Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Matthew 17:24 - 17:27
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_17:24. The receivers or collectors of the didrachmas, or the double drachma.—The demand of the temple-tax from Jesus, although primarily addressed to Peter, forms a contrast to the relation in which Jesus had placed Himself toward the temple when in Jerusalem. The Lord, who was the living and real Temple, was to pay tribute to the types and shadows of this reality, or to the legal symbols of the temple. According to Exo_30:13; 2Ch_24:6, Joseph. Antiq. 18, 9 (see Wetstein, Michaelis, and Ewald, Alterthümer, 320), every male from twenty years old was obliged to pay half a shekel yearly for the temple service. This half shekel was equal to two Attic drachmas (one shekel=four Attic drachmas, Joseph. Antiq. iii. 8, 2). According to the LXX. (Gen_23:15; Jos_7:21), the Alexandrian drachma was equal to half a shekel The whole shekel amounted to about 2s. 6d. sterling, or about 60 cents in American money. After the destruction of Jerusalem, this tax went to the Roman capitol. It was due in the month Adar (March). Hence it may be inferred that Jesus was in arrears. The supposition of Wieseler (Chronol. Synopse, p. 264), that the demand for the temple tribute was only made about the time when it was actually due, and that it must hence have been a Roman tax, is erroneous. Local payments might be delayed by absence. (The same remark may also apply in reference to the objection, that the presentation of the infant Jesus must necessarily have taken place before the flight into Egypt.) The use of the solemn term ôὰ äßäñá÷ìá indicates that it was a religious, not a secular tax; the plural number implying, as Meyer observes, that it was annually and regularly levied, not that on this occasion it was asked both for the Lord and His disciples. Besides, the supposition of a Roman impost would be entirely incompatible with the reasoning of the Saviour. Of course, ideas derived from the theocracy could not have been applied to the Roman government. This act of the officials of the temple may be regarded as an indication of the feeling of the priests. The servants began to act rudely toward Jesus, who had become an offence to their superiors. Still, there is a certain amount of good-natured simplicity about their conduct, and it almost seems as if they fancied that Jesus was about quietly to settle down in Capernaum.
Doth not your Master pay the double drachma?—Manifestly presupposing the expectation that He would pay—not, as some have supposed, a doubt, that, since priests and Levites were free, He might wish to claim a similar exemption.
Mat_17:25. Jesus anticipated him.—This anticipation implies a miraculous knowledge of Peter’s assent. Ôåëç , vectigalia, duties on merchandize, customs; êῆíóïò capitation or land-tax. [Peter’s affirmative answer to the tax-gatherers was rather hasty, and lost sight for a while of the royal dignity and prerogative of his Master, who was a Son in His own house, the temple, and not a servant in another’s, and who could claim the offerings in the name of His Father.—P. S.]
Or of strangers.—Not of the princes, but of their subjects.
Mat_17:26. Then are the Sons free.—A conclusion a minori ad majus. The earthly royal prerogative serves as a figure of theocratic right. God is King of the temple-city; hence His Son is free from any ecclesiastical tribute.—De Wette regards the passage as involving some difficulties, since Jesus had disowned every outward and earthly claim in His character as Messiah, and had become subject to the law. Accordingly, this critic suggests that Jesus had only intended to reprove the rashness of Peter’s promise, and to suggest the thought to him (as he was still entangled with Jewish legalism), that, in point of law, the demand made upon Him was not valid. On the other hand, Olshausen maintains that Jesus asserted His exaltation over the temple-ritual (as in Mat_12:8 : The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath—One greater than the temple). Meyer reminds us, that although as Messiah Jesus was above the law, yet in His infinite condescension He submitted to its demands. This explanation is so far more satisfactory. But commentators seem to forget that the breach between the ancient theocracy and the ἐêêëçóßá had already begun in Judæa and Galilee, and that Jesus had entered on His path of sufferings. It was inconsistent to reject, and virtually (though perhaps not formally) to excommunicate Jesus, and yet at the same time to demand from Him the temple tribute. And in this sense the Apostles themselves were included among the õἱïß (in the plural). They were to share in the suffering and in the excommunication of their Master. Paulus and Olshausen apply the expression to Peter in connection with Jesus; Meyer regards it as a locus communis referring to Jesus alone, since, in the argument as used in the text, it could only designate the Lord Himself. But, according to the Apostle Paul, believers have fellowship with Christ in virtue of their õἱïèåóßá , and in Him are free from the law. “The Roman Catholic Church employs this passage to prove the freedom of the clergy from taxation, at least in reference to ecclesiastical charges” (Meyer). In our opinion, it would be more appropriate to deduce from it the freedom of the living Church from the burdens of the law. [The inference of the Roman Catholics would prove too much, viz., the freedom of all the children of God from taxation.—P. S.]
