BOOK V • St. Matt. xix. 30 a be last, and the last first.' And in other instances also, though not in all—many shall be last that are first; and first that are last.' But He is the God, Sovereign in grace, in Whose Vineyard there is work to do for all, however limited their time, power, or opportunity; Whose labourers we are, if His Children; Who, in His desire for the work, and condescension and patience towards the workers, goeth out into the market-place even to the eleventh hour, and, with only gentlest rebuke for not having earlier come thither and thus lost our day in idleness, still, even to the last, bids us come; Who promises what is right, and gives far more than is due to them who simply trust Him: the God not of the Jews nor of the Gentiles only, but our Father; the God Who not only pays, but freely gives of His own, and in Whose Wisdom and by Whose Grace it may be, that, even as the first shall be last, so the last shall be first. Another point still remains to be noticed. If anywhere, we expect in these Parables, addressed to the people, forms of teaching and speaking with which they were familiar-in other words, Jewish parallels. But we equally expect that the teaching of Christ, while conveyed under illustrations with which the Jews were familiar, would be entirely different in spirit. And such we find it notably in the present instance. To begin with, according to Jewish Law, if a man engaged a labourer without any definite bargain, but on the statement that he would be paid as one or another of the labourers in the place, he was, according to some, only bound to pay the lowest wages in the place; but, according to the majority, the average between the lowest Baba Mez. and the highest.b2 Again, as regards the letter of the Parable itself, we have a remarkable parallel in a funeral oration on a Rabbi, who died at the early age of twenty-eight. The text chosen was: 'The © Eccl. v. 12 sleep of a labouring man is sweet,' and this was illustrated by a Parable of a king who had a vineyard, and engaged many labourers to work in it. One of them was distinguished above the rest by his ability. So the king took him by the hand, and walked up and down with him. At even, when the labourers were paid, this one received the same wages as the others, just as if he had wrought the whole day. Upon this the others murmured, because he who had wrought only two hours had received the same as they who had laboured the whole day, when the king replied: Why murmur ye? 87 a, towards the end The clause which follows in our A. V. is spurious. 2 Some interesting illustrations of secondary importance, and therefore not here introduced, may be found at the close of Baba Mez. 83 a and the beginning of b. YES' OF THE TWO SONS. THE 'NO' AND This labourer has by his skill wrought as much in two hours as you during the whole day.' This in reference to the great merits of the deceased young Rabbi. return. a 421 CHAP. V a Midr. on Eccl. v. 11; 8 But it will be observed that, with all its similarity of form, Jer. Ber. ii. the moral of the Jewish Parable is in exactly the opposite direction from the teaching of Christ. The same spirit of work and pay breathes in another Parable, which is intended to illustrate the idea that God had not revealed the reward attaching to each commandment, in order that men might not neglect those which brought less A king-so the Parable runs-had a garden, for which he hired labourers without telling them what their wages would be. In the evening he called them, and, having ascertained from each under what tree he had been working, he paid them according to the value of the trees on which they had been engaged. And when they said that he ought to have told them, which trees would bring the labourers most pay, the king replied that thereby a great part of his garden would have been neglected. So had God in like manner only revealed the reward of the greatest of the commandments, that to honour father and mother, and that of the least, about letting the Ex. xx. 12 mother-bird fly away -attaching to both precisely the same reward.de Deut. xxii. To these, if need were, might be added other illustrations of that painful reckoning about work, or else sufferings, and reward, which characterises Jewish theology, as it did those labourers in the Parable. 2. The second Parable in this series- -or perhaps rather illustration-was spoken within the Temple. The Saviour had been answering the question of the Pharisees as to His authority by an appeal to the testimony of the Baptist. This led Him to refer to the twofold reception of that testimony-on the one hand, by the Publicans and harlots, and, on the other, by the Pharisees. 