Origen's ex})osition of the parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10^""*'') is a masterpiece of ill-applied ingenuity. The traveller is Adam ; Jerusalem is Paradise ; Jericho is the world ; the robbers are hostile demons ; the Priest is the Law ; the Levite is the Prophets ; tlie Samaritan is Christ ; the wounds are disobedience ; the beast is the Lord's body ; the inn is the Church ; the two denarii are the Fatlier and the Son (the New and the Old Covenant, says Euthymius Zigabenus) ; the inn- keeper is the Bishop.*
The parable of the Ten Virgins (Mt 25^-'^^\ has furnished another fruitful held to spiritualizing intej-preters. According to St. Chrysostom the lamps are the grace of virginity {to ttjs wapdevLas xdpi.(T/jLa) ; the oil is philanthropy, alms {t7)v <pL\av- dpcowiav, T7]v e\€yjfj.o<Tvvrjv) ; the sellers are the poor, who afford the opportunity for alms-giving ; the sleep of tiie virgins is death ; the cry at midnight (cf. 1 Th 4'^) shows that the Resurrection will take place by night. The lesson of the parable is tliat virginity without philanthropy is darkness. Ac- cording to Origen and St. Jerome, the five virgins are the five senses. According to the latter, the oil is good Avorks ; according to the former, it is teach- ing, the vessels being the souls of the learners. There is much shrewd sense in Calvin's caustic remark : ' Some greatly torment themselves about the lamps, about the vessels, about the oil ; but the simple and real gist is that eager zeal for a brief space does not suffice, unless unwearied constancy be added thereto.' See, further, artt. Parable and Circumstantiality in the Parables.
David Smith.
SPITTING, SPITTLE (tttj^w, Tm^o-^aa, iixwHw).— References to spitting occur in the NT in the Gospels only, and there always in connexion with Christ.
1. Spitting was a common mark of derision and contempt. Christ foretold it among the insults which He as Messiah would endure (Mk 10^"*, Lk 18^^) ; and during His Passion He was spit upon both by Jews (Mt 268^, Mk W^) and by Gentile soldiers (Mt 27^", Mk IS^^). Allusions to the custom with this injurious meaning are found in the OT (Nu 12", Dt 25^, Is 50«). Variant forms, still customary among Orientals, are spitting upon the ground before any one, or even at the mention of a despised and hated name.
2. Three occasions are recorded on which Christ made use of His spittle in the work of healing : with a deaf and dumb man in the Decapolis (Mk 7^^), when He touched the tongue of the afflicted with moisture from His own mouth ; Avith a blind man at Bethsaida (Mk 8^^), when He ' spat upon his eyes' ; and with one born blind, at Jerusalem (Jn 9^-''), when He made clay of the
* In Luc. Horn, xxxiv. St. Augustine (Quoest. Ev. ii. § 19) gives a similar interpretation, but with still greater luxuriance of fancy.
Spittle and anointed the eyes of the blind. In the two former instances Christ is stated first to have taken the man apart, and Meyer suggests that this secrecy was due to His use of the spittle ; but no reason for secrecy suggests itself, and the third act of healing appears to have been performed publicly. Trench (Miracles, on Jn 9) adduces Pliny (HN xxviii. 7), Suetonius ( Fespa.?. 7), Tacitus (^<.s^. iv. 8), to witness to the prevalence of an ancient belief in the medicinal value of human saliva, especially for eye troubles. See Blindness.
John Muir. SPONGE.— See Animals in vol. i. p. 67"-, and Vinegar.
STAFF. — Two different words occurring in the Gospels are rendered 'staff' in EV. — (1) pdjSdos, (2) liiXov.
1. Only once is pd^dos found in the Gospels, viz. in the Synoptic account of the instructions given by Jesus to the Twelve as He sent them on their mission (Mk 68 = Mt 10i»=Lk 9=*). It denotes, of course, the ordinary walking-statt' of the traveller, which, as used in the East, is somewhat longer than the walking-stick we know, and is simply a long, slightly-tapering rod, serviceable for support and for defence,
Tlie main interest of the reference to the staff in the con- nexion above mentioned lies in the textual difference exhibited by the parallel passages. The instruction as given in Mk iy^ was that the Twelve were to take nothing with them, ' except a staff only ' (e/ //,■>, (xjihov ^tismv) ; whereas, according to Mt. (^--iSs fajSlov) and Lk. (^--irE pocjUov), they were to take nothing at all, not even a staff. Wright cites this in suppport of a suggestion that Mt. and Lk. were 'affected by the tendencj' to expect exceptional severity in the case of reiigious teachers ' {Synopsis, p. 57). But perhaps it is adequately explained as due at first to a mere copyist's assimilation to the other negative items that occur. In both Mt. and Lk., again, there is a v.l. in some MSS which gives the plural fifilou;, ' neither staves.' This variant is not necessarily to be ascribed to a set purpose to afford a loop- hole for harmonizing the accounts. The AV, however, reacHng ' staves ' in both cases, lies open to suspicion on this point ; for in Mt lO'o it gives 'nor yet staves,' with the extraordinary marginal note ' Gr. a staff,' showing that their text actually read p«/35^v. So the way is left open for the puerile suggestion that the accounts are consistent, inasmuch as Jesus meant that His disciples were not to take more than one staff each 1 Yet Wyclif's earlier version (following the Vulg.) had rendered 'nether a yerde' in Mt IQio (similarly Lk 9^), careless of the discrepancy with Mk 6** (' but a yerde oneli '). Cf. Tindale in Mt 1010 'nor yet a rodde.' The superiority of Mk.'s account is self-evident : there is a touch of perfect naturalness about it.