Tag: Parables of Jesus

332

§ 58.

Conclusion.

Matth. 13, 51. 52.

Have you understood all this? Jesus asks at the end, and when the disciples had answered in the affirmative, he says to them: “Therefore every scribe who is instructed for the kingdom of heaven is like unto the householder, who out of his treasure bringeth forth things old and new.”

Why? Because the disciples had understood the parables, which is to be doubted even if they did not know how to interpret the parable of the tares? The transition is outrageous, but by no means as strange as the theologians make it by their explanation. “Therefore – this is how de Wette understands the meaning **) – therefore, because I have shown how one must speak in parables.” But the parable of the master of the house must have a very definite relation to the disciples, since it is said that “every” scribe who understands the kingdom of heaven acts like that master of the house. Jesus does not want to compare himself alone, but all those who proclaim the kingdom of heaven, i.e. also the disciples, with the father of the house. It is more correct, therefore, when Neander describes the transition with the words: “by my example you can learn that every scribe is the same, etc.” ***). But even this paraphrase is not entirely correct, since it does not take into account the very point from which the transition proceeds, the circumstance that the disciples declared that they had understood the parables. The fact remains that because they had grasped the meaning of the parables, the scribe is to be like the father of the house; i.e., the incomprehensibility of this transition remains. Only then would it appear to make sense if Jesus were to say that because they now knew how to speak in parables or were able to fulfil their task of instructing the people in parables, it would be clear to them and he could make it clear to them that the scribe of the kingdom of heaven was like the father of the house. But even so conceived – for why should the scribe of the kingdom of heaven be like that father of the house, “because” they now knew how to form parables – even so the transition would be clumsy, all the more clumsy, since Jesus’ previous question and the disciples’ answer had only been about this, and in the disciples’ answer had only been about whether they had understood the parables presented at all, and also nothing had previously led to the conclusion that the parable presentation was intended to train the disciples to become parable poets and to give them guidance for their later teaching activity. Nevertheless, it remains the case that in the parable of the master of the house, when he speaks of the scribes, the evangelist has in mind the disciples as parable writers and lets the passage proceed from a presupposition that he has neither expressed in Jesus’ question and the disciples’ answer, nor in the course of the whole passage, namely, from the presupposition that the disciples were to be instructed in parable writing and that they themselves had finally confessed that they now also knew how to speak in parables. This is where the contradiction comes from, because Matthew suddenly allows this more far-reaching premise to emerge at the end of a passage that originally had a completely different tendency, and as a lever to set it in motion, borrows a question of Jesus, which only refers to the understanding of parables, from the writing of Mark (C. 4, 13.), only changes it superficially and does not dare to rework it from the bottom up *).

**) I, 1, 129.

***) p 138.

*) Mark 4, 13: ουκ οίδατε την παραβολήν ταύτην, και πώς τάς παραβολάς γνώσεσθε; Matth. 13, 51: συνήκατε ταύτα πάντα 

334

We do not know what the old and new in the treasure of the householder mean. Neander and de Wette say that the “variety and diversity of the presentation” should be recommended, but the point of the parable seems to refer more to the content than to the form of the lecture, and furthermore, we do not know why the diversity of the presentation should only be conditioned by the linking of unknown and already familiar, old and new truths. Neander explains himself more clearly to the effect that, just as Jesus “made known to his hearers higher and new truths by means of what was known to them from the environment of life, from nature,” so also the disciples were to arrange their doctrinal lecture – this, too, is not true, for the master of the house soon gives something new, soon something old, but not one thing by means of another, not the one thing in the other. Nor is it possible to think of the “great contrast of Law and Gospel, in the expedient distribution of which the whole business of scholars for the Kingdom of Heaven consists **),” since in none of the preceding parables is there any mention of this contrast, nor is there any example given of how its two sides are to be “expediently distributed.

**) Olshausen, I, 466.

In short, we do not know what the evangelist had in mind when he formed this parable, probably for the simple reason that he did not have anything definite in mind, or at least did not put together and work out the sounds that were buzzing in his head into a clear whole. It may be that he thought of the diversity of the content and of the linking of new truths with the experiences of ordinary life – although in that case it remains the case that he did not skilfully elaborate the parable – but it may also be, and this is the most probable, that with a strange anachronism, which is no longer strange to him, he has the gentleman recommend what only he did and he alone could do. Like that householder, he has shared old things — the parables he found — he has also given new things, formed new parables, and what he has done, he thinks, every scribe of the kingdom of heaven should do.

