a word, departed souls are spoken of as if they
were in the state of bodily life, this mode of representation is not
so much the product of poetic fancy as rather a simple necessity
when once the narrative has to be continued in Hades and find
its conclusion there, since without such fiction no sensations and
outward phenomena of departed souls can either be conceived or
expressed in language. On lifting up his eyes in search of help,
" he saw Abraham afar off," — namely, in the place of blessedness,
far from tbe place of torment in which he found himself, — " and
Lazarus in his bosom." In this sentence the retribution that
befell the rich man beyond death for his conduct in life is
definitely emphasized as such. For when it is said of him that
he finds himself in torment, and beholds Lazarus in the enjoy
ment of paradisaic felicity, the condition in which he now finds
himself, in contrast with Lazarus, appears as the retribution for
his having previously aUowed Lazarus to pine away in a similar
condition in contrast with himself.
When, then, in ver. 24 it is continued: Kal aiirb? (pwvyaa?
elirev, the significance of" the avro? ought the less to be over
looked, the more superfluous at first sight this special resumption
of the subject of the discourse appears to be. In giving to the
sentence, ver. 24, its own special subject, the avro? preserves
1 Matt, xviii. 8, 9 ; Mark ix. 43 ff. 2 Matt. xiii. 40-42, 49, 50.
GOEBEL. Q

242 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
the independence of the preceding one, ver. 23, which should
be marked by a period between the two sentences. Were it
wanting, the sentence, ver. 23, would take the position of an
introductory protasis to the conversation now opening between
the rich man and Abraham, whereas at present the contents of
ver. 23 have to be considered independently, and the conversa
tion following is simply added still further to work out and
verify what is there said. In his present condition there awakens
in the rich man the thought, to which before he gave no place
in his selfish, harsh state of mind, how easily one living in
abundance may help one pining in misery. The sight of
Lazarus in Abraham's bosom excites in him the hope of obtain
ing help from him — the happy one — in his pain. Hence: Kal
aiirb? (pwvyaa? elirev irdrep 'ABpadp,, iXeyaov pe Kal irkptyov
Ad^apov, 'iva K.r.X. The <pwveiv is not a call meant to reach
across the distance,1 as the free interchange of talk between the
two sides proves, but simply an address to draw attention to
himself. " Father Abraham," runs his cry. But it is importing
too much into the address to Abraham as father to see in it an
appeal of the rich man to his descent from Abraham,2 giving him
a legal claim to the granting of his request.3 For this appella
tion regularly recurs even where it is impossible for it to have
such a meaning according to the sense of the language (vv. 27, 30).
It is therefore simply the address natural and seemly in the lips
of a Jew speaking to Abraham. But he turns to Abraham with
his request to send Lazarus, instead of appealing directly to
Lazarus, because he feels that in the order of things lying before
his eyes Lazarus could not come over to relieve him unless
authorized by a command of Abraham. In this consciousness he
cries pathetically : " Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send
Lazarus;" and in the same consciousness of the unusual and bold
character of his prayer, he reduces his request itself to the most
modest Umits, asking but the least conceivable relief: "Send
Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water 4 and cool
my tongue" scil. by touching with the moistened finger, — finally,
in the same consciousness he feels constrained to assign a reason
for the boldness even of this slight request in the torment of his
condition : "for I am in anguish in this flame." It is therefore
1 Godet. 2 Bengel : gloriatio carnis. 3 Stier, Godet.
•> Bxipri Sextos, the genitive with verbs of touching ; cf. Winer, Gram, of N. ?•
p. 252.

THE RICH MAN. 243
erroneous to suppose that the request, " send Lazarus," implies a
disparaging of the person of Lazarus continued even in Hades,1
leading him to think Lazarus at his beck and call,2 or to suppose
that he makes him his errand-boy,3 or even assigns as the reason of
the request for a touch with the tip of his finger the remembrance
of the sores of Lazarus ! * His hoping for help from Lazarus arises
from the sight of his happiness in Abraham's bosom ; and his
asking Abraham to send him merely to give such slight relief,
arises from the consciousness that he is asking something unusual
and bold.
With elirev Be 'ABpadp, ver. 25 now introduces Abraham's
answer to the request. The answer is not one simply declining ;
but with a certain sympathy, as expressed in the address by
" child," he seeks to awaken in the suppliant himself the con
sciousness that the granting of his request would involve an
injustice. For this reason he first of all caUs on him to remember
what he has already received in his life, and what, on the other
hand, Lazarus received: pvyadyri on direXaBe? ra dyadd aov
iv rfj tptfj aov, Kal Ad^apo? opoiw? ra KaKa.5 The opoiw? in the
latter incomplete clause indicates that the clause must be com
pleted in entire analogy with the first, so that in its complete
form it runs : Kal Ad^apo? diriXaBev iv rfj %wfj avrov ra KaKa
avrov. Some erroneously think it necessary to lay stress on the
fact, that in the second clause only ra KaKa stands in contrast
with ra dyadd aov without the corresponding pronoun avrov
being added. Erroneously, because on account of the equally
recurring article the avrov is just as naturally suggested to the
reader as the remaining completion of the clause ; and this aU
the more that its omission is not only compensated by the bpiotw?,
but seems also to be occasioned by the expressive emphasis
faUing on the KaKa, both as the final word of the sentence, and
implying contrast. Accordingly, the words : airiXaBe? ra dyadd
aov, can only be understood of the rich man in a sense in which
diriXaBev ra KaKa avrov can also be said of Lazarus. For this
reason the idea of a selfish receiving,6 which the word nowhere
signifies, cannot lie in the airiXaBe?. Nor does the meaning:
" to receive beforehand," 7 in itself lie in the word. But diroXap-
Bdveiv means simply " to receive," only differing from XapBdveiv
1 Bengel : adhuc vilipendit Lazarum. 2 van Oosterzee. 3 Lange.
4 Lange. ° o-i after xnixxfas is to be expunged on preponderant evidence.
6 Godet. ' van Oosterzee.

244 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
in this way, that it is specially chosen where the object of the
receiving appears in some way as a due.1 So the compound is
chosen here, because the amount of what is received is viewed as
a complete due, beyond which nothing remains to be received.
In this sense it is said, with the verb emphatically prefixed:
" Remember that thou (already) hast received " — ra dyadd aov iv
rfj %wfj aov. After the emphatic aTriXaBe? the second (and as
the contrast : Kal Ad^apo? ra KaKa, proves), the chief emphasis of
the sentence rests on dyadd, the aov, on the other hand, remain
ing unemphasized. It is not said " thy good things," the things
good in thy eyes,2 which, moreover, applied to the corresponding
to KaKa, would lead to an absurdity, but " thy good things," i.e.
thy good part, the good part of thy lot. Finally, the third
emphasis in the sentence rests on %wfj : " Eemember that thou
hast received thy good in thy life" — and we can now complete the
words : Kal Ad^apo? rd KaKa, with the analogy required by
opoiw?, without forcing on them any other meaning than what
they have in the first clause : " and that Lazarus received the evil
part of his lot in his life." With the previous diversity of their
lot in their earthly life, now brought to remembrance, is con
trasted, by vvv Be wSe,3 the present diversity of their condition
here in Hades; and this time Lazarus is put first in immediate
sequence to what precedes : " But now here he (after receiving his
evil things in life) is comforted, and thou (after receiving thy good
things in life) art in anguish" 'OSvvdadai is to be left in this
passage in the middle signification, which it has in ver. 24 and
everywhere else, and not to be converted into the passive for the
sake of parallelism with irapaKaXeirai.
Accordingly, the present diversity of their condition here in
Hades corresponds thoroughly to the diversity of their lot in fife,
only reversed. Hence the rich man himself must confess that
the granting of the request, in which he hopes for aUeviation of
his present pain from the present happiness of Lazarus, would be
an injustice. But it is also now clear that the entire explana
tion of ver. 25, considered as a negative answer to the rich man's
request, would be deprived of all pertinent and convincing force
if the latter, during his life, had laid himself out to relieve the
beggar's misery out of his own then abundance. For in this case
the rich man would have implored nothing from Lazarus in his
1 Cf. e.g. vi. 34, xviii. 30, xxiii. 41. 2 Stier, van Oosterzee, von Hofmann.
3 According to far preponderant testimony, instead of m ft JJf.

THE RICH MAN. 245
present condition which he had not himself done to Lazarus in
their formerly reversed circumstances. Accordingly, as a declin
ing of the request made in ver. 24, which the explanation of ver.
25 professes simply to be, it is based on what is said in vv. 19-21,
according to which the rich man, instead of sharing his abimdance
with the beggar, applied it simply to his own enjoyment. At
that time, during life, when he received his good and Lazarus his
evil things, he had let it remain so. And now in Hades, when
Lazarus receives his good and he his evil things, it must justly
remain so. This is the inference lying in the words according to
the connection in which they stand. But no general law of
divine justice is here laid down, according to which the circum
stances of men, in this life outwardly so different, must needs
after death always find a corresponding adjustment. But it is
simply brought home to the rich man, who, after using his earthly
wealth selfishly, and closing his heart against the misery of
Lazarus, now in his suffering desires to make use of the happi
ness of Lazarus, how unreasonable this demand is as far as he is
concerned, since the actual distribution of good and evil between
him and Lazarus, in the present case, is thoroughly equitable.
Hence things must remain as they are in Hades, just as was the
case conversely in life.
However, Abraham is not content with proving the imprac-
ticableness of the rich man's request, but adds a second reason
(ver. 26) : " And beside all this (explained in ver. 25), between us
and you, there is a great gulf fixed." For what purpose this gulf
was fixed between the saved here and the lost there is stated in
the telic sentence subjoined with ottw? : " that they which would
pass from hence to you may not be able, and that none may cross
over from thence to us." Oi iKeidev in the latter clause is not to
be supplemented by diXovre? StaBrjvai from the first clause,
because while the py Svvwvrai there harmonizes with this, the
p,y Biairepwaiv here does not; but oi iKeidev is a brachylogy for
oi e'«et (ovre?) eKeidev — "those found there from thence." Even
if the ot before iKeidev ought to be omitted, according to some
evidence, the meaning remains exactly the same, for even on this
reading ot e'«et 6We? would have to be borrowed from iKeidev as
the self-understood subject of the clause. The subject of the
second clause must not be identified with that of the first,1 as
this would yield the inapposite notion that the fixing of the gulf
1 Godet.

246 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
prevented the passing and re-passing of the saved only. It is to
be observed that the impossibility of passing to and fro is not
viewed merely as a consequence of the gulf existing indepen
dently between the place of happiness and misery, but the
prevention is stated to be the premeditated end (oirw?) for which
the gulf was established. Accordingly, it does not exhaust the
truth to say, as is usually done after Bengel's example, the
argumentum ab impossibili (ver. 26) is added to the argumentum
ab cequo (ver. 25), for what is insisted on by Abraham is not
simply an accidental, so to speak, physical impossibility, but an
order of things unconditionally forbidding the passing to and fro,
and to secure this order a great gulf is fixed between here and
there. After showing the rich man that compliance with his
request would, in the state of the case between him and Lazarus,
be opposed to justice (ver. 25), Abraham adds that it would run
counter to the inviolable order of things in Hades, an order
secured in its inviolability by the gulf. The right observation of
the logical position belonging to the " great gulf " in the strain of
thought removes the appearance of strangeness to a certain
degree, which some have found in this conception, because of its
only occurring here, without analogy in the Eabbins, who speak
only of a wall dividing the two portions of Hades. The chief
point here was not to represent the two parts of Hades as
spatiaUy separated by a boundary of some kind, — which led
most naturally to the conception of a waU, — but to characterize
the boundary assumed to exist between the two parts on that
side of its nature, on which it serves to exclude every attempt to
pass from one side to the other ; and for this purpose the con
ception of a great gulf, taken from earthly relations of space,
offered itself as the most striking.
By the answer of Abraham the impracticableness of the rich
man's request has been twice irrefutably proved. This the sup
pliant himself acknowledges in a certain sense, when, dropping
the first prayer, he turns to a second and different one, in the
words, ver. 27: ipwrw ae ovv, irdrep, tva irip^ry? avrov el? rbv
oIkov rov irarpb? pov, i.e., " If, therefore (ovv), as thou sayest,
Lazarus cannot be sent to me, I pray thee that thou wouldest send
him to my father's house." Of what persons in his father's house
he is thinking, is then explained in an independent parenthesis
graphically thrust in : "I have five brethren." We observe here
how thoroughly natural it is for the rich man, in naming to

THE RICH MAN. 247
Abraham those in whom he takes such interest, not merely to
speak of brethren in general, but to mention his brethren defi
nitely by number. Therefore, a specification of number is so
natural here in the mouth of the suppliant, that there is no need
to seek special reasons for its occurrence. Only after the inter
polation of this parenthesis is it stated for what purpose Abraham
is to send Lazarus to the brethren : oirw? Siaptaprvpyrai avroi?.
The purport of the testifying is not added expressly. For
we cannot take it, as in Acts ii. 40, and often outside the New
Testament, as an urgent exhorting, and find the purport in the
following clause : Xva py Kal avroi eXdwaiv K.r.X., because the
clause does not speak of a doing or non-doing, to which one
might be exhorted, but of the suffering or non-suffering of a fate
which cannot be the object of an exhortation. If, accordingly,
the purport must be supplied to Siapaprvpyrai from the context,
we must understand it, not as an urgent exhorting, but (as in
Acts viii 25, x. 42, et al.) as an intensely solemn testifying,
since it is only in this way that the object of the verb can
easily be deduced from the previous contents of the narrative.
That the rich man finds himself in Hades in the place of tor
ment, — this is what Lazarus, coming thence, is solemnly to
testify to his brethren, who are regarded as like him in disposi
tion. That it is this which the suppliant would have testified
to his brethren, is confirmed by the final telic clause at once
added by him : " lest they also come into this place of torment,"
which clause, however, does not depend grammatically on Biap,ap-
rvpyrai, as if it indicated the purpose of the testifying on the
part of the testifier ; but, depending also on iriptyg?, it expresses
the final aim of the mission implored. By the witness borne to
his torment — so the rich man thinks he is justified in expecting
— his like-minded brethren wiU be led to a change of disposi
tion, and wUl thus escape the Uke torment.
According to the words, then, the line of thought that led the
rich man to the prayer is this : that if Lazarus, according to
Abraham's statement, can no longer be useful to him, already
found in the place of torment, yet he may perhaps be helpful to
his still living brethren, that they also come not to this place.
As the inner motive of the request, the words indicate, not a
feeling of compassion, such as did not belong to him in life,1 but
the natural love of kinship to his brethren. Nevertheless, the
1 Bengel et al.

248 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
conjecture may not be unwarranted, that behind the prayer for
his brethren lurks also a self-justifying complaint, that the
threatening punishment had not been testified to himself during
life with sufficient force. For although the words of the request,
taken by themselves, furnish no support for the opinion that they
are put into the mouth of the rich man in this sense also, yet
the way in which Abraham now replies favours the opinion.
Whereas to the first request for a mitigation of the rich man's
own suffering he gave a detailed reply, introduced by the friendly
" chUd," for this second request, which yet seems an outflow of
fraternal love, he has only a brief, almost sharp refusal (ver. 29):
Xkyei Be 'ABpadp,, "Eyovaiv Mwvaea Kal roii? irpofyyra?' aKov<rd-
rwaav avrwv. Thus, to the request of the rich man to send
Lazarus as a witness to his brethren, Abraham opposes the
witnesses they have already : Moses and the prophets. It is true,
the Scriptures of the Old Testament, comprised under this appel
lation, give no express information respecting the pain awaiting
the godless in Hades. But they everywhere bear admonitory
witness against the rich, who, without feeling for the poor and
wretched, squander their wealth in luxurious enjoyment, and
testify to them the judgment of God that will inevitably burst
upon them. Hence, all further witness being refused, the simple
demand must stand : aKovadrwaav avrwv, i.e. let them hear and
obey the witnesses they have. But this refusal provokes the rich
man to reply once again, and this all the more that he sees
himself not merely deprived of hope for his brethren, but also
reminded of his own disobedience to the testimony of Scripture.
Now, therefore, he casts a vivid " nay, father Abraham " back at
Abraham (ver. 30). In what way the "nay" is to be supple
mented from the words against which it raises objection, is shown
by the following antithesis : dXX' idv ri? dirb veKpwv iropevdfj
irpb? avrov?, peravoyaovaiv. Therefore : " Nay, father Abraham,
Moses and the prophets they will not obey ; but if one go to them
from the dead, they will repent!' He assumes that they will per
sist in their impenitent disobedience, despite Moses and the
prophets, inferring the unreceptiveness of his brethren to the
testimony of Scripture from his own unreceptiveness manifested
during his life. On the other hand, he thinks he may promise
success to the testimony of one coming to them from the dead,
because of the effect on the senses of such a miraculous appear
ance of the dead. But this expectation, ascribing to the testimony

THE RICH MAN. 249
of one coming from the dead an effect in awakening to repent
ance which does not belong to the testimony of Scripture, is
wrong, as Abraham is now obliged finaUy to tell him (ver. 31).
Eeally the case stands thus : " If they — as thou assumest of them
— obey not Moses and the prophets" ovS' idv n? e« veKpwv dvaarfj
ireiadyaovrai. The ovSk here simply adds one negation to
another = " neither," and is not ascensive = " not even." For the
words : idv n? e'« veK. dv., simply resume the case put in the
words of the rich man (ver. 3 0) : idv n? etc veK. irop. irpb?
avrov?, with a sUght change of expression, and are not meant,
as Stier understands, and others seem to take them, to put a
second stiU more wonderful case than the one there, as if the
sense were : " If they obey not Moses and the prophets, they will
not be moved even in case a dead man (really) came to life
again." ' Aviardvai e'« veKpwv merely denotes a rising from the
dead quite generally. Whether it takes place on the entrance
into eternal life, or merely as a continuation of the former earthly
life, or even merely for the purpose of a visit to the still living,
the context in each case must decide. A rising from the dead
in the last sense is described in quite similar terms (1 Sam.
xxviii. 13), only still more strongly, by l"???"!1? ty. The expres
sion dviar. e'« veK. in the present passage, therefore, does not
justify us in understanding something different from what the
context supplies, the rising of one from the dead to bear witness
to the still Uving. Just so the expression ireiadyaovrai is
synonymous with the peravoyaovaiv corresponding to it in ver.
30. The passive ireideadai means "to be moved, won," either
in reference ad intellectum: "to hold something true," or ad
voluntatem : " to do something." Here the latter signification
holds good. For the subject of ireiadyaovrai, according to the
hypothetical protasis, is those who oppose to the witness of
Scripture not so much critical unbeUef as practical disobedience.
If they do this despite the witness of Scripture, — such is the
meaning, — neither will they be moved by the witness of one rising
from the dead, scil. to the repentance expected by the rich man
in this case. Therefore this final reply of Abraham consists
simply in a decisive denial of the assertion advanced by the rich
man (ver. 30), according to which, not the testimony of Scrip
ture, but that of one coming from the dead, will have the power
to produce repentance. To this Abraham rejoins : The testi
mony of Scripture is so weighty and powerful, that they who

250 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
harden themselves in disobedience against it cannot be moved to
repentance even by an extraordinary testimony acting more on
the senses.
Having arrived at the close of the narrative, let us now, in
order to ascertain its moral, compare its contents with the pre
ceding discourse of Jesus (vv. 15-18), and its occasion (ver. 14).
Before the Pharisees, who, touched by His words (w. 1-13),
in their avarice, tried to conceal their feeUng by ridicule
(ver. 14), Jesus had there held up this hypocritical concealing of
their inner disposition (vv. 15-18), testifying to them that,
despite their posing as righteous before men, God knows their
hearts; nay, that despite their seeming holy legaUty, the law
itself condemns them. When, then, in immediate sequence to
this He teUs of a rich man who made such a selfish use of his
wealth as we have read in vv. 19—21, the inner connection of
such a narrative with the preceding discourse is clearly this, that,
after first rebuking the hypocritical concealment of the Pharisees,
Jesus now in the narrative (ver. 19 ff.) drags to the light, and
holds up before them, the concealed thing itself, namely, their
love of money ; because of which the admonitions to the disciples
(vv. 1-1 3) as to how wealth is to be regarded, and what use is
to be made of it, became an offence to them. To disclose to them
the selfish use which they make of wealth, in their love of money,
and to show them the retribution which they have to expect for it
beyond death, unless they repent, — this is the purpose of the narra
tive. This purpose Jesus carries out in three sections : in the
first (vv. 19-21), depicting the selfish use of wealth by the
example of a rich man ; in the second (vv. 2 2-2 6), pointing out
by the same example the retribution falling on such a disposition
and course of conduct in the next world ; whereas in the third
part (vv. 27-31) He exhorts those of the same disposition as
the rich man still in the world to avoid the like fate by
repentance. If we have rightly defined the purpose and plan of our narra
tive, it follows that, just like the narratives of the Merciful
Samaritan in chap. x. and the Eich Fool in chap, xii, it is not a
symbolic, but a typical narrative, picturing its object not by
means of symbol, but merely of concrete example. On the other
hand, the notion that our narrative is not fictitious, but the
account of a historically real event, is just as untenable as the
like conjecture in the case of the story of the Merciful Samaritan.

THE RICH MAN. 251
That this notion is neither necessary nor adequate to explain
the proper name occurring in the narrative, we have seen in
examining this name. And that it is not needed to explain the
specification of number occurring in ver. 28, the examination of
the passage has shown. But apart from these merely apparent
points of support, the notion has everything against it. Against
it is, first, the consideration that the narrative joins on to a series
of other imaginary narratives in one and the same connection,
without being introduced differently from them. In the second
place, the directly productive hand of the narrator betrays itself
everywhere in its entire structure, following as that structure
does a definite plan that governs all particulars, just as much as
in all the other parables of Jesus. Again, the first part of the
narrative, falUng within the earthly Ufe, contains nothing whose
obvious aim is not the laying a basis for what foUows. And
finally, in the second part, extending into Hades, any historical
character is out of the question altogether.
In now proceeding to set forth in detail the didactic import of
the narrative, we do not need, in order to do this, an interpreta
tion in the proper sense, i.e. a translation of the figure into the
thing symbolized, but, as in the previous typical parables, have
merely to carry out the application which the example proposed
has to the hearers of Jesus. In the rich man's disposition and
conduct, described vv. 19-21, Jesus characterizes the Pharisaic
disposition and conduct in regard to earthly goods. Therefore, in
the person of the rich man He does not represent Pharisaism as
such in its distinguishing peculiarities, but a particular aspect of
Pharisaic thought and action, with the qualification, however,
that in the bearing of the rich man he brings out to view in
undisguised distinctness what the Pharisees strive to hide by the
veU of their seeming holiness before men.1 EeaUy they think
and act like the rich man. In their avarice they use their
wealth to satisfy their passion for parade and enjoyment, ver. 19,
whereas they close their hearts in inhuman coldness against the
pitiable misery of the poor and sick lying before their eyes,
without alleviating it from their abundance, vv. 20, 21. This
explanation of the description in vv. 19-21 alone corresponds
equally to the wording of the same and the connection in which
the narrative stands. On the other hand, both wording and
connection are contradicted by the explanation, which finds in
1 Matt. vi. 2 ; Luke xx. 47.

252 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
vv. 19-21 merely a contrasting of great wealth on one side and
great poverty on the other, and sees in the description of the
rich man and the poor man a religious and moral basis for the
retribution following, asserting that the narrative is meant in its
first half (up to ver. 26) to condemn wealth in itself and extol
poverty,1 or at least owes its present form to the (condemnatory)
" view of Luke respecting wealth." ' On this explanation of the
narrative any connection with the preceding discourse of Jesus
must be renounced altogether. It is also refuted by the wording
of the narrative. For in his character as rich, the rich man is
merely the subject of discourse. In the description given of
him, on the other hand, the being rich is no longer treated of in
itself, but simply and solely the wrong use made of his riches:
positively, in boundless show and luxury; negatively, in unmerciful
hardness against poverty. And as concerns the beggar, he comes
into view, as the consideration of the course of the narrative has
shown us, in the first instance merely as the object of the rich
man's unmerciful hardness ; and accordingly, in the description •
given of him, merely the pitiful greatness of his suffering is
treated of, where, however, on account of what follows, an intima
tion at least of his inner state of heart by the name Lazarus is
not omitted.
Vv. 22-26 then discuss the retribution which such disposition
and conduct have to expect beyond death. After an admonitory
allusion in ver. 22, by the Kal irdcpy, to the inevitable end of all
earthly show and indulgence, the description of the condition; in
which the rich man found himself in Hades, ver. 23, shows the
retribution to consist in this, that they who, caring only for their
own felicity, are indifferent to the misery of others, now on their
part suffer pain and exclusion from the enjoyment of paradisaic
felicity in Abraham's bosom ; and, accordingly, there they are in
a similar position, with regard to the saved in Abraham's bosom,
to that in which they aUowed others to pine with regard to them
selves below. This retribution is pictured in the narrative with
special force, by the beggar being translated into Hades before
the rich man, and that as a Lazarus into Abraham's bosom, so
that the rich man finds the very same beggar, whom he in his
happiness before left to the dogs, now sharing in felicity from
which he in his suffering is excluded. Further, by this translation
1 De Wette, Strauss, Tubingen school.
2 Weiss on ver. 19 ff., and Bibl. Theologie, p. 580.

THE RICH MAN. 253
of Lazarus into Hades, the basis is gained for the explanations in
vv. 24—26. To those overtaken by this retribution — this lies in
ver. 24 — the thought may then occur, against which below they
obstinately closed their hearts, how easily the suffering of the
unfortunate may be mitigated by the happy imparting of their
abundance, but then too late ! For such an equalizing mitigation
of the misery of the one by the felicity of the other is there for
bidden them for a twofold reason. In the first place, as ver. 25
explains, because it would involve an injustice. When the
request of the rich man in reference to this point is rejected by a
simple contrasting of the diverse lot of the rich man and Lazarus
in life with their diverse lot in Hades, only reversed, it is thereby
declared that they who, like the rich man, rest content with the
contrast of happiness and misery in Ufe to their own advantage
without attempt at mitigation, must in all fairness accept the
reversal of this contrast to their disadvantage, without being per
mitted to hope for any equalizing mitigation. No other and
farther-reaching appUcation than this can be given to the address
to the rich man in ver. 25, according to the fixed sense which the
words have in the connection of the conversation. In particular,
the assertion that the narrative condemns wealth in itself, after
having been shown to contradict vv. 19-21, dan no longer find
support in these words of Abraham which rest essentially on what
is said there. In the second place, any such equalizing mitiga
tion of the suffering of one class by the felicity of the other is
forbidden, as is now added in ver. 26, by the inviolable order of
things obtaining in Hades, in virtue of which the saved in their
place and the lost in their place are severed from each other by
an impassable barrier, the exclusion of the one from the blessed
ness of the other being thus unconditional and irremoveable.
The narrative might end here, without seeming incomplete.
But even in this case the result of the whole to the Pharisaic
hearers resembling the rich man, whether expressed or unex
pressed, would be an impressive exhortation to a change of mind,
" lest they also come to this place of torment." But when we
find this exhortation, resulting in any case from the parable,
actually expressed within the narrative itself in a third supple
mentary part, no one has the right to affirm that this part of the
narrative is in essential contradiction with what precedes, and to
base hereupon the assertion that the previous narrative no longer
exists in its original shape, but must have undergone a remodelling

254 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
that changes the sense,1 or is at least a one-sided version,2 or to
explain this last part itself as a mere spinning out of the parable
for a purpose.3 These assertions spring simply from the erroneous
explanation and application of the narrative refuted above. On
the other hand, on the right explanation and application, this last
section furnishes a thoroughly appropriate and effective conclusion
of the whole ; and this all the more that the exhortation to a
change of mind in those of the rich man's character is expressed
in a form specially adapted to the Pharisaic hearers. For in
making Abraham answer the rich man's prayer on behalf of his
Uke-minded brethren for a miraculous testimony to the retribution
awaiting them beyond death by a reference to Moses and the
prophets as the witnesses whom they are to hear (vv. 27-29),
Jesus appeals, against the Pharisees who despise His words
(ver. 14) and usuaUy demand confirming signs,4 to the testimony
of Scripture respecting the retribution threatened to them because
Uke the rich man in character, and demands of them the
obedience to Scripture which really they do not render, despite
their apparent regard for it, as He has already convinced them
(vv. 16—18). And He further justifies this appeal and strengthens
this demand by the final decision of Abraham (ver. 31) in reply
to the rich man (ver. 30), in which He tells them that all further
testimony will be superfluous to them if they harden themselves
in disobedience against the witness of Scripture, since even a
testifying of future retribution by one coming from the dead
would not move to a change of mind those who refuse the
weighty and powerful testimony of Scripture.
A remark or two is necessary on the detaUs of this concluding
section. As regards the number of the rich man's brethren, we
have seen, on ver. 28, that a specification of number was required
in this place by the need of concrete, vivid narrative ; and
accordingly we may be content to regard the number as chosen
at random,8 all the more so that all attempts to ascribe a special
purpose to the number five as such, or to find a special meaning,
prove impracticable. For we cannot suppose a personal allusion
to five of the Pharisees present, whom the Lord had specially in
view in His description,6 or to the sons of Annas, who are said
by Josephus to have been five in number, because such a personal
attack in the disguised form of a play of numbers is out of
1 Do Wette. 2 Weiss. 3 Tubingen school.
4 Matt. xii. 38, 39, xvi. 1 ; Mark viii 11. 5 Cf. xiv. 19. c Bengel.

THE RICH MAN. 255
harmony with the accustomed dignity of the language of Jesus.
To attempt to find a symbolic significance for the number, by
extracting the symbolic number seven,1 adding not only the rich
man as the sixth brother, but also Lazarus (and why not
Abraham ?), is altogether too far-fetched. The attempt, again,
to find in the words : idv n? e'« veKpwv dvaarfj (ver. 3 1), a
premonitory allusion either to the raising of Lazarus of Bethany
or to the resurrection of Jesus Himself,2 is opposed by the con
sideration that, according to the tenor of the conversation, the
revivifying of a dead man in general is not spoken of, but merely
the visit of a dead man to the living to testify to them the
retribution awaiting them in Hades. And even if the dviardvai
e'/e veKpwv might rightly be understood in a different sense from
this, it must still be borne in mind that in the decision of
Abraham on the subject the rising of one from the dead is by
no means reaUy purposed, but, on the contrary, is refused as
ineffectual, and therefore superfluous.
We cannot avoid saying another word in this place on the
dogmatic use to which, in different ways, the part of the
narrative extending into Hades has been put. In the first place,
various inferences have been drawn from it respecting the states
of departed souls in Hades. But certainly it does not Ue in the
purpose of the narrative to give information on this point. If it
did, we must suppose that, in a discourse not even addressed to
the disciples, but to the Pharisees, Jesus meant to Uft the veU
that rests elsewhere throughout Scripture on this mysterious
region. As matter of fact, even the fundamental conception,
within which the entire portion of the narrative relating to Hades
moves, is by no means a new, but simply the current Jewish
conception of the twofold division of Sheol into a place of felicity
for the pious in Abraham's bosom, and a place of fiery anguish
for the godless. And even what is said (ver. 2 7) of the strict
separation of the two places is not so much something new, as
rather merely the emphatic mention of a circumstance, without
which the entire conception would lack consistency, and again
nuUify itself. Accordingly, what is said of Hades may certainly
be used dogmaticaUy, in so far as the Jewish conception of the
twofold partition of the kingdom of the dead is confirmed to us
here by the mouth of Jesus, and seems consistently worked out
in one relation. But everything else said by Jesus respecting
1 Bengel, Stier. 2 Olshausen, Stier.

256 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
the departed, within the setting of this fundamental conception,
is simply transferred with perfect naturalness from the analogy
of earthly relations in order vividly to picture the subject in
hand, and is therefore unsuited to decide such questions as
whether the departed see and know each other, and whether they
have means of communication.
It has been thought right to use the contents of our narrative,
under another aspect, to decide the question whether the sentence
passed on the godless beyond death includes eternal damnation,
or whether a purifying, and therefore a deliverance of those under
punishment, is to be deemed possible beyond death. Ver. 26
has been quoted in favour of the former opinion,1 whereas what
is said there refers in the first instance merely to the order of
things in Hades, therefore before the future resurrection and final
judgment, and does not necessarily extend farther. In favour of
the latter, the observation of a feeling of pity in the rich man,
formerly so unmerciful, has been aUeged from vv. 27, 28,2
whereas, at the best, we have there merely an expression of the
feeling of natural fraternal love, which is by no means incom
patible with the unmercifulness towards poverty described in
vv. 20, 21. Thus nothing decisive can be gathered from the
narrative either for the one or the other opinion, this controversial
question lying outside its circle of thought.

Comparing the contents of this narrative with the parable
preceding it, xvi. 1 ff, we see at once that the theme here and
there is essentiaUy one and the same, only that the utterly
different character of the persons to whom the teaching is
addressed leads to a completely different mode of teaching. There
it is the disciples, believing in Jesus as the Messiah, and expect
ing Him to set up the kingdom of God. Hence the teaching of
the parable addressed to them is, in the tone of exhortation, to this
effect, that perishable earthly good must henceforth be nothing
more to them than a means of securing for themselves admission
into the eternal habitations of that kinsdom of God on which
their hope is set. Here, on the other hand, it is the Pharisees,
sunk in love of money, and hardening themselves against Jesus
in hostile unbelief. Hence the teaching of the parable addressed
to them is, in the tone of teaming, to the effect that such a mode
1 van Oosterzee. 2 Stier, Olshausen.

THE UNJUST JUDGE. 257
of thought in regard to earthly goods as they really cherish,
although artfully veiled, will exclude them unconditionally from
the felicity for which they hope, namely, the joys of Paradise in
Abraham's bosom. And whereas there, in relation to the dis
ciples, who are receptive to the word and witness of His mouth,
Jesus so draws out the doctrine lying in the parable as to pledge
His own word for it with the ratifying, " And I say unto you,"
ver. 9, here, in relation to the Pharisees, who despise His word
and accept only law and prophets as authorities, He makes the
exhortation to repentance implied in the narrative find expression
within the narrative itself by the mouth of Abraham in such
a way that Moses and the prophets appear as witnesses to it,
demanding from them the obedience of repentance.

The Unjust Judge.
(Luke xviii. 1-8. )

The words introducing this parable, ver. 1 : "EXeyev Be Kal
irapaBoXyv avroi? irpb? rb Seiv, join it on as a continuation to
the chain of discourse begun in xvii. 20, a continuation as
regards contents, but not necessarily immediate in time. It is
said that He also spoke a parable to them (ie. the disciples,
xvn. 22, 37) in reference to the subject indicated in the words:
irpb? rb Beiv K.r.X. But this can only mean either that besides
parables with other contents He also spoke a parable with these
contents, which is out of place here, because no other parables
come before, or that besides a non-parabolic discourse He also
spoke a parable, in which case we should expect the subject of
this parable, which is indicated, to stand in intrinsic connection
with the subject spoken of previously in a non-parabolic form.
And this expectation is borne out by the facts of the case. We
have for the present sufficient provisional security for this con
clusion in the circumstance that as the coming of the Son of
man and what precedes it were treated of in the section xvii.
22-37, so also the parable, xvin. 8, runs out into an utterance
referring to the coming of the Son of man. Accordingly the
first thing necessary to an understanding of the parable is a
review of the preceding discourse.
To the question of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God
GOEBEL. R

258 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
wUl come, Jesus had replied merely by pointing them to the fact
that the kingdom of God is in their midst, xvii. 20, 21. But
to the disciples He reaUy discoursed of the future coming of God's
kingdom (i.e. of His, the Son of man's, Parousia). There will
come times, He foretells, when they wiU long with ardent
expectation for " the days of the Son of man," i.e. for the days
of felicity that wUl dawn on them with His coming to save and
deliver, and yet they shaU not see them, ver. 22. The words
" one of the days " express the intensity of longing, to which but
a little of the thing longed for seems a comfort. It is the times
of tribulation and persecution preceding the Lord's coming 1 which
wiU awaken in them a desire so ardent, yet so long unfulfilled.
In these times of tribulation and unfulfilled longing, Jesus
exhorts further, they are not to be misled by the latter into
running after false Messiahs,2 such as wUl be pointed out to
them now in this, now in that place (ISoii eVeet, IBov woe), ver. 23.
For not in this or that particular place wiU the Son of man
appear, but Uke the flashing lightning His coming will shine
from one part of heaven to the other, and therefore visibly and
unmistakeably in every place, ver. 24. And how in the day of
this lightning-like revelation of the Son of man judgment also
wUl burst upon the godless with lightning-Uke suddenness amid
their fancied security, finding and surprising them everywhere,
as the eagle the carcase, and what course of conduct is therefore
incumbent on the disciples of Jesus on that day of judgment, —
this forms the subject of the further explanations up to the close
of the chapter, ver. 3 7.
When then, in xviii. 1 ff., the historian makes the parable
foUow as a continuation of this line of discourse, and says at the
outset that in it Jesus referred irpb? rb Beiv irdvrore irpoaevyeadai
avroii? Kal p,y iyKaKeiv, it is evident that these latter words
cannot be meant by him in the sense of a general, abstract prin
ciple, which Jesus wished to advance in the parable, — a mis
understanding that has led to the dropping out of the concrete
avrov? after irpoaevyeadai (Bee.), — but that he means it as a
definite piece of counsel which Jesus wished to give the disciples
in the parable with regard to their conduct in the last, times
treated of from xvu. 22 on. Certainly not on the day of
the revelation of the Son of man itself, like the advice in
1 Cf. Matt. xxiv. 21 ff. ; Mark xiii. 19 ff.
2 Cf. Matt. xxiv. 23 ff. ; Mark xiii. 21 ff.

THE UNJUST JUDGE. 259
xvu. 31, but with regard to their conduct in the preceding times
of unfulfilled longing, and therefore just Uke the admonition in
xvn. 23. Accordingly the supposition of parenthetic conversa
tions between chaps, xvii. and xviii.1 would be needless, even on
the assumption of a chronological continuity between the two
parts of the discourse. A parable with such contents as are here
indicated at the outset, simply goes back beyond the parenthetic
description of the mode in which the day of Christ's coming wUl
appear to the beginning of the discourse addressed to the disciples,
to the days of unfulfilled longing there dwelt on, ver. 22. The
way in which this is done is, that side by side with the warning
in ver. 23 not to be misled in those days, appears an admonition
rather to persevere unceasingly in prayer. For this is the mean
ing of the words : irpb? rb Beiv irdvrore irpoaevyeadai avroii? Kal
py iyKaKeiv. How the irdvrore irpoaevyeadai is to be under
stood is stated by the epexegetical clause : Kal py iyKaKeiv, namely,
not as a continuous praying in the sense that the suppliant is
never to intermit a moment, as if the uninterrupted inner direc
tion of the spirit to God, the breathing of the inner man, were
here spoken of,2 but as a continuous praying in the sense that the
suppliant " weary not " 3 in the exercise of prayer, and therefore
as he has exercised it hitherto, continue to do so always, without
letting himself be robbed of the joyousness and confidence of prayer.
The expression contains nothing hyperboUcal.4 It is also clear from
xvii. 22 what kind of prayer and what danger of wearying in prayer
are thought of, namely, the prayer of longing for the coming of the
Son of man, and the danger of growing weary in this prayer when,
despite their ardent longing, nothing shaU be seen of His coming.
Thus, according to the evangeUst's prefatory statement, Jesus is
said to have spoken the parable with reference to the necessity
(irpb? rb Beiv) of persevering unweariedly in prayer in these cir
cumstances., Let us consider the wording of the parable.
"There was a judge in a certain city" thus the narrative begins,
ver. 2. According to Deut. xvi. 18, judges were to be placed in
aU the cities of Israel, and by the addition " in a certain city "
the judge in the parable is described as such a local judge. There
foUows the description of his moral character in the words : rbv
1 E.g. Euinoel, Olshausen. 2 Olshausen.
8 lyxxxiit wherever it occurs = defatigamj cf. 2 Cor. iv. 1, 16 ; Gal. vi. 9 ; Eph.
iii. 13 ; 2 Thess. iii. 13.
4 Meyer.

260 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
Qebv py foBovpevo?, Kal avdpwirov p,y ivrpeiropevo?. The daring
unscrupulousness of his disposition both towards God and man
is aptly characterized by these words, as is often done in similar
terms in profane authors,1 here, however, with special reference
to judicial capacity. What ought to restrain a judge from
violating his official duty by injustice is the fear of God; and
whoever lacks this should be kept at least from gross, open
injustice by regard for men and their moral judgment From a
judge who lacks both at once, like the one in the parable : " who
feared not God, and regarded not man" no justice can be expected.
Over against a judge of this character the narrative then places .a
person seeking justice from him, ver. 3 : yy pa Be ?jv iv rfj iroXet
iKeivy Kal ypyero irpb? avrov Xeyovaa K.r.X. It was a widow
that came to him, therefore a defenceless woman, deprived of her
natural protector ; and a widow in that city, to whom therefore
this judge was the magistrate to apply to. The imperfect ypyeio
is used, because not a single, but a repeated, continual coming is
meant. And the prayer with which she comes to the judge again
and again runs : iKStKyaov pe diro rov avriSUov pov. 'EKSixeiv
nva means : "to do justice to one" (suffering injustice). This
already impUes the notion of delivering. Hence joined here
with dirb rov dvnSiKov p,ov: "Deliver me (suffering injustice)'
from my adversary (doing me injustice), by granting legal relief."
The defenceless woman is thus iUegally oppressed by an adver
sary, and the aim of her coming and praying is that the judge
may do her justice against this adversary, and deliver her. But
pressing and reasonable as is her petition, it has no likelihood
of gaining an answer. For so it is said, ver. 4 : Kal ovk ydeXev
iirl ypbvov, " and he would not for a while." How, then, is he
to be made willing ? The motive of justice does not exist for
him, the utterly unprincipled judge ; and he has just as little
any other motive to render help, because the fate of the defence
less woman has no interest for his selfishness. Nevertheless,
the phrase km ypbvov (which, of course, means not " a long time," 2
but simply, according to the wording, " for a whUe ") already
presages the impending change in the will of the judge, prepar
ing the way for the antithesis introduced by perd Be ravra,
vv. 4, 5 : " but afterwards he said within himself, Though I fear not
God nor regard man" — Sid ye rb irapkyeiv p,oi koitov t^v yqpav
ravryv, eKSiKrjaw avryv, ie. "for this reason at least,3 because this
1 Cf. Kuinoel here. 2 Tulgate, Luther. 3 On hx yt, cf. xi. 8.

THE UNJUST JUDGE. 261
widow troubleth me, I will do her justice." The form of the
soUloquy used makes the motives of the judge's change of will
stand out clearly and sharply, giving them a conscious character.
And first, the absence of every moral motive is emphasized.
Even now, so far is he from being influenced by any feeling of
fear for God or regard for man, that in cynical fashion he ex
pressly rejects this possibUity. In deciding to help the woman
to her rights, he confesses to having but one motive, that this
woman troubles him, scil. with her coming and praying. And
in what sense this motive alone has become decisive and conclu
sive to him is stated in the teUc clause : Xva p,y el? reXo? ipyo-
pevy, virairid^y pe. It is implied in the very nature of the case
that the longer the troubling lasts the greater it becomes, because
a request persisted in despite the refusal of the one petitioned
naturally grows more and more urgent ; and this in a twofold
degree when, as here, a woman has once resolved to pester and
besiege one with a request. To put an end to this ever-growing
persistency of the suppliant, and thus prevent the annoyance
rising to an extreme point, — this according to the telic clause is
the aim governing the decision, provided we rightly translate the
words thus : " lest at last she come and assault me." The word
virwirid^eiv, from virwiriov = " to beat one black and blue under
the eyes," cannot be diluted to the general meaning of " harass,
pester," as is done by most expositors, translating " lest coming
without ceasing she harass me." x The two passages quoted in
favour of this weakened meaning do not prove the case. In the
passage quoted from the New Testament (1 Cor. ix. 27 : virwrndgw
pov to awpa 2), although not the literal signification, in any case
the element of bodily Ul-treatment is to be retained ; and in the
passage brought from profane literature (Aristoph. Pax. 541)
the TroXei? virwmaapkvai are cities which, badly used in the war,
and therefore actually attacked, bear the traces of the blows of
misfortune. Therefore, underlying the metaphorical use of the
word found here is the element of actual assault and infliction
of blows. The two passages quoted show, indeed, that we need
not adhere quite UteraUy to the meaning : " to beat the visage
black and blue," 3 but they do not on this account justify us in
reducing it to a mere " harassing," in which case it would also be
1 E.g. De Wette, Kuinoel, Baumgarten-Crusius, van Oosterzee.
2 Unless immx^oi is to be read there ; cf. von Hofmann here.
6 In opposition to Meyer.

262 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
impossible to see why so strange and special a word was chosen
for so common a notion. It must rather be taken here also as
an actual assault ; and this aU the more since we are not then
compelled to translate the adverbial et? Te\o? " incessantly " by a
Hebraism only proveable in the Septuagint (nV??), but can leave
the words the meaning usual elsewhere : " at last." x Nor, if the
cynical style of the entire soliloquy be kept in view, can it be
said that the meaning now given : " lest she come at last and
assault me," is at aU unsuitable and out of place in this connection,
The woman is not set down as a fury by the narrator of the parable.2
Only the judge gives an intentionally exaggerated plastic expres
sion to his fear of a stUl further aggravation of her persistency.
With the announcing of this decision on the part of the judge
the paraboUc narrative has reached its end, and the Lord now
passes on to tell the disciples what doctrine they are to draw from
the parable, a transition marked in the text by the interpolated
words " And the Lord said." He first directs their attention
to the words of the judge at the end of the narrative, as the words
giving the decisive solution of the conflict previously stated,
ver. 6 : ' AKovaare rl b Kpiry? ry? dSiKia? Xkyei. Eespecting the
gen. qualitatis t?}? dSiKia?, cf. on xvi. 8. Here, as there, by the
use of the gen. qual. instead of the simple adjective, injustice is
described as permanently inhering in him, characterizing him. In
this sense it is said : " Hear what the judge of injustice says" sett,
respecting his decision to deUver the widow from no other
motive than because of her continuous, increasing pressure. With
this judge of injustice Jesus then, by d Be Geo?, contrasts the
God of justice, in order to ask whether what even the former
decides to do may not much more be expected from the latter,
ver. 7 : 6 Be &eb? oi p,y iroiyay 3 t»)z> eKSiKyaiv rwv iKXeierwv
avrov tcbi" B°<*>vrwv avrw11 ypipa? Kal vvkto? K.r.X. The oi
of the negative question requiring an affirmative answer is inten
sified into ov py ("not indeed?"), because, according to what
precedes, the event in question must take place beyond doubt.6
It is self-evident that the fuller periphrastic form ikSUyaiv rivoi
iroieiv must have just the same meaning as eKBiKeiv previously,
i Cf. e.g. John xiii. 1. See passages from classical Greek in Grimm, Lemcm of
N. T.
2 In opposition to van Oosterzee. 3 Instead of vomo-n, Rec.
4 Instead of irpos xliTot, Rec.
5 Cf. John xviii. 11, also Winer, Gram. p. 620, and on the subjunctive aorist
joined with oi /ori, p. 635.

THE UNJUST JUDGE. 263
w. 3, 5, therefore = " to effect the deliverance of one suffering
injustice." But the article before iKSUyai?, recurring also in
ver. 8, must not be overlooked, the less so that the periphrastic
form is chosen for its sake. The article is used because a definite
act of deUverance at Christ's Parousia is thought of, not merely
an iKSiKeiv generaUy, but the divine bringing about of this definite
eKBiKyai?. Further, they who are promised deUverance on the
part of God are designedly named after the relation in which
they stand to Him as His " elect ones," they who in a special
sense are the object of His divine purpose and providence.
Herewith a new element is made prominent, putting the bringing
about of the eKBUyai? if possible still further beyond doubt, ie.
provided these elect ones do as the participial clause says : rwv
Bowvrwv airw ypipa? Kal vvKro?. FormaUy the participle cannot
be resolved conditionaUy because of the article, but must be
resolved relatively, " such as (quippe qui) call day and night
to Him " — thereby attesting their election. The meaning, how
ever, remains conditional, for as to the fact it is clear that this
attesting of themselves in the state of election by crying day
and night is viewed as the precondition of deliverance. The
crying day and night, just like the praying always, ver. 1, is to
be understood, not so much of a praying never interrupted day or
night, as rather of the cry for deliverance raised ever anew with
unwearied persistency day and night, the strong expression Boav
again corresponding to increased urgency in prayer, continued
despite long delay in the answer. That delay wiU take place in
regard to the eKBiKyai? of the elect, forms accordingly the tacit
presupposition of the words : twi> /SoaWwv . . . vvkto?. This gives
rise to the expectation, which is supported, moreover, by the
emphatic prediction at the beginning of the entire discourse
(xvii. 22), and by the paraboUc narrative (ver. 4), that the par
ticipial clause now to be added : Kal paKpodvpwv iir airol?, wiU
refer to this delay of God in delivering His elect, as to a circum
stance that cannot interfere with the already proved security of
the final occurrence of the iKSiKyai?. But here a difficulty seems
to present itseff. Elsewhere paKpodvpeiv iirl rivi signifies usuaUy
"to have patience with one, exercise forbearance to one," as in
delaying punishment} It is therefore generally used, not of the
postponement of deliverance, but of the postponement of punish
ment. But this signification is by no means so necessarily
1 Matt, xviii. 26, 29 ; Ecclus. xviii. 11, xxix. 8, xxxv. 18.

264 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
inherent in the word as to compel us to retain it here at any
price, even by making iir avroi? refer to the unmentioned per
secutors of the elect instead of to the elect themselves,1 a gram
matical impossibility,- made no whit more acceptable by the
hypothesis of a borrowing from Ecclus. xxxv. 18,2 especially
when we take into view the avrwv (ver. 8), referred offhand to
the e'/cXe«Tot. The general root-meaning of paKpodvpeiv is deter
mined by that of dvpb?. In itself this is simply a vivid, strong
emotion, hence, of course, with special frequency anger, but also
not seldom sympathy.3 MaKpodvpeiv in this case is a long
restraining of the emotion in question, a postponing its outbreak,
hence with special frequency restraining anger or delaying pun
ishment, but if the context requires, just as well also the restrain
ing of sympathy or delaying help. So, not paKpodvpeiv indeed,
but p,aKpodvpia, is used in Jer. xv. 15, LXX. Thus, the general
idea of delaying is not extracted here from the meaning : " to
exercise forbearance ; " 4 but the original meaning of -the word —
the long restraining of an emotion — is applied, as often else
where to an unfriendly, so here with the same right to a friendly
feeUng. On this correct interpretation also the combination with
eV avroi? assumes the easiest and most unforced form. We need
not then render 67r' avroi? by " on their account," on the assump
tion that the unmentioned persecutors of the e«\e«Tot must be
supplied as the proper object of the paKpodvpielv ; B but as on one
side bpyi^eadai eiri rivi means, " to be angry at one," 6 and on
the other, airXayyvi^eadai iiri rivi, " to have mercy on1 one,"7 so
also paKpodvpeiv eiri rivi, " to defer anger at one, i.e. to defer
punishing him," or also, if the context requires, " to defer sympathy
with one, i.e. to defer delivering him." Accordingly the entire
sentence is to be translated : " And should not God effect the deliver
ance of His elect, who cry day and night to Him, although 8 He long
defer His sympathy with them ? " The other reading : Kal paKpo-
dvpel,9 which, since Kai here could then no longer be taken in the
sense of "although" without great harshness,10 has led to the
translation : " and does he tarry on their account," u must be
1 Grimm, Lexicon of N. T.
2 itomau xfitrtt, xx) o xiftos oil /at /Zpxo'itri, oliSi pi pixxpoSvprurii sir xvtois.
3 Cf. e.g. the phrase 6vp.it Iplmt in Homer for " to excite sympathy," Odyss. iv. 366,
xiv. 361, xv. 486 ; II. iv. 208, et al.
* Olshausen et al. 5 De Wette, Godet. « E.g. Rev. xii. 17.
7 E.g. vii. 13. 8 xxi, like xxliup, in the limitive sense before the participle,
8 Tischendorf et al. I0 In opposition to Stier. 1[ Meyer, van Oosterzee

THE UNJUST JUDGE. 265
renounced, if not on external, still on internal grounds. For this
second question in the present tense,1 requiring now a negative
answer, would unconditionally exclude all delay in the iKBiKyai?
by God of His people, and would thus not merely put itself in
insoluble contradiction with xvn. 22, but also forthwith aboUsh
the postulate of the crying day and night.2 The reading arose
out of an assimUation to the preceding iroiyaei ; hence also the
further change into paKpodvpiyaei in a like direction. To the
rhetorical question proposed on the basis of the parable Jesus
then expressly appends the answer (ver. 8), confirming the infer
ence drawn in the question from the parable by positively pledging
His own word (" I say to you "), and at the same adding that God
wiU effect the deliverance within a short time. For nothing else can
be the meaning of the iv rdyet here : " 2" say to you, He will effect
their deliverance quickly" i.e. " within a brief time." The words
can on no account mean the sudden occurrence of an event in
opposition to one expected and prepared for,3 but only either the
rapid course 4 or the speedy occurrence of an event.5 The first
signification is inapplicable in the present context. As certainly
as the /Sowi'Te? do not think how rapid or slow wiU be the process
of the iKSUyai?, but pray simply for its speedy occurrence, so
certainly the iv rdyei, meant to certify the hearing of the prayer,
cannot be intended to promise the rapid course, but only the
speedy occurrence of the iKSUyai?. This promise is not in con
flict with the postponement of the deliverance declared before,
because that delay was already the postulate of the elect crying
day and night, whereas this speedy entry of the deliverance is
only promised them as the effect of their persevering prayer
during the times of delay, and consequently merely as a final
cutting short of those times of tribulation.6 Hence also this
promise has nothing at aU to do with the question how soon,
reckoned from the time of the speaker, the Parousia wiU occur.7
Upon what has now been said foUows a final question,
1 Only few codices read /ixxoolvpitru.
2 Hence Hofmann, who adheres to this reading, attempts to take the clause : xxi
/txxpotv/iu W xhoTs, as an answer to the question. "He also exercises forbearance
towards them " (the elect), meaning that the forbearance which he exercises is also
forbearance towards them. But few will follow him in this view, especially when
the following xiyv i/at, which plainly introduces the answer, is taken into account.
3 Repente, inopinato, Kuinoel ei al. 4 So perhaps Rom. xvi. 20.
5 So Rev. i. 1, xxii. 6. Both combined, Acts xii. 7, xxii. 18..
6 Cf. Matt. xxiv. 22 and parallels. 7 In opposition to Meyer.

266 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
proposed, however, not on the basis of the parabolic story, but
merely in allusion to it, ver. 8b : " But will the Son of man,
where He shall have come, indeed 1 find the faith on the earth ? "
The article before " faith " intimates that this word is to be
taken in the specific sense given in what goes before, not as faith
in the Messiah generally,2 but as the faith that does not let
itself be deceived as to the certainty of the final redemption by
the times of tribulation, and therefore perseveres unwearyingly
in the prayer of faith for that redemption. In exhorting His
disciples to such persevering prayer, the thought comes to the
soul of Jesus, which in another place He expresses in definite
prediction,3 that in the last times of tribulation many will be
deceived. Hence the foreboding question. It, is only of
importance for the exposition of the parable in so far as it puts
beyond doubt the pervading reference of the parable to the
Parousia of Christ and the last times preceding it.
After following to the end the parabolic narrative, along with
the additional declarations of Jesus, it is not hard for us to define
the general moral of the parable. According to the inference
added by Jesus Himself, it consists in the exhortation to th
disciples to constant prayer in the approaching days of tribulation
and of delay in the coming of the Son of man, as the means by
which they will infallibly bring in the longed-for deliverance at
the end. It is evident how completely this harmonizes with
the evangeUst's prefatory remark, that in addition to the pre
vious non-parabolic discourse to the disciples respecting the last
times and things, Jesus also spoke a parable " to the end that
they ought always to pray, and not to faint," ver. 1.
Let us now see how this purpose is carried out in the parable.
First of aU a description was given of the critical position of an
oppressed widow before an unjust judge, who refused her prayer
for deUverance from her adversary. According to the context
this can only be meant to describe the position in which the
disciples of Jesus find themselves in the times preceding the
advent of Christ.4 Like the widow in the parable, who as such
is exposed without defence to her adversary's Ul-will, they will
then be exposed without defence to the persecution of their
adversaries oppressing them with unjust violence. And like as
the widow in this position turns with her prayer for deUverance
1 To be accentuated xpx. 2 Meyer.
3 Matt. xxiv. 24 and parallels. 4 Cf. xvii. 22.

THE UNJUST JUDGE. 267
to the judge as the one whose duty it is to guard her rights, so
wiU they then bring the like prayer to God, the guardian of their
rights and judge of their foes. But they wiU experience the
same fate with their request as the widow. As the latter is at
first refused the implored deUverance by the judge, so the
salvation longed for and implored wiU not at once be granted
them by God, but, contrary to hope and expectation, wiU be
refused for a time. According to this view, therefore, the point of
comparison between the position of the disciples and that of a
widow consists simply in defencelessness against hostUe oppression,
not in the widowed condition itself, as though (as in several
passages of the Old Testament inaptly quoted here J) the relation
of the Church to God were here represented under the image of
a wife forsaken of her wedded lord, whereas the disciples here
stand to God in a quite different relation, namely, in that of
complainants to a judge. In this case the introduction of the
widow as an individual person contains no definite aUusion to
the single idea of the Church, just as Uttle as the singular " from
my adversary" points to a single definite adversary, such as
the prince of this world.2 Thereby the position of the disciples,
or as one may even say, of the body of disciples in those days
of severe, long-continued persecution, is compared on one side (in
relation to the persecuting foes) with that of a widow defence
less against her adversary, and on the other side (in relation
to God) with that of a complainant, to whom the reUef implored
against unjust oppression is for a time refused by the judge.
Certainly, similar as is the widow's position to that of the
disciples, which it serves figuratively to represent, there is an
essential distinction in one point. The widow finds herself in
presence of an unjust judge, who refuses legal relief, because there
is no motive to give it in his audacious, unprincipled character,
whUe the disciples are in presence of a God of justice, who,
whatever motives in the hidden counsel of His wisdom cause the
temporary refusal of help, reaUy in virtue of His Unchangeable
justice can never permit the power of their enemies to prevaU
over them — the unjustly persecuted. But the reason of this
distinction is not that the parable is imperfect and limping in
this point. Eather the emphatic prefixing of the characteristic
of the judge, as one utterly without principle before God and
man, at the head of the entire narrative, shows that this
1 E.g. Stier et al. 2 E.g. Stier.

