intended thereby to give Peter a view of what was right in this case. The uncertainty of the Jewish receivers as to whether Jesus had to pay the tax for the temple had the very conceivable result, that the disciple himself pondered this question in his thoughts. And it is with the quiet deliberation which he had had with himself that the 'preventing' of our Lord is certainly connected. The parabolic nature of the speech includes the subject of taxation in general. Taxes are indispensable in every organized community; but it is manifest that there must be everywhere some exemptions.

An earthly kingdom is chosen as an example. The conduct of the 'kings of the earth' (the added genitive is to be carefully observed) is a type of the analogous action of the heavenly King, while in a kindred sphere (Matt. xx. 25) the practice of the 'princes of the Gentiles' is the exact reverse of the laws of the kingdom of heaven. They demand taxes from the inhabitants of their territory, partly in order to possess means to defray the expenses of the state, and partly to keep awake the feeling of subjection. But they distinguished between the 'children' and 'strangers.' From the former, the members of their household, the princes (see 1 Tim. v. 8, dio, oikeîot), they demand neither custom nor taxes, but only from the subjects; in strict sense, from those to whom they are merely rulers, and not fathers. Our Lord intentionally makes Peter affirm this fact, which is in accordance with experience. He does this while giving instruction in the form of parables also at other times (see Luke vii. 42). The application (as in this passage in St. Luke) He keeps to Himself. But, in fact, the application is in the words, 'Then are the children free.'1 Formally, in

1 As our Lord restricts Himself to the point of view of the 'freedom of the children,' an otherwise approximate consideration is excluded. The

deed, the plural belongs to the 'children' spoken of in the preceding verse; but in reality our Lord meant no one else than Himself. He alone stood to His heavenly King in the relation of ἴδιος καὶ οἰκεῖος (John viii. 35, 'The Son abideth in the house for ever'). He alone had thus a claim to freedom from a tax which was demanded and instituted in the interest of the house of God." This claim, both in deed and in

truth, applied to Him. But He will not now make it available; to avoid offence He prefers to renounce His right. The express refusal to pay the tax, especially if it was founded on the reason as stated between Him and His disciple, would inevitably have caused a scandal. But it is important to gain the right point of view, which by no means rests on the fact that our Lord was not acknowledged by the Pharisees as the Son of God. This view was not at other times taken by Him. Not only did He cure on the Sabbath day, but He also founded His right to such a Sabbath working upon the claim of a Lord over the Festival Day, and of being greater than the temple, not caring for and unaffected by the offence which He would thus cause. The statement, that in these latter cases it was His declared adversaries, while in the present one only unprejudiced minds, who were opposed to making Jesus liable to this tax was inadmissible also in this account, because, according to the explanation of Moses (Ex. xxx. 12–15), it was a sin-offering: 'Give an offering unto the Lord, to make an atonement for your souls.' A slight reference to this is, indeed, found in our narrative (in the avri of the 27th verse), but, in connection with the whole incident, it cannot with propriety be dwelt upon.

1 In this we must agree with Dorner ('über Jesu sündlose Vollkommenheit,' Gotha 1862, p. 37), that our Lord showed beforehand this free position towards holiness as one also appropriate to His followers. The plural xxvdaniowμev (ver. 27) makes this view almost unavoidable. Besides, the 'free' (ver. 26) reminds us of the saying (in John viii. 36), that the Son will make those who believe on Him free.' But still we are able neither to comprise the disciples among the children, nor even limit the prophetical tendency of the event to the 'free' position, to holiness.

