V. WHY 18 THIS COMMENDATION omITTED By St. Marx? It has often been remarked that many things redounding solely to the honour of St. Peter are omitted by St. Mark; while at the same time his infirmities are fully and faithfully recorded by the same evangelist, extenuating circumstances being less noticed by this evangelist than by the other synoptists, An example of this is furnished in the case before us, The eecing pronounced on him because of this noble and brave confession of the Christ, the Divine origin of his knowledge and faith, the promise just considered, anc the further promise of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, are all omitted by St. Marg. But the rebuke to which he soon after subjected himself is carefully recorded. Many instances of both kinds occur. This is one of those incidentai circumstances that go far to confirm the voice of history in regard to the relation in which St. Peter stood to St. Mark and his Gospel, namely, that the latter penned his Gospel, as disciple and by the dictation, to some extent, of the former. If so, and we think it extremely probable, we have proof herein of the veracity of the one and the humility of the other.
V1. Repetition oF THE PREDICTION. Reverting to the subject of the Saviour’s sufferings, so plainly announced in the eighth chapter, we have a repetition of a similar announcement in this ninth chapter, and another, again, in nearly the same terms in - the tenth chapter. These repeated as well as direct and unreserved declarations on
66 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. (cu. rx. 1—50.
this subject—a subject so distasteful and saddening to his disciples—show their unwillingness to associate the idea of death with the Messiah, their tenacity in clinging to a temporal king and worldly kingdom, their slowness and lothness to apprehend or accept the notion of a spiritual, unworldly kingdom, The idea of a suffering Messiah has, therefore, to be dinned into their ears and impressed on their hearts by frequent and earnest reiterations. Nor has this subject lost aught of its importance or interest even for ourselves and at the present day; while the faithful inculcation of it is as much a duty and a necessity now as when our Lord in person urged it so solemnly and so often on the mind and heart of his sorrowing disciples. Though the cross was a stumbling-block to the Jews, and foolishness to the Greeks, it is still the power of God, and the wisdom of God, to the salvation of every believer. The way to the crown is still by, and only by, the cross; humiliation precedes glorification. The preacher of the gospel cannot dwell too frequently or too earnestly on a theme that bulked so largely in the sight of the Saviour himself. The doctrine of Christ’s suffering for us to put away our sins—suffering, “the just for the unjust, to bring us to God ”— cannot be too much insisted on; neither can we be too often instructed in the duty of giving ourselves fully, freely, and for ever to him “ who loved us and gave himself for us.” If, moreover, Christ was “ obedient unto death, even the death of the cross,” in all its shame and with all its pain, it surely behoves us, in daily, holy obedience, to take up our cross, deny ourselves, and follow him.—J. J. G.
Ver. 33. Parallel passage: Matt. xvii. 24—27.—The tribute money. I. ANOTHER omission. In the first line of the thirty-third verse we approach the subject of the tribute money; but in St. Mark’s narrative we only approach it, and that in the state- ment, “he came to Capernaum;” but in the parallel section of St. Matthew we read of the demand for the tribute money, of Peter being commissioned to procure it from “the fish that first cometh up,” of the exemption Jesus might have claimed but waived, and the reason of his doing so. Here, again, St. Mark omits the part of the narrative which relates to the honour conferred on Peter by our Lord, when he commissioned him te work the miracle by which the tribute money was procured from the fish’s mouth. But, though St. Mark omits this portion of the recital, the preceding and succeeding portions are coincident with those of St. Matthew. The peculiar relation of the apostle to the evangelist, already considered, can alone account for the omission.
I. GrounD OF LEGITIMATE EXEMPTION, In Matt. xvii. 24, 25, we read, “ When they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your Master pay tribute?” Then at the last clause of the twenty-fifth verse, our Lord asked Peter, “ What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?” A slight amount of archeological knowledge makes this plain. The word “tribute” in the twenty-fourth verse is 74 di5paxua; the word “tribute” in the twenty-fifth is xjvcov; while custom,” a word of kindred meaning, is réAn. Also in the twenty-seventh verse, the word grarhp, or “shekel,” rendered “ piece of money ” in the English version, occurs. The stater, or shekel, equivalent to two shillings and sixpence of our currency, was the exact amount of tax payable by two. Now, there is a very wide and important distinction between these terms, and a distinction necessary to be kept in view for the right understanding of the passage. For (1) the dfSpaxua were equal in value to the Jewish half-shekel, or some fifteenpence of our money, and may be called a sacred tribute or annual contribution paid by every male among the Jews, from twenty yeurs of age and upwards, for the support of the temple at Jerusalem—to defray the general expenses, to provide the sacrifices and other things required for the service. The persons who collected it were not the civil tax-gatherers, called publicuni, or rather pee nor, indeed, was the tax a civil one at all, but a sacred one. From over- ooking this fact, the point of the argument is liable to be missed, as it actually has been by several of the Fathers. It is brietly, though correctly, developed by Alford, in the following sentence :—“ If the sons are free, then on me, being the Son of God, has this tax no elaim.” It requires, however, to be somewhat more fully and plainly exhibited. In order to set the matter in a clear light, we premise (2) that the xivoos, for which St. Luke employs the classical Greek term $épos, was a poll or capitation tax, like the Roman tributwm; while by téAn are to be understood the toll or customs’
OH. Ix, 1—50.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. 57