Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 17:24

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 17:24” utilice nuestra app.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute [money] came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

24 27. Jesus pays the half shekel of the Sanctuary

Peculiar to St Matthew

24. they that received ] i. e. “the collectors of.” After the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple the Jews were obliged to pay the two drachm into the Roman treasury. Joseph. B. J. vii. 6. 6.

tribute money ] Literally, the two drachm. This was not a tribute levied by Csar or by Herod, but the half-shekel (Exo 30:13) paid annually by every Jew into the Temple treasury. The “sacred tax” was collected from Jews in all parts of the world. Josephus ( Ant. xvi. 6) has preserved some interesting letters from Roman proconsuls and from Augustus himself, to Cyrene, Ephesus, and other communities, directing that the Jews should be allowed to forward their contributions to the Temple without hindrance.

It would be interesting to know whether the Jewish Christians continued to pay the Temple-tax in accordance with this precedent.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

And when they were come to Capernaum – See the notes at Mat 4:13.

They that received tribute – In the original this is, they who received the didrachma, or double drachma. The drachma was a Grecian coin worth about fifteen cents (7 1/2 d.) of British money. The didrachma, or double drachma, was a silver coin equal to the Attic drachma, and, in the time of Josephus, equal to the Jewish half shekel, that is, about 30 cents (circa 1880s). This tribute, consisting of the didrachma or double drachma, was not paid to the Roman government, but to the Jewish collectors for the use of the temple service. It was permitted in the law of Moses (see Exo 30:11-16) that in numbering the people half a shekel should be received of each man for the services of religion. This was in addition to the tithes paid by the whole nation, and seems to have been considered as a voluntary offering. It was devoted to the purchase of animals for the daily sacrifice, wood, flour, salt, incense, etc., for the use of the temple.

Doth not your master pay tribute? – This tribute was voluntary, and they therefore asked him whether he was in the habit of paying taxes for the support of the temple. Peter replied that it was his custom to pay all the usual taxes of the nation.

Mat 17:25

Jesus prevented him – That is, Jesus commenced speaking before Peter, or spoke before Peter had told him what he had said. This implies that, though not present with Peter when he gave the answer, yet Jesus was acquainted with what he had said.

Prevent – To go before, or precede. It did not mean, as it now does with us, to hinder or obstruct. See the same use of the word in Psa 59:10; Psa 79:8; Psa 88:13; 1Th 4:15; Psa 119:148.

Of whom do the kings of the earth … – That is, earthly kings.

Their own children – Their sons; the members of their own family.

Or of strangers? – The word strangers does not mean foreigners, but those that were not their own sons or members of their family. Peter replied that tribute was collected of those out of their own family. Jesus answered, Then are the children, or sons of the kings, free; that is, taxes are not required of them. The meaning of this may be thus expressed: Kings do not tax their own sons. This tribute-money is taken up for the temple service; that is, the service of my Father. I, therefore, being the Son of God, for whom this is taken up, cannot be lawfully required to pay this tribute. This argument is based on the supposition that this was a religious, and not a civil tax. If it had been the latter, the illustration would not have been pertinent.

Mat 17:27

Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them – That is, lest they should think that we despise the temple and its service, and thus provoke needless opposition; though we are not under obligation to pay it, yet it is best to pay it to them.

Go to the sea – This was at Capernaum, on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias.

Thou shalt find a piece of money – In the original, thou shalt find a stater, a Roman silver coin of the value of four drachmas, or one shekel, and of course sufficient to pay the tribute for two – himself and Peter.

In whatever way this is regarded, it is proof that Jesus was possessed of divine attributes. If he knew that the first fish that came up would have such a coin in his mouth, it was proof of omniscience. If he created the coin for the occasion and placed it there, then it was proof of divine power. The former is the most probable supposition. It is by no means absurd that a fish should have swallowed a silver coin. Many of them bite eagerly at anything bright, and would not hesitate, therefore, at swallowing a piece of money.

Remarks On Matthew 17

1. It is proper to withdraw from those around us that we may engage in secret prayer; and it is desirable for every one to have a place where he may be alone with God, Mat 17:1. Christ often went into deserts and on mountains that he might be by himself. This should be done:

(1)To avoid the appearance of ostentation.

(2)Pride is easily excited when we know that others hear us pray.

Everyone should have some place – some closet – to which he may retire at any time, with the assurance that none sees him but God. See the notes at Mat 6:6.

2. In such seasons we shall meet God, Mat 17:2. It was in such a season that the divine favor was uniquely shown to Christ. Then the transfiguration took place – the brightest manifestation of his glory that ever occurred on earth. So the clearest and most precious manifestations of the love and glory of God will be made to us in prayer.

3. We see the great glory of Christ, Mat 17:2. No such favor had been granted to any prophet before him. We see the regard in which he was held by Moses and Elias among the greatest of the prophets. We see the honor which God put on him, exalting him far above them both, Mat 17:5. The glory of heaven encompasses the Lord Jesus, and all its redeemed pay him reverence. In him the divine nature shines illustriously; and of him and to him the divinity speaks in glory as the only begotten Son of God.

4. It is right to have particular affection for some Christians more than others, at the same time that we should love them all. Christ loved all his disciples, but he admitted some to special friendship and favors, Mat 17:1. Some Christians may be more congenial to us in feeling, age, and education than others; and it is proper, and may be greatly to our advantage, to admit them among our special friends.

5. The death of Jesus is an object of great interest to the redeemed. Moses and Elias talked of it, Luk 9:31. Angels also desire to look into this great subject, 1Pe 1:12. By that death all the redeemed are saved, and in that death the angels see the most signal display of the justice and love of God.

6. Christians should delight to be where God has manifested his glory. The feeling of Peter was natural, Mat 17:4. His love of the glorious presence of Christ and the redeemed was right. He erred only in the manner of manifesting that love. We should always love the house of prayer – the sanctuary the place where Christ has manifested himself as especially glorious and precious to our souls, or unique as our Friend and Deliverer.

7. We need not be afraid of the most awful displays of deity if Christ be with us, Mat 17:7. Were we alone we should fear. None could see God and live, for he is a consuming fire, Heb 12:29. But with Jesus for our friend we may go confidently down to death; we may meet him at his awful bar; we may dwell in the full splendors of his presence to all eternity.

8. Saints at death are taken to happiness and live now in glory, Mat 17:3. Moses and Elias were not created anew, but went to heaven as they were. They came from heaven and returned thither. The spirits of all people live, therefore, in happiness or woe after the body is dead.

9. It is not unreasonable to suppose that saints may have some knowledge of what is done here on earth. Moses and Elias appear to have been acquainted with the fact that Jesus was about to die at Jerusalem.

10. The Scriptures will be fulfilled. The fulfillment may take place when we little know it, or in events that we should not suppose were intended for a fulfillment, Mat 17:12.

11. Erroneous teachers will endeavor to draw us away from the truth, Mar 9:14. They will do it by art, and caution, and the appearance of calm inquiry. We should always be on our guard against any teachers appearing to call in question what Christ has plainly taught us.

12. Christ, in his word and by his Spirit, is a safe teacher, Mar 9:15. When people are suggesting plausible doubts about doctrine, or attempting to unsettle our minds by cavils and inquiry, we should leave them, and apply by prayer, and by searching the Bible, to Christ, the great Prophet, who is the way, the truth, and the life.

13. Parents should be earnest for the welfare of their children, Mat 17:15. It is right for them to pray to God, in times of sickness, that he would heal them. Miracles are not to be expected, but God only can bless the means which parents use for their sick and afflicted children.

14. Parents may do much by faith and prayer for their children. Here the faith of the parent was the means of saving the life of the child, Mat 17:14-18. So the faith of parents – a faith producing diligent instruction, a holy example, and much prayer, may be the means of saving their souls. God will not, indeed, save them on account of the faith of the parent, but the holy life of a father and mother may be the means of training up their children for heaven.

15. It is proper to pray to Jesus to increase our faith, Mar 9:24. We may be sensible of our unbelief may feel that we deserve condemnation, and that we deserve no favor that is usually bestowed on faith; but we may come to him and implore of him an increase of faith, and thus obtain the object of our desires.

16. Our unbelief hinders our doing much that we might do, Mat 17:20. We shrink from great difficulties, we fail in great duties, because we do not put confidence in God, who is able to help us. The proper way to live a life of religion and peace is to do just what God requires of us, depending on his grace to aid us.

17. We see the proper way of increasing our faith, Mat 17:21. It is by much prayer, self-denial, and fasting. Faith is a plant that never grows in an uncultivated soil, and is never luxuriant unless it is often exposed to the beams of the Sun of Righteousness.

18. It is right to weep and mourn over the death of Jesus, Mat 17:23. It was a cruel death, and we should mourn that our best Friend passed through such sufferings. Yet we should rather mourn that our sins were the cause of such bitter sorrows; and that, but for our sins, and the sins of the rest of mankind, he might have been always happy.

Twas you, my sins, my cruel sins,

His chief tormentors were;

Each of my crimes became a nail,

And unbelief the spear.

Twas you that pulled the vengeance down

Upon his guiltless head.

Break, break, my heart! O burst, mine eyes!

And let my sorrows bleed.

19. At the same time, we should rejoice that God made his death the source of the richest blessings that ever descended on mankind. He rose and brought life and immortality to light, Mat 17:23.

20. We should comply with all the requirements of the laws of the land, if not contrary to the law of God. It is important that governments should be supported, Mat 17:25. See also Rom 13:1-7.

21. We should also be willing to contribute our just proportion to the support of the institutions of religion. The tribute which Jesus paid here by a miracle was for the support of religion in the temple, Mat 17:24-27. He understood of how much value are the institutions of religion to the welfare of man. He worked a miracle, therefore, to make a voluntary offering to support it. Religion promotes the purity, peace, intelligence, and order of the community, and every man is therefore under obligation to do his part toward its support. If any man doubts this, he has only to go to the places where there is no religion among scoffers, and thieves, and adulterers, and prostitutes, and pick-pockets, and drunkards. No money is ever lost that goes in any way to suppress these vices and to make people better.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

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 24. They that received tribute] This was not a tax to be paid to the Roman government; but a tax for the support of the temple. The law, Ex 30:13, obliged every male among the Jews to pay half a shekel yearly; for the support of the temple; and this was continued by them wherever dispersed, till after the time of Vespasian, see Josephus, WAR, book 7. c. 6, who ordered it afterwards to be paid into the Roman treasury. The word in the text, which is generally translated tribute – , signifies the didrachma, or two drachms. This piece of money was about the value of two Attic drachms, each equal to fifteen pence of our money. The didrachma of the Septuagint, mentioned Ex 30:13, was twice as heavy as the Attic, for it was equal to a whole shekel, this being the value of that piece of money at Alexandrina, the place where the Septuagint translation was made; for the half shekel mentioned in the above passage, they render , the half of a didrachma.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

The Jews were by Gods law, Exo 30:13, obliged to pay a half shekel, which was for the service of the sanctuary, Exo 30:16, this was paid every year. The half shekel amounted in our money to fifteen pence, or thereabouts. Whether this were the tribute money here demanded and paid, some doubt, and say that the Romans having the Jews now under their power, imposed this payment upon every head, as a tribute to the emperor; which being a customary payment, they thought the Jews would less stumble at, though it was changed from a sacred to a civil use, from a homage penny to God, to be a homage penny to the conquerors. The agreement of this sum with what was required by the law, together with what our Saviour saith afterward, will incline us to think that this tax was that religious tax mentioned in Exo 30:13-16, and that the collectors were some officers deputed for that service by the priests. When Peter came into the house, our Saviour prevents his propounding the question to him, (for Peter had before told them, Yes he did), by asking him of whom the kings of the earth use to receive tribute, of their own children, or of strangers? Where by children we must not understand their political children, that is, their subjects, but their natural children, for otherwise Peter would not have said, Of strangers, nor would our Saviour have answered, Then are the children free; for there is nothing more ordinary than for princes to receive tribute of their subjects. That which our Saviour seemeth to mean is this: This tribute is gathered for my heavenly Father. I am his Son, I am not bound to pay it.

Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, lest we give them occasion to say we break the law of God,

go thou to the sea, ( the sea of Galilee, which was near),

and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find , a piece of money, to the value of about a half crown in English. How this money came in the mouth of the fish is a very idle dispute, considering that he that speaks was the Creator of all things.

That take, and give unto them for me and thee. The papists, who think they have found here an argument for the primacy of Peter, because Christ paid this tribute for him, and not for the other disciples, do not only affirm what they do not know, but forget that Capernaum was the city in which Peter lived, (we heard before of Christs curing his wifes mother there of a fever), and that Peter was the only man of whom this tribute was demanded. This portion of Scripture affords us this instruction: That it is the duty of Christians to yield something of their own right, when they cannot insist upon and obtain it without a scandal and prejudice to the gospel, and the concern of religion. If this were required in pursuance of the law, Exo 30:12,13, and our Saviour had refused to pay it, the scribes and Pharisees would have clamoured against him as violating the law of God. If it were required as a civil tax, they would have clamoured against him as a man that went about to stir up sedition or rebellion. Having therefore first asserted his right and immunity, he departeth from it to prevent a scandal. We must never part with Gods right; but to depart from our own is not only lawful, but oftentimes very advisable and expedient. Our Saviour chooseth rather to work a miracle than to give a scandal, and by this miracle he also confirmed his immunity, that he was the Son of him who is the King of kings, and so not in strictness obliged to pay it.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

24. And when they were come toCapernaum, they that received tribute moneythe double drachma;a sum equal to two Attic drachmas, and corresponding to the Jewish”half-shekel,” payable, towards the maintenance of thetemple and its services, by every male Jew of twenty years old andupward. For the origin of this annual tax, see Exo 30:13;Exo 30:14; 2Ch 24:6;2Ch 24:9. Thus, it will beobserved, it was not a civil, but an ecclesiastical tax. The taxmentioned in Mt 17:25 was acivil one. The whole teaching of this very remarkable scene dependsupon this distinction.

came to Peterat whosehouse Jesus probably resided while at Capernaum. This explainsseveral things in the narrative.

and said, Doth not yourmaster pay tribute?The question seems to imply that thepayment of this tax was voluntary, but expected; orwhat, in modern phrase, would be called a “voluntaryassessment.”

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And when they were come to Capernaum,…. Called Christ’s own city, Mt 9:1 where he dwelt some time Mt 4:13 and Peter had an house, Mt 8:14 “they that received tribute money”, or the “didrachms”; in Talmudic language, it would be i, “they that collect the shekels”: for not the publicans, or Roman tax gatherers are meant; nor is this to be understood of any such tribute: there was a tribute that was paid to Caesar, by the Jews; see Mt 22:17 but that is expressed by another word, and was paid in other money, in Roman money, which bore Caesar’s image and superscription; and was exacted of them, whether they would or not: but this designs the collection of the half shekel, paid yearly for the service of the temple: the original of this custom, was an order of the Lord to Moses, upon numbering the people; that everyone that was twenty years of age and upwards, should give half a shekel as atonement money, or as a ransom for his soul; which was to be disposed of for the service of the tabernacle, Ex 30:12. This does not appear to have been designed for a perpetual law, or to be paid yearly; nor even whenever the number of the people was taken, but only for that present time: in the time of Joash king of Judah, a collection was set on foot for the repair of the temple; and the collection of Moses in the wilderness, was urged as an argument, and by way of example; nor is any mention made of the half shekel, nor was any sum of money fixed they should pay; but, according to the account, it was entirely free and voluntary. In the time of Nehemiah, there was a yearly charge of the “third” part of a “shekel”, for the service of the temple; but this was not done by virtue of a divine order, or any law of Moses, with which it did not agree; but by an ordinance the Jews then made for themselves, as their necessity required. Aben Ezra k indeed says, that this was an addition to the half shekel. Now in process of time, from these instances and examples, it became a fixed thing, that every year an half shekel should be paid by every Israelite, excepting women, children, and servants, towards defraying the necessary charges of the temple service, and this obtained in Christ’s time. There is a whole tract in the Jewish Misna, called Shekalim; in which an account is given of the persons who are obliged to pay this money, the time and manner of collecting it, and for what uses it is put: and so it continued till the times of Titus Vespasian, who, as Josephus says l, laid a tax of two drachms, the same with the half shekel, upon the Jews; and ordered it to be brought yearly into the capitol at Rome, as it used to have been paid into the temple at Jerusalem. We need not wonder that we hear of receivers of the half shekel at Capernaum; since once a year, on the “fifteenth” of the month Adar, tables were placed, and collectors sat in every city in Judea, as they did on the “twenty fifth” of the same month, in the sanctuary m. The value of the half shekel, was about “fifteen pence” of our money. The Syriac version renders the word here used, “two zuzim of head money”: now a “zuz” with the Jews, answered to a Roman penny, four of which made a “shekel” n; so that two of them were the value of an half “shekel”; it is further to be observed, that shekels in Judea, were double the value of those in Galilee, where Christ now was: five “shekels” in Judea, went for ten in Galilee, and so ten for twenty o. The receivers of this money

came to Peter; not caring to go to Christ himself; but observing Peter a forward and active man among his disciples, they applied to him; or rather, because he had an house in this place, at which Christ might be:

and said, doth not your master pay tribute? or the “didrachms”, the half “shekel” money. Had this been the Roman tribute, the reason of such a question might have been either to have ensnared him, and to have known whether he was of the same mind with Judas, of Galilee, that refused to pay tribute to Caesar; or because they could not tell whether he was reckoned as an inhabitant, or citizen of that city; for, according to the Jewish canons p, a man must be twelve months in a place, before he is liable to tribute and taxes; or because they might suspect him to be exempted, as a doctor, or teacher for the Jewish doctors, wise men, and scholars, were freed from all tribute and taxes q even from the “head money”, the Syriac version here mentions; and which was a civil tax paid to kings r; to which sense that version seems to incline: the rule concerning wise men or scholars, is this s.

