Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 17:27
Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.
27. a piece of money ] Literally, a stater; a Greek silver coin equivalent to the Hebrew shekel, or to four drachm in Greek money.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Mat 17:24; Mat 17:27
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter.
Christ and the tribute money
I. On what principle christ claimed exemption. This tax levied for temple services. On no principle but that of His being essentially Divine, and therefore not bound to contribute towards services virtually rendered to Himself. Christ was His own Temple.
II. The principle on which, nevertheless, he determined on paying the tax.
Not to put an occasion of stumbling in the way of others. How unwilling we are to withdraw pretensions. It requires Christian discretion to know when to give way. Christ surrendered no principle; He did not say that He was not the Son of God. He forbore from asserting it.
III. The miracle by which he procured the requisite money. Though the Proprietor of all things, He had made Himself poor for our sakes. He here gave proof of superhuman endowments; omniscience and omnipotence. He knew the money was in the mouth of the fish; His power was felt in the waters. There was propriety in the miracle when we consider which apostle our Lord dispatched on this errand. Had St. Matthew been sent the money would have been got differently, as he was a tax-gatherer; St. Peter was a fisherman, hence he got the money from a fish. Christ put honour on this honest occupation. We are not to neglect means because we seem to need miracles. (H. Melvill, B. D.)
The hidden coin
1. The Divine knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.
2. A lesson of moderation. The coin was only enough to pay the tax. Christ had am desire for earthly possessions.
3. For the purpose of supporting the ordinances of religion.
4. Learn to trust our Lord in trying circumstances. (C. J. Maginn, M. A.)
Peters money-fish
Christ here showed His Divine knowledge, and especially His power over the natural world.
1. Obedience to law is the true guarantee of individual safety, the preservation of justice and right, the peace of society.
2. Christ will use His mighty control of the material world to care for His followers as He did for Peter.
3. Let Christians remember, Christ has moved His treasury from the mouth of the fish to the loving hearts and purses of His people.
4. Now every Christian must cherish the idea, and act upon the recognized principle that God has right of property in all of ours as well as of ourselves, and that we are but agents to distribute, as God wills, what He has placed us in charge of as stewards. (W. H. Anderson, D. D.)
Notice respecting our Lord
I. His poverty. Hence learn: Contentment and resignation, benevolence and liberality.
II. His peaceable spirit. Hence take example-Of a candid spirit towards brethren who differ from us, particularly in meats and drinks; of prudence in our intercourse with the world, especially in attempts to do good.
III. HIS divinity. Learn, hence, that He is an all-sufficient Saviour and an Almighty Friend, a formidable enemy.
IV. His sympathy. He took on Him our nature, that He might sympathize with our weakness and suffering; He gives us a share in all His possessions (Joh 17:24; Joh 14:2-3). (J. Hirst.)
Nature attesting Christs lordship
An old ballad represents one of our English kings as losing his way in a wood, and becoming parted from his retinue. A countryman, who met him, began to pick up acquaintance with him in an easy, familiar style, not knowing his dignity. But when the nobles, having discovered their missing monarch, came riding up, with heads uncovered, and lowly homage, the countryman trembled at his mistake. So the laws and powers of nature did homage before Christ, attesting Him to be their Sovereign, and authenticating the apostles as His servants and messengers.
The lessons taught by this episode and miracle
I. The freedom of the Son. To this position and privilege Christ here lays claim for Himself. What a deduction must be made from the wisdom of His teaching, and from the meekness of His Spirit, if that claim was an illusion! For what did He reply?
1. That He had no need of a ransom for His soul.
2. That He needed no temple to worship in.
II. The voluntary submission of the Son to the bonds from which he is free. Self-sacrifice even in the smallest details of His life.
III. The supernatural glory that ever accompanies the humiliation of the Son. He so submits as, even in submitting, to assert His Divine dignity. In the midst of the act of submission, majesty flashes forth, A multiform miracle-containing many miracles in one-a miracle of omniscience, and a miracle of influence over the lower creatures, is wrought. The first fish that rises carries in its mouth the exact stun needed. The miracle was for a trivial end in appearance, but it was a demonstration, though to one man only at first, yet through him to all the world, that this Christ, in His lowliness, is the Everlasting Son of the Father.
IV. The sufficency for us all of what he provides. That which He brings to us by supernatural act, far greater than the miracle here, is enough for all the claims and obligations that God, or man, or law, or conscience, have upon any of us. His perfect obedience and stainless life discharged for Himself all the obligations under which He came as a man, to law and righteousness; His perfect life and His mighty death are for us the full discharge of all that can be brought against us. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)
Superfluities not to be coveted
The piece of money was just enough to pay the tax for Christ and Peter. Christ could as easily have commanded a bag of money as a piece of money; but he would teach as not to covet superfluities, but, having enough for our present occasions, therewith to be content, and not to distrust God, though we live but from hand to mouth. Christ made the fish His cash-keeper; and why may not we make Gods providence our storehouse and treasury? If we have a competency for to-day, let to-morrow take thought for the things of itself. (Matthew Henry.)
This singular miracle of finding the coin it? the fishs mouth is unlike our Lords other works in several particulars
I. 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 mans sorrow and pain.
II. It is the only miracle in which our Lord uses His power for His own service or help.
III. It is like the whole brood of legendary miracles, and unlike all?he rest of Christs, in that, at first sight, it seems done for a very trivial end-the providing of some three shillings of our money. Putting all these things together, the only explanation of the miracle is by regarding it as a parable, designed to teach us some important lessons with reference to Christs character, person, and work. (A. Maclaren. D. D.)
Tribute
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 as 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. Being an optional church-rate, Jews who were or wished to be considered patriotic would be very punctilious in the payment of it. (A. Maclaren. D. D.)
Christ identifies Himself with a life of poverty
The Prince is free, but Kings Son though He be, He goes among His Fathers poor subjects, lives their squalid life, makes experience of their poverty, and hardens His hands by labouring like them. Sympathy He learns in huts where poor men lie. (A. Maclaren. D. D.)
The payment of tribute
I. In what spirit was this question asked of Peter? It was asked, not by Roman tax-collectors, but by Jews. It is most natural to suppose that they asked the question in a captious spirit. Such a spirit is a bad sign of the state of the heart, and of the intellect too. This is not the right spirit for attaining to a knowledge of truth; it is very dishonouring to God, and very likely to endanger the stability of our faith.
II. What answer was given by Peter? The whole character of the man seems to come out in his eager, positive, instantaneous reply. He was sensitively anxious for the credit of his Master, and he spoke without thought.
III. How did our Lord prevent Peter?
IV. On what principle did our Lord claim exemption? As the Son of God He was necessarily exempt from an ecclesiastical tax.
V. The reason for his payment. Lest we should offend them. It is this delicate regard for the scruples of others which constitutes the occasion so signal an example to ourselves.
VI. Observe the dignity, as well as wisdom, of the miracle. It is Christs royal mode of answering all cavils. The very triviality (so to speak) of this miracle is part of its greatness. How minute is the knowledge of Christ! How vigilantly He watches all the things He has made! There is not a fish on a summer day under the shadow of a stone that is not Gods creature still. (Dean Howson.)
