PAYING THE TEMPLE TAX (MATTHEW 17:24-27)

 

                                 Clarias Macraconthus (collage, 2009)

It is appropriate that this discussion and miracle involving the temple tax should have been recorded only by Matthew, the former tax collector.

Regarding the miraculous aspect of the story, both Kistemaker and Twelftree categorize it as a nature miracle. But I personally feel that “a miracle of knowledge” is a more accurate description. And even Kistemaker says, “He knew with divine knowledge that the fish had a coin in its mouth.”

Matthew 17:24 – When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the half-shekel tax went up to Peter and said, “Does your teacher pay the tax?”

“Since Jesus and his followers were constantly itinerating from one preach-point to another, it was difficult for tax agents to make contact with them. But now that they were back in Capernaum once more, it was time for the matter to be dealt with.” (Archer)

“A yearly temple tax of a half shekel (2 denarii), required of every male Israelite over twenty, directly supported the temple operations (Ex 30:11-16; Neh 10:32). This tax appears to have been paid faithfully, even by Diaspora Jews, and it served as a marker of Jewish identity. Rome helped to ensure the Jews' right to send money to Jerusalem despite the local tensions caused by this large outflow of cash.” (J.R. Wagner)

“The half-shekel temple tax was derived from the one-third shekel temple tax of Nehemiah 10:32-33 and was raised to a half-shekel possibly under the influence of the half-shekel atonement price of Exodus 30:11-16 (cf. 2 Chron 24:6).” (Schmidt)

Reid notes, “Though this was the prevailing practice, it was not beyond dispute. 4Q159 [one of the Dead Sea scrolls] maintains that it should be paid only once in a lifetime, probably appealing to its origin as a one-time payment in Exodus 30:13-14, and this opinion may have been shared by Jesus (Mt 17:24-27).” This could possibly help explain Jesus' comment in v. 26.

Cohick notes that “the temple accepted only Tyrian silver coins, which were 92 percent silver, a very expensive coin. This requirement probably was a hardship for poor Jews” as well as necessitating money changers in the temple grounds (cf. Matthew 21:12-13 and parallels). Another problem for some Jews was that these Tyrian coins actually pictured a pagan god on one side.

Matthew 17:25a – He said, “Yes.”

Regarding Peter's words, France states, “We do not know whether Peter's confident 'Yes' sprang from knowledge of Jesus' views on the issue or simply from his assumption that Jesus would do as other patriotic Jews did. And Hendricksen suggests that Peter “may have remembered what Jesus had said regarding the law of God (5:17,18). Also, he may have been present on other occasions when the Lord paid the tax.”

Matthew 17:25b – And when he came home, Jesus spoke to him first, saying...

“If he intended to raise the issue with Jesus, he was forestalled by Jesus (through supernatural knowledge, or through having heard the exchange outside?) raising it first with him.” (France)

Matthew 17:25c – “What do you think Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their sons or from others?”

“The analogy of the Roman government taxing aliens heavily would be well understood.” (Nixon)

Matthew 17:26 – And when he said, “From others,” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free.”

Wilkins notes, “In several instances the questions and responses that Peter voices to Jesus on behalf of the disciples were issues that still spoke to the church of Matthew's day (e.g. Mt 15:15; 17-24-25; 18:21).”

Schmidt says that “the statement of Jesus that 'the sons [of the king] are free' stresses voluntarism...it is less likely but also possible that by 'sons of the king,' Jesus is referring only to himself (and therefore only to the exemption from the temple tax).”

On the other hand, “Jesus may be employing the language of fictive kinship to indicate that those in the new family formed around...are not obligated to pay the tax...” (Downs) In this, Bietenhard agrees: “The incident implies that the disciples are 'sons of God', and that Jews are in fact 'others.'”

In saying this, “Jesus did not speak openly against imperial taxation (Mk 12:17), but he did suggest to his disciples that the 'sons are free' of temple taxation.” (Oakman)

This brings up the question of the exact meaning of “free” as expressed in the New Testament writings.

“The term eleutheria (freedom') and its cognates in the Gospels is a broad and complex notion that speaks to the dimensions of freedom exhibited by and accessible through Jesus Christ...the adjective eleutheros is used only three times (Mt 17:26; Jn 8:33,36)...” (Klink III)

Blunk states that “eleutheria is never used in the secular sense of political freedom. From this it may be inferred that the recovery of Israel's political freedom no longer played any part in the thinking of the NT writers. Jesus was no political messiah. The NT also dissociates itself from the idea of freedom as power to do with oneself and one's life whatever one wants. eleutheria is to be seen in the light of 'the glorious liberty of the children of God' (Rom. 8:21).”