“They do not collect of them for the building a wall, or setting up gates, or for the hire of watchmen, and such like things; nor for the king’s treasury; nor do they oblige them to give tribute, whether it is fixed upon citizens, or whether it is fixed on every man.”

But this was not the Roman tax, nor tribute, on any civil account, but the half shekel for religious service: and it may seem strange that such a question should be asked; and especially since it is a rule with them t, that

“all are bound to give the half shekel, priests, Levites, and Israelites; and the strangers, or proselytes, and servants, that are made free; but not women, nor servants, nor children; though if they gave, they received it of them.”

But a following canon u explains it, and accounts for it: on the fifteenth

“(i.e. of the month Adar,) the collectors sit in every province or city, (that is, in the countries,)

, “and mildly ask everyone”: he that gives to them, they receive it of him; and he that does not give,

, “they do not oblige him to give”: on the five and twentieth they sit in the sanctuary to collect, and from hence and onward, they urge him that will not give, until he gives; and everyone that will not give, they take pawns of him.”

So that it seems, there was a different usage of persons, at different times and places: our Lord being in Galilee at Capernaum, was treated in this manner.

i Maimon. Hilch. Shekalim, c. 2. sect. 4. k In Neh. x. 32. l De Bello Jud. l. 7. c. 20. m Misn. Shekalim, c. 1. sect. 3. Maimon. Hilch. Shekalim, c. 1. sect. 9. n T. Bab. Kiddushin, fol. 11. 2. Vid. Targum & Kimchi in 1 Sam. ix. 3. Maimon. in Misn. Shekalim, c. 2. 4. & Hilch. Shekalim, c. 1. sect. 3. o Misn. Trumot, c. 10. sect. 8. & Cetubot, c. 5. sect. 9. T. Bab. Cetubot, fol. 59. 1. p T. Hieros. Bava Bathra, fol. 12. 4. T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 8. 1. q Maimon. & Bartenora in Pirke Abot, c. 4. sect. 5. r Gloss. in T. Bab. Cetubot, fol. 100. 2. & Nedarim, fol. 62. 2. & Bava Metzia, fol. 73. 2. s Maimon Talmud Tora, c. 6. 10. t Ib. Hilch. Shekalim, c. 1. sect. 7. u Ib. sect. 9.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Our Lord’s Payment of Tribute.

24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? 25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? 26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. 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.

We have here an account of Christ’s paying tribute.

I. Observe how it was demanded, v. 24. Christ was now at Capernaum, his headquarters, where he mostly resided; he did not keep from thence, to decline being called upon for his dues, but rather came thither, to be ready to pay them.

1. The tribute demanded was not any civil payment to the Roman powers, that was strictly exacted by the publicans, but the church-duties, the half shekel, about fifteen pence, which were required from every person or the service of the temple, and the defraying of the expenses of the worship there; it is called a ransom for the soul, Exod. xxx. 12, c. This was not so strictly exacted now as sometimes it had been, especially not in Galilee.

2. The demand was very modest the collectors stood in such awe of Christ, because of his mighty works, that they durst not speak to him about it, but applied themselves to Peter, whose house was in Capernaum, and probably in his house Christ lodged; he therefore was fittest to be spoken to as the housekeeper, and they presumed he knew his Master’s mind. Their question is, Doth not your master pay tribute? Some think that they sought an occasion against him, designing, if he refused, to represent him as disaffected to the temple-service, and his followers as lawless people, that would pay neither toll, tribute, nor custom, Ezra iv. 13. It should rather seem, they asked this with respect, intimating, that if he had any privilege to exempt him from this payment, they would not insist upon it.

Peter presently his word for his Master; “Yes, certainly; my Master pays tribute; it is his principle and practice; you need not fear moving it to him.” (1.) He was made under the law (Gal. iv. 4); therefore under this law he was paid for at forty days old (Luke ii. 22), and now he paid for himself, as one who, in his state of humiliation, had taken upon him the form of a servant,Phi 2:7; Phi 2:8. (2.) He was made sin for us, and was sent forth in the likeness of sinful flesh, Rom. viii. 3. Now this tax paid to the temple is called an atonement for the soul, Exod. xxx. 15. Christ, that in every thing he might appear in the likeness of sinners, paid it though he had no sin to atone for. (3.) Thus it became him to fulfil all righteousness, ch. iii. 15. He did this to set an example, [1.] Of rendering to all their due, tribute to whom tribute is due, Rom. xiii. 7. The kingdom of Christ not being of this world, the favourites and officers of it are so far from having a power granted them, as such, to tax other people’s purses, that theirs are made liable to the powers that are. [2.] Of contributing to the support of the public worship of God in the places where we are. If we reap spiritual things, it is fit that we should return carnal things. The temple was now made a den of thieves, and the temple-worship a pretence for the opposition which the chief priests gave to Christ and his doctrine; and yet Christ paid this tribute. Note, Church-duties, legally imposed, are to be paid, notwithstanding church-corruptions. We must take care not to use our liberty as a cloak of covetousness or maliciousness, 1 Pet. ii. 16. If Christ pay tribute, who can pretend an exemption?

II. How it was disputed (v. 25), not with the collectors themselves, lest they should be irritated, but with Peter, that he might be satisfied in the reason why Christ paid tribute, and might not mistake about it. He brought the collectors into the house; but Christ anticipated him, to give him a proof of his omniscience, and that no thought can be withholden from him. The disciples of Christ are never attacked without his knowledge.

Now, 1. He appeals to the way of the kings of the earth, which is, to take tribute of strangers, of the subjects of their kingdom, or foreigners that deal with them, but not of their own children that are of their families; there is such a community of goods between parents and children, and a joint-interest in what they have, that it would be absurd for the parents to levy taxes upon the children, or demand any thing from them; it is like one hand taxing the other.

2. He applies this to himself; Then are the children free. Christ is the Son of God, and Heir of all things; the temple is his temple (Mal. iii. 1), his Father’s house (John ii. 16), in it he is faithful as a Son in his own house (Heb. iii. 6), and therefore not obliged to pay this tax for the service of the temple. Thus Christ asserts his right, lest his paying this tribute should be misimproved to the weakening of his title as the Son of God, and the King of Israel, and should have looked like a disowning of it himself. These immunities of the children are to be extended no further than our Lord Jesus himself. God’s children are freed by grace and adoption from the slavery of sin and Satan, but not from their subjection to civil magistrates in civil things; here the law of Christ is express; Let every soul (sanctified souls not excepted) be subject to the higher powers. Render to Csar the things that are Csar’s.

III. How it was paid, notwithstanding, v. 27.

1. For what reason Christ waived his privilege, and paid this tribute, though he was entitled to an exemption–Lest we should offend them. Few knew, as Peter did, that he was the Son of God; and it would have been a diminution to the honour of that great truth, which was yet a secret, to advance it now, to serve such a purpose as this. Therefore Christ drops that argument, and considers, that if he should refuse this payment, it would increase people’s prejudice against him and his doctrine, and alienate their affections from him, and therefore he resolves to pay it. Note, Christian prudence and humility teach us, in many cases, to recede from our right, rather than give offence by insisting upon it. We must never decline our duty for fear of giving offence (Christ’s preaching and miracles offended them, yet he went on with him, Mat 15:12; Mat 15:13, better offend men than God); but we must sometimes deny ourselves in that which is our secular interest, rather than give offence; as Paul, 1Co 8:13; Rom 14:13.

2. What course he took for the payment of this tax; he furnished himself with money for it out of the mouth of a fish (v. 27), wherein appears,

(1.) The poverty of Christ; he had not fifteen pence at command to pay his tax with, though he cured so many that were diseased; it seems, he did all gratis; for our sakes he became poor, 2 Cor. viii. 9. In his ordinary expenses, he lived upon alms (Luke viii. 3), and in extraordinary ones, he lived upon miracles. He did not order Judas to pay this out of the bag which he carried; that was for subsistence, and he would not order that for his particular use, which was intended for the benefit of the community.

(2.) The power of Christ, in fetching money out of a fish’s mouth for this purpose. Whether his omnipotence put it there, or his omniscience knew that it was there, it comes all to one; it was an evidence of his divinity, and that he is Lord of hosts. Those creatures that are most remote from man are at the command of Christ, even the fishes of the sea are under his feet (Ps. viii. 5); and to evidence his dominion in this lower world, and to accommodate himself to his present state of humiliation, he chose to take it out of a fish’s mouth, when he could have taken it out of an angel’s hand. Now observe,

[1.] Peter must catch the fish by angling. Even in miracles he would use means to encourage industry and endeavour. Peter has something to do, and it is in the way of his own calling too; to teach us diligence in the employment we are called to, and called in. Do we expect that Christ should give to us? Let us be ready to work for him.

[2.] The fish came up, with money in the mouth of it, which represents to us the reward of obedience in obedience. What work we do at Christ’s command brings its own pay along with it: In keeping God’s commands, as well as after keeping them, there is great reward, Ps. xix. 11. Peter was made a fisher of men, and those that he caught thus, came up; where the heart is opened to entertain Christ’s word, the hand is open to encourage his ministers.

[3.] The piece of money was just enough to pay the tax for Christ and Peter. Thou shalt find a stater, the value of a Jewish shekel, which would pay the poll-tax for two, for it was half a shekel, Exod. xxx. 13. Christ could as easily have commanded a bag of money as a piece of money; but he would teach us 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 God’s providence our storehouse and treasury? If we have a competency for today, let to-morrow take thought for the things of itself. Christ paid for himself and Peter, because it is probable that here he only was assessed, and of him it was at this time demanded; perhaps the rest had paid already, or were to pay elsewhere. The papists make a great mystery of Christ’s paying for Peter, as if this made him the head and representative of the whole church; whereas the payment of tribute for him was rather a sign of subjection than of superiority. His pretended successors pay no tribute, but exact it. Peter fished for this money, and therefore part of it went for his use. Those that are workers together with Christ in winning souls shall shine with him. Give it for thee and me. What Christ paid for himself was looked upon as a debt; what he paid for Peter was a courtesy to him. Note, it is a desirable thing, if God so please, to have wherewithal of this world’s goods, not only to be just, but to be kind; not only to be charitable to the poor, but obliging to our friends. What is a great estate good for, but that it enables a man to do so much the more good?

Lastly, Observe, The evangelist records here the orders Christ gave to Peter, the warrant; the effect is not particularly mentioned, but taken for granted, and justly; for, with Christ, saying and doing are the same thing.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

They that received the half-shekel ( ). This temple tax amounted to an Attic drachma or the Jewish half-shekel, about one-third of a dollar. Every Jewish man twenty years of age and over was expected to pay it for the maintenance of the temple. But it was not a compulsory tax like that collected by the publicans for the government. “The tax was like a voluntary church-rate; no one could be compelled to pay” (Plummer). The same Greek word occurs in two Egyptian papyri of the first century A.D. for the receipt for the tax for the temple of Suchus (Milligan and Moulton’s Vocabulary). This tax for the Jerusalem temple was due in the month Adar (our March) and it was now nearly six months overdue. But Jesus and the Twelve had been out of Galilee most of this time. Hence the question of the tax-collectors. The payment had to be made in the Jewish coin, half-shekel. Hence the money-changers did a thriving business in charging a small premium for the Jewish coin, amounting to some forty-five thousand dollars a year, it is estimated. It is significant that they approached Peter rather than Jesus, perhaps not wishing to embarrass “Your Teacher,” “a roundabout hint that the tax was overdue” (Bruce). Evidently Jesus had been in the habit of paying it (Peter’s).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

They that received tribute – money [ ] . Rev., They that received the half – shekel. Every male Israelite of age, including proselytes and manumitted Jews, was expected to pay annually for the temple – service a half – shekel or didrachm, about thirty – five cents. This must be paid in the ancient money of Israel, the regular half – shekel of the treasury; and the money – changers, therefore, were in demand to change the current into the temple coin, which they did at a rate of discount fixed by law, between four and five cents on every half – shekel. The annual revenue to the money – changers from this source has been estimated at nearly forty – five thousand dollars; a very large sum in a country where a laborer received less than twenty cents for a day’s work, and where the good Samaritan left about thirty – three cents at the inn for the keeping of the wounded man. Jesus attacked a very powerful interest when he overthrew the tables of the money – changers.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

Mat 17:24

. And when they came to Capernaum. We must attend, first of all, to the design of this narrative; which is, that Christ, by paying tribute of his own accord, declared his subjection, as he had taken upon him the form of a servant, (Phi 2:7,) but at the same time showed, both by words and by the miracle, that it was not by obligation or necessity, but by a free and voluntary submission, that he had reduced himself so low that the world looked upon him as nothing more than one of the common people. This was not a tax which was wont to be demanded on crossing the sea, (577) but an annual tribute laid individually on every man among the Jews, so that they paid to tyrants what they were formerly in the habit of paying to God alone. For we know that this tax was imposed on them by the Law, that, by paying every year half a stater, (Exo 30:13,) they might acknowledge that God, by whom they had been redeemed, was their supreme King. When the kings of Asia appropriated this to themselves, the Romans followed their example. Thus the Jews, as if they had disowned the government of God, paid to profane tyrants the sacred tax required by the Law. But it might appear unreasonable that Christ, when he appeared as the Redeemer of his people, should not himself be exempted from paying tribute To remove that offense, he taught by words, that it was only by his will that he was bound; and he proved the same thing by a miracle, for he who had dominion over the sea and the fishes might have released himself from earthly government. (578)

Doth not your Master pay? Some think that the collectors of the tribute intended to throw blame on Christ, as if he were claiming exemption from the common law. For my own part, as men of that class are insolent and abusive, I interpret these words as having been spoken by way of reproach. It was customary for every man to be enrolled in his own city; but we know that Christ had no fixed habitation in one place. Those people therefore inquire if he be exempted from the law on the ground of his frequent removals from place to place. (579)

(577) “ Les didrachmes, dont est yci parle, n’estoit pas un peage qu’on payast a passer d’un coste en autre de la mer;” — “ The didrachma, which are here spoken of, were not a custom paid on crossing from one side of the sea to the other.”

(578) “ Pouvoit bien, s’il eust voulu, s’exempter de la suiection des princes terriens;” — “might easily, if he had chosen, have exempted himself from subjection to earthly princes.”

(579) “ Si par ce moyen qu’il est maintenant ci, maintenant la, il faudra qu’il eschappe sans rien payer;” — “if, because he is sometimes here, and sometimes there, he must escape without paying anything.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

Section 45
JESUS QUIZZES PETER ABOUT TEMPLE TAXES

TEXT: 17:2427

24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received the half-shekel came to Peter, and said, Doth not your teacher pay the half-shekel? 25 He saith, Yea. And when he came into the house, Jesus spake first to him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? the kings of the earth, from whom do they receive toll or tribute? from their sons, or from strangers? 26 And when he said, From strangers, Jesus said unto him, Therefore the sons are free, 27 But, lest we cause them to stumble, 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 shekel: take that, and give unto them for me and thee.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Why ask Peter? What do you suppose was the motivation behind this question posed by the collectors of the temple tax? Did they just happen to meet Peter during their normal collection rounds and decide to take advantage of Jesus presence to close out their books? Or do you think that there was something sinister in this query? Why not come to Jesus directly?

Why did Peter answer as he did?

On what basis could Jesus claim exemption from a tax that was required by God from every Israelite? Was not Jesus a true Israelite? Should He not have to pay like everyone else? Why this tax dodge?

Maybe you can justify Jesus for not having to pay the tax, but why did Jesus pay the tax also for Peter? Did he enjoy the same exemption? After all, did not Jesus say: . . . lest WE cause them to stumble? Did not this imply that Peter too would not have had to pay, technically, were it not for the fact that his not paying would have caused this scandal? Or, is that what Jesus meant?

Be honest now: on a plain reading of this text, do you see anything miraculous in the way Jesus had Peter procure the tax money? If so, where? If not, why not?

Do you not think that this miracle of the coin in the fishs mouth violates the principle that miracles are not necessary to be done where ordinary means are available? There were plenty of other places where Jesus could have obtained the tax payment without resorting to the use of His miraculous power. What possible good could come from a miracle that only one person, i.e. Peter, knew about? Or would others know about it too?

Does it not seem to you that this concentration of the mighty power of God to find one little fish with a coin in its mouth is a misrepresentation of what we usually see in Biblical miracles? Do you not think it a grotesque distortion of the dignified, sober presentation of divine power, to think that God concerns Himself with so tiny a sum as this? God has more important business to take care of than causing the right fish with the right coin to come up at the right time when Peter first throws his hook in! What is your opinion?

This miracle, if you still think of it as such, brought no relief to suffering humanity. Therefore, it is unworthy of God and Jesus, so it probably did not really happen. Affirm or deny this and tell why.

