TRIBUTE, TOLL, TAXING

has yet to be discovered, cannot be affirmed. The mythological explanation has to the present writer the greater probability in its favour.

TheinterpretationofthegenealogicalschemeofJE, which appeals to be most acceptable to scholars, may be briefly summarizedf ram Guthe, O F/, p. 49''. Benjamin appeals as the last of the sons because this tribe came into ejcistence last of all, and in Palestine (Gn 35'"-»°) . Joseph is younger than the others because it entered and settled in Canaan later than Simeon, Levi, and Judah, etc. Evidence of this is found in Jg !■"■ ^"-i and Gn 34, which shows Joseph in

§osses3ion of the region of Shechem, formerly occupied by imeon and Levi. The order of arrangement, it would therefore seem, depended upon the author's view of the time of a tribe's respective settlement or origin in Canaan. Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher — the Canaanite tribes of the concuoines who were admitted to union with the other tribes — owe their position also to these principles. Excluding Benjamin, who was bom in Canaan, and the four tribes descended from the concubines, there remain only seven as extra-Canaanitish. The motheis, Leah and Rachel, represent different tribal groups at the head of which stand respectively Reuben and Joseph (1 Ch 5'- 2). History, however, gives us no record of Reuben's priority in leadership, but assigns that r61e to Joseph, so that the primacy of the Reuben tribe must go back to an earlier time and to the East Jordan. It is possible that the tribes which entered Canaan under Reuben s leadeiship, or during his supremacy, were classed under Leah, while those which followed under the lead of Joseph were classed under Rachel. The position of Issachar and Zebulun indicates that they were later in acquiring a foothold than the four earlier Leah tribes, yet earUer than Joseph. The position assigned to the Bilhah and Zilpah tribes , Guthe thinks, may be explained by their having come into closer relations to Joseph, and to Reuben or the last of the two Leah tribes respectively, and hence their mothers were given as handmaids to Rachel and Leah. "This is all suggestive, but no certainty is reached. Reuben's position (in view of the inferior r61e of the tribe in historical times) remains as a problem to be solved, and the groupings, e.g. Asher with Gad as Zilpah tribes, despite their wide separation, Issachar and Zebulun with Judah as Leahtribes, are of doubtful import. James A. Cbaiq.

TRIBUTE, TOLL, TAXING.— 1. In OT the subject is obscure. The word most frequently rendered 'tribute' is mas, which denotes a body ol forced labourers (2 S 20", 1 K 9" etc.; see RV), and then later 'forced service' — the feudal corvee. Solomon had a regular system of levying provisions for the maintenance of the royal establishment (1 K 4'-i9), and labourers for the execution of his vast building schemes (5"^- 9"), and also exacted toll from the caravans of merchants that passed through his kingdom (10"). After the fall of the Jewish State, tribute was imposed on the land by its foreign masters (2 K 23», Ezr i^ etc.). In the last-mentioned passage (cf . v." 7^) we read of ' tribute, custom, or toll,' but have no information as to the precise meanings of the terms and the distinctions between them. Cf. Trade and Commerce, § 3.

2. In NT 'tribute' represents 3 Gr. words. (1) phoros is properly a land tax; (2) kinsos (originally a property register), a capitation or poll tax. Both were direct Imperial taxes payable by the Jews as Roman subjects; the former in kind, the latter in Roman money. In NT, however, the distinction is not carefully observed (cf. Mt 22", Lk 20«). For the 'tribute money' of Mt 22" see Money, § 7 (6). (3) didrachmon (Mt 17", RV 'the half -sheker) was the sura paid by every male Israelite to meet the cost of the daily services in the Temple. See Money, § 7 (d). Toll (tehs, AV 'custom ' ; telBnion ' place df toll, ' A V 'receipt of custom ' ) must be carefully distinguished from tribute (cf . Mt 17", Ro 13'). It was not a direct tax like (1) and (2), but an impost on the value of exported goods. For details see artt. CnsTOM(s), Publican. Taxing {apographs, RV 'enrolment,' Lk 2^ Ac 5") denotes a registration with a view to taxation for Imperial purposes. See Qui-BiNius. J. C. Lambert.

TRINITY. — 1. The doctrine approached.— It is some-times asked why we are not given a definite state-

TRINITY

ment that there are three Persons In the Godhead. One reason for the absence of any such categorical and dogmatic teaching is probably to be found In the fact that the earliest hearers of the gospel were Jews, and that any such pronouncement might (and probably would) have seemed a contradiction of their own great truth of the unity of the Godhead. Con-sequently, instead of giving an Intellectual statement of doctrine, which might have led to theological and philosophic discussion, and ended only in more intense opposition to Christianity, the Apostles preached Jesus of Nazareth as a personal Redeemer from sin, and urged on every one the acceptance of Him and His claims. Then, in due course, would come the inevitable process of thought and meditation upon this personal experience, and this would in turn lead to the inference that Jesus, from whom, and In whom, these experi-ences were being enjoyed, must be more than man, must be none other than Divine, 'for who can forgive sins but God only?' Through such a personal impression and Inference based on experience, a distinction In the Godhead would at once be realized. Then, in the course of their Christian life, and through fuller Instruction, would be added the personal knowledge and experience of the Holy Spirit, and once again a similar inference would in due course follow, making another distinction In their thought of the Godhead. The intellectual con-ception and expression of these distinctions probably concerned only comparatively few of the early believers, but nevertheless all of them had in their lives an experience of definite action and blessing which could only have been from above, and which no difficulty of intellectual correlation or of theological co-ordination with former teachings could Invalidate and destroy.

2. The doctrine derived. — The doctrine of the Trinity is an expansion of the doctrine of the Incarnation, and emerges out of the personal claim of our Lord. We believe this position can be made good from the NT. We take first the Gospels, and note that our Lord's method of revealing Himself to His disciples was by means of personal Impression and influence. His character, teaching, and claim formed the centre and core of everything, and His one object was, as It were, to stamp Himself on His disciples, knowing that in the light of fuller experience His true nature and relations would become clear to them. We see the culmination of this impression and experience in the confession of the Apostle, 'My Lord and my God.' Then, as we turn to the Acts of the Apostles, we find St. Peter preaching to Jews, and emphasizing two associated truths: (1) the Sonship and Messiahship of Jesus, as proved by the Res-urrection, and (2) the consequent relation of the hearers to Him as to a Saviour and Master. The emphasis Is laid on the personal experience of forgiveness and grace, without any attempt to state our Lord's position in relation to God. Indeed, the references to Jesus Christ as the ' Servant [wrongly rendered in AV ' Son '] of God ' in Ac 3"- " and V, seem to show that the Christian thought regarding our Lord was still immature, so far as there was any purely intellectual consideration of it. It is worthy of note that this phrase, which is doubtless the NT counterpart of Isaiah's teaching on the ' Servant of the Lord,' is not found In the NT later than these earlier chapters of the Acts. Yet in the preaching of St. Peter the claim made for Jesus of Nazareth as the Source of healing (3'- "), the Prince-Leader of Life (3"), the Head Stone of the corner (4"), and the one and only Way of Salvation (4"), was an unmistakable assumption of the position and power of Godhead.

In the same way the doctrine of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit arises directly out of our Lord's revelation. Once grant a real personal distinction between the Father and the Son, and it is easy to believe it also of the Spirit as revealed by the Son. As long as Christ was present on earth there was no room and no need for the specific work of the Holy Spirit, but as Christ was

948