Chapter VI: Part 6

On the occasion of his return and entrance into Peter’s house, a new instance occurred both of his wisdom and his special regard for this apostle. Some of those who went about legally authorized to collect the tax due from all conforming Jews, to defray the expenses of the temple-worship at Jerusalem, appear to have been waiting for Christ’s return from this journey, to call on him for his share, if he were willing to pay it as a good Jew. They seem to have had some doubts, however, as to the manner in which so eminent a teacher would receive a call to pay those taxes, from which he might perhaps deem himself exempted by his religious rank, more especially as he had frequently denounced, in the most unmeasured terms, all those concerned in the administration of the religious affairs of the Jewish nation. As soon as he had returned, therefore, they took the precaution to make the inquiry of Peter, as the well-known intimate of Jesus, “Doth not your Master pay tribute?” Peter, knowing well the steady, open reverence which Jesus always manifested for all the established usages of his country, readily and unhesitatingly answered “Yes.” And when he was come into the house, and was upon the point of proposing the matter to him, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “How thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of the children of others?” Peter says, “From others’ children.” Jesus says again to him, “Then are the children free.” That is: “If, when the kings and rulers of the nations gather their taxes, for the support of their royal state and authority, they pass over their own children untaxed, as a thing of course, then I, the son of that God who is the eternal king of Israel, am fairly exempt from the payment of the sum due from other Jews, for the support of the ceremonials of my Father’s temple in Jerusalem.” Still he did not choose to avail himself of this honorable pretext, but went on to tell Simon, “Nevertheless, lest we should give needless occasion for offense, we will pay what they exact; and for this purpose, go thou to the sea, and take up the fish that comes up first; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money; take that and give it them for me and thee.”

_Anticipated him._――This word I substitute in the place of
“_prevented_” which is the expression used in our common English
Bible, and which in the changes of modern usage has entirely
lost the signification which it had when the translators
applied it to this passage. The Greek word here is προεφθασεν,
(_proephthasen_,) and literally means “forespake” or “spake
before” him. This was the idea which the English translators
wished to express by the word “_prevented_,” whose true original
meaning is “anticipated,” or “was beforehand with him,” being
in Latin compounded of the words _prae_, “before,” and _venio_,
“come.” Among the numerous conveniences of Webster’s improved
edition of the Bible, for popular use, is the fact that in this
and similar passages he has altered the obsolete expression, and
changed it for a modern one, which is just and faithful to the
original idea. In this passage I find he has very properly given
the word above suggested, without my knowledge of the
coincidence.

_Of the children of others._――This expression too is a variation
from the common English translation, which here expresses itself
so vaguely, that a common reader can get no just idea whatever
of the passage, and is utterly unable to find the point of the
allusion. The Greek word is αλλοτριων, (_allotrion_,) which is
simply the genitive plural of an adjective, which means “of,
or belonging to others,” and is secondarily applied also to
“strangers, foreigners,” &c., as persons “belonging to other
lands;” but the primary meaning is absolutely necessary to be
given here, in order to do justice to the sense, since the idea
is not that they take tribute money of foreigners rather than of
their own subjects; but of their subjects rather than of their
own children, who are to enjoy the benefit of the taxation.

_A piece of money._――The term thus vaguely rendered, is in
Greek στατηρ, (_stater_,) which was a coin of definite value,
being worth among the Jews about four attic drachms, and exactly
equivalent to their shekel, a little more than half a dollar of
federal money. The tax here paid was the half-shekel tax, due
from every Jew for the service of the temple, so that the “piece
of money,” being one shekel, was just sufficient to pay for
both Jesus and Peter. The word translated “the tribute money”
(in verse 24) is equally definite in the Greek,――διδραχμον,
(_didrachmon_,) equivalent to the Jewish _half_-shekel, and
being itself worth half a _stater_. The stater, however, as a
name for Attic and Byzantine _gold_ coins, was equivalent to
twenty or thirty times the value of the shekel. (See Stephens’s
Thesaurus, Donnegan’s, Jones’s and Pickering’s Lexicons.) On
this passage see Hammond’s Annotations, which are here quite
full on values. See too, Lightfoot’s Horae Hebraica on Matthew
xvii. 25. Macknight’s Paraphrase, Poole and Kuinoel, for a very
full account of the matter. Also my note on page 32.

There have been two different accounts of this little
circumstance among commentators, some considering the tribute
money to have been a Roman tax, and others taking the ground
which I do, that it was the Jewish tax for the expenses of the
temple-worship. The reasons may be found at great length, in
some of the authorities just quoted; and it may be remarked
that the point of the allusion in Jesus’s question to Peter,
is all lost on the supposition of a Roman tax; for how could
Jesus claim exemption as a son of the Roman emperor, as he
justly could from the Jewish tax for the service of the heavenly
king, his Father? The correspondence of values too, with the
half-shekel tax, is another reason for adopting that view; nor
is there any objection to it, except the circumstance, that the
time at which this tax is supposed to have been demanded, does
not agree with that to which the collection of the temple-tax
was limited. (Exodus xxx. 13, and Lightfoot on Matthew xvii. 24.)