A likeness between what God does and what man invents
They say the story of a fish with a piece of money in its mouth is more like one of the tales of Eastern fiction than a sober narrative of the quiet-toned gospel. I acknowledge a likeness: why might there not be some likeness between what God does and what man invents? But there is one noticeable difference: there is nothing of colour in the style of the story. No great rock, no valley of diamonds, no earthly grandeur whatever is hinted at in the poor bare tale. Peter had to do with fishes every day of his life: an ordinary fish, taken with the hook, was here the servant of the Lord-and why should not the poor fish have its share in the service of the Master? Why should it not show for itself and its kind that they were utterly His? that along with the waters in which they dwelt, and the wind which lifteth up the waves thereof, they were His creatures, and gladly under His dominion? What the scaly minister brought was no ring, no rich jewel, but a simple piece of money, just enough, I presume, to meet the demand of those whom, although they had no legal claim, our Lord would not offend by a refusal: for He never cared to stand upon His rights, or treat that as a principle which might be waived without loss of righteousness. I take for granted that there was no other way at hand for these poor men to supply the sum required of them. (George Macdonald.)
The payment of the tribute money
I. The extreme poverty of Christ.
II. The strict integrity of Christ, render to all their due.
III. The peculiar relationship of Christ, The Fathers house.
IV. The admirable prudence of Christ.
V. The wonderful knowledge of Christ.
VI. The boundless power of Christ. (Expository Outlines.)
Finding the tribute money
I. The modesty of Jesus. Rather than offend prejudice He would waive His claim-the children are free.
II. The poverty of Jesus.
III. The resources of Jesus. Though He had-not the money, He knew where it was. If God dare trust His people He would put them in the way of getting wealth that now lies waste.
IV. God does not often act without human agency. He uses the best means-Peter was a fisherman.
V. He who works for jesus is sure to get his pay. And give unto them for thee and me. Peter in obeying Christ paid his own taxes. In keeping His commandments there is great reward. (T. Champness.)
The Divine resource
This is true of everything that God needs. He can help Himself to what He wants out of Satans lockers. Was not Saul of Tarsus as much out of the Churchs reach as the piece of money many fathoms deep? And yet Christ put a hook in Satans nostril, and brought Saul to make many rich by circulating among the heathen. It may be that some of us may live to see the work of God carried on by hands now used to build forts for Satan to occupy. Was not Luther the monk as much hidden as the piece of money? And it may be that from the Romish communion we may get some one who shall be as effective as he was. (T. Champness.)
The Temple Tax: An illustration of the Sermon
Our Lord had been preaching humility to His disciples; now He exhibits it in His own self-humiliation. He would say in effect, Were I covetous of honours I should stand on my dignity as the Son of God, and claim to be free from servile obligations; but I suffer my honours to fall into abeyance, and make no demands for a recognition which is not voluntarily conceded.
I. The manner of payment was also so contrived by Him as to reinforce the lesson. He gave directions as the Lord of nature to whom all creatures in land or sea were subject. Behold who it is that pays this tax and that is reduced to such straits; it is He who knoweth the paths of the sea.
II. The reason which moved Him to adopt the policy of submission to what was in itself an indignity, Lest we should offend. How careful was our Lord not to offend. He did not take offence. He did not resent the demand for tax as an insult. The lowly one did not assume this attitude, but gave what was asked without complaint. It teaches the children of the kingdom not to murmur because the world does not recognize their status and respect their dignity. They must wait for the manifestation of the sons of God.
III. A lesson for those who consider themselves aggrieved by demands for church rates and annuity taxes. Let the children be free if possible, but beware of imagining that it is necessary for conscience sake always to resist indignities, and to fight for a freedom which mainly concerns the purse. It is not a mark of greatness in the kingdom to bluster about rights. The higher one rises in spiritual dignity the more he can endure in the way of indignity. The humility of Jesus was thus shown in not taking, so His love was manifested by His solicitude to avoid giving, offence. Lest we should offend. How happy for the Church and world if this conciliating spirit ruled. (A. B. Bruce, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 27. Lest we – offend them] Be a stumbling-block to the priests, or rulers of the Jews, I will pay the tribute – go thou to the sea – cast a hook, and take the first fish – thou shalt find a piece of money, , a stater. This piece of money was equal in value to four drachms, or two shekels, (five shillings of our money,) and consequently was sufficient to pay the tribute for our Lord and Peter, which amounted to about half-a-crown each. If the stater was in the mouth or belly of the fish before, who can help admiring the wisdom of Christ, that discovered it there? If it was not before in the mouth of the fish, who can help admiring the power of Christ, that impelled the fish to go where the stater had been lost in the bottom of the sea, take it up, come towards the shore where Peter was fishing, and, with the stater in its mouth or stomach, catch hold of the hook that was to draw it out of the water? But suppose there was no stater there, which is as likely as otherwise, then Jesus created it for the purpose, and here his omnipotence was shown; for to make a thing exist that did not exist before is an act of unlimited power, however small the thing itself may be. Some suppose that the haddock was the fish caught by Peter, because this fish has a blackish mark on each side of its neck or shoulders, as seems to exhibit the impression of a finger and thumb. The haddock is the gadus eglesinus. But this being a sea fish, could not be a native of the sea of Galilee or Tiberias, c., for the river Jordan runs through the sea of Galilee, and falls into the Dead Sea, which has no outlet to the ocean: no sea fish of any kind can be found there and we may add to this, that Belzoni, a learned traveller, who examined the produce of the lake of Tiberias, found only trouts, pikes, chevins, and tenches. That it may, besides these, have some fishes peculiar to itself, as most extensive fresh water lakes have, need not be denied; but it could have no sea fish.
THE account of the transfiguration, the peculiar case of the lunatic, with his cure, and the miracle wrought to pay the tribute money, render this one of the most interesting and instructive chapters in the New Testament.
1. To what has already been said on the subject of the transfiguration, nothing need be added: I have given that sense to it which the circumstances of the case, the construction of the words, and the analogy of faith warrant. That others have understood the whole transaction differently, is readily granted. Some of the foreign critics, who are also called divines, have stripped it, by their mode of interpretation, of all its strength, use, and meaning. With them, it is thus to be understood: – “Jesus, with his disciples, Peter, James, and John, went by night into a mountain, for the purpose of prayer and meditation; while thus engaged, the animal spirits of the disciples were overcome by watching and fatigue, and they fell asleep: in this sleep they dreamed, or Peter only dreamed, that he saw his Master encompassed with a glorious light, and that Moses and Elijah were conversing with him. That early in the morning, just as the sun was rising, there happened some electric or thunder – like explosions (a thing not unfrequent near some mountains) by which the disciples were suddenly awoke; that Peter, whose mind was strongly impressed with his dream, seeing the rising sun shine gloriously upon his Master, and his strongly impressed senses calling to remembrance his late vision, he for a moment imagined he saw, not only the glory of which he had dreamed, but the persons also – Moses and Elijah, still standing on the mount with Christ; that not being as yet sufficiently awake, finding the images impressed on his imagination fleeting away with his returning exercise of reason, he cried out, before he was aware, Lord! it is good for its to be here, let us make three tabernacles, c. but in a short time, having recovered the regular use of his senses, he perceived that it was a dream; and, having told it to our Lord and his brother disciples, lest the Jews might take occasion of jealousy from it, he was desired to tell the vision to no man.” This is the substance of that strange explanation given by those learned men to this extraordinary transaction; a mode of interpretation only calculated to support that system which makes it an important point to deny and decry all supernatural and miraculous influence, and to explain away all the spirituality of the New Testament. Whatever ingenuity may be in this pretended elucidation, every unprejudiced person must see that it can never be brought to accord with the letter and concomitant circumstances of this most remarkable case.
