SPEAKING IN PARABLES
Teaching and conversing in parables and proverbs is a distinctly
Oriental characteristic. A parable is a word picture whose purpose is
not to construct a definition or to establish a doctrine, but to convey
an impression. However, the Oriental makes no distinction between a
proverb and a parable. In both the Hebrew and the Arabic, the word
_mathel_ signifies either a short wise saying, such as may be found in
the Book of Proverbs, or a longer utterance, such as a New Testament
parable. In the Arabic Bible, the wise sayings of the Book of Proverbs
are called _amthal_, and the parabolic discourses of Jesus are also
called _amthal_. This term is the plural of _mathel_ (parable or
proverb). This designation includes also any wise poetical saying, or
any human state of fortune or adversity. Thus a very generous man
becomes a _mathel bilkaram_ (a parable of generosity); and a man {141}
of unsavory reputation becomes a _mathel beinennass_ (a saying or a
by-word among the people). In the forty-fourth Psalm, the fourteenth
verse, the poet cries: "Thou makest us a by-word among the nations, a
shaking of the head among the people." A fine illustration of the
_mathel_ as a poetical saying, although not strictly allegorical, is
the opening passage of the twenty-ninth chapter of the Book of Job,
where it is said:--
"And Job again took up his parable and said,
Oh that I were as in the months of old,
As in the days when God watched over me;
When his lamp shined upon my head,
And by his light I walked through darkness;
As I was in the ripeness of my days,
When the friendship of God was upon my tent;
When the Almighty was yet with me,
And my children were about me;
When my steps were washed with butter,
And the rock poured me out rivers of oil!"[1]
Where in human literature can we find a passage to surpass in beauty
and tenderness this introspective utterance?
{142}
Parabolic speech is dear to the Oriental heart. It is poetical,
mystical, sociable. In showing the reason why Jesus taught in
parables, Biblical writers speak of the indirect method, the picture
language, the concealing of the truth from those "who had not the
understanding," and so forth. But those writers fail to mention a most
important reason, namely, the _sociable_ nature of such a method of
teaching, which is so dear to the Syrian heart. In view of the small
value the Orientals place upon time, the story-teller, the speaker in
parables, is to them the most charming conversationalist. Why be so
prosy, brief, and abstract? The spectacular charm and intense
concreteness of the parable of the Prodigal Son is infinitely more
agreeable to the Oriental mind than the general precept that God will
forgive his truly penitent children. How romantic and how enchanting
to me are the memories of those _sehrat_ (evening gatherings) at my
father's house! How simple and how human was the homely wisdom of the
stories and the parables which were spoken on {143} those occasions.
The elderly men of the clan loved to speak of what "was said in the
ancient days" (_qadeem ezzeman_). "_Qal el-wathel_" (said the parable)
prefaced almost every utterance. And as the speaker proceeded to
relate a parable and to reinforce the ancient saying by what his own
poetic fancy could create at the time of kindred material, we listened
admiringly, and looked forward with ecstatic expectation to the _maana_
(meaning, or moral). Oral traditions, the Scriptures, Mohammedan
literature, and other rich sources are drawn upon, both for instruction
in wisdom and for entertainment.
In picturing the condition of one who has been demoralized beyond
redemption, the entertaining speaker proceeds in this fashion: "Once
upon a time a certain man fell from the housetop and was badly injured.
The neighbors came and carried him into the house and placed him in
bed. Then one of his friends approached near to the injured man and
said to him, 'Asaad, my beloved friend, how is your condition [_kief
halak_]?' The much-pained man {144} opened his mouth and said, 'My two
arms are broken; my back and one of my legs are broken; one of my eyes
is put out; I am badly wounded in the breast, and feel that my liver is
severed. But I trust that God will restore me.' Whereupon his friend
answered, 'Asaad, I am distressed. But if this is your condition, it
will be much easier for God to make a new man to take your place than
to restore you!'"
One of the most beautiful parables I know, and which I often heard my
father relate, bears on the subject of partiality, and is as follows:--
"Once upon a time there were two men, the one named Ibrahim, the other
Yusuf. Each of the men had a camel. It came to pass that when Yusuf
fell sick he asked of his neighbor Ibrahim, who was about to journey to
Alappo, to take his camel with him also, with a load of merchandise.
