'LORD, I BELIEVE; HELP THOU MINE UNBELIEF.' him. And with strong gentle Hand the Saviour lifted him, and with loving gesture delivered him to his father. All things had been possible to faith; not to that external belief of the disciples, which failed to reach that kind,'1 and ever fails to reach such kind, but to true spiritual faith in Him. And so it is to each of us individually, and to the Church, to all time. That kind,' -whether it be of sin, of lust, of the world, or of science falsely so called, of temptation, or of materialism-cometh not out by any of our ready-made formulas or dead dogmas. Not so are the flesh and the Devil vanquished; not so is the world overcome. It cometh out by nothing but by prayer: Lord, I believe; help Thou mine unbelief.' Then, although our faith were only what in popular language was described as the smallest—like a grain of mustard-seed’ -and the result to be achieved the greatest, most difficult, seemingly transcending human ability to compass it-what in popular language was designated as 'removing mountains '2' nothing shall be impossible' unto us. And these eighteen centuries of suffering in Christ, and deliverance through Christ, and work for Christ, have proved it. For all things are ours, if Christ is ours. 'But it is rather too wide an application, when Euthymius Zygadenus (one of the great Byzantine theologians of the twelfth century), and others after him, note the kind of all demons.' 2 The Rabbinic use of the expression, ' grain of mustard seed,' has already been noted. The expression 'tearing up' or ⚫ removing 'mountains' was also prover bial among the Rabbis. Thus, a great 109 CHAP. II BOOK IV a St. Mark CHAPTER III. THE LAST EVENTS IN GALILEE-THE TRIBUTE-MONEY, THE DISPUTE BY THE (St. Matt. xvii. 22-xviii. 22; St. Mark ix. 30-50; St. Luke ix. 43-50.) 1. Prominently, perhaps, as the summary of all, we have now the clear and emphatic repetition of the prediction of His Death and Resurrection. While He would keep His present stay in Galilee as private as possible,a He would fain so emphasize this teaching to His disciples, that it should sink down into their ears and memories. For it was, indeed, the most needful for them in view of the immediate future. Yet the announcement only filled their loving hearts with exceeding sorrow; they comprehended it not; nay, they were— perhaps not unnaturally-afraid to ask Him about it. We remember, that even the three who had been with Jesus on the Mount, understood not what the rising from the dead should mean, and that, by direction of the Master, they kept the whole Vision from their fellow-disciples; and, thinking of it all, we scarcely wonder that, from their standpoint, it was hid from them, so that they might not perceive it. The expression in St. Matthew (xvii. 22) does not imply permanent abode, but a temporary stay-a going to and fro. THE TRIBUTE-MONEY. 6 2. It is to the depression caused by His insistence on this terrible future, to the constant apprehension of near danger, and the consequent desire not to offend,' and so provoke those at whose hands, Christ had told them, He was to suffer, that we trace the incident about the tribute-money. We can scarcely believe, that Peter would have answered as he did, without previous permission of his Master, had it not been for such thoughts and fears. It was another mode of saying, 'That be far from Thee'-or, rather, trying to keep it as far as he could from Christ. Indeed, we can scarcely repress the feeling, that there was a certain amount of secretiveness on the part of Peter, as if he had apprehended that Jesus would not have wished him to act as he did, and would fain have kept the whole transaction from the knowledge of his Master. 111 CHAP. III It is well known that, on the ground of the injunction in Exod. XXX. 13 &c., every male in Israel, from twenty years upwards, was expected annually to contribute to the Temple-Treasury the sum of one half-shekel1 of the Sanctuary, that is, one common shekel, or two Comp. Attic drachms, equivalent to about 18. 2d. or 1s. 3d. of our money. Whether or not the original Biblical ordinance was intended to in- eh. x. 32 stitute a regular annual contribution, the Jews of the Dispersion would probably regard it in the light of a patriotic as well as religious act. To the particulars previously given on this subject a few others may be added. The family of the Chief of the Sanhedrin (Gamaliel) seems to have enjoyed the curious distinction of bringing their contributions to the Temple-Treasury, not like others, but to have thrown them down before him who opened the Temple-Chest,3 when they were immediately placed in the box from which, without delay, sacrifices were provided. Again, the commentators explain a certain passage in the Mishnah and the Talmud as implying that, although the Jews in Palestine had to pay the tribute-money before the Passover, those from neighbouring lands might bring it before the Feast of Weeks, and those from such remote countries as Babylonia and Media as late as the Feast of Tabernacles. Lastly, although According to Neh. x. 32, immediately after the return from Babylon the contribution was a third of a shekelprobably on account of the poverty of the people. But only one Alexandrian (comp. LXX. Gen. xxiii. 