In the temptation scene in the wilderness Jesus refused to use His miraculous power to supply His own personal needs, even as desperate as His need for food. Here, however, we see a narrative which totally reverses this unselfishness, because Jesus Himself shared in the benefit of this miracle, a deed contrary to what we see of His spirit elsewhere. How can you possibly justify the inclusion of this story in the Gospel? How can you possibly justify Jesus for doing it?

Show how Jesus decision to pay a tax He did not owe marvelously illustrates one of the most fundamental principles of Christian ethics, described by Paul in 1Co. 6:12 to 1Co. 11:1; Rom. 14:1 to Rom. 15:7.

How many people do you think heard this conversation between Jesus and Peter, and, consequently, knew about the conclusion Jesus drew from His own premises? In other words, how many would probably have actually benefited from His good example given here of paying a tax He did not really owe, in order to keep others from stumbling? Why did not He pay for the other disciples too, as well as for Peter? Would not this have been a greater example? Or were the others not involved?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

Upon the arrival of Jesus and the Twelve to Capernaum, those who collected the special poll tax for the upkeep of the temple approached Peter with the question, Your teacher does pay the tax, does he not?
Why, yes, of course, He does! he said.
However, when Peter got home, Jesus spoke to him first, Whats your opinion, Simon? Who is really subject to pay customs or tribute to earthly monarchs? Their own sons, or strangers outside the royal family?
The strangers, was Peters reply.
That means, then, that their own sons are exempt, Jesus reminded him. On the other hand, since we do not want this refusal to pay to become a hindrance to these people so that they would be influenced to think or do something wrong, you go down to the lake and throw in your hook. Haul in the first fish that bites, When you open its mouth, you will discover a silver coin in it. Take that and pay them the tax for you and for me.

SUMMARY

Jesus and the Apostolic company had no sooner arrived back in Capernaum when Peter was cornered by the poll tax collectors about Jesus payment of the tax for the upkeep of the temple. Without hesitation Peter covered Jesus. But upon his arrival back home, Jesus clarified His own right to exemption from this payment as Son of the King. However, rather than horrify the moral sense of the Jews by His seeming refusal to obey God, He chose to pay the tax. By providing the necessary money in an unusual way, He paid for Himself and for Peter.

NOTES
IV. READINESS TO BE SUBMISSIVE BEYOND DUTY

A. THE PETTY PESTERING FOR PAYMENT OF THE POLL TAX

Mat. 17:24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they had just returned from a long journey north to Caesarea Philippi (Mat. 16:13) and possibly to Mt. Hermon nearby. (See on Mat. 17:1.) This culminates a series of wide-ranging journeys outside Palestine. (See on Mat. 17:22.) The discussion of the temple tax is the first of two events that occurred upon Jesus return to Capernaum, before He left Galilee for elsewhere, and there is an amazingly close connection between them. Bruce (Training, 224) is absolutely right to observe that,

. . . though the scene (of the temple tax question) occurred before the sermon (on relative greatness in the Kingdom) was delivered, it happened after the dispute which supplied the preacher with a text. The disciples fell to disputing on the way home from the Mount of Transfiguration, while the visit of the tax gatherers took place on their arrival in Capernaum. . . . Is it too much to assume that His knowledge of what had been going on by the way influenced His conduct in the affair of the tribute money, and led Him to make it the occasion for teaching by action the same lesson which He meant to take an early opportunity of inculcating by words?

In the discussion of the temple tax, Jesus, the Son of God the King, magnanimously pays a tax that He does not owe, thus making Himself the servant of others in order not to place before anyone a temptation to sin. By forgiving Peters presumptuousness, He illustrates His own rule to forgive indefinitely. Rather than take offense at Peters compromising answer, He mercifully led him and the others back to that faith in Him they sorely lacked, especially in the preceding moment of failure at the mountains base. Jesus Himself avoided harsh treatment by the kindliness He showed in dealing tenderly with Peters lack of understanding. The lesson of the first event is that stumbling-blocks can be avoided by gentle consideration of others, while that of the second is that stumbling-blocks occur by neglecting this consideration, and must be correctly removed. (Matthew 18)

The half-shekel (ddrachma) means the yearly atonement money to be collected from every Hebrew over 20 years of age, as an offering, originally for the service of the tent of meeting, and then of the temple. (Cf. Exo. 30:11-16; Exo. 38:25 f; 2Ki. 12:4; 2Ch. 24:5-6; 2Ch. 24:9; also Josephus, Antiquities III, 8, 2; XVIII, 9, 1; Wars VII, 6, 6) The one-third of a shekel of Neh. 10:32 may represent a temporary reduction due to the poverty of the people. Though it was called an offering, it was nevertheless compulsory, not only because commanded, but also to serve as a ransom for the payer during the census-taking: that there be no plague among them when you number them. (Exo. 30:11-16) The plague during the census of David may be an example of this. (See 2 Samuel 24; 1Ch. 27:23 f.) The monetary value of the Hebrew half-shekel was two Greek drachmas (the ddrachma) or two Roman denarii, hence the equivalent of two days work of a common laborer. They that received the half-shekel were Jewish (Wars, VI, 6, 2), but not publicans, because no such outcast would have been permitted to handle what was destined for temple service.

Because the half-shekel is the temple tax, it is evidence for the early redaction of this Gospel. For, if the Gemeindetheologie school is correct to assert that the unknown editors of our present Gospels dealt only with problems alive in their own given congregations (Gemeinden), then on the hypothesis of a later date for the writing of Matthew, how are we to explain this incident where Jesus is pictured as paying the temple tax, when the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.? For congregations after that date this problem would no longer exist.

But if this temple tax payment were a pressing problem for early Christians living in Judea, problem to which the Evangelist gives a positive answer, then, we have positive evidence for the early dating of the final redaction of this Gospel. Before the fall of Jerusalems temple, when the Christians had separated themselves from Judaism but continued to live in Jewish territory and under Jewish religio-civil legislation, the question of the legitimacy of the payment of tribute to the temple would have become quite urgent. And, if the final edition of this Gospel comes from so early a date, there is no necessary reason why the Apostle Matthew himself could not have written it!
That this episode was never intended to deal with civil taxes in general is admitted by an exponent of the Gemeindetheologie, Cuminetti (Matteo, 237). He frankly notes that, if Matthew included this episode to illustrate not merely the temple tax question, but taxes in general, then Jesus desire not to scandalize them (the tax-collectors) is nonsense. After all, for disciples to refuse to pay taxes in general on the ungrounded pretense to being sons of the King, would be to violate Christian orders to pay taxes. (Cf. Mat. 22:21; Rom. 13:6-7) In this case there could be no scandal based upon a misuse of ones personal liberty not to pay, but only disobedience to a positive divine command to pay. The intention of the Lord not to scandalize the tax-collectors is comprehensible only if it is a question of the Jewish temple tax. In fact, the force of the argument depends on the assumption that Jesus was a son of the king for whom the tribute was collected. (McGarvey, Matthew-Mark, 155) And He was not the son of any Roman Caesar!

The same should be said of Barclays attempt (Matthew, II, 188) to date Matthew around 80 or 90 A.D., hence after 70 and the destruction of the temple. Vespasian, accordingly, enacted that the half-shekel temple tax be diverted from the now non-existent Jewish temple and paid to the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome. (Josephus, Wars, VII, 6, 6) Accordingly, says Barclay, Matthew included this story to calm the nerves of Jewish Christians so they would be good citizens and pay their Roman taxes. Unfortunately for this explanation, the Vespasian order is not a Jewish law which had now been superceded, but a Roman one to which the Christians must render obedience. Problem: how could the Christians then justify their support of a pagan without compromise of their conscience toward God? How would this differ from incense to Caesar? A simple but adequate answer would be that Matthew was not addressing himself to the situation in Vespasians time, because he was really writing long before the Jerusalem temple was destroyed.

If this tax was not a Roman tax payable to publicans at the local tax office in Capernaum (cf. Mat. 9:9), and if the half-shekel for the temple was payable at Jerusalem to Jewish officials, then how explain the approach of these collectors? The answer lies both in their system and in their motives:

Concerning the system of collection, the Jewish fiscal organization should be noticed, On the first of Adar (February-March in our calendar) it was proclaimed in the Palestinean provincial cities and towns that the temple tax time had arrived. On the fifteenth of the month authorized money-changers set up booths in each provincial town and village. At these money-stalls, after the local money was exchanged for the sacred coin, the tax was paid to these money changers. Ten days later on the twenty-fifth of Adar, these pay booths were transferred to Jerusalem and set up in the temple precinct. If the tax had not been paid by the twenty-fifth, therefore, the payer could only pay it directly at the temple in Jerusalem. (Cf. Edersheim, Life, II, 111; also I, 367f)

Although Peter paid his and the Lords tax at this time, there is no necessary indication in this fact that the time of year was near Passover, since the collectors may have accosted Peter merely because Jesus had just returned to Capernaum, and not because they were open for regular pre-Passover business.

Concerning their motives for approaching Peter on the Capernaum street, we may notice:

Jesus official residence for the major part of His life had been at Nazareth, so the Capernaum collectors would not have been concerned with records of His payments for the ten years He would have been obligated to pay at age twenty until He began His ministry around thirty (cf. Luk. 3:23), because those years were the concern of the Nazareth census bureau and money-changing tax-collectors.

However, He had changed residence from Nazareth to Capernaum at about age thirty. (Cf. Joh. 2:12; Luk. 3:23; Mat. 4:13 notes) This put Him under the jurisdiction of the Capernaum office. But since His rapid-paced, itinerate ministry kept Him on the move from place to place, it took them nearly three years to catch up with Him, or at least with someone who could furnish correct information about His payment for this year, Further, He had been out of the country a lot recently. (See on Mat. 15:21; Mat. 16:5; Mat. 16:13; Mat. 17:1; Mat. 17:22.) During the six months from Passover (Joh. 6:4) until this return to Capernaum, He had been in town once only briefly. (Joh. 6:59)

Their question does not necessarily betray any hostility, since it is framed in Greek in such a way as to permit Peter to answer yes: Your teacher does pay the two-drachma tax, does He not? (. . . ou telei ddrachma; See Blass-Debrunner, Grammar, 427 (2); 440; Arndt-Gingrich, 594) This may or may not be another move to entangle Jesus in such a way as to furnish a basis for saying that He was not keeping the Law or supporting the temple.

Their approaching Peter, rather than Jesus, may evidence their timidity to approach the great Rabbi on such a mundane subject. They may have considered Peter a particularly important disciple, another factor possibly contributing to the jealousy behind the subsequent discussion of relative greatness. (Matthew 18)

However, being conversant with Jesus claims to superiority to many points of Jewish law and His disdain for authoritative traditions (cfr. Mat. 12:1-14; Mat. 15:1-20), they may be questioning whether He considers Himself exempt from paying this tax too. Since the Pharisees and Sadducees had fiercely debated whether this tax were obligatory or not (See Edersheim, Life, II, 112), they may be testing Jesus views thereabout. This would be their preliminary investigation before attacking Him directly for ignoring what was obligatory obedience to God.

B. THE PRECIPITATE PARRY BY PETER

Mat. 17:25 He saith, Yea. On the basis of Christs previous practice, Peter responds correctly that He does pay. Without even pausing to wonder whether Jesus NEEDED to present any of the offerings commanded in the law, Peter leaps to the defensive and presumes to give a positive answer. Since, in the fishermans estimate his Lord is a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and since the tax is obligatory for every self-respecting, Law-abiding Hebrew, Peter reasoned, his Master obviously HAD to pay the tax every year. Although Jesus had apparently paid the tax on former occasions, He had taken a position in the meantime, a position that Peter himself had accepted, i.e. that of being the Christ, Gods Son. (Mat. 16:13-20) Now, in contrast to all previous years, were Jesus to pay the tax without explaining His motives for so doing, He would have caused very serious misunderstandings for His followers, especially those spiritually-minded souls who could sense the incongruity of the Kings Son paying taxes to His own Father. But Peter, in his concern to place his Teacher in a favorable light with the tax people, had overlooked the relationship of Jesus divine Sonship to their question. He had not thought through his own confession to see its practical ramifications for the earthly life of Jesus.

And when he came into the house, Jesus spake first to him. Returning home from some errand in downtown Capernaum where he had been accosted by the census people, he was met, not by a scolding for his impetuous inference, but by a puzzle. Jesus spake first to him. Had Peter intended to mention his conversation in town? Edersheim (Life, II, 111) thinks that he would have had no intention of telling Jesus about the conversation, since his defense of the Master was but another way of eliminating opposition to Jesus in its every form. He had answered without previous permission, so he probably sensed that the Lord would not have approved his decision. Whether he intended to bring it up or not, the Lord anticipated it and furnished His disciple not only the essentials for arriving at a correct solution to his question, but gave him additional proof of His omniscience. He showed Peter that He knew about the discussion while that disciple was away from Him. Feel the psychological soundness of His approach to a question about which Peter stood on the wrong side: What do you think, Simon? Rather than browbeat him for his wrongness, Jesus invites him to ponder a phase of normal, royal administration and give his opinion. Simon: is this a kindly, familiar use of Peters real name (cf. Luk. 24:34; Act. 16:14), or, when addressed to him who should have been Peter and what this implies, does it imply that Jesus addressed His friend as the man who yet needed to learn much? (Cf. Mar. 14:37; Luk. 22:31; Joh. 21:15-17)

C. THE PRIVILEGED POSITION OF THE PRINCE

The kings of the earth. Is there an antithesis implied here: the King of heaven? (Cf. Dan. 4:37; Dan. 5:21-23; Mal. 1:14) From whom do they take toll or tribute? From their sons, or from others?

NOTE: toll (tlos) is just any kind of tax, customs, duties, the collector of which is called a telnes, like Matthew. Tribute (knsos = Latin: census) is a census tax, or poll tax, payable every year, This latter word, while a common Roman word referring to the census tax (cfr. Mat. 22:19), shows Peter that the Lord knows about the Jewish census tax discussion downtown.

The question is easy because of the absurdity it involves: Toll or tribute is tax money for the support of the kings themselves and their sons as well. To tax their sons is tantamount to taxing themselves, like one hand paying the other. No, kings collect taxes, not from their own sons, but from those outside the royal family, i.e. from strangers.

1. THE PROPER PREROGATIVE OF A POTENTATES POSTERITY

Mat. 17:26 And when he said, From strangers, he had answered correctly, but Jesus must make His real point, using the half of the answer that Peter omitted: Therefore the sons are free. Two reasons prohibit our seeing in the plural sons any application of His principle to the disciples, or even properly to Peter:

The essence of the argument does not depend upon whether the royal family is represented by one son or by several, since the contrast is between those who are members of the royal family, hence exempt, and those who are not, hence obligated to pay. (Plummer, Matthew, 245)

The question raised by the collectors is not whether Peter, or the Twelve, pay, but whether Jesus Himself does. It is nowhere doubted that the disciples are liable. In fact, all God-fearing Hebrews were sons of God in this secondary sense (cf. Hos. 1:10; Isa. 43:6), but the very law in question rendered none so bound to pay this tax as they.

So the plural sons does not consider Peter and Jesus together as sons of Gods Kingdom, Jesus as Gods true Son; Peter, His disciple, a true son of the Kingdom. In fact, what was Jesus implying in His conclusion about the exemption?

The tax money in question was designated for the service of the temple, the house of the true King of Israel, God Himself. Josephus (Antiquities XVIII, 9, 1) affirms that Jesus contemporaries considered this tax as offered to God.

Both God and Peter had confessed Jesus to be the Son of the living God. (Mat. 16:16; Mat. 17:5)

If He is the Son of God, the King and Owner of the temple, then the tax destined for its service does not apply to Him. Should He contribute tax money to His own Fathers house? (Cf. Joh. 2:16) Why should He weaken His title as Son of God, or appear to disown it by acting in a manner out of character with its dignity?

If this is all Jesus said about His own exemption, then we may admire His kindness in not exulting over Peters wrong thinking, by saying: So, you see, Simon, how WRONG you were to commit me to pay taxes I do not even owe? He just gently draws out the implication and lets Peter think it over and see the obvious conclusions. This is the face value of His little puzzle, but consider the unstated, but nonetheless indisputable, magnitude of these implications:

In His attitude, Gods Son towers above the Temple of Javh and the Mosaic legislation that collected half-shekels for its service. Indeed, something greater than the temple is here! (Mat. 12:6) He challenges His obligation to pay this tax only for Himself, because all those who were not sons in the unique, unshared sense of His Sonship, were still liable.

Without any preamble or a word of explanation from Peter, Jesus led him around a veritable labyrinth of theological speculation about whether the Messiah, as typical Hebrew, should offer sacrifices, and, by means of a simple illustration, pointed out the right solution. Only One with the certainty of Heaven could keep it that simple, that true and that conclusive. If He were not the Son of God in the highest sense of that word, even His conclusion, so rich in implications, is blasphemy, and He would have no choice but to pay the tax like everyone else.

Another reason for not submitting to the tax, which could have laid before the disciples, is based on one of the purposes of the tax. It served as a ransom for the souls of the individuals being counted in the census, (Exo. 30:11-16) How could He who is the God-appointed ransom for all men somehow be thought to need a ransom for His own life? To admit obligation at this point would cast doubt on His true relation to God and to all other human beings.