268 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
distinction is introduced into the parable of set purpose as an
essential point of contrast, and is consequently of importance
as such for its moral. And, in fact, this contrasted distinction
forms the starting-point from which the interpretation of the
final part of the parable giving the solution of the widow's
critical position must be carried out. For when the close of the
narrative shows how the unjust judge, despite his want of
principle, nay, expressly renouncing all motive implied in a
remnant of conscientiousness, nevertheless finds himself compelled
to deUver the widow, simply because she threatens to make her
coming and praying intolerable, it is clear that here the inter
pretation is not to be worked out in the way of simple comparison,
but, as already more or less simUarly,1 in the way of an inference
a minori ad majus starting from that very distinction. Accordingly
the interpretation is as follows. If the widow does not let
herself be misled by the refusal of the unjust judge, but, in
presence of this man of injustice, whose moral character gives her
not the least pledge of success, proceeds unweariedly with her
prayer, relying on the power inherent in such prayer, how much
less ought the disciples, when they find themselves in a similar
position with respect to the God oi justice, to be led astray by the
temporary delay of His help, — how much more is it then
incumbent on them to persevere in their prayer for help, since
they know that in imploring with their deliverance the triumph
of justice over violence and wrong they are only praying in His
mind ! And if even the unjust judge, indifferent to him as are
both the rights of the petition and the person of the petitioner,
cannot at last resist the persistent prayer simply on account, of
the trouble it gives him, but decides to deUver the widow, how
much less — such is the force of the inference added by Jesus
Himself — will and can the God of justice resist the prayer of His
people, and how much more wUl He grant the salvation sought; —
He who really needs no mechanical constraint to grant a prayer
that seeks the intervention of justice against unjust persecution,
and is presented to Him by His elect who are the object of His
innermost love and care ! What Jesus says at the close thus
becomes a certainty raised above all doubt, namely, that although
God delay long, He will yet shorten the days of tribulation for
His elect that cry day and night to Him, and hasten the longed-
for day of their deliverance. i xi. 5 ff., xv. 4 ff., 8 ff., xvi. 1 ff.

THE PHARISEE AND THE PUBLICAN. 269
We have thus seen the eschatological character of the parable,
referring as it does everywhere definitely to the Coming of Christ
and the times preceding it. And herein lies its essential
distinction from the other parable of the Importunate Friend,
apparently so like it, xi. 5 ff. The affinity in the teaching of
the two is indeed unmistakeable, for both exhort to persevering
prayer in the assurance that in this case the answer wiU infaUibly
come. Nevertheless the essential distinction remains, that the
parable of the Importunate Friend commends persevering prayer
generaUy as the right kind of prayer, whereas the present parable
recommends it as the right course in a concrete necessity of the
future, in the times of tribulation preceding the Parousia of
Christ, the object of the prayer being here definite, namely, the
final appearing of deUverance at the Parousia. On the other
hand, it is certainly implied in the nature of the case that the
exhortation in the latter parable, like the promise connected with
it, although not proposed in the first instance as a permanent
rule,1 stiU finds & justifiable application to the disciples of Jesus,
not merely in the final days of tribulation primarily considered
here, but also in all similar times, because the presuppositions,
on which the parable proceeds, are of a general nature and always
seasonable, namely, the power inherent in persevering, earnest
prayer on the one hand, and the divine justice and love
irrevocably pledging its answer on the other.

The Pharisee and the Publican.
(Luke xviii. 9-14.)
With chap, xviii. 8 the line of discourse begun in chap. xvii.
2 0 has reached its end ; and with chap, xviii. 9 a new example
of the teaching of Jesus is added, without anything being affirmed
or intimated respecting a connection of this section with the
preceding eschatological teaching and the parable of the same
import, xvni. 1 ff. For when it is said, ver. 9 : " And He
spake also this parable to certain " . . ., the hearers to whom the
foUowing discourse is addressed are neither the Pharisees, to
whom chap, xvii 20, 21 was spoken, nor the disciples, to whom
chap. xvn. 22 up to xvni. 8 was spoken, but "certain'' persons,
1 In opposition to Diisterdieck on Rev. i. 1.

270 the parables of jesus.
who are merely described by a type of thought peculiar to them,
without reference to what precedes, and without defining their
outward position. " And He said also " therefore simply attaches
one utterance of Jesus to another in a general sense. In this
way the question becomes superfluous, whether the following
parable is or is not related in its contents to the preceding
discourse. For, since no such reference is intimated by the
historian himself, this question is only asked in the interest of
the attempt to discover substantive points of view, under which
Luke has combined the single examples of the teaching of Jesus,1
a point lying outside our province. By way of preparation for
understanding the parable, we are remitted to the characterization
of those to whom it was spoken, namely : irpb? nva? rov? ireirot-
dbra? i(p' eavroi? on elaiv SUaioi Kal i^ovdevovvra? row
Xoiirov?. It is self-evident that Xkyeiv irpb? nva here as else
where means " to speak to one," there being no necessity to give
up this obvious meaning and choose the far-fetched one, "in
reference to one."2 They to whom the parable was spoken are
accordingly more exactly defined as those "who trust in thru-
selves" namely, in the particular respect " that they are righteous,"
i.e. in a state of blameless moral rectitude. Since, then, the special
mention, that they put this confidence in themselves, is quite
superfluous in the first clause, except to prepare for an antithesis,
the second clause gives the antithesis : Kal ijjovdevovvra? tow?
Xoiirov?. These people trusted in themselves that they were
righteous, but the others — not merely some others, but the totality
of the others (roii? Xoiirov?) — they despised, scil. as unrighteous,
Hence they are not simply described as those who thought them
selves righteous, but as those who ascribed righteousness to
themselves, whilst looking down on the mass of other men with
scorn as unrighteous. The question has been asked, whether
these people were Pharisees or disciples of Jesus. Against the
former view it has been rightly observed,3 that Jesus would not
have held up a Pharisee before Pharisees as a parabohc example;
The latter view is discountenanced by the characterization itself,
which in such sharp outUne certainly does not fit the declared
disciples of Jesus. Against both views is the fact that, when the
language of Jesus was speciaUy addressed to one or the other
class, Luke never elsewhere omits to mention it expressly. The
persons to whom Jesus here speaks are consequently hearers of
1 Cf. Introductory, p. 124. 2 De Wette, Stier. 3 Schleiermacher.

THE PHARISEE AND THE PUBLICAN. 271
Jesus, without being declared disciples, and on the other hand
resemble the Pharisees in their style of thought, without being
declared Pharisees. How they gave expression to their style of
thought is not more precisely stated. Enough that in some way
they made it known, and the answer of Jesus is given in the
foUowing parable, whose purpose is directed against the Une of
thought ascribed to them ; and indeed not simply against self-
righteousness, but more definitely against the self-exaltation by
reason of which any one fancies himself raised by the righteous
ness he thinks himself to possess above the rest of men in their
unrighteousness. The parable begins, ver. 10: " Two men went up into the1
temple2 to pray!' The Jews- of Jerusalem were accustomed to
perform their prayers in the forecourt of the temple at the usual
hours of prayer. For this end the two men go up there, — and
at the same time, because, as is tacitly assumed, of the arrange
ment of fixed hours of prayer. But, although they go up into
the same temple, for the same end and at the same time, they are
quite different, " one a Pharisee and the other a publican!' They
are separated from each other by the farthest conceivable distance
existing in a moral and religious respect between the different
classes of the Judaism of the day, — the one as a Pharisee, a man
of strict and blameless legal observance ; the other as a publican,
in pubUc opinion not without actual contact with sinners Uving
in open shame and vice, and even standing on a level with the
heathen. The narrative then first dweUs on the Pharisee, stating how he
went through his prayer, ver. 11 : '0 $apiaaio? aradel? irpb?
eavrov ravra irpoayvyero K.r.X., i.e. " The Pharisee took his stand
apart, and prayed thus." The conjunction of irpb? eavrov with
aradei? is not merely necessary because of the isolation of
aradei? in the other case, but is also required by the connection
with ver. 10. After the pubUcan, as was unavoidable, has gone
up with him by the same road, the Pharisee hastens, when he
has reached the temple, to assume a distinctly separate position.
And finaUy, the correctness of this conjunction is ratified by the
manifest correlate paKpodev earw? in the description of the
publican's prayer, ver. 13. It is said indeed that "he took his
1 The temple of Jerusalem, situated on a hill.
2 To Ispov, in distinction from to xyiot, the -temple generally, inclusive of its fore
courts, halls, etc.

272 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
stand apart " could only be expressed in Greek by aradei? Kaff
eavrov (Acts xxviii. 1 6 ; Jas. ii. 1 7), but wrongly. In a verb
of movement like " to take his stand, come there," it was much
more natural to say irpb? eavrov. As direpyeadai irpb? eavrov
means "to go where one is alone" (Luke xxiv. 12 ; John xx. 10),
so aradei? irpb? eavrov here means : " he took his stand where he
was alone." To whom the separation expressed in irpb? eaviov
refers is then stated in the context, in the other passages quoted
above to the outer world generally (" to go home "), here to the
other worshippers, and in particular to the publican. Whilst the
conjunction with aradei? is thus free from difficulty, the con
junction, on the other hand, with irpoayvyero, generally preferred,
must be held to be impossible. For even if irpb? eavrov ravra
irpoayvyero could mean "with himself he prayed thus," it is
impossible to see what could be meant to be said characteristic of
the Pharisee by the " with himself " so strangely put first. But
irpoaevyeadai irpb? eavrov would not mean "to pray with himself,"
but "to pray to himself."1 Even in the combination with Xkyetv
(in the classics), irpb? eavrov means " to speak to himself," and in
2 Mace. xi. 13,2 dvnBdXXwv irpb? eavrov does not mean offhand,
" taking counsel with himself," but " to " or " towards himself," ie.
" taking counsel with himself." 3 That in such combinations irpk
eavrov is the same as to meaning as iv eavrw, is immaterial to the
present passage, because in the combination with irpoaevyeadai,
by reason of the special meaning of the verb, this is by no
means the case. Here the combination with irpb? eavrov would
only yield the notion of praying to oneself, a notion absurd in
itself, and doubly so alongside the apostrophe d ©eds.4
To the attitude in prayer assumed by the Pharisee — apart from
the rest of the worshippers — the words of prayer exactly corre
spond : 'O &eb?, evyapiarw aoi, on ovk eipl wairep oi Xotirot rav
dvdpwirwv K.r.X. He begins with " God, I thank Thee!' But we
must not conclude from this language that the Pharisee is actuated
by the lowly feeling that he owes what he is to God. That, on
the contrary, the thanksgiving is merely the form of self-glorying
1 Cf. 2 Cor. xiii. 7 ; Rom. xv. 30. 2 Quoted by Meyer.
3 The passage, Mark xiv. 4, quoted by Bleek, is quite dissimilar, for xx) xiyom
there is spurious, and vpis Ixvtovs, as often, is equivalent to vrpis xXXnXevs. 'Ay»««"
Tovms fpos \xuTois therefore means "expressing themselves indignantly to each
other. "
' Nor can the meaning be " he prayed in reference to himself" (Hofmann), because
in this way again nothing characteristic would be said. The publican does the same.

THE PHARISEE AND THE PUBLICAN. 273
seemly in prayer to God, is shown by this, that in setting forth
the object of his thanksgiving he says not a word of what God
has done or given to him, and what he owes to God, but speaks
only, on the one hand, of the sins and vices of others degrading
them beneath him, and, on the other, of his own meritorious
conduct raising him above them, ver. 12, — both, it is plain,
equally little adapted to be the object of sincere thanks. In the
form of thanksgiving he first of all boasts that he is not as the
rest of men (oi Xoiiroi rwv avdpwirwv, the remaining totality of
men ; cf. on ver. 9). It is a strong but characteristic expression
of his disposition, that he thus contrasts the rest of men in a
mass as corrupt with himself, — they stained with sin and vice, —
he the spotless one. For by appositional predicates he describes
them as apiraye?, &Sikoi, poiyoi. He emphasizes the offence
against another's property, whether by open violence (dpiraye?)
or dishonest overreaching,1 and along with this the crime of
adultery, as sins generally current among the corrupt mass of the
rest of men,-^— the first two sins, because the sin against property
seems the sin of sins to the money-loving Pharisee,2 and also
because the irritating spectacle of the publican especially sug
gested the mention of this species of sin, and then the sin of
adultery as the sin associated above others with shame, without
the mention of which the shamefulness of the behaviour " of the
rest, of men" would not be duly characterized. But as he lets
us see even in this general enumeration that he is thinking of
the pubUcan, so afterwards he does not omit directly to mention
him, adding to the general boast the personal comparison, " or
even as this publican." The y Kai here by an easy logical inexact
ness passes, not to another and different one, but simply from the
general species (oi Xoiiroi rwv avdpwirwv) to the special example,
ovro? o reXwvy?. The pronoun oiiro? is used scornfully = " this
one here." On this publican, who is to him an extortioner and
unjust in an eminent sense, the Pharisee looks down with special
contempt. To the guUt of other men degrading them beneath him, is now
added his own meritorious conduct raising him above them and
doubUng the distance. He not merely stands clear of such
transgressions of the law, of which others are guilty, but he even
outdistances the law's demands in his pious zeal. He thus
heightens his boasting ; and as he does so, the dependence of his
1 xhixoi is to be taken here in this stricter sense. 2 Cf. xvi. 14.
GOEBEL. S

274 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
language on 6 0eo?, evyapiarw aoi even in a formal respect is
lost, and therewith even the semblance of gratitude. He continues
his boasting in an independent sentence, ver. 12 : vyarevw Bl? toS
aaBB<*T0V> diroSeKarw irdvra oaa Krwpai, i.e. " I fast twice in the
week,1 and give tithes of whatever (oaa) I acquire."2 The legally
prescribed fasting once a year 3 he surpasses by fasting twice a
week,4 and the legaUy prescribed tribute of the tenth of the
produce of the field and herd for the support of the Levites 5 he
surpasses by tithing his entire income, from whatever source
derived. Such is the force of the words : irdvra oaa Kr&pai,
which are not, with Meyer, Godet, et al., to be Umited to the
strict tithing of aU, even the least produce of the field, down to
the anise and cumin,6 which the Pharisees exacted and rendered
as a legal duty.
The narrative then passes (ver. 13) from the prayer of the
Pharisee to that of the publican : Kal b TeXw^? p,aKpbdev eorws
ovk ydeXev K.r.X. The words paKpodev earw? again define, in
correspondence with the aradei? irpb? eavrov in the account of
the Pharisee, the attitude in prayer assumed by the publican.
In consideration of this plain correlative relation, the same refer
ence must be left to the paKpodev earw? as the aradei? irpk
eavrov had. If the latter words pictured the Pharisee standing
apart from the crowd of worshippers in a place by himself, the
former words picture a standing aloof from the other worshippers
in the soUtary background. , There, it was a proud keeping apart
and away, the Pharisee thinking himself too good ; here, it is a
timid remaining behind, the pubUcan feeling himself too unworthy
to unite with the rest of the worshippers. Thus standing afar:
ovk ydeXev oiBk roii? 6(pdaXpoii? iirapai el? rbv ovpavov. Instead
of referring the climactic olSi to the entire connected idea of
lifting up the eyes or looking up to heaven, expositors strangely
refer it merely to roii? btydaXpov?, thus getting the sense: "he
would not Uft up even the eyes " (to say nothing of the hands or
arms).7 But, apart from the arbitrariness of such a supplement,
it is impossible thus to separate the lifting up of the eyes and
1 to t/x^xTot, here "the week," cf. Mark xvi. 9 ; tou o-x^xtov, genitive of time.
2 *»pi, not "possess," which would be xixTwtxi, but "acquire."
3 Lev. xvi. 29 ff. et al.
4 According to Pharisaic custom, on the second and fifth day of the week ; cf.
Riehm, Bibl. SandwOrterbuch, p. 425 f.
5 Lev. xxvii. 30, 32 ; Num. xviii. 21, 24. 6 Chap. xi. 42 ; Matt, xxiii. 23.
7 Meyer, Nebe, van Oosterzee.

THE PHARISEE AND THE PUBLICAN. 275
that of the hands, so naturally bound together in the attitude of
prayer, as if the latter expressed a higher degree of confidence
than the former. EeaUy there is no need to supply the starting-
point for the cUmax impUed in ovSi, since it is given in paKpodev
earw?. The statement that he did not dare to unite with the
other worshippers, is enhanced to the effect that he did not even
dare to use the gesture otherwise natural to every worshipper to
express the raising of the soul to God, " he would not even lift up
his eyes to heaven." Why not is shown in the antithesis foUowing :
"but smote his breast."1 Whereas the usual Koirreadai is the
gesture of great sorrow in general,2 rvirreiv rb arydo? here and in
xxiii. 48 seems more strongly and definitely to be the gesture of
sorrowful, penitent contrition. In such contrition, instead of
lifting up his eyes to heaven like other worshippers, with bowed
look and head he smites his breast ("ubi dolor ibi manus"),
whUst saying (Xiywv) : 'O &eb?, iXdadyri pot rw dpMprwXo}, i.e.
" God, be gracious to me the sinner." In this brief but weighty
prayer the emphasis f aUs on the two last words : rd\ dpaprwXw,
and in keeping with this emphasis they are to be understood in
the pregnant sense. Not merely for himself as one sinner is like
another does he pray, but for himself as the sinner, distinguishing
himself by the article as " sinner " from those who are not such,
ie. not in the sense and degree in which he is such. Only thus
understood does this brief, pregnant confession of the suppliant
correspond exactly to the special attitude he assumed in prayer, —
in ashamed seff-isolation from the other worshippers, — and to the
special gesture with which he accompanies it, the smiting on the
breast instead of the usual looking up to heaven. Only thus
understood is the type of thought opposed to that of the Pharisee
reaUy expressed. For as, according to the Pharisee's words, other
men were aU sinners to him and he only righteous, so conversely
to the pubUcan, according to his confession, aU were (relatively)
righteous, and he only the sinner. Hence foUows the other
distinction, that whereas the prayer of the Pharisee was simply
a long self-glorying, but poorly veUed by the form of thanks
without a word of petition, — with the brief, expressive confession
of the pubUcan is joined the just as brief prayer, groaned from
the depths of a sorrow-riven heart, " God, be gracious to me" in
which he implores from God, as a free gift of His mercy, the
1 ils before to ct^Ios (Rec.) is perhaps to be erased, with Tischendorf.
2 Cf. viii. 52, xxiii. 27 ; Matt. xi. 17, xxiv. 30 ; Rev. i. 7, xviii. 9.

276 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
experience of the favour of which he — the sinner — knows him
self to be destitute, and to which he has no claim.
Herewith the narrative is at an end, so far as it relates outwardly
cognizable events. For the going down to the house after the
prayer is done is understood ofitself, and does not need mention
for its own sake. But the final decisive act here is a non-
earthly, divine act, one removed from sight, such as can only
occur in the typical parable, the narrative of which is itself
directly religious.1 For ver. 14 gives an asseveration of Jesus,
having the previous narrative as its basis, respecting the success
attending the pubUcan's prayer in regard to his relation to God,
and respecting the position he thus gained before God in com
parison with the Pharisee. In the former respect the assevera
tion (Xiyw vpiv, KareBy ovro? SeSiKaiwpevo? ei? rbv oIkov avrov)
affirms that the publican went down to his house "justified,"
i.e. according to the obvious sense belonging to the word in this
context, he went down with his prayer for grace to the sinner
heard, and therefore made or declared just by pardoning grace.
But, at the same time, the righteousness imparted to the
publican is put into comparison with that of the Pharisee, irap'
eKelvov at the close of the sentence being set over against
KariBy ovro? SeSiKaiwpevo?. So we must read with Lachmann,
according to the best witnesses, instead of the unattested reading
of the Eecepta, y iKelvo?, and the certainly well attested but
meaningless y yap iKelvo?, which may have arisen from the
clerical error yap for irap being blended with the gloss y eicetm.
Those who maintain the genuineness of the last reading, in order
to give the yap any meaning are driven to take the words: y yap
iKelvo?, with intolerable harshness, as an independent supplemen
tary sentence: "Or did then the other one go down, justified?"
the yap being added to strengthen the question.2 On the con
trary, we adhere to the reading : irap' iKelvov, the sentence
running completely : " This man went down to his house justifd ;
beyond the other." 3 But this cannot mean either that justification
came to the publican in a higher and to the Pharisee in a lower
degree, or that in the sense of an absolute preference justification
was granted to one and refused to the other.4 Not the first,
because justification on God's part, in the sense in which it came
1 Cf. Introduction, p. 6 f. 2 Winer, Gram. p. 302.
3 xxfx with the accusative = supra, ultra, as in xiii. 2, 4 ; Heb. i. 9, et al.
4 Luther and most moderns.

THE PHARISEE AND THE PUBLICAN. 277
to the publican, by its very idea cannot come to one in a higher
and to another in a lower degree, but can only either take place
or not take place. Nor, again, the second, because a granting or
refusing of justification could only come into question in regard
to the pubUcan's prayer, not in regard to the Pharisee's, which
so little sought a bestowal of righteousness that, on the contrary,
it consisted merely in a boasting of the supposed possession
already of a blameless righteousness. The comparison therefore
cannot refer to the act of justification which does not come into
question in the Pharisee's case, but simply to the idea "just " lying
in the word " justified." The meaning of the comparison is, that
the righteousness obtained by the publican through pardoning
grace is better x than that of which the Pharisee boasted on the
ground of his works. In free translation, therefore : " This man
went down endowed with a righteousness better than that of the
Pharisee." Thus the judgment indirectly passed on the righteous
ness of the Pharisee is one not of absolute, but merely of relative
condemnation. The inference at once suggested, that a righteous
ness which is exceeded by that of a forgiven publican and sinner
is no righteousness at all, is left to the hearers themselves to
draw. In order stiU further to confirm His asseveration, that
the relation of mutual superiority and inferiority, which the two
suppUants ascribe to themselves, was reversed by God, Jesus
then appeals to the general maxim elsewhere quoted by Him,2
which is also a law of the kingdom of God.3 " For every one
that exalteth himself shall be humbled, but he that humbleth
himself shaU be exalted."
The comparison of this issue of the parable with the prefatory
description of the type of thought of its hearers (ver. 9) at once
reveals its purpose. It is meant to show how perverse is the type
of thought of those who claim to be righteous themselves, while
despising the rest as unrighteous, since the precisely opposite line of
thought, leading one to seek sin not in others, but in himself, is well-
pleasing to God, and therefore the way to the true righteousness
which God accepts. And this truth is pictured to view, as we
have already found in a series of other parables, not by means of
a figurative representation proper, but simply by describing a
particular example, so that here again what is needed in order to
ascertain the purport of the parable is not an interpretation
proper, but merely a correct generalizing application.
1 Matt. v. 20. 2 Luke xiv. 11. 3 Matt, xxiii. 12.

278 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
Jesus pictures this truth to His hearers in the example of two
men, proposing as the representative of the type of thought
which He designs to oppose in His hearers, a Pharisee, a man of
apparently exemplary righteousness, and as the representative of
the opposite line of thought, a publican, according to the evil
repute of his order a man of exemplary unrighteousness, the two
therefore separated from each other in this respect by the widest
conceivable distance. The historical fact that the proud disposi
tion condemned was usual among the Pharisees, whUst many of
the pubUcans came humbly and penitently to Jesus, merely
supplied the outward occasion for the choice of these examples.
The inner reason why Jesus chose just these examples is, that
such a contrast was of necessity specially effective for the moral
of the parable. For if the result in the present case was to
show that the publican, as representing the second mode of
thought, was preferred by God above the Pharisee, as representing
the first, then God's approval of the second and disapproval of
the first were certainly estabUshed for all cases.
Jesus makes both men go up to the Temple to pray, and the
point of His parable consists essentially in His making them
speak in prayer before God. The question must be asked, for
what end did Jesus give this special form to the description ? It
is obvious, first, that in this way He wishes to bring out into
clear expression what is characteristic of the inner mode of
thought of the two men. But for this purpose merely the form
of soUloquy used in other parables would have sufficed.1 The
intention of Jesus here consequently must have been something
further. In making the two not merely speak to themselves, but
speak in prayer to God, His intention is to show in what relation
a man of the one and a man of the other disposition places him
self to God. He makes the tightness or wrongness of their type
of thought to be tested by the attitude in which it places them
to God. This first of aU in the Pharisee's case. In the separate
position which he takes, and in the words with which he exalts
himself as a model of righteousness above the mass of other men
sunk in sin and vice, Jesus holds up to His hearers a true
picture of their own mode of thought, ver. 9. When they see
and hear this Pharisee pray, — the unmistakeable representative
of their own type of thought, — they cannot help seeing in what
1 Cf. e.g. xii. 17 ff., xvi. 3ff., xviii. 4f.

THE PHARISEE AND THE PUBLICAN. 279
a perverse attitude to God they put themselves by such a course.
For as the entire prayer of the Pharisee is summed up in
enumerating the sins and vices of other men, and his own pious
deeds, and boasting of the distance put between him and others
by their guilt and his merit, so every one of like disposition
stands before God as one who is self-sufficient in his fancied
superior righteousness, and neither desires God nor needs Him,
save as a spectator of his meritorious conduct, and a Ustener to
his boasting.
And when Jesus alongside the praying Pharisee also depicts
the publican praying,- — his standing -place the solitary back
ground from timid shame, his bearing that of self-condemning
contrition, his language the language of confession, caUing himself
the sinner in a distinctive sense, — Jesus here paints before His
hearers in sharp lines the image of the mode of thought precisely
the opposite of theirs; the image of a man who, instead of
trusting in himself that he is righteous, and despising the rest as
sinners, ver. 9, knows and feels himself a sinner, whUst ascribing
righteousness to all the rest. When they see and hear this
publican pray, — the unmistakeable representative of the type of
thought opposed to theirs, — they cannot help seeing how different
such an one's attitude to God is from theirs, and how much
better. For as the pubUcan pours out his whole heart before
God in the supplication : " God, be gracious to me the sinner," so
every one who, like him, seeks sin in himself, and not in others,
stands before God as one who knows himself lost without God,
whose sole hope is God's free grace, and whose sole prayer is
a beseeching of that grace. That this latter attitude of heart to
God, such as a disposition like that of the publican gives man,
corresponds to the true relation of man to God, just as the
attitude taken by the Pharisee in prayer to God is a perversion
of that relation, is so plainly impUed in the entire representation,
without being positively expressed, that even the hearers of
Jesus could not avoid receiving the impression.
Accordingly the asseveration with which Jesus concludes the
parable, ver. 14, is by no means unrelated to what has gone
before, as if the narrative were merely an objective psychological
description, to which the decisive judgment is now added in
abrupt contrast. But this concluding asseveration respecting a
divine act removed from sight merely deduces from the previous
narrative the inference with which every one must agree who

280 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
has listened and understood rightly.1 As an inference, therefore,
from the previous narrative, Jesus declares that the publican in
the answer to the prayer, in which he committed himself entirely
to divine grace, received a righteousness better than the righteous
ness in which the Pharisee presented himself before God as a
worshipper unwarrantably condemning others' sin and proudly
boasting of his own merits, but neither desiring nor susceptible
to divine grace. As certainly, therefore, as the publican's type
of thought makes him partaker of a righteousness better than
that of the Pharisee, so certainly — thus is the meaning of the
concluding asseveration to be generalized — wiU a similar mode
of thought, because alone giving man the right, trustful attitude
of heart to God, obtain the righteousness which is accepted by
God as such, because the gift of divine grace ; whereas a mode
of thought like the Pharisee's, whatever briUiant show of
righteousness he may borrow from a spotless outward walk and
the heaping up of good works, wiU poUute him in God's sight
with the guilt of uncharitable judgment and arrogant self-
exaltation, so that his righteousness cannot stand beside the
righteousness that is the gift of divine grace.
' Cf. x. 36, 37.

PART III.
THE PAEABLES OF THE LAST PEEIOD.

GENEEAL VIEW.
ATHIED series of parables meets us in the section of
Matthew's Gospel that embraces the period of the last
journey of Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem, and the last days in
Jerusalem. According to Matthew, Jesus spoke the first of these
(xviii 21-35) — that of the Unmerciful Servant — during His
last sojourn in Capernaum, before leaving Galilee for ever, and
entering on the last journey to Jerusalem. The second — that of
the Labourers in the Vineyard — was deUvered on the journey to
Jerusalem through Peraea (xx. 1-16). That of the Wicked
Vinedressers (xxi 33-44), with parallels in Mark and Luke, and
that of the Royal Marriage-Feast (xxii. 1-14), belong to the
teaching of Jesus in the temple at Jerusalem during the Passion
week itself. And the two last — The Ten Virgins and The
Talents — belong to the eschatological discourse on the Mount of
OUves after Jesus left the temple (xxv. 1-13, 14-30).
Beside the parable last mentioned we shaU finally place, for
the reasons stated in the Introduction (p. 19), the exposition of
the simUar parable of Luke — The Pounds — which, according to
this evangelist, was spoken shortly before the entry of Jesus into
Jerusalem, and therefore also belongs, according to him, to the
parables of the last journey.

The Unmerciful Servant.
(Matt, xviii. 21-35.)
During His last sojourn in Capernaum, before finaUy leaving
GaUlee for Jerusalem,1 Jesus had a conversation with the
1 Cf. xvii. 24, xviii. 1, xix. 1.
281

282 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
disciples who constantly accompanied Him in His wanderings
(xvu. 22), and therefore with the Twelve. In this conversation
He gives them instruction in regard to His approaching depar
ture, then ever before His mind (xvii. 22, 23), as to the lowly,
tender love they are to show to one another as His disciples.
On occasion of the question proposed by them, who is great in
the kingdom of heaven J (xvin. 1), Jesus told them, first, that he
is great in the kingdom of heaven who, like a chUd, renounces
all claim to greatness above others, and humbly shows love to
the Uttle ones (vv. 2-5). Hence He further adjured them, with
threatening solemnity, not to give offence to the Uttle ones,8
vv. 6-9, and warned them not to despise these Uttle ones, who
are in high esteem before God, ver. 1 0, — so high, that each one
of them is an object of God's special care, the only purpose of
which is to restore and save the erring.3 Instead, then, of
despising the little and weak, the disciples of Jesus are to
imitate this divine care for the erring. In this sense the exhor
tation, vv. 15-17, joins on to what precedes. He that is in the
position of one sinned against by a brother,4 is to direct his
whole effort towards restoring and regaining the erring one.
For this end he — the wronged one — must go to the wrong-doer
himself, and offer him the hand of reconciliation, teUing him his
wrong alone. And if the erring one refuse to listen,' he is to
repeat the attempt in the presence of one or two witnesses, nay,
even if the brother wiU not hear these, he is not to give him up,
but to make a last attempt by invoking the aid of the Church.
Only when the wrong-doer refuses to hear the Church summon
ing him to acknowledge his wrong and renounce his hostile
disposition, may a disciple regard brotherly fellowship as at an
end. We may leave the sayings of Jesus in w. 18-20 out of sight,
because the question of Peter, to which Jesus replies with the
parable, goes back beyond them to vv. 15-17. In ver. 21 it is
said: "Then came Peter (out of the circle of the remaining
disciples, and to the Lord) and said: Kvpie, iroaaKi? apapryaei
1 Comparatively great, hence /alZoit.
2 According to the context, those who had nothing to distinguish them above
others but their perhaps weak faith in Jesus.
3 See p. 196.
4 The reading of the Recepta : Ixt Ss x/ixpTwri tis e\ o uZtXQos <rov, is to be adhered
to (cf. Meyer), against Lachmann et al., who expunged tk "i, according to some
authorities.

THE UNMERCIFUL SERVANT. 283
et? e/te o dSeXtpo? pov Kal d(pyaw avrw ; ew? eirraKi? ; " The
construction : iroaaKi? dpiapryaei . . . Kal dfyyaw avrw, is a
Hebraism for : iroaaKi? rw dSeX(pw , dpapryaavn d<pyaw. The
future d(pyaw here is used of what is to be taken as morally
enjoined. Therefore : " How often ought I to forgive my brother
who sins against me? Until seven times?" Such a course
towards the wrong-doer as Jesus has enjoined on His disciples
(w. 15-17), requiring the injured one spontaneously to seek to
restore brotherly feUowship, and to go to the utmost Umit of
possibiUty in the attempt, necessarily has for its postulate that
he on his part has not allowed brotherly feeling for the wrong
doer to be disturbed by the wrong suffered, and that as soon as
the other acknowledges his sin, and desires forgiveness, he is
witling from the heart to accord it. While considering the duty
of forgiving a brother implicitly uttered in w. 15-17, the
question forces itself on Peter, how often the duty of forgiveness
is to be exercised in regard to repeated offences. And indeed he
puts the question more definitely, whether the obligation extends
to seven times. The words ew? eirraKi? do not ask whether
seven is enough, or whether it in turn is to be exceeded,1 but
(which ew? eirraKi? can alone mean) whether the seven times
must be observed, ie. whether he must forgive but once, or at
most twice, or whether oftener, as far as seven times. The
number seven is chosen as the Umit of frequent repetition.2
Jesus then said to him, ver. 22 : " In no wise, say I, seven times,"
a negative answer, to which, however, He does not oppose as
an antithesis in the sense of the question : " Once or twice
is enough," but in surprising fashion gives an unlooked-for
antithesis in the words: dXXd ew? eBBopyqKovraKi? eirra, i.e.,
adhering to the literal wording : " but until seventy times seven"
therefore not merely untU seven times, but up to the limit of
seven multipUed by seventy. As to meaning, then, this is
equivalent to eBBop/yKovraKi? eirraKi?, only the second ki?s is
omitted as awkward, and thus the number seven multipUed by
seventy stands alone with aU the greater emphasis. There
is consequently no reason, to say nothing of right, to change the
seventy times seven, contrary to Greek idiom, into seven and
1 Luther : " Is seven times enough ? "
2 E.g. Gen. xxxiii. 3 ; Ps. cxix. 164 ; Prov. xxiv. 16 ; also Luke xvii. 4.
3 The second x,s in distinction from the first, which multiplies the first number by
the second, would point to each act of forgiveness being a repetition of the other.

284 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
seventy times,1 which would be eBBopyKovra eirraKi?. Nor can
the appeal to the similar passage, Gen. iv. 24, make any difference
here. For that the latter passage is referred to here, is but a
very uncertain conjecture, which would only gain probability in
case of the agreement of the number in both passages. But
when Jesus thus tells Peter to multiply the number seven, which
seemed to him the limit of an often-repeated forgiveness, not
merely with itself, but with its decuple, if he would reach the
limit of the duty of forgiving, it is laid down that a disciple of
Jesus must exercise this duty to a brother oftener than the latter
will give him occasion for, or he himself can recount, and that
consequently there is no Umit in the number of a brother's
offences beyond which forgiveness would not be a duty.
With the words : Bid rovro wpoiwdy y BacrtXeia rwv ovpavav
K.r.X, Jesus then introduces the figurative history, ver. 23. But
this can only mean : Because the case is as was just stated, that
to a disciple of Jesus and member of the heavenly kingdom the
duty of forgiving a brother is unlimited, " therefore the kingdom
of heaven has become like," etc. Jesus thus deduces the resem
blance of the kingdom of heaven to the incident to be related,
not simply from the duty of placableness in general, but from
the unUmited character this duty has for a disciple of Jesus.
Accordingly, we expect to find that the narrative wiU exhibit in
figure the unlimited nature of this obligation for one belonging
to the kingdom of heaven. Eespecting the preterite wpoiwdy, see
on chap. xni. 24. See also there respecting the form usual in
Matthew of introducing the figurative story by putting first the
particular idea, to which the story is attached by a relative. So
here : op. y Baa. r. ovp. dvdpwirtp /3ao-tXet. But the dvdpwira
put first does not stand in contrast with the rwv ovpavw, in
order to distinguish, as would otherwise be natural to suppose,
the BacriXev?, used for comparison, as human and earthly from
the heavenly king of the Ba°~iXeia compared, but, as xiii. 45, 52,
and xx. 1 prove, in order to set over against the heavenly king
dom the sphere of man's natural life as a means of -figurative
representation. Therefore : " The kingdom of heaven has become
like a man (namely), a king," — and now begins the narrative
itself joined on by a relative, — " who wished to reckon with his
slaves." Hwalpeiv Xoyov p,erd nvo?, unusual elsewhere, here and
xxv. 1 9 = " to make a reckoning with one." The " slaves " here
1 E.g. Bengel, Meyer, Lange, et al.

THE UNMERCIFUL SERVANT. 285
are not slaves in opposition to the free, but simply slaves in
relation to the king, therefore royal servants, officials of the royal
house and court.1 And since they appear as those bound to give
account to the king, they are to be regarded more definitely as
managers of the royal treasure or property. The king has
decided to hold a general reckoning with them, and to settle and
call in the arrears of payments and contributions due. And
forthwith we see him engaged in the execution of his purpose,
when it is said further, ver. 24: dp^aptivov Be avrov avvalpeiv,
i.e. " and when he had begun to reckon." This does not mean that
the following occurrence took place directly the reckoning began,2
but merely that, when the reckoning was going on, irpoayydy3
avrw el? 6(peiXiry? pvpiwv raXdvrwv, ie. " there was brought one, a
debtor of ten thousand talents." The el? does not emphasize that
one individual owed so much (Meyer), but merely distinguishes
the one to be spoken of from the rest. The words : irpoayydy . . .
bfeiXery?, give the impression that he would fain have evaded
the king's notice, but that, when the general reckoning had dis
closed a debt of 10,000 talents due from him, he was brought
forward as the one burdened with a debt of this magnitude. By
rdXavrov, a designation of a sum of money taken from weight,
we are not to understand the Jewish talent,4 but the usual Attic
talent, since only on this supposition does the comparison in value
with the denarii afterwards, essential to the parable, come clearly
out. An Attic talent = 60 (Attic) Minse, 1 Mina =100 Drachmse,
a' drachma being equivalent in trade to the Eoman denarius ;
therefore, 1 talent =6000 denarii. Of such talents, each one
being equal to 6000 denarii, the man owed no less than 10,000
(altogether = 45 million marks, £2,250,000, others reckon some
what less). It must be observed not merely that a king's (to
some extent a kingdom's) administration is in question, but also
that the highest possible amount of debt, touching the limit of the
conceivable, lies in the purpose of the narrative. Hence there is
no ground for taking the considerably smaller Syrian talent
(about = 1000 marks, £50) in order to reduce the amount.
To the man who is brought before the king as owing so vast
1 Cf. 1 Kings ix. 22, where the corresponding "nj; is used both in the first and
second sense side by side.
2 Lange.
3 So it must be read instead of rptmnxin, without difference of meaning.
4 Reckoned by Winer (Handworterbuch) at 2618 thalers (about £390).

286 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
a sum, the summons is naturally given to pay. And " since he,"
as was to be expected from the vastness of the sum, " had not to
pay,"1 the lord2 commanded "Mm3 to be sold, and his wife and
children and all that he had."* According to the Mosaic law,5
and also among other nations of antiquity, the debtor was
responsible for his debt not merely with aU his property, but also
with his person, so that he might be sold to indemnify the
creditor, and as he himself, so also his wife and chUdren as the
most precious part of his property.6 The action of the king
here 7 therefore aimed not so much at punishing the debtor, to
say nothing of his wife and chUdren, as merely at pursuing the
legal course usual in recovering money. Hence the conclusion
of the command runs : Kal diroSodyvai, i.e. " and payment to be
made." We need as Uttle supply anything to this infinitive —
such as " the debt " or " the proceeds " — as to the diroBovvai at
the beginning of the sentence. Here as there, the idea "to pay"
stands absolutely. The command says that payment shah be
neither respited nor reduced, but rendered in the way stated.
The question, how far the proceeds of the sale wiU suffice to
cover the debt, is left quite out of account. But the servant had
scarcely heard this command of the king, by which he saw him
self handed over, with wife and children, to slavery, than he
"therefore" (ovv, in consequence thereof) "fell down and cast
himself before him, saying, Have patience with me, and. I will pay
thee all," ver. 26. Here, as in chap. U. 11, iv. 9, the participle
ireawv is joined with the finite verb irpoaeKvvei, — iriirreiv meaning
to fall on one's knees from an upright position, and irpoaKvveiv
to throw oneself prostrate from a kneeling position. The two
expressions do not, as in those passages, denote deferential wor
ship,8 but imploring entreaty. The contents and form of the
petition correspond exactly to the distressed circumstances
of the petitioner. That he does not venture to ask for a
sudden remission of his debt, but merely for patience, and that
he supports this request with the promise to pay all, is only
1 ix,u with the infinitive = o~utxpxi ¦ cf. Luke xii. 4.
2 x'utou after xipics is too weakly attested.
3 In the first place himself, xlnit made emphatic in Greek by being put first.
* %xu is to be read, with Tischendorf, instead of sT^s, the present for the imperfect
in dependent sentences ; cf. Winer, Oram. p. 335.
5 Ex. xxii. 3 ; Lev. xxv. 39, 47 ; Amos ii. 6, viii. 6.
6 2 Kings iv. 1 et al. i Differently in ver. 34.
8 Therefore not, with Luther, "he worshipped him."

THE UNMERCIFUL SERVANT. 287
natural in his circumstances, especially in view of the king's last
command ! " Payment must be made." Certainly he promises
more than he can perform, considering the amount of the debt,
but we must not on this account think him a deceiver. He is
simply a man in distress, in his anxiety thoughtlessly giving the
only promise that can rescue him from the difficulty of the
moment, without soberly pondering the limits of the possible.
And he does not ask in vain, as ver. 2 7 tells : " And the lord of
that servant was moved with compassion, and released him," i.e.
restored to him the freedom, of which he had deprived him by
the command, ver. 25. So far, therefore, what the master does
corresponds to the prayer of the servant : " Have patience with
me," in which the latter implored the non-execution of the
command to seU. But the master in his compassion does much
more to the servant than he asked. He extended his merciful
relief, not merely to the momentary necessity, but also to the
debt itself. Hence, the object being put first, the narrative
continues : Kal rb Bdveiov dffiJKev avrw, i.e. " and (even) the debt
he forgave him." Advetov is properly " loan." But every payment
due, but not made and further delayed, is practicaUy a loan, even
without formal borrowing, which is not to be thought of here.
In this way the lord had pity on that servant (rov SovXov
iKeivov), as is circumstantially said instead of the simple avrov,
not without intention. For this r. 8. eKelvov at the. close of the
first section is now resumed with o SovXo? iKelvo? in ver. 28,
where the second section of the narrative begins. Lachmann and
Weiss would wrongly erase the pronoun iKelvo? (after B) here as
weU as in ver. 27. It may seem superfluous, hence the omission
is expUcable, but only when the mutual correspondence of the
pronoun in the two sentences, significant in this part of the
narrative, is overlooked. We are to bear in mind that it was
that servant, one and the same servant, that had received such
treatment as was told in the first section, who now does as the
second section is about to relate. Ver. 28 says: "But that
servant 1 went out and found one of Ms fellow-servants, who owed
him a hundred denarii." The number hundred is a number of
multitude, and considered in itself it makes the amount of the
debt not inconsiderable. Only by comparison is it trifling. For
here denarii merely are in question, the minor coins of commerce ;
there, we have to do with talents 6000 times greater. And even
' Luther : the same servant.

288 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
the number of the denarii, although not inconsiderable in itself,
how trifling against the 1 0,0 0 0 there ! Yet we read : Kal
Kparyaa? avrov eirviyev Xiywv K.r.X. The word irvlryeiv, like
diroirviyeiv or dyyeiv, might indeed in itself stand figuratively
for " torment, annoy." 1 But from the circumstance that Kparyaa?
avrov precedes, which is only used of actual seizing, not figura
tively, and from the fact that the next words : Xiywv 'AiroSo?
K.r.X., expressly distinguish the annoying language from the
accompanying gesture, it is clear that here a real seizing by the
throat is meant. According to Eoman law, it was permitted the
creditor, and not unusual, to seize the fraudulent debtor by the
neck and drag him before the tribunal. Here the creditor does
it with the words : '^47roSo? et n oqbelXei?. This reading, confirmed
also by the Sinaiticus, decidedly deserves the preference above o,ri
b(peiXei?, the latter a natural but inconsiderate improvement,
" Pay, if thou owest anything" run the words. But this is .by
no means to be understood, in opposition to the context, as an
expression of uncertainty, whether the one addressed is really in
debt,2 or as a courteous phrase of HeUenic urbanity ; 3 but, on the
contrary, it is a sharp putting of the demand " Pay," as a demand
following directly and inevitably, if anything is owing, from the
simple fact, as we might say, " Answer, if thou art asked," and
the Uke. Terrified, then, by the rough bearing of the creditor,
the debtor does exactly the same before him that the former
himself had done before the king, ver. 2 9 : iriawv ovv 6 avvBovXo?
avrov (et? tou? iroSa? aiirov) irapeKaXei avrov Xiywv, Maxpo-
dvpyaov eir epA, Kal (irdvra) diroSwaw aoi. Whether the
words: et? roii? irbSa? avrov? should be erased or retained, is
doubtful, but immaterial to the sense. But the irdvra before
diroSwaw is to be erased on weighty evidence, being evidently
borrowed from ver. 26 and out of keeping with the insignificant
sum. The sentence therefore runs : " Then his fellow-servant feU
down at Ms feet and besought him saying, Have patience with me
and I will pay thee." The words which he hears from the
mouth of his kneeling feUow-servant are thus the same that he
had addressed a short time before to the king in like way. Yet
he remains unmoved, ver. 30 : " But he would not," scil. exercise
patience, to say nothing of his forgiving his feUow-servant his
debt, as had been done to himself, " but went and cast him into
1 Quasi collo constricto (Kuinoel). 2 Baumgarten-Crusius et al.
3 De Wette, Olshausen. * Cf. John xi. 32.

THE UNMERCIFUL SERVANT. 289
prison." Nothing is said here of selling the insolvent debtor,
because no servant had such power against his feUow-servant.
But he uses to the utmost the power which the law gives him
over the person of his debtor, applying violence and throwing him
into the debtor's prison, and this, as is now added, " tiU he should
pay that which was due." This sentence also, in stating the term
up to which the debtor's imprisonment is to last, according to the
will of the creditor who cast him into prison, does not so much
indicate the latter's hope of repairing his loss by such means, —
this might have been better effected some other way, — but rather
the harsh inflexibiUty with which he determined to exact his
rights from the debtor to the last farthing. However long it may
last, he shall not be released " until he has paid the debt."
The third section of the narrative tells of the retribution that
overtook the servant for his unmerciful conduct, ver. 3 1 : ISbvre?
oZv oi avvSovXoi avrov^ rd yevopteva eXvirydyaav a(poSpa, Kal
eXdovre? Siead(pyaav rw Kvpiw eavrwv irdvra ra yevbpieva. The
verb Xvireladai must retain the signification " to be grieved," and
the too little attested signification " to be indignant " must not
be fathered upon it.1 Still the object of the sorrow is not
so much the debtor's lamentable fate,2 as rather the creditor's
lamentable conduct, as is clear from the fact that the persons
grieved are described as the fellow - servants of the creditor,
not of the debtor. Without doubt, avrov in ver. 31, like
avrov in ver. 32, must be referred back to the subject of ver. 30.
When his fellow-servants saw how he, himself just set free,
dragged his debtor to prison, as his fellow-servants they were
sorely grieved for him and his conduct. That only a being
grieved is spoken of, not a being angry, corresponds with their
position as fellow-servants ; anger with servants is reserved for
the lord (see ver. 34). Seeking help in their grief, " they came
and told their lord3 exactly all that was done." Aiaaafyelv,
properly " to make plain," then also " to teU exactly," 4 here
joined with the corresponding irdvra rd yev. : They recounted at
length the entire proceeding, with all its grievous circumstances.
And not in vain did they turn in their trouble to their lord, who
1 Kuinoel, Bengel. 2 Weiss.
3 t. xvp. \xuTut is to be read on decisive testimony instead of xl™. As to their
lord, they cherish the confidence that he will afford relief to the just sorrow and
complaint of his people
« Cf. 2 Mace. i. 18.
GOEBEL. T

290 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
is also the unmerciful servant's lord. For " then his lord called
him unto Mm, and saith to him: " AoiiXe irovype K.r.X, ver. 32.
The blame expressed in the word " wicked " cannot, of course, refer
to the hypocritical guile and wickedness which the servant is
supposed to have cherished in his heart even on his request in
ver. 26,1 since we have found nothing of all this, but merely to
the conduct to his fellow-servant described in vv. 28-30. But
we need not on this account narrow the general idea irovypog
into that of hard-heartedness,2 but the adjective irovypb?, just as
in xxv. 26 and Luke xix. 22, is to be closely joined with the
noun which it qualifies. He is caUed wicked in his position as
servant, one who has proved himself a wicked servant. In what
sense, the next words of rebuke show. The king first reminds
him how he, the lord, acted to him in the like case : " All " that
debt of thine I forgave thee, because thou besoughtest me." The
last clause : " because," etc., especially recalls the similarity of
the case, in which the king then stood to him, to that in which
he himself afterwards stood to his fellow-servant. The king was
addressed with imploring entreaty by him, as afterwards he
himself by the fellow-servant, and on this entreaty of his the
king showed such mercy. Hence the inference, addressed to
him in convincing interrogative form, ver. 33 : " Shouldest not
thou also have had mercy on thy fellow-servant, even* as I had
mercy on thee ? " Had he been not a wicked, but a righteous
servant, he would have acted after the pattern of his lord ; in the
spirit shown to himself, he must needs have exercised the same
mercy to his fellow-servant that his lord had exercised to him.
Close in the wake of the rebuking word follows the punishing
act, ver. 34 : Kal opyiadel? b Kvpto? avrov irapeSwKev avrov roh
Baaaviaral? ew? ov diroSw irdv rb bfaiXopevov. Of course, in
Kal opyiadel? being put first the meaning is not, that he first
became wroth after uttering the words, vv. 32, 33 ; but here
first is there occasion to mention it, because now the punishment
is to be spoken of, in which he gave expression to his righteous
anger with the unmerciful servant. This is the distinction
between the order issued by the king now and the one issued at
the reckoning with the servant, ver. 25, and revoked, ver. 27.
There, the king's only concern was for the payment of the debt
and the use of the requisite means. Here, the king having
1 Nebe et al. - E.g. Kuinoel.
3 vao-xt, immeasurably vast as it was. 4 The double xxi comparatimm.

THE UNMERCIFUL SERVANT. 291
become angry, the purpose of his order is the infliction of severe
punishment. The question is therefore no longer the payment
of the debt, but the requital of the unmerciful one for his
unmercifulness. For, although it is said here, he delivered him
to the tormentors " until he paid the whole debt" the reference
is far less than in ver. 30 to a payment of the entire debt to be
realized in this way ; but the same term, and in this case
certainly reaching in infinitum, which he himself with implacable
harshness had assigned to the durance of his fellow-servant, is
now assigned in strict retribution to his delivery into the hands
of the tormentors. He, too, shaU not be released untU he has
paid the entire debt, immeasurably vast as it is. The revocation
of the previous remission is presupposed at once, no formal
justification being necessary in the case of a king ruUng
with absolute power. The immeasurableness of the term also
decides the acceptation of the chief clause : delivered him to
the tormentors. For although Ba<Tavt0"Ta^ signifies primarily
" tormentors," the idea is inconceivable in the light of the
figurative story, that the Bao'avtarai are to torment the
delinquent with their instruments of torture, untU he has paid
the whole debt ; but the word " delivered " simply impUes, that
they are to keep him in their custody untU the term mentioned,
certainly an endless one. Although, therefore, it cannot be said
offhand that /3acrai>to-Tat here signifies SeapocpvXaKe? 1 merely,
in the present connection the former by the nature of their
calling simply come into view as a special class of the latter, and
the deUvery of the unmerciful one into their hands can according
to the context mean nothing but that he was given up to the
roughest class of prison-attendants to be kept in hard, painful
durance. Consequently, according to the strict law of just
retribution, the king simply does to the servant as he himself had
done to his feUow-servant, he casts him into prison untU he has
paid the debt; cf. ver. 30. Because he had not done to his
feUow-servant as the lord had done to him, the lord now does to
him as he himself had done to his feUow-servant, only that — and
herein lies the terror of the retribution — the immeasurably
higher amount of his debt renders his durance speciaUy painful,
and, moreover, leaves Mm without any prospect of its termination.
The narrative having come to an end, Jesus at once adds the
interpreting word, ver. 35 : ovrw? Kal 6 iraryp pov b ovpdvio?
1 Kuinoel, de Wette.

292 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
iroiyaei vpiv, idv py dcpyre eKaaro? rw dSeXcpw avrov airo rwv
KapSiwv vpwv (rd rrapairrwpara avrwv). The words in brackets
are probably a spurious explanatory addition from chap. vi. 14, 15,
so that, according to the original reading, d<f>ikvai here, as in
ver. 21 and often, stands absolutely and without object. "My
heavenly Father," or " My Father who is in heaven," is a desig
nation of God especially common on the lips of Jesus in Matthew,
and apparently convertible at will with the no less frequent " your
heavenly Father" in addressing the disciples. But then we
must neither seek in the phrase " heavenly " a specially designed
antithesis to the " certain king," ver. 23, nor in the " my Father"
for " your Father " a special intimation that God cannot be called
the father of an implacable man.1 The passage of like meaning,
Matt. vi. 15 (Mark xi. 26), where "your Father" is found, tells
^against the latter view. It can only be said, that here and
wherever Jesus gives His disciples teaching or assurances re
specting God, calUng Him " my Father," the assurance acquires
special emphasis, inasmuch as in reference to what He desires to
affirm of God He does not fail to assert the unique relation of Son
in which He stands to God, a relation including in it mutual
knowledge.2 With such emphasis He gives the assurance : " So"
i.e. mutatis mutandis, just as the king, ver. 34, did to the
servant, " shall also my heavenly Father do to you, if ye do not"
etc. Wherein the analogy, intimated in " so," between the
conduct to be expected of God and the conduct of the king,
described in ver. 34, consists, the interpretation will show in the
right place. But so much is clear at once, that Jesus threatens
His disciples with divine punishment, in the case put by
Him, namely, " if ye forgive not every man Ms brother from
your hearts." To dSeX(pw avrov it is said, not rw irXyc'im
avrov. Here therefore it is not, as in the discourse preceding
the parable, primarUy their conduct to other men generaUy that is
spoken of, but the tender love which the disciples of Jesus, who
as such are brethren,3 are to show one to another. Then " from
your hearts " is specially added to " forgive." But this does
not mean a forgiving from heartfelt sympathy in opposition to
one from stoical apathy,4 for the latter feels no injury and there
fore grants no forgiveness, but forgiving " from your hearts " has
its simple contrast in the forgiveness not springing from the heart,6
1 Chrysostom, Nebe. 2 Cf. xi. 27.
3 Cf. ver. 21 and 15-17. 4 Meyer. 6 Similarly U 4<i%ns, Eph. vi. 6.