15; Josh. vii. 21). * Could there have been an intended, or-what would be still more striking-an unintended, but very real irony in this, when Judas afterwards cast down the pieces of silver in the Temple (St. Matt, 4 Dean Plumptre is mistaken in com- 2 Kings xii. 4; 2 Chron. xxiv. 6; b Shek. iii. 3 d Yoma 64 a 5 BOOK b Yoma 556 6 the Mishnah lays it down, that the goods of those might be distrained, who had not paid the Temple-tribute by the 25th Adar, it is scarcely credible that this obtained at the time of Christ,' at any rate in Shekal. vi. Galilee. Indeed, this seems implied in the statement of the Mishnah a and the Talmud, that one of the thirteen trumpets ' in the Temple, into which contributions were cast, was destined for the shekels of the current, and another for those of the preceding, year. Finally, these Temple-contributions were in the first place devoted to the purchase of all public sacrifices, that is, those which were offered in the name of the whole congregation of Israel, such as the morning and evening sacrifices. It will be remembered, that this was one of the points in fierce dispute between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and that the former perpetuated their triumph by marking its anniversary as a festive day in their calendar. It seems a terrible irony of judgment when Vespasian ordered, after the destruction of the Temple, that this tribute should henceforth be paid for the rebuilding of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.d e Ps. ii. 4 d Jos. War vii. 6. 6 It will be remembered that, shortly before the previous Passover, Jesus with His disciples had left Capernaum,' that they returned to the latter city only for the Sabbath, and that, as we have suggested, they passed the first Paschal days on the borders of Tyre. We have, indeed, no means of knowing where the Master had tarried during the ten days between the 15th and the 25th Adar, supposing the Mishnic arrangements to have been in force in Capernaum. He was certainly not at Capernaum, and it must also have been known, that He had not gone up to Jerusalem for the Passover. Accordingly, when it was told in Capernaum, that the Rabbi of Nazareth had once more come to what seems to have been His Galilean home, it was only natural, that they who collected the Temple-tribute should have applied for its payment. It is quite possible, that their application may have been, if not prompted, yet quickened, by the wish to involve Him in the breach of so well-known an obligation, or else by a hostile curiosity. Would He, Who took so strangely different views of Jewish observances, and Who made such extraordinary claims, own the duty of paying the Temple-tribute? Had it been The penalty of distraint had only been enacted less than a century before (about 78), during the reign of Queen Salome-Alexandra, who was entirely in the hands of the Pharisees. 2 See Book III. ch. xxxi. If it were not for the authority of Wieseler, who supports it, the suggestion would scarcely deserve serious notice, 3 that the reference here is not to the Temple-tribute, but to the Roman polltax or census. Irrespective of the question whether a census was then levied in Galilee, the latter is designated bo h in St. Matt. xvii. 25, and in xxii. 17, as well as in St. Mark xii. 14, as κvoos, while here the well-known expression didrachma is used. 'THEN ARE THE CHILDREN FREE.' 113 owing to His absence, or from principle, that He had not paid it last CHAP. Passover-season? The question which they put to Peter implies, at least, their doubt. We have already seen what motives prompted the hasty reply of Peter. He might, indeed, also otherwise, in his rashness, have given an affirmative answer to the inquiry, without first consulting the Master. For there seems little doubt, that Jesus had on former occasions complied with the Jewish custom. But matters were now wholly changed. Since the first Passover, which had marked His first public appearance in the Temple at Jerusalem, He had stated— and quite lately in most explicit terms-that He was the Christ, the Son of God. To have now paid the Temple-tribute, without explanation, might have involved a very serious misapprehension. In view of all this, the history before us seems alike simple and natural. There is no pretext for the artificial construction put upon it by commentators, any more than for the suggestion, that such was the poverty of the Master and His disciples, that the small sum requisite for the Temple-tribute had to be miraculously supplied. 6 We picture it to ourselves on this wise. Those who received the Tribute-money had come to Peter, and perhaps met him in the court or corridor, and asked him: Your Teacher (Rabbi), does He not pay the didrachma?' While Peter hastily responded in the affirmative, and then entered into the house to procure the coin, or else to report what had passed, Jesus, Who had been in another part of the house, but was cognisant of all, anticipated him.'' Addressing him in kindly language as 'Simon,' He pointed out the real state of matters by an illustration which must, of course, not be too literally pressed, and of which the meaning was: Whom does a King intend to tax for the maintenance of his palace and officers? Surely not his own family, but others. The inference from this, as regarded the Temple-tribute, was obvious. As in all similar Jewish parabolic teaching, it was only indicated in general principle: Then are the children free.' But even so, be it as Peter had wished, although not from the same motive. Let no needless offence be given; for, assuredly, they would not have understood the principle on which Christ would have refused the Tribute-money,' and all misunder 1 The Revised Version, as it seems to me, rashly renders 'spake first.' But the word (poptávw) does not bear that meaning in any of the fifteen passages in the LXX, where it corresponds to the Hebrew Kiddem, and means to anticipate' or 'to prevent' in the archaic sense VOL. II. I of that word. 2 In Succ. 30 a, we read a parable of a king who paid toll, and being asked the reason, replied that travellers were to learn by his example not to seek to withdraw themselves from paying the dues. III |