|
Chapter 6 | Table
of Contents | Chapter 8
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
Alfred Edersheim
1883
Book V
THE CROSS AND THE CROWN
Chapter 7
EVENING OF THE THIRD DAY IN PASSION-WEEK
ON THE MOUNT OF OLIVES
LAST PARABLES: TO THE DISCIPLES CONCERNING THE LAST THINGS
THE PARABLE OF THE TEN VIRGINS
THE PARABLE OF THE TALENTS
SUPPLEMENTARY PARABLE OF THE MINAS AND THE KING'S RECKONING
WITH HIS SERVANTS AND HIS REBELLIOUS CITIZENS
(St. Matthew 25:1-13; St. Matthew 25:14-30;
St. Luke 19:11-28.)
1. As might have been expected, the Parables concerning the
Last Things are closely connected with the Discourse of the Last Things, which
Christ had just spoken to His Disciples. In fact, that of the Ten Virgins, which
seems the fullest in many-sided meaning, is, in its main object, only an
illustration of the last part of Christ's Discourse.1
Its great practical lessons had been: the unexpectedness of the Lord's Coming;
the consequences to be apprehend from its delay; and the need of personal and
constant preparedness. Similarly, the Parable of the Ten Virgins may, in its
great outlines, be thus summarised: Be ye personally prepared; be ye prepared
for any length of time; be ye prepared to go to Him directly.
1. St.
Matt. xxiv. 36-51.
Before proceeding, we mark that this Parable also is connected
with those that had preceeded. But we notice not only connection, but
progression. Indeed, it would be deeply interesting, alike historically and for
the better understanding of Christ's teaching, but especially as showing its
internal unity and development, and the credibility of the Gospel-narratives,
generally to trace this connection and progress. And this, not merely in the
three series of parables which mark the three stages of His History - the Parables
of the Founding of the Kingdom, of its Character, and of its Consummation - but
as regards the parables themselves, that so the first might be joined to the
last as a string of heavenly pearls. But this lies beyond our task. Not so, to
mark the connection between the Parable of the Ten Virgins and that of the Man
without the Wedding-Garment.
Like the Parable of the Ten Virgins, it had pointed to the
future. If the exclusion and punishment of the Unprepared Guest did not
primarily refer to the Last Day, or to the Return of Christ, but perhaps rather
to what would happen in death, it pointed, at least secondarily, to the final
consummation. On the other hand, in the Parable of the Ten Virgins this final
consumation is the primary point. So far, then, there is both connection and
advance. Again, from the appearance and the fate of the Unprepared Guest we
learned, that not every one who, following the Gospel-call, comes to the
Gospel-feast, will be allowed to partake of it; but that God will search and try
each one individually. There is, indeed, a society of guests - the Church; but
we must not expect either that the Church will, while on earth, be wholly pure,
or that its purification will be achieved by man. Each guest may, indeed, come
to the banqueting-hall, but the final judgment as to his worthiness belongs to
God. Lastly, the Parable also taught the no less important opposite lesson,
that each individual is personally responsible; that we cannot shelter
ourselves in the community of the Church, but that to partake of the feast
requireth personal and individual preparation. To express it in modern
terminology: It taught Churchism as against one-sided individualism, and
spiritual individualism as against dead Churchism. All these important lessons are
carried forward in the Parable of the Ten Virgins. If the union of the Ten
Virgins for the purpose of meeting the Bridegroom, and their à priori
claims to enter in with Him - which are, so to speak, the historical data and
necessary premisses in the Parable - point to the Church, the main lessons of
the Parade are the need of individual, personal, and spiritual preparation. Only
such will endure the trial of the long delay of Christ's Coming; only such will
stand that of an immediate summons to meet the Christ.