2. The cure of the deaf and dumb lunatic has been treated, by the same critics, in nearly the same way, and for the same obvious design, namely, to exclude from the world all supernatural agency; and could they succeed in this, of what value, or, indeed, utility, could the whole New Testament be to mankind? We might be well astonished to find such a history, with such a great variety of curious and apparently interesting circumstances: – a wondrous person, labouring, preaching, suffering, dying, c., c., without having scarcely any thing in view, but a sort of merely moral reformation of the outward man! Truly, this: –
“Is like an ocean into tempest toss’d,
To waft a feather, or to drown a fly.”
But the truth of God’s miraculous interpositions, the miracles of the New Testament, demoniacal possessions and influence, the atonement, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the regeneration of the corrupted human heart, &c., &c,, must not be given up to please a certain description of persons, who have no commerce with God themselves, and cannot bear that others should either have or pretend to it.
3. The miracle wrought for the paying of the temple tribute money, is exceedingly remarkable. See Clarke on Mt 17:27, which brings this particularly to view. To what is there said, it may be added, that our Lord seems to have wrought this miracle for the following purposes: –
1. More forcibly to impress the minds of his disciples, and his followers in general, with the necessity and propriety of being subject to all the laws of the different states, kingdoms, &c., wheresoever the providence of God might cast their lot.
2. To show forth his own unlimited power and knowledge, that they might be fully convinced that he knew all things, even to the most minute and could do whatsoever he pleased and that both his wisdom and power were continually interested in behalf of his true disciples.
3. To teach all believers a firm trust and reliance on Divine Providence, the sources of which can never be exhausted; and which, directed by infinite wisdom and love, will make every provision essentially requisite for the comfort and support, of life. How many of the poor followers of Christ have been enabled to discern his kind hand, even in the means furnished them to discharge the taxes laid on them by the state! The profane and the unprincipled may deride, and mock on, but the people of God know it to be their duty, and their interest, to be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake; and, while his grace and providence render this obedience, in things both spiritual and secular, possible, his love, which their hearts feel, renders their duty their delight. The accomplishment of such ends as these is worthy both of the wisdom and benevolence of Christ.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
27. Notwithstanding, lest we shouldoffendstumble.
themall ignorant asthey are of My relation to the Lord of the Temple, and shouldmisconstrue a claim to exemption into indifference to His honor whodwells in it.
go thou to the seaCapernaum,it will be remembered, lay on the Sea of Galilee.
and cast an hook, and take upthe fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth,thou shall find a piece of moneya stater. So it should havebeen rendered, and not indefinitely, as in our version, for the coinwas an Attic silver coin equal to two of the afore-mentioned”didrachms” of half a shekel’s value, and so, was the exactsum required for both. Accordingly, the Lord adds,
that take, and give unto themfor me and theeliterally, “instead of Me and thee”;perhaps because the payment was a redemption of the personpaid for (Ex 30:12) in whichview Jesus certainly was “free.” If the house was Peter’s,this will account for payment being provided on this occasion, notfor all the Twelve, but only for him and His Lord. Observe, our Lorddoes not say “for us,” but “for Me and thee”;thus distinguishing the Exempted One and His non-exempted disciple.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them,…. Though Christ could have maintained his right of exemption from payment, by such strong and clear reasons and arguments; yet he chose to forego it, lest any should be offended with him, and look upon him as a transgressor of the law; one that had no regard to the temple, and slighted the worship and service of it, and so be prejudiced against him, and his doctrines: which, by the way, may teach us to be careful to give no offence, to Jew or Gentile, or the church of God; though it may be to our own disadvantage, when the honour and interest of religion lie at stake. This is following the example of Christ, who therefore said to Peter,
go thou to the sea; of Tiberias, which was near this city,
and cast an hook; a fisher’s hook into it:
and take up the fish that first cometh up, and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: a “stater”, as in the original text, the same with the of the Talmudists; and which word the Syriac version here retains, and was, they w tell us, of the same value with a “sela”, or “shekel” of the province. The Arabic and Persic versions render it, by “four drachms”, which also were the same with a “shekel”: and so was just enough to pay the two half shekels, for Christ and Peter, and was worth, of our money, near “half a crown”; and not “nearly a crown”, as in a late paraphrase is said, through mistake. This was a wonderful instance of the omniscience of Christ, who knew there was in such a fish, such a piece of money, as exactly answered the present exigence, and that that would come first to Peter’s hook; and of his omnipotence, if not in forming this piece of money immediately in the fish’s mouth, as is thought by some, yet in causing this fish to come to Peter’s hook first, and as soon as cast in; and of his power and dominion over all creatures, even over the fishes of the sea; and so proved himself to be what he suggested, the Son of the King of kings; and to be a greater person than the kings of the earth, to whom tribute was paid: and yet, at the same time, it declares his great poverty as man, that he had not a shekel to pay on such an occasion, without working a miracle; and his great condescension to do it, rather than give offence by non-payment:
and take, and give unto them for me and thee; for the half shekel was expected of Peter, as well as of Christ, and he had not wherewith to pay it; and this Christ knew, and therefore provides for both. But why did not Christ pay for the other disciples, as well as for himself and Peter? It may be replied, that this money would pay for no more than two: but this is not a full answer; Christ could have ordered more money in the same way he did this: it may then be further said, that only he and Peter were looked upon as inhabitants of this place; and so the rest were not called upon here, but in their respective cities, where they might pay also, and, besides, were not now present.
w Gloss. in T. Bab. Cetubot, fol. 64. 1. & 105. 1. & Bava Metzia, fol. 102. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Lest we cause them to stumble ( ). He does not wish to create the impression that he and the disciples despise the temple and its worship. Aorist tense (punctiliar single act) here, though some MSS. have present subjunctive (linear). “A hook” (). The only example in the N.T. of fishing with a hook. From an unused verb , to angle, and that from , a curve (so also the inner curve of the arm, Lu 2:38).
First cometh up ( ). More correctly, “the first fish that cometh up.”
A shekel (). Greek stater = four drachmae, enough for two persons to pay the tax.
For me and thee ( ). Common use of in commercial transactions, “in exchange for.” Here we have a miracle of foreknowledge. Such instances have happened. Some try to get rid of the miracle by calling it a proverb or by saying that Jesus only meant for Peter to sell the fish and thus get the money, a species of nervous anxiety to relieve Christ and the Gospel of Matthew from the miraculous. “All the attempts have been in vain which were made by the older Rationalism to put a non-miraculous meaning into these words” (B. Weiss). It is not stated that Peter actually caught such a fish though that is the natural implication. Why provision is thus only made for Peter along with Jesus we do not know.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Hook [] . The only mention in the New Testament of fishing with a hook. A single fish is wanted.