Yusuf begged Ibrahim to treat the camel in exactly the same manner as
he did his own, and promised him that if God kept him alive until he
came back he would repay him both the good deed, and the cost of the
{145} camel's keep. Ibrahim accepted the trust, and took his journey
to Alappo, with the two camels. Upon his return Yusuf saw that his own
camel did not look so well as Ibrahim's. So he spoke to his friend:
'Ibrahim, by the life of God, what has happened to my camel? He is not
as good as your camel. O Ibrahim, did you care for my camel as you did
for your camel?' Then Ibrahim answered and said, 'By the life of God,
O Yusuf, I fed, and watered, and groomed your camel as I did my camel.
God witnesseth between us, Yusuf, this is the truth. But I will say to
you, you my eyes, my heart, that when night came and I lay me down on
my cloak to sleep between the two camels, I placed my head nearer to my
camel than to yours.'"
It was the desirableness to Orientals of this type of speech which
prompted the writer of the Gospel of Matthew to say of Jesus, "And
without a parable spake he not unto them."[2] This utterance itself is
characteristically {146} Oriental. As a matter of fact, Jesus _did_
often speak to the multitude _without_ parables. But his strong
tendency to make use of the parable, and its agreeableness to his
hearers, seemed to the Scriptural writer to be a sufficient
justification for his sweeping assertion.
Of the New Testament parables some are quoted in this work in
connection with other subjects than that with which this chapter deals.
I will mention here a few more of these sayings as additional
illustrations of the present subject, and with reference to the
allusions to Oriental life which they contain.
In the thirteenth chapter of Matthew, we have the parable of the wheat
and the tares: "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed
good seed in his field: but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed
tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung
up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also."
The tare (_zewan_) is a grain which when ground with the wheat and
eaten causes dizziness {147} and nausea, a state much like seasickness.
For this reason this plant is hated by the Syrians, although they use
tares very extensively as chicken feed. Wheat merchants are likely to
sell _kameh mizwen_ (wheat mixed with tares) in hard times, because
they can buy it for less money than pure wheat. I do not believe there
is a family among the common people of Syria which has not suffered at
one time or another from "tare-sickness." Having tasted the gall of
this affliction a few times myself, I do not at all wonder at the
Syrians' belief that tares must have come into the world by the Devil.
And what I still remember with both amusement and sympathy are the
heartfelt, withering imprecations which the afflicted ones always
showered upon the seller of the "tarey wheat." When the food had taken
real effect and the staggering, nauseated members of a family felt
compelled to allow nature to take its course, the gasps and groans
punctuated the ejaculations, "May God destroy his home!" "May the gold
turn into dust in his hands!" {148} "May he spend the price of what he
sold us at the funerals of his children!"--and so forth.
Do you feel now the force of the allusion to the tares in the parable?
"So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst
not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
He said unto them, An enemy hath done this."
Enemies are of course always disposed to injure one another, and in an
agricultural country like Syria harm is often done to property for
revenge. So the scattering of tares for this purpose in a newly sown
wheat-field is not utterly unnatural or unthinkable. But the reference
in the parable is to a belief which is prevalent in some districts in
Syria, to the effect that in spite of all that the sower can do to
prevent it, the tares do appear mysteriously in fields where only wheat
had been sown. Some evil power introduces the noxious plant. Once I
listened to a heated controversy on the subject between some Syrian
landowners and an American missionary. The landowners clung to the
belief {149} that tares would appear in a field even if no tare seed
was ever planted in that field, while the son of the West insisted that
no such growth could take place without the seed having first been
introduced into the field in some natural way. The fight was a draw.
"The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them
up? But he said, Nay, lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up
also the wheat with them."
The attempt is often made to pull up the hated tares from among the
wheat, but in vain. The concluding admonition in the parable may well
be taken to heart by every hasty reformer of the type of a certain
regenerator of society, who, when asked to proceed slowly, said, "The
fact is I am in a hurry, and God is not!"
In the same chapter (Matt. XIII) occurs the parable of the "leaven."
"The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid
in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened." The setting
of this short {150} parable in Syrian life is given in another
chapter.[3] But I mention it here in order to give my comment on a
rather strange interpretation of the parable which came recently to my
knowledge. In the course of a conversation I had with a prominent
Baptist minister not long since, he stated to me that certain
interpreters assert that the leaven in this parable meant the
corruption which has come into the Christian Church, etc. My friend
was anxious to know whether to my knowledge the Syrians associated
leaven with corruption.