Mat_17:27. But lest we should offend them.—Meyer refers the latter expression to the tax-gatherers: Lest we should lead them to suppose that we despise the temple. As, in dealing with the Phari sees ( Matthew 15), Christ did not avoid giving them offence, we are led to infer that in the present instance it would have been an offence to “these little ones.” Besides the tax-gatherers, many other persons in Capernaum, who could not clearly apprehend the spiritual bearing of Christ’s conduct, might readily have taken offence, under the impression that He placed Himself in opposition to the temple.
A piece of money, lit.: a stater.—A coin=4 drachmas, or about a Prussian dollar [or rather less, about 60 cents].
Various views are entertained in reference to this miracle. 1. De Wette contents himself with calling attention to the difficulties connected with the orthodox view of the narrative (the miracle was unnecessary; it was unworthy of Jesus, since He had on no other occasion performed a miracle for His own behoof; it was impossible, since a fish could not have carried a stater in its mouth, and yet bite at the hook, as Strauss misstated the case). 2. Paulus and Ammon have attempted to represent it as a natural event. Thus Paulus paraphrases the language of Jesus: When thou openest the mouth of this fish to detach the hook, it will be found worth a stater. [A wonderful price for a fish caught with a hook!] Or, If there on the spot ( áὐôïῦ ) you open the mouth to offer the fish, etc. 3. Strauss characterizes it as a myth, derived from legends connected with the lake of Galilee. Similarly, Hase represents it as figurative language, referring to the success accompanying the exercise of their calling, which tradition had afterward transformed into a miraculous event. 5. Ewald makes the curious comment, that we do not read of Peter having actually caught such a fish, but that the saying was one which might be readily employed, as pieces of money had sometimes been found in fishes. 6. It has been regarded as a miracle, in the proper sense of the term. (a) As a miracle of power, directly performed. The fish was made to fetch the coin from the deep, and then to come up to the hook. So Bengel. Or, (b) As a miracle of knowledge on the part of Jesus. So Grotius and Meyer. Adopting the latter explanation, we would call attention to the fact, that in performing this miracle the Lord was equally careful to maintain His rights as King of Zion, and to avoid giving offence. Hence the tribute, for which Peter himself was naturally liable, was to be procured through the personal exertions of that Apostle. But, as in this case he acted as the representative of the Lord, the money was miraculously provided. All the requirements of the case seem to us sufficiently met by the fact, that Jesus predicted that the first draught of Peter would yield the sum needed. Hence the words, “When thou hast opened his mouth,” might almost be regarded as a metaphor for “when thou takest off the hook”—in which case it would imply simply a prediction that Peter would catch a very large and valuable fish. But the statement, that he would find a piece of money, conveys to our minds that the Apostle was to discover the stater in the inside of the fish. The main point of the narrative, however, lies in this, that the stater was to be miraculously provided. By his rashness, Peter had apparently placed the Lord in the difficulty of either giving offence, or else of virtually declaring Himself subject to tribute. Under these circumstances, the Lord looked and descried the stater in the lake; and the miraculous provision thus procured might serve both for Himself and for Peter.
2. It were a great mistake to suppose, that because Matthew does not record that Peter actually caught the fish, found and paid the stater, all this did not really take place. But, on the other hand, we infer from this omission, that the great object of the Evangelist was to record the spiritual import, rather than the outward circumstances, of this event. It was intended to set before the Apostles the principle which should regulate the future relations between the free Church of the gospel and the ancient legal community at the time of the cessation of its services and ritual. The point here lies in the contrast between the sons of the King, or of the true theocracy, and mere subjects, who in the text are very significantly called ἀëëüôñéïé , strangers. Christ and His people are the children of the kingdom; the Jewish legalists its subjects, or rather its bondsmen. (Comp. Joh_8:35 : The servant abideth not for ever in the house, or in the temple; but the Son abideth there for ever.)
3. “The children of the kingdom, who themselves are the living temple, could not be made outwardly or legally subject to the typical services of the temple. As the free children of God, they were superior to all such bondage. But perhaps some historical claim might yet be urged upon them, or else they were not to shock the prejudices of some of these ‘little ones’ (comp. Matthew 18). Hence, in all such cases, it was their duty to avoid giving offence, and to perform what was expected from them. But in so doing, they would display such joyousness, freedom, and princely grandeur, as to vindicate their liberty even in the act of submitting to what might seem its temporary surrender” (Leben Jesu, iii. p. 170). It is scarcely necessary to add, that by professing adherence to a particular ecclesiastical system, we, as Christians, incur the obligation of contributing to its support. Every such profession is a voluntary obligation, which, among other things, implies the duty of outwardly contributing for its maintenance.
