Simon Peter—Fisher of Men

4. The Temple tribute

All references RSV unless otherwise stated

Peter was unusually silent. Making his way, with Jesus and the other disciples, to the house in Capernaum where they were to spend the night, he was walking a little apart from the rest, apparently lost in his own thoughts. The others had taken no notice, but Jesus had, and He glanced once or twice at the rugged fisherman; in his glance there was understanding. Peter had been like this since the two Pharisees had accosted him as the little party entered the town; he had stayed behind to exchange a few words with them. Now he was wondering whether he had spoken wisely in reply to their question, and whether Jesus would approve of what he had said. Once again, as so often, he berated himself for the fatal impetuosity which had led him to speak hastily and without proper thought of the implications. All he had wanted to do was get rid of those interfering Pharisees and hope nothing more would come of the matter. But now, he was not so sure.

It had been such a simple question—but loaded; he could see that now. "Does not your Master pay the Temple tribute‑money?" There were two kinds of tax imposed upon Jews at the time; the civil tax due to Rome—the "things that are Caesar’s," collected by tax‑gatherers appointed by Rome, and the annual levy incumbent upon all Jews everywhere, at home or abroad, for the upkeep of the Temple, collected by agents appointed by the High Priest and his fellows. This latter was known as the "didrachma," the half shekel or "shekel of the sanctuary," worth two denarii. (the "penny" of the N.T.) In past times the offering had been voluntary, but some time before our Lord’s day, following a celebrated dispute over the matter in the Sanhedrin between Pharisees and Sadducees, in which the Pharisees were victorious, the tax was made compulsory, and the collectors harried every Jew until he had paid over his half‑shekel. Doubtless the constant movement of Jesus from place to place left room for doubt as to whether in his case the tax had been paid, hence the raising of the question at this juncture.

Peter had said "yes" without thinking very much about it. He had probably paid his own contribution in times past when demanded and thought of it no more. But he had been in secular work then as a fisherman and always had the money to pay. Now he was a full‑time itinerant evangelist and had no money. He had been thus with Jesus for a little under twelve months so the question had not fallen due for consideration before. Now he was beginning to doubt whether he had done right in committing the Master to this payment when he knew all the time that, despite the Pharisees’ dictum, the tax was in principle a voluntary one and it could be that Jesus might have an objection to subsidising this current Temple administration which He had already condemned in no uncertain terms. Also, where was the money to come from? The Temple tax represented two days’ wages of a workingman in full employment; today that could represent £200 sterling. But Jesus and his disciples were penniless preachers and there was no "social security" in those days. No wonder Peter was silent.

Jesus looked across at him again. There was understanding in that glance; there was sympathy, and there was, a certain humorous content too. He knew just what Peter was thinking about, and the nature of his dilemma. Presently He would help him out of his difficulty, but before doing so He would use the incident for Peter’s instruction and, too, for that of all the disciples. He stopped Peter as the others were entering the house. "What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their sons or from others?" (Matt.17:25) Peter roused himself from his thoughts; he knew that something important was coming but he had no idea what it was.

The question, however, was an easy one to answer. He was thoroughly familiar with the policy of the Roman power which taxed subject nations and let off their own nobility and free‑born citizens lightly or completely. "From the others, of course" he responded. Came the answer from Jesus "Then the sons are free." Free‑born citizens of the Empire do not pay tax. In just the same way every Israelite was a son of God, a freeman of the commonwealth of Israel, and his offerings to God were traditionally to be "of his own voluntary will." In so saying our Lord condemned the Pharisaic action which compelled all Jews to pay the tax, and laid down the maxim afterwards elaborated by St. Paul when he discussed the same subject with the Corinthians; "each one must do as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." (2 Cor.9:7) Here, as when on a previous occasion He had talked to the woman of Samaria at Jacob’s well (John 4), He was leading his disciples, and others, to the realisation that God will not accept reluctant service, that He wills that they that worship him do so in spirit and in truth.

