Perhaps it is safest to assume, that, on His way to Jerusalem, when his adherents (not

merely the disciples) would naturally expect that He would inaugurate His Messianic

Kingdom, Christ may have spoken the latter Parable, to teach them that the relation in

which Jerusalem stood towards Him, and its fate, were quite diffe rent form what they

imagined, and that His Entrance into the City and the Advent of His Kingdom would be

separated by a long distance of time. Hence the prospect before them was that of

working, not of reigning; after that would the reckoning come, when the faithful worker

would become the trusted ruler. These points were, of course, closely connected with

the lessons of the Parable of the Talents, and, with the view of presenting the subject as

a whole, St. Luke may have borrowed details from that Parable, and supplemented its

teaching by presenting another aspect of it.

It must be admitted, that if St. Luke had really these two Parables in view (that of the

King and of the Talents), and wished to combine them into new teaching, he has most

admirably welded them together. For, as the Nobleman Who is about to entrust money

to His servants, is going abroad to receive a Kingdom, it was possible to represent Him

alike in relation to rebellious citizens and to His own servants, and to connect their

reward with His 'Kingdom.' And so the two Parables are joined by deriving the

illustration from political instead of social life. It has been commonly supposed, that the

Parable contains an allusion to what had happened after the death of Herod the Great,

when his son Archelaus hastened to Rome to obtain confirmation of his father's will,

while a Jewish deputation followed to oppose his appointment - an act of rebellion which

Archelaus afterwards avenged in the blood of his enemies. The circums tance must

have been still fresh in popular remembrance, although more than thirty years had

elapsed. But if otherwise, applications to Rome for installation to the government, and

popular opposition thereto, were of such frequent occurence amidst the quarrels and

intrigues of the Herodians, that no difficulty could have been felt in understanding the

allusions of the Parable.

A brief analysis will suffice to point out the special lessons of this Parable. It introduces

'a certain Nobleman,' Who has claims to the throne, but has not yet received the formal

appointment from the suzerain power. As He is going away to receive it, He deals as yet

only with His servants. His object, apparently, is to try their aptitude, devotion, and

faithfulness: and so He hand s - not to each according to his capacity, but to all equally,

a sum, not large (such as talents), but small - to each a 'mina,' equal to 100 drachms, or

about 3 l. 5s. of our money. To trade with so small a sum would, of course, be much

more difficult, and success would imply greater ability, even as it would require more

constant labour. Here we have some traits in which this differs from the Parable of the

Talents. The same small sum is supposed to have been entrusted to all, in order to

show which of the m was most able and most earnest, and hence who should be called

to largest employment, and with it to greatest honour in the Kingdom. While 'the

Nobleman' was at the court of His suzerain, a deputation of His fellow-citizens arrived to

urge this resolution of theirs: 'We will not that this One reign over us.' It was simply an