PARABLES
466
PARABLES
peculiar to St. Mark, of the seed growing secretly (iv,
26-29). We have already assigned it to the group of
the mustard tree and the leaven. Its point is con-
veyed in the Horatian line, "Crescit occulto velut
arbor a-vo" (Odes, I, xii, 36). The husbandman who
"knows not how" the harvest springs cannot be the
.■\lmighty, but is the human sower of the word. For
homilotic purposes we may combine this parable with
its cognate, "unless the grain of wheat die" (John, xii,
24) which applies it to Christ Himself and His Divine
influence.
In St. Luke the two debtors (vii, 41-43) is spoken by our Lord to Simon "the leper" (Mark, xiv, 2-9) on occasion of Mary Magdalene's conversion, with its touching circumstances. At least since St. Gregory the Great, Catholic writers have so understood the his- tory. The double saying " Many sins are forgiven her, for she loved much", and "to whom less is forgiven, he loveth less", has a perfectly clear human sense, in accordance with facts. We cannot deduce from such almost proverbial expressions a theory of justification. The lesson concerns gratitude for mercies received, with a strong emphasis on the hard arrogance of the Pharisee over against the lowly and tender bearing of the "woman who was a sinner". Thus, in effect, St. Augustine (Serm. xcix, 4) . The contrast between dead faith and faith animated by love — which Maldonatus would introduce — is not directly meant. And we need not suppose the latter portion of the story artificial or pieced together by St. Luke from other Gospel frag- ments. With the problem of the four narratives (Matt., xxvi; Mark, xiv; Luke, vii; John, xii) the present article is not concerned.
The good Samaritan (Luke, x, 37) is certainly au- thentic; it can be explained mystically in detail, and is therefore as much an "allegory" as a parable. If it was spoken by our Lord so was the wicked husband- men. It does not exactly reply to the question "Who is thy neighbour?" but propounds and answers a larger one, "Whom in distress should I like to be neighbour to me?" and gives an everlasting instance of the golden rule. At the same time it breaks down the fences of legalism, triumphs over national hatreds, and lifts the despised Samaritan to a place of honour. In the deeper sense we discern that Christ is the Good Samaritan, human nature the man fallen among rob- bers, i. e., under Satan's yoke; neither law nor Proph- ets can help; and the Saviour alone bears the charge of healing our spiritual wounds. The inn is Christ's Church; the oil and wine are His sacraments. He will come again and will make all good. The Fathers, Sts. Ambrose, .August ine, Jerome, are agreed in this general interpretation. Klere philanthropy will not satisfy the Gospel idea; we must add, "the charity of Christ presseth us" (II Cor., v, 14).
The friend at midnight (Luke, xi, 5-8) and the unjust judge (Luke, x-\'iii, 1-8) need no explanation. With a certain strength of language both dwell on the power of continued prayer. Importunity wins, "the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away" (Matt., xi, 12). Dante has beautifully expressed the Divine law which these parables teach (Paradiso, xx, 94-100).
The rich fool (Luke, xii, 16-21) and Dives and Lazarus (xvi, 19-31) raise the question whether we should interpret them as true histories or as instruc- tive fictions. Both are directed against the chief enemy of the Gospel, riches loved and sought after. The rich fool ("Nabal", as in I Kings, xxv) was uttered on occasion of a dispute concerning property and Christ answers "Man, who hath appointed me judge, or divider, over you? " Not injustice, but covet- ousness, "the root of all evil", is here reprehended. Read St. Cyprian, " De opere pt eleemosyna", 13.
The stor\' of Lazarus, which completes this le,SBon by contra.st, appears to have no concealed meaning, and would therefore not fulfil the definition of a para-
ble. Catholics, with IrensEus, Ambrose, Augustine, and
the church liturgy, regard it as a narrative. The mod-
ern school rejects this view, allows tli.'it our Lord may
have spoken tlic first half of Hh' r<M-it:Ll (Luke, xvi, 19-
20) but consiilcrs the rest to lii' an allegory which con-
demns tlic Jew.s for not acceiiting the witness of Moses
and the Pro])Ii('ls to Jesus as the Messias. In any case
our Lord's resurrection furnishes an implied reference.
"Abraham's bosom" for the middle .state after death
is adopted by the Fathers generally; it receives illus-
tration from IV Mach., xiii, 17. For a recent Jewish
exposition of the parable seeGeiger in "JudischeZeit-
schr. ftir Wissenschaft", VII, 200. St. Augustine (De
Gen. ad Lift., viii, 7) doubts whether we can take lite-
rally tli(Mlesorii)tionof the other world. On the relation,
suiipipscil l)y rationalizing critics, of this Lazarus to St.
John's Gospel, x,seeJoHN. Gospel of Saint; Laz.\rus.
Passing over the barren fig tree (Luke, xiii, 6-9) which gave a plain warning to Israel; and just refer- ring to the lost sheep (Matt., xviii, 12-14; Luke, xv, 3-7) and the lost groat or drachma (Luke, xv, 8-10), none of which need detain us, we come to the great supper (Luke, xiv, 1.5-24). That this parable con- cerns the calling of the Gentiles is admitted and is important, as bearing on the universal commission, Matt., xxviii, 19. "Compel them to enter", like the strong sayings quoted above (importunate widow etc.), must be taken in the spirit of Christianity, which compels by moral suasion, not by the sword (Matt., xxvi, 52).
The prodigal son (Luke, xv, 11-32), so called from verse 13, has a deep ethical meaning, but likewise a dogmatic, in which the two sons are the Israelite, stay- ing at home in his father's house, and the Gentile who has wandered away. As the message of pardon it de- serves to be called the very heart of Christ's gospel. We have justified these parallel lines of interpretation, for ethics and revelation, which were both visible to the Evangelist. Tertullian's narrow use of the story is uncritical. St. John Chrysostom and the Church always have apphed it to Christian, i. e., baptized penitents. The "finst [or best] robe" is naturally assumed by theologians to be "original justice", and the feast of reconciliation is our Lord's atoning sacri- fice. Those who grant a strong Pauline influence in St. Luke's Gospel ought not to deny it here. The "jealousy of good men" towards returned prodigals, which has exercised commentators, is true to life; and it counted for much in the dissensions that finally clove asunder the Church of Israel from the Church of Christ (I Thess., ii, 14-16). The joy over a sinner's conversion unites this parable with those of the lost sheep and the lost drachma.
The unjust steward (Luke, xvi, 1-9) is, beyond question, the hardest of all our Lord's parables, if we may argue from the number and variety of meanings set upon it. Verses 10-13 are no part of the narration but a discourse to which it gives rise. The connecting link between them is the difficult expression "mam- mon [more correctly 'Mamon'j of iniquity"; and we may suppose with Bengel that Christ was speaking to those of His followers, like Levi, who had been farmers of the taxes, i. e., "publicans". In the contrast be- tween the "children of this world" and the "children of light" we find a clue to the general lesson. Mark the resemblance to St. John's Gospel in the opposition thus brought out. There are two generations or kinds of men — the worldling and the Christian; but of these one behaves with a perfect understanding of the order to which he belongs; the other often acts foolishly, does not put his talent to interest. How shall he pro- ceed in the least Christian of all occupations, which is the handling of money? He must get good out of its evil, turn it to account for everlasting life, and this by almsgiving, "yet that which remaineth, give alms; and behold, all things are clean unto you" (Luke, xi, 41). The strong conclusion follows, which lies implicit
