IS IT LAWFUL TO GIVE TRIBUTE UNTO CESAR? 385 CHAP. III War ii. 16. 4 Baba K. the instance pleading 113 a, and of Abigail with David that Saul's still in circu coinage was lation, Jer. Sanh. 20 6 honeyed words, intended not only to disarm His suspicions, but, by an appeal to His fearlessness and singleness of moral purpose, to induce Him to commit Himself without reserve. Was it lawful for them to give tribute unto Cæsar, or not? were they to pay the capitationtax of one drachm, or to refuse it? We know how later Judaism Jos. Jew. would have answered such a question. It lays down the principle, that the right of coinage implies the authority of levying taxes, and indeed constitutes such evidence of de facto government as to make it duty absolutely to submit to it. So much was this felt, that the Maccabees, and, in the last Jewish war, Bar Cochab, the false Messiah, issued a coinage dating from the liberation of Jerusalem. We cannot therefore doubt, that this principle about coinage, taxation, and government was generally accepted in Judæa. On the other hand, there was a strong party in the land, with which, not only politically but religiously, many of the noblest spirits would sympathise, which maintained, that to pay the tribute-money to Cæsar was virtually to own his authority, and so to disown that of Jehovah, Who alone was Israel's King. They would argue, that all the miseries. of the land and people were due to this national unfaithfulness. Indeed, this was the fundamental principle of the Nationalist movement. History has recorded many similar movements, in which strong political feelings have been strangely blended with religious fanaticism, and which have numbered in their ranks, together with unscrupulous partisans, not a few who were sincere patriots or earnest religionists. It has been suggested in a former part of this book, that the Nationalist movement may have had an important preparatory bearing on some of the earlier followers of Jesus, perhaps at the beginning of their inquiries (notably on Judas), just as, in the West, Alexandrian philosophy proved to many a preparation for Christianity. At any rate, the scruple expressed by these men would, if genuine, have called forth sympathy. But what was the alternative here presented to Christ? To have said No, would have been to command rebellion; to have said simply Yes, would have been to give a painful shock to deep feeling, and, in a sense, in the eyes of the people, the lie to His own claim of being Israel's Messiah-King! But the Lord escaped from this temptation'-because, being For fuller particulars on this point see Book II. ch. x. Some might have even religious scruples about handling a coin of Cæsar. Such an instance is mentioned in Ab. Sar. 6 b, where a Rabbi is advised to VOL. II. C C throw it into the water, and pretend it BOOK V • St. Mark xii. 17 true, it was no real temptation to Him. Their knavery and hypocrisy He immediately perceived and exposed, in this also responding to their appeal as being 'true.' Once more and emphatically must we disclaim the idea that Christ's was rather an evasion of the question than a reply. It was a very real answer, when, pointing to the image and inscription on the coin,2 for which He had called, He said, 'What is Cæsar's render to Cæsar, and what is God's to God.' It did far more than rebuke their hypocrisy and presumption; it answered not only that question of theirs to all earnest men of that time, as it would present itself to their minds, but it settles to all time and for all circumstances the principle underlying it. Christ's Kingdom is not of this world; a true Theocracy is not inconsistent with submission to the secular power in things that are really its own; politics and religion neither include, nor yet exclude, each other: they are, side by side, in different domains. The State is Divinely sanctioned, and religion is Divinely sanctioned—and both are equally the ordinance of God. On this principle did Apostolic authority regulate the relations between Church and State, even when the latter was heathen. The question about the limits of either province has been hotly discussed by sectarians on either side, who have claimed the saying of Christ in support of one or the opposite extreme which they have advocated. And yet, to the simple searcher after duty, it seems not so difficult to see the distinction, if only we succeed in purging ourselves of logical refinements and strained inferences. It was an answer not only most truthful, but of marvellous beauty and depth. It elevated the controversy into quite another