335

In any case, his last masterpiece has given us the right to briefly recall what has already been proven to us through the criticism of this section: he himself has the parables by which his writing is richer than the writings of his predecessors and formed first, just as the parable of leaven, as a counterpart to that of the mustard seed, owes its origin to Luke. And Mark? He created his own from free observation! There can be no more talk of a tradition or of the report of a contemporary of Jesus, when we have seen how a parable like that of the tares arose and could arise from the written letter. If the letter could not stand, should it have been possible for tradition or memory? Should the oral discourse of Jesus have been preserved word for word in memory, when the written word took on a new form, a new meaning, in the mind of the one who read it a hundred times? About superstition !

Later, when we examine whether Jesus regarded himself as “the Messiah”, and in this connection deal with the question whether for him the idea of the Kingdom of Heaven existed as a fixed concept of refleration, this superstition will be completely overthrown. Perhaps, however, the theologian will first prove to us that a parable like that of the sower, or of the fruit-bearing field, or the smallest, whichever it may be, could be preserved in memory and tradition.

But before he performs this strange feat, he must – we ask this very much – fetch two witnesses and recite before them the parable of the sower and its interpretation from his head. If he then makes a fool of himself – he who has so often occupied himself with these parables, has perhaps explained them from the lectern twenty times – will he then, in his embarrassment, let the modern weakness of memory take the blame, then let him prove that the ancients possessed a better memory. But he should not rely on the testimony of writers of antiquity who were themselves theologically minded and sentimental admirers of the past and of barbaric conditions!

———————-

330

§ 57.

The parabolic teaching and the people.

Matth. 13, 34. 35.

“All this, saith Matthew, before he dismissed the Lord home, all this Jesus spake in parables unto the multitudes, and without a parable he spake not unto them.” If we had not heard before that the parabolic contract was intended for the people (vv. 10-13), we should nevertheless conclude from this remark alone that Jesus preferred to speak to the people in parables, and therefore find it striking that he immediately afterwards recited a series of parables to the disciples.

From another point of view, too, this remark must entangle itself in an irresolvable contradiction. Jesus is said to have spoken to the people only in parables! Only? But was the Sermon on the Mount not a speech intended for the people? Of course the theologian does not fail to remark that the negation is to be understood only as a “relative” one *); of course! for for the theologian who either gives up reason or, after a sudden incursion, wants to see it where it is not to be seen, there is no language, no law, no connection, no contradiction; for him there is nothing, only the nothing of his self-consciousness, in which all definiteness disappears. The remark remains a contradiction if it is written in a scripture that hands down to us a speech like the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew copied it, without noticing how it belied the presuppositions of his work, from the writing of Mark, in which it stands alone in its place and in connection with all other presuppositions **). But he did not copy the remark in its entirety, because he was aware, if not of the entire danger, at least of that which threatened the next part of his report. Mark remarks that Jesus, when he was alone with the disciples, gave them the interpretation of the parables (C. 4, 34.); Matthew, however, wants to have Jesus recite some more parables at home before the disciples, so he omits this note and, in order to fill the gap, uses a quotation from the O.T., to which again only a few key words led him ***). 

*) Olshausen, l, 466. Fritzsche on Matth, p. 470.

**) How consistently Mark observes these premises we shall have occasion to notice later C. 7, 14-17.

***) Ps. 78, 2 εν παραβολαίς (LXX). The προβλήματα απ’ αρχής of the Greek translation he changed into the κεκρυμμενα of the evangelical language, in order to let the relation to the μυστηρια (C. 13, 11.) stand out.

Luke had to omit the whole remark after his alteration of the original report: perhaps he did so and omitted the whole parable lecture as such, because he knew that otherwise he would not have been able to elaborate the Sermon on the Mount “as the first treaty given to the chosen disciples (Luke 6, 20.)” *) and as a speech that was also meant for the people (C. 7, 1.).

*) Wilke, p. 584.

————————

326

§ 56.

The connection of the parables.