2. POWERS POSTPONED BY A PRACTICAL PLIABILITY AND A PURPOSE TO PROTECT PEOPLE

Mat. 17:27 But, lest we cause them to stumble . . . We means both Peter and Jesus, because the former had rashly taken a position that committed the other to pay. So both would be involved in any scandal caused by Jesus refusal to pay it now. The collectors of the half-shekel would not have understood Jesus divine right not to pay. Unless convinced of His deity, they would have interpreted His proper refusal to pay as claiming a liberty He did not truly possess and as evidence of a lack of reverence for God, the temple and the Law, and they would have been unnecessarily horrified, whereas there was no Hebrew in all the history of Israel that ever had a higher, more intelligent regard for God and His will.

THE ASTOUNDING QUESTION ARISING OUT OF THIS SITUATION IS: HOW MANY OTHER INDIGNITIES AND INCONGRUITIES DID JESUS HAVE TO ENDURE AS A HUMAN BEING?

Does this section furnish an answer to the question whether Jesus attended the feasts, offered the sacrifices, and generally respected every other requisite of Gods Law given through Moses? May we conclude, on the basis of what He reveals about Himself and His policy in this incident, that it was His normal practice to do everything that it was right for a Hebrew to do? (Mat. 3:15)

He had been born under the law to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive the adoption as sons. (Gal. 4:4-5) There was no intrinsic need for Him to be circumcised (Luk. 2:21) or purified (Luk. 2:22 f), except to perform everything according to the law of the Lord (Luk. 2:39). Is the temple tax question but a tip of the iceberg of legal obligations which Jesus made it His standard policy to respect?

The changes in OT legislation, that Jesus taught would go into effect after His death had set aside the old covenant. (Heb. 9:15-17; Col. 2:13-14; Eph. 2:14 f) Examples:

The distinction between clean and unclean meats (Mat. 15:11; Mar. 7:19)

The centralized place of worship (Joh. 4:21-24)

To what extent did He participate in Passovers without offering sacrifices and sharing in the meals? (Joh. 2:13-23; Luk. 22:15; cf. 1Co. 10:18)

The Bible does not positively say whether Jesus did or did not offer animal sacrificeseven as thank-offerings to God for His goodness. Nevertheless, simple silence on this question is not a positive argument. Rather, His refusal to offer sacrifices without accompanying His refusal with appropriate explanations to His contemporaries would have caused far more scandal than His refusal to pay the temple tax! For Him to have offered such sacrifices in the temple when not obligated to do so and when fully aware of the temporary character of the Mosaic system would not have contravened His deity, any more than paying the ransom involved in the temple tax would have disproven His right to be the Redeemer, any more than submission to Johns baptism would have proven Him sinful merely because one of the primary purposes of that rite was the forgiveness of sins. (Mar. 1:4; Luk. 3:3)

There is no warrant for affirming that Jesus and the Apostles had never paid the temple tax during the three preceding years of His ministry, as if Peter hurried anxiously to get a ruling from Jesus on the matter. Such anxiety would have been psychologically impossible, if a precedent had already been established. But there is no textual indication that Peter was anxious for a ruling or that he even wanted to talk about it. Jesus anticipation of Peters mentioning the tax conversation can be interpreted differently, not as anxiety on Peters part, but as urgency on the Lords part. The Lord desired to furnish Peter additional proof of His Sonship to God. It is better to assume that Peter well knew that the Lord paid every year, for the simple reason that, had He not done so, Peter could not have truthfully answered Yes regarding a yearly tax. Also, would not the Apostles have already questioned Jesus about His non-payment and already received the information just now revealed to them in our text?

If we rightly object that Jesus did not have to subject Himself to the indignities of offering animal sacrifices required of other Hebrews, we still have not positively affirmed that He did not actually offer them. In an exquisite passage rich in insight, Bruce (Training, 217ff) observes:

Surely, in a life containing so many indignities and incongruities,which was, in fact, one grand indignity from beginning to end,it was a small matter to be obliged to pay annually, for the benefit of the temple, the paltry sum of fifteenpence! He who with marvellous patience went through all the rest, could not possibly mean to stumble and scruple at so trifling a matter . . . He wished them to understand . . . that it was not a thing of course that He should pay, any more than it was a thing of course that He should become a man, and, so to speak, leave His royal state behind and assume the rank of a peasant: that was an act of voluntary humiliation, forming one item in the course of humiliation, to which He voluntarily submitted, beginning with His birth, and ending with His death and burial.

For our magnanimous Lord, the dilemma was easy to resolve: to refuse to pay, merely to prove a point for some, would cause others to stumble and cost the salvation of some precious souls, but to pay when under no obligation to so do, costs exactly one ddrachma and He could teach His disciples deference! So He paid, and in so doing He did not violate either His own freedom or the conscience of others. Rather, by submitting, He demonstrated his majesty. Lest we cause them to stumble, expresses Jesus concern for the weak and ignorant. (See on Mat. 18:12-13.) By His example He instructs all disciples not to abuse their freedom and to be sensitive to unbelievers, refraining from unnecessarily offending those who could be positively influenced to accept the Gospel. Although we cannot permit or refuse compliance to a thing on any other grounds, we cannot refuse on this one. The requirement wholly uncalled for in Jesus case He found absolutely irresistible on the ground of others weakness. Although He was exempt from the tax because of Who He was, His interest was not in exercising His proper prerogatives, but in helping to protect others from stumbling. Jesus justification for waiving His privileges may well have been identical to that of Paul. (1Co. 9:1-23) To relinquish ones own undeniable, inalienable personal rights for the good of others is true self-denial and the story of Jesus life. (On self-denial, see The Cost of Our Salvation after Mat. 16:28.) Behold how though He was rich, yet for our sakes He became poor! He did not possess one half-shekel to His name, and yet His honesty would not divert community funds for private need.

3. THE PRAISEWORTHY PERFORMANCE OF THIS PRINCIPLE OF PRECEDENCE

He paid by procuring the money in such a way as to furnish surprising evidence that He really was the Kings Son and exempt as He had said. Go thou to the sea (of Galilee just outside Capernaum) and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a shekel: take that, and give unto them for me and thee. How would this particular choice of miracles have impressed His fisherman-Apostle? This alone justifies the miracle of the coin in the fishs mouth against all His detractors. Anyone who can either create a fish with the right coin in its mouth and bring it to Peters hook as the first one to bite, or else knew that such a fish would so come, and tell the fisherman to go catch it, qualifies for temple tax exemption, because only Deity can do that! Jesus is not the mere son of an earthly potentate, but the Son of the Owner of the cattle on a thousand hills, and if He cannot make use of one small fish to bring Him a coin to fill the need, what kind of Son is He?! The moral purpose and spiritual instruction in his miracle were aimed squarely at Peter, and indirectly and secondarily at us. The coin itself was not a shekel, as translated in our text, but a statr, a silver coin equivalent to the Jewish shekel, hence enough to pay two half-shekel taxes.

Take that, and give unto them for me and thee. Why pay for Peter too? He was not a Son of God, hence not exempt in the way Jesus was. However, his constant association with Jesus in His whirlwind ministry may not have permitted him leisure to pay his just dues as a true Hebrew. Therefore, when Peter took Jesus payment to the collectors, they might well have questioned Peter about his own tax payment, and were they to find him delinquent, there would be another cause of stumbling. So Jesus paid for them both to eliminate any possible cause for scandal. The money the Lord furnished, however, was not for us, as if both were sons of God in the same sense, but for me and for yourself, the Son who is exempt and the citizen who is not. The payments are identical, but the reason for which each of them is paid is different.

OBJECTIONS TO THIS FISH STORY

There is no real miracle here. Some would suggest that Jesus reference to the fish be understood metaphorically: In the fish that you will catch you will find what will pay for us. Accordingly, this might mean that the fish would sell for the right amount. And since we are not told that Peter actually did find a coin in the mouth of a fish, the confirmation of the predictions exact terms is missing.

ANSWER: Matthew did not need to elaborate on Peters obedience to Jesus orders, the latter not being essential to the account of Jesus teaching about the temple tax. The fact that the miracle is not described means that the emphasis of this story is not on the miracle, Matthews purpose being to teach Jewish Christians their duty not to abuse their freedom. However, the natural impression on the reader is that the order was obeyed and that the miracle really occurred. This impression is confirmed by the skeptics own attacks based on this impression. But to demythologize the miracle by reducing His statement to You will find our tax money (in the sale of) the very first catch, excludes divine foreknowledge and, in its place, substitutes simple, human probability prediction.

It was not beyond human power to earn such a trifling sum. A day or two of fishing by the Apostles would have brought in enough money to pay the tax for themselves and Jesus too. Therefore this miracle violates the usual principle that supernatural means are not used where natural means suffice. Poor as Jesus and His disciples were, the putting together a sum equivalent to the salary for four working days is not so serious a matter as to require a miracle to raise such a trifling sum,

ANSWER: Natural means would never have sufficed in this situation to prove what Jesus proved by this sign of His true Sonship, nor demonstrated that Jesus needed not to submit to the humiliation of paying a tax for the support of the royal house. Divine power is required to testify that all nature serves HIM, and that, as His fathers Son, He possessed all things. Admittedly, the intrinsic value of the sum is trifling, but this can never be thought the basis for considering the miracle as having been worked for a very trifling purpose! Is it a trifling purpose to show His disciples how profound was His voluntary submission to a servile obligation, despite His full consciousness of His own identity? And is it a trifling purpose to establish that identity by choosing a manner of payment which would contemporaneously illustrate Himself as the Lord of nature, to whom all creatures in land or sea were subject, and all their movements familiar, while yet so humbled as to need the services of the meanest of them? (Bruce, Training, 219) Even so, Jesus sent Peter to go fishing. He did not will the fish to come to Him at the edge of the lake and drop the coin within His reach. He made use of ordinary human means to complete the miracle.

It served the personal need and was done for the personal benefit of the one who worked the miracle. If this story be taken in its crude literalism, it would show Jesus using His divine power to satisfy His own personal needs. But He had decided never to use His miraculous power selfishly to satisfy His own hunger or to enhance His prestige as a worker of wonders. (Mat. 4:1-11) Thus, taken literally, this story violates Jesus own character and wilderness decision.

ANSWER: Instead of seeming to compromise the completeness of His humiliation, this miracle only makes it that much more glaringly conspicuous, as if the miracle story proclaimed: Notice who it is that must pay this tax and is so painfully poor that He must stoop to such a level in order to pay it! It is He who has dominion over the works of your hands . . . the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the sea! Psa. 8:6-8; Psa. 50:11) So, rather than profit in such a way as to alleviate His human life of hardship by the use of His divine power, He is still teaching others the reality of His humiliation. If this seems an exception to His normal rule of doing nothing miraculous for His own benefit, the exception, however, had the same reason as the rule, and therefore proved the rule. (Bruce, Training, 220)

The story is immoral in that it encourages man to suppose that by a stroke of good luck he can solve his problems, meet his obligations without exertion on his part.

ANSWER: Those who accuse the Lord of solving His problems without exertion should consider how much it cost Jesus to place Himself in the incongruous position of becoming a man at all. Let them decide whether HE would have considered it a stroke of good fortune or meeting ones obligations in a lazy, effortless way, when His entire life was one grand indignity, one continuous and voluntary servanthood, from start to finish. No, the miracle story, by its very nature and the lessons it teaches, distinguish Jesus the miracle-worker from any common mortal who would excuse himself for effortless laziness and refusal to pay the normal price of work for all things.

The miracle is grotesque and unworthy of God: The very idea of using a fish to deliver tax payments, indeed!

ANSWER: Consider Gods use of animals to do His bidding: Num. 21:6; Num. 22:21-33; 2Ki. 13:24; 2Ki. 17:4-6; 2Ki. 17:25 f; Eze. 14:15, and especially Gods use of the great fish to deliver Jonah! Jon. 1:17; Jon. 2:1-10. Why shouldnt He have had to take the coin from the FISHS mouth when HE could have taken it from an ANGELS hand! On the other hand, Jesus did some other scandalous things (Mat. 11:6) like going to a cross. (1Co. 1:18-23) More grotesque than that . . .!

EVIDENCES OF JESUS DIVINE DIGNITY REVEALED IN THIS SECTION

Omniscience is revealed by His anticipating Peters recounting the temple tax discussion. (Mat. 17:25)

His consciousness of His true Sonship. (Mat. 17:25)

His considerate deference to others weakness shown in His unwillingness to take offence at nor scandalize those who would not understand His reasons. (Mat. 17:27)

His omnipotence was again manifest in drawing the right fish (the one that had precisely the right coin) to Peters hook first. (Mat. 17:27) Or else, by divine omniscience He knew that the coin was there and that the fish would come to Peters hook. He knew and foretold that God would pay His tax in this way.

His generousness with Peter: not only did He not scold him for his unfitting answer, but He shared His own bounty to pay Peters tax along with His own. (Mat. 17:27) God does things like this.

Barclays note (Matthew, II, 183f) beautifully concludes Jesus lesson to us from this chapter:

We see here the constant demands which were made upon Jesus. Straight from the glory of the mountain top, He came to be met by the demands of human need and human suffering. Straight from hearing the voice of God, He came to hear the clamant demand of human need. The most precious and most Christ-like person in the world is the person who never finds his fellowmen a nuisance. It is easy to feel Christian in the moment of prayer and meditation; it is easy to feel close to God when the world is shut out, and when heaven is very near. But that is not religionthat is escapism. Real religion is to rise from our knees before God to meet men and the problems of the human situation. Real religion involves both meeting God in the secret place and men in the market place. Real religion means taking our needs to God, not that we may have peace and quiet and undisturbed comfort, but that we may be enabled graciously, effectively and powerfully to meet the needs of others.

As noted before, the second half of this lesson will be concluded with Jesus sermon in chapter 18.

FACT QUESTIONS

Where had Jesus and the Apostles been when they arrived in Capernaum?

What is this half-shekel tax that the collectors ask about? What was its purpose? What Scriptures speak about this tax?

Why do the collectors ask this particular question? Did they expect Peter to answer yes or no?

Where was Peter when accosted by the collectors?

Who were they who receive the half-shekel? Were they the same as publicans? How do you know?

In this section Jesus demonstrated His deity and divine dignity in various ways. What are they?

What does this section indicate about Jesus relation to the Mosaic Law and its institutions?

Why did Jesus anticipate Peter when he came home? How did He do this?

What is the principle behind Jesus question and the point of His own conclusion?

10.

Why did Jesus pay the tax? Of what grand principle in Christianity is this an excellent illustration?

11.

Explain the mechanism in this situation whereby Jesus and Peter would cause these tax collectors to stumble, were they not to pay the tax these thought was due.

12.

Explain how Jesus paid the taxes.

13.

Prove that there is (or is not) a miracle involved in the peculiar way Jesus secured the tax money. Indicate the purpose(s) involved in His getting the money this way.

14.

Show how this incident is excellent psychological preparation for the teaching the disciples must have and will receive in the incident that immediately follows in Mat. 18:1-35.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(24) They that received tribute money.The word for tribute here is didrachma, and differs from that of Mat. 17:25; Mat. 22:17. The latter is the census, or Roman poll-tax; the former was the Temple-rate, paid by every male Israelite above the age of twenty (Exo. 30:13-16; 2Ch. 24:9). It was fixed at a half-shekel a head, and the shekel being reckoned as equal to four Attic drachm, was known technically as the didrachma (Jos. Ant. iii. 8, 2). It was collected even from the Jews in foreign countries, was paid into the Corban, or treasury of the Temple, and was used to defray the expenses of its services. After the destruction of Jerusalem, Vespasian ordered that it should still be collected as before, and, as if adding insult to injury, be paid to the fund for rebuilding the Temple of the Capitoline Jupiter (Jos. Wars, vii. 6, 6). The three great festivals of the Jewish year were recognised as proper times for payment; and the relation of this narrative to John 7 makes it probable that the collectors were now calling in for the Feast of Tabernacles the payments that had not been made at the Passover or Pentecost previous. Their question implies that they half-thought that the Prophet of Nazareth had evaded or would disclaim payment. They were looking out for another transgression of the law, and as soon as He entered Capernaum (though He still held aloof from any public ministry), they tracked Him, probably to Peters house, and put the question to His disciple. The narrative is remarkable both in itself and as found only in St. Matthew.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

78. MIRACLE OF COIN IN THE FISH’S MOUTH, Mat 17:24-27 .

24. They tribute money Not the Roman tax-gatherers, for they would not have proposed the payment as a matter of question. This tribute money was a contribution of the Jews to the maintenance of the temple services. It was enjoined by God, through Moses, (Exo 30:11-16,) and amounted (Exo 38:26) to a bekah, or half a shekel. Doth not your master pay the didrachms? is the question in the Greek. From which it appears that the Greek didrachm or double drachm was equivalent to a bekah or half shekel. That is, four drachms made a shekel. See note on Mat 17:27. Came to Peter Their awe of our Lord did not permit them to approach him with the matter.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And when they were come to Capernaum, those who received the shekel came to Peter, and said, “Does not your teacher pay the didrachma (shekel)?” (Mat 17:24).

