Matthew 17:26

Mat 17:26. Ἐλεύθεροι, free) The argument is as follows: Jesus is the Son of God (Mat 17:5), and the heir of all things; but the Temple, for the sake of which the didrachms are paid, is the house of God: it behoved Jesus, on paying the didrachm, to do so under protest. They who received the tribute were not capable of comprehending (non capiebant) the protest, therefore it is addressed to Peter. They who pertain to Jesus, possess also the right of Jesus.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat_17:26. Ἄραγε … υἱοί] Application: Therefore I, as the Son of God, am exempt from the tax which is payable to Jehovah, i.e. to His temple. The inference in this argument, which is of the nature of a dilemma, and which proceeds on the self-consciousness of Jesus regarding His supernatural sonship (comp. note on Mat_22:45), is an inference a minori ad majus, as is indicated by οἱ βας. τῆς γῆς. If, indeed, in the case of earthly kings their sons are exempted from the taxes they impose, it follows that the Son of the heavenly King, the Son of God, can be under no obligation to pay the taxes which He imposes (for the temple). The plural οἱ υἱοί is justifiable in the general proposition as a generic (comp. note on Mat_2:20) indefinite plural, but the application must be made to Jesus only, not to Peter as well (Paulus, Olshausen, Ewald, Lange, Hofmann, Schriffbew. II. 1, p. 131, Gess, Keim), inasmuch as the predicate, in the sense corresponding to the argument, was applicable to Jesus alone, while υἱοί, taken in the wider spiritual sense, would embrace not merely Peter and the apostles, but those believers in general whose connection with the Jewish temple was not broken off (Joh_4:21) till a somewhat later period.

The principle laid down by Jesus, that He is under no obligation to pay temple-tax on the ground of His being the Son of God, is, in thesi, to be simply recognised, and requires no justification (in answer to de Wette); but, in praxi, He waives His claim to exemption, and that from a regard to the offence which He would otherwise have given, inasmuch as the fact of His divine sonship, and the μεῖζον εἶναι τοῦ ἱεροῦ (Mat_12:6) which it involved, were not recognised beyond the circle of believers, and He would therefore have been looked upon exclusively as an Israelite, as which He was, of course, subject to the law (Gal_4:4). If on some other occasion we find Him asserting His Messianic right to subordinate certain legal enactments to His own will (see Mat_12:8; Joh_7:21 ff.), it must be borne in mind that in such cases He had to do with enemies, in answer to whose accusation He had to appeal to the authority implied in His being commissioned to bring about the Messianic fulfilment of the law (Mat_5:17). This commission did not supersede His personal obligation, imposed upon Him in His birth and circumcision, to comply with the law, but only gave to His obedience the higher ideal and perfect character which distinguished it.

ἐλεύθεροι] put well forward for sake of emphasis.

The idea that the δίδραχμον is given to God, is found likewise in Joseph. Antt. xviii. 4. 1.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 17:26 . ἄραγε on the force of this particle vide at Mat 7:20 . The γε lends emphasis to the exemption of the υἱοί . It virtually replies to Peter’s ναί = then you must admit, what your answer to the collectors seemed to deny, that the children are free. The reply is a jeu d’esprit . Christ’s purpose is not seriously to argue for exemption, but to prepare the way for a moral lesson.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Peter saith unto him, Of strangers--"of those not their children."

Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free--By "the children" our Lord cannot here mean Himself and the Twelve together, in some loose sense of their near relationship to God as their common Father. For besides that our Lord never once mixes Himself up with His disciples in speaking of their relation to God, but ever studiously keeps His relation and theirs apart (see, for example, on the last words of this chapter)--this would be to teach the right of believers to exemption from the dues required for sacred services, in the teeth of all that Paul teaches and that He Himself indicates throughout. He can refer here, then, only to Himself; using the word "children" evidently in order to express the general principle observed by sovereigns, who do not draw taxes from their own children, and thus convey the truth respecting His own exemption the more strikingly:--namely, "If the sovereign's own family be exempt, you know the inference in My case"; or to express it more nakedly than Jesus thought needful and fitting: "This is a tax for upholding My Father's House. As His Son, then, that tax is not due by Me--I AM FREE."

