shekel out of the fish

[gdemoss]

Peter opened his mouth and therefore became responsible to pay the tribute. He did not defer to Jesus. Jesus corrected him and sent him on an errand that would renind him that Jesus was the Master. That is what I see.

The narrative shows that Peter was approached and required to give an answer. Since the Law was still binding he did give the correct answer within his limits. At least this time, it was not Peter who was to blame.

Ezra, that makes no sense.

[Ezra]

Ezra, that makes no sense.

 

²⁴ And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

²⁵ 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?

²⁶ Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

²⁷ 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.

 

Where do you see any fault with Peter in this passage?

[gdemoss]

Ezra, that makes no sense.

²⁴ And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

²⁵ 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?

²⁶ Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

²⁷ 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.

Where do you see any fault with Peter in this passage?

He answered for his Master without first knowing his Masters will in the matter.

[Guest]

If The LORD Jesus Did Not Condemn Dear Peter

 

By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. John 13:35

 

Then Who Am I To Do The Deed?

[other one]

I wonder if the coin was shinny new or been laying around on the bottom of the sea for a while.

[gdemoss]

If The LORD Jesus Did Not Condemn Dear Peter

By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. John 13:35

Then Who Am I To Do The Deed?

Do you perceive someone to have condemned Peter?

[sojourner4Christ]

I will share what the Lord has shown me on this.

 

From the OP:

 

Matt:24-27

Why do you think 1: Jesus made Peter go fishing for the sheckle, and 2: why do you think He used one coin for the both of them?

 

Short answer to #1:  Jesus was teaching Peter a lesson.

Short answer to #2:  Peter, not Jesus, incurred the obligation.

 

Also from the OP:

 

Well Jesus could have just pulled the Shekle out of from behind his ear, but Peter had to go and do something to get it. Kind of ironic, since Peter was a fisherman. lol. I just thought of that.

 

Indeed...

 

 

Peter opened his mouth and therefore became responsible to pay the tribute.

 

Exactly.

 

 

He did not defer to Jesus.

 

Exactly.

 

 

Jesus corrected him and sent him on an errand that would renind him that Jesus was the Master. That is what I see.

 

Exactly, and more.

 

 

[simon Peter] answered for his Master without first knowing his Masters will in the matter.

Yes.

 

 

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.

 

Let's break this passage down.

 

Verse 24: The tax collector, approaching the softer target, asked Simon Peter if Jesus paid taxes.
Verse 25: Peter said, "yes". But "Jesus prevented" Peter from paying the tax. Why did Jesus prevent Peter from paying taxes?
Verse 26: Jesus said "Then are the children free" from paying taxes. This is why, because we are now free. But we must not use our liberty as a cloak of maliciousness.
Verse 27: However, to avoid "offending" this tax collector (since, as was the habit of Peter, he opened his mouth too soon without really thinking and obligated Jesus by his statement that Jesus did pay taxes), Jesus told Peter to cast a hook into the sea, and catch a fish, and take out money from its mouth and pay it.

 

Even though Jesus provided a coin to Simon for this tax, it was to avoid "offending" the collector, and because Peter rashly agreed to pay it, not because we are bound to pay taxes by Law. Jesus made the point to stress that the children are free from taxes. But notice, Simon Peter and Jesus did not give him any of their own money, but that which came from the fish! It is interesting to note that Peter was a commercial fisherman (a fisher of fish) before being called to be an apostle of Christ (a fisher of men), and when Peter opened his mouth before thinking (as he often did), Christ basically chastised him by having Peter return to his old life to pay his debt! He had to be a fisher of fish to catch that fish with the coin in its mouth.  Thus, the lesson for us is:  When you join yourself to the world, and make obligations to the world, you must become part of the world again to meet those obligations.

