Taught by
Stephen ArmstrongAccess all of our teaching materials through our smartphone apps conveniently and quickly.
Taught by
Stephen ArmstrongWe’re following Jesus in His final year of life on earth, and it’s a year of turmoil and conflict
The nation of Israel lost their opportunity to receive their King in the day their leaders rejected Jesus
Individually, Jews are still being saved, of course, as they place their faith in Jesus as Messiah
And for those who do believe, Jesus is ministering to them, teaching them and healing them at times
But for the crowds and the nation as a whole, Jesus is refusing to reveal Himself any further…He no longer teaches or heals publicly
Instead, Jesus is secretly preparing His disciples to assume charge of the Kingdom Program after He departs
But that work is difficult because these men are having a hard time grasping the idea that Jesus is leaving
And more than just His leaving, they can’t make sense of Jesus’ statements that He is going to suffer and die and rise again
Jesus has hinted at His death and departure on numerous occasions, and He’s even stated it plainly once
Even though these men hear Jesus’ words, they can’t believe it and so they have yet to accept it
But they need to understand it, because ultimately it will be their responsibility to explain it to others
So as we return to Chapter 17 today, we begin with Jesus taking yet another opportunity to remind His men of what lay ahead
Here we see Jesus’ stating for a second time the simple truth of what was coming for Him
Jesus says plainly He would be delivered into the hands of men to be killed but then be raised again on the third day
This is the essence of the Gospel, and it’s at the core of our faith
We hear it preached today as history, but these men heard it preached as a prophecy
And as hard as it is for some today to believe in a historical resurrection of Jesus, it was even harder for them to understand it in advance
They must have asked themselves who could harm God’s anointed?
And how could God send a Deliverer only to have Him killed by those He came to save?
In fact, if their Messiah could be killed, it would seem to argue against Jesus’ claims to be the Son of God
On its face, that makes no sense…but when we understand the significance of Jesus’ death, the plan becomes clear
Jesus came to die because God was making a way for us to be forgiven for our sin
That’s what Jesus means when He says He will be delivered
We know Jesus was delivered by Judas and the Jewish authorities over to the Romans for crucifixion
But it wasn’t merely Judas or the Jews or even Pilate who delivered Jesus over to death
It was the Father in Heaven Who delivered His own Son over to death for our sake
Jesus’ resurrection – His return to life after three days – is evidence that He was dying to pay for our sins, not His own
Because anyone who dies because of his own sin never returns to live life on earth
The death of the ungodly results in a permanent separation from God and from the opportunity to enjoy this Creation
But Jesus, having no sin of His own, could return from the dead because He was not under the penalty of sin
His resurrection proved that His death was not for His own sake
And therefore, it has become a payment for us, for all who receive it by trusting in it for their salvation
That’s the Gospel…that we can be forgiven of all our sin by placing our faith in Jesus’ substitutionary death
That’s the message these men were going to be charged with sharing with others
So they needed to understand it themselves
But that’s the piece of the story that the disciples were having the most trouble accepting at this point
And we see that clearly in their response in v.23 where Matthew says they were deeply grieved at what they heard
And at first it sounds as though the disciples had begun to understand what Jesus was saying which is why they were grieved
But Mark makes clear what was going on in their minds…which wasn’t much, frankly
This is now the second time Jesus has stated He will die and rise again, yet it’s clear these men were not following what it meant
Mark says they were too afraid even to ask Jesus to explain Himself
But to be fair, a proper understanding was probably beyond their reach at that point
Because they couldn’t appreciate why Jesus had to die until they understood two central concepts of Christian theology
First, they need to understand the significance of the incarnation – of God becoming man
Granted, it’s impossible for anyone to truly understand how Jesus can be both fully God and fully man at the same time
But that’s not the issue…we don’t need to understand how that can be true
But we do need to understand the implications of that truth, and it’s those implications that these men were missing
Secondly, they didn’t truly understand God’s self-sacrificial love
Agape love, self-sacrificial love, is the way God loves
It’s the kind of love that Jesus shows us and the kind we are called to show one another and the world
But that kind of love does not come naturally to our sinful hearts…it’s actually the opposite of how we love
And yet that kind of love is at the core of Jesus’ ministry and it is the motivation for His willingness to die for us
Those two concepts – the incarnation of God and the self-sacrificial love of God – lie at the heart of all Christian theology and practice
And unless you appreciate these two ideas, you haven’t fully understood the Gospel itself
If you don’t understand them, then you cannot possible understand why the Messiah came to die
And the next two scenes recorded in Matthew serve to illustrate the disciples’ confusion on these points
We will study them, beginning with the first one today, which is a lesson on the significance of God becoming man
Jesus and the disciples return from the far north of Judea near Caesarea Philippi and Mt. Hermon and enter Jesus’ adopted home town of Capernaum
And as they enter the city, they enter Peter’s home, and while there a group of tax collectors come calling looking for Jesus
These men were assigned by the temple authorities to collect a certain tax required by the Law of Moses
The Law required the sons of Israel to pay a ransom of half a shekel to the Lord each year
The tax was paid to the temple for the operation of the temple, and it was required of every male Jew ages 20–50
The shekel was a Jewish coin, but Romans used the drachma coin, which the Jews valued at 1/4th of a shekel
So 2 drachma was the equivalent of 1/2 shekel
Since there was no half-shekel coin in circulation at that time, it became customary to give 2 drachma coins instead
Or else two Jewish men might pair up and give a single shekel coin to cover the both of them
Normally, the temple tax was paid around Passover in Jerusalem
But here we have Jewish temple tax collectors collecting months after the Passover and up in the Galilee
Which suggests that Jesus never paid the tax while in Jerusalem that year so they have come to collect back-taxes
Since it was Peter’s home, he goes outside to greet the men, and as he does they ask Peter if his rabbi pays the required tax?