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 26. Then are the children free] As this money is levied for the support of that temple of which I am the Lord, then I am not obliged to pay the tax; and my disciples, like the priests that minister, should be exempted from the necessity of paying.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(26) Of strangers.—The answer must be looked at from the Eastern rather than the European theory of taxation. To the Jews, as to other Eastern nations, direct taxation was hateful as a sign of subjugation. It had roused them to revolt under Rehoboam (1Ki_12:4), and they had stoned the officer who was over the tribute. They had groaned under it when imposed by the Syrian kings (1Ma_10:29-30; 1Ma_11:35). It was one of their grievances under Herod and his sons (Jos. Ant. xvii. 8, § 4). Judas of Galilee and his followers had headed an insurrection against it as imposed by the Romans (Act_5:37). It was still (as we see in Mat_22:17) a moot point between the Pharisees and Herodians whether any Jew might lawfully pay it. Peter naturally answered our Lord’s question at once from the popular Galilean view.

Then are the children free.—The words are commonly interpreted as simply reminding Peter of his confession, and pressing home its logical consequence that He, the Christ, as the Son of God. was not liable to the “tribute” which was the acknowledgment of His Father’s sovereignty. This was doubtless prominent in the answer, but its range is, it is believed, wider. (1.) If this is the only meaning, then the Israelites who paid the rate are spoken of as “aliens,” or “foreigners,” in direct opposition to the uniform language of Scripture as to their filial relation to Jehovah. (2.) The plural used not only in this verse but in that which follows, the “lest we should offend them,” the payment for Peter as well as for Himself, all indicate that we are dealing with a general truth of wide application. Some light is thrown upon the matter by a fact of contemporary history. The very point which our Lord decides had been debated between the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Temple-rate question was to them what the Church-rate question has been in modern politics. After a struggle of seven days in the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees carried their point, made it (what it had not been before) a compulsory payment, and kept an annual festival in commemoration of their victory. Our Lord, placing the question on its true ground, pronounces judgment against the Pharisees on this as on other points. They were placing the Israelite on the level of a “stranger,” not of a “son.” The true law for “the children of the kingdom” was that which St. Paul afterwards proclaimed: “not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver” (2Co_9:7).

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

26. then are the children free] “the sons are exempt from tribute.” The deduction is, “Shall He whom thou hast rightly named the Son of God pay tribute to the Temple of his Father?” The Romans called their sons free (liberi), as opposed to slaves.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Peter saith unto him,.... The Vulgate Latin reads, "and he said": and so the Ethiopic, and Munster's Hebrew Gospel; but without doubt Peter is meant, and rightly expressed; whose answer to Christ's question is,

of strangers: meaning not foreigners, or such who formerly belonged to other nations, but were now taken captive, and brought into subjection; but their own native subjects, so called, in distinction from their domestics, their children, and those of their own family:

Jesus saith unto him, then are the children free; from paying custom, tribute, and taxes, and leaves Peter to make the application; and which he suggested might be made, either thus: supposing it was a civil tax, that since he was the son of David, king of Israel, was of his house and family, and heir apparent to his throne and kingdom; according to this rule, he must be exempt from such tribute: or, thus; taking it to have respect to the half shekel, paid on a religious account, for the service of the temple worship; that since he was the Son of the King of kings, for the support of whose worship and service that money was collected; and was also the Lord and proprietor of the temple, and greater than that, he might well be excused the payment of it.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

Ver. 26. Then are the children free] q.d. And much more I (who am the natural, the only begotten Son of that King everlasting, the heir of all) am privileged from payments. Yet because few knew, what Peter did, that he was the Christ, the Son of the living God, the Son also of David, according to the flesh, lest by his example he should occasion and encourage either the Jews to deny payment, or the Romans to defy the gospel as contrary to monarchy, he would not make use of his immunity, but sent to sea for money to make payment.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But that we may not. Jesus Christ pays the tribute, not as one subject to the law, but as consulting the infirmity of the people; but he first shews himself exempt from the above example, lest his disciples might take occasion of scandal therefrom. (St. John Chrysostom, hom. lix.) --- For me and thee. A great mystery this: Jesus Christ paid not only for himself, but for the future representative of Him and his Church, in whom, as chief, the rest were comprised. (St. Augustine, q. ex Nov. Tes. q. lxxv. tom. 4.) Jesus Christ here, as well as on many other occasions, pointedly marks the precedence of Peter, which might give rise to the strife and contention of the disciples, in the commencement of the ensuing chapter, on the subject of superiority. Thus St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom, Tirinus, &c.