4. There is something peculiarly characteristic of Peter in this history. With his usual rashness, he would make the Lord Jesus legally subject to tribute. This obligation he has now himself to discharge, and that by means of a fish (the symbol of a Christian) which is found to have unnaturally swallowed a stater.
5. In this instance, also, Christ did not perform a miracle “for His own behoof,” but as a sign for others.
[Trench (Notes on the Miracles, p. 379): “Here, as so often in the life of our Lord, the depth of His poverty and humiliation is lighted up by a gleam of His glory; while, by the manner of His payment, He reasserted the true dignity of His person, which else by the payment itself was in danger of being obscured and compromised in the eyes of some, The miracle, then, was to supply a real need, … differing in its essence from the apocryphal miracles, which are so often mere sports and freaks of power, having no ethical motive or meaning whatever.”—P. S.]
Starke:—Quesnel: Jesus humbles Himself, and submits to all human ordinances. (The text, however, does not refer either to the payment of civil taxes or to any secular arrangements.)—Let us avoid giving offence to any one.—Let us avoid the appearance of evil.—Canstein: It does not matter though the children of God may not possess what they require; God will care for them (though the text does not imply that the whole company of disciples at Capernaum did not possess the small sum of about three shillings demanded of them).—Zeisius: Christ, Lord over all His creatures, even in His estate of humiliation.
Gerlach:—While Jesus never forgot, from false humility, what was due to Him, He only manifested His dignity before those who were capable of understanding Him, and at the same time was willing to become the servant of all.
Heubner:—Ministers must be ready to prove that they really despise earthly things.—Humiliation and exaltation combined in this event.—We may submit to civil oppression even while preserving in our minds and hearts our dignity and rights.
Footnotes:
Mat_17:24.—Different readings, but of no bearing on the sense.
Mat_17:24.—[Tribute money and tribute is a generalizing explanatory rendering of ôὰ äßäñá÷ìá , lit: the double drachma, or what is its equivalent in Hebrew, the half-shekel. The definite article means: the obligatory, customary. Tyndale, the Geneva, and the Bishops’ Bible translate: poll-money; Cranmer, and King James’s Revisers: tribute- money; the Rheims Version: the didrachmes; Campbell: the didrachma; Archbishop Newcombe, Norton, Conant, and the revised N. T. of the A. B. U.: the half-shekel. Luther: Zinsgroschen; de Wette, van Ess, Allioli: die Doppeldrachme; Ewald: Zinsgulden (with the note: jährliche Tempelsteuer); Lange: Doppeldrachma, and in parenthesis. Tempelsteuer. In the English Bible the term double drachma, or half-shekel, might be retained with a marginal note: the annual tribute to the temple, or the temple-tax. As our Authorized Version now stands, the relation between the value of the annual temple-offering (2 drachmas or half a shekel) and the piece of money miraculously supplied, ver 2 (4 drachmas or a shekel), is lost to the English reader.—P. S.]
Mat_17:25.—[ ÐñïÝöèáóåí áὐô ó í , from ðñïöèÜíù , to prevent, to forestall, which occurs only here in the N. T.; but the verb simplex öèÜíåéí occurs seven times. The English Version (since Cranmer), here as also in 1Th_4:15 (we shall not prevent, ìὴ öèÜóùìåí , them who are asleep), and several times in the O. T., uses the word prevent in the old English sense=prœvenire, to come or go before, to precede (so also in the Common Prayer Book: “Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings, with Thy most gracious favor”); but now it has just the opposite meaning to hinder, to obstruct. On the contrary the old English verb to let, which is used in the E. V. of 2Th_2:7 for êáôÝ÷åéí , to hold back, to detain, to hinder, to prevent, and in Rom_1:13 for êùëí ́ åéí (was let, i.e., prevented, hitherto), is now only used in the sense to permit, to leave (lassen); or also to lease. In such cases, which, however, are very rare, the common reader of the Bible is apt to be misled and should be guarded by marginal notes. Campbell renders our passage: before he spake, Jesus said to him; Norton: before he had spoken of it, Jesus said to him; Tyndale the Genevan Bible, Wakefield, Conant better: Jesus spake first, saying. But our anticipated him is more literal and corresponds with the usual German Version: kam ihm suvor, etc.—P. S.]
Mat_17:25.—[Sons is more expressive here, especially in view of the bearing of the analogy on the Sonship of Christ (see my footnote on Mat_17:26), than children, or Kinder as Luther has it. Ewald and Lange, also, translate: Söhne. The possessive own of the E. V. is hardly necessary (although Lange too, inserts in smaller type eigenen), and might convey the false idea that the contrast was between the children of the kings and the children of others, while the contrast is between the princes and subjects, or the rulers and the ruled.—P. S.]
