Jesus was a tax payer

JESUS WAS A TAX PAYER
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Matthew 17:24-27 24AfterJesus and his disciples
arrivedin Capernaum, the collectorsof the two-
drachma temple tax came to Peter and asked,
"Doesn'tyour teacher pay the temple tax?" 25"Yes,
he does," he replied. WhenPeter came into the house,
Jesus was the first to speak. "Whatdo you think,
Simon?"he asked. "From whom do the kings of the
earth collect duty and taxes-from their own children
or from others?"26"Fromothers,"Peter answered.
"Then the children are exempt," Jesus saidto him.
27"But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake
and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch;
open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin.
Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."
BIBLEHUB RESOURCES
Pulpit Commentary Homiletics
The Avoidance Of NeedlessOffence
Matthew 17:27

R. Tuck
The miracle of the stater in the fish's mouth is one of the most difficult
miracles to deal wisely with; and that for this reason - it seems to be opposed
to the principle our Lord adopted, and so readily carried through, that he
would work no miracle for the supply of his own needs. All Christ's miracles
are acts of service;sometimes evidently the service of teaching moral and
spiritual truth to his disciples. But if this incident be carefully observed, it will
be seenthat, though the supernatural element is clearly present, the precisely
miraculous element is absent. Christ, by supernatural power, knew which fish
would first seize St. Peter's hook, and what would be found in that fish; but
not a word is said which intimates that Christ put forth miraculous powerin
order to place that stater in the fish's mouth. There is, indeed, no miracle to
explain to those who believe in the Divine-human nature of Christ. The point
we take is the reasongiven by Jesus for allowing this tax money to be paid -
"Lestwe should offend them." Those who note the finer shades of language
can scarcelyfail to trace in these words the tone of what we should describe in
a human teacheras a half playful, half serious irony.
I. THERE ARE TIMES WHEN WE DO WELL TO STAND TO OUR
RIGHTS. There were such times in the life of Jesus. Standing on our dignity is
a very doubtful thing. A man's dignity is but a poor thing if it cannot take care
of itself. But every man has rights. He ought to be prepared to assertthem on
all fitting occasions.A man's rights representhis trust, his mission for God,
and he must be jealous ofthem.
II. THERE ARE TIMES WHEN WE DO WELL NOT TO PRESS OUR
RIGHTS. It may be that men do not recognize them, or do not admit them, as
in the case ofChrist. Then we do better to live them rather than assertthem.
It may be that those around us are unsympathetic and prepared to object, as
in the case ofChrist. Then Christian prudence advises a carefulreticence, lest
we offend them.
III. THE SKILL OF CHRISTIAN LIVING IS SEEN IN DISCERNING THE
TIME TO ACT, AND THE TIME TO REFRAIN FROM ACTING. Many
things are not abstractlyright, but are relatively right. We have to act in view

of existing circumstances, in ways we should not adopt if all the circumstances
were according to our mind. A Christian should not hesitate to give offence,
but he should avoid giving needless offence. - R.T.
Biblical Illustrator
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that receivedtribute money
came to Peter.
Matthew 17:24, 27
Christ and the tribute money
H. Melvill, B. D.
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 occasionof 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 saythat He was not the Son of God. He forbore from asserting it.
III. THE MIRACLE BY WHICH HE PROCUREDTHE 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 dispatchedon 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 gotthe money from a fish. Christ put honour on
this honestoccupation. We are not to neglectmeans because we seemto need
miracles.
(H. Melvill, B. D.)
The hidden coin
C. J. Maginn, M. A.
1. The Divine knowledge ofthe Lord Jesus Christ.
2. A lessonofmoderation. The coin was only enough to pay the tax. Christ
had am desire for earthly possessions.
3. Forthe purpose of supporting the ordinances of religion.
4. Learn to trust our Lord in trying circumstances.
(C. J. Maginn, M. A.)
Peter's money-fish
W. H. Anderson, D. D.

Christ here showedHis Divine knowledge, and especiallyHis powerover the
natural world.
1. Obedience to law is the true guarantee of individual safety, the preservation
of justice and right, the peace ofsociety.
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
J. Hirst.
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, especiallyin 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 weaknessand suffering; He gives us a share in all His possessions
(John 17:24; John 14:2, 3).
(J. Hirst.)

Nature attesting Christ's 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, beganto
pick up acquaintance with him in an easy, familiar style, not knowing his
dignity. But when the nobles, having discoveredtheir 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 taughtby this episode and miracle
A. Maclaren, D. D.
I. THE FREEDOMOF 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 ofHis 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 evenin the smallestdetails of His
life.
III. THE SUPERNATURALGLORY THAT EVER ACCOMPANIES THE
HUMILIATION OF THE SON. He so submits as, even in submitting, to
assertHis Divine dignity. In the midst of the actof 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 exactstun 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 Sonof the Father.
IV. THE SUFFICENCYFOR US ALL OF WHAT HE PROVIDES. That
which He brings to us by supernatural act, far greaterthan 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
dischargedfor 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 againstus.
(A. Maclaren, D. D.)
Superfluities not to be coveted
Matthew Henry.
The piece of money was just enough to pay the tax for Christ and Peter.
Christ could as easilyhave commanded a bag of money as a piece of money;
but he would teach as not to covetsuperfluities, but, having enough for our
present occasions, therewithto 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
competencyfor to-day, let to-morrow take thought for the things of itself.
(Matthew Henry.)
This singular miracle of finding the coin it? the fish's mouth is unlike our
Lord's other works in severalparticulars
A. Maclaren. D. D.
I. It is the only miracle — with the exceptionof the cursing of the barren fig-
tree, and the episode of the unclean spirits entering into the swine — in which
there is no messageoflove or blessing for man's 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 legendarymiracles, and unlike all?he restof
Christ's, 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,
designedto teach us some important lessons withreference to Christ's
character, person, and work.
(A. Maclaren. D. D.)
Tribute
A. Maclaren. D. D.
The whole point of the story depends upon the fact that this tribute-money
was not a civil, but an ecclesiasticalimpost. It had originally been levied in the
wilderness, at the time of the numbering of the people, and was enjoinedas to
be repeated at eachcensus, whenevery male Israelite was to pay half-a-shekel
for "a ransom for his soul," an acknowledgmentthat his life was forfeited by
sin. In lateryears 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 exactit. Being an "optionalchurch-rate," Jews who were or wishedto be
consideredpatriotic would be very punctilious in the payment of it.
Christ identifies Himself with a life of poverty
A. Maclaren. D. D.
The Prince is free, but King's Son though He be, He goes among His Father's
poor subjects, lives their squalid life, makes experience oftheir poverty, and
hardens His hands by labouring like them. Sympathy He learns in huts where
poor men lie.

The payment of tribute
DeanHowson.
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 askedthe 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 oftruth; 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 characterofthe
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 Sonof GodHe was necessarilyexempt from an ecclesiasticaltax.
V. THE REASON FOR HIS PAYMENT. "Lestwe should offend them." It is
this delicate regardfor the scruples of others which constitutes the occasionso
signalan example to ourselves.
VI. OBSERVE THE DIGNITY, AS WELL AS WISDOM, OF THE
MIRACLE. It is Christ's 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 ofChrist! How vigilantly He watches allthe things He has
made! There is not a fish on a summer day under the shadow of a stone that is
not God's creature still.
(DeanHowson.)
A likeness betweenwhatGod does and what man invents

George Macdonald.
They say the story of a fish with a piece of money in its mouth is more like one
of the tales of Easternfiction than a sober narrative of the quiet-toned gospel.
I acknowledge a likeness:why might there not be some likeness betweenwhat
God does and what man invents? But there is one noticeable difference: there
is nothing of colour in the style of the story. No greatrock, no valley of
diamonds, no earthly grandeur whateveris hinted at in the poor bare tale.
Peterhad to do with fishes every day of his life: an ordinary fish, taken with
the hook, was here the servantof 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, andgladly under His dominion? What the scalyminister
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 caredto stand
upon His rights, or treat that as a principle which might be waivedwithout
loss of righteousness. Itake for grantedthat 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
Expository Outlines.
I. The extreme POVERTYof Christ.
II. The strict INTEGRITYof Christ, "render to all their due."
III. The peculiar RELATIONSHIP of Christ, "The Father's house."
IV. The admirable PRUDENCEofChrist.
V. The wonderful KNOWLEDGE of Christ.
VI. The BOUNDLESS POWERofChrist.

(Expository Outlines.)
Finding the tribute money
T. Champness.
I. The MODESTYof Jesus. Ratherthan offend prejudice He would waive His
claim — the children are free.
II. The POVERTYof Jesus.
III. The RESOURCESofJesus. ThoughHe had-not the money, He knew
where it was. If God dare trust His people He would put them in the way of
getting wealththat now lies waste.
IV. God DOES NOT OFTEN ACT WITHOUT HUMAN AGENCY. He uses
the bestmeans — Peterwas a fisherman.
V. HE WHO WORKS FOR JESUS IS SURE TO GET HIS PAY. "And give
unto them for thee and me." Peterin obeying Christ paid his own taxes. In
keeping His commandments there is greatreward.
(T. Champness.)
The Divine resource
T. Champness.
This is true of everything that God needs. He can help Himself to what He
wants out of Satan's lockers. Was notSaul of Tarsus as much out of the
Church's reach as the piece of money many fathoms deep? And yet Christ put
a hook in Satan's 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 Satanto 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 getsome one who shall be as effective as
he was.

