like lilies that the Mishnah designates one class of them, growing in fields and vineyards, by the name 'royal lily' (Kil. v. 8, Bab. Talmud, p. 29 a). At the same time, the term used by our Lord need not be confined to 'lilies' in the strictest sense. It may represent the whole wild flora of spring, chiefly the anemones (comp. Tristram, Nat. Hist, of the Bible, pp. 462-465). A word with the same letters as (though of different meaning) is the Rabbinic Narkes, the narcissus, of course that (of fields), not (of gardens).] deck with wondrous richness the grass of the fields, alas! so soon to wither [b u.s. vi. 28-30.], while all trees put forth their fragrant promise of fruit, [c vii. 16-20.] As the imagery employed in the Sermon on the Mount confirmed the inference, otherwise derived, that it was spoken during the brief period after the winter rains, when the 'lilies' decked the fresh grass, so the scene depicted in the Parables spoken by the Lake of Galilee indicates a more advanced season, when the fields gave first promise of a
harvest to be gathered in due time. And as we know that the barley-harvest commenced with the Passover, we cannot be mistaken in supposing that the scene is laid a few weeks before that Feast.
Other evidence of this is not wanting. From the opening verses [a St. Matt. xiii. 1, 2] we infer, that Jesus had gone forth from 'the house' with His disciples only, and that, as He sat by the seaside, the gathering multitude had obliged Him to enter a ship, whence He spake unto them many things in Parables. That this parabolic teaching did not follow, far less, was caused by, the fully developed enmity of the Pharisees, [b St. Matt. xii. 24 &c] [1 This seems to be the view of Goebel in his 'Parabeln Jesu,' a book to which I would here, in general, acknowledge my obligations. The latest work on the subject (F. L. Steinmeyer, d. Par. d. Herrn, Berlin 1884) is very disappointing.] will appear more clearly in the sequel. Meantime it should be noticed, that the first series of Parables (those spoken by the Lake of Galilee) bear no distinct reference to it. In this respect we mark an ascending scale in the three series of Parables, spoken respectively at three different periods in the History of Christ, and with reference to three different stages of Pharisaic opposition and popular feeling. The first series is that, [c St. Matt, xiii.] when Pharisaic opposition had just devised the explanation that His works were of demoniac agency, and when misled affection would have converted the ties of earthly relationship into bonds to hold the Christ. To this there was only one reply, when the Christ stretched out His Hand over those who had learned, by following Him, to do the Will of His Heavenly Father, and so become His nearest of kin. This was the real answer to the attempt of His mother and brethren; that to the Pharisaic charge of Satanic agency. And it was in this connection that, first to the multitude, then to His disciples, the first series of Parables was spoken, which exhibits the elementary truths concerning the planting of the Kingdom of God, its development, reality, value, and final vindication.
In the second series of Parables we mark a different stage. The fifteen Parables of which it consists [d St. Luke x.-xvi., xviii., passim] were spoken after the Transfiguration, on the descent into the Valley of Humiliation. They also concern the Kingdom of God, but, although the prevailing characteristic is still parenetic, [2 Admonitory, hortatory, a term used in theology, of which it is not easy to give the exact equivalent.] or, rather, Evangelic, they have a controversial aspect also, as against some vital, active opposition to the Kingdom, chiefly on the part of the Pharisees. Accordingly, they appear among 'the Discourses' of Christ, [e St. Luke xi.-xiv.] and are connected with the climax of Pharisaic opposition as presented in the charge, in its most fully developed form, that Jesus was, so to speak, the Incarnation of Satan, the constant medium and vehicle of his activity, [a St. Luke xi. 14-36; St. Matt. xii. 22-45; St. Mark iii. 22-30] This was the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. All the Parables spoken at that period bear more or less direct reference to it, though, as already stated, as yet in positive rather than negative form, the Evangelic element, but the tone has become judicial, and the Evangelic element appears chiefly in the form of certain predictions connected with the coming end. The Kingddom of god is presented in its final stage of ingathering, separation, reward and loss, as, indeed, we might expect in the teaching of the Lord immediately before His final rejection by Israel and betrayal into the hands of the Gentiles.
This internal connection between the Parables and the History of Christ best explains their meaning. Their artificial grouping (as by mostly all modern critics [1 Even Goebel, though rightly following the purely historical method, has, in the interest of so-called higher criticism, attempted such artificial grouping.]) is too ingenious to be true. One thing, however, is common to all the Parables, and forms a point of connection between them. They are all occasioned by some
unreceptiveness on the part of the hearers, and that, even when the hearers are professing disciples. This seems indicated in the reason assigned by Christ to the disciples for His use of parabolic teaching: that unto them it was 'given to know the mystery of the Kingdom of God, but unto them it was that are without, all these things are done in parables.' [c St. Mark iv. 11] And this may lead up to such general remarks on the Parables as are necessary for their understanding.