The didrachma or shekel tax was probably that payable to the Temple treasury. It was payable yearly by Jews around the world, and contributed greatly to the Temple funds. It was an indication of their submission to God as His servants. Note the stress here on whether Jesus paid it. Peter, of course, had to pay it as well, and they may have approached him as the head of the house in which they were staying (compare Mat 8:14). But the whole point of this narrative is as to whether Jesus should have to pay it (‘does not your teacher pay?’), although it does then lead on to the question as to whether any ‘son of God’ should pay it.

Jesus has, of course, with some of His disciples, been out of range of the collectors. Thus it is only when He arrives home that He is approached through Peter. As Passover was approaching the tax was due to be paid. The indirect question was probably simply a courtesy, but it raised the right background against which Jesus could make His position clear to Peter. The collectors did, of course, expect the answer to be ‘yes’.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jesus Again Reveals His Sonship (17:24-27).

In contrast with man’s coming treatment of Him Jesus continues to reveal His Sonship preparatory to what is coming. What follows is not just an outlandish display of power and knowledge with little significance, it is a specific indication that He is no longer subject to men. To pay the Temple Tax to His Father from His own earthly resources would have been to indicate that He was still subject to men, and an acknowledgement that He was not truly the Son. But by offering it from the abundance of the seas, His Father’s treasury (the fish have no ruler – Hab 1:14), as a sacrifice of righteousness (Deu 33:19), He makes clear His independence of men, and that He offers it as His Son.

Note On The Temple Tax.

The Law of Moses directed in Exo 30:11 ff. that whenever the people of Israel were ‘numbered’, every male over twenty years old, rich and poor alike, should give a half shekel for the support of the Tabernacle as a kind of ransom. It was on this basis that Josiah demanded a special contribution to repair the temple (2Ch 24:6). After the return from the captivity, Nehemiah and his followers “made ordinances” (thus not seeing it as something that was required by the law of Moses, but as something that was by voluntary agreement) that every year men should pay the third part of a shekel in order to provide sacrifices, etc., for the Temple (Neh 10:32).

In Josephus the tax is a didrachma and in the Mishna the tax is a shekel, and according to LXX the didrachma, as spoken of here in Matthew, was the equivalent of one shekel. Thus the tax being required here is one shekel. The leaders had thus retained Nehemiah’s plan of making it annual, but had increased the sum to one shekel. The extra half shekel may have been seen as a voluntary further contribution for particular purposes, or it may be because they saw they saw the sacred shekel as worth twice the value of a shekel. (Thus half a sacred shekel is one shekel). The Mishna has a separate treatise on the subject of this tax. Priests, women, children, and slaves, were exempt from the tax, but might give if they wished. The Jews in Palestine were expected to give it well before the time of the Passover; those in foreign countries were allowed until Pentecost or even until Tabernacles, and there was a special chest in the temple for contributions due from the previous year so that people could catch up. Commissioners were sent throughout Palestine to collect the Tax (‘those who collect the didrachma’). They were distinct from the public servants who collected the government tax. In foreign countries the money was deposited by the leading Jews in some fortified city until it could be escorted to Jerusalem. (Josephus “Antiquities” 18, 9, 1.) Cicero states that gold was exported every year from Italy, and all the provinces, in the name of the Jews, to Jerusalem, and commends Flaccus for prohibiting this exportation from Asia Minor, the region around Ephesus (Cicero, “for Flaccus,” 28.) Josephus says (“Antiquities” 3,8,2) that the gift in Exo 30:11 was from men between twenty and fifty years old, a statement which may suggest that those were the limits in his times. After Titus destroyed Jerusalem, Vespasian decreed that the Jews everywhere “should bring two drachmas every year for the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, as before they were wont to pay for the temple at Jerusalem.” (Josephus’ “War,” 7,6,6.).

The tax was in fact voluntary, but there was considerable pressure on people to pay it, and most appear to have done so fairly willingly. The Sadducees appear to have objected to it on the grounds that it was a recent imposition and not in the Law. The community at Qumran appears to have objected to it as a yearly tax supporting a Temple they did not agree with. They argued for a once for all redemptive tax. The tax had to be paid in Tyrian coinage, possibly so as to ensure that no human or animal image was on the coin. It was because of this that there were moneychangers in the Temple, doing a roaring trade. The voluntary contributions to the Temple were quite distinct from this yearly shekel, which was specifically required (by custom if not by the law), and were varied in amount (Mar 12:41 ff). Entirely separate from these was the tax due to the Roman government in the Roman province of Judea and Samaria (Mat 22:1).

End of note.

Analysis.

a When they were come to Capernaum, those who received the shekel (didrachma) came to Peter, and said, “Does not your teacher pay the shekel?” (Mat 17:24).

b He says, “Yes.” And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke first to him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? The kings of the earth, from whom do they receive toll or tribute? From their sons, or from strangers?” (Mat 17:25).

b And when he said, “From strangers,” Jesus said to him, “Therefore the sons are free” (Mat 17:26).

a “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” (Mat 17:27).

Note that in ‘a’ we have reference to those who collect the tax, and the request concerning payment of the tax, and in the parallel the desire not to cause them offence, and Jesus’ method of paying the tax. In ‘b’ Jesus asks the question concerning sons and strangers and in the parallel gives His conclusion with regard to both.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The question of the Temple-tax:

v. 24. And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter and said, Doth not your Master pay tribute?

v. 25. He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon: of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute, of their own children or of strangers?

v. 26. Peter saith unto Him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

Capernaum was still considered the home of Jesus, and here He returned for a brief visit. Here the receivers of the custom, the collectors of the Temple-tax, were making their rounds. In the Old Testament, Exo 30:13-16, every Jew above twenty had been taxed a half shekel annually for the support of the Sanctuary. This tax was renewed in the time following the exile, the money being paid in the nearest equivalent of the coins then in circulation. The didrachma , or double Attic drachma , was now the commonly accepted tax for the Temple. The collectors did not approach Jesus directly, but, knowing Peter from former days, they address their request to him. Peter, familiar with his Master’s habits and certain that He had always paid His contribution as a member of the Jewish Church, answered in the affirmative. Jesus, according to His omniscience, knew of the conversation before Peter ever stepped into the house and before he had had an opportunity to speak of the matter. So He anticipated His disciple; literally, got ahead of him. He also has a question to propose by presenting a parallel case. He wants to know what is customary with the rulers of the world in demanding and accepting duties on merchandise and poll-tax. The question is put in a lively spirit: What think you? Are the children liable or strangers? From the answer of Peter, who naturally exempted the children, Jesus then drew His conclusion: Therefore free are the children. Jesus was a Son in His Father’s house, in the Jewish Church and its Temple, and not a servant in another’s, and therefore could claim, as His rightful property, the offerings of the Temple. God is King of the Temple-city, therefore His Son is free from Temple-tribute. “His meaning includes this: My dear Peter, I know that we are kings and children of kings. I am the King of kings, and no one has the right to exact the Temple-tax from us, but they should rather pay it to us. How is it, then, My dear Peter, that they demand the tax from thee, since thou art a king’s son? What thinkest thou? Do they do right that they demand the tax of thee? But since Christ proposes this question in a general way, Peter also answers in a general way in his simplicity, when he says: Not the children, but others usually pay the tax, not knowing that Christ in His words had called him a king’s son. ” This thought may be emphasized still more strongly. The children of God by faith in Christ, Gal 3:26, the children of the New Testament, kings in their own right, Rev 5:10, are free in the best sense of the word, Joh 8:36. They are no longer held in the yoke of any Old Testament ceremonial law, they, like their Master, are free from the precepts of Israel. Jesus thus makes a joyful declaration, which holds true for all times.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Mat 17:24. And when they were come to Capernaum Josephus has expressly asserted, that each of the Jews used yearly to pay a didrachma, or half shekel, the piece of money here mentioned, and in value about fifteen-pence of our currency, to the service of the temple, (See Antiq. lib. 18. 100. 9.) a custom which probably took its rise from the demand of that sum from each of the Israelites when they were numbered, Exo 30:13. Thus Casaubon, Hammond, and many other great critics, understood it. It was gathered every year through all their cities; and, as it should seem from the manner of the collectors’ making the demand, was a voluntary thing, which custom rather than law had established. See Neh 10:32. Beza is of opinion, that it was the poll-tax levied by the Romans, after Judea was reduced into the form of a province, (see Ch. Mat 22:17.) and which Agrippa Major, in the reign of Claudius, remitted to the Jews. If this was the tribute which the collectors demanded of Peter, the import of their question was this: “Is your master of the sect of Judas of Galilee, whose opinion is, that taxes should be paid to no foreign power?” They demanded the tribute for Jesus from Peter, either because the house in which Jesus lived was his, or because they observed him to be more forward than the rest, or because none of them were with him at that time but Peter. See Macknight.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Mat 17:24 ff. Peculiar to Matthew.

After the return from the Babylonian captivity, all males among the Jews of twenty years of age and upwards (on the ground of the command in Exo 30:13 f.; comp. 2Ch 24:6 : Neh 10:32 ; 2Ki 12:4 ff.) were required to contribute annually the sum of half a shekel, or two Attic drachmae, or an Alexandrian drachma (LXX. Gen 23:15 ; Jos 7:21 ), about half a thaler (1s. 6d. English money), by way of defraying the expenses connected with the temple services. See Saalschtz, Mos. R . p. 291 f.; Ewald, Alterth . p. 403; Keim, II. p. 599 f. After the destruction of the temple the money went to the Capitol, Joseph. 7:6. 6. The time for collecting this tax was the fifteenth of the month Adar . See Tract. Schekalim i. 3, ii. 7; Ideler, Chronol . I. pp. 488, 509. Certain expositors have supposed the payment here in question to have been a civil one, exacted by the Roman government in other words, a poll-tax (see Wolf and Calovius; and of modern writers, consult especially, Wieseler, Chronol. Synopse , p. 265 ff., and Beitr . p. 108 ff.). This, however, is precluded, not merely by the use of the customary term , which was well known to the reader as the temple-tax, but likewise by the incongruity which would thereby be introduced into the succeeding argument, through making it appear as though Jesus had strangely and improperly classed Himself among the kings of this world , with a view to prove with how much reason He could claim to be free. Even had He regarded Himself as David’s son, He would have been wrong in arguing thus, while, so far as the case before us is concerned, He was, to all intents and purposes, one of the .

] used as a substantive: the collectors . That there were such, though Wieseler denies it, is not only evident from the nature of the case, seeing that it was not possible for everybody to go to Jerusalem, but is also proved by statements in the Tr. Schekalim (“trapezitae in unaquaque civitate ,” etc.); see also Lightfoot. The plural indicates the large number of didrachmae that were collected, seeing that every individual contributed one; and the article points to the tax as one that was well known . In the question put by the collectors (which question shows that this happened to be the time for collecting, but that Jesus had not paid as yet, though it is impossible to determine whether or not the question was one of a humane character, which would depend entirely upon the tone in which it was put) the plural indicates that the payment had to be repeated annually , to which the present likewise points. That the collectors should not have asked Jesus Himself , and that Peter should have happened to be the particular disciple whom they did ask, are probably to be regarded merely as accidental circumstances. But why did they ask at all, and why in a dubious tone? They may have assumed or supposed that Jesus would claim to rank with the priests (who did not consider themselves liable for temple-tax, Tr. Schekal . i. 4), seeing that His peculiarly holy, even His Messianic, reputation cannot certainly have remained unknown to them.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

G. The Church at free, and yet voluntarily subject, and paying Tribute to the ancient Temple at the time of its approaching end. Mat 17:24-27

24And when they were come to Capernaum,29 they that received [the receivers of the] tribute money [ i.e., two drachmas, or half a shekel]30 came to Peter, and said, Doth not your Master pay tribute [ ]? 25He saith, Yes. And when he was [had] come into the house, Jesus prevented him [anticipated him],31 saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom [customs, ] or tribute? of their own children [of their sons, ],32 or of strangers 26[the other folks, i.e., those not of their household]?33 Peter [he]34 saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children [the sons, ] 27free. Notwithstanding [But], 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 [a stater, i.e., four drachmas, or one shekel]: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Circumstances connected with this event.Jesus had returned from the Feast of Tabernacles at Jerusalem. He had explained the symbolical import of the temple service, and shown how it was fulfilled in His own life. The drawing of water (Joh 7:37); the lighting up of the temple ( Matthew 8); the temple as His Fathers residence, where He appeared as the Kings Son; the fountain of Siloah ( Matthew 9); the theocracy itself ( Matthew 10)all pointed to Him. Immediately afterward, the Jews had brought, before the ecclesiastical tribunal, the man born blind, whom Jesus had restored, and finally excommunicated him (Mat 9:34); which implied that Jesus Himself had been excommunicated previous to this event, probably ever since the cure of the lame man at the pool of Bethesda ( Matthew 5). The Lord now waited in retirement at Capernaum for the next festive season. So far as we know, He performed no further miracles in Galilee. The cure of the man afflicted with dropsy, which occurred at the end of this period, took place under very peculiar circumstances (Luk 14:1-24). From the retirement of the Lord, His enemies might almost have inferred that He now intended to settle down in Galilee, to give up His work, and to submit in silence to the institutions of the land.

Mat 17:24. The receivers or collectors of the didrachmas, or the double drachma.The demand of the temple-tax from Jesus, although primarily addressed to Peter, forms a contrast to the relation in which Jesus had placed Himself toward the temple when in Jerusalem. The Lord, who was the living and real Temple, was to pay tribute to the types and shadows of this reality, or to the legal symbols of the temple. According to Exo 30:13; 2Ch 24:6, Joseph. Antiq. 18, 9 (see Wetstein, Michaelis, and Ewald, Alterthmer, 320), every male from twenty years old was obliged to pay half a shekel yearly for the temple service. This half shekel was equal to two Attic drachmas (one shekel=four Attic drachmas, Joseph. Antiq. iii. 8, 2). According to the LXX. (Gen 23:15; Jos 7:21), the Alexandrian drachma was equal to half a shekel The whole shekel amounted to about 2s. 6d. sterling, or about 60 cents in American money.35 After the destruction of Jerusalem, this tax went to the Roman capitol. It was due in the month Adar (March). Hence it may be inferred that Jesus was in arrears. The supposition of Wieseler (Chronol. Synopse, p. 264), that the demand for the temple tribute was only made about the time when it was actually due, and that it must hence have been a Roman tax, is erroneous. Local payments might be delayed by absence. (The same remark may also apply in reference to the objection, that the presentation of the infant Jesus must necessarily have taken place before the flight into Egypt.) The use of the solemn term indicates that it was a religious, not a secular tax; the plural number implying, as Meyer observes, that it was annually and regularly levied, not that on this occasion it was asked both for the Lord and His disciples. Besides, the supposition of a Roman impost would be entirely incompatible with the reasoning of the Saviour. Of course, ideas derived from the theocracy could not have been applied to the Roman government. This act of the officials of the temple may be regarded as an indication of the feeling of the priests. The servants began to act rudely toward Jesus, who had become an offence to their superiors. Still, there is a certain amount of good-natured simplicity about their conduct, and it almost seems as if they fancied that Jesus was about quietly to settle down in Capernaum.

Doth not your Master pay the double drachma?Manifestly presupposing the expectation that He would paynot, as some have supposed, a doubt, that, since priests and Levites were free, He might wish to claim a similar exemption.

Mat 17:25. Jesus anticipated him.This anticipation implies a miraculous knowledge of Peters assent. , vectigalia, duties on merchandize, customs; capitation or land-tax. [Peters affirmative answer to the tax-gatherers was rather hasty, and lost sight for a while of the royal dignity and prerogative of his Master, who was a Son in His own house, the temple, and not a servant in anothers, and who could claim the offerings in the name of His Father.P. S.]

Or of strangers.Not of the princes, but of their subjects.

Mat 17:26. Then are the Sons free.A conclusion a minori ad majus. The earthly royal prerogative serves as a figure of theocratic right. God is King of the temple-city; hence His Son is free from any ecclesiastical tribute.36De Wette regards the passage as involving some difficulties, since Jesus had disowned every outward and earthly claim in His character as Messiah, and had become subject to the law.37 Accordingly, this critic suggests that Jesus had only intended to reprove the rashness of Peters promise, and to suggest the thought to him (as he was still entangled with Jewish legalism), that, in point of law, the demand made upon Him was not valid. On the other hand, Olshausen maintains that Jesus asserted His exaltation over the temple-ritual (as in Mat 12:8 : The Son of Man is Lord of the SabbathOne greater than the temple). Meyer reminds us, that although as Messiah Jesus was above the law, yet in His infinite condescension He submitted to its demands. This explanation is so far more satisfactory. But commentators seem to forget that the breach between the ancient theocracy and the had already begun in Juda and Galilee, and that Jesus had entered on His path of sufferings. It was inconsistent to reject, and virtually (though perhaps not formally) to excommunicate Jesus, and yet at the same time to demand from Him the temple tribute. And in this sense the Apostles themselves were included among the (in the plural). They were to share in the suffering and in the excommunication of their Master. Paulus and Olshausen apply the expression to Peter in connection with Jesus; Meyer regards it as a locus communis referring to Jesus alone, since, in the argument as used in the text, it could only designate the Lord Himself. But, according to the Apostle Paul, believers have fellowship with Christ in virtue of their , and in Him are free from the law. The Roman Catholic Church employs this passage to prove the freedom of the clergy from taxation, at least in reference to ecclesiastical charges (Meyer). In our opinion, it would be more appropriate to deduce from it the freedom of the living Church from the burdens of the law. [The inference of the Roman Catholics would prove too much, viz., the freedom of all the children of God from taxation.P. S.]

