^{page 13 note 1} This is much emphasised in recent works on the New Testament. Hoskyns and Davey speak of the “Christological penetration of the parables”. “The parables… are shot through with the same Christological significance as the miracle narratives” (Riddle of the New Testament, p. 134). “ The parables represent the interpretation which our Lord offered of His own ministry” (C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, p. 197). “They take us into the brunt of His warfare “ (A. T. Cadoux, The Parables of Jesus, p. 59). “They are parallel in revelational significance to the acts and works of Jesus“ (W. Manson, Jesus the Messiah, p. 48).

^{page 14 note 1} “Was all this wealth of loving observation and imaginative rendering of nature and common life used merely to adorn moral generalities?” (C. H. Dodd, ibid. p. 25). This does not, however, warrant our regarding as not genuine, the interpretations attached to the parables in the Gospels which seem at times on the surface to have little more than mere moral significance. Dibelius, e.g., rejects as out of place the saying at the end of the parable of the Publican and Pharisee: “For every one that exalteth himself shall be abased, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted” (Luke 18.14), saying: “Thereby the parable receives a commonpiace ethical meaning which is far removed from its wording” (From Tradition to Gospel, Eng. Tr. p. 253). But this disputed phrase cannot be understood on an ethical plane and is obviously full of eschatological significance, the emphasis on which is entirely in place alongside the doctrine of justification by faith taught in the parable.

^{page 15 note 1} Cf the following passage from Professor T. W. Manson: “The true parable … is not an illustration to help one through a theological discussion; it is rather a mode of religious experience. It belongs to the. same order of things as altar and sacrifice, prayer, the prophetic vision, and the like. It is a datum for theology, not a by-product. It is a way in which religious faith is attained and, so far as it can be, transmitted from one person to another. It is not a crutch for limping intellects but a spur to religious insight: its object is not to provide simple theological instruction, but to produce living religious faith “ (The Teaching of Jesus, p. 73).

^{page 15 note 2} “… The themes are no longer prophetic but messianic. They declare the divine event to be now taking place and the destiny of men to be dependent upon the acceptance or rejection of this event “ (Hoskyns and Davey, Riddle of the New Testament, p. 133).

^{page 16 note 1} The Parables of the Kingdom, P. 197.

^{page 19 note 1} The Pa“rables of the Kingdom, P. 13.

^{page 20 note 1} Dr. A. T. Cadoux, e.g. (The Parables of Jesus, p. 66 ff.) approves of the rejection of a large part of the parable of the Pounds because the action of the returning king is not true to life, and the conclusion of the episode detracts attention from the main thread of the story: likewise of the conclusion of the parable of the Ten Virgins because (quoting Dr. M'Neile) “an earthly bridegroom would hardly act or speak thus”.

^{page 20 note 2} Trench, , Notes on the Parables, p. 35.Google Scholar

^{page 20 note 3} “ The typical parable whether it be a simple metaphor, or a more elaborate similitude, or a full length story, presents one single point of comparison. The details are not meant to have independent significance” (C. H. Dodd, ibid. p. 18). Even in short parables where one of the main details seems to cry out for an obvious allegorical or twofold interpretation, there is a strange unwillingness to allow for such. Thus, in discussing the parable of the barren Fig Tree, Dr. T. W. Manson sets aside any attempt to elaborate the interpretation by saying: “It is meant to teach one lesson only, the need for timely repentance; and there is no profit in turning it into an allegory” (Mission and Message of Jesus, p. 566), but Jesus' action in cursing the fig tree invites such an allegorical interpretation which can undoubtedly be applied with much profit. In the parable of the Salt, Jülicher (see A. T. Cadoux, ibid. p. 52) insists that the only point of comparison which should be dwelt upon is the contrast between the value and worthlessness of the respective types of salt. But if Jesus had no intention that His hearers' minds should not also dwell on the taste and preservative power of salt and bring these qualities into the comparison, would He not have chosen quite a different simile with which to enforce His one lesson without ambiguity? It is obvious that this insistence on “ one point only ” breaks down when we consider a parable like that of the Prodigal Son (see M. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, p. 255). “So long as the story of the parable is not unnaturally shaped into similarity with the features of the field to which it is applied, so long as points of similarity grow naturally from the story, they may be multiplied with advantage” (A, T. Cadoux, ibid. p. 51).

^{page 21 note 1} In article on Parable, Hasting's Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels.

^{page 21 note 2} From Tradition to Gospel, p. 256. See also Hoskyns and Davey, Riddle of the, New Testament, for a similar judgment. “Nice as is the distinction between allegory and similitude, it normally exists only in theory. In practice most allegories contain simile and most similitudes are tinged with metaphor… If interpretation s to avoid becoming completely arbitrary and prejudiced, it must attempt to explain the existence of both these elements in the material as it stands” (p. 129). Dr. A. T. Cadoux is less willing to concede this point. “Sometimes … there is a persistence in metaphor that borders on allegory but never quite reaches it” (ibid. p. 58). Surely a “persistence in metaphor” is precisely an allegory.

