Smoodock's Blog

The recording of whether or not Jesus paid the Temple tax always seemed odd to me. Consider for a moment that the tribute money was equal to a half shekel or about 15 cents in western currency. To be honest, 15 cents today isn’t worth what it was, when I was a child. With 15 cents, I could walk away from the candy store with quite a treasure, as a little boy. Nevertheless, 15 cents back then still wasn’t very much money. Why then, is this record important enough to make it into Matthew’s narrative of Jesus’ public life? The point, I believe, has to do with the principle of the matter, not the 15 cents.[1] Therefore, when Jesus and his disciples had returned to Capernaum, the collectors of the tribute money asked Peter if Jesus paid tribute. Peter, of course, said that he did (Matthew 17:24-25).

Apparently, Jesus overheard Peter’s conversation with the tribute collectors, because before Peter could say anything, Jesus asked him, of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute, of their own children or strangers (Matthew 17:25)? Jesus’ point in asking was that the tribute was used to finance the service in the Temple, the House of God, Jesus’ Father’s House. If Jesus is the Son of God, should he be expected to pay tribute? Obviously, Peter said kings don’t tax their own children. Strangers were responsible for paying tribute, and Jesus agreed (Matthew 17:26).

However, everyone wasn’t privy of this knowledge, nor would everyone agree that Jesus was the Son of God. Nevertheless, in order not to offend the ignorant and to prove Jesus was speaking the truth about his relationship with the Father, he told Peter to go down to the Sea of Galilee and throw in a hook. Take the first fish he caught, open its mouth, and he would find a piece of silver money equal to one shekel. With it Peter could pay the tribute for Jesus and for himself (Matthew 17:27).

So, what’s the point of the 15 cents? How did this story make it into Matthew’s Gospel? Well, besides the fact that the Temple was Jesus’ Father’s house, and he was technically free from having to pay tribute, there are a few other matters to consider. First of all, Jesus is the Temple of God (John 2:19), why should he need to pay tribute for the service of the Temple answering to another worldview? Jesus was the Prophet like Moses who should come (Deuteronomy 18:15-19). Moses came and freed Israel from bondage and brought them to the Promised Land. Jesus’ sacrifice would free men from their bondage to sin and bring them to the Kingdom of God. These are two totally different concepts. One is physical and the other is spiritual. The one foreshadows the other. Should the shadow be supported by the Reality (Colossians 2:16-17)? Which is more important?

Secondly, should the Sacrifice of Christ be expected to pay tribute to the daily sacrifice of an animal upon the altar at Jerusalem? Which is more important? Jesus **is** what the daily sacrifice pointed to. As a matter of principle, why should Jesus have to support what was supposed to point to him. Folks were making the symbol more important than the Reality.      [EB1] 

[1] The Temple tax or tribute money had nothing to do with either Caesar or Herod. It was money that was offered for Temple services, vis-à-vis for salt, wood, flour, incense, the daily sacrifice etc. The authority for taking tribute money for the Temple is derived from Exodus 30:11-16. However, the Law demanded the offering only after a census was taken. It wasn’t an annual affair. However, during the period when Rome governed the world, the tribute was levied against every Jew in the world, not only those in Palestine. Instead of sending the money to Rome as tribute, Caesar granted that Jews could send it to Jerusalem for the Temple service.