THE UNMERCIFUL SERVA1.T. 293
which indeed is accorded and promised, but not without inner
reluctance, a bitter remnant of ill-will being left in the heart.
Only on the supposition of such a remnant of bitterness being found
in the heart, despite the forgiveness outwardly accorded, is such
a counting of a brother's already-forgiven sins possible as was
implied in the question of Peter in ver. 21 : " How often shall
I forgive 1 " since the sins forgiven from the heart, and therefore
entirely, no longer come into account, even as to their number.
We thus find ourselves remitted by the interpreting word of
Jesus to His answer to Peter's question directly preceding the
parable (ver. 22). From the comparison of the two declarations
with each other, and with the intervening parable, the purpose
of the latter is clear. Jesus there said to Peter, that the duty of
forgiving a brother is not limited, as Peter thought, to a certain
number of sins, but is unlimited and unconditional. When,
further, He deduced from this the similarity of the kingdom
of heaven to the narrative of a servant who, after special
experience of his lord's clemency, inexorably stands on his rights
against a fellow-servant in debt to him, and thus inevitably
incurs the heavy wrath and sentence of the king, concluding with
the interpreting word : " So also shall my heavenly Father do to
you, if ye forgive not every one his brother from your hearts," —
the unmistakeable purpose of the parable is to show that to a
member of the kingdom of God, in virtue of the special position in
which he stands in relation to God, the implacable refusal to forgive
a brother in every case, and without regard to the number of
offences to be forgiven, is a sin, by which he will infallibly forfeit
his own state of grace, and incur the judgment of the wrath of
God. It is also clear what function belongs in the carrying out
of this purpose to each of the three parts of which the narrative
is buUt up. The first part lays a basis for the sequel, sketching
in the special position of the servant a picture of the position in
which every member of God's kingdom stands to God in refer
ence to his own debt. Next, the second part shows, by
describing the hard-hearted conduct of the same servant to his
fellow-servant, the contradiction in which a member of God's
kingdom puts himself with his own position by implacably refus
ing to forgive a brother ; upon which the third part, with the account
of the king's sentence upon that servant, testifies the divine judg
ment that wUl be the infaUible result of such non-forgiveness.
Within this framework the interpretation of the particula

294 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
incidents is to be worked out. In reference to the first part, it
is above all to be borne in mind that its purpose is merely to lay
a basis for what follows. First of aU, the point is to obtain in
the sphere of earthly relations the necessary conditions under
which the servant in the parable may serve as a warning to the
disciples of the wrong and guilt of. non - forgiveness. When,
therefore, we are told first of a reckoning held by a king with
his servants, then of one being produced who was burdened with
a debt unmeasurably great ; further, of the issue of a royal com
mand for payment to be made by seUing the debtor and his
whole property ; again, of the servant falling down on his face
with the prayer for patience ; and finally, of his release with his
entire debt forgiven, — these incidents are not meant, each one
separately and in the same order and dramatic combination, to
represent a series of definite corresponding incidents in the
. sphere of God's kingdom. For however readily the two inci
dents last mentioned (vv. 26, 27) suggest a reference to the
sinner's repentance and the act of absolution following it on
God's part, it is impossible in a similar way, as ought neces
sarily to be done, to interpret the preceding incidents — the
king's reckoning with the whole body of his servants, the pro
duction of one specially laden with debt, the command to sell
him and make payment — of a corresponding series of incidents
preceding the act of repentance and the act of absolution in the
sphere of God's kingdom. Moreover, the wording of the ser
vant's prayer (ver. 26), however appropriate in the mouth of a
¦distressed debtor before his creditor, is thoroughly- unsuited to
¦express figuratively the true nature of the sinner's repentance
before God, and not seldom has led to a question so strangely
confounding figure and thing as this, whether the penitence of
the servant was sincere or merely hypocritical. Eather, the
entire series of events in the first part of the parable is freely
imagined and combined in the present manner for the purpose of
putting the servant, who is to be a warning example to the
disciples, in a position in relation to his lord which shaU repre
sent in figure the position of the members of God's kingdom in
reference to their own indebtedness to their heavenly King. For
this purpose he must appear, on the one hand, as laden with an
enormous debt to his lord, which he is unable to pay, and which,
if legal measures are taken against him, must bring him to ruin
with all he has. He is represented in this light by the story of a

THE UNMERCIFUL SERVANT. 295
king reckoning with his servants, one of whom appears laden
with an enormous debt, and of a decree being issued in accord
ance with the law of debt to sell the debtor, with wife and
children, and all he had. But, on the other hand, he must
appear as one conscious that his lord has remitted this whole
vast debt from mere sympathy with his distress. Hence the
further narrative of the praying and beseeching on the anxious
debtor's part in the words descriptive of his anxiety and dis
tress : " Have patience with me, I will pay thee all," and of the
lord's compassion thus awakened moving him freely to release
the debtor and remit the debt. Now the servant is seen to
be in a position in relation to his lord in which the hearers of
the parable must recognise the position in which they stand in
reference to their own debt to God. And here, where at the
close of the first part of the parable we are able to review its
result, the interpretation must be put as follows : Like as the
servant is laden with an enormous debt to his master, which he
is unable to pay, and therefore must go to ruin with all he has,
if the king insists on payment, so the members of God's kingdom
are consciously laden with an enormous debt of sin to God, which
they wiU never be in a position to make good, so that they must
be lost, with aU they are and have, if God exacts satisfaction.
But, Uke as the servant, despite the enormous size of the debt,
not merely sees himself spared by his lord, from sympathy with
his anxious entreaty, but also sees his entire debt remitted, so
the members of God's kingdom as such are certain that, merely
on the prayer of their contrite spirit and broken heart, God, in
pity, has not merely treated them with forbearance, but also
forgiven their whole enormous debt of sin. The correlation of
the two ideas of remitting a debt and forgiving a sin, which is
the pivot of the entire parable, appears all the more distinctly in
the Greek, as the two ideas are expressed by the same word —
a.(piivai, cf. vv. 21, 25, and 35.
Because of the similarity of the servant's position to that
of the disciples, as regards their indebtedness to their Lord, the
description in the second part of the narrative of the unmerciful
conduct of the former to his fellow - servant in debt to him
becomes a warning against like unmerciful conduct on the part
of the latter to a brother who has sinned against them. The
warning Ues first in the exposure of the glaring contradiction of
such a course with their own state of grace. Like as the servant

296 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
was met by a fellow- servant who owed him a hundred denarii (a
great number of such coins indeed, but still merely denarii), while
talents had been forgiven to him, and only a hundred denarii,
while ten thousand talents had been forgiven to him ; so every
thing with which one brother can reproach another, however
often the latter may have sinned against him, is still infinitely
Uttle in comparison with his own debt, which God has forgiven.
For how light the weight of such offences as one brother can
commit against another in comparison with the infinite gravity
belonging to every offence of man against God — of the creature
against the Creator ! And how smaU is an apparently vast
number of offences, such as one brother can impute to another,
compared with the incalculable number of offences which he
himself has committed against God ! The interpretation must
proceed in this definite way, provided we are right in supposing
that the contrast is twofold ; first, between talents and denarii ;
and secondly, between the high number ten thousand and the,
although not inconsiderable in itself, yet to the former one insig
nificantly small number one hundred. Therefore, as glaring as
is the contradiction in which the servant puts himself with his
own position by roughly demanding payment from his fellow-
servant, and also by not remitting his debt when the latter lies
suppliant before him, as he himself was forgiven shortly before,
but instead, exacting his right to the uttermost, — so glaring is
the contradiction in which a disciple of Jesus puts himself with
his own state of grace by insisting on satisfaction for the sins of
a brother against him, and, instead of granting forgiveness in
remembrance of the forgiveness he has himself received, making
his brother suffer for his sin until he has made full satisfaction.
It is evident how in this way the particular features of the
figurative story have received their due within the limits of the
interpretation. Finally, the inevitable consequence which such conduct, pre
cisely because standing in gross contradiction with a believer's
own state of grace, must have on this state itself, transforming
the divine grace into wrath and punishment for the unmerciful,
is shown in the third part of the parable by the account of the
punishment inflicted by the king on the servant. We were told
first in this part that the fellow-servants, when they saw this,
reported it to their lord. This might seem a feature of the narra
tive merely added by way of transition to what follows, incapable

THE UNMERCIFUL SERVANT. 297
of special interpretation, since God — the All-knowing One — does
not need events to be reported to Him by others. But if the nar
rator merely needed such a means of transition, the simple aKovaa?
ovv b Kvpio? rd yevbpeva K.r.X. would have sufficed. When, on
the other hand, it is expressly mentioned that the fellow-servants,
seeing such conduct, were sorely grieved, and told everything that
was done exactly to their lord, as the one from whom they confi
dently expected protection and redress, this element of the
narrative is far too strange and emphatic for it not to demand a
special interpretation. And this interpretation can only be the
following: Similar conduct on the part of a disciple of Jesus
must needs awaken great grief, such as the conduct of that
servant awakened, in those who are fellow-disciples and fellow-
members of God's kingdom. And as his feUow-servants seek help
from their lord with a common, earnest complaint1 against the
conduct of that servant, so a complaint must rise with one accord
before God from the disciples against such a disciple, with zealous
earnestness they must beseech from their Lord divine redress for
such a scandal. And all the more infallibly will that happen of
which the close of the parable tells. As little as the servant would
have justification or defence before the king, so little justification
or defence would an unforgiving disciple have before God, in answer
to the question : " AU that debt of thine I forgave thee, because
thou besoughtest me, — shouldest not thou also have had pity on
thy feUow-servant as I had pity on thee ? " Therefore, like the
man in the parable, he would be found a wicked servant before
God, because he did not act to his brother in the spirit shown by
his heavenly Lord and King to him, but sinned against the spirit
of divine compassion by his want of mercy. For this reason, as
certainly as the inevitable consequence there is that the king,
who formerly showed himself so gracious to the servant, now
burns with anger against him, so inevitably will God's pardoning
grace be changed for the unforgiving into retributive wrath.
And as there the angry king inflicts severe retribution on the
servant, doing to him as he had done to his fellow-servant, and
delivering him to prison until he has paid his whole debt, so
wiU God in anger deal with the unforgiving sinner exactly as he
himself dealt with his brother, and visit upon him his sins
against God in their vast weight and number, delivering him to
the pain of just punishment, and refusing to remove it, unless he
1 The earnestness lies in "bixcxtf no-ay . . . »««.

298 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
render to the holy God the impossible thing which he thought
himself justified in demanding from his brother, — full satisfac
tion for all his sins. " Delivered him to the tormentors "
is now exhaustively interpreted in the sense of the parable.
The meaning simply is, that strict retribution for his own
sins against God, and delivery to pain, corresponding to their
greatness and weight, await him who forgives not his brother, a
statement which certainly indirectly suggests reference to the
pain of Gehenna. But there is no direct allusion to Gehenna,
neither in the mention of the " tormentors," as though picturing it
without Biblical analogy as a place where the lost are tormented
by evU angels,1 for no tormenting of the delinquent was referred
to, but simply a delivery of him into their custody, — nor in the.
conception of imprisonment, so that the prison as such would be
Gehenna, for the prison thought of in ver. 34 appears merely as
the correlate to the prison mentioned in ver. 30. The former
can as little require a definite interpretation as the latter. Li
the same way the interpretation, has declared, and the examina
tion of the course of the narrative has proved, that the clause:
" tUl he should pay all that was due," contains no intimation of any
ceasing of hell-punishment at some term of the future (purgatory);
but, on the contrary, is meant to intimate the endless duration of
the punishment, to which, by the law of retribution, he who
cherishes resentment against his brother is exposed until full
satisfaction is rendered.

The Labourers in the Vineyard.
(Matt. xx. 1-16.)
From chap. xix. 1 onwards we find Jesus no longer in Galilee,
but journeying on the road through Persea to the borders of
Judasa. It was on this journey 2 that, in reply to a young man,
who asked what good thing he must do to have eternal Ufe, and
in particular what he still lacked after, as he supposed, keeping
the commandments, Jesus said : '' If thou wilt be perfect, go and
sell what thou hast and give to the poor ; and come, foUow me,"
vv. 16-21. The first demand: "Sell what thou hast," stands,
of course, in very close connection with the second : " FoUow me."
1 Kebe and the ancients. 2 Cf. ver. 15 with ver. 16 ft

THE LABOURERS IN THE VINEYARD. 299
The selling of what he has is: required as a means to the end ;
in this way the young man will be able to begin to follow Jesus.
But according to the context: the entire demand is put forward as
the condition of possessing the eternal life, which the young
man wished to secure (cf. ver. 16). Nevertheless, before uttering
the chief demand : " Come, foUow me," on the fulfilment of which
the possession of eternal life will depend, Jesus is careful to add
to the first demand, referring to the sale of his property, the special
promise : " and thou shalt have treasure in heaven." Accordingly
this treasure in heaven cannot be identical with eternal life itself,
but must he a special compensation reserved for him in heaven
in return for the surrender of his earthly treasures, a com
pensation to be given him in the future kingdom of God, when
he enters upon eternal Ufe, along with the latter. But when
the young man heard this demand, he went away sorrowful, for
he had great possessions (cf. ver. 22).
The question which Peter puts to the Lord in ver. 27, after
the parenthetic remarks of Jesus, vv. 23-26, undoubtedly refers
to this occurrence. The question runs : " Lo, we (ypel? in
contrast with the young man) have left aU and followed Thee ;
what then (dpa) shall we have ? " From the fact of Jesus
promising the youth a special compensation for the sale of his
possessions, Peter infers that for' them — the Twelve — who have
left every earthly possession to follow the Lord, and have thus
really done what, the youth refused to do, a special compensation
is reserved in heaven, and asks in what this compensation
consists. That we have rightly understood the meaning of the
question is confirmed by the answer of Jesus, ver. 28 : " Verily
I say unto you, That ye which have foUowed me (scil. giving up
every possession), in the regeneration (of the world to be the
scene of God's eternal kingdom x) when the Son of man shall sit
on the throne of His glory, ye also shaU sit upon twelve thrones,
judging the twelve tribes of Israel." The more precise examinar
tion of the import of these words lies outside our province. We
have only here to note, that according to this promise the special
sacrifices made by the Twelve in leaving all to follow Jesus fuUy
wiU, as matter of fact, be recompensed by a position of special
influence in the Messianic kingdom of the future. The point in
question is not participation in the kingdom of God in general,
but a reward of special grace and honour reserved for them in
1 Isa. lxv. 17.

300 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
heaven, to be given to them when and if they enter upon the
eternal life of God's kingdom, along with that life. And when
Jesus immediately proceeds, ver. 29 : " And whosoever (ird?
oan?) has left houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother
... for my name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall
inherit eternal life," this is plainly nothing but a generaUzation
of what has just been said to the Twelve. Not the Twelve alone
will receive special compensation for their special sacrifices, but
every one who has made special sacrifice in confessing Jesus, will,
just Uke the Twelve, " receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal
life." Thus two things are clear. First, that the promise: iroXXa-
irXaaiova Xyptyerai, cannot be understood in the present context
of a reward in this life, but only of a recompense for self-denying
confessors reserved to the future kingdom of God and bestowed
on them there ; that therefore the same utterance in the parallel:
passages in Mark1 and Luke2 (where the special promise to the
Twelve is wanting, and a distinction is made in the now general
and independent promise between a manifold recompense "in
this time," and the eternal life " in the world to come ") has
by no means a contradictory although a different meaning from
the one necessarily given by the passage in Matthew with its
simpler wording and more complete context. Nor can the
appeal to those parallel passages justify an attempt to refer the
future Xyp^rerai in the present passage to a quite different
period from the immediately preceding Kadiaeade and the
immediately foUowing KXypovopiyaei. But, on the other hand, it
is just as clear that by the manifold gift, which self-denying
confessors shaU receive in the future kingdom of God, must be
understood here also a special recompense not identical in itself
with the possession of eternal life, a recompense to be given to
every one for the special sacrifices he has made for Jesus' sake just
as much as to the Twelve ; that therefore the two clauses iroXXairX
Xypijrerai and £. alwv. KXypovopyaei mean, not the same,3 although
closely related things, and the Kai joining the two clauses is the
usual " and," not a Kai epexegeticum, which, moreover, would be
exceedingly harsh here. The promise is to the effect, that in
the future kingdom of God every one shall receive manifold
recompense for his special sacrifices, and in addition shaU inherit
the supreme blessing of eternal life.
After Jesus has given this reply to Peter's question, with he
1 x. 29, 30. 2 xviii. 29, 30. » Meyer, Weiss, et al.

THE LABOURERS IN THE VINEYARD. 301
He turns to a qualifying utterance intended to guard what was
said against a natural misunderstanding, ver. 30 : iroXXol Be
eaovrai irpwroi (ovre?) eayaroi, Kal (77-oWot eaovrai) eayaroi
(ovre?) irpwroi. The words in brackets show how the gnomo-
logical brevity of the utterance is to be filled up in the two clauses.
There is no reason to depart from this obvious mode of supple
menting the sentence, which assigns the preceding words irpwroi
and eayaroi in each clause to the subject, and the following
words eayaroi and irpwroi to the predicate, and to invert the
relation. Since the future eaovrai can only be referred to the
same period as all the preceding futures in vv. 28 and 29, the
sentence affirms that many who were first in the kingdom of God
on earth shaU be last in that kingdom hereafter, and the converse.
Moreover, the twofold reference in which the irpwroi or eayaroi
elvat is meant first in the present and then in the next life,
results from the position of the saying in the context as a
quaUfying addition to the promise given in vv. 28 and 29. The
inference which it seems so natural to the ambitious heart of
man to draw from what had been said is this, that, if every one
shaU receive manifold recompense in the future world for special
sacrifices for the sake of Jesus, they who take a pre-eminent
position in this life by the greatness of their services may reckon
on a special reward in the next life. But, denying this
apparently logical conclusion, Jesus says it wiU by no means be
the case, many who were first in amount of service wiU be last
as regards amount of reward, and conversely. That this
meaning of the utterance naturaUy foUows from the previous
tenor of the discourse, can scarcely be denied. If, however,
the meaning is otherwise understood, the force of " aU " being
arbitrarily assigned to " many," 1 or the difference between first
and last in this life being referred to the earlier and later
period of entering the kingdom of God, without the inverting of
the relation in the next Ufe being also logicaUy referred to a
temporal relation of earUer and later,2 the reason is that it is
thought necessary to determine the meaning of the saying
prematurely by the following parable instead of by itself and the
previous tenor of the discourse. But in so far as the saying is
and is meant to be enigmatical, its elucidation must, no doubt,
be drawn from the figurative story joined on to it by the
explanatory " for," xx. 1 ff, and running out into a similar saying,
1 Lisco. 2 So Meyer and many others.

302 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
xx. 1 6, which plainly resumes what is said here, and professes to
be a solution of the apparent contradiction between the thesis of
xix. 29 and the antithesis of xix. 30. In what sense, therefore,
the " many," to whom the prediction applies, are in this life
first or last as to their services, and in what way the prediction,
that they wiU be last or first as to reward, wiU be fulfilled in
them, is not to be determined here. We expect to find these
questions solved in the parable. At the same time it wiU also
appear whether they are right who deny a strict connection
between the parable and this utterance, ascribing the fault to
redaction on the part of the evangelist.1
The figurative story is introduced in the manner now become
familiar to us, xx. 1 : opoia yap iariv y /Sao"tXe/a rwv oipavmv
dvdpwirw 2 oUoSeairory, oan? ifjyXdev dpa irpwl ptadwaaodai
ipydra? el? rbv dpireXwva avrov. "Apa = una cum,3 stands as a
preposition before irpai, as in Acts xxviii. 23 the preposition airo.
Similarly in the classics : dp,a ew, apa rw yXiw, dpa ry ypkpu.
The meaning is that he went out directly at early morn, directly
at sunrise, i.e., since the Jews divided every natural day from
sunrise to sunset into twelve hours,4 at the beginning of the first
hour of day. The purpose to hire labourers includes that of
sending them into the scene of labour. Hence piiadwaaadai >et?
t. dpir., which must not be translated "for," but as in
vv. 2, 4, 7, " into his vineyard." That the householder, who
thus " went out directly at early morn to hire labourers into his
vineyard" actually found such, is assumed when the narrative
continues : " And when he had agreed with the labourers " (the
labourers met with at the going out mentioned) "for a denarius a
day, he set them into his vineyard." In the participial clause:
avptywvyaa? Be perd twv epyarwv ex Byvapiov t^v ypipav, the
preposition e'/e indicates the starting-point from which the parties
came to an agreement ; and this starting-point is Byvapiov t^v
ypipav, so that t^i> ypkpav belongs as ace. temporis directly to
Byvapiov, and is not to be referred back as ace. of more precise
definition independently to avp<pwvyaa?, since it belongs not so
much to the mode as rather to the contents or starting-point of
the agreement. A denarius was the usual amount of a day's
pay,6 and also the day's wage of the Eoman soldier.6
1 Meander, Bleek, Weiss. 2 Cf. on xviii. 23.
3 Cf. xiii. 29. * Winer, Handworterbuch, "Tag."
6 Tob. v. 15 in the Greek text. e Tac. Ann. i. 17 ; Plin. xxxiii. 3.

THE LABOURERS IN THE VINEYARD. 303
But the householder is not content with this first going out at
early morn, but goes out again and again the whole day tUl
towards evening for the same end, — an unusual proceeding,
which shows that his chief thought was not simply the amount
of work to be done, but the putting of as great a number as
possible of the unemployed to labour in his service, and the
doing of everything in his power to prevent any one remaining
idle, whilst he has work enough for aU.
Of the second going out it is said, ver. 3 : " And having gone
out about the third hour " (i.e. about the third completed hour, or at
the beginning of the fourth), " he saw others standing in the market
place idle." " Others " is expressly said, therefore not such as
were met with the first time and had then refused to obey his
call, but such as for any reason whatever had not come in his
way the first time. And he Ughts upon them also " standing
idle," not because they were deliberately addicted to idle loitering,
which would little suit the " in the market-place," but they stand
in the market idle, because hitherto they had waited in vain for
any one to hire them. The householder at once hires these also,
vv. 4, 5 a; "And also to them he said, Go ye also into the vineyard,
and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way."
The ruling thought is, that despite the advanced hour he hired
these also, like those met with at daybreak. For this reason the
double " also " has nothing strange, and, whether we read KaKeivoi?
or Kal meivoi?, we ought not to make a mere " and " of "the first
Kai} in which case, instead of the pronoun KaKeivoi? being chosen
and prefixed to the verb, Kal elirev avroi? would simply have
been said as in ver. 6. The first " also " in the clause KaKeivoi?
elirev is not unimportant, precisely because it places the house
holder's entire address, inclusive of the promise of reward, on an
equal footing with the first transaction with the labourers hired in
the early morning. The promise of reward also : " and whatsoever
is right I wUl give you," resembles in substance the one made to
the labourers in -the morning, inasmuch as the later labourers are
definitely promised an amount fuUy corresponding to the laws
of justice for their piece of a day's work, just as the former were
promised a full day's pay for a full day's work. In comparison
with this resemblance the difference is immaterial, that here the
amount is not definitely settled in pence and farthings, but
instead of this the mere offer " whatever is just I wiU give you "
1 Weiss.

304 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
is made on one side and accepted on the other. The only reason
is, that in this unusual case the basis of an ordinary sum is
wanting to fix the amount of wage, and thus a general agreement
on the basis of right and justice naturally suggests itself. On
the other hand, there is nothing in the narrative to intimate that
those hired later were different from and better than those hired
earlier, because they had confidence in the spontaneous goodness
of the hirer, which the others lacked. A notion of this kind can
only be found by previously importing it for the sake of a
preconceived interpretation. In the narrative these labourers
are just as much hired labourers as those hired in the morning,
and just like them expect their hire not from the spontaneous
goodness, but from the justice (" whatsoever is just ") of the hirer.
The same occurrence is repeated about the sixth and the
ninth hour, ver. 5b: " Having gone out again about the sixth
and the ninth hour, he did likewise" Because the occurrence
about the sixth and the ninth hour is exactly the same as that
related of the third hour, it is passed by briefly with "did
likewise." At both these hours he goes out again, finds other
labourers who had not come in his way before, and sends them
into the vineyard with the like promise to give them whatever
is just. And about the eleventh hour, told of in ver. 6, exactly the
same is the case. But the advanced period of the day, only a
single hour before sunset, makes the repetition of the occurrence
here specially noteworthy, and leads to a detailed account : "And
about the eleventh} having gone out, he found others standing!'*
Even now he finds labourers standing unemployed. And it is
well worthy of notice that the narrative expressly shows, by a
conversation in the form of question and answer, in what the
reason of this standing unemployed is to be sought. The house
holder asks : " Why stand ye here all the day idle ? " and the
labourers reply, ver. 7 : "Because no man hath hired us." If this
answer were meant as a false subterfuge, as has been arbitrarily
supposed,3 it must in some way have been marked as such, and
must at least have called forth a reply from the householder.
In its simple terms and independent position it can only be
meant to evince that, in the case also of those hired about the
eleventh hour, the reason of their long idleness is not to be
1 lipxt is to be deleted, with Lachmann and Tischendorf.
2 kpyovs again is to be deleted, Lachmann and Tischendorf. * Stier, Nebe.

THE LABOURERS IN THE VINEYARD. 305
sought in a special incUnation to indolence, but simply in the
circumstance that no one had hired them. And it must be of
value to the understanding of the whole to keep this in view,
because a possible misunderstanding on this side is excluded by
the insertion of a special conversation. With the words : "Go ye
also into the vineyard" these also are set to work. Whether the
clause : koX b idv fj BUaiov Xy-tyeade, here is genuine, or is trans
ferred, with a slight change, from ver. 4,1 may appear doubtful as
regards external testimony. Inasmuch as, even in case of its
spuriousness, it would be understood, both from the nature of the
case and the previous course of the narrative, that work is not
required even of these late-hired ones without proportionate pay
ment, the clause may be dispensed with. Whoever thinks it
right to infer, from the general offer (ver. 4), a spontaneous trust
on the part of the later-hired ones in the householder's goodness,
may also in this passage infer, from the absence of such an offer,
that these hired labourers did not think of reward at all, and
engaged themselves from pure delight in work.
With ver. 8 begins the second part of the narrative, giving an
account of the payment of the wages at evening, when the. day's
work was done : "And when even was come" — when, with sunset,
the day was ended and its work over, — " the lord of the vineyard
saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and pay them their hire,
beginning from the last unto the first." The " last," of course, are
those hired at the eleventh hour ; the " first," those hired at early
morn. Nevertheless, according to the context, the ideas " the last "
and " the first," occurring here for the first time in the narrative,
by no means express a bare temporal relation, but a relation of
rank within the setting of the temporal relation. The earUer or
later period of hiring in the first part of the narrative was not of
importance for its own sake, but only in so far as on it depended
a more or less amount of service, since, according to the period of
hiring, a maximum of work (a full day's work) fell to one class,
and a minimum (a single hour's work) to others. What, there
fore, makes the one class " first " and the others " last," is not a
coming before or after each other in time, — at last aU laboured
together, — but the great or little quantum of service, measured
by the early or late period of their being hired. The overseer is
entrusted by the householder with the payment of the different
classes of labourers. As it does not appear, from the tenor of
1 Lachmann, Tischendorf.
GOEBEL. U

306 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
the narrative, why this middle person — the overseer — is intro
duced, and no further mention is made of him, we may expect
the interpretation to supply the clue. On the other hand, the
purpose of the formal arrangement by which the payment pro
ceeds from the last to the first is clear from the tenor of the
narrative itself. No real preference or disparagement of one or
the other class is implied in this arrangement, for whether one
labourer at evening receives his pay a moment earlier than
another is immaterial in itself. The significance of the arrange
ment rather is, that it prepares the way for the issue of the
narrative. Its meaning is, that the payment of the last is to
take place pubUcly in presence of aU,1 and so, further, the pay
ment of the labourers of lesser service always in presence of
those of greater service, because the householder's wish is not
merely that every labourer may receive the pay due to him, but
also that the natural discontent of the first with the pay seem
ingly out of proportion to the amount of their service may find
expression in words, and so occasion may be given him to vindicate
the justice of his conduct. Accordingly, we read in ver. 9 the
unexpected news of the payment of the last : "And when those
(scil. hired) about the eleventh hour came," i.e. came forward to
receive their hire, " tJiey received every man a denarius"2 therefore
the pay of a fuU day's work, although they had laboured but one
hour. In accordance with the arrangement of ver. 8, the pay
ment of those hired about the ninth, sixth, and third hours must
have taken place in order. But their payment and the amount
of their pay are passed by in silence. This gap may be filled up
by supposing that they all received a denarius ; but it should not
be forgotten that nothing is expressly said on the point, as must
necessarily have been done if it were of importance to the narra
tive to assume that all without exception received exactly the
same pay. Since the narrative passes at once from the payment
of the last to that of the first, it merely emphasizes the point
that, in the latter as in the former case, something unexpected
happened, only in the reverse direction. And we are told first of
aU the nature of the expectation of the first labourers, ver. 10 :
Kal iXdbvre? oi irpwroi ivbpiaav, on irXelov Xyp/tyovrai. We
must not read irXelova, which seems to have arisen from trans-
1 Cf. the xxX'.o-oi Tois IpyxTxs placed first, according to which all the labourers are
supposed to be gathered to receive their pay.
2 itx tntipiot, cf. Winer, Gram. pp. 312, 497.

THE LABOURERS IN THE VINEYARD. 307
ferring the A of Xypifrovrai as A, but irXelov on good evidence,
since the former reading (Bee), as an antithesis, would require
the one denarius to be emphasized, which is not done anywhere.
Therefore : "And, when the first came, they supposed that they would
receive more" cherishing the natural expectation, that for their so
much greater service they would receive a greater reward than
had been just given to the last. But then the second unexpected
thing happened : Kal eXaBov rb dva Syvdpiov Kal avroi} i.e. " and
they also received every man the sum of a denarius." The article
rb before dva Syv. points back to the amount of pay already
known from the payment of the last, thus emphasizing the fact
that the first received the same as the last, and nothing else.
Consequently two unexpected things happened in paying the
wages. First, the last saw themselves placed, contrary to
expectation, in the matter of reward in the same position as the
first, who had done a full day's work ; and again, the first saw
themselves placed, contrary to expectation, in the matter of
reward in no different position from the last, who had worked
but one hour.
On the part of the first, who are apparently placed at a dis
advantage, protest is not wanting, especially when the householder
had himself provoked protest by the order of payment fixed,
ver. 11 : "And when they received it, they murmured against the
householder, saying : ovroi ol eayaroi plav wpav iiroiyaav, Kal
'iaov? yplv avroi)? eiroiyaa? rol? Baardaaaiv to Bapo? ry? ypkpa?
Kal rbv Kai/awva." The first clause may be rendered either:
"These last have spent one hour,"2 namely, in the vineyard, which
definition of place may easily be supplied from what precedes ;s
or : " These last have wrought one hour."4 The former, however,
is to be preferred, the signification of iroielv ypbvov = " to spend
a time," being current in the classics and also in the New Testa
ment,5 whereas the intransitive use = " to work, make," is only
conceivable by a Hebraism,6 and is not supported beyond doubt
by the single passage of the Septuagint, Euth ii. 19. Moreover,
a sharper and more complete contrast to the following clause
follows on the retention of the former signification. For whereas
the translation : " they have wrought (but) one hour," placing the
1 So we must read, with Tischendorf, instead of: xx) 'ix. xx) xLto) itk S»»., Rec.
2 Meyer. 3 In opposition to Weiss. * De Wette, Weiss.
* Cf. Acts xv. 33, xviii. 23, xx. 3 ; 2 Cor. xi. 25 ; Jas. iv. 13.
0 After the analogy of riB>J7-

308 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
emphasis whoUy and exclusively on " one hour," leads us to expect
the long duration of their own toil to be emphasized in contrast,
the murmurers in the second clause really lay less stress on the
duration of their toil than upon the hardship they submitted to.
"And thou hast made them equal to us, who have borne the burden
of the day and the heat." To the easy spending of one hour in
the vineyard, as they describe the minimum of exertion expended
by the last, with fresh powers, in the cool of the evening, they
oppose the fatigue submitted to by them in bearing the burden of
toU and noontide heat. Appealing to this contrast, they remind
the householder of the fact in a tone of reproach : " Thou hast
made them equal to us." As to the expression of such a feeling,
we ought so little to attach importance to the protest, that, on
the contrary, it would have been matter of wonder, in the cir
cumstances of the case, if these hired labourers had regarded the
householder's strange proceeding in the right light and accepted
it without reply, apart from explanation. But assuming that
they needed such explanation, the householder intended from the
outset to give it, and for this end directed the labourers to be
paid in reverse order. And thus the protest on the part of the
first is at once followed by the reply on the householder's part,
ver. 13: "But he answered one of them, and said: eralpe, om
dSiKw ae' ovyl Byvapiov avve^xLvyad? poi;" He turns to one of
them, his answer to him applying, of course, to all. In the tone
not of sharp fault-finding, but of friendly remonstrance, he reminds
him that he cannot complain of the reward given him, as if he
had been unjustly treated: "Friend, I do thee no wrong; didst
thou not agree with me for a denarius?"1 He himself had agreed
with the householder for "a denarius a day," ver. 2, and a
denarius he has received for the day's work, ver. 10. Con
sequently there can be no question of an injustice done him.
Hence the summons of the householder, ver. 14 : cipov rb aov ical
viraye, i.e. " take what is thine," — what is thine and has been given
thee legally, — " and go thy way," i.e. to thy house. As little as
the first imperative dpov assumes that the person addressed has
hitherto left the denarius lying in scorn 2 (which is excluded by
the eXaBov in ver. 10), so little does the second imperative
viraye imply that the householder dismisses these first ones as
incorrigible people with whom he will have nothing more to do.
1 The simple gen. pretii, different from ver. 2.
2 De Valenti. 3 Stier, Nebe.

THE LABOURERS IN THE VINEYARD. 309
It follows from the natural course of the narrative that the
labourers go home at evening after receiving their pay. How,
then, can the summons to do so denote an angry dismissal?
Eather as the dpov in this context can only signify that he is to
accept what is his without further objection, so the viraye means
that he is to go home with what is his as one who has received
what is legaUy due to him, and therefore has no reason for longer
tarrying. That, after receiving the pay due to himself, he has no
justification for finding fault with what others have received, is
stated in what follows, ver. 146: dkXw Be rovra rw iaydrw
Sovvai w? Kal aoi, ie. "But it is my will to give to this last1 even
as to thee." QkXw stands first with emphasis. As the reason
why he gave just as much to this last one as to him, he simply
says that it is his will so to do. And that this reason is sufficient,
and admits no objection, is confirmed by the question following
immediately, ver. 15 : ovk2 e^eariv p.oi b dkXw iroiyaai ev rol?
e/tot?; i.e. "Is it not permitted me to do what I will in matters of
my own property ? " He is justified in regarding it as conceded
by every one — even by the person addressed — that he may act
according to his wUl in matters of his own property, and con
sequently, as proved, that the latter has just as little right to
complain respecting the pay received by the last as respecting
the pay received by himself. If, nevertheless, he persisted in his
discontent, even after the absence of any justification for it has
been made clear to him, it must be supposed that his murmuring
springs not so much from a wrong view of the circumstances of
the case, as from malicious envy. Whether this supposition is
correct is the import of the last question: y 6 bqbdaXpb? aov
irovypb? iariv, on iyw dyadb? elpt; i.e. "Or is thine eye bad,
because I am good ? " which, as to meaning, is : Or is the reason
of thy murmuring not so much, as was supposed before, the
belief that I had not acted justly, as the wickedness of thy eye, to
which I had acted too kindly ? '0<pdaXpb? irovypb? here, as in
xv. 19, Mark vii. 22, and oftener in the Old Testament (HJ> in),
is an evU-glancing eye,3 — more precisely, an eye leering enviously
at others. To be obliged to assume such irovypia of the eye
in the person addressed would be aU the more painful to the
householder, that this wickedness found its occasion in his, the
1 Allusion to one ofthe last, corresponding to the address to one ofthe first.
2 % before ovx, rendering the connection easy, is to be expunged on good evidence.
3 Dillerent from vi. 23, where it is an evil eye.

310 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
householder's goodness. This is specially intimated by the con
trast : o b<pd. aov irovypb? . . . ey(» dyadb?. Instead of y at the
beginning, the just as well-attested interrogative particle et may
also be read:1 "Perhaps thine eye," etc.?2 The outward con
nection of the second with the first question by means of '' or "
would be wanting, while the inner connection remains exactly
the same. That such a doubtful question is quite out of place in
the present context 3 is so far from being correct, that rather the
opposite is true. The householder by no means directly accuses
the labourer of an envious disposition, but by asking whether he
is to think so of him would fain shame him, assuming that the
labourer will be unwilling to have this believed of him, and from
fear of such a result will dismiss the last relic of discontent from
his heart. Thus the question forms an apt conclusion to the
whole narrative, evincing as it does that the unexpected course
followed in the payment of the labourers, which plainly formed
the centre of the narrative, despite the strange, unusual look it
wears, so little implies injustice, that when candidly considered it
could only give offence to one of evil disposition.
To the narrative now brought to an end Jesus adds the
interpreting utterance, ver. 1 6 : ovrw? eaovrai oi eayaroi irpmoi
Kal oi irpwroi eayaroi. The clause following in the Eecepta:
7roA.\ot yap elai KXyroi, bXiyot Be iKXeKroi, stUl retained by
Lachmann and de Wette on the ground of preponderant external
testimony, now that the counter-testimony of B L Z, et al, is
strengthened by the Sinaiticus, must be expunged, with Tischen
dorf and Weiss. When the evidence is doubtful, it is decisive
against the genuineness that this sentence is found on unanimous
evidence in exactly the same terms at the close of another
parable — the Marriage of the King's Son (xxii 14). The similar
ending of its last word to that of the preceding sentence
(eayaTOI and iKXeKTOI) is not sufficient 4 to make it credible
that the sentence originally stood at the close of both parables, but
that in the present passage the entire sentence afterwards dropped
out by mere oversight. On the other hand, its transference here
from xxii. 14 as an elucidatory sentence is easily explained by
1 Tischendorf.
z On il, as an interrogative particle, before direct questions in the N. T., see
Winer, Gram. p. 639.
3 So Meyer, who would make u o otpl <rov x.t.x. a limping conditional sentence.
* In opposition to Meyer.

THE LABOURERS IN THE VINEYARD. 311
the ancient misunderstanding of the present parable, making its
purpose to be, Uke that of the Marriage, to announce the final
rejection of a certain class belonging to the earthly kingdom of
God. Those who wish to retain the sentence, without thus
misunderstanding the parable, are compelled to refer the contrast
of the " elect " and " called," instead of to the real partakers in
God's kingdom in contrast with the merely called, rather to the
superiority of some partakers above others, either a superiority
in disposition,1 or an extraordinary degree of reward,2 but both in
opposition to the else unanimous usage of the New Testament.
The interpreting utterance is therefore Umited to the first
sentence : " So the last shaU be first, and the first last." The
meaning of this utterance, almost identical with xix. 30, and
resuming on the basis of the parable the prediction left unex
plained there, is now to be determined entirely by the preceding
narrative, to which it is expressly joined by " so." In fact, a
review of the course of the narrative lying transparent before us
leaves no doubt how the sentence annexed to it in ver. 16
is to be understood. First, it is clear that the categories " the
first " and " the last " in ver. 1 6 must correspond exactly to the
categories " the first " and " the last " in the narrative. If, then,
" the first " in the narrative were the labourers standing above
all the rest as respects the magnitude and weight of the day's
work aUotted to them, because hired in the early morn for a full
day's labour, and "the last" in the narrative the labourers
standing below aU the rest in the same respect, because hired in
the late evening only for one hour,3 "the first" in ver. 16 can
only be the members of God's kingdom standing above the rest
as respects the magnitude and weight of the day's work assigned
them in the labour of God's kingdom, because charged by the
peculiarity of their caUing with the most extensive functions,
and "the last" those standing below the rest in the same
respect, because placed by the peculiarity of their calling in the
most Umited circle of influence. Moreover, the assertions respect
ing the last or first in God's kingdom, "shall be first" and
" shall be last," by the relation in which they stand to the fore
going narrative, admit but one exposition. For, if the pivot of
the whole narrative lay in the doubly unexpected incident
related in vv. 9, 10, first, that the last, despite their so much
smaller service, are treated as respects amount of reward as if
1 Olshausen. 2 Meyer. s Cf. on ver. 8 and ver. 12.

312 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
they belonged to the category of the first, ver. 9 ; and, secondly,
that the first, despite their so much greater service, are treated as
respects reward no better than the last, whilst all that foUows is
nothing but a justification of these two occurrences from the
mouth of the householder, — it is clear that the assertion made
first (corresponding to the order of payment in the narrative)
respecting the last in God's kingdom, ver. 16:" shaU be first,"
must be understood in all respects after the analogy of ver. 9 in
the narrative, and the corresponding assertion respecting the first :
" shall be last," just as precisely after the analogy of ver. 10 in
the narrative. Moreover, if the subject treated of in the pre
liminary section (xix. 27-30) is everywhere the reward of grace
in the future kingdom of God, then certainly the distribution of
reward spoken of in vv. 9 and 10 of the parable must be
referred to the dispensing of reward in God's future kingdom.
The meaning, therefore, of the interpreting utterance, ver. 16, is
as follows : — First, those labourers in God's kingdom to whom,
by the peculiarity of their calling only a relatively insignificant
work was assigned on earth, will in God's future kingdom be
treated in the matter of reward as if the greatest work had been
assigned them ; secondly, they who were above all the rest in
respect of the magnitude and weight of the work assigned them
on earth by divine caUing, will not on that account merely be
treated differently in the matter of reward from those standing
farthest below them in this respect. This by no means implies
that despite great diversity in service all labourers in God's
kingdom will, as respects reward, be placed on a level in the
next world. On the contrary, the presupposition in the utterance
of Jesus is, that in God's kingdom of the future there is a mani
foldly diverse reward for service of diverse worth in this life.
But, this presupposition being understood, it is affirmed that the
standard for determining the difference in the reward will not be
the difference among the labourers of God's kingdom first striking
the eye in this life, namely, the difference in the magnitude and
weight of the different functions, to which individuals are
assigned in this Ufe by a different divine calling, and the conse
quent difference in the outward amount of service. Of those who
in this respect were the last or first, it is said that in the matter
of future reward neither the one will be injured nor the other
privileged by their position in this life. The future reward of
grace, instead of being adjudged to each according to the difference

THE LABOURERS IN THE VINEYARD. 313
in the outward amount of service, obvious to human eyes and
open to human calculation, will rather, as may here be supple-
mentarUy added, be adjudged according to the difference in the
inner worth of the service known only to God, i.e. according to
the different degree of self-sacrificing fideUty with which every
one has laboured in the function assigned to him, whether smaU
or great, and has borne corresponding fruit within the sphere of
influence, great or smaU, allotted to him. We may especially
compare the parable of the Talents, where, as in the present
parable, the servants of different service received the same praise
and reward, because the diversity of their service corresponded
only to the diversity of their gifts and the functions determined
thereby,1 with the parable of the Pounds, where the servants
actually received different rewards even in the same relation for
different service, because here with equal endowments and
functions a different degree of fidelity and zeal showed itself in
the different service.2
But if the case is as chap. xx. 16 affirms, then the enigma of
the almost identical utterance preceding the parable : " But many
shall be last that are first, and first that are last," is solved. Apart
from the unimportant point that in chap. xx. 16, in conformity
with the figurative story, the assertion respecting the last comes
first, the two sayings are only different in this respect, that there
it is said " many first " or " last," whereas here it is merely
said " the last " or " first." But this difference in the wording
arises simply from the fact that the categories first and last,
which are there conceived quite generaUy, merely in reference to
the different amount of services, have here through the cor
responding categories in the figurative story acquired a strictly
definite sense. There it was foretold generaUy that in many
cases they who were first in this life as to their services will be
last there as to their reward, and conversely. But this general
prediction has received in the parable its elucidation and its more
exact definition on the basis of the parable to this effect, that
the prediction holds good of the first or last, whose pre-eminent
or secondary services are the effect of a different divine calling,
and that it will be fulfiUed by the last in this sense not being
put below the first, and the first in this sense not being preferred
above the last.
And in this way also the general moral of the parable is made
1 Matt. xxv. 15 and 20-23. 2 Luke xix. 13 and 16-19.

314 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
plain. It can be nothing else than this, to elucidate the first
utterance preceding the parable in the sense of the second
utterance with which it concludes. The moral of the parable,
consequently, is to show that in the dispensing of reward in the
future kingdom of God a quite different rank and dignity will
often emerge from what the visible difference of service in this
life leads to expect, because notwithstanding the manifoldly diverse
greatness of the functions allotted to individuals in labour in God's
kingdom, the last in this respect will not be placed below the first in
the assignment of reward hereafter, and the first in this respect will
not be preferred above the last. The parable exhibits this truth
thus. In its first part it represents in figure the manifold and
great diversity of the day's work assigned to individuals by the
special circumstances of their calling in this life, whereas the
second part not merely represents the fact of the future, that
they who were last or first in this respect shall not on this
account be treated differently in the matter of reward from the
first or last, but at the same time proves this fact to be in
harmony with the postulate of the divine justice.
The way is now indicated and also smoothed for rightly
interpreting the figurative history in detail. For from this
starting-point the much-debated difficulties of interpretation all
find their solution. An owner of a vineyard, who in search of
labourers summons the idlers in the market-place to work in his
vineyard, — this is the general framework embracing the figurative
occurrences of the first part of the narrative. To this corresponds
in the sphere of the kingdom of heaven the divine call to labour
in God's kingdom, issued to men busy about nothing, or next to
nothing, and standing idle in the market-place of worldly life.
The call meant is the call to enter upon labour in God's kingdom^
going forth to men in the preaching of Jesus respecting the
kingdom of God, the same call that came to the rich youth from
the lips of Jesus in the "Come, follow me" (xix. 21), and to
which the Twelve had given willing heed in beginning to follow
Jesus (xix. 27), without, however, the conveyance of the divine
call through the person and words of Jesus being included in the
compass of the figurative representation. In substance, there
fore, it is the same call to the kingdom of God that was spoken
of in the parable of the Great Banquet (Luke xiv. 16 ff.), save
that here it is represented on a quite different side from there.
Whereas there it was set forth as an invitation to partake in a

THE LABOURERS IN THE VINEYARD. 315
banquet aU ready, here it appears as a summons to undertake
the labour of a vineyard. The vineyard-Zaooztr is the tertium
comparationis on which everything depends in comparing the
kingdom of God to a vineyard. The figure of a vineyard already
used of the Old-Testament theocracy of Israel,1 and also employed
in other parables of Jesus to represent the kingdom of God,2 is here
used to compare the labour in God's service and for God's cause
to the labour in a vineyard with which a householder entrusts
labourers. Only so far, therefore, in the sense of the parable is
the comparison with the vineyard to be more precisely worked
out, that as vineyard-labour is exceedingly heavy and irksome,
so labour in God's kingdom imposes great sacrifice, denial, and
hardship on him who enters upon it. So far we are definitely
led in the comparison both by the introductory discourse of
Jesus respecting the sacrifices, which following Him in this
life entails, and by the further course of the narrative itself,
where the hardship connected with the labour is emphasized,
ver. 12. Accordingly, in respect to the labour we are not
merely to think of official work outside for the extension and
organization of God's kingdom on earth ; but the idea of labour
in the sense of the parable comprises every kind of exertion,
hardship, and self-denying surrender of one's own in time,
strength, and possession, which the divine call into God's
kingdom imposes on man for the sake of God and His cause.
The first part of the parable, therefore, treats in the most
general sense of the divine call to men to work in God's king
dom. And it shows, first of aU, the special manner in which
God proceeds in this caU. The presupposition of the house
holder's entire conduct was, that his chief thought in procuring
labourers was not so much the overtaking of as great an amount
of work as possible, as rather the persons of the labourers them
selves, that they might not stand idle, but find employment. So
also God's calling men to labour in His kingdom aims not so
much at what they are to do for God, as if He needed their
labour for His own sake, as rather at the persons of the caUed
themselves, that they may not miss the design of their existence
by idle inactivity, but may fulfil their destiny by labour in His
service. For this reason, as the householder goes forth anew
unweariedly to secure fresh labourers, so the divine call never
1 Isa. v. 1-7, xxvii. .2 ; Jer. xii. 10 ; Joel i. 7.
2 xxi. 28 and 33 ff. ; Luke xiii. 6 ff.

316 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
ceases to follow men, seeking as its aim to attract as many idlers
as possible, and if possible, all, for their own sake, to labour in
the kingdom of God. And as the householder engages every
labourer he finds, without distinction, no matter at what hour he
finds him, or what the amount of service he is able to render, so
the divine call goes forth to all without distinction, irrespective
of whether in the circumstances in which the call finds them
they are able to render more or less service. In this way, among
those who at the divine call enter upon labour in God's kingdom,
there arises the same great distinction which exists among the
labourers of the vineyard. Like those hired in the early mom,
who saw before them work lasting the whole twelve hours, and
had to bear all the burden and heat of the day, so some among
the labourers in God's kingdom are appointed to labour of the
greatest possible extent, and imposing the greatest possible hard
ship ; whereas others, like those hired at eventide, for the
comparatively slight work of one hour, are set to work of very
limited extent and apparently little hardship. And this distinc
tion between the first and the last has its ground merely in the
different calling, not in special merit in the first or special fault
in the last, as if the latter had obeyed the call to labour less
willingly than the former. That this is the case is intimated in
the narrative by " he saw others, found others" vv. 3 and 6, and is
also guarded against all misunderstanding by the special conver
sation between the householder and the last (vv. 6, 7).
In this way the inquiry as to the meaning of the hours when
the householder goes forth, and the particular classes of labourers
begin work, is already answered. As certainly as the earlier or
later hour of hiring in the narrative has no importance for its
own sake, but merely as the initial term conditioning the amount
of work, so certainly is this earlier or later merely the temporal
form in which are represented in pictorial figure the unwearied
and manifold character of the divine caU on the one hand, and
the consequent great diversity of service to which individuals are
called on the other. As matter of fact, every attempt to transfer
this temporal succession of the hours of the day into the inter
pretation proves unworkable. Those who see prefigured in them
the different periods in the history of redemption and the Church,
whether from the beginning of the Old-Testament period, or
from that of the New-Testament period,2 give a temporal inter-
1 So many older expositors. 2 Meyer, Lange.

THE LABOURERS IN THE VINEYARD. 317
pretation merely to the initial term of labour in the different
classes of labourers, not also, which ought of necessity to be done,
to the final term, and to the period of labour lying between both,
and determined by them in its duration. Thus, in order to be
able to expound the temporal form of the narrative on one
side, they leave out of account the thing itself on which every
thing in the narrative turns, namely, the relation of rank among
the labourers depending, not upon an earlier or later of time, but
upon a more or less of service. Against Meyer, who takes refuge
here in the supposition of the entry of the Parousia in the lifetime
of the present generation, what is said on Luke xvi. 9 should be
consulted. As to the other theory of older expositors, which
refers the different hours in the narrative to the different periods
in the life of the individual, from early youth to late age, it is
not reaUy true to the temporal form of the narrative, which it
seeks Ukewise to explain. In this way, indeed, the several hours
as the initial term of labour are placed in a relation to the twelfth
hour, as the final term, corresponding to the narrative, but only
by the unity of the day of labour with its termination — the
latter in the narrative the same for aU — being resolved into a
countless multiplicity of life-days. However natural, therefore,
in applying the thought of the parable may be an aUusion to the
empirical fact that some, called in early youth, devote the whole
of a long life to the labour of God's kingdom, whilst others,
called first in the late eventide of Ufe, are able to do scarcely
anything, stiU such an aUusion is only justified as a free adapta
tion of the far more comprehensive thought of the parable, and
ought not to claim to be an interpretation in the proper sense of
the periods into which the day of toil is divided.
It remains still to interpret the last essential trait in the first
part of the narrative — the promise of reward made when the
labourers are hired, which leads, then, to the question of the
significance of the denarius, generally esteemed the most difficult.
But here, too, the way to the correct interpretation is indicated
to us by the previous investigation. As the householder does
not send those hired in the early morn into the vineyard without
assuring to them the full day's pay agreed upon1 for the full
day's work, nor the other labourers, without promising them full
compensation for the amount of work assigned to them ; so, too,
God calls no one into His kingdom without the promise, that in
oi fiiTa, vut tpy., ver. 2.

318 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
the future kingdom of God he shall receive full recompense for
every sacrifice and hardship suffered in this life for God's sake.
Therefore, to those caUed to the greatest conceivable labour, a
reward is promised ensuring to them without doubt fuU recom
pense for the service they have to render ; and further, to every
one a degree of reward abundantly compensating him for the
amount of labour demanded of him. This interpretation exactly
corresponds to the figurative story itself, to the Lord's introduc
tory discourse, and in particular to the utterance, chap. xix. 29 : Kal
ira? 'ban? d(pyKev . . . eveKev rov bvopiaro? pov, TroXXairXaaiova
Xypyjrerai. The reward in the parable, and especiaUy the denarius,
is therefore not a recompense accruing to the labourer in God's
kingdom in this life,1 an interpretation utterly obliterating and
confusing the relation of the promise of reward, by which the
labourers are procured and for which the labour is done, to the
distribution of reward after and for the finished work. Nor can
the denarius be merely eternal Ufe in God's future kingdom
generally, since this is the same for all true labourers, and is
promised alike at the outset to them all without distinction;
whereas the denarius represents a particular degree of a reward,
which in itseU may be of higher or lower value, and which pre
cisely at this amount is only promised to the first in distinction
from the rest. Since, then, on the one hand we can only think
of a reward belonging to the future kingdom of God, and on the
other of a reward which is not from the first the same for all
having part in that kingdom, but may be adjudged to individuals
in different degrees, the reward in the narrative can only mean
the special reward of grace promised to every individual along
side and with the possession of eternal Ufe in the future kingdom ;
of God as a recompense for all sacrifices and hardships endured in
this Ufe for God's sake.2 And the denarius especially is the full
measure of the reward of grace, corresponding to the greatest and
severest conceivable day's work on the part of a labourer in God's
kingdom, just as the denarius is the ordinary full day's pay for a
full day's work on a man's part. It is also now made clear why,
in the case of the first labourers, express mention is made (avpfyav.
B. per. r. ipy.) of the self-evident circumstance, that the amount
of the pay is settled between the hirer and hired, not by a one-
1 Stier, Nebe.
2 Cf. the "treasure in heaven" promised to the rich youth by Jesus, and the
sitting on twelve thrones promised to the apostles, chap, xxvii. 21, 28.

THE LABOURERS IN THE VINEYARD. 319
sided arrangement, but by mutual agreement. The reason is,
that it was important for the thought of the parable, by express
acknowledgment on the part of the labourers, to certify beyond
question the amount promised to the first as the pay of a com
plete day's labour, — -not that the first labourers in God's kingdom
are meant to be pictured as speciaUy mercenary, an explanation
lacking any kind of support from the narrative, which speaks
everywhere of hired labourers only. If, therefore, in the sphere
of God's kingdom there can be no question, as in the figurative
story, of a legal claim on the basis of mutual agreement between
God and man respecting service and counter-service, but only of
a reward promised and reserved for man by God's free grace, and
only becoming an object of claim to man in so far as he trusts
unconditionaUy in that promise, this is just the aU-pervading,
because necessary and self-evident, distinction between the thing
symbolized and the relation used figuratively to set it forth.
From the earthly present, belonging to labour in God's king
dom, the second part of the narrative passes to that period in the
future when, labour being over, the reward of grace promised to
aU wiU be given to each one. For when the second part begins
with the account of the householder charging his steward at even
to call the labourers and pay them their hire, this is a definite
aUusion to the time when the Messiah, after the completion of
the earthly period of labour, shall, in God's name and at God's
command, assemble around Him the members of the kingdom,
and give each one his special reward in the future kingdom of
God. As concerns, first, the evening, from the fact that the
several hours in the narrative will not bear a temporal interpre
tation, it does not follow that the evening is merely " the form
for God's pronouncing judgment on the labour,"1 and cannot
denote the time for receiving the reward after labour is done.
Were it really so, there would be good reason to attempt a
temporal interpretation of the hours, or to despair of solving the
difficulty there, rather than give up the signification of the
evening which plainly forces itself on every unprejudiced hearer
and reader in view of the position of the evening as a boundary-
Une between the two parts of the narrative. But the inference
just referred to is by no means necessary. Eather the whole of
the day in the narrative, as the time of labour, forms of itself a
contrast to the evening as the time for receiving and enjoying
1 Nebe.