(T. Champness.)
The Temple Tax: An illustration of the Sermon
A. B. Bruce, D. D.
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 ofhonours
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 recognitionwhich 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. "Beholdwho it is that pays this tax and that is reduced to
such straits; it is He who knoweththe 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 resentthe 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 respecttheir dignity.
They must wait for the manifestation of the sons of God.
III. A lessonfor those who considerthemselves aggrievedby demands for
"church rates" and "annuity taxes." Letthe children be free if possible, but
beware of imagining that it is necessaryfor conscience'sake alwaysto 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 canendure 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. "Lestwe should offend."
How happy for the Church and world if this conciliating spirit ruled.
(A. B. Bruce, D. D.)

COMMENTARIES
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(27) Lest we should offend them.—Those who note the finer shades of
language, canscarcelyfail to trace in these words the tone of what we should
describe in a human teacheras a half-playful, half-serious irony. When they
were last at Capernaum, the disciples, Peterprobably their spokesman
(Matthew 15:12; Matthew 15:15), had remonstrated with their Masterfor
proclaiming a bold, broad principle of spiritual morality againstthe traditions
of the Schools:“Knowestthou that the Pharisees were offendedwhen they
heard that saying?” Now He proclaims another principle, equally bold and
far-reaching, and as certain to offend. He reminds the disciple of his former
fear, sees that some such feeling is already rising up in his mind, and
recognisesthatwithin certain limits it is legitimate. To have refused to pay the
didrachma on purely personalgrounds would have been to claim prematurely
that title of the Christ, the “Sonof God,” which He had told His disciples at
this crisis not to claim for Him (Matthew 16:20). To have done so on general
grounds, common to Himself and others, would have been to utter a truth for
which men were not prepared, and which they were certain to pervert. Those
who had not learnt the higher law of the free gift of love would be tempted to
make their freedom an excuse for giving nothing. Devout and generous minds
would be shockedatwhat would seemto them to cut off the chief support of
the outward glory of the House of God. The spirit in which our Lord spoke
and actedwas one with that which was the guide of St. Paul’s life: “It is good”
to surrender even the freedom which we might wellclaim, if by it “thy brother
stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak” (Romans 14:21).
A piece of money.—The Greek gives the name of the coin, the stater. It was
reckonedas equal to four drachmæ, and would therefore pay the didrachma
both for Peterand his Master. Incidentally, we may note the light which this

throws on the poverty of our Lord and His disciples. They had returned from
their wanderings in the north of Palestine, occupying some three or four
weeks,and they were now absolutelypenniless, not so much as a stater
betweenthem. The money was to be given for both, and so far, as has been
said, our Lord includes Peter in the list of those who, as “children of the
kingdom,” might have claimed exemption. No payment is made for the other
disciples:most probably they had homes of their own, where the didrachma
would be applied for, and were not living with Peter.
We cannotignore the many points of contrastwhich difference this narrative
from that of our Lord’s miracles in general. (1.)There is no actual recordthat
a miracle was wrought at all. We expectthe narrative to end with the words,
“and he went and found as it had been said unto him,” but we do not find
them. The story is told for the sake ofthe teaching, not of the wonder. Men
have inferred that a miracle must have been wrought from a literal
interpretation of the promise. (2.) On this assumption the wonder stands alone
by itself in its nature and surroundings. It does not originate in our Lord’s
compassion, nordepend upon faith in the receiver, as in the miracles of
healing, nor set forth a spiritual truth, like that of the withered fig-tree. It is so
far distinct and peculiar. This would not in itself, perhaps, be of much, if any,
weight againsta direct statementof a fact, but it may be allowedto be of some
significance in the exceptionaland therefore conspicuous absenceofsuch a
statement. On these grounds some have been led to explain our Lord’s words
as meaning, in figurative language whichthe disciple would understand, that
Peterwas to catchthe fish, and sell it for a stater. Mostinterpreters, however,
have been content to take our Lord’s words in their literal sense, and to
believe that they were literally fulfilled. If we acceptthis view the narrative
has its parallel in the well-knownstory of the ring of Polycrates,the tyrant of
Samos (Herod. iii. 39-41).
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
17:24-27 Peterfelt sure that his Masterwas ready to do what was right. Christ
spoke first to give him proof that no thought can be withholden from him. We

must never decline our duty for fear of giving offence;but we must sometimes
deny ourselves in our worldly interests, rather than give offence. Howeverthe
money was lodgedin the fish, He who knows allthings alone could know it,
and only almighty powercould bring it to Peter's hook. The power and the
poverty of Christ should be mentioned together. If calledby providence to be
poor, like our Lord, let us trust in his power, and our God shall supply all our
need, according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus. In the way of obedience,
in the course, perhaps, of our usual calling, as he helped Peter, so he will help
us. And if any sudden callshould occur, which we are not prepared to meet,
let us not apply to others, till we first seek Christ.
Barnes'Notes on the Bible
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 obligationto 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 ofTiberias.
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 waythis is regarded, it is proof that Jesus was possessedofdivine
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 createdthe coin for the
occasionand placedit 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 swalloweda silver coin. Many of them bite eagerlyat 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, Matthew 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 easilyexcited 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 thatnone sees him but God. See the notes at Matthew
6:6.
2. In such seasons we shallmeet God, Matthew 17:2. It was in such a season
that the divine favor was uniquely shown to Christ. Then the transfiguration
took place - the brightest manifestationof his glory that ever occurredon
earth. So the clearestandmost precious manifestations of the love and glory
of God will be made to us in prayer.
3. We see the great glory of Christ, Matthew 17:2. No such favor had been
granted to any prophet before him. We see the regardin which he was held by
Moses andElias among the greatestofthe prophets. We see the honor which
God put on him, exalting him far above them both, Matthew 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 begottenSon of God.
4. It is right to have particular affectionfor 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 specialfriendship and favors, Matthew 17:1. Some
Christians may be more congenialto us in feeling, age, and educationthan
others; and it is proper, and may be greatly to our advantage, to admit them
among our specialfriends.
5. The death of Jesus is an objectof great interestto the redeemed. Moses and
Elias talked of it, Luke 9:31. Angels also desire to look into this greatsubject,
1 Peter1:12. By that death all the redeemed are saved, and in that death the
angels see the most signaldisplay of the justice and love of God.
6. Christians should delight to be where God has manifested his glory. The
feeling of Peterwas natural, Matthew 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 especiallyglorious
and precious to our souls, or unique as our Friend and Deliverer.
continued...
Jamieson-Fausset-BrownBible Commentary
27. Notwithstanding, lest we should offend—stumble.
them—all ignorant as they are of My relation to the Lord of the Temple, and
should misconstrue a claim to exemption into indifference to His honor who
dwells in it.
go thou to the sea—Capernaum, it will be remembered, lay on the Sea of
Galilee.
and castan hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou
hast opened his mouth, thou shall find a piece of money—a stater. So it should
have been rendered, and not indefinitely, as in our version, for the coin was an
Attic silver coin equal to two of the afore-mentioned "didrachms" of half a
shekel's value, and so, was the exactsum required for both. Accordingly, the
Lord adds,
that take, and give unto them for me and thee—literally, "insteadof Me and
thee";perhaps because the payment was a redemption of the personpaid for
(Ex 30:12)—inwhich view Jesus certainlywas "free." If the house was
Peter's, this will accountfor payment being provided on this occasion, notfor
all the Twelve, but only for him and His Lord. Observe, our Lord does not say
"for us," but "for Me and thee"; thus distinguishing the Exempted One and
His non-exempted disciple.
Matthew Poole's Commentary
Ver. 24-27. The Jews were by God’s law, Exodus 30:13, obliged to pay a half
shekel, which was for the service of the sanctuary, Exodus 30:16:this was paid
every year. The half shekelamounted 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 changedfrom a sacredto a civil use, from a homage penny to
God, to be a homage penny to the conquerors. The agreementof this sum with
what was required by the law, togetherwith what our Saviour saith
afterward, will incline us to think that this tax was that religious tax
mentioned in Exodus 30:13-16, andthat the collectorswere some officers
deputed for that service by the priests. When Petercame into the house, our
Saviour prevents his propounding the question to him, (for Peterhad 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 Peterwould not have said, Of strangers, nor
would our Saviour have answered, Thenare the children free; for there is
nothing more ordinary than for princes to receive tribute of their subjects.
That which our Saviour seemethto 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 occasionto say
we break the law of God,
go thou to the sea, ( the sea of Galilee, whichwas near),
and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hastopened his
mouth, thou shalt find stathra, a piece of money, to the value of about a half
crownin English. How this money came in the mouth of the fish is a very idle
dispute, considering that he that speaks was the Creatorof 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 Christpaid
this tribute for him, and not for the other disciples, do not only affirm what