THE QUESTION OF SUPERIORITY.

Soon after the last mentioned event, there arose a discussion among the apostles, as to who should have the highest rank in the administration of the government of the Messiah’s kingdom, when it should be finally triumphantly established. The question shows how pitiably deficient they still were, in a proper understanding of the nature of the cause to which they were devoted; but the details of this circumstance may be deferred to a more appropriate place, under the lives of the persons, who, by their claims, afterwards originated a similar discussion, in connection with which this may be most properly mentioned. However, it cannot be amiss to remark here, that the very fact of such a discussion having arisen, shows, that no one supposed that, from the peculiar distinctions already conferred on Peter, he was entitled to the assumption of anything like _power_ over the rest of the twelve, or that anything else than a peculiar regard of Christ for him, and a confidence in his zeal and ability to advance the great cause, was expressed in his late honorable and affectionate declaration to him. The occurrence of this discussion is also a high and satisfactory proof of Peter’s modest and unassuming disposition; for had he maintained among the apostles the authority and rank which his Master’s decided preference might seem to warrant, these high pretensions of the sons of Zebedee would not have been thus put forward against one so secure in Christ’s favor by high talents, and long habits of close intimacy.

THE RULE OF BROTHERLY FORBEARANCE.

The next occasion on which the name of Peter is mentioned in the gospels, is his asking Jesus, “how many times he should forgive an offending brother? If the brother should repeat the offense _seven_ times, should he each time accord him the forgiveness asked?” This question was suggested to Peter’s mind, by the rules which Christ had just been giving his disciples, for the preservation of harmony, and for the redress of mutual grievances among them. His charge to them on this subject, injoined the repeated exercise of forbearance towards a brother who had trespassed, and urged the surrender of every imagined right of private redress, to the authority and sanction of the common assembly of the apostles. The absolute necessity of some such rule, for the very existence of the apostles’ union, was plain enough. They were men, with all the passions and frailties of common, uneducated men, and with all the peculiar, fervid energy, which characterizes the physiology of the races of south-western Asia. From the constant attrition of such materials, no doubt individually discordant in temperament and constitution, how could it be hoped, that in the common course of things, there would not arise frequent bursts of human passion, to mar or hinder the divine work which brought them together? With a most wise providence for these liabilities to disagreement, Jesus had just arranged a principle of reference and quiet decision, in all cases of dispute in which the bond of Christian fellowship would be strained or broken. His charge to them, all and each, was this: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother; but if he will not hear thee, take with thee on thy second call, one or two more, that, according to the standard forms of the Mosaic law, by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall refuse to hear them, tell it at last to the common assembly of the apostles; and after they have given their decision in favor of the justice of the complaint and demand, if he still maintain his enmity and wrong against thee, thou art no longer held by the apostolic pledge to treat him with brotherly regard; but having slighted all friendly advice, and the common sentiment of the brethren, he has lost the privilege of their fellowship, and must be to thee as one of the low world around him――a heathen and an outcast Jew.” On this occasion, also, he renewed to them all, the commission to bind and loose, which he had before particularly delivered only to Peter. As he had, in speaking of the treatment, made abundant requisitions for the exercise of forbearance, without mentioning the proper limit to these acts of forgiveness, Peter now put his question: “If my brother sin against me seven times, and as often make the reparation which I may honestly ask, shall I continue to forgive him?” That is, “Shall I not seem, by these repeated acts of forbearance, at last to be offering him inducements to offend against one so placable? And if these transgressions are thus enormously multiplied, will it not be right that I should withhold the kind consideration which is made of so little account?” The answer of Jesus is, “I say to thee, not merely till seven times, but till seventy times seven.” That is, “To your forbearance towards an erring and returning Christian brother, there should be no limit but his own obstinate adhesion to his error. In coming out from the world to follow me, you have given up your natural rights to avenge, either legally or personally, those injuries which pass the bounds of common forbearance. The preservation of perfect harmony in the new community to which you have joined yourself, is of so much importance to the triumphant advancement of our cause, as to require justly all these sacrifices of personal ill-will.” With his usual readiness in securing an abiding remembrance of his great leading rules of action, Jesus, on this occasion, concluded the subject with illustrating the principle, by a beautiful parable or story; a mode of instruction, far more impressive to the glowing imagination of the oriental, than of the more calculating genius of colder races.

