Tag Archives: Mt. 17.24-27

(4) Doth not your master pay tribute? Matthew 17.24-27

February 21, 2018 Jerald Finney Leave a comment

A Publication of Churches Under Christ Ministry

If you miss one part of the puzzle that is being put together in these studies, you will never see and understand the whole picture.

Previous Lesson:
(3) Let every soul be subject to the higher powers? (Ro. 13.1 and Ro. 13 in general).

Next Lesson:
(5) Submit to every ordinance of man? (1 Pe. 2.13).

Click here to go to Links to all lessons on Render Unto God the Things That Are His: A Study of Romans 13 and Other Verses Taken Out of Context to Support Union of Church and State.

Click here to go to the written lessons.

Click here to go to the 3 1/2 to 6 minute video lectures.

Jerald Finney
Copyright © February 21, 2018

For accompanying study from Render Unto God the Things that Are His click here.

Christians who advocate unlimited obedience to the civil government sometimes refer to the miracle of the tribute money in Matthew 17.24-27, but that incident does not support their belief. Rather, that incident is consistent with all Scripture. Jesus, who is God the Son, is the Highest Power or Government and cannot and will not be required to pay any type tribute to any other power. God has given no lower power the jurisdiction to tax the Supreme Ruler.

Some authorities define the tax spoken of in Matthew 17.24-27 as the voluntary atonement money of half a shekel given as an offering to God that was used for maintenance of the Jerusalem temple.[1] However, others disagree as to whether the tribute spoken of was voluntary. One source defines the tribute spoken of in these verses as:

“a tax imposed by a king on his subjects (2 S. 20:24; 1 K. 4:6; 13:6). In Mt. 17:24-27 the word denotes the temple rate (the ‘didrachma,’ the ‘half-shekel,’ as rendered by the R.V.) which was required to be paid for the support of the temple by every Jew above twenty years of age (Ex. 30:12; 2 K. 12:4; 2 Chr. 24:6,9). It was not a civil but a religious tax.”[2]

Those who received the tribute money asked Peter, not Jesus, if Jesus paid the tribute. “And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?” “He saith, Yes.”[3] Certainly Peter answered the question of those who received the tribute money before he reflected. Jesus anticipated and addressed Peter’s question before he asked Him. Our Lord began by asking Peter a question. “And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented[4] him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?”[5] “Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.”[6] “That is, Jesus, as the Son of God, might justly have claimed exemption from taxes assessed for the service of his Father.”[7] Here are some expert analyses concerning this statement of Jesus in Matthew 17.26:

“Then are the children free – As this money is levied for the support of that temple of which I am the Lord, then I am not obliged to pay the tax; and my disciples, like the priests that minister, should be exempted from the necessity of paying.”[8]
“Free; not expected to pay tribute. According to that rule, Christ, the Son of God, for the support of whose worship the money was paid would be free.”[9]
“Peter saith unto him, Of strangers—‘of those not their children.’ Jesus saith unto him, 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, for example, 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:–namely, ‘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.’”[10]
“Therefore the sons are free. The argument is this: If the sons of kings are free from the payment of tribute, I, the Son of God, am free from God’s tribute. The half-shekel was regarded as given to God (Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews,9.1).”[11]
“Then are the sons free – The sense is, This is paid for the use of the house of God. But I am the Son of God. Therefore I am free from any obligation of paying this to my own Father.”[12]
“Every Jew throughout the world was required to pay an annual tribute or capitation-tax of half a shekel, about twenty-five cents, in acknowledgment of God’s sovereignty and for the maintenance of the temple service, 30:12-15. It was with reference to this that Christ says, in effect, Mt. 17:25-26, ‘If this tribute be levied in the name of The Father, then I, The Son, am free.’ In other New Testament passages, tribute means the tax levied by the Romans. On the question of paying tribute to foreigners and idolaters, Mt. 22:16-22, Christ gave a reply which neither party could stigmatize as rebellious, or as unpatriotic and irreligious. By themselves using Caesar’s currency, both parties acknowledged the fact of his supremacy. Christ warns them to render to all men their dues; and above all to regard the claims of him whose superscription is on every thing, 1 Co. 10:31; 1 Pe. 2:9, 13.”[13]

Jesus then states: “Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.”[14]

“Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them. That is, lest they should think that we despise the temple and its service, and thus provoke needless opposition, though we are not under obligation to pay it, yet it is best to pay it to them.
“Go thou to the sea. This was at Capernaum, on the shore of the sea of Tiberias.
“Thou shalt find a piece of money. In the original, thou shalt find a stater, a Roman silver coin of the value of four drachms, or one shekel, and of course sufficient to pay the tribute for two, himself and Peter. In whatever way this is regarded, it is proof that Jesus was possessed of Divine attributes. If he knew that the first fish that came up would have such a coin in his mouth, it was proof of omniscience. If he created the coin for the occasion, and placed it there, then it was proof of Divine power. The former is the most probable supposition. It is by no means absurd that a fish should have swallowed a silver coin. Many of them bite eagerly at anything bright, and would not hesitate, therefore, at swallowing a piece of money. {t} ‘offend’ 14:21; 15:1-3; 2 Co. 6:3; {2} ‘stater’, ‘which was half an ounce of silver.”[15]
“Lest we – offend them – Be a stumbling-block to the priests, or rulers of the Jews, I will pay the tribute – go thou to the sea – cast a hook, and take the first fish – thou shalt find a piece of money, στατηρα , a stater. This piece of money was equal in value to four drachms, or two shekels, (five shillings of our money), and consequently was sufficient to pay the tribute for our Lord and Peter, which amounted to about half-a-crown each. If the stater was in the mouth or belly of the fish before, who can help admiring the wisdom of Christ, that discovered it there? If it was not before in the mouth of the fish, who can help admiring the power of Christ, that impelled the fish to go where the stater had been lost in the bottom of the sea, take it up, come towards the shore where Peter was fishing, and, with the stater in its mouth or stomach, catch hold of the hook that was to draw it out of the water? But suppose there was no stater there, which is as likely as otherwise, then Jesus created it for the purpose, and here his omnipotence was shown; for to make a thing exist that did not exist before is an act of unlimited power, however small the thing itself may be….”[16]

Fausset’s Bible Dictionary discusses Matthew 17.24-27:

“In 17:24-27, ‘the didrachma receivers said to Peter, Doth not your Master pay the didrachma? He saith, Yes?’ Their question implies it was the religious impost; no civil tax would have been asked in such a tone, as if its payment dare be questioned. The half-shekel or half-stater or didrachma (fifteen pence) was the universally recognized due required from every Israelite grown male in support of the sanctuary services, in the benefits of which he had a share: according to Ex. 30:11-15. (See MONEY; JESUS CHRIST; PETER.)
“Collected both before and after the Babylonian captivity (2 K. 12:4; 2 Chr. 24:9) from all Jews wherever sojourning (Josephus 18:9, section 1; Philo Monarch. 2:2, section 224). Hence Peter at once recognized the obligation. But Christ, while to avoid offense (wherein Paul imitated his Master in a different case, 1 Co. 9:4-19) He miraculously supplied the stater in the fish, for Himself and Peter, yet claimed freedom from the payment to the temple, seeing He was its Lord for whose service the tribute was collected. As Son of the heavenly King He was free from the legal exactions which bound all others, since the law finds its antitypical realization in Him the Son of God and ‘the end of the law’ ( 10:4).
“The temple offerings, for which the half shekels were collected, through Him become needless to His people also; hence they, by virtue of union with Him in justification and sanctification, are secondarily included in His pregnant saying, ‘then are the children (not merely the SON) free’ (John 8:35-36; 4:3-7; 5:1). As children with Him, they are sons of the King and share the kingdom (Ro. 8:15-17). The legal term ‘the didrachma’ Matthew uses as one so familiar to his readers as to need no explanation; he must therefore have written about the time, alleged, namely, some time before the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, after which an explanatory comment would have been needed such as Josephus gives (Ant. 18:10, section 1). The undesigned omission in Matthew confirms the genuineness and truth of his Gospel.”[17]

Thus, Jesus indicated first that He could not be required to pay the tribute and then used the occasion to show that He was God. He could have paid the tribute by taking money from the money bag carried by Judas; but instead He demonstrated His deity by performing a supernatural miracle and giving the money to them in order not to offend them. Only God could have arranged such a miracle.

Endnotes

[1] See Abbott New Testament Commentary, Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, and Jamieson-Fausett-Brown Commentary available on SWORDSEARCHER software. Go to http://www.swordsearcher.com for information on SWORDSEARCHER software.

[2] See Easton’s Bible Dictionary, definition of “Tribute,” on SWORDSEARCHER software.

[3] Mt. 17.24-25.

[4] “Prevented” in the above verses means that Jesus anticipated Peter’s question and answered it without Peter asking. See, e.g., SWORDSEARCHER software, Abbott… and Albert Barnes’….

[5] Ibid.

[6] Mt. 17.26.

[7] SWORDSEARCHER software, Abbott….

[8] SWORDSEARCHER software, Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible.

[9] SWORDSEARCHER software, Family Bible Notes.

[10] SWORDSEARCHER software, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary.

[11] SWORDSEARCHER software, The Fourfold Gospel and Commentary on Acts.

[12] SWORDSEARCHER software, John Wesley’s Notes on the Bible.

[13] SWORDSEARCHER software, American Tract Society Dictionary, definition of “Tribute.”

[14] Mt. 17.27.

[15] SWORDSEARCHER software, Albert Barnes’….

[16] SWORDSEARCHER software, Adam Clarke’s Commentary….