Jesus was a guest at the house of a prominent Pharisee. A man afflicted with dropsy was there; he may have come with the hope of receiving a blessing. Jesus forthwith healed the man; then He turned to the assembled company and asked: "Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?" The learned expositors of the law remained prudently silent.
The Pharisee's guests were eager to secure for themselves prominent places at table. Jesus instructed them in a matter of good manners, pointing out the advantage of decent self-restraint. The moral follows: "For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased"
Jesus said: "When thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind" This bit of wholesome advice was construed as a reproof; and some one attempted to relieve the embarrassing situation by exclaiming: "Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God" The remark was an allusion to the great festival, which according to Jewish traditionalism was to be a feature of signal importance in the Messianic dispensation.
Jesus promptly turned the circumstance to good account by basing thereon the profoundly significant Parable of the Great Supper. "A certain man made a great supper, and bade many: And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready. And they all with one consent began to make excuse. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor and the maimed, and the halt and the blind. And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room.
The story implies that invitations had been given sufficiently early to the chosen and prospective guests. Though called a supper, the meal was to be a sumptuous one. One man after another declined to attend, one saying: "I pray thee have me excused"; another: 'I cannot come'
The matters that engaged the time and attention of those who had been bidden, or as we would say, invited, to the feast were not of themselves discreditable, far less sinful. To arbitrarily allow personal affairs to annul an honorable engagement once accepted was to manifest discourtesy, disrespect and practical insult toward the provider of the feast. Plainly none of these people wanted to be present. The master of the house was justly angry.
His command to bring in the poor and the maimed, the halt and the blind from the city streets must have appealed to those who listened to our Lord's recital. The covenant people, Israel, were the specially invited guests. They had been bidden long enough aforetime, and by their own profession as the Lord's own had agreed to be partakers of the feast. When all was ready, on the appointed day, they were severally summoned by the Messenger who had been sent by the Father; He was even then in their midst. Explication of the parable was left to the learned men to whom the story was addressed. Surely some of them would fathom its meaning, in part at least.
But the cares of riches, the allurement of material things, and the pleasures of social and domestic life had engrossed them; and they prayed to be excused or irreverently declared they could not or would not come. Then the gladsome invitation was to be carried to the Gentiles, who were looked upon as spiritually poor, maimed, halt, and blind. And later, even the pagans beyond the walls, strangers in the gates of the holy city, would be bidden to the supper. These, surprized at the unexpected summons, would hesitate, until by gentle urging and effective assurance that they were really included among the bidden guests, they would feel themselves constrained or compelled
As had been in Galilee, so was it in Perea and Judea—great multitudes attended the Master whenever He appeared. When once a scribe has presented himself as a disciple, offering to follow wherever the Master led, Jesus had indicated the self-denial, privation and suffering incident to devoted service, with the result that the man's enthusiasm was soon spent. So now to the eager multitude Jesus applied a test of sincerity. He would have only genuine disciples, not enthusiasts of a day, ready to desert His cause when effort and sacrifice were most needed.
Literal hatred toward one's family was not specified as a condition of discipleship. A man who indulges hatred or any other evil passion is a subject for repentance and reformation. The preeminence of duty toward God over personal or family demands on the part of one who had assumed the obligations of a disciple was the precept. As Jesus pointed out, it is good common-sense to count well the cost before one enters upon a great undertaking, even in ordinary affairs.
So also a king, finding his realm menaced by hostile invaders, does not rush into battle recklessly. He first tries to ascertain the strength of the enemy's forces, and then, if the odds against him be too great, he sends an embassage to treat for peace. "So likewise," said Jesus to the people around Him, "whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple"
He had replied to these uncharitable aspersions by saying that a physician is most needed by them that are sick, and that He had come to call sinners to repentance. The lesson on this later occasion was directed to the self-seeking Pharisees and scribes who personified the theocracy, and whose bounden duty it should have been to care for the strayed and the lost.
