Paying the Tribute Money.
By W. N. G.
“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. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money; that take, and give unto them for me and thee.” Matt. 17:24–27. This scripture is sometimes used to illustrate the loyalty of Christ to the civil government, even to the working of a miracle to procure money to pay his taxes. As to his willingness to render to Cæsar all that was due there can be no question, but it is decidedly questionable whether he would make any personal obligation easy to himself by resorting to miraculous power. We have no other instance of his so accommodating himself, while he was continually exerting such power for the benefit of others. That the tax here referred to was the tribute to the support of the temple service, we have the testimony of a number of able commentators. We here give a few brief extracts for the benefit of those who have not access to such books of reference. We quote first from Dr. Albert Barnes:— They that received tribute. In the original this is, they who received the didrachma, or double drachma. The drachma was a Grecian coin, worth about fifteen cents of our money. . . . This tribute was not paid to the Roman Government, but to the Jewish collectors for the use of the temple service. It was permitted in the law of Moses (see Ex. 30:11–16) that in numbering the people half a shekel should be received of each man for the services of religion. This was in addition to the tithes paid by the whole nation, and seems to have been considered as a voluntary offering. . . . Of whom do the kings of the earth, etc. That is, earthly kings. Their own children. Their sons; the members of their own family. Or of strangers? The word “strangers” does not mean foreigners, but those who were not their own sons or members of their family. Peter replied that tribute was collected of those out of their own family. Jesus answered, Then are the children, or sons of the kings, free; that is, taxes are not required of them. The meaning of this may be thus expressed: “Kings do not tax their own sons. This tribute money is taken up for the temple service; that is, the service of my Father. I, therefore, being the Son of God, for whom this is taken up, can not be lawfully required to pay this tribute.” This argument is based on the supposition that this was a religious, and not a civil tax. If it had been the latter, the illustration would not have been pertinent. 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. Next we quote from comments in “Scott’s Bible”:— The tribute here mentioned seems to have been the half shekel apiece, which was collected to defray the expense of the service of the sanctuary. . . . Peter, when asked if his Master did not pay this tribute, answered at once that he did, knowing him to be ready for every act of piety and equity. But Jesus, preventing his mention of the subject by showing that he knew what had passed, asked him of whom kings were accustomed to levy taxes, whether of their own children or of strangers. Children, in this connection, must be understood literally, and strangers must mean the children of others; for kings generally collect taxes from their subjects, tho their own families be exempted. By this question he intimated that, as “the Son of God,” the Lord of the temple (and in this character the Jews ought to have recognized and welcomed him), he had no right to contribute to the expenses there incurred, for the benefit of those who in themselves were strangers and enemies. Our Saviour’s argument, why he should not pay this tribute, as being the Son of that King to whom it was paid, holds not with reference to the other tribute paid to Cæsar, he being not the Son of Cæsar, but of God. McClintock and Strong (“Ecclesiastical Cyclopædia”) say that “to suppose that it was the same as the tribute paid to the Roman emperor (Matt. 22:17), takes away the whole significance of our Lord’s words. . . . As explained by most commentators, they are simply an assertion by our Lord of his divine Sonship, an implied rebuke of Peter for forgetting the truth which he had so recently confessed.” On the expression, “Then are the children free,” they quote from Smith: “Thou hast owned me as the Son of the living God, the Son of the great King, of the Lord of the temple, in whose honor men pay the temple tribute; why, forgetting this, dost thou so hastily make answer as if I were an alien and a stranger?” Olshausen’s “Commentary on the New Testament” has this pertinent expression:— Peter’s answer to the collectors, that the Lord would pay the contribution, implied a failure to recognize his peculiar position; and, although Jesus might appeal to his divine Sonship, which, at a former period, Peter had already confessed, yet the Saviour seems to have wished still more deeply to impress upon his mind a view of his exalted dignity. Peter had, rashly and unauthorized, conceded that Jesus was bound to pay the tax. . . . The question put by the collectors of this assessment, whether Jesus would pay it, doubtless arose from their believing that, as a theocratic teacher, he would regard himself as free from such an impost. But Peter, to whom the question was addressed in the absence of Jesus, believed that, with his strictness in religious observance, he would make it a point to pay the sacred tax, and answered affirmatively. This was not a tax to be paid to the Roman Government, but a tax for the support of the temple. The law obliged every male among the Jews to pay half a shekel yearly for the support of the temple; and this was continued by them, wherever dispersed, till after the time of Vespasian (see Josephus, Wars, book vii, c. 6), who ordered it afterward to be paid into the Roman treasury. . . . He saith, Yes. From this reply of Peter, it is evident that our Lord customarily paid all taxes, tributes, etc., which were common among the people wherever he resided. The children of God are subject to all civil laws in the places where they live, and should pay the taxes levied on them by public authority; and tho any of these should be found unjust, they rebel not, as their business is not to reform the politics of nations, but the morals of the world. The “Bible Commentary” gives quite conclusive testimony, from which we take the following:— The word here used for tribute is different from that used in chapter 22, verse 17, for the tribute paid to the Roman emperor. In the latter passage the Latin word census is used in its Greek form. This alone would seem to imply that the tribute here spoken of was different from the other. . . . This tribute, which at first seems only to have been collected on the occasions of numbering of the people, appears in later times to have become annual. . . . Then are the children free. The argument is very clear on the supposition that the tribute was for the service of the temple. “If the children of earthly kings are exempt from the tribute paid for their service, I, the Son of God, am in like manner free from the tribute raised for God’s service.” The half shekel paid for the temple was regarded as given to God. Dean Alford, in his “New Testament for English Readers,” says:— The narrative connects well with the whole chapter, the aim of the events narrated in which is to set forth Jesus as the undoubted Son of God. . . . The whole force of the argument depends on the fact of the payment being a divine one. It rests on this: “If the sons are free, then on me, being the Son of God, has this tax no claim.” These brief extracts comprise but a small portion of the comments of the authorities quoted, but are sufficient to show a consensus of opinion regarding the character of the tax which Jesus paid by the performance of a miracle. There is sufficient evidence of his recognition of the claims of the civil government upon all classes of men without appealing to acts that have no such reference. In fact, such appeal only tends to weaken a position already supported by abundant proof. We could not consistently urge upon Christians, from Christ’s example, the performance of civil duties which he made easy for himself by working a miracle. The true lesson of the transaction—an additional emphasis upon his claim to being the Son of God—was and is of vastly more importance than the mere duty to pay taxes to the civil government. W. N. G.