It is late at even - the world's long day seems past, and the
Coming of the Bridegroom must be near. The day and the hour we know not, for
the bridegroom has been far away. Only this we know, that it is the Evening of
the Marriage which the Bridegroom had fixed, and that his word of promise may
be relied upon. Therefore all has been made ready within the bridal house, and
is in waiting there; and therefore the Virgins prepare to go forth to meet Him
on His Arrival. The Parable proceeds on the assumption that the Bridegroom is
not in the town, but somewhere far away; so that it cannot be known at what
precise hour He may arrive. But it is known that He will come that night; and
the Virgins who are to meet Him have gathered - presumably in the house where
the Marriage is to take place - waiting for the summons to go forth and welcome
the Bridegroom. The common mistake, that the Virgins are represented in verse 1
as having gone forth on the road to meet the Bridegroom, is not only
irrational - since it is scarcely credible that they would all have fallen
asleep by the wayside, and with lamps in their hands - but incompatible with
the circumstance,2
that at midnight the cry is suddenly raised to go forth and meet Him. In these
circumstances, no precise parallel can be derived from the ordinary Jewish
marriage-processions, where the bridegroom, accompanied by his groomsmen and
friends, went to the bride's house, and thence conducted the bride, with her
attendant maidens and friends, into his own or his parents' home. But in the
Parable, the Bridegroom comes from a distance and goes to the bridal house.
Accordingly, the bridal procession is to meet Him on His Arrival, and escort
Him to the bridal place. No mention is made of the Bride, either in this
Parable of in that or the Marriage of the King's Son. This, for reasons
connected with their application: since in the one case the Wedding Guests, in
the other the Virgins, occupy the place of the Bride. And here we must remind
ourselves of the general canon, that, in the interpretation of a Parable,
details must not be too closely pressed. The Parables illustrate the Sayings of
Christ, as the Miracles His Doings; and alike the Parables and the Miracles
present only one or another, not all the aspects of the truth.
2. St
Matt. xxv. 6.
Another archĉological inquiry will, perhaps, be more helpful to
our understanding of this Parable. The 'lamps' - not 'torches' - which the Ten
Virgins carried, were of well-known construction. They bear in Talmudic writings
commonly the name Lappid, but the Aramaised from the Greek word in the
New Testament also occurs as Lampad and Lampadas.3
The lamp consisted of a round receptacle for pitch or oil for the wick. This
was placed in a hollow cup or deep saucer - the Beth Shiqqua4
- which was fastened by a pointed end into a long wooden pole, on which it was
borne aloft. According to Jewish authorities,5
it was the custom in the East to carry in a bridal procession about ten such
lamps. We have the less reason to doubt that such was also the case in Palestine,
since, according to rubric, ten was the number required to be present at any
office or ceremony, such as at the benedictions accompanying the
marriage-ceremonies. And, in the peculiar circumstances supposed in the
Parable, Ten Virgins are represented as going forth to meet the Bridegroom,
each bearing her lamp.
3. Jer.
Yoma 41 a, line 24 from top.
4. Kel.
ii. 8.
5. See
the Arukh, ad voc.
The first point which we mark is, that the Ten Virgins brought,
presumably to the bridal house, 'their own6
lamps.' Emphasis must be laid on this. Thus much was there of personal
preparation on the part of all. But while the five that were wise brought also
'oil in the vessels'7
[presumably the hollow receptacles in which the lamp proper stood], the five
foolish Virgins neglected to do so, no doubt expecting that their lamps would
be filled out of some common stock in the house. In the text the foolish
Virgins are mentioned before the wise,8
because the Parable turns to this. We cannot be at a loss to interpret the
meaning of it. The Bridegroom far away is Christ, Who is come for the
Marriage-Feast from 'the far country' - the Home above - certainly on that
night, but we know not at what hour of it. The ten appointed bridal companions
who are to go forth to meet Him are His professed disciples, and they gather in
the bridal house in readiness to welcome His arrival. It is night, and a
marriage-procession: therefore, they must go forth with their lamps. All of
them have brought their own lamps, they all have the Christian, or say, the
Church-profession: the lamp, in the hollow cup on the top of the pole. But only
the wise Virgins have more than this - the oil in the vessels, without which
the lamps cannot give their light. The Christian or Church-profession is but an
empty vessel on the top of a pole, without the oil in the vessels. We here
remember the words of Christ: 'Let your light so shine before men, that they
may see your good works, and glorify your Father Which is in heaven.'9
The foolishness of the Virgins, which consisted in this that they had omitted to bring their oil, is thus indicated in the text: 'All they which [aitineV]10
were foolish, when they brought their own lamps, brought not with them
oil:' they brought their own lamps, but not their own oil. This (as already
explained), probably, not from forgetfulness - for they could scarcely have
forgotten the need of oil, but from the wilful neglect, in the belief that
there would be a common stock in the house, out of which they would be
supplied, or that there would be sufficient time for the supply of their need
after the announcement that the Bridegroom was coming. They had no conception
either of any personal obligation in this matter, nor that the call would come
so suddenly, nor yet that there would be so little interval between the arrival
of the Bridegroom and 'the closing of the door.' And so they deemed it not
necessary to undertake what must have involved both trouble and carefulness,
the bringing their own oil in the hollow vessels in which the lamps were fixed.
