Bible Study series: Matthew 17:24-27. Jesus’s Father owned the temple, yet Jesus decided to pay it, to not give needless offense to the Jerusalem and temple establishment.
A warm welcome to this Bible study! I write to learn, so let’s learn together. I also translate to learn. The translations are mine, unless otherwise noted. If you would like to see many others, please click on this link:
In the next link to the original chapter, I comment more and offer the Greek text. At the bottom you will find a “Summary and Conclusion” section geared toward discipleship. Check it out!
In this post, links are provided for further study.
Let’s begin.
Scripture: Matthew 17:24-27
24 As they were entering Capernaum, the ones who collect the two-drachma tax said to Peter, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?” 25 He said, “Yes.” And as he went into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect the poll tax or the census tax? From their sons or from others?” 26 He said, “From others.” Jesus said to him, “Then indeed the sons are free.” 27 But so that we don’t cause an offense for them, go to the lake and toss in your hook, and take out the first fish that comes up. Open its mouth, and you will find four drachmas. Take it and give it to them for me and you.” (Matt. 17:24-27)
Comments:
24:
The two-drachma tax was probably for the temple, and not in support of Rome. It was levied on every Jewish male between twenty and fifty years old to support the functioning of the temple. The two drachmas were worth a half of a stater or shekel (see v. 27). A half shekel was levied to support the tabernacle on each Jew at the census, collected annually (Exod. 30:11-16).
A drachma was worth about a denarius, and a denarius was the pay a farm laborer got for a day’s work. But often farm work was seasonal, so let’s not see him getting 365 denarii (minus the Sabbaths).
25-26:
Peter may have spoken out of embarrassment or defensiveness or insecurity. Did he want to be responsible for the arrest of Jesus or at least the authorities coming down hard on him? Jesus takes the initiative. Did he overhear the conversation or did he know it by supernatural means? My sense is the latter option.
Jesus is saying that the temple belongs to the Father, and there is an obligation for the “others” to pay it, but he is not one of the “others.” He is the Son of the Father. So relationally and theologically he should be exempt from the temple tax. Jesus keeps the questions in the plural: “whom” is in the plural in Greek; “kings,” “sons” (twice) and “others” (twice). This plural number hides the direct point that he is not obligated to pay the tax since he is of the Father. In fact, these two verses are a quick illustration or parable.
Turner: “Accordingly, Jesus, as the unique Son of God, is greater than the temple and is exempt from paying this tax to his Father’s house (cf. 12:6; 21:12-13). The plural [sons] includes the disciples (5:9, 45; 6:9, 26) and probably all Israelites … If so, Jesus teaches that God’s temple should not be maintained by compulsory taxes, but by voluntary offers” (comment on 17:25b-26).
Why Tithing Does Not Apply to New Covenant Believers
27:
“cause offense”: Turner: “Jesus generally treated sinner gently (yet cf. 15:21-28) and religious hypocrites more harshly, but his followers today tend to get this backward, treating religious hypocrites with much deference and protesting loudly against known sinners” (comment on 17:27). Perfectly said.
Yet Jesus is willing to pay the tax, and Paul argues this kind of compliance as well (1 Cor. 8:13; 9:12, 22). If Jesus is the Son of the Father, which was loudly proclaimed on the Mount of Transfiguration (v. 5), and he was exempt from paying it, then how is Peter exempt? He is exempt because he belongs to the kingdom community, and they don’t pay the temple tax. In fact, the church will become the temple (1 Cor. 3:17; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:20-22; 1 Pet. 2:5).
Jesus performed a miracle from a distance. He knew a fish had already swallowed it, or he produced the coin in the fish. He has control over nature. It is a sure thing that American TV evangelists would love to produce coins like that in their bank accounts! But that would appear fishy!
Jesus is also using irony. He proves he is the unique Son of the Father by producing a miracle or knowing supernaturally about the fish; therefore, he does not really need to pay it. Only he could do that. But he willingly goes along with the demand of the tax collectors standing outside the door.
“lake”: it is most often translated as “sea,” because of the Greek word, but the Shorter Lexicon offers the option of “lake.” And since the body of water in Galilee is a lake, I chose this term. The old traditional title, “The Sea of Galilee,” to modern readers, makes no sense when they see it on an online map; the term is inaccurate.
Once again, let’s discuss a little theology on the topic of Jesus working miracles by his divine nature or the Spirit.
(1). Did Jesus work this remarkable miracle in accord with the Father’s will, by his full deity which he imported with him? (2) Or did he work it by the power of the Spirit in accord with the Father’s will? (3) Or maybe it was both his divine nature and the Spirit, in accord with the Father’s will. If it is the first option, he worked the miracle by his divine nature, in accord with the Father’s will, and so the door to our working a similar miracle is slammed shut. We may participate in the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4), but we are not true God, as he was (and is). If it is the second option, then that opens the door to our working miracles by the power of the Spirit, in accord with the Father’s will. In my view, the dominant image in the four Gospels is that he worked his miracles by the Spirit and by the Father’s will. I would not venture to apply the third option to us humans. Too complicated and presumptuous.
GrowApp for Matt. 17:24-27
1. Can you recall a time when God provided miraculously for you? Tell your story. Or did you hear of someone who got a miracle of provision? What did you learn?
RELATED
9. Authoritative Testimony in Matthew’s Gospel
1. Church Fathers and Matthew’s Gospel
2. Archaeology and the Synoptic Gospels
14. Similarities among John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels
1. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: Introduction to Series
SOURCES AND MORE
To see the bibliography, please click on this link and scroll down to the bottom. You will also find a “Summary and Conclusion” for discipleship.
Dr. Jim's Essential Bible Teaching 