320 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
the reward. This contrast is independent of the contrast of the
several hours with each other, and consequently remains, even if
we are compeUed to think that the distinction of the hours, by
which the diverse length of labour is determined, cannot represent
a different time, but merely the different amount of the labour
falling to individuals in the great work-day of God's kingdom.
Again, as concerns the steward (iTrirpoTro?) in the parable, the
course of the narrative itself has thrown no light on the intro
duction of this person. Unless, therefore, his introduction in
this passage is to be explained as mere by-play, we must here
recognise an express allusion to the person of the Messiah, as He
who, in God's name, will give every one his reward, — a far-fetched
allusion indeed, if the evening has really no signification, hut
very natural if tbe evening coincides in the interpretation with
the setting up of the future kingdom of the Messiah. If, then,
we add the interpreting utterance of Jesus Himself (ver. 16),
referring back directly to vv. 9 and 1 0, the central teaching of
the parable, founding on the presuppositions given in what pre
cedes, fits into the course of the interpretation thus : When one
day the Messiah, after the present dispensation has come to an
end, shall do as the steward in the parable did in the evening,
when in the name, and at the command of God, He shall assemble
the members of the kingdom round Him, and give every one his
special reward, then (like the last labourers in the parable, who
received the full day's pay) they to whom the least amount of
labour was assigned in God's earthly kingdom shall not on this
account lose any of the reward of grace ; but, despite the seeming
insignificance of their services, shall receive a reward as rich and
great as if the greatest amount of labour had been assigned them
in this life. And, on the other hand (like the first labourers in
the parable, who also received the same pay), they to whom the
greatest amount of labour was really assigned in this life shall
not on this account be privileged in the matter of reward, but
will find themselves on an equality with those whose services on
earth stood at the farthest distance below theirs.
So far the interpretation has given no explanation of the
circumstance that the householder causes the distribution of the
pay to proceed from the last to the first. As Uttle as on the
ground of the narrative a real preference of one class and dis
paragement of another can be found in the mere succession of
the order of payment, so little Ought the interpretation to use

THE LABOURERS IN THE VINEYARD. 321
this arrangement of the householder to show that one class of
labourers in God's kingdom will be privileged and another suffer
loss at the future dispensing of reward. The real value of this
trait for the import of the parable corresponds exactly to the
significance it had within the figurative story, — it serves to pre
pare for and introduce the discussion concluding the whole. To
the purpose of the householder — by the peculiar order of suc
cession to bring sharply out what was strange and unusual hi
the amount of the pay, in order next to vindicate the justice of
his course against the natural objection of the first — corresponds
the purpose of Jesus Himself, as the author of the parable, to
direct the attention of His hearers, — the Twelve, — who might
justly class themselves with the first, to what was unusual in the
amount of the reward. By what is told of the reward of the
last, ver. 9, the same expectation is awakened in them that is
mentioned in ver. 10, namely, that they would receive more.
Then by what is told in ver. 106 they see that they are mis
taken in the impression that in the future rewards of God's
kingdom an injustice would be done to the first by a like course.
From this point of view it is unmistakeably clear what signifi
cance the conversation at the close of the parable between the
first labourers and the householder has for the import of the
parable. The meaning cannot be, that at the future dispensing
of rewards in the Messiah's kingdom a transaction corresponding
to this conversation will really take place between the members
of the kingdom belonging to the category of the first on one side,
and God on the other. As Uttle as in the parable of the Eich
Man the lengthy conversation at the close between Abraham and
the rich man1 can mean, that a Uke conversation will reaUy
take place in Hades between Abraham on one side, and the dead
represented by the rich man on the other ; or in the parable of
the Lost Son the closing conversation between the father and the
elder brother 2 can mean, that a like transaction wiU take -place
between the PharisaicaUy righteous, after the pattern of the elder
brother, on one side, and God on the other ; so little does the
conversation at the close of the present parable mean, that at the
future dispensing of the rewards of grace a transaction of this
kind will take place between God and the first. Eather, as the
conversations in those two parables are merely intended to point
out to the hearers the justice of the divine deaUngs with men in
1 Luke xvi. 24 ff. 9 Luke xv. 29 ff.
GOEBEL. X

322 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
the pictorial form of a fictitious discussion incorporated with the
narrative itself and clad in its figurative form, just so is it with
the concluding conversation here. After Jesus has in the narra
tive first depicted the strange divine proceeding in reference to
the amount of the reward, in the discussion appended He gives a
justification of the proceeding that strikingly refutes the suspicions
awakened. As concerns the protest of the first, vv. 11 and 12
it is not the figurative representation of a protest that will be
raised by the first labourers of God's kingdom at the time of
the future reward, — a point overlooked by aU expositors, who
insist against the correct reference of the reward in the parable
to the reward of grace in the future world, that such a protest on
the part of the beatified is inconceivable, — but, in making the
apparently injured labourers bring forward the objection naturally
called forth by the preceding distribution of pay, Jesus merely
brings out in expression, in the figurative form suppUed by the
narrative, the suspicion awakened by the divine proceeding. To
this suspicion He Himself purposely directed the attention of
His hearers by the mode of the foregoing description, and He
now hears it issue from their Ups. As the first labourers appeal
to the great distinction existing between the last and themselves
as respects labour, — there, the mere spending of one hour ; here,
bearing the burden and heat of the day, — and think they are
justified in concluding from this that an injustice would be done
them by placing the last on a level with them as respects
reward ; so it seems to foUow, from the great distinction existing
between the different labourers in God's kingdom, the greatest
conceivable amount of labour being assigned to the one, and a
quite trifling amount to the other, that an injustice wiU be done
the first if the last were made equal to them in the matter of
reward. But it is not so, the divine proceeding set forth in
w. 8—28 is thoroughly consistent with the divine justice. This
it is that Jesus states to His hearers in the answer with which
He makes the householder reply to the protest of the first ; and
solely in this statement to the hearers of the parable consists the
significance of the answer. The expositors who, persistently
mistaking the purpose of the final conversation, which has in
view simply the instruction of the hearers, find in the answer of
the householder an announcement to men of mercenary disposi
tion of their final condemnation and exclusion from the kingdom
of God, have against them also, apart from the groundlessness of

THE LABOURERS IN THE VINEYARD. 323
the notion of a mercenary disposition distinguishing the first from
the last labourers, the entire wording of the householder's reply.
That reply, whUe repelling the objection brought forward as
unfounded, by no means rejects the persons as of evil disposition,
but only at the close presses on their conscience the question,
whether, perhaps, the objection springs, not so much from
deficiency in understanding as from an envious (not mercenary)
disposition. And to this reply of the householder corresponds
exactly what Jesus wishes by it to suggest to the hearers of the
parable, from the meaning of which the objection (ver. 12) arose.
He shows them first, that in such an apportionment of the future
reward as was promised, vv. 9 and 10, as Uttle injustice is done
to the first labourers in God's kingdom as to the first labourers
in the parable. Not to the latter, because they had received
without curtaUment the day's pay for which they had been hired
with their own consent, ver. 13 ; not to the former, because the
amount of the reward, giving them fuU compensation for all the
toU and labour of their earthly work, is in no wise diminished
to them ; but the promise of such recompense, with which so to
speak they were hired for labour in God's kingdom, and in
prospect of which they toUed, shall be fulfiUed to them in every
case without curtaUment. But if no injustice is done them, there
is no sort of justification for objecting to what others receive. So
Jesus shows His hearers in the second place. In the summons
to the first, put into the householder's mouth, to be content with
the pay due to them by law, ver. 14a, Ues the summons of the
Lord to His hearers, belonging to the category of the first, to be
content with the righteous divine order set forth in the parable,
whatever others may receive. For — thus speak the householder's
further words, with which he appeals to his free right of dis
posal in matters of his own property, vv. 146 and 15 — even if
the wiU of God be so, to give to the last a Uke reward as the
first, every one must acquiesce in the divine wiU, provided God,
the Lord of all things, possesses the same right as a human
householder to deal with His own in sovereign freedom, and to
dispose of it according to His own wiU. If we only bear in
mind these two truths, — first, that at the dispensing of the future
reward of grace no one wiU really lose anything of what is
assured to him by God's promise as a recompense for his labour
in this Ufe; and secondly, that if by God's wiU others are
rewarded far beyond what seems due to them, according to their

324 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
position in this life, still no protest against this free gracious will
is admissible, — we shall willingly acquiesce in the law of reward
in God's kingdom set forth in the parable, even though we belong
to the class of the first. An unwiUingness to acquiesce would,
after all that has been said, only be conceivable if our discontent
were directed, not so much against the divine justice from lack of
knowledge, as rather against the goodness of God from defect of
disposition, looking at that goodness with envious eyes, because
grudging it to a brother. This it is that Jesus suggests to His
disciples in the householder's concluding question : " Is thine
eye evil, because I am good?" ver. 156. Whoever among
them, after the objection against the supposed injustice has been
so strikingly refuted, should not feel content with the divine
proceeding set forth, would betray an envious disposition against
the manifestation of divine goodness to a brother, a disposition
that ought never to appear among the members of God's king
dom. His business would then be, above all, to correct himself
in this point, and to take the path of repentance.

The Wicked Vinedressers.
(Matt. xxi. 33-44.)
In ver. 2 3 of the twenty-first chapter of Matthew we find Jesus
in the temple at Jerusalem, teaching the people gathered round
Him there. As the more precise statement of Mark1 shows, two
days had passed since His triumphal entry into Jerusalem. On
the previous day — the first after the entry — when Jesus purified
the temple, and healed the bUnd and lame brought to Him there,
the members of the Great Council present had taken offence at
His prophetic bearing and action, and especially at the " Hosanna
to the Son of David " of the chUdren, who children-Uke imitated
the cry of the people the day before (xxi. 12-17). And when.
Jesus on the following day teaches and continues His prophetic
work in the temple, according to ver. 23, the members of the
Sanhedrim2 come to Him with the question : " By what authority
1 Cf. Mark xi. 11, 15, .19, 27, according to which a night intervenes between
ver. 11 and ver. 12 of Matt. xxi.
2 " The high priests and elders of the people," namely, in official deputation.

the wicked vinedressers. 325
doest thou these things,1 and who gave thee this authority ? "
To this question Jesus repUes with the counter-question, whether
the baptism of John was from heaven or of men, vv. 24, 25.
For by their answer to this counter- question, by their believing
acknowledgment or unbelieving rejection of the divine mission of
His forerunner, they must needs show whether they are or are
not receptive to the testimony respecting His own divine mission.
And since the Sanhedrists, as they say to themselves, cannot
acknowledge the divine mission of the Baptist without contra
dicting their virtually unbeUeving attitude to his person, and on
the other hand dare not deny it for fear of the people, ver. 26,
and prefer in this dilemma answering the Lord's, preUminary
question with a "We know not," He also decUnes to answer
their question as to His own authority, ver. 27. And now,
after silencing those who wished to find fault with Him, Jesus
proceeds to find fault with them in such a way as to compel them
to pronounce judgment on themselves. He does this first by
means of the short parable, prefixed to the greater one, of the two
unlike sons of a father. To the summons of the father to go to
work in the vineyard, so Jesus tells them, the one son answered :
" I wiU not," but afterwards changed his mind, and went ; whereas
the other answered with an eager " I, I, Lord " (iyw Kvpie), but
really went not, vv. 28-30. To the question of Jesus: "Which
of these two did the will of his father ? " the Sanhedrists are
compeUed to reply : " The first." But thus they have pronounced
judgment on themselves. They have thus themselves said what
Jesus now ratifies with "Verily I say unto you," that the pubUcans
and harlots, because reaUy obedient, go before them into the vine
yard of God's kingdom, whUst they, because reaUy disobedient,
remain outside, ver. 31. For they hitherto had said " I, I," and
put on an appearance of zeal in obeying God's commands,
whilst the pubUcans and harlots had openly disclaimed
obedience to God's law. But when with the appearance of
John the time came really to render obedience and to meet
the approaching kingdom of God in the way of righteousness
pointed out by the Baptist (%Xd. 'Iw. iv bSw BiKaioavvy?),
they then hardened themselves in unbeUef against his divine
mission, and actuaUy refused obedience, nor were they moved to
repentance by the example of the publicans and harlots, who
1 txZtx, the plural, combines the present teaching with the purification and
healings of yesterday.

326 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
beUeved in the Baptist, and believing obeyed his call to repent
ance, ver. 32.
With the words : " Hear another parable," Jesus at once adds
a second parable, ver. 33 ff., found also in Mark (xii. 1 ff.) and
in Luke (xx. 9 ff.) ; in the two latter evangelists, however, in
immediate connection with the dialogue between Jesus and the
Sanhedrists having reference to the authority of Jesus and the
origin of John's baptism, without the short parable of the dis
similar sons intervening. StiU it is observable that Luke also
separates the parable of the Vinedressers from the dialogue by
the remark peculiar to him : " And He began to speak unto th
people (irpb? rbv Xabv) this parable," ver. 9. Here it is assumed
that the Sanhedrists also were present and were even primarily
addressed,1 as, on the other hand, in Matthew the presence of a
number of people also is assumed, in teaching whom Jesus was
interrupted by the deputation of the Great Council, and who
certainly had not become fewer during the transaction with the
latter.2 StiU Luke's introductory remark gives us the important
intimation, that in beginning to relate this parable Jesus
exchanged the tone of the special dialogue with the Sanhedrists
for that of a public address to the entire company of assembled
people. In expounding the text of the narrative we follow
primarily the account of Matthew, whUe constantly comparing
the other two evangelists.
The narrative begins : " There was a man3 a householder, who
planted a vineyard, and set a hedge about it " (for protection against
the beasts of the field), " and dug a winepress in 'it, and built a
tower " (irvpyov, a watch-house, with tower for a look-out, perhaps
also for the vinedressers to Uve in), thus carefully furnishing it
with every requisite. This description of the householder's
thoughtfulness in providing hedge, winepress, and tower, closely
resembling Isa. v. 2} is wanting in Luke. Mark, on the other
hand, has it in the same form, save that instead of Xyvb?, which
is the entire winepress-apparatus, he says viroXyviov (Sept. : irpo-
Xyviov), in more exact keeping with the wpvtjev, i.e. speciaUy the
winepress-trough dug ¦ in the ground, into which the expressed
juice runs from above. The relative sentence then proceeds : ical
i^kBoro6 avrov yewpyol?, Kal direSypyaev, i.e. " and handed it over
1 Cf. ver. 19. 2 Cf. w. 23, 26, 46. 3 Cf. on xviii. 23.
4 Sept., only the order is there somewhat different : Qpuypis, xipyos-, speXwoi.
6 Tischendorf reads U-&« ; cf. Buttmann, N. T. Gr. p. 41.

THE WICKED VINEDRESSERS. 327
to vinedressers, and took a journey." To the direSypyaev Luke
adds ypbvov? Uavov?, which, however, does not mean " a sufficient
time" in reference to the period necessary after establishing the
vineyard for bearing fruit,1 for the absence of the householder
extends beyond the time of fruit-bearing ; but, according to the
more general meaning of the word, "a considerable time."2 The
choice of the verb iKSiSwpi, ie. " to give something out of one's
power, out of one's hand," along with the contemporaneous
departure of the householder, shows us the independent position
assigned to the vinedressers as regards the vineyard. They are
not sent into the vineyard as mere hired labourers to do this or
that work, but the vineyard with aU belonging to it is given up
to them to cultivate and manage independently, of course with
the obligation to deliver to the owner in due time the fruits
belonging to him. Everything in the narrative turns on this
position of the vinedressers, in virtue of which they acquire
independent possession of the vineyard with aU its appliances,
and are responsible to the master for its produce. On the other
hand, it is idle to ask in what way they are to be paid by the
master, whether in money or in a portion of the fruits, or in what
other way, since this side of the relation between the householder
and the vinedressers remains quite out of sight.
From the time of the handing over of the vineyard, ver. 34
passes at once to the time of the vine harvest, when the fruits
should be delivered: bTe Be yyyiaev b Kaipb? twv Kaprrwv, direa-
reiXev tow? SovXov? avrov irpb? roii? yewpyoii? XaBelv roii? Kapiroii?
avrov. Instead of the protasis : " and when the season of the fruits
drew near" Mark (ver. 2) merely adds tg5 Kaipw, Luke (ver. 10)
merely Kaipw, to the verb a7reo-Tet\ei>, ie. " at the right season,"
here the season of the vine harvest. In the apodosis the second
avrov can only refer to the same as the first, namely, to the
householder as the subject of the sentence, not back to the vine
yard, which is not even mentioned in the protasis, therefore :
" he sent his servants to the vinedressers to receive the fruits belong
ing to him!' Instead of roii? k. avrov, Mark has : dirb r&v Kaprrwv
rov ap,ir., and Luke simUarly : dirb rod Kapirov rov dpnr. To
explain the preposition dirb used here we do not need the artificial
supposition of a contract, according to which the vinedressers had
merely to deUver a portion of the fruits as rent, the rest remain
ing theirs ;s but, since the fruit of a vineyard is neither exhausted
1 Stier. ' Cf. Luke viii. 27, xxiii. 8 ; Acts viii. 11, xiv. 3. 3 Meyer, Weiss.

328 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
in one year, nor the fruit of the same year comes to maturity at
one time, otto rwv k. or rov k. means simply : They are to receive
the fruit of the vineyard due at the time.
But the servants sent in this way for the fruits found an ill
reception at the hands of the vinedressers. Of this ver. 35 (in
Matthew) says further : "And the vinedressers took his servants, and
beat one, and killed another, and stoned another." Thus, so far
from giving them the fruits they came to demand in their master's
name, they repUed to their demand with hostile violence, which
rose from beating to killing, and from kilUng to brutal stoning.
It is here made plain, what ver. 34 did not put beyond doubt,
that direar. roii? SovX. avr. there did not mean so much the
sending of a body of servants who came to the vinedressers
together, as rather the sending of a series of servants coming one
after another to the vinedressers with the same orders. For it is
impossible to conceive that a body of servants who came together
were subjected by the vinedressers individuaUy to different
treatment, but only that in face of the servants coming one after
another, and naturally becoming more and more urgent in their
demands, their hostUity grew in passionateness and stirred them
to greater violence, such as is exhibited in the three cases cited
by way of example (not as if these were the only ones).
What wUl the householder do now, the mission of his servants
having had no other effect than to reveal the hostUity of the
vinedressers, hostility rising in aggravation, and not shrinking
from the worst outrages on the person of the servants ? This is
the question suggested at this point of the narrative to the
hearers, who expect the householder to inflict punishment on the
vinedressers. But, instead of doing this, with wonderful for
bearance he makes another attempt to recall the malcontents to
their duty by kindness, ver. 36 : "Again he sent other servants"
And to give greater emphasis to his demand on this second
mission, he sends this time irXeiova? twv irpwrwv. These words
are usually referred without more ado to a greater number of
servants, but without explaining how this is to be viewed. That
he this time sent a more numerous body of servants together than
the first time cannot be the meaning, because in ver. 34 not a
body, but a series of servants was spoken of. But even if a body
of servants were understood there and here, one does not see
how the householder could promise himself greater success from
sending a more numerous body, since, according to the context,

THE WICKED VINEDRESSERS. 329
there is no thought of wresting the fruits from the vinedressers
by superior force, but only of demanding them through messengers.
All that is left, if irXeiova? is to be understood of a " greater
number," is to suppose the sending of a second series of servants
longer than the first. But this is absurd. For if the result of
the first sending was no other than this, the longer the series of
servants the greater the defiance and the worse the violence of
the vinedressers, how could the householder expect to make an
impression by sending a second and longer series ? The case is
quite different as soon as the words : irXeiova? rwv irpwrwv, are
understood, not so much of the greater number, as of the higher
rank of those sent. That 7r\etW expresses in New-Testament
language not merely the greater number, but just as much also
the higher worth, grade, or rank (just so in Homer), is proved by
comparing passages Uke vi. 25, xii. 41 f. ; Mark xii. 33 ; Luke xi.
31 f., xii 23; Heb. in. 3, xi 4. The translation then is: "He
sent other servants higher than the first." In this way, and in
this way only, could the householder reaUy hope to receive the
fruits of the vineyard from the vinedressers, in the expectation
that they would not dare to show hostility to these messengers
as to the first. It is at once apparent how this second mission
in ver. 36 forms a fitting transition from the first to the third
and last one in ver. 37. The gradation ascends from lower to
higher servants, and then from the latter to the son of the house.
FinaUy, the foUowing statement : " And they did unto them in
Uke manner," now receives its true significance. For it is no
longer a mere quantitative, but a qualitative aggravation of the
crime of the vinedressers, that they attack these higher messengers
with Uke violence as the first. They thus do what the householder
himself had been unwilling to give them credit for.
In the two other evangeUsts the entire account of the sending
of the servants differs in not unimportant respects. Whereas
the second mission of higher servants mentioned by Matthew is
altogether wanting in them, the first mission in Matthew (ver. 34),
summed up in the generalizing : airiar. roii? BovXov? avrov, is
divided in Mark and Luke into a thrice sending, a single servant
each time. So Mark: Kal airiar. BovXov . . . Kal irdXiv airiar.
aXXov BovXov . . . koi aXXov airiar., vv. 2, 4, 5, and Luke : Kal
airiar. BovXov . . . Kal irpoakdero erepov irkp^ai . . . Kal irpoaedero
rpirov iriptyai, vv. 10, 11, 12. Thus the aggravation in the
outrageous conduct of the vinedressers, which Matthew only

330 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
exhibits in three servants singled out by way of example from
the entire series, takes place in Mark and Luke in relation
to three particular servants distinguished throughout. Mark
advances from mere dismissal with blows, which he has at the
first stage in common with Matthew,1 not at once like Matthew
to killing, but first merely to UI- treatment joined with special
insult,2 and first reaches simple killing (diriKreivav, ver. 5) at the
third stage ; whereas Luke, in essential agreement with Mark in
the first two stages,3 after the Ul-treatment joined with special
insult, advances merely to wounding even at the third stage
(rpavpariaavre? e^kBaXov, ver. 12). In the last - mentioned
evangeUst the entire account of the sending of the servants
finishes here, so that only three servants sent one after another
are spoken of, the generaUzing being left to the interpretation.
Mark, on the other hand, in adding to the account of the third
servant,4 ver. 5, the words : Kal iroXXoii? aXXov? oil? pev Skpovre?
ov? Be aTroKrkvvovre?,5 " and many others (they UI- treated like
wise), beating some, kiHing others," generalizes within the figura
tive story itself. By this generaUzing clause what was said
before of three individual servants acquires the character of three
examples merely, taken out of a multitude of like occurrences, to '
give a vivid picture of the growing criminaUty of the vinedressers.:
Thus the entire account in Mark finally yields exactly the same
meaning in this respect as that of Matthew respecting the first
sending. We return to the passage in Matthew, where the failure of the
second mission was spoken of. What wiU the householder do
after the vinedressers have done like violence to the higher
servants of the second mission ? This question, forcing itself on
the hearer before, recurs here with heightened intensity, so that
one scarcely expects to hear of anything but the punishment of
the vinedressers. But so far does the householder's forbearance
go, that even now he ventures on a third attempt, but of such a
kind that by its very nature it must be the last. The messenger
whom he now sends is of such dignity that the sending of a
greater one after him is inconceivable, ver. 3 7 : "But afterward
1 SOSipXt Xxi Xtf£0~TllXxt XEVOV, VGX. 3.
2 According to the correct reading, ver. 4 : IxtfxXx'wo-xt xxi ml/mo-xt, ie. since
xitpxXxiboi in this connection can only be a secondary form of xi$xxTC,u, "they beat
him on the head, and used him shamefully. "
3 iilpxtns \\xoriaT. xttit, ver. 10 ; ^llpxtTl; xxi xTifiatratTls l\xx. xtt., ver. 11.
4 xixutat xmxTutxt. 5 So according to the correct reading.

THE WICKED VINEDRESSERS. 331
he sent unto them his son, saying" (with himself), " They will reverence
my son." He hopes that reverence for him as the householder's
own son wiU prevent their refusing the fruits to him, and stiU
more laying hands on him. Mark speciaUy emphasizes the
personal sacrifice made by the householder in sending his son,
putting first the independent statement, ver. 6 : en eva elyev
vtbv dyairyrbv} i.e. either : " he yet had one only (whom he could
send), a beloved son,"2 or: "he yet Jiad an only son, a beloved one."
The latter usual acceptation is to be preferred, because the pre
fixing and isolation of the eva are explained by the importance
this idea of quality has for the foUowing statement, without our
needing actuaUy to separate it from the vibv. And now Mark
relates the mission itself : " he sent him last unto them, saying,"
etc. Thus him, his only son, to whom his heart's love clings, he
tears so to speak from his heart, and sends into the danger only
too probable despite the hope of the success of his mission.
FinaUy Luke, instead of the fact of his being sent, relates merely
the solUoquy, in which the householder takes counsel with himself
and decides to send his son, ver. 1 3 : "And the lord of the vine
yard said, What shall I do? I will send my son, my beloved one ;
it may be they will reverence him when they see Mm " (jiaw? rovrov
IBovre?). But instead of the impression hoped for, even the sending of
the son had no better success than that of the servants, ver. 38 :
"But the vinedressers, when they saw the son, said among them
selves,3 This is the heir, come, let us kill him and possess (aywpev)
his inheritance .'" The reading of the Bee. Kardaywpev, '"let us
take into possession," is a probable simplifying of the aywpiev,
which means in this connection : " After the heir is removed out
of the way, let us further possess his inheritance unhindered."
Thus they do not speak of obtaining something, not already in
their possession, but, after getting rid of the heir and his threaten
ing claims, they hope to possess as undisputed owners, and so far
for the first time -reaUy, the vineyard, which they had already
unjustly seized, but the possession of which is now seriously
threatened by the appearance of the heir. The same meaning is
to be accepted when in Mark (ver. 7), after arroKreivwpev avrov,
it is said : Kal ypwv earai y KXypovopia, and in Luke, ver. 14 :
1 So according to Tischendorf. 2 So Weiss.
3 h Ixvto's, here not "with themselves," but "among themselves." Cf. in Mark
*y»s ixurois, ver. 7, and in Luke : xpls aXXnXovs, ver. 14.

332 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
iva ypwv ykvyrai y kX., referring to the hope of the undisputed
and so far then for the first time real, possession of the vineyard
in the future. Instead, therefore, of reverencing the son of their
lord in this last messenger, his character as the rightful heir of
the property usurped by them the more excites their hostile
passion ; and for this reason, instead of giving him the fruits of
the vineyard which they refused to the servants, they enter into
a formal murderous plot against him, with the premeditated
purpose by killing the heir to secure the unopposed possession of
his inheritance. The assumption in this scheme, of course, is,
that the absent householder, who has been unseen so long, and
who let the whole series of his servants be abused and murdered
with impunity, will also leave this last deed unpunished, and
wiU not show himself. The way in which a long absent master,
who apparently leaves everything unpunished, is entirely ignored,
is really so much in keeping with the character of dishonest,
refractory servants, that even such a course supplies no ground
for the assertion made by Weiss, that in the circumstances of the
parable the vinedressers could not have hit upon the thought of
getting possession of the vineyard by murdering the heir. The
actual execution of the plot is then told in ver. 39: " And they
took Mm, and cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed hml\
The mention of the casting forth must not be taken here as a
mere graphic description of the act of kiUing, the easting forth
having no independent significance.1 One might perhaps say so,
if it were merely said: Kal eKBaXovre? avrov drreKreivav. But the
formal way in which the itjkBaXov, introduced by XaBbvre?, and
intensified by egw rov dp,TreXwvo?, appears independently before
and alongside the drreKreivav, emphasizes it as a special aggra
vating element in the conduct of the vinedressers, that they, the
usurpers, cast him, the heir, out of the vineyard, which was his
rightful property, so that he had to endure at their hands both the
violence of ejection from his property, and the atrocity of murder.
The same is to be understood in Luke, as the phrase : e|a> toi)
dpnr., there also proves, ver. 15. Nor is it otherwise in Mark,
where direKretvav avrov comes first, and then follows: Kai
egkBaXov airbv egw rov dpir., ver. 8. These words can indeed
only be understood of the casting forth of the man previously
killed. For that a Hysteronproteron occurs here,2 and direKretvav
eKBXydkvra is to be understood,3 is merely a violent inference
1 Meyer. 2 De Wette. 3 Stier.

THE WICKED VINEDRESSERS. 333
from the parallel passages, whereas no ground for or intimation
of such a thing is found in the passage itself. But it is not on
this account the casting forth of the corpse which the words
emphasize as a special aggravating element, in which case a
corresponding object would not be wanting to the igkBaXov ; but
by the action of casting out itself alongside, and this time after
the kUIing, the usurpers would notify that the heir has lost his
inheritance, and that henceforth they alone are masters in the
vineyard. And here, where the conflict between the householder and the
vinedressers has reached its climax, Jesus himself proposes the
question, to which the narrative has again and again led the
hearers, and which it has now raised to the highest pitch of
intensity, ver. 40 : orav oiv eXdy b Kvpto? rov dpireXwvo?, ri
iroiyaei rol? yewpyol? iKeivoi? ; When the householder comes
(contrary to the expectation of the vinedressers, who altogether
ignored him), what will he do to the vinedressers, who had even
killed his son ? This question Jesus expressly proposes to the
deputies of the Great Council, that they may answer it for them
selves, and by the only possible answer pronounce judgment on
themselves. And this answer they hasten to give, for the very
purpose of appearing like persons unconcerned, although, con
sidering the transparent connection of the parable with Isa. v.
1-6, its polemical reference to themselves could not altogether
escape them, ver. 41 : KaKoii? KaKw? diroXeaei avrov?, Kal rbv
dp/ireXwva iKSwaerai aXXoi? yewpyol?, o'inve? diroSwaovaiv avrw
roii? Kapirov? iv rol? xaipol? avrav. Two things, they say, are
certain. " As wicked people he will wickedly destroy them" or as
Meyer translates : " As wretched people he wUl wretchedly
destroy them." Thus, no mere chastisement, but a sentence of
destruction wiU the householder inflict on these vinedressers,
after they have replied to the extremest proof of forbearance with
the extremest outrage. And for the special KaKla of their
conduct he will inflict a sentence of special xaxia, of a speciaUy
bad, terrible kind. And as concerns the vineyard, which they
have had in possession, what the second sentence says is certain :
" And he will hand over 1 the vineyard to other vinedressers, who 2
will deliver to Aim the fruits in their3 seasons" at the yearly
1 ixSalriTxi, corresponding to the \%lSoto, ver. 33.
2 omns, quippe qui, i.e. here, they of whom it is to be expected, that they.
8 The seasons of the fruits ; cf. ver. 34 : o xxipis TZt xxyxut.

334 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
recurring seasons of fruit - ripening. For the householder's
position is not such that those vinedressers are indispensable to
him to the obtaining of fruit from his vineyard, but conversely
such that their supersession by other vinedressers has become
necessary for this end.
In the other two evangeUsts, also, the parable concludes here
in a manner not quite the same, but stiU similar. There also on
the basis of the parable, Jesus at this point proposes the question:
" What then will the Lord of the vineyard do ?" — upon which in
reply to this question the prediction follows : " He will come and
destroy the vinedressers, and give the vineyard to others."1 On the
other hand, the more precise characterization of the " other vine
dressers," as those who will render the fruits, is wanting in the
answer here. The question and answer also differ from the form
of the text in Matthew, in so far as there the householder's
coming is adopted into the question itself (orav ovv ekdy . . . rl
iroiyaei), whereas here it is simply asked ti iroiyaei, and the
coming then forms the first part of the answer : ekevaerai km
diroXeaei. But the strangest difference is this, that the question
proposed in Matthew to the Sanhedrists, and answered by them,
is here only put rhetoricaUy, the answer also being given by
Jesus Himself. But even this is merely a formal difference,
inasmuch as on one side the rhetorical question (in Mark and
Luke) is stUl an appeal to the assent of the hearers to the
statement introduced by the question; and, on the other, the
acceptance of the answer of the Sanhedrists by the Lord (in
Matthew) is equivalent in substance to a statement of His own
of the same purport. When, finaUy, Luke teUs of a deprecatory
exclamation uttered by the hearers of the parable after the con
cluding prediction of the Lord, ver. 16:" And when they heard
it, they said, Far be it " (jiy ykvoiro), these words cannot be con
ceived as spoken by the same persons who, according to Matthew,
put on an appearance of unconcern, and themselves uttered the
prediction. Which of these two accounts corresponds more
exactly to the actual occurrence, or whether (for which Luke,
ver. 9 : irpb? rbv Xabv, might be quoted) the speakers in Luke
are different persons, ie. not the deputies of the Great Council,
but some of the people, must remain uncertain, there being no
sufficient means for deciding the question. In any case, the
common element in the two accounts is, that the listeners gave
1 Cf. Mark xii. 9, and almost in quite similar terms Luke xx. 15, 16.

THE WICKED VINEDRESSERS. 335
some audible expression to their reluctance to apply the parable
to themselves. For the specious simpUcity with which the
Sanhedrists in Matthew take it upon them to utter the prediction
naturaUy resulting from the narrative is just as characteristic
an expression of such reluctance as the special deprecation " Far
be it" in Luke.
Jesus, then, on His part repUes again with the citation of a
passage of Scripture appended to the parable in aU three evan-
geUsts. Only in Matthew, however, does it lead on to an utter
ance interpreting the foregoing parable, whereas in Mark and
Luke no further reference to the parabolic narrative is found.
Here, therefore, the paraUels faU us. To the Sanhedrists, who
bear themselves as if they had nothing in common with the
vinedressers of the parable, Jesus replies with the question,
ver. 42 : " Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The stone wMch the
builders rejected, the same was made the head of the comer ? (el?
Ke(paXyv ywvia?). This1 was from Jehovah, and is marvellous
in our eyes." The passage 2 is cited literally from the Septuagint.
Even the airy, which does not stand HebraisticaUy for rovro,
but is referred in the Septuagint to #e<£. 'yaw., from an erroneous
conception of the rtKt used neutraUy in the Hebrew, is taken from
there. .The pith of the statement in the Psalms plainly is, that
the same stone, which the builders rejected as useless for the
building (therefore not a despicable stone in general, which is an
indefinite, inappropriate idea), has been made the corner-stone
(of the theocracy). And the enigma contained in this statement,
since the question at once arises, by whom the stone rejected by
the builders has been made the corner-stone, is then solved by
the sentence : DNf nnjn rviiT nsp, etc. But if so, then the buUders
cannot be explained as secondary persons without definite
reference, and can just as little be referred to the heathen, since
they cannot possibly be caUed " the buUders " in the theocratic
sense ; but the builders can only be Israel as the people of the
theocracy, caUed to be the buUders of the theocracy, or the
leaders of Israel, having this office in an eminent sense. Con
sequently, the stone itself cannot be the people of Israel, so that,
as often explained, the original meaning of the saying would
merely be, that from being a people rejected by the heathen, or a
despicable people generaUy, Israel was raised by God into being
the depository of the theocracy. But, as the buUders are the
1 allm, scil. h xi<p. ym. 2 Ps. cxviii. 22, 23.

336 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
people and its leaders, so the stone is an individual historic
person, an elect one of Jehovah, who, despite the contradiction
and resistance he encountered among the people of the theocracy
or from its leaders, has, nevertheless, by Jehovah's wonderful
guidance, come to a position in which the theocratic common
wealth rests essentially on his shoulders. Only this explanation
yields a clear meaning in exact correspondence with the words, a
meaning also which, since the person spoken of need not of
necessity be an IsraeUtish king, leaves sufficiently wide scope to
the difficult question of the time of composition and historical
circumstances of the Psalm. Just as clear also is the meaning
in which Jesus cites the passage. What is said in the Psalm of
the builders who rejected the stone made by Jehovah the corner
stone, this Jesus sees now coming into antitypical realization in
the hostUe plots of the leaders of Israel against the person of
Him who, as the Messiah of God, is the true corner-stone, the
new founder of God's kingdom upon earth. When Jesus, there
fore, in direct aUusion to the parable with the question : " Did
ye never read in the Scriptures?" etc., points the Sanhedrists to
this passage, the meaning of the question is this : Are they, —
students of Scripture, — just as if they had never read this well-
known passage in a Psalm acknowledged as Messianic among
them, blind to the obvious fact, that by their hostile plots against
Him, the Anointed of God, they themselves are about to initiate
the final fulfilment of that Scripture saying, seeing that they, the
called builders of the theocracy, reject the stone that is to he
made the corner-stone, or mutatis mutandis, seeing that they, the
vinedressers of the theocratic vineyard, lay hands on Him who is
the heir of the vineyard ?
We now see clearly the reference of the Sid rovro, with which
Jesus continues, ver. 43 : " Therefore" — namely, because you, just
as if you had never read this Scripture saying, are about to do to
me as the builders to the corner-stone, or the vinedressers to the
heir — "therefore say I to you:" on dpdyaerai d$' vpwv i\
BaaiXeia rov Qeov Kai Sodrjaerai edvei iroiovvn roii? Kapirov;
airy?. From the fact of " a nation bringing," etc., being opposed
to the " from you " here, it is evident that the address directed
primarUy to the Sanhedrists includes also the Jewish nation
legaUy under their direction, and actually following their
example, a circumstance which would present no difficulty even
if we did not know that before the Lord there was a multitude

THE WICKED VINEDRESSERS. 337
of people surrounding the deputies of the Great Council, and
that He had already given the whole parable the character of a
public address designed for all present (Luke xx. 9). The
meaning therefore is : Ye heads and representatives of the
Jewish nation, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and
given edvei iroiovvn K.r.X. The singular " nation " is only explained
when the emphasis is laid, not on this noun, but entirely on the
participial clause more precisely defining it. The reason of the
singular being used cannot be, that here the whole of heathen
dom is combined as a single nation in contrast with Israel,1
whereas the plural form " nations " elsewhere expresses the con
trast with Israel, — or that here all future participants in God's
kingdom in a spiritual sense are viewed as one nation,2 since the
future community of the kingdom of God is not in question, but
a nation already existing outside God's kingdom, to which here
after the kingdom of God will be given. The contrast then is not
between the Israel ¦' after the flesh " and that " after the spirit,"
but simply between the IsraeUtish and another nation. The state
ment made is quite general, to the effect that they to whom the
kingdom of God will be handed over wiU be a nation bringing
forth its 3 fruits. It is thus self-evident that after the rejection
of the unfruitful nation of Israel such a nation must be sought in
the sphere of the heathen world, and in so far they are right who
explain " nation " of the heathen. But the characterizing clause :
iroiovvn roii? Kapirov? avry?, upon which the entire emphasis Ues,
corresponds too plainly to the relative clause in ver. 41 : o'irive?
diroBwaovaiv avrw roii? Kapirov? (scil. rov dpir.), to allow it to
be understood otherwise than in agreement with the latter. The
participle iroiovvn, which simply characterizes, and is therefore
in the present tense, must be resolved as a future in correspond
ence with the diroBwaovaiv. And the fruits of God's kingdom
can here mean nothing else than the fruits of the vineyard in the
parable. The reference cannot be to the fruits requisite for
entering God's kingdom,4 or worthy of it,5 but only to those
aimed at in the planting of God's kingdom. Whilst in this way
the figurative idea of the fruits is preserved, the only difference
is that the delivering of the fruits, which is the primary question
in the narrative, is transformed in the interpreting utterance into
the bringing forth or obtaining of the fruits, from which it is
1 Weiss et al. 2 'UpxiiX xxtx imu/*x, Meyer.
3 The fruits of the kingdom of God. * Meyer. b Bleek.
COEBEL. Y

338 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
evident that in the sense of the author the deUvery or non
delivery of the fruits spoken of in the parable coincides in
reference to the thing symboUzed with the bringing forth or non-
bringing forth of the fruits themselves. Thus, the entire utter
ance aUudes directly to the prediction uttered perforce by the
Sanhedrists at the close of the narrative, Jesus teUing them that
they have now for the second time (ver. 31) pronounced judgment
on themselves. What you yourselves foretold of the vinedressers
— so He announces to them — wUl happen to you. The kingdom
of God wiU be taken from you as the vinedressers hitherto, and
handed over, as you have said, to other vinedressers, who will
render the fruits, therefore to a people that wiU bring forth the
fruits of God's kingdom.
So far the Lord has only confirmed the removal of the vine
dressers from their position in the vineyard, not the ensuing
sentence of destruction which the Sanhedrists also rightly fore
told. Jesus now confirms their own prediction on this point in
the utterance 1 alluding in its figurative form to the passage in
the Psalms quoted (Ps. cxviU. 22, 23), and coupling the latter
with other passages like Isa. vni. 14, 15; Dan. ii. 34, 35:
"And he that falls on2 this stone8 shall be dashed to pieces* (on
it); but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust,"1'
ver. 44. Therefore a hostUe coUision with this stone — either by
stumbling against and faUing on it as it Ues in the way, or by
putting oneself in the way of its descent and the stone thus
faUing on him — must in every case prove fatal to him who
engages in such a conflict. Or apart from figure : Hostility to
the Messiah, who is the corner-stone of God's kingdom, brings
certain destruction. He that runs hostUely against Him, because
anxious to have Him out of the way, wiU be dashed to pieces on
Him, as on a stone lying in the way which one stumbles and
faUs against ; and him that places himself hostUely in His way
to delay His victorious Messianic march, He wiU scatter as dust,
like a stone rolling down from a height, and crushing eveiything
in its way. This is the only natural sense of the twofold utter
ance, compared with which the exposition, that would find in the
two quite paraUel future clauses the distinction between a pre-
1 Its genuineness in Matthew is certified by the weight of the external testimonies.
2 KTot " over ;" cf. the tip' ot in the second clause.
3 The one made the corner-stone by Jehovah, according to ver. 42.
4 o-mSxxHnaiTxi. 5 Xixpritru, properly "to winnow."

THE WICKED VINEDRESSERS. 339
liminary and the final judgment, seems an artificial importation.
But the very obvious appUcation of the general figurative
utterance to themselves, the builders rejecting the stone, is left
to the hearers.
Consequently the words of Jesus subjoined to the parable
refer exclusively, partly by way of confirmation, partly also by
way of interpretation, to the prediction of ver. 41 that formed
the conclusion of the parabohc story in reply to the question of
ver. 40. But everything in the parable was arranged from the
first with a view to this question (what the householder wiU do
to the vinedressers), and the prediction replying to it. Even in
the account of the first revolt of the vinedressers against the
messengers the question forced itself on the hearers. And when
in the further course of the narrative it found its preliminary
answer in the account of the forbearance of the householder, who,
instead of proceeding to the weU-merited punishment, made new
attempts to recall the rebels to their duty by kindness, it must
have recurred with heightened intensity at every stage, untU,
where the last and greatest attempt is made by the householder
sending his son, and the last and greatest outrage is committed
by the vinedressers kiUing the son, it was expressly proposed,
and now, as the Sanhedrists themselves were forced to confess,
could find but one answer, the one given in the concluding
prediction of ver. 41. Accordingly, the single purpose of the
whole narrative is to foreannounce to the hearers the same fact
of the future that is figuratively expressed in this prediction,
and is then repeated in w. 43, 44, without figure, or under
another figure, and to foreannounce it as the only possible
conclusion of the history of Israel figuratively set forth in the
narrative. What Jesus says in the parable fits into the
preceding context of His discourse thus : After reducing to
sUence the deputies of the Great Council, who came to ask Him
as to His authority, by proposing the question as to the mission
of the Baptist, which they could not answer because of their
unbeUef in the Baptist, He proceeded to find fault with them.
He does this first in reference to their unbeUef in the Baptist.
The parable of the two unlike sons and its appUcation, convicted
them of malting in John's days an outward show of- zeal in
fulfilling the divine wiU, while reaUy resisting that wiU in
unbelief. And when He then passes from the tone of the
special dialogue to that of a pubUc address to them as the

340 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
representatives of Israel, and tells the parable of the Wicked
Vinedressers with the final question, in which it terminates, and
the prediction that is its only possible conclusion according to
their own confession, His intention is to show, what must needs
be the inevitable issue of their present confirmed obduracy in
unbelief and enmity against the person of the Messiah after a
history in the past marked by constantly repeated rebellion against
earlier divine messengers. The issue can only be tliat the long-
merited divine judgment will actually burst upon them, and th
kingdom of God will pass from them to other nations. In this
behalf He first characterizes in the course of the narrative the
crime which they are about to perpetrate, in its connection with
what they and their fathers did to earlier messengers of God, as
a work of such obduracy in hatred to God as to cut off the last
hope of repentance, in order on this basis to announce to them
what, as they themselves concede, must follow hereupon, namely,
the judgment of God bringing rejection and destruction upon
them. In proceeding to interpret the course of the narrative in
detail, there meets us again the image of the vineyard for the
kingdom of God, here in definite aUusion to the Old Testament
passage, Isa. v. 1 ff., as is clearly shown by the enumeration of
the several appUances reminding of that passage, with the ,
difference, however, that there the theocracy is depicted merely in
its then concrete historical form, in which it was one with the
theocratically constituted nation, and so the vineyard is Israel
itself, whereas here a distinction is drawn between the theocracy
as a divine institution and those to whom it is entrusted, so that
they are its temporary incumbents. Thus the vineyard is simply
the theocracy as an institution, not the theocratic nation itself.1
As, then, a householder planted a vineyard and furnished it with
everything necessary to its bearing produce, with hedge, wine
press, and tower, so God founded a divine state upon earth, and
endowed it with all the particular institutions adapted to subserve
the realization of the end of such a theocratic institution. Thus,
hedge, winepress, and tower, as the things necessary to the
perfect equipment of a vineyard, represent pictoriaUy the
particular theocratic institutions of the Old Covenant, which make
the entire system of the theocracy correspond in every respect to
its end. But it is arbitrary to explain hedge, winepress, and
1 Cf. the interpretation of the parable of the Fig-Tree, p. 165.

THE WICKED VINEDRESSERS. 341
tower independently, e.g. the hedge = the law or circumcision,
the winepress = the altar or the teaching office, the tower = the
temple or royalty.1 And as the householder entrusted the
vineyard, to which he had done aU he could, to vinedressers, the
latter as the authorized managers of his vineyard being responsible
to him for its produce, so God entrusted the institution of the
theocracy to the Israelites, so that as its divinely chosen
incumbents and administrators they are responsible to God for
reaUzing its design in historical life. The usual but erroneous
reference of the vinedressers merely to the heads and leaders of
the Jewish nation in distinction from the nation itself is based
on the circumstance, that according to Matthew and Mark the
parable seems addressed exclusively to the deputies of the Great
Council. But we know already from ver. 43 compared with
Luke xx. 9 that the latter are addressed by the Lord in a public
discourse designed also for the multitude present, and addressed
as the representatives standing before Him of the entire Jewish
nation. Moreover, if the vinedressers were exclusively the
leaders of the nation, the vineyard itself must necessarily be the
nation under their guidance,2 in plain opposition to ver. 43,
where the vineyard is referred by Jesus Himself to the kingdom
of God passing from one nation to another, and in opposition to
the appUcation elsewhere of the image of the vineyard on the lips
of Jesus, which is always the kingdom of God in itself, and nowhere
the theocratic nation of the Old Covenant.3 Nor would it be at
all possible to refer merely to the leaders of the nation addressed.
We should have to obtain the counterpart of the vinedressers by
combining the then leaders with all former leaders of the nation
in every past century into the unity of a moral person, which is
impracticable, because there is no such continuity between the
present members of the Sanhedrim and all former spiritual or
secular leaders of Israel as would allow whatever was done by
the latter to be represented as done by the former. Only Israel
in its national unity, with its national guUt growing from one
epoch to another, furnishes a suitable counterpart to the vine
dressers of the parable adding guUt to guilt. When it is said
further that the householder took a journey, and that a consider
able time (Luke), this also is a feature influencing the sequel, and
1 So older expositors. Recently also Lange,
2 So Godet, Klostermann logically.
3 Cf. vv. 28-31, xx. 1 ff. ; Luke xiii. 6.

342 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
requiring at all events a definite interpretation. This can only
be meant to symbolize that after God on the institution of Israel
had made known His presence to the people of the theocracy by
extraordinary revelations of power (the miracles of the exodus,
the law-giving, and the bringing into Canaan), He withdrew
into expectant passivity, leaving room for the spontaneous moral
development of the nation on the soil of the theocracy and under
the influence of its institutions. This period of the divine
passivity, whose long duration is specially marked in Luke,
reaches not merely to the sending of the first prophets,1 nor
describes merely the period of the Old Covenant,2 but must just
as certainly embrace also the period of Christ's appearance in
Israel as the period of the householder's absence in the parable
includes the period of the sending of the son. This period is
brought to an end, not by a revelation of grace, but by a
revelation of divine power, which forms such a crisis in the
national history of Israel, that it answers as a counterpart to the
deeds of divine power constituting the beginning of its history.
Within this period God has done as the householder did
within the period of his absence. As the latter, when the time
of fruit came, sent his servants one after another to require the
fruit from the vinedressers, so at the times when it might justly
have been expected that, by faithfully using the theocratic
institutions committed to it, Israel would have succeeded in
bringing its life into harmony with these institutions and the
divine wiU expressed in them, God sent His servants, the
prophets, to them one after another to demand from them the
fruit of penitence and righteousness, ver. 34. But it then fared
with the prophets of God at the hands of the children of Israel as
with the servants of the householder at the hands of the vine
dressers. Not only did they harden themselves in impenitence
against their prophetic monitions and demands, and refuse the
fruits of righteousness demanded, but rose in hostUity against the
troublesome monitors, and attacked them, ill-treating them, even
killing and barbarously murdering them, ver. 35. The figurative
story made no aUusion to the question, whether the vinedressers
refused the fruit because they had not obtained it, or because
they wished to keep it for themselves. As much was said as
served for a point of comparison, namely, that instead of
rendering to the servants of their lord what the latter had a
1 Stier. 2 Keil.

THE WICKED VINEDRESSERS. 343
right to demand, they attacked them. It is a separate matter,
merely involved in the nature of the relation symbolized, that
here disobedience to the prophetic monitions and demands is
synonymous with the absence of the fruits themselves. For the
bodily ill-treatment of the prophets, the example of Jeremiah may
be compared,1 and of Micah ; 2 for the killing, the murder of the
prophets in the time of Elijah,3 and of Urijah by Jehoiakim;4
and for the stoning, the example of Zechariah.6 Certainly these
definitely attested examples of kilUng are but few, but at the
same time the kiUing of the prophets coUectively is mentioned
in the Old Testament as a fact,6 and is confirmed by Jewish
tradition as a frequently repeated fact ; for example, Isaiah is said
to have been sawn with a sword, Jeremiah stoned, Amos beaten
to death with a club, the exactness, however, of these details
being uncertain. Jesus refers to this fact in general terms also
in xxiii. 31, 35, 37 ; cf. Acts vii. 52 ; Heb. xi. 35, 37. It is
obvious that the accounts of Mark and Luke, in relating differently
from Matthew a threefold sending of single servants, do not
require a definite reference to individual prophets. In Mark
this is evident from the generalizing clause : " and many others,"
etc., within the figurative story itself, and in Luke from the
circumstance that the three single servants are not distinguished
from each other by any marks. The individual cases are merely
distinguished by the aggravation in the revolt from case to case,
which suggests in the interpretation the same general thought as
in Matthew.But more than a general interpretation is required in the
latter evangeUst, when before passing to relate the mission of
the son he places a second mission of servants beside the one
first mentioned, ver. 36. For here these servants of the second
mission are definitely distinguished from those of the first by
the phrase : irXeiova? r&v irpwrav, whereas, on the other hand,
the conduct of the vinedressers in this case is emphatically
described as the same as in the first case : Kal iirolyaav avroi?
waavrw?, the aggravation of guUt consisting in the fact
that their conduct remains the same also to irXeiova? tow
irpwrwv. The latter words, distinguishing the second mission
from the first, require therefore, a definite interpretation, so that
1 Jer. xx. 1, 2, xxxvii. 15, xxxviii. 6. s 1 Kings xxii. 24.
8 1 Kings xviii. 4, xix. 10. * Jer. xxvi. 20-23.
• 2 Chron. xxiv. 21, 22. 6 Jer. ii. 30 ; Neh. ix. 26.

344 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
according to Matthew two periods of prophetic mission must in
the interpretation be placed before the mission of the son. If
irXeiova? be erroneously understood of a greater number, this
twofold prophetic period fails to present itself in the sphere of
sacred history. For to distinguish between Elijah, EUsha, and
their contemporaries as the first body, and Isaiah, Jeremiah, and
the other prophets under the later kings as the second,1 is an
inadequate makeshift, since these two periods are neither dis
tinguished in the Old Testament history by specific characteristics,
nor in particular by a surprisingly large number of prophets in
the second period,2 nor, finaUy, do the two together comprise the
entire history of prophecy. If, on the other hand, the irXeiova?
rwv irpwrwv be rightly understood of higher rank, the mission of
John the Baptist at once presents itself as the one standing
midway between the mission of the prophets and that of the
Son in exact correspondence with the course of the figurative
story. The characteristic of the period including the appearance
of the Baptist would then be the higher rank distinguishing the
messenger of his period. It is evident what a weighty argument
for this view is found in the circumstance that in another passage,
where Jesus had occasion to speak at length of the person of the
Baptist,3 He not merely sets his appearance as that of EUjah, who
was to come, over against the whole prophecy of the Old Covenant,4
but also describes him emphaticaUy as he who is " much more than
a prophet,'5 so that among those born of women a greater than he
has not arisen." 6 Moreover, in the conversation of Jesus with
the deputies of the Great Council preceding the parable, express
mention was made of the Baptist ; and in the smaUer parable
immediately preceding this one and its application, Jesus
directly rebuked them for their unbelieving conduct to John.
In the second parable, then, meant to set forth what they are
about to do to the Messiah in its connection with all that
they and their fathers did to earlier messengers of God, how
could another allusion be wanting to the Baptist and to the
reception which he met with from them ? Over against all
this stands merely the difficulty which the plural "' other
servants " seems to present in the narrative. But this difficulty
is only apparent. For in the figurative history this plural was
1 Stier, Thiersch.
2 The prophetic schools in the time of Elijah should be remembered.
5 xi. 7-14. * xi. 13, 14. » xi. 9. « xi. 11.

THE WICKED VINEDRESSERS. 345
suggested by the relation chosen as a means of representation.
The relation there could only be from lower to higher servants,
and thence to the son of the house, who as such stands alone in
his kind over against aU servants, whether lower or higher. The
circumstance, therefore, that in the actual history the second
stage is only represented by one person can so little diminish
the appropriateness of the representation, that, on the contrary,
the interposing of a singular at the second stage would have
awkwardly lessened the gulf actually existing in the history
symboUzed between the second stage, which, because still a
mission of servants, coincides with the first, and the third, which,
as the mission of the only son, stands in contrast with both.
But as the vinedressers treated the higher servants no better
than they treated those first sent, so the people of the theocracy
treated him, who represented the higher servants on the soil of
sacred history, although a prophet and more than a prophet,
no better than they treated the earlier prophets. This is the
statement of ver. 36. And Jesus is able to say this, because
not merely the essentiaUy unbelieving attitude which the leaders
took to John, but also the impenitent attitude taken by the
people under the dominion of Pharisaism, while outwardly
acknowledging his prophetic dignity (ver. 26), made it possible
for the worldly ruler in Israel to bring the Baptist to a cruel
end, whereas the really more profound movement called forth
by his appearance remained limited to the classes of people
shut out of the theocratic community (ver. 32).
But even this fate, inflicted by the hardened impenitence of
Israel on the greatest of the prophets, was unable to exhaust the
riches of God's patience with His people. As the householder,
in order to recaU the rebeUious vinedressers to their duty, makes
the last conceivable attempt in sending his son, only and
beloved,1 saying, They will reverence my son, ver. 37, so God
did to His people. His Son, standing to Him not, like all the
prophets inclusive of John, in a servant-relation, but in that of
son to father, the only one, beside whom He has none like Him,
beloved, incomparably dear to His divine father-heart, — Him He
tore from His bosom and sent among the disobedient children of
His people, in the expectation that they will reverence His Son,
and yield Him the obedience of penitence, which they refused to
the servants of God preceding Him. That the self-designation of
1 Mark xii 6.

346 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
Jesus as Son of God here expresses more than merely the unique
relation to God belonging to Him in virtue of His Messianic
caUing, appears less plainly from the text of Matthew and Luke,
but unmistakeably from that of Mark. For whereas in Matthew
and Luke the character of son is only mentioned in immediate
connection with the mission itself, so that in the interpretation
it might be referred merely to a position as son given him in
and with the mission, just as must necessarUy be done at the
second stage in Matthew with the higher rank of the servants,
in Mark the relation between father and son is expressly referred
to as existing by itself independently of the mission, with
unmistakeable aUusion to the sacrifice made by the householder
in parting with his only beloved son and exposing him to the
violence of the rebeUious vinedressers. The interpretation
therefore must trace back the designation of Son to a relation
between Father and Son independent of the Messianic mission,
and describe the sending of the Son as a self-sacrificing act of
the Father in parting with the Beloved, and giving Him up to
the violence of a disobedient people.
The representation of the parable has now reached a point
where it causes the figure to mirror, no longer past, but present
events. For, in describing the plotting of the vinedressers on
the appearance of the heir, ver. 38, Jesus discloses the plots
against His person with which the rulers of Israel have long
been busy, and are especiaUy busy now, describing both their
contents and motive. As the vinedressers feel themselves
seriously threatened by the appearance of the heir in the usurped
possession of the vineyard, so they by the appearance of the
Messiah, as the Lord and heir of the theocracy, in their selfish
employment of the theocratic commonwealth as if it were a
possession of their own, meant only to serve their own selfish
ends. And therefore like the vinedressers, who plan the murder
of the heir in order to possess his inheritance without hindrance,
so they are busy with the plan of kUling the heir of the theocracy,
in order to be able to lord it as they please in the theocratic
commonwealth as its undisputed lords and possessors. As in the
case of the vinedressers the ground of this calculation is the
ignoring of the householder encouraged by his long absence, so
in the case of the leaders of Israel it is the disbeUef in God's
intervention fostered by His long withdrawal. But while
certainly it is merely the leaders whose plans are figuratively

THE WICKED VINEDRESSERS. 347
represented by the plot of the vinedressers against the heir, this
by no means involves a contradiction with the reference of the
vinedressers to the whole of Israel as the people of the theocracy.
The thoughts and plans guiding a nation in its action proceed, of
course, from its heads and rulers. The national soul, where it is
pictured as consciously thinking and scheming, is one and the
same with the guiding personages, whose plans control the action
of the nation. Only in case of an intestine conflict between the
rulers whose are the guiding thoughts, and the people whose is
the physical power, the latter opposing instead of following their
plans, could it be inadmissible to identify, as is done here, the
persons of the present rulers with the nation. But it is not so
in the present case, as Jesus sees and knows only, too well despite
the fleeting enthusiasm of the crowd on the day of His entry.1
He knows that as the vinedressers at once translated their plans
into act, casting forth the heir from the vineyard and kUling him
(ver. 39), so the people wiU convert the plans and decisions of
its leaders into fact, and cast Him out of the theocratic common
wealth, of which He is Lord by divine and human right, and
wiU kUl Him. That the act of casting forth out of the vineyard
and that of killing are meant to be speciaUy indicated, the
exposition of the narrative has shown, and also that the inversion
of these acts in Mark yields the same meaning. The prediction
here impUed of the exclusion of Jesus from the theocratic
community, with His handing over to the heathen as an outcast,
was fulfiUed in fact. And symbolical of this fact again was the
external occurrence of His being led out of Jerusalem the city of
God, and His suffering and dying " without the gate " (Heb.
xhi. 12). But it does not follow from this that there is an
intentional aUusion to this latter external occurrence in the
words of the present passage,2 a view with which the inversion
of the two acts in Mark would not agree.
What, then, wUl God do to the children of Israel, when to all
the guilt they have incurred by rebelUon against former divine
messengers they have added the guUt of murdering the Son of
God, thus rendering futUe the last conceivable attempt to recaU
them to obedience ? This is the meaning, clad in figurative
form, of the question of Jesus in all three evangelists as to the
course the householder wiU take against the vinedressers. If to
this question, as the leaders present are obliged themselves to
1 Cf. Luke xix. 41, 42. 2 Stier, Olshausen.

348 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
aUow, either explicitly (Matthew) or implicitly (Mark and Luke),
there is but one answer, namely, that the householder will come
and destroy the vinedressers, and give the vineyard to others
who will render its fruits, the fate that must inevitably overtake
Israel after the murder of the Son of God is given in the same
answer. The God, who in His infinite long-suffering has hitherto
spared the disobedient people, wiU and must come forth from
His retirement, visit the nation with outstretched hand, and
destroy it, ie. destroy the people in their national existence.
But the kingdom of God, whose possessor Israel has hitherto
been upon earth, He wiU hand over to another people, namely, to
one as to which He may expect that it wUl render what it is
able and bound to do as possessor of God's kingdom — the
obedience of penitence and the works of righteousness. On this
interpretation the figurative " other vinedressers " (ver. 41) is left
in its generality. If the vinedressers are the people of Israel,
the " other vinedressers " are any other people, and therefore the
heathen, but not the heathen in their entirety. Thus the correct
interpretation agrees in aU points exactly with the utterance
of Jesus Himself correctly interpreted : " and shall be given to
a nation," etc.1 Here, then, is a prophecy of a new period of
development, opening with the judgment upon Israel, in whieh
in place of rejected Israel the heathen shaU be the possessors of
God's kingdom, a prophecy as definite as the one in the parable
of the Great Banquet, Luke xiv. 16 ff.2 But then it is self-
evident that the divine coming, which puts an end to the previous
withdrawal of God, as the householder's coming in the parable
does to his previous absence, is not His coming to judgment at
the end of the present dispensation, but merely a coming of God
to Israel within the present course of history, and indeed in
the immediate future, an intervention of God's mighty hand
destroying the national existence of the people, such as was
realized in history at the destruction of Jerusalem.