Mat 17:27. But lest we should offend them.Meyer refers the latter expression to the tax-gatherers: Lest we should lead them to suppose that we despise the temple. As, in dealing with the Phari sees ( Matthew 15), Christ did not avoid giving them offence, we are led to infer that in the present instance it would have been an offence to these little ones. Besides the tax-gatherers, many other persons in Capernaum, who could not clearly apprehend the spiritual bearing of Christs conduct, might readily have taken offence, under the impression that He placed Himself in opposition to the temple.

A piece of money, lit.: a stater.A coin=4 drachmas, or about a Prussian dollar [or rather less, about 60 cents].

Various views are entertained in reference to this miracle. 1. De Wette contents himself with calling attention to the difficulties connected with the orthodox view of the narrative (the miracle was unnecessary; it was unworthy of Jesus, since He had on no other occasion performed a miracle for His own behoof; it was impossible, since a fish could not have carried a stater in its mouth, and yet bite at the hook, as Strauss misstated the case). 2. Paulus and Ammon have attempted to represent it as a natural event. Thus Paulus paraphrases the language of Jesus: When thou openest the mouth of this fish to detach the hook, it will be found worth a stater. [A wonderful price for a fish caught with a hook!] Or, If there on the spot () you open the mouth to offer the fish, etc. 3. Strauss characterizes it as a myth, derived from legends connected with the lake of Galilee.38 Similarly, Hase represents it as figurative language, referring to the success accompanying the exercise of their calling, which tradition had afterward transformed into a miraculous event. 5. Ewald makes the curious comment, that we do not read of Peter having actually caught such a fish, but that the saying was one which might be readily employed, as pieces of money had sometimes been found in fishes. 6. It has been regarded as a miracle, in the proper sense of the term. (a) As a miracle of power, directly performed. The fish was made to fetch the coin from the deep, and then to come up to the hook. So Bengel.39 Or, (b) As a miracle of knowledge on the part of Jesus. So Grotius and Meyer. Adopting the latter explanation, we would call attention to the fact, that in performing this miracle the Lord was equally careful to maintain His rights as King of Zion, and to avoid giving offence. Hence the tribute, for which Peter himself was naturally liable, was to be procured through the personal exertions of that Apostle. But, as in this case he acted as the representative of the Lord, the money was miraculously provided. All the requirements of the case seem to us sufficiently met by the fact, that Jesus predicted that the first draught of Peter would yield the sum needed. Hence the words, When thou hast opened his mouth, might almost be regarded as a metaphor for when thou takest off the hookin which case it would imply simply a prediction that Peter would catch a very large and valuable fish. But the statement, that he would find a piece of money, conveys to our minds that the Apostle was to discover the stater in the inside of the fish. The main point of the narrative, however, lies in this, that the stater was to be miraculously provided. By his rashness, Peter had apparently placed the Lord in the difficulty of either giving offence, or else of virtually declaring Himself subject to tribute. Under these circumstances, the Lord looked and descried the stater in the lake; and the miraculous provision thus procured might serve both for Himself and for Peter.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. We have here a remarkable instance of the vast difference between giving offence to the little ones and to the Pharisees. Similarly, we learn from the narrative that Christian wisdom must be able to discover a way out of every seeming conflict of duties, since such conflicts can only be apparent, not real.
2. It were a great mistake to suppose, that because Matthew does not record that Peter actually caught the fish, found and paid the stater, all this did not really take place. But, on the other hand, we infer from this omission, that the great object of the Evangelist was to record the spiritual import, rather than the outward circumstances, of this event. It was intended to set before the Apostles the principle which should regulate the future relations between the free Church of the gospel and the ancient legal community at the time of the cessation of its services and ritual. The point here lies in the contrast between the sons of the King, or of the true theocracy, and mere subjects, who in the text are very significantly called , strangers. Christ and His people are the children of the kingdom; the Jewish legalists its subjects, or rather its bondsmen. (Comp. Joh 8:35 : The servant abideth not for ever in the house, or in the temple; but the Son abideth there for ever.)

3. The children of the kingdom, who themselves are the living temple, could not be made outwardly or legally subject to the typical services of the temple. As the free children of God, they were superior to all such bondage. But perhaps some historical claim might yet be urged upon them, or else they were not to shock the prejudices of some of these little ones (comp. Matthew 18). Hence, in all such cases, it was their duty to avoid giving offence, and to perform what was expected from them. But in so doing, they would display such joyousness, freedom, and princely grandeur, as to vindicate their liberty even in the act of submitting to what might seem its temporary surrender (Leben Jesu, iii. p. 170). It is scarcely necessary to add, that by professing adherence to a particular ecclesiastical system, we, as Christians, incur the obligation of contributing to its support. Every such profession is a voluntary obligation, which, among other things, implies the duty of outwardly contributing for its maintenance.

4. There is something peculiarly characteristic of Peter in this history. With his usual rashness, he would make the Lord Jesus legally subject to tribute. This obligation he has now himself to discharge, and that by means of a fish (the symbol of a Christian) which is found to have unnaturally swallowed a stater.
5. In this instance, also, Christ did not perform a miracle for His own behoof, but as a sign for others.
[Trench (Notes on the Miracles, p. 379): Here, as so often in the life of our Lord, the depth of His poverty and humiliation is lighted up by a gleam of His glory; while, by the manner of His payment, He reasserted the true dignity of His person, which else by the payment itself was in danger of being obscured and compromised in the eyes of some, The miracle, then, was to supply a real need, differing in its essence from the apocryphal miracles, which are so often mere sports and freaks of power, having no ethical motive or meaning whatever.P. S.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The great danger of the servants of Christ to attempt bringing Him, in His Church, in subjection to tradition.The outward, secular subjection of the children of God under outward temple ordinances, a contradiction. 1. In general: they who possess the reality, are expected to be in subjection to shadows. 2. In a special sense: it is required of the stones of the living temple to maintain the symbolical temple buildings, of the living sacrifices to promote the typical sacrifices, of the children of the Spirit to maintain the emblems of spiritual things.Contradiction of hierarchism: it excommunicates and yet levies tax upon the children of the Spirit.Cupidity of the medival Church in seeking the fortunes and possessions of those who were stigmatized as heretics.Important consequences implied in the rash assent given by Peter.How Christ avoided giving offence to devout prejudices, Rom 14:13.The humility and the glory of Christ in paying the temple-tribute.How Christians, in bearing witness to their faith, may preserve their liberty while voluntarily surrendering it for the sake of charity.The three draughts of Peter.How Christians (fishes) who have the world (a piece of money) in their hearts, may be caught and made subservient to outward ordinances.A Christian will always find a miraculous way of escape through the intricate mazes of apparently conflicting duties.The Lord prepares a way even in our greatest difficulties, viz., those of conscience.If we have anticipated the Lord, we must cabmit to severe tests of our obedience.How the Lord can most gloriously repair the damage done by His people by their rash anticipations of His decisions.

Starke:Quesnel: Jesus humbles Himself, and submits to all human ordinances. (The text, however, does not refer either to the payment of civil taxes or to any secular arrangements.)Let us avoid giving offence to any one.Let us avoid the appearance of evil.Canstein: It does not matter though the children of God may not possess what they require; God will care for them (though the text does not imply that the whole company of disciples at Capernaum did not possess the small sum of about three shillings demanded of them).Zeisius: Christ, Lord over all His creatures, even in His estate of humiliation.

Gerlach:While Jesus never forgot, from false humility, what was due to Him, He only manifested His dignity before those who were capable of understanding Him, and at the same time was willing to become the servant of all.

Heubner:Ministers must be ready to prove that they really despise earthly things.Humiliation and exaltation combined in this event.We may submit to civil oppression even while preserving in our minds and hearts our dignity and rights.

Footnotes:

[29] Mat 17:24.Different readings, but of no bearing on the sense.

[30] Mat 17:24.[Tribute money and tribute is a generalizing explanatory rendering of , lit: the double drachma, or what is its equivalent in Hebrew, the half-shekel. The definite article means: the obligatory, customary. Tyndale, the Geneva, and the Bishops Bible translate: poll-money; Cranmer, and King Jamess Revisers: tribute- money; the Rheims Version: the didrachmes; Campbell: the didrachma; Archbishop Newcombe, Norton, Conant, and the revised N. T. of the A. B. U.: the half-shekel. Luther: Zinsgroschen; de Wette, van Ess, Allioli: die Doppeldrachme; Ewald: Zinsgulden (with the note: jhrliche Tempelsteuer); Lange: Doppeldrachma, and in parenthesis. Tempelsteuer. In the English Bible the term double drachma, or half-shekel, might be retained with a marginal note: the annual tribute to the temple, or the temple-tax. As our Authorized Version now stands, the relation between the value of the annual temple-offering (2 drachmas or half a shekel) and the piece of money miraculously supplied, ver 2 (4 drachmas or a shekel), is lost to the English reader.P. S.]

[31] Mat 17:25.[ , from , to prevent, to forestall, which occurs only here in the N. T.; but the verb simplex occurs seven times. The English Version (since Cranmer), here as also in 1Th 4:15 (we shall not prevent, , them who are asleep), and several times in the O. T., uses the word prevent in the old English sense=prvenire, to come or go before, to precede (so also in the Common Prayer Book: Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings, with Thy most gracious favor); but now it has just the opposite meaning to hinder, to obstruct. On the contrary the old English verb to let, which is used in the E. V. of 2Th 2:7 for , to hold back, to detain, to hinder, to prevent, and in Rom 1:13 for (was let, i.e., prevented, hitherto), is now only used in the sense to permit, to leave (lassen); or also to lease. In such cases, which, however, are very rare, the common reader of the Bible is apt to be misled and should be guarded by marginal notes. Campbell renders our passage: before he spake, Jesus said to him; Norton: before he had spoken of it, Jesus said to him; Tyndale the Genevan Bible, Wakefield, Conant better: Jesus spake first, saying. But our anticipated him is more literal and corresponds with the usual German Version: kam ihm suvor, etc.P. S.]

[32] Mat 17:25.[Sons is more expressive here, especially in view of the bearing of the analogy on the Sonship of Christ (see my footnote on Mat 17:26), than children, or Kinder as Luther has it. Ewald and Lange, also, translate: Shne. The possessive own of the E. V. is hardly necessary (although Lange too, inserts in smaller type eigenen), and might convey the false idea that the contrast was between the children of the kings and the children of others, while the contrast is between the princes and subjects, or the rulers and the ruled.P. S.]

[33] Mat 17:25.[Strangers, like the alieni of the Vulgate and the Fremde of Luthers and Ewalds versions, is almost too strong a term for , which in this connection means simply those who are not , who do not belong to the royal household. Hammond (one of the best of the older English commentators) renders: other folks; do Wette and Lange: andere Leute. I would prefer subjects if it were not too free.P. S.]

[34] Mat 17:26. is omitted in B., D., etc. [Also in Cod. Sinaiticus and in all the modern critical editions.P. S.]

[35][Dr. Lange estimates the value of the shekel at 21 gute Groschen or more (afterward, Note on Mat 17:27, at 23 to 24 Groschen or about a Prussian dollar). But its value is differently estimated from 2s. 3d. to over 3s sterling, or from 50 to 70 cents. Before the Babylonian exile the shekel was only a certain weight of silver, since the time of the Maccabees (1Ma 15:6) a coined money; but as these coins grew scarce, it became customary to estimate the temple dues (a half shekel) as two drachmas. It must not be confounded with the gold coin, more accurately called shekel, which was equal not to four, but to twenty Attic drachmas. See the Dictionaries, sub , Shekel, also sub and , especially Winer, sub Sekel (Bibl. Realwrterbuch, vol. ii., 448 sqq.); W. Smith, sub Money (Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 2, 404 sqq.); and Dr. M. A. Levy: Geschichte der jdischen Mnsen, Breslau, 1862 (which is mentioned as an important work in Smiths Dict., sub Shekel, vol. 3, p. 1246; but which I have not seen myself).P. S.]

[36][In Latin the intimate relation between sonship and freedom might be thus rendered: Liberi sunt liberi. The plural is necessitated by the figure of the kings of the earth, and does not interfere with Christs unique position as the only begotten of the Father, but rather establishes it by way of analogy, since there is but one King in heaven. Grotius: Plurali numero utitur, non quod ad alios eam extendat libertatem, sed quod comparatio id exigebat, sumta non ab unius sed ab omnium regum more ac consuetudine. Trench: It is just as natural, when we come to the heavenly order of things which is there shadowed forth, to restrain it to the singular, to the one Son; since to the King of heaven, who is set against the kings of the earth, there is but one, the only begotten of the Father Observe also in Mat 17:27 Ha says not: for us, putting Himself on a par with Peter, but: for Me and thee; comp. Joh 20:17 : unto My Father, and your Father, and His uniform address to God: My (not: Our) Father, all of which implies His unique relation to the Father.P. S.]

[37][This objection of de Wette rests on a false assumption and is inconsistent with his own admission, in his note on Mat 17:24 that the temple-tax was a theocratic or religions, not a civil, tax, a tribute to God, not to Csar. Many commentatorsO igen, Augustine, Jerome, Maldonatus, Corn. a Lapide, Wolf, even Wieseler (Chronol. Synopse, p. 265), and othershave overlooked and denied this fact and missed the whole meaning of the miracle by the false assumption that this money was a civil tribute to the Roman emperor, like the penny mentioned on a later occasion. Mat 22:19. The word tribute in the E. V. rather favors this error. The emperor Vespasian converted the temple-tax into an imperial tribute, but this was after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, as Josephus expressly states, De Bello Jdg 7:6; Jdg 7:6.P. S.]

[38][Strauss profanely calls it den mhrchenhaften Auslufer der See-Anekdoten, and in his new Life of Jesus, 1864, p 84, be endeavors to ridicule Dr. Ebrard for supposing, very unnecessarily, that the fish spit the piece of money from the stomach into the throat the moment Peter opened its mouth. In this case there is no assignable occasion, or Old Testament precedent, or possible significancy of a mythical Action.P. S.]

[39][So also Trench (Notes on the Miracles, p. 385): The miracle does not lie in the mere foreknowledge on the Lords part as to how it should be with the fish which came up; but He Himself, by the mysterious potency of His will which ran through all nature, drew the particular fish to that spot at that moment, and ordained that it should swallow the hook. We may compare Jon 1:17 : The Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. Thus we see the [illegible]s, here of animal life unconsciously obedient to His will; that also is not out of God, but moves in Him, as does every other creature. 1Ki 13:24; 1Ki 20:36; Amo 9:3. Yet Trench does not assume that the stater was miraculously created for the occasion, but brought in contact with the [illegible]ash by a miraculous coincidence.P. S.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

“And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? (25) He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? (26) Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (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.”

It should seem, that this tribute money was not what the publicans gathered for the Roman emperors, but for the temple service. The Son of God had no right to pay it, strictly speaking, for He himself was Lord of the temple. Mal 3:1 ; Heb 3:6 . But, as the Head and Husband of his people, becoming debtor thereby to the whole law, it was justly due. See Gal 4:4 ; Luk 2:22 ; Exo 30:12-15 ; Mat 4:15 . But what a beautiful occasion Jesus took therefrom to manifest his power and Godhead by the fish with money. And, Reader! if to supply this pressing occasion, Jesus wrought a miracle then, will he be inattentive to any of the wants of his people now? Oh! how blessedly doth every incident in the life of Christ, minister instruction, grace, and comfort?

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

Ver. 24:. They that received tribute money ] This didrachmum or half-shekel was formerly paid by the Israelites every year, after they were twenty years old, toward the temple, Exo 30:13 . Caesar, by taking it from the temple and turning it to a tribute, did indeed take away from God that which was God’s. This very tribute was paid afterwards by the Jews toward the Roman capitol, by virtue of a decree made by Vespasian. How just is it in God, that the spoiler should be spoiled, Isa 30:1 , that the Roman emperors, that so robbed and wronged God, should be robbed of their rights, as they are by the pope’s usurpations.

Doth not your master pay tribute ] Is he either born or bought free? SeeAct 22:28Act 22:28 . But if neither, they might (had they had any goodness in them) have spared him, so public, so profitable a person, that had so well deserved of the whole nation, so well merited an immunity, an indemnity. But all is lost that is laid out upon ungrateful persons or people. Covetousness hath no respect to anything but to its own profit, and knows no other language than the horse leech’s, Give, give, Rem, Rem, quocunque modo rem, without any respect of persons, however well deserving.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

24 27. ] DEMAND OF THE SACRED TRIBUTE, AND OUR LORD’S REPLY. Peculiar to Matthew . The narrative connects well with the whole chapter, the aim of the events narrated in which is, to set forth Jesus as the undoubted Son of God.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

24. . . ] This tribute , hardly properly so called, was a sum paid annually by the Jews of twenty years old and upwards, towards the temple in Jerusalem. Exo 30:13 ; 2Ki 12:4 ; 2Ch 24:6 ; 2Ch 24:9 . The LXX reckon according to the Alexandrian double drachma , and have therefore, as in the first of the above places, : but Josephus and Philo reckon as here, and Aquila, Exo 38:26 , and an anonymous interpreter (see Hexapla), and apparently Jerome, Gen 24:22 , translate by .