This inquiry may have been suggested to Peter by a remark made
by Christ, which is not given by Matthew as by Luke, (xvii. 4.)
“If he sin against thee seven times in a day, and seven times
turn again, &c. thou shalt forgive him.” So Maldorat suggests,
but it is certainly very hard to bring these two accounts to
a minute harmony, and I should much prefer to consider Luke as
having given a general statement of Christ’s doctrine, without
referring to the occasion or circumstances, while Matthew
has given a more distinct account of the whole matter. The
discrepancy between the two accounts has seemed so great, that
the French harmonists, Newcome, LeClerc, Macknight, Thirlwall,
and Bloomfield, consider them as referring to totally different
occasions,――that in Matthew occurring in Capernaum, but that
in Luke, after his journey to Jerusalem to the feast of the
tabernacles. But the utter absence of all chronological order in
the greater part of Luke’s gospel, is enough to make us suspect,
that the event he alludes to may coincide with that of Matthew’s
story, since the amount of the precept, and the general form of
expression, is the same in both cases. This is the view taken by
Rosenmueller, Kuinoel, Vater, Clarke, Paulus, and which seems to
be further justified by the consideration, that the repetition
of the precept must have been entirely unnecessary, after having
been so clearly laid down, and so fully re-examined in answer to
Peter’s inquiry, as given by Matthew.

_Seven times._――This number was a general expression among
the Hebrews for a frequent repetition, and was perfectly vague
and indefinite as to the number of repetitions, as is shown
in many instances in the Bible where it occurs. _Seventy times
seven_, was another expression of the recurrences carried to
a superlative number, and is also a standard Hebraism, (as in
Genesis iv. 24.) See Poole, Lightfoot, Clarke, Scott, and other
commentators, for Rabbinical illustrations of these phrases.

_A heathen and an outcast._――This latter expression I have
chosen, as giving best the full force of the name _publican_,
which designated a class of men among the Jews, who were
considered by all around them as having renounced national
pride, honor and religion, for the base purpose of worldly gain;
serving under the Roman government as tax-gatherers, that is,
hiring the taxes of a district, which they took by paying the
government a definite sum, calculating to make a rich profit
on the bargain by systematic extortion and oppression. The
name, therefore, was nearly synonymous with the modern word
renegade,――one who, for base motives, has renounced the creed
and customs of his fathers.

THE JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM.

The occurrence which occasioned this discussion, took place at Capernaum, where Jesus seems to have resided with his apostles for some time after his northern tour to Caesarea Philippi, giving them, as opportunity suggested, a great number and variety of practical instructions. At length he started with them, on his last journey to Jerusalem, the only one which is recorded by the first three evangelists, although John gives us accounts of three previous visits to the Jewish capital. On this journey, while he was passing on to Jerusalem, by a somewhat circuitous course, through that portion of Judea which lies east of the Jordan, he had taken occasion to remark, (in connection with the disappointment of the rich young man, who could not give up his wealth for the sake of the gospel,) how hard it was for those that had riches, and put their trust in them, to join heartily in the promotion of the cause of Christ, or share in the honors of its success. Peter, then, speaking for himself and the faithful few who had followed Jesus thus far through many trials, to the risk and loss of much worldly profit, reminded Jesus of what they had given up for his sake. “Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee. What shall we have therefore?” The solemn and generous assurance of Jesus, in reply, was, that those who had followed him thus, should, in the final establishment of his kingdom, when he should receive the glories of his triumph, share in the highest gifts which he, conqueror of all, could bestow. Then, those who had forsaken kindred and lands for his sake, should find all these sacrifices made up to them, in the enjoyment of rewards incalculably beyond those earthly comforts in value.