sphere, where there was no conflict between what was due to God and to man-indeed, no conflict at all, but Divine harmony and peace. Nor did it speak harshly of the Nationalist aspirations, nor yet plead the cause of Rome. It said not whether the rule of Rome was right or should be permanent-but only what all must have felt to be Divine. And so they, who had come to entangle' Him, went away,' not convinced nor converted, but marvelling exceedingly.3 Schürer, N. T. Zeitgesch. p. 231). Neither Herod nor Herod Antipas had any 'image' on their coins, but only the usual devices' of the Maccabæan period. And the coins, which the Roman emperors had struck specially for Palestine, bore till the time of Vespasian no image of any kind in accommodation to Jewish prejudices. · ἐξεθαύμαζον, according to the better reading in St. Mark. THE WIDOW'S OFFERING OF THE TWO MITES. 3. Passing for the present from the cavils of the Sadducees and the gainsaying of the Scribes, we come unexpectedly on one of those sweet pictures-a historical miniature, as it is presented to uswhich affords real relief to the eye, amidst the glare all around. From the bitter malice of His enemies and the predicted judgment upon them, we turn to the silent worship of her who gave her all, and to the words with which Jesus owned it, all unknown to her. It comes to us the more welcome, that it exhibits in deed what Christ had said to those hypocrites who had discussed it, whether the tribute given to Cæsar was not robbing God of what was His. Truly here was one, who, in the simplicity of her humble worship, gave to the Lord what was His! Weary with the contention, the Master had left those to whom He had spoken in the Porches, and, while the crowd wrangled about His Words or His Person, had ascended the flight of steps which led from 'the Terrace' into the Temple-building. From these stepswhether those leading up to the 'Beautiful Gate,' or one of the side gates-He could gain full view into the Court of the Women,' into which they opened. On these steps, or within the gate (for in no other place was it lawful), He sat Him down, watching the multitude. The time of the Sacrifice was past, and those who still lingered had remained for private devotion, for private sacrifices, or to pay their vows and offerings. Although the topography of the Temple, especially of this part of it, is not without its difficulties, we know that under the colonnades, which surrounded the Court of the Women,' but still left in the middle room for more than 15,000 worshippers, provision was made for receiving religious and charitable contributions. All along these colonnades were the thirteen trumpetshaped boxes (Shopharoth); somewhere here also we must locate two chambers: that of 'the silent,' for gifts to be distributed in Shekal. vi. secret to the children of the pious poor, and that where votive vessels were deposited. Perhaps there was here also a special chamber for offerings.c These trumpets' bore each inscriptions, marking the objects of contribution-whether to make up for past neglect, to pay for certain sacrifices, to provide incense, wood, or for other gifts. As they passed to this or that treasury-box, it must have been a study of deep interest, especially on that day, to watch the givers. Some might come with appearance of self-righteousness, some even with ostentation, some as cheerfully performing a happy duty. Many that were rich cast in much '-yes, very much, for such was the tendency that (as already stated) a law had to be enacted, < 5; v. 6 © Midd i. 1 BOOK V a Jos. Ant. xiv. 4. 4; 7. 1 b Baba B. 10 b forbidding the gift to the Temple of more than a certain proportion of one's possessions. And the amount of such contributions may be inferred by recalling the circumstance, that, at the time of Pompey and Crassus, the Temple-Treasury, after having lavishly defrayed every possible expenditure, contained in money nearly half a million, and precious vessels to the value of nearly two millions sterling.* And as Jesus so sat on these steps, looking out on the evershifting panorama, His gaze was riveted by a solitary figure. The simple words of St. Mark sketch a story of singular pathos. 