The entire section, beginning in ver. 23 with the question
put by the deputies of the Great Council, and relating the
transactions following upon the question, is now concluded by
1 Cf. on ver. 43.
2 On this point and on the relation to the parable of the Fig- Tree, see the
interpretation of the parable of the Banquet, p. 189.

THE ROTAL MARRIAGE-FEAST. 349
the observation in vv. 45, 46. These two verses rightly under
stood state : " And when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His
parables, they perceived that He spake of them.1 And although
intending to arrest Jesus '' — i.e. they had come and put the
question with this intention — " they feared the people} because they
took Him for a prophet," so that out of fear they desisted at
present from their real intention to arrest Jesus. After Jesus
had so plainly described (ver. 38) to the people the plot they
had in their mind, they thought it better not to make the
attempt to put the plot into execution just then, from fear of
seeming to the people to be murderers of a prophet. Thus the
entire construction points from the first to the " feared the mul
titudes " as the chief statement, even the clauses of ver. 45 having
logicaUy the position merely of protases to this last statement.
The meaning is not, that they had wished to seize Jesus from
disgust at what they heard, but refrained from fear of the people ;
but, that under the impression of what they had heard they who
really desired to arrest Jesus were afraid to carry their plot into
effect at present on account of the people. Consequently, when
Mark and Luke prefix3 the statement that the Sanhedrists had
wished to seize Him, but feared the people, and then assign a
reason for their fear : " For they perceived that He had spoken
the parable in reference to them," they do not give a different
meaning from Matthew, but only express the same meaning
more plainly.

The Eoyal Marriage-Feast.
(Malt. xxii. 1-14.)
The statement made in xxi. 45, 46 respecting the effect of the
parable uttered by Jesus on the hearers, seems to imply that the
conversation with the deputies of the Great Council begun in
ver. 23 has come to an end. The two other evangelists also in
the parallel passages proceed at once to describe a new conversa
tion arising from a different occasion.* On the other hand,
Matthew, before commencing the account of this new conversation
and its special occasion, inserts here a further parable with the
1 In ver. 30, and especially in ver. 38.
2 With the fear of an evil conscience especially aroused by ver. 38.
3 Mark xii. 12 ; Luke xx. 19. * Mark xii. 13 ff.; Lukexx. 20 ff.

350 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
words, xxii. 1 : Kal diroKpidei? o 'Iyaov? irdXiv eiirev ev irapa-
BoXal? avroi? Xiywv. In these words two things are clear : first,
that irdXiv can only be referred to the foregoing parables,
chap, xxi, and avroi? only to oi dpyiepel? Kal oi $apiaatoi in
xxi. 45 ; and secondly, that nevertheless diroKpidei? here cannot
mean an answer in immediate continuation of the foregoing
conversation, since in xxi. 45, 46 there is no mention of any
words of an opposite party to which what foUows could be an
answer. Only their conduct was described. Consequently
diroKpidei? here, as e.g. xi. 25,1 is used in a broader sense: To
begin to speak on occasion given, the following discourse being
like an answer to the occasion in question. But then nothing
compels us to suppose that the evangelist regards the following
parable as delivered immediately after the preceding one,2 a
supposition inconsistent with the concluding formula in xxi. 45, 46.
It is only said that on occasion of the plots of the rulers against
His person Jesus once more (irdXiv) spoke to them parabohcally,3
the parable being thus placed in the same time as the preceding
one in a general sense, namely, in the first days of the Passion
week, when the rulers assailed the person of Jesus without
venturing actuaUy to lay hands on Him — but not exactly in the
same hour. Thus the evangelist's introductory words respecting
the situation of the following parable give only the general
intimation, that it was simUar to the one described in the second
part of chap. xxi. : Jesus in the first days of the Passion week
in presence of the rulers planning His arrest, a group of Usteners
which can just as little be wanting here as in the conversation
related in chap, xxi, and again as a standing circle of hearers the
Twelve, whom we always find accompanying Jesus at this time.
In any case, if it should turn out that the contents of the parable
are not directed exclusively against the hostUe disposition of the
rulers, but apply also to the listening of the adherents of Jesus,
there would be nothing in this incompatible with the introductory
words expressed in such general terms, and saying nothing about
the special nature of the occasion of this parable.
The narrative begins, ver. 2 : " The kingdom of heaven has
become like i a man,6 a king, who made a marriage for his son."
1 Cf. Meyer here. 2 So still Meyer, Nebe. 3 It vxpxfSoXxTs, plural of category.
4 iipoiufa, the epoch has already begun- its course, which the following parable
exhibits and describes in its consequences. Cf. on xiii. 24.
5 Cf. on xviii. 23.

THE ROYAL MARRIAGE-FEAST. 351
When it is here said of a king : irrolyaev ydpov? toj viw avrov,
we can only understand ydpioi1 in the original and ordinary
signification " marriage," the king's son being regarded as the
bridegroom, in whose honour the feast is prepared — not in the
supposed more general signification " banquet." For if merely
a banquet in general were meant, why mention the king's son,
for whom the royal father makes the banquet ? We shaU then
arrive at a banquet to celebrate the handing over of the kingdom
(Kuinoel), and substitute for the marriage-feast another feast just
as special, but altogether foreign to the original signification of
the word ydpo?. Therefore, even if the circumstance of the
Septuagint often translating nntpp (epulum) by ydpo?2 supplied
proof of the more general signification alleged, this meaning would
not be appUcable in the present passage. The words " made a
marriage " here include already the first invitation of the marriage-
guests. For this is presupposed when it is at once said, ver. 3 :
" And he sent his servants to call them that were bidden (KaXiaai
roii? KeKXypivov?) to the marriage." Thus the same Eastern
custom is impUed here as in Luke xiv. 16, 17,3 according to
which the guests are first invited beforehand, and then, when the
feast is prepared, are specially summoned to come. But when the
guests were summoned to come to the festive board prepared, an
unexpected thing happened : " and they would not come." Why not,
is not said, nor are any particulars stated respecting the answer
they gave to the king's messengers, or the conduct, they pursued
towards them. Merely the fact of their unwiUingness to come
is mentioned, the narrative passing at once to a speciaUy detaUed 4
account of a second mission to the guests, ver. 4 : " Again he sent
other servants, saying" etc. Thus the king does not give up the
unwiUing ones, he desires once more to try whether they only
mean to delay, or whether they wiU really persist in declining
the summons. For this reason he again sends messengers to
1 The plural, as frequently, synonymous with the singular yx/tos, with reference
to the series of marriage festivities.
2 Gen. xxix. 22 ; Esth. ii. 18, i. 5, cf. ver. 3, ix. 22. But in the first two pas
sages a marriage-feast is in fact spoken of, and in the two last ipipm rov yxpou
or yx/tm are in the sense of the translators proverbially "days of marriage joy."
Also Luke xii. 36, xiv. 8, give no occasion for departing from the original meaning
"marriage." 3 Where also the first xxXiit constituting the idea «' xutXti/titoi was expressly
mentioned. Cf. there.
* In contrast with ver. 3.

352 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
them, not the same, but others, in the hope that the guests who
disobeyed the call of the first servants may perhaps be moved
by these others. And he now gives the servants the instruction :
elirare rol? KeKXypevoi?, 'ISov rb apiarov p,ov yroipaKa} ol ravpol
pov Kal rd airiara redvpiva, Kal irdvra eroipa' Bevre el? roii?
ydpov?, i.e. " Say to them that are bidden, Behold, my luncheon
(apiarov) I have in readiness," etc.2 "Apiarov, originally the
first breakfast (jentaculum), among the later Greeks and in the
New Testament is the luncheon (prandium) taken in the course
of the day before the chief meal. In the present passage there
is all the less reason to identify apiarov completely with
Selirvov,3 that the idea of luncheon is quite in place in the
connection .of the passage. The luncheon as such denotes the
beginning of- the marriage festivities ; the statement therefore that
it is ready simply emphasizes that there is nothing in the way
of the feast beginning. But this by no means implies that the
marriage-feast proper is not yet ready. For the following words :
" my oxen and the (other) failings are killed, and (in general)
all things are ready" in their connection with the summons
immediately based upon them, '/ come to tlie marriage" can on no
account refer merely to the preparations for the luncheon in
distinction from the dinner proper, but plainly comprise the
preparations for the entire festivities, all of which are ready, so
that as soon as the guests are assembled the feast, beginning
with the apiarov, may take its course without interruption.
The entire instruction is not one different in substance from
the charge given to the first servants, as if the business of the
latter previously was not to summon to the marriage -board
already prepared. The occasion of the second mission was not
to announce something new to the guests in reference to the
feast, but solely the failure of the first one. Consequently the
instruction given to the servants of the second mission simply
impresses on them that they are once more to set before the
guests plainly and urgently the same position of things which
existed on the first mission. They are to tell (eirrare) them,
expressly and circumstantially, that everything is ready, and
thus put an end to all notion that there is time for delay and
reflection, and insist upon immediate compliance. The guests
are to know : Still to delay in the present state of things is to
1 On preponderant evidence instead of SitoI/ixo-x.
2 Observe the perfect itTol/ixxx, 3 Kuinoel, Olshausen, Stier.

THE ROYAL MARRIAGE-FEAST. 353
despise the marriage-feast of the royal host in the most shameful
manner. But on the servants of the second mission executing the
commission given there happens what is related in vv. 5, 6 : ot Be
dpieXr,aavre? diryXdov b? pev 1 ei? rbv iSiov dypbv, b? Be eiri T771/
ipiropiav avrov, 01 Be Xoiiroi Kparyaavre? rov? BovXov? avrov
vBptaav Kal diriKreivav. The two participles put first, dpteXy-
aavre? in ver. 5 and Kparyaavre? in ver. 6, plainly stand in
mutual contrast, — there, listless disregard ; here, active iU-treat-
ment of the king's messengers. This contrast presents itself too
plainly to be overlooked in the exposition. Accordingly we must
not solve the difficulty in the construction of the sentences by
referring the dpeXyaavre? to all the guests, and saying that the
exact statement would have run : oi Be dpeXyaavre?, oi pev
diryXdov . . . oi Be \0t7r0i Kparyaavre? K.r.X.2 And stUl less by
saying, that in the first words : ot Be dpeXyaavre?, the narrator had
not yet the subsequent oi Se Xoiiroi Kparyaavre? in mind.3 For
the statement of ver. 6 by no means forms a mere appendage to
that of ver. 5, perhaps occurring subsequently to the narrator;
but, on the contrary, the statement in ver. 5 is merely the
introduction to that of ver. 6, which with its ot Be Xoiiroi
comprises the entire body of the guests apart from the first.
Hence, too, the account of the punishment of the guests (ver. 7)
refers only to the chief statement in ver. 6, not to ver. 5. We
must agree with the first solution just mentioned so far as to
admit that, in order to get at the speaker's meaning, we must
supply an ol pkv in the introduction of the first sentence, not
however after, but before the participle dpeXyaavre?, where it was
naturally omitted by the speaker himself just because ofthe obvious
harshness with which it would stand immediately after ot 8i} so
that it is now embodied in the oi Si, and the ot Si itself acquires
a particular sense which only becomes evident to the reader
afterwards by the contrasting of ot Se Xoiiroi. It is just the
same, e.g., in Luke ix. 19 : oi Be diroKpidivre? elirov . . . dXXoi
Be K.r.X. Thus in the speaker's meaning oi Be dpeXyaavre? is
to be translated at once in the particular sense : " And some
making light of it went their ways, one to Ms own field, another to
his merchandise ; and the rest seizing Ms servants," etc. Of the
first- mentioned therefore it is said, they went away (instead of
coming to the marriage) without paying any heed to the king's
1 Ss fih . . . Ss Ss is better attested than i /At ... Hi. 2 Fritzsche, Lange.
8 Meyer. 4 ol Tz ol /At x/itXwxvns.
GOEBEL. Z

354 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
messengers and their summons, one to his own field, another to
his merchandise. The ISiov standing before dypbv in this
connection is far too pertinent to be treated as a mere possessive
pronoun,1 which, moreover, is not the case anywhere else in the
New Testament.2 Just because the field is his own, he prefers
going there to going to the marriage-feast of the king. The
characteristic therefore of this class of guests is indifference to
the caU to the royal marriage, having its root in the selfish
interest in one's own possession which fastens the possessor here
to the clod that is his own, and the earner there to the business
that is to bring gain. And this disregard of theirs is doubly
guilty, because retained in presence of what the rest do, ver. 6 :
"And the rest, seizing his servants, shamefully entreated3 and
killed them," not in the sense that none was left, but generally:
they perpetrated outrage and even murder upon them. How
many of the messengers were so treated, or how many were
UI treated and how many kiUed, is left uncertain. Such terms
might be used, even if one only were actuaUy murdered. Whilst,
then, the first, ruled by their selfish interest, are indifferent to
the king, the rest are inspired with rebeUious feelings against
him. For this reason the urgent summons : " Come to the
marriage," that met with Ustless indifference in the first, becomes
to the rest an occasion for open revolt and murderous violence
on the servants urging them to decision. That this is quite
inconceivable in the circumstances of the figurative story,4 can
only be maintained in the interest of a critical hypothesis. If
from the first it is a king that is in question, whose guests are
also his subjects, why should it be inconceivable that rebeUious-
minded subjects reply with open violence to the message urgently
requiring their presence at the royal feast without further delay?
But of course it is certain that by abusing and kiUing the king's
messengers they commit the grossest outrage against the king.
And this is the reason why the hitherto peaceful image of an
invitation to a marriage-feast is now changed into the warlike
image of a mUitary raid with fire and sword against murderous
rebels, ver. 7 : " But the king was wroth,5 and sending his armies,
destroyed those murderers, and burned their city." Only the
1 Kuinoel, Grimm. 2 Not even in xxv. 14, or John i. 42, cf. Meyer there.
3 5[ipi<Txt in conjunction with xpxTwxtTzs an active insulting. 4 Weiss.
6 The reading S & fixirtXivs iipylalti is to be regarded as genuine ; the reading of the
Recepta : xxdaxs ft l /2. upy., is a supplementary gloss, right in substance.

THE JKOYAL MARRIAGE-FEAST. 355
murderers, " the rest," in ver. 6 are here named as the object of
the punishment, whereas the guests characterized in ver. 5, who
did not directly participate in the violent deeds, are no longer
specially mentioned in regard to the punishment. But not
because they were excepted from the punishment of the rest, in
which case rather they must have been speciaUy mentioned, but
because in the punishment no special notice is taken of them
and their only apparently less guUty conduct. Although not
comprehended in the expression " those murderers," they stiU
actually suffered the punishment of murderers. It is impossible
to think that the mention of a city as the object of chastisement,
and this city being called "their (the murderers') city,"
necessarUy involves the notion, that only the hostUe guests of
ver. 6 were the inhabitants of a special city apart, whereas those
merely disobedient from selfishness (ver. 5) did not dweU in a
city, or dwelt in another city. In this case the guests, hitherto
distinguished only in inward disposition and conduct, would now
be suddenly placed in a state of local separation, having no
connection with the distinction of disposition. The guests
generaUy are pictured as citizens of a city, just as was the case
in the parable of the Banquet,1 only that this idea is stiU more
appropriate to the circumstances of the present narrative, which
treats of a feast in a royal court, than to the other parable
treating of the banquet of a rich man. This city, the city of the
guests generaUy, after its citizens have become murderers of the
king's messengers, is treated and chastised as " their (the
murderers') city," because regard for the portion of the citizens
who had not directly participated in the murder can just as
Uttle divert the penalty from the citizens and their city, as that
portion of the citizens in their thoughtless selfishness had taken
any trouble to divert the guilt of blood from the whole body.
But if the murderers are not individual marriage-guests, but the
unopposed ruling party in the city, whose citizens are the royal
guests, it is not strange that the penalty on the marriage-guests
should be represented as a miUtary raid, the king sending now,
instead of messengers of royal grace as hitherto, his armies, the
organs of his royal might, against the citizens in open revolt and
their city, cutting down the murderous citizens and burning
their city. Consequently it cannot be said that here the Umits
of the paraboUc figure are utterly violated by a foreign
1 Cf. on Luke xiv. 21.

356 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
importation.1 Only, of course, we ought not to ask further,
what position the city takes in the king's empire, whether it is
viewed as its capital or otherwise, the parable giving no answer
to such questions. We have to do with a figurative narrative
developing its circle of figures no farther than is necessary to
the figurative presentation of its subject. And as the central
idea placed at the head was not so much the empire, whose
ruler is a king, as rather the marriage-feast of the king's son,
whose host is a king, so the city only comes into view in
reference to this royal marriage as the city whose citizens have
this privilege above those outside, that they are the king's
invited guests.
The narrative then continues with the words : ToVe Xkyet rol?
SovXoi? avrov. The question is, to what in the preceding narra
tive the totc alludes. In the midst of a continuous narrative it
cannot mean " then," as often elsewhere, but only " thereupon."
But to assert that the narrator thinks of the foUowing words as
first spoken after the penalty on the murderers and their city has
been carried out,2 is again quite needlessly to suppose a complete
violation of the circumstances possible in the story. The first
words spoken by the king to the servants : " The marriage is
ready," show at once that the feast has not meantime been post
poned until further notice, but that it is just as ready and just as
urgently awaits the lacking guests as in ver. 4. How then is
the history of a mUitary expedition to come between ? The
words : totc XeYet toZ? SovXoi? avrov, exhibiting the king stiU in
conversation with Ms servants, join on without violence to the
initial words of ver. 7, o Be Baa. wpyiady, there governing the
entire statement. " But the king," hearing through his servants
of this outrage of the guests,3 " was wroth," so it was just said ;
and then the order is related, issued by the king in his wrath to
his armies. For although what the armies are to do is not stated
in the form of a mere injunction, but is pictured more drasticaUy
as an act issuing from the king, stUl the king himself is repre
sented as the agent (dirwXeaev . . . ivkirpyaev), and the action, so
far as it issues from him, is just the angry order. But then
(totc), after the king, burning with wrath against the criminals,
has first inflicted just punishment on them, he again turns to the
messengers, awaiting his further orders, to tell them what is to be
1 Weiss. ? Weiss, Meyer, Nebe, et al.
3 Cf. the correct supplementary gloss of the Recepta : xxdoxs t\ i f,xa.

THE ROYAL MARRIAGE-FEAST. 357
done in reference to the feast standing ready. That rol? SovXoi?
avrov here is not to be understood of the king's servants generally,
but of .the same particular servants now returned, who are spoken
of in w. 4-6, is a supposition not merely without difficulty on
the right understanding of ver. 6, but also further confirmed by
ver. 1 0, where the words " those servants " show that there the
particular servants are meant who were distinguished in ver. 4
as " other servants " from the servants of the first mission in
ver. 3.
The king then begins to the servants: "Tlie marriage indeed is
ready} but they that were invited were not worthy" scil. to be
invited. So ovk ?}aav d^ioi must be translated, with Luther.
For af tot must not be supplemented from the o ydpo? found
already in the first clause, "they were not worthy of it"2 (in
which case one does not see why avrov should be wanting), but
simply from its own subject ol KeKXypevoi. And the entire
statement is not meant to justify the exclusion of those first
invited, as if the king wished to insist that their not coming to
the marriage was not his fault, but the fault of their own un-
worthiness, — such a justification of .mere exclusion is no longer
in place after the passing on the guests of a sentence justified as
matter of course by their own evU deeds, — but the statement is
simply made to assign the reason of the commission introduced
by ovv. Because the feast indeed is ready, but is left without
guests through the unworthiness of those invited, the servants are
to do as ver. 9 states : iropeveade oiv iirl rd? Bie^bSov? rwv bSSiv,
Kal oaov? idv evpyre KaXeaare ei? rov? ydpov?. The SieljoSoi
r&v bS&v are not merely the outlets and inlets of the streets s
(which does not explain the use of the rare double compound, and
in particular the preposition Bid failing to receive its due force),
but the thoroughfares of the roads which, crossing other roads,
furnish also various owlets, therefore crossing-points of the roads.
The disputed point, whether city streets 4 or country roads 5 are
meant, is no longer a question after the right interpretation of
the city mentioned in ver. 7. If the first invited were identical
with the citizens of the city now fallen a prey to destruction, the
bSoi mentioned here must be meant in contrast with the city,
1 Scil. the wedding-feast, ver. 4. 2 Lange, Weiss.
3 Stier, Grimm's Lexicon, the latter with reference to the boundaries of the
heathen world.
* Kuinoel, Weiss. 5 So the majority.

358 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
and therefore country roads outside.1 The servants therefore are
to go to the highways, and to their crossing-points as special
gathering-places, and as many as they find there they are to
invite as guests to the marriage in place of the first invited:
"And as many as ye shall find, summon to the marriage."
The first part of the parabohc narrative is now at an end, a
new section commencing with ver. 1 0, not, as is usuaUy supposed
in error, with ver. 11. At this point the previous Une of narra
tive has in substance reached a complete conclusion. The
obstinate wickedness of those first bidden having been first
described, the just and inevitable consequences of this wickedness
were completely characterized on one hand by the despatch of
armies to punish the rebels, ver. 7, and on the other by the
despatch of the servants to fetch in other guests in place of the
first, vv. 8, 9. Thus, just as the parable of the Great Banquet
concluded with the command to the servant to go into the
highways and compel men to come in,2 the execution of the
command being understood of itself, so the present narrative
would be at an end here without needing a special account of
the execution of the command, unless the narrator had intended to
add to the first part of the narrative a second one of independent
meaning. And thus even the wording of ver. 10 itself shows
that it is not a conclusion of what precedes, but a preparation for
what foUows. It is said : Kal i^eXdbvre? ot SovXoi iKelvoi el? ras
oSov? avvyyayov irdvra? ov? 3 eiipov, irovypov? re Kal dyadofa.
In the first place, the pronoun iKelvoi after SovXoi intimates that
the speaker, after making a preliminary conclusion, here begins a
new narrative. This makes it necessary for him to go back
beyond the break, and join on to what precedes by the pronoun
iKelvoi. But even the statement itself: "And those4" servants
went forth into the highways, and gathered together all, as many as
they found, both bad and good" contains more than a mere account
of the actual execution of the command given to the servants in
ver. 9. More precisely defining the irdvra? ov? evpov by the
special clause : irovypov? re Kal dyadov?, it signalizes an element
in the proceedings of the servants just as meaningless in a mere
conclusion of the previous section as it is significant in prospect
1 Cf. the oSol in Luke xiv. 23, in their contrast with xl vXxtuxi xxi pi/uu rw
vixivs, ver. 21. 2 j^g xiv. 23.
3 The reading of the Recepta, SVauj, seems transferred from ver. 9.
* Those mentioned ver. 8, or vv. 4-6.

THE ROYAL MARRIAGE-FEAST. 359
of what follows. We have no right to weaken the force of these
words by designating them without proof a kind of proverbial
phrase,1 but they must be understood as they run. That the
servants were subject to no sort of outward Umit in gathering
guests to the marriage, was involved in the nature of the com
mission sending them into the highways. But the special
element signalized in these words is, that in this gathering of
guests they did not even make any moral distinction, that they
took bad 2 (ie. people with an evil past, of ill report, such as must
needs be met with among the crowds of the highway) just as
weU as good, without inquiry into antecedents. Eespecting
avvyyayov, see what was said on Luke xiv. 21, 23 (eladsyaye . . .
avdyKaaov elaeXdelv). They gathered the guests together, not
with outward force,3 but with friendly urgent caU, which found
ready hearing with the people of the highways in contrast with
the citizens of the city. And by means of this absolutely indis
criminate gathering the marriage-feast was filled with guests :
Kal iirXyady 6 ydpo? dvaKeipivwv, i.e. "And the marriage-board
was filled with those reclining at table." Through the predicate
iirXyady dvaKeipevwv the subject-notion d ydpuo? acquires, of
course, the limited meaning of marriage-board. The likewise
weU-attested reading d vvp<pwv instead of d ydpo? seems a need
lessly simpUfying correction.
After the marriage-board in this way has been fiUed, there is
nothing, as one might think, to prevent the festivity beginning,
and the assembled guests, as they were coUected without distinc
tion of worthy and unworthy, actuaUy joining without distinction
in the festive joys. But just when' the host appeared to begin
the festivity, there enters once more a sifting judicial process for
the multitude of guests. Contrasting by the particle Si the
foUowing events with the indiscriminate invitation in ver. 10,
the narrative proceeds, ver. 1 1 : elaeXdwv Se d /3ao-t\ei;? dedaaadai
roii? dvaKeipivov? etSev e'«et avdpwirov ovk ivSeSvpiivov evBvpa
ydpov. WhUe the guests were assembling, the king himself was
not present ; but when aU are assembled, and the tables are f uU,
he enters the banqueting-haU to behold (dedaaadai) the guests
(to^? dvaKeipivov?). But this beholding cannot be meant from
the first as an inspection with the premeditated aim of excluding
those who cannot stand the test, which would ill accord with the
1 Bengel : "locutio quasi proverbialis. '' 2 nompois ti, standing first with emphasis.
8 Bengel : "interdum adhibita vi non optima."

360 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
figurative notion of a host entering to his guests to begin the
feast. Here, according to the context, we should really have a
specially purposed inspection of the attire of the guests. Conse
quently aU that is meant is a viewing of the guests by the royal
host in the general sense, such as is implied in the nature of the
situation, the guests being strangers gathered by chance from all
quarters. Not as the anticipated result of an inspection, but as
the occurrence of an event unexpected and disturbing the harmony
of the feast, we aie told : " But when the king came in to behold
the guests, he saw there a man which Jiad not on a wedding garment."
"EvSvpa ydpov is a garment suited to a wedding, thus a clean,
neat, festive garment, in opposition to a dirty or ragged everyday
garment, standing in ill contrast with the festal array of a wedding.
For this contrast we must not substitute the quite different one
between a garment given by the king and one brought by the
guest himself. That one bidden to a wedding appear not in
soiled everyday dress, but in neat festal attire, is a general precept
of decorum, the violation of which involves a gross affront to the
host, and in this case a criminal disregard of the majesty of the
king. Certainly the question, how the appearance of a guest
without wedding garment could seem so strange to the king who
had gathered the people from the highways, can only be answered
to this effect, that those invited so unexpectedly to the royal feast
must with the invitation itself have had the opportunity of
obtaining a suitable dress, so far as from seemly reverence for
the king they troubled themselves about one. Thus we should
be obliged to affirm, even if it were not established by modern
observation as an Oriental custom for royal hosts to supply festal
dresses to their guests,1 a custom whose disputed antiquity 2 seems
at least so far attested in the Old Testament as festal dresses
appear there as objects of princely generosity.3 But at the same
time it is quite certain that what surprised the king was, not that
the guest had on a garment of his own instead of one given, but
that he had not on a wedding garment at all. With this agrees
the question of blank astonishment, which the king at once
addresses to him, ver. 12 : Kal Xiyei avr$>, 'Eralpe, mo? elarjXdei
wSe py e^ow evSvpa ydpov; For the point of the question is
not, how he could have despised the king's festal garb and pre-
1 Harmar, Beobaclit, ii. p. 117 ; Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. v. p. 75 ff.
2 Keil, Meyer, Weiss.
8 Gen. xiv. 22 ; Judg. xiv. 19 ; 2 Kings v. 22, x. 22 ; Esth. vi. 8, viii. 15.

THE ROYAL MARRIAGE-FEAST. 361
ferred his own, but how he could have come in without a wedding
garment at all. And eiaipyeadai does not mean a passive getting
in, in which case the question of surprise must rather have been
addressed to the servants who admitted him, but it is an active
entering, which the subjective negation py e^wy also shows.
Therefore : " Friend, how couldst thou enter here with the con
sciousness of not having a wedding garb ? " The question, asked
not in the tone of anger, but at first merely in that of just
surprise,1 expects from the man questioned an explanation of his
incomprehensible beginning. But he has none to give. For it
is said : " and he was speechless." This silence is a confession that
he has no excuse, because in fact nothing but criminal disrespect
for the king led him to neglect providing himself with a suitable
dress. Thus the wrath of the king is kindled, and he punishes
the speechless one, ver. 13 : " Then the king said to the servants "
(to?? SiaKovoi?), therefore not to the menials who acted as
messengers in inviting, but to the house-servants waiting at the
feast: Ayaavre? avrov iroSa? Kal yelpd? dpare avrov Kal iKBd-
Xere2 ei? rb aKoro? rb ij-wrepov. The binding of the feet and
hands, prefixed in participial form to the iKBdXere as the chief
idea, has no independent significance, but simply comes into view
as the method of the iKBdXXeiv, cutting off beforehand from the
one expelled all possibiUty of resistance, and all hope of deUvering
himself from the darkness into which he is cast. The compara
tive i^wrepov does not compare the darkness, into which they
are to cast him, with another darkness less remote,3 but simply
caUs the darkness the outer space in relation to the inner space
of the marriage-hall or house (therefore : " into the darkness
outside"). WhUst within everything shines with festive radiance,
outside is blank darkness. Thus the lot to which the king
condemns the guest without a wedding garment is to be cast out
of the joy of the marriage-feast and the radiance of the marriage-
hall into the blank darkness without. The figurative expression :
"the outer darkness," is found also in viii. 12 and xxv. 30, and
in both passages just as here is the joyless, gloomy space without
in contrast with the place of festive joy within. But in aU three
passages the place figuratively described by "the outer dark-
1 The apostrophe tTxTpi is not one of friendship, like iplxi, but still not unfriendly.
2 Lachmann and Weiss read only \x$xXm xl/Tot after x,"Pxs > the external evidence
is vacillating, the sense remains the same.
3 Luther : "into the outermost darkness."

362 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
ness " is still more precisely defined by the clause : e/cet e'orat
d KXavdpb? Kal b ySpuy/xd? twi/ bSbvrwv, i.e. " there shaU be the
(weU-known) wailing and gnashing of teeth," a saying which
Jesus also adds or inserts elsewhere, where He is speaking of the
place of damnation.1 The article before KXavdpb? and /3pvy/tds
puts beyond doubt that the saying is not so much a special
prediction that those found in that place wUl suffer great pain,
as rather an admonition on the part of the speaker to the hearers,
that the well-known waUing and teeth-gnashing (from pain) of
the condemned wUl happen in the place in question, that they
therefore are to think of no other than the place of eternal pain
(xxv. 46). And in this case it is self-evident that here, as
everywhere else, the saying is a direct admonition of Jesus to
His hearers, by which He solemnly interprets to them the
expression "the outer darkness," employing for this purpose
another image familiar to them, — and that the words ought not
to be incorporated with the address of the king,2 merely because
the figurative story here accidentaUy ends in the direct address
of a figurative person, where as an addition to the king's command
to the servants they would be least of all suitable.
To ver. 13, containing the king's final sentence and the
emphatic addition, there is added the general proposition intro
duced in explanation by yap, ver. 14 : 7roXXot ydp elaiv kXtjtoI,
oXiyoi Be iKXeKrot. The mutually opposed ideas "caUed" and
" chosen " are definitely explained by the reference of the two in
the context to the kingdom of God. Therefore : Many are called
of God to His kingdom, the caU to enter God's kingdom coming
to them by God's wiU ; but few are chosen by Him to His king
dom, so that they are separated from mankind to be partakers
of His kingdom by God's choice. From mankind, we say
advisedly, not from the number of the called,3 for the predicates
"called" and "chosen" are absolutely opposed to each other.
Therefore the second must be understood just as absolutely as
the first, and does not receive its meaning through relation to the
first. But the statement itself, that the first holds true of many,
the second only of few, is, of course, meant in mutual relation.
The affirmation is, that in relation to the great number of those
who are the object of the divine call, only few are the object
of the divine choice. The exegetical discussion of the passage
' xiii. 42, 50 (see there), xxiv. 51 ; Luke xiii. 28.
2 Lange, Nebe, Weiss. 3 Weiss.

THE ROYAL MARRIAGE-FEAST. 363
(without prejudice to the dogmatic) has simply to keep to this
meaning, without carrying back the predicate " chosen " in this
connection to anything but the divine choice. The word
" chosen " must not, in the light of the parable, be explained to
mean: Separated from the number of the unworthy on the
ground of proved worthiness.1 Were this the meaning of the
utterance, it would simply draw out the result of the parable,
and instead of being introduced by ydp, as is done in xx. 16,
must be introduced by ovrw?. Moreover, in that case we should
at least in the second clause expect the future eaovrai instead
of the present elaiv, since the predicate " chosen " would then be
viewed as the eventual consequence of a future line of conduct,
so that the saying would run : ovrw? 7to\X. eto-i KXyr., bX. Be
eaovrai iKXeKrot. But as it stands, and joined to the parable by
ydp, it must not be explained from the parable, but, conversely,
what is said in the parable must be explained from it. And,
indeed, the explanatory ydp refers primarily to what immediately
precedes (ver. 13), therefore to the issue of the parable, although
certainly the indissoluble, inner connection of this appendix with
the entire course of the narrative involves substantiaUy a refer
ence to the whole of the parable. What might seem strange in
the issue of the narrative was this, that not merely the first
invited, who set themselves in opposition to the invitation, but
even such as obeyed the invitation, were cast out of the feast into
darkness (i.e., according to ver. 136, from the kingdom of God
into the place of the lost, and therefore the being invited or
called gave no certain security of participating in God's king
dom) ; that not even they who obey the caU are secure against
exclusion. And the strangeness is now explained by an allusion
to the general truth : iroXXol ydp K.r.X. It is not the same, but
something essentially different, to be caUed by God to His king
dom, and to be chosen by God for His kingdom. So Uttle do the
two coincide, that the first applies to a ver}r great number of men,
whereas the second can only be affirmed of a comparatively small
number. This is the truth uttered by way of explanation. And
it is clear that whoever keeps it in view cannot be surprised at
the exclusion of the caUed from participation in God's kingdom,
such as the parable teaches ; and least of all wiU he be inclined
himself to rely on the caUing he has received, and to make it a
pUlow for indolence. 1 So most modems.

364 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
Thus this general utterance of Jesus, although referring pri
marily to the issue of the parable, furnishes also an explanation of
the fundamental thought governing the parable in its entire course
and binding it into unity. Looking back from this point on the
whole of the narrative, we see at once that it consists of two
sections, each one having an independent import. For after the
part begun with ver. 2 had reached a complete conclusion with
ver. 9, ver. 10 commenced a new, independent section, so that
each of the two parts might fitly be regarded as a complete
parable by itself. And yet the two sections, as they are here
joined together, form but one narrative, not only outwardly, but
also intrinsically, the second section presenting itself, because of
the resemblance in its incidents to those of the other, not merely
as an appendix outwardly connected, but also as a real intrinsic
continuation of what precedes. If the essential import of the
first part was this, that the guests first invited, nevertheless,
did not actually partake in the feast, but drew on themselves
the wrath of the king by their disobedience to the caU at the
decisive hour, and were the cause of strangers being invited in
their place, this result is now extended in the second part to the
effect, that even among the guests gathered by indiscriminate
invitation, some were found who must be excluded from sharing
in the feast, because appearing without the right dress. If, then,
we remember that, according to ver. 1, Jesus spoke the parable
primarily to the hostile leaders of the Jewish people, and also
(seeing that the parable belongs to the time of His last public
teaching in the temple) before a listening group of people, among
whom individuals receptive to His word were not wanting, and
again before His disciples, who always accompanied Him in those
days, it is clear that each of the two parts of the parable is
adapted to a different class of hearers, while, at the same time,
they contain common truth which Jesus desires to speak to
hearers of both kinds in one connected narrative. The first part
is addressed to hearers of the first class as the leading represen
tatives of the IsraeUtish people, since the first invited, just like
the similar category in the parable of the Great Banquet, and
the Wicked Vinedressers in the preceding parable, are meant to
symboUze the people of Israel as the people of the theocracy.'
The second part, on the other hand, is addressed to hearers of
the second class, of whom Jesus may hope that individuaUy they
are free from the decided enmity of their nation to Jesus, and

THE ROYAL MARRIAGE-FEAST. obi)
wiU willingly be gathered with the heathen into God's king
dom. The common teaching, in which the entire import of the
parable is summed up, is this : The grace of the divine calling
by no means gives security of participating in the kingdom of
God; on the contrary, lo all who abuse it the grace will turn into
the condemnation of God's wrath. And the special purpose of
the first part is to tell the leaders of Israel that this principle
will be proved first in the IsraeUtish people, who first received
the grace of God's call. The members of this nation by con
tinued resistance to the call to enter God's kingdom will
cause God's sentence of destruction to burst upon them, and
strangers wiU be called to God's kingdom in their stead. But
to the individuals among His hearers who are not unwilling
for themselves to obey the caU, He says in the second part, that
even in the new period now opening, the same principle wUl
retain its validity. He shows them that, despite the indiscrimi
nate gathering of all classes of men into God's kingdom, at last
every one not found with the character alone qualifying for
participation in God's kingdom, wiU be again cast out by God
into damnation.
Eeturning to the beginning of the parable in order to inter
pret the entire course of the narrative, we see first of all, just
as in the parable of the Great Banquet, a, festive meal to be the
fundamental idea, vv. 2, 4. As to the interpretation of this
figure and its Old Testament basis, what was said on Luke xiv.
16 may be consulted. Under the image of a rich, costly meal
is represented the sum of the blessings prepared by God in His
kingdom for the perfect satisfaction of man's soul pining in
estrangement from Him. But whereas Luke's parable stopped
at the simple figure of a banquet, we find here at the head of
the narrative another figure coupled with this one, the banquet
being more precisely defined as a marriage-feast prepared by a
king for his son. Already in the Old Testament the covenant-
relation between God and His people is represented under the figure
of a marriage-covenant.1 In keeping with this, Christ is caUed
in the New Testament the Bridegroom,2 and the joining of Christ
and the New-Testament people of God into intimate and blessed
fellowship in His kingdom is designated the marriage of the
Bridegroom with the Bride.3 The present passage as certainly
1 Jer. liv. 5 ; Hos. ii. 19, 20, et al. 2 ix. 15, xxv. 1 ff. ; John iii. 29.
3 Rev. xxi. 2, 9.

366 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
aUudes to this figurative idea as yapoi in ver. 2 can signify
nothing but a marriage-feast. But here, certainly, where the
bride is not even mentioned, the idea of the union between
bridegroom and bride does not come into use, but only so much
is borrowed from the figurative idea as serves to enrich the all-
dominant image of the banquet. Since in allusion to this other
circle of ideas the banquet is pictured as a marriage-feast pre
pared by a king for his son (the king being the host, the king's
son, as bridegroom, the centre of the feast, and all the festal joy
participation in his joy), the kingdom of God is described as the
highest conceivable joy prepared by God for His Son, and par
ticipation in the blessedness of the kingdom is participation in
this perfect joy of the Son of God, prepared by the Father for
Him, so that to members of the kingdom Christ's person is the
object and centre of their joy. The difficulty, therefore, lying in
the fact that only the Church of Christ can be viewed as the
bride of the King's Son, which Church in the further course of
the narrative is the whole body of guests, is to be solved thus :
As in the narrative the person of the bride is left unmentioned
in the background, so in the interpretation she is to be left
in the background, and not to be brought into the comparison.
When again, in ver. 3, the same category of the first invited
appears, that we already know from the parable of the Great
Banquet ; and when, moreover, they are viewed, not as scattered
individuals, but as the citizens of a city, just as in Luke's par
able,1 their interpretation must be the same here as there. The
members of the IsraeUtish theocracy, as such, received first from
God the promise of the blessedness of His kingdom. That in
Luke's parable special mention was made of the previous act
of invitation, by which they became " invited," whUst here they
appear at once as KeKXypivoi on the supposition of that act,
makes, of course, no difference. And in this case nothing more
is meant by the sending of the servants, ver. 3, "to caU those
bidden to the marriage," than is meant there by sending the ser
vant, " at the hour of the feast, to say to those bidden : Come,
for aU is now ready " (Luke xiv. 1 7). Just as little as there is
any room, in the figurative circumstances of the narrative, for a
second call pointing to the future between the first invitation
to the feast in prospect, and the caUing of those so bidden to the
feast now ready, so little can the interpretation put a further
1 Cf. on ver. 7.

THE ROYAL MARRIAGE-FEAST. 367
call, pointing only to the future between the Old - Testament
caUing of Israel, by which it became the possessor of the pro
mise of God's kingdom, and the New-Testament caU, by which
the fulfilment of the promise was announced to it, and it was
summoned to enter God's kingdom now manifested, as is done
by those who refer the sending of the servants in ver. 3, " to
call those bidden to the marriage," to the prophets of the Old
Covenant.1 It is true, in the present parable, differently from
that of the Great Banquet, a twofold caUing of those already
invited is distinguished after the first invitation. But as cer
tainly as in the narrative the second caUing of those bidden in
ver. 4 is simply presented as a repetition of the first in ver. 3,
occasioned not by any alteration in the feast, but merely by the
faUure of the first caUing, so certainly this twofold caUing in
vv. 3, 4 can only symbolize the repetition of the same New-
Testament message of God to Israel respecting the kingdom
having appeared, and of the same divine call to enter into it, a
repetition occasioned by the nation's disobedience. And when
the narrative makes the second caUing (ver. 4) to be carried
out by different servants from the first, this can only symbolize
the fact that the same New-Testament message of God to Israel,
after its first bearers have found no response in Israel, will be
brought to Israel by other messengers. And this interpretation
given by the wording of the narrative, directly that we compare
the facts of the history with it, finds in those facts at once its
evident confirmation. For the two periods of the New-Testa
ment preaching of God's kingdom brought to Israel by different
messengers are as distinctly marked off from each other in the
history as in the figurative narrative, — once by the Baptist and
Jesus, and afterwards, when these messengers found no response,
again by the apostles and their feUow-labourers. It is true,
several expositors have found an insuperable difficulty in the
person of Christ, represented in ver. 2 under the image of the
king's son and bridegroom, appearing again as a servant inviting
to the marriage. On this account, in the first servants men
tioned in ver. 3, excluding Jesus, they would see along with the
Baptist, the Twelve and the Seventy sent forth in the lifetime of
Jesus,2 or, since the apostles, who are expressly described, ver. 4,
as " other servants " cannot also be the messengers of the first
mission, those persons who, according to the oft-repeated state-
1 Luther, de Valenti, Thiersch, Weiss, and most of the ancients. 2 Stier.

368 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
ment of the Gospels, spread abroad the fame of Jesus through
the whole land.1 But what necessity is there in a figurative
picture of the twofold call to Israel in New-Testament days to
pass by entirely the prophetic work of Jesus, and fill up the
great gap thus arising by some artificial means ? It would be
better simply to assume an incongruity in the figurative represen
tation on this point. But really there is no such incongruity.
There would only be one, provided the same Christ, who once
appeared as the king's son and bridegroom, were further dis
tinguished as a particular servant of the king from the son and
other servants. But such is by no means the case : the parable
merely says generaUy that God, by His servants, caUed the people
of promise to the manifested blessedness of God's kingdom,
whose centre is the Son of God, and . this not once only, but
again, by other servants, after the rejection of those first sent.
Certainly there is no inconsistency here. The parable says
nothing specific, and in particular there is no aUusion to the
individuaUty of any of the messengers. Only when seeking the
confirmation of this statement of the parable in the concrete
history do we encounter the strange fact, that the Son of God,
who is the centre of the joy of God's kingdom, also appears as
a servant of God like others in Israel, calling Israel to the king
dom. But there is no need in the parable, which simply knows
the servants as a category, and only says that after the rejection
of the first messengers others wUl be sent, to include this identity
of the Son with one of the servants in the circle of the figura
tive representation. This explains how it happens that in the
case of the first mission of the servants, although this really
includes the mission of Christ Himself, the narrative simply
notices the unwillingness of the guests to come, without men
tioning the violence to the persons of the servants, so that the
killing of Christ, which, in the preceding parable stood at the
close as the critical element, is here passed over in sUence. But
the former parable, in contrast with the wide field of the Old-
Testament history of Israel, with its long series of messengers,
summed up the New-Testament gracious visitation of the people
merely in its focus — the mission of the Son. When, on the
other hand, the gist of the present parable, whose standpoint
from the first is in the New-Testament age, is that the message
of the manifested kingdom of God will be brought again by
1 Nebe.

THE ROYAL MARRIAGE-FEAST. 309
other messengers after the failure of the first, in a detaUed
account of the New-Testament history of Israel, Israel's conduct to
the first messengers only appears as the occasion of the second
mission, its conduct to the other messengers of the second period
appearing as the decisive factor. Hence, the former is merely
mentioned briefly as a transition to the sequel, and the latter
only is made the object of particular description. Accordingly,
vv. 3 and 4 of the narrative are to be interpreted thus : As the
king in the parable called the invited guests to come to the feast
prepared, and on their refusing to come sent other servants,
representing to them the readiness of the feast, which forbade
further delay, and urging them to come at once, so God does to
Israel. In the period beginning with the appearance of the
Baptist and reaching to the present moment, He called them —
the chUdren of the people of the promise — to God's kingdom
by His messengers, but the people refused obedience to the call.
Then God again sends other messengers to teU them once more,
with the emphasis demanded by the decisive importance of the
last attempt,. that aU the blessings of God's kingdom are made
ready for their enjoyment by divine grace, and therefore no
further delay is possible, but an instant coming with the obedi
ence of penitence and faith is earnestly enjoined on them. That
the aUusion to the readiness of the luncheon does not exclude,
but includes the readiness of the entire feast, was shown by the
exposition. And in this case the word apiarov cannot be chosen
for the purpose of distinguishing the blessings already prepared
in the present period from a more perfect stage of glory and
blessedness to be realized later. But God's messengers' are to
proclaim to Israel, that on God's side all is ready for giving men
perfect blessedness in His kingdom, and He only waits for them
to come and enter into the kingdom of God.
But the citizens of the theocracy of Israel acted towards this
last urgent summons like the citizens invited to the feast in the
parable. As there — so we proceed in interpreting vv. 5, 6 on
the ground of the exposition given — the one class, taken up with
selfish interest in enjoying or increasing their possessions, meet
the pressing summons of the king's messengers with indifference,
whUe the rest, rather encouraged than hindered by the stupidity
of the former, in their hostUe hate perpetrate shameful violence,
and even murder, on the messengers, so the hostile hate of the
ruling parties in Israel, in league with the indifference of the
GOEBEL. 2 A

370 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
classes of. the people sunk in selfish gain and enjoyment, rise in
rebelUon against God's last messengers to them. And while the
one class, persisting in stupid indifference to God's message and
its bearers, only run after enjoyment or the getting of the earthly
possessions, to which their whole heart cleaves, the rest, fuU of
hostility and hate to God, fall upon God's messengers with
shameful violence and murder. All this Jesus foresees and fore
tells in figurative form as definitely as without figure in xxiii. 34;
Luke xi. 49. He knows that in the present obduracy of the
people against His person and mission Israel's inner decision
against God is present, and that this obduracy wiU remain the
same even in presence of the later and last messengers sent to it.
The prediction was fulfilled historically in the persecutions
suffered afterwards by the apostles and their fellow-workers and
feUow-confessors at the hands of the Jews.1
But, then, God's long-suffering with His people will be
exhausted, and the period in the history of God's kingdom will
begin that is characterized on the one side by the rejection of
Israel, and on the other by the caUing of others in their stead to
the blessedness of God's kingdom. So Jesus predicts in the
words concluding the first section, w. 7—9. As the king, on the
news of the treatment of his servants, was wroth with the rebels,
and in his wrath sent his armies instead of messengers against
them, destroying them and burning their city, so wiU God's wrath
be kindled against the children of Israel, and in His wrath He
wiU send, instead of messengers of salvation, the instruments of
His judgment against them, and through these wiU annihilate
the people stained with the blood of God's servants, and over
throw their commonwealth. Such is the correct interpretation
of the three particular features in ver. 7. The sending of th
armies must just as certainly receive a special interpretation as
the sending of the servants, and, like the latter, must be referred
to the bearers of a divine mission within history, therefore not to
the heavenly hosts, as older expositors suppose, but to the earthly
instruments which God uses, like a king his mUitary power, to
carry out the judgments of His wrath by a display of authority.
This certainly suggests the worldly powers and kingdoms standing
at God's command, and executing His judgments with fire and
sword; but not specifically the Boman armies} which are not
definitely referred to. The destroying of the murderers, just like
1 Acts v. 40, vii. 58, viii. 1, xii. 2, 3, et al. 2 Stier, Hebe, et al.

THE ROYAL MARRIAGE-FEAST. 371
the destroying of the wicked vinedressers,1 and the cutting
down of the fig-tree,2 signifies not the killing of individual
persons merely, nor the extirpation of every individual member
of the nation, but the annihilating of the nation that had shed
the blood of God's servants in its national existence ; the portion
of the nation not directly concerned in the violent deeds also
faUing under the punishment of murderers, because the selfish
indolence of its indifference made it a partner in guUt. And
finaUy, the burning of the city, according to the meaning belonging
to the city} in contrast with the highways, whose- citizens are the
invited guests, symbolizes the overthrow of the theocratic common
wealth of Israel. It does not predict, as nearly aU expositors
arbitrarUy suppose ex posteriore, the specific fact of the burning
of Jerusalem, in which case the prophecy would no longer be
figurative, but directly literal, although inserted in a figurative
history, and would form an altogether aUen element. Certainly
in the siege and overthrow of Jerusalem by the Eomans the
prediction of the present passage was fulfiUed in a pre-eminent
sense, even its figurative form receiving a literal fulfilment in the
conflagration of the city, and this is certainly a divine sign
worthy of note. StiU the prediction as such remains figurative,
and as a prediction must be understood and interpreted in accord
ance with the figurative form of the narrative, in the Une of
which it stands.
And as the king in the parable, with the command to his
armies to execute the judgment on the rebels, links the command
to the servants rejected by the latter, after the guests invited
have proved themselves unworthy, to go to the highway-crossings
and bring to the marriage as many as they find ; so, when God
caUs forth the instruments of His judgment against Israel, He
wUl command the messengers rejected by Israel to go to the
thoroughfares of the world, hitherto aUen to God's kingdom and
its promises, and there invite as many as they find, in place of
unworthy, rejected Israel.4 In the narrative the recipients of
this commission were the same servants who were already men
tioned in w. 4, 6 ; in the interpretation, therefore, the same
messengers of God, who at God's command made the last attempt
in Israel, and were rejected with murderous violence. Since the
1 Cf. on xxi. 41. 2 Luke xiii. 6 ff.
3 Both in the present parable and in that of the Great Banquet.
4 On the interpretation of the highways, see on Luke xiv. 23.

372 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
rbre, ver. 8, in the connection of the narrative could not be
meant to place the sending of the servants to the highways after
the burning of the city in time, but only made one command
follow the other, so also it cannot be meant to place the epoch
of the calling of the Gentiles after the execution of the judgment
on Israel in time, or after the destruction of Jerusalem.1 It
merely says that on the one decree, by which the sentence of
doom is inflicted on Israel, the other will follow, supplementing
the first, and commanding the Gentiles to be called in place of
rejected Israel. This only impUes the obvious truth, that the
second depends on the first in the divine arrangement, but not a
chronology of future historical events.
Here the interpretation of the first section, resembling the
parable of the Banquet,2 is at an end. Like that similar parable,
the section ends with the prediction of the divine decree that
will command the caUing of the heathen in place of Israel. But
the present parable is not satisfied with showing in the future
the decision to call the heathen as the other side of the doom of
rejection passed on Israel, but in the second section of the narra
tive it enters with its prediction upon the new epoch now
opening for the purpose of showing how the same law at work
in the rejection of Israel, in virtue of which the grace of God's
caUing turned to those who abused it into the judgment of
God's wrath, wUl also be active in the new order of things in the
case of those who by God's wiU enter into the gap caused by
Israel's rejection. The calling of men to God's kingdom wiU be
absolutely general and indiscriminate. As the servants sent into
the highways, in executing their commission, gathered to the
marriage all they found, making no distinction outward or inward,
collecting bad just as well as good, so God's messengers sent into
the heathen world will address themselves with the call to God's
kingdom to all without distinction, and wiU go so far in this,
that they will take as Uttle notice of the distinction of good and
evil as of any outer distinction, gathering into God's kingdom
men of evil history just as well as those of moral integrity. The
ideas bad and good, which could only have a moral sense
in the narrative, are to be simply taken over into the interpreta
tion in the mode indicated. But there is not on this account
any violation of the figurative form of the narrative, as has here
again been assumed offhand. The fact in the figurative story,
1 Meyer, Weiss. 2 Luke xiv. 16 ff.

THE ROYAL MARRIAGE-FEAST. 373
that disreputable as well as reputable persons were brought to
the king's wedding, teaches that not merely those who bear a
good character, but those whose past history makes them seem to
the human judgment of God's messengers men of evil character,
will be gathered into God's kingdom. While thus the existence
to human judgment of an outwardly cognisable distinction of
good and evU is acknowledged in the portion of mankind still
far from God's kingdom, aU decisive importance is at the same
time refused to it as regards participation in God's kingdom.
The assumption in this statement is that the messengers who
summon to the kingdom will not meet with rejection in this
course, such as was their lot at the hands of the people of Israel,
but will find wUling obedience. Hence, as the marriage-board
was full of guests, so it wUl come to pass in the way described,
that the complement of men x will be gathered, into God's king
dom to participate in its blessedness and glory. The accomplish
ment of this end seems joined — the circumstances of the
figurative story permitting no other view — immediately to the
labour of the servants of God rejected by Israel and then turning
to the heathen, and therefore to the labour of the apostles and
their feUow-workers. The prediction thus beholds the beginning
of the period of Gentile-calling in immediate connection with its
end, and overlooks the intermediate period separating the begin
ning from the end in the historical fulfilment. But this inter
mediate period contains nothing but the homogeneous continuation
and completion of the work begun by those servants of God in
calling men to God's kingdom without distinction, and thus does
not disturb, however long it may last according to human
reckoning, the relation of cause and effect established in the
parable between the beginning and the end.
But when the universaUty of the calling impUed that
none of the distinctions prevaiUng in the whole sphere of
man's natural life — not even that of good and evU — is able to
BKclude from God's kingdom, it seems as if upon the calling
now concluded there must foUow just as universal and indiscrimi
nate an admission of those so gathered to participation in the
blessedness of God's kingdom. But it is not so. When the
calling has come to a conclusion, a judicial process is again
applied, sifting the number of those gathered into the kingdom,
and for ever excluding a portion of them from its blessedness.
1 Cf. on xiii. 48, and on Luke xiv. 23.

374 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
How this is done is stated in vv. 11-13, in contrast with ver. 10.
The ground of the exclusion in the narrative was the not having
on a wedding garment. For in its figurative circumstances it
was evident that the indiscriminate gathering of the guests
changed nothing in the indispensable requirement, that every one
desirous of actually partaking of the feast put on a clean, neat
festive dress in keeping with the occasion. And this can
symbolize nothing but the requirement, indispensably grounded
in the ethical nature of God's kingdom, that every one who would
actuaUy have part in its blessedness, acquire the corresponding
moral character, and therefore obtain the moral righteousness
(BiKaioavvy) that corresponds to the holy will supreme in God's
kingdom. And this requirement, in fact, is just as Uttle incom
patible with the indiscriminate caUing of men to the kingdom as
the requirement to put on a festive dress is with the indiscrimi
nate gathering of the guests. For just as Uttle as the latter has
it anything to do with the previous state of those caUed It is
a requirement, Uke that of putting on a festive dress, coming to
aU with and in the caU just as indiscriminately as the call itself,
and must be fulfiUed by all aUke, when they obey the caU, by
the " good " just as much as by the " bad." For even to the
former, who seem to human judgment comparatively righteous,
the obtaining of the righteousness corresponding to God's holy
will, and quaUfying for participation in the blessedness of God's
kingdom, is a requirement as absolutely new and still to be
fulfiUed as to all else.1 Accordingly, the interpreters are aU in
error who would interpret the wedding garment only of the
righteousness of faith coming by gift.2 For as certainly as the
object of rebuke, or ground of exclusion, described in the parable,
was not the bringing of a festive dress of the man's own, instead
of one given by the king to the guests, but the want of a wedding
garment simply, so certainly the ground of future exclusion from
God's kingdom described here is not self-righteousness in opposi
tion to the righteousness of faith coming by gift, but simply the
want of a moral character and walk corresponding to God's holy
will. But, on the other hand, the parable plainly assumes, both
in the surprised question of the king and in the silence of the
guest, that with the invitation itself not merely is the putting on
of a wedding garment required of every one invited, but the
obtaining of such a garment must have been made possible to
1 Chap. v. 20. 2 Stier, Olshausen, Thiersch, Hebe, et oi

THE ROYAL MARRIAGE-FEAST. 375
every one. Thus, the wedding garment is the moral character
corresponding to the supremacy of God's holy will in God's
kingdom, and in this sense the righteousness of God's kingdom,
the obtaining of which, as it is required of every one without
distinction with the caU to God's kingdom, so it is made possible
to every one without distinction by God's grace. So far, and no
farther, ought interpretation to go. Any more definite statement
respecting the way in which this righteousness is procured did
not Ue within the purpose of the parable, which places the whole
emphasis on the indispensableness of the requirement.
Accordingly, what is said vv. 11-13 must be interpreted as
foUows : — Like as, when aU the guests were assembled and the
feast was on the point of commencing, the king comes in and
finds one who had not on a wedding garment, so when the period
of caUing is ended, before mankind gathered into God's kingdom
is put in possession and enjoyment of its blessedness and glory,
the eye of God will find out every one who is without the
righteousness of God's kingdom. So we must interpret, without
assigning a special signification to the act of the king's entering
to view the guests. Since the entering, in the circumstances of
the parable, could not mean a special coming of the king with
the premeditated purpose of judging and sifting the guests, but
merely served to fix the moment of beginning the feast, so it
cannot contain a special allusion to the divine coming for the
purpose of holding the final judgment. If such an allusion were
reaUy intended, the question must then be raised, Why the King
Himself is named as the subject of the coming to the final judg
ment, not the King's Son, and therefore the Messiah, as every
where else in the New Testament 1 In the above putting of the
interpretation, the circumstance that in the narrative but one
man is mentioned as without the wedding garment has found its
corresponding appreciation. Expositors usuaUy say that this
circumstance should not be pressed, but without showing why
only one is mentioned, since it would seem more in keeping with
the purpose of the parable if, instead of one, many were men
tioned. This circumstance, therefore, has its significance. In
the fact that among the multitude of the guests duly clad one
without wedding garment does not escape the king's eye, it is
taught that none, not even one, without the righteousness of
God's kingdom will be able to hide from God's eye among the
rest of the members of the kingdom. And such wiU have just as

376 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
little excuse before God as the marriage-guest before the king.
As the latter's silence to the question, how he dared to come in
without a wedding garment, makes him seem a man who pro
faned the royal feast and despised the majesty of the king, so will
they stand without excuse before God as those who poUuted His
kingdom and profaned the majesty of His name. And then it
will be done to them as to that marriage-guest. As the king
commanded the servants to cast him out, bound hand and foot,
into the darkness, so that he can neither resist the expulsion nor
deliver himself from the darkness to which he is consigned, so,
in executing the divine command, God's angels will sever every
simUar one from the midst of the righteous, and exclude him
from the blessedness of God's kingdom, handing him over to the
place of punishment, without there being any possibility for those
concerned to resist the exclusion or deliver themselves from this
place of punishment. The SiaKovoi of the king must be just as
definitely interpreted as his SovXoi, from whom they are plainly
distinguished, and his arparevpara, ver. 7. In distinction from
the former, as the messengers of divine grace, and the latter, as
the agents of divine judgment within the present course of history,
they are the angels who, as God's ministering spirits, will at the
end of the present dispensation, and before the setting up of God's
eternal kingdom, execute the divine judgment of exclusion to
condemnation on all unworthy members of God's Church on
earth.1

Only after the exposition and interpretation of the narrative
have come to an end can the relation of the present parable to
that of the Great Banquet2 be clearly seen. It has been shown
that the two parables are exceedingly simUar, not only in figura
tive form, but also in their fundamental thought, the second also
referring to the relation of Israel to God's kingdom. Both times
a festive banquet is the image of the blessedness of God's king
dom ; both times the citizens of a city invited as guests are the
image of the citizens of the IsraeUtish theocracy, to whom par
ticipation in the blessedness of God's kingdom was promised1
first. Both times, in contrast with the citizens of the city, the
populace of the highways are the image of the heathen world,
hitherto without contact with God's kingdom. And both times
1 Cf. in the parable of the Tares on xiii. 30, 41. 2 Luke xiv. 16 ff.