Mark has the Lord recite three parables; all three have as their subject the laws according to which the kingdom of heaven is formed, develops and expands, their pictorial form is the same – namely, in all of them the development and the growth of the seed is described – and finally they are also held together by the progress of interest: the fragmentation and distribution of interest in the first parable gives way to the simplified view in the second, until in the third attention is brought back to one point. In the first, the fate that the seed of the divine Word finds according to the determinacy of the soil is described; in the second, the freedom and security with which the divine seed develops in history is described – with the kingdom of heaven, it is like a man who throws seeds into the earth; and he sleeps and rises at night and during the day and the seed sprouts and grows, he himself does not know how; for the earth itself makes it grow, first the green seed, then the ears, then the fruit in the ears; but when it is ripe, then it sends forth to harvest – in the third parable, finally, the kingdom of heaven appears like the mustard seed, which the smallest of all seeds develops into a mighty plant.

327

There is coherence!

Luke had used the parable of the sower as the image of the “true friends of the good cause” and placed it between the description of the good women and the word of Jesus about his spiritual relatives. Only later (C. 13, 18-21.), when Jesus justifies himself because of a Sabbath healing, thus on an occasion that could not have been chosen more unhappily, he gives the parable of the mustard seed and – of the leaven as a continuation of Jesus’ speech of denial. But where did he get the latter? Why does he not give the parable of the quiet development of the seed? He did not understand this one, at least it did not seem significant enough to him and without a sharp point, but in order to give two parables – he was still so dependent on Mark that he wanted to give two – he formed the counterpart to the parable of the mustard seed: the parable of the leaven.

When Matthew gives the parable of the tares after the interpretation of the parable of the sower and the parable of the mustard seed after the parable of the tares, he does not fail to open Luke’s scripture and copy the parable of the leaven. So he does not have the parable of the field that bears fruit of its own accord while the Lord sleeps? “How came he to omit it, if it is really because he used the writing of Mark? *) Well, it will be found, if we only search properly, since Matthew otherwise does not like to waste the treasures of his predecessors, and prefers to show them to us twice, or even more often, before he suppresses them. But does not the parable of the sower and the grain of mustard really stand between the parable of the sower and the grain of mustard, that is, in the same place where it stands in the script of Matthew, the parable of the field, of the Lord who sleeps there, while the fate of his field and of the sown seed is decided, by the same Lord who has the yield gathered in at the time of the harvest? Indeed! Only Matthew has woven the idea of the separation of the pure grain and the burning of the unfit, the idea which he himself first borrowed from Luke (C. 3, 17.), in a new form into that parable: while the Lord of the field sleeps, the evil enemy sows weeds among the grain, and at the time of harvest both are separated and the weeds are burned.

*) Saunier, op. cit. p. 73.

328

 

In the same place where Mark sees the concluding remark that Jesus spoke in this way to the people in parables, i.e. after the parable of the mustard seed (and leaven) Matthew gives the same remark and sends the Lord home. Here begins a new scene – we can immediately say: the repetition of the previous scene: the disciples ask about the meaning of the parable of the tares, Jesus explains it, then gives the two parables of the treasure and the pearl – parables which illustrate the high value of the kingdom of heaven, for which one must put everything into it – and finally the parable of the net and of the separation of the good and unfit fish – a variation on the theme of the parable of the tares.

All this is too much in itself – aesthetically speaking: this multitude of parables does not fit together into a rounded and easily overlooked whole; considered with regard to the practical purpose: the audience must lose sight and hearing if they are to hear so many parables at once and cannot have a single one thrown at them with its full force. One picture chases away the other and none can be viewed calmly and as its value demands. It is no small defect of the composition that the most diverse substrates are used for the parables: first the fate and growth of the seed, then the leaven, then the treasure that a man finds in a field, then the pearl that a merchant who is looking for it finds, finally the catch of fish: this alternation is far too colourful and incoherent. There is also no coherence in the content: why, after the parable of the sower, is there a parable which deals with the contrast in which the kingdom of heaven develops, and then the parable of the growth of the kingdom of heaven in general? Nor is there any reason why, after the interpretation of the parable of the tares, we should go on to parables in which the high value of the kingdom of heaven is praised, and then again to the parable of the catching of fish, that is, to a parable which has as its object the separation of the opposition at the end of the development of the kingdom of heaven. Finally, the lack of coherence of the content is also demonstrated by the fact that parables in which the kingdom of heaven in general forms the object and then others (the parable of the tares and of the catching of fish) in which the Son of Man is portrayed as acting and bringing about the crisis of perfection *).

