<p>17:25&nbsp;<em>He said: Yes</em>- The question naturally arises as to why, then, the Lord miraculously provided a coin to pay the temple tax if He had already paid it; and why that coin only paid for Jesus and Peter, and not for the other disciples. Another question is why this tax had to be paid in Capernaum (:24) and not in Jerusalem or the home towns of the disciples. My suggestion is that the payment of that tax at that time and place was unnecessary, but the Lord did so in the spirit of His teaching about offering to go two miles when asked to go one; or offering the undergarment to him who asks your cloke. In commenting upon those teachings, I made the point that such offers restored the balance of power to the abused and took it away from the abusers, who would feel awkward accepting the offer. And we are therefore left to wonder as to whether the coin was really accepted by the questioners. It would've seemed a chronic waste of money to the unspiritual, but the Lord works on a higher level than the pragmatic and utilitarian.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The Pharisees taught that one could only worship in the temple if the temple tax had been paid (Jostein Adna,&nbsp;<em>The Formation of the Early Church</em>, (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005) p. 27). The Lord could have engaged with that wrong view in direct confrontation. But He didn&rsquo;t. In His gracious way, He once again went along with misunderstandings by paying what was required, and yet His example and teaching demonstrated that service to God was totally independent of such human demands. The children of God who are &ldquo;free&rdquo; from such taxes could be understood as all Israel, and more specifically, the new Israel, comprised of God&rsquo;s own Son and His disciples.&nbsp;</p>
<p><em>And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first of all, saying</em>- The Greek word for &quot;first of all&quot; really means &lsquo;to anticipate&rsquo;. Again we see the Lord&rsquo;s sensitivity in knowing what is in human nature. So often we read that He &ldquo;answered and said&hellip;&rdquo; when there had been no stated question. That acute sensitivity to human thinking and situations remains with Him to this day, and should be a great comfort to us at the day of judgment.&nbsp;</p>
<p><em>Simon. What do you think? The kings of the earth, from whom do they receive toll or tribute? From their own children, or from strangers?</em>- There was a double meaning here, for there is in Semitic languages 'the plural of majesty', whereby the plural can be used to speak of one great thing. The great king of the earth was God. His children are therefore free from the demands of men; but the Lord goes on to teach that we should all the same submit to those demands in order not to make them stumble. Another approach is invited by the possibility that the phrase &ldquo;kings of the earth&rdquo; has been consciously lifted from Ps. 2:2 LXX, which speaks of how &ldquo;The kings of the earth&hellip; and the rulers&hellip; take counsel / were gathered together against Yahweh and His Christ&rdquo;. One of the many applications of this verse is to the rulership of the earth / land of Israel collaborating in the crucifixion of Christ and later of His disciples (Acts 4:26; note how He speaks of &ldquo;the rulers&nbsp;<em>of the Gentiles</em>&rdquo; in 20:25). There are indirect applications of Ps. 2:2 to the Jewish leadership in Mt. 22:34; 26:3,4. The priesthood of the time has been described as &ldquo;A priestly aristocracy&rdquo;; therefore the language of kingship was not inappropriate to them. Josephus speaks of the priesthood as this: &ldquo;The constitution became an aristocracy, and the High Priests were entrusted with the leadership of the nation&rdquo; (<em>Antiquities of the Jews</em>, 20:10, 5). So it could well be that these rulers which the Lord was focusing on were the Jewish religious rulers and priests of the day, and their children were free from the temple tax. Yet the Lord argues that the disciples are likewise free from it- because they were the new priesthood.</p>
<p>Again we note the high status the Lord argues for His followers- the children of kings, and in this case, the King of all the earth.&nbsp;The implication was that the Jews who paid the temple tax, considering it as the highest sign of their membership in God&rsquo;s people (as it was a voluntary tax), were in fact thereby showing that they were strangers, Gentiles, and not His true children.&nbsp;</p>