So much for the lesson. The practical problem still remained; the collectors were waiting for their money. That introduced another consideration, also of importance. The Temple tax was an institution; compulsory or not, it was looked upon by most men as a necessary and desirable means of ensuring the orderly continuance of the ceremonies and services at Jerusalem which made Judaism what it was. In all probability the collectors themselves were perfectly sincere about it, just as sincere as the many Church workers in our day who set about soliciting donations from all and sundry for one or another of the many needs and good causes associated with present‑day institutional Christianity. Would they, true adherents of orthodox Judaism as they were, even begin to understand this revolutionary new principle being expounded by the Man of Nazareth? Much more likely is it that they, and the people with them, would interpret our Lord’s words as an excuse to avoid payment. Jesus knew that. He was ready to meet them half‑way, until such time as they could fully understand. "Then the sons are free" He had said, but continued "However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel; take that and give it to them for me and for yourself." (Matt.17:27) "Not to scandalise them" is the literal meaning of the Greek. It would be so easy to cause misunderstanding, and the point was not one in which a vital principle was involved. There was every reason to contribute an offering to the upkeep of the Temple—our Lord commended the poor widow who cast in "two mites," (Mark 12:42 KJV) all the living she had and therefore what the Pharisees demanded as a right He would willingly extend to them as a free gift. Again had Jesus anticipated Paul, who likewise said "nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. If your brother is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love." (Rom.14:14‑15) That was lesson number two for Peter.

There still remained the question of finding the money. Without much doubt it could have been provided; although poor, the little band certainly needed, and possessed, a slender store wherewith to meet their simple but essential needs and we know that this was supplied by the poor to whom Jesus ministered and his followers among the people, including one or two somewhat better‑off women, who "provided for them out of their means." (Luke 8:3) But Jesus would not use their offerings, contributed oft‑times out of very scanty resources for the sustenance of him and his disciples, for this purpose. He gave Peter instead an instruction which seems to border on the miraculous, and the question arises: why adopt so unusual a way of meeting the need? Was it to teach Peter lesson number three, that his Master could very appropriately call upon the wealth of his Father in heaven who owns all the gold and silver, and all the treasures of earth, to meet a tax which should never be allowed to fall upon the sacrifices of the poor from which their daily needs were supplied? The Father in heaven needed not this kind of offering from the Son on earth and so He provided the money himself from his own store; the fish swimming in the sea brought it to Peter that he might pay it over as Jesus had directed. The "shekel" was a silver coin worth two didrachma and so met the tax for the Lord and for Peter also.

The simple, matter‑of‑fact manner in which this part of the story is related makes it appear as though Peter saw nothing to wonder at in the instruction. He was getting accustomed now to the marvellous powers of Jesus, much more so than many of recent time who decry the incident as incredible. Not that it is so incredible in the light of the present day. If people in a ship’s cabin or on land can, with the aid of digital electronics and satellite, watch every movement of their fellows in a submarine on the seabed a mile below them, and talk to them, or, even more marvellously, from a control room on earth see and talk to astronauts a quarter of a million miles away, there is nothing unreasonable in visualising Jesus as watching the movements of one fish in the water probably no more than half‑a‑mile from where He was standing, or of so controlling its movements that Peter should catch it so soon as he had cast his line. Divine power is fundamentally infinitely greater than any human power.

It is an established fact that to this day there is a species of fish, called the musht, in the Sea of Galilee which is known to carry small objects such as pebbles or coins in its mouth, being especially attracted to anything bright or shining as a coin. Known also as "St. Peter’s fish," the musht is reared in quantity nowadays in Israel for commercial food production. Peter probably already knew of it and its habits; in simple trust he walked down to the lakeside in full assurance that Jesus would bring this particular one, bearing its coin, to him.

It could not have been many weeks later that Peter was given his famous lesson on forgiveness, highlighting so important an aspect of the Divine character and the Divine plan. One of the more regrettable features of traditional Christian theology is the emphasis placed upon punishment for sin, as though God is seeking for an excuse to hurl his thunderbolts of judgment upon the wicked, whereas in fact the reverse is true; He is always seeking ways and means to save the evil doer from his evil way and bring him back into a state of reconciliation. Jesus had been talking about this for a while past, and the disciples must have found his words strangely at variance with their Judaistic training in which the law of justice demanded an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and the enemies of God and of Israel were most certainly to be visited with condign (deserved) punishment and everlasting destruction without appeal.