If the "publicans and sinners" were nearly as bad as they were represented to be, if they were men who had broken through the close-hedged path of the law, they were the ones toward whom the helping hand of missionary service could be best extended. In no instance of Pharisaic slur upon, or open denunciation of, these "publican and sinners," do we find Jesus defending their alleged evil ways. His attitude toward these spiritually sick folk was that of a devoted physician. His concern over these strayed sheep was thatof a loving shepherd whose chief desire was to find them out and bring them back to the fold. This neither theocracy as a system nor its officials as individual ministers even attempted to do
A direct application of the parable appears in the Lord's concise address to the Pharisees and scribes. "I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance" Some readers say they catch this note of just sarcasm in the Master's concluding words. In the earlier part of the story, the Lord Himself appears as the solicitous Shepherd, and by plain implication His example is such as the theocratic leaders ought to emulate.
The parable of the lost coin is of value as portraying the status and duty of professing servants of the Master in all ages. The sheep had strayed by its own volition; the coin had been dropped, and so was lost as a result of inattention or culpable carelessness on the part of its owner. "There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth," says the Lord.
The woman who by lack of care lost the precious piece may be taken to represent the theocracy of the time, and the Church as an institution in any dispensational period. The lost piece symbolizes the souls that are neglected and, for a time at least, lost sight of, by the authorized ministers of the Gospel of Christ. Her search is rewarded by the recovery of the lost piece, and is incidentally beneficial in the cleansing of her house. Her joy is like that of the shepherd wending his way homeward with the sheep upon his shoulders—once lost but now regained.
These cogent illustrations were followed by one yet richer in imagery and more impressively elaborate in detail. It is the never to be forgotten Parable of the Prodigal Son . "And he said, A certain man had two sons; And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me"
I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
"Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound" "It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this - thy brother was dead, and is alive again" "Thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatter calf"
The demand of the younger son for a portion of the patrimony even during his father's lifetime, is an instance of deliberate and unfilial desertion. The duties of family cooperation had grown distasteful to him, and the wholesome discipline of the home had become irksome. He was determined to break away from all home ties, forgetful of what home had done for him and the debt of gratitude and duty by which he was morally bound. He went into a far country, and, as he thought, beyond the reach of the father's directing influence. He had his season of riotous living, of unrestrained indulgence and evil pleasure, through it all wasting his strength of body and mind, and squ
He was reduced to the lowest and most menial service, that of herding swine, which occupation, to a Jew, was the extreme of degradation. He realized not alone his abject foolishness in leaving his father's well-spread table to batten with hogs, but the unrighteousness of his selfish desertion. He had sinned against his father and against God; he would return, confess his sin, and ask, not to be reinstated as a son, but to be allowed to work as a hired servant. Having resolved he delayed not, but immediately set out to find his long way back to home and father.
Without a word of condemnation, the loving parent embraced and kissed the wayward but now penitent boy. It is noteworthy that in his contrite confession he did not ask to be accepted as a hired servant as he had resolved to do. The father's joy was too sacred to be thus marred, he would please his father best by placing himself unreservedly at that father's disposal. The rough garb of poverty was discarded for the best robe; a ring was placed on his finger as a mark of reinstatement.
The parable of the prodigal son is a close analogy to the two parables that preceded it in the same discourse. No one had complained at the recovery of the stray sheep nor at the finding of the lost coin; friends had rejoiced with the finder in each case. But the father's happiness at the return of theProdigal was interrupted by the grumbling protest of the elder son. On learning that his brother had returned and that the father had prepared a festival in honor of the event, this elder son grew angry, and churlishly refused to enter the house even after his father had come out and entreated him.
There is significance in the elder one's designation of the penitent as "this thy son," rather than "my brother" The elder son, deafened by selfish anger, refused to hear aright the affectionate assurance. "Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine," and with heart hardened by unbrotherly resentment he stood unmoved by the emotional and loving outburst.
We are not justified in extolling the virtue of repentance above the faithful, plodding service of his brother, who had remained at home, true to the duties required of him. The devoted son was the heir; the father did not disparage his worth, nor deny his deserts. His displeasure over the rejoicing incident to the return of his wayward brother was an exhibition of illiberality and narrowness. Of the two brothers the elder was the more faithful, whatever his minor defects may have been. The particular point emphasized in the Lord's lesson had to do with his uncharitable and selfish weaknesses. Pharisees and scribes, to whom this masterpiece of illustrative incident was delivered, must have taken
They were typified by the elder son, laboriously attentive to routine, methodically plodding by rule and rote in the multifarious labors of the field, without interest except that of self. From all such they were estranged; such a one might be to the indulgent and forgiving Father, "this thy son," but never to them, a brother. They cared not who or how many were lost, so long as they were undisturbed in heirship and possession by the return of penitent prodigals. But the parable was not for them alone; it is a living perennial yielding the fruit of wholesome doctrine and soul-sustaining nourishment for all time.