they do not know, but forgetthat Capernaum was the city in which Peter
lived, (we heard before of Christ’s curing his wife’s mother there of a fever),
and that Peterwas 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 cannotinsist upon
and obtain it without a scandaland prejudice to the gospel, and the concernof
religion. If this were required in pursuance of the law, Exodus 30:12,13, and
our Saviour had refused to pay it, the scribes and Pharisees wouldhave
clamoured againsthim as violating the law of God. If it were required as a
civil tax, they would have clamoured againsthim as a man that went about to
stir up sedition or rebellion. Having therefore first assertedhis right and
immunity, he departeth from it to prevent a scandal. We must never part with
God’s right; but to depart from our own is not only lawful, but oftentimes
very advisable and expedient. Our Saviour choosethrather to work a miracle
than to give a scandal, and by this miracle he also confirmed his immunity,
that he was the Sonof him who is the King of kings, and so not in strictness
obliged to pay it.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them,.... Though Christ could have
maintained his right of exemption from payment, by such strong and clear
reasons and arguments; yet he chose to forego it, lest any should be offended
with him, and look upon him as a transgressorofthe law; one that had no
regard to the temple, and slighted the worship and service of it, and so be
prejudiced againsthim, and his doctrines: which, by the way, may teachus to
be careful to give no offence, to Jew or Gentile, or the church of God; though
it may be to our own disadvantage, whenthe honour and interestof religion
lie at stake. This is following the example of Christ, who therefore said to
Peter,
go thou to the sea;of Tiberias, which was near this city,
and castan hook;a fisher's hook into it:
and take up the fish that first cometh up, and when thou hast opened his
mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: a "stater", as in the original text, the

same with the of the Talmudists; and which word the Syriac version here
retains, and was, they (w) tell us, of the same value with a "sela", or"shekel"
of the province. The Arabic and Persic versions render it, by "four drachms",
which also were the same with a "shekel":and so was just enough to pay the
two half shekels,forChrist and Peter, and was worth, of our money, near
"half a crown";and not "nearlya crown", as in a late paraphrase is said,
through mistake. This was a wonderful instance of the omniscience ofChrist,
who knew there was in such a fish, such a piece of money, as exactlyanswered
the presentexigence, and that that would come first to Peter's hook;and of his
omnipotence, if not in forming this piece of money immediately in the fish's
mouth, as is thought by some, yet in causing this fish to come to Peter's hook
first, and as soonas castin; and of his powerand dominion over all creatures,
even over the fishes of the sea;and so proved himself to be what he suggested,
the Sonof the King of kings; and to be a greaterperson than the kings of the
earth, to whom tribute was paid: and yet, at the same time, it declares his
greatpoverty as man, that he had not a shekelto pay on such an occasion,
without working a miracle; and his greatcondescensionto do it, rather than
give offence by non-payment:
and take, and give unto them for me and thee; for the half shekelwas
expectedof Peter, as well as of Christ, and he had not wherewithto pay it;
and this Christ knew, and therefore provides for both. But why did not Christ
pay for the other disciples, as well as for himself and Peter? It may be replied,
that this money would pay for no more than two: but this is not a full answer;
Christ could have ordered more money in the same way he did this: it may
then be further said, that only he and Peter were lookedupon as inhabitants
of this place;and so the rest were not called upon here, but in their respective
cities, where they might pay also, and, besides, were not now present.
(w) Gloss. in T. Bab. Cetubot, fol. 64. 1. & 105. 1. & Bava Metzia, fol. 102. 2.
Geneva Study Bible
Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and castan
hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened

his mouth, thou shalt find a {n} piece of money: that take, and give unto them
for me and thee.
(n) The word used here is stater, which is in value four didrachmas; every
drachma is about five pence.
EXEGETICAL(ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Meyer's NT Commentary
Matthew 17:27. But in order that we may not scandalize them (the collectors),
that we may not give them occasionto misjudge us, as though we despisedthe
temple. Bengel:“illos, qui non noverant jus Jesu.” Jesus thus includes others
along with Himself, not because He regardedPeteras strictly entitled to claim
exemption, nor because He was anticipating the time when His followers
generallywould ceaseto have such obligations in regard to the temple
(Dorner, Jesusündlose Volk. p. 37), but because Peter, who, in like manner,
had his residence in Capernaum (Matthew 8:14), had not paid, as yet, any
more than Himself.
πορευθείς] belongs to εἰς τὴν θάλασς. (to the sea), which latter Fritzsche
connects with βάλε, which, however, would have the effectof rendering it
unduly emphatic.
ἄγκιστρον]It is a fish-hook (Hom. Od. iv. 369;Herod, ii. 70, al.), and not a
net, which Jesus askshim to throw in, because in this instance it was a
question of one particular fish. Consequently this is the only occasionin the
Gospels in which mention is made of a fishing with a hook.
τὸν ἀναβάντα]out of the depths.
πρῶτον] the adjective:the first fish that has come up.

ἆρον] lift it with the hook out on the land. Jesus is therefore aware that this
one will be the first to snap at the hook.
εὑρήσεις στατῆρα]that is, in the mouth of the fish. The stater was a coin
equivalent to four drachmae, for which reasonit is likewise calleda
τετράδραχμος, andmust not be confounded with the gold stater(20
drachmae).
ἀντὶ ἐμοῦ κ. σοῦ] not an incorrectexpressionfor καὶ ἀντὶ ἐμοῦ (Fritzsche), but
ἀντί is used with reference to the original enactment, Exodus 30:12 ff., where
the half-shekelis representedas a ransom for the soul. Comp. Matthew 20:28.
With condescending accommodation, Jesusincludes Himself in this view.
REMARK.
The naturalistic interpretation of this incident, so far as its miraculous
features are concerned,—which, in a teleologicalrespect, andon accountof
the magicalcharacterofthe occurrence,Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 228, also
regardedwith suspicion,—has, in conformity with earlierattempts of the
kind, been advocatedabove all by Paulus and Ammon, and consists
substantially in supposing that εὑρήσεις στατ. was accomplishedby the selling
of the fish. But whether ἀνοίξας τὸ στόμα αὐτοῡ͂ be referred to the act of
taking the fish from the hook (Paulus, Komment.), or evento Peteras offering
it for sale, in which case αὐτοῦis said to signify on the spot, we always have, as
the result, an incongruous representationand unwarrantable perversion of
what, for the narrative of a miracle, is extremely simple and appropriate, to
say nothing of so enormous a price for a single fish, and that especiallyin
Capernaum, though Paulus, in spite of the πρῶτον, understands the ἰχθύν in a
collective sense.The mythical mode of explaining awaythis incident (Strauss,

II. p. 184, according to whom it is “a legendaryoffshootof tales of the sea”)—
the occasionofwhich is to be found partly in a take of fish by Peter, partly in
the[462]the stories current about jewels (for example, the ring of Polycrates,
Herod, iii. 42) having been found in the inside of fish—breaks down in
consequence ofits own arbitrariness, and the absence ofany thought or Old
Testamentevent in which the myth might be supposedto originate. Again, it
would be to make it simply a curiosity (in answerto Strauss in
Hilgenfeld'sZeilschr. 18G3, p. 293 ff.) to treat it as an invention for the
purpose of exhibiting the superiority of Jesus over the circumstances to which
He was accommodating Himself. But Hase's hypothesis, that what was a
figurative way of expressing the blessing that attended the labor by means of
which the little sum was handily raised, has been transformed, in the popular
legend, into an apocryphal miracle, is inconsistentwith the factthat the actual
miraculous capture of the fish is not once mentioned, an omissionwhich is
scarcelyin keeping with the usual characterof apocryphalnarratives. Lastly,
the view is no less unfounded which derives the narrative from a parable, in
which our Lord is supposed to be representing the contrastbetweenthe
righteousness offaith that distinguishes the children of God, and the legal
righteousness ofthose who are only slaves (Weisse,Evangelienfr. p. 263 ff.).
[462]Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and ExegeticalHandbook to
the GospelofMatthew, Volume 1, ed. Frederick Crombie, trans. Peter
Christie, Critical and ExegeticalCommentaryon the New Testament
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1880), 449-50.
Besides, this would be to import into the passagethe Pauline contrastof a
similar kind. In short, the incident must continue to be regardedas in every
way as historicalas the evangelistmeant it to be. As for the difficulties
involved in so doing, such as that of the fish snatching the hook with the stater
in its mouth (not in the stomach), or that implied in the circumstance that, of
all places, Capernaum was tho one where Jesus had no need whatever to have
recourse to miraculous means for raising the little sum required, they must

