CRITICAL NOTES
Matthew 17:22. While they abode.—See R.V. margin. While they were sojourning in Galilee on their way back—on their return from the northern parts about Cæsarea Philippi (Morison).
Matthew 17:24. Tribute money (τὰ δίδραχμα)—“The double drachma;” a sum equal to two Attic drachmas, and corresponding to the Jewish “half-shekel,” payable, towards the maintenance of the temple and its services, by every male Jew of twenty years old and upwards. For the origin of this annual tax see Exodus 30:13-14; 2 Chronicles 24:6; 2 Chronicles 24:9. Thus, it will be observed, it was not a civil, but an ecclesiastical tax. The tax mentioned in the next verse was a civil one. The whole teaching of this very remarkable scene depends upon this distinction (Brown). The half-shekel was worth about fifteen pence. Came to Peter.—At whose house Jesus was probably lodging. Doth not your Master pay tribute?—The question seems to imply that the payment of this tax was voluntary, but expected; or what, in modern phrase, would be called a “voluntary assessment” (Brown).
Matthew 17:25. Jesus prevented him.—Spake first to him (R.V.), i.e. anticipated him. Take custom.—Receive toll (R.V.). Custom on goods exported or imported (Brown). Tribute (κῆνσον).—From the Latin word census, meaning the poll-tax, payable to the Romans by everyone whose name was in the “census” (ibid). Of their own children.—Sons (R.V.), i.e. the princes. Strangers.—This cannot mean “foreigners,” from whom sovereigns certainly do not raise taxes, but “those who are not of their own family,” i.e.d. their subjects (Brown).
Matthew 17:26. Then are the children free.—By “the children” our Lord cannot here mean Himself and the Twelve together, in some loose sense of their near relationship to God as their common Father. For besides that our Lord never once mixes Himself up with His disciples in speaking of their relation to God, but ever studiously keeps His relation and theirs apart (see e.g. on the last words of this chapter), this would be to teach the right of believers to exemption from the dues required for sacred services, in the teeth of all that Paul teaches, and that He Himself indicates throughout. He can refer here, then, only to Himself; using the word “children” evidently in order to express the general principle observed by sovereigns, who do not draw taxes from their own children, and thus convey the truth respecting His own exemption the more strikingly, q.d. “If the sovereign’s own family be exempt, you know the inference in My case;” or, to express it more nakedly than Jesus thought needful and fitting: “This is a tax for upholding My Father’s house; as His Son, then, that tax is not due by Me—I am free” (ibid.).
Matthew 17:27. Lest we should offend them.—Cause them to stumble (R.V.). Misconstruing a claim to exemption into indifference to His honour who dwells in the temple (Brown). A piece of money (στατῆρα).—A stater—a shekel (R.V.). A coin equal to two of the fore-mentioned “didrachms”; thus the exact sum required for both. Me and thee.—Our Lord does not say “for us,” but “for Me and thee,” thus distinguishing the Exempted One and His non-exempted disciple (Brown).
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Matthew 17:22-27
Self-taxation.—In the beginning of these verses we find our Saviour coming back to Galilee from the neighbourhood of Cæsarea Philippi (Matthew 16:13), and making His way once more to “His own city” (Matthew 9:1) Capernaum. Apparently He did so now for the last time in His life, and as one marked step in His journey southward to meet His death at Jerusalem (see Matthew 19:1; Matthew 20:17; Matthew 21:1). This may help to account for the fact, that, on this occasion, He did not wish to be known (see Mark 9:30). And this, in turn, for the peculiar form of the tax-gatherers’ question to Peter (Matthew 17:24) “Doth not your Master pay the half-shekel?” as though they suspected Him, from His being out of the way, of a desire to avoid it this time. And this, once more, for the very positive and apparently displeased character of the Apostle’s reply (Matthew 17:25). As though he would say, “Of course He does—as He has done always before—and as you very well know.”
There are two things to be noted in the way in which the Saviour Himself meets their demand. He treats it as wholly uncalled for, on the one hand, and yet as absolutely irresistible, on the other.