Him, is unsatisfactory, because the fear of giving offence' can never be made to depend on the persons who take the offence, but solely on the ground which causes the offence. Bengel was much more acute in seeing it. He who has of all exegetists, especially in our narrative, taken the deepest views, makes upon the feature before us the suitable remark, 'Facillime ubi de pecunia agitur, scandalum capiunt a sanctis homines negotia mundana curantes.' At any rate, Jesus could never give 'offence'; even if 'the ignorance of foolish men' took such from Him, he remained pure; and the saying suits Him, 'Blessed is he who is not offended in me.' Hence also in general He was not in a position to avoid an offence, for every renunciation of His claims would have been a disavowal of the truth.

ye

There was, however, one relation in which 'that they should not be offended in me' could be His motive of action, and that was the money point. We call to remembrance the admonition which the Apostle Paul gives to the Church at Corinth (1 Cor. vi. and foll.), 'Instead of striving over temporal possessions, why do ye not rather take wrong? why do not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?' In a similar way our Lord says, 'We will pay the tribute, so that from this no offence may arise.' But why was it not paid at once? Why the miracle? 'Non erat in crumena pecunia,' answers Bengel. This generally sufficiently correct view requires now a more thorough definition. We know that there was a fund out of which the general needs of the whole circle were borne, and that Judas (often faithless) was the

1 Bengel with justice speaks of the negotiis mundanis, although it relates to a tax for the service of Jehovah. For money, for whatever objects used, is always and everywhere an dλλóтpov, and belongs to the things of this world.

administrator of it.

Conjectures as to whence the contributions came are inadmissible; however, it is allowable from single assertions to draw the conclusion that the amount was a moderate one. When Philip (John vi. 7) broke out in the well-known exclamation, it is thereby seen that two hundred denarii far exceeded the amount in their possession. At the present moment there was certainly no money in hand; Peter is not at all in a position to fulfil his obligation. It is hardly probable that the fund should by chance have been exhausted; the monetary want was indeed caused by this, that our Lord was alone with the one disciple, while the others, including the bearers of the yλwoσóкoμov, were far away. At any γλωσσόκομον, rate, we have to make the double supposition, that on one side Jesus had resolved to pay the tax, and that on the other the necessary sum was not at His disposal; it was therefore necessary to procure it in an extraordinary way. The fact that Jesus does not ask the question (like to the one He made in a similar case to another disciple), 'Whence are we to take the money?' should also be excluded from the uncalled for advice which many exegetists have given our Lord in the present situation, as the plain command, together with the not less explicit promise, warns us from the error of doing away with the miracle by strange meanings, and raising difficulties which border closely on the ludicrous. The event was not otherwise than as it is precisely stated, and is to be understood literally. Certainly it is not expressly stated that the disciple executed the directions of the Master, and that everything was fulfilled as He predicted; but Matthew's method of representation is not the same as that of the writer of Genesis; and even Strauss has acknowledged that in a gospel the observance of the behest and the fulfilling of the prophecy of Jesus stand to reason.

But how then? It has been said that even the exegetist most believing in miracles does not know how to answer the question, Why was such a strange miracle necessary? yea, even why was it allowed?'

As long as the motive for the deed is sought in the mere interest to prevent a monetary want, and to avoid a possible offence, embarrassment will certainly. arise. But the wonder will disappear in the same proportion as we learn to conceive the miracle as a symbolical prophetical one. prophetical one. While Peter is receiving and carrying out the command of our Lord, the picture of the future 'fisher of men' stands before our eyes. But we see not Him who throws out the net in order to win souls for the kingdom of God, but Him who places the demand before single people who are won, and who offer to Him earthly coins. As it is especially the Christian manner of considering money as an ἄδικον, ἐλάχιστον, οι ἀλλότριον, the apostles have naturally judged it especially from this point of view; and how far was it from their thoughts to have their activity paid for with this hire! But, as pilgrims in this world, they also stand towards money in a not repellent attitude, they would have appeared as strangers, they would have given offence if they had debarred themselves thoroughly from it. And they themselves have expressed their opinion, that the churches collected together by their labours ought to bestow on them this earthly possession. 'If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things' (1 Cor. ix. 11 and foll.)? St. Paul calls it his glory that he was a burden to no one; he would rather die than that this witness should be kept back from him; yet still he considered it to be right when the church at Philippi had sent the sum of money to the prisoners at Rome. But still more complete definitions are needed. If the apostles