likewise continue unsolved, belonging as they do to those mysteries that are
connectedwith miracles generally; and while not justifying us in discarding
the narrative without other reasons forso doing, they will at leastwarrant us
in letting it stand as it is (de Wette), no matter whether the miraculous
characterof the affair, so fur as Jesus is concerned, is supposedto lie in what
He there and then performed ("piscis eo ipso momento staterem ex fundo
maris afferre jussus est," "tho fish was orderedto bring a staterat that very
moment from the bottom of the sea," Bengel), orin what he knew, which
latter is all that the terms of tho passagepermit us to suppose (Grotius).
Finally, the fact that the executionof the order given by Jesus, Matthew 17:27,
is nol expresslyrecorded, is no reasonwhy the reality of the thing itself should
be questioned ; for, considering the characteroftho Gospel, as wellas the
attractionwhich the thing must have had for Peter, the execution in question
is to be assumedas a matter of course. But even apart from this, the result
promised by Jesus wouldhe sure to follow in the event of His order being
complied with. For this reasonEwald's view also is unsatisfactory, which is to
the effectthat Jesus merelywanted to indicate with what readiness the money
for the tax could be procured, the phraseologywhichHe employed being
supposedto proceedupon well-known, although extremely rare, instances of
such things being found in fish.
NOTE BY AMERICAN EDITOR
The distinction which Dr. Meyer draws betweentho objective reality of the
Transfigurationof Jesus and the purely visionary manifestation of Moses and
Elias is hardly sustainedby the text. Foras to the words ucjQijaavavroic, the
same form is used by Paul in speaking ofthe appearances ofChrist (1
Corinthians 15:5-7), after His resurrection, which were certainly as
objectively real as tho Transfiguration itself. Nor is the possibility of any
bodily manifestation of Moses aninsuperable difficulty. Olshausensolves this
by assuming the bodily glorificationof Moses as wellas Elias. "In support of
this idea," he writes, "Scripture itself gives sufficient intimations (Dent, 34:6

compared with Judges 1:9 ; 2 Kings 2:11 comparedwith Sirach xlviii. 9, 13),
which men have accustomedthemselves to set down as biblical mythology ;
but whatright they had to do so is another question."1 Lange makes the better
point, that "spirits of the blessedare not necessarilydestitute of all
corporeity."
Dr. Meyer disposes ofthe very serious objectionto the assumedvisionary
characterof the appearance ofMoses and Elias—to wit, "that three persons
must be supposed to have witnessedthe same phenomena, and to have heard
the same voice"—bysaying that this is deprived of its force if " it is conceded
that a supernatural agencywas here at work with a view to enable the three
leading disciples to have a glimpse beforehand of the glory" of their Master.
But if a supernatural agencyis here found, may we not suppose that it was
equal to the task of bringing Moses and Elias before the eyes of the disciples in
visible form? Where is the occasionfor departing from the obvious meaning
of the text, if the supernatural is fully admitted? In disposing of the natural
and mythical interpretations of this event, however, Dr. Meyeris exceedingly
clear.
For a full exposition of the history of the Transfiguration, from the
supernatural point of view, the reader is referred to Trench, " Studies in the
Gospels,"pp. 184-214.
Expositor's Greek Testament
Matthew 17:27. ἵνα μὴ σκανδαλ., that we may not create misunderstanding as
to our attitude by asking exemption or refusing to pay. Nösgen, with a
singular lack of exegeticalinsight, thinks the scandaldreaded is an
appearance ofdisagreementbetweenMasterand disciple! It is rather creating
the impressionthat Jesus and His followers despise the temple, and disallow
its claims. And the aim of Jesus was to fix Peter’s attention on the fact that He
was anxious to avoid giving offence thereby, and in that view abstainedfrom
insisting on personal claims. Over againstthe spirit of ambition, which has

begun to show itself among His disciples, He sets His own spirit of self-
effacementand desire as far as possible to live peaceablywith all men, even
with those with whom He has no religious affinity.—πορευθεὶς ε. θ. Generally
the instruction given is: go and fish for the money needful to pay the tax.—
ἄγκιστρον, a hook, not a net, because very little would suffice; one or two fish
at most.—πρῶτονἰχθὺν: the very first fish that comes up will be enough, for a
reasongiven in the following clause.—ἀνοίξας … στατῆρα:the words point to
something marvellous, a fish with a stater, the sum wanted, in its mouth.
Paulus soughtto eliminate the marvellous by rendering εὑρήσεις not “find”
but “obtain,” i.e., by sale. Beyschlag(Das Leben Jesu, p. 304)suggeststhat the
use of an ambiguous word createdthe impressionthat Jesus directedPeter to
catcha fish with a coin in its mouth. Ewald(Geschichte Christus, p. 467)
thinks Jesus spokevery much as reported, but from the factthat it is not
statedthat a fish with a coin in its mouth was actually found, he infers that the
words were not meant seriouslyas a practicaldirection, but were a spirited
proverbial utterance, basedon rare examples of money found in fishes. Weiss
is of opinion that a simple direction to go and fish for the means of payment
was in the course oforal tradition changedinto a form of language implying a
miraculous element. This view assumes that the report in Mt. was derived
from oral tradition (vide Weiss, Das LebenJesu, ii. 47, and my Miraculous
Element in the Gospels, pp. 231–5). In any case the miracle, not being
reported as having happened, cannot have been the important point for the
evangelist. Whathe is chiefly concernedaboutis to report the behaviour of
Jesus on the occasion, and the words He spoke revealing its motive.—ἀντὶ
ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ: various questions occurto one here. Did the collectors expect
Jesus only to pay (for Himself and His whole company), or did their question
mean, does He also, even He, pay? And why pay only for Peteralong with
Himself? Were all the disciples not liable: Andrew, James and John there, in
Capernaum, not less than Peter? Was the tax strictly collected, orfor lack of
powerto enforce it had it become practically a voluntary contribution, paid
by many, neglectedby not a few? In that case it would be a surprise to many
that Jesus, while so uncompromising on other matters, was so accommodating
in regard to money questions. He would not conform to customin fasting,
Sabbath keeping, washing, etc., but He would pay the temple tax, though
refusal would have had no more serious result than slightly to increase

already existing ill-will. This view sets the generosityand nobility of Christ’s
spirit in a clearerlight.
Cambridge Bible for Schools andColleges
27. a piece of money] Literally, a stater; a Greek silvercoin equivalent to the
Hebrew shekel, orto four drachmæ in Greek money.
Bengel's Gnomen
Matthew 17:27. Ἵνα δὲ μὴ σκανδαλίσωμεναὐτοὺς, But lestwe should offend
them) Our Lord even performed a miracle to avoid giving offence;cf. ch.
Matthew 18:6-7.—αὐτοὺς, them) who were ignorant of our Lord’s claims.
Men who are occupied in worldly affairs, most easilytake offence at the saints
when money is in question.—τὸνἀναβάντα πρῶτον, that first comethup) A
manifold miracle of omniscience and omnipotence: 1. That something should
be caught; 2, and that quickly; 3, that there should be money in a fish; 4, and
that in the first fish; 5, that the sum should be just so much as was needed; 6,
that it should be in the fish’s mouth. Therefore the fish was commanded to
bring a stater, or four-drachm coin, that very moment from the bottom of the
sea.—ἀντὶἘμοῦ καὶ σοῦ, for Me and thee) A pair of greatdisparity; for what
was Petercomparedto the greatness ofJesus? Peterhada family of his own;
the other disciples[802]were the family of Jesus (cf. Gnomon on Matthew
8:14); therefore they saidyour, not thy Master, Matthew 17:24.
[802]The other disciples, as we may reasonablysuppose, had not yet passed
their twentieth year; and therefore were not yet bound to pay the sacred
tribute.—V. g.
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 27. - Lest we should offend them; cause them to stumble. In his large
charity he would not take the advantage ofhis position to avoid the tax.
Though above the Law, he would place himself under the Law. Offence would
be given by the nonpayment. His motive would be unknown and
misunderstood (see on ver. 24). The people would attribute it to caprice,

sectarianism, contemptof religion; they would see in it dishonour to the
temple. Suspicion and animosity would be aroused;ill feeling, injurious both
to themselves who encouragedit and to the cause ofChrist, would weakenthe
effects of his acts and doctrine. Further offence would supervene if he did not
confirm Peter's engagementand execute the promise which the foremost
disciple had virtually made in his name; since it might thus appearthat he
and his followers were not of one mind in this important matter. For such
considerations he was content to waive his prerogative, and to provide for the
payment by a miracle, which should at once vindicate his royal characterand
demonstrate that, while he was obedient to the Law, he was superior to it, was
the Lord of heaven and earth and sea. Go thou to the sea. The Sea of Galilee,
on whose shore Capernaum stood, and with which Peterhad been all his life
familiar. Castan hook. The fisherman was to ply his trade, yet not to use his
customary net; he was to fish with line and hook, that the miracle might be
more striking. Take up the fish that first cometh up. From the deep waters to
the bait. Thou shalt find a piece of money; a stater. This Greek coin,
circulating throughout the East, was about equal in value to the shekel, ortwo
didrachms, and therefore sufficient to pay the half shekelfor two persons.
That fish should seize a bright objectwhich might drop into the sea is nothing
uncommon. A codhas been found with a watch in its stomach, still going. The
miracle is shownin the omniscience which knew what the fish carried in its
maw, and in the omnipotence which drew it to the hook. As far as we know,
and regarding the present age as the sabbath of creation(see John 5:17),
Christ in his miracles creatednothing absolutely, always using a natural and
existing basis as the support of the wonder. So here he does not create the fish
or the skater, but by marvellous coincidencesmakes them subserve his
purpose. Tradition has stereotypedthe miracle by assigning to a certain tribe
of fish a permanent mark of the occurrence. The johndory. whose name is
corrupted either from jaune dore, "goldcolour," or adore, "worshipped," is
calledin some countries Peter's fish, and is supposedto retain the impression
of the apostle's fingers on its sides. Others assertthat it is the haddock which
presents this memorial of the miracle. But neither of these fish is found in the
Lake of Gennesareth. Give... for me and thee (a)nti e)mou = kai sou = ). The
form of expressionrecalls the original design of the institution, as a ransom of
souls (comp. Matthew 20:28 in the Greek). He does not say, "for us;" for,

