Two objections to the interpretation of the parable proposed in this article deserve attention. (1) In v.'^i, Jesus says that the angels shall gather out of His Kingdom all offences and them tSat do iniquity, whence it is inferred that the tares Avere in the Kingdom and not in the world. It is ad- mitted that the Avord ' Kingdom ' is used in this parable in a very loose sense. But this is the uni- versal fact throughout the Synoptics, in proof of which the long controversies in the theological world about its meaning are conclusive (cf. Sanday in Hastings' DB ii. 619 f.). The Kingdom of v.^^ which the course of events has already made like the field of the following narrative, is a most in- tangible and indefinable entity, a congeries of truths and principles characteristic of the coming age, which take shape in the world as they em- body themselves in the lives of men. In the pro- cess of taking shape, the parable tells us, opposition has risen in the world of men which these truths and principles claim as their rightful sphere, and which men expect them to occupy. The sons of the Kingdom (v.^^) are those who receive these truths and embody them in their lives and con- duct. Tliese are sown in the wide field of the world of men, which the Messiah claims as right- fully His — His Kingdom (v.^i), or, if preferred, which He calls His Kingdom at His coming to claim it as such (cf. Mt 16-8, 2 Ti 41, Rev lli«; cf. Mt 13*8). Finally, the Kingdom of their Father (v.«, cf. Mt 26-9 2534- 46) is the consummated King- dom of glory. (2) The related parable of the Net (I347-50) ig supposed to refer to the discipline of the Church. This is, however, a mistake, (a) The Kingdom is not like the Net ; but its principles and history, here especially its consummation, are illustrated by the following story (cf. Mk 4-"). (b) The explanation of vv."'- ^oiays not the slightest emphasis on anything except the consummation.
TAX
TEACHI^'G OF JESUS
6'J9
((■) Those who draw the net and those who separate the good and the bad are the very same persons (v.-'S), i.e. the angels (v.""). (d) The parable, if it relates to Church discipline, makes that abso- lutely impossible, (e) Its position at tlie end of the sermon of Mt 13, whether due to Jesus or Mt. or an editor, is an additional proof that its teaching- is the same as that of the Tares : i.e. at the end of the age, and only then, shall the good and the bad be separated.
The historical criticism of the Gospels gives no assured results here. Holtzmann and Pfleiderer think that the Evangelist has worked over and added new traits to Mk i^Gff-. B. Weiss says that Mt. and Mk. have worked over the same original parable, Mt., however, adding only vv.2-5. ». asa. The explanation, as also that of the Sower, is from the Evangelist's hand. Julicher acknowledges an unrecognizable parable-kernel here, which lies at the bottom of both Mt. and Mk. The parable, as it stands in Mt., is, however, the result of a working over of Mk.'s parable and the original parable, the companion of the Net, while the explanation is from the same editor's hand. Hilgenfeld and Holsten look on Mk.'s parable as a weakened form of the Tares, or a substitute for it. J. Weiss thinks that the idea of gradual development is not in this or its sister parables.
LiTER.\TURE. — Broadus, Com. on Mt. ; Julicher, Die Gleich- nisreden Jesu, ii. 546-569 ; also B. Weiss, Zahn, Goebel, Trench, and Bruce (Parabolic Teackinfj), cf. his remarks in Expos. Gr. Test., in loc. ; \tnot {Parables) may be compared as a pioneer of the correct interpretation. See also R. Flint, Christ's King- dom upon Earth (1865), 122 ; H. S. Holland, God's City (1894), 181 ; R. J. Campbell, The Song of Aftes (1905), 77. The contro- versy of the Donatists with Augustine first brought out the arguments on both sides.
Frederick L. Anderson.
TAX (diroypdcpw, RV ' enrol '), TAXING (awoypcKp-f), RV 'enrolment'), occur in the Gospels only in Lk 2'"'. The words refer to the registration of the inhabitants of Palestine, with a view to levying taxation upon them for Imperial purposes. In the present instance this appears to have been done, not by the usual Roman method of enrolling per- sons under their place of residence, but by the Jewish method of enumerating them according to the cities and towns Avith which their families were originally connected. For the enrolment is men- tioned in order to explain why Joseph and Mary came from Nazareth to Bethlehem at the time when Jesus was born. The passage would need no further comment, were it not for the historical difficulty that has been raised in connexion with the statement of v.'- about Quirinius. There was a well-known enrolment (Ac 5^^) which took place in Judisa under his supervision, after the deposition of Archelaus in A.D. 6 (Jos. Ant. xvil. xiii. 5, XVIII. i. 1) ; but it has been seriously questioned whether he held an earlier governorship of Syria before the death of Herod the Great, and whether such an enrolment as St. Luke describes really took place at that time. With regard to the first point, it is now admitted that Quirinius probably held a post of responsibility in Syria before the governorship which began in A.D. 6 (see Schiirer, HJP i. i. 353 fl"., and art. Quirinius). With regard to the second point, it has been shown by Sir Wni. Ramsay ( Wa.s Christ born at Bethlehem ?) that, in Egyj)t at least, enrolments took place every fourteen years, that traces of the same arrangement have been found in other parts of the Empire, and that it may have extended to Palestine. The dates, when traced backwards, would include A.D. 20, A.D. 6, and B.C. 8. If an enrolment were actually due in Palestine in the last-named year, its completion may have been somewhat delayed by the disturbed state of Herod's kingdom, and may have fallen as late as B.C. 6, which is the probable date of the birth of Jesus. James Patrick.