13. Yoma 55 b.
15. Jos . War vii. 6. 6.
12. Sheqal. vi. 5.
14. Ps. ii. 4.
It will be remembered that, shortly before the previous Passover, Jesus with His
disciples had left Capernaum,16 That they returned to the latter city only for the Sabbath,
and that, as we have sug gested, they passed the first Paschal days on the borders of
Tyre. We have, indeed, no means of knowing where the Master had tarried during the
ten days between the 15th and the 25th Adar, supposing the Mishnic arrangements to
have been in force in Caperna um. He was certainly not at Capernaum, and it must also
have been known, that He had not gone up to Jerusalem for the Passover. Accordingly,
when it was told in Capernaum, that the Rabbi of Nazareth had once more come to
what seems to have been His Galilea n home, it was only natural, that they who
collected the Temple -tribute 17 should have applied for its payment. It is quite possible,
that their application may have been, if not prompted, yet quickened, by the wish to
involve Him in a breach of so well-known an obligation, or else by a hostile curiosity.
Would He, Who took so strangely different views of Jewish observances, and Who
made such extraordinary claims, own the duty of paying the Temple -tribute? Had it
been owing to His absence, or from principle, that He had not paid it last Passover-
season? The question which they put to Peter implies, at least, their doubt.
16. See Book III. ch. xxxi.
17. If it were not for the authority of Wieseler, who supports it, the suggestion would
scarcely deserve serious notice, that the reference here is not to the Temple -tribute, but
to the Roman polltax or census. Irrespective of the question whether a census was then
levied in Galilee, the latter is designated both in St. Matt. xvii. 25, and in xxii. 17, as well
as in St. Mark xii. 14, as κηνσος, while here the well-known expression didrachma is
used.
We have already seen what motives prompted the hasty reply of Peter. He might,
indeed, also otherwise, in his rashness, have given an affirmative answer to the inquiry,
without first consulti ng the Master. For there seems little doubt, that Jesus had on
former occasions complied with the Jewish custom. But matters were now wholly
changed. Since the first Passover, which had marked His first public appearance in the
Temple at Jerusalem, He had stated - and quite lately in most explicit terms - that He
was the Christ, the Son of God. To have now paid the Temple -tribute, without
explanation, might have involved a very serious misapprehension. In view of all this, the
history before us seems alike simple and natural. There is no pretext for the artificial
construction put upon it by commentators, any more than for the suggestion, that such
was the poverty of the Master and His disciples, that the small sum requisite for the
Temple -tribute had to be miraculously supplied.
We picture it to ourselves on this wise. Those who received the Tribute -money had
come to Peter, and perhaps met him in the court or corridor, and asked him: 'Your
Teacher (Rabbi), does He not pay the didrachma?' While Peter hastily responded in the
affirmative, and then entered into the house to procure the coin, or else to report what
has passed, Jesus, Who had been in another part of the house, but was cognisant of
all, 'anticipated him.'18 Addressing him in kindly language as 'Simon,' He pointed out the
real state of matters by an illustration which must, of course, not be too literally pressed,