Jesus, The Exemplary Citizen, Matthew 17:22-27
We are coming to a brief section where we see a picture of Jesus as the exemplary citizen. That is probably not something that we normally think about. We think of Jesus in a lot of other areas in His life and ministry: His role as Messiah, His role eventually as the one who dies on the cross for our sins and becomes the redeemer of all mankind. But Jesus is also living in a culture, He is living in Israel at the time when they are under the heel of the Roman Empire, and so He had several different administrative authorities that were over Him—the Romans, as well as the temple, the Mosaic Law because He was still living in the dispensation of the Mosaic Law—and so there are implications to all of that that affected the way He lived. He is demonstrating that the way He lives His life as a human being is an example for us that we are to glorify God in every single area of life as we walk by the Spirit.
This is in the last six months of Jesus'
earthly ministry when things start to get really intense. We still have ten or
eleven chapters left to go in Matthew and that is all in the last six months.
This is ever since Jesus has been rejected by the spiritual leadership of
Israel who accused of performing His miracles in the power of Beelzebul
(Satan). He is also not looked upon kindly by the political leadership—Herod
Antipas had John the Baptist executed and from that point on Jesus hasn't spent
a whole lot of time in Galilee. From now until His arrest Jesus spends less and
less time with the crowds and the multitudes, and more and more time privately
teaching the disciples in preparation for their future ministry.
Immediately after the deliverance of the demon possessed boy the disciples go home and are staying in Galilee. They were gathered together (Greek: SUSTREPHO). Remember that before the mount of transfiguration Jesus took three of the disciples with Him and left the other nine behind. They come back together with that episode of the young boy who was having seizures, and now the text is saying, “When they had come back together”.
Matthew
17:22 NASB “And while they were gathering together in Galilee,
Jesus said to them, 'The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of
men'”. What is interesting is that the word used to be betrayed is the Greek
word PARADIDOMI. It means in
its most generic sense to simply be delivered to someone, to be handed over to
someone. In a generic sense we could look at this and say that all Jesus is
saying is that the Son of Man is about to be delivered into the hands of men.
But what we will see is that this word is the word that is consistently used in
the Gospels to describe Judas's betrayal of Jesus. So I think it is more
specific than just a generic term of handing Jesus over. We do find the generic
sense, for example, in Isaiah 53, the prophecy of the suffering Messiah. Isaiah
53:6 NASB “All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has
turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.” The Hebrew word implies that God is casting our sins upon the
Lord. But when that was translated into the Greek (the LXX) the rabbis
used the word PARADIDOMI, which
means to deliver over. The word is used again in Isaiah 53:12— “poured out” was
translated as PARADIDOMI in the LXX. So this is
the generic use of being delivered or given over to something.
We also have that generic sense of PARADIDOMI in the New Testament. Romans 4:25 NASB “{He} who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.” Rom 8:32 NASB “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all ...” But the word is the word that has the narrower meaning of simply to deliver over for the betrayal by Judas Iscariot. So this is the first hint of Jesus' betrayal by Judas.
John 6:70, 71 NASB “Jesus answered them, 'Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and {yet} one of you is a devil?' Now He meant Judas {the son} of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.” In a lot of English versions “devil” doesn't have a definite article in the Greek, and so it is translated “a devil”. But there is only one Devil and that is Satan. In the Greek this is a distinctive, unique kind of noun that in and of itself is definite, so it should be translated “the Devil”. Each of the translations have their idiosyncrasies and one of the idiosyncrasies of the original KJV was that every time the translators came across the word demon they translated it devil, and that leads to a misunderstanding. Nobody was possessed by devils; they were possessed by demons. There is only one Devil. In John 6:71 John makes it clear that Jesus was speaking of Judas Iscariot. He was the Devil. John 13:2 NASB “During supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, {the son} of Simon, to betray Him.” That word “betray” is PARADIDOMI, the word that we have in Matthew 17:22. John 13:18 NASB “I do not speak of all of you. I know the ones I have chosen; but {it is} that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘HE WHO EATS MY BREAD HAS LIFTED UP HIS HEEL AGAINST ME’ ... [26] Jesus then answered, “That is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and give it to him.” So when He had dipped the morsel, He took and gave it to Judas, {the son} of Simon Iscariot. [27] After the morsel, Satan then entered [EISERCHOMAI = to go into] into him...” Since believers cannot be demon possessed Satan enters into Judas. So the first indication from Jesus is that He will be betrayed.
Psalm 41:9 NASB “Even my close friend in whom I trusted, Who ate my bread, Has lifted up his heel against me”. Zechariah 11:12-13 is the Old Testament prophecy that He would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, which is the price of a slave.
