PARABLES
465
PARABLES
has denied its authorsliip t<j Christ. (Cf. Eomans, iii,
24-27; iv, 1; ix, 20, esp. "O man, who art thou that
rcpliestagainstGod?") The attitude of Christ towards
publicans and sinners which gave offence to the Phari-
sees (Mark, ii, 16; Luke, v, 30), affords the clearest
comment on the parable as a whole. Some critics re-
ject the last sentence, "Many are called", as an in-
terpolation from the parable of the marriage feast.
Early mystical views understand the labourers to be
Israel and the heathen; Irena-us, Origen, Hilary adapt
the difi'erent hours to stages of the Old Covenant. St.
Jerome coni]jares the prodigal son, for which this may
be St. Matthew's equivalent lesson. Note the "evil
eye" and other references to it (Deut., xv, 9; II Kings,
xviii, 9; Prov., .xxiii, 6).
The two sons (Matt., xxi, 28-32) begins in this Gospel a series of denunciations addressed to the Pharisees. Its drift is plain. These " hypocrites " pro- fess to keep God's law and break it ; hence their scorn of the Baptist's preaching; whereas "publicans and harlots" were converted; therefore they shall go into the Kingdom before the others. But if it be accom- modated to Jews and Cientiles, who is the elder son, who the younger? From the text no reply can be drawn and commentators are not agreed. In some MSS. the order is reversed, but without foundation. (See Luke, vii, 29-30, 37-50.)
The wicked husbandmen (Matt., xxi, 33-45; Mark, xii, 1-12; Luke, xx, 9-19). This remarkable challenge to the "chief priests and Pharisees", occur- ring in all the Synoptics, and foretelling how God's vineyard shall be transferred from its present keepers, reminfls us of the good Samaritan and the prodigal son, with which it harmonizes, though severe in its tone as they are not. However, its extreme clearness of application in detail has led the modernist critics to deny that Our Lord spoke it. They call it an allegoiy, not a parable. The "vineyard of the Lord of Hosts" is in Is., V, 1-7, and the prophecy in both cases anal- ogous. That Jesus foresaw His rejection by the "chief priests" caimot be doubtful. That He contemplated the entrance into God's Kingdom of many Gentiles is apparent from Luke, xiii, 29, as from parables already quoted. This, indeed, was boldly pictured in the Old Testament (Is., ii, 1-4; xix, 20-25; Mich., iv, 1-7). In the first Gospel our Lord addresses the Pharisees; in the third He speaks to the "people". The "tower" is Mount Sion with its temple; the "servants" are the Prophets; when the " beloved son" is murdered we may think of Naboth dying for his vineyard and the crucifixion comes into sight. Christ is the "heir of all things" (Heb., i, 2). We must grant to Loisy that the anticipation of vengeance is an apocalypse in brief, while upholding the genuineness of the larger view in Matt., xxiv, which his school would attribute to a period after the fall of Jerusalem. For the "stone which the builders rejected" and which "is become the head of the corner", see Ps., cxvii (Hebrew cxviii), 22, 23, and Acts, iv, 11. The reading is from the Sep- tuagint, not the Hebrew.
The marriage of the king's son, or less accurately, the wedding garment (Matt., xxii, 1-14). If, like Maldonatus and Theophylact, we identify this with the great supper in St. Luke (xiv, 16), we must allow that the differences observable are due to the inspired reporters who had in view "not history but doctrine". Or we might hokl that the discourse had been varied to meet another occasion. Read St. Augustine, "De consensu evang.", II, Ixxii, who is for distinguishing them. The Lucan story would be earlier; the present, spoken in wrath when all hope of Christ's acceptance by clergy or scribes is at an end, reveals the mood of severe sadness which overshadowed our Lord's last days. Naturally the mythical school (Strau.ss and even Keim, with recent Modernists) discovers in the violence of the invited guests and their pimishment an apologetic tendency, due to the editors of the original XL— 30
tale. "These additions", says Loisy, " were made after
the taking of Jerusalem by Titus; and the writer had
never heard Jesus, but was manipulating a text
already settled" (Ev. synopt., II, 326). That the
reign of the Messias, following on the rejection of
Israel, was always meant in this story, is incontestable.
Catholic faith would of course allow that the "serv-
ants" maltreated were, in our Lord's mind, such as
St. John Baptist, the Apostles, the first martyrs. The
feast, in oiu- commentaries, may well be the Incarna-
tion; the wedding garment is sanctifying grace, "put
ye on the Lord Jesus" (Rom., xiii, 14). Thus Iren.,
IV, xxxvi; Tert., "De resurrect, carnis", xxvii, etc.
The ten virgins (only in Matt., xxv, 1-13) may be considered as first of several jiarables declaring that the advent of the Kingdom will be unexpected. These are all comments on the text, "of that day and hour no one knoweth, no not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone" (Matt., xxiv, 36). It is a "watching" parable, and is not in praise of virginity as such, though applied by the Fathers, as St. Gregory Martyr, to the duties of the virgin-state. St. Augustine writes, "souls that have the Catholic faith and appear to have good works" (Serm. xciii, 2); St. Jerome, "they boast the knowledge of God and are untainted with idol- atry". There seems to be a reminiscence of this para- ble in Luke, xii, 36, wrought into the admonition to men "that wait for their Lord". Wellhausen's idea that St. Matthew composed it from St. Luke is unten- able. In the East it is usual that the bride should be conveyed with honour to the bridegroom's house; but there might be exceptions, as here. Mystically, Christ is the bridegroom. His parou.sia the event, and the preparation by faith shining out in Christian deeds is imaged in the burning lamps or torches. For the "closed door" see Luke, xiii, 25. The conclusion, "Vigilate", is a direct lesson and no part of the story. St. Methodius WTote the "Banquet of the Ten Vir- gins", a rude mystery play in Greek.
The talents (Matt., xxv, 14-30) and the pounds or the miniE (Luke, xix, 11-27). Whether we shall iden- tify or divide these two celebrated apologues can scarcely be determined. St. Mark (.xiii, 34-36) blends his brief allusion with a text from the ten virgins. The circumstances in the first and tliird Gospels differ; but the warning is much the same. Commentators note that here the active life is extolled, as in the virgins a heedful contemplation. No argument for the lawfulness of usury can be drawn from verse 27. The "servant" was a bondslave; all that he had or acquired would be his master's property. "To him that hath shall be given ' ' is one of the ' ' hard sayings ' ' which, while disclosing a law of life, seems not to har- monize with Christian kindness. Yet the analogy of God's dealings — not "mere" benevolence, but "wise and just" recognition of moral effort — is hereby maintained. If our Lord, as tradition tells, said, "Be ye good money changers" (cf. I Thess., v, 21), the same principle is commended. Ethically, all that we have is a trust of which we must give account. For the diversity of talents, note St. Paul, I Cor., xii, 4, and the reconciliation of that diversity in "the same spirit". Both parables relate to Christ's second com- ing. Hence Loisy and others attribute to the Evan- gelists, and especially to St. Luke, an enlargement, founded on later history, perhaps taken from Josephus, and intended to explain the delay of the Parousia (Ev. synopt., 11,464-80). Not accepting these premises, we put aside the conclusion. Maldonatus (I, 493), who treats the stories as variants, observes, "it is no new thing that our Evaiigi'lists .■^liould appear to differ in circumstances of tirne niNl phic'c, since they consider only the general outline {-■uniiiiiiiin rci gestcr), not the order or the time. Where else we find them seeming to disagree, they wish to explain not Christ's words but the drift of the parable as a whole".
Leaving St. Matthew, we note the one short story
