Expositions of Holy Scripture : St. Matthew Chaps. IX to XXVIIIMaclaren, Alexander
Religion
Expositions of Holy Scripture : St. Matthew Chaps. IX to XXVIII
Maclaren, Alexander
Bible -- Commentaries; Bible. Matthew IX-XXVIII -- Commentaries
That doctrinal or dogmatic purpose characterises all the miracles in
varying degrees. It is the only purpose of the one before us. This
singular miracle of finding the coin in the fish's mouth and giving
it for the tribute-money is unlike our Lord's other works in several
particulars. It is the only miracle--with the exception of the
cursing of the barren fig-tree, and the episode of the unclean
spirits entering into the swine--in which there is no message of
love or blessing for man's sorrow and pain. It is the only miracle
in which our Lord uses His power for His own service or help, and it
is like the whole brood of legendary miracles, and unlike all the
rest of Christ's in that, at first sight, it seems done for a very
trivial end--the providing of some three shillings of our money.
Now, if we put all these things together, the absence of any
alleviation of man's sorrow, the presence of a personal end, and the
apparent triviality of the result secured, I think we shall see that
the only explanation of the miracle is given by regarding it as
being what I may call a teaching one, full of instruction with
regard to our Lord's character, person, and work. It is a parable as
well as a miracle, and it is in that aspect that I wish to look at
it now, and try to bring out its lessons.
I. We have here, first, the freedom of the Son.
The whole point of the story depends upon the fact that this
tribute-money was not a civil, but an ecclesiastical impost. It had
originally been levied in the Wilderness, at the time of the
numbering of the people, and was enjoined to be repeated at each
census, when every male Israelite was to pay half a shekel for 'a
ransom for his soul,' an acknowledgment that his life was forfeited
by sin. In later years it came to be levied as an annual payment for
the support of the temple and its ceremonial. It was never
compulsory, there was no power to exact it. The question of the
collectors, 'Doth not your Master pay tribute?' does not sound like
the imperative demand which a 'publican' would have made for payment
of an impost due to the Roman Government. It was an 'optional
church-rate,' and the very fact that it was so, would make Jews who
were, or wished to be considered, patriotic or religious, the more
punctilious in paying it.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account