This conversation took place, just about as they were passing the Jordan, into the western section of Judea, near the spot where Joshua and the Israelitish host of old passed over to the conquest of Canaan. A little before they reached Jericho, Jesus took a private opportunity to renew to the twelve his oft repeated warning of the awful events, now soon to happen after his entry into Jerusalem. “Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man shall be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death. And they shall deliver him to the heathen, to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him; and the third day, he shall rise again.” Yet, distinct as was this declaration, and full as the prediction was in these shocking particulars, Luke assures us, that “they understood none of these things; and this saying was hid from them; neither knew they the things which were spoken.” Now, we cannot easily suppose that they believed that he, to whom they had so heartily and confidently devoted their lives and fortunes, was trying their feelings by an unnecessary fiction, so painful in its details. The only just supposition which we can make, then, is that they explained all these predictions to themselves, in a way best accordant with their own notions of the kingdom which the Messiah was to found, and on the hope of whose success they had staked all. The account of his betrayal, ill-treatment, and disgraceful death, they could not literally interpret, as the real doom which awaited their glorious and mighty Lord; it could only mean, to them, that for a brief space, the foes of the Son of God were to gain a seeming triumph over the hosts that were to march against Jerusalem, to seat him on the throne of David. The traitorous heads of the Jewish faith, the members of the great Sanhedrim, the hypocritical Pharisees, and the lying, avaricious lawyers, would, through cowardice, selfishness, envy, jealousy, or some other meanness, basely conspire to support their compound tyranny, by attempting to crush the head of the new faith, with the help of their Roman masters, whom they would summon to the aid of their falling power. This unpatriotic and treacherous effort would for a time seem to be perfectly successful, but only long enough for the traitors to fill up the measure of their iniquities. Then, vain would be the combined efforts of priest and soldier,――of Jewish and of Roman power. Rising upon them, like life from the dead, the Son of God should burst forth in the might of his Father,――he should be revealed from heaven with ten thousand angels, and recalling his scattered friends, who might have been for a moment borne down before the iron hosts of Rome, he should sweep every foreign master, and every domestic religious tyrant, from Israel’s heritage, setting up a throne, whose sway should spread to the uttermost parts of the earth, displacing even the deep-rooted hold of Roman power. What then, would be the fate of the faithful Galileans, who, though few and feeble, had stood by him through evil and good report, risking all on his success? When the grinding tyranny of the old Sanhedrim had been overthrown, and chief priests, scribes, Pharisees, lawyers, and all, displaced from the administration, the chosen ones of his own early adoption, his countrymen, and intimate companions for years, would be rewarded, sitting on twelve thrones, judging the ransomed and victorious twelve tribes of Israel. Could they doubt their Lord’s ability for this glorious, this miraculous ♦achievement? Had they not seen him maintain his claim for authority over the elements, over diseases, over the dark agencies of the demoniac powers, and over the mighty bonds of death itself? And could not the same power achieve the still less wonderful victory over the opposition of these unworthy foes? It was natural, then, that, with the long cherished hopes of these dazzling triumphs in their minds, the twelve apostles, though so often and so fully warned of approaching evils, should thus unsuspectingly persist in their mistake, giving every terrible word of Jesus such a turn as would best confirm their baseless hopes. Even Peter, already sternly rebuked for his forward effort to exalt the ambition of Jesus, above even the temporary disgrace which he seemed to foreordain for himself,――and so favored with the private instructions and counsels of his master, thus erred,――even James and John, also sharers in the high confidence and favor of Jesus, though thus favored and taught, were immediately after brought under his deserved censure for their presumptuous claims for the ascendency, which so moved the wrath of the jealous apostles, who were all alike involved in this monstrous and palpable misconception. Nor yet can we justly wonder at the infatuation to which they were thus blindly given up, knowing as we do, that, in countless instances, similar error has been committed on similar subjects, by men similarly influenced. What Biblical commentary, interpretation, introduction, harmony, or criticism, from the earliest Christian or Rabbinic fathers, to the theological schemer of the latest octavo, does not bear sad witness on its pages, to the wonderful infatuation which can force upon the plainest and clearest declaration, a version elaborately figurative or painfully literal, just as may most comfortably cherish and confirm a doctrine, or notion, or prejudice, which the writer would fain “add to the things which are written in the book?” Can it be reasonably hoped, then, that this untaught effort to draw out the historical truth of the gospel, will be an exception to this harshly true judgment on the good, the learned, and the critical of past ages?

♦ “achievment” replaced with “achievement”

THE ENTRY INTO THE CITY.

With these fruitless admonitions to his followers, Jesus passed on through Jericho to Bethphage, on the verge of the holy city. Here, the enthusiastic and triumphant rejoicings, which the presence of their Master called forth, from the multitudes who were then swarming to Jerusalem from all parts of Palestine, must have lifted up the hearts of the apostles, with high assurance of the nearness of the honors for which they had so long looked and waited. Their irrepressible joy and exultation burst out in songs of triumph, as Jesus, after the manner of the ancient judges of Israel, rode into the royal seat of his fathers. And as he went down the descent of the Mount of Olives, to go into the city, the whole train of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God, with a loud voice, for all the mighty works that they had seen; saying, “Blessed be the KING of Israel, that cometh in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven! Glory in the highest! Blessed be the kingdom of our father David! Hosanna!” These acclamations were raised by the disciples, and heartily joined in by the multitudes who knew his wonderful works, and more especially those who were acquainted with the very recent miracle of raising Lazarus. A great sensation of wonder was created throughout the city, by such a burst of shouts from a multitude, sweeping in a long, imposing train, with palm branches in their hands, down the mountain, on which they could have been seen all over Jerusalem. As he entered the gates, all the city was moved to say, “Who is this?” And the rejoicing multitude said, “This is Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth in Galilee.” What scorn did not this reply awaken in many of the haughty aristocrats of Jerusalem, to learn that all this solemn parade had been got up for no better purpose than merely to honor a dweller of that outcast region of mongrels, Galilee! And of all places, that this prophet, so called, should have come from Nazareth! A prophet from Galilee, indeed! Was it from this half-heathen district, that the favored inhabitants of the capital of Judaism were to receive a teacher of religion? Were the strict faith, and the rigid observances of their learned and devout, to be displaced by the presumptuous reformations of a self-taught prophet, from such a country? Swelling with these feelings, the Pharisees could not repress a remonstrance with Jesus, against these noisy proceedings. But he, evidently affected with pleasure at the honest tribute thus wrung out in spite of sectional feeling, forcibly asserted the propriety and justice of this free offering of praise. “I tell you, that if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.”

