duties, which are identical with the vectigal of the Romans. Further, let it be borne in mind that Peter’s confession of faith that Jesus was “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” had been made, being recorded in the sixteenth chapter, snd so had preceded the present conversation. Our Lord now argues from analogy that he was entitled to, and might fairly claim, exemption. In doing so, he asks Peter this question, “‘ What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own sons, or of strangers?” It is here admitted by implication that civil rulers have a right to impose taxes for the support of civil government, but that, in exercising this right, they impose taxes on the other members of the state, not on the members of their own household. When kings levy taxes, or have them levied in the ordinary constitutional way, they impose them on their subjects, not on their sons. Peter had confessed Jesus to be the Son of God; the tax demanded was for the support of God’s house; according to the principle of action among earthly kings, God, the great King of heaven and of earth, while requiring contributions for the maintenance of his service from his subjects, would exempt his own Son, for, from his position of Sonship, which the apostle had recently acknow- ledged, and from the principle of taxation in which he had just acquiesced, it was necessarily inferred, “ then are the sons free.” Not asa mere member of the Hebrew race, or as an ordinary Jew, but from his dignity as the Son of God, in the highest and most exalted sense, our Lord might have claimed exemption from the tax in question, This was the gist of his reasoning: but he waived his right; and proceeds to explain to Peter the ground on which he foregoes his privilege, saying, “ Lest we should offend them,” or more plainly in the Revised Version, “ Lest we cause them to stumble;” in other words, lest he and his disciples should be regarded as indifferent to, or be charged with, neglect of the house of God and the maintenance of its service.—J. J. G.
Vers. 33—37. Parallel passages: Matt. xviii. 1—5; Luke ix. 46—48,—The lesson of humility. The exquisite lesson of humility taught in the remainder of this section eno first clause of the thirty-third verse, as it stands in St. Mark, having been already considered) may be appropriately taken up in connection with the section of next chapter, where the lovely comparison of childhood is again employed.—J. J. G.
Vers, 88—41. Parallel passage : Luke ix. 49, 50.—Rebuke of sectarian narrowness. I, THE KEY-NOTE OF THE PASSAGE, The sentence which appears to furnish the key to the understanding of this instructive and interesting passage is contained in the follow- ing short sentence :—“ He that is not against us is on our part,” or, as it stands yet more concisely in St. Luke, “ He that is not against us is for us.”
II. A sEEMING CONTRADICTION. The statement just quoted from the Gospel of St. Luke (ix. 50) appears to be at variance with another statement further on in the same Gospel, where, at the eleventh chapter and twenty-third verse, it is written, “ He that is not with me is against me.” ‘he discrepancy, however, is only apparent. In order to perceive this, we must consider the occasions on which the words recorded were respectively spoken ; for, as our Lord and his apostles usually adapted their language to the occasion, we shall thus best learn the design with which each of those sentiments was uttered. Accordingly, we learn that some one not consorting with Christ or his apostles was, nevertheless, casting out devils in the Saviour’s name, and that John forbade him. Our Lord sets John right in the matter by saying, ‘“ Forbid him not; ” that is, do not interfere with any who may be attempting anything good in my name. And then he assigns the reason ; for “he that is not against us is for us;” he who is not directly opposed to us is rather to be regarded as on our side; he who is not preventing our progress may be looked upon, at least negatively, as promoting it. Just as is intimated by the Apostle Paul on a certain occasion, even though envy and strife should be the impelling motive, if Christ is preached his cause is advanced, and “TI therein do rejoice.” So here we may fairly understand the words of the Master to meam — Whosoever this man may be, or whatever may be his object, he is weakening Satan’s kingdom by casting out devils, au 1 therefore, so far from being against me, :e must be looked upon as an auxiliary in the great war against the great enemy of inan. Besides, by such forbearance as I thus counsel, he may be drawn into cioser and more effective co-operation against the common adversary. Such is the plain meaning of the passage
58 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. (on. rm, 1—50.
before us. On the other hand, in the second passage, our Lord had been charged by the hostile, cavilling Pharisees with casting out devils by Beelzebub the prince of devils. This charge had called forth the rejoinder of our Lord, that “every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation.” Such would be the case if Satan cast out Satan. The only reasonable alternative was that the Saviour was casting out devils by the Spirit of God, and so the kingdom of God had come unto them. He follows up this reply by a warning against lukewarmness and an exhortstion to decision, that the crisis had come when men must choose sides, that they must elect to take part with God or with Satan. Neutrality was impossible. In view of two kingdoms so opposed, there was no possibility of belonging to both; nay, there was no middle ground between loyalty and rebellion. If not on the side of the Saviour, he must be on the side of Satan; if not a subject of the former, he must be a slave of the latter, and so en enemy to the cause of Christ: “ He that is not with me is against me.”