The Secret Codes in Matthew: Examining Israel’s Messiah, Part 14: Matthew 17:24-18:16, by Kevin M. Williams

Does Messiah pay taxes? Journey through the Gospel to the Hebrews with Kevin Williams and find out.

And when they had come to Capernaum, those who collected the two-drachma tax came to Peter, and said, “Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax? (Matthew 17:24).

Throughout this series, the basic premise has been that the gospel of Matthew was written as a witness, a testimony, of the messiaship of Yeshua (Jesus) of Nazareth. No less is true in the story of the temple tax.

Our companions are in Capernaum, not the temple, so a likely question would be, “why bring up the temple tax here, since they are not even in Jerusalem?” The commandments for the tax in the Torah is the half-shekel, found in Exodus 30:11-16 and summarized later in Exodus 38:26: “a half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary, for each one who passed over to those who were numbered, from twenty years old and upward.” Not long after the gospel story setting, the historian Josephus rewrote this summary from the books of Moses, “He [God] laid a tax upon all the Jews wheresoever they were, namely, two drachmas; commanding everyone . . . to bring it to the Capitol as before they had paid it into the Temple at Jerusalem.”

Therefore a question to be asked about the tax in Capernaum—and not Jerusalem—is not so unusual after all.

In our text however, it appears that Yeshua planned to forego the tax.

“Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?” He said, “Yes.” 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?” And upon his saying, “From strangers,” Jesus said to him, “Consequently the sons are exempt. But, lest we give them offense, 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 stater. Take that and give it to them for you and Me” (Matthew 17:24-27).

Peter’s answer of “yes” may originate from a sense of “don’t be silly, of course he pays the tax.” Perhaps Peter was hoping this was merely an oversight on Yeshua’s part. The text does not really give us an indication.

Yeshua’s answer however, is one that—in not so many words—states that He is the Son of the King—Yahweh, and as such is not required to pay the levy. Nevertheless, Yeshua goes on to say that he—the King’s Son—does not want to offend anyone. This might seem a bit incongruous as many feel Yeshua took every chance he could to offend the Jewish traditions, and these offenses are what earned him so many enemies among the religious and political elite!

Overall, when it came to the temple and those traditions that served to honor God—and apparently those imposed by the local municipality—Yeshua concurred.

According to John Lightfoot’s New Testament Commentary From the Talmud and Hebraica, this half-shekel, two-drachma tax (about two days of wages) was used in the Temple to purchase the daily animal sacrifices used throughout the year: “the shewbread, all the sacrifices of the congregation, the red [heifer], the scapegoat” (Vol. 2, p. 250). In other words, Yeshua—the bodily representation of the High Priest and the spiritual representation of these offerings—should have been receiving the tax, not paying it.

Nonetheless, as the One who kept Torah perfectly, He honored Exodus 30:11-16 as well as the newer customs of paying in the local city. Yet the point should not be overlooked: to the King’s Son—the Messiah—was due the tax. Without coming right out and saying words that could be used against him in court before His time had come, Yeshua was giving them another clear indication of His messianic identity.

One more bit of information may be gleaned from this passage. As our Exodus reference records, this tax was imposed only on those men 20 to 50 years old. Yeshua tells Simon to go and collect the coin needed from the fish to pay for two of them, for Yeshua and for Peter—but what about the 11 other disciples? According to author and lecturer Ray Vander Laan, in his series Following in the Footsteps of the Rabbi, except for Peter, the other disciples were likely under the age of 20 and therefore, no tax was required of them.

While a radical concept for many brought up looking at murals and paintings of wizened sages, Vander Laan’s assumption has merit. Within the culture of the day, Hebrew boys were educated early on in Torah around 5-years of age. They began their studies in Leviticus and by the time they were between 8-10, had an extremely good working knowledge of the Pentateuch. Next in their education were the study halls, where they would be drilled in the oral traditions. By the time they were teen-agers (middle aged in those days), they would either chose a trade—likely following in their father’s footsteps—or, if worthy, would go on in their studies, usually sitting at the feet of a rabbi. For Yeshua to have a group of 13-20 year old males following him from city to city would have been very commonplace. To be summoned by a rabbi—as Yeshua did of his disciples—would have been a particular honor, and at their age, an honor for their parents as well. “My son is studying with a rabbi,” would have foregone many arguments about leaving the “family business.”