The three parables which appear in the scriptural record as parts of a continuous discourse, are as one in portraying the joy that abounds in heaven over the recovery of a soul once numbered among the lost. Unqualifiedly offensive as is sin, the sinner is yet precious in the Father's eyes, because of the possibility of his repentance and return to righteousness. There is no justification for the inference that a repentant sner is to be given precedence, over a righteous soul who has resisted sin.
Jesus spake the Parable of the Unrighteous Steward. The rich man was accused of wasting his goods. The steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed. I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the Steward's stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.
"The children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light" "The steward in the story was the duly authorized agent of his employer, holding what we would call the power-of-attorney to act in his master's name" "A report of his wastefulness and lack of care had reached the master's ears" "And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely"
Considerable time would be required for making up his accounts preparatory to turning the stewardship over to his successor. This interval, during which he remained in authority, he determined to use so far as possible to his own advantage, even though he wrought further injustice to his master's interests. With the desire to put others under some obligation to himself so that when he was deposed he could the more effectively appeal to them, he called his lord's debtors and authorized them to change their bonds, bills of sale, or notes of hand, so as to show a greatly decreased indebtedness.
Without doubt these acts were unrighteous; he defrauded his employer, and enriched the debtors through whom he hoped to be benefited. Most of us are surprized to know that the master, learning what his far-seeing though selfish and dishonest steward had done, condoned the offense and actually commended him for his foresight. Our Lord's purpose was to show the contrast between the care, thoughtfulness, and devotion of men engaged in the money-making affairs of earth, and the half hearted ways of many who are professedly striving after spiritual riches.
Worldly-minded men do not neglect provision for their future years, and often are sinfully eager to amass plenty. Those who believe spiritual wealth to be above all earthly possessions are less energetic, prudent, or wise. By "mammon of unrighteousness" we may understand material wealth or worldly things. While far inferior to the treasures of heaven, money or that which it represents may be the means of accomplishing good, and of furthering the purposes of God. Our Lord's admonition was to utilize " mammon" in good works, while it lasted, for some day it shall fail, and only the results achieved through its use shall endure.
It was not the steward's dishonesty that was extolled; his prudence and foresight were commended. The lesson may be summed up in this wise: Make such use of your wealth as shall insure you friends hereafter. Be diligent, for the day in which you can use your earthly riches will soon pass.
If you have not learned how to use properly the wealth of another, how can you expect to be successful in the handling of great wealth should such be given you as your own? Emulate the unjust steward and the lovers of mammon, not in their dishonesty, cupidity, and miserly hoarding of the wealth that is at best but transitory, but in their zeal, forethought, and provision for the future. Let not wealth become your master; keep it to its place as a servant, for, "No servant can serve two masters"
What did this Galilean, who owned nothing but the clothes He wore, know about money or the best way of administering wealth? Our Lord's reply to their words of derision was a further condemnation. They knew all the tricks of the business-world, and could outdo the unrighteous steward in crafty manipulation. Yet so successfully could they justify themselves before men as to be outwardly honest and straightforward. They posed as custodians of the law and expounders of the prophets. They had grown arrogantly proud of their humility, but God knew their hearts, and the traits and practises they most esteemed were an abomination in His sight.
The "law and the prophets" had been in force until the Baptist's time, since which the gospel of the kingdom had been preached. The law had not been invalidated; easier were it that heaven and earth pass away than that one tittle of the law fail of fulfilment. Yet those Pharisees and scribes had tried to nullify the law. In the matter of divorce, for example, they, by their unlawful additions and false interpretations, had condoned even the sin of adultery. The Master gave as a further lesson the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.
The beggar cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For
The afflicted beggar is honored with a name; the other is designated simply as "a certain rich man" The two are presented as the extremes of contrast between wealth and destitution. Lazarus had been brought to the gates of the rich man's palace, and there left, a helpless mendicant, his body covered with sores. The rich man was attended by servitors ready to gratify his slightest desire; the poor beggar at his gates had neither companions nor attendants except the dogs.
