between our Lord and the three Apostles, as they came down from the mountain, respecting the traditionary doctrine that Elijah should personally reappear before the advent of the expected Christ—a topic evidently suggested by the presence of Elijah along with Moses, in the recent colloquy which they had witnessed. The next, and directly after, was the cure of the demoniac P, which the rest of the Apostles, that is, the NINE who had not been with our Lord on the mountain, were unable to effect-though this might be the only instance of any such failure, since the original communication of miraculous power, adequate to effects like these-and a failure even in this instance perhaps to be ascribed to the absence either of our Lord himself, or of their companions--and the diffidence, or want of faith, which might thence have been occasioned in the rest*. * Or, what is equally possible, it is simply to be ascribed to the nature of the cure itself, and to the peculiar obstinacy of the spirit with whom these Apostles had to contend. For there is no reason why evil spirits, though they durst not but yield obedience to the commands of Christ himself, might not refuse submission, especially in his absence, to the commands of men, though empowered and assisted by him. I say this is at least a conceivable case; for it is just as possible that wicked spirits, under certain circumstances, should refuse obedience to the will of God, as that wicked men should. It excited the surprize of the Seventy, that even the spirits were subject to them; though they acted by an undoubted divine commission, in their ejectionand the reluctance with which the demon, in the present instance, submitted even to the commands of our Lord himself, by evacuating the body of which he had taken possession, appears from the violence of his effects on the subject, just before the dispossession, and at the time of it. It is needless to observe that this miracle, and that upon the demoniacs at Gadara, are the most singular and striking of their kind; and it is probable they were both left on record expressly to shew that the fiercest or most refractory of evil spirits were alike subject to the control, and, • Matt. xvii. 10-13. Mark ix. 9—13. Luke ix. 37. 14-18. Mark ix. 14-27. Luke ix. 37-42. Matt. xvii. The allusion to the mountain, as close at hand, and also the critical circumstance, that the multitude, when they saw our Lord, were amazed and astonished', and running up to him began to salute him—a very lively description of the effect produced by his appearance, and implying either that it was sudden and instantaneous, or that there was something, in his person and aspect, more than usually divine and resplendent, (the still visible emanation of that heavenly glory and transcendent majesty with which they had lately been illuminated,) or both-are proofs of direct continuity in the order of all these events. After the miracle, as we may collect from Matt. xvii. 19-21. compared with Mark ix. 28. 29. he must have retired to some private house, where the nine Apostles, apart from the people, enquired of him why they had been unable to perform the miracle, having, probably, performed many like it before. The answer shews that there was something peculiar in this case, such as Origens observes to have happened, under the same circumstances, in his own time also: Δυσίατόν ἐστι τὸ νόσημα τοῦτο, ὡς καὶ τοὺς ἔχοντας χάριν θεραπεύειν δαιμονῶντας ὅτε μὲν ἀπαυδῶν πρὸς τοῦτο, ὅτε δὲ, μετὰ νηστειῶν καὶ προσευχῶν, καὶ πλειόνων καμάτων, ἐπιτυγχάνειν. The criterion, therefore, of such obstinate cases of possession was the exhibition of those symptoms externally, which might be produced naturally by epilepsy, but, in these instances, were due to demoniacal agency. In answer, then, to this enquiry, the similitude of the grain of mustard seed, for the efficacy of the miracle-working faith, though for the first time, might very pertinently be found on record. however little inclined to acknowledge any other superiors, alike implicitly submissive to the will, of Christ. Our Lord's final address to this spirit, as reported by St. Mark, is such as we never find ascribed to him elsewhere-and might have been purposely intended to mark the contrast between himself and his disciples. Τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἄλαλον καὶ κωφὸν, ΕΓΩ σοι ἐπιτάσσω· Ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ, καὶ μηκέτι εἰσέλθῃς εἰς αὐτόν. 4 Matt. xvii. 20. Mark ix. 15. • Comm. i. 312. Posterior to these transactions we meet with no more particular details yet, I think, there is enough to imply a continued residence in Galilee, before the return to Capernaum preparatory to the next feast of Tabernacles; first, because, John vii. 1. it is said, After these things (that is, the events in the synagogue at Capernaum) Jesus walked in Galilee; for he would not walk in Judæa. St. John, then, was aware that a considerable portion of our Saviour's time, during the first six months of this year, had been passed in Galilee, and, consequently, was so from this time forward to the feast of Tabernacles: for, hitherto, there is no proof that he had walked (that is, lived and resided) in that country at all; unless his visiting the regions of Tyre and Sidon-his journeying to and fro in the dominions of Philip—his crossing or recrossing the lake, without landing, or continuing any length of time, upon the Galilean coast-are to be considered such. Secondly, because, Matt. xvii. 