and deciding its precise application, or non-applicability, to the various possible circumstances. They showed what one who is afraid of transgressing the law must do and leave undone, and also how far he might go without violating the letter of the command. This casuistical treatment, with all its quibbling and fine distinctions, did not really lead to an enlightened upright walk, but rather to obscuring and in many ways nullifying the true meaning and purpose of the command. We can well imagine how one so profoundly upright and so keen of discernment as Jesus, would have a genuine abhorrence for this casuistical method of the scribes. Now, He certainly did not renounce that effective means of popular intelligibility, derived from the specialising of general judgments and rules, and applying them to concrete cases; but He used that means in a way quite opposed to the casuistical method. He did not seek to enumerate as fully as possible the particular cases to which the rule applied, or to denote the special circumstances which call for exceptions or limitations of the rule; but He notes the cases in which the meaning and purpose of the given rule are most sharply brought out, and He purposely omits all the circumstances through which the extent and importance of the rule are less clearly apparent. Every loophole of of escape, and every pretext for making convenient exceptions, on the part of the hearers was to be cut off.

In the parables of Jesus, this principle of aiming at the greatest clearness in the shortest compass, comes out in His investing the case selected for comparison with those circumstances under which the relation or

action, which forms the point of comparison, and on which the purpose of parable turns, may stand out at the clearest. Only by attention to this principle of the parables of Jesus, we are led to avoid entirely the allegorising mode of interpreting them. For, at all events, we may justly assume that Jesus, whose mode of teaching is so pregnantly expressive, did not interweave meaningless details into His parables for the mere purpose of embellishment. Now, it is a proper inference from this assumption, not that all the accessary circumstances of the narrative permit of being compared directly, but rather that these circumstances are meant to set in the clearest light the main point of the comparison, an object which by no means accords with the allegorising interpretation.' For example, in the parable of the Ten Virgins (Matt. xxv. 1 ff.), the circumstance that all the virgins fall asleep is necessary in order to bring out as strongly as possible the value of prudent preparedness even for an unexpected tarrying of the bridegroom. It was necessary to relate that the foolish virgins fell asleep, in order to make it clearly apparent that they were not sensible of the evil consequences of their want of forethought, until at the last critical moment, when it was too late to supply the want.

1 In regard to the copiousness of similes, the discourses of Jesus may be compared with the Homeric similes. For these also the rule holds good, that we must not carry out their meaning in an allegorising way, but must also inquire for their tertium comparationis. But the principle which is so important for the composition of the parables of Jesus, viz. that their details are wholly governed by the object of making as clear and effective as possible the one decisive point of the comparison, cannot be observed in the same way in the Homeric similes. The poet delights much more in pictorial details, even when they are of no moment for the comparison.

That not only the foolish but the wise virgins fell asleep, is, however, a detail which as little fits the allegorising interpretation as it strikingly serves to bring out the value of forethought on the part of the wise. For if these five wise virgins had been represented as remaining awake, their wakefulness as well as their wise forethought would have appeared to the hearers another reason for esteeming them more worthy than the five foolish virgins of participating in the marriage-feast; and thus the value of their having made preparation even for the case of the unexpectedly late return of the bridegroom would not have been so clearly brought into relief as their one. chief point of superiority.

Further, we find the parable of the man who applied to his friend for bread (Luke xi. 5 ff.) invested with circumstances which do not at all lend themselves to an allegorising mode of interpretation, but, on the other hand, serve to bring out with the utmost clearness the one point which the parable is designed to illustrate, viz. the value of implicitly trustful prayer. It is midnight; the door of the friend's house is shut, so that the petitioner cannot enter and get the bread for himself, but the other must be awakened from sleep that he may rise and give it. The friend's children are lying with him in the same bed, so that getting up is a difficulty and a trouble for him; thus the circumstances are specially unfavourable for granting the request. But just through the unpropitiousness of the circumstances, the greatness of the petitioner's faith, and the power of his faith to achieve the granting of his request, come most clearly out.

Again, in the parable of the Wise Steward (Luke xvi. 1 ff.), the same principle is indicated by the fact that the steward is designated as unfaithful. Jesus sought in that parable to bring out the value of wisdom, which aims at securing future welfare by means of present opportunities. In the supplementary instruction appended by Him, He showed that for the disciples, whose great object of striving was the heavenly life of blessing to be vouchsafed by God, the right conduct for attaining this end consists in the diligent and faithful use of the worldly goods entrusted to them by God.' In this line of thought, it would not have been at all so suitable to represent the steward -by whose example He sought to bring most clearly out the value of wisdom—as an upright, faithful man, though thereby the offence might have been avoided. which would be caused by this man's dishonesty under the allegorising interpretation of the parable. For if the steward had been distinguished for fidelity, frugality, diligence, or some other excellence, these virtues would have come into consideration along with his wise forethought in order to insure him a good livelihood when thrown out of his situation. When, however, he was represented as a dishonest spendthrift (ver. 1) and lazy fellow (ver. 3), it is evident that in his forethought alone lay the ground of his further well-being. The value of wise forethought is also most strongly accentuated by its being exhibited as isolated from other virtues. We have again, in a similar way, to explain the parable of the unjust Judge and the poor Widow (Luke xviii. 2 ff.). 1 Cf. the note on p. 127 f,

The fact that the judge is here described as neither fearing God nor regarding man, is not to be accounted an inappropriate or at least indifferent trait of the narrative, which is only used to make the story of greater external interest; for it is of essential importance for bringing out the main point, and thereby also the peculiar purpose of the parable. The value of importunate prayer has to be set forth. Now, were the qualities of justice or of the fear of God or man presupposed in this judge, these would appear to conduce to the fulfilment of the widow's prayer. But inasmuch as he was lost to all moral and religious feeling, and even to all fear of public opinion, the importunity of her prayer is set quite apart from all concurrent motives, and its unaided efficacy is brought vividly to light.

This principle, so characteristic of the method of Jesus, of seeking the greatest clearness in briefest compass, is not so discernible in the fourth Gospel as in the synoptical discourses. In the Johannine discourses, as we have already remarked, there is a lack of specialising and exemplifying exposition, as well as of parables, which set forth a single conceived case with its concrete circumstances. But then the chief material, in which we find examples of this principle of the teaching of Jesus in the discourses in Mark and the Logia, is lacking in the Johannine discourses.

8. The impressive pregnancy of the style of Jesus is shown not only in His use of examples and parables, but even when He expresses general judgments and instructions in general form. He delights in putting such judgments and instructions in the form of crisp,