I. As wholly uncalled for.—And that first, it would seem, because of the nature of tribute in general. For tribute then was a thing universally regarded as a token of subjugation and conquest. Hence the irresistible force of the argument in Matthew 22:19-21. Hence also, what we find implied in the language used in Ezra 4:13, viz., that people who are so far independent as to have a well-protected city and walls of their own, would refuse to submit, as a matter of course, to anything of the kind. Peter himself knew of this as a fundamental rule on such subjects. Hence, therefore, he would see at once the extreme unreasonableness of laying a tax on his Master. No one on earth had the shadow of a right of asking “tribute” from Christ. Still more unreasonable was such a demand, when considered in connection with the special character of the tribute in view. As both the amount asked for, and the way in which it was spoken of—“the half-shekel”—seem to point out, it was that poll tax expected from every male in Israel for the temple expenses and service, originally levied only (so it is said), when the census was taken, but afterwards made an annual demand (see Jos., Ant., XVIII. Matthew 9:1; 2 Chronicles 24:9, etc.) How monstrous, therefore, in every way, even to propose such a thing to One who was really the Lord of the temple (Matthew 12:6), and the Temple itself in a sense (John 2:19-21), and also, as Peter himself had not long before both seen and confessed, Son of God in the highest possible sense. Asking this temple-tribute from Him, therefore, was in every way wrong, for it was treating One as a stranger and a subject who was pre-eminently both a Son and a King.
II. As absolutely irresistible.—We find this implied, on the one hand, in the reason advanced. Pay this tribute the Saviour says in effect, however unreasonable the demand for it undoubtedly is, lest “we cause them to stumble” (Matthew 17:27). In other words, lest our refusal to pay it should give them “offence”—or be a “scandal” to them and others—or cause them to think about us otherwise than is correct, or desirable either. How very easily this might have been is just as easily seen. Such a refusal to pay, under the circumstances, would be almost certainly attributed either to unseemly covetousness, or else to contempt for God’s services, or to want of love for His house—to anything, in short, but those other reasons of which the Saviour had spoken. And that, of course, would be a most injurious thing, in almost every way, because a thing which, besides bringing most undeserved reproach on Christ and His followers, would greatly hinder them in their work. Sooner, therefore, than cause such results, the Saviour will put up with this wrong. Sooner than mislead others, or hinder true godliness, or be thought of Himself as profane, He will comply with this otherwise most unreasonable demand. If He cannot even allow it on other grounds, He cannot refuse it on this. The same is taught us also, in the next place, by the method adopted, inasmuch as this shows to how great lengths the Saviour was willing to go in order to carry out His resolve. From this point of view the very strangeness of the almost unique miracle of which we read next, is its best justification. It was, indeed, a kind of stately procession of marvellous signs. Peter was to go to the neighbouring sea and to cast in a hook, and at once secure a fish, and find a coin in its mouth, and find that coin also to be exactly sufficient for the twofold purpose in view (Matthew 17:27). All the more fitted, therefore, was it to show the thought which the Saviour had in His mind. He will not pay that tribute money out of ordinary resources. Probably, in His case, they were already needed in other directions (see John 13:29). He will meet it, instead, by a supply of His own—by an unheard of supply—by an exactly fitted supply—by something which shall show how great is the importance He attaches to doing as now asked! The very fish of the sea shall help Him to avoid giving avoidable cause of offence.
Here, therefore, we may see in conclusion:—
1. A great lesson in doctrine.—It was, as it were, almost under the shadow of the cross that this transaction took place. See what is said in Matthew 17:22-23, and note how we read there for the first time, of the “betrayal” of Christ. We may well judge, therefore, that we have here a kind of parable of what was about to be done on the cross. The temple tribute was due from Peter. It was not due from Christ. He paid for them both. Just so with that “obedience” of His “unto death” by which “the many” are “made righteous” (Philippians 2:8; Romans 5:18-19). “Thou shalt answer for me, O Lord, my God.”
2. A great lesson in conduct.—If we have really laid hold of this hope in Christ, we shall seek to resemble Him in our lives. Especially shall we do so in feeling it incumbent on us to avoid at all costs all really avoidable cause of offence. See such passages as 2 Corinthians 6:3; Romans 14:13; Romans 14:15; Romans 15:3; Matthew 18:5, etc. Anything rather than let our good be evil spoken of, if we can help it.
HOMILIES ON THE VERSES
Matthew 17:24-27. Christ paying tribute.—
1. Tribute is due to magistrates for their public service.
2. Christ is not unfriendly to magistrates and rulers, nor anyway a hinderer of paying anything due to them, for Peter affirmeth that Christ paid ordinarily.
3. He will not exempt His ministers or followers from the common civil duties, whereunto other subjects are liable; therefore He saith to Peter, “What thinkest thou?” etc.
