Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (757 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
10.13Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE THREE FIRST GOSPELS.373
could find leisure for a conversation aside with his disciples.* This inconvenience Mark perceived, and therefore chose the second resource tliat was open; to him-that of making Jesus with his disciples withdraw after the first parable into the house, and there deliver its interpretation. But such a proceeding would be too great a hindrance to one wlio proposed publicly to deliver several parables one after the other: for if Jesus returned to tlie house immediately after tlie first parable, he liad left tlic scene in which tlie succeeding ones could be conveniently imparted to the people.
Consequently, tlie narrator in tlie first gospel cannot, with respect to tlie interpretation of tlie second parable, either repeat his first plan, or resort to the second; lie therefore adopts a third, and proceeding uninterruptedly through two further parables, it is only at their close tliat lie conducts Jesus to the liousc, and tliere makes liiin impart the arrear of interpretation.
Herewith there arose in tlic mind of tlie narrator a sort of rivalry between tlie parables wliicli lie liad yet in reserve, and the interpretation, the arrear of wliicli embarrassed him; as soon as tlie former w^rc absent from Ills recollection, tlie latter would be present with its inevitably associated form of conclusion and return homeward; and when any remaining parables recurred to him, he was obliged to make tliem tlic sequel of the interpretation. Thus it betel with tlie three last parables in Matthew’s narration; so tliat he was reduced almost against his will to make the disciples their sole participants, tliougli it docs not appear to have been the custom of Jesus tlius to clotlie his private instructions ; and Mark (v. 33 f.) plainly supposes tlic parables which follow tlie intcroi-etation of tlie second, to be also addressed to the people.f
Consequently, tlie narrator in tlie first gospel cannot, with respect to tlie interpretation of tlie second parable, either repeat his first plan, or resort to the second; lie therefore adopts a third, and proceeding uninterruptedly through two further parables, it is only at their close tliat lie conducts Jesus to the liousc, and tliere makes liiin impart the arrear of interpretation.
Herewith there arose in tlic mind of tlie narrator a sort of rivalry between tlie parables wliicli lie liad yet in reserve, and the interpretation, the arrear of wliicli embarrassed him; as soon as tlie former w^rc absent from Ills recollection, tlie latter would be present with its inevitably associated form of conclusion and return homeward; and when any remaining parables recurred to him, he was obliged to make tliem tlic sequel of the interpretation. Thus it betel with tlie three last parables in Matthew’s narration; so tliat he was reduced almost against his will to make the disciples their sole participants, tliougli it docs not appear to have been the custom of Jesus tlius to clotlie his private instructions ; and Mark (v. 33 f.) plainly supposes tlic parables which follow tlie intcroi-etation of tlie second, to be also addressed to the people.f
Mark, wlio (iv. 1) depicts tlie same scene by tlie sea-side, as Mattliew, lias in connexion with it only three parables, of which the first and tliird correspond to the first and third of Matthew, but tlie middle one is commonly deemed peculiar to Mark.i: Mattliew lias in its place tlie parable wherein tlie kingdom of lieavcn is likened to a man wlio sowed good seed in Ills field; but while men slept, tlie enemy came and sowed tares among it, which grew up witli tlie wlieat. Tlic servants know not from whence tlic tares come, and propose to root them up ; but tlie master commands them to let both grow together until tlie harvest, when it will be time enough to separate them. In Mark, Jesus compares tlie kingdom of heaven to a man who casts seed into the ground, and wliile lie sleeps and rises again, tlie seed passes, lie knows not how, from one stage of development to another: and when it is ripe, he puts in the sic/do, because the harvest is co-ine. In this parable there is wanting wliat constitutes tlic dominant idea in tliat of Mattliew, tlie tares, sown by the enemy; but as, nevertheless, the other ideas, of sowing,
•* Schleicrmacher, S. 120. t Fritzschc, Comm. inMarc. S. 120, 128, 131; DC Wette, inloc. ^ Comp. Saumer, uber die Qucllen des Markus, S. 74 , Frifczscho, ufc sup.; DeWcttc,
374 THE LIFE OF JESUS.
sleeping, growing one knows not how, and harvest, wliolly correspond, it may Le questioned whether Mark does not here merely give tlie same parable in a different version, which lie preferred to that of Matthew, because it seemed more intermediate between the first parable of the sower, and tlic third of tlie mustard-seed.