 

Additionally, Jesus could not have fulfilled prophecy if he was to go to prison, which might have happened if he didn't pay that tax after Peter "volunteered" for him. It was not his time to go to prison yet. Likewise, Jesus could have called twelve legions of angels to his rescue, but because the scriptures would not have been fulfilled if he did, he refrained from doing that act (Matthew 26:53-54). Jesus taught that we are free from paying taxes if we are children of the king (Matthew 17:24-26), meaning the children of King Jesus (Acts 17:7, 1 Timothy 1:17).

 

Now, for clarification, if a government is acting strictly as a minister of God, then it is lawful to pay taxes to that government (Romans 13:6), because that "silver coin" which belongs to God also belongs to God's ministers, as they are acting in his name and doing his will. However, if a government is not a minister of God, then there is no duty to give taxes to it.

 

So now we know that Jesus did not ‘pay taxes.’  Rather, Jesus cleverly provided a coin to Simon Peter with which to satisfy Simon’s foolishly incurred obligation and thus teach him (and us) a lesson.

 

[About me:  I don't pay taxes, neither do I owe any man anything but love.  I am not a citizen of any earthly country, not a resident, not any of those legal person-alities.  I am married and have three home birthed and home schooled daughters -- all "unpapered," i.e. no birth cert's, passports, etc.  They are not citizens of any earthly country; they are sovereign in Christ.  Caesar (i.e. man's ungodly government) cannot touch them, although the spirit behind them would kill us (and you).  My family lives, moves, and has its being in Christ -- not in Caesar.

 

I tell you this as one who has been through many trials with man’s ungodly government. I have been incarcerated many times.   My FBI report lists nine arrests and no convictions. (It was an exciting and privileged time in my life when I was given those opportunities to stand for Christ and gain true wisdom.)  Caesar is always trying to pull me back into his world, always presuming that I am still one of his citizens, one of his “right and duty bearing units.”

 

The “coin in the fish’s mouth” passage remains a watershed issue for me in my walk with the King.]

Edited March 17, 2015 by sojourner4Christ

[Ezra]

So now we know that Jesus did not ‘pay taxes.’

This tribute was not a government tax, and Christ requires Christians to pay taxes -- rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's.  I believe Matthew Henry has discerned the truth of the matter quite well, and does not see any fault in Peter's response (below):

 

We have here an account of Christ’s paying tribute.I. Observe how it was demanded,

v. 24. Christ was now at Capernaum, his headquarters, where he mostly resided; he did not keep from thence, to decline being called upon for his dues, but rather came thither, to be ready to pay them.

 

1. The tribute demanded was not any civil payment to the Roman powers, that was strictly exacted by the publicans, but the church-duties, the half shekel, about fifteen pence, which were required from every person or the service of the temple, and the defraying of the expenses of the worship there; it is called a ransom for the soul, Ex. 30:12 , etc. This was not so strictly exacted now as sometimes it had been, especially not in Galilee.

 

2. The demand was very modest; the collectors stood in such awe of Christ, because of his mighty works, that they durst not speak to him about it, but applied themselves to Peter, whose house was in Capernaum, and probably in his house Christ lodged; he therefore was fittest to be spoken to as the housekeeper, and they presumed he knew his Master’s mind. Their question is, Doth not your master pay tribute?

 

Some think that they sought an occasion against him, designing, if he refused, to represent him as disaffected to the temple-service, and his followers as lawless people, that would pay neither toll, tribute, nor custom, Ezra. 4:13 . It should rather seem, they asked this with respect, intimating, that if he had any privilege to exempt him from this payment, they would not insist upon it. Peter presently [spoke]his word for his Master; "Yes, certainly; my Master pays tribute; it is his principle and practice; you need not fear moving it to him.’’

 

(1.) He was made under the law (Gal. 4:4 ); therefore under this law he was paid for at forty days old (Lu. 2:22 ), and now he paid for himself, as one who, in his state of humiliation, had taken upon him the form of a servant, Phil. 2:7, Phil. 2:8 .

