Godet (in his Commentary on St. Luke, adloe.) points out that the phrase ' I must be ' (Stl ehal ^e) conveys the idea of an absolute and morally irre- sistible consecration to the service of God on earth. To the awakening consciousness of the child Jesus the Temple at Jerusalem was the symbol of the Father's dominion over all things ; He said in effect to His parents, 'Ye ought to have sought me in the place where men are occupied with the things of God.'
These first recorded words of Jesus then set a standard by which must be tested every manner of life. How far is it possible for a life spent in business, with which a linguistic accident connects these words for English readers of the Bible, to be lived in the things of the Father, according to the teaching of His Son ? As an aid towards reaching an answer to this vital question, let us see what we can learn, from our Lord's acts and words, of the attitude He adopted towards the business life of the time of His Incarnation.
2. At the next recorded visit of Jesus to the Temple, we find Him in conflict with men who conducted business improperly : those who bore rule there did not understand that they were iv roii Tov varpbi. It is well known that St. John {•i}'^"-) narrates a 'Cleansing of the Temple' as taking place quite early in the Lord's public ministiy, while the Synoptists (Mt 21'='-, Mk ll'^"-, Lk 19^''') describe a similar event as occurring in Holy Week. It is at least possible tliat the holy zeal of Jesus was twice displayed in this manner ; but if a choice had to be made, there would be strong reasons for preferring the chronological arrangement of St. John. Without entering into this question, however, we can simply study the attitude of Jesus towards those who conducted
244
BUSINESS
tlie Temple market. The traffic was of two sorts, the sale of sacrificial animals, and the exchange of money : in both cases it may well have been legitimate in itself, and even necessary : the sin was connected with its being carried on within tlie sacred precincts. It seems obvious that the Sadducean rulers of the Temple, whose cupidity was notorious, must have made money out of the business carried on there ; no doubt the sites for stalls within the Temple precincts would command a good rent ; and, further, if the animals sold there were certified officially as being unblemished and fit for sacrifice, while those bought outside were liable to a scrutiny on being brought into the Temple, it is easy to see how the privileged trades- men may have gained an almost complete mono- jioly, for which they would willingly pay a high price. If the conjecture (see Edersheim, Life and Times", 1887, p. 367 ff.) that this Temple market was identical with the unpopular ' Bazaars of the Sons of Annas' is right, then the notorious Annas and his son-in-law Caiaphas had probably a direct interest in the trade carried on. It seems prob- able that the 'changers of money' (/cep/iaTicrraf, Jn 2» ; KoWvpLcral, Jn 2'=, Mt 2V\ Mk 11'=) were tlie official Slmlhanim (Lightfoot, Hone Hcb. on Mt 21"=; Edersheim, The Temple, p. 70 tt'.) who sat to collect the lialf-shekel for a fortnight before the Passover : they were allowed to make a charge on each half-shekel wliether change was given or not, ,and Edersheim places their probable annual gain from this source at £9000. Very likely the ordinary business of exchange of money was carried on, as obviously no coins bearing images or idolatrous symbols could be offered in the Temple. Moreover, the mention by Josephus (BJ VI. v. 2) of treasure-chambers in the Temple belonging to private individuals suggests that ordinary banking business, including the receipt of money on deposit, may have been made a source of profit, which would be enhanced by the security afforded by the sanctity of the place. These con- siderations have been put forward to show that it is likely that the ruling priestly faction turned to financial account the consecrated character of the buildings committed to their charge. Probably it was this making money out of holy things, rather than the ceremonial violation of the sanctity of the Temple, that caused the severity of our Lord's condemnation of tlie whole system which made His Father's house into ' a house of merchandise,' according to St. John's account, or in the stronger words of the Synoptists, into 'a den of robbers.' It is clear that Jesus would not suffer business to be carried on in a manner that interfered with the honour due to God : doubtless He would have applied this principle to the Day, no less than to the House, of His Father. The same lesson is taught in the parable of the Royal Marriage Feast (Mt 23><'- ; cf. Lk W^^-).
3. But the Son of Man, to whom nothing human was void of interest, in no way stood aloof from business. Himself a carpenter by trade (Mk 6'), He did not hesitate to tell the ' fishermen ' Apostles that there was a likeness between their former worldly and their future spiritual vocation (Mt 4'", Mk 1") ; the would-be disciple, who wished first to bid farewell to those at his house, was told that he might have learned behind the plough the need of concentrating his whole interest and attention on the task he had in hand (Lk 9*-). Both before and after the resurrection (Lk 5"-, Jn 21i"-) Jesus granted .special revelations of Himself to the disciples while engaged in their usual occupations. In the command to render to Ca;sar the things that are Ciesar's (Mt 22'-', and parallels), we are struck by the business-like recognition of actually existing circumstances. Several of the parable's