Luke, also, lias only lliree of the seven parables given in Matt.
xiii.: namely, tliose of the sower, the mustard-seed, and tlie leaven;
so that tlie parables of tlie buried treasure, tlie pearl, and tlie net, as also that of tlic tares in tlie field, arc peculiar to Mattliew. Tlie parable of tlie sower is placed by Luke (viii. 4 ff.) somewhat earlier, and in other circumstances, than by Mattliew, and apart from the two other parables wliicli lie lias in common witli the first evangelist’s series. These lie introduces later, xiii. 18-21; a position which recent critics unanimously acknowledge as tlie correct one.*
But this decision is one of tlie most remarkable to wliicli tlie criticism of tlie present age lias been led by its partiality to Luke. For if we examine the vaunted connectedness of tills evangelist’s passages, we find, tliat Jesus, having licaled a woman bowed down by a spirit of infirmity, silences tlic punctilious ruler of tlie synagogue by tlie argument about the ox and ass, after which it is added (v.
17), And, when he had said these things, all his adversaries were as/uiined; and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that vere done by him. iSurely so complete and marked a form of conclusion is intended to wind up tlie previous narrative, and one cannot conceive that tlic sequel went forward in the same scene; on tlic contrary, tlic phrases, then said he, and again lie said, by wliicli tlie parables arc connected, indicate tliat tlie writer liad no longer any knowledge of tlic occasion on wliicli Jesus uttered them, and hence inserted them at random in tills indeterminate manner, far less judiciously than Mattliew, wlio at least was careful to associate them witli analogous matemls.f
We proceed to notice tlic other evangelical parables,^ and first among them, those which are peculiar to one evangelist. We come foremost in Mattliew to the parable of tlie servant (xviii. 23 ff.) who, although Ills lord had forgiven him a debt of ten tliousand talents, liad no mercy on Ins fellow-servant wlio owed him a hundred; tolerably well introduced by an exhortation to placability (v. 15), and tlic question of Peter, How aft shall my brother sin against me, and/forgive him? Likewise peculiar to Matthew is tlie parable of tlic labourers in tlie vineyard (xx. 1 ff.), wliicli suitably enough forms a counterpoise to tlic foregoing promise of a ricli recompense to the disciples. Of the sentences wliicli Mattliew appends to this parable (v. 16), tlie first, So the last shall he first, and the first last, by wliicli lie liad also prefaced it (xix. 30), is tlie only one with
* Srhleiermaclier, ut sup. S. 192; Olsliausei], 1, S. 431; Schneckenburgcr, nt sup. &
33. •)• Coinp Ue Wettp, excg. llaiidb. 1, 2, S. 73 f. t Analogies to these parables and apothegms, arc given out of the rabbinical literature bv Wetstein, I.iglitloot, anil Si.holt
DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE THREE FIRST GOSPELS.
which it has any internal connexion; the other, for many are called, tutfezo chosen, rather gives the moral of tlie parable of the royal feast and the wedding garment, in connexion witli which Mattliew actually repeats it (xxii. 14). It -wa.3 well adapted, however, even torn from this connexion, to circulate as an independent apothegm, and as it appeared fitting to the evangelist to annex one or more short sentences to the end of a parable, lie might be induced, by some superficial similarity to the one already given, to place them in companionship. Farther, the parable of tlie two sons sent into tlie vineyard, is also peculiar to Mattliew (xxi. 28 ft’.), and is not illplaced in connexion witli the foregoing questions and retorts between Jesus and the Pharisees; its anti-Pharisaic significance is also well brought out by tlic sequel (31 f.).
Among the parables which are peculiar to Luke, tliat of tlie two debtors (vli, 41 ff.); tliat of tlic good Samaritan (x. 30 ff.); tliat of tlie man whose accumulation of earthly treasure is interrupted by death (xii. KJ ff. coiup. Wis. xi. 17 ff.); and also tlie two which figure the efficacy of importunate prayer (xi. 5 ff. xviil. 2 ff.); have a definite, clear signification, and witli the exception of tlie last, which is introduced abruptly, a tolerably consistent connexion. We may learn from tlie two last parables, tliat it is often necessary entirely to abstract particular features from the parables of Jesus, seeing that in one ot them God is represented by a lukewarm friend, in the oilier by an unjust nidge. To tlie latter is amicxcd the parable of the Pharisee and Publican (9-14), of wliicli only Sclileiermachcr, on tlie strength of a connexion, fabricated by himself between it and the foregoing, can deny tlic antipharisalc tendency.*
The parables of tlie lost sheep, tlie piece of silver, and tlie prodigal son (Luke xv. 3-32), have tlic same direction. Mattliew also lias the first of these (xviii. 12 ff.), but in a different connexion, which determines its import somewhat differently, and without doubt, as will presently be shown, less correctly. It is easy to imagine that tliese three parables were spoken in immediate succession, because tlie second is merely a variation of tlie first, and tlie third is an amplification and elucidation of them both. Whether, according to tlie opinion of modern criticism, tlic two succeeding parables also belong with tlic above to one continuous discourse,! must be determined by a closer examination of their contents, which are in themselves noteworthy.