Josephus (B. J. vii. 6. 6) says of Vespasian, , , . See, for more particulars, Winer, RWB., art. Sekel .

It does not quite appear whether this payment was compulsory or not; the question here asked would look as if it were voluntary , and therefore by some declined .

Many Commentators both ancient and modern, and among them no less names than Clement Alex., Origen, Jerome, and Augustine, have entirely missed the meaning of this miracle, by interpreting the payment as a civil one, which it certainly was not.

. . . are not the publicans , but they who received the didrachma , i.e. one for each person. Peter answered in the affirmative, probably because he had known it paid before.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Mat 17:24-27 . The temple tax . In Mt. only, but unmistakably a genuine historic reminiscence in the main. Even Holtzmann (H. C.) regards it as history, only half developed into legend.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Mat 17:24 . .: home again after lengthened wandering with the satisfaction home gives even after the most exhilarating holiday excursions.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Mat 17:24 . , etc.: home-coming often means return to care. Here are the receivers of custom, as soon as they hear of the arrival, demanding tribute. From the Mount of Transfiguration to money demands which one is too poor to meet, what a descent! The experience has been often repeated in the lives of saints, sons of God, men of genius. : a was a coin equal to two Attic drachmae, and to the Jewish half shekel = about fifteen pence; payable annually by every Jew above twenty as a tribute to the temple. It was a tribute of the post-exilic time based on Exo 30:13-16 . After the destruction of the Temple the tax continued to be paid to the Capitol (Joseph. Bel. I. vii. 6, 7). The time of collection was in the month Adar (March). . Peter evidently the principal man of the Jesus-circle for outsiders as well as internally. . The receivers are feeling their way. Respect for the Master ( ) makes them go to the disciples for information, and possibly the question was simply a roundabout hint that the tax was overdue.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 17:24-27

24When they came to Capernaum, those who collected the two-drachma tax came to Peter and said, “Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?” 25He said, “Yes.” And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?” 26When Peter said, “From strangers,” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are exempt. 27However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a coin. Take that and give it to them for you and Me.”

Mat 17:24

NASB”the two-drachma tax”

NKJV, NRSV,

TEV”the temple tax”

NJB”the half shekel”

This referred to a half shekel tax which was voluntarily given annually by Jewish men between the age of twenty and fifty. It was to pay for temple maintenance. It was due some time in March and, therefore, if our understanding of the time setting of this passage is correct, Jesus was late paying this tax. This tax was possibly based rabbinically on Moses’appeal in Exo 30:11-16 for the Tabernacle. Although it was a voluntary tax, it was considered to be important and obligatory by orthodox Jews. The coin found in the fish’s mouth would pay the tax for both Peter and Jesus.

SPECIAL TOPIC: COINS IN USE IN PALESTINE IN Jesus’ DAY

Mat 17:25-27 This verse shows Jesus claiming exemption from the tax because of who He was, yet He paid the tax in order to fulfill all righteousness (cf. Mat 3:15). Jesus wanted to reach His contemporary Jewish culture.

Mat 17:25 “Jesus spoke to him first” Did Jesus overhear the conversation or was He using His foreknowledge? This question comes up again and again in the Gospels!

“customs or poll-tax” In this paragraph there are three different taxes addressed.

1. the Jewish tax (two drachma, Mat 17:24)

2. local taxes (customs, Mat 17:25)

3. poll-tax (Roman imperial tax, cf. Mat 22:17)

Mat 17:26 “the sons are exempt” This is a powerful statement of Jesus’ royal Messiahship. He is the true, ideal Davidic King and His followers are the royal children who pay no taxes! What is surprising is that the Jews (i.e., the Jewish collection of the temple tax) are depicted as not children!

Mat 17:27 Many have criticized this account because it seems to be Jesus using His Messianic powers for personal purposes. It was the ongoing exercise of Jesus’ miraculous powers that was used to train the disciples and increase their faith. In this account, Jesus showed His power over nature and His foreknowledge, which would help Peter in the days to come when he experienced difficult times in his own pilgrimage of faith. It was recorded for us!

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

tribute = money = the didrachma = the half-shekels (Exo 30:11-16). Occurs only here. See App-51.:8. Not the same word as in Mat 17:25; Mat 22:19.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

24-27.] DEMAND OF THE SACRED TRIBUTE, AND OUR LORDS REPLY. Peculiar to Matthew. The narrative connects well with the whole chapter, the aim of the events narrated in which is, to set forth Jesus as the undoubted Son of God.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Mat 17:24. , Capernaum) where Jesus dwelt.[797]- , the didrachms)[798] the Hebrew , shekel, is frequently rendered by the LXX.- , they that received) sc. for the Temple.[799]

[797] On a different footing, however, from what He had been on before: for He was now dwelling in obscurity with His disciples, to whom He gave the information as to His Passion, Luk 9:18, etc., until He set out on the journey which was to end in His Passion; Luk 9:51; Luk 13:32.-Harm., p. 380.

[798] In the original [i.e., the Greek of St Matthew], the tribute-money which was demanded, and the piece of money, of twice its value, which Peter was to find in the mouth of the fish, are discriminated by their proper names. The former is called didrachma, or two drachm, and the latter stater. The latter was of equivalent value to the Hebrew shekel, and was equal to four drachm; and, consequently, two drachm were equivalent to half the stater and shekel. Leaving the terms untranslated, Peter is asked if his Master paid the didrachma? and Peter is told that he should find a stater in the mouth of the fish. The stater was also called tetradrachmon, from its containing four drachm. It exhibited on one side the head of Minerva, and on the reverse an owl, together with a short inscription. After the destruction of the Temple, the Jews were obliged to pay this tribute to the Romans; and the passage in which the historian relates this, affords one of those minute incidental corroborations which have been so abundantly adduced in evidence of the verity of the evangelical narratives; for he states that the emperor imposed a tribute of two drachm ( ) upon the Jews, wherever they were, to be paid every year into the Capitol, in the same manner as it had been previously paid into the Temple at Jerusalem-thus concurring with the Evangelist, that the half-shekel was usually paid in the form of two drachm, or of a single coin of that value. The tax continued to be paid to the Romans in the time of Origen. It is understood, however, that the Temple tribute, though collected in heathen coin, was to be exchanged for Hebrew money before it could be finally paid into the Temple-probably on account of the idolatrous symbols which the former so generally bore. Hence the vocation of the money-changers, whom our Saviour drove from the Temple. They were accustomed, on and after the fifteenth of the month Adar, to seat themselves in the Temple, in order to exchange for those who desired it, Greek and Roman coins for Jewish half-shekels.-Kittos Illustrated Commentary, in loc.-See also Wordsworth, in loc.-(I. B.)

[799] The exaction of this Temple tribute usually took place on the 15th day of the month Adar. And, in accordance with this, the length (interval) of time admirably corresponds to the events and journeys, as frequently recorded, from the feast of dedication, Joh 10:22, up to this place, and further in continuation up to the Sabbath, of which we have the mention in Joh 12:1. Both the Sabbaths noticed, Luk 13:10; Luk 14:1, occupy the middle portion in that time; and the raising of Lazurus took place a few days before the solemn and triumphant entry of our Lord.-Harm., p. 380.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Our King and the Tribute Money

Mat 17:24. And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

The half-shekel tribute was a religious payment, based originally on law, but enlarged by a custom which had no support in Scripture. It was ordained by the divine law to be paid for each person to the Lord when the people were counted. From this redemption-money there was no exemption; but it was not a tax levied year by year. It had gradually grown into a fashion among professedly religious people to pay this “tribute money” every year; but the payment was entirely optional. Thus, it was established by custom, but it had not been appointed by law, and could not be enforced by it. It was a voluntary annual gift, and only persons who were professed devotees of the Jewish religion would pay it. Such religionists as these would be very particular, not only to pay the annual tribute, but to have it known that they paid it. The collectors of half-shekels did not apply at once to Jesus, of whom, it may be, they stood in salutary awe; but they addressed Peter with the somewhat ensnaring question, “Doth not your master pay tribute?” As much as to say, “Surely he does so: we would not suspect him of neglecting to do so. A person of such eminence cannot fail to be peculiarly exact as to this customary fee.”

Mat 17:25-26. He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

Peter was in such a hurry to vindicate his Lord that he compromised him. “He saith, Yes.” He might have asked his Lord’s mind, or he might have referred the collectors to Jesus himself; but he was in a hurry, and thought himself safe enough in maintaining his Master’s reputation. He was quite certain that his Lord would do all that good people did. Our Saviour and his cause have often suffered from the zeal of friends. Christ is better known by what he says himself than by what his friends say for him.

Peter was out of doors at the time he gave his quick reply, and little did he think that the Lord Jesus would note what he had said, and tell him of it as soon as he was come into the house; but so it was.

Our Lord began with Peter upon the subject before he had time to state his action or defend it: “Jesus prevented him.” He knew what his servant had been doing, and he hastened to set him right. As he had been but little of a Peter in this case, our Lord calls him “Simon.” He questions him: “What thinkest thou, Simon?” He will make him judge in the case. Do kings take poll-tax of their own children, or of strangers? Of course, the family of the prince was always free from the levy. The king’s subjects, and especially the aliens under his rule, must pay the capitation charge; but the princes of the blood royal were free. Should Jesus pay redemption-money for himself to God? Should he, who is himself the King’s Son, come under poll-tax to his Father? If tribute money has become a tax to be levied in the kingdom of God, “then are the children free.” Neither Jesus nor Peter was bound to pay. Peter had not seen the matter in this light.

Mat 17:27. Notwithstanding, lest we should off end 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.

Our Saviour would not willingly give ground for offence. He was not bound to pay; but rather than raise a scandal, he would pay both for himself and for Peter. How gracious were his words: “Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them”! If the question had remained by itself, clear from other circumstances, our Lord might, on principle, have declined to pay the tribute-money; but Peter’s rash declaration had compromised his Lord, and he would not seem to be false to the promise made by his follower. Besides, Peter would be involved in a dispute, and Jesus will far rather pay than leave his servant in a difficulty. When the pocket is involved in a matter of principle, we must be careful that we do not even seem to be saving our money by a pretence. Usually, it will be wisest to pay under protest, lest it should appear that we are careful of conscience in a special degree when we can also be careful of our cash.

The manner of payment prevented the act from compromising our Lord. Very interesting was the hooking of the fish which brought the silver in its mouth. “Take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money” Very remarkable the providence which caused the shekel to fall into the sea, and made the fish first to swallow it, and then to rise to the hook as soon as Peter began his angling. Thus the great Son pays the tax levied for his Father’s house; but he exercises his royal prerogative in the act, and takes the shekel out of the royal treasury. As man he pays, but first as God he causes the fish to bring him the shekel in its mouth.

The piece of money was enough to pay for Peter as well as for his Lord. Thus did our Lord submit to be treated as one who had forfeited life, and must have a half-shekel paid as redemption-money for him. This he has done for our sake, and in association with us; and we are redeemed by his act, and in union with him: for he said of the piece of money, “That take, and give unto them for me and thee.” There were not two half-shekels, but one piece of money, paid for Jesus and Peter: thus we see that his people are joined with him in the one redemption.

“He bore on the tree the sentence for me, And now both the Surety and sinner are free.”

The obvious moral lesson is,-Pay rather than cause offence.

But far greater and deeper truths lie slumbering down below. They are such as these: the glorious freedom of the Son, his coming under tribute for our sakes, and the clearance of himself and us by the one payment which he himself provided.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s The Gospel of the Kingdom

when: Mar 9:33

tribute: “Gr. didrachma, in value fifteen pence.” Exo 30:13, Exo 38:26, This tribute seems to have been the half shekel which every male among the Jews paid yearly for the support of the temple, and which was continued by them, wherever dispersed, till after the time of Vespasian.

Reciprocal: 2Ch 24:9 – collection Neh 10:32 – the third part Mat 4:13 – Capernaum Mat 11:23 – Capernaum Mat 26:17 – Where Luk 9:50 – Forbid Rom 13:6 – pay

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

7:24

Capernaum was a city of Galilee and the chosen residence of Jesus (chapter 4:13). When he and his apostles entered this city Peter was approached by those who collected the tax that was for the upkeep of the temple. Robinson says this was “the yearly tribute to the temple paid by every Jew,” hence Pete was asked if his master did not pay that tax.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

[They that receive the (didrachma) tribute-money.] Two things persuade me that this is to be understood of the half-shekel, to be yearly paid into the treasury of the Temple:

1. The word itself whereby this tribute is called, Concerning this, thus Josephus writes: “He laid a tax upon all the Jews wheresoever they were, namely, two drachms; commanding every one, of whatever age, to bring it into the Capitol, as before they had paid it into the Temple at Jerusalem.” And Dion Cassius of the same thus, “He commanded all to bring the didrachm yearly to Jupiter Capitolinus.”

The Seventy Interpreters, indeed, upon Exo 30:13; render it half a didrachm; but adding this moreover, which is according to the holy didrachm. Be it so; the whole shekel was the holy didrachm; then let the half shekel be, the common didrachm. However, the thing is, he that paid the half-shekel, in the vulgar dialect, was called, he that paid the shekels; and that which is here said by Matthew, they that receive the didrachm; the Talmudists express they that demand or collect the shekels. The Targumists render that place, Exo 30:13, the half of the shekel; the reason of which see, if you please, in Maimonides. “The shekel (saith he) concerning which the Law speaks, did weigh three hundred and twenty grains of barley; but the wise men sometime added to that weight, and made it to be of the same value with the money Sela; under the second Temple, that is, three hundred eighty-four middling grains of barley.” See the place and the Gloss.

2. The answer of Christ sufficiently argues that the discourse is concerning this tax, when he saith, He is son of that king for whose use that tribute was demanded: for, “from thence were bought the daily and additional sacrifices, and their drink offerings, the sheaf, the two loaves (Lev 23:17), the shewbread, all the sacrifices of the congregation, the red cow, the scapegoat, and the crimson tongue, which was between his horns,” etc.

But here this objection occurs, which is not so easy to answer. The time of the payment of the half shekel was about the feast of the Passover; but now that time was far gone, and the feast of Tabernacles at hand. It may be answered, 1. That Matthew, who recites this story, observed not the course and order of time, which was not unusual with him, as being he among all the evangelists that most disjoints the times of the stories. But let it be granted that the order of the history in him is right and proper here, it is answered, 2. Either Christ was scarcely present at the Passover last past; or if he were present, by reason of the danger he was in by the snares of the Jews, he could not perform this payment in that manner as it ought to have been. Consider those words which John speaks of the Passover last past, Joh 6:4, “The Passover, a feast of the Jews, was near”; and Mat 7:1, “After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for he would not walk any more in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.” 3. It was not unusual to defer the payment of the half shekels of this year to the year following, by reason of some urgent necessity. Hence it was, when they sat to collect and receive this tribute, the collectors had before them two chests placed; in one of which they put the tax of the present year, in the other of the year past.

But it may be objected, Why did the collectors of Capernaum require the payment at that time, when, according to custom, they began not to demand it before the fifteenth day of the month Adar? I answer, 1. It is certain there were, in every city, moneychangers to collect it, and, being collected, to carry it to Jerusalem. Hence is that in the tract cited, “The fifteenth day of the month Adar, the collectors sit in the cities,” to demand the half shekel; “and the five-and-twentieth they sit in the Temple.” 2. The uncertain abode of Christ at Capernaum gave these collectors no unjust cause of demanding this due, whensoever they had him there present; at this time especially, when the feast of Tabernacles was near, and they about to go to Jerusalem, to render an account, perhaps, of their collection.

But if any list to understand this of the tax paid the Romans, we do not contend. And then the words of those that collected the tribute, “Does not your master pay the didrachm?” seem to sound to this effect, “Is your master of the sect of Judas of Galilee?”

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

Mat 17:24. Capernaum. His usual residence, hence the place where the temple tax would be collected from Him.

They that received the half-shekel, which every male Jew above twenty of age paid (in addition to the tithes) for the support of the temple. Not a Roman tax, although changed into this after the destruction of Jerusalem. The receivers were not publicans, but those acting for the Jewish authorities. The value of a shekel is variously estimated from 50 to 70 cents (2s. 3d. to 3s.).

Doth not your master? They expected an affirmative answer. The temple tax was obligatory; see Exo 30:13 ff. (comp. 2Ch 24:5-6). Josephus implies the same obligation.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

SECOND STATEMENT OF DEATH

The first announcement of His death and resurrection by our Lord in the last lesson, connected His suffering with the act of His own nation, while this predicts the part played in it by one of His own band (Mat 17:22-23). It furnishes a starting point for a new lesson as in the other case.

The incident concluding chapter 17, is full of suggestive teaching. It is the temple tribute that is in mind, about sixty cents of our money, and Peter in saying Yes, has already lost the significance of His confession of Christ.

If He were the Son of the living God, then was it not His glory that had appeared in the temple, and why should He pay tribute? But He surrenders His personal right, after He again makes it clear to His disciple. How His glory as Creator flashes forth in the miracle of the piece of money!