This interpretation echoes an ancient idea of leaven of which modern
Syrians have no knowledge. They hold the leaven in high and
reverential esteem.[4] To them it is the symbol of growth and
fecundity. In many of the rural districts of Syria, upon approaching
the door of her future home the bride is given the _khamera_ (the lump
of leaven) which she pastes on the upper doorsill and passes under it
into the house. As she performs the solemn act her {151} friends
exclaim, "May you be as blessed and as fruitful as the _khamera_!"
However, it is a well-known fact to readers of ancient records that in
the earliest times bread was entirely unleavened. When the Israelites
were roaming tribes they ate and offered to Jehovah unleavened bread.
The Arab tribes of to-day on the borders of Syria eat no leavened
bread. They believe that it tends to reduce the vitality and endurance
of the body. Perhaps the real reason for preferring the unleavened
bread is that it is much easier to make, and dispenses with taking care
of the lump of leaven between bakings, which is not so convenient for
roaming tribes to do. The use of unleavened bread for so many
generations among the Israelites constituted its sacredness, and it was
the conservatism of religion which still called for unleavened bread
for the offering, even after leavened bread had become universally the
daily food of the people.
So to the ancients the fermentation in the process of leavening was
considered corruption. {152} It was something which entered into the
lump and soured it. The New Testament use of the word "leaven" as
meaning corruption is purely figurative, and signifies influence, or
bad doctrine. It was in this sense that Jesus used the word when he
said to his disciples:[5] "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the
Pharisees and of the Sadducees"; and again:[6] "Take heed, beware of
the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod." The fact
that the disciples did not understand at first what the Master meant
shows that to the general public "leaven" and "corruption" were not
synonymous terms. Had they been, it is certain that Jesus never would
have said, "The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven."
The fifteenth chapter of St. Luke's Gospel contains the parables of the
lost sheep, the lost coin, and the prodigal son. The parable of the
lost sheep is discussed in another chapter.[7] The parable of the lost
coin portrays a very familiar scene in the ordinary Syrian home. "What
{153} woman," says the Master, "having ten pieces of silver, if she
lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek
diligently till she find it? And when she hath found it, she calleth
her friends and her neighbors together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I
have found the piece which I had lost."
The candle spoken of here is a little olive-oil lamp--an earthen
saucer, with a protruding lip curled up at one point in the rim for the
wick. How often have I held that flickering light for my mother while
she searched for a lost coin or some other precious object. The common
Syrian house has one door and one or two small windows, with wooden
shutters, without glass.[8] Consequently the interior of the house is
dimly lighted, especially in the winter season. The scarcity of money
in the hands of the people makes the loss of a coin, of the value of
that which is mentioned in the parable (about sixteen cents), a sad
event. The {154} little house is searched with eager
thoroughness--"diligently." The straw mats, cushions, and sheepskins
which cover the floor are turned over, and the earthen floor swept.
The search continues, with diligence and prayerful expectations, until
the lost coin is found. The Arabic Bible states that the gladdened
woman "calls her _women_ neighbors and friends (_jaratiha
wesedikatiha_), saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece
which I had lost." The singling out of the _women_ neighbors is
significant here. As a rule the loss of a precious coin by a woman
calls her husband's wrath upon her, regardless of whether the coin had
been earned by her or by him. The _women friends_ have a keen
fellow-feeling in such matters. They keep one another's secrets from
the men, and rejoice when one of their number escapes an unpleasant
situation.
The total meaning of this parable is plain as it is most precious.
Through this common occurrence in a Syrian home, Jesus impresses upon
the minds of his hearers, as well as upon {155} the consciousness of
all mankind, the infinite worth of the human soul, and the Father's
love and care for it. "Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the
presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth."
The parable of the prodigal son follows immediately that of the lost
coin. "A certain man had two sons: and the younger of them said to his
father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And
he divided unto them his living." The first thing in this parable to
challenge the attention is the father's quick compliance with the
request of his son. "And he divided unto them his living." The custom
of a father dividing his property among his grown sons before his death
prevails much more extensively in the East than in the West. As a rule
neither the law nor custom gives legal standing to a will. Sometimes
the father's wishes with regard to how his property should be divided
after his death are carried out by his sons. But as a general rule the
father who does not divide his property legally between his sons before
his {156} death leaves to them a situation fraught with danger.