though he submitted to the tax, it was not on the same ground as his servant.
He himself paid, though exempt; Peterpaid because he was liable. In the one
ease it was from humility, in the other from legalobligation. The accountends
somewhatabruptly, nothing being saidof the result of the Lord's command,
what action Petertook, and what ensued thereon. But we need no assurance
that all came to pass as Christ directed. The very silence is significant; it is the
sublimest language. Neologiancriticismhas endeavouredto explain awayor
to throw discredit on the miraculous nature of this "transaction." We are
askedto believe that Christ by his command meant only that Peterwas to go
and catcha fish and sell it for a skater. If this was the case, whydid not the
evangelistsayso? Why did he introduce a story which he must have known to
be untrue? Is there any ground for supposing that St. Matthew was a writer of
myths and legends, or one who intentionally falsified the records on which he
framed his history? Surely no unprejudiced personcould judge thus of the
writer of the First Gospel;to those who believe in inspiration the notion is
sacrilegious. The incident is no embellishment of a natural fact, no mere
sailor's anecdote, but the true accountof a real occurrence,whichthe
narrator credited and probably witnessed. Another allegationequally
unfounded is that Christ was rebuking Peter for precipitancy in promising
payment when they had no funds in their possession, as thoughJesus was
saying ironically, "You had better go and catcha fish, and look for the money
in its mouth!" Such attempted evasions of the miraculous are puerile and
saddening. And if it be objected, as indeed it is, that the miracle was
unnecessaryand unworthy of Jesus, who never exerted his supernatural
powerfor his own benefit, it is easyto show that the wonderwas required in
order to give and enforce a lessonto Peter and his companions. In what better
way could Jesus have conveyed to them the truth that, although for the nonce
he consentedto the Law, he was superiorto it and exempt from the obligation,
and that if he paid the tax he did so by an exercise ofpower which proved him
to be the Son of God?
Vincent's Word Studies
Hook (ἄγκιστρον)

The only mention in the New Testamentoffishing with a hook. A single fish is
wanted.
A piece of money (στατῆρα)
The A. V. is very inadequate, because Christnames a definite sum, the stater,
which is a literal transcription of the Greek word, and represents two
didrachmas, or a shekel. Hence Rev., a shekel.
END OF BIBLHUB RESOURCES
PRECEPTAUSTIN RESOURCES
"Fishing Lessons"
Matthew 17:24-27
Theme: The miracle of the 'tax fish' teaches us about the attributes of our
wonderful Redeemer, JesusChrist.
(Delivered Sunday, September 16, 2007 atBethany Bible Church. Unless
otherwise noted, all Scripture references are takenfrom The Holy Bible, New
King James Version; copyright 1982, Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
It all beganwhen someone—somewhere—lostsome money.
* * * * * * * * * *
We don't know how it happened, or who it happened to. But somewhere,
either upon or by the shores ofthe Sea of Galilee, someone losthold of a
Greek stater—a cointhat was worth the rough equivalent of two average
days' wages fora common working man—and watchedit fall into the water.
Perhaps as they were walking along where the boats were docked, they flipped
their coin or handled it casuallyand lost control of it. Or perhaps they were

out on a fishing boat, and were doing some business, or getting paid, or even
paying off on a bet; and they fumbled the coinand it slipped out of their
hands and into the water. Perhaps someone hadset the coin on a rail or on the
prow of a boat, turned around to talk to someone, andaccidentallybrushed it
off so that it fell into the sea.
Howeverit happened, we could safely imagine that they heard their coin—two
full days' earnings—fallinto the water, watchedhelplesslyas it sank out of
sight . . . and went home kicking themselves.
Now;imagine that coin as it sank in the sea—twirling and whirling in its
descent;glistening and flashing as it captured the reflection of the sunlight
above. Imagine the large fish that came swimming by at just that moment.
Imagine how it was attractedto the sparkling object that descendedbefore it.
Imagine how it instinctively struck and swallowedthe object—onlyto be
surprised (as much as a fish can be surprised) by the fact that it was hard and
cold. Imagine the fish, doing its best to spit out the coin that was now lodged
in its gullet as it swam awayto other regions beneath the Sea of Galilee—
searching for a more digestible tidbit than the one that was now stuck in its
mouth.
And now; know that all of these seeming insignificant events—the wage-
earner who accidentally losthis wages;the sinking of the coindown to a
particular spotin the sea;the fish that came by to swallow it and swim
away—were allunder the controlof a sovereignGod. Know that all of these
things were the part of His purposeful plan.
And see how they all come togetherpurposefully in this morning's passage.
In Matthew 17:24-28, we readof the continuing story of our Lord and His
disciples;and we find these words:
When they had come to Capernaum, those who receivedthe temple tax came
to Peterand said, “Doesyour Teachernot pay the temple tax?” He said,
“Yes.” And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipatedhim, saying,
“What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take
customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?” Petersaidto Him,

“From strangers.”Jesus saidto him, “Thenthe sons are free. Nevertheless,
lest we offend them, go to the sea, castin a hook, and take the fish that comes
up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money;
take that and give it to them for Me and you” (Matthew 17:24-27).
* * * * * * * * * *
Out of all the Gospelwriters, Matthew is the only one that tells us this
remarkable story. One reasonthat it might have caughtMatthew's attention
was because he himself was a tax-man by trade. When Jesus performed a
miracle with taxes, He was probably speaking Matthew's 'love-language'—
just as He was probably speaking Peter's 'love-language'whenHe performed
a miracle with fish.
But I think that the chief reasonMatthew was led by the Holy Spirit to tell
this story, when the other Gospelwriters did not, is because it spoke
particularly to his Jewishkinsmen about Jesus Himself.
You see;the tax that was being collectedin this story was a tax that had its
roots in the Old TestamentJewishlaw. At the time when the law was being
given by God through Moses, Godcommanded that a particular tax be
collectedany time that a census ofthe people was taken. Exodus 30:11-16
contains this command from God:
Then the LORD spoke to Moses,saying:“When you take the census of the
children of Israel for their number, then every man shall give a ransom for
himself to the LORD, when you number them, that there may be no plague
among them when you number them.1 This is what everyone among those
who are numbered shall give: half a shekelaccording to the shekelofthe
sanctuary (a shekelis twenty gerahs). The half-shekelshall be an offering to
the LORD. Everyone included among those who are numbered, from twenty
years old and above, shall give an offering to the LORD. The rich shall not
give more and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when you give an
offering to the LORD, to make atonement for yourselves. And you shall take
the atonementmoney of the children of Israel, and shall appoint it for the
service of the tabernacle of meeting, that it may be a memorial for the

children of Israel before the LORD, to make atonement for yourselves”
(Exodus 30:11-16).
Severaltimes in this command from the Lord, reference is made to the
significance ofthe collectionofthe half-shekelfor eachman. It was given as a
“ransom”. It was an offering to the Lord “to make atonement” for themselves.
God counted that half-shekelas a “ransom” for the life of the man who gave
it—the life that was being 'numbered' in the census.
And it's not mere coincidence that attention is drawn to Jesus through the
performance of a miracle with respectto this particular 'poll-tax'. That tax
from long ago pointed aheadto Jesus as the “ransom” for the life of every
person who placedtheir trust in Him. The Bible tells us that “there is one God
and one Mediator betweenGod and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave
Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time” (1 Timothy 2:5-6). Jesus
Himself said that “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and
to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).
This story isn't just meant to tell us where a really greatand valuable fishing
spot might be found! It's meant to point our attention to Jesus Christ. It's
meant to speak particularly to the Jewishpeople;but it is also meant to speak
to all of us who need redemption. It's about Jesus—who is not only the long-
awaitedKing of the Jews, but is Himself the Atonement for sin and the
Ransomfor the soul that the Jewishlaw was meant to point to.
I invite you to look closerat this passage withme. Let's learn togethersome of
the lessons ithas to teachus about the attributes of our wonderful Redeemer.
* * * * * * * * * *
The first thing that it has to teachus concerning Jesus is . . .
1. HIS OMNISCIENCE:JESUS KNOWS THE THOUGHTS OF HIS
DISCIPLES (vv. 24-25a).
We cansee this in how He greetedPeter—as soonas Peterwalkedinto the
house.