Little information is to be gained from discussing the etymology of the word Parable. [2 From projicio, admoveo rem rei comparationis causa (Grimm). Little can be learned from the classical definitions of the See Archbishop Trench on the Parables.] The verb from which it is derived means to project; and the term itself, the placing of one thing by the side of another. Perhaps no other mode of teaching was so common among the Jews [3 F. L. Steinmeyer has most strangely attempted to deny this. Yet every ancient Rabbinic work is literally full of parables. In sSanh. 39 b we read that R. Meir's discourses consisted in third of legal determinations, in third of Haggadah, and in third of parables.] as that by Parables. Only in their case, they were almost entirely illustrations of what had been said or taught; [4 I am herereferring only to the form, not the substance, of these Jewish parables.] while, in the case of Christ, they served as the foundation for His teaching. In the one case, the light of earth was cast heavenwards, in the other, that of heaven earthwards; in the one case, it was intended to make spiritual teaching appear Jewish and national, in the other to convey spiritual teaching in a form adapted to the standpoint of the hearers. This distinction will be found to hold true, even in instances where there seems the closest parallelism between a Rabbinic and an Evangelic Parable. On further examination, the difference between them will appear not merely one of degree, but of kind, or rather of standpoint. This may be illustrated by the Parable of the woman who made anxious search for her lost coin, [a St. Luke xv. 8-10] which there is an almost literal Jewish parallel, [b In the Midrash on Cant. i. i] But, whereas in the Jewish Parable the moral is, that a man ought to take much greater pains in the study of the Torah than in the searcch for coin, since the former procures an eternal reward, while the coin would, if found, at most only procure temporary enjoyment, the Parable of Christ is intended to set forth, not the merit of study or of works, but the compassion of the Saviour in seeking the lost, and the joy of Heaven in his recovery. It need scarcely be said, that comparison between such Parables, as regards their spirit, is scarcely possible, except by way of contrast. [1 It is, indeed, possible that the framework of some of Christ's Parables may have been adopted and adapted by later Rabbis. No one who knows the early intercourse between Jews and Jewish Christians would deny this a priori.]
But, to return. In Jewish writings a Parable (Mimshal, Mashal, Mathla) is introduced by some such formula as this: 'I will tell thee a parable' 'To what is the thing like? To one,' &c. Often it begins more briefly, thus: 'A Parable. To what is the thing like?' or else, simply: To what is the thing like?' Sometimes even this is omitted and the Parable is indicated by the preposition 'to' at the beginning of the illustravitive story. Jewish writers extol Parables, as placing the meaning of the Law within range of the comprehension of all men. The 'wise King' had introduced this method, the usefulness of which is illustrated by the Parable of a great palace which had many doors, so that people lost their way in it, till one came who fastened a ball of thread at the chief entrance, when all could readily find their way in and out. [c Mi dr. on Cant. i. 1] Even this will illustrate what has been said of the difference between Rabbinic Parables and those employed by our Lord.
The general distinction between a Parable and a Proverb, Fable and Allegory, cannot here be discussed at length. [2 I must here refer to the various Biblical Dictionaries, to Professor Westcott's Introduction to the Study of the Gospels (pp. 28, 286), and to the works of Archbishop Trench and Dr. Goebel.] It will sufficiently appear from the character and the characteristics of the Parables of our Lord. That designation is, indeed, sometimes applied to what are not Parables, in the strictest sense; while it is wanting where we might have expected it. Thus, in the Synoptic Gospels illustrations, [a St. Matt. xxiv. 32; St. Mark iii. 23; St. Luke v. 36] and even proverbial sayings, such as 'Physician, heal thyself,' [b St. Luke iv. 23] or that about the blind leading the blind, [c St. Matt. xv. 15] are designated Parables. Again, the term 'Parable,' although used in our Authorised Version, does not occur in the original of St. John's Gospel; and this, although not a few illustrations used in that Gospel might, on superficial examination, appear to be Parables. The term must, therefore, be here restricted to special conditions. The first of these is, that all Parables bear reference to well-known scenes, such as those of daily life; or to events, either real, or such as every one would expect in given circumstances, or as would be in accordance with prevailing notions. [1 Every reader of the Gospels will be able to distinguish these various classes.] Such pictures, familiar to the popular mind, are in the Parable connected with corresponding spiritual realities. Yet, here also, there is that which