22. for some time at least after the preceding events, but before the return to Capernaum, xvii. 24. they were conversant, that is, living and residing, in Galilee—and, Mark ix. 30. when they departed from the vicinity of Tabor, it was to journey along through Galilee. The same passage shews that, all this time, Jesus was still desirous of privacy-oux XEV Tva TIS vand, as it is implied in each of the accounts, the only memorable particular, which transpired throughout it, (and that, apparently, at the beginning, rather than the end, of the progress,) was the repetition of the same particular prediction, concerning his death and resurrection, which had been once delivered before. If, then, the detail is resumed, it is so only with the account of the last part of the journey—the account of the return to Capernaum"-the particulars of all which, down to Matt. xviii. 35. Mark ix. 50. and Luke ix. 46-50. I shall have occasion to consider elsewhere. Nor shall I observe, for the present, on any part of it, except what relates to the demand of the triMatt. xvii. 22. 23. Mark ix. 31. 32. Luke x. 43-45. 24. Mark ix. 33. "Matt. xvii. bute or the incident recorded Matt. xvii. 24. to the end; for this incident also, rightly estimated, will be found to support the same conclusion, that our Lord had been absent from Capernaum, ever since the last Passover, and returned to it a little before the next feast of Tabernacles. That Judæa, from A. U. 691. B. C. 63. and thenceforward down to A. U. 819. A. D. 66. became and continued tributary to the Roman government seems to be clearly implied by the passages quoted in the margin : and that this tribute was paid in the shape of a poll-tax is not incredible. That it was not, however, the tribute intended in the present instance appears from the drift of the reasoning addressed to Peter. Our Lord argues that the acknowledged exemption of the children, or the near relations, of kings, from all such tributes or services as they impose upon strangers, would be a just ground of exception-in his own particular instance-from the demand in question. This argument supposes, then, that he himself stood in the relation of son to him, for the benefit of whose service the tax was understood to be levied—a supposition, which would manifestly be true, if the tax was levied for the service of the temple, and our Saviour himself stood in the relation of Son to the God of Israel. And, as proceeding upon the assumption of such a relation, we may observe by the way, the reasoning itself is a strong and convincing testimony to the proper sonship, and, in the capacity of son, to the proper relationship, of Jesus Christ-which those, who deny this relation, will not easily evade or impugn. There can be little doubt, therefore, that the tribute in question was the tribute required from every male Israelite, above the age of twenty-once in the year-and to be paid into the corban, or treasury of God, for the current expenses of the Temple-service. The original appointment of this tribute is thus recorded by Josephus: To mañbos ▾ Ant. Jud. xiv. iv. 4. 5. Ib. vii. 1. B. i. vii. 6. B. i. xi. 2. Tac. Ann. ii. 42. Matt. xxii. 15-22. 1021. Ant. Jud. xviii. vi. 3. B. ii. xvi. 4. 482. 2 Chron. xxiv. 9. Nehem. x. 32. Ib. viii. 8. Ant. xiv. xi. 2. w Exod. xxx. 13—16. ἀθροίσας πάλιν εἰσφορὰν αὐτὸ προσέταξεν εἰσφέρειν, σίκλου τὸ ἥμισυ καθ ̓ ἕκαστον· ὁ δὲ σίκλος, νόμισμα Εβραίων ὤν, Αττικὰς déXETαι Spaxμas Térσapas. Hieronymus-in Ezechielem y: Siclus id est stater-habet drachmas quatuor. The continuance of the same tribute ever after-its recognition by the Jews of the Dispersion as well as of the mother-country-the peculiar denomination of rò ôídpaxμov, or τà di gaxua, by which it was known-its collection into banks or exchequers in every city-especially among Gentile communities-in order to be taken up at proper times, and by proper persons, to Jerusalem—are facts abundantly confirmed by Philo, Josephus, and others. To dispaxμov τῷ Θεῷ καταβάλλειν—ὸ ἑκάστοις πάτριον. The same tax, so paid before to the sacred treasury, the Jews were commanded by Vespasian to contribute to the rebuilding of the Capitol at Rome—and the imposition continued to the time of Pliny, where he speaks of the balsam-tree: Servit nunc hæc, et tributa pendit, cum sua gente a. It is asserted, indeed, by the Rabbinical writers, that the tax for the temple was ordinarily due, and ordinarily to be collected, at the Passover b; but it would be much more probable, a priori, that it would be really due, and really required to be paid, at a time to which the payment of every other legal tribute, whether in money, or in kind, appears to have been appropriated—that of the feast of Tabernacles. In this case the collectors of it at Capernaum, by demanding it now, would be making provision for an approaching feast of that description-and, therefore, the return of our Lord to Capernaum, after which they immediately demanded it, could not have been long before the same time. I do not know that the authority of the Rabbins is of much weight with regard to any of the customs in our Sa Ant. iii. viii. 2. y Oper. iii. 722. Ant. Jud. xviii. iii. 5. ix. 1. Vide also xiv. vii. 2. x.8. xvi. ii. 3—5. vi. 2—7. B. v. v. 1. vi. vi. 2. Philo De Legatione. 1014. 23-33. 35. 36. Philo Quis Rer. Div. Hæres. 506. De Monarchia. ii. 822. Ciceron. Orat. Pro Flacco. 28. a Jos. B. Jud. vii. vi. 6. Dio. lxvi. 7. Plin. H. N. xii. 25. b Mishna. ii. 176. 1. &c. |