Litigation in such cases is very slow and uncertain.
It was such a situation, no doubt, which led the man referred to in the
twelfth chapter of Luke, the thirteenth verse, to say to Jesus,
"Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me.
And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?"
And we may easily infer what Jesus thought of that particular case from
his saying which follows immediately his answer to this man. "And he
said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life
consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth." So
the father of the prodigal son acted normally when he divided his
substance between his two sons.
"And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and
took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance
with riotous living." The singling out of the younger son for this
adventure comports with {157} a highly cherished Oriental tradition.
The elder son, who was the first-born male child in this household,
could not very well be made to commit such an act. In a Syrian family
the _bikkr_ (the first-born son) stands next to the father in the
esteem, not only of the members of his own household, but of the
community at large. He cannot be supposed to be so rash, so unmindful
of his birthright, as to break the sacred family circle, and to waste
his inheritance in riotous living.
"And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land;
and he began to be in want. And he went and joined himself to a
citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
And he would fain have been filled with the husks that the swine did
eat; and no man gave unto him."
To be a swineherd, or a "swine-shepherd," is the most contemptible
occupation an Oriental can think of. It is no wonder at all to me that
the Gospel writers make the destination of the "legion" of devils which
Jesus cast out of the {158} man "in the country of the Gadarenes," a
herd of swine.[9] You cannot hire a Syrian to make a pet of a "little
piggie." If he did, he would be called "_Abu khenzier_" (pig man) for
the rest of his life, and transmit the unenviable title to his
posterity, "even unto the third and fourth generation."
The word "husks" in the English version is not a correct rendering of
the original term. The marginal note in the Revised Version reads,
"the pods of the carob tree." The Arabic version says simply _kherrûb_
(carob). The carob tree is very common in the lowlands of Syria. It
is a large tree of dense foliage, and round, glossy, dark-green leaves.
The pods it bears measure from five to ten inches in length, are flat,
and largely horn-shaped. I do not know why the English translators of
the Bible called those pods "husks." They are sold in almost every
town in western Syria for food. Children are very fond of _kherrûb_.
Some of the pods contain no small amount of sugar. In my boyhood {159}
days, a pocketful of _kherrûb_, which I procured for a penny, was to me
rather a treat. The older people, however, do not esteem _kherrûb_ so
highly as do the children. The bulk of it is so out of proportion to
the sugar it contains that its poverty is proverbial in the land. Of
one whose conversation is luxuriant in words and barren of ideas it is
said, "It is like eating _kherrûb_; you have to consume a cord of wood
in order to get an ounce of sweet." By eating these pods, the poor
people seem to themselves "to have been filled" while in reality they
have received but little nutrition. Therefore _kherrûb_ is generally
eaten by animals.
It may be observed that the saying in the parable, "and he would fain
have been filled with _kherrûb_ that the swine did eat: and no man gave
unto him," simply describes the prodigal's poverty. For as a
"swine-shepherd" the "_kherrûb_ that the swine did eat" was certainly
very accessible to him. The purpose of the passage is to draw the
contrast between the rich parental home which the prodigal had
willingly {160} left and the extremely humble fare on which in his
wretched state he was compelled to subsist.
The return of the prodigal son to his father's house, impoverished but
penitent, the affectionate magnanimity of the father toward his son,
and the spreading of the feast in honor of the occasion, are acts of
humility and generosity which cannot be said to be exclusively
Oriental. But the command of the father to his servants, "Bring hither
the fatted calf and kill it; and let us eat and be merry," brings out
the idea of the _zebihat_ (animal sacrifice) with which the West is not
familiar.
The ancient custom, whose echoes have not yet died out in the East, was
that the host honored his guest most highly by killing a sheep at the
threshold of the house, upon the guest's arrival, and inviting him to
step over the blood into the house. This act formed the "blood
covenant" between the guest and his host. It made them one. To us one
of the most cordial and dignified expressions in {161} inviting a
guest, especially from a distant town, was, "If God ever favors us with
a visit from you, we will kill a _zebihat_!"
In his great rejoicing in the return of his son, the father of the
prodigal is made to receive him as he would a most highly honored
guest. "The fatted calf"--and not only a sheep--is killed as the
_zebihat_ of a new covenant between a loving father and his son, who
"was dead and is alive again; was lost, and is found."[10]
The parable of the "treasure hid in a field"[11] alludes to a very
interesting phase of Syrian thought. "Again, the kingdom of heaven is
like unto a treasure hid in a field, the which when a man hath found,
he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and
buyeth that field."
