ner, v. 17, 19, afford no proof that the faithful servants of Christ shall be appointed, some to the government of ten cities, some to that of five. For this particular method of reward, accommodated to the worldly nature of the fictitious history, may only signify in general, that a reward proportioned to the degree of fidelity will be given, and more particularly, that each should receive employment and enjoy felicity in the kingdom of heaven in proportion to his faithfulness.**

With relation to the second rule above given, sit cannot be denied that it may happen that the particulars given in the protasis, or similitude, may correspond to as many in the thing signified. It is, for instance, altogether probable that the parable of the wedding feast not only expresses the general idea of repeated invitations to the Jews to partake of the blessings of the kingdom of heaven, but also more particularly distinguishes two12 distinct times of offering,

b P. 99.

Matt. xxii. 3 ss.

a Matt. xxv. 21, 23. manner, God will not forgive the sons of those who show no mercy to their fellow men (comp. vi. 15.) The same remark applies to a parable of another class (note 21) in Matt. v. 25, s. where the particulars in the narration, of the officer despatched to seize the debtor, and of the duration of the imprisonment until the entire payment, relate only to the human judgment, which is an image of the divine.

42 The word xxλnμives, v. 3, does not necessarily prove a prior invitation, as, according to Hebrew usage (See Obss. ad Anal. et Synt. Heb. p. 135,* and add 1 Peter i. 13. 2 Peter iii. 11, comp. v. 10), it may indicate the persons to be invited, that is, the guests generally. Comp. Krebsii Obss. Flavianas ad. Matt. xxii. 3.

* [ The author has there shown by a multitude of examples

a

с

one, that in which the Jews were called by the prophets, the other, that in which, on the nearer approach of the heavenly kingdom, the call was repeated by John, and by Christ and his apostles. So too, the invitation by the prophets seems to be distinguished from that given by Christ in Luke xiv. 16 s. And as this last parable was spoken before the Pharisees,d 43 to whom our Lord on another occasion, making use of a similare parable, had preferred both the publicans and harlots dwelling among them,44 and the heathen; it is very probable that Luke xiv. 21, 23,

a V. 3

d Luke xiv. 1. Matt. xxi. 31 s.

f

43 It was addressed to one of them in particular (v. 16,) in whom the recollection of the resurrection to happiness, which was an article of belief among the Pharisees, had excited a desire of the blessings of the kingdom of heaven (v. 14 ss.,) but the love of worldly things, (comp. xvi. 14. Io. xii. 42 s.) seems to have hindered him from embracing the doctrine of Christ. This circumstance shows the wisdom of our Lord, in making no mention in this place (comp. Matt. xxii. 6.) of open hatred against himself, from which this comparatively well disposed Pharisee seems to have been free, but confining his reproof to the immoderate love of worldly goods, Luke xiv. 18-20. 44 Comp rs Tóλss, Luke xiv. 21.

(pp. 133 ss.) that the Hebrew participles Benoni and Paoul are used indifferently to express the past, the present, and the future. Among other instances, he gives, vastanda,

T

Ps. cxxxvii. 8, and i, qui nascetur, Ps. xxii. 32, comp.

1xxviii. 6.-Tr.]

is intended to distinguish the invitation given to the publicans and heathen. But it is to be maintained that it may also happen otherwise in this respect; lest we be led to seek for some particular signification for every particular in the protasis: or similitude even when it does not spontaneously present itself,* and so fall into forced, or rash and absurd interpretations.com

In the first place, then, it is to be assumed, that the general enunciation may, agreeably to Hebrew usage, be distributed into fewer or more particular or integral parts 45+ So in Luke xx. 1012, we are not to seek for three prophets, who may have exercised their

,

[ου χρὴ πάντα τὰ ἐν παραβολαῖς κατὰ λέξιν περιεργάζεσθαι ἀλλὰ τον σκοπὸν μαθόντας τί ἔν συνετέθη τᾶτον δρέπεσθαι, καὶ μεδὲν πολυπραγμονεῖν περαιτέρα. Chrysost. Hom. lxiv. in Matt.] 45 See Num. vii. 12 ss. ix. 17 ss. Rev. vii. 4 ss. Mark xii. 20 ss. Luke xx. 29 ss.

So in the fable of Jotham, the disinclination of persons who, by their endowments, are best qualified for the office of governing (Ju. ix. 9, 11, 13,) to undertake that office, is represented under the general similitude of a tree valuable for its usefulness (v. 9, 11, 13,) refusing the government of the other trees. But to give a more vivid idea of the superiority of their claims, and to increase the evidence of a general disposition to decline the office by the introduction of a repeated refusal, three several offers to particular trees are specified. That the particular application of the offers of the trees to the olive, the fig, and the vine, to distinct and unsuccessful offers of the crown to Othneil, Deborah, and Gideon, which has been made by some (Saurin. Disc. Hist. iii. 405,) could not have been in the mindTM of Jotham, is proved by his confining his application (v. 16.ss.) to the choice of Abimelech, and the injury done thereby to the house of Gideon; not to mention the far-fetched resemblance between the several particulars in the narrative and those supposed to belong to its application.-Fr.]

commissions in the orders given and suffered the insults ascribed to the several servants. For Matthew daxxi. 34-36, and Mark cxii. 25, expressly add, that there were many others sent, and even as to the three who are mentioned, those evangelists do not entirely agree with each other or with St. Luke, in their accounts of the treatment received by them, and the border in which they were sent. The object of our Lords was merely to inform us, that many servants having been repeatedly sent, were received with various insults and harsh treatment. This general declaration admitting of division into many of a more special na» ture, some of these, of any of the different kinds, might be selected for the sake of illustration.a Nor is it any more necessary to be at pains to fix the definite periods of time46 at which men are represented as divinely called, in the parable of the labourers, and even the words of the narration will bear this general signification, that some were sent earlier, some later, into the vineyard by its master.

Secondly, as one great use of parables is to assist in affording a vivid knowledge of what they teach, it is the more proper in such narrations to substitute

* Comp. Luke xiv. 18-20; xvi. 57.

16. The variety, and uncertain and precarious nature, of the interpretations which have arisen out of an attempt to do this, will be very evident to any one who compares Theophylact (Comm. in Matt. xx.) with Jerome (in loc.) or consults Petersen's work, entitled: das Geheimniss von den Arbeitern in Weinberge; c. vi.

* [ The Mystery of the Labourers in the Vineyard. ] ^

for generals, or conjoin with them, particulars which may contribute to bring the matter as it were before the eyes. For although in this way the several particulars will not have each its peculiar signification ; yet the thing expressed by them conjointly, or by such particulars in connexion with generals, will be more clearly and strongly represented to the mind than it would be in any other way. Thus the expression "my oxen and my fatlings are killed," in Matt. xxii. 4, means nothing more than the phrase which immediately follows; "all things are ready;" but it conveys that meaning with more force. The words in the parable of the prodigal, “I have sinned against GOD," have no signification other than that conveyed by the expression "I have sinned against thee," as the father himself is there an image of GOD. But as they are well adapted to the human father and son to whom the narrative relates, they serve to express a deep sense of sin much better than the mere acknowledgment "I have sinned against thee," which in that case would not sufficiently convey the idea of a lively sense of sin in the returning prodigal.-The particulars mentioned in Matt. xxi. 33, express nothing more than that the vineyard, when planted, was furnished with every necessary, so that there was nothing wanting. But although neither the hedge, nor the tower, nor the press, have any particular signification, yet the introduction of these circumstances adds much force to the representation, that GOD had omitted nothing to effect the salvation of the Comp. Luke xiv. 17. b Luke xv. 18, 21.

a