Tlie parable of tlie unjust steward, notoriously the crux interpretum, is yet without any intrinsic difficulty. If we read to tlie end of tlic parable, including tlie moral (v. 9), we gatlier the simple result, tliat tlie man who without precisely using unjust means to obtain riches, is yet in tlie siglit of God an iii’prcjitable servant, 6ov^o(; d^ps’io^ (Luke xvii. 10), and, in tlie employment of tlie gifts intrusted to him by God, a steward of injustice, olnovo^ T’/JC acWac, may best atone for this pervading unfaithfulness by lenity and bene
376 THE LIFE OF JESUS.
ficence towards his fellow-men, and may by their intervention procure a place in heaven.
It is true tliat tlie beneficence of the fictitious steward is a fraud; but we must abstract this particular, as, in the case of two previous parables, we have to abstract tlie lukewarmness of tlie friend, and tlie injustice of the judge: nay, tlie necessity for sucli an abstraction is intimated in the narrative itself, for from v. 8.
It is true tliat tlie beneficence of the fictitious steward is a fraud; but we must abstract this particular, as, in the case of two previous parables, we have to abstract tlie lukewarmness of tlie friend, and tlie injustice of the judge: nay, tlie necessity for sucli an abstraction is intimated in the narrative itself, for from v. 8.
we cather tliat what the steward did in a worldly spirit is, in the application, to be understood in a more exalted sense of tlie children of light. Certainly, if we suppose the words, lie that is faithful in that which is least, &c. (10-12) to have been uttered in their present connexion, it appears as if the steward were set fortli as a model, deserving in some sense or other tlie praise of faithfulness;
and when (v. 13) it is said that no servant can servf? two masters, tlie intended inference seems to be that this steward liad lield to the rightful one. Hence we have expositions such as tliat of Schleiermaclier, who under tlie master understands tlie Romans; under tlie debtors, the Jewisli people; under tlie steward, tlie publicans, who were generous to tlie latter at tlie expense of tlie former;
thus, in the most arbitrary manner, transforming the master into a violent man, and justifying tlie steward.* Olshauscn carries the, perversion of the parable to tlie extreme, for lie degrades tlie master, wlio, by his judicial position evidently announces himself as the representative of God, into ap^uv -ov nodflov rov-ov, the prince of this world, while lie exalts tlie steward into the image of a man wlio applies the riches of this world to spiritual objects. But as in the moral (v. 9) tlie parable lias a consistent ending; and as inaccurate association is by no means unexampled in Luke ; it is not admissible to concede to the following verses any influence over tlie interpretation of tlie parable, unless a close relation of idea can be made manifest. Xow tlie fact is, that the very opposite, namely, the most perplexing diversity, exists.Moreover, it is not difficult to show what might have seduced Luke into a false association. In the parable there was mention of the mammon of unrighteousness, {zajJiwag -Tig dSiitial;; tills suggested to him the saying of Jesus, tliat he wlio proves faithful in tlie ddt/co) fia/J.wva, the unrighteous mammon, as that which is least, may also have the true riches committed to his trust. But tlie word mammon having once taken posscsion of tlie writer’a mind, how could he avoid recollecting tlie well known aphorism of Jesus on God and Mammon, as two incompatible masters, and adding it (v. 13), however superfluously, to tlie preceding texts ?t
* L’t sup.
\ Schncckenbnrger has decided, Beitriigc, So, V> where he refutes Olshausen’s interpretation of tlie parable, that this verse does not really belong to its present position, while with respect to tlie preceding verses from v, 9, he finds it possible to hold the contrary opinion. Do ‘VVette also considers tliat v. 13 is the only one drciiledly out of place, lie thinks it possible, by supplying an intermediate proposition, whirl] he supposes the writer to have omitted, and which led from the prudent use of riclies to faithfulness in presc’rving those entrusK-d to us. to give a sufficient connexion to v. 9 and 10-1^, without necessarily referring the idea of faithfulness to tlie conduct of the steward. The numerous at
Other books
Clay's Ark by Octavia E. Butler
Wicked by Susan Johnson
Kanada by Eva Wiseman
La apuesta by John Boyne
The Orion Protocol by Gary Tigerman
Thomas and Percy and the Dragon by Rev. W. Awdry
Kieran (Tales of the Shareem) by Allyson James, Jennifer Ashley
Her Dark Heart by Vivi Anna
One Good Knight by Mercedes Lackey
Humidity Rising (Romantic Suspense) by Rose, Amelia