THE ROYAL MARRIAGE-FEAST. 377
the purpose of the representation is to announce to the former
their exclusion from the kingdom, and the calling of the heathen
in their stead, as the consequence of their disobedience to God's
caU. But this similarity makes the diversity all the more evident.
Certainly the intention is not in Luke's parable to picture the
infinite goodness and grace of God, whereas in the present one
the standpoint of judgment prevaUs.1 For the exclusion of Israel,
in punishment of its disobedience, was just as much the all-
dominant thought in the former as in the first part of the latter;2
But the great diversity lies in the concrete historical matter,
figuratively represented, corresponding to the different periods in
which the one and the other parables were uttered. That of the
' Great Banquet, uttered amid the period of the public teaching
and working of Jesus, was essentially a description of the then
present. It represented in figure the unanimous resistance, already
apparent, of the people of the theocracy to the caU to God's king
dom which they had received, exposing its motives (vv. 17-20),
in order to show next how God's wrath has already pronounced
judgment on the unwiUing citizens of the theocracy by calUng
the pubUcans and sinners in their place (vv. 21, 22). And it
only mentioned the divine decree hereafter to call the heathen as
the confirmation of the judgment already pronounced on official
Israel by calling the pubUcans and sinners (ver. 23). How
entirely different the present parable ! Uttered in the last days
of the life of Jesus, after a brief preliminary mention of His
work now past and finished (ver. 3), it takes its stand at once in
the future, and presents itself as a prophetic description, in broad
but very definite Unes, of the future awaiting Israel. What it
predicts in figurative form, line by line, is that God's long-suffering
wiU again send other messengers of His grace to Israel, that
Israel wUl also reject them with murderous violence, and that
God, in consequence of this, will annihUate this people, overthrow
its commonwealth, and command the heathen to be called in their
stead. So entirely different are its contents from the former
parable even in its first part. And then, ignoring Israel, it
enters with its description upon the new period of calling to
God's kingdom, pictures the course of the calling in its indis
criminate universality, and concludes with the prediction of the
judicial process that wiU again sift the caUed, before they become
participants in the blessedness of God's eternal kingdom. Thus,
1 So Lange. 2 Cf. on Luke xiv. 24.

378 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
along with the essential similarity of the figurative form, as well
as of the fundamental thought in the first parable and the first
part of the second, there is stiU an almost complete diversity in
the matter figuratively represented. There a description of the
present, merely concluding with a brief gUmpse into the future;
here, after a brief preliminary touching on the present, a prophetic
description of the entire future of God's kingdom in the course of
its earthly development up to the end. This is the result arrived
at, directly independent exposition gives each of the two parables
its rights. We may leave it to the reader's judgment to decide,
whether in this relation of the two parables to each other there
is any need to suppose that the second one, less original than the
first, arose subsequently from the latter by remodeUing, or by
welding together portions from other parables,1 or that both are
derived from one common and alone original source.2
1 Cf. Strauss, de Wette, Ewald, et al.

THE ESCHATOLOGICAL DISCOURSE. 379

THE ESCHATOLOGICAL DISCOUESE UP TO THE
ESCHATOLOGICAL PARABLES.
(Matt. xxiv. 1-51.)
The parable of the Ten Virgins, to which that of the Talents
immediately joins on, forms part of the eschatological discourse of
Jesus recorded in chaps, xxiv. xxv. of the Gospel of Matthew.
It was probably on the third day of the Passion-week that
Jesus visited the temple of Jerusalem for the last time, and then,
leaving it for ever with His disciples, took the accustomed road
over OUvet to Bethany. He sat down on Olivet to rest. Then,
as chap. xxiv. 3 relates, His disciples came to Him with the
question : " When shall this be (namely, the destruction of the
temple, of which Jesus had spoken on leaving the temple, ver. 2),
and what is the sign of Thy coming, and the end of the (present)
dispensation ?" A twofold question, depending on the assumption
that the destruction of the temple predicted wiU be in connection
with the occurrence of the Parousia of Christ and the end of the
world. To this Jesus gives the answer in the foUowing discourse.
Without touching further on the destruction of the temple, or
saying anything about the assumed connection between it and
His Parousia,1 He treats in the discourse only of the When, or of
the premonitory tokens of His Parousia and the end of the world.
In the first part of the discourse (vv. 4-35) He tells them posi
tively what they ought reaUy to know and ponder respecting the
time of the end, or respecting its premonitory signs. This first
part consists of four sections, clearly enough marked off from
each other. The discourse moves, so to speak, in three concentric
circles, drawn closer and closer round the centre, — the End,— the
third comprising the last period itself, after which the discourse
enters upon the centre, which is the coming of Christ. The first
section (w. 4-8) closes with the words : irdvra Be ravra dpyy
1 Also the words in ver. 15 : "QTxt out i2«<rg to fibixvy/ox ms Ipn/jtaKrms x.t.x., are
not a sudden recurrence to the destruction of the temple-structure predicted in
ver. 2, but a quite independent reference to Daniel's well-known prophecy respecting
the last time (Dan. xi. 31, cf. xii. 1 with Matt. xxiv. 21), which speaks of a future
desecration of the temple by setting up the @hixvy/i.x tUs lpn/iu<riois in the Holy Place,
which in any case is different from a destruction of the temple-structure.

380 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
wSivwv, i.e. "But all this is only the beginning of the travail (of the
End)." It treats of the woes foreannouncing the approach of the
end from afar, so to speak, before it is directly under way, adding
a warning against premature expectation of the end. The second
section (vv. 9-14) comes nearer the End ; for it closes with the
words : " and then shaU the end come." It treats of the aggravated
woes actually introducing the coming of the end, and connects
therewith an exhortation to stedfast perseverance to the end.
FinaUy, the third section (vv. 15-28), beginning with an allusion
to Daniel's prophecy of the last period, treats of this period itself,
and passes, in ver. 29, directly to the description of Christ's
coming. It foreteUs the last days of extreme tribulation, and
advises to flight in those days. Then the fourth section
(vv. 29-35) describes the visible advent of the Son of man
following close1 on this last tribulation, and the gathering of the
elect unto Him (vv. 2 9—3 1). Hence the exhortation, that they
are to regard all these baleful occurrences, which presage the
approach of the last period, as the buds of the leaves of the fig-
tree announcing the approach of summer, and therefore as
welcome signs " that it " — namely, the End which brings to
the elect the gathering to the Lord — "is nigh, at the door"
(vv. 32, 33). And they are to lay this exhortation to heart all
the more as it is certain that, before the contemporary generation2
has died out, aU those woes will occur which are to precede the
end3 (vv. 34, 35).
After Jesus has thus positively informed them what they
ought to know and ponder respecting the end and its premonitory
signs, with ver. 36 the discourse turns into a negative statement
respecting what they cannot know, because it is known to none
but the Omniscient : "But of that clay and hour knoweth no one,
not even the angels of heaven, but the Father only." This main
proposition, placed at the head, is then expounded in the second
portion of the discourse under different aspects, but always so as
to bring out the urgent exhortation to constant readiness for the
Lord's coming, the day and hour of which no one knows, and
therefore for whose occurrence His disciples must be ever pre-
1 ivSiats de /astx tw Qx7^tv Tut b/iipat ixtlvat, ver. 29.
2 » yitix xuth can mean nothing else in this connection.
3 xxtTx txutx in ver. 34 can mean nothing different from vrxtTx txZtx in ver. 33,
therefore the tokens of the end, not the end itself. An examination of the relation
in which prophecy and fulfilment here stand to each other would lead us too far.

THE ESCHATOLOGICAL DISCOURSE. 381
pared. Thrice does this exhortation find expression in what
foUows. The first time, xxiv. 42 : ypyyopeire ovv, on ovk oiSare,
iroia ypipa 6 Kvpio? vpwv epyerat. The second time, ver. 44 :
Bia rovro Kai vpiel? yiveade eroipoi, on f/ wpq, oi SoKelre 6 vib?
rov dvdpwirov epyerat. And the third time, xxv. 13 : ypyyopeire
ovv, 'on ovk o'iSare ryv ypiepav ovSe ryv wpav. The first time
(ver. 42) the exhortation is based on the exposition in vv. 38-41,
according to which the Parousia of Christ, as once the Flood, will
burst on a world sleeping in careless security, bringing a crisis
to every one so suddenly, that of two companions in labour
surprised at their common toil, one wUl be taken, the other not,
' according as they are found in a state of readiness or not. How
necessary then it is : " Watch, for ye know not on what day your
Lord cometh." The second time the like exhortation, only clothed
in somewhat different words (ver. 44), is based upon the para
bohc saying of the householder, who, had he known the time of
the thief's coming, would have watched and prevented his break
ing in, and who, because he thought he might neglect to watch
because of the uncertainty, rendered it possible for the thief to
break in (ver. 43). How little, therefore, ought the uncertainty
of the hour of the Parousia to lead to remissness in spiritual
watchfulness — how much, on the contrary, is a constant prepara
tion requisite, " because at an hour when you think not the Son of
man cometh." And again follows another parabolic utterance,
intimating the same in a different manner, vv. 45-51. A
servant is pictured, whom his lord had appointed to give the
servants their food in due season during the time of his absence.
If, on his return, the householder finds the servant engaged in
the conscientious discharge of the office entrusted to him, he will
set him as a proved servant over all his goods (vv. 46, 47). If,
on the other hand, the servant allows the delay of his lord to
rock him into security, and begins to abuse his fellow-servants,
whom he ought to care for, whilst he himself gives way to excess,
the householder will come in an hour unexpected, and inflict on
him the severest punishment (vv. 48-51). It is clear that the
point of this parabolic utterance, also, is the Uke exhortation to
the disciples, but here with special reference to the conscientious
discharge of their duty to their feUow - disciples, the exhorta
tion to constant readiness for the Lord's coming, because the
time of His coming is uncertain. But in this passage the
exhortation is not expressly repeated. But now begins, joining

382 THE. PARABLES OF JESUS.
on immediately to that parabolic utterance, a formal parabolic
narrative, — that of the Ten Virgins, xxv. 1—1 2,- — -and only at its
close, and based upon it, the exhortation is uttered for the third
time : "Watch, therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour"
ver. 13. Therefore, in accordance with the position which the
parable takes in the line of the eschatological discourse, it can
have no other purpose than to give a new and special justifica
tion of the exhortation, already several times enjoined and twice
uttered, to constant readiness for the Lord's coming because of
that uncertainty of the day and hour, which was solemnly testified
in the declaration standing at the head of this entire section of
the discourse, xxiv. 36.

The Ten Virgins.
(Matt. xxv. 1-13.)

After what has been said there can be no question to what the
rbre points, with which the parabolic narrative begins : ToVe bpom-
dyaerai y Ba<7iXeia rwv ovpavwv SeKa irapdevot? K.r.X. For if it
is correct that the parable, just like all the preceding sections,1
alludes to the solemn declaration of the uncertainty of the day
of Christ's coming for the purpose of renewing the exhortation
to be ready for it, the TOTe can only refer to the same as the tots
in ver. 40, namely, to the unknown day of ver. 36, spoken of
uninterruptedly with and without figure. Therefore, in the day
and hour of Christ's coming, " the kingdom of heaven shaU be
made Uke ten virgins," etc. 'Op,oiwdyaerai cannot here mean
" shall be compared," since the comparing is done already by the
narrator of the parable, but bpotovadai is " to become Uke," as
in vi. 8, vii. 26,2 xiu. 24, xvin. 23, xxU. 2. "The kingdom of
heaven shall become like ten virgins" i.e., according to Matthew's
well-known manner of introducing a parabolic narrative : In the
hour nf Christ's mminp-, a development shall take place in _the
sphere of the kingdom of heaven, resembling the occurrences of
the, following narrative of ten virgins, whereupon the narrative |
itself begins as usual with a relative santeiw a'irive? XaBovaat
ra? XapnraSa? eavrwv ifjyXdov el? drrdvryaiv rov vvp(f>lov. The
choice of the composite relative pronoun a'irive? = tales quce, is
1 Cf. xxiv. 37-42, 43, 44, 45-51. 2 There also the future S/uuttinnu.

.

THE TEN VIRGINS. 383
not accidental here. What the virgins in question did is told
with a view to define more precisely the general description as
virgins, that it may be seen what kind of virgins are to be
spoken of, namely, such as " took their lamps and went forth to
meet the bridegroom"1 therefore on'&maids who went to meet the
bridegroom in a festive procession with lamps. The situation,
into which the following narrative introduces, is in the main
clear from these words. An evening marriage-feast is to take
place, but the bridegroom is still absent ; as soon as he comes,
the feast wiU begin. A procession of bridemaids with lamps is
to meet him, in order to receive him in festal style, and then to
celebrate the marriage-feast with him. Neither is the place
more exactly defined from which the procession starts, nor the
house in which", after the festive reception of the bridegroom, the
feast itself is to take place. The usual Jewish custom seems to
have been for the bridegroom, accompanied by his friends, to go
on the wedding-day to the home of the bride, and, after the
bride has been there deUvered to him by her parents, to lead her,
accompanied by her friends and the wedding-guest, to his own or
his parent's house, where the marriage-feast was held.2 But this
supposes that bridegroom and bride dweU in one place, or near
each other, and the procession of the bridegroom to the house of
the bride is then itself part of the festive ceremonial. Here in
any case it is so far different as that the procession of bridemaids
meets the coming bridegroom. Moreover, the long delay in the
bridegroom's coming (ver. 5), and the beginning of the feast in
the marriage-house directly on his arrival (ver. 10), do not agree
with the customs just described. Plainly the conception here is,
that the bridegroom not merely proceeds from one house to
another, but comes to the marriage from abroad, and when he
approaches, the bridemaids meet him to conduct him into the
house of the bride, where the feast is celebrated.8 But, of course,
no stress must be laid on the circumstance that the marriage
takes place in the house of the bride, because if this had borne
on the narrator's purpose, he would have mentioned instead of
tacitly assuming it. To him the bride remains entirely in the
1 Cf. Gen. xiv. 17 : iriK"lp$> XX\
T : • T T
aCf. Riehm, Bibl. Bandworterbuch, art. "Ehe" 5, and Winer, Handworterbuch,
art. "Hochzeit."
3 Cf. Judg. xiv. 10 ; Gen. xxix. 22 ; Tob. viii. 20 ff. ; in each case the marriage
takes place in the house of the bride.

C>84 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
background. His theme is exclusively the bridemaids, whose
duty it is to receive the bridegroom, and whose hope is then to
be permitted to take part in the feast. Moreover, the question
as to the place from which the procession starts, whether the
bride's house or some other place, is quite irrelevant. This only
is clear, that the starting-point for the iijyXdov el? airdvryaiv
rov vvp<ptov can only be the place from which they start in
common, not, as has been supposed, on account of subsequent
imagined difficulties, the bridemaids' own houses, from which
they first resort to their common meeting-place.1 The number
of the virgins is ten, the number of completeness, inasmuch as
in it the units are again combined into a single whole. It
is a complete virgin - choir that is to receive the bridegroom
and take part in the marriage, so that each individual virgin
shares in the duty and the hope as belonging to this complete
choir. But nevertheless they bring their own lamps to receive
the bridegroom. For, according to the best witnesses, the
reflexive pronoun eavrwv must be read here,2 as also in ver. 7
after Xap,irdSa?, and also in ver. 4 it is questionable whether
eavrwv 3 ought not to be read after pterd twk XapiirdSwv, whereas
in ver. 3, where the Becepta has it after XapiirdSa?, the weight
of the evidence rather favours avrwv. In any case the reflexive
pronoun should be noted. It can only be meant to emphasize
that the lamps were not hired articles, for whose putting in
order the virgins were not themselves responsible, but the
personal property of the virgins, so that they were themselves
responsible for the due preparation of the lamps, each one for
her own.
When further, in ver. 2, according to the best attested reading
it is said : irkvre Be ii; avrwv yaav pwpal Kal irkvre (ppbvtpoi} ie.
"And five of them were foolish, and five wise," and it is then
recited how the foolish acted in their folly and the wise in their
wisdom in the taking of the lamps mentioned in ver. 1, it is at
once unmistakeable that the narrative does not proceed to tell
what took place in the road after the departure mentioned in
ver. 1, but that it gives the detaUs of the general statement
there, making the preparations for the procession its starting-
point. The first information is, that an essential distinction
existed among the ten virgins. Half of them were foolish, and
1 Stier et al. 2 Tischendorf. 3 Weiss.
4 In the Recepta the position of pwpxl . . . tppotipai is reversed.

THE TEN VIRGINS. 385
half wise. The foolishness of the first half stands first, because
this is the characteristic circumstance forming the occasion of the
peculiar and unusual course of things to be related; and the
second clause : Kal irkvre (f>pbvip.oi, then serves to confirm
the contrast in which the foolish stood to the rest. The qualities
" foolish " and " wise " are, of course, to be understood in the
usual sense. The religious and moral meaning of the Hebrew
733 must not here be introduced, in order then to discover in the
designation " fooUsh " the want of virgin modesty,1 a view that
would mix quite alien elements in a figurative story treating of
a procession of bridemaids.
After this prefatory remark respecting the difference of cha
racter existing among the virgins, the narrative refers to the
taking of the lamps mentioned in ver. 1, and relates the foUy
committed by the foolish in this act of preparing for the pro
cession. Ver. 3 does not, as might appear, give reasons for the
distinction made in ver. 2 ;2 but conversely on the basis of the
distinction made it is related: a'irive? papal, XaBovaai rd?
XapirdSa? eavrwv 3 ovk eXaBov ped' eavrwv ekaiov, ie. " They
then (quippe quse) who were foolish, when they took their lamps,
took no oil with themselves." The foUy of this course is placed in
a clear light by the antithesis formed by intentionally repeating
the same verb : XaBovaai rd? XapirdSa? . . . ovk eXaBov eXaiov.
To take a lamp and not to take oil also is folly, and just this it
is which the foolish virgins did. How they feU into such folly
is shown by the very noteworthy reflexive pronoun ped' eavrwv,
ie. they took not oil with themselves. We now see in what sense
they thought they could dispense with taking oil. It did not
seem to them requisite to have it with themselves. Trusting with
foolish thoughtlessness to the fact that they belong to the choir of
virgins destined to receive the bridegroom and take part in the
marriage, they did not consider that each one of them is herself
responsible for her own lamp, and has herself to see to its burning.
It is true, the ordinary exposition would find an altogether
different meaning in these words. Although it is simply said,
" they took no oU with themselves," almost all expositors explain :
They had taken oil enough in their lamps for some time, and had
1 Cremer, Die eschatologhche Rede.
2 Hence the origin of the divergent reading xl yxp /nopxl in several codices is easily
explained. 3 Or xliTm, see ver. 1.
GOEBEL. 2 B

3 86 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
only neglected to procure a special reserve beyond this. It is
conceded that this view finds no support in ver. 3 at least. It
has arisen from a retrospective inference from what is said of the
wise in ver. 4. But even there it finds no justifiable basis. For
when, in opposition to the conduct of the foolish, the conduct of
the wise is described to this effect : al Be (ppbvipoi eXaBov eXaiov
iv rol? dyyeioi? x perd rwv XapirdSwv avrwv,2 all that is affirmed
is that these, as sensible persons, did what the nature of the case
required : " But the wise took oil in the vessels with their lamps."
It is the words iv rol? wyyeioi?, "in the vessels," that have
led exposition astray. Instead of the emphasis being laid on the
folly of the foolish, who are placed in the foreground by the
narrator himself in ver. 2, and again in ver. 3, and so remain
the chief persons to the end, the emphasis has been laid on the
wisdom of the wise as persons who, in order to be prepared for
every event, took with them a special reserve of oil beside the
usual amount, and for this purpose brought quite special vessels.
But this is to make the wise, with far too conspicuous wisdom,
provide for a case altogether inconceivable in the circumstances
of the story. For how could the most far-sighted hit on the
thought that they might have occasion to burn their lamps many
hours before the bridegroom's arrival, and thus let the oil
consume uselessly away ? Such a procession, simply prepared
to receive one coming from abroad, does not journey at random
into the night, but only starts when news of his approach comes.
This is the natural course, and is expressly confirmed by the
further course of the narrative.8 In this case, so long as there is
no news of the approach of the expected one, the lamps of the
procession wiU not be kindled, to say nothing of the fact that if
his arrival is delayed, it would be requisite to let the lamps burn
uselessly. ISTor is the supposition, that the wise virgins had in
view the possibility of such an event, made necessary by the
mention of the vessels in ver. 4. On the contrary, the article
before dyyeioi? plainly describes the vessels in question as the
particular vessels known to every one where lamps are spoken
of, or at least lamps to be carried in the open air are spoken of.
Consequently, the vessels cannot be vessels carried only by the
wise in an unusual manner from simple precaution; but they
are either the vessels for the oil in the lamps themselves, or
1 xltTut after xyyuois, according to far preponderant testimony, is to be deleted.
2 Or \xvrwt, see ver. 1. 3 Cf. ver. 6.

THE TEN VIRGINS. 387
vessels usuaUy supplied to lamps carried in the open air, and
forming part of the outfit of the lamp-bearers, in order perhaps to
be able at any time to replenish the lamps which held but a
small amount of oil.1 Either view suits the words : " they took
oU in the vessels with their lamps." For even the mention of
the vessels in the lamps themselves would be very well
explained as an antithesis to the ovk eXaBov pied' eavrwv in
ver. 3. The oU which the foolish did not think it necessary to
have with themselves, the wise — so it would be said emphaticaUy
— have already inside the vessels with their lamps. But what
ever the nature of the lamps, in any case the wise sensibly
considered that it was their business to see to their lamps
burning on the bridegroom's arrival, and accordingly made
provision to be for their part ready every moment to receive him
with lamps burning.
Thus in w. 2-4 the XaBovaai rd? XapirdSa? eavrwv of ver. 1
was described in detaU, and therefore the preparations of the
virgins for setting out. It is accordingly to be expected that on
the description of the preparations wUl follow the more detaUed
description of the setting out itself also mentioned in ver. 1.
Yet the setting out does not ensue at once, but a delay inter
venes, as told in ver. 5, which gives its pecuUar shape to the
history of the setting out. Thus ver. 5 simply prepares for the
more detaUed description of the setting out, just as ver. 2
prepared for the more detaUed description of the preparations.
In ver. 5 it is said : ypovl&vro? Se rov vvp(f>iov ivvara^av iraaat
Kal iKddevBov, ie. "Now, while the bridegroom tarried, they all
slumbered and slept." Thus, the virgins await tidings of the
bridegroom's approach, in order then to kindle their lamps,
arrange themselves in festal procession, and go forth to meet him.
But they wait in vain. "The time runs away without sound of
the bridegroom's coming. Then gently and graduaUy sleep feU
on the waiters ; one after another, and at last aU, slumbered and
slept. How forced, on the other hand, the ordinary view, which
would join the statement of ver. 5 again suddenly to ver. 1,
1 Nothing certain is known respecting the nature of the lamps. Lightfoot, Hor.
Heb., quotes on the passage : "A Rabbi Salomone hsec etiam adducuntur : mos est
in terra Ismselitica, ut sponsam dueant a domo patris sui in domum sponsi, ante
introductionem in thalamum, ferantque ante earn circiter decern baculos ligneos, in
uniuscujwque summitate vasculum instar scutellce hdbentes, in quo est segmentum panni
cum oleo et pice. " But nothing definite can be learnt from this in reference to the
present parable, because only Ismaelitish, not Jewish customs are here in question.

388 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
instead of to vv. 3, 4, and thus give to the statements in vv. 2-4,
so important for the whole course of the narrative, the position of
a mere explanatory parenthesis ! And how confused and incon
gruous the situation emerging, directly a serious attempt is made
to picture to oneself the incidents of ver. 5 as taking place on
the road after the setting out has taken place ! The virgins are
supposed to have gone forth into the night at random to meet
the bridegroom without having heard of his coming, and then
not to have continued their journey tUl they actually met him,
but to have stopped somewhere, — why, but because the journey
was too long for them, — and to have preferred to shelter in a
house by the way,1 of which certainly some mention should have
been made, or to have sat down to rest on the road outside in
some ditch,2 certainly a strange notion in the case of bridemaids
in wedding attire. And there in some house or ditch they are
supposed to have slept, and during their sleep their lamps burnt
without interruption. But how can any one sleep with a
burning lamp in the hand, which yet must have been the case
with all ? And if this were done, the lamps would not continue
burning, but would fall from the sleeper's hand and go out.
To this is to be added, finally, that now in ver. 6 the summons
is first really heard to the setting out supposed to have taken
place long before : pikay? Be vvkio? Kpavyy yiyovev, 'IBoii b vvp-
(f>io?, igipyeade ei? dirdvryaiv.3 Here, therefore, the more detailed
description has again arrived at the general statement of ver. 1 :
igyXdov el? dirdvryaiv rov vvp,(piov. For it is hard to believe
that literaUy the same words denote a second different departure
from the one there, as is supposed on the other view of the course
of tbe narrative. " And at midnight a shout arouse, Lo, the bride- .
groom ; go out to the meeting." It is the announcement of the
bridegroom, for which they have long waited in vain, only that it
is now heard in a way such as they had not conceived. For it
dons not come to those eagerly awaiting it as a timely notification |
of his gradual approach from afar, but as a sudden excited shout, j
loud and piercing, " Lo, the bridegroom ; " it precedes the bride
groom coming immediately behind. Demanding instant depar- 1
ture, it falls with terror on those who, lying in midnight sleep, are :
1 Meyer, "Weiss, et al. 2 De "Wette, Nebe, et al.
3 The tpxtTxi after w/nplos in the Recepta, and also the xIitoV after xrxtrum, are
to be expunged on weighty testimony as glossarial additions to fill up the excited
brevity of the summons.

THE TEN VIRGINS. 389
now least expecting him. Now it must needs appear who of
the virgins are prepared to receive the bridegroom, and who not.
For it is necessary without delay to kindle the lamps, in order
to meet him on his unexpected coming. Hence the narrative
proceeds, ver. 7 : rbre yyepdyaav iraaai al irapdivoi iKeivai Kal
iKoapyaav ra? Xap,irdSa? eavrwv, ie. " Then all those virgins arose,
and trimmed their lamps " (every one her own, eavrwv, cf. ver. 1).
Koapelv means to arrange, set in order, e.g. an army for battle,1
a table for eating,2 a lamp, therefore, for burning. Thus the
Koapelv of the lamps here is to be understood in this obvious
sense of the trimming necessary for the lamps to burn, and
includes the kindling, whereas all the expositors who represent
the lamps as burning long before are compeUed to refer it with far
less aptness to some trimming of the burning lamps. It is an
exciting situation with correspondent hasty action. Awakened
suddenly from midnight sleep, all the virgins hasten to do what
will brook no delay in face of the shout : " Lo, the bridegroom,"
— they kindle each one their lamps. But then the folly of not
taking oil with themselves recoils on the foolish. For when
they, starting from deep sleep, hastUy kindle their lamps, these
at once go out, after the manner of a lamp not supplied with new
oU for new use, which shows a flame for a moment, but only tc
expire again forthwith. In their trouble they then try whether it
is not possible even yet to borrow the oil, which they have not
themselves, from the rest. They turn with their prayer for help
to their companions, to whom the sudden appearance of the bride
groom at an unexpected hour causes no perplexity, because they
have oil in the vessels (ver. 4) for their lamps, ver. 8 : al Se
papal ral? (ppovipoi? elirav, Abre yplv ix rov eXaiov vpwv, on
al XapirdSe? yp,wv aBkvvvvrai, i.e. " And the foolish said to the
wise, Give us of your oil, for our lamps are going out." That the
last statement does not prove that the lamps were burning from
the first, and continued so during the sleep,3 is clear from what
has been already said on ver. 7 respecting iKoapyaav. The
word aB'evvvvrai denotes here, not the final extinction of a lamp
after burning long, but — what it may just as well signify — the
quick going out again of a lamp just kindled, because not supplied
with fresh oU. But it is an utterly impracticable prayer which the
foolish address to their companions. This is stated in the answer
of the latter, ver. 9 : "But the wise answered, saying, My irbre
1 So often in Homer. 2 Wisd. xxix. 26 et al. 3 "Wci^s.

390 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
ovk dpKeay yplv Kal vpiv, i.e. (imitating the elUptical phraseology,
which makes the sentence depend on the supposed apprehension
of the speaker1), " that it be not insufficient (literaUy, that it
may not be not sufficient) for us and you." But this reading of
the Becepta is probably a mere simplification of the other just as
weU attested one : M?j7roTe, ov p,y dpKeay K.r.X. In this case the
pjyirore (scil. rovro yivkadw) stands first and alone in a deprecat
ing sense, and there foUows as an independent sentence the
strengthening double negation oi p,y, with the conjunctive aorist,
which in such cases is scarcely distinguishable from the indicative
future,2 therefore : " Never shall this be done, by no means will it
suffice for us and you." As regards the meaning also the latter
reading is preferable, because it excludes the possibility of the
foolish being able to borrow oil from the wise at the decisive
moment with still greater emphasis than the former, a feature
plainly more in keeping with the purpose of the narrative. Cer
tainly this unconditional refusal would appear strange and motive
less in the circumstances of the narrative, if the view were
right which makes the wise bring with them a special reserve
of oil. For, after the lamps themselves had been able to burn a
long time, such a reserve must have sufficed also for their com
panions in these last decisive moments. On the other hand, the
refusal has motive enough if their wisdom only consisted in their
taking with them what each one needed for herself in receiving
the bridegroom. Thus the view we took on this point is con
firmed here.
But to this refusal the wise add the counsel : iropeveade pdXXov
irpb? roii? irwXovvra? Kal dyopdaere eavral?. For this is cer
tainly no mockery, as the ancients caUed it,3 but weU-meant
counsel. Nor can the counsel, from the speaker's standpoint,' be
even caUed perverse. In the difficulty in which the fooUsh found
themselves nothing was left but the attempt to repair their former
neglect, and do what the wise had done in time, namely, provide
themselves with the oil necessary to their lamps burning. How
ever improbable it seems that they will now succeed, stiU it was
the only thing the wise could say to them : " Go rather to thru
that sell, and buy for yourselves." Plainly the emphasis rests on
the last word, " for yourselves," and thus on the last clause, to
which the former is only an introduction. The antithesis intro
duced by " rather " is not : instead of turning to us, go rather to
1 Winer, Oram. p. 632. 2 Cf. xxiv. 2, and "Winer, p. 634. 3 Augustine, Luther.

THE TEN VIRGINS. 391
the sellers, but : instead of trying to fill your lamps with borrowed
oil, which is out of the question, go rather where it is sold, and
buy for yourselves, that you may fiU your lamps with your own oU.
The introductory prefixing of the first clause, and the mention ofthe
seUers, might be dispensed with, unless it were meant to intimate
to the foolish virgins the perUous circumstance, that the essen
tiaUy necessary buying for themselves could not be done in the
moment of need on the spot, but necessitated a going to those
who seU.
The participial clause : airepyopevwv Be avrwv dyopaaai, in
ver. 1 0, informs us that the foolish virgins do as the wise advised.
Instead of going direct to meet the bridegroom, they first go away
to buy, in the hope of being back in time to receive him with
lamps burning. With this the statement made in ver. 1 of aU
the ten virgins without distinction : i^yXdov et? dirdvryaiv rov
vvptptov, is perfectly consistent. Only in its more precise explana
tion by the antithesis between the fooUsh and wise which governs
the entire story, it has gained this special form, that, when at the
summons, " Go forth to the meeting," aU ten set out to receive
the bridegroom, only the latter were in a position to go to meet
him directly, whereas the former were compelled to take a by
path, exposing them to the danger of coming too late. And such
was the fact. This is told in ver. 10 : airepyopevwv Be avrwv
dyopaaai yXdev b vvp(plo?, Kal ai eroipoi eiayXdov per avrov ei?
roii? ydpov?, Kal iKXeiady y dvpa, ie. " And while they were going
away 1 to buy," therefore while the five foolish were absent,2 the whole
series of decisive events took place. First, " the bridegroom came,"
next : " and they that were ready 3 went in with him to the mar
riage festivities," '4 which can only be represented as something
foUowing without delay on the bridegroom's arrival during the
absence of the foolish, in case the festivities are regarded as
beginning in the house of the bride directly on the bridegroom's
arrival. Moreover, the %X0ev b vvpfylo? is continued in the
eiayXdov pier avrov with such evident directness, that it is
impossible to interpose a fetching of the bride and then a
return of the entire procession.8 And with just as Uttle delay
1 xoripxa/iiteot, part. pres.
2 In opposition to Stier, who finds a "gentle, very concealed " possibility left open
that one or other returned in time.
3 Ready with lamps burning to receive him.
4 Respecting the plural us tovs yx/tovs, cf. on xxii. 1. ' Cf. on ver. 1.

392 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
follows the third event : " and the door (of the festive hall) was
shut," not merely to shut out from participation in the festive joy
all improper persons in general, but in particular the bridemaids
who were not ready. So the latter, on returning from their
journey, find the bridegroom already within, their companions
with him, and the door shut. And they are forced to learn that
the door' was shut expressly against them, when they pray for
admission, ver. 11 : varepov Be epyovrai Kal ai \ot7rat irapdtvoi
Xeyovaai, Kvpie, Kvpie, avoi^ov yplv. The present epyovrai vividly
portrays the perilous moment of undeceiving : " Afterwards come
also the other virgins" seeking admission, to the door through
which their companions had previously entered with the bride
groom, but which was closed against them, and repeating the
Kvpie with anxious entreaty, they cry : " Lord, Lord, open to us."
It has been asked whether they obtained oil or not. But instead
of seeking an answer to this question, we should rather note that
the narrative passes it by in sUence. The only importance of the
oil in the narrative was to make the lamps of the virgins burn in
order to their receiving the bridegroom. When it can no longer
serve this purpose it no longer comes into view. Whether they
obtained it or not, the attempt to repair the neglect of prepar
ing to receive the bridegroom fails, because his rapid arrival
left them no time to do so. Hence, too, the unconditional refusal
which their prayer found with the bridegroom, ver. 12:" But he
answered, and said :" ' Apyv Xkyw vpiv, ovk olSa vpa?. The bride
groom introduces the refusal with the assurance : " Verily T say
to you." To make the prefixing of this asseveration explicable, we
need not suppose that it was interpolated by the evangelist, who
views the words " I know you not " as the words of the returning
Messiah,1 and therefore confounds the figure with the thing pre
figured ; but the bridegroom speaks so emphatically because he
knows what the refusal signifies to those craving admission,
namely, their irrevocable exclusion from participation in the fes
tive joy, to which as bridemaids they seem to have a right, and
on which they reckoned with certainty so long. With this the
wording of the refusal is not inconsistent. For it does not mean :
" I know nothing of you," but, according to the well-known use
of elSkvai with the accusative of the person : " / know you not,"
namely, as bridemaids and sharers in the feast, a statement which
does not preclude his knowing well who they are, and what con-
1 Weiss.

THE TEN VIRGINS. 393
dition they are in. How could the reason of five bridemaids only,
instead of ten, receiving him be unknown to the bridegroom ?
And had he not really known what the condition was of those
craving admission, how could he have refused them so curtly,
without asking the reason and right of their wish ? In this case
not merely the emphatic introduction, " Verily I say to you,"
but also the brief refusal itself, would be unintelligible. But the
meaning of the bridegroom's answer, so weighty in its brevity, is
rather this : Verily I say to you, although you belonged to the
choir of bridemaids, you are unknown and strangers to me, because
in the decisive hour you were not ready as bridemaids to receive
me. And now the narrative is at an end. Of the hope of a
subsequent admission at a later term,1 the figurative story contains
no trace.
When, then, the word odv joins to the narrative the exhorta
tion : ypyyopeire oZv, on ovk o'iSare t^v ypkpav ovSe ryv wpav,
we know already from the examination of the strain of the dis
course to which the parable belongs, that in these words we have
before us the third repetition of an exhortation, the justification
and explanation of which were the exclusive object of the Lord's
discourse from xxiv. 36 on. But if this utterance is only the
repetition of an otherwise certain dictum, it cannot be meant here
to express the special purpose of this parable in distinction from
the preceding parabohc sayings; but it only affirms that the
special teaching of this parable is again comprehended under the
general exhortation : " Watch, therefore, for ye know not the day
nor the hour " (scil. of the Son of man's coming).2 We have
accordingly to obtain the special teaching of the present parable
by an independent review of the course and contents of the
narrative, with the proviso that the teaching must be subordi
nate to the general exhortation to watchfulness because of the
uncertainty of the time of Christ's coming, as a special form of
the exhortation.
In thus turning back to the figurative story to ascertain its
moral, we shall no longer be tempted, after what has been said,
to recur, on account of the exhortation to watchfulness (ypyyopeire),
annexed to the parable, to the sleeping mentioned in the parable
as the essential and critical element, as though that figurative
expression in the exhortation must necessarily correspond to this
figurative trait in the narrative. The metaphorical meaning of
1 Stier. 2 xxiv. 42, 44.

394 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
unbroken, persistent attentiveness, therefore of constant readiness
for everything that may come, inheres so permanently and natu
raUy in the ypyyopelv of Biblical Greek,1 that the use of the word
in this sense by no means implies a special reference in the
speaker's mind to the antithesis of waking and sleeping in the
sensuous life. Moreover, the ypyyopeire here is merely the re
sumption of the ypyyopeire in xxiv. 42, where also it stood
independently without resting on a corresponding figurative trait
in the previous exposition, vv. 37-41; whereas in ver. 44, just
where the preceding parabolic saying of the sleeping householder
and the thief really suggested the choice of the figurative expres
sion, it was replaced by the synonymous yiveade eroipoi.
Accordingly, to ascertain the purpose of the narrative, we shaU
simply go back to its general essential purport, without being
diverted in estimating the essential point by the figurative form
of the exhortation. Again, it is at once apparent that in fact
the figurative trait of the sleeping of the virgins is but a relatively
unimportant circumstance in the construction of the whole,
having no immediate connection with the hortatory purpose of
the narrative. The chief element in the narrative, upon which
alone its hortatory purpose can be based, was plainly the foolish
conduct of the one-half of the virgins, having for its consequence
their exclusion from the marriage. But this foolish conduct so
little consisted in their sleeping, that this was not presented as a
characteristic of their conduct, but only as an event happening
alike to all the virgins, foolish and wise. Their folly rather lay
simply in neglecting their personal preparation to receive the
bridegroom. The first fundamental part (vv. 1-4) said, that in
a marriage-procession of ten virgins five neglected to provide
themselves with the oil necessary for their lamps ; whereupon
the second part (vv. 5-12) shows how perUous this neglect
became to them through the manner of the bridegroom's coming,
which, ensuing in an unexpected moment, suddenly revealecl-
their want of preparation without leaving them time to repair it,
so that they were excluded from the marriage. And if we are
warranted by the strain of the discourse, in which the parable
stands, in assuming beforehand as beyond doubt that the waiting
of the Church for the coming of its Lord to set up His kingdom
corresponds to the waiting of the virgin-choir for the bridegroom's
coming to the marriage, then the moral of the parable can only
1 Cf. Acts xx. 31 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 13 ; Col. iv. 2 ; 1 Pet. v. 8.

THE TEN VIRGINS. 395
be the exhortation, that no one is to suppose, because he belongs to
the Church of Christ, which waits for the Lord and His coming,
that he can neglect personal preparation for His Parousia, seeing
that on the speedy coming of the Lord in the moment least expected,
this want of self-preparation will be revealed, and because then
incapable of remedy, will irretrievably exclude from the blessedness
of God's kingdom. The order of the parable is, that the first part
(w. 1-4) exhibits the character of this neglect in the conduct
of the foolish virgins, whilst the second (w. 5-1 2) sets forth its
perilou-s, irretrievable consequences at the coming of the Son of
man by the fate of the virgins at the coming of the bridegroom.
Directly one bears in mind that the ypyyopeire, ver. 13, as in
xxiv. 42, is nothing but a synonym of the yiveade Eroipoi lying
between in xxiv. 44, it is self-evident how aptly this special
exhortation of the parable subordinates itself to the general one
in ver. 13 : ypyyopeire ovv, on ovk oiSare t^v ypkpav oiiSe T^f
wpav, for which, indeed, the parable is meant to assign new and
special reasons.
Beturning, then, to the beginning of the parable, in order on
the basis now gained to carry out the interpretation in detaU, we
see in ver. 1 the general figurative setting, within which the
particular occurrences wUl move, described as a procession of
lamp-bearing bridemaids who go forth to meet the bridegroom
coining to the marriage. Here, therefore, as in the parable of the
Boyal Marriage-Feast,1 a marriage-feast serves figuratively to
represent the festive joy of God's kingdom. Moreover, the limits
within which the comparison with a marriage-feast keeps are the
same in the present parable as those exhibited by us in inter
preting the parable of chap. xxii. The union of the bridegroom
with the bride is not drawn into the comparison, the bride here
again remaining quite in the background. Only the marriage-
joy, as the highest, all-satisfying joy, which the guests share with
the bridegroom, and the bridegroom with them, becomes the
image of the eternal, aU-satisfying joy of God's future kingdom,
which the members wiU share with Christ, and Christ with them.2
But when to this general idea of association in a marriage-feast
is added the more definite one of the choir of bridemaids, complete
in number, and awaiting the coming of the bridegroom with
joyous hope, in order when he comes to go forth to meet him
with shining lamps, and enter in with him to the marriage-joy;
1 xxii. 1 ff. 2 Cf. p. 366.

396 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
what can be symbolized but the Church of the disciples of Jesus,
anticipating the coming of its Lord with joyous hope, in order
when He comes to carry before Him the Ught whose brightness
will attest it in His eyes as His Church, ie. in order in the hour
of His coming to present itself before Him in the glory of its
moral purity and holiness ? When already in the general state
ment in ver. 1 the lamps are seen to be the characteristic feature
in the marriage-procession, and accordingly the only essential
element in the virgin-choir going to receive the bridegroom is
that it shine before him with light of festal lamps, — so much so,
that the preparation for the procession bears exclusively on this
point, and the participation of the individuals in the marriage
depends exclusively on their letting their lamps shine before the
bridegroom, — the interpretation must above all ask, what condi
tion, required of the Church in receiving the coming Messiah, is
meant to be symbolized by this shining of festal lamps before the
bridegroom ? The first inquiry in the interpretation ought not,
as is usually done, to be directed to the oil as the supposed
central idea in the narrative, whereas in truth everything said of
the oil simply bears on the preparation for fulfilling that condition.
But directly the question is thus correctly put, the correct
answer follows of itself. The march of the virgins to meet the
bridegroom with shining lamps can only be a figurative expression
for the solemn self -presentation of the Church before its returning
Lord in the glory of the moral purity and hoUness that is its
characteristic. It is the same thought, only in figurative dress,
that is often expressed elsewhere in the New Testament.1 On
the manner in which the self-presentation of the Church in its
moral state is pictured as the letting its Ught shine, chap. v. 16
especially may be consulted. As it is there required of the
disciples, that what they are and have morally they are to let
shine clearly before men (Xaptyfrdrw rb (pw? vpwv), Uke a light
set on the candlestick (eVt ryv Xvyviav, ver. 15), so that men
may see it and recognise God's work in them as God's chUdren ;
so the thought here is, that the Church of Jesus is to let the
moral purity and holiness characteristic of it, Uke a festal light
borne in lamps, shine before its Lord in the hour of His coming,
that by this Ught issuing from it He may recognise it as His.
But the distinction is self-evident, that the letting its light shine,
1 1 Cor. i. 8 ; Eph. v. 27 ; Phil. i. 10 ; Col. i. 22 ; 1 Thess. iii. 13, v. 23 ; 2 Pet.
iii. 12, 14.

THE TEN VIRGINS. 397
as there required of the disciples, is Umited to what is cognizable "*
by men, and therefore to manifestation in " good works " (oirw?
iBwaiv vpwv rd KaXa epya), whereas here it is a figurative
expression for their solemn self-presentation before the Lord in
the completeness of their moral being, and therefore in their
entire character and walk sanctified by faith in Him, and
haUowed by love to Him. If thus the interpretation has to lay
the entire stress on the festal shining of the lamps with which
the bridemaids are to receive the bridegroom, and if the idea of
purity of heart and life has rightly found its place in the inter
pretation of this central trait, no room is left for a reference of
the chastity in the bridemaids to a corresponding inner purity
from polluting contact with sin and the world.1 Nor does the
narrative itself permit an independent figurative significance to
be given to the designation " virgins " here, since it is only intro
duced in connection with the notion of a marriage-feast. The
ten lamp-bearers nowhere come into notice in the narrative as
virgins in opposition to those who are not such, but always
simply as the definite bridemaids, therefore in distinction from
other virgins not having this character.
So far we have only interpreted the general figurative setting
of the narrative first given in ver. 1. On this general background
the special purport of the parable must now rise to view, just
Uke the special course of the narrative from the general notion of
a festal procession of bridemaids to receive the bridegroom.
The first part of the narrative tells of a distinction of foolish'
and wise among the individual virgins, making a breach in the
complete number ten, and showing itself in the different conduct
of the one class and the other in preparing for the festal pro
cession. If the whole body of bridemaids, complete in number,
was the image of the Church of Jesus waiting for the coming of
its Lord and His kingdom, the emphasizing of the above dis
tinction contains a warning aUusion to the fact that a common
belonging to the Church looking for Christ's Parousia, and there
fore a common waiting and hoping for the day of the Lord, does
not exclude a perilous distinction of foUy and wisdom among
individual disciples as regards the manner in which the one class
and the other make ready for the Lord's coming. When the
foolish virgins take indeed their lamps in hand, and thus set
themselves in company with the rest to receive the bridegroom,
1 Cremer, Lange, Nebe, et al.

398 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
but in thoughtless reliance on their belonging to the number of
bridemaids, and in forgetfulness of their personal responsibility
for their own lamps, neglect to provide themselves with the oil
that can alone make their lamps shine before the bridegroom,
this is plainly meant to describe in figure simUar conduct to
which false security may lead individual members of Christ's
Church. And in keeping with the figure this conduct can only
consist in this, that in false reliance on his belonging to Christ's
Church, and on the promise given to it of partaking in God's
glorious kingdom of the future, the individual neglects earnest
care for personal preparation for the Lord's coming ; or, giving
aU the elements in the figure their fuU weight, that the individual
fancies himself ready for the Lord's coming because he belongs
to the community of beUevers in Christ, and with it looks for
the Lord's coming and sets himself to receive Him, whilst in
forgetfulness of his personal responsibility for his own self-
presentation before the Lord he neglects to procure as a personal
possession the moral character, in whose pure glory he is to
appear before the coming Lord and show himself His disciple.
So true wisdom demands, as the example of the wise virgins put
in contrast expressly shows. As they take oil within the vessels
with their lamps, so that each one carries it with her, so every
one who would wisely prepare himseU for the Lord's coming
must take care that he has with him as an inner possession what
wiU enable him to stand before the coming Lord as a member of
His Church. In the parable the oil is related to the festal light,
which is to shine before the bridegroom, simply as the Ughting
material which any one carries with him to the radiance which
by its means he makes to stream from him at a given moment,
or, without figure, as the moral capital, which one carries in him,
is related to the presentation of himself in this moral state before
the coming Lord. We can now dispense with aU further inquiry,
what the oU is, what the lamps, and what the vessels, whether
the oU is the Holy Spirit,1 and the lamps the human heart, the
vessels the body, soul, and spirit,2 or lamps and vessels together
the means of grace,3 or, which at least approaches in substance
the correct view, the oU faith, and the lamps outward Chris
tianity.4 The oil cannot here signify the Holy Spirit of God, as
has been supposed with inconsiderate transference of the Old-
1 Olshausen, de Valenti, Stier, Lange, Cremer, Thiersch, Keil.
2 Stier. 3 De Valenti. * Lisco.

THE TEN VIRGINS. 399
Testament symbol of the anointing oil, because in the parable the
oU does not appear as a gift which one receives, but as a posses
sion which one procures for himself. And directly the single
ideas, "oil, lamps, vessels," are separated, from the context in
which they stand, and interpreted each one by itself, incongruities
are the result. The oil, and lamps, and vessels are not opposed
to each other ; but within the taking of the lamps common to
aU, which is the formal setting of oneself to receive the coming
Lord, is found the contrast, that the one class also take to them
selves oU in their vessels, and the other class do not, which
contrast can only be interpreted in the way indicated. The
other divergence in our interpretation — making the want of
self-preparation generaUy the object of rebuke, not the want of
perseverance in readiness,1 according to the usual interpretation,
— needs no special justification, resting as it does on our divergent
interpretation of the narrative. As Uttle as the meaning there
could be, that even the foolish virgins had taken oU enough to
make their lamps burn without interruption the whole time of
waiting, but not as much as the wise with their supposed extra
ordinary reserve, so little can the parable be meant merely to
reprove want of perseverance in readiness. Moreover, this inter
pretation wiU always be in coUision, hard to avoid, with the
sleeping of the wise virgins in ver. 5. For although it will soon
appear that this feature is not used to describe the conduct of
the disciples, but is to be appUed in the interpretation in another
way, stiU it would be in too obvious contrast with the purpose
of the parable, if the latter meant by the example of slumbering
wise virgins to teach infatigabilis constantia.2
The second part of the narrative begins with ver. 5, not with
ver. 6, and is meant to show how perilous the want of self-
preparation wiU prove on the day of Christ's coming. The
perUous effect of this want, because irreparable, is due to the
suddenness of the Lord's coming in a moment least expected, and
this suddenness is first figuratively described in the unexpected
coming of the bridegroom. But in the figurative story, which
exhibits a choir of bridemaids looking out with joyous eagerness
for the bridegroom's coming, such unexpectedness is only possible
by the bridemaids gradually passing from their first state of
watching and waiting into the opposite state of sleeping through
the length of the period of waiting, and in this new state ceasing
1 Calvin, Meyer, Weiss. a Calvin.

400 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
to expect his coming for the present. When, therefore, ver. 5
says that in consequence of the bridegroom's delay the virgins all
slumbered and slept, this state gives the necessary condition of
their being surprised by his coming. The statement, therefore,
does not belong to what precedes, where the manner of the
preparation of the virgins for the bridegroom's coming is treated
of, but altogether to the sequel, which describes the manner of
this coming itself. And in this case the meaning of this
statement will not be, speaking under quite another figure, to add
something respecting the manner of preparing for the Lord's
coming, and then to predict a general failing of aU believers in
this respect, — which is yet strangely left without reproof, and
has no ill consequences for the wise, — but it is only meant to
show how unexpectedly the announcement of the Lord's coming
wiU at last fall even on His disciples. Exactly the same relation
is found here as in the figurative circumstances of the narrative.
That believers look with joyous eagerness for their Lord's coming
to set up His kingdom, and expect every moment the events
announcing the hour, — this is the natural state at first. There
fore the announcement can only fall on them unexpectedly on
the supposition that in consequence of long delay they have
naturally become accustomed to this delay, and eager expectation
from one moment to another has given place to the opposite
state in which they cease to expect the coming of their Lord at
present. But this is something happening to aU without
distinction, just as naturally as sleep gradually falls on the eyes
of all the virgins in the long tarrying of the bridegroom, and has
nothing to do with the absence or presence of the inner readiness
of the individual every moment to stand before the Lord. The
two things are as certainly different as it is a very different thing,
whether anything finds me unprepared, or merely comes to me
unexpectedly. It is true, sleep may serve as a figure of the one
just as well as of the other, according to the context. But here
it plainly expresses the state in which one does not look for an
event at present, the state of unpreparedness having already
found its representation under another figure. Accordingly
vv. 5 and 6 are to be interpreted thus : Like as the bridegroom's
coming was only announced when the virgins were sleeping
in consequence of his long tarrying, and no longer expected his
coming at present, and just at midnight, when they lay in the
deepest sleep, and least looked for him, so with like unexpected-

THE TEN VIRGINS. 401
ness wUl the hour of Christ's coming burst, when His Church
has become accustomed to His long delay, and just in the
moment when it least of all anticipates His coming. And, on
the other hand, as the hour of His advent bursts unexpectedly,
so wUl His coming itself be accomplished just as rapidly. As
the shout : " Lo, the bridegroom," going immediately before him,
announces him as already come, and the cry : " Go forth to meet
him," requires the instant departure of the virgins to receive him,
so in the hour of the Parousia the announcement of the Lord's
coming wUl be such that He Himself will come immediately
behind it, and every one will be required without delay to appear
before the Son of man as he is. Thus each several element in
the description serves in its place to paint the perilous manner
of Christ's coming to the unprepared, — on one hand the
unexpectedness of its occurrence, and on the other the rapidity,
admitting no respite, with which it is accomplished. But there
is no intention here to predict definite facts and events occurring
at Christ's Parousia, as e.g. by the midnight the spiritual darkness
that wiU 'then prevail upon earth,1 whereas the notion of darkness
is a self-evident condition in the story of a lamp-procession, or
by the cry : " Lo, the bridegroom," some definite announcement
of Christ's coming distinct from other signs and events proclaim
ing the hour of His advent, such as different expositors suppose
according to their taste, the trumpet of the angels,2 or a
watchman-cry of human messengers,3 or physical signs in heaven
and on earth,4 — all with equally little support in the text, and
only practicable in applying and expounding the thought of the
parable. If the Lord comes so unexpectedly on the one hand and so
rapidly on the other as was pictured in vv. 5 and 6, then on the
one hand to the unprepared the folly and self-deception of their
carelessness must be just as suddenly revealed to them when
they are called on by the Lord's unexpected coming to appear
before Him, and on the other this knowledge will come to them
too late, because His rapid coming will preclude the possibility
of repairing the neglect in the hour of the Parousia itself. These
are the two things taught in the conclusion of the parable, first
in w. 8 and 9, and again in vv. 10-12. When in vv. 8 and 9
we read of a prayer which the foolish addressed to the wise, and
of a refusal which the latter returned, this conversation cannot
1 Nebe. 2 So several of the ancients. 3 Olshausen, Stier. ' Nebe.
GOEBEL. 2 °

402 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
be meant to predict a like transaction reaUy taking place in the
hour of Christ's advent between the unprepared and the prepared,
just as Uttle as the other conversation between the fooUsh virgins
and the bridegroom himself is meant to predict a simUar dialogue
taking place after the Lord's advent and the final crisis between
those excluded from God's kingdom and the Lord Himself. These
conversations stand on the same footing as those found before at
the close of other parables.1 The BibUcal dialogue is simply the
vivid pictorial form in which the author of the parable expresses
within its figurative circumstances what He desires to teach His
hearers. And here especiaUy, where the dialogue is composed
of prayer and refusal, the refusal of what the foolish virgins ask
teaches the hopelessness of a possibiUty corresponding to the
object of request and refusal, a possibiUty on which a disciple
without self-preparation perhaps thought he might reckon in the
hour of Christ's advent. Just as the foolish virgins received in
answer to their prayer for oil an unconditional refusal, so they who
are found without the requisite qualifications for appearing before
the Lord at the Parousia wiU learn that there is no possibnity of
supplying or concealing their want by the help of their better
prepared feUow-disciples. As they have hitherto trusted to their
belonging to the community of beUevers to stand them in stead
without personal preparation, so they must now reaUy stand
before the Lord. And the answer of the wise not merely says
that this possibUity is excluded, but also why. For when they
not merely decline the request of the foolish in general terms,
but also state the reason : " it wiU by no means suffice for us
and you," thus intimating that they have no more than each one
needs for herself, it is taught that in the hour of Christ's coming
no one wiU be able to answer for others, because no one wiU be
or have more in respect of his inner state than just what he
needs in order himself to be able to stand before the Lord. That,
in addition, no moral possession is communicable in the sense
that one might give something of his own to another, is a side
of the question which could not be brought forward in a parable,
where an outward must serve as an image of an inward possession,
without injury to the image in the aspect in which it is used
Therefore, when the hour of Christ's coming unexpectedly breaks,
there wUl be a sudden end to the self-deception of the careless, \
as if belonging to the Church of waiting believers apart from
1 Cf. the Lost Son, the Rich Man, the Labourers in the Vineyard.