6. The
better reading in ver. 1. and again in ver. 7, is not autwn 'their,' but eautwn.
7. The
word autwn in ver. 4, 'their
vessels,' is probably spurious. In both cases, as so often, the 'improving'
copyists have missed the deeper meaning.
8. In
ver.2, according to the better reading, the clauses should be inverted, and, as
in ver. 3, 'the foolish' first mentioned.
9. St.
Matt. v. 16.
10. quĉcunque,
eĉ omnes quĉ.
We have proceeded on the supposition that the oil was not
carried in separate vessels, but in those attached to the lamps. It seems
scarcely likely that these lamps had been lighted while waiting in the bridal
house, where the Virgins assembled, and which, no doubt, was festively
illuminated: Many practical objections to this view will readily occur. The
foolishness of the five Virgins therefore consisted, not (as is commonly
supposed) in their want of perseverance - as if the oil had been
consumed before the Bridegroom came, and they had only not provided themselves
with a sufficient extra-supply - but in the entire absence of personal
preparation,11
having brought no oil of their own in their lamps. This corresponds to their
conducts, who, belonging to the Church - having the 'profession' - being bridal
companions provided with lamps, ready to go forth, and expecting to share in
the wedding feast - neglect the preparation of grace, personal conversation and
holiness, trusting that in the hour of need the oil may be supplied out of the
common stock. But they know not, or else heed not, that every one must be
personally prepared for meeting the Bridegroom, that the call will be sudden,
that the stock of oil is not common, and that the time between His arrival and
the shutting of the door will be awfully brief.
11. So
especially Goebel, to whom, in general, we would acknowledge our
obligations.
For - and here begins the second scene in the Parable - the
interval between the gathering of the Virgins in readiness to meet Him, and the
arrival of the Bridegroom is much longer than had been anticipated. And so it
came, that both the wise and the foolish Virgins 'slumbered and slept.'
Manifestly, this is but a secondary trait in the Parable, chiefly intended to
accentuate the surprise of the sudden announcement of the Bridegroom. The
foolish Virgins did not ultimately fail because of their sleep, nor yet were
the wise reproved of it. True, it was evidence of their weakness - but then it
was night; all the world was asleep; and their own drowsiness might be in
proportion to their former excitement. What follows is intended to bring into
prominence the startling suddenness of the Bridegroom's Coming. It is midnight
- when sleep is deepest - when suddenly 'there was a cry, Behold, the
Bridegroom cometh! Come ye out to the meeting of Him. Then all those Virgins
awoke, and prepared (trimmed) their lamps.' This, not in the sense of
heightening the low flame in their lamps, but in that of hastily drawing up the
wick and lighting it, when, as there was no oil in the vessels, the flame, of
course, immediately died out. 'Then the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of
your oil; for our lamps are going out. But the wise answered, saying: Not at
all12 - it will
never13 suffice
for us and you! Go ye rather to the sellers, and buy for your own selves.'
12. Mhpote. See Grimm, ad voc. But
it is impossible to give the full force of the word.
13. The
better reading is ou mh, which
double negation I have rendered, for want of better, by 'never.'