Obviously Vander Laan’s assumptions are not provable. Yet within the scope of this study, looking at the gospel of Matthew from a Hebraic perspective, it seemed worth noting.

___

At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:1-3).

The Greek word here for “converted” is strepho. It seems interesting that Yeshua of all people would be teaching a “conversion” other than a conversion from heresy to faith in his own death and resurrection. Yet this word strepho means to “turn around,” to “change course,” or to “repent.” So the implication here is every bit as adamant as we might tell someone today that they need to “convert to Christianity.”

Yeshua does not tell anyone to repent from the Torah, but he does warn us to repent from “adulthood.” What might that mean?

In that day, children had no rights of which to speak. Some women complain about the plight of females in that age, how much more the children? Minors had no legal recourse, no rights, and no privileges other than what their father chose to extend to them. Might there be a lesson in there for us?

Today, our western society offers us all variety of liberties. Political causes abound, some of which improve those liberties and some of which infringe upon them. Yet once in place, it is very common to rail against anyone who might try and take those privileges away. We have learned to demand our rights.

Yeshua’s implication here may be that wondering who will be greatest in the kingdom is of little value to those who do not know their role here on earth. Those who seek after influence and power are not welcome to sit in those seats. In many respects, it is similar to the feudal days of Europe, where there were lords and vassals. Vassals had no rights. None. Their existence was to see to the wellbeing of their overlord, no matter how good or evil, righteous or unrighteous his will may have been. A man in the medieval period might have understood this passage with greater clarity than we can today.

If it was important in the disciple’s age to “convert and become like a child,” during an era of Roman political oppression, and of Pharisaical religious repression, how much more so then in this day and age when we have been given so much, allowed so many liberties, and provided with such opportunities as no generation before? If anything, the need to “convert” may be even greater!

Then Yeshua answers their question a bit more directly:

“Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me” (Matthew 18:4-5).

My wife defines biblical humility as “knowing precisely who you are before God’s judgment seat.” That, she says, will make you humble. She may be on to something. Yeshua points out here that if you are as humble as a child—without rights, without demands, without privileges other than what the Father gives you—then you are humble, and perchance, among the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

For the rest of us, if we know such a person and we receive him or her with our own faith expressed in hospitality, with honor and respect, then we also receive the Messiah. This too, can bring a person to humility.

“But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung around his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea.

“Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes! And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out, and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into the fiery hell” (Matthew 18:6-9).

We shall not spend overdue time on these verses, as the overall mood seems clear enough. At issue however, is not whether we should go about with millstones around our necks, without hands or feet, or with our eyes plucked out. These are severe exaggerations intended to illustrate the weightier issues. The point is not what punishments are warranted for those who do these things. If they were, who among us would be whole in body? Who would be worthy to sit as judge? Rather, so great is the call to be “converted” to a child, humble in all our ways, that being a stumbling block to anyone becomes unthinkable, and an act to be avoided without question.

“See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you, that their angels in heaven continually behold the face of My Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 18:10).

This verse is sometimes lifted out on its own which can lead to all kinds of misunderstanding. It would seem, particularly when taken in conjunction with verse 11, that the tone is more in keeping with Hebrews 1:14: “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?” Children may lack earthly advocates, but not so in heaven. Yeshua’s next parable seems to reinforce this thought.

“What do you think? If any man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying? And if it turns out that he finds it, truly I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine which have not gone astray. Thus it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish” (Matthew 18:12-14).

So that the thought is not misunderstood, being “as” children is important, and these little ones are precious in God’s sight.

___

“And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed” (Matthew 18:15-16).

Once again the Great Rabbi teaches Torah from Deuteronomy 19:15, “A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.”

Step one: go and reprove him privately. How many times has someone come complaining about someone else’s sin? How many pastors and leaders have had to step into a situation based on such behavior, only to find themselves in a spiritual hornet’s nest?

Our first response, if we care about how Yeshua says we should handle the situation, is to go and talk with the person one-on-one before taking any other action. Many, many problems could be averted if we would only be faithful to this principle! When someone comes to complain to us about another’s sin, our first questions should be “Did you talk with him/her yet?” If the answer is “no” then in truth, we should not entertain getting involved.