Iii!

THE TEN VIRGINS. 403
personal preparation could enable to stand before the Lord or
qualify for participation in His kingdom ; and, like the foolish
virgins, the careless wUl learn with terror, what hitherto they
have concealed from themselves, that there is no other way than
the one figuratively expressed in the counsel of the wise : " Go
to them that sell, and buy for yourselves;" therefore without
figure the way of seU-preparation, by obtaining that state of heart
and Ufe whose pure lustre enables to stand before the Lord.
Our not attempting any special interpretation of the sellers —
either the doctrines of the word/ which would still have to be
sought within the Church, and therefore among the wise virgins
themselves; or Holy Scripture, so that the sellers would be
its human authors,2 which is still more forced — needs no justifica
tion, after the exposition of the text has shown that the counsel
of the wise really does not point to the assistance of some
other definite persons, but, on the contrary, remits to the way
of self- acquisition, which certainly, as the words "Go to
them," etc., affirm, must first reaUy be traversed and re-
traversed. And just in this lies the finally decisive element, that the
knowledge of the unconditional necessity of this way of self-
preparation forced itseU on him who had hitherto closed his eyes
to it, and forced itself on him in the hour of Christ's coming,
when it came too late. For such an one there wiU be no
possibiUty of repairing previous neglect, when for the first time
he would tread this path of self-preparation. That this second
possibility, which a fooUsh man thought always open in
extremity, is in truth absolutely excluded, — this is what is taught
by the final incidents of the narrative and the conversation
between the fooUsh virgins and the bridegroom. Just as Uttle as
this final conversation is meant to foretell a Uke transaction
between the Lord and the unprepared disciples, can the events
to which it is joined — the going away of the foolish, the entrance
of the bridegroom in their absence, and their return after the
door is shut — be meant to foreteU a series of like events on the
day of the Lord, such as that then the unprepared wiU reaUy
take the way of self-preparation, that Christ wiU appear before
they have attained their end, and they wUl seek admission to
God's kingdom, but wiU find it closed against them. The series
of events is simply intended to picture to the hearers of the
1 So many. 2 Olshausen.

404 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
parable with dramatic vividness how all possibUity of obtaining
the neglected self-preparation will be absolutely excluded in the
hour of Christ's coming, because the rapidity with which His
coming will be accomplished will leave no time for it, while the
crisis entering with His appearance is the final one, whose issues
are unchangeable. The former is pictured in the rapid entrance
of the bridegroom, before the virgins gone to buy oil have
returned, and the latter in their request afterwards for a
reopening of the closed door, and its refusal. If, therefore, it is a
truth known from other sources, that they whom nothing could
move in this life to earnest repentance and moral transformation,
and thus to personal preparation for Christ's appearance, will
then be unable under the impression of His sudden coming to
find the way of earnest repentance, the doctrine of the parable is
in no way inconsistent with this truth ; but that truth is only
another side of the same thing, another reason for the hopeless
ness of the same possibility of a final repairing of former neglect,
a reason which, instead of contradicting the doctrine of the
parable, that no time will be left for this, on the contrary
strikingly agrees and essentially coheres with it. Accordingly,
vv. 1 0-1 2 are to be interpreted thus : As the fooUsh virgins,
when the bridegroom was on the way, found no time to buy oil
for themselves, but the bridegroom came in their absence, and,
whilst conducting those who were ready into the marriage-feast,
closed the door against the rest, ver. 10, so to those who foolishly
reckon on the possibility of finally remedying neglected prepara
tion in the last moment, the time necessary for doing this will
be wanting in the hour of Christ's coming ; but, unexpected as
wUl be the announcement of His coming, so rapid also wiU be
the coming of the Lord Himself, who will then receive into the
kingdom of glory only those who are ready to receive and stand
before Him, but will exclude all the unprepared. And finally,
this exclusion will continue for ever. This and only this does
the conversation between the bridegroom and the virgins
expressly say to all careless in- this life, without intimating that
after Christ's appearance and the crisis then introduced those
excluded will seek admission to God's kingdom, but will pray in
vain. As the prayer of the virgins for a reopening of the door
found no answer, but the bridegroom rejected it with the words:
" VerUy I say to you, I know you not," i.e. you are strangers to
me, because you were not ready to receive me (vv. 11, 12), so

THE TALENTS IN TRUST. 405
the last hope of self-contentment, to which even after all that has
been said any one may cling, namely, that an exclusion from
God's kingdom, carried out so unexpectedly and rapidly, is not
seriously meant, and cannot hold good for ever, wiU then prove
empty and vain. On the contrary, it will remain unchangeably
true, that all whom the Lord does not find ready at His coming
He will never acknowledge as His, however long and certainly
they belonged to the community of His disciples in this Ufe, and
hoped for participation in His kingdom. One sees how the
parable shatters one support of self-contentment after another up
to the last straw, to which folly would fain cling, and how deeply
the souls of the hearers, providing they heard rightly, must have
been pierced by the exhortation here uttered for the third
and last time : ypyyopeire ovv, on ovk o'iSare ryv ypkpav oiiBe
t^v wpav.

The Talents in Trust.
(Matt. xxv. 14-30.)

Another parable follows, joined directly to the exhortation of
ver. 13 (ypyyopeire ovv K.r.X.) simply by ydp, without anything
between. On the other hand, it is to be observed that the exhor
tation to watchfulness because of the uncertainty of the time of
Christ's coming, uttered in ver. 13 on the basis of the parable
of the Ten Virgins for the third time, does not recur at the close
of this new parable. Accordingly, only an examination of the
new parabohc story itself can show whether it stands in the same
close connection with the solemn declaration of the uncertainty
of the day and hour of the Parousia in xxiv. 36 as everything
which precedes, enforcing the ypyyopeire with special reference to
that declaration, or whether the ydp, by which it is joined in
a confirmatory sense to the exhortation of ver. 13, only refers
generally to the demand to be ready for the Lord's coming. In
the latter case the following parable, merely joined to the section
beginning with xxiv. 36 as a sort of appendix, serves again to
enforce the requirement of readiness for the Parousia, without,
however, retaining as previously the special reference to the
uncertainty of its time.
In any case, when the parable itself is introduced by the

406 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
words: wairep yap dvdpwrro? diroSypwv iKaXeaev rov? ISiov?
BovXov?, in such a form that the narrative advances from this
point uninterruptedly without express mention of the thing
compared, we are remitted by the retrospective ydp, as weU as
by the comparative wairep, to what goes before. And this back
ward reference so obviously gives the answer to the question,
what is the object of comparison, that only the grammatical
expositor, who studies construction ex professo, misses the express
mention of the thing compared. The object of comparison,
unexpressed because continuous from xxiv. 37, and therefore
understood, is the Second Coming of Christ, to which also the
idea avdpwiro? diroSypwv placed at the head plainly aUudes. On
this account we need not suppose an anantapodoton, as if an
apodosis with ovrw?, intended to form the conclusion of the
whole parable, had been lost because of the further expansion of
the narrative,i — an inconceivable view, because the intention to
condense the entire narrative into a single protasis is incompatible
with the extent which it must necessarUy have reached, even
according to its first plan, apart from further expansion. The
wairep adduces a comparison related to the object in question,
and for this reason consisting of a single member :2 " Like as (it
is with the Parousia of the Son of man as if) a man, about to
journey into another country, called Ms own servants,3 and delivered
unto them Ms goods." Td virdpyovra avrov is not necessarily
the entire property of every kind, and in every place belonging
to the householder,4 but is Umited by the context to the property
he had in his possession and under his personal management in
his residence so far. Being now about to take a journey, he is
obliged to hand over this property of his, which he is unable
personaUy to manage as before, to other faithful hands during the
time of his absence. He therefore caUs, not strange labourers,
but his own servants, belonging to him as his servants ; and as
their master, since' he may expect that they wiU regard his
interest as their own, entrusts to them and their hands the
property he leaves behind. Thus, the general outUne of the
foUowing narrative has been already completely sketched: A
householder taking a journey, and leaving behind both his
property and servants, to return in due time ; and over against
him the servants left behind, who receive independent power over
J- Meyer. 2 Gal. iii. 6 ; Rom. v. 12 is different
3 tous lilous loiXovs. * Cf. w. 21, 23.

THE TALENTS IN TRUST. 407
his property during his absence, and wiU have to give account of
its management on his return.
Here the dependence of the clauses on wairep ceases.
Ver. 15, where the mode of distributing the property among
the individuals is more minutely described, and the detaUed
narrative begins, proceeds independently : Kal ' w p,ev eSwKev
irkvre raXavra, w Be Svo, a> Be ev, eKaarw Kara t^z* ISiav
Bvvapiv, ie. " and to one he gave five talents, to another two, to
another one, to each one according to his own ability." Of course
the three are only adduced by way of example, not as if his
servants consisted only of these three. The handing over of the
property to the servants individuaUy was done very unequaUy, —
this the three examples show first of all, — for they are sums of
very unequal amount which are assigned to the individuals,1 the
extremes differing as five to one. But this diverse endowment
of the individuals was not caprice in the householder, but each
one received Kara T-^f ISiav Bvvapiv, ie. each one according to
the abUity pecuUar to him, namely, abUity not merely to carry
on business generaUy,2 but more definitely to take charge of and
manage a greater or smaUer sum of money. Of the property to
be managed by the servants during his absence, the householder
gave each one exactly as much or as little as he was in a position
to take charge of and deal with independently. " And he (the
householder, after doing so) went on his journey straightway." It
has been attempted indeed to separate the eidiw? from
direSypyaev and join it to the foUowing iropevdei?,3 to which
there is no objection on formal grounds if the weU-attested Si of
the Bee. after iropevdei? was originally absent and the foUowing
sentence should begin asyndeticaUy : eidiw? iropevdei? o ra
irkvre rdX. XaB<ov K.r.X. On the other hand, it cannot be
maintained that eidiw? in the present evangeUst always comes
first.4 But if internal reasons must decide, the junction with
aireSypjrjaev is to be preferred. For, joined with iropevdei?, where
it serves to emphasize the zeal of the first servant, it is reaUy
superfluous, because the case itself there impUes, without eidew<i,
that the servant spoken of was not dUatory, but zealous. On
1 Respecting the value of the talent=6000 denarii, or about £225, cf. on xviii. 24.
! De Wette et al. 3 Weiss et al.
4 Cf. iii. 16 where dlis comes after («»//3» thlis xori i-oS Sixns), and the variant
reading, putting the words in the more common order (tWij xttPn), must be deemed
a correction. In the same way, e.g., Mark i. 31, v. 13, vi. 25 ; Luke xvii. 7.

408 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
the other hand, joined with direBrjpyaev, it says, not indeed that
the householder departed without giving any more express orders
about the application of the money, — for this might have been
done when handing it over, without the departure being delayed,
— r-but that, after giving the money to the servants, he at once
left them to their own responsibility. No sooner had they taken
over the property than they were left by their master to them
selves, and found themselves in circumstances to deal with it
alone and independently, each one with the sum assigned to him
according to his own ability.
It is then said of the first - mentioned servant, ver. 16:
iropevdei? Be b ra irkvre raXavra XaBwv elpydaaro iv avroi?,
Kal iiroiyaev aXXa irkvre raXavra. The first clause shows what
he did with the money received : "And he went that had received
the five talents, and traded with them."1 The element of industry,
in opposition to indolence, lying in the fundamental meaning of
the verb ipyd^eadai, ought to be retained here in the special
meaning "to trade,"2 therefore: he seeks with busy activity to
use what he has received profitably. The second clause then tells
the result of his activity : " and he acquired (iiroiyaev) other five
talents." The expression iiroiyaev corresponds to the similar use
of the Hebrew nipy3 and the Latin facere, but is not altogether
synonymous with KepSaiveiv used in its place in ver. 1 7, because
it does not denote gaining in general, but in allusion to the
elpydaaro, an acquiring by one's own effort. The amount of
profit he made exactly corresponded, as expressly noted by the
aXXa, to the amount of the capital received — to the first five
talents received five others. And it is just this which is said also
of the second servant, ver. 1 7 : waavrw? Kal 6 rd Svo iKipSyaev 4
aXXa Svo, i.e. " In like manner also he that (received) the two
gained other two." Thus the equalizing waavrw? refers simply
to the result which this servant attained, namely, that just as
the first servant to the five talents received gained other five, so
this one to the two received gained other two. Hence, also, it is
no longer said iiroiyaev, but more generally iKepSyaev, because
attention is only directed to the amount of profit, no longer to
the mode of acquisition, while, no doubt, resemblance even in the
latter respect is tacitly assumed. The emphasis of the state-
1 h xiito7s, because his trading rests on the talents as the basis ; cf. Weiss here.
2 So frequently in the classics. 3 Gen. xii. 5.
* xx) xut'os (Rec.) is wanting in important witnesses.

THE TALENTS IN TRUST. 409
ment rests entirely on the fact, that in the case of the second
servant also the amount of gain exactly corresponded to that of
the capital received, just as in the case of the first, so that
despite the materially less amount of his gain, he stands on
complete equaUty with the first one as regards the value of his
service. All the greater is the contrast which the conduct of the
third one presents to that of the first two, ver. 18: 6 Be rb e>
XaBwv aireXdwv wpv^ev 7^v,1 Kal eKpinJrev rb apyvptov rov
Kvpiov airov, i.e., "But he that had received the one went away,
dug up earth, and hid the money of his master." Instead, there
fore, of energeticaUy working for his master with the money
entrusted to him, as he was bound to do, he went away and
buried the money of his master, as though it were the money of
a stranger, to whom he owed nothing beyond the keeping of the
deposit. Thus we have already shown how the phrase " of his
master " must be taken here, which is all the more noteworthy,
because at the first glance it seems superfluous. Certainly
it emphasizes, as Meyer says generally, the forgetfulness of
duty implied in the servant's conduct. But the wrong-doing
intimated does not consist in his acting thus with money not
belonging to himself, but to the householder, since the bare cir
cumstance that the money was another's property seems rather
adapted to justify a course Uke his ; but the circumstance
rendering him guilty is, that he to whom the money belonged
was no stranger to him, but his master, to whom he was
bound as a servant.2 Only on this natural interpretation of the
words " of his master " does the wrong-doing of the servant come
clearly out, namely, that he separates his interest from his
master's, dealing with his master's money as with a stranger's
property, by which one may think he has done enough if he
simply keeps it for the owner. Thus, in vv. 16—18, not only is
the conduct of the servants characterized objectively, but it is
already placed in the true light, inasmuch as in the case
of the second servant it was emphasized, that even with the
small sum of two talents, by gaining other two he was
rendered equal to the first ; and, on the other hand, in the case
1 So we must read, according to weighty evidence, instead of %pvZ,it it t$ yn
(Rec.) ; the use of opiitut rt is therefore different here from what it is in xxi. 33 ;
Mark xii. 1.
' Cf. ver. 14 : tous iiious ioixous.

410 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
of the third servant, how, with the least sum of but one talent,
by burying it, he was guilty of forgetting his duty to his master.
And it now clearly appears that the relative amount of five, and
two, and one, marking the sums assigned to the three servants,
was not used by the narrator without special purpose. It is not
an evenly diminishing relation that is chosen, such as five, and
three, and one, simply contrasting with each other one who
received a large sum, one who received a middle sum, and one
who received a small sum; but to the one who received five
talents the two others are opposed, each one indeed having
received a different amount, but stUl both only a small one in
comparison with the former, namely, only two and one talent.
Thus, one of the two could serve as an example how one who
received but Uttle in comparison with others, proved equal to
them in diligence and fidelity ; and the other, how such an one,
with the least which he received, became just as guilty as he
could have done with the greatest.
So far the way has been prepared, at least in the form of
intimation, for what the second part of the parable teUs of the
judgment passed on the servants by the master on his return.
Vividly picturing the moment of return and the decisive hour of
reckoning by the historic present,1 the narrative proceeds, ver. 19:
"But after a long time the lord of those servants2 comes and
reckons with them." When it is expressly remarked that the
master came after a long time, this can only mean, since the
narrative suppUes no means for determining the length of time,
that the master's absence lasted considerably longer than the
servants had expected, which is of importance for the tenor of
the narrative, inasmuch as the unfaithful servants might be
confirmed in their idleness by ¦ the long postponement of the
householder's return, and tempted to drop the long-delayed hour
of reckoning out of their thoughts altogether. Of course, wrongly, t
For, however long he delayed, the householder came and reckoned ;
with the servants respecting the management of his property
entrusted to them. Then appeared the three servants specially
referred to, ver. 20: " And he came who had received five talents,
and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, five talents thm
deliveredst to me ; lo, other five talents I have gained to them " (eV
1 ip%iTxt . . . o'utxtpu Xoyat.
2 ixdtar applies not merely to the three mentioned by way of example, but to all
the servants to whom, according to ver. 15, the property was delivered.

THE TALENTS IN TRUST. 411
avroi?). The genuineness of the last words: eV awTot?, has been
contested by Lachmann and Weiss on good authority. Never
theless their superfluity may have caused their omission. In
any case, the preposition iiri with the dative here as often =
insuper ad -1 and this signification ought not to be mixed up with
the other quite different one, "on the ground of, by means of"
(Lange). The very words of the servant imply that what he
received was the groundwork of what he gained, and also, that
he does not put forward the work that was his duty and the
means of the gain as a special merit. For he does not even
mention his ipyd£eadai, or say iiroiyaa for mipSyaa, as he
might have done according to ver. 16 ; but, Uke a faithful servant
who has quite entered into his master's interests, he simply
expresses his joy at the rich gain which the money committed to
him has produced: "Behold, five others I have gained in
addition." And then he receives the answer stated in ver. 2 1 :
" His lord said unto him," Ev SovXe dyade Kal iriari, iirl
oKiya y? iriaro?, eiri iroXXwv ae Karaaryaw e'iaeXde ei? ryv
%apav rov Kvpiov aov. The ev standing at the head must be
understood, with the majority of expositors, as an independent
exclamation, and joined with the vocative SovXe dyade Kal iriari.
It stands, therefore, absolutely like e^e elsewhere.2 This devia
tion from the usage of good Greek is at all events more tolerable
than the junction with iirl bxiya ?j? iriarb?, thus passing over
SovXe dyade Kal iriari : " Thou wast admirably faithful in regard
to a Uttle,"3 in which case, moreover, the emphasis in this clause
would faU back entirely on ev, and the word 6\t<ya would lose
the penetrating emphasis it is evidently meant to have as a
preparation for the contrast, iirl iroXXwv ae Karaaryaw. The
householder rather first bestows his praise on the servant, and
then promises him his reward, so that the words : iirl oXiya %?
irtarb?, belong not so much to the preceding eulogy, as to the-
following promise of reward, giving its reason, therefore : " Well
done, thou good and faithful servant ! Over a little thou wast
faithful, over much will I set thee." The eulogy consists in this,
that with the approving exclamation " WeU done," he calls him a
good and faithful servant, "good " not in the general moral sense,
1 Winer, Gram. p. 490.
2 Cf. Luke xix. 17, where the Recepta has %l, but where tSyt seems the original
reading. 3 Meyer.

4.12 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
but in his character as servant, therefore a true servant; and
since he has especially proved himself such by his fidelity, which
is the most prominent virtue of a good servant, the specific
"faithful" is combined with the general term "good." The
promise of reward is to the effect, that because he has been faith
ful over a little} he wUl set him over much, just as a servant
who has proved his fideUty in the small is trusted with the
great:2 Thus, the comparatively large sum delivered to this
servant was but little in comparison with the wealth of goods,3
over which he is now to be set, set as controller, so that he may
now deal with them just as independently, despite the house
holder's presence, as with the sum of money during the master's
absence. But this, of course, supposes that from the mere
position of servant, which he has hitherto held, he is raised to
the position of a friend of his master, sharing his full confidence,
and taking part in his authority. Hence, to the promise of
reward a saying is added, expressive of this elevation: "Enter
into the joy of thy lord" i.e. into the state of joy accruing to him
in his character as lord and in virtue of his authority, so that
the servant will have part and lot in his master's state. No
doubt, in the sphere of natural life, in the relation between master
and servant, this is a reward of rare and unusual good fortune,
but it is not on this account a digression from the figure, and a
trenching on the interpretation;4 just as little as the far more
unusual conception, in the parabohc language of Luke xii. 35-38,
of the master making the servants sit down at table, and girding
himself and waiting on them, can be called a digression from the
figure into the interpretation. Even the expression " enter " does
not need to be specially traced to the idea of the thing
symbolized (the Messiah's kingdom), as Meyer supposes, since the
metaphorical use of elaipyeadai for entering into a state or
condition like " life, temptation, glory, rest," is quite usual;
This being so, all reason is removed for converting the " joy of the
lord," into which the servant is to enter, into a mere festival6
or entertainment,7 held to celebrate the lord's return, since such
1 The unusual combination mo-rh \vl ti, instead ofthe usual «io-tos 'it «», is due
to the desire to approximate as closely as possible to the contrasted 1*1 oriXxSt.
8 Cf. xxiv. 47 and Luke xvi. 10. 3 Money is no longer specially thought of.
* Weiss, who for this reason explains the words as an addition of the evangelist.
5 Cf. xviii. 8, xix. 17, xxvi. 41, and parallels ; Luke xxiv. 26 ; Heb. iii. 11, 18>
iv. 1 ff., 10.
6 De Wette, Lange. i Kuinoel.

THE TALENTS IN TRUST. 413
a specializing of the Uteral sense of " joy " is required neither
by the figurative circumstances of the parable, nor by the expres
sion " enter," and, as regards its admissibleness, is by no means
rendered certain by the appeal to the free translation of the
Septuagint Esth. ix. 17 (nrw'D into yapd)}
The same that is said of the account rendered by the first
servant is then repeated of that rendered by the second, vv. 22,
23 : "And he also came that had received2 the two talents, and
said, Lord, two talents thou deliveredst unto me ; lo, other two
talents I have gained. His lord said unto him, Well done, thou
good and faithful servant ! Over a little thou wast faithful, over
much will I set thee ; enter into the joy of thy lord." Thus,
not only are the same events repeated at the reckoning with the
second servant as in vv. 20, 21, but they are recounted exactly
in the same words and without abridgment. And this is not
mere circumstantiality of narration, but the repetition of the
entire transaction between master and servant in all its parts is
meant to be well pondered ; namely, on one side how this
second servant, although he has but two new talents to bring,
can say with the same cheerfulness as the first that he has
gained other two (as the former five others), and on the other,
how he receives from the householder the same praise and the
same reward. Because he has shown equal fidelity in what he
received, the apparently considerable difference between what he
received and what the other received vanishes before the wealth
of goods, over which the second like the first is set, and before
the participation in the joy of his lord to which he like the
former one is raised.
But how wiU it fare with the third servant, who had buried
his master's money, ver. 18 ? The reckoning with him is
related in the section, vv. 24-30, which also forms the con
clusion of the parable : " And he also came that had received 2
the one talent, and said: Kvpie, eyj/wi' ere on aKXypb? el
avdpwrro?, depi^wv, oirov ovk eairetpa?, Kal avvdr/wv, bdev oi
BieaKopiriaa?, i.e. Lord, I knew thee,3 that thou art a hard man,
1 In opposition to Kuinoel.
2 Here the participle perfect i « S> TxXxmt tlXvupis, because in him who left what
he received unused the receiving has become a permanent state, in which he is
found now just as he was when he received.
3 iytm is not to be taken, with Kuinoel and de Wette, in the sense of the perfect,
"I know thee," since it assigns the motive of the following: xxi Qofafals xmxli,-.
ix/vi],x, in the narrative.

414 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
reaping where thou didst not sow, and gathering where thou didst
not scatter." Some expositors 1 would understand SiaaKopiri^etv,
only occurring here of agriculture, as sowing, like aireipeiv. But
this would make the second participial clause pure tautology.
And since the avvdyeiv opposed to it, used of agriculture,
according to the usage of the present Gospel elsewhere, is by no
means synonymous with depi^eiv, but signifies the gathering of
the fruit already reaped into the barn 2 from the threshing-floor,3
SiaaKopiri^eiv also cannot be synonymous with depi^eiv, but is the
work of winnowing on the threshing-floor to separate the chaff
from the wheat, which must precede the avvdyeiv. The two
participial clauses then say in what the master's supposed
hardness consists. But the whole is not a mere proverbial
phrase to characterize a man who makes altogether unjustifiable
demands,4 nor do the words imply a reproach against the master
that he gave the servant too little,5 or that he wishes to take
more than he has a right to demand,6 or that he demands more
than one can do,7 because there is no reference at all to the
amount of what was sown, or of what was to be reaped in
relation to what was sown, but to the fact that in the field where
the master had not done the work of sowing he yet reaped the
fruit, and from the threshing-floor, where he had not winnowed.
he yet gathered home the wheat. The aUeged hardness of the
householder is more closely defined thus, that he appropriates
the produce where he has not done the work, and therefore the
produce of work which, not he, but others have done. And when
the servant immediately proceeds, ver. 25 : Kal (pofiydel?
direXdwv eKpv^ra rb rdXavrov aov iv ry yy, i.e. " and, because 1
was afraid, I went away and hid thy talent in the earth" it is
clear that the fear of the servant here mentioned corresponds to
the hardness of the householder just mentioned. The servant
feared the hardness of the householder, which made him reap
where he had not sown. And in this case the object of his fear
cannot be, that he might lose the money in trade, or that he
cannot satisfy the householder's severe demands,8 but simply that
the master wUl exercise against him the hardness which he
thinks he sees in him, and therefore deprive him of the produce
1 Kuinoel, de "Wette, Stier. 2 Cf. iii. 12, vi. 26, xiii. 30,
3 In the field under the open sky. * So e.g. Keil.
5 So often. 6 De "Wette. ' Stier.
8 One or the other in the majority of expositors.

THE TALENTS IN TRUST. 415
of his labour and appropriate it himself. This fear, he says, led
him, instead of working with the money, simply to preserve it,
and for the purpose of preserving it to hide it in the earth, where
it remained secure to its owner,1 without as a mere temporary
incumbent troubling further about it. And he thinks he
has thus done everything which the owner of the money
can reasonably demand of him, so that he not merely holds
himself free from blame in respect to his course, but also justified,
as he says in the final words with which he gives back the
money received : 'iSe e^et? rb aov, ie. " Lo, thou hast thine own."
Because he is able to return the owner of the money his own
intact, he thinks he is without blame, for the owner cannot even
demand back more than what is his. We see that the whole
language as weU as the whole action of this servant has its root
in the circumstance that he does not as a true servant, Uke the
two first, make his master's Interest his own, but as a bad
servant separates his own interest from his master's, and treats
his master's cause as foreign to him.2 Hence the householder
seems to him a hard man, desiring to draw profit from the toU,
which he leaves to others. Hence, too, the fear that he might
himself be no better off for his labour, and, inspired by this
selfish fear, the abstinence from aU exertion, as expressed in the
burial of the money. Hence, finally, the notion that he wiU be
quite within his right if he restores intact to the owner of the
money what is really his.
How much he mistakes his true relation to the householder as
his servant, bound to work for his interest, is told him in the
sharp reproof with which the master at once meets him, ver. 26 :
" But his lord answered and said to Mm : " irovypb SovXe Kal
oKvypi. Whereas, therefore, the householder bestowed on the
two first servants the high eulogy : " Thou good and faithful
servant," he calls this third one a bad and idle servant, bad again
not in the moral sense generally, but in his character as servant,
proved a bad servant especiaUy by the indolence he showed in
his master's service. With this reproof is joined an appeal to
the servant's first utterance, according to which he professed
to know of his master that he claims the produce where he
has not laboured : ySei?, on depl£w, oirov ovk eaireipa, Kal
avvdyw, odev oi BteaKopiriaa. On the ground of this utter
ance he is at once reminded what course this conception of his
1 Hence expressly Hxpu^px to rxXxtTot sou. See on ver. 18.

416 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
master's character should have led him to. But in this case
jjSei? is not to be taken as a question of surprise : " Knewest
thou that I reap," etc., since such an expression of surprise
would be out of accord with the instant drawing of a convictin"
inference (eSei ovv ae K.r.X.), nor do the words imply a con
cession1 or anything ironical,2 but they simply reproduce the
servant's words, in order to base on them the above infer
ence : " Thou bad and idle servant, thou knowest (thou sayest)
that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I scattered not!' 8
The inference alone kept in view in reproducing the servant's
utterance runs, ver. 27 : eSei ovv o-e4 /SaXetK rb dpyvpibv pov
rol? rpaire^irai?, Kal iXdwv iyw iKopiadpyv av rb ipbv aiiv
roKw, i.e. " Consequently thou shouldest have cast (if thou thyself
wert unwilling to work for me with my money) my money to the
money-changers, and at my return I (iyw, I on my part as one
of whom thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, etc.)
should have recovered mine own (not unused and unincreased, as
thou givest it me back, ver. 25, but) with interest!' The
expression " cast " in this connection not merely emphasizes the
easiness of the course required,5 but affirms that he should have
relieved himself of the money. 'Apyvpiov BaXXeiv is nowhere a
mere depositing, but always includes a getting rid of the money.6
The sense of the words, therefore, is not, as has been most
generaUy understood, that the servant should at least have carried
on a comparatively easy trade with the money, but that instead
of retaining the money in his keeping he should have surrendered
it into the hands of others. Only thus understood is the
requirement a strict inference from the premisses given. For if
he professed to know of the owner of the money, that it was his
practice to appropriate the produce of the labour of others, then,
since he was unwiUing to work for the owner's benefit, he should
not have retained his money in his own keeping, where it lay
unused contrary to the owner's intention ; but he was bound to
hand it over to others willing to employ it for the owner's benefit,
that is, the money-changers. These would have done the work he
1 De Wette. * Lange.
3 Cf. on Luke xix. 22, where in the parable of the Pounds in a similar transaction
between master and servant the corresponding sentence : pins oti x.t.x., is introduced
by the words : ix toZ ht'i^xt'os aov xpivS m, as a mere reproduction of the servant's
declaration. 4 Some authorities have m oZt. b Meyer, Weiss, Keil, et al.
6 Cf. xxvii. 6, and similar passages ; Mark xii. 41 ff. ; Luke xxi. 1 ff. ; John xii. 6,

THE TALENTS IN TRUST. 417
was unwiUing to do, and the householder might have received the
profit of their work in accordance with his presumed character.
Thus the ae in the first clause and iyw in the second were not
emphatically opposed to each other for the purpose of pointing
out how the master would have gained his end if the servant
had done Ms part.1 For the meaning cannot be, that the servant
would really have done his duty as a good and faithful servant
by throwing the money to the exchangers, but only that he
would have done what he owed his master, as the owner of
the money, from the false, suspicious, and selfish standpoint
he had assumed in relation to him. On the other hand, by
retaining his master's money in his hands, without making use
of it, he who professed to know how self-interested his master
was had positively sinned against his interest.
Having convicted him of this from his own mouth, the
master proceeds in the language of command (to whom he gives
the command is not expressly said, in distinction from the
servants named before the servants forming his personal retinue
are to be supposed), ver. 28:" Take therefore the talent from him,
and give it to Mm that hath ten talents." BeaUy, therefore, the
householder is not the hard man the servant supposed him to be,
depriving good and faithful servants at last of the produce of
their toU along with the capital lent to them. He not merely
left both to the first two servants, but in addition promised to
set them over much in comparison with the Uttle in which they
showed their fidelity. But from this servant, who brings back
his talent unused, he now takes it away, not, however, to take it
- himself, but to give it to him who has ten talents. And this
strange order, according to which the servants are to take the
one talent from him who has nothing beside it and give it to
him who has already ten talents, is justified by a proverbial
maxim2 belonging simply to the householder's language in the
parable, and in no wise added to the parable by Jesus as an
interpretation,8 ver. 29 : " For unto him that hath shall be given,
and he shall be set in abundance ; 4 but as relates to Mm that hath
not} even what he hath shall be taken from him." This proverbial
1 In opposition to Weiss ; nor would the reading <ri out necessitate such an
emphasizing of the «. 2 Cf. xiii. 12 ; Mark iv. 25 ; Luke viii. 18.
3 In opposition to Weiss. Cf. Luke xix. 25, 26.
4 srspio-o-sMo-sTxi, as in Luke xv. 17.
5 t»S Vi p.* ix'tTos is to be read as a genitive absolute on decisive evidence, not iri
ii toZ pM 'Ixovtos, with the Recepta.
GOEBEL. ^ D

418 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
saying lays it down as a general rule, that to the possessor (of
much) more wUl be added to the much he already has, his rich
possession thus passing into abundance ; on the other hand, the
(relatively) possessionless wUl lose even the Uttle he has, his
relative want passing into absolute. But this general rule could
only serve to justify the command given in so far as it was
obvious that in this case the " non-having " of the one was just
as much a result of his indolence and unfaithfulness as the
" having " of the other was a result of his diligence and fidelity,
and therefore the application of the rule is an act of retributive
justice. And to the retribution decreed is added the positive
punishment which the householder orders to be inflicted on
him, ver. 30 : Kal rbv dypelov SovXov e'«/SaXere et? to amro? rb
iljwrepov, i.e. " and the useless servant cast forth into the darkness
without " (outside the bright festive rooms x). Although, there
fore, no festal celebration of the householder's return was
expressly mentioned in the narrative before, since the " joy of the
lord" (vv. 21, 23) cannot be referred to such a feast merely,
stiU the thought of such a celebration, so natural and common
in other parables, really floats before the narrator's mind. And
whereas the first two servants' entrance into the joy of their
lord evidently includes participation in this festal joy, so the
idle servant is to be expelled from the bright rooms of his
master's house into the gloomy, joyless darkness, an expulsion
signifying just as evidently to him exclusion from the feUowship
of his master's household. This doom, then, forms in fact the
contrast to the eulogistic word to the first two servants : " Enter
into the joy of thy lord." Bespecting the words added by Jesus
Himself as the narrator of the parable : " There shall be the
(weU-known) wailing and gnashing of teeth " (of the condemned),
which refer as a standing interpretation exclusively to the
figurative local idea (rb aKoro? rb igwrepov), what has been
already said on chap. xxU. 13 may be consulted.
These words conclude the entire paragraph, whose contents
form the present parable. For, without any further word of
application or explanation, with ver. 31 begins the prophetic
discourse of the judgment on all nations, forming the conclusion
of the entire eschatological discourse. Since the account of the
judgment says that the Son of man wiU justify or condemn men
1 Cf. on xxii. 13, where the parable of the Royal Marriage-Feast concluded with
the same doom.

THE TALENTS IN TRUST. 419
according as they have been friendly or hostUe to His disciples
on earth, it is evident that the account is not a new exhortation
to the disciples to be ready for Christ's Parousia, but a comforting
assurance given to the disciples for the time of suffering up to
the Parousia (similar to the one in x. 40—42), to teU them how
dear they are in the eyes of the Lord, whilst apparently exposed
to all the injustice of the world. And as an assurance of such a
kind, this third and last section of the eschatological discourse
(vv. 31—46) forms a thoroughly independent conclusion of the
whole. Accordingly, the purpose of the present parable is shown
by its context to be what we have already inferred from its
connection with the exhortation of ver. 13, namely, it belongs to
the preceding second section of the eschatological discourse,
inasmuch as it is meant to supply a new justification for the
exhortation to readiness for the day of Christ's coming. It was
uncertain, however, before, whether here, as from xxiv. 36
onwards, the specific reference to the uncertainty of the time and
hour of the Parousia obtains. The review of the course and
contents of the narrative now teaches us that the latter is not
the case. In one passage of the narrative, indeed (ver. 1 9), there
was mention of long delay in the householder's return contrary
to expectation, but only in a cursory way, so that this aUusion
might have been omitted without the course of the narrative
materiaUy suffering. Therefore our parable is merely to be
regarded as an appendix to the second part of the eschatological
discourse, inasmuch as whUe in common with that second part
it has a hortatory purpose in relation to the Parousia, it has not
the same pervading reference to the statement standing at the
head : " But of the day and hour knoweth no one, not even the
angels of heaven, but the Father only " (xxiv. 36).
What other and special form the exhortation to readiness for
Christ's coming obtains, must be seen from a review of the course
and contents of the narrative. But this can be determined
without difficulty directly we realize the essential points in the
narrative. We were told of the return from a journey of a
householder, who on his departure gave his property and the care
of his interests into the hands of his servants left behind, and
who now on his return rewards in the highest degree the faithful
diUgence with which two servants have meantime used the goods
they received for his interest, while severely punishing the
selfish indolence with which another let what he received lie

420 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
dead and useless. If, then, we are right in assuming from the
context as provisionally certain that the Parousia of Christ
corresponds to the return of a householder from a journey, the
exhortation which a parable of this kind is meant to give the
disciples in reference to the Parousia can be no other than this,
that in the times between the departure of their Lord and His
second coming they are to work with what He committed to them on
His departure for Him and His cause with faithful diligence,
because the most glorious reward awaits such fidelity at the hour of
Christ's return, while the heaviest punishment threatens the selfish
indolence that would decline active employment of what ' it has
received. The first part of the narrative characterizes this twofold
dealing with what has been received in its contrastedness,
whereupon the second and chief part exhibits both the reward
and the punishment awaiting individuals according to their
conduct in this respect at the hour of Christ's coming.
From this standpoint we have once more to follow and
interpret the course of the narrative.-
When in ver. 14, as the basis of the narrative, a householder is
spoken of who, about to go on a journey, deUvered his property
to his servants, it is certain from the context that Jesus points
His disciples to His rapidly approaching departure from this
world, which had hitherto been the scene of His abode and work.
And it is just as certain that to the return of the householder
from his journey, kept in view in the narrative from the first,
corresponds the second coming of the Son of man, which forms
the theme of this entire eschatological discourse.1 But if the
journeying householder is Jesus Himself, at present on the point
of leaving the world, then to the property of the householder,
1 The opposite assertion, that the parable has nothing to do with Christ's second
coming, because the journeying of the master in the narrative simply furnishes the
situation for testing the servants (Weiss), obviously requires as its supplement the
opinion, that the parable here does not merely not stand in its original context
in the eschatological discourse (and just so the similar parable in Luke), but also
stands in a quite perverted and confusing connection, thus imputing to the
evangelist a gross misunderstanding of the subject. Moreover, the evangelist must
not only have spoilt the parable in vv. 21, 23, and 30 by his confusing inter
polations, but also (which Weiss has forgotten to censure) already in ver. 19, since
the words "Now after a long time " can only be meant to allude to the postponing
of Christ's second coming (cf. xxiv. 48, xxv. 5). After expunging all the objection
able passages, Weiss supposes in a novel fashion that the present parable formed with
that of the Unjust Steward in Luke xvi. a pair of parables. Similarly Holtzmann.
This is a playing with possibilities.

THE TALENTS IN TRUST. 421
which he on his departure delivers to his servants to manage in
his stead and for his interest during his absence, there can
only correspond the good (or property) which was the peculiar
possession of Jesus and the groundwork of His labour during His
abode on earth, but which on His departure He commits to His
disciples, that they may manage it in His stead for the furtherance
of His kingdom upon earth. Of course this cannot be earthly
goods and gifts,1 nor, as most generally interpreted,2 the spiritual
gifts of grace or charisms, which were first conferred on the
Church by the exalted Jesus with the outpouring of the Holy
Spirit. For even these cannot be regarded as the property of
the Lord, which, when He Himself departs, He commits to His
disciples to manage, but only as a subjective equipment imparted
to them subsequently for the duty of managing the object of
possession proper. Add to this, that if this were the right
interpretation, a parable predicting Pentecost in an obscure figure
would, have been unintelligible to the disciples at that time,
whereas another interpretation lay near them. His property
rather is simply and exclusively the word of the Lord or the
gospel,3 the word of the kingdom, with whose administration
Jesus entrusts His disciples when Himself leaving the world.
Therefore also the word again not as an object of possession in
the sense that one is made by faith partaker of the salvation
offered in it, but in the sense that one has power and authority
to preach and extend it. For to the act of handing over in the
parable cannot correspond the work of Jesus by which He
planted in His disciples' hearts faith in the word, thus first
making them His disciples, but only the special authorization by
which He appointed those who already were His disciples (" His
own servants ") to preach that word in the face of the world.
In 1 Tim. vi. 20 also the word of the Lord is called in this
sense " the deposit," the gift (or property) entrusted to them.4
Therefore the interpretation is : Just as a householder, when
going on a journey, caUed his servants and deUvered to them his
property to manage during his absence, so Jesus, when leaving
the world, delivers to His disciples, who are left alone in the
world, that which was His pecuUar possession in the world, the
groundwork and means of His earthly toU — the word of God's
1 "Weiss. 2 Stier, Meyer, Cremer, el cd.
3 So several ancient expositors ; in recent times only Hofmann on Luke xix. 11 ff.
4 Cf. "Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, von Hofmann.

422 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
kingdom, that after His departure they may freely and indepen
dently use it in His stead and labour for His kingdom, as they
have seen Him do hitherto.
But what can be the meaning when it is said further of the
householder, that he gave to one servant five talents, to another
two, and to a third one, to each one according to his ability ?
Let us observe the point on which the emphasis of the statement
rests. Plainly not on this, that the entire property is divided
into four parts, each one receiving a different part of the whole,
but upon this, that the whole property given to the individual
servants was differently assigned in each case as regards its
amount, according as the receiver was able to manage a larger or
smaUer amount. So is it with the word of the Lord, which He
entrusts to His disciples on His departure. So far as it is
committed to the whole body of disciples, it is the word in its
entire fulness and wealth, as Jesus Himself preached it. But in
so far as it is entrusted to individual disciples, it is very different
in amount according to the greater or less capacity of the
individual to comprehend it in its depths and preach it in its
fulness. As, therefore, the householder assigned the amount of
property to each one of his servants according as he was in a
position independently to manage it, one receiving a great amount,
a second Uttle, and a third least, so the Lord entrusts to each
individual disciple so much of the rich treasures of saving truth
existing complete in His word as he is able inwardly to
comprehend, and thoroughly to master and teach. In the same
degree in which he is able to master the treasures of the word
in this sense, wiU the Lord commit to him power and authority
to administer it, therefore to one in a far higher degree, to
another in a much less, and to a third in the least, according to
the greater or less or least measure of capacity belonging to each.
And when, finally, it was said of the householder that after'
deUvering the property to his servants he at once took his
departure, which in the context of the narrative could only mean
that he at once left them to their own responsibility, it is clear
that the noting of this circumstance, which else might very well
have been omitted, points to a corresponding relation in the
thing symboUzed. And in this case Jesus can only have meant
to remind His disciples how soon and unexpectedly they would
be called upon without Him to be the depositaries and preachers
of His word upon earth. What remains for Him to do to His

THE TALENTS IN TRUST. 423
disciples is just to commit the gospel of the kingdom of God to
their hands as His legacy. But directly He has done this He
wiU no longer remain with them, and they wiU be left alone,
confronted with the task of administering the treasures of the
word entrusted to them with unlimited independence, but also
with full responsibiUty. If the goods of the householder are
interpreted of spiritual gifts, this trait must either be passed over
in silence, as is done by most expositors, which is out of the
question, or such a wonderful interpretation will be adopted as
this, that here is the closest possible approximation to the fact
" that Ascension and Pentecost nearly coincide, certainly in
inverted order " (Lange).
After thus sketching the duty to which the disciples are caUed
after their Lord's departure, the narrative shows in its first part
the different course which the disciples entrusted with this duty
may take. First, by the typical example of the first two servants
— one who had received much, and another who had received
Uttle — it shows how the disciples are to discharge their duty
according to their Lord's mind and wUl, so that we see it makes
no difference whether one has been entrusted with much or little.
like the first servant who energetically traded with the five
talents, and gained in addition a sum of like amount, those who
received much are strenuously to put to use the treasures of the
word entrusted to them, in order to secure gain for the kingdom
of their Lord equal in amount to the treasure committed to
them. And they who have received little are to do in the same
way. Like as the second servant, although he had received but
two talents, proved himself equal to the first in diUgence and
fidelity by also gaining in addition a sum equal to what he
received, so they to whom Uttle has been entrusted can and ought
by using equal diUgence and fideUty to prove themselves equal
to those who received much, by securing gain, if not equally great
in itself, yet just as fully corresponding to what was entrusted
to them. Their success ought to be, if not as great outwardly,
yet of like intrinsic worth. The gain here meant, since it is the
product of labour with the word of the Lord, can only consist in
the winning of souls for the Lord's kingdom. If we wish, we
may then extend the comparison to the point, that in the
narrative the gain is also an augmenting of the capital itself.
" Whoever trades with the word of the Lord augments it, because
it is multipUed in the degree in which hearts are gained to

424 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
become its seat." 1 But whether so far-reaching a comparison was
intended by the author of the parable, must at least remain
doubtful. The chief point of the comparison in any case is
simply this, that by diligent labour with the means given in
trust gain is secured, and gain corresponding in worth to the
worth of the means held in trust. But that this gain in the case
of money-trading consists in nothing but money again, follows
too clearly from the nature of the figure employed to necessitate
the transference of this relation of resemblance between the means
and product of the labour into the interpretation.
But if, as the example of the second servant taught, those
disciples to whom only little was entrusted are none the less
fitted for successful toil in the Lord's cause, it follows from this,
as shown in the example of the third servant, that he to whom
the least was entrusted is not on this account less responsible for
a conscientious use of what he has received, and is rendered no
less guilty by neglect of this obligation. For when in ver. 18 it
was said of the third servant, who only received one talent, that
he went away and buried it in the earth, and it was especially
emphasized that the money with which he so acted was his
master's money, there is an intimation of the guilt incurred by a
disciple of Christ by like dealing with the word of his Lord
entrusted to him. He would be just as forgetful of duty as that
servant were he to withdraw even the least portion of the
treasures of the word entrusted to him from its destined influence
in and upon the world, and let it lie useless in secret, — just as
forgetful of dut)*-, because He who has given it to him is his
Lord, who has a right to require from His servants, not the mere
preserving, but the faithful, successful use of the gift entrusted
to them. Here also the tertium comparationis of the burying in
the earth is expressed. To bury a sum of money in the earth
seems, indeed, the securest way of preserving it ; but in reahty
the money is thus most completely withdrawn from the work in
the world for which it exists, and is rendered a useless, worthless
thing. On this ground it is a speaking figure of the conduct of
one who thinks he is justified in keeping the word of the Lord
entrusted to him in safe secrecy; for in withdrawing it from
publicity he withdraws it from its destined aim, which is to be
preached to the world, and, so far as he is concerned, makes it
1 So Hofmann on Luke xix. 11 ff., appealing to Acts xii. 24 : o xiyos nH 8s«»
tt'u\xtit xxi \rrXi]6utiT0.

THE TALENTS IN TRUST. 425
aimless and useless. The special explanations of the earth by
itself, making it mean either the earthly mind and walk, into
which the indolent one sinks,1 or the earthly disposition by which
he makes the heavenly gift unfruitful,2 or the flesh in which the
spirit is buried,3 are allegorizing 'explanations, which should not
be advanced as exposition.
On the presuppositions now stated is based the second and
chief part of the narrative, which describes the glorious reward
on the one hand, and the heavy punishment on the other, coming
to the disciples at the hour of Christ's advent, according as they
have done Uke the first and second, or like the third servant.
As the householder's return only ensued after an unexpectedly
long period, so the Lord's second coming will be put off longer
than the disciples think. This is again expressly foretold,4 that
no one may grow lax in fidelity on this account, or be con
firmed in imfaithfulness, taking what is only a postponement
of Christ's coming for its faUure. However long the Lord delay,
He will as certainly return as the householder of the parable,
and wUl then, like him, require an account from His disciples
(ver. 19). And as the first servant came before his master with
humble joy, that with the five talents received he had gained
other five (ver. 20), so those who have laboured faithfuUy with
the great amount entrusted to them wUl be able to appear before
the Lord rejoicing at the success with which they have been
permitted to work for the Lord and His kingdom. And as the
praise of a true and faithful servant was given to the first
servant, so then the praise of a true and faithful servant of
Christ will be given to them by their Lord ; and with the praise
a reward as rich and glorious beyond all measure as the one
promised to the servant in the words of the householder.
Because he was faithful over a little, says the householder, he
wUl set him over much. So to the disciples, who on earth have
proved their unselfish fideUty to Him in administering His word,
the Lord wUl give power over so much in the future kingdom of
God then to be set up, that in comparison with it all they had
hitherto received is little. But what is promised them is not
that in God's future kingdom' they shaU be made partakers in
great blessing as an object of enjoyment, but that in the organism
of God's future kingdom they shall receive great power as the
substratum of a new and more comprehensive sphere of work
1 Stier. 2 Thiersch. 3 Lange. 4 xxiv. 48, xxv. 5 ; Luke xvii. 22.

426 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
than was granted them on earth, where only the word was
entrusted to them as a substratum and means of labour. But if
such great things are committed to them, after the Lord Himself
has come again to set up His kingdom, this presupposes their
elevation to be participants in the independent dominion of their
Lord. And it is precisely this elevation that is figuratively
expressed in the saying : " Enter into the joy of thy lord," and
not merely, as is usually explained, entrance into the blessedness
of Christ's kingdom in general. As the householder of the
parable in that saying bids the servant take part in the joyous
state in which he himself is found as master, so Christ wUl then
make His faithful disciples participate in the state of bUssful life
belonging to Him — their Lord — in virtue of His divine power
and glory.
But aU this applies not only to those who, Uke the first
servant, with the rich gifts entrusted to them, have borne speci
ally rich fruit, but also quite as much to those who, Uke the
second servant, by showing like fideUty have secured gain just as
fully corresponding to their gifts, although less rich in itself.
This it is which is taught by the repetition without abridgment
of the account of the like proceedings in the reckoning with the
second servant, w. 22, 23. The latter, too, will be able to
appear before the Lord in the hour of His coming with like joy
as the former, and will find with the Lord the same praise of a
good and faithful servant, and receive the same rich and glorious
reward beyond all measure figuratively expressed in the saying :
" Over a Uttle thou wast faithful, over much wiU I set thee ;
enter into the joy of thy lord." The distinction, therefore,
existing in this life between them as regards the greatness or
littleness of the gifts entrusted to them wiU vanish before the
high position of power and honour to which they wiU then be both
equaUy raised on account of the equal fidelity they have shown.
But great and glorious as is this reward, so heavy, on the other
hand, is the punishment that wUl be inflicted on those who let
the word entrusted to them lie dead and useless. This is shown,
finally, in what takes place at the reckoning with the third
servant. By putting a supposed justification of his conduct in
the mouth of this servant, the parable exactly characterizes the
selfish disposition forming the basis of such conduct. At the
same time, the refutation which the servant's attempted justifica
tion receives from the householder dissipates the notion that he

THE TALENTS IN TRUST. 427
who thinks and does so is still within his rights as against his
master. As the third servant attributes his inactivity itself to
this, that the householder appeared to him a hard man, making
others work in order to appropriate the produce of their labour,
and that on this account he could not undertake labour whose
fruits would go to the householder, not to himself; so, in the
Uke inactivity of a disciple of Christ nothing would be revealed
but the unsubdued selfishness of heart which makes him, while
acknowledging Christ as his Lord, yet reaUy remain a stranger to
the Lord and His cause inwardly. Whoever stands aloof from
the Lord in such unsubdued selfishness of heart must certainly
feel it a hardship to devote the work of his Ufe to the cause of
Christ and the interests of His kingdom, instead of to himself
and his temporal interests ; and the selfish fear that he may have
nothing for himself from all his toU in the Lord's service wiU
make him shrink from all self-denying labour with the word
entrusted to him. And as the servant even thinks himself justi
fied in burying the money because he has kept it, and can restore
to the owner what is his, so he who stands at this selfish stand
point may give way to the notion that he remains within his
rights as against the Lord in hiding the word entrusted to him to
preach, because he can return it at last into the hands of Him
from whom he had it, without Christ's cause being positively
injured by his inaction. The answer which the householder
gives to the servant is meant to teach how perverse and self-
deceiving is this notion, vv. 26, 27. If the servant— so ran the
answer — professed to believe his master a hard man, making
others labour to appropriate the produce of their labour, and for
this reason refused to work with the money entrusted to him,
then, instead of uselessly burying the money to the owner's loss,
he was bound to hand it over to those wiUing to use it to profit,
so that the owner might receive his interest. So also a disciple,
to whom the requirement of self-denying labour in the Lord's
service seems an unreasonable hardship, and who therefore cannot
consent to join in the work of preaching and extending His word,
is under obligation to withdraw from the ministry of the word,
and, so far as it was entrusted to him, to hand it over to those
ready to work with it, and bear to the Lord the fruit He desires.
Here it is impUed, that as people are always found in the sphere
of earthly business wiUing to undertake the employment of
money which the first possessors desire to get rid of, so in the

428 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
sphere of labour in God's kingdom the word of the Lord, even
when individual disciples renounce it, and give up the Lord's
service, will always find wiUing hearts and hands enough, ready
to take their place and do the work they have refused. Thus
the cause of the Lord sustains no injury from this or that indi
vidual openly renouncing it, as though particular individuals
were indispensable to it ; but it suffers from one who thinks he
has a right to keep his position as a confessor and advocate of
Christ's word, whilst withdrawing from the work of preaching
and extending it, and hiding it from the world, in which it is
designed to work, — just as the owner of a large property is not
injured by the withdrawal of one or another manager, for whom
others can be found, but is injured when one buries in the earth
the sum entrusted to him, instead of putting it to use. This is
the only interpretation that solves the difficulty presented to
exposition by this peculiar admonition of the householder to the
servant, ie. solves it in real correspondence with the sense of the
words in the context of the narrative. For certainly we ought
not in the interpretation to pass over this admonition in sUence,
as many expositors do, unless we are to suppose that the entire
conversation between the third servant and the householder is
really just as meaningless and purposeless as it is minute and
pecuUar. Nor is this improved by the remark, that the purpose
is to show the inexcusableness of the inactivity of a servant of
Christ in a concrete example.1 For how could the author of the
parable intend to show this inexcusableness in a conversation
whose contents have no sort of application to the activity or
inactivity of a servant of Christ ? The admonition would be
scarcely less meaningless if it merely meant to say to him to
whom it applies, that he should have done something at least
with what was entrusted to him,2 for on this interpretation the
chief question, what he should have set about, if he was unwiUing
to work with it, not only remains without answer, but is incap
able of answer. The other expositors, who attempt a definite
interpretation, go astray in thinking themselves bound to point
out a course remaining open in the second instance to a disciple
of Christ who is unwilling to employ his gifts in independent
labour, so that he may be able to stand before the Lord on the
day of reckoning. In this sense such foreign and incongruous
notions have been imported as these, — that he who did not work
] Meyer on Luke xix. 20-23. 2 Stier.

THE TALENTS IN TRUST. 429
should at least have prayed,1 or adhesion to the most active
leaders and members of the Church has been supposed to be
demanded,2 or he who decUnes the responsibUity of independent
labour should at least place his gifts at the disposal of others.3
But the one, like the other, could only have been expressed in
the figurative story by the requirement to join the more gifted
fellow-servants, not by the requirement to put the money to the
exchangers, who would only have entered the householder's ser
vice by accepting the money offered to them. Hence Hofmann4
has applied the thought too artificially : " He who shrinks from
personal labour in extending the doctrine of Jesus may help
those who are skilled in teaching, without having been taken by
Jesus Himself into His service, to do what he himself has not
confidence for." But here, as by all the expositors just named,
it is overlooked, first of all, that according to Matthew the one
talent was entrusted also to the idle servant " according to his own
ability," that he is therefore just as able, and for this reason just
as bound, to work spontaneously with his gifts, as all the other
servants with theirs. So also in the sphere of God's kingdom, to
every one is entrusted what answers to his ability, whether much
or Uttle. Therefore the duty of personal faithful labour is the
same to every one ; and it is an impossible notion, that a disciple
would be justified in shifting the responsibility for what is
entrusted to him to other shoulders, or transferring the work
enjoined on him to others. And, in the second place, in all these
interpretations it is left out of sight that the householder by no
means intends in that admonition to tell the servant what his
duty was as a true and faithful servant, but that he merely
refutes his attempted justification from his own words, and from
the false standpoint of his own selfish disposition. He that
stands aloof from the Lord's cause as selfishly as the servant from
the householder, to whom the claim of the Lord on His disciples
to give up their whole time and strength in unselfish labour to
His service seems an intolerable hardship, so that he cannot
persuade himself to comply with such a demand, — he wiU be so
little justified by continuing to pass for a confessor and advocate
of Christ's word, and thus uselessly preserving the treasure
entrusted to him, that, on the contrary, he would be less guilty
were he to renounce that word, hand over his duty to others, and
1 Godet on Luke xix. 23. 2 Lange, similarly Olshausen.
3 Qremer. * t>n Luke xix- 23'

430 THE PARABLES OF JESOS.
thus at least not positively injure the Lord's cause. This is the
meaning of the refutation of the servant's attempt at seff-justifi-
cation. Of similar import are all those utterances of Jesus in
which He lays stress on the gravity of the demands which He
makes on His disciples, with the unmistakeable purpose of severing
the half-hearted and selfish, to whom this must seem intolerable
harshness, from the circle of His disciples. To this class especi
aUy belongs the section (Luke xiv. 25—33), where in the
paraboUc sayings of the cost of building a tower and the means
of waging a war, the exhortation is plainly expressed, that it is
better to abstain from being a disciple altogether than not to
comply with the demand for complete self-denial inseparable
from the disciple's position. The first would be better for man
than the second.1
And thus the punishment which the Lord wiU inflict on such
an idle and unfaithful servant will correspond to the wrong- doing
involved in such selfish indolence. The supposed merit of
having at least preserved what was entrusted to him wUl so Uttle
be imputed to him as such, that, on the contrary, this very gift
wiU then be taken from him. As the householder, on the basis of
the refutation he has given to the plea of the idle servant, at once
causes the talent to be taken from him (ver. 28), so from those who
have preserved the word of the Lord committed to them without
turning it to account, it wiU be taken away at Christ's coming, and
they wiU be stripped of the position in God's kingdom which they
have hitherto only held to the injury of the Lord's cause. And
as the householder commands that which was taken from the idle
servant to be given to him who has already ten talents, so then
what is taken from the indolent will benefit those who by diU
gence and fidelity have borne rich fruit to the Lord. For not
merely wiU the Lord leave them the rich product of their earthly
labour even in the future kingdom of God as their crown of
rejoicing, their glory and joy,2 but He wiU also over and above
reckon to their glory what He takes from the indolent in false
glory. By exposing the false glory of the latter, as though they
had done their duty by merely preserving the word entrusted
to them, and taking that glory from them along with the word
that was theirs, He will stUl further augment to the faithful the
glory and joy which is the result of their faithful labour, so that
they wUl become just as much richer as the others became poorer.
1 Cf. also Rev. iii. 15, 16. 2 1 Thess. ii. 19 f. ; cf. Hofmann on Luke xix. 24.