Jesus and His disciples had just returned from their travels up north. They
had gone to the mountain where He had revealedHimself to Peter, James and
John in glory at His transfiguration. And no soonerdo they return to
Capernaum—along the shores of the Sea of Galilee—thanPeteris confronted
by those who collectedthe half-shekeltax for the temple.
Now;two things need to be noted. First, this was not the same as the sort of
tax that Matthew collected. He collecteda tax from his own people on behalf
of the occupying Roman government. The tax in our passagethis morning is
not the tax that Matthew collected. Rather, this was a tax collectedby the
Jewishpeople, from the Jewishpeople, for the benefit of the Jewishpeople's
temple. The Jews objectedfiercelyto the tax that Matthew collected. But they
would not have objectedto the tax that was being collectedin our passage this
morning. They would have felt an obligation to contribute to the maintenance
of the temple.
But a secondthing to note is that this tax—though basedon the Old
Testamentlaw—wasnot fully in keeping with the requirements of the Old
Testamentlaw. That Old Testamentpassagefrom Exodus required that this
tax be collectedwhenevera census was being taken. But here, we see no
census being takenat all. Some New Testamentscholars have speculatedfrom
this that the paying of the tax we read about in this passagehad become, over
the years, a voluntary custom rather than a legalrequirement. There wasn't
any actuallegalrequirement to pay it; even though there was strong social
pressure to do so.
This pressure stands behind the question that those who collectedthe tax
askedof Peter:“Does yourTeachernot pay the temple tax?” (v. 24). Their
question was constructedso as to anticipate a positive answer. It could be
translated, “Your Teacherdoes paythe temple tax (or "the two-drachma tax"
as it is called in some translations) . . . doesn'tHe?”. Such a question wouldn't
have needed to be askedif the tax were obligatory. But perhaps the tax
gatherers were entertaining doubts as to whether or not Jesus woulddo what
other Jewishmen felt obligated to do. After all, Jesus was gaining a reputation
as a breakerof the Sabbath. He was often found to be at odds with the

religious leaders of the day. Perhaps He also thought Himself to be above
paying the customary temple tax as well.
And when they askedPeter, Petertold them, “Yes”. Perhaps he said this in
part to protect his Masterfrom the scrutiny of the tax collectors—eagerto
defend the reputation of Jesus as the Messiah. And it may even be that Peter
said “yes”, in part, to getthe tax collectors offhis own back as well. In any
case, afterleaving them, he walkedinto the house where Jesus and the others
were staying.
Clearly, Peter intended to mention the tax collectors to Jesus. Butit's then
that we see this clearindication of Jesus''omniscience'. We're told that Jesus
“anticipated” him; or as the King James Versionhas it, He "prevented" him.
Literally, Jesus "anticipated" him "beforehand";and He spoke before Peter
spoke. He knew the thoughts of His disciple Peterbefore he even had a chance
to utter a word; and askedabout the very subjectthat Peterhad in mind.
And He does this to Peterin order to teachhim something. He asks a question
about what was on Peter's mind in order to set Peterthinking about it even
more.
* * * * * * * * * *
In John 2:24-25, we're told that Jesus "knew allmen, and had no need that
anyone should testify of man, for He knew what was in man." The Bible even
tells us that Jesus knew the thoughts of those who were His enemies (Matthew
12:25). And if we are out of fellowship with Jesus Christ, or if we are in a state
of enmity againstHim, this should disturb us greatly.
But if we are open and up-front with Him, and if we seek sincerelyto follow as
He leads, it shouldn't disturb us at all. In fact, it is reasonfor us to take
comfort. Jesus knows what's in our hearts even better than we do. He is able
to answerour deepestquestions before we even know to ask them. We can be
an utterly open book to Jesus;and sayto Him—as King David wrote in Psalm
139;
O LORD, You have searchedme and known me.

You know my sitting down and my rising up;
You understand my thought afar off.
You comprehend my path and my lying down,
And are acquaintedwith all my ways.
For there is not a word on my tongue,
But behold, O LORD, You know it altogether.
You have hedged me behind and before,
And laid Your hand upon me.
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
It is high, I cannotattain it (Psalm 139:1-6).
All our questions, all our doubts, all our fears, all our temptations, even the
most intimate thoughts of our minds—even the things we're so ashamedof
that we dare not express—allare knownto Jesus.
And He loves us anyway.
* * * * * * * * * *
Now;Jesus didn't anticipate Peter's question in order to make a fool out of
him. He showedthat He knew Peter's thoughts in order to teachPeterwhat he
needed to know about His Lord and Master. He askedPeter, "Whatdo you
think, Simon?";not because He wanted Peter's opinion, but because He
wanted to steerPeter's thinking in the right direction about Himself.
And this leads us to the secondthing that this story reveals to us about
Jesus—the thing that Jesus wantedPeterto understand about Himself . . .
2. HIS DEITY: JESUS HOLDS SUPREMACYAS THE SON OF GOD (vv.
25b-26).
I think it's interesting that Jesus usedPeter's old name. He calledhim
"Simon". Back in chapter 16, Jesus gave him the name Peterin order to

emphasize that he was a a "rock" ofa man who stood strong upon the solid
confessionoffaith in Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God”. But I
think that He calledPeter"Simon" here, because he was behaving like his old
self—andnot like a "rock" of a man. He was, once again, being mindful of the
things of men and not the things of God (Matthew 16:23). He was not
evaluating Jesus rightly.
You see;Peterhad assumedthat Jesus feltHimself to be obligatedto the poll-
tax that everyone else felt obligatedto. He had assumed that, in that respect,
Jesus was just like everyone else. But that's when Jesus surprised him with a
tax-question that revealedJesus'supremacyover such obligations. "Whatdo
you think, Simon?", Jesus asked. "Fromwhom do the kings of the earth take
customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?"
Do you think there were times when Peterwas a little afraid to answer
questions from Jesus? He certainly knew the correctanswer;but may not
have been sure where this was all going. And it may just be me; but I wonder
if Peterdidn't answerthe question with a little uncertainty in his voice:
"From strangers—?"
Apparently, he gave the right answer. And Jesus saidto him, "Thenthe sons
are free." The implication of Jesus'answerwas that He was the Son of God—
which, of course, Peteralreadyknew; and that as the Son of God, was under
no obligation at all to pay a tax collectedamong men for the upkeep of the
temple of His Father.
This was nothing less than a bold assertionof Jesus'supremacyas the Son of
God over the temple tax—and even over the temple itself.
* * * * * * * * * *
Do you remember when Jesus saidsomething similar to this to the Pharisees?
They had accusedHim of breaking the Sabbath because He and His disciples
were rubbing raw grain in their hands and eating the kernels. Jesus reminded
the Phariseesofhow the law of Godhad permitted the priests who workedin
the temple on the Sabbath to "profain" the Sabbath by performing their
duties and remain "blameless". And then, Jesus shockedthem all by saying,

"Yet I say to you that in this place there is One greaterthan the temple"
(Matthew 12:6).
Similarly in our passagethis morning, Jesus is saying that—as Sonof Him
who is Lord of the temple—He is under no obligation to pay the temple tax.
Such a tax is only rightly collectedfrom those who are "strangers",and not
from those who are sons. The astute Jewishlistener might have recalledthe
prophetic words of Malachi3:1, where it says that "the LORD whom you
seek, willsuddenly come to His temple"; and would then understand that
Jesus is claiming to be that very Lord of the temple! He is claiming to be
exempt from the tax that should only be levied on "strangers", andnot on
sons of the King.
And what's more, Jesus seems to be including Peterand the other of His
disciples in that status. He speaks of"sons" inthe plural; and He goes onto
say, "Nevertheless, lestwe offend . . ." This reminds us that, as it says in John
1:12, to as many as receivedJesus Godhas given the right to become
"children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of the
flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God". In Jesus Christ, we are not outsiders
to God's household;but are members of the family. The veil in the temple
doesn't block our way any longer, but has been torn down from top to bottom
(Matthew 27:51) so that we may freely approachthe Father's throne for grace
in our time of need (Hebrews 10:19-22).
The temple was the place in which the sinner met a holy God to receive
forgiveness and favor. And everything that the temple was intended to achieve
for the sinner before Jesus came has now been accomplishedby Jesus on the
cross. It is all now ours by faith.
As the Son of God, He is supreme in the Father's favor; and in Him, we now
are as free before the Fatheras He is!
* * * * * * * * * *
Now;keeping the supremacy of Jesus as the Son of God in mind—keeping His
absolute exemption from the obligations of men before us—let's marvel at the
next thing that this passageteaches us . . .