*) C. 13, 37. 4!. The presentation of the crisis in the parable of the catch of fish (v. 49) is careless and presupposes the more exact detail in the parable of the tares.

329

 

The confusion has already been explained. The parable of the tares therefore introduces the Son of Man, because it arose as this particular parable from a saying of the Baptist about the Messiah. The Son of Man also appears again in the parable of the catching of fish, at least as the Lord who sends the angels to judge, because this image is a new edition of the parable of the tares. The parable of the leaven is borrowed from Luke; the parables of the treasure and the pearl are an addition from Matthew.

330

We are already accustomed to Matthew’s abstract way of presenting us with a mass of similar – but essentially very dissimilar – material: this time, however, the following circumstance would add to this addition. When, after the return home, he has the disciples ask the meaning of the parable of the tares, he is actually, in view of the structure of the passage, only at the point in Mark’ account where the disciples ask the meaning of the parable of the sower; here, however, he sees several more parables following and, in flight, he now also sees to it that, after the interpretation of the parable of the tares, several more parables are recited, which the disciples alone now get to hear, while after Mark only the people are spoken to in parables. But didn’t he himself have the Lord say: I speak to the people in parables? Indeed! The contradiction is so great that it could not even be removed by the following alteration which Matthew made to the original type of the Gospel story.

—————————-

313

§ 55.

The comprehension power of the disciples.

1. The report of Matthew.

Matth. 13, 10 – 18.

When the disciples heard the Lord recite the parable of the sower, this way of speaking was very striking to them, and immediately after the Lord had finished the parable, they asked Him why He spoke to the people in parables *). The answer, which Matthew puts into the mouth of the Lord, we have to simplify first.

*) Matth. 13, 10: εν παραβολαις the later abstraction. Jesus had first recited one parable and the disciples could not know if he would recite several more.

First of all it says: to them, the disciples, it is given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them, the multitude, it is not given. For to him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. Therefore I speak to them in parables, because with seeing eyes they do not see, with hearing ears they do not hear and do not understand (vv. 11-13.). When now V. 14. 15 the same remark about the blindness and deafness of the people is repeated, namely in the form of a quotation from the scripture of Isaiah, then we already know what we have to think of such overabundance or tautology: to a saying, which he copies from a foreign writing and which is itself copied from the O.T. *), Matthew adds to the highest superfluity also the Old Testament original. As we remove this disturbing superfluity in thought, so we must also remove the following saying, the blessing of the disciples, since it is no less superfluous and at the same time belongs to a different context. “Blessed,” says v. 16, 17, “blessed are your eyes to see, and your ears to hear. Verily I say unto you, Many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.” First of all, the disciples had already been praised for their ability to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, so why should their position be praised anew? And why, in addition, praise them for a happiness that is essentially different from their previously praised position? First it was praised that they “recognize” the mysteries, now they are praised blessed because they see something at all, i.e. because only one object is given to their eyes. First they stood opposite the blinded people as the intelligent ones, now as the happy ones, to whom without their help an object of vision is offered, the former righteous and prophets, who have not yet seen what they will see **); finally, before it was said of them that they understand the mysteries of “the kingdom of heaven”, and now they are praised blessed, because they – well, it is clear, because they see the revelation of the divine council in the Redeemer, in the Son of man? The latter saying has its original place in the scripture of Luke. Jesus had said (C. 10, 22.) that no one knows the Son except the Father and no one knows the Father except the Son and to whom the Son wants to reveal it, now Jesus says (v. 23. 24.), making a new beginning of the speech *): blessed are the eyes that see what you (my disciples) see, because I tell you, many prophets and kings wanted to see what you see and did not see it, wanted to hear what you hear and did not hear it. The allusion that also here the seeing and hearing of the revelation is spoken of, moved Matthew to place this saying where we find it now.

*) So that the tautology would not become too great, he did not copy the saying (Mark 4, 12.) completely and he gives the words: μηποτε επιστρεψωσιν και αφεθη αυτοις τα αμαρτηματα only in the form of the citation.

**) Calvin says to v. 16 : hoc autem molto splendidius est, quam incredulae turbae praeferri, i.e. In human terms, both stand so far apart that they can never be brought together.