Now Jesus was telling them about the shepherd who left his ninety‑nine safely housed sheep to go out on the mountains to seek the single one which was lost, not desisting until he had found it. "For" He said "the Son of Man is come to save that which was lost...it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish." (Matt.18:11‑14 KJV/RSV) At a much earlier time Jesus had told Nicodemus the enquiring Pharisee "God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him." (John 3:17) All this was alien thought to orthodox God‑fearing Jews like Peter, brought up to look for swift and merciless judgment upon the godless without thought as to the possibility, even at the eleventh hour, of their repentance and conversion. Jonah had been angry with God because He had lifted judgment upon the Ninevites consequent upon their conversion (Jonah 3:10 & 4:1), and he was not the only one. Not long after this very time, and despite the principles our Lord had sought to inculcate, James and John wanted to call down fire from heaven to destroy the unfriendly Samaritans who had spurned the Lord and had to be reproved. (Luke 9:51‑55) There is no doubt therefore the lesson was sorely needed. But it had to be brought closer home. From his own position as the One who had come to earth to seek and save the lost ones Jesus turned to the disciples’ own relation to one another in the same matter of forgiveness for wrong done. "If your brother sins against you..." do all that is in your power to win him back. The old Mosaic Law did not talk like that; it defined penalties to be paid and vengeance to be exacted for wrong done. But now "" (Matt.18:15) The principle upon which God is working with all, one that will be openly manifest in the coming Messianic Age when all people of all generations will have the opportunity to "listen to" God and so be "gained" for all eternity, is to be exemplified in the daily lives of God’s children now in all their relationships with their fellows. The keynote is to be forgiveness leading to repentance and reconciliation.

Peter had listened attentively up to this point but the old Judaism died hard and he wanted to know where stood the limit. There surely must be an end to this process of forgiveness and reconciliation. "?" (Matt.18:21) Seven he suggested, perhaps hopefully, that he might have a chance of executing judgment eventually. He might have been thinking of the vision of Amos the prophet of Tekoa, to whom the Lord revealed that He was bringing judgment upon eight peoples after their seventh transgression in each case and would condone their wrongdoing no longer. But again, Jesus led him away from the standards of the past age and showed him the ideals of one that is to come. "" In other words, there was to be no limit to Peter’s forgiveness if by such means he could eventually save his brother.

That is what God is doing with humanity. There is no limit to the Divine endeavour through Christ, to save every one from the evil of his way and bring him into the Father’s family. Only if and when, in his wisdom, He knows that the case is hopeless, will He turn sorrowfully away and leave the determined evildoer to the consequences of their choice.

And now, for another six months, there is no mention of Peter. He was with Jesus all through that six months, doubtless breaking in from time to time with his impetuous questions and receiving in return new lessons upon which he would cogitate and grow each time a little more into conformity with the mould his Master had planned for him. Through Samaria again to Jerusalem, little dreaming that he was leaving Galilee and Capernaum for the last time until after the death of Jesus, roaming through Judea and the region beyond Jordan, the while the weeks passed, bringing them nearer to the tragic events of that last Passover in Jerusalem. One cameo remains before that. The rich young ruler had accosted Jesus, asking what good thing he must do to attain eternal life, and Jesus had told him to sell all that he possessed, to give to the poor, and become a disciple like the others. The young ruler had gone away, sad, and regretful, for he had great possessions, and no one now knows whether he ever did come back. Jesus took advantage of the incident to warn his disciples how the rich, because of their riches, find it hard to enter into the kingdom of God; the disciples wondered aloud how it could be that if the rich, with all their advantages, could not obtain entry, that any at all would be saved. At which Peter, quick as ever, glimpsed a connection between their own renunciation of worldly advantage now and their hoped‑for regnal power in the days of the Kingdom; seeking, as ever, precise definition, he came out with "" (Matt.19:27) No better rendering of Jesus’ reply exists than that offered in the Authorised Version: "" (v.28) The giving of new life; that is the meaning of the Greek word.* The time of the giving of new life is when the Son of Man is to sit on the throne of his glory, and that is the Messianic Age of his reign over the world. To the disciples in their then immature stage of understanding that meant the exaltation of Israel over the rest of the nations and the exaltation of the disciples as rulers over Israel. Later on in life they came to a better and clearer understanding of the Divine purposes and realised that their rulership as members of Christ’s church was not merely over Israel but over all mankind: that their position as rulers was not for personal aggrandisement and glory as with the kings they knew, but for the service and instruction of the ruled, that they might be persuaded away from the practices of selfishness and injustice and violence which is so characteristic of this world, and led to accept the life of selflessness and justice and peace which is the hallmark of the Age to come. Above all things they were to be bringers of new life, life that comes from God to each and every one of humankind whose heart in that glad day will be given to him, and because it comes from God, will be life that is eternal, never‑ending.

So, Peter was left with the golden vision of what one day would surely be, if his faith held fast. It was a vision he was going sorely to need at a time that now was close at hand, for the shadows were gathering around Jesus, and the next that is related of Peter is the tragic incident of his temporary loss of faith when he denied his Master. But, happily, that was only an incident; it was not the end of the story.

AOH\<,br>To be continued