_With palm-branches in their hands._――This tree, the emblem of
joy and triumph in every part of the world where it is known,
was the more readily adopted on this occasion, by those who
thronged to swell the triumphal train of Jesus of Nazareth,
because the palm grew along the way-side where they passed,
and the whole mount was hardly less rich in this than in the
far famed olive from which it drew its name. A proof of the
abundance of the palm-trees on Olivet is found in the name
of the village of Bethany, בית חיני, (_beth-hene_,) “_house of
dates_,” which shows that the tree which bore this fruit must
have been plentiful there. The people, as they passed on with
Jesus from this village whence he started to enter the city,
would therefore find this token of triumph hanging over their
heads, and shading their path every where within reach, and
the emotions of joy at their approach to the city of God in the
company of this good and mighty prophet, prompted them at once
to use the expressive emblems which hung so near at hand; and
which were alike within the reach of those who journeyed with
Jesus, and those who came forth from the city to meet and escort
him in. The presence of these triumphal signs would, of course,
remind them at once of the feast of the tabernacles, the day on
which, in obedience to the Mosaic statute, all the dwellers of
the city were accustomed to go forth to the mount, and bring
home these branches with songs of joy. (Leviticus xxiii. 40,
Nehemiah viii. 15, 16.) The remembrance of this festival at
once recalled also the beautifully appropriate words of the
noble national and religious hymn, which they always chanted in
praise of the God of their fathers on that day, (see Kuinoel,
Rosenmueller, Wolf, &c.) and which was so peculiarly applicable
to him who now “came in the name of the Lord,” to honor and to
bless his people. (Psalm cxviii. 26.)

_The descent of the Mount of Olives._――To imagine this scene,
with something of the force of reality, it must be remembered
that the Mount of Olives, so often mentioned in the scenes of
Christ’s life, rose on the eastern side of Jerusalem beyond the
valley of the Kedron, whose little stream flowed between this
mountain and Mount Moriah, on which the temple stood. Mount
Olivet was much higher than any part of the city within the
walls, and the most commanding and satisfactory view of the holy
city which modern travelers and draughtsmen have been able to
present to us in a picture, is that from the more than classic
summit of this mountain. The great northern road passing through
Jericho, approaches Jerusalem on its north-eastern side, and
comes directly over the top of Olivet, and as it mounts the
ridge, it brings the holy city in all its glory, directly on the
traveler’s view.

_Hosanna._――This also is an expression taken from the same
festal hymn, (Psalm cxviii. 25,) הושיעה־נא (_hoshia-na_) a pure
Hebrew expression, as Drusius shows, and not Syriac, (See
Poole’s Synopsis on Matthew xxi. 9,) but corrupted in the vulgar
pronunciation of this frequently repeated hymn, into Hosanna.
The meaning of the Hebrew is “save him” or “be gracious to him,”
that is in connection with the words which follow in the gospel
story, “Be gracious, O Lord, to the son of David.” This is the
same Hebrew phrase which, in the psalm above quoted, (verse 25,)
is translated “Save now.” The whole expression was somewhat like
the English “God save the king,” in its import.

_Nazareth._――This city, in particular, had an odious name,
for the general low character of its inhabitants. The passage
in John i. 46, shows in what estimation this city and its
inhabitants were held, by their own neighbors in Galilee; and
the great scorn with which all Galileans were regarded by the
Jews, must have redoubled their contempt of this poor village,
so despised even by the despicable. The consequence was that the
Nazarenes acquired so low a character, that the name became a
sort of byword for what was mean and foolish. (See Kuinoel on
Matthew ii. 23, John i. 46. Also Rosenmueller on the former
passage and Bloomfield on the latter.)

_Galilee._――In order to appreciate fully, the scorn and
suspicion with which the Galileans were regarded by the citizens
of Jerusalem, a complete view of their sectional peculiarities
would be necessary. Such a view will hereafter be given in
connection with a passage which more directly refers to those
peculiarities, and more especially requires illustration and
explanation.

THE BLIGHTING OF THE FIG-TREE.

