---

I. ANOTHER OMISSION. In the first line of the thirty-third verse we approach the subject of the tribute money; but in St. Mark's narrative we only approach it, and that in the state-merit, "he came to Capernaum;" but in the parallel section of St. Matthew we read of the demand for the tribute money, of Peter being commissioned to procure it from "the fish that first cometh up," of the exemption Jesus might have claimed but waived, and the reason of his doing so. Here, again, St. Mark omits the part of the narrative which relates to the honor conferred on Peter by our Lord, when he commissioned him to work the miracle by which the tribute money was procured from the fish's mouth. But, though St. Mark omits this portion of the recital, the preceding and succeeding portions are coincident with those of St. Matthew. The peculiar relation of the apostle to the evangelist, already considered, can alone account for the omission.

II. GROUND OF LEGITIMATE EXEMPTION, In Matthew 17:24, 25, we read, "When they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your Master pay tribute?" Then at the last clause of the twenty-fifth verse, our Lord asked Peter, "What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?" A slight amount of archaeological knowledge makes this plain. The word "tribute" in the twenty-fourth verse is τὰ δίδραχμα; the word "tribute" in the twenty-fifth is κῆνσον; while "custom," a word of kindred meaning, is τέλη. Also in the twenty-seventh verse, the word στατὴρ. He or "shekel," rendered "piece of money" in the English version, occurs. The starer, or shekel, equivalent to two shillings and sixpence of our currency, was the exact amount of tax payable by two. Now, there is a very wide and important distinction: between these terms, and a distinction necessary to be kept in view for the right understanding of the passage. For

(1) the δίδραχμα were equal in value to the Jewish half-shekel, or some fifteenpence of our money, and may be called a sacred tribute or annual contribution paid by every male among the Jews, from twenty years of age and upwards, for the support of the temple at Jerusalem - to defray the general expenses, to provide the sacrifices and other things required for the service. The persons who collected it were not the civil tax-gatherers, called publicani, or rather portitores; nor, indeed, was the tax a civil one at all, but a sacred one. From overlooking this fact, the point of the argument is liable to be missed, as it actually has been by several of the Fathers. It is briefly, though correctly, developed by Alford, in the following sentence: - "If the sons are free, then on me, being the Son of God, has this tax no claim." It requires, however, to be somewhat more fully and plainly exhibited. In order to set the matter in a clear light, we premise

(2) that the κῆνσος. He for which St. Luke employs the classical Greek term φόρος. He was a poll or capitation tax, like the Roman tributum; while by τέλη are to be understood the toll or customs duties, which are identical with the vectigal of the Romans. Further, let it be borne in mind that Peter's confession of faith that Jesus was "the Christ, the Son of the living God," had been made, being recorded in the sixteenth chapter, and so had preceded the present conversation. Our Lord now argues from analogy that he was entitled to, and might fairly claim, exemption. In doing so, he asks Peter this question, "What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own sons, or of strangers?" It is here admitted by implication that civil rulers have a right to impose taxes for the support of civil government, but that, in exercising this right, they impose taxes on the other members of the state, not on the members of their own household. When king levy taxes, or have them levied in the ordinary constitutional way, they impose them on their subjects, not on their sons. Peter had confessed Jesus to be the Son of God; the tax demanded was for the support of God's house; according to the principle of action among earthly kings, God, the great King of heaven and of earth, while requiring contributions for the maintenance of his service from his subjects, would exempt his own Son, for, from his position of Sonship, which the apostle had recently acknowledged, and from the principle of taxation in which he had just acquiesced, it was necessarily inferred, "then are the sons free." Not as a mere member of the Hebrew race, or as an ordinary Jew, but from his dignity as the Son of God, in the highest and most exalted sense, our Lord might have claimed exemption from the tax in question. This was the gist of his reasoning: but he waived his right; and proceeds to explain to Peter the ground on which he foregoes his privilege, saying, "Lest we should offend them," or more plainly in the Revised Version, "Lest we cause them to stumble;" in other words, lest he and his disciples should be regarded as indifferent to, or be charged with, neglect of the house of God and the maintenance of its service. - J.J.G.

---

---

KJV: And he came to Capernaum: and being in the house he asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?

WEB: He came to Capernaum, and when he was in the house he asked them, "What were you arguing among yourselves on the way?"