After the Transfiguration, Jesus and his disciples came down the mountain side. Ecstasies, even in religion, have their sombre interludes. But in these we may still remain in the blessed company of Jesus. As they descended, Jesus "commanded his disciples, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen from the dead." This command astonished them. Interpreting the prophets, the scribes expected Elijah to come as the harbinger of Messiah. As Elijah had now appeared, the disciples were eager to proclaim this as the accomplishment of the prophecy. But they were now further surprised to learn that the prophecy had already been fulfilled in the person of John the Baptist. Our Lord had before spoken to this effect (see Matthew 11:14); but these disciples, Peter, James, and John, appear then to have been absent on a preaching excursion. Note: It is the fate of prophecy to be fulfilled without being noticed by the world. "But the wise shall understand." Let us consider -

I. THE COMING OF ELIJAH IN THE PERSON OF THE BAPTIST.

1. The scribes looked for the Tishbite.

(1) They did so the recognized public interpreters of prophecy. Isaiah spoke of a harbinger of Messiah (see Isaiah 40:3-5). This harbinger is mentioned again, and distinguished as "Elijah the prophet" (see Malachi 4:5, 6). The scribes concluded that Elijah the Tishbite literally should appear.

(2) They "knew not" John the Baptist in the character of Elijah. He did not answer their expectations as the literal Elijah. Neither did his testimony to Jesus suit their prejudices. Jesus did not come as that secular king whom they fondly hoped to See. So does the spirit of the world blind the spiritual vision.

(3) The disciples of Jesus were influenced by the teaching of the scribes. They therefore rejoiced to see here in the holy mount the literal Elijah; and fain would they conclude that this was the fulfilment of the prophecy. They were accordingly eager to bear testimony to what they had seen. It had not occurred to them, any more than to the scribes, to identify the Baptist as the Elijah of the prophet.

2. Yet was the Baptist the Elijah of prophecy.

(1) Gabriel announced him in this quality. To Zacharias the angel said of John, "He shall go before the face of the Lord in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to walk in the wisdom of the just; to make ready for the Lord a people prepared for him" (Luke 1:17). The reference here to the Prophet Malachi cannot be mistaken.

(2) Zacharias, in the spirit of prophecy, confirmed the testimony of Gabriel. "And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Most High: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to make ready his ways" (Luke 1:76).

(3) John came accordingly "in the spirit and power of Elijah." Like that prophet, his dwelling was in the wilderness; his attire was rough; and his habits were simple and severe (cf. 2 Kings 1:8; Matthew 3:4). His preaching was repentance. "To turn the heart of the [believing] fathers to the [unbelieving] children, and the heart of the children to their fathers," and thus to avert the curse of God from the land.

(4) John roundly announced himself to be that voice in the wilderness of which Isaiah spake (see John 1:23).

3. In this quality John was recognized by Jesus.

(1) He did so practically, for he did not commence his preaching until John had ended his public ministry. Thus: "When he heard that John was delivered up, he withdrew into Galilee," and it is added, "From that time began Jesus to preach" (cf. Matthew 4:12-17; Mark 1:14, 15).

(2) The importance of this question of time is evident also from the reference to it again by Peter when he came to preach the gospel to Cornelius (see Acts 10:36, 37). Peter evidently viewed it as an important mark of Messiah.

(3) Jesus in his teaching, as well as in his conduct, acknowledged John as the Elijah of prophecy. He did so to the multitude after the retirement from him of certain disciples of John who came to him with a message from John in his prison. "This is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee And if ye will receive it, this is Elijah, which is to come" (see Matthew 11:10-14). In this passage our Lord refers to both the prophets who mention the harbinger of Messiah, Isaiah and Malachi, and applies their prophecies to John. In the text also Jesus declares John to be "that Elijah" as "come already."