Having thus, by his public and triumphant entrance into Jerusalem, defied and provoked the spite of the higher orders, while he secured an attentive hearing from the common people, when he should wish to teach them,――Jesus retired at evening, for the sake of quiet and comfort, to the house of his friends, Lazarus, Mary and Martha, at Bethany, in the suburbs. The next morning, as he was on his way with his disciples, coming back from this place to Jerusalem, hungry with the fatigues of his long walk, he came to a fig-tree, near the path, hoping to find fruit for his refreshment, as it seemed from a distance flourishing with abundance of leaves, and was then near the season of bearing. But when he came near, he found nothing but leaves on it, for it was somewhat backward, and its time of producing figs was not yet. And Jesus, seizing the opportunity of this disappointment to impress his disciples with his power, personifying the tree, denounced destruction against it. “May no man eat fruit of thee hereafter, forever.” And his disciples heard it. They returned to Bethany, as usual, that evening, to pass the night,――but as they passed, probably after dark, they took no notice of the fig-tree. But the next morning, as they went back to the city, they saw that it had dried up from the roots. Simon Peter, always ready to notice the instances of his Master’s power, called out in surprise to Jesus, to witness the effect of his malediction upon its object. “Master, behold, the fig-tree which thou didst curse, is withered away.” Jesus noticing their amazement at the apparent effect of his words, in so small a matter, took occasion to turn their attention to other and higher objects of faith, on which they might exert their zeal in a spirit, not of withering denunciation and destroying wrath, such as they had seen so tremendously efficient in this case, but in the spirit of love and forgiveness, as well as of the holy energy that could overthrow and overcome difficulties, not less than to uproot Mount Olivet from its everlasting base and hurl it into the sea.

THE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SECTARIES.

The disciples steadily remained the diligent and constant attendants of their heavenly teacher, in his long and frequent seasons of instruction in the temple, where he boldly met the often renewed attacks of his various adversaries, whether Herodians, scribes, Pharisees or Sadducees, and in spite of their long-trained subtleties, beat them out and out, with the very weapons at which they thought themselves so handy. The display of genius, of taste, of learning, of ready and sarcastic wit, and of heart-searching acuteness, was so amazing and super-human, that these few days of open discussion established his divinely intellectual superiority over all the elaborate science of his accomplished opponents, and at the same time secured the fulfilment of his destiny, by the spite and hatred which their repeated public defeats excited in them. Imagine their rage. Exposed thus before the people, by whom they had hitherto been regarded as the sole depositaries of learning, and adored as the fountains of right, they saw all their honors and power, to which they had devoted the intense study of their whole lives, snatched coolly and easily from them, by a nameless, untaught pretender, who was able to hold them up, baffled and disgraced, for the amusement of the jeering multitude. Here was ground enough for hatred;――the hatred of conceited and intolerant false learning, against the discerning soul that had stripped and humbled it;――the hatred of confident ambition against the heroic energy which had discomfited it, and was doing much to free a long enslaved people from the yoke which formal hypocrisy and empty parade had long laid on them. And again, the intolerable thought that all this heavy disgrace had been brought on the learned body of Judaism by a Galilean! a mere carpenter of the lowest orders, who had come up to Jerusalem followed by a select train of rude fishermen and outcast publicans;――and who, not being able to command a single night’s lodging in the city, was in the habit of boarding and lodging in a paltry suburb, on the charity of some personal friends, from which place he quietly walked in for the distance of two miles every morning, to triumph over the palace-lodged heads of the Jewish faith. From such a man, thus humbly and even pitiably circumstanced, such an invasion and overthrow could not be endured; and his ruin was rendered doubly easy by his very insignificance, which now constituted the chief disgrace of their defeat. Never was cause more closely followed by its effect, than this insulted dignity was by its cruel vengeance.

THE PROPHECY OF THE TEMPLE’S RUIN.