At the same time the disciples ask the question beginning the next chapter. Did our Lords words about the keys of the Kingdom of the heavens in the preceding chapter awaken this inquiry? (Compare Luk 9:46.) How selfish and worldly was their ambition still! The Lords answer (Mat 18:2-4), is what He gave to Nicodemus (John 3). It is a question whether in Mat 17:5 the reference is to a little child in the literal or in the spiritual sense, but the words believe in me (Mat 18:6), turn the scale in favor of the latter. Mat 18:7 and Mat 18:9 are hard to apply in that connection, but they teach the necessity of removing all stumbling-blocks out of our way. Mat 18:10 brings us back to the little child in the literal sense. Some think the words mean that every such child has its guardian angel. Some that every believer has such an angel. While others take the word angel in the sense of spirit (Act 12:15), and interpret the passage to mean that if such little children, who belong to the kingdom die, their disembodied spirits behold the Fathers face in heaven in other words they are saved.

In the section now reached (Mat 18:15-20), we meet for the second and last time in this Gospel the word church, which has special interest because her executive power in the earth is spoken of. It is plain until we come to Mat 18:18, which is to be understood not as limited to the apostles and their successors so-called, but as including the whole of the local church in any place gathered unto the name of the Lord Jesus. He sanctions in heaven what she thus binds or loosens on earth. What a promise that in Mat 18:19-20! What mighty things has it accomplished, and it still holds good!

The law of forgiveness (Mat 18:21-35), is in answer to Peters question, inspired by the preceding, probably. In that case, however, our Lord had been speaking about restoring a brother to the church, while here it is a question of personal grievances, and the forgiveness must be unlimited (compare Luk 17:3-4).

At chapter 19 we find Jesus in Judea again, His last visit there prior to His crucifixion. Had we this Gospel alone to consider it would appear as the

first visit of Jesus after His baptism, but as a matter of fact there were at least two visits intervening, judging by Johns record.

Once more His enemies are at His heels, this time on the divorce question (Mat 19:3-12). The Pharisees were divided about this, the school of Hillel holding that man might put away his wife for almost any cause, and that of Shammai, only for adultery. Our Lord goes back of Moses to the beginning (Mat 19:4-6). Moses never commanded writings of divorcement, but allowed or suffered it (Mat 19:7-8) in cases where there was suspicion of adultery (Numbers 5). The actual sin was punishable by death. The Lords command in the matter is plain and authoritative (Mat 19:9). But the disciples think that under such circumstances it is better not to marry at all (Mat 19:10), which leads Christ to say that some are unfitted for it by nature, some have been mutilated by wicked men, while some remain unmarried for the sake of the Kingdom (Mat 19:12). All are not able wisely to remain unmarried, but where they are, it is not a man-enforced celibacy, but a divinely-bestowed gift. This seems to some to be the meaning of Mat 18:11.

The incident of the little children (Mat 19:13-15) shows that the disciples had not caught the significance of the teaching of the previous chapter. But blessed be God, there is a place for children in the Kingdom. The parents in these cases must have been believers, setting an example to others to bring their offspring to Christ for His salvation and blessing.

The next incident brings before us a typical religious man of the world (Mat 19:16-26) through which we are taught that salvation is of God, and not dependent on the deeds of man. The Lord rebukes him for calling Him good (Mat 19:17), because the young man was thinking of Him as a man merely, and There is none righteous, no not one. He then meets him on his own ground. If he would do something to earn eternal life, there is but one thing to do; but this he is shown never to have done. If he really loves his neighbor as himself he would share what he had with his neighbor. The sequel shows how self-deceived he was (Mat 19:22). The eye of the needle (Mat 19:24) was a proverb among the Jews. After the gates of a city were closed at night, caravans could not enter. There were narrow openings at the side large enough for the human traveler to pass through but not his beast of burden. This opening was called the eye of a needle.

Out of this event grows the conclusion of this lesson down to Mat 20:16. The self-seeking disciple again comes into view (Mat 19:27), and also the condescension of our Lord Who does not rebuke but graciously instructs him (Mat 19:28-29). The regeneration here means the renewal of the earth when the Kingdom is finally set up (Rom 3:18-25).

The Kingdom will be administered over Israel through the apostles according to the ancient theocratic judgeship (Judges 2:28). But the promise holds something for all the faithful as well as the apostles (Mat 19:29). The meaning of Mat 19:30 is illuminated by the parable of the laborers in the next chapter which was uttered to keep the disciples from a spirit of self- righteousness. God will give rewards in that day as may seem best to Him. They are not the legal outcome of our works even as saved sinners, but the expression of Gods grace. We should be careful in the interpretation of parables not to seek a meaning or application of every detail, for in doing so we are as apt to teach error as truth.

QUESTIONS

1. What distinction is made between the first and second announcements of Christs death?

2. Paraphrase the story of the miracle of the tribute money.

3. How has the latter part of Mat 18:10 been interpreted?

4. To whom do we understand the power of Mat 18:18 to be granted?

5. Where is Jesus at the beginning of chapter 19, and thereafter?

6. What is the Lords teaching about divorce?

7. What lesson may be learned from Mat 19:13-15?

8. What is the main lesson taught by the incident of the rich young ruler?

9. Explain the proverb the eye of the needle.

10. What does regeneration mean in Mat 19:28?

11. What is the main teaching of the laborers in the vineyard?

12. Of what are we to be careful in the interpretation of parables?

Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary

Observe here, 1. The question put to Peter; Doth your master pay tribute? This tribute-money originally was a tax paid yearly by every Jew to the service of the temple, to the value of fifteen-pence a head. But when the Jews were brought under the power of the Romans, this tribute-money was paid to the emperor, and was changed from a homage-penny to God, to a tribute-penny to the conqueror. The collectors of htis tribute-money asked Peter, whether his master would pay it or not.

Observe, 2. The answer returned, positively and suddenly. He does pay. Peter consults not first with our Saviour, whether he would pay it; but knowing his readiness to render to all their due, he says, Yes. There was no truer paymaster of the king’s dues, than he that was King of Kings. He preached it, and he practised it: Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.

Yet Observe, 3. Our Saviour insinuates his own exemption, privilege, and freedom form paying this tribute-money, as he was the Son of God, the Universal King; subjects pay tribute, but king’s children are free. Though Christ was free from paying tribute by a natural right, yet he would not be free by a voluntary dispensation.

Therefore Observe, To prevent all scandal and offence, he works a miracle, rather than the tribute money should go unpaid. Whether Christ by his almighty word created this piece of money in the mouth of the fish, (which was half a-crown for himself and St. Peter, who had a house in Capernaum, and was there to pay his poll) or whether Christ caused the fish to take up this piece of money at the bottom of the sea, is not necessary to enquire, nor possible to determine. Our duty is, reverentially to adore that Omnipotent Power, whcih could command the fish to be both his treasurer to keep his silver, and his purveyor to bring it to him.

2. Industriously to imitate his example, in shunning all occasions of offence, especially towards those whom God has place in sovereign authority over us.

Observe lastly, The poverty of our holy Lord, and his contempt of all worldly wealth and riches: he had not so much as fifteen pence by him to pay his poll. Christ would not honour the world so far as to have any part of it in his own possession. The best man that ever lived in the world had not a penny in his purse, nor a house to hide his head in, which he could call his own.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Mat 17:24-27. When they were come to Capernaum Where our Lord now dwelt. Hence the collectors of the sacred tribute did not ask him for it till he came to this the ordinary place of his residence. They that received the tribute-money came to Peter Whose house was in Capernaum, and probably in his house Jesus now lodged, and therefore he was the most fit to be spoken to as being the house-keeper, and they presumed he knew his Masters mind. And said, Doth not your Master pay tribute? This was a tribute or payment of a peculiar kind, being half a shekel, (that is, about fifteen pence,) which every master of a family used to pay yearly to the service of the temple: to buy salt, and little things not otherwise provided for. It seems to have been a voluntary thing, which custom, rather than any law, had established. He (Peter) saith, Yes My Master pays tribute. It is his practice to pay it, and I doubt not that he will pay it now. And when he came into the house Jesus prevented him Just when Peter was going to ask him for it: Of whom do the kings of the earth take custom, &c. Of whom are they accustomed to take it? Of their children, &c. Of their own families, or of others? Peter saith Of strangers Of persons not belonging to their families. Jesus saith, Then are the children free From any such demand. The sense is, This tribute is paid for the use of the house of God. But I am the Son of God. Therefore I am free from any obligation of paying this to my own Father. Lest we should offend them That is, give them occasion to say that I despise the temple and its service, and teach my disciples so to do; go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, &c. He sends Peter to the lake with a line and a hook, telling him, that in the mouth of the first fish that came up, he should find a stater, () a Grecian piece of money so called, equal to two didrachma, or one shekel of Jewish money, the sum required for himself and Peter; Peter having a family of his own, and the other apostles being the family of Jesus. How illustrious a degree of knowledge and power did our Lord here discover! Knowledge penetrating into this animal, though beneath the waters; and power, in directing this very fish to Peters hook, though he himself was at a distance! How must this have encouraged both Peter and his brethren in a firm dependance on Divine Providence! Jesus chose to provide this tribute-money by a miracle, either because the disciple who carried the bag was absent, or because he had not as much money as was necessary. Further, he chose to provide it by this particular miracle, rather than any other, because it was of such a kind as to demonstrate that he was the Son of the Great Monarch worshipped in the temple, who rules the universe. Wherefore, in the very manner of his paying this tax, he showed Peter that he was free from all taxes; and at the same time gave his followers this useful lesson, that, in matters which affect their property in a smaller degree, it is better to recede somewhat from their just rights, than, by stubbornly insisting on them, to offend their brethren, or disturb the state. Macknight.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

LXXII.

JESUS PAYS THE TRIBUTE MONEY.

(Capernaum, Autumn, A. D. 29)

aMATT. XVII. 24-27.

a24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received the half-shekel came to Peter, and said, Doth not your teacher pay the half-shekel? [The law of Moses required from every male of twenty years and upward the payment of a tax of half a shekel for the support of the temple ( Exo 30:12-16, 2Ch 24:5, 2Ch 24:6). This tax was collected annually. We are told that a dispute existed between the Pharisees and Sadducees as to whether the payment of this tribute was voluntary or compulsory. The collectors of it may have thought that Jesus regarded its payment as voluntary, or they may have thought that Jesus considered himself exempt from it because he was so great a rabbi. Though this temple tax was usually collected in March, Lightfoot informs us that the payment of it was so irregular that its receivers kept two chests; in one of which was placed the tax for the current year, and in the other that for the year past. The demand was made upon Jesus at Capernaum because that was his residence, and it was not made sooner because of the wandering life which he led. It appears that since the first of April he had been in Capernaum only once for a brief period, probably no longer than a Sabbath day ( Joh 6:22-24). The Jewish shekel answered to the Greek stater, which has been variously estimated as worth from fifty to seventy-five cents. The stater contained four drachm, and a drachma was about equivalent to a Roman denarius, or seventeen cents.] 25 He saith, Yea. [Peter answered with his usual impulsive presumption. Probably he had known the tribute to be paid before out of the general fund held by Judas; or he may have assumed that Jesus [428] would fulfill this as one of God’s requirements.] And when he came into the house, Jesus spake first to him [without waiting for him to tell what he had said], saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? the kings of the earth, from whom do they receive toll or tribute? from their sons, or from strangers? 26 And when he said, From strangers, Jesus said unto him, Therefore the sons are free. [The argument is this: If the sons of kings are free from the payment of tribute, I, the Son of God, am free from God’s tribute. The half-shekel was regarded as given to God–Jos. Ant. xviii. 9. 1.] 27 But, lest we cause them to stumble [lest we be totally misunderstood, and be thought to teach that men should not pay this tribute to God], go thou to the sea [of Galilee], and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a shekel: that take, and give unto them for me and thee. [Jesus paid the tribute in such a manner as to show that the whole realm of nature was tributary to him, and that he was indeed the Son of the great King. Some have thought that our Lord’s beneficence, in paying Peter’s tax also, was an evidence that Peter, too, was exempt from tribute. But the conclusion is not well drawn. Had this been intended, Jesus would have said “for us,” and would not have used the words “for me and thee,” which distinguished between the exempted Son and the unexempted subject. Though afterward Peter might possibly have claimed exemption as a child of God by adoption, he was not yet free from this duty to pay this tax– Joh 1:12.] [429]

[FFG 428-429]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

PAYING TRIBUTE

Mat 17:24-27. And they, having come into Capernaum, those receiving the half-shekel came to Peter, and said, Does not your Teacher also pay the half-shekel? He says, Yes. And when he came into the house [doubtless Peters house, the home of Jesus], Jesus anticipated him, saying, What seems to you, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth receive taxes or poll-tax? from their own sons, or from strangers? Peter says to Him, From the strangers. Jesus said to him, Then the sons are free. But in order that we may not offend them, going to the sea, cast in a hook, and lift up the first fish that bites; and opening its mouth, you will find a stater; taking it, give to them for Me and you. As Capernaum is right on the bank of the sea which this day abounds in splendid fish, it was very convenient for Peter to just walk down there, stand on the beach, cast in the hook, and catch the fish. The half-shekel was thirty cents, and the stater just twice the amount, and precisely enough to pay for both of them. So Peter goes, catcheth a fish, returns, and pays the tribute for them both. It is a little strange that there has uniformly been a popular misapprehension of this transaction, explaining it as paying tribute to Caesar for the support of the Roman Government. Such a solution is utterly out of harmony with the whole transaction, as it would make Jesus and Peter the sons of the heathen Roman emperor. Now it is a well-known fact that the half-shekel was the voluntary annual contribution of the faithful Jew to the support of the temple. Since the temple was dedicated to God, and He was the King and Custodian of it, and the Recipient of the contributions cast into the holy treasury, and as Jesus, Peter, and all the saints are members of the Royal Family, of course they are free from taxation, as Peter truly responded in reference to similar transactions in earthly governments, the children of the king being exempt, while aliens paid the tribute. While Jesus and Peter were under no obligation to make the contribution, yet you see they do it for the sake of peace and harmony. We would do well to emulate their example. The earth is the Lords, and the fullness thereof. All the money belongs to God. When we can promote peace and harmony by a gratuitous contribution, let us follow the example of our Leader in this transaction.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Mat 17:24-27. Temple Tribute.Mt. only. The collectors of the half-shekel, expected from every Jew towards the maintenance of the Temple, and usually paid just before the Passover, ask Peter if his master fulfilled the obligation, and are told that He did. In conversation with Peter, Jesus apparently asserts that the Temple should be maintained by taxes on Gentiles, while Jews go free. But a better interpretation is that, as sons of the Messianic Kingdom, He and His followers are exempt from taxes. Yet, perhaps remembering the injunction in Exo 30:11-16, He bids Peter satisfy the demand. After the destruction of the Temple the half-shekel was added to the taxes imposed by Rome, and under Domitian (when Mt. was probably written) these taxes were strictly collected. J. Weiss therefore suggests that payment to the Romans is the real point of the incident. Christians were in natural doubt about paying Gods half-shekel to the Emperor, but they are shown here that as Jesus, though free, conceded the matter to the Law, they might, to avoid offence, concede it to the heathen. The principle of not giving needless offence is used with great power and insight by Paul (Montefiore, p. 674).

Peter is told that by a little familiar work he can soon pay the tax. He has only to catch a fish; in (the sale of) it he will find enough for himself and Jesus. We are not told that Peter found a coin in the fishs mouth, and we have here the only half-made story of a miracle. It is not a question of whether Jesus could have brought about such a wonder so much as would He, a test which we may apply to other marvels. There would be no difficulty in finding the necessary half-crown; but, apart from that, He who settled the question in the Temptation could not have gone back on that decision in a paltry case like this.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 24

Came to Peter. This seems to have taken place at Peter’s house, where our Savior probably resided. For after Jesus left Nazareth, at the commencement of his public ministry, he made Capernaum his residence, (Matthew 4:13;) and for some time afterwards he made this city the centre of his movements and operations; it became, consequently, the scene of very many of his instructions and miracles. (Matthew 11:23.) Peter had a house in this city,–originally the dwelling of his wife’s mother, (Matthew 8:14,) he himself being formerly of Bethsaida. (John 1:44.) This house of Peter”s was probably the place which Jesus made his is home when at Capernaum, and is several times spoken of as “the house.” (Mark 2:1,9:33.) It was natural, therefore, that the officers should propose this question to Peter in respect to his master and guest.–Tribute. From the form of the expression used in the original, which is different from that employed in Matthew 22:17, where tribute due to Cesar is spoken of, this is supposed to have been a Jewish, not a Roman tax,–assessed for the payment of expenses connected with the worship of the temple.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

17:24 {6} And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute [money] came to Peter, and said, Doth {i} not your master {k} pay {l} tribute?

(6) In that Christ willingly obeys Caesar’s edicts, he shows that civil policy is not taken away by the Gospel.

(i) He does not deny, but he asks.

(k) Should he not pay?

(l) They that were from twenty years of age to fifty, paid half a shekel to the Sanctuary, Exo 30:13 . This was an Attic didrachma which the Roman exacted after they had subdued Judea.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Appreciating Jesus’ sonship 17:24-27

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The two-drachma tax was a Jewish tax that every male Jew between 20 and 50 years of age had to pay toward the maintenance of the temple and its services (Exo 30:13). There was no two-drachma coin in circulation at this time, so two adults often went together and paid one shekel that was worth four drachmas. [Note: Carson, "Matthew," p. 393. Cf. Josephus, Antiquities of . . ., 3:8:2; 18:9:1; and Mishnah Shekalim.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles