17. Exposition of the parables. This is another branch of our subject to which at least one whole chapter should be devoted, but the danger of overtaxing the patience of some of our readers renders it inadvisable. Because of the great simplicity of their nature and language, it is commonly supposed that the parables are more easily understood than any other form of scriptural instruction, when the fact is that probably more erroneous teaching has been given out through misapprehending the force of some of their details than is the case with anything else in the Word. Great care needs to be taken with them: especially is it important to ascertain and then keep in mind the scope or leading design of each one. But instead of so doing, only too often they are approached solely for the purpose of finding apparent support for some particular doctrine or idea which the preacher desires to prove. And in consequence, not a little in them has been wrested from its original purport, and made to signify what is flatly contradicted by other passages. Here, too, the Analogy of Faith must be held steadily in view, and our interpretation of each parable made to square therewith.

The children’s definition that "a parable is an earthly story with a heavenly meaning" expresses the general idea. It is a form of teaching whereby spiritual things are represented under sensible images. Parables are virtually word pictures, bearing somewhat the same relation to the instruction of those to whom they are addressed as do the pictorial illustrations used in books to elucidate for the reader the printed page. From the relation to the truth presented or lesson enforced can be gathered certain important but simple and obvious principles, which need to be borne in mind in the study of our Lord’s parables. First, the parable, as an illustrative picture, can only present its subject partially. No picture can give every aspect or exhibit every side of its object, any more than an architect’s "ground plan" of a building shows its second and third stories, far less depict it as when completed—though it might suggest something of them. So a parable sketches for us only certain aspects of the subject. Hence we find them in groups: all in a group representing the same subject, but each one setting forth a distinct feature of the same—as in those of Matthew 13, dealing with the "mysteries of the kingdom of heaven." Hence, too, those of Luke 15 show us not only grace receiving sinners; but seeking, finding, clothing, feasting them.

Second, parables are subordinate to direct teaching; being designed not for proof, but for illustration of a doctrine or duty. It is alway to be deplored when professing Christians are guilty of setting one part of the Scriptures against another, but when a parable is used to nullify some plain doctrine or commandment of God, absurdity is added to irreverence. Hence to appeal to Matthew 18:23-25, in proof that the God of all grace may revoke His forgiveness, or to deny man’s responsibility on the ground that "the lost piece of silver" of Luke 15 portrays the sinner by an inanimate object, is both foolish and profane. Third, it is equally apparent that we must seek to determine Christ’s principal aim of the chief moral lesson which He intended to enforce in each one: yet that obvious duty is much neglected. Only too often parables are treated as though their design was left open to conjecture and their lessons to uncertain inference. Such an impious idea and loose way of handling them is clearly refuted by those which Christ Himself explained to His disciples. Thus we are not left entirely to our own resources, for those interpreted by the Lord are to be regarded as specimens—each setting forth some distinct truth, every detail possessing a significance.

Fourth, it is important to obtain a right understanding of the parabolical representation itself, since it supplies the basis of the spiritual instruction. Unless we understand the natural allusion, we cannot give a satisfactory exposition of the language in which it is set forth. Care has also to be taken that we do not extend the representation beyond the bounds in which it was intended to move. That representation becomes obvious when we concentrate upon the leading idea of the parable and allow its details to make that more distinct. A parable must not be broken into parts but looked at as a whole, though let it not be forgotten that every detail contributes to its central truth, there being no mere verbiage. Usually the context makes clear what is its purpose and purport. Thus the parable of the king taking account of his servants (Matthew 18:23) was in reply to Peter’s inquiry in verse 21; that of the rich fool in Luke 12 was occasioned by a spirit of covetousness on the part of one who desired to obtain a part of his brother’s inheritance. Those in Luke 15 grew out of what is related in its opening verses. Parables bear upon the more fundamental aspects of duty and deportment rather than on the minute details of either.

As intimated above, much erroneous teaching has resulted from failure to heed those simple rules. Thus, certain theologians who are basically unsound on the Atonement have argued from the parable of the prodigal son that, since no sacrifice was needed to reconcile him to the Father or provide access to the bosom of His love, God pardons absolutely, out of pure compassion. But that is a manifest wresting of the parable, for it is not as a Father but as the righteous Governor that God requires a satisfaction to His justice. Equally so is it a serious misrepresentation of the grace of the Gospel if we reason from the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matthew 18:23-35) that Divine grace is ever exercised unto men except through a propitiatory sacrifice, a reparation made to the broken Law, which God has accepted (Rom. 3:24). Those parables were never intended to teach the ground of Divine forgiveness: it is wrong to force any parable to display a whole system of theology. Some have even drawn from Christ’s forbidding His disciples to pluck up the tares an argument against the local church’s exercising such a strict discipline as would issue in the disfellowship of heretical or disorderly members—refuted by His teaching in Revelation 2 and 3, where such laxity is severely rebuked.

Equally dangerous and disastrous is that interpretation which has made the parable of the laborers in the vineyard teach salvation by works. Since the parable affords a notable example of the importance of heeding the setting, we will offer a few remarks thereon. After the rich young ruler’s refusal to leave all and follow Christ, and His seeking to impress upon His disciples the solemn warning of that sad spectacle, Peter said, "Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed Thee; what shall we have therefore?" (Matthew 19:22-27). The Lord returned a twofold answer: the first part, as the question was legitimate, declaring that both here and hereafter there should be abundant reward to those who followed Him (vv. 28, 29). In the second part our Lord searched Peter’s heart, intimating that behind his inquiry was a wrong spirit—a carnal ambition which He had so often to rebuke in the apostles: shown in their disputes as to which of them should be greatest in the kingdom and which should have the chief seats therein. There was a mercenary spirit at work in them which considered they had claim to higher wages than others: since they were the first to leave all and follow Christ, thereby magnifying their own importance and laying Him under obligations. Hence the parable of Matthew 20:1-15, is preceded by the words. "But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first," and followed by similar words.

Since there be no room to doubt that the parable of the laborers in the vineyard was designed to illustrate the words in Matthew 19:30, and 20:16, it is clear that it was never intended to teach the way of salvation—to interpret it so is entirely to miss its scope. The Lord’s object was manifestly to impress upon His disciples that, unless they mortified the same, the evils of the heart were of such a character as to rob the earliest and most prolonged external devotion of all value, and that the latest and briefest service unto Him would, by reason of the absence of self-assertion, be deemed worthy in His sight of receiving reward equal to the former. Moreover, He would have them know that He would do what He would with His own—they must not dictate the terms of service. It has been justly observed by Trench in his notes on this parable that an "agreement was made by the first hired laborers (20:2) before they entered upon their labor—exactly the agreement which Peter wished to make: "what shall we have?"—while those subsequently engaged went in a simpler spirit, trusting that whatever was right and equitable the householder would give them."

18. Words with different meanings. There are many terms in the Scriptures which are by no means employed uniformly. Some have diverse senses, others are given varied shades of one general sense. That does not mean they are used arbitrarily or capriciously, still less in order to confuse the minds of the simple. Sometimes it is because the original term is too full to be expressed by a single English equivalent. Sometimes it occurs with another form of emphasis. More often it is the various applications which are made of it to several objects. Thus it is an important part of the expositor’s task to trace out those distinctions, and, instead of confounding the same, make clear each fresh sense, and thus "rightly divide the word of truth." Thus the Greek word Paracletos is rendered "Comforter" of the Spirit in John’s Gospel, but "advocate" of Jesus Christ in his first Epistle (2:1). There appears to be little in common between those expressions, but when we discover that the Greek term means "one called to one’s side (to help)," the difficulty is removed, and the blessed truth is revealed that the Christian has two Divine Helpers: a practical and a legal; one within his heart and one in heaven; one ministering to him, the other engaged for him.

The Greek word diatheke occurs thirty-three times; its common meaning—like the Hebrew berith—being "covenant." In the Authorized Version it is so rendered twenty times, and "testament" thirteen. Now a covenant is, strictly speaking, a contract between two parties, the one promising to do certain things upon the fulfillment of certain conditions by the other; whereas a testament or will is where one bequeaths certain things as gifts. There seems to be nothing in common between the two concepts, in fact that which is quite contrary. Nevertheless we believe our translators rightly rendered the term both ways, though not always happily so: most certainly it should be "covenant" in 2 Corinthians 3:6; Revelation 11:19. It is rightly rendered "covenant" in Hebrews 8:6, and "testament" in 9:15, for a statement is there made to illustrate a certain correspondency between the preparatory and the ultimate in God’s dispensations. A will does not become valid while the person making it is alive: it can only take effect after his decease. Hebrews 9:15-17, treats of a disposition showing the manner in which men obtain an inheritance through the riches of Divine grace. Thus, instead of using syntheke, which more exactly expressed a covenant, the Holy Spirit designedly employed diatheke, which was capable of a double application.