Matthew 17:27a – “However, not to give offense to them,”

This phrase of Jesus is a very important one to understanding the whole passage, but unfortunately there is more than one way to take it.

For example, France notes that “this is an interesting contrast to other matters of controversy on which Jesus was only too willing to stand up against practices and assumptions which he saw as wrong in principle, and so to incur the hostility of those of a more conventional outlook...But where it is his own personal privilege that is at stake, he has no problem accommodating himself to what is expected of him...” France sees a possible parallel to Jesus being baptized by John in order “to identify with repentant Israel.”

Schmidt says that Jesus “represents a conciliatory position motivated by love for the Jews.”

But here is quite a different slant on the situation: “Derrett claims that Peter could have claimed exemption on the grounds that Jesus and the disciples were fully employed in God's service. The matter would then have been referred to Jerusalem for a ruling...Although Jesus could claim to be not liable to the tax, he was obliged by the Torah to save the collectors from the sin of compelling him to supply the half-shekel...Jesus was concerned for the moral welfare of the collectors, even though he knew that the tax was not due...The earthly king would provide that his servants were not liable to customs duty; but the heavenly king in this case, caring for the souls of the collectors, would provide for the payment of the half-shekel.” (Colin Brown)

Matthew 17:27b – “go to the sea and cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel.”

Jacques Ellul can always be relied on to provide a unique explanation of Scripture. So he states: “The power which imposes the levy is ridiculous, and he thus performs an absurd miracle to show how unimportant the power is. The miracle displays the complete indifference of Jesus to the king, the temple authorities, etc...We find once again the typical attitude of Jesus. He devalues political and religious power. He makes it plain that it is not worth submitting and obeying except in a ridiculous way.”

“A miracle seems to be implied, but it is the only case n the Gospels where a miracle is not made explicit. Various attempts have been made to explain [or explain away] the incident in other ways, but without much success.” (Nixon)

“The fish in question would be the cat-fish clarias lazarera, known to the Greeks as korakinos. It is an omnivorous predator, liking shallow waters scavenging around landing-places. It would be attracted by a bright disc which could easily have stuck in the back of its throat. As a scaleless fish it was prohibited as food by the [levitical] law.” (Brown) You will note that the title of the collage I began with has a slightly different species of fish listed since I relied on another scholarly source to obtain it.

Matthew 17:27c – “take that and give it to them for me and for yourself.”

Kistenmaker remarks, “This miracle was one in which Jesus himself was a partial beneficiary, together with Peter. All the other miracles Jesus performed for the benefit of others.” It is also unique in that the result of Jesus' instructions are not even given, although we can assume that the event ensued as Jesus had predicted.

The temple tax is literally didrachma and the “coin” in v. 27b is a stater, worth two didrachmas. Thus, there is exactly enough for two people's taxes. But I had wondered why there wasn't enough money to pay all of the apostles' taxes. Ellison provides one possible answer: “Since there is no ground for disassociating Peter from the other disciples in the matter of temple-tax, it is hard to resist the conclusion that he was the only member of the Twelve over twenty.” He cites John 20:20-28 as possible confirmation that at least James and John appear to be youths at the time since their mother is still speaking up on their behalf.

Implications to Dating Matthew's Gospel

One final aspect of this story is worth noting – the historical context. Kreitzer explains, “It is sometimes suggested that the Matthean account of the so-called temple tax...reflects the situation of A.D. 70-96, in which the tax was being levied by the Romans for the reconstruction of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus following the Jewish revolt. Such a scenario has radical implications for the dating of the Gospel of Matthew as a whole, shifting the area of conflict...to that of the Matthean community following the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70.”

To summarize the above opinion: Perhaps Matthew, writing sometime after the destruction of the temple, fabricated this story, not found in the other three Gospel accounts, in order to give guidance to his audience as to how they should deal with the Roman tax being levied on them at the time.

But for a diametrically opposed viewpoint, Nixon states, “The story would have more point if the Gospel were written before AD 70, but it does not demand an early date for the Gospel.”

This appears to be one of those many similar situations where a scholar's opinion is more determined by his basic theological stance than by any more objective criteria.