This advice must not be regarded as given in irony. This trait
is introduced to point out the proper source of supply - to emphasise that the
oil must be their own, and also to prepare for what follows. 'But while
they were going to buy, the Bridegroom came; and the ready ones [they that were
ready] went in with Him to the Marriage-Feast, and the door was shut,' The sudden
cry at midnight: 'The Bridegroom cometh!' had come with startling surprise both
to the wise and the foolish Virgins; to the one class it had come only
unexpectedly, but to the other also unpreparedly. Their hope of sharing or
borrowing the oil of the wise Virgins being disappointed, the foolish were, of
course, unable to meet the Bridegroom. And while they hurried to the sellers of
oil, those that had been ready not only met; but entered with the Bridegroom
into the bridal house, and the door was shut. It is of no importance here,
whether or not the foolish Virgins finally succeeded in obtaining oil -
although this seems unlikely at that time of night - since it could no longer
be of any possible use, as its object was to serve in the festive procession, which
was now past. Nevertheless, and when the door was shut, those foolish Virgins
came, calling on the Bridegroom to open to them. But they had failed in that
which could alone give them a claim to admission. Professing to be bridesmaids,
they had not been in the bridal procession, and so, in truth and righteousness,
He could only answer from within: 'Verily I say unto you, I know you not.'
This, not only in punishment, but in the right order of things.
The personal application of this Parable to the disciples,
which the Lord makes, follows almost of necessity. 'Watch therefore, for ye
know not the day, nor the hour.'14
Not enough to be in waiting with the Church; His Coming will be far on in the
night; it will be sudden; it will be rapid: be prepared therefore, be ever and personally
prepared! Christ will come when least expected - at midnight - and
when the Church, having become accustomed to His long delay, has gone to sleep.
So sudden will be His Coming, that after the cry of announcement there will not
be time for anything but to go forth to meet Him; and so rapid will be the end,
that, ere the foolish Virgins can return, the door has been for ever closed. To
present all this in the most striking manner, the Parable takes the form of a
dialogue, first between the foolish and the wise Virgins, in which the latter
only state the bare truth when saying, that each has only sufficient oil for
what is superfluous. Lastly, we are to learn from the dialogue between the
foolish Virgins and the Bridegroom, that it is impossible in the day of
Christ's Coming to make up for neglect of previous preparation, and that those
who have failed to meet Him, even though the bridal Virgins, shall be finally
excluded as being strangers to the Bridegroom.
14. The
clause 'in which the Son of Man cometh' is spurious - an early gloss crept into
the text.
2. The Parable of the Talents - their use and misuse15
- follows closely on the admonition to watch, in view of the sudden and certain
Return of Christ, and the reward or punishment which will then be meted out.
Only that, whereas in the Parable of the Ten Virgins the reference was to the personal
state, in that of 'the Talents' it is to the personal work of the
Disciples. In the former instance, they are portrayed as the bridal maidens who
are to welcome His Return; in the latter, as the servants who are to give an
account of their stewardship.
15. St.
Matt. xxv. 14-30.
From its close connection with what precedes, the Parable opens
almost abruptly with the words: 'For [it is] like a Man going abroad, [who]
called His own servants, and delivered to them His goods.' The emphasis
rests on this, that they were His own servants, and to act for His interest.
His property was handed over to them, not for safe custody, but that they might
do with it as best they could in the interest of their Master. This appears
from what immediately follows: 'and so to one He gave five talents (about 1,170l.),
but to one two (about 468l.), and to one one (=6,000 denarii, about 234l.),
to each according to his own capability'16
- that is, He gave to each according to his capacity, in proportion as He
deemed severally qualified for larger or smaller administration. 'And He
journeyed abroad straightway.'17
Having entrusted the management of His affairs to His servants, according to
their capacity, He at once went away.
16. kata thn idian dunamin.
17. Some
critics and the R.V. have drawn the word 'straightway' to the next verse, as
referring to the activity of the first servant. The reasons urged by Goebel
against this seem to me quite convincing, besides the fact that there is no
cause for thus distinguishing the first from the second faithful servant.