A piece of money [] . The A. V. is very inadequate, because Christ names a definite sum, the stater, which is a literal transcription of the Greek word, and represents two didrachmas, or a shekel. Hence Rev., a shekel.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
27. Throw a hook. Though I acknowledge that Christ had not always full coffers, yet I think that he was not compelled by poverty to give this order to Peter, but that he did so in order to prove by a miracle, that he had a more extensive dominion than all earthly kings, since he had even fishes for his tributaries. And we do not read that this was done more than once, because one proof was enough for his whole life. Thou wilt find a stater. A stater was of the same value as a shekel, namely, four drachms or two didrachma. (583)
(583) The didrachmon weighed two drachms, and the stater, which weighed two didrachma, or four drachms, was worth about two shillings and sixpence of our money. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(27) Lest we should offend them.Those who note the finer shades of language, can scarcely fail to trace in these words the tone of what we should describe in a human teacher as a half-playful, half-serious irony. When they were last at Capernaum, the disciples, Peter probably their spokesman (Mat. 15:12; Mat. 15:15), had remonstrated with their Master for proclaiming a bold, broad principle of spiritual morality against the traditions of the Schools: Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended when they heard that saying? Now He proclaims another principle, equally bold and far-reaching, and as certain to offend. He reminds the disciple of his former fear, sees that some such feeling is already rising up in his mind, and recognises that within certain limits it is legitimate. To have refused to pay the didrachma on purely personal grounds would have been to claim prematurely that title of the Christ, the Son of God, which He had told His disciples at this crisis not to claim for Him (Mat. 16:20). To have done so on general grounds, common to Himself and others, would have been to utter a truth for which men were not prepared, and which they were certain to pervert. Those who had not learnt the higher law of the free gift of love would be tempted to make their freedom an excuse for giving nothing. Devout and generous minds would be shocked at what would seem to them to cut off the chief support of the outward glory of the House of God. The spirit in which our Lord spoke and acted was one with that which was the guide of St. Pauls life: It is good to surrender even the freedom which we might well claim, if by it thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak (Rom. 14:21).
A piece of money.The Greek gives the name of the coin, the stater. It was reckoned as equal to four drachm, and would therefore pay the didrachma both for Peter and his Master. Incidentally, we may note the light which this throws on the poverty of our Lord and His disciples. They had returned from their wanderings in the north of Palestine, occupying some three or four weeks, and they were now absolutely penniless, not so much as a stater between them. The money was to be given for both, and so far, as has been said, our Lord includes Peter in the list of those who, as children of the kingdom, might have claimed exemption. No payment is made for the other disciples: most probably they had homes of their own, where the didrachma would be applied for, and were not living with Peter.
We cannot ignore the many points of contrast which difference this narrative from that of our Lords miracles in general. (1.) There is no actual record that a miracle was wrought at all. We expect the narrative to end with the words, and he went and found as it had been said unto him, but we do not find them. The story is told for the sake of the teaching, not of the wonder. Men have inferred that a miracle must have been wrought from a literal interpretation of the promise. (2.) On this assumption the wonder stands alone by itself in its nature and surroundings. It does not originate in our Lords compassion, nor depend upon faith in the receiver, as in the miracles of healing, nor set forth a spiritual truth, like that of the withered fig-tree. It is so far distinct and peculiar. This would not in itself, perhaps, be of much, if any, weight against a direct statement of a fact, but it may be allowed to be of some significance in the exceptional and therefore conspicuous absence of such a statement. On these grounds some have been led to explain our Lords words as meaning, in figurative language which the disciple would understand, that Peter was to catch the fish, and sell it for a stater. Most interpreters, however, have been content to take our Lords words in their literal sense, and to believe that they were literally fulfilled. If we accept this view the narrative has its parallel in the well-known story of the ring of Polycrates, the tyrant of Samos (Herod. iii. 39-41).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
27. Offend them Put a snare or entrapment in their way, by which they should fall into the supposition that I depreciate God’s house. See note on Mat 18:7. Go thou to the sea As I am Son of the King of all the universe, the earth is my patrimony, and the sea is my treasury. Go and draw upon it. Take a coin from the fish’s mouth and pay thy contribution and mine. Piece of money In Greek a stater. This, being a half shekel for each of the two, must have been current for a shekel, which was about sixty-two cents. See note on Mat 17:24.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“But, lest we cause them offence, you go to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first comes up, and when you have opened his mouth, you will find a shekel, that take, and give it to them for me and you.”
Thus Jesus is presenting Peter with a dilemma, for if what Jesus says is true, He Himself should not pay the Temple tax, and nor should Peter. But He is not desirous of making an issue of it, thereby causing offence, so He arranges to pay it in such a way that it is clear to Peter that it is not strictly He Who is paying it. And He does this by paying it out of His Father’ treasury. The treasures of the sea are God’s for the fish have no ruler over them (Hab 1:14). And it is out of the abundance of the seas that the sacrifice of righteousness is offered (Deu 33:19). Thus by arranging to pay the Tax out of the fishes mouth Jesus evidences to Peter that He is the Son of God, because He pays the tax with His Father’s own money, while at the same time paying the tax, not as tribute, but as an offering of righteousness. Thus to all who know of this His Sonship is made clear.
Others have suggested that the idea is that money found by Peter belonged to Peter, thus if Peter paid both taxes with the coin he found then Jesus had not been involved in paying the tax. But this seems somewhat devious.
‘Cause offence.’ Or ‘cause to stumble’. The idea may be that it will be putting the collectors in difficulties, so that they would have to appeal to Jerusalem, and then put pressure on Him as the Son of God. Thus as a result of His action they would be caught up in sin, and that was something that He did not want.
This is the only place in the New Testament where fishing takes place by hook in order to catch an individual fish. It confirms that only one fish was to be caught. There are a number of fish in the Sea of Galilee capable of carrying a coin in their mouths, and there are a number of stories about coins being found in fishes mouths. The only reason for doubting the story as it stands is therefore scepticism. The recourse to ‘legend’ is the approach of those of ‘little faith’.
Some have suggested that Jesus was speaking jocularly and telling Peter to pay the tax by doing some fishing. But there is no real reason for doubting that Jesus meant what He said and that Peter did what He said and discovered that everything happened as He had said. It would be a test of Peter’s faith that might reassure him after his failure to walk on the waters.
This miracle is an outstanding example of ‘the gift of knowledge’ (1Co 12:8) combined with an act of God’s sovereignty. Jesus knew from His Father that the coin was there, and how to go about catching the right fish. And His Father then arranged for Peter to catch that fish. Note that the coin (a tetradrachma) was for both, for Peter too was an adopted son of God. But the primary lesson was of Jesus’ Sonship.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The miracle:
v. 27. Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money; that take, and give unto them for Me and thee. The miracle is taken so absolutely for granted that its fulfillment is not even noted. Matthew simply puts down the command of Christ. Peter took his hook and line, went out to the lake, threw out the line, drew up the fish with the stater in his mouth, and paid this coin, which was equal to about 60 cents, or twice the Temple-tax, for himself and for his Master. Thus was it the Lord’s will. Jesus might easily have obtained the small sum of money somewhere else. He might also have paid for them all, though the text does not indicate that they were all present. Jesus purposely wanted to gain the money for the payment of the Temple-tax by a striking miracle. He, the Lord of heaven and earth, who has the fishes in the sea, the silver and gold of the whole world, in His hand, humiliates Himself thus deeply and subjects Himself to the precepts of the Jews, in order not to give offense needlessly, and perhaps, to win some of the people for His kingdom. It is a lesson for all disciples of all times, that they do not give offense, that they do not abuse the power and the liberty which they have in Christ to the detriment of their neighbor, but be willing to accommodate themselves to the wishes, demands, customs, and precepts of men, wherever love dictates this course and it may be followed without offending against a command of God. It might seem a small thing that Jesus and His followers would seem to despise the Temple, and disallow its claims, but a proper desire to live peaceably with all men, if possible, dictated His course and became a lesson for all time.
