Of the children of others.—This expression too is a variation from the common English translation, which here expresses itself so vaguely, that a common reader can get no just idea whatever of the passage, and is utterly unable to find the point of the allusion. The Greek word is [Greek: allotriôn], (allotrion,) which is simply the genitive plural of an adjective, which means "of, or belonging to others," and is secondarily applied also to "strangers, foreigners," &c., as persons "belonging to other lands;" but the primary meaning is absolutely necessary to be given here, in order to do justice to the sense, since the idea is not that they take tribute money of foreigners rather than of their own subjects; but of their subjects rather than of their own children, who are to enjoy the benefit of the taxation.
A piece of money.—The term thus vaguely rendered, is in Greek [Greek: statêr], (stater,) which was a coin of definite value, being worth among the Jews about four attic drachms, and exactly equivalent to their shekel, a little more than half a dollar of federal money. The tax here paid was the half-shekel tax, due from every Jew for the service of the temple, so that the "piece of money," being one shekel, was just sufficient to pay for both Jesus and Peter. The word translated "the tribute money" (in verse 24) is equally definite in the Greek,—[Greek: didrachmon], (didrachmon,) equivalent to the Jewish half-shekel, and being itself worth half a stater. The stater, however, as a name for Attic and Byzantine gold coins, was equivalent to twenty or thirty times the value of the shekel. (See Stephens's Thes., Donnegan's, Jones's and Pickering's Lexicons.) On this passage see Hammond's Annotations, which are here quite full on values. See too, Lightfoot's Hor. Heb. on Matt. xvii. 25. Macknight's Paraphrase, Poole and Kuinoel, for a very full account of the matter. Also my note on page 32.
There have been two different accounts of this little circumstance among commentators, some considering the tribute money to have been a Roman tax, and others taking the ground which I do, that it was the Jewish tax for the expenses of the temple-worship. The reasons may be found at great length, in some of the authorities just quoted; and it may be remarked that the point of the allusion in Jesus's question to Peter, is all lost on the supposition of a Roman tax; for how could Jesus claim exemption as a son of the Roman emperor, as he justly could from the Jewish tax for the service of the heavenly king, his Father? The correspondence of values too, with the half-shekel tax, is another reason for adopting that view; nor is there any objection to it, except the circumstance, that the time at which this tax is supposed to have been demanded, does not agree with that to which the collection of the temple-tax was limited. (Ex. xxx. 13, and Lightfoot on Matt. xvii. 24.)
THE QUESTION OF SUPERIORITY.
Soon after the last mentioned event, there arose a discussion among the apostles, as to who should have the highest rank in the administration of the government of the Messiah's kingdom, when it should be finally triumphantly established. The question shows how pitiably deficient they still were, in a proper understanding of the nature of the cause to which they were devoted; but the details of this circumstance may be deferred to a more appropriate place, under the lives of the persons, who, by their claims, afterwards originated a similar discussion, in connection with which this may be most properly mentioned. However, it cannot be amiss to remark here, that the very fact of such a discussion having arisen, shows, that no one supposed that, from the peculiar distinctions already conferred on Peter, he was entitled to the assumption of anything like power over the rest of the twelve, or that anything else than a peculiar regard of Christ for him, and a confidence in his zeal and ability to advance the great cause, was expressed in his late honorable and affectionate decla-