Thus far we can have no difficulty in understanding the meaning
of the Parable. Our Lord, Who has left us for the Father's Home, is He Who has
gone on the journey abroad, and to His own servants has He entrusted, not for
custody, but to use for Him in the time between His departure and His return,
what He claims as His own 'goods.' We must not limit this to the administration
of His Word, nor to the Holy Ministry, although these may have been
pre-eminently in view. It refers generally to all that a man has, wherewith to
serve Christ; for, all that the Christian has - his time, money, opportunities,
talents, or learning (and not only 'the Word'), is Christ's, and is entrusted
to us, not for custody, but to trade withal for the absent Master - to further
the progress of His Kingdom. And to each of us He gives according to our
capacity for working - mental, moral, and even physical - to one five, to
another two, and to another one 'talent.' This capacity for work lies not
within our own power; but it is in our power to use for Christ whatever
we may have.
And here the characteristic difference appears. 'He that
received the five talents went and traded with them, and made other five
talents. In like manner he that had received the two gained18
other two.' As each had received according to his ability, so each worked
according to his power, as good and faithful servants of their Lord. If the
outward result was different, their labour, devotion, and faithfulness were
equal. It was otherwise with him who had least to do for his Master, since only
one talent had been entrusted to him. He 'went away, digged up earth, and hid
the money of his Lord.' The prominent fact here is, that he did not employ it
for the Master, as a good servant, but shunned alike the labour and the
responsibility, and acted as if it had been some stranger's, and not his Lord's
property. In so doing he was not only unfaithful to his trust, but practically
disowned that he was a servant who had received much, two others are introduced
in the Parable, who had both received comparatively little - one of whom was
faithful, while the other in idle selfishness hid the money, not heeding that
it as 'his Lord's.' Thus, while the second servant, although less had been
entrusted to him was as faithful and conscientious as he to whom much had been
given, and while both had, by their gain, increased the possessions of their
Master, the third had by his conduct rendered the money of his Lord a dead,
useless, buried thing.
18. ekerdhsen - in the case of the first
it was epoihsen, although even
there ekerdhsen is probably the
better reading.
And now the second scene opens. 'But after a long time cometh
the Lord of those servants, and maketh reckoning19
with them.' The notice of the long absence of the Master not only connects this
with the Parable of the Ten Virgins, but is intended to show that the delay
might have rendered the servants who traded more careless, while it also
increased the guilt of him, who all this time had not done anything with his
Master's money. And now the first of the servants, without speaking of his
labour in trading, or his merit in 'making' money, answers with simple
joyousness: 'Lord, five talents deliveredst Thou unto me. See, other five
talents have I gained besides.'20
We can almost see his honest face beaming with delight, as he points to his
Master's increased possession. His approval was all that the faithful servant
had looked for, for which he had toiled during that long absence. And we can
understand, how the Master welcomed and owned that servant, and assigned to him
meet reward. The latter was twofold. Having proved his faithfulness and
capacity in a comparatively limited sphere, one much greater would be assigned
to him. For, to do the work, and increase the wealth of his Master, had
evidently been his joy and privilege, as well as his duty. Hence also the
second part of his reward - that of entering into the joy of his Lord - must
not be confined to sharing in the festive meal at His return, still less to
advancement from the position of a servant to that of a friend who shares his
Master's lordship. It implies far more than this: even satisfied heart-sympathy
with the aims and gains of his Master, and participation in them, with all that
thus conveys.
19. sunairei logon, confert, vel componit,
rem seu causam.
20. ep autoiV should, I think, be
retained in the text. It must at any rate be supplied.
A similar result followed on the reckoning with the servant to
whom two talents had been entrusted. We mark that, although he could only speak
of two talents gained, he met his Master with the same frank joyness as he who
had made five. For he had been as faithful, and laboured as earnestly as he to
whom more had been entrusted. And what is more important, the former difference
between the two servants, dependent on greater or less capacity for work, now
ceased, and the second servant received precisely the same welcome and exactly
the same reward, and in the same terms, as the first. And yet a deeper, and in
some sense mysterious, truth comes to us in connection with the words: 'Thou
has been faithful over a few things, I will set thee over many things.' Surely,
then, if not after death, yet in that other 'dispensation,' there must be work
to do for Christ, for which the preparation is in this life by faithful
application for Him of what He has entrusted to us - be it much or little. This
gives quite a new and blessed meaning to the life that now is - as most truly
and in all its aspects part of that into which it is to unfold. No; not the
smallest share of 'talents,' if only faithfully used for Christ, can be lost,
not merely as regards His acknowledgement, but also their further and wider
employment. And may we not suggest, that this may, if not explain, yet cast the
halo of His purpose and Presence around what so often seems mysterious in the
removal of those who had just attained to opening, or to full usefulness, or
even of those who are taken from us in the early morn of youth and loveliness.