7 e d Debar. R. 6 on Deut. See, for Ber. 5a and xxii. 6 example, b, but espe cially 7 a xxi. 28-32 The Parable, which now follows, introduces a man who has two St. Matt sons. He goes to the first, and in language of affection (TÉKVOV) bids him go and work in his vineyard. The son curtly and rudely refuses; but afterwards he changes his mind' and goes.2 Meantime the father, when refused by the one, has gone to his other son on the same errand. The contrast here is marked. The tone is most polite, and the answer of the son contains not only a promise, but we The word is not the same as that for ' repent' in St. Matt. iii. 2. The latter refers to a change of heart, and means something spiritual. The word used in the text means only a change of mind and purpose. It occurs besides in St. Matt. xxvii. 3; 2 Cor. vii. 8; Heb. vii. 21. 2 Looking away from the very profane use made of the saying in the Talmud, we may quote as a literary curiosity the following as the origin of the proverb: He that will not when he may, when he כשרציתי לא רצית ,will he shall have nay ,Ber. 7 a עכשיו שאתה רוצה איני רוצה line 11 from bottom. BOOK V almost see him going: I, sir!-and he did not go.' The application was easy. The first son represented the Publicans and harlots, whose curt and rude refusal of the Father's call was implied in their life of reckless sin. But afterwards they changed their mind—and went into the Father's vineyard. The other son, with his politeness of tone and ready promise, but utter neglect of obligations undertaken, represented the Pharisees with their hypocritical and empty professions. And Christ obliged them to make application of the Parable. When challenged by the Lord, which of the two had done the will of his father, they could not avoid the answer. Then it was that, in language equally stern and true, He pointed the moral. The Baptist had come preaching righteousness, and, while the selfrighteous Pharisees had not believed him, those sinners had. And yet, even when the Pharisees saw the effect on these former sinners, they changed not their minds that they might believe. Therefore the Publicans and harlots would and did go into the Kingdom before them. 3. Closely connected with the two preceding Parables, and, indeed, with the whole tenor of Christ's sayings at that time, is that about the Evil Husbandmen in the Vineyard. As in the Parable about and parallels the Labourers sought by the Householder at different times, the a St. Matt. xxi. 32 &c. b ver. 36 e ver. 43 4 ver. 44 object here is to set forth the patience and goodness of the owner, even towards the evil. And as, in the Parable of the Two Sons, reference is made to the practical rejection of the testimony of the Baptist by the Jews, and their consequent self-exclusion from the Kingdom, so in this there is allusion to John as greater than the prophets, to the exclusion of Israel as a people from their position in the Kingdom, and to their punishment as individuals. Only we mark here a terrible progression. The neglect and non-belief which had appeared in the former Parable have now ripened into rebellion, deliberate, aggravated, and carried to its utmost consequences in the murder of the King's only and loved Son. Similarly, what formerly appeared as their loss, in that sinners went into the Kingdom of God before them, is now presented alike as their guilt and their judgment, both national and individual. The Parable opens, like that in Is. v., with a description of the complete arrangements made by the Owner of the Vineyard,' to show 'An hedge' against animals or marauders, a winepress.' or, more specifically (St. Mark), a winefat' (vroλýviov), into which the juice of the grapes flowed, and a tower' for the watchmen and labourers generally. We may here remark, that the differences in the narratives of this Parable in the three Gospels are too minute for discussion here. The principal one, in St. Matt. xxi. 40, 41, comp. with the parallels, will be briefly referred to in the text. THE EVIL HUSBANDMEN IN THE VINEYARD. a 423 CHAP. V how everything had been done to ensure a good yield of fruit, and what right the Owner had to expect at least a share in it. In the Parable, as in the prophecy, the Vineyard represents the Theocracy, although in the Old Testament necessarily as identified with the nation of Israel,a while in the Parable the two are distinguished, Is. v. 7 and the nation is represented by the labourers to whom the Vineyard was 'let out.' Indeed, the whole structure of the Parable shows, that the husbandmen are Israel as a nation, although they are addressed and dealt with in the persons of their representatives and leaders. And so it was spoken to the people,' and yet the chief St. Luke priests and Pharisees' rightly perceived that He spake of them.' XX. 9 e St. Matt. 64 b This vineyard the owner