Lazarus died; no mention is made of his funeral; his festering body was probably thrown into a pauper's grave. But angels bore his immortal spirit into Paradise, the resting place of the blessed and commonly known in the figurative lore of the rabbis as Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died; his burial was doubtless an elaborate affair, but we read not of any angelic escort receiving his spirit. In hell he lifted up his eyes and saw, afar, Lazarus at peace in the abode of Abraham.
The reply throws light on certain conditions existing in the spirit world, though as in the use of parables generally, the presentation is largely figurative. Addressing the poor tormented spirit as "Son," Abraham reminded him of all the good things he had kept for himself on earth. Lazarus had lain a suffering, neglected beggar at his gates; now by the operation of divine law, Lazarus had received recompense, and he, retribution. Moreover, to grant his pitiful request was impossible, for between the abode of the righteous where Lazarus rested and that of the wicked where he suffered "there is a great gulf fixed," and passage between the two is interdicted.
The next request of the miserable sufferer was not wholly selfish; in his anguish he remembered those from whom he had been separated by death, fain would he save his brothers from the fate he had met. He prayed that Lazarus be sent back to earth to visit the ancestral home, and warn those selfish, pleasure-seeking, and yet mortal brothers, of the awful doom awaiting them except they would repent and reform. There may have been in this petition an insinuation that had he been sufficiently warned he would have done better, and would have escaped the torment. To the reminder that they had the words of Moses and the prophets, which they should obey, he replied that if one went to them from the dead they would surely repent
In any attempt to interpret the parable as a whole or definitely apply any of its parts, we should bear in mind that it was addressed to the Pharisees as an instructive rebuke. While as a practise it would be critically unfair to deduce doctrinal principles from parabolic incidents, we cannot admit that Christ would teach falsely even in parable. We accept as true the portrayal of conditions in the world of the disembodied. That righteous and unrighteous dwell apart during the interval between death and resurrection is clear.
Paradise, or as the Jews like to designate that blessed abode, "Abraham's bosom," is not the place of final glory, any more than the hell to which the rich man's spirit was consigned is the final habitation of the condemned. Failure to use his wealth aright, and selfish satisfaction with the sensuous enjoyment of earthly things to the exclusion of all concern for the needs or privations of his fellows, brought the one under condemnation. patience in suffering, faith in God and such righteous life as is implied though not expressed, insured happiness to the other.
The rich man who lacked nothing that wealth could furnish, and who kept aloof from the needy and suffering, was his besetting sin. The aloofness of the Pharisees, on which indeed they prided themselves, as their very name, signifying "separatists," expressed, was thus condemned. The parable teaches the continuation of individual existence after death, and the relation of cause to effect between the life one leads in mortality and the state awaiting him beyond.
They were shown that faith was less fitly reckoned in terms of quantity than by test of quality. The analogy of the mustard seed was again invoked. Their faith could best be gaged by obedience and untiring service. This was emphasized by the Parable of the Unprofitable Servants.
The apostles were not to hesitate nor demur, whatever the effort or sacrifice required. The best they could do would be no more than their duty required. Without regard to the Master's estimate of their worth, they were to account themselves as unprofitable servants. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unProfitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.
In the course of His journey toward Jerusalem Jesus "passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee." Ten men afflicted with leprosy approached, probably they came as near as the law permitted, yet they were afar off. They cried aloud "Jesus, Master, have mercy on us." The Lord answered: "Go shew yourselves unto the priests"
Pained over the lack of gratitude on the part of the nine, Jesus exclaimed: "Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine?" And to the cleansed Samaritan, still worshiping at His feet, the Lord said: "Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole" Doubtless the nine who came not back were obedient to the strict letter of the Lord's command; for He had told them to go to the priests.
The parable was given for the benefit of certain ones who trusted in their self-righteousness as an assurance of justification before God. It was not addressed to the Pharisees nor to the publicans specifically. "Every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself will be exalted"
The two characters are types of widely separated classes. There may have been much of the Pharisaic spirit of self-complacency among the disciples and some of it even among the Twelve. The Pharisee prayed "with himself"; his words can hardly be construed as a prayer to God. His boast, that he fasted twice a week and gave tithes of all that he possessed, was a specification of worthiness above what was required by the law as then administered.
