THE LIFE AND TIMES
OF JESUS THE MESSIAH
CHAPTER
7
EVENING OF
THE THIRD DAY IN PASSION WEEK - ON THE MOUNT OF OLWES - 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 SERVANT’S
AND HIS REBELLIOUS CITIZENS
(Matt. 25: 1-13; Matt. 25: 14-30;
Luke 19: 11-28)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. The Parable of the Ten Virgins. 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
(Matt. 24:
36-51). Its great practical lessons had been: the unexpectedness of the Lord’s Coming; the
consequences to be apprehended 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.
Before
proceeding, we mark that this Parable also is connected with those that had preceded. But we notice not only connection, but progression. Indeed, it would be deeply interesting, alike
historically and for the better understanding of Christ teaching, 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 consummation 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 guests may, indeed, come to the
banqueting-hall, but the final judgment
as to his [or her] 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 a priori claims to enter
in with Him - which are, so to speak, the historical data and necessary premises in the Parable - point to the Church,
the main lessons of the Parable 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 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 (Matt. 25: 6), 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 or in that of 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.
Another
archaeological 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 form of the Greek
word in the New Testament also occurs as Lampad and
Lampadas.
The lamps consisted of a round
receptacle for pitch or oil for the wick. This was placed in a hollow cup or deep saucer
-the Beth
Shiqqua
(Kel. 2. 8) - which was fastened
by a pointed end into a long wooden pole, on which it was borne aloft. According to Jewish authorities, 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.
The
first point which we mark is, that the Ten Virgins
brought, presumably to the bridal house, ‘their own 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 their vessels’
[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, because the Parable turns on
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’ (Matt.
5: 16). 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 [see Greek …] 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 wilful neglect, in the [mistaken] 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.
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,
having brought no oil of their own in
their lamps. This corresponds to
their conduct, 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 brief.
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 for 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 all
- it will never suffice for us and you! Go ye rather to the
sellers, and buy for your own selves.’
This advice must not be regarded
as given in irony. This trait is
introduced to point out the proper [place and] 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.’* 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 win 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 needed
when joining the marriage-procession, and no one 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 of the bridal Virgins, shall be
finally excluded as being strangers to the Bridegroom.
*The
clause ‘in which the Son of Man cometh’ is spurious
- an early gloss crept into the text.
** Tht is, at the time of Judgment and His personal selection; presumably to escape the future and foretold coming events.
2. The
Parable of the Talents - their use
and misuse (Matt. 25:
14-30) - 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.
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 £1,170), but to one
two (about £468), and to one one
( = 6,000 denarii, about £234), to each according to his own capability’ - that is, He
gave to each according to his capacity, in proportion as He deemed them
severally qualified for larger or smaller administration. ‘And He journeyed
abroad straightway.’* Having entrusted
the management of His affairs to His servants, according to their capacity, He
at once went away.
* Some
critics and the RV 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 be 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 [coming Messianic and Millennial] 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 gained
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 of his Lord. Accordingly, in contradistinction to the 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 was ‘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.
And now
the second scene opens. ‘But after a long time cometh the Lord of those servants,
and maketh reckoning 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.’ 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 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 this conveys.
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 joyousness 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 a yet deeper,
and in some sense mysterious, truth comes to us in connection with the words: ‘Thou hast 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 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
acknowledgment, 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,’ he had been afraid of incurring
responsibility,* and hence his 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 mendacious 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
worldliness, 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.
* Goebel exaggerates is supposing that the servant had done
so, because ant 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
lengthy 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. Such
transactions were forbidden with Israelites, but allowed with
Gentiles. As in
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. Accordingly the expression to the indirect employment of money in the
service of Christ, as by charitable contributions, etc. 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
he placed in abundance; but as to him that hath
not, also what he hath shall be taken away from
him’ Not a cynical rule this, such as the world, in its selfishness or
worship of success, caricatures it; not 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.
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
Zacchaeus (Luke 19: 11-28). 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 within 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 from 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.
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 Archaelaus
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
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 £3 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 expansion 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 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.
-------