In preparing his disciples for the great events which were to take place in a few years, and which were to have a great influence on their labors, Jesus foretold to them the destruction of the temple. As he was passing out through the mighty gates of the temple on some occasion with his disciples, one of them, admiring the gorgeous beauty of the architecture and the materials, with all the devotion of a Jew now visiting it for the first time, said to him, “Master, see! what stones and what buildings!” To him, Jesus replied with the awful prophecy, most shocking to the national pride and religious associations of every Israelite,――that ere long, upon that glorious pile should fall a ruin so complete, that not one of those splendid stones should be left upon another. These words must have made a strong impression of wonder on all who heard them; but no farther details of the prophecy were given to the disciples at large. Not long afterwards, however, as he sat musingly by himself, in his favorite retirement, half-way up the Mount of Olives, over against the temple, the four most loved and honored of the twelve, Peter, James, John and Andrew, came to him, and asked him privately, to tell them when these things should be, and by what omen they should know the approach of the great and woful ruin. Sitting there, they had a full view of the enormous pile which rose in immense masses very near them, on the verge of mount Moriah, and was even terraced up, from the side of the slope, presenting a vast wall, rising from the depths of the deep ravine of Kedron, which separated the temple from mount Olivet, where they were. It was morning when the conversation took place, as we may fairly guess, for this spot lay on the daily walk to Bethany, where he lodged;――the broad walls, high towers, and pillars of the temple, were doubtless illuminated by the full splendors of the morning sun of Palestine; for Olivet was directly east of Jerusalem, and as they sat looking westward towards the temple, with the sun behind them, the rays, leaving their faces in the shade, would shine full and bright on all which crowned the highth beyond. It was at such a time, as the Jewish historian assures us, that the temple was seen in its fullest grandeur and sublimity; for the light, falling on the vast roofs, which were sheeted and spiked with pure gold, brightly polished, and upon the turrets and pinnacles which glittered with the same precious metal, was reflected to the eye of the gazer with an insupportable brilliancy, from the million bright surfaces and shining points which covered it. Here, then, sat Jesus and his four adoring chosen ones, with this splendid sight before them crowning the mountain, now made doubly dazzling by contrast with the deep gloom of the dark glen below, which separated them from it. There it was, that, with all this brightness and glory and beauty before them, Jesus solemnly foretold in detail the awful, total ruin which was to sweep it all away, within the short lives of those who heard him. Well might such words sink deep into their hearts,――words coming from lips whose perfect and divine truth they could not doubt, though the things now foretold must have gone wofully against all the dreams of glory, in which they had made that sacred pile the scene of the future triumphs of the faith and followers of Christ. This sublime prophecy, which need not here be repeated or descanted upon, is given at great length by all the first three evangelists, and is found in Matthew xxiv. Mark xiii. and Luke xxi.

_The view of the temple._――I can find no description by any
writer, ancient or modern, which gives so clear an account of
the original shape of Mount Moriah, and of the modifications
it underwent to fit it to support the temple, as that given
by Josephus. (Jewish War, book V. chapter v.) In speaking of
the original founding of the temple by Solomon, (Antiquities
book VIII. chapter iii. section 2,) he says, “The king laid the
foundations of the temple in the very depths, (at the bottom
of the descent,) using stones of a firm structure, and able to
hold out against the attacks of time, so that growing into a
union, as it were, with the ground, they might be the basis and
support of the pile that was to be reared above, and through
their strength below, easily bear the vast mass of the great
superstructure, and the immense weight of ornament also; for
the weight of those things which were contrived for beauty
and magnificence was not less than that of the materials which
contributed to the highth and lateral dimension.” In the full
description which he afterwards gives in the place first quoted,
of the later temple as perfected by Herod, which is the building
to which the account in the text refers, he enters more fully
into the mode of shaping the ground to the temple. “The temple
was founded upon a steep hill, but in the first beginning of the
structure there was scarcely flat ground enough on the top for
the sanctuary and the altar, for it was abrupt and precipitous
all around. And king Solomon, when he built the sanctuary,
having _walled it out_ on the eastern side, (εκτειχισαντος, that
is, ‘having built _out_ a wall on that side’ for a terrace,)
then reared upon the terraced earth a colonnade; but on the
other sides the sanctuary was _naked_,――(that is, the wall was
unsupported and unornamented by colonnades as it was on the
east.) But in the course of ages, the people all the while
beating down the terraced earth with their footsteps, the hill
thus growing flat, was made broader on the top; and having taken
down the wall on the north, they gained considerable ground
which was afterwards inclosed within the outer court of the
temple. Finally, having walled the hill entirely around with
three terraces, and having advanced the work far beyond any hope
that could have been reasonably entertained at first, spending
on it long ages, and all the sacred treasures accumulated from
the offerings sent to God from the ends of the world, they
reared around it, both the upper courts and the lower temple,
walling the latter up, in the lowest part, from a depth of three
hundred cubits, (450 feet,) and in some places more. And yet the
whole depth of the foundations did not show itself, because they
had greatly filled up the ravines, with a view to bring them
to a level with the streets of the city. The stones of this
work were of the size of forty cubits, (60 feet,) for the
profusion of means and the lavish zeal of the people advanced
the improvements of the temple beyond account; and a perfection
far above all hope was thus attained by perseverance and time.

“And well worthy of these foundations were the works which stood
upon them. For all the colonnades were double, consisting of
pillars twenty-five cubits (40 feet) in highth, each of a single
stone of the whitest marble, and were roofed with fretwork
of cedar. The natural beauty of these, their high polish and
exquisite proportion, presented a most glorious show; but their
surface was not marked by the superfluous embellishments of
painting and carving. The colonnades were thirty cubits broad,
(that is, forty-five feet from the front of the columns to the
wall behind them;) while their whole circuit embraced a range
of six _stadia_, (more than three-quarters of a mile!) including
the castle of Antonia. And the whole _hypethrum_ (ὑπαιθρον,
the floor of the courts or inclosures of the temple, which
was exposed to the open air, there being no roof above it) was
variegated by the stones of all colors with which it was laid,”
(making a Mosaic pavement.) Section 1.