The publican, standing afar off, was so oppressed by his consciousness of sin and his absolute need of divine help, that he cast down his eyes and smote upon his breast, craving mercy as a penitent sinner. The Pharisee departed, justified in his own conscience and before man, prouder than ever. The other went down to his house justified before God though still a despized publican. The parable is applicable to all men; its moral was summed up in a repetition of our Lord's words: "For every one that exalteth himself shall be abased"
The question they had agreed to submit related to marriage and divorce. "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" they asked. Jesus cited the original and eternal law of God in the matter. "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder"
God had provided for honorable marriage, and had made the relation between husband and wife paramount even to that of children to parents. The severing of such a union was an invention of man, not a command of God. Jesus made this fact plain, saying: "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so" The higher requirement of the gospel followed: "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery"
Strict compliance with the doctrine enunciated by Jesus Christ is the only means by which a perfect social order can be maintained. It is important to note, however, that in His reply to the casuistical Pharisees, Jesus announced no specific or binding rule as to legal divorces. The putting away of a wife, as contemplated under the Mosaic custom, involved no judicial investigation or action by an established court. In our Lord's day the prevailing laxity in the matter of marital obligation had produced a state of appalling corruption in Israel. Woman, who by the law of God had been made a companion and partner with man, had become his slave. The world's greatest champion of woman and womanhood is Jesus the
Such a broad generalization the Lord disapproved except so far as it might apply in special cases. The next event of record is one of surpassing sweetness, rich in precept and invaluable in example. Mothers brought their little children to Jesus, reverently desiring that the lives of those little ones be brightened by a sight of the Master and be blessed by a touch of His hand or a word from His lips.
The circumstance appears in appropriate sequence to that of the Lord's instructions concerning the sacredness of marriage and the sanctity of the home. Even the disciples seem to have been yet under the influence of the traditional conception that women and children were of inferior status. Jesus was displeased over the misdirected zeal of His followers, and rebuked them. Then He uttered that memorable sentence of infinite tenderness and divine affection: " Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not"
Jesus was accosted on the way by a young man, who came running to meet or overtake Him, and who knelt at His feet, inquiring: "Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" The question was asked in earnestness; the questioner was in very different spirit from that of the lawyer who made a similar inquiry with the purpose of tempting the Master. Jesus said: "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." This remark was no denial of sinlessness on the Savior's part; the young man had called Him "good" by way of polite compliment rather than in recognition of His Godship.
A young man asked Jesus: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" Jesus cited the prohibitions against murder, adultery, theft, and the bearing of false witness. In simplicity and without pride or sense of self-righteousness, the young man said: "All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?" His evident sincerity appealed to Jesus, who looked upon him lovingly. "One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven," Jesus said.
Luke tells us that the young man was a ruler; this may mean that he was a presiding official in the local synagog or possibly a Sanhedrist. In his way, he yearned for the kingdom of God, yet more devotedly he loved his great possessions. To give up wealth, social position, and official distinction, was too great a sacrifice. The necessary self-denial was a cross too heavy for him to bear, even though treasure in heaven and life eternal were offered him.
Jesus said: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" "Who then can be saved?" they wondered. Jesus understood their perplexity, and encouraged them with the assurance that with God all things are possible. While wealth is a means of temptation to which many succumb, it is no insuperable obstacle, no insurmountable barrier, in the way of entrance to the kingdom. We are not warranted in saying that the same treatment would be best in all cases of spiritual defection; but where the symptoms indicate the need, it may be employed with confidence as to the cure.
Peter asked, "Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?" Whether he spoke for himself alone, or by his use of the plural "we" meant to include all the Twelve, is uncertain and unimportant. Willingness to place the kingdom of God above all material possessions was the one thing he lacked.
He was thinking of the home and family he had left, and a longing for them was pardonable. He was thinking also of boats and nets, hooks and lines, and the lucrative business for which such things stood. All these he had forsaken; what was to be his reward? Jesus answered: "Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" It is doubtful that Peter or any other of the Twelve had ever conceived of so great a distinction.
The Parable of the Laborers was preached at St Paul's Cathedral in London. It was the text of the sermon known to us as the Parable Of The Laborers. Hear it: "For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard"
And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and said: "Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you" And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received everyMan a penny when they were hired.