*) That is, the writer wants to turn away from the previous reflection on the dialectic of revelation and direct the view purely and solely to the revelation existing in the Son. Otherwise, however, this new turn is introduced very clumsily when Luke says (v. 23.): “and addressing the disciples in particular, he spoke,” as if, in addition to the seventy who had just returned from their missionary journey, a crowd of people were present and had been addressed beforehand. Luke took the first, indefinite material and the keyword “kings” from the Scripture of Isaiah C. 52, 15; this had escaped Matthew, otherwise he would not have put the “prophets and righteous” in place of Luke’s “kings and prophets”. Matthew also changed the beginning of the saying a bit to adapt it to the new environment, which demanded that the prize of the disciples be more prominent.

315

The contrast between the disciples and the people thus remains the only content of the speech that belongs to the matter; it is given to the disciples to recognize the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to the people the truth is offered in the cover of the parable “because” they are blind, deaf and without understanding. If we now ask how the parabolic contract and the blindness of the people are connected, Fritzsche **) is surprised that earlier commentators could understand the matter as if Jesus had wanted to hide the truth in the parables more than to clarify it; the disciples would rather have asked *) why Jesus used the clearer form of the parable when he preached to the people. On the other hand, Wilke has already noted **) that the kind of astonishment with which the disciples ask why Jesus speaks to the people in parables can only be explained if they consider the parabolic form to be the one that is more difficult to understand. Furthermore, Jesus could not have regretted that he was not allowed to present the pure light of truth to the people because of their dullness, nor could he have blessed the disciples that they could be given more than the mere parable if he considered the parabolic form to be the clearer one. Finally, under this condition, he would not have feared that the disciples might have missed the meaning of the parable, and there would have been no reason for him to explain it to them. Why else could he have proceeded to the interpretation of the parable immediately after the beatification of the disciples with the words: Hear ye therefore now ***) the meaning of the parable of the sower, if the parable as such was the clearer one? That it is rather the obscurer, the disciples themselves have to confess, when they later ask their master for the interpretation of the parable of the tares (v. 36.), and in the end Jesus has to admit again, when he considers it necessary to “ask” the disciples, whether they (v. 51.) have understood all this.

**) to Matth, p. 452.

*) Ibid. p. 455.

**) p. 201. 205.

***) V. 18: υμεις ουν ακουσατε i.e. you, while I cannot give the people the pure truth.

316

But the fact that we know how the evangelist looked at the matter does not explain it; the difficulties inherent in it are all the more evident now. If it is given to the disciples to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, why does Jesus explain the parable to them? Precisely because this knowledge is given to them, answers Neander *). But either they must have understood the parable beforehand, or if this was not the case and they still needed a special interpretation, then they did not differ from the people and we do not understand why it was given to them to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven. It is indeed so incomprehensible that Calvin must say that there is no reason to be found in them why this “privilege” was granted to them **). 

*) p. 140.

**) Calvin on v. 11: si quis roget, unde hoc dignitatis privilegium apostolis: certe non reperietur in ipsis causa. Calvin, of course, then invokes predestination and arcanum dei consilium; the critic, who views the matter from a more human perspective, appeals to the arbitrariness of the writer.

317

Matthew does not make anything comprehensible to us. For do we know why Jesus goes on to explain the parable once (vv. 18, 19), since he had just praised the enlightened disciples, had previously extolled their power of knowledge, and since the disciples had only asked him why he spoke to the people in parables? Where so much, where everything is inexplicable, it would be useless to ask why Jesus still recites three parables before the people (v. 24-34), if no one could understand the meaning of them.

Perhaps the original report, which Matthew has deprived of its meaning by combining it with strange elements, will solve the difficulties.

 

2. The original report.

Mark 4, 10-25.

That the original account is not to be found in Luke’s writing has already been noted and is also evident from the following circumstances. Luke has retained the form of the original account to such an extent that he lets the disciples ask what “this parable,” which Jesus has just recited, “means *),” but later, when Jesus remarks that it is given to them to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the others – the verb is missing – in parables **), so that they do not see with their seeing eyes, and when he now introduces the interpretation of the parable without further ado with the words: But the parable is this – we must be surprised that he does not call it conspicuous that he has to give the disciples an explanation which really need not have been necessary for them. Mark, as the first, knew that this transition was unavoidably necessary for the interpretation of the parable, and therefore lets the Lord ask beforehand with astonishment: you do not understand this parable? And how do you want to understand all parables?

