The Parables of Our Lord | Page 8

confine our
regard to the parable, and, setting aside other specimens, we confine
our regard to the parables spoken by the Lord, other questions arise
concerning the internal and reciprocal relations of these peculiar
compositions; should they be read and considered as so many
independent units miscellaneously scattered over the evangelic record,
or should they be classified according to the place which belongs to
them in a system of dogmatics? or can any method of treatment be
suggested different from both of these extremes, and better than either?
It is doubtless competent to any inquirer to frame the doctrines which
the parables illustrate into a logical scheme, and in his exposition to
transpose the historical order, so that the sequence of the subjects shall
coincide with his arrangement. This method is lawful in regard to the
parables particularly, as it is in regard to the contents of Scripture
generally; but, as a method of prosecuting the inquiry, I think it loses
more on the side of topical and historical interest than it gains on the
side of logical precision. As the Bible generally is in its own natural
order, both more engaging and more instructive than a catechism
compiled from it, although the compiler may have been both skilful and
true; the parables of the Lord, in particular, taken up as they lie in his
ministry, are both more interesting and more profitable than a logical
digest of the theology which they contain, however faithfully the digest
may have been made.
Any one may observe, as he reads our Lord's parables, that some of
them are chiefly occupied with the teaching of doctrine, and others with
the reproof of prevailing sins; but when on the basis of these and other
subordinate distinctions, you proceed to arrange them into separate
classes, you are met and repelled by insurmountable difficulties. When
Bauer, for example, has arranged them in three divisions, dogmatic,
moral, and historic, he is compelled immediately to add another class
called the mixed, as dogmatic-moral and dogmatic-historic, thereby
proving that his logical classification has failed.[5]
[5] In reference to Bauer's classification, Limbourg Brower (de parabol.

Jesu.) observes that the distinction between parables that are dogmatic
and parables that are moral cannot successfully be maintained, because
of the intimate union maintained in the discourses of Jesus between the
revelation of truth and the inculcation of duty. This remark, in
connection with its ground, is decisive not only against the particular
division to which it is applied, but to all divisions, in as far as they
pretend to be logically distinct and complete.
By abandoning, for the purposes of exposition, the order in which the
parables have been recorded, and adopting a classification on the basis
of contents or form, some incidental advantages are obtained;
especially some otherwise necessary repetitions are avoided, and some
subordinate relations are by the juxtaposition more easily observed; but
the loss is, I apprehend, much greater than the gain. The temptation to
bend the freely-growing branches of the parable, that they may take
their places in the scheme, is by this method greatly increased; while
historical sequences and logical relations, lying more or less concealed
in the record, are in a great measure thrown away. Accordingly, I prefer
the method of maintaining in the exposition the order which the
evangelists have adopted in the narrative. Besides the advantage of
preserving in all cases the historical circumstances whence the parable
sprung, we discover, as we follow this track, several groups associated
together by the Lord in his ministry, for the sake of their reciprocal
relations, and reverently preserved in their places by the evangelical
historians. The seven in Matt. xiii., and the three in Luke xv., constitute
the chief of those dogmatic groupings formed to our hand in the
ministry of the Lord. I refer to them here as examples, but defer the
exposition of their sequences and relations, until it can be presented
with greater advantage in connection with the examination of their
contents.
A question, on some of its sides difficult, meets us here, regarding the
reason why the Lord employed parables in the prosecution of his
ministry. On the one hand, it is certainly true, as may be proved from
all history, that comparisons between material and moral facts or laws,
spring up naturally in human converse; and further, that the truth
expressed in parables, if not in all cases immediately palpable, is better

fitted both to arrest attention at first, and to imprint the lesson
permanently on the learner's memory. But the use and usefulness of the
parable in this respect are obvious and undisputed; it makes spiritual
truth more attractive and more memorable. The difficulty does not lie
on this side; it adheres to a second function of the parable, in some
respects the opposite