"So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen" The procedure of a householder going into the marketplace to hire laborers was common to the time and place, and is still an ordinary occurrence in many lands. The first to be hired in the course of the story made a definite bargain as to wages.
Those who were employed at nine, twelve, and three o'clock respectively went willingly without agreement as to what they were to receive. So glad were they to find a chance to work that they lost no time in specifying terms. The last band of laborers went to work, trusting to the master's word that whatever was right they should receive. That they had not found work earlier in the day was no fault of theirs; they had been ready and willing, and had waited at the place where employment was most likely to be secured. At the close of the day, the laborers came for their wages; this was in accordance with law and custom, for it had been established by statute in Israel that the employer should pay
Under instructions, the steward who acted as paymaster began with those who had been engaged at the eleventh hour. To each of them he gave a denarius, or Roman penny, worth about fifteen cents in our money, and the usual wage for a day's work. This was the amount for which those who began earliest had severally bargained. As these saw their fellow-workers, who had served but an hour, receive each a penny, they probably exulted in the expectation of receiving a wage proportionately larger, notwithstanding their stipulation. Each of them received a penny and no more. Then they complained; not because they had been underpaid, but because the others had received a full day's pay for
The parable was plainly intended for the edification of the Twelve. It was called out by Peter's question, "What shall we have therefore?" It stands as truly in force today as when it was delivered by the Master. God needs workers, and such as will labor faithfully and effectively are welcomed into the vineyard.
A man may work for wages and yet not be a hireling. Between the worthy hired servant and the hireling there is the difference that distinguishes the shepherd from the sheep herder. The Master shall judge as to the deserts of each servant. The wage at best is a free gift; for on the basis of strict accounting who of us is not in debt to God? The last called is as likely as the first to prove unworthy.
No general reversal is implied whereby all the late comers shall be advanced and all the early workers demoted. "Many that are first shall be last" was the Lord's statement, and by implication we may understand that not all the last, though some of them, may be counted among the first. Even the call and ordination to the Holy Apostleship is no guarantee of eventual exaltation in the celestial kingdom. We learn here, incidentally, how evenly balanced are the various conditions of life in a community, and how little of substantial advantage wealth can confer on its possessor.
As your property increases, your personal control over it diminishes. The more you possess the more you must entrust to others. The Lord's counsel to the disciples was to so use worldly wealth as to accomplish good thereby. In studying a parable based on contrasts, such as this one is, care must be exercized not to carry too far any one point of analogy.
Of all our Lord's recorded parables this is the only one in which a personal name is applied to any of the characters. The whole parable is full of wisdom for him who is in search of such. To the hypercritical mind it may appear inconsistent, as so it did appear to the Pharisees who derided Jesus for the story He had told.
The name "Lazarus" used in the parable was also the true name of a man whom Jesus loved. The name, a Greek variant of Eleazar, signifies "God is my help" In many theological writings, the rich man of this parable is called Dives, but the name is not of scriptural usage.
Hillel and Shammai were two schools of Jewish authorities. Hillel held that a man had a right to divorce his wife for any cause he might assign. Shammi held that divorce could be issued only for the crime of adultery, and offences against chastity. If it were possible to get Jesus to pronounce in favor of either school, the hostility of the other would be roused, and hence, it seemed a favorable chance for compromising Him.
5:32, is further illustrative: 'If a man sees a woman handsomer than his own wife he may put her away' The school of Hillel said 'If the wife cook her husband's food ill, by over-salting or over-roasting it, she is to be put away' On the other hand Rabbi Jochanan (a Shammaite) said 'The putting away of a wife is odious' Both schools agreed that a divorced wife could not be taken back.
"'I say, therefore, that whoever puts away his wife, except for fornication, which destroys the very essence of marriage by dissolving the oneness it had formed, and shall marry another, commits adultery' This statement was of far deeper moment than the mere silencing of malignant spies. It was designed to set forth for all ages the law of His New Kingdom in the supreme matter of family life. It swept away for ever from His Society the conception of woman as a mere toy or slave of man, and based true relations of the sexes on the eternal foundation of truth, right, honor, and love'
By making marriage indissoluble, He proclaimed the equal rights of woman and man within the limits of the family. For her nobler position in the Christian era, compared with that granted her in antiquity, woman is indebted to Jesus Christ. Through modern revelation the Lord has directed that all children born in the Church be brought for blessing to those who are authorized to administer this ordinance of the Holy Priesthood.
