In the passage about whether the teacher pays taxes, Jesus says, "the children are exempt" in Mathew 17:26. What is the meaning?
Matthew 17:26
ESV - 26 And when he said, "From others," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free.
Community answers are sorted based on votes. The higher the vote, the further up an answer is.
The temple tax was an obligation ordained by God that was contained in the Law (Exodus 30:11-16) to be paid by the Israelites for the upkeep of the national sanctuary. In the analogy that Jesus used, he was comparing Himself to an earthly king, whose "children" (that is, His closest, privileged associates) were the apostles, in contrast to the "others" (the nation of Israel) over which Jesus was entitled to rule as the Messiah. (Jesus had also referred to Himself in Matthew 12:6 as One who was greater than the temple.) The king and his children were thus exempt from the taxes imposed on the king's subjects. Having made this point to Peter for the benefit of Peter's understanding, Jesus nevertheless instructed Peter to pay the tax on behalf of both of them, which was done in a miraculous manner. (This was another example of Jesus "emptying Himself" by not claiming the prerogatives or privileges to which He was entitled.) (I believe that I have also read that Matthew 17:27 was the only occasion on which Jesus referred to himself and one of the apostles in the first person plural as "we", which indicates Peter's privileged position among the apostles.)
Fantastic question, Venkatesan! Jesus is asked by the temple tax collectors to pay the tax, and he asks Peter if a king would tax his own children. Peter replies that kings would tax others, not their children, to which Jesus says "The children are exempt," implying that as God's son, he is not obligated to pay the temple tax. Jesus' divine status and his authority over earthly laws, even while demonstrating his willingness to comply with them by ultimately paying the tax through a miraculous act, is shown. "It is the only miracle using one fish. Jesus had multiplied the fish for Peter (Luke 5:1-11), and He would repeat that miracle (John 21:1ff.). But in this case, He used only one fish. When we consider the complexity of this miracle, it amazes us. First, someone had to lose a coin in the water. Then, a fish had to take that coin in its mouth and retain it. That same fish then had to bite on Peter’s hook—with an impediment in its mouth—and be caught. You cannot explain all of this in a natural way. It is too complex for an accident, and too difficult for human management." -- Warren Wiersbe
All answers are REVIEWED and MODERATED.
Please ensure your answer MEETS all our guidelines.
A good answer provides new insight and perspective. Here are guidelines to help facilitate a meaningful learning experience for everyone.