Mat_17:25.—[Strangers, like the alieni of the Vulgate and the Fremde of Luther’s and Ewald’s versions, is almost too strong a term for ἀëëüôñéïé , which in this connection means simply those who are not õἰïὶ ôῶí âáóéëåùí , who do not belong to the royal household. Hammond (one of the best of the older English commentators) renders: other folks; do Wette and Lange: andere Leute. I would prefer subjects if it were not too free.—P. S.]
Mat_17:26.— ÐÝôñïò is omitted in B., D., etc. [Also in Cod. Sinaiticus and in all the modern critical editions.—P. S.]
[Dr. Lange estimates the value of the shekel at 21 gute Groschen or more (afterward, Note on Mat_17:27, at 23 to 24 Groschen or about a Prussian dollar). But its value is differently estimated from 2s. 3d. to over 3s sterling, or from 50 to 70 cents. Before the Babylonian exile the shekel was only a certain weight of silver, since the time of the Maccabees (1Ma_15:6) a coined money; but as these coins grew scarce, it became customary to estimate the temple dues (a half shekel) as two drachmas. It must not be confounded with the gold coin, more accurately called shekel, which was equal not to four, but to twenty Attic drachmas. See the Dictionaries, sub ùֶׁ÷ֶì , óßêëïò Shekel, also sub äßäñá÷ìá and ἀñãýñéïí , especially Winer, sub Sekel (Bibl. Realwörterbuch, vol. ii., 448 sqq.); W. Smith, sub Money (Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 2, 404 sqq.); and Dr. M. A. Levy: Geschichte der jüdischen Münsen, Breslau, 1862 (which is mentioned as an important work in Smith’s Dict., sub Shekel, vol. 3, p. 1246; but which I have not seen myself).—P. S.]
[In Latin the intimate relation between sonship and freedom might be thus rendered: Liberi sunt liberi. The plural õßïß is necessitated by the figure of the “kings of the earth,” and does not interfere with Christ’s unique position as the only begotten of the Father, but rather establishes it by way of analogy, since there is but one King in heaven. Grotius: “Plurali numero utitur, non quod ad alios eam extendat libertatem, sed quod comparatio id exigebat, sumta non ab unius sed ab omnium regum more ac consuetudine.” Trench: “It is just as natural, when we come to the heavenly order of things which is there shadowed forth, to restrain it to the singular, to the one Son; since to the King of heaven, who is set against the kings of the earth, there is but one, the only begotten of the Father” Observe also in Mat_17:27 Ha says not: for us, putting Himself on a par with Peter, but: for Me and thee; comp. Joh_20:17 : “unto My Father, and your Father,” and His uniform address to God: “My (not: Our) Father,” all of which implies His unique relation to the Father.—P. S.]
[This objection of de Wette rests on a false assumption and is inconsistent with his own admission, in his note on Mat_17:24 that the temple-tax was a theocratic or religions, not a civil, tax, a tribute to God, not to Cæsar. Many commentators—O igen, Augustine, Jerome, Maldonatus, Corn. a Lapide, Wolf, even Wieseler (Chronol. Synopse, p. 265), and others—have overlooked and denied this fact and missed the whole meaning of the miracle by the false assumption that this money was a civil tribute to the Roman emperor, like the penny mentioned on a later occasion. Mat_22:19. The word tribute in the E. V. rather favors this error. The emperor Vespasian converted the temple-tax into an imperial tribute, but this was after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, as Josephus expressly states, De Bello Jdg_7:6; Jdg_7:6.—P. S.]
[Strauss profanely calls it “den mährchenhaften Ausläufer der See-Anekdoten,” and in his new Life of Jesus, 1864, p 84, be endeavors to ridicule Dr. Ebrard for supposing, very unnecessarily, that the fish spit the piece of money from the stomach into the throat the moment Peter opened its mouth. In this case there is no assignable occasion, or Old Testament precedent, or possible significancy of a mythical Action.—P. S.]
[So also Trench (Notes on the Miracles, p. 385): “The miracle does not lie in the mere foreknowledge on the Lord’s part as to how it should be with the fish which came up; but He Himself, by the mysterious potency of His will which ran through all nature, drew the particular fish to that spot at that moment, and ordained that it should swallow the hook. We may compare Jon_1:17 : ‘The Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah.’ Thus we see the [illegible]s, here of animal life unconsciously obedient to His will; that also is not out of God, but moves in Him, as does every other creature. 1Ki_13:24; 1Ki_20:36; Amo_9:3.” Yet Trench does not assume that the stater was miraculously created for the occasion, but brought in contact with the [illegible]ash by a miraculous coincidence.—P. S.]