*) Luke 8, 9: επηρώτων . . . τίς είη η παραβολή αύτη. Mark 4, 10: ήρώτησαν  . . . . . την παραβολήν.

**) Luke added the phrase “to understand” to the “in parables” statement that was mentioned by the disciples. But understanding should rather be denied to the crowd, even made impossible: iva βλέποντες μη βλέπωσι. Mark writes 4, 11: εν παραβολαίς τα πάντα γίνεται , ίνα….

318

Luke was not allowed to copy this passage, because he had given the parable of the sower a new relationship and was not allowed to focus too long on the disciples; Matthew, however, was even less allowed to copy it, since he had just written the beatitude of the enlightened disciples and thereby increased the fame of their deep insight; it was also consistent of him that he did not let the disciples ask about the meaning of the parable, but about the reason why Jesus spoke in parables. Both Luke and Matthew, however, only changed half of the original account, namely, they excluded other, essential parts of the original account from their presentation and thus brought about the confusion that we have come to know.

If we now ask about the meaning of the original account, we can grant Wilke that he has understood it most faithfully when he says *) that the parable discourse “originally (i.e. with Mark) had the purpose of being the first rehearsal of a doctrinal discourse written with the disciples in mind for their training, which is why this section is also placed after the election of the disciples. In part, however, this view is not incorrect – for it is supported by the fact that Jesus interprets the parable of the sower so precisely and, according to the interpretation (Mark 4, 21-25), urgently exhorts the disciples to “make use of their abilities in hearing such lectures” **) – however, there are still many aspects of the original account that contradict this interpretation. When Jesus answers the disciples’ question about the meaning of the parable: “it is given to you to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven,” according to this view of the whole passage, this should mean: “you are given a clearer view of the kingdom of God through the explanation of the parable” ***), and Jesus must have been pleased with the disciples’ question, because they thereby “showed their receptivity and betrayed their thirst for knowledge †)”. But the contrast, that the disciples are given to know the secrets, and the people are presented with all this in parables, so that they do not see with their seeing eyes, this contrast can only be based solely on the presupposition that the people do not understand the parables, but that their meaning is evident to the disciples from the beginning. Without this presupposition the contradiction would be groundless and in fact Jesus himself expresses it when he is surprised (Mark 4, 13.) that the disciples did not understand the parable. Then even Mark presents the matter in such a way that the parable lecture is calculated only for the people: the people are only to hear the truth in this form, “so that” they do not come to knowledge, and only through the coincidental circumstance, unexpected by the Lord himself, that the disciples had not understood the parable, are they also drawn into the matter *). Otherwise, however, the parables are intended for the crowd from the beginning: Jesus wants to teach them (v.2.) and he also teaches them after the dialogue with the disciples by reciting two more parables to them (v. 26-33.). Finally, there would also be a discrepancy in that the parable of the sower has not the slightest relation to the formal intention of Jesus to train the disciples in the understanding of parables or to bring them to the understanding of “the Word”: far from this formal consideration, it is rather meant to describe how the seed of the divine Word, depending on the ground it finds, is appropriated practically and for life and bears fruit. Just as little do the other two parables have to do with that formal tendency that Wilke finds in the report and which he must justify by individual turns of phrase in it.”

*) p. 583.

**) V. 24: βλεπετε τι ακουετε

***) de Wette I, 2, 141.

†) de Wette, ibid. and I, 1, 124.

*) The idea that everything is given to the people in parables, so that they may not come to knowledge (Mark 4, 12. Luke 8, 10.), has also passed into the writing of Matthew. The ἵνα is transferred into the question of the disciples Matth. 13, 10; afterwards, v. 13, in the answer of Jesus, a οτι follows instead of the ἵνα, but the ἵνα occurs again, when Jesus cites the saying of the prophet, and accordingly says W. 15 : μήποτε ίδωσι τοίς οφθαλμοίς.

320

The original report, too, dissolves through its contradiction – a fate that will be completed when we take a closer look at the individual sides of the contradiction.