====================

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

26. Then are the children free — Kings do not take tribute of their own sons. Now of the temple God is king, and I am his Son. Why then, Peter, did you so far forget my Sonship as to pledge me to become a tribute-payer? Peter had but lately confessed his Lord in the most solemn style, at Cesarea Philippi, as Son of the living God. He had but a few days previously heard God’s voice, on the mount of transfiguration, proclaim Jesus as his beloved Son. Why then should God’s Son pay tribute for his own house? Nevertheless our Lord did not avail himself of this divine exemption.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Of strangers. Peter is brought to the desired point. He answers, as any one would, that in earthly kingdoms the children of the ruling monarch are exempt from taxes, which are exacted from all other subjects. Then are the children free. The comparison required the use of the plural, though the reference is properly confined to himself. The deduction leads naturally to the lesson of Christ"s immunity, he virtually implies (though the inference is not developed in words), "I am the Son of God, as you, Peter, have acknowledged; this tax is levied for the house and service of God, whose Son I am; therefore I am free from the obligation of paying it; it cannot be required that I should pay tribute to my Father." Looked at in its original nature, the impost could not with propriety be demanded from him. It was an offering of atonement, a ransom of souls.

How could he give money in expiation of himself he who had come to give his life a ransom for others? Why should he ransom himself from sin and death, who had come to take away sin and destroy death and open everlasting life to all men? There was need to make the point clear now that Christ had openly asserted his Messiahship and his Divine nature. To pay the demand without explanation, after the statement of his Divinity, might occasion serious misapprehension in the minds of his followers. So he gently but convincingly shows that his claim of Sonship exempted him from all liability of the impost.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Then are the sons free - The sense is, This is paid for the use of the house of God. But I am the Son of God. Therefore I am free from any obligation of paying this to my own Father.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Connecting Statement:

Jesus continues to teach Peter about paying the temple tax.

General Information:

This is the end of the part of the story that began in Matthew 13:54, where Matthew tells of continued opposition to Jesus' ministry and teaching about the kingdom of heaven.

When he said, "From others," Jesus said

If you translated Jesus' questions as statements in Matthew 17:25, you may need to give an alternate response here. You could also state it as an indirect quotation. AT: "When Peter said, 'Yes, that is true. Kings collect taxes from foreigners,' Jesus said" or "After Peter agreed with Jesus, Jesus said" (See: Direct and Indirect Quotations)

From others

In modern times, leaders usually tax their own citizens. But, in ancient times, the leaders often taxed the people they had conquered rather than their own citizens.

sons

people over whom a ruler or king rules

But so that we do not cause the tax collectors to sin, go

"But we do not want to make the tax collectors angry. So, go."

throw in a hook

Fishermen tied hooks to the end of a line, then threw it in the water to catch fish. (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

its mouth

"the fish's mouth"

a shekel

a silver coin worth four days' wages (See: Biblical Money)

Take it

"Take the shekel"

for me and you

Here "you" is singular and refers to Peter. Each man had to pay a half shekel tax. So one shekel would be enough for Jesus and Peter to pay their taxes. (See: Forms of You)

translationWords

Peter

alien

Jesus

tax

sin

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

26. εἰπόντος δὲ (אBCL) for λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Πέτρος, not supported by the later uncials.

26. ἐλεύθεροί εἰσιν οἱ υἱοί, ‘the sons are exempt from tribute.’ The deduction is, ‘Shall he whom thou hast rightly named the Son of God pay tribute to the Temple of his Father?’ The Romans called their sons free (liberi), as opposed to slaves.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

26.] The whole force of this argument depends on the fact of the payment being a divine one. It rests on this: ‘if the sons are free, then on Me, being the Son of God, has this tax no claim.’

κῆνσος, money taken according to the reckoning of the census,—a capitation tax: a Latin word.

ἀλλοτρίων, all who are not their children; those out of their family.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

26. And when he said, From aliens; Jesus said to him, Then are their own people free.]

(P)

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.