The Lord may 'have need' of them, where or how we know not - and beyond this
working-day and working-world there are 'many things' over which the faithful
servant in little may be 'set,' that he may still do, and with greatly enlarged
opportunities and powers, the work for Christ which he had loved so well, while
at the same time he also shares the joy of his Lord.
It only remains to refer to the third servant, whose sad
unfaithfulness and failure of service we already, in some measure, understand.
Summoned to his account, he returned the talent entrusted to him with this
explanation, that, knowing his Master to be a hard man, reaping where he did
not sow, and gathering (the corn) where He did not 'winnow,'21
he had been afraid of incurring responsibility,22
and hence hid in the earth the talent which he now restored. It needs no
comment to show that his own words, however honest and self-righteous they
might sound, admitted dereliction of his work and duty as a servant, and entire
misunderstanding as well as heart-alienation from his Master. He served Him
not, and he knew Him not; he loved Him not, and he sympathised not with Him.
But, besides, his answer was also an insult and a medacious pretext. He had
been idle and unwilling to work for his Master. If he worked it would be for
himself. He would not incur the difficulties, the self-denial, perhaps the
reproach, connected with his Master's work. We recognise here those who,
although His servants, yet, from self-indulgence and wordliness, will not do
work for Christ with the one talent entrusted to them - that is, even though
the responsibility and claim upon them be the smallest; and who deem it
sufficient to hide it in the ground - not to lose it - or to preserve it, as
they imagine, from being used for evil, without using it to trade for Christ.
The falseness of the excuse, that he was afraid to do anything with it - an excuse
too often repeated in our days - lest, peradventure, he might do more harm than
good, was now fully exposed by the Master. Confessedly, it proceeded from a
want of knowledge of Him, as if He were a hard, exacting Master, not One Who
reckons even the least service as done to Himself; from misunderstanding also
of what work for Christ is, in which nothing can ever fail or be lost; and,
lastly, from want of joyous sympathy with it. And so the Master put aside the
flimsy pretext. Addressing him as a 'wicked and slothful servant,' He pointed
out that, even on his own showing, if he had been afraid to incur
responsibility , he might have 'cast' (a word intended to mark the absence of
labour) the money to 'the bankers,' when, at His return, He would have received
His own, 'with interest.' Thus he might, without incurring responsibility, or
much labour, have been, at least in a limited sense, faithful to his duty and
trust as a servant.
21. diaskorpizein here in the same sense
in which the LXX. render the Hebrew hrz in Ezek. v. 2, comp. Trommius
Concord., and Grimm ad verb.
22. Goebel
exaggerates in supposing that the servant had done so, because any possible
returns for the money would not be his own, but the Master's.
The reference to the practice of lodging money, at interest,
with the bankers, raises questions too numerous and lengthily for full
discussion in this place. The Jewish Law distinguished between 'interest' and
'increase' (neshekh and tarbith), and entered into many and
intricate details on the subject.23
Such transactions were forbidden with Israelites, but allowed with Gentiles. As
in Rome, the business of 'money-changers' (argentarii, nummularii)
and that of 'bankers' (collectarii, mensularii) seem to have run
into each other. The Jewish 'bankers' bear precisely the same name (Shulchani,
mensularius, trapezithV).
In Rome very high interest seems to have been charged in early times; by-and-by
it was lowered, till it was fixed, first at 8½, and then at 4 1/6, per cent.