had let out to husbandmen, while he xxi. 45 himself 'travelled away' [abroad], as St. Luke adds, " for a long time.' From the language it is evident, that the husbandmen had the full management of the vineyard. We remember, that there were three modes of dealing with land. According to one of these (Arisuth), 'the labourers' employed received a certain portion of the fruits, say, a third or a fourth of the produce. In such cases it seems, at least Jer. Bice. sometimes, to have been the practice, besides giving them a proportion of the produce, also to provide the seed (for a field) and to pay wages to the labourers. The other two modes of letting land were, either that the tenant paid a money rent to the proprietor, or else that he agreed to give the owner a definite amount of produce, whether the harvest had been good or bad. Such leases were given by the year or for life; sometimes the lease was even hereditary, passing from father to son. There can scarcely be a Jer. Bicc. doubt that it is the latter kind of lease (Chachranutha, from ) which is referred to in the Parable, the lessees being bound to give the owner a certain amount of fruits in their season. Accordingly, when the time of the fruits drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen to receive his fruits '-the part of them belonging to him, or, as St. Mark and St. Luke express it, of the fruits of the vineyard.' We gather, that it was a succession of servants, who received increasingly ill treatment from these evil husbandmen. We might have expected that the owner would now have taken severe measures; but instead, in his patience and goodness, he sent 'other servants'-not more,' which would scarcely have any meaning, but greater than the first,' no doubt, with the idea that their greater authority would command respect. And when these also received the same treatment, we must regard it as involving, not only additional, but increased guilt on the part of the husband 41, ed. Shem. R. Warsh. p. 54 Tos. Demai b, last line vi. * Baba Mez. 104 a 646 I as in the A. and R. V. BOOK V a St. Luke vii. 26 b St. Matt. xxiii. 34-36 men. Once more, and with deepening force, arises the question, what measures the owner would now take. But once more we have only a fresh and still greater display of his patience and unwillingness to believe that these husbandmen were so evil. As St. Mark pathetically puts it, indicating not only the owner's goodness, but the spirit of determined rebellion and the wickedness of the husbandmen: 'He had yet one, a beloved son-he sent him last unto them,' on the supposition that they would reverence him. The result was different. The appearance of the legal heir made them apprehensive of their tenure. Practically, the vineyard was already theirs; by killing the heir, the only claimant to it would be put out of the way, and so the vineyard become in every respect their own. For, the husbandmen proceeded on the idea, that as the owner was 'abroad' 'for a long time,' he would not personally interfere—an impression strengthened by the circumstance that he had not avenged the former ill-usage of his servants, but only sent others in the hope of influencing them by gentleness. So the labourers, 'taking him [the son], cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him'-the first action indicating that by violence they thrust him out of his possession, before they wickedly slew him. The meaning of the Parable is sufficiently plain. The owner of the vineyard, God, had let out His Vineyard-the Theocracy-to His people of old. The covenant having been instituted, He withdrew, as it were the former direct communication between Him and Israel ceased. Then in due season He sent His Servants,' the prophets, to gather His fruits-they had had theirs in all the temporal and spiritual advantages of the covenant. But, instead of returning the fruits meet unto repentance, they only ill-treated, and that increasingly, even unto death, His messengers. In His longsuffering He next sent on the same errand 'greater' than them-John the Baptist. And when he also received the same treatment, He sent last His own Son, Jesus Christ. His appearance made them feel, that it was now a decisive struggle for the Vineyard-and so, in order to gain its possession for themselves, they cast the rightful heir out of His own possession, and then killed Him! And they must have understood the meaning of the Parable, who had served themselves heirs to their fathers in the murder of all the prophets," who had just been convicted of the rejection of the Baptist's message, and whose hearts were even then full of murderous thoughts against the rightful Heir of the Vineyard. But, even so, they must speak their own judgment. In answer to His challenge, what |