Why does Jesus question Peter about kings and taxes in Matthew 17:25? Text of Matthew 17:25–27 “‘From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs and taxes—from their own sons, or from others?’ Peter said, ‘From others.’ Jesus replied, ‘Then the sons are exempt. But so that we may not offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up. When you open its mouth, you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for My tax and yours.’” Historical Setting: The Half-Shekel Temple Tax Exodus 30:11-16 instituted an annual half-shekel offering for every Israelite male twenty years and older to fund the tabernacle (later, the temple). By the first century A.D. the tax (didrachma, ≈ two drachmas = half-shekel) was collected each spring. Josephus notes Rome allowed the practice (Ant. 18.312). Tyrian silver half-shekels—unearthed in the Jerusalem “Jerash Hoard” and other digs—match the required weight (≈ 14 g) and bear the year marks that corroborate the Gospel timeframe. Literary Context in Matthew Immediately before, Jesus has been transfigured (17:1-13) and has foretold His death and resurrection (17:22-23). Peter has recently confessed Him as “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (16:16). Matthew positions the tax episode to reinforce Jesus’ divine Sonship and His voluntary humility. Why Jesus Poses the Question a. Pedagogical Method. Rabbinic teachers often began with a question (cf. m. Ber. 4.1). b. Clarifying Status. By contrasting “kings of the earth” with their “sons,” Jesus elicits Peter’s recognition that royalty’s children are exempt from palace revenues. c. Drawing the Parallel. If earthly sons are free, how much more the unique Son of God with respect to His Father’s house (the temple). Theological Significance: Sonship and Freedom The temple belongs to Yahweh; Jesus, as His Son, is naturally exempt. Hebrews 3:6 calls Christ “faithful as the Son over God’s house.” The question frames a claim: Jesus’ authority surpasses that of the temple (cf. 12:6). Peter’s “from others” confession aligns with earlier recognition of Jesus’ divine identity, reinforcing Matthean Christology. Voluntary Payment: Avoiding Needless Offense Jesus immediately adds, “But so that we may not offend them.” The verb skandalizō (“to cause to stumble”) recalls 17:27. Although exempt, Jesus pays to preserve witness and unity, illustrating Romans 14:13 before Paul pens it. The miracle coin underscores divine provision even when believers yield personal rights for the gospel’s sake. Miracle of the Coin: Sign of Sovereignty The appointed fish carries precisely a statēr (four-drachma), the exact sum for two men. Eyewitness specificity—Greek singular ichthyn, “first fish”—fits the historical genre Luke calls “orderly” (Luke 1:3). Archaeological finds of first-century Galilean hook-and-line gear (e.g., Magdala harbor dig, 1971) show the narrative’s realism. The event showcases Jesus’ dominion over nature, paralleling 14:15-21 (bread) and 8:27 (sea). Greater-Than-Temple Motif Earlier Jesus declared, “Something greater than the temple is here” (12:6). By questioning Peter, He tacitly equates His presence with divine ownership of the sanctuary. Kings tax subjects, not heirs; God will not require tribute from His Son. Yet the Son chooses identification with the people He will soon ransom (20:28). Foreshadowing the Ransom The half-shekel in Exodus was called “atonement money” (Exodus 30:16). Jesus, paying Peter’s share, anticipates His substitutionary death. The same gospel later states He gives His life as “a ransom for many” (20:28). Thus the coin prefigures the cross—He covers His disciple’s debt. Ethical Application for Believers Today Followers of Christ are liberated children (Galatians 4:6-7) yet called to defer rather than needlessly offend (1 Peter 2:13-17). Jesus models respecting civic and religious expectations where conscience permits, supported by divine provision. Summary Jesus’ question exposes His royal Sonship, underscores believers’ freedom, highlights voluntary humility, anticipates His redemptive payment, and supplies an enduring ethic of gracious accommodation—all encapsulated in a brief exchange over kings and taxes. |
    |