But these laws were not of permanent duration. Practically, usury was
unlimited. It soon became the custom to charge monthly interest at the rate of
1 per cent a month. Yet there were prosperous times, as at the close of the
Republic, when the rate of interest was so low as 4 percent; during the early
Empire it stood at 8 per cent. This, of course, in what we may call fair
business transactions. Beyond them, in the almost incredible extravagance,
luxury, and indebtedness of even some of the chief historical personages, most
usurious transactions took place (especially in the provinces), and that by
people in high position (Brutus in Cyprus, and Seneca in Britain). Money was
lent at 12, 24, and even 48 per cent.; the bills bore a larger sum than that
actually received; and the interest was added to the capital, so that debt and
interest alike grew. In Greece there were regular State banks, while in Rome
such provision was only made under exceptional circumstances. Not unfrequently
the twofold business of money-changing and banking was combined. Such 'bankers'
undertook to make payments, to collect moneys and accounts, to place out money
at interest - in short, all the ordinary business of this kind.24
There can be no question that the Jewish bankers of Palestine and elsewhere
were engaged in the same undertakings, while the dispersion of their race over
the world would render it more easy to have trusted correspondents in every
city. Thus, we find that Herod Agrippa borrowed from the Jewish Alabarch at
Alexandria the sum of 20,000 drachms, which was paid him in Italy, the
commission and interest on it amounting to no less than 8 1/2 per cent. (2,500
drachms).25
23. Babha
Mez. iv. and v., especially v. 6, and the Gemara, especially Babha M. 70 b
&c.
24. Comp.
Marquardt, Handb. d. Röm. Alterth. vol. v. 2, pp. 56-68.
25. Jos.
Antiq. xviii. 6. 3.
We can thus understand the allusion to 'the bankers,' with whom
the wicked and unfaithful servant might have lodged his lord's money, if there
had been truth in his excuse. To unmask its hollowness is the chief object of
this part of the Parable. Accordingly, it must not be too closely pressed; but
it would be in the spirit of the Parable to apply the expression to the indirect
employment of money in the service of Christ, as by charitable contributions,
&c. But the great lesson intended is, that every good and faithful servant
of Christ must, whatever his circumstances, personally and directly use such
talent as he may have to make gain for Christ. Tried by this test, how few seem
to have understood their relation to Christ, and how cold has the love of the
Church grown in the long absence of her lord!
But as regards the 'unprofitable' servant in the Parable, the
well-known punishment of him that had come to the Marriage-Feast without the
wedding-garment shall await him, while the talent, which he had failed to
employ for his master, shall be entrusted to him who had shown himself most
capable of working. We need not seek an elaborate interpretation for this. It
points to the principle, equally true in every administration of God, that
'unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall be placed in abundance;26
but as to him that hath not,27
also what he hath shall be away from him.' Not a cynical rule this, such as the
world, in its selfishness or worship of success, caricatures it; nor yet the
worship of superior force; but this, that faithful use for God of every
capacity will ever open fresh opportunities, in proportion as the old ones have
been used, while spiritual unprofitableness must end in utter loss even of that
which, however humble, might have been used, at one time or another, for God
and for good.
26. perisseuqhsetai.
27. So
the better reading, tou de mh econtoV.
3. To these Parables, that of the King who on his return makes
reckoning with His servants and His enemies may be regarded as supplemental. It
is recorded only by St. Luke, and placed by him in somewhat loose connection
with the conversion of Zacchĉus.28
The most superficial perusal will show such unmistakable similarity with the
Parable of 'The Talents,' that their identity will naturally suggest itself to
the reader. On the other hand, there are remarkable divergences in detail, some
of which seem to imply a different standpoint from which the same truth is
viewed. We have also now the additional feature of the message of hatred on the
part of the citizens, and their fate in consequence of it. It may have been
that Christ spoke the two Parables on the two different occasions mentioned
respectively by St. Luke and St. Matthew - the one on the journey to Jerusalem,
the other on the Mount of Olives. And yet it seems difficult to believe that He
would, with a few days of telling the Parable recorded by St. Luke, have
repeated it in almost the same words to the disciples, who must have heard it
in Jericho. This objection would not be so serious, if the Parable addressed,
in the first instance, to the disciples (that of the Talents) had been
afterwards repeated (in the record of St. Luke) in a wider circle, and
not, as according to the Synoptists, the opposite. If, however, we are to
regard the two Parables of the Talents and of the Pieces of Money as
substantially the same, we would be disposed to consider the recension by St.
