a parable, it would be right simply to equate the principal persons and circumstances of the parable with the corresponding persons and circumstances to which they referred, in so far as this can be done without violence or over-subtlety. At all events, Jesus Himself has often so proceeded, e.g. in the parable of the Sower, Mark iv. 14 ff., or when, in practically applying the teaching of the parables, He continues, in figurative expressions, the use of some ideas of the parables (e.g. Luke xvii. 10; Mark xiii. 35 f.). The exegete must be well aware, however, that such equating of particular ideas can only be carried out in a compendious and peculiarly inexact way, and that it is allowed in each parable exactly to compare only one point which does not refer so much to particular persons and things in the parable, as to some relation or action depicted in it whereon some religious judgment or precept may be founded. Only by bearing this in mind can the exegete be preserved from an arbitrary play of ingenuity, in seeking to carry the allegorising mode of exposition into separate details, with the risk of finding in his failure a stumbling-block.

6. This very fact of the applicability of the comparison to only one main point in the parable, is the reason why Jesus has so often given His parables in pairs. The second parable is supplementary; in it some point of importance, which could not be sufficiently brought out in the first parable, receives special attention in the second. In Mark we find the two parables of the New Cloth on the old garment and of the New Wine in old bottles

standing in this complementary relation to each other (ii. 21 f.). The former brings out the idea that the new relation which Jesus teaches His disciples, cannot be brought in merely over above the Jewish traditional mode of righteousness, so that this latter is regarded as remaining intact. But in this first parable only the one idea can be exhibited, viz. that in such a patchwork, the antiquated system, instead of being renovated as it requires, would be brought to complete dissolution. A new thought, viz. that even the new system would be injured by such a combination, required to be set forth in the second parable of the New Wine, which, being poured into old bottles, would not only burst these, but would itself be lost. So, too, the parable of the Sower (iv. 3 ff.) is supplemented by that of the Light, which is not meant to be put under a bushel or under a bed, but upon a stand (iv. 21). The former parable teaches that the gospel remains inefficacious in all who, from whatever cause, are unsusceptible. The additional thought that the gospel is not meant, however, to remain inefficacious, but the reverse, is brought out in the supplementary parable. In the Logia we also find such a pair of parables in the case of the Mustardseed and the Leaven (Luke xiii. 18-21), the former illustrating the marvellously rapid growth, and the latter the pervading and assimilating power, of the kingdom of God. There, too, we find the twin parables of the Treasure hid in the field and of the Pearl of great price (Matt. xiii. 44-46), both which illustrate the truth that the quest of all other goods must yield to the endeavour to gain sure possession of the

greatest treasure which has been found; but with this difference, that in the one parable the treasure is accidentally found, while in the other it is expressly sought. Then we have the parables of the Lost Money and the Prodigal Son (Luke xv. 8-32), both which set forth the joy experienced in recovering something that was lost; but in the first case the recovery is exhibited as the result of a search, whilst in the second it is the result of a voluntary and penitent return. Further, we have the parables of the Faithful and Wicked Servants and of the Wise and Foolish Virgins (Matt. xxiv. 45-xxv. 13), of which the former inculcates the necessity of readiness for the master's return in case of his coming sooner than was expected, the latter shows the need of readiness even though he return later than was anticipated.1

Also in the discourses of the fourth Gospel we find such a pair of parables, viz. those of the Shepherd

1 On the ground of the observation of this frequently employed method of Jesus, in thus setting together two mutually complementary parables, we can in one case conclude that a parable handed down in the form of a single narrative has been pieced together out of two originally connected parables. In another case we can assume the original juxtaposition of two parables which have been handed down to us in separate places. The first case is presented by the parable of the Marriage-feast (Matt. xxii. 1 ff.), where the concluding narrative of the expulsion of the guest who had not on a wedding-garment does not quite accord with the earlier one, which describes how, instead of the persons first invited, the host had drawn others by compulsion to his feast. This concluding part was originally a self-contained, supplementary parable (cf. Log. § 20e, L. J. i. p. 134 f.). The first of the two parables, which Luke (xiv. 16–24) gives separately, is intended to show that those who are first called will be shut out from the kingdom of God if they do not directly obey the call; whilst others who originally appeared the most unlikely would be brought in; the second of the two parables then shows that they who do not present conditions worthy of the kingdom shall be excluded.