3. HIS MEEKNESS:JESUS CONDESCENDSTO THE SENSITIVITIES OF
MEN (v. 27a).
Even though He is supreme, even though He is exempt from the temple tax as
"the Son of the King"—and even though He declares that Peteris exempt
with Him—Jesus says "Nevertheless, lestwe offend them . . .", and sets Peter
off to pay the tax.
The word that is here translated"offend" means "to cause someoneto
stumble". This suggeststhat, though Jesus is the Lord of the temple, and is
under no obligationto pay the temple tax, He nevertheless sees to it that it is
done so that an unnecessarystumbling block would not be placed before the
Jewishpeople.
In doing this, Jesus establishedthe pattern of gracious sensitivityto the
weaknessesofothers that the apostle Paul followedin his ministry. Paul wrote
to the Corinthians and said,
For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I
might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win
Jews;to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those
who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not
being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might
win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might
win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means
save some (1 Corinthians 9:19-22).
It was a greatact of condescending love on the part of Paul to do this. But it
was an even greateractof condescending love on the part of the Son of God to
to it. He possessedallrights as the Son of God; but He didn't insist on His
rights. Instead, He complied with the sensitivities of men so as not to “offend”
them or put up any unnecessaryroad-blocks to their faith in Him.
And just think of how far He went in reaching out to serve us! As it says in
Hebrews 2:17-18, “Therefore, inall things He had to be made like His
brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priestin things

pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of people. For in that He
Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.”
* * * * * * * * * *
So; the Son of God—who knew the thoughts of His disciple Peter—established
that He is supreme overthe temple tax. And yet, He meekly sent His disciple
to pay it, so as not to offend those He was seeking to reach.
And look at how Peterwas to pay this! He said, “. . . [G]o to the sea, castin a
hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its
mouth, you will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for Me
and you” (v. 27).
That man who lost the money, that coin that fell into the water, that fish that
swallowedthe coin and swamaway—allof it was a part of the perfect and
purposeful plan of our Savior. This highlights yet another of His wonderful
qualities . . .
4. HIS AUTHORITY: JESUS IS SOVEREIGN OVER THE DETAILS OF
LIFE (v. 27b).
Just think. Jesus didn't tell Peterto throw a net into the water, and pull up a
bunch of fish. Instead, He sent Peteroff to casta single hook into the water.
He didn't even tell him where to castthe hook—justto go and casta hook in.
And He didn't tell Peter to keepon casting the hook and keepon pulling out
fish until he found one with money in its mouth. He said to pull up the very
first fish, and that he would find the money in the mouth of the very first one
he caught!
And just think of the other demonstrations of Jesus'sovereignrule during his
earthly ministry. Just think of the ways that He demonstratedthat He had all
things in perfectorder, and arrangedall the details of circumstances in such a
way as to accomplishHis goodpurpose. Think of how, as He and His disciples
drew near to Jerusalemand came to Bethphage at the Mount of Olives, He
sent two of His disciples out; saying, “Go into the village opposite you, and

immediately you will find a donkeytied, and a coltwith her. Loose them and
bring them to Me. And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, 'The
Lord has need of them,' and immediately he will send them” (Matthew 21:1-
3). They found everything just as He said.
Or think of how on the day of His last meal with them, as the disciples asked
Him where He wanted them to prepare the Passovermeal, He said, “Go into
the city, and a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him.
Wherever he goes in, sayto the master of the house, 'The Teachersays,
“Where is the guestroom in which I may eat the Passoverwith My
disciples?”'Thenhe will show you a large upper room, furnished and
prepared; there make ready for us” (Mark 14:13-15).
The circumstances oflife should never frustrate us when we walk with Jesus!
There is nothing that is not under the rule of our sovereignLord and Master!
When He sends us out somewhere to serve His cause in some way, we arrive to
find that He had already been there—having arrangedeverything in advance!
Every day, you and I can affirm—as Paul did—that we are the workmanship
of God the Father, “createdin Christ Jesus for goodworks, whichGod
prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10).
* * * * * * * * * *
Before we depart from this passage,I can't resistpointing out just one more
wonderful attribute of our Saviorthat it reveals to us. We see, lastof all . . .
5. HIS COMPASSION:JESUS CARES FOR THE NEEDS OF HIS
FRIENDS (v. 27c).
I don't think it's a small thing at all that Jesus—the sovereignSonof God—
mercifully tells Peter to catchthe fish, pull the coin from its mouth, and give it
to the tax collectors, as Jesussays, “forMe and you.”
He didn't have to do that. He could have told Peter, “The tax collectors were
asking if I pay the tax. Well; go catchthat fish, and pay My tax for Me. That'll
teachthem! As for you, though; you'll have to catch your ownfish.” But Jesus
didn't do that. He is a merciful Savior, who graciously provides not only for
His own needs, but also for those who follow Him and obey Him.

It doesn't tell us what happened next; but we're left with the impression that
Peterobeyed the Lord, and that everything happened as Jesus said. Did Jesus
also pay the taxes for the other disciples? It doesn't appear that He sent Peter
out to catchmore fish with more coins. It appears that there was only a
provision for Himself and Peter. But He at leastprovided for Peter. This
teaches us that it pays to stay close to Jesus!
* * * * * * * * * *
So then; here's Jesus as He's revealedto us in this remarkable story. He is
omniscient—and knows our thoughts before we even utter them to Him. He is
the Sonof God—andstands supreme above all things that might concernus.
Yet, He is meek—andcondescends to stoop down to us in our weaknesses and
sensitivities. And He is authoritative—and reigns sovereignlyover the details
of our lives. And then, to top it all off, He is compassionatetowardus—and
gladly and graciouslymeets our daily needs as if they were His own!
I'm glad that, in the plan of God, someone lostthat coin; aren't you? If it
hadn't been lost, we wouldn't have had this story about the marvelous
attributes of our Savior.
It was money well spent!
1King David disobeyedthis clearcommand—taking a census of the people
apart from the Lord's will, and without the collectionof the half-shekelfor all
those numbered. And as a result, a plague was brought upon the people (2
Samuel 24;1 Chronicals 21).
Misseda message?Check the Archives!
Copyright © 2007 BethanyBible Church, All Rights Reserved
BARCLAY

THE TEMPLE TAX (Matthew 17:24-27)
17:24-27 When they came to Capernaum, those who receivedthe half-shekel
Temple tax came to Peterand said, "Does your teachernot pay the tax?"
Petersaid, "He does pay it." When he had gone into the house, before he
could speak, Jesus saidto him, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do
earthly kings take tax and tribute? From their sons or from strangers?"
When he said, "From strangers," Jesus saidto him, "So then the sons are
free. But, so as not to set a stumbling-block in anyone's way, go to the sea, and
casta hook into it, and take the first fish which comes up; and when you have
opened its mouth, you will find a shekel. Takeit and give it to them for me
and for you."
The Temple at Jerusalemwas a costly place to run. There were the daily
morning and evening sacrificeswhich eachinvolved the offering of a year-old
lamb. Along with the lamb were offered wine and flour and oil. The incense
which was burned every day had to be bought and prepared. The costly
hangings and the robes of the priests constantly wore out; and the robe of the
High Priestwas itself worth a king's ransom. All this required money.
So, on the basis of Exodus 30:13, it was laid down that every male Jew over
twenty years of age must pay an annual Temple tax of one half-shekel. In the
days of Nehemiah, when the people were poor, it was one-third of a shekel.
One half-shekelwas equal to two Greek drachmae (Greek #1406);and the tax
was commonly called the didrachm (Greek #1323), as it is called in this
passage. The value of the tax was about 8 pence; and that sum must be
evaluatedin the light of the fact that a working man's wage in Palestine in the
time of Jesus was only 3 1/2 pence. The tax was in fact the equivalent of two
days' pay. It brought into the Temple treasury no less than about 76,000
British pounds a year. Theoreticallythe tax was obligatoryand the Temple
authorities had powerto distrain upon a man's goods, if he failed to pay.
The method of collectionwas carefullyorganized. On the first of the month
Adar, which is March of our year, announcement was made in all the towns
and villages of Palestine that the time to pay the tax had come. On the

fifteenth of the month, booths were setup in eachtown and village, and at the
booths the tax was paid. If the tax was not paid by the twenty-fifth of Adar, it
could only be paid direct to the Temple in Jerusalem.
In this passagewe see Jesuspaying this Temple tax. The tax authorities came
to Peterand askedhim if his Masterpaid his taxes. There is little doubt that
the question was askedwith malicious intent and that the hope was that Jesus
would refuse to pay; for, if he refused, the orthodox would have a ground of
accusationagainsthim. Peter's immediate answerwas that Jesus did pay.
Then he went and told Jesus of the situation, and Jesus useda kind of parable
in Matthew 17:25-26.
The picture drawn has two possibilities but in either case the meaning is the
same.
(i) In the ancient world conquering and colonizing nations had little or no idea
of governing for the benefit of subjectpeoples. Rather, they consideredthat
the subjectpeoples existed to make things easierfor them. The result was that
a king's own nation never paid tribute, if there were any nations subject to it.
It was the subject nations who bore the burden and who paid the tax. So Jesus
may be saying, "God is the King of Israel;but we are the true Israel, for we
are the citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven; outsiders may have to pay; but we
are free."
(ii) The picture is more likely a much simpler one than that. If any king
imposed taxes on a nation, he certainly did not impose them on his own
family. It was indeed for the support of his own household that the taxes were
imposed. The tax in question was for the Temple, which was the house of God.
Jesus was the Sonof God. Did he not saywhen his parents sought him in
Jerusalem:"Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?" (Luke
2:49). How could the Sonbe under obligation to pay the tax which was for his
own Father's house?
None the less Jesus saidthat they must pay, not because ofthe compulsion of
the law, but because ofa higher duty. He said they must pay "lestwe should
offend them." The New Testamentalways uses the verb to offend
(skandalizein, Greek #4624)and the noun offence (skandalon, Greek #4625)in