THE TALENTS IN TRUST. 431
In this sense then, in reference to the disciples of Christ at His
coming as in reference to the servants on the householder's
return, the general maxim (ver. 29) wiU find its appUcation:
"Whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shaU have
abundance ; but he that hath not, from him shaU be taken away
even that which he hath," without this implying anything else
than simply a just estimation and corresponding recompense of
the fideUty of the one class, through which they became " those
who have," in its distance from the unfaithfulness of the others,
through which they became " those who have not," namely, have
nothing but what they received. By thus giving its definite
interpretation to this special feature, that what is taken from the
indolent benefits the faithful, we have only done what is essential
This regulation is far too strange and far too little demanded by the
tenor of the narrative, to aUow us to pass it by in the interpreta
tion, as most expositors do ; aU the less so, that the appeal to the
clause : " He that has, to him shaU be given," simply refers in the
connection of the figurative story to this increase of the ten talents
by the one, and not, as is usuaUy done in the interpretation, to
the great reward given to the faithful servants according to
vv. 21, 23. Certainly the circumstance that the talent taken
from the indolent only benefits the one who had ten talents, not
also the one who had four talents, cannot be applied in the inter
pretation. Nor does it require any application. For if the
thought above expressed needed to be illustrated in one of the
two, the holder of the ten talents offered himself for the purpose
in the first Une, because the addition of the one talent appears
aU the more striking the greater the number already present.
To say this is by no means to deny that the doctrine here stated
bears an appUcation to aU faithful, diUgent servants, provided they
bear fruit corresponding in amount to the gifts entrusted to them.
But if the idle, unfaithful disciple of Christ, instead of receiving
new work in the future kingdom of God, is deprived even of that
which he had in this Ufe, it foUows of course that there is no
room for him in that kingdom. Hence in Luke's parable of the
Pounds (xix. 24 ff.) no further punishment of the idle servant is
mentioned. But in the present parable the expulsion from the
kingdom of God finds at the close special figurative expression.
As the householder in the parable adds to the order to deprive
the idle servant of his talent the command to cast him forth from
the bright festal rooms of the master's house into the darkness,

432 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
thus expelling him from his household, so Christ in the hour of
His coming, besides depriving every idle, unfaithful servant of
what was entrusted to him, will also inflict on him the penalty
of exclusion from His kingdom, the kingdom of Ught and joy,
and consign him to the place of condemnation. " There shaU be
the wailing and gnashing of teeth."

The Pounds1 in Trust.
(Luke xix. 11-27.)

The parable of the Pounds preserved in Luke, which has much
in common with the parable of the Talents in Matthew, likewise
belongs, according to Luke's account, to the last period of the life
and teaching of Jesus. For it is found in the last section of his
Gospel, beginning with xviii. 31, in which section, again pursuing
the chronological order, he describes the issue of the Ufe of Jesus.
But according to Luke (chap, xix.) the parable of the Pounds was
not spoken (like that of the Talents) in the Passion-week and in
the course of the eschatological discourse, but on the journey
through Jericho to Jerusalem to the Paschal feast, which was to
issue in His death, more definitely before the departure of Jesus
from Jericho,2 where He lodged in the house of Zacehaeus the
publican. After Zacchseus had joyfuUy received Jesus in his
house (ver. 6), Jesus had said to Zacehaeus, in opposition to the
general murmuring which His lodging with a publican had called
forth among the people:3 " To-day is salvation come to this house,
because he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man came to
seek and to save that which was lost " (vv. 9, 1 0). And to this
saying, addressed to Zacchseus, the parable is then joined in the
following manner, ver. 11 : 'AKovbvrwv Se avrwv ravra irpoadel?
elirev irapaBoXyv. Eespecting the persons to whom the parable
was spoken, nothing further is said than that they were those
who had heard the saying to Zacchseus. For the pronoun avrwv
has no retrospective aUusion to some persons more fully described
before, nor is any necessary. It means simply those present at
1 Minae. 2 Cf. ver. 28.
3 But no longer in presence of the whole multitude, as Meyer supposes, as though
everything related in vv. 8-27 is to be regarded as transpiring on the threshold of
Zacchseus' house.

the pounds in trust. 433
the conversation between Zacchseus and Jesus, for whom that last
saying of Jesus was just as much designed as for Zacchseus him
self, since Jesus, although speaking " to Zacchseus " (" unto him "),
spoke at the same time in the third person to the bystanders
about him (" because he also is Abraham's son "). But what led
Jesus to add to the declaration which they had heard, the fol
lowing parable, apparently of such different import, is clearly
explained by the two infinitive clauses introduced by Sid : Sid rb
iyyv? eivai IepovaaXyp, avrov, Kal SoKelv avrov? on irapaypypia
piXXei y Baa,^e'La r°v &eov dva(paiveadai, i.e. " because He was
near Jerusalem, and they think that the kingdom of God will imme
diately appear." 1 The two infinitive clauses are closely con
nected, the first being merely the basis of the second. That He
was near Jerusalem, became to the Lord the occasion of His
uttering the following parable, inasmuch as in the minds of those
present, with this circumstance there was linked the thought that
the appearance of the kingdom of God was soon to be expected.
And how they came to this association of ideas just then and in
consequence of the declaration to Zacchseus, is not hard to see.
Let us transport ourselves vividly into the situation. Attended
by dense crowds of people, Jesus, on entering Jericho, had heard
with approval the Messianic name " Son of David," with which
the blind man addressed Him in the road, and had rewarded the
faith of the man who so addressed Him with a miraculous cure,
upon which all the people burst into praise of God (xviii. 3 5-43),
so that His entry into Jericho became a public event. Even in
the murmur of dissatisfaction running through the crowd after
His lodging in the house of Zacchseus (xix. 7) it is stUl apparent
how aU eyes were turned to Him, and all hearts filled exclusively
with interest in His person. To all this was now added the
solemn saying of Jesus to Zacchseus, in which He designated Him
self the Son of man, the bearer of the salvation promised to the
sons of Abraham. When, then, this Jesus, who not only received
such homage as that of the bUnd man, but also spoke of Himself
as He did to Zacchseus, after already entering Jericho amid the
enthusiastic acclamations of the people, was about to go up to
Jerusalem amid ever-increasing crowds of pilgrims, and was
scarcely a day's journey from its gates, how natural to excited
hearts was the expectation that His arrival in Jerusalem, as it
actually took place afterwards, and is at once related in ver. 28 ff,
1 itx/QxUolxt, " come into visible manifestation.''
GOEBEL. ^ E

434 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
wiU assume the shape of a public entry as the Messiah in the city
of Zion, and that then from Jerusalem, the city of God, the visible
estabUshment of the kingdom of God wUl immediately take place !
And here it becomes more clearly evident that they to whom
Jesus spoke the parable were such as already believed in Him as
the Messiah, and were not shaken in this faith by His lodging
with Zacchseus, a view which very well agrees with the situation,
because the only persons who besides the Twelve entered the
house of the publican with Jesus, and thus became ear-witnesses
of His conversation with Zacchseus, were those who formed His
immediate surrounding and constant attendants on the journey
to Jerusalem. But if the expectation in the minds of His attend
ants of the speedy appearance of God's kingdom gave the Lord
the occasion for narrating the foUowing parable, — which leaves
it uncertain whether the expectation was made known in express
words or in some other way, — it is to be expected that the parable
itself wiU oppose the error expressed in the irapaypypa, and put
in contrast with it what Christ's disciples are reaUy to expect
concerning the future development of the kingdom of God.
Newly introduced by an et7rez> ovv, the narrative itseff then
begins : " A man of noble birth journeyed into a far country, to
receive for himself a kingdom, and (then) to return!' According to
the analogy of the existing poUtical circumstances of the Eoman
Empire, in which a number of smaU vassal states were found
under the supreme sway of the Emperor, a man of noble birth
is set forth, on whom a kingdom is to be conferred. But in
order to receive this investiture it is necessary for him to under
take a journey into a distant land, where the seat of the supreme
monarch is ; and only after returning from this journey, which
implies a long absence, wiU he enter on the kingdom. Nothing
is said of his being the king of the country by descent. This is
obviously imported by expositors in prospect of the interpretation.
The designation eiyevi]? only assigns him a place in the order
from which ruling princes usually proceeded, and in this sense
merely paves the way for the statement respecting the purpose of
his journey. Whether in this arrangement of the narrative, as
most expositors maintain, there is a definite reminiscence of the
similar journeys made to Borne by Herod I. and Archelaus, and
in the subsequent hostUe embassy sent after the nobleman (ver. 14)
of the embassay of the fifty Jews who foUowed Archelaus to
Borne, — events the last of which only occurred three decennia

THE POUNDS IN TRUST. 435
before, — or whether these traits were only freely shaped in
analogy with the poUtical circumstances of the age, cannot be
decided, and is of no importance. For even if the former were
the case, such a reminiscence of particular historical facts would
be nothing more than an external point of support for a simUar
shaping of the figurative story. In no case should we be warranted
in saying that Jesus here " compared His Ascension to the journey
of Herod to Bome," and in reckoning this circumstance " among
the little observed features of the deep humUity of the Son of
man." 1
But before his departure the future king did what is told in
ver. 13:" And he called his ten servants} and gave them ten
mince," which means, as is evident from the further course of
the narrative, that each of the ten servants received one mina.
The question whether the ten were the whole of his servants,3
or not,4 is not to be raised, because the narrative says neither the
one nor the other, but only that they were ten servants whom he
called, therefore, of course, not a fragment taken at random, but a
united complete number, each one of whom received the like
mina and the Uke charge in reference to it: Kal elirev irpb?
avroi? IIpaypaTevaaade, iv w5 epyopai, ie. " Trade ye, whilst
I come." The latter clause (iv w epy) in its condensed mode of
expression only really becomes intelligible when we consider the
pregnant force lying in the epyopai here, uttered as it is by the
nobleman on the eve of a journey having no other aim and
meaning than this, to initiate his coming as king. Only by
keeping this position of things given in the context in view,
according to which the epyopai as an idea of purpose includes
under it, in fact, the whole journey, can we stop at the simple
Uteral translation "whilst I come," without foisting on the
epyopai the impossible meaning " to be on the journey," 6 or
supposing a scarcely conceivable brachylogy, by which the end of
the period of absence is put for the whole,7 or, finaUy, making' of
the clause iv & epy. an artificial relative clause, meaning:
" during which (your carrying on trade) I come." 8 Moreover,
nothing is gained by this inversion of the relation of the two
1 So e.g. van Oosterzee.
2 Vtxx loixns iaunu without article, properly therefore "ten servants of himself."
3 Stier. 4 von Hofmann.
5 Decidedly attested in place of \oit fyx'/**' (Rec).
a Stier, van Oosterzee, et al. 7 von Hofmann. ' Meyer.

436 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
clauses, because the difficulty, namely, the identifying of the
final return (and therefore of a mere point of time) with the
entire space during which trade is to be carried on, still remains.
It has certainly been thought that this distribution of minse to
the servants in order to their trading with them, is in ill accord
with the political position assigned to the nobleman in ver. 12.
But we can only be surprised at the nobleman distributing
money, instead of arms, to his servants by overlooking, that
hitherto he was only their master, not their commander-in-chief.
And his giving them so small a sum as one mina each x is only
unintelligible, when we transfer the idea of the talents from the
parable of the Talents,2 as if the subject here were the manage
ment of the property which the nobleman leaves behind. But of
this nothing at all is said. The motive for delivering the money
to the servants, with the charge to trade with it, does not seem
here to be the need of appointing managers to the nobleman's
property during his absence, but is simply a device of political
wisdom on the part of the future king. His only purpose is by
this smaU sum given to his servants, and this insignificant task
allotted to them, all the more plainly to test their fideUty,
and thus ascertain their fitness for employment in his future
kingdom. But from the servants standing at the nobleman's service
before he receives his kingdom the narrative now turns to his
fellow-citizens, the citizens, therefore, of the same city of which
he himself hitherto was a citizen, in order to state what attitude
they assumed to him, ver. 14 : "But his fellow-citizens hated him,
and sent an embassy after him, saying, We will not that this 8 man
rule over us." Therefore it is only hate to his person which
moves them to opposition against his kingship. And so great
is their hate against the designated king, that they do not
scruple to follow him even to the throne of the suzerain with
their opposition, and before this supreme court assert their
defiant self-will in impotent protest : We will not that he rule
over us.
We next find ourselves transported forthwith to the period
after the nobleman's return in regal majesty and power. What
there may have been to say respecting the trading of the servants
1 An Attic mina according to different calculations from £3 to £3, 15s. Cf. on
Matt, xviii. 24.
2 Matt. xxv. 14. 3 Toi/Tot, Bengel : istum, fastidiose loquuntur.

THE POUNDS IN TRUST. 437
with the money during his absence is here passed over in silence,1
because it wiU find expression in the account to be rendered by
the servants of the execution of the charge they received.
Hence, in ver. 1 5, it is said at once : " And it came to pass, when
he had returned, having received the kingdom, that he commanded
these servants to wliom he gave the money to be called to him that
he might learn : " r(? ri Bieirpayparevaaro, i.e., resolving the
compressed construction which fuses two interrogative sentences
predicated of one subject into one : 2 " who had gained anything, and
what he had gained." Such is the usual rendering of Bieirpay
parevaaro. For since the verb irpaypareveadai, which already
had in ver. 13 the special sense of "to carry on trade," here
recurs, only strengthened by Bid in the sense of zeal achieving its
end and joined with an object-accusative, the signification " to
gain by trade," which is in keeping with the circumstances of
the case, must be maintained, in opposition to the dUuted
rendering of Meyer : " what any one had undertaken." The ten
servants then come one after another, ver. 16:" And the first
came, saying, Lord, thy mina hath gained ten mince more." It is
expressly said irpoaeipydaaro? The meaning therefore is not:
The one mina has become ten in aU, but : The one mina has
gained ten other minse in addition} The servant makes, not
himself, but his master's mina, the subject of this irpoaepyd&adai.
Only of the mina does he boast, that it has proved fruitful in
trade in so high a degree, his own labour — the means of this
result — only seeming to him the fideUty due, of which he cannot
boast.6 But it is just this fideUty for which his master now
bestows praise and reward on him in rich measure. First
the praise, ver. 17: " And he said to him : Evye 6 dyade
BoCXe, ie. Well done, thou good servant." And then the reward :
"Because thou hast become7 faithful in a very little, have thou
authority over ten cities."8 The same number, therefore,
that describes the amount of the gain made by him, describes
also the amount of the reward allotted to him. Because the
amount of the gain here, where every servant had received the
1 Matt. xxv. 16-18. s Winer, Gram. p. 784.
8 According to another reading : vpompyxoxTo. 4 Cf. on ver. 24.
6 Cf. xvii. 10 and on Matt. xxv. 20.
6 The Recepta has the less well-attested iv, after Matt. xxv. 21.
7 iyitou, any one only becomes and is faithful in the degree in which he practises
fidelity. 8 laSt \\ovalxt %xuy ^^vat Hxx vroXtut.

438 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
same,1 expresses the degree of fidelity shown, the amount of the
gain becomes the standard for measuring the reward. But
substantially the reward consists in this, that to the servant who
has shown fideUty in the Uttle, power is given over the great,
namely, over a district in his lord's, kingdom embracing just
as many cities as he gained minse. We see here that the
province of the kingdom which the nobleman received extends
far beyond the bounds of the city of which he himself was a
citizen, and whose citizens had opposed his kingship.
Upon the first servant foUows the second, boasting with the
same humble joy of the produce of the mina entrusted to him,
only that here the gain is less by half, ver. 18 : " And the second
came, saying, Lord, thy mina hath gained 2 five mince." And so
he receives the Uke answer from the master, but with the
difference that the number of the cities over which he is set is
reduced to the number of the minse he had gained, ver. 19 :
" And he said to this one also : " Kal av iirdvw yivov irkvre
iroXewv, i.e. " Be 3 thou also 4 over five cities." The circumstance
that the apostrophe : " WeU done, good servant," does not expressly
recur in the case of the second servant, does not denote a with
holding of this praise.6 The apostrophe is understood as matter of
course, just as much as the clause justifying the reward : " because
thou wast faithful in the least." If in Matt. xxv. 21 the entire
address of the master is repeated to the letter, this circumstantiaUty
has its special reason there, the aim being to signaUze the equality
of the praise and reward in both cases, — a reason obviously absent
here, where, alongside the general resemblance of the praise and
reward sufficiently expressed in the repeated Kai (koX rovrw . . .
Kal av), the special stress Ues on the distinction shown in the
different amount of the reward aUotted, — there, power over ten,
here, only over five .cities. From the example of these two
servants we must then gather how the king dealt with the rest
of the servants, so far as they had obeyed the charge given them.
According to the degree of the fideUty shown by each one, as
displayed in the amount of gain secured, he assigned to them a
position of more or less comprehensive authority in his kingdom.
1 It is different in Matt. xxv. 15. 2 l«;Vsv, cf. on Matt. xxv. 16.
3 [The yitio is of course imperfectly represented by "be." The author says
"come," explaining it by "beset."]
4 Not "and thou," with van Oosterzee,- because the xxi <tl> plainly corresponds to
the »i toutoo immediately preceding.
6 So e.g. Stier. van Oosterzee.

THE POUNDS IN TRUST. 439
But aU the ten did not obey the charge of their master as good
servants. One is stiU to be spoken of, who is opposed -as " the
other " to the entire class of good servants represented by the first
two.1 Of him it is said in vv. 2 0, 2 1 : " And the other came, saying,
Lord, behold, here thy mina, which I kept laid up in a handkerchief:
for I feared thee, because thou art an austere man (dvdpwiro?
aiarypb?) : thou takest up what thou layedst not down, and reapest
what thou didst not sow." It is exactly the same logic as in the
attempted justification on the part of the third servant in
Matthew (xxv. 24, 25), only in the reverse order of thought.
For whereas there the hardness of the householder is the starting-
point, from which the fear of the servant is derived, and from
this again the idle keeping of the money, upon which foUowed, in
conclusion, the return of his property to the lord with the words :
" Lo, thou hast thine own ; " here, the corresponding " Behold
thy mina " stands first, joined with the confession that he has
merely kept the mina in a handkerchief, and this conduct is then
traced back to the fear he had of the master, and this fear again
to the harshness in virtue of which he made others work and
appropriated the produce of the work. These differences of
language make no difference of meaning. For when here the
keeping of the mina in a handkerchief appears in place of the
burying of the talent, it is clear that the former course has the
same meaning and end as the latter, only that with so much
smaUer a sum it is the more natural course. And when here in
characterizing the harshness of the master the awcuywv, odev ov
SieaKopiriaa? forming the second clause in Matthew (ver. 24)
is omitted, and instead a'ipei?, o ovk edyKa? as the first clause
precedes the 6epi£et? b oiK eaireipa?, the fault found with the
reaping without having sown, common to the two passages,
guarantees the sameness of the meaning. On the other hand,
this essential sameness of meaning in the language of the idle
servant makes the very considerable difference in the wording
of the two parables all the more singular, and this must not be
left out of sight in defining the relation of the two parables to
each other.
On the other hand, in the refutation given to the servant's
attempted justification, the two parables coincide even in the
wording, although not entirely; for it is said, vv. 22, 23 : "He
1 If S input is the reading (Lachmann, Tischendorf), not with the Recepta simply
tripos (Meyer).

440 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee (this
announcement is wanting in Matthew), thou wicked servant!
Thou knewest (not: knewest thou?)1 that I am an austere man,
taking up what I laid not down, and reaping what I did not sow.
And wherefore} then, gavest thou not my money to an exchanger's
table} etc., and I (in keeping with my supposed character)4 at my
coming should then (in the case put by the preceding question, to
which the av before eirpa^a alludes)5 have exacted it with interest ?"
The latter strong expression, eirpa%a = exegissem, corresponds to
the presupposed austerity of the master. Therefore, from the
servant's . own mouth, as is here expressly remarked, the king
takes the refutation of the attempted justification, just like the
householder in Matthew, reminding him that the view of his
master's character expressed by him should rightly have led him
to a quite different course from the one he took. For if he pro
fessed to know that the master who gave him the mina only
cared about deriving profit from the labour of others, how could
he keep his money lying dead and useless ? And if he were
unwilling to work for the owner's benefit, why did he not give it
to a money-changer's table, where it would have been readily
used by others, so that the owner might have exacted from them
the interest for which he was supposed mainly to care ? Hence
the circumstance, that he at least preserved his master's money
and returned it intact, can by no means excuse, far less justify,
him, but must be reckoned an aggravation of his fault. And
instead of assigning him a place in the administration of the
kingdom because of his preserving the mina, as he seems to
expect, the king takes from him even the mina that had been
entrusted to him, and terminates his relation of service, ver. 24 :
" And to the bystanders (surrounding him as his royal retinue) lie
said, Take from him the mina, and give it to Mm that hath the ten
mince," namely, the ten gained in addition to the one (ver. 16),
therefore different from the corresponding passage in the parable
of the Talents,6 where, in the number ten, the amount gained was
combined with the amount received (5 + 5). Apart from this
unimportant difference, there is exactly the same twofold com-
1 Cf. on Matt. xxv. 26.
2 xxi iix rl i observe the instant entrance of the question with xxi, expressing the
stringency of the inference.
3 The article before rpxm&> (Recepta) is to be expunged, according to the best
authorities. 4 Cf. on Matt. xxv. 27. 6 Cf. "Winer, Gram. p. 378. • Matt. xxv. 28.

THE POUNDS IN TRUST. 441
mand as in Matthew. Its strange element lies in its second
part, according to which, the money taken from the idle servant
is to be added to him who already has the largest sum. And
this strange regulation is then justified by an appeal to the same
general rule, only with the difference, that the aUeging of the
rule, which took place in Matthew with a simple " for," is here
speciaUy introduced by an objection of surprise on the part of
the bystanders to whom the previous command was given,
ver. 25 : "And they said to Mm, Lord, he hath ten mince." This
objection is met by the appeal to the rule as the king's reply
with Xkyw vpiv, which here render's superfluous an express notice
of the king beginning to speak again, and therefore takes the place
of an elirev Be airol?, ver. 26: " / say unto you, To every one that
hath shall be given ; but from him that hath not, even what he hath
shall be taken away." x Nothing is said here of any further
punishment of the servant. Enough that he has no part in the
kingdom of the lord, and, after the taking away even of the mina
entrusted to him, has nothing more in common with it.
But the king has not merely to call his servants to account,
but also to hold judgment upon those who, although his fellow-
citizens, have set themselves from hatred in opposition to him.
Hence, in ver. 27, the language of the king turns with irXyv
(verumtamen) from his servants to these his enemies, in order
to say what is to be done with them. As his feUow-citizens they
would have been called to enjoy the blessings of his kingdom in
the first rank. But they who were his feUow-citizens became
his foes, and as such only he now knows and names them, saying
expressly why he has no other name for them : irXyv rov?
iydpov? pov rovrov? rov? piy deXyaavra? pe BaoTtXevaai iir
avrov?. The reading e/cetVou?, which the Becepta has on the
authority of several MSS., for rovrov? is plainly a correction,
rovrov? seeming less suitable to absent persons who had to be
summoned. But rovrov? here does not point to persons present,
in which case the pronoun would have retained its usual position
before the substantive, but it serves, just as in ver. 15,2 to pave
the way for the more precise definition which foUows, as there in
a relative sentence, so here in a participial sentence : rov? py
deXyaavra? pe /3a©-t\.e£>o-at iir airov?.3 But rovrov? ought not
1 Respecting the meaning and application of this maxim, cf. on Matt. xxv. 29.
2 TOIIS loiXoUS TOUTOUS, OIS tioiKH TO xpyipiot.
3 Observe the verbal resumption from ver. 14 : oi lixo/at Towt ^xnXiIo-xi if' i/txs.

442 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
on this account to be grammatically separated from the substan
tive iydpov? and joined with the foUowing participle,1 which is
forbidden by the quite analogous parallel of ver. 15. As the
householder there ordered these his servants to whom he gave
the money to be brought before him, so here : " But these my
enemies, who would not that I should rule over them, bring hither ! "
And their doom, which he joins with the command to bring
them, runs just as briefly as severely : " and slay them before- me."
Instead, therefore, of being permitted to enjoy the kingdom of
him, to whom as fellow-citizens they were so nearly related, they
have to expect no other fate than that of rebels, when the king,
to whom they have impotently opposed themselves, comes upon
them with his royal power, and calls them before his tribunal.
They wiU be brought, dragged, so to speak, in chains before the
tribunal of the royal conqueror, to receive in his presence 2 the
just punishment of their treason in its full severity. The strong
expression " slay " in the mouth of the royal judge, affirms that
he wUl show such rebels no weak clemency, but wUl inflict the
penalty of a violent death due to them without mercy.
In what sense, then, does a narrative of such import contradict
the expectation of a speedy appearance of the kingdom of God,
by which, according to ver. 11, it was occasioned ? The narra
tive itself spoke of the setting up of a kingly rule, which,
however, was preceded by a journey into a far country, and a
consequent prolonged absence of the future king, during which
the fidelity of his servants is to be proved on the one hand, and
the hate of his feUow-servants wiU be revealed on the other.
We may here then assume as undoubted, that by this journey of
the nobleman Jesus means to represent His own approaching
departure from the world, and by his return His own coming
again in royal power and glory ; and further, that by the noble
man's servants left behind He would have His own disciples
understood, and by his fellow-citizens His own fellow-countrymen,
the citizens of Israel. And in this case an answer is given to
the inquiry as to the relation of the parable to the expectation of
a speedy appearance of God's kingdom, and the purpose of the
whole parable is made clear. By the parable Jesus teaches His
disciples and foUowers, who had yielded to this false expectation,
that, instead of a speedy setting up of His Messianic kingdom, His
1 So von Hofmann.
2 t/oxpotrCit /i.ov, therefore on the spot, without further delay.

THE POUNDS IN TRUST. 443
departure from the world is at hand, and consequently a long period
of absence on His part, during which His disciples have to prove
their fidelity to Him, while His foes will show the inveteracy of their
hatred against Him, so that the, hour cf the actual erection of His
kingdom, which will only dawn with His second advent, will be to
the former an hour of reckoning, and to the latter an hour of doom.
Thus the first part (vv. 12-14) characterizes the impending
intermediate period, when the Lord wiU be absent, as a time of
test for the fidelity of His disciples and of revelation for the
hatred of His enemies, whereupon the second part (vv. 15-27)
shows the significance thus given to the hour of the actual
erection of the kingdom for the one and for the other.
There scarcely needs any special allusion to the fact, that in
this way the pervading twofold reference of the parable on one
side to the disciples, and on the other to Christ's enemies, com
bines into a united whole. The view which regards the parables
as an artificial welding together of two dissimUar parts not
originaUy connected,1 can only be explained by the undue influ
ence which the critical interest has been allowed to exert on the
exegesis in defining the relation of this parable to the simUar one
in Matthew. Certainly the question may be raised : If Jesus
has to do here primarily with His disciples and foUowers, who
beUeve in His Messiahship, and cherish the hope of a speedy
. establishing of the Messiah's kingdom,2 what led Him to give
I His parable a twofold reference, and with the primary teaching
respecting the test-time impending for His disciples and hearers
before His kingdom is established, to join the other teaching
respecting the attitude His feUow-countrymen wUl assume to
Him and His kingship ? But the answer to this question also
is given in what was ascertained (ver. 11) respecting the precise
nature of the erroneous expectation which the parable was meant
to oppose. The expectation of the speedy appearance of God's
kingdom attached itself to the circumstance that Jesus was
already near Jerusalem. From this it is clear that the opinion
assumed this definite shape, that when Jesus has entered Jeru
salem, as He did Jericho before, from this metropoUs of the
theocracy He wiU speedily erect His Messianic kingdom, the
present theocracy of Israel, and the present race of the theocratic
1 linger, Strauss, Bleek, Meyer.
2 For the context contains no hint that secret enemies of Jesus were also present,
as e. g. van Oosterzee supposes.

444 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
people will therefore supply Him with the ground on which to
erect the kingdom and wiU constitute its centre. To show them,
therefore, how very far wrong they were in this special form of
the expectation, from which they cannot yet free themselves, and
which had just now forced itself on them afresh under the im
pressions of the moment, Jesus takes pains to characterize the
intervening period, which was to test their fidelity, under the
other aspect, namely, that it wUl reveal the implacable hate of
His fellow-countrymen against Him, and their obstinate opposi
tion to His kingship, from which it then follows naturaUy that
this twofold reference recurs in the second part of the parable,
in the picture of the Parousia.
It will not be difficult now to interpret the course of the
narrative in detaU, by making use of what has been already
ascertained, in expounding the parable of the Talents, respecting
the meaning of the portions common to the two parables. First
of all, the antithesis must not be overlooked between the journey
et? ywpav paKpdv (ver. 12) and the Bid rb iyyv? elvai
' IepovaaXyp, (ver. 11), which plainly is no accidental contrast.
As the nobleman selected for the throne was obliged, before
entering on his rule, to journey into a far country, to receive at
the seat of power the investiture with the kingdom designed for
him, and then return thence as king, so must Jesus, instead of
nothing more than His entrance into Jerusalem, now close at
hand, being necessary to the erection of His kingdom, first go afar
to Him who can alone confer the crown of the Messianic king
dom, ie. away from this world into the distance of the heaven
that is God's throne, in order then to return to set up the
Messianic kingdom, when that kingdom has been conferred upon
Him by God. To the receiving of the kingdom, then, in this
connection corresponds not so much the glorification accruing to
the person of Jesus on His going away to God, " the instaUation
of Christ in His heavenly dominion," 1 as rather the authority
God will confer on Him on His second coming from heaven in
kingly power and glory to establish the Messianic kingdom of
the future. . Further, as relates to the designation eiyevy?, so far
as one keeps to the original sense of the parable apart from
application, it is not to be expressly included in the comparison,
as though Jesus had meant by it to allude " in figurative fashion "
to His heavenly origin as God's Son, or to His earthly descent
1 Olshausen.

THE POUNDS IN TRUST. 445
from royal blood as David's Son, and so emphasize His hereditary
right to the throne of God's kingdom,1 because in the narrative
this designation, neither figuratively nor unfiguratively, makes the
man to whom it is applied a prince inheriting the throne by
birth, but simply by a graphic use of famUiar political relations
makes him a magnate destined to receive a kingdom from his
suzerain in the way of investiture.
From that retirement of their Lord arises for the disciples of
Jesus, as for the servants of the nobleman, an intermediate period,
during which they wiU be without His visible presence, and
must wait for His coming. But the period is not given them for
idle waiting. It is of the most critical importance for themselves,
because it is appointed them as a test-time, on the use of which
their own participation in the kingdom of Christ and their
position in it wiU depend. As the nobleman on his departure
delivered to ten servants one mina each, commanding them,
whUst he is initiating his coming as king, to trade with these
minse, precisely that in dealing with so slight a sum the fidelity
of each one, and his fitness for the royal service, may be seen ;
so will Jesus, for the intermediate period up to His second
advent, hand over to the body of His disciples 2 an apparently
inconsiderable gift, and appoint them the duty of working with
it for their Lord, while He is far away. This, indeed, will be
but an insignificant task for those who had dreamt already of an
instantaneous appearing of God's kingdom, but precisely in it
they will prove their fidelity to Jesus, and by the degree of their
fidelity in the little, Jesus wiU learn the degree of their capacity
for the position in God's future kingdom destined for them. The
nature of the gift Jesus gives His disciples for the intermediate
period up to the second advent has been already ascertained in
the exposition of Matt. xxv. 14, 15. It is simply His word
that He delivers to them, that they may preach and extend it in
the world. But in the representation of Luke's parable it is
placed under another point of view in several respects. What
was emphasized in Matthew,3 namely, that with His word Jesus
deUvered to the disciples what had been His own possession, the
means and instrument of His own working in the world, is here
left out of sight, because here the attention is solely directed to
1 Stier, Lisco, van Oosterzee.
2 This idea of unity lies in the number ten.
3 " He delivered to them his goods."

446 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
the circumstance, that it is a slight, insignificant gift which Jesus
commits with the word to His disciples, — slight and insignificant
in relation to the premature expectations of the disciples, confer
ring no power and reputation in the world, but just for this
reason designed and adapted to be a touchstone of fideUty to
those to whom it is committed. It is also now explained why
the value of the gift is only in Luke represented by a mina,
whereas in Matthew, where it appeared as the property of the
departing one, it was expressed in talents. And when finally, in
Matthew, a different number of talents was assigned to the
individual servants according to their abiUty, while here every
one receives only one mina, here again it is left out of sight
(what was emphasized there by the assigning of different sums),
that so much of the treasures of saving truth wrapped up in the
word is entrusted to each disciple to preach as corresponds to
his ability. Here, on the other hand, it is pointed out, that it is
one and the same word with the preaching of which aU disciples
are entrusted.
But the same intermediate period that wiU test the fideUty of
the disciples of Jesus, will, on the other hand, reveal the inveteracy
of the hate marking the true attitude of His IsraeUtish feUow-
countrymen to Him. That " His citizens " (ver. 14) are the
IsraeUtish countrymen of Jesus, and the " city " therefore to which
they belong the IsraeUtish theocracy, is beyond doubt in the
present context, and, moreover, is certified by the analogous
representation of the IsraeUtish theocracy in two other parables.1
Accordingly, ver. 14 is to be interpreted thus : As the fellow-
citizens of the nobleman were so full of hate to him as them
selves to send an embassy of protest after him to the seat of
supreme authority, and therefore 'ventured even to assert their
self-wUl against the supreme wUl that destined the kingdom for
him (ov diXopiev rovrov Ba(riXevaai i(j> ypd?) ; so Jesus here
foresees and foretells that His IsraeUtish countrymen wiU persist
in their hatred against Him even after He has gone away to God,
and inspired by this hatred wUl oppose their wUl to the supreme
will of God, who received Jesus to Himself in heaven to confer
on Him the crown of the Messianic kingdom. Therefore ver. 14
does not merely contain a general characterization of the hostUity
of Israel to Christ's person and kingdom, which is aU that is
usually understood in the interpretation, in which case it would
1 Cf. on Matt xxii. 7 ; Luke xiv. 21.

THE POUNDS IN TRUST. 447
be left quite unexplained why, in order figuratively to represent
such a general relation, a feature so specific as the despatch of an
embassy of protest to the seat of power is borrowed from the
poUtical circumstances of the age. But as such an embassy
denotes in the political sphere an assertion on the part of the
protesters of their own wUl against the intentions prevailing at
the seat of power, so it is predicted that, despite the fact (attested
in historical fulfilment by the outpouring of the Spirit and the
apostoUc preaching) that Jesus is exalted to God to receive the
crown of the Messianic kingdom, His feUow-countrymen will not
desist from their hostUity against Him, and wiU not scruple to
direct their resistance against God's supreme wiU. Thus their
resistance wiU follow the Lord into heaven to God's throne, as
the protest of the fellow-citizens foUowed the nobleman into the
far country to the throne of the suzerain, certainly in the character
of a protest as impotent as it is obstinate.
But if this is the character of the intermediate period which
must precede the appearance of Christ's kingdom, it follows that
the hour of the setting up of that kingdom wiU be one of reckon
ing for His disciples and of judgment for His enemies. For as
the king in the parable, when he returned in the possession of
regal power and dignity, summoned the servants to whom he had
given the money, in order to learn what each one had gained by
trading (ver. 15) ; so Christ in the hour of His kingly return wUl
caU to account His servants to whom He entrusted His word,
that it may be known what gain each one has made for his Lord
by the lowly ministry of the word. So far, then, as the following
transaction with the faithful servants resembles that in Matthew's
parable (xxv. 20 ff.), the latter is to be consulted in interpreting
the present parable. But the more simUar the account of the
first two servants in the two parables, the more strange appears
the very important difference in the teaching given here from the
teaching there. For whereas in Matthew the emphasis of the
teaching lay on this, that at Christ's second coming, along with
very different results of labour in this Ufe, the praise and reward
wiU remain the same to individual disciples, so far, that is, as the
difference in the results simply arose from the different endow
ment of the individuals, and corresponds to it ; so the teaching of
the present parable tends in precisely an opposite direction,
namely, to the effect that a different amount of gain secured for
the Lord's cause in this life will be the standard for assigning an

448 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
equally different reward, so far, that is, as the difference in the
service has its cause in a different degree of diligence and fidelity.
As the king made the first servant, who was able to show a gain
of ten minse, a commander over ten cities of his kingdom, and
the second servant, who had gained five minee, over five only,
and so with the rest ; so in the hour of His second advent Christ
will assign to His faithful disciples a position of joint authority
in His kingdom, but in very different degrees, according to the
amount of gain they have secured for the Lord's cause in this
life by different degrees of fidelity. For the degree of capacity
for the new sphere of activity opening to them in God's future
kingdom, as sharers in Christ's dominion, is shown simply in
the faithful dUigence displayed in the lowly ministry of the
word (iv iXaytarw, ver. 1 7). But whilst the teaching of Luke's
parable tends in quite a different direction from that of the
corresponding section in Matthew's parable, it is clear, on the
other hand, that the former by no means contradicts the latter,
but merely supplements it on the opposite side ; so that the two
taken together give a complete picture of the rewards in God's
kingdom of the future. The teaching of the parable in Matthew
is : The reason of different degrees of reward in that kingdom is
not the different amount of success in this life, depending mostly,
so far as can be seen outwardly, on a difference of endowment ;
on the contrary, the slightly gifted, so far as they have borne fruit
corresponding to their endowments, will have the same praise
from the Lord, and bear off the same reward, as the richly gifted
for their great success.1 The teaching of the parable in Luke is :
A different degree of reward in God's future kingdom wUl result
from the different measure of fidelity with which individuals
served their Lord in this life, and from the consequent difference
in the success achieved in relation to the endowments received,2
and in so far from the different value of the success in itself, the
value of which is determined in the Lord's sight simply by this
relation. On the other hand, the two parables substantially coincide in
the transaction which took place in Matthew between the house
holder and the third servant of the three set forth as examples,
and in Luke between the king and the servant singled out from
1 Cf. also the interpretation of the Labourers in the Vinej'ard, Matt. xx. 1 ff.,
and especially on ver. 16 : "The last shall be first, and the first last."
2 In the parable, ten to one in the one, five to one in the other.

THE POUNDS IN TRUST. 449
*
the ten as " the other," and opposed to the faithful ones. The
exposition of the wording of the parable has shown that the
attempted justification of the idle servant preserves exactly the
same line of thought as in Matthew's parable, only in reverse
order, and that the master's reply is of exactly the same import
as there. Consequently the attempted justification here (w. 20,
21), as there, characterizes the selfish standpoint of an indolent
disciple, who shuns aU labour in the service of Christ, because he
regards it as hardness on the Lord's part, and fears that the Lord
will reap the benefit of the life's work of His disciples, and who
yet thinks himself justified in such inactivity, provided he keeps
the word to himself, and is able to restore it intact to His hands
from whom he received it. It is self-evident that the preserving
the mina in the handkerchief (elyov diroKeipAvyv iv aovSapiw)
here signifies nothing more than the hiding in the earth in
Matthew (eKpvyfra iv ry yy), only that in the latter description
the dUigent hiding of the word from the world, in which its
destiny is to work, is stiU more strongly apparent, whUst the
former simply presents the indolent disciple as one who keeps
the word to himself without publishing it.1 And again, just as
in Matthew, in the master's answer to the servant (vv. 22, 23),
the notion that any one is justified in inactivity is dissipated by
the admonition, that he to whom the Lord's claim on the labour
of His disciples seems a hardship, and who refuses such self-
denying labour as the Lord demands, is bound to retire from the
ministry of the word, and leave it to those who are ready to use
it and secure the fruit the Lord desires. By this course he would
do less injury to the cause of Christ than by continuing to pass
for an advocate of Christ's word, and yet by his inactivity letting
it Ue dead and useless.
Finally, in ver. 24, the retribution befaUing such inactivity at
the Parousia is figuratively represented just as in Matthew.
Instead of such indolent preservation of his gifts being reckoned
a merit in a disciple, and a new position being assigned him on
that ground in God's future kingdom, even that which was com
mitted to him wUl be taken away, every bond between him and
the Lord being thus severed. And what is taken from the
indolent will be added to the most faithful, inasmuch as the fruit
1 Lange, e.g., sees in the mention ofthe handkerchief (Schweisstach, perspiration-
doth.), "which, of course, he does not use in these circumstances," a quite special
indication of laziness.
GOEBEL. 2 F

450 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
of their faithful toil wiU be accounted to them of higher value in
the same degree in which the imaginary merit of the indolent
turns to shame and their glory is scattered. To the most faithful,
we say here, not to the faithful simply, as in interpreting
Matthew's parable. For the feature that the one mina is added
to him who attained the highest gain of ten minse, has here a
farther-reaching significance than the corresponding feature in
Matthew, inasmuch as here the highest degree of fidelity is
expressed in the highest gain, the special value of this service
being enhanced by the dark foU of the worthlessness of the
imaginary service of the indolent. For a detaUed interpretation
of the master's language in the parable, both of his refutation
of the servant and of the judgment he pronounces on him,
inclusive of the appeal to the maxim : " He that hath, to him
shaU be given," etc., the exposition of Matt. xxv. 26-30 maybe
consulted. There it has been already shown that when Luke,
unlike Matthew, says nothing of a formal expulsion of the idle
servant, this leads to no essential difference of meaning, because
what Luke says of the punishment of the servant already impUes
that he has no share in the kingdom of his lord, and therefore
that he who is like him wiU have no share in the kingdom of
Christ. And if the hour of Christ's second advent will be an hour of
reckoning even for His disciples, how much more wiU it be an
hour of judgment for His enemies ! The citizens of Israel, who
hated Jesus, although He Uved and worked among them as His
countrymen, and who were impeUed by their hatred for Him to,
resistance against the counsel and wiU of the most high God, —
what can they be to the Messiah returning from heaven but
enemies, and what other fate can the erection of the Messiah's
kingdom bring them than that of rebels, on whom a victorious
king takes righteous vengeance ? For this reason, as the king
in the parable, on his return from the far country, only knows
those who were his feUow-citizens as his enemies, and causes
them to be brought before him, that the extreme penalty due to
treason may be inflicted on the spot without mercy, so wfll
Christ do on His coming to those who, from being His feUow-
countrymen, have become His foes. Although members of the
chosen nation, to which Christ Himself belonged, who as such
would have been caUed in the first rank to enjoy the blessings
of the Messianic kingdom, the manifested Messiah oi, the setting

THE POUNDS IN TRUST. 451
up of His kingdom wiU caU them before His tribunal as His foes,
and forthwith inflict on them the punishment due to hardened
rebels against His divinely - ordained eternal kingship, — the
punishment of condemnation to the eternal death, of whose pain
and terrors even the slaying of the rebels in the parable is but a
feeble image. When it is said that such an image is unlike the
mind of Jesus,1 this is simply an a priori assertion easUy refuted
by the numerous passages in which Jesus speaks of the punish
ment of damnation with no less menacing solemnity, and no less
terrible images. That nothing can be meant by the extreme
penalty inflicted on the rebels in the parable but the condemna
tion to eternal death, which Christ wiU inflict on His foes in the
judgment of the Parousia, and therefore that this passage refers
exclusively to the last judgment on the foes of Christ and His
kingdom at His second coming, and not, Uke other prophetic
words of Jesus in other passages, to the historical event of the
destruction of Jerusalem faUing in the intermediate period between
His going away and His return,2 ought not to have been called
in question, considering the clearness and distinctness with which
the parable distinguishes the period of the second advent as one
of reckoning and judgment from the intermediate period preceding
it as the time of the Lord's absence in the heavenly world,
designed to leave scope to His friends and foes to manifest their
love and hate.

In conclusion let us briefly sum up what has been ascertained
in the exposition respecting the relation of this parable to
Matthew's parable of the Talents. First, both have this in
common, that they represent the departure of Jesus from the
world as the going on a journey, and His second advent as a
return from a journey. But within this common element appears
at once the most general distinction, that Luke's parable draws
the material of its figurative representation from the circum
stances of pubUc poUtical life; Matthew's parable, on the other
hand, from those of private Ufe. Whereas in Luke the lord is a
magnate going a long journey to receive a kingdom from the
suzerain, and then to return as king, in Matthew it is simply a
householder undertaking a private journey, whose purpose is not
more precisely defined, and returning only after a long period.
i Unger et al. 2 -Godet, van Oosterzee.

452 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
Hence arises another difference, that Luke's parable is able to set
over against the lord going to receive a crown a twofold category
of persons left behind, without injuring the internal unity and
harmonious coherence of the narrative, — namely, on one hand,
those who, already in his personal service, hope to be aUowed to
serve him in his future kingdom ; and on the other, such as are
hostUe to him and his rule, — whilst in Matthew's parable, of
course, only the servants of the household stand over against the
householder as those left behind. And so all that Luke's parable
says of the enemies of the lord, and therefore all that it predicts
respecting the enmity of the countrymen of Jesus against Him
and His kingdom, and respecting the doom that the Parousia wiU
bring to them, is wanting in Matthew.
On the other hand, the two parables seem aU the more nearly
to coincide in what they say of the duty assigned to the servants
by their departing masters, and of the reward or punishment
allotted to the servants on the master's return, according to the
fidelity or unfaithfulness shown. In both parables it is a sum
of money which the master deUvers to the servants to employ in
trade during the time of his absence, and then in both parables
it is related how the master richly rewarded two faithful servants
who had traded and made profit with the money received, setting
them over the great, because they had been faithful in the little ;
and how, on the other hand, he convicted of guilt an unfaithful
servant, who had left the money unused, and punished him by
taking away what he had received. Thus far reaches the common
portion in the two parables in the proceedings between master
and servants, and within this common portion the interpretation
of the two parables must be the same. Only by unduly pressing
words can we find distinctions hidden in these quite simUar
features, necessitating different interpretations, and so arrive at
such a conclusion as Lange: "The former parable (Luke's)
throughout describes the external, social, official side of the
Christian calling, the latter the inner, individual side." But, on
the other hand again, even within this common portion, acknow
ledged as such and interpreted alike, appear very important
distinctions. First, it is strange that in Matthew's parable, in
the handing over of the money, talents are mentioned, and there
fore very considerable sums, but in Luke minse only ; whereas
in the giving of the reward, conversely in Matthew, the servants
are merely set over much property in general (e7ri iroXX&v), but

THE POUNDS IN TRUST. 453
in Luke over the entire complex of city-regions. This diversity
certainly only arises as an outcome of the general distinction
between the circumstances of private life, which are the means
of representation in Matthew, and those of political Ufe, so used
in Luke. For there the subject is the management of a property
during the owner's absence, the owner rewarding the faithful
managers merely by handing over stUl more property ; here the
subject is an experiment of the future king, in the course of
which his servants first prove their fidelity in a little sum of
money, and then for their reward take part in managing his
kingdom. Hence result in the interpretation merely different
points of view for the like teaching respecting the duty assigned
to the disciples after their Lord's departure, and respecting the
reward of fidelity awaiting them at His second coming. But
it is otherwise with the other point of diversity, consisting in
this, that in Matthew the sum of money allotted to the individual
servants was very different in amount, while the praise and the
reward given to the faithful were alike, because they had each
laboured with equal fidelity ; whereas, conversely in Luke, the
sum of money given was the same to all servants, while the
reward of fidelity was very different to the individuals, the one
having shown greater and the other less fidelity. From this
diversity in the figurative representation resulted an essentially
different thought in the interpretation, namely, that here the
teaching of the one parable is co-ordinate with that of the first,
supplementing it in the opposite direction. With the teaching
of Matthew, that despite unequal endowments and unequal
success, like fidelity will receive like reward in God's kingdom,
Luke co-ordinates the other teaching, that in God's future king
dom there is a corresponding difference of reward for different
degrees of fidelity and the consequent different degrees of service.
Only when the two parables come to speak of the conviction and
punishment of an unfaithful servant do they again coincide reaUy
and completely, not indeed in the wording, which was strikingly
different in the self-justification of an unfaithful servant, but in
substance. Such are the facts of the case as ascertained by exegesis in
reference to the relation of the two parables to each other.
For the critical judgment, which must base itself on these facts,
the circumstance is also of importance, that Luke's parable, to
which most critics deny originality, is placed as an independent

454 THE PARABLES OF JESUS.
discourse in a definite historical context. According to Luke, it
was uttered by Jesus at Jericho, before His departure thence to
Jerusalem, by way of instruction to His followers, who mistakenly
expected the speedy appearance of God's kingdom from His
approaching entry into Jerusalem. Matthew's parable, on the
other hand, is merely inwoven into the great eschatological
discourse of Jesus, being joined to its second part as an appendix
of simUar import. Like this whole part of the discourse, it also
exhorts to readiness for the Parousia, but without the special
reference to the uncertainty of its time being retained which has
hitherto governed this part of the discourse throughout. From
aU these facts it would foUow that if an original identity of the
two parables is to be held, the original context, and in conse
quence substantiaUy the original form, must not be sought in
Matthew,1 but in Luke,2 and the inweaving of the parable into
the eschatological discourse of Matthew's Gospel must be ascribed
to the redactor of this Gospel. But in reality, considering the
pervading diversity seen everywhere in the two parables, even
within the common portions, with the exception of the passage
relating to the unfaithful servant, the supposition itself, according
to which one of the two parables arose out of the other by a
process of remodelling, is without reaUy certain foundation. Or
how can the requisite proof be obtained for the asserted impossi-
biUty, that after a short period Jesus should again use the same
figurative material, and transform it into a dress for another
truth of the same import, by way of supplementing the teaching
of the first parable ? For example, are not the two parables of
the Treasure and the Pearl far more alike in form and substance
than those of the Talents and Pounds ? And is it on this account
impossible for them both to originate with Jesus, or for them
both to be spoken in one breath, so to speak, as they are accord
ing to Matthew's account ? Considering, therefore, the relation
of the two parables of the Talents and Pounds, as stated above,
the only conjecture deserving mention is, that perhaps the passage
relating to the unfaithful servant may have come into Luke's
parable by transference from Matthew's parable, in which it
is an integral constituent, so that the second part of the former
would have for its contents originaUy only the rewarding of the
faithful disciples on the one hand, and the punishing of the
enemies of Christ on the other. But even this conjecture not
1 So Unger, Strauss, Ewald, Bleek, Meyer, "Weiss. 2 So Olshausen.

THE POUNDS IN TRUST. 455
merely shares in the general uncertainty of all conjectures of this
class, but is, moreover, made speciaUy doubtful by the strange
diversity of wording in the passage in question, which rather
favours the natural supposition of a free reproduction of the
same thought on the part of the author than the conjecture of a
later transference of this passage from one parable into the
other.

THE PARABLES IN SYSTEMATIC ORDER.

I. The Nature and Growth op the Kingdom of God.
1. Founding of the Kingdom.
m, CT PAGV
lire Sower, or Divers Soils : The success of ) Matt. xiii. 3-8,
preaching dependent on the hearers, . . J and parallels, . 37
2. Development ofilie Kingdom.
a. The Immediate Future.
The Fig-Tree : Last respite for Israel, . . Luke xiii. 6-9, . 159
The Great Supper : ( From the Jews to ( J?*? xiv". X J*J- ¦ 169
The Wicked Vinedressers : ) the heathen, i Matt. xxi. <W-44,
I '. and parallels, . 324
b. Entire Development to the End.
The Fruit-bearing Earth : Through the per
sonal labour of the members of the kingdom, Mark iv. 26-29, . 80
The Tares : Mingling of impure elements, . Matt. xiii. 24-30, 57
The Mustard-Seed : Growth until the world is ) Matt. xiii. 31, 32,
embraced,  ) and parallels, . 93
The Leaven : Growth until the world is per- j Matt. xiii. 33, and
vaded,  ) parallels, . . 99
The Fishing- Net : First gathering, then sifting, Matt. xiii. 47-50, 115
The Royal Marriage-Feast: First called, yet
rejected,  Matt. xxii. 1-14, . 349
3. Consummation of the Kingdom
The Ten Virgins : Exclusion of those not found
ready in the hour of Christ's coming, . . Matt. xxv. 1-13, . 382
The Labourers in the Vineyard : Strange assess
ment of the reward of grace in God's future
kingdom  Matt. xx. 1-16, . 298
/ The rewarding of fidelity \
The Talents in Trust: 1 and punishing of un- f Matt. xxv. 14-30, 405
The Pounds in Trust : j faithfulness in God's I Luke xix. 11-27, . 432
» future kingdom, . '
II. The Right Attitude of Members of the Kingdom.
1. Towards God.
The Pharisee and the Publican : Humility
before God,  Luke xviii. 9-14, 269
457

458 THE PARABLES IN SYSTEMATIC ORDER.

PAGE

The Hidden Treasure : ( 3o* in G°d *£ Sa<f ) Matt. xiii. 44, . 107
The Costly Pearl: j £ '££%% ^\ Matt. xiii. 45, 46, 111
The Importunate Friend : I Perseverance in ) Luke xi. 5-10, . 140
The Unjust Judge : < prayer to God, . S Luke xviii. 1-8, . 257
2. Towards the World.
a. To Men.
The Merciful Samaritan : Active proof of love
to one's neighbour by helping the needy, . Luke x. 25-37, . 127
The Unmerciful Servant : Unlimited placability
towards wrong-doers,  Matt, xviii. 21-35, 281
The Lost Sheep : \ TT ,„ , ., . ,, ( Luke xv. 4-7, . 191
mi. t j. r, ¦ I Unselfish sympathy m the ) T , „ ' *
The Lost Com : } . J i , , J . { Luke xv. 8-10, . 197
mi. t j. o I conversion of the sinner, .) T , ,„ ' '
The Lost Son : ) ' [ Luke xv. 11-32, . 200
b. To Earthly Goods.
The Rich Fool : Folly of trusting in perishing
goods  Luke xii. 16-21, . 149
The Rich Man : Culpability of the selfish use of
earthly riches,  Luke xvi. 19-31, . 232
The Unjust Steward : Wise employment of
temporal means in reference to eternity, . Luke xvi. 1-9, . 215

SCRIPTURE SECTIONS TREATED OP.

OLD TESTAMENT.

CHAP.ix. 7-15,

xii. 1-6,

Judges.

2 Samuel.

2 Kings.

PAGE

CHAP.

PAGE

9

xiv. 9,
v. 1-6,

Isaiah.

9
. 10

10

xxviii.

23-29,

...

. 12

THE GOSPELS.

Matthew.

Matthew — continued.

vii. 24-27, .
xii. 22-50, .
xiii. 1-3, .
xiii. 3-9,
xiii. 10-17, .
xiii 18-23, .
xiii. 24-30, .
xiii. 31, 32, .
xiii. 33,
xiii. 34, 35, .
xiii. 36-43, .
xiii. 44,
xiii. 45, 46, .
xiii. 47-50, .
xviii. 1-17, .
xviii. 12-14,
xviii. 21, 22,
xviii. 23-35,
xix. 21,
xix. 27-30,
xx. 1-16,
xxi. 23-27,
xxi. 28-32,
xxi. 33-44,

13, 229 3037 334357939932 66
107111 115282 196282284 293299
14, 298324325 11

xxi. 45, 46, .
xxii. 1-14, .
xxiv. 1-35, .
xxiv. 36-51,
xxv. 1-13, .
xxv. 14-30, .
xxv. 31-46, .

iv. 3-9,
iv. 14-20,
iv. 21-25,
iv. 26-29,
iv. 30-32,
xii. 1-12,

vii. 41-47,
viii. 5-8,
viii. 11-15,
ix. 51, .
x. 25-29,

Makk.

Luke.

349349 379380 382 405
419

37 43
80
80 93
324

18 37
43
125 127

460

SCRIPTURE SECTIONS TREATED OF.

Luke-

-continued.

Luke-

-continued

chap, paqe

chap.

PAGE

x. 30-37  130

xv. 8-10,

. 197

xi. 5-10,

. 140
xv. 11-32,
. 200
xii. 13-15,
. 149
xvi. 1-9,
. 215
xii. 16-2],
. 151
xvi. 10-13,
. 230
xiii. 1-5,
. 159
xvi. 14-18,
. 232
xiii. 6-9,
. 160
xvi. 19-31,
. 232
xiii. 18, 19,
. 93
xvii. 11,
. 125
xiii. 20, 21,
. 99
xvii. 20-37,
. 257
xiii. 22,
. 125
xviii. 1-8,
. 258
xiv. 1-15,
. 169
xviii. 9-14,
. 269
xiv. 16-24,
. 170
xix. 1-11,
. 432
xv. 1-3,
. 190
xix. 12-27,
. 434
xv. 4-7,
. 191
xx. 9-19,
. 324
THE END.
MORRISON AND GIEB, EDINEOROH,
PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE.