PARABLE
(IN
NT)
points
of
contact
it
was
possible
for
those
who
desired
to
do
so
to
pass
from
the
known
to
the
unlinown.
Im-agination
was
exercised
and
the
critical
faculty
appealed
to,
and
sympathy
was
enlisted
according
to
the
merits
of
the
case
presented.
A
moral
decision
could
thus
be
impartially
arrived
at
without
arousing
the
instinct
of
self-defence,
and
when
the
paralleUsm
was
once
recog-nized,
the
hearer
had
either
to
make
the
desired
applica-tion
or
act
in
contempt
of
his
own
judgment
(2
S
12'-').
In
Christ's
parables,
as
distinct
from
the
ordinary
fable
which
they
otherwise
completely
resembled
in
form,
the
illustrations
were
always
drawn
from
occurrences
that
were
possible,
and
which
might
therefore
have
belonged
to
the
experience
of
the
hearer.
When
the
meaning
was
perceived,
this
fact
gave
to
the
explanation
the
persuasive
value
of
something
sanctioned,
by
the
actuahties
of
Mfe.
But,
on
the
other
hand,
the
meaning
might
not
be
understood.
Its
acceptance
was
limited
by
the
power
to
discover
it.
Only
he
who
could
see
the
prophet's
chariot
could
use
the
prophet's
mantle.
The
transition
of
responsibility
from
the
speaker
to
the
hearer
was
sometimes
indicated
by
the
words,
'
He
that
hath
ears
to
hear,
let
him
hear'
(Mt
13').
Christ's
most
solemn
utterances
were
directed
towards
the
insensi-bihty
that
took
its
music
without
dancing,
and
sat
silent
where
the
wail
for
the
dead
was
raised
(Mt
11").
His
last
act
towards
such
imperviousness
was
to
pray
for
it
and
to
die
for
it
(Lk
23M-
s?,
Rq
58).
3.
The
special
need
of
Parables
in
Christ's
teaching.
—
If
the
teaching
of
Christ
had
been
devoted
to
matters
already
understood
and
accepted
as
authoritative,
such
as
the
conventional
commentary
on
the
law
of
Moses,
such
a
presentation
of
moral
and
spiritual
truth,
while
imparting
the
charm
of
freshness
to
things
f
amiUar,
would
not
have
been
actually
necessary.
The
Scribes
and
Pharisees
did
not
require
it.
Even
if,
passing
beyond
the
Jewish
ceremonial
observance
and
externahsm.
He
had
been
content
to
speak
of
personal
salvation
and
ethical
ideas
after
the
manner
so
prevalent
in
the
Western
Church
of
to-day,
He
would
not
have
needed
the
vehicle
of
parable
instruction.
But
the
subject
which,
under
all
circumstances,
privately
and
pubhcly,
directly
and
indirectly,
He
sought
to
explain,
commend,
and
impersonate,
was
that
of
a
Kingdom
that
had
for
its
destiny
the
conquest
of
the
world.
Alike
in
His
preach-ing
and
in
His
miraculous
works.
His
constant
purpose
was
to
reveal
and
glorify
the
Father
(Jn
15'
16^)
and
to
unfold
the
mysteries
of
the
Kingdom
of
heaven
(Mt
423
13",
Lk
8").
These
mysteries
were
not
in
themselves
obscure
or
remote
(Mt
16'-*,
Lk
IT'''
18"),
but
its
principles
and
motives
and
rewards
were
so
opposed
to
aU
that
had
entered
the
mind
of
man,
that
it
had
to
be
characterized
as
a
Kingdom
that
was
not
of
this
world
(Jn
18=5).
It
was
this
Kingdom
of
Messianic
expectation
that
united
Christ
with
the
historic
past
of
the
elected
nation
to
which
according
to
the
flesh
He
belonged.
Its
appearance
had
been
the
chief
burden
of
prophecy,
and
its
expansion
and
attendant
blessing
to
humanity
had
been
dwelt
upon
as
the
recompense
for
the
travail
of
Zion.
The
Messiah
was
to
be
the
Prince
of
Peace
in
that
Kingdom
of
exploded
and
exhausted
evil,
where
in
symbol
the
wolf
and
the
lamb
were
to
feed
together
(Is
65^).
The
princes
of
the
people
of
the
earth
were
to
be
gathered
together
to
be
the
people
of
the
God
of
Abraham
(Gn
12^,
Ps
47»).
But
the
same
mysteries
of
the
Kingdom,
which
connected
Christ
with
the
prophetic
utterances
and
developed
history
of
Israel,
also
brought
Him
into
a
relationship
of
antagonism
towards
the
reUgious
teaching
of
His
own
time.
The
people
recognized
in
His
words
the
authority
that
belonged
to
Moses'
seat,
but
they
saw
very
clearly
that
another
than
Moses
was
there.
The
point
of
distinction
between
Him
and
the
Pharisees
was
that
in
His
hands
the
Law
was
no
longer
an
end
in
itself,
but
became
a
minister
to
what
was
beyond
and
greater
than
itself.
