Matthew 17:27

Hook (ἄγκιστρον) The only mention in the New Testament of fishing with a hook. A single fish is wanted. A piece of money (στατῆρα) The A. V. is very inadequate, because Christ names a definite sum, the stater, which is a literal transcription of the Greek word, and represents two didrachmas, or a shekel. Hence Rev., a shekel.

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 {n} piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee. (n) The word used here is stater, which is in value four didrachmas; every drachma is about five pence.

Matthew 17:27 . ἵνα μὴ σκανδαλ ., that we may not create misunderstanding as to our attitude by asking exemption or refusing to pay. Nösgen, with a singular lack of exegetical insight, thinks the scandal dreaded is an appearance of disagreement between Master and disciple! It is rather creating the impression that Jesus and His followers despise the temple, and disallow its claims. And the aim of Jesus was to fix Peter’s attention on the fact that He was anxious to avoid giving offence thereby, and in that view abstained from insisting on personal claims. Over against the spirit of ambition, which has begun to show itself among His disciples, He sets His own spirit of self-effacement and desire as far as possible to live peaceably with all men, even with those with whom He has no religious affinity.— πορευθεὶς ε . θ . Generally the instruction given is: go and fish for the money needful to pay the tax.— ἄγκιστρον , a hook, not a net, because very little would suffice; one or two fish at most.— πρῶτον ἰχθὺν : the very first fish that comes up will be enough, for a reason given in the following clause.— ἀνοίξας … στατῆρα : the words point to something marvellous, a fish with a stater, the sum wanted, in its mouth. Paulus sought to eliminate the marvellous by rendering εὑρήσεις not “find” but “obtain,” i.e. , by sale.

Beyschlag ( Das Leben Jesu , p. 304) suggests that the use of an ambiguous word created the impression that Jesus directed Peter to catch a fish with a coin in its mouth. Ewald ( Geschichte Christus , p. 467) thinks Jesus spoke very much as reported, but from the fact that it is not stated that a fish with a coin in its mouth was actually found, he infers that the words were not meant seriously as a practical direction, but were a spirited proverbial utterance, based on rare examples of money found in fishes. Weiss is of opinion that a simple direction to go and fish for the means of payment was in the course of oral tradition changed into a form of language implying a miraculous element. This view assumes that the report in Mt. was derived from oral tradition ( vide Weiss, Das Leben Jesu , ii. 47, and my Miraculous Element in the Gospels , pp. 231–5). In any case the miracle, not being reported as having happened, cannot have been the important point for the evangelist. What he is chiefly concerned about is to report the behaviour of Jesus on the occasion, and the words He spoke revealing its motive.— ἀντὶ ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ : various questions occur to one here. Did the collectors expect Jesus only to pay (for Himself and His whole company), or did their question mean, does He also, even He, pay? And why pay only for Peter along with Himself? Were all the disciples not liable: Andrew, James and John there, in Capernaum, not less than Peter?

(27) Lest we should offend them. —Those who note the finer shades of language, can scarcely fail to trace in these words the tone of what we should describe in a human teacher as a half-playful, half-serious irony. When they were last at Capernaum, the disciples, Peter probably their spokesman ( Matthew 15:12 ; Matthew 15:15 ), had remonstrated with their Master for proclaiming a bold, broad principle of spiritual morality against the traditions of the Schools: “Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended when they heard that saying?” Now He proclaims another principle, equally bold and far-reaching, and as certain to offend. He reminds the disciple of his former fear, sees that some such feeling is already rising up in his mind, and recognises that within certain limits it is legitimate. To have refused to pay the didrachma on purely personal grounds would have been to claim prematurely that title of the Christ, the “Son of God,” which He had told His disciples at this crisis not to claim for Him ( Matthew 16:20 ). To have done so on general grounds, common to Himself and others, would have been to utter a truth for which men were not prepared, and which they were certain to pervert. Those who had not learnt the higher law of the free gift of love would be tempted to make their freedom an excuse for giving nothing. Devout and generous minds would be shocked at what would seem to them to cut off the chief support of the outward glory of the House of God.