* * * * *

“The outside of the temple too, lacked nothing that could strike
or dazzle the mind and eye. For it was on all sides overlaid
with _massy plates of gold_, so that _in the first light of
the rising sun_, IT SHOT FORTH A MOST FIERY SPLENDOR, which
turned away the eyes of those who compelled themselves (mid.
βιαζομενους) to gaze on it, as from the rays of the sun itself.
To strangers, moreover, who were coming towards it, it shone
from afar like a complete mountain of snow: for where it was
not covered with gold it was most dazzlingly white, and above
on the roof it had golden spikes, sharpened to keep the birds
from lighting on it. And some of the stones of the building
were forty-five cubits long, five high, and six broad;”――(or
sixty-seven _feet_ long, seven and a half high, and nine broad.)
Section 6.

“The Antonia was placed at the angle made by the meeting of two
colonnades of the outer temple, the western and the northern. It
was built upon a rock, fifty cubits high, and precipitous on all
sides. It was the work of king Herod, in which, most of all, he
showed himself a man of exalted conceptions.” Section 8.

* * * * *

In speaking of Solomon’s foundation, he also says, (Antiquities
book VIII. chapter iii. section 9,)

“But he made the outside of the temple wonderful beyond account,
both in description and to sight. For having piled up huge
terraces, from which, on account of their immense depth, it was
hardly possible to look down, and reared them to the highth of
four hundred cubits, (six hundred feet!) he made them on the
same level with the hill’s top on which the _shrine_ (ναος) was
built, and thus the open floor of the _temple_ (ἱερον, or the
outer court’s inclosure) was level with the _shrine_.”

* * * * *

I have drawn thus largely from the rich descriptions of this
noble and faithful describer of the old glories of the Holy
Land, because this very literal translation gives the exact naked
detail of the temple’s aspect, in language as gorgeous as the
most high-wrought in which it could be presented in a mere fancy
picture of the same scene; and because it will prove that my
conception of its glory, as it appeared to Christ and the four
disciples who “sat _over against_ it upon the Mount of Olives,”
is not overdrawn, since it is thus supported by the blameless
and invaluable testimony of him who saw all this splendor in its
most splendid day, and afterwards in its unequaled beauty and
with all its polished gold and marble, shining and sinking amid
the flames, which swept it utterly away from his saddening eyes
forever, to a ruin the most absolute and irretrievable that ever
fell upon the works of man.

This was the temple on which the sons of Jonah and Zebedee gazed,
with the awful denunciation of its utter ruin falling from their
Lord’s lips, and such was the desolation to which those terrible
words devoted it. This full description of its location shows
the manner in which its terraced foundations descended with
their vast fronts, six hundred feet into the valley of Kedron,
over which they looked. To give as clear an idea of the place
where they sat, and its relations to the rest of the scene, I
extract from Conder’s Modern Traveler the following description
of Mount Olivet.

“The Mount of Olives forms part of a ridge of limestone hills,
extending to the north and the south-west. Pococke describes
it as having four summits. On the lowest and most northerly of
these, which, he tells us, is called _Sulman Tashy_, the stone
of Solomon, there is a large domed sepulcher, and several other
Mohammedan tombs. The ascent to this point, which is to the
north-east of the city, he describes as very gradual, through
pleasant corn-fields planted with olive-trees. The second summit
is that which overlooks the city: the path to it rises from the
ruined gardens of Gethsemane, which occupy part of the valley.
About half way up the ascent is a ruined monastery, built,
as the monks tell us, on the spot where the Savior wept over
Jerusalem. From this point the spectator enjoys, perhaps, the
best view of the Holy City. (Here Jesus sat, in our scene.)

“The valley of Jehoshaphat, which lies between this mountain
and the hills on which Jerusalem is built, is still used as a
burial-place by the modern Jews, as it was by their ancestors.
It is, generally speaking, a rocky flat, with a few patches
of earth here and there, about half a mile in breadth from
the Kedron to the foot of Mount Olivet, and nearly of the same
length from Siloa to the garden of Gethsemane. The Jews have
a tradition, evidently founded on taking literally the passage
Joel iii. 12, that this narrow valley will be the scene of the
final judgment. The prophet Jeremiah evidently refers to the
same valley under the name of the valley of the Son of Hinnom,
or the valley of Tophet, the situation being clearly marked as
being by the entry of the _east_ gate. (Jeremiah xix. 2, 6.)
Pococke places the valley of Hinnom to the south of Jerusalem,
but thinks it might include part of that to the east. It formed
part of the bounds between the tribes of Benjamin and Judah,
(Joshua xv. 8. xviii. 16,) but the description is somewhat
obscure.” [Modern Traveler Palestine, pp. 168, 172.]

Illustration: MOUNT MORIAH.

THE LAST SUPPER.