The commandment is as follows: "Every member of the church of Christ having children, is to bring them unto the elders before the church" It is now the custom in the Church to bring the little ones to the Fast-day service in the several wards, at which they are received one by one into the arms of the elders, and blessed, names being given them at the same time. The father of the child, if he be an elder, is expected to participate in the ordinance. The blessing of children is in no sense analogous to, far less is it a substitution for, the ordinance of baptism, which is to be administered only to those who have come to years of understanding, and who are capable of repentance.
The author, Articles of Faith, vi:14. See paragraphs 11-17 in same lecture. 7. The Camel and the Needle's Eye. In comparing the difficulty of a rich man entering the kingdom with that of a camel passing through the eye of a needle, Jesus used a rhetorical figure, which, strong and prohibitory as it appears in our translation, was of a type familiar to those who heard the remark. There was a "common Jewish proverb, that a man did not even in his dreams see an elephant pass through theEye of a Needle" (Edersheim).
Some interpreters insist that a rope, not a camel, was mentioned by Jesus. Farrar (p. 476) rejects this possible interpretation on the ground that proverbs involving comparisons of a kind with that of a camel passing through the eye of a needle are common in the Talmud. It has been asserted that the term "needle's eye" was applied to a small door or wicket set in or alongside the great gates in the walls of cities.
It would be possible though very difficult for a camel to squeeze its way through the little gate, and it could in no wise do so except when relieved of its load and stripped of all its harness. If this conception be correct, we may find additional similitude between the fact that the camel must first be unloaded and stripped, however costly its burden or rich its accoutrement. The Lord's exposition of His saying is all-sufficient for the purposes of the lesson: "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Matt. 19:26)
In tender mercy the Lord refrained from directly rebuking His impulsive servant for undue concern as to the wage to be expected. But He turned the incident to excellent purpose by making it the text of a valuable lesson. The principle which Christ lays down is, that, while nothing done for Him shall lose its reward, yet, from one reason or another, no forecast can be made, no inferences of self-righteousness may be drawn.
On the contrary,'many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.' Not all , nor yet always and necessarily, but'many.' And in such cases no wrong has been done; there exists no claim, even in view of the promises of due acknowledgment of work. Spiritual pride and self assertion can only be the outcome either of misunderstanding God's relation to us, or else of a wrong state of mind towards others.
The question is identical with that asked of Jesus in the synagog at Capernaum preliminary to the healing of the man with the withered hand (Matt. 12:10). Exo. 23:5; Deut. 22:4; Luke 13:15. The expression "eat bread" is a Hebraism, signifying eating in full as at a feast rather than partaking of bread only.
That the lost piece of silver was a coin, and not a piece of unstamped bullion nor an ornament, is apparent from the original, "drachma," a silver coin. Luke 15:11-32. Compare Doc. and Cov. 1:31; B. of M., Alma 45:16. Compare Matt. 18:14; P. of G.P., Moses 1:39.
Many writers treat this occurrence as having immediately followed the repulse of Jesus and the apostles in a certain Samaritan village (Luke 9:52-56). We give it place in the order followed by Luke, the sole recorder of the two incidents. Luke's narrative, the order of which we have followed in the events succeeding Christ's departure from Jerusalem after the Feast of Tabernacles, includes our Lord's reply to the Pharisee's question as to "when the kingdom of God should come" The Parable of the Importunate Widow (Luke 18:1-7) has already received attention, and will be considered in connection with that later event.
Note to what blasphemous extreme the doctrine of supererogation, or excess of merit, was carried by the papacy in the 13th century; see "The Great Apostasy," 913-15. We therefore turn from Luke's record to the accounts given by the other synoptic writers. This is Mark's record, (10:21) which is the most detailed of the three accounts.
Consider the lessons of the parables of the Hidden Treasure, and the Pearl of Great Price. Matt. 19:27-30 should be read as part of the narrative continued in chap. 20. The concluding clause, "for many be called but few chosen," is omitted from the revised version.