4. Christ by no ordinary course of law was subject unto any power under heaven; for as king’s sons are naturally free from tribute, so is the Son of God naturally free also, for He is the Heir and Owner of all things.
5. Although Christ was the rich Heir of heaven and earth, as of His own workmanship, yet for our cause He voluntarily subjected Himself, and became poor, that He might make us rich; for He had no money to pay His tribute.
6. As in matters of civil loss, Christ did dispense with His own right civil, and subjected Himself to pay tribute, which He was not bound to do, so must His servants do; and not only must they pay tribute, which is their due by civil obligation, but rather than mar the gospel and breed scandal, they must bear burdens which civilly they are not bound to bear.
7. Christ was never so far abased at any time, but the glory of His Godhead might have been seen breaking forth in the meantime, or shortly after, lest His humiliation should at any time prejudice His glory at our hands; as here, at the time when He doth subject Himself to pay tribute, He showeth Himself Lord of all the creatures, who can make the most wild of them come to His angle, and bring money with them in their mouth.—David Dickson.
The coin in the fish’s mouth.—The uses intended by this narrative are:—
I. Doctrinal.
II. Ethical.—The doctrine taught is the place of Jesus in the kingdom of heaven. His own place of Sonship by right of nature, and that which He wins for His followers in grace. The moral enforced is that greatness in the kingdom is best proved by service and humility.—Prof. Laidlaw, D.D.
The ethical aspect of the conversation.—A comparison of the synoptic narratives makes it plain that during this homeward journey to Capernaum, probably near its close, occurred the dispute among the disciples, about priority in the kingdom, which drew from the Lord several touching and instructive utterances. There is reason to think this is one of them. The words immediately following our story in Matthew’s Gospel tell us that “at the same time” (ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ, Matthew 18:1), they came to put their question to Jesus on this topic. Mark says that “being in the house, He asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?” The suggestion has much probability, that with Peter alone in the house, the Lord here forestalls the discussion, and makes this incident bear upon it. It is when viewed in this connection that the present story becomes luminous, and that the words of Jesus about the temple-tax are seen to have their moral design. To teach “the foremost disciple” a lesson of humility and self-effacement, Jesus directs his attention pointedly to His own claim, to His willingness to waive it, and to His reason for so doing, viz., lest offence should follow upon a premature or punctilious assertion of even a Divine right. This, rather than any other, is the point of ethical moment in the narrative, not so much the poverty of His lot as Son of man, His command over the resources of nature and providence as Son of God, the extraordinary manner in which upon occasion His necessities were relieved—not so much these, as the forbearance and self-restraint of the kingdom’s Head; an example to His followers of meekness and self-repression for the kingdom’s sake. The key to the moral intention of the story then, lies in the words, “But lest we cause them to stumble” (R.V.). It was a lesson of meekness and wisdom. Jesus waives the exercise of a right, founded upon the plainest and most momentous grounds, lest the exercise of it in the circumstances should prove a stumbling-block to those who were as yet unprepared to receive the grounds themselves. Thus does Jesus set forth one of the most characteristic features of Christian morality.—Ibid.
Matthew 17:27. The tribute money.—The story of the tribute-money is not one of the great miracles, and yet its lessons are well worth our careful study.
I. There is what, for the want of a better word, we must call the modesty of Jesus.—Rather than offend the prejudices of the people, He would waive His claim. Are not we who call ourselves His disciples too ready to put forth our titles to men’s respect and to stand upon our dignity?
II. We learn something of the poverty of Jesus.—There is a something of greater moment than wealth, and that is character. Money may not elevate, good deeds do. In the conventional meaning of the words, Christ was not worth fifteen-pence; yet He could heal the sick and raise the dead. It will be worth our while to weigh ourselves in the true balances, and to find out Heaven’s assessment of our belongings.
III. The story gives us a peep into Christ’s resources.—Though He had not the money by Him, He knew where it was. The gold and silver are all His.
IV. We learn that God does not often act without human agency.—Christ could have done without Peter. It would have been easy to have willed it, and the fish would have swum to His feet, as He stood by the side of the lake, and have dropped the coin within His reach. But He knew that Peter could catch the fish, and so he was sent to do what He was able. It appears to be the Divine plan to do what men cannot, but not to act for us.
V. The story teaches that he who works for Jesus is sure to get his pay.—Christ wanted fifteen pence, and Peter took out of the fish’s mouth half-a crown. And thus in obeying Christ he paid his own taxes. In keeping His commandments there is a great reward.—T. Champness.