^{page 23 note 1} On Christian Doctrine II, ix (Marcus Dods' Translation). Augustine in the same treatise makes a most illuminating suggestion as to why there are such metaphorical passages in the Scripture. “It is pleasanter to have knowledge communicated through figures, and what is attended with difficulty in the seeking gives greater pleasure in the finding. For those who seek but do not find suffer hunger. Those, again, who do not seek at all because they have what they require just beside them, grow languid from satiety … Accordingly the Holy Spirit has, with admirable wisdom and care for our welfare, so arranged the Holy Scriptures as by the plainer passages to satisfy our hunger, and by the more obscure to stimulate our appetite. For almost nothing is dug out of those obscure passages which may not be found set forth in the plainest language elsewhere” (11, vi).

^{page 23 note 2} Notes on the Parables, p. 40.

^{page 24 note 1} Homilies on St. Matthew, 47. Calvin agrees with this judgment. “Comparisons must not be too closely or too exactly carried out so as to apply at all points” (Commentary on Harm. Ev. on Matt. 18.2). Adam Clarke admits, in his attempt at a Christological interpretation of one of the parables, that “this parable cannot go on all fours in the Christian cause as anyone may see” (Comm. on Matt. 21.33 ff.).

^{page 24 note 2} Quoted by Trench, ibid. p. 37. Chrysostom would not allow quite so much freedom to interpret details. “Neither is it right to enquire curiously into all things in the parables word by word, but when we have learned the object for which it was composed, to reap this, and not to busy one's self about anything further ” (Homily on Matthew, 64). Since it seems on the surface that by this rule he would be wholeheartedly on the side of Dr. C. H. Dodd, it may be pointed out that Chrysostom frequently approves of allegorical interpretations, e.g. by the virgins' lamps is signified the purity of holiness and by the oil, humanity, almsgiving, succour to the needy. Even Calvin, the most restrained of the older commentators where allegory is concerned, though he will not allow any speculation on such minute details as e.g. the oil in the lamps of the virgins whichm he holds, has nothing to do with the design of the parable, nevertheless goes as far as to place an allegorical interpretation on the winepress and the tower in the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (though it is significant that he refuses to intrpret the meaning of the hedge).

^{page 25 note 1} e.g. to decide what “leaven” means in the parable by reference to its O.T. usage, and not to its relations within the parable, is to miss the point.

^{page 25 note 2} Mar 13.28.

^{page 25 note 3} See article in Hasting' Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels on Parable.

^{page 25 note 4} Yet even here we cannot make a rigid rule. Leaven in the O.T. is used to designate evil, and Jesus uses it in this sense in Luke 13.2. But in the parable it is obviously used with quite another meaning. “The same word does not always signify the same thing”, says Augustine, pointing out that a lion stands foar Christ (Rev. 55) and for the Devil (1 Pet. 5.8), that the word Serpent can be used in a good sense (Matt. 10.6) and in a bad sense (2 Cor. 11.3), likewise the term “Bread” (cf. John 6.51 and Prov. 9.17) (On Christian Doctrine, 3.25).

^{page 26 note 1} On Christian Doctrine, 2.27. The grave dangers of allowing such wide scope for interpretation will no doubt occur to the reader. “There is no parable or detail of parable that has not received many and conflicting interpretations. The Judge of Luke 18.2, e.g., according to some stands for God, and according to others for the devil” (Moulton). But that there are so many foolish interpretations is no reason for unduly restricting the wise. This rule must be taken in conjunction with all the other considerations that have already been laid down.

^{page 27 note 1} The Teaching of Jesus, p. 65.

^{page 27 note 2} Professor C. H. Dodd asserts that there is a natural relation here rather than the sacramental relation. “There is a reason for this realism in the parables of Jesus,” he writes. “It arises from the conviction that there is no mere analogy but an inward affinity, between the natural order and the Spiritual order” (The Parables of the Kingdom, p. 22). It is not surprising that Dr. Dodd, holding such a view, rejects as not genuine the passage under discussion from Mark 4 (though he also gives linguistic reasons for this rejection). If such a natural affinity existed between the two realms then it would indeed be a very easy matter to get at the heart of the “Mystery”, and fewer books on the parables would be necessary. It is interesting that here Professor Dodd is in wholehearted agreement with Trench who also speaks of a harmony between the two realms “unconsciously felt by all men”, of the type and the thing typified as “belonging to one another by an inward necessity”, and as “linked together by the law of a secret affinity” (Notes on the Parables, pp. 13–14). But Trench at least qualifies his assertion by the word “secret”, and he goes on to suggest that it is solely because of the redeeming purpose of God that the realm of nature and society has been made to foreshadow the realm of the Kingdom of God. Professor Dodd has no such qualifications to his statement of this doctrine.

^{page 28 note 1} “The hiding of the meaning of the parables is the same as the hiding of divine truth from the wise and prudent and the revealing of it to babes. The parables declare ‘things hidden from the foundation of the world’… But it is always ‘he that hath ears to hear, let him hear”.“ (A. G. Hebert, The Authority of the Old Testament, p. 231.)

^{page 28 note 2} Commentary on Matt. 13.13 f. Trench ascribes this saying to Thomas Fuller but Matthew Henry makes no such acknowledgment.