<p>17:27&nbsp;<em>However, not to give offence to them</em>- This sets the scene for the Lord's sober teaching about the eternal danger of offending others (i.e. making them to spiritually stumble) in 18:6-9. His own example was of supreme effort not to offend others. He likewise carefully explained to His disciples the likely sequence of events surrounding His death &quot;so that you should not be offended&quot; (Jn. 16:1). But He also knew that they would be offended because of those things (Mt. 26:31). But so sensitive was He to the tragedy of others stumbling that He as it were laboured against His own foreknowledge, so that others would not be offended in Him. We are without doubt to take His example to ourselves, and go to any lengths to ensure that others do not stumble, especially because of us. The Lord specifically focused upon Peter, in order to teach him the extent we should go to in order not to offend others; because He had recently rebuked Peter for being a cause of stumbling to Him (Mt. 16:23). Not to offend others was a major plank of the Lord's teaching- it was the epitome of the kind of iniquity which would exclude from His Kingdom (Mt. 13:41), and literally any length must be gone to in order not to offend (cutting out own eyes, hands etc.; Mt. 5:29,30). Paul speaks of divisions and offences which are contrary to the doctrine learnt by the early Christians (Rom. 16:17). That &quot;doctrine&quot; or teaching would've been the Gospels themselves; and these teachings about not offending others were therefore up front as first principles in the early church. We do well to note that Paul brackets together divisions and offences; spiritual stumbling so often comes from division, and those who cause division thereby make others stumble. This is so true to observed reality amongst us- people spiritually stumble because of their exposure to divisions.</p>
<p>As the Son of God, walking freely in His Father&rsquo;s house, Jesus didn&rsquo;t have to pay the temple tax (Mt. 17:26,27). He could have insisted that He didn&rsquo;t need to pay it, He could have stood up for what was right and true. But doing this can often be selfish, a defence of self rather than a seeking for the Father&rsquo;s glory. And so He told Peter that &ldquo;lest we should offend them&rdquo;, He would pay it. He was so hopeful for their salvation one day that He was worried about offending these wretched men, who weren&rsquo;t fit to breathe the same air that He did. We would have given up with them; but He worried about offending what potential faith they might have. The Lord spoke of not making the Orthodox Jews stumble by not paying the tribute; yet He goes on to say that one must beware lest we make the little ones who believe, to stumble (Mt. 17:27; 18:6). Is it not that He saw in Orthodox Jewry the beginnings of faith&hellip; a faith which was to come to fruition when a great company of priests were later obedient to the faith in Him? None of us would have had that sensitivity, that hopefulness, that seeking spirit. It is truly a challenge to us. In those last six months, the Scribes and Pharisees repeatedly tried to trick the Lord. But He took the time to answer their questions, seeking to lead them to understanding and repentance- and His denunciations of them were probably softly and imploringly spoken, still seeking for the inevitability of future judgment to lead them to repentance. As the Son of God, walking freely in His Father&rsquo;s house, Jesus didn&rsquo;t have to pay the temple tax (Mt. 17:26,27). He could have insisted that He didn&rsquo;t need to pay it, He could have stood up for what was right and true. But doing this can often be selfish, a defence of self rather than a seeking for the Father&rsquo;s glory. And so He told Peter that &ldquo;lest we should offend them&rdquo;, He would pay it. He was so hopeful for their salvation one day that He was worried about offending these wretched men, who weren&rsquo;t fit to breathe the same air that He did. We would have given up with them; but He worried about offending what potential faith they might have. Even at the end of His ministry, He still sought to convert them. He reasoned with them, using carefully prepared Old Testament allusions in the hope they would understand them, when we would almost certainly either have given up, or would just be gritting our teeth, trying to be patient with them because we didn&rsquo;t want to sin&hellip;but He was full of a genuine, unpretended desire for their salvation. See on 8:4.</p>
<p>Acting as He would act is really the whole key to not giving offence / causing others to stumble. He above all valued the human person to an extent no other human being has ever reached. When asked to pay the temple tax, which apparently few people paid in Galilee at that time, the Lord did so &ldquo;lest we should offend them&rdquo;- even though, as He explained to Peter, He was exempted from it, as the Son in His Father&rsquo;s house (Mt. 17:27). He could have appealed to higher principle. But the Lord was worried that somehow He might make these apparently mercenary, conscience-less legalists to stumble in their potential faith. We would likely have given up with them as not worth it. But the Lord saw the potential for faith within them. And only a few verses later we are reading Him warning that those who offend the little ones who believe in Him will be hurled to destruction (Mt. 18:6). Could it not be that the Lord saw in those hard hearted, hateful legalists in the ecclesia of His day&hellip;little ones who potentially would believe in Him? And His positive, hopeful view of them paid off. For a year or so later those types were being baptized, along with a great company of priests. People change. Remember this, and given that fact, try to hope for the best, as your Lord does with you. People&nbsp;<em>can&nbsp;</em>change, and they&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;change, even those whom at present you just can&rsquo;t abide in the brotherhood.</p>