Summary. Jesus is miraculously transfigured on a mountain, gives His disciples a lesson on the coming of Elijah, heals a lunatic demoniac, chides the apostles for the smallness of their faith, again foretells His passion, and pays the Temple-tax.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mat 17:27 . But in order that we may not scandalize them (the collectors), that we may not give them occasion to misjudge us, as though we despised the temple. Bengel: “illos, qui non noverant jus Jesu.” Jesus thus includes others along with Himself, not because He regarded Peter as strictly entitled to claim exemption, nor because He was anticipating the time when His followers generally would cease to have such obligations in regard to the temple (Dorner, Jesu sndlose Volk . p. 37), but because Peter, who, in like manner, had his residence in Capernaum (Mat 8:14 ), had not paid, as yet, any more than Himself.
] belongs to . ( to the sea), which latter Fritzsche connects with , which, however, would have the effect of rendering it unduly emphatic.
] It is a fish-hook (Hom. Od . iv. 369; Herod, ii. 70, al .), and not a net , which Jesus asks him to throw in, because in this instance it was a question of one particular fish. Consequently this is the only occasion in the Gospels in which mention is made of a fishing with a hook.
] out of the depths.
] the adjective: the first fish that has come up .
] lift it with the hook out on the land. Jesus is therefore aware that this one will be the first to snap at the hook.
] that is, in the mouth of the fish. The stater was a coin equivalent to four drachmae, for which reason it is likewise called a , and must not be confounded with the gold stater (20 drachmae).
. ] not an incorrect expression for (Fritzsche), but is used with reference to the original enactment, Exo 30:12 ff., where the half-shekel is represented as a ransom for the soul . Comp. Mat 20:28 . With condescending accommodation, Jesus includes Himself in this view.
REMARK.
The naturalistic interpretation of this incident, so far as its miraculous features are concerned, which, in a teleological respect, and on account of the magical character of the occurrence, Schleiermacher, L. J . p. 228, also regarded with suspicion, has, in conformity with earlier attempts of the kind, been advocated above all by Paulus and Ammon, and consists substantially in supposing that . was accomplished by the selling of the fish . But whether be referred to the act of taking the fish from the hook (Paulus, Komment .), or even to Peter as offering it for sale, in which case is said to signify on the spot , we always have, as the result, an incongruous representation and unwarrantable perversion of what, for the narrative of a miracle, is extremely simple and appropriate, to say nothing of so enormous a price for a single fish, and that especially in Capernaum, though Paulus, in spite of the , understands the in a collective sense. The mythical mode of explaining away this incident (Strauss, II. p. 184, according to whom it is “a legendary offshoot of tales of the sea”) the occasion of which is to be found partly in a take of fish by Peter, partly in the [462] the stories current about jewels (for example, the ring of Polycrates, Herod, iii. 42) having been found in the inside of fish breaks down in consequence of its own arbitrariness, and the absence of any thought or Old Testament event in which the myth might be supposed to originate. Again, it would be to make it simply a curiosity (in answer to Strauss in Hilgenfeld’s Zeilschr. 18G3 , p. 293 ff.) to treat it as an invention for the purpose of exhibiting the superiority of Jesus over the circumstances to which He was accommodating Himself. But Hase’s hypothesis, that what was a figurative way of expressing the blessing that attended the labor by means of which the little sum was handily raised, has been transformed, in the popular legend, into an apocryphal miracle, is inconsistent with the fact that the actual miraculous capture of the fish is not once mentioned, an omission which is scarcely in keeping with the usual character of apocryphal narratives. Lastly, the view is no less unfounded which derives the narrative from a parable, in which our Lord is supposed to be representing the contrast between the righteousness of faith that distinguishes the children of God, and the legal righteousness of those who are only slaves (Weisse, Evangelienfr. p. 263 ff.).
[462] Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Gospel of Matthew, Volume 1 , ed. Frederick Crombie, trans. Peter Christie, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1880), 449-50.
Besides, this would be to import into the passage the Pauline contrast of a similar kind. In short, the incident must continue to be regarded as in every way as historical as the evangelist meant it to be. As for the difficulties involved in so doing, such as that of the fish snatching the hook with the stater in its mouth (not in the stomach), or that implied in the circumstance that, of all places, Capernaum was tho one where Jesus had no need whatever to have recourse to miraculous means for raising the little sum required, they must likewise continue unsolved, belonging as they do to those mysteries that are connected with miracles generally ; and while not justifying us in discarding the narrative without other reasons for so doing, they will at least warrant us in letting it stand as it is (de Wette), no matter whether the miraculous character of the affair, so fur as Jesus is concerned, is supposed to lie in what He there and then performed (“piscis eo ipso momento staterem ex fundo maris afferre jussus est,” “tho fish was ordered to bring a stater at that very moment from the bottom of the sea,” Bengel), or in what he knew, which latter is all that the terms of tho passage permit us to suppose (Grotius). Finally, the fact that the execution of the order given by Jesus, Mat 17:27 , is nol expressly recorded, is no reason why the reality of the thing itself should be questioned ; for, considering the character of tho Gospel, as well as the attraction which the thing must have had for Peter, the execution in question is to be assumed as a matter of course. But even apart from this, the result promised by Jesus would he sure to follow in the event of His order being complied with. For this reason Ewald’s view also is unsatisfactory, which is to the effect that Jesus merely wanted to indicate with what readiness the money for the tax could be procured, the phraseology which He employed being supposed to proceed upon well-known, although extremely rare, instances of such things being found in fish.
NOTE BY AMERICAN EDITOR
The distinction which Dr. Meyer draws between tho objective reality of the Transfiguration of Jesus and the purely visionary manifestation of Moses and Elias is hardly sustained by the text. For as to the words ucjQijaav avroic, the same form is used by Paul in speaking of the appearances of Christ (1Co 15:5-7 ), after His resurrection, which were certainly as objectively real as tho Transfiguration itself. Nor is the possibility of any bodily manifestation of Moses an insuperable difficulty. Olshausen solves this by assuming the bodily glorification of Moses as well as Elias. “In support of this idea,” he writes, “Scripture itself gives sufficient intimations (Dent, 34:6 compared with Jud 1:9 ; 2Ki 2:11 compared with Sirach xlviii. 9, 13), which men have accustomed themselves to set down as biblical mythology ; but whatright they had to do so is another question.”1 Lange makes the better point, that “spirits of the blessed are not necessarily destitute of all corporeity.”
Dr. Meyer disposes of the very serious objection to the assumed visionary character of the appearance of Moses and Elias to wit, “that three persons must be supposed to have witnessed the same phenomena, and to have heard the same voice” by saying that this is deprived of its force if ” it is conceded that a supernatural agency was here at work with a view to enable the three leading disciples to have a glimpse beforehand of the glory” of their Master. But if a supernatural agency is here found, may we not suppose that it was equal to the task of bringing Moses and Elias before the eyes of the disciples in visible form? Where is the occasion for departing from the obvious meaning of the text, if the supernatural is fully admitted? In disposing of the natural and mythical interpretations of this event, however, Dr. Meyer is exceedingly clear.
For a full exposition of the history of the Transfiguration, from the supernatural point of view, the reader is referred to Trench, ” Studies in the Gospels,” pp. 184-214.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
DISCOURSE: 1379
CHRIST PAYING THE TRIBUTE MONEY
Mat 17:27. Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shall find a piece of money: that take and give unto them for me and thee.
THERE was nothing in the whole creation over which our Lord did not exert his sovereign authority. He not only overruled the spirits of men, but caused diseases and devils to flee at his command. The very beasts of the forest [Note: Mar 1:13.], and the fishes of the sea, were subject to his control, and yielded a ready obedience to his will. A most remarkable instance of his power over every living creature occurs in the passage before us. To elucidate it we shall,
I.