The second case occurs in the parables of the Wise Steward (Luke

and the Flock in the beginning of chap. x. The first of these parables (vers. 1-5) describes how the sheep obey and follow only the shepherd who enters by the door into the sheepfold, whilst the one who breaks in by another way is a stranger and a robber, from whom the sheep flee. Its application, according to the explanation in vers. 7-9, is that Jesus is the one essential Mediator of salvation for men: "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture" (ver. 9). But since this comparison of Jesus to the door of a sheepfold, which in a merely passive sense gives entrance to the flock, makes no account of the devoted care with which Jesus ministers salvation to His people, therefore this additional idea is brought out by a second parable (from ver. 10), in which the same figure of a sheepfold is employed in another relation. As the good shepherd, in contrast to the robber who will only injure the flock, and in contrast to the careless hireling who leaves it in the lurch in time of danger, xvi. 1 ff.) and of the Faithful and Unfaithful Servants (Matt. xxv. 14 ff.; Luke xix. 12 ff.), whose original connection is established by the fact that Luke makes the sayings in regard to the reward of those who are faithful or unfaithful in few things (xvi. 10-12)—sayings which correspond in meaning with the latter parable--follow immediately after the former parable (cf. Log. § 26b, L. J. i. p. 146). Whilst the former of the two commends the wisdom of providing, by means of present goods, for future welfare, the other enjoins faithfulness in the management of goods entrusted to us, as being the right means of attaining the end thus wisely aimed at. Also the two parables of the Tares among the Wheat (Matt. xiii. 24 ff.) and of the good and bad Fishes in the Net (Matt. xiii. 47 f.), appear to have originally been presented as such a pair of parables (cf. Log. § 44b, L. J. i. p. 179); the former shows that the separation of the bad element from the good must not be prematurely undertaken, for fear of destroying the good with it; the latter shows that the separation will be effected with perfect certainty at the appropriate time.

devotes his life for the welfare of the sheep; so Jesus exhibits Himself as the true Saviour, in lovingly devoting His life for them. That the form in which those two parables are put, and the allegorical application made of them, differs somewhat in type from that of the synoptical parables, is not to be denied. But I cannot see that those two parables, either in regard to their relation to the point of instruction to be brought out, or in their complementary relation to each other, are distinctly different from, e.g., the parables of the New Piece of Cloth and of the New Wine (Mark ii. 21 ff.).1

7. If the copious employment of examples and parables on the part of Jesus was designed to make His mode of teaching popularly intelligible, so also the way in which He selected and amplified them

1 The meaning of those two parables in John x. 1 ff. and their relation to each other are usually understood in a different way from my view. For, while one and the same figure of the flock and the shepherd is used in both, expositors have usually proceeded upon the presumption, supposed to be self-evident, that in the former as well as in the latter the flock stands for the Church, and the shepherd for the church-leader. But since that presumption is opposed to the explanation in vers. 7-9, where Jesus compares Himself rather to the door which admits the sheep, some have felt impelled by criticism to look upon the explanation, vers. 7-9, as a non-authentic allegorising interpretation of the evangelist (B. Weiss in Meyer's Commentary, at this passage); others, to condemn the authenticity of the whole of the two parables, saying that the interpretation which makes Jesus at one time the door, at another the shepherd who enters by it, is a piebald one, harmonising neither with parable nor proper allegory (Jülicher, die Gleichnissreden Jesu, p. 119f.). We arrive at a much more satisfactory result by strictly following out the explanation of the two parables indicated in the text, viz. that Jesus is first compared to the door and afterwards to the shepherd. For from this fact we must conclude that the other ideas in the two parables, which correspond as to expression, do not really apply to the same things. Therefore it is necessary to separate the two parables absolutely, and explain them independently of each other. If we had only the first parable, vers. 1-5, with the interpretation vers. 7-9, no one VOL. I.

I