Matthew 17:22 - 27
22 When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men. 23 They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life.” And the disciples were filled with grief.
24 After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma temple tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?”
25 “Yes, he does,” he replied.
When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own children or from others?”
26 “From others,” Peter answered.
“Then the children are exempt,” Jesus said to him. 27 “But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.”
Questions:
ReplyDelete1. Didn't the disciples hear the part about rising on the third day? Why didn't that cause them to wonder?
2. Why did Jesus pay the temple tax? Why pay it just for Peter and Himself and not the rest of the disciples?
http://www.ccel.org/study/Matthew_17:23 says:
ReplyDeleteThe nearer that the time of his death approached, the more frequently did Christ warn his disciples, lest that melancholy spectacle might give a violent shock to their faith.
The disciples had previously received several intimations on this subject, and yet they are as much alarmed as if nothing relating to it had ever reached their ears. So great is the influence of preconceived opinion, that it brings darkness over the mind in the midst of the clearest light. The apostles had imagined that the state of Christ’s kingdom would be prosperous and delightful, and that, as soon as he made himself known, he would be universally received with the highest approbation. They never thought it possible that the priests, and scribes, and other rulers of the Church, would oppose him. Under the influence of this prejudice, they admit nothing that is said on the other side; for Mark says that they understood not what our Lord meant. Whence came it that a discourse so clear and distinct was not understood, but because their minds were covered by the thick veil of a foolish imagination?
They did not venture to make any farther inquiry. This must have been owing, in part, to their reverence for their Master; but I have no doubt that their grief and astonishment at what they had heard kept them silent. Such bashfulness was not altogether commendable; for it kept them in doubt, and hesitation, and sinful grief. In the meantime, a confused principle of piety, rather than a clear knowledge of the truth, kept them attached to Christ, and prevented them from leaving his school. A certain commencement of faith and right understanding had been implanted in their hearts, which made their zeal in following Christ not very different from the implicit faith of the Papists; but as they had not yet made such progress as to become acquainted with the nature of the kingdom of God and of the renewal which had been promised in Christ, I say that they were guided by zeal for piety rather than by distinct knowledge.
that a plain and distinct announcement of the cross of their Master, and of the ignominy to which he would be subjected, appeared to them a riddle; not only because they reckoned it to be inconsistent with the glory of the Son of God that he should be rejected and condemned, but because it appeared to them to be highly improbable that the grace which was promised in a peculiar manner to the Jews should be set at naught by the rulers of the nation.
http://www.heavensfamily.org/ss/family_devotions/day_72 says:
ReplyDeleteThe Temple tax was one that all Jews were supposed to pay once a year for the upkeep and maintenance of the Temple in Jerusalem. Because the Temple tax, like most taxes, was unpopular, special tax collectors were assigned to certain areas, and were responsible to see that as many people as possible paid. Perhaps knowing how influential Jesus had become in Galilee, several tax collectors approached Peter to find out if Jesus endorsed and personally paid the tax. Confident that Jesus was a very upright person (to say the least), Peter assured his questioners that Jesus did pay the tax, but then went to talk to Jesus about it. He was perhaps fearful that he had misrepresented Jesus, or he may have been planning on asking Jesus for the money to pay the tax while the tax collectors waited outside.
Although He really didn't have a responsibility to pay the Temple tax, Jesus didn't want to offend the tax collectors, indicating that they probably were waiting outside for His money. So He gave Peter instructions for getting enough money to pay the tax for both of them.
Let's use our imaginations to picture what happened next. Peter walks out of the house and says to the waiting tax collectors, "I'll have the money for Jesus' and my tax in just a minute---I just need to go pick it up. Please follow me." Together they walk to the shore where Peter picks up his fishing rod and casts a line into the water. In a second or two, he has a fish on his line and reels it in. He takes the fish off the hook, opens its mouth, reaches in to pull out a coin, and hands it to the astonished tax collectors! I wonder if they had any more questions for Peter after that! I wonder if they became followers of Jesus themselves!
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BS/k/1586/Miracles-Jesus-Christ-Coin-in-Fishs-Mouth.htm says:
ReplyDeleteHis account of Christ's life tends to highlight the King and His Kingdom. Why, then, should the King be subject to a tax? Is He not the Son of God, the Heir of all His Father's house?
This tax was not a Roman civil tax but a religious one supporting the Temple in Jerusalem. God inaugurated this tax in the wilderness, instructing Moses to take a half shekel from every male twenty years and older (Exodus 30:11-16). It provided for the work of the Tabernacle and later of the Temple, including during the time of Christ. This tax was not an evil one per se, helping to cover legitimate costs of the worship of God, but as with almost all taxation, the money was often misused.
Does Peter err in how he answers?
Peter appears concerned that Jesus would not be esteemed a good Jew if He did not pay the tax. Not wanting to bring dishonor and danger on Him, he acknowledges Jesus' liability to pay the taxes as if He were a mere son of Israel. His reply implies that Jesus had paid the tax and would continue to do as every devout Jew should.
Technically, Peter errs about the legality of taxing the Son of God, but Jesus uses the principle of not needlessly offending a brother (Luke 17:1-2) to positively express His divinity and spiritual power: He performs a miracle. Christ is so considerate that He would rather pay any amount, however unjust or objectionable, than endanger God's work by unnecessarily provoking negative comments that would hurt its credibility, saying, "lest we offend them" (Matthew 17:27). His example should inspire us for when we feel slighted or taken advantage of (Romans 14:21-22).