Unfold the circumstances under which he wrought the miracle
A certain tribute was about to be demanded of him
[This tribute was half a shekel [Note: About fifteen pence of our money.]. It was originally to be paid by every one above the age of twenty, whensoever the people should be numbered. It was called the ransom money, and an atonement for their souls, because it was an acknowledgment to God, that their lives had been justly forfeited, and were spared merely through his sovereign mercy. More was not to be paid by the rich, nor less by the poor, because the lives and the souls of all are of equal value in the sight of God, and there is but one ransom-price for all. It was to be applied to the service of the tabernacle and temple, in which all classes of men were alike interested, and to the due support of which all should contribute [Note: Exo 30:12-16.]]
From this, Jesus had a right to claim an exemption
[It is usual for kings to exact tribute, not of their own children, but of their subjects, and of the foreigners who trade with them. Now Jesus was the Son of God, and the heir of all things: he therefore was not liable to pay the tax; and this right of exemption he stated to his servant Peter.]
But he waved his claim rather than give offence
[Just as his claim really was, it was not likely to be acknowledged by the tax-gatherers. If insisted on, it might have given them occasion to represent him as indifferent to the temple service; and it might perhaps have been drawn into a precedent by those who were Gods adopted children. He therefore chose rather to wave his right than by insisting on it to produce contention. He would not give occasion to those who sought occasion against him, nor suffer his good to be evil spoken of. He would not do even a lawful thing, if it might prove an occasion of offence [Note: 1Co 8:13.].]
Not having money wherewith to answer the demand, he was constrained to supply his necessities by a miracle
[In this miracle he discovered his omniscience. His all-penetrating eye beheld what was passing in the very depths of the sea: He knew that there was a fish, with one particular piece of money in its mouth; that it should be in the precise place where Peter should let down his hook; and that, coming to the hook, it should instantly be caught. What greater proof of omniscience could he give? And what in heaven or earth can be concealed from him, who discovered these things with such infallible certainty?
His omnipotence also was evinced by it. It is not to be conceived that such improbable things should occur, if they had not been accomplished by the secret agency of his overruling providence; nor would he have risked the credit of his divine mission upon so trifling an incident, if he had not foreordained that it should exactly correspond with his predictions. Can any thing then be impossible to him, who could thus overrule the motions of a creature so distant from him, and apparently so independent of him? Surely no miracle whatever could more plainly evince his eternal power and godhead.]
From the miracle thus illustrated we may,
II.
Found upon it some profitable advice
1.
Was the Lord Jesus thus poor? Let us learn contentment with our lot, however poor and afflicted it may be
[The Lords people are often most destitute and afflicted. But shall any one repine at poverty when he reflects on the condition of our blessed Lord? Though he was Lord of all things, yet had he not a place where to lay his head, or a piece of silver to pay his tax. Let all then be satisfied with their lot, however humble. Let us not judge of Gods love to us by the outward dispensations of his providence. Let us remember that, if God be our God, we are rich indeed, however poor our outward circumstances may be. The state of Lazarus was infinitely better than that of his rich ungodly neighbour. The true believer, though visibly he should have nothing, yet in fact, possesses all things. In fact, if we look at the state of our blessed Lord, we shall see, that the character most dignified on earth is that of a poor pious man: and he who best sustains it, is most conformed to the image of Gods only dear Son.]
2.
Did Christ, to avoid giving offence, pay a tax, from which he was exempt? Let us not only pay cheerfully our just dues, but rather wave our strict rights, than, by rigorously insisting on them, give rise to clamour and contention
[Our Lord submitted cheerfully to all the ordinances both of God and man; nor would he needlessly give offence by rigorously insisting even on his just rights. Alas! how different is the conduct of many who profess themselves his followers! He paid a tax which was not really due, rather than contend about it; whereas they clamour about the taxes which are legally due, and use every mean artifice to evade them. He paid notwithstanding he was constrained to work a miracle in order to gain the money, when he would have violated no law if he had withheld the tribute; while they, without any such urgent necessity, violate the most express commands of God, in refusing to render to Csar the things that are Csars, and to pay tribute to whom tribute is due. More especially, did he act thus in order that he might not give offence? Let us avoid a contentious spirit; and, instead of joining in the clamour which ungodly men are ever raising against their governors, determine ever to be found among them that are quiet in the land. We cannot doubt how Christ would conduct himself if he were now living amongst us: let it then be seen that we, all of us, walk as he walked.]
3.
Did he, under the pressure of want, supply the necessities of himself and Peter by a miracle? Let us trust in him for a supply of all our wants in the time of need
[To what situation can any one be reduced, wherein Christ will not be able to discern and to supply his wants? Are we embarrassed with temporal distresses? The Lord can multiply our barrel of meal, or send us fresh supplies by a raven or a fish; nor though his interposition should be less visible, shall it ever be withheld from those who ask it. He requires indeed that we should be diligent in our lawful calling; and it is usually in this way that he will (as he did on this occasion) send us relief. But the promise is sure to all, That, if we seek him first, all needful things shall be added unto us. Are our difficulties of a spiritual nature? He is at no loss to succour and support us. He will surely strengthen us according to our day of trial, and shew himself a present help in the time of need. Let all then trust in him, and say with David, The Lord is my shepherd, therefore shall I lack nothing. Let us remember that he has paid our redemption money: he has paid it at no less a price than his own blood. We may be sure, therefore, that he will give his Holy Spirit also to them that ask him, and that to the full extent of all our necessities.]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
REFLECTIONS
What a lovely chapter is this to read to us the interesting events in the life of Christ, when God the Holy Ghost is here leading the Church by the hand, to contemplate Christ in his glory, and Christ in his humiliation. We follow him, by faith to the Mount of Transfiguration, and we hear him informing his disciples, soon after, of his sufferings which were shortly to follow at Jerusalem! Precious Lord Jesus! cause both views to have their gracious influences upon the hearts of thy redeemed! Oh! may it be my portion to follow thee often, by faith, both to the Mount of Tabor, and to the Garden of Gethsemane. Surely every meditation will tend, under the teaching of God the Holy Ghost, to strengthen my soul in the belief of Jesus. What, though the privileges of thy people now, are not like those highly favoured disciples, to behold Moses and Elias ministering to my Lord, yet in Jesus himself I have all. In the sweet communion with the Master, I shall miss not the absence of all his servants, Yea! I shall rejoice to be alone with Jesus, having to communicate to my Lord, and to receive from him those precious soul-transactions, in a joy with which no lookers-on can meddle. It is blessed, yea, very blessed, my honored Lord, to behold the inability of thy disciples, that my God and Savior’s power and grace may be more fully known. And whatever fears, from the weakness of faith in my poor heart, and nature’s feelings by reason of the remains of indwelling sin, may arise on entering the cloud, yet will my soul receive an holy joy, unspeakable, and full of glory, when I hear my God and Father’s gracious voice proclaiming the divine approbation; this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.
Ver. 27. Lest we should offend them ] Better it is that a man part with his right than give just offence to any. This was St Paul’s great care, 1Co 9:19-27 , and his constant counsel to others, Rom 14:13-15 . Let no man put a stumblingblock, much less a scandal, in his brother’s way, that is, neither a lighter nor greater offence, but rather abridge himself of his lawful liberty. This is to express Christ to the world, to be made like unto him. notat leviorem offensam, qua aliquis non corruat; graviorem, ex qua quis prolapsus claudicet.