Step two: if they do not listen in private, take two or three witnesses with you. From the Torah perspective being presented here by Yeshua, it does not mean find two or three other people sentimental to your cause. It does not mean go and find people with the same complaint or who have also seen this person committing the “alleged” sin. To do so is to have already set your self up as the judge—who has already found the individual guilty and found other “judges” to help support your verdict. We are not to act as judge, nor to bring other judges with us. That is not our job—that is not the instruction of the Torah or the Messiah. That is to pervert justice.

These witnesses accompany you to listen to what is said. They hear your side of the story and then they hear the other person’s side of the story. They listen to the debate and they witness the goings-on. They ask probing questions in an effort to determine the truth of the matter. By its very nature, this exercise intimates to the alleged sinner that if they do not repent, there will be a third step. Potentially, out of fear of being exposed to the greater congregation they will come to true repentance.

If however, repentance does not occur, these witnesses then stand up before the congregation and explain what they witnessed. The congregation—and in many cases those appointed by the congregation, an elder or elders, or a pastor—using their collective wisdom decide the matter. Not you and not the witnesses.

“And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer” (Matthew 18:17).

For some congregations, this means the unrepentant sinner is to be “cut off.” Ironically, many of these same churches would say that though the Torah is no longer applicable, they would apply the Torah notion of “cutting off” sinners from their midst. Yeshua says no such thing. In fact, His admonition is full of grace. Who needed repentance and biblical instruction? It was the Gentiles and the tax-gatherers that did! Would they have a chance to hear and learn the errors of their ways if they were “cut off?”

Obviously their sin cannot be tolerated, and whatever steps need to be taken to protect others in the congregation need to be taken—diligently. Some congregations refuse to serve those under congregational discipline communion, and most remove them from any public service within the body and require them to undergo counseling. But Yeshua does not call for them to be cut off.

Does it ever reach that point? It can. There are instances where the unrepentant become completely disruptive and the house of worship becomes defiled. But kicking the person out is the last step, handing them over to “Satan for the destruction of his flesh that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Corinthians 5:5). With the Torah as His sure foundation, what Yeshua is teaching is biblical jurisprudence.

“Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:18).

Lift this verse out of context, and it can become a dangerous gavel to pound into law all variety of unsound doctrine. Following on the steps of the jurisprudence above, it is a gavel, but one that establishes rule of conduct. In other words, if a person in the congregation is found guilty of sin and is clearly unrepentant, and the decision is reached to begin congregational discipline, then that ruling is established in heaven as well. And if after time, the sinner repents and it is decided to admit him or her back into the congregation, then that sentence is “loosed in heaven.”

“Binding and loosing” are Hebrew idioms. For instance, a local synagogue may declare a fast day. This declaration would be binding on the congregants. A woman might stand before the synagogue and publicly show her get, her divorce document. She was no longer bound to her husband and was loosed to remarry. This was legal language and is still practiced in Orthodox Jewish communities today.

“Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, there I am in their midst” (Matthew 18:19-20).

While some teach that Yeshua is referring to prayer here, that does not appear to be borne out in the text. Yeshua says “again,” to repeat what He has already said. “Again” likely refers to the jurisprudence already examined. What was the purpose of the two or three witnesses? Repeatedly in the Torah, the gospels, and in Paul’s epistles “two or three” were to bear witness to official proceedings. In all cases, the witnesses’ testimonies had to be in agreement. When testimonies do not agree, then judgment cannot be decided. This was particularly crucial with capital crimes and one of the reasons why Yeshua’s trial was such a mockery—the witnesses had different testimonies.

In the Israeli culture and tradition of the day, the accused was not permitted to speak. They were not allowed to speak on their behalf or to give testimony. They had to rely solely on the deposition of the witnesses. The Torah claimed that a matter was to be decided on the testimony of these witnesses and in the beit din (house of judgment) and sanhedrin (temple court) of the day, this was taken quite literally. Guilt or innocence—truth would be determined based on the testimony witnesses by those sitting in the judge’s seat. This is how the Jewish audience listening to Yeshua would have interpreted what He was saying. This was a way of life for them and how their community functioned.

Matthew 18:9-20 is essentially stating that if the witnesses agree, and everything has been conducted in an upright and biblical manner—“in My name”—then there need be no fear of doing it “wrong.” The sentence, or discipline, will be acknowledged in heaven and the “judges” will be held blameless.

___

Next Issue: In part 15 of our series on Matthew, we shall begin the examination of the sometimes-thorny issue of “forgiveness.”