The parables should only be presented for the sake of a formal tendency. Jesus therefore exhorts the disciples to make use of their faculties in hearing such a discourse (Mark 4, 21-25.): they should let their light shine, for nothing is hidden that will not be revealed; further: with what measure they measure, it will also be measured to them, i.e. “when they hear, it will still be granted to them,” for whoever has, to him will be given, and whoever does not have, from him will also be taken what he has. Both exhortations are therefore still especially justified *), but both times inappropriately enough, as they themselves do not follow the occasion. If the disciples are first to be exhorted to make use of their gifts of understanding, the justifying proposition that nothing is hidden that will not be revealed does not fit this, since – although the light or the abilities of the disciples are to be the hidden things that will necessarily be revealed – it jumps away from the reflection on the subjective ability and points to the necessity. On the other hand, it is not fitting that this admonition should be presented in the saying that one should not put one’s light under a bushel but on a candlestick, since in this saying the light that one puts on the candlestick oneself is rather considered in relation to others to whom one shines it. A similar discrepancy occurs in the second saying. Its two terms are supposed to be conveyed by the middle element: “if you hear, it will still be given to you,” but in the saying about the measure there can only be talk of a relationship that is brought about by our self-activity, while in the other: “to him who has, it will be given” there is no reflection of self-activity, but rather of an original definiteness, at least of a definiteness that has already been established after the self-acting mediation. Furthermore, in the saying of measure, the antithesis that corresponds to the “he who has not” of the second member is missing, and it should be missing because it is most alien to the occasion and only acquires a meaning when it deals with the moral judgment of others.

*) γαρ V. 22, 25

321

Luke copied this exhortation to the disciples from Mark and placed it immediately after the interpretation of the parable of the sower; only the saying about the measure he had placed (C. 6, 38.) in a place where it already looks much better than in Mark’ writing **), and thus he had made it possible that (C. 8,18. ) the saying of him that hath, and of him that hath not, and from whom also that which he hath *) is taken, is more fitly connected with the exhortation, “see that ye hear;” for immediately after this exhortation the saying is placed in the sense of reminding the disciples that it depends on the determination of their inner being whether the treasures of truth shall be given them or not. Matthew does not have this exhortation to the disciples according to the interpretation of the first parable. The saying about the measure he developed even better than Luke, the saying about the light he also reworked into a new, better turn of phrase, the saying about the hidden, which will inevitably be revealed, he had applied with the help of Luke (C. 12, 23. Matth. 11, 26. 27. ) to the inexorable spread of the Gospel truth, and no less excellently did he use the saying of him that hath and of him that hath not, to give his reason for the remark that the knowledge of the heavenly mysteries is given to the disciples, but made difficult or impossible to the people. The same saying about the lot of the one who has and the one who does not has found an equally appropriate position in the parable of the talents.

**) There μέτρον καλόν, πεπιεσμένος και σεσαλευμένος και υπέρεκχυνόμενον of Luke, this fullness has arisen from the προστεθήσεται of Mark.

*) Luke writes: και ο δοκει εχειω.. C. 19, 26 he retains the original original form.

322

In short, even Mark, who is otherwise not at all unskilled in his historical compositions and paintings, could not, with all his efforts, succeed in giving the parable lecture a merely formal tendency, and the speech to the disciples, which was supposed to express and strengthen this tendency, had to be completely unsuccessful. It is a makeshift composition of sayings and aphorisms to which the most distant echoes (light, measure) gave rise.

323

And looking at the matter itself, on condition that the disciples were to be trained in the understanding of such parables, it is either a useless or a most sought-after cruelty, or a favoured contrast, if the people were bothered and tormented with these erercitia, which were incomprehensible to them and intended for the disciples alone. Jesus could have exercised the disciples in this way much better when he was alone with them. Why before the people when they did not understand the meaning of the parables? Why this terribly cruel and precios side-view of the people, who could not use the erercitations of the disciples, who themselves passed very badly, for their own good? Mark says (C. 4, 33. 34.): “Jesus proclaimed the word before the multitude in many such parables, as far as they could grasp it,” thus substituting that they did understand some things; but this is only a contradiction, to which reason and humanity involuntarily forced him. Finally, when he says: “when Jesus was alone with the disciples, he explained everything to them,” we do not understand why the people were not also given the solution of these riddles, since the salvation of their souls would certainly have been not a little promoted by it.