Go thou to the sea ] Here Jerome cries out, Quid primum mirer in hoc loco nescio, I know not what chiefly here to wonder at, whether Christ’s prescience or greatness. His prescience, that he knew that the fish had money in his mouth, and that that fish should come first to hand. His greatness and power, that could create such a piece of money by his bare word, and cause it so to be, by commanding it so to be. Who would not fear this Lord of hosts? Who would not trust him for necessaries, who can and will cause all creatures to cater for his? But what a wonderful work of God was it, and a fair warning to us before these doleful days of war, had we been so wise as to have made good use of it, that God should send John Frith’s Preparation to the Cross, in the fish belly, to the University of Cambridge, a little before the commencement, some few years since. That such a book (saith the reverend man, Jer. Dyke, that relateth it) should be brought in such a manner, and to such a place, and at such a time, when by reason of people’s confluence out of all parts, notice might be given to all places of the land; in my apprehension it can be construed for no less than a divine warning, and to have this voice with it, “England, prepare for the cross.”
Take up the fish ] Earthly men (saith one wittily) are like the fish here mentioned: either dumb, or nothing but gold in their mouths.
Give it unto them for me and thee ] Upon this place, Papists would foolishly found their pope’s primacy and clergy’s privilege of immunity from payments to civil princes and magistrates: because Christ and Peter are set together. But in what do you think? In paying of homage, not in receiving of honour. Christ paid tribute, to free us from the servitude of Satan, that rigid tax-master. Peter paid, because he had here a house and family, Mat 8:5 , and further to let his successors know that they paid tribute in Peter, and should learn in all due humility to submit to magistracy; and not to withdraw from public impositions and taxations, further than of favour they shall be exempted and privileged.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
27. ] In this, which has been pronounced (even by Olshausen) the most difficult miracle in the Gospels, the deeper student of our Lord’s life and actions will find no difficulty. Our Lord’s words amount to this: “that, notwithstanding this immunity, we (graciously including the Apostle in the earthly payment, and omitting the distinction between them, which was not now to be told to any), that we may not offend them, will pay what is required and shall find it furnished by God’s special providence for us.” In the foreknowledge and power which this miracle implies, the Lord recalls Peter to that great confession (ch. Mat 16:16 ), which his hasty answer to the collectors shews him to have again in part forgotten.
Of course the miracle is to be understood in its literal historic sense. The natural interpretation (of Paulus and Storr), that the fish was to be sold for the money (and a wonderful price it would be for a fish caught with a hook), is refuted by the terms of the narrative, and the mythical one, besides the utter inapplicability of all mythical interpretation to any part of the evangelic history, by the absence of all possible occasion, and all possible significancy, of such a myth.
The stater = four drachm , the exact payment required.
, because the payment was a redemption paid for the person , Exo 30:12 to this also refers the above.
. not , as in Joh 20:17 : because the footing on which it was given was different .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 17:27 . ., that we may not create misunderstanding as to our attitude by asking exemption or refusing to pay. Nsgen, with a singular lack of exegetical insight, thinks the scandal dreaded is an appearance of disagreement between Master and disciple! It is rather creating the impression that Jesus and His followers despise the temple, and disallow its claims. And the aim of Jesus was to fix Peter’s attention on the fact that He was anxious to avoid giving offence thereby, and in that view abstained from insisting on personal claims. Over against the spirit of ambition, which has begun to show itself among His disciples, He sets His own spirit of self-effacement and desire as far as possible to live peaceably with all men, even with those with whom He has no religious affinity. . . Generally the instruction given is: go and fish for the money needful to pay the tax. , a hook, not a net, because very little would suffice; one or two fish at most. : the very first fish that comes up will be enough, for a reason given in the following clause. : the words point to something marvellous, a fish with a stater, the sum wanted, in its mouth. Paulus sought to eliminate the marvellous by rendering not “find” but “obtain,” i.e. , by sale. Beyschlag ( Das Leben Jesu , p. 304) suggests that the use of an ambiguous word created the impression that Jesus directed Peter to catch a fish with a coin in its mouth. Ewald ( Geschichte Christus , p. 467) thinks Jesus spoke very much as reported, but from the fact that it is not stated that a fish with a coin in its mouth was actually found, he infers that the words were not meant seriously as a practical direction, but were a spirited proverbial utterance, based on rare examples of money found in fishes. Weiss is of opinion that a simple direction to go and fish for the means of payment was in the course of oral tradition changed into a form of language implying a miraculous element. This view assumes that the report in Mt. was derived from oral tradition ( vide Weiss, Das Leben Jesu , ii. 47, and my Miraculous Element in the Gospels , pp. 231 5). In any case the miracle, not being reported as having happened, cannot have been the important point for the evangelist. What he is chiefly concerned about is to report the behaviour of Jesus on the occasion, and the words He spoke revealing its motive. : various questions occur to one here. Did the collectors expect Jesus only to pay (for Himself and His whole company), or did their question mean, does He also, even He, pay? And why pay only for Peter along with Himself? Were all the disciples not liable: Andrew, James and John there, in Capernaum, not less than Peter? Was the tax strictly collected, or for lack of power to enforce it had it become practically a voluntary contribution, paid by many, neglected by not a few? In that case it would be a surprise to many that Jesus, while so uncompromising on other matters, was so accommodating in regard to money questions. He would not conform to custom in fasting, Sabbath keeping, washing, etc., but He would pay the temple tax, though refusal would have had no more serious result than slightly to increase already existing ill-will. This view sets the generosity and nobility of Christ’s spirit in a clearer light.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
lest we should offend, &c. But, not (Greek. me. App-105.) to give them an occasion of offence (either by neglecting their duty or by traducing the Lord). See Mat 18:6.
an hook. A weighted line with several hooks, rapidly drawn through the water, is employed to-day at Tiberias. Greek. agkistron. Occurs only here.
a piece of money. Greek. stater: i.e. a shekel. Occurs only here.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
27.] In this, which has been pronounced (even by Olshausen) the most difficult miracle in the Gospels, the deeper student of our Lords life and actions will find no difficulty. Our Lords words amount to this:-that, notwithstanding this immunity, we (graciously including the Apostle in the earthly payment, and omitting the distinction between them, which was not now to be told to any), that we may not offend them, will pay what is required-and shall find it furnished by Gods special providence for us. In the foreknowledge and power which this miracle implies, the Lord recalls Peter to that great confession (ch. Mat 16:16), which his hasty answer to the collectors shews him to have again in part forgotten.
Of course the miracle is to be understood in its literal historic sense. The natural interpretation (of Paulus and Storr), that the fish was to be sold for the money (and a wonderful price it would be for a fish caught with a hook), is refuted by the terms of the narrative,-and the mythical one, besides the utter inapplicability of all mythical interpretation to any part of the evangelic history,-by the absence of all possible occasion, and all possible significancy, of such a myth.
The stater = four drachm,-the exact payment required.
, because the payment was a redemption paid for the person, Exo 30:12-to this also refers the above.