II. THE COMING OF ELIJAH AS THE HERALD OF THE JUDGMENT.

1. Such a coming may be presumed.

(1) For Christ is yet to come in judgment. Before his Transfiguration he announced this solemn fact (see Matthew 16:27). The Transfiguration was itself a symbolic anticipation of that coming. As the first advent of Christ was heralded by an Elijah, so may we presume that the second advent also will be.

(2) Daniel distinguishes the first and second advents of Messiah; otherwise the comings are so blended in the visions of prophecy that they appear as one. The distinction is now fully manifest since the first advent has taken place. By parity of reasoning we may infer that the prophecies concerning the harbinger are to be fulfilled in two acts.

(3) Differences may be presumed in the two appearances of the harbinger to correspond to the differences of the two advents of Messiah. The Baptist came in symbols of sorrow, without miracle, to introduce Messiah as a Priest coming to suffer for sin. The coming Elijah may be expected to appear in symbols of power, working miracles, to introduce Messiah in his quality of King.

(4) To anticipate this second coming, Elijah appeared in glory on the Mount of Transfiguration. Trypho objects to Justin Martyr that Messiah can have no power until anointed by Elijah. He overlooked the fact that Jesus was anointed with the Holy Ghost when he was baptized by John (cf. Matthew 3:16; Luke 4:18; Acts 10:37, 38). That anointing was to inaugurate Christ as a Prophet. But when Elijah was present in the holy mount, Jesus received his further anointing as a King.

2. The presumption is now confirmed.

(1) John's disclaimer that he was Elijah, while he declared himself to be the voice crying in the wilderness (see John 1:21-23), can only be reconciled on the understanding that Elijah was yet to come in another form. Mede makes John the Baptist to come again instead of Elijah in full form. The disclaimer of John would rather point to Elijah in person. The appearance of the literal Elijah in the holy mount would also point this way. The Jews say, "When Elijah comes he will solve hard questions." His coming will solve this.

(2) The coming of the Baptist has not fully satisfied prophecy. He came not immediately "before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord" (Malachi 4:5). For that day is yet future, he came more in pursuance of the prophecy of Isaiah than of that of Malachi. Yet is there a second fulfilment also for the words of Isaiah.

(3) In affirming that Elijah had come in the person of John the Baptist, our Lord did not say that there was no future coming of Elijah. When the disciples quoted the scribes, Jesus did not say that they were wrong in expecting Elijah to come, but in not discerning that the Baptist had come in the character of Elijah.

(4) Far from this, our Lord says plainly, "Elijah indeed cometh, and shall restore all things." This coming of Elijah in the future is all the more remarkable in that it was spoken after John had been beheaded.

(5) This Elijah of the future is to" restore all things." This did not John. He restored some things. He preached repentance, and his doctrine is still restoring. But the "time of the restoration of all things" is that of the second advent of Christ (see Acts 3:19-21). Why did Jesus command his disciples, saying, "Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen from the dead"?

1. One of the purposes of the vision was to intimate that the Old Testament must give place to the New. The time for the abolition of the Law of commandments contained in ordinances was not ripe until after the Resurrection.

2. The glory of the Resurrection would render more credible the testimony concerning the Transfiguration. Had the testimony been given earlier, the sufferings of Christ would probably be urged against its credibility.

3. The earlier testimony might imperil the witnesses. The heads of the nation appear to have been implicated in the martyrdom of John. "They knew him not, but did unto him whatsoever they listed." If they did not imprison John, they made no effort to procure his release. They rejoiced in his death. Having tasted the blood of John, they thirsted for the blood of Jesus. "Even so shall the Son of man also suffer of them" (see Acts 12:1-3). Christ's times are best for us. - J.A.M.

I. ON WHAT PRINCIPLE CHRIST CLAIMED EXEMPTION. This tax levied for temple services. On no principle but that of His being essentially Divine, and therefore not bound to contribute towards services virtually rendered to Himself. Christ was His own Temple.

II. THE PRINCIPLE ON WHICH, NEVERTHELESS, HE DETERMINED ON PAYING THE TAX. — Not to put an occasion of stumbling in the way of others. How unwilling we are to withdraw pretensions. It requires Christian discretion to know when to give way. Christ surrendered no principle; He did not say that He was not the Son of God. He forbore from asserting it.

III. THE MIRACLE BY WHICH HE PROCURED THE REQUISITE MONEY. Though the Proprietor of all things, He had made Himself poor for our sakes. He here gave proof of superhuman endowments; omniscience and omnipotence. He knew the money was in the mouth of the fish; His power was felt in the waters. There was propriety in the miracle when we consider which apostle our Lord dispatched on this errand. Had St. Matthew been sent the money would have been got differently, as he was a tax-gatherer; St. Peter was a fisherman, hence he got the money from a fish. Christ put honour on this honest occupation. We are not to neglect means because we seem to need miracles.

(H. Melvill, B. D.)

1. The Divine knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.

2. A lesson of moderation. The coin was only enough to pay the tax. Christ had am desire for earthly possessions.

3. For the purpose of supporting the ordinances of religion.

4. Learn to trust our Lord in trying circumstances.

(C. J. Maginn, M. A.)

Christ here showed His Divine knowledge, and especially His power over the natural world.

1. Obedience to law is the true guarantee of individual safety, the preservation of justice and right, the peace of society.

2. Christ will use His mighty control of the material world to care for His followers as He did for Peter.

3. Let Christians remember, Christ has moved His treasury from the mouth of the fish to the loving hearts and purses of His people.

4. Now every Christian must cherish the idea, and act upon the recognized principle that God has right of property in all of ours as well as of ourselves, and that we are but agents to distribute, as God wills, what He has placed us in charge of as stewards.

(W. H. Anderson, D. D.)

I. His POVERTY. Hence learn: Contentment and resignation, benevolence and liberality.

II. His PEACEABLE SPIRIT. Hence take example — Of a candid spirit towards brethren who differ from us, particularly in meats and drinks; of prudence in our intercourse with the world, especially in attempts to do good.

III. HIS DIVINITY. Learn, hence, that He is an all-sufficient Saviour and an Almighty Friend, a formidable enemy.

IV. His SYMPATHY. He took on Him our nature, that He might sympathize with our weakness and suffering; He gives us a share in all His possessions (John 17:24; John 14:2, 3).

(J. Hirst.)

An old ballad represents one of our English kings as losing his way in a wood, and becoming parted from his retinue. A countryman, who met him, began to pick up acquaintance with him in an easy, familiar style, not knowing his dignity. But when the nobles, having discovered their missing monarch, came riding up, with heads uncovered, and lowly homage, the countryman trembled at his mistake. So the laws and powers of nature did homage before Christ, attesting Him to be their Sovereign, and authenticating the apostles as His servants and messengers.

I. THE FREEDOM OF THE SON. To this position and privilege Christ here lays claim for Himself. What a deduction must be made from the wisdom of His teaching, and from the meekness of His Spirit, if that claim was an illusion! For what did He reply?

1. That He had no need of a ransom for His soul.

2. That He needed no temple to worship in.

II. THE VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION OF THE SON TO THE BONDS FROM WHICH HE IS FREE. Self-sacrifice even in the smallest details of His life.

III. THE SUPERNATURAL GLORY THAT EVER ACCOMPANIES THE HUMILIATION OF THE SON. He so submits as, even in submitting, to assert His Divine dignity. In the midst of the act of submission, majesty flashes forth, A multiform miracle — containing many miracles in one — a miracle of omniscience, and a miracle of influence over the lower creatures, is wrought. The first fish that rises carries in its mouth the exact stun needed. The miracle was for a trivial end in appearance, but it was a demonstration, though to one man only at first, yet through him to all the world, that this Christ, in His lowliness, is the Everlasting Son of the Father.