Matthew as the original, being the more homogeneous and compact, while that of
St. Luke would seem to combine with this another Parable, that of the
rebellious citizens. Perhaps it is safest to assume, that, on His way to
Jerusalem, when his adherents (not merely the disciples) would naturally expect
that He would inaugurate His Messianic Kingdom, Christ may have spoken the latter
Parable, to teach them that the relation in which Jerusalem stood towards Him,
and its fate, were quite different form what they imagined, and that His
Entrance into the City and the Advent of His Kingdom would be separated by a
long distance of time. Hence the prospect before them was that of working, not
of reigning; after that would the reckoning come, when the faithful worker
would become the trusted ruler. These points were, of course, closely connected
with the lessons of the Parable of the Talents, and, with the view of
presenting the subject as a whole, St. Luke may have borrowed details from that
Parable, and supplemented its teaching by presenting another aspect of it.
28. St.
Luke xix. 11-28.
It must be admitted, that if St. Luke had really these two
Parables in view (that of the King and of the Talents), and wished to combine
them into new teaching, he has most admirably welded them together. For, as the
Nobleman Who is about to entrust money to His servants, is going abroad to
receive a Kingdom, it was possible to represent Him alike in relation to
rebellious citizens and to His own servants, and to connect their reward with
His 'Kingdom.' And so the two Parables are joined by deriving the illustration
from political instead of social life. It has been commonly supposed, that the
Parable contains an allusion to what had happened after the death of Herod the
Great, when his son Archelaus hastened to Rome to obtain confirmation of his
father's will, while a Jewish deputation followed to oppose his appointment -
an act of rebellion which Archelaus afterwards avenged in the blood of his
enemies. The circumstance must have been still fresh in popular remembrance,
although more than thirty years had elapsed. But if otherwise, applications to
Rome for installation to the government, and popular opposition thereto, were
of such frequent occurence amidst the quarrels and intrigues of the Herodians,
that no difficulty could have been felt in understanding the allusions of the
Parable.
A brief analysis will suffice to point out the special lessons
of this Parable. It introduces 'a certain Nobleman,' Who has claims to the
throne, but has not yet received the formal appointment from the suzerain
power. As He is going away to receive it, He deals as yet only with His
servants. His object, apparently, is to try their aptitude, devotion, and
faithfulness: and so He hands - not to each according to his capacity, but to
all equally, a sum, not large (such as talents), but small - to each a
'mina,' equal to 100 drachms, or about 3l. 5s. of our money. To
trade with so small a sum would, of course, be much more difficult, and success
would imply greater ability, even as it would require more constant labour.
Here we have some traits in which this differs from the Parable of the Talents.
The same small sum is supposed to have been entrusted to all, in order to show
which of them was most able and most earnest, and hence who should be called to
largest employment, and with it to greatest honour in the Kingdom. While 'the
Nobleman' was at the court of His suzerain, a deputation of His fellow-citizens
arrived to urge this resolution of theirs: 'We will not that this One reign
over us.' It was simply an expression of hatred; it stated no reason, and only
urged personal opposition, even if such were in the face of the personal wish
of the sovereign who appointed him king.
In the last scene, the King, now duly appointed, has returned
to His country. He first reckons with His servants, when it is found that all
but one have been faithful to their trust, though with varying success (the mina
of the one having grown into ten; that of another into five, and so on). In
strict accordance with that success is now their further appointment to rule
- work here corresponding to rule there, which, however, as we know from the
Parable of the Talents, is also work for Christ: a rule that is work, and work
that is rule. At the same time, the acknowledgment is the same to all the
faithful servants. Similarly, the motives, the reasoning, and the fate of the
unfaithful servant are the same as in the Parable of the Talents. But as
regards His 'enemies,' that would not have Him reign over them - manifestly,
Jerusalem and the people of Israel - who, even after He had gone to receive the
Kingdom, continued the personal hostility of their 'We will not that this One
shall reign over us' - the ashes of the Temple, the ruins of the City, the
blood of the fathers, and the homeless wanderings of their children, with the
Cain curse branded on their brow and visible to all men, attest, that the King
has many ministers to execute that judgment which obstinate rebellion must
surely bring, if His Authority is to be vindicated, and His Rule to secure
submission.
Chapter 6 | Table
of Contents | Chapter 8
research-bpr@philologos.org
|