. -not ,-as in Joh 20:17 :-because the footing on which it was given was different.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 17:27. , But lest we should offend them) Our Lord even performed a miracle to avoid giving offence; cf. ch. Mat 18:6-7.-, them) who were ignorant of our Lords claims. Men who are occupied in worldly affairs, most easily take offence at the saints when money is in question.- , that first cometh up) A manifold miracle of omniscience and omnipotence: 1. That something should be caught; 2, and that quickly; 3, that there should be money in a fish; 4, and that in the first fish; 5, that the sum should be just so much as was needed; 6, that it should be in the fishs mouth. Therefore the fish was commanded to bring a stater, or four-drachm coin, that very moment from the bottom of the sea.- , for Me and thee) A pair of great disparity; for what was Peter compared to the greatness of Jesus? Peter had a family of his own; the other disciples[802] were the family of Jesus (cf. Gnomon on Mat 8:14); therefore they said your, not thy Master, Mat 17:24.
[802] The other disciples, as we may reasonably suppose, had not yet passed their twentieth year; and therefore were not yet bound to pay the sacred tribute.-V. g.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
lest: Mat 15:12-14, Rom 14:21, Rom 15:1-3, 1Co 8:9, 1Co 8:13, 1Co 9:19-22, 1Co 10:32, 1Co 10:33, 2Co 6:3, 1Th 5:22, Tit 2:7, Tit 2:8
and take: Gen 1:28, 1Ki 17:4, Psa 8:8, Jon 1:17, Jon 2:10, Heb 2:7, Heb 2:8
a piece of money: “Or, a stater, half an ounce of silver, value 2s. 6d., after 5s. the ounce.”
that take: 2Co 8:9, Jam 2:5
Reciprocal: Ecc 10:19 – but Hab 1:15 – take Luk 5:4 – Launch Luk 20:25 – Render Luk 23:2 – forbidding
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THE CHRISTIAN LAW OF LOVE
Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an book, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for Me and thee.
Mat 17:27
This text presents an impressive illustration of the Christian law of lovethe rule of using our liberty in things not intrinsically wrong, allowable in themselves, under the control of love, so as to keep our lives and actions from misleading or injuring others; forgoing, if need be, the assertion of our rights for the sake of the welfare and safety of those about us.
I. Three instances.Three instances, in the way of examples, will explain, in general, what the law of love is.
(a) The example of Christ. It was a question of the payment of the temple-taxan annual contribution of two drachms required of each Jew for the support of the temple service. To the question, Doth not your Master pay the double drachm? Peter answered, Yes, but probably without taking in all the bearings of the question. So, in the house, Christ recalled the subject; and directing attention to the deeper principles involved, showed that strictly He was under no legal obligation whatever to pay this tax. The temple was His own Fathers house, the palace of the great King, and as the Son, He was free. Whether He should assert His liberty, or pay, He would decide on another principlethe principle of looking away from Himself, and doing what would be best for others: Notwithstanding, lest we should offend, etc. And there He seals and consecrates this law of love, this avoiding of offence, by a holy miracle.
(b) St. Pauls rule of action as to the use of meats.
(c) Another relation of the same apostle. According to the Divine order, he was entitled to be supported while ministering in Holy things. But what do we find the great Apostle doing? Day and night labouring with His hands, to support himself, so as not to be chargeable on any of the struggling churches. Not that I have not power, etc. (2Th 3:8-9; 1Co 9:2-23).
II. Its characteristics.From these examples we can trace the chief elements or characteristics of this law.
(a) Action under it really is from love, out of loving desire to promote the well-being and happiness of others, and do the most good.
(b) It belongs to the sphere of liberty. The Christian through knowledge is free from all men, but through love he becomes the servant of all. Love must be free. It cannot be exacted by legal penalties or discipline.
(c) It is developed and followed through knowledge and strength. We that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak. Suppose those for whom you are asked to give up so much are ignorant, narrow-minded, superstitious, weak people. This is your chance to let them, in the brotherhood of believers, have some help and safety from your knowledge and strength.
(d) This law of love becomes a law of duty. While in liberty, it is something to which we are under Christian obligation. Simply because love is duty.
III. Of reasons which specially enforce the law.
(a) It expresses a higher principle of action than its contrary. Selfishness is one of the lowest, worst, and meanest things in human depravity.
(b) It is the way of usefulness. The Apostle adopted it as such. It gives blessed power for good.
(c) It is the way of true happiness.
Illustration
A piece of money. A stater, probably the Greek stater of Antiooh, with the head of Augustus on one side, and a crowned figure representing the city of Antioch on the other. Its value was about that of a shekel, and would pay both for our Lord and Peter.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
7:27
While not strictly bound to pay this tax, Jesus decided to pay it rather than offend the collectors, and enabled Peter to get the money by a miracle.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 17:27. But lest we should cause them to stumble. Some little ones might thus be made to stumble (see chap. Mat 18:6 ff.); the time was not ripe for asserting this freedom; our Lord was still under the law for us.
Thou shalt find a shekel (a stater = to four drachmas, the exact amount needed). To explain this as meaning the value of the fish is frivolous; no single fish thus caught had such a value. The piece of money was in the mouth of the fish. Our Lord here exhibits miraculous power, in drawing by the force of His will this fish to that place at that time, as well as foreknowledge of the event. The two coincide in Divine operations. This miracle was not a freak of power, but had a definite and proper motive; the money was provided in a way that asserted Christs dignity to Peter, and yet gave no offense. The fisherman must resume his old occupation to discharge the debt he had so readily acknowledged. Our Lords position, not his poverty, called for this provision.
For me and thee. Not for us. A distinction kept up throughout the Gospels (comp. Joh 20:17). Our Lords humility and glory both appear here.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
17:27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a {n} piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.
(n) The word used here is “stater”, which is in value four didrachmas; every drachma is about five pence.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Even though He was exempt, Jesus would pay the tax because He did not want to offend anyone needlessly (cf. Mat 5:29). Failure to pay the tax would create unnecessary problems. Because Peter was one of Jesus’ disciples and one of God’s children through faith in Jesus, he also had no obligation to pay the temple tax (cf. Mat 12:1-8). Paul later followed Jesus’ example of not giving offense in a similar situation (1Co 8:13; 1Co 9:12; 1Co 9:22), as all God’s children should.
God had declared Jesus His Son clearly in the Transfiguration (Mat 17:5) as well as at Jesus’ baptism. Yet Jesus’ glory remained veiled as He moved toward the Cross. This established a pattern for His disciples (cf. Mat 18:1-5). Since the sons of God are exempt from maintaining the temple and its service, the end of this system of worship appeared to be approaching, as it was. Here is another indication that Jesus ended the Mosaic Law (Mat 15:11). Again the disciples failed to grasp the major significance of these things until after the Resurrection.
What an impression this miracle must have made on Peter as a fisherman and on his fellow fishermen disciples! Imagine, not only catching a fish but a fish with money in its mouth. This was one of many miracles that Jesus performed for Peter. He healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Mat 8:14-15), helped him catch fish (Luk 5:1-9), enabled him to walk on water (Mat 14:22-33), healed Malchus’ ear (Mat 26:47-56), and delivered him from prison (Acts 12). No wonder Peter could write, "Casting all your anxiety upon Him, because He cares for you" (1Pe 5:7).
Jesus alone could obtain the stater (shekel) as He did. Again the sinless Man fulfilled the command of the Adamic Covenant to exercise dominion over the fish of the sea (cf. Mat 8:27; Mat 14:25). Even though He was free from the Law’s demands, being God’s Son, He submitted to them and miraculously provided for His disciples to do so. This demonstration of humility and power is even more impressive following as it does an announcement of Jesus’ passion.
Jesus proceeded to teach His disciples the importance of following the examples that He provided for them in the next section (ch. 18).