IV. THE SUFFICENCY FOR US ALL OF WHAT HE PROVIDES. That which He brings to us by supernatural act, far greater than the miracle here, is enough for all the claims and obligations that God, or man, or law, or conscience, have upon any of us. His perfect obedience and stainless life discharged for Himself all the obligations under which He came as a man, to law and righteousness; His perfect life and His mighty death are for us the full discharge of all that can be brought against us.

(A. Maclaren, D. D.)

The piece of money was just enough to pay the tax for Christ and Peter. Christ could as easily have commanded a bag of money as a piece of money; but he would teach as not to covet superfluities, but, having enough for our present occasions, therewith to be content, and not to distrust God, though we live but from hand to mouth. Christ made the fish His cash-keeper; and why may not we make God's providence our storehouse and treasury? If we have a competency for to-day, let to-morrow take thought for the things of itself.

(Matthew Henry.)

I. It is the only miracle — with the exception of the cursing of the barren fig-tree, and the episode of the unclean spirits entering into the swine — in which there is no message of love or blessing for man's sorrow and pain.

II. It is the only miracle in which our Lord uses His power for His own service or help.

III. It is like the whole brood of legendary miracles, and unlike all?he rest of Christ's, in that, at first sight, it seems done for a very trivial end — the providing of some three shillings of our money. Putting all these things together, the only explanation of the miracle is by regarding it as a parable, designed to teach us some important lessons with reference to Christ's character, person, and work.

(A. Maclaren. D. D.)

The whole point of the story depends upon the fact that this tribute-money was not a civil, but an ecclesiastical impost. It had originally been levied in the wilderness, at the time of the numbering of the people, and was enjoined as to be repeated at each census, when every male Israelite was to pay half-a-shekel for "a ransom for his soul," an acknowledgment that his life was forfeited by sin. In later years it came to be levied as an annual payment for the support of the Temple and its ceremonial. It was never compulsory; there was no power to exact it. Being an "optional church-rate," Jews who were or wished to be considered patriotic would be very punctilious in the payment of it.

(A. Maclaren. D. D.)

The Prince is free, but King's Son though He be, He goes among His Father's poor subjects, lives their squalid life, makes experience of their poverty, and hardens His hands by labouring like them. Sympathy He learns in huts where poor men lie.

(A. Maclaren. D. D.)

I. IN WHAT SPIRIT WAS THIS QUESTION ASKED OF PETER? It was asked, not by Roman tax-collectors, but by Jews. It is most natural to suppose that they asked the question in a captious spirit. Such a spirit is a bad sign of the state of the heart, and of the intellect too. This is not the right spirit for attaining to a knowledge of truth; it is very dishonouring to God, and very likely to endanger the stability of our faith.

II. WHAT ANSWER WAS GIVEN BY PETER? The whole character of the man seems to come out in his eager, positive, instantaneous reply. He was sensitively anxious for the credit of his Master, and he spoke without thought.

III. How DID OUR LORD PREVENT PETER?

IV. ON WHAT PRINCIPLE DID OUR LORD CLAIM EXEMPTION? AS the Son of God He was necessarily exempt from an ecclesiastical tax.

V. THE REASON FOR HIS PAYMENT. "Lest we should offend them." It is this delicate regard for the scruples of others which constitutes the occasion so signal an example to ourselves.

VI. OBSERVE THE DIGNITY, AS WELL AS WISDOM, OF THE MIRACLE. It is Christ's royal mode of answering all cavils. The very triviality (so to speak) of this miracle is part of its greatness. How minute is the knowledge of Christ! How vigilantly He watches all the things He has made! There is not a fish on a summer day under the shadow of a stone that is not God's creature still.

(Dean Howson.)