<p><em>Go to the sea, cast a hook and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find</em>- Peter still carried his fishing tackle round with him in his pack, apparently. He had a strong attraction to fishing, almost making us wonder whether &ldquo;Do you love Me more than these?&rdquo; was a reference to the haul of fish lying there when the Lord spoke those words. His claim in Mk. 10:28 to have &ldquo;left all&rdquo; wasn&rsquo;t really totally true. He evidently had in mind how he had left his nets and walked away, following Jesus (Mk. 1:18). Then he thought he was following Jesus in the way the Lord demanded. For some time later, the Lord &ldquo;entered into one of the ships, which was (i.e. still, at that time) Simon&rsquo;s&hellip;&rdquo; (Lk. 5:1). Peter had been fishing all night in Jn. 21:3- strange, for a man who had so dramatically left his nets to respond to the Lord&rsquo;s call. But after the miraculous catch of fishes, Peter &ldquo;forsook all, and followed him&rdquo;. Note that Mark&rsquo;s [Peter&rsquo;s] Gospel omits many incidents, but also uses the device of repetition to stress what the writer considers significant. Thus in Mk. 1:16 Peter tells us twice that he&nbsp;<em>was</em>&nbsp;a fisherman [cp. 14:68]. By the time of Lk. 18 and the conversation with the rich young man, Peter was confident he had forsaken all. But &ldquo;I go a fishing&rdquo; (Jn. 21:3) would suggest that even this forsaking of all had not been so dramatic. The boats were still there. The Lord had taught that following Him meant not just leaving behind for a moment, but selling up and giving the money to the poor. This Peter had not done. But he assumed that because he was physically following Jesus, well therefore what the Lord demanded of the rich young man, he had as good as done; for that young man wouldn&rsquo;t follow Jesus, but Peter would. It is easy to understand how Peter reasoned- for the fact we are&nbsp;apparent followers of the Lord in a world which chooses to reject Him, can lead to an assumption that we must of course be following just as He asks of us.</p>
<p><em>A coin. Take that and give it to them for me and for yourself</em>- A&nbsp;<em>stater</em>, a shekel (RV)- enough to pay two half shekel taxes, for Peter and Himself (see on :24).</p>
<p>The whole incident of fishing for the coin in order to provide the temple tax is somewhat strange at first blush- until we realize that it is in fact a further commentary upon the prediction of the Lord&rsquo;s death which He has just made in the immediately preceding verses. The temple tax was Biblically described as &ldquo;the atonement money&rdquo; (Ex. 30:16), &ldquo;a ransom for his soul&rdquo; (Ex. 30:12), and this led the Jews to claim that all who paid it therefore were represented in the sacrifices offered on the temple altar. It&rsquo;s therefore logical that this incident follows straight on from the Lord&rsquo;s prediction of His death on the cross. The Mishnah made the connection clearly when commenting upon the temple tax: &ldquo;R. Eleazar (the Amora) further said: a man would pay his Shekel and thus obtain atonement&rdquo; (<em>Baba Bathra</em>&nbsp;9a). The coin He provided was to be given &ldquo;for Me and you&rdquo;, the&nbsp;<em>anti</em>&nbsp;(translated &ldquo;for&rdquo;) suggesting that the coin was&nbsp;<em>instead of&nbsp;</em>or&nbsp;<em>representative of</em>&nbsp;&lsquo;Me and you&rsquo;. At least theoretically, the temple tax was used to buy the animals which were sacrificed- and so the Lord would be teaching that He provided the atonement money, the ransom, because He was the animal sacrificed. And He provided for both Himself and Peter, representative of all the disciples at this moment (see on :24), in that His sacrifice was the basis of His own redemption insofar as He too was human. If Matthew indeed is bringing out a more figurative aspect of the story, this would explain the rather strange way the questioners are recorded as asking &ldquo;Does your Master&nbsp;<em>teleo</em>&nbsp;tribute?&rdquo; (:24).&nbsp;<em>Teleo</em>&nbsp;means to fulfil; and this is how the word is usually used in the New Testament. There were more obvious words which could have been used to express the simple idea of &lsquo;payment&rsquo;. The usage of the word surely hints at the Lord Jesus not just paying but fulfilling the type of the temple tax. It&rsquo;s noteworthy that here in Mt. 17 we have the second prediction of the Lord&rsquo;s sufferings and death. The first prediction was also followed by an allusion to the temple tax- the Lord speaks there of what a man could give &ldquo;in exchange [s.w. &lsquo;ransom&rsquo;] for his soul&rdquo; (Mt. 16:26)- the very phrase used in the LXX of Ex. 30:12, which speaks of the temple tax as &ldquo;a ransom for his soul&rdquo;. And in that same context in Mt. 16, the Lord speaks of His resurrection as being predicted in &ldquo;the sign of the prophet Jonah&rdquo;, whereby salvation was in the mouth of the fish. And that theme is here continued. The third prediction of the passion is likewise followed by the statement that the Lord&rsquo;s death was &ldquo;a ransom for many&rdquo; (20:28)- yet another allusion to the temple tax of Ex. 30:12. The initial question was whether the Lord paid the temple tax. As so often, He answers the question with a meta principle which places the issues so far higher than the original question. He was providing the actual atonement money, ransom and sacrifice which the temple tax prefigured. He&nbsp;<em>was</em>&nbsp;those things. To ask Him to pay a coin to a corrupt religious leader was so irrelevant and inappropriate. And yet having made the point, in His grace and condescension to human weakness, He still pays the coin in concern that otherwise, the potential faith of those legalists might be somehow hindered.</p>