After Jesus tells them a second time that He is going to be betrayed and He would be killed, and on the third day He would be raised up, we are told something new. They have been told this before. We have been told they have been told this before but we weren't told before what their reaction was. Immediately Peter opened his mouth and said: No Lord, this can't happen”. Now we are told how they reacted to it. Matthew 17:23 NASB 'and they will kill Him, and He will be raised on the third day.' And they were deeply grieved”. They were hearing that He was going to be killed but they are not processing the resurrection. They didn't even process the resurrection when it happened. It took them a while. They were discouraged and everybody goes home for the evening. Most of the disciples didn't live in Capernaum. Peter did, and Jesus also lived in Capernaum.
Matthew
17:24 NASB “When they came to Capernaum, those who collected
the two-drachma {tax} came to Peter and said, “Does your teacher not pay the
two-drachma {tax?}?”—temple tax. This was really an
issue that was not mandatory and so it gives us an interesting insight into
Jesus the Jewish citizen, because this tax was not necessarily required and yet
Jesus is going to pay it. Peter immediately answers: [25] “He said, 'Yes.'” He
understood that the Lord pays His taxes. This doesn't mean that you can't use
legitimate deductions of your taxes. This is a little different type of
situation but it does emphasize the fact this tax was there and it was
necessary to be paid. The assumption by the way this question is asked is: “You
teacher doesn't pay the temple tax, does He?” There is some indication that at
this time rabbis weren't required to pay the temple tax, and because He is up
in Galilee He maybe wasn't required to pay it. The assumption is that He is not
paying the temple tax. It was probably true that He wasn't obligated to pay the
tax but was part of what was necessary for the upkeep of the temple.
The principle that we see here is one that is stated clearly by Paul in 1 Corinthians: we are to do everything to the glory of God. It means we should go above and beyond the call of duty in every area to make sure that there is no area where we can even be falsely accused. We live as believers a life above board; we do the best that we can in every area of our life.
The Greek word for this tax is DIDRACHMA. The coin they used was the DRACHMA; the prefix DI means two. It is a two-DRACHMA tax—equivalent to half a shekel. So this is the half-shekel tax first mentioned in Ezekiel that was assessed to everyone once a year for the tabernacle originally, and then it became implemented for sustaining and taking care of the upkeep of the temple. It was open to a lot of abuse and used for a lot of ungodly things.
“... And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, 'What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?'”
The
illustration here is: the king has a castle. The king's son lives in the
castle. Do they tax the king's son to take care of the castle? No, they don't.
What is the analogy? The temple is—what did Jesus call it?—
“My Father's house”. Does the Son of God have a requirement to pay the upkeep
on His Father's house? No, He doesn't; this isn't an obligation.
Matthew 17:26 NASB “When Peter said, 'From strangers,' Jesus said to him, 'Then the sons are exempt'.”
Here is the point. Jesus is not necessarily obligated to do this but when these people are coming to Him they are like a lot of unbelievers who are poking at us to see where we are going to fail. We are watched by two kinds of people: by unbelievers who are really looking for an opportunity to point out your flaws and failures. We see a lot of this in the media. But there are other people who watch and pay attention to us, and they want to know if we really live out what we believe. Are we some kind of hypocrite? People who are unbelievers don't miss a thing. We are to live before them to the best of our ability, consistently with our Christianity; it is part of our non-verbal witness.
But this is a situation where they are trying to trap Jesus and Jesus is not going to give them occasion to create an issue. That is a point that we should understand as well. We should not give people an occasion to dishonor God or to blaspheme God.
Matthew 17:27 NASB “However, so that we do not offend them ...” The issue isn't I have to pay the taxes because that is what the Law requires, it is that this is optional but I don't want to create an issue that is not important. “Offend” is the Greek word SKANDALIZO, the same word that is used in Romans and 1 Corinthians talking about not putting a stumbling block before a weaker brother. Don't create an issue when it is not necessary and it is going to distract somebody from a focus on the truth and on the gospel.
“... go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me.”
What Peter finds is a STATER. A half-shekel or the DIDRACHMA—there wasn't a DIDRACHMA coin. You really had to pay this tax for two people at a time, and what you paid it with was a STATER, which was equivalent to one shekel and it would pay the text for two people. Peter pulls out a STATER and that will pay the tax for both of them. The point that we see here is that Jesus is going above and beyond to make sure that His life is reflecting the glory of God.
The challenge that we get from this, looking at this as Jesus as a citizen, is: What are the limits to the citizenship, the secular citizenship of the Christian in whatever country we live? What is our role in politics? Philippians 3:20 “For our citizenship is in heaven ...” Some Christians say that if our citizenship is in heaven then our earthly citizenship is irrelevant. Let's just go sit on the mountaintop, as Peter wanted to do. There are others who say they don't want to go that far. At least vote, anything beyond that is activism. Is it? Where do we cross those lines? We need to understand that. The third position is genuine activism, which is usually generated by Marxism, and liberation theology; the idea of going out on the streets and doing all kinds of illegal things in order to create social change and “social justice”. Those are always code words for some kind of hidden Marxism.