'It was one pauper widow.' We can see her coming alone, as if ashamed to mingle with the crowd of rich givers; ashamed to have her offering seen; ashamed, perhaps, to bring it; a widow,' in the garb of a desolate mourner; her condition, appearance, and bearing that of a 'pauper.' He observed her closely and read her truly. She held in her hand only the smallest coins: two Perutahs'—and it was not lawful to contribute a less amount. Together these two Perutahs made a quadrans, which was the ninety-sixth part of a denar, itself of the value of about sevenpence. But it was 'all her living' (Bios), perhaps all that she had been able to save out of her scanty housekeeping; more probably, all that she had to live upon for that day, and till she wrought for more. And of this she now made humble offering unto God. He spake not to her words of encouragement, for she walked by faith; He offered not promise of return, for her reward was in heaven. She knew not that any had seen it—for the knowledge of eyes turned on her, even His, would have flushed with shame the pure cheek of her love; and any word, conscious notice, or promise would have marred and turned aside the rising incense of her sacrifice. But to all time has it remained in the Church, like the perfume of Mary's alabaster that filled the house, this deed of self-denying sacrifice. More, far more, than the great gifts of their 'superfluity,' which the rich cast in, was, and is to all time, the gift of absolute self-surrender and sacrifice, tremblingly offered by 1 Jewish tradition, though it ever and painfully thrusts forward the reward, has some beautiful legends, allegories, and sayings about the gifts of the poor. One quotation must here suffice (Bemidb. R. 14). It is to the effect, that, if one who is poor, doeth charity, God says of him: This one is preventing Me. He has kept My commandments before they have come to him. I must recompense him. In Vajjikra R. 3, we read of a woman, whose offering of a handful of flour the priest despised, when God admonished him in a dream to value the gift as highly as if she had offered herself. Yet another quotation from the Mishnah. The tractate Menachoth closes with these words: Alike as regards burnt-offerings of beasts and those of fowls [those of the poor] and the meat-offering, we find the expression "for a sweet savour," to teach us, that to offer much or to offer little is the same, provided only that a man direct mind and heart towards God.' THE GREEKS WHO WOULD SEE JESUS. the solitary mourner. And though He spake not to her, yet the sunshine of His words must have fallen into the dark desolateness of her heart; and, though perhaps she knew not why, it must have been a happy day, a day of rich feast in the heart, that when she gave up her whole living' unto God. And so, perhaps, is every sacrifice for God all the more blessed, when we know not of its blessedness. Would that to all time its lesson had been cherished, not theoretically, but practically, by the Church! How much richer would have been her treasury': twice blessed in gift and givers. But so is not legend written. If it had been a story invented for a purpose, or adorned with the tinsel of embellishment, the Saviour and the widow would not have so parted-to meet and to speak not on ear á, but in heaven. She would have worshipped, and He spoken or done some great thing. Their silence was a tryst for heaven. 389 СНАР. III xii. 20-50 4. One other event of solemn joyous import remains to be recorded on that day. But so closely is it connected with what the St. John Lord afterwards spoke, that the two cannot be separated. It is narrated only by St. John, who, as before explained,' tells it as one of a series of progressive manifestations of the Christ: first, in His Entry into the City, and then in the Temple-successively, to the Greeks, by the Voice from Heaven, and before the people. Precious as each part and verse here is, when taken by itself, there is some difficulty in combining them, and in showing their connection, and its meaning. But here we ought not to forget, that we have, in the Gospel-narrative, only the briefest account-as it were, headings, summaries, outlines, rather than a report. Nor do we know the surrounding circumstances. The words which Christ spoke after the request of the Greeks to be admitted to His Presence may bear some special reference also to the state of the disciples, and their unreadiness to enter into and share His predicted sufferings. And this χχίν. may again be connected with Christ's prediction and Discourse about the last things.' For the position of the narrative in St. st. Matt. John's Gospel seems to imply that it was the last event of that day -nay, the conclusion of Christ's public Ministry. If this be so, words and admonitions, otherwise somewhat mysterious in their connection, would acquire a new meaning. It was then, as we suppose, the evening of a long and weary day of teaching. As the sun had been hastening towards its setting in 1 See cho vi |