Then Are the Children Free.
By C. S. Veeder
A correspondent writes, “Please explain Matt. 17: 26, ‘Then are the children free.’” These words are found in Matt. 17: 26, and in order to understand their meaning, we will quote the last four verses of that chapter. “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 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.” Matt. 17: 24-27. The tribute-money spoken of in Matt. 17: 24, was not a tax levied by the Roman government as many suppose, but was the offering to the temple. The collectors of this, wishing to ascertain if Jesus paid it, came and asked Peter, who replied that he did. Our best commentators affirm that Jesus always paid all taxes, or customs, and tributes, demanded by the government under which he lived. And the reply of Peter in this case would seem to imply that he did; for he unhesitatingly replied in the affirmative when asked, probably knowing that his Master was in the habit of paying all such demands, and that he had not failed in this case. “And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him,” &c. The word here rendered prevented, is in the Greek, anticipated. It does not really mean to hinder, or obstruct, but to precede, or go before. The passage may be explained in these words: As Peter was come into the house, he was about to tell Jesus what these collectors of drachms asked him, and the reply he made. But Jesus anticipated him by the question, “Of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute, of their own children, or of strangers?” We will not attempt to give the motive of Jesus in wishing to speak before Peter, the fact that he did so is apparent. The reply of Peter that kings took tribute or custom from “strangers,” was followed by the Saviour’s declaration, “Then are the children free,” on which we offer the following comment:— Earthly kings are supported by their subjects. They are taxed to maintain the king’s expenses, but the children of the king are exempt from taxation; they are free. The temple at Jerusalem was built for the service of God. Those who went there had no other object in view but to worship him. He was Lord of the temple. His subjects came to do him homage, not to receive it. He was king. They the subjects or strangers. Jesus was Son of the King; and it was through him only that they could approach the Father. The temple represents the king’s house, to which the subjects, not the king himself or his children, must contribute for its support. Jesus thought that he should be released from paying the two drachms for the support of his Father’s house, in the same sense that children of earthly kings are exempt from tax to sustain their father’s house. But in the 27th verse he directed Peter to pay it, “Lest,” he says, “we should offend them.” Our view of this is, that Jesus did not wish to be a stumbling block to the Jews in any manner. He would rather pay this trifling sum than to give them cause of complaint against him, or to give them occasion for needless dispute among themselves. By not paying it some might think he ignored the temple and its service, and thus excuse themselves from engaging in it. Just previous to this time a long and bitter debate had taken place between the Sadducees and Pharisees in regard to this very question, whether the two drachms be left to be paid as a voluntary offering, or whether it should be collected as other taxes, that is, under penalty. It had just been decided that it be left to the people to pay voluntarily. In view of this, our Saviour did not wish to give grounds for a revival of the controversy. The piece of money Peter found in the mouth of the fish was one stater, in value one shekel, or thirty pence our money, being just enough to pay for both. In proof that it was the custom of the Israelites to contribute means for the support of the house of God, turn to the 10th chapter of Nehemiah and read the 32d verse, in which it says that they made an ordinance to charge themselves yearly with the third part of a shekel for the service of the house of God; and in the next verse it tells how the money thus paid was expended. This offering was only made by the Israelites, the priests being exempt, because they were representatives, or types, of the High Priest of the heavenly sanctuary. The priests who administered in the temple never paid anything for the support of the temple. The Israelites paid tithes to the Levites, the Levites to the priests, and the priests to nobody. They were free. They were types of Christ, and this was what the Saviour meant when he said, “Then are the children free,” the priests being free from paying tithes or money for the support of the temple. The system of the Levitical priesthood being typical, and the priests never bearing any expenses to sustain the temple in which they ministered, and Christ being the antitype and the end of the Levitical system, is it not reasonable and plain that he also should be free from paying for the support of the house of his Father?