a specialway. The verb never means to insult or to annoy or to injure the
pride of. It always means to put a stumbling-block in someone's way, to cause
someone to trip up and to fall. Therefore Jesus is saying:"We must pay so as
not to seta bad example to others. We must not only do our duty, we must go
beyond duty, in order that we may show others what they ought to do." Jesus
would allow himself nothing which might make someone else think less of the
ordinary obligation of life. In life there may sometimes be exemptions we
could claim; there may be things we could quite safely allow ourselves to do.
But we must claim nothing and allow ourselves nothing which might possibly
be a bad example to someone else.
We may wellask why is it that this story was evertransmitted at all? For
reasons ofspace the gospelwriters had to selecttheir material. Why selectthis
story? Matthew's gospelwas written betweenA.D. 80 and 90. Now just a little
before that time Jews and JewishChristians had been facedwith a very real
and a very disturbing problem. We saw that every male Jew overtwenty had
to pay the Temple tax; but the Temple was totally destroyed in A.D. 70, never
to be rebuilt. After the destruction of the Temple, Vespasian, the Roman
emperor, enactedthat the half-shekelTemple tax should now be paid to the
treasury of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome.
Here indeed was a problem. Many of the Jews and of the JewishChristians
were violently inclined to rebel againstthis enactment. Any such widespread
rebellion would have had disastrous consequences, forit would have been
utterly crushed at once, and would have gainedthe Jews and the Christians
the reputation of being bad and disloyal and disaffectedcitizens.
This story was put into the gospels to tell the Christians, especiallythe Jewish
Christians, that, howeverunpleasant they might be, the duties of a citizen
must be shouldered. It tells us that Christianity and goodcitizenship go hand
in hand. The Christian who exempts himself from the duties of good
citizenship is not only failing in citizenship, he is also failing in Christianity.
HOW TO PAY OUR DEBTS (Matthew 17:24-27 continued)
Now we come to the story itself If we take it with a bald and crude literalism,
it means that Jesus told Peter to go and catcha fish, and that he would find a

staterin the fish's mouth which would be sufficient to pay the tax for both of
them. It is not irrelevant to note that the gospelnevertells us that Peter did so.
The story ends with Jesus'saying.
Before we begin to examine the story we must remember that all oriental
people love to saya thing in the most dramatic and vivid way possible;and
that they love to saya thing with the flash of a smile. This miracle is difficult
on three grounds.
(i) God does not send a miracle to enable us to do what we can quite welldo
for ourselves. Thatwould be to harm us and not to help us. Howeverpoor the
disciples were, they did not need a miracle to enable them to earn two half-
shekels. It was not beyond human power to earn such a sum.
(ii) This miracle transgressesthe greatdecisionof Jesus that he would never
use his miraculous powerfor his ownends. He could have turned stones into
bread to satisfyhis ownhunger--but he refused. He could have used his power
to enhance his own prestige as a wonder-worker--buthe refused. In the
wilderness Jesus decidedonce and for all that he would not and could not
selfishly use his power. If this story is taken with a crude literalism, it does
show Jesus using his divine powerto satisfy his own personalneeds--and that
is what Jesus would never do.
(iii) If this miracle is taken literally, there is a sense in which it is even
immoral. Life would become chaotic if a man could pay his debts by finding
coins in fishes' mouths. Life was never meant to be arranged in such a way
that men could meet their obligations in such a lazy and effortless way. "The
gods," saidone of the great Greeks,"have ordained that sweatshould be the
price of all things." That is just as true for the Christian thinker as it was for
the Greek.
If all this is so, what are we to say? Are we to say that this is a mere legendary
story, mere imaginative fiction, with no truth behind it at all? Far from it.
Beyond a doubt something happened.
Let us remember againthe Jewishlove of dramatic vividness. Undoubtedly
what happened was this. Jesus saidto Peter:"Yes, Peter. You're right. We,

too, must pay our just and lawful debts. Well, you know how to do it. Back
you go to the fishing for a day. You'll getplenty of money in the fishes' mouths
to pay our dues! A day at the fishing will soonproduce all we need."
Jesus was saying, "Backto your job, Peter; that's the way to pay your debts."
So the typist will find a new coatin the keys of her typewriter. The motor
mechanic will find food for himself and his wife and family in the cylinder of
the motor car. The teacherwill find money to pay his way in the blackboard
and the chalk. The clerk will find enough to support himself and his dear ones
in the ledgerand in the accountsheets.
When Jesus saidthis, he said it with that swift smile of his and with his gift for
dramatic language. He was not telling Peterliterally to getcoins in fishes'
mouths. He was telling him that in his day's work he would getwhat he
needed to pay his way.
-Barclay's Daily Study Bible (NT)
BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR
Verse 24
Matthew 17:24; Matthew 17:27
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that receivedtribute money
came to Peter.
Christ and the tribute money
I. On what principle christ claimed exemption. This tax levied for temple
services. Onno principle but that of His being essentiallyDivine, 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 occasionofstumbling in the way of others. How unwilling we
are to withdraw pretensions. It requires Christian discretionto know when to
give way. Christ surrendered no principle; He did not saythat 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 powerwas felt in the waters.
There was propriety in the miracle when we considerwhich 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. Peterwas a fisherman,
hence he gotthe money from a fish. Christ put honour on this honest
occupation. We are not to neglectmeans because we seemto need miracles.
(H. Melvill, B. D.)
The hidden coin
1. The Divine knowledge ofthe Lord Jesus Christ.
2. A lessonofmoderation. The coin was only enough to pay the tax. Christ
had am desire for earthly possessions.
3. Forthe purpose of supporting the ordinances of religion.
4. Learn to trust our Lord in trying circumstances. (C. J. Maginn, M. A.)
Peter’s money-fish
Christ here showedHis Divine knowledge, and especiallyHis powerover the
natural world.
1. Obedience to law is the true guarantee of individual safety, the preservation
of justice and right, the peace ofsociety.

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, especiallyin 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 weaknessand suffering; He gives us a share in all His possessions (John
17:24;John 14:2-3). (J. Hirst.)
Nature attesting Christ’s 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, beganto
pick up acquaintance with him in an easy, familiar style, not knowing his
dignity. But when the nobles, having discoveredtheir 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 taughtby 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 ofHis 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 evenin the smallestdetails of His life.
III. The supernatural glory that ever accompanies the humiliation of the Son.
He so submits as, even in submitting, to assertHis Divine dignity. In the midst
of the actof submission, majesty flashes forth, A multiform miracle-
containing many miracles in one-a miracle of omniscience, anda miracle of
influence over the lowercreatures, is wrought. The first fish that rises carries
in its mouth the exactstun 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 sufficencyfor us all of what he provides. That which He brings to us
by supernatural act, far greaterthan 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 dischargedfor 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 againstus. (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 easilyhave commanded a bag of money as a piece of money;
but he would teach as not to covetsuperfluities, but, having enough for our
present occasions, therewithto 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
competencyfor to-day, let to-morrow take thought for the things of itself.
(Matthew Henry.)
This singular miracle of finding the coin it? the fish’s mouth is unlike our
Lord’s other works in severalparticulars
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 oflove or blessing for man’s 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 restof
Christ’s, 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,
designedto teach us some important lessons withreference to Christ’s
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 ecclesiasticalimpost. It had originally been levied in the
wilderness, at the time of the numbering of the people, and was enjoinedas to
be repeated at eachcensus, whenevery male Israelite was to pay half-a-shekel
for “a ransom for his soul,” an acknowledgmentthat his life was forfeited by
sin. In lateryears 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 exactit. Being an “optionalchurch-rate,” Jews who were or wishedto be
consideredpatriotic 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 King’s Son though He be, He goes among His Father’s
poor subjects, lives their squalid life, makes experience oftheir 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 askedofPeter? It was asked, notby Roman
tax-collectors,but by Jews. It is most natural to suppose that they askedthe
question in a captious spirit. Such a spirit is a bad signof the state of the
heart, and of the intellect too. This is not the right spirit for attaining to a
knowledge oftruth; it is very dishonouring to God, and very likely to
endangerthe stability of our faith.
II. What answerwas given by Peter? The whole characterof the man seems to
come out in his eager, positive, instantaneous reply. He was sensitivelyanxious
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 Sonof God He
was necessarilyexempt from an ecclesiasticaltax.
V. The reasonfor his payment. “Lestwe should offend them.” It is this
delicate regardfor the scruples of others which constitutes the occasionso
signalan example to ourselves.
VI. Observe the dignity, as well as wisdom, of the miracle. It is Christ’s 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 ofChrist! 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 God’s creature still. (DeanHowson.)
A likeness betweenwhatGod 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 Easternfiction than a sober narrative of the quiet-toned gospel.
I acknowledge a likeness:why might there not be some likeness betweenwhat
God does and what man invents? But there is one noticeable difference: there
is nothing of colour in the style of the story. No greatrock, no valley of
diamonds, no earthly grandeur whateveris hinted at in the poor bare tale.
Peterhad to do with fishes every day of his life: an ordinary fish, taken with
the hook, was here the servantof 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 scalyminister 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 caredto stand

upon His rights, or treat that as a principle which might be waivedwithout
loss of righteousness. Itake for grantedthat 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 Father’s house.”
IV. The admirable prudence of Christ.
V. The wonderful knowledge ofChrist.
VI. The boundless power of Christ. (Expository Outlines.)
Finding the tribute money
I. The modesty of Jesus. Ratherthan offend prejudice He would waive His
claim-the children are free.
II. The poverty of Jesus.

Jesus was a tax payer

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Jesus was a tax payer

Similar to Jesus was a tax payer (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jesus was a tax payer