We say: the salvation of the soul! For it is now clear that parables containing the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven are not presented merely for the formal purpose of training the disciples to understand the parables. A man who can form parables, such as these, will not degrade them into exercises of the intellect, but, if he can bear them, will recite them for the purpose that all who hear them may come to know the laws of the kingdom of heaven, and through this knowledge may feel elevated and impelled to join in this order of the heavenly world.

The parables, Mark answers – and this is the other side of the contradiction -, were not only meant to serve the training of the disciples, but the people were also supposed to hear them. Jesus addressed the people when he began the parable lecture, this instruction was therefore intended for him from the beginning, indeed Jesus never spoke to the people except in parables. But he gave the people the truth in this more difficult and darker form, because they were not worthy to hear the pure, unveiled truth, and because they now had to be punished, so that their blindness would be completed and in this completion their downfall.

324

Terrible! Only in parables did Jesus speak to the people? Only in this form that was difficult to understand? Yes, in a form that the people could not understand? And only for the purpose that they might be lost without salvation and not be able to find the way to salvation? What a teacher! Instead of revealing the heavenly world, he hides it; instead of saving the wretched, he makes them more wretched! But let us leave the sentimentality of these questions! It is not at all the case that the parabolic form conceals the object which is presented in it and makes it difficult to understand; it only conceals it in the way in which every form of parable conceals it, i.e., it shows its image in the parables. It shows its image in the conditions of nature and of ordinary life, that is, in conditions that are immediately near and familiar to the people, and thus facilitates understanding, since it seeks out sensual consciousness in its home, grasps it, and from here raises it to the perception of the parallel, higher world.

As the legislator of the OT, in order not to succumb to the burden of his business, had associated with helpers, so Jesus also called the twelve to help him in healing diseases and in fighting demons; but he had appointed them (Mark 3:14) to preach, Moses also proclaimed the law to his people, after he had called those men who were to assist him in the administration of justice, so now Jesus must too after the call of the twelve to proclaim the laws of the kingdom of God that had come into the world with him. He does this in the parable lecture, which therefore follows immediately after the calling of the apostles. First of all, this discourse must be calculated for the disciples, since they had immediately received the destiny of being messengers of the new world: they must therefore be instructed and, above all, since they are still presumed to be inexperienced, trained and encouraged to correctly understand the teaching of their Master. Thus arose the formal tendency of the parable lecture. If, on the other hand, the truths presented were also important to them and could not serve to exercise the disciples’ powers of reason, if they also concerned the people and had to be heard by them, then the position that was due to the latter was unalterably determined. If the disciples did not understand the parables, the people could understand them even less; if the disciples were given the interpretation because of their special purpose, only the figurative form belonged to the people; if, finally, the disciples were practised, the people were diligently blinded, made obdurate and prevented by the parabolic form from attaining to the knowledge of the truth and to salvation. Thus it came about that even in the primal Gospel, in the only place where it shares a public doctrinal lecture, that fatal view of the contrast between the sublime wisdom of the Lord and the narrow-mindedness of the people, that view which is carried to the highest extreme in the fourth Gospel, forced itself in. This view, which in the first Gospel is on the verge of becoming the distinction between an exoteric and esoteric contract of Jesus, is still expressed in its first abruptness when Mark has the Lord call the crowd “those outside” *).

*) C. 4, 11 : εκεινοις δε τοις εξω. The other two have because they realised that this expression was an anachronism: Luke 8, 10 τοις δε λοιποις. Matth. 13, 11 εκεινοις δε.

325

Against contradictions and hardships of this kind, it appears to be only an insignificant coincidence when, after the parable of the sower, Mark changes the scene, namely, he has the disciples ask about the meaning of the parable when Jesus was alone with them, i.e., at home, and immediately afterwards presents the matter in such a way that Jesus recited the two following parables before the people and on the same occasion as he had recited the first. Matthew has changed: he lets the Lord give the interpretation of the parable of the sower to the disciples at the place where he himself had presented the parable, and only later, after three more parables had followed, does he make up for the indication that the disciples, having arrived at home, put a question to the Lord, and only here does he add the note that they ask for the interpretation of a parable C. 13, 36. 13, 36. Before we consider and explain another, not unimportant alteration, which he allowed himself, we have to overlook the treasure of parables, which he has stored up on this occasion.

———————–