lishment of the miracle is not positively
recorded, we cannot doubt that what Jesus had promised was realized, as
otherwise there would appear no reason for introducing the incident into
the Gospel narrative. The miracle is without a parallel or even a
remotely analogous instance. We need not assume that the stater was
other than an ordinary coin that had fallen into the water, nor that it
had been taken by the fish in any unusual way. Nevertheless, the
knowledge that there was in the lake a fish having a coin in its gullet,
that the coin was of the denomination specified, and that that
particular fish would rise, and be the first to rise to Peter's hook, is
as incomprehensible to man's finite understanding as are the means by
which any of Christ's miracles were wrought. The Lord Jesus held and
holds dominion over the earth, the sea, and all that in them is, for by
His word and power were they made.

The Lord's purpose in so miraculously supplying the money should be
studiously considered. The assumption that superhuman power had to be
invoked because of a supposed condition of extreme poverty on the part
of Jesus and Peter is unwarranted. Even if Jesus and His companions had
been actually penniless, Peter and his fellow fishermen could easily
have cast their net, and, with ordinary success have obtained fish
enough to sell for the needed amount. Moreover, we find no instance of a
miracle wrought by the Lord for personal gain or relief of His own need,
however pressing. It appears probable, that by the means employed for
obtaining the money, Jesus intentionally emphasized His exceptional
reasons for redeeming Peter's pledge that the tax would be paid. The
Jews, who did not know Jesus as the Messiah, but only as a Teacher of
superior ability and a Man of unusual power, might have taken offense
had He refused to pay the tribute required of every Jew. On the other
hand, to the apostles and particularly to Peter who had been the
mouth-piece of all in the great confession, the payment of the tax in
ordinary course and without explanation by Jesus might have appeared as
an admission that He was subject to the temple, and therefore less than
He had claimed and less than they had confessed Him to be. His
catechization of Peter had clearly demonstrated that He maintained His
right as the King's Son, and yet would condescend to voluntarily give
what could not be righteously demanded. Then, in conclusive
demonstration of His exalt