 

(2.) He was made sin for us, and was sent forth in the likeness of sinful flesh, Rom. 8:3 . Now this tax paid to the temple is called an atonement for the soul, Ex. 30:15 . Christ, that in every thing he might appear in the likeness of sinners, paid it though he had no sin to atone for.

 

(3.) Thus it became him to fulfil all righteousness, ch. 3:15 . He did this to set an example, [1.] Of rendering to all their due, tribute to whom tribute is due, Rom. 13:7 .

[sojourner4Christ]

Henry offers lots of speculation, qualifiers, generalizations, and just plain guesswork.  He's in the dark.

 

We have here an account of Christ’s paying tribute...

 

Firstly, Christ didn't pay any tribute -- SIMON DID.  It's a tough nut to crack, re: the 'Jesus paid taxes' heresy.  Repeat any lie often enough and ppl will believe it.  The power of the lie is strong.

 

Nothing there from Henry, either, to answer the OP's querry about the presence, the necessity of, the fish aspect -- no connection to the fact that Simon Peter, as a former commercial fisherman, had a persona as one OF the world. 

 

When Simon Peter said "Yes" to the tax men, a contract was established.  And that point, payment was a foregone conclusion i.e. IT WAS A DONE DEAL. THIS ILLUSTRATES THE DANGER OF GODLY MEN JOINING THEMSELVES TO UNGODLY AUTHORITY.

 

Like the majority in the USA Inc. today, who are serving two masters and thus living in fear of gov't jack-booted thugs who are banging down their castle doors AS WE SPEAK to haul ppl away to "indefinite detention" and worse, THIS is what RENDERING TO CAESAR is all about.  When you look to Caesar as your authority, you will render to Caesar.

 

When Hitler's troops came to ppl's houses in the middle of the night to take them away to concentration camps, torture, and death, they did nothing illegal!  The laws in place at that time allowed for that scenario.  And Hitler didn't seize power -- he was elected!

 

Now imagine, for a second, after Simon was PREVENTED by Jesus from paying that tax because a genuine child of God is free from that, Simon goes back to those guys and sheepishly says, 'Look guys, I goofed.  My master and I don't really pay taxes, because the children of God are free.  Sorry about that!'  LOL IT'S TOO LATE! This is precisely why the ONLY reason, as per scripture, that Jesus gave time to the dead thing the tax men were tempting Simon with, was because at this point, to now refuse, after Simon had already contracted to pay, would only cause OFFENSE.   The potential to cause OFFENSE is the only reason why Jesus handled it the way he did.  A man's word is his bond, and Simon's witness (if any) would have been thoroughly shot in the foot, to say the least, if he were now to attempt to refuse to pay after he already agreed to pay.

 

Simon did indeed goof i.e. he made a deal, he "struck hands" with the ungodly gov't and now he must leave his standing as an ambassador of Christ, a sovereign-in-Christ sojourner, a stranger in Caesar's land of which he is not a citizen - AND NOW RETURN to that commercial world ruled by the ungodly, familiar to him formerly as a commercial fisherman, in order to satisfy his incurred obligation to those OF the world.

 

This tribute was not a government tax, and Christ requires Christians to pay taxes -- rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's.

 

It's irrelevant what kind of tax Caesar may require from his subjects.  One does not owe Caesar a plugged nickel if one does not partake of Caesar's 'benefits packages.'  It's a question of authority.  Who do you look to, for the authority to do the things you do?  Most ppl are busy rendering to Caesar what is rightfully due Christ.  It's a worldly protection racket based in vain deceit.  "My ppl are destroyed for lack of knowledge."

Edited March 18, 2015 by sojourner4Christ

[Pamelasv]

I guess I see it as since we have to be in subjection to government authorities...they should have paid taxes to Caesar. 

 

But also, that would have looked very rebellous, and could have been thrown in jail.  Not pretty for Jesus' ministry, IMO.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Pamelasv