They say the story of a fish with a piece of money in its mouth is more like one of the tales of Eastern fiction than a sober narrative of the quiet-toned gospel. I acknowledge a likeness: why might there not be some likeness between what God does and what man invents? But there is one noticeable difference: there is nothing of colour in the style of the story. No great rock, no valley of diamonds, no earthly grandeur whatever is hinted at in the poor bare tale. Peter had to do with fishes every day of his life: an ordinary fish, taken with the hook, was here the servant of the Lord — and why should not the poor fish have its share in the service of the Master? Why should it not show for itself and its kind that they were utterly His? that along with the waters in which they dwelt, and the wind which lifteth up the waves thereof, they were His creatures, and gladly under His dominion? What the scaly minister brought was no ring, no rich jewel, but a simple piece of money, just enough, I presume, to meet the demand of those whom, although they had no legal claim, our Lord would not offend by a refusal: for He never cared to stand upon His rights, or treat that as a principle which might be waived without loss of righteousness. I take for granted that there was no other way at hand for these poor men to supply the sum required of them.

(George Macdonald.)

I. The extreme POVERTY of Christ.

II. The strict INTEGRITY of Christ, "render to all their due."

III. The peculiar RELATIONSHIP of Christ, "The Father's house."

IV. The admirable PRUDENCE of Christ.

V. The wonderful KNOWLEDGE of Christ.

VI. The BOUNDLESS POWER of Christ.

(Expository Outlines.)

I. The MODESTY of Jesus. Rather than offend prejudice He would waive His claim — the children are free.

II. The POVERTY of Jesus.

III. The RESOURCES of Jesus. Though He had-not the money, He knew where it was. If God dare trust His people He would put them in the way of getting wealth that now lies waste.

IV. God DOES NOT OFTEN ACT WITHOUT HUMAN AGENCY. He uses the best means — Peter was a fisherman.

V. HE WHO WORKS FOR JESUS IS SURE TO GET HIS PAY. "And give unto them for thee and me." Peter in obeying Christ paid his own taxes. In keeping His commandments there is great reward.

(T. Champness.)

This is true of everything that God needs. He can help Himself to what He wants out of Satan's lockers. Was not Saul of Tarsus as much out of the Church's reach as the piece of money many fathoms deep? And yet Christ put a hook in Satan's nostril, and brought Saul to make many rich by circulating among the heathen. It may be that some of us may live to see the work of God carried on by hands now used to build forts for Satan to occupy. Was not Luther the monk as much hidden as the piece of money? And it may be that from the Romish communion we may get some one who shall be as effective as he was.

(T. Champness.)

Our Lord. had been preaching humility to His disciples; now He exhibits it in His own self-humiliation. He would say in effect, "Were I covetous of honours I should stand on my dignity as the Son of God, and claim to be free from servile obligations; but I suffer my honours to fall into abeyance, and make no demands for a recognition which is not voluntarily conceded."

I. The MANNER of payment was also so contrived by Him as to reinforce the lesson. He gave directions as the Lord of nature to whom all creatures in land or sea were subject. "Behold who it is that pays this tax and that is reduced to such straits; it is He who knoweth the paths of the sea."

II. The REASON which moved Him to adopt the policy of submission to what was in itself an indignity, "Lest we should offend." How careful was our Lord not to offend. He did not take offence. He did not resent the demand for tax as an insult. The lowly one did not assume this attitude, but gave what was asked without complaint. It teaches the children of the kingdom not to murmur because the world does not recognize their status and respect their dignity. They must wait for the manifestation of the sons of God.

III. A lesson for those who consider themselves aggrieved by demands for "church rates" and "annuity taxes." Let the children be free if possible, but beware of imagining that it is necessary for conscience' sake always to resist indignities, and to fight for a freedom which mainly concerns the purse. It is not a mark of greatness in the kingdom to bluster about rights. The higher one rises in spiritual dignity the more he can endure in the way of indignity. The humility of Jesus was thus shown in not taking, so His love was manifested by His solicitude to avoid giving, offence. "Lest we should offend." How happy for the Church and world if this conciliating spirit ruled.

(A. B. Bruce, D. D.)