The question about our Lord paying the temple tax was not a simple one. He had said that he was the Temple of God, and had exercised his divine rights over the material temple by purging it of buyers and sellers. Would he who said that he was a Temple of God because divinity was dwelling in his human nature now pay the temple tribute? To pay the temple tax after his clear affirmation at the festival of Booths that he was the Son of God would have given rise to some serious misunderstandings. The point at issue was not the poverty of the Master; it was whether or not he who is the living Temple of God would subordinate himself to the symbol and sign of himself. . . .

After having affirmed that as the King of heaven he was immune from earthly tributes, he turned to Peter and said, “However, so that we do not give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook; take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a coin; take that and give it to them for you and me.”
​
​The king’s son is free. But he who is the Son of God became the Son of Man sharing the poverty, trials, the labors, and the homelessness of men. Later on, he would subject himself to arrest, the crown of thorns, and to the cross. Presently, as the Son of Man, he would not stand on his dignity as the Son of God, nor claim immunity from servile obligations, but would voluntarily concede to a tax in order to avoid scandal. It is not a mark of greatness always to affirm one’s right, but often to suffer an indignity.

​​There might be scandal if he showed contempt for the temple. As he submitted himself to John’s baptism to fulfill all righteousness; as his mother offered doves, though she needed no purification from his birth; so he would submit himself to the tax to sanctify the human bonds he wore.