I cannot refrain from quoting again in this connection the famous
commentator, Adam Clarke. Speaking of this parable, he says: "We are
not to imagine that the _treasure_ here {162} mentioned, and to which
the gospel salvation is likened, means a _pot_ or _chest_ of money
hidden in the field, but rather a gold or silver _mine_, which he who
found out could not get at, or work, without turning up the field, and
for this purpose he bought it. Mr. Wakefield's observation is very
just: 'There is no sense in the _purchase_ of a field for a _pot_ of
_money_, which he might have carried away very _readily_ and as
_honestly_, too, as by overreaching the owner by an unjust purchase.'
... From this view of the subject, the translation of this verse, given
above, will appear proper--a _hidden treasure_, when applied to a _rich
mine_, is more proper than a _treasure hid_, which applies better to a
_pot of money_ deposited there, which I suppose was our translator's
opinion; and _kept secret_, or _concealed_, will apply better to the
subject of his discovery till he made the purchase, than _hideth_, for
which there could be no occasion, when the pot was already _hidden_,
and the place known only to himself."
I have inserted here this double quotation, {163} italics and all, in
order to show how when the real facts are not known to a writer the
temptation to play on words becomes irresistible. In this exposition
the simple parable is treated as a legal document. Every word of it is
subjected to careful scrutiny. "Hid" is converted into "hidden," and
"concealed" is summoned to supplant "hideth," in order to make the
"treasure" mean a vast deposit of gold ore, and get the poor Syrian
peasant into the mining business.
The facts in the case, however, stand opposed to this explanation. I
am absolutely safe in saying that every man, woman, and child in Syria
understands that this parable refers simply and purely to a treasure of
gold and silver which had been buried in a field by human hands. The
entanglement of the commentator just quoted in the literary fault of
the parable is inexcusable.
The New Testament writer might have said, not that the man in the
parable _found_ the treasure, but that he was _led_ by certain {164}
signs _to believe_ that a treasure lay hidden in the field. However,
this is not the Oriental way of stating things, nor should the speaker
in parables be denied the freedom of the poet and the artist to
manipulate the particulars in such a way as to make them serve the
central purpose of his production.
I could fill a book with the stories of hidden treasures which charmed
my boyhood days in Syria. I have already put into print[12] a detailed
account of my personal experience in digging for a hidden treasure,
which will clearly show that the securing of such riches is not always
so easy to diggers as the quotation just cited would make one believe.
In order to show the attitude of Syrians in general toward this
subject, I will quote the following from my own personal account:--
"In Syria it is universally believed that hidden treasures may be found
anywhere in the land, and especially among ancient ruins. This {165}
belief rests on the simple truth that the tribes and clans of Syria,
having from time immemorial lived in a state of warfare, have hidden
their treasures in the ground, especially on the eve of battles.
"Furthermore, the wars of the past being wars of extermination, the
vanquished could not return to reclaim their hidden wealth; therefore
the ground is the keeper of vast riches. The tales of the digging and
finding of such treasures fill the country. There are thrilling tales
of treasures in various localities. Gold and other valuables are said
to have been dug up in sealed earthen jars, often by the merest
accident, in the ground, in the walls of houses, under enchanted trees,
and in sepulchers. From earliest childhood the people's minds are fed
on these tales, and they grow up with all their senses alert to the
remotest suggestions of such possibilities."
The writer of the parable did not need to explain the situation to his
Oriental readers. The mere mention of a "hidden treasure" was {166}
sufficient to make them know what the words meant. His supreme purpose
was to impress them with the matchless worth of the kingdom of heaven
which Christ came to reveal to the world.
[1] Revised Version.
[2] Matt. xiii: 34.
[3] See page 198.
[4] See page 199.
[5] Matt. xvi: 6.
[6] Mark viii: 15.
[7] See page 308.
[8] See the author's autobiography, _A Far Journey_, chap. 1, entitled
"My Father's House."
[9] Matt. viii: 32; Mark v: 13; Luke viii: 33.
[10] For the reason why the mother of the prodigal is not mentioned in
the parable, see pages 207 and 334.
[11] Matt. xiii: 44.
[12] _Atlantic Monthly_, December, 1915. This story, with other
essays, will soon appear in book form.
{167}