The spirit in which our Lord spoke and acted was one with that which was the guide of St. Paul’s life: “It is good” to surrender even the freedom which we might well claim, if by it “thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak” ( Romans 14:21 ). A piece of money.—The Greek gives the name of the coin, the stater. It was reckoned as equal to four drachmæ, and would therefore pay the didrachma both for Peter and his Master. Incidentally, we may note the light which this throws on the poverty of our Lord and His disciples. They had returned from their wanderings in the north of Palestine, occupying some three or four weeks, and they were now absolutely penniless, not so much as a stater between them. The money was to be given for both, and so far, as has been said, our Lord includes Peter in the list of those who, as “children of the kingdom,” might have claimed exemption. No payment is made for the other disciples: most probably they had homes of their own, where the didrachma would be applied for, and were not living with Peter. We cannot ignore the many points of contrast which difference this narrative from that of our Lord’s miracles in general. (1.) There is no actual record that a miracle was wrought at all. We expect the narrative to end with the words, “and he went and found as it had been said unto him,” but we do not find them. The story is told for the sake of the teaching, not of the wonder.

27. Notwithstanding, lest we should offend—stumble. them—all ignorant as they are of My relation to the Lord of the Temple, and should misconstrue a claim to exemption into indifference to His honor who dwells in it. go thou to the sea—Capernaum, it will be remembered, lay on the Sea of Galilee. and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shall find a piece of money—a stater. So it should have been rendered, and not indefinitely, as in our version, for the coin was an Attic silver coin equal to two of the afore-mentioned "didrachms" of half a shekel's value, and so, was the exact sum required for both. Accordingly, the Lord adds, that take, and give unto them for me and thee—literally, "instead of Me and thee"; perhaps because the payment was a redemption of the person paid for (Ex 30:12)—in which view Jesus certainly was "free." If the house was Peter's, this will account for payment being provided on this occasion, not for all the Twelve, but only for him and His Lord. Observe, our Lord does not say "for us," but "for Me and thee"; thus distinguishing the Exempted One and His non-exempted disciple.

Matthew 17:27 . Ἵνα δὲ μὴ σκανδαλίσωμεν αὐτοὺς , But lest we should offend them ) Our Lord even performed a miracle to avoid giving offence; cf. ch. Matthew 18:6-7 .— αὐτοὺς , them ) who were ignorant of our Lord’s claims. Men who are occupied in worldly affairs, most easily take offence at the saints when money is in question.— τὸν ἀναβάντα πρῶτον , that first cometh up ) A manifold miracle of omniscience and omnipotence: 1. That something should be caught; 2, and that quickly; 3, that there should be money in a fish; 4, and that in the first fish; 5, that the sum should be just so much as was needed; 6, that it should be in the fish’s mouth. Therefore the fish was commanded to bring a stater, or four-drachm coin, that very moment from the bottom of the sea.— ἀντὶ Ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ , for Me and thee ) A pair of great disparity; for what was Peter compared to the greatness of Jesus? Peter had a family of his own; the other disciples[802] were the family of Jesus (cf. Gnomon on Matthew 8:14 ); therefore they said your , not thy Master , Matthew 17:24 . [802] The other disciples, as we may reasonably suppose, had not yet passed their twentieth year; and therefore were not yet bound to pay the sacred tribute.—V. g.

Ver. 24-27. The Jews were by God’s law, Exodus 30:13 , obliged to pay a half shekel, which was for the service of the sanctuary, Exodus 30:16 : this was paid every year. The half shekel amounted in our money to fifteen pence, or thereabouts. Whether this were the tribute money here demanded and paid, some doubt, and say that the Romans having the Jews now under their power, imposed this payment upon every head, as a tribute to the emperor; which being a customary payment, they thought the Jews would less stumble at, though it was changed from a sacred to a civil use, from a homage penny to God, to be a homage penny to the conquerors. The agreement of this sum with what was required by the law, together with what our Saviour saith afterward, will incline us to think that this tax was that religious tax mentioned in Exodus 30:13-16 , and that the collectors were some officers deputed for that service by the priests. When Peter came into the house, our Saviour prevents his propounding the question to him, (for Peter had before told them, Yes he did), by asking him of whom the kings of the earth use to receive tribute, of their own children, or of strangers?