While
the
Rabbinical
teaching
boasted
PARABLE
(IN
NT)
that
the
world
had
been
created
only
for
the
Torah,
He
taught
that
the
Law
had
been
created
for
the
world.
This
radical
opposition
appeared
in
what
He
said
about
the
proper
use
and
observance
of
the
Sabbath
day,
and
in
His
condemnation
of
those
who
would
neither
enter
the
Kingdom
nor
allow
others
to
do
so.
They
taught
with
pdde
and
complacency
that
the
Kingdom
of
God
had
reached
its
final
consummation
and
embodi-ment
in
their
own
exclusive
circle,
whereas
the
message
of
Christ
was
to
be
borne
over
new
areas
of
progress
and
expansion
until
it
reached
and
conquered
the
utter-most
parts
of
the
earth.
It
was
a
parting
at
the
foun-tain-head.
One
teaching
meant
the
extinction
of
the
other.
Of
this
Kingdom
and
its
mysteries
Christ
spoke
in
parables.
He
thereby
turned
the
thoughts
of
men
from
the
Mosaic
succession
of
Kabbinical
precedents
and
their
artiflcial
mediation
of
the
Law
of
God,
and
discovered
a
new
source
of
illumination
and
authority
in
the
phenomena
of
the
seasons,
the
relationships
of
the
family,
and
the
industries
of
village
lite.
Faith,
obedience,
and
love
took
the
place
of
technical
knowledge
and
ofBcial
position.
The
Kingdom
of
heaven
was
at
hand,
and
the
King's
invitation
to
enter
was
always
wider
than
the
willingness
to
accept
it.
To
His
disciples
He
more
intimately
explained
that
it
was
a
Kingdom
of
relationship
to
God,
and
of
men's
relationship,
in
conse-quence,
towards
one
another.
This,
along
with
the
story
of
His
own
Ufe
and
ministry
and
resurrection,
was
to
be
the
gospel
they
were
to
preach,
by
the
power
of
the
Spirit,
as
the
message
of
God's
salvation
to
the
whole
world.
In
the
Sermon
on
the
Mount
those
mys-teries
of
the
Kingdom
were
indicated
in
outline,
and
in
the
parables
the
theme
was
still
the
same,
whether
the
story
started
from
the
initiative
of
the
Teacher
in
the
presence
of
the
multitude,
or
was
suggested
by
some
incident
of
the
hour.
In
the
long
warfare
of
the
world's
kingdoms
men
had
grown
familiar
with
the
cry,
'Woe
to
the
vanquished!'
but,
in
that
Kingdom
of
which
He
spoke,
a
new
social
instinct,
created
and
nourished
by
its
citizenship,
was
to
inflict
an
intolerable
pain
on
those
who
could
relieve
misery
and
upUft
the
down-trodden
and
cheer
the
despairing,
and
did
it
not.
It
was
to
take
upon
itself
the
world's
estrangement
from
God
and
hardness
of
heart,
and
make
Its
own
the
Christless
shame
of
moral
defeat,
and
social
discord,
and
all
un-loveHness
of
life.
In
the
citizenship
of
that
Kingdom
the
sorest
impoverishment
would
not
be
in
the
humble
byways
of
the
lame
and
the
blind,
but
in
the
homes
of
selfish
luxury
and
privileged
exemption.
The
chief
crime
of
the
Kingdom,
involving
a
complete
negation
of
discipleship,
would
be
an
evaded
cross.
'
I
was
sick,
and
in
prison,
and
ye
visited
me
not'
(Mt
25'').
Both
from
the
novelty
of
the
vision
thus
presented,
and
from
its
hostiUty
to
the
spirit
and
authority
of
the
reUgious
leaders,
it
is
evident
that
teaching
by
parable
was
the
form
best
adapted
to
Christ's
purpose
and
subject,
and
to
the
circumstances
of
the
time.
It
was
an
eiflcient
and
illuminating
method
of
instruction
to
those
who
were
able
to
receive
it.
The
petition
once
presented
by
two
of
His
disciples
indicates
what
might
have
be-come
general
if
the
rewards
of
the
Kingdom
had
been
announced
to
those
who
had
not
the
true
spirit
of
its
service
(Mt
202').
By
leaving
altogether
the
traditions
and
controversies
of
the
exhausted
Church
of
that
day,
He
gave
a
fresh
positive
re-statement
of
the
nature
and
dimension
of
the
Kingdom
of
God.
4.
The
foUowiug
selection
from
Christ's
parables
indicates
some
of
the
points
of
relationship
to
the
Kingdom.
Whatever
is
stated
generally
applies
also
to
the
individual,
and
the
latter
should
not
regard
any-thing
as
essential
and
vital
which
he
cannot
share
with
the
whole
membership.
The
humblest
service
Is
re-garded
as
done
directly
to
the
King.
(1)
The
parable
of
boundaries,
the
conditions
and
environment
of
the
Kingdom:
the
Sower
and
the
Seed
(Mt
13i-2«);
difli-culties
and
dangers
arising
fromlnattention,
superficiality.