Let us now consider a few examples wherein the same English word is given a number of variants. As in the well-known words of our Lord, "Let the dead bury their dead" (Matthew 8:22), so the word "see" is used in two different senses in Hebrews 2:8, 9: "But now we see not yet all things put under Him. But we see Jesus. . .owned with glory, and honor," where the first refers to open sight, the second to faith’s perception. "Ransom" is by power as well as by price. Sometimes God defended or delivered His people by destroying His enemies: Proverbs 21:18; Isaiah 43:4; Pharaoh and his hosts at the Red Sea. Many have been much perplexed by the markedly different applications made of the word "burden" in Galatians 6:2, 5: "Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. . . . Every man shall bear his own burden." The former has in view the burdens of the Christian’s infirmities, which should be sympathetically, prayerfully and practically shouldered by his brethren and sisters. The latter has reference to individual responsibility, his personal state and destiny, which he must himself discharge, that cannot be shifted upon others. The Greek word for the former is "weights," or loads—calling for a friendly hand. The latter signifies a "charge," or trust imposed.

The meaning of the term "flesh" appears to be so obvious that many would regard it as quite a waste of time to look up its various connections in Scripture. It is hastily assumed that the word is synonymous with the physical body, and so no careful investigation is made. Yet, in fact, "flesh" is used in Scripture to include far more than the physical side of our being. We read of "the will of the flesh" (John 1:13) and "the works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19), some of which are acts of the mind. We are forbidden to make provision for the flesh (Rom. 13:14), which certainly does not mean that we are to starve or neglect the body. When it is said "the Word was made flesh" (John 1:14) we are to understand that He took unto Himself an entire human nature, consisting of spirit (Luke 23:46), soul (John 12:27), and body. "In the days of His flesh" (Heb. 5:7) signifies the time of His humiliation, in contrast with His present exaltation and glory. Again, the average reader of the Bible imagines that "the world" is the equivalent of the whole human race, and consequently many of the passages in which it occurs are wrongly interpreted. Many too suppose that the term "immortality" calls for no critical examination, concluding that it refers to the indestructibility of the soul. But we must never assume that we understand anything in God’s Word. If the concordance be consulted it will be found that "mortal" and "immortal" are never applied to man’s soul, but always to his body.

"Holy" and "sanctify" represent in our English Bibles one and the same Hebrew and Greek word in the original, but they are by no means employed with a uniform significance, being given quite a variety of scope and application — hence the diverse definitions of men. The word is such a pregnant one that no single English term can express it. That it signifies more than "set apart" is clear from what is said of the Nazarite: "all the days of his separation he is holy unto the Lord" (Num. 6:8)—"all the days of his separation he is separated" would be meaningless tautology. So of Christ, "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners" (Heb. 7:26), where "holy" means much more than "separate." When applied to God it imports His ineffable majesty (Isa. 57:15). In many passages it expresses a moral quality (Rom. 7:12; Titus 1:8). In others it refers to cleansing (Eph. 5:26; Heb. 9:13). Often it means to hallow or dedicate to God (Ex. 20:11; John 17:19). As the term is applied to the Christian it connotes, broadly speaking, (1) that sacred relationship Godward into which grace has brought us in Christ; (2) that blessed inward endowment by which the Spirit has made us meet for God and capacitated us to commune with Him; (3) the changed life resulting therefrom (Luke 1:75; 1 Pet. 1:15).

The word "judgment" is another which calls for real study. There are judgments of God’s mouth which His servants must faithfully declare (Ps. 119:13), namely the whole revelation of His will, the rule by which we are to walk and by which He will yet judge us. Those "judgments" (Ex. 21:1) are the Divine edicts which make known the difference between right and wrong. There are also judgments of God’s hand: "I know, O Lord, that Thy judgments are right, and that Thou in faithfulness hast afflicted me" (Ps. 119:75). Those are for the gracious discipline of His children; whereas those upon the wicked (Ezek. 5:15) are judicial curses and punishments. In some passages they express the whole of God’s providential ways, many of which are "a great deep" (Ps. 36:6), "unsearchable" (Rom. 11:33) to any finite mind, not to be pried into by us. They intimate His sovereign rule, for "righteousness and judgment are the habitation of His throne" (Ps. 97:2), likewise the rectitude of Christ’s administration (John 9:39). "He shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles" (Isa. 42:1) imports the righteous doctrine of His Gospel. In Jude 14 and 15 the reference is to the solemn transactions of the last day. "Teach me good judgment and knowledge" (Ps. 119:66) is a request for discretion, a clearer apprehension to apply knowledge rightly. To "do justice and judgment" (Gen. 18:19) signifies to be equitable and just in our dealings.