Peter decides to answer these men without consulting Jesus first saying yes, Jesus would pay the temple tax
Now if the narrative ended here, we would assume Peter was correct and that Jesus did, in fact, owe the required tax
But because of what Jesus does next, we quickly discover that Peter answered presumptuously for Jesus
When Peter comes back inside, probably to ask Jesus for the money the tax collectors were waiting for outside, Jesus throws a question at Peter
Jesus asks when kings on earth institute a poll or customs tax, does that tax apply to the sons of the king or to strangers?
A customs tax was the tax assessed on goods passing through a kingdom along a trade route
So as goods flowed from the east to the west or vice versa, those goods would be taxed as they passed through customs
But the tax generally only applied to foreigners not to the citizens of the king’s kingdom
In the Roman Empire, Roman citizens were not obligated to pay poll taxes
Poll taxes or tribute taxes and the like were assessed on non-citizens who lived in territories conquered by the Roman army
Similarly today nations may have taxes they impose only on foreign nations or foreign visitors but not on their own citizens
And at the very least, the king’s family members would always be exempt from paying taxes imposed by the king
A king wouldn’t expect his own family to pay a tax to their father
Especially since his sons would eventually inherit the father’s wealth anyway
So only the strangers, whether foreign citizens or the king’s subjects, were obligated to pay the tax
And after hearing Jesus’ question, Peter gives the correct answer, saying only strangers are obligated to pay customs taxes
And that leads Jesus to make His application
Jesus uses this simple example to establish a principle that’s true not only with human government but also with God Himself
The principle is this: a distinction should be made between the law giver and the law keeper
There are those who make the Law and those who are obligated to obey the Law
And the one who makes law for others is not obligated to keep that law himself
In our culture, we struggle a little to understand this principle because we have adopted a system of government that works differently
Our government follows principles like the rule of law and equal protection under law
Those principles hold that the law is the highest authority in the land and that no one in the government is above the law
Therefore, in our experience the one who makes the law is also bound to keep the same law
So therefore, Jesus’ example doesn’t make as much sense to us
But our way of government is actually a radical notion, and it was not the way governments worked in Jesus’ day
In Jesus’ day, most governments were monarchies and monarchs made the law for their subjects
And monarchs were generally above that law, literally
They, and often their families or members of their court, were not bound by those laws
In the case in the Roman Empire, there were two sets of laws: one for Roman citizens and another for non-citizens
So as you study this passage with me, you need to reorient your thinking to see it from a first century perspective
A law giver inherently had the right to decide what his subjects must do without being obligated to do it himself
That was normal and expected, and it is not inherently wrong or unrighteous
It was simply the way law worked in that day
Peter knew this, of course, and so he answered the question correctly
Only the strangers must pay taxes to a king because the sons of the king would certainly not be expected to do so
But now why did Jesus ask Peter this question?
Jesus was pointing out to Peter that he erred when he told the tax collectors that Jesus was bound to pay the temple tax
Jesus was not required to pay that tax because that tax was commanded by God to support the house of God, the temple
And therefore the Son of God was not obligated to pay His own Father a tax for the upkeep of His own house
That’s the point Jesus is making to Peter, but implicit in that point is a lesson about Jesus’ identity
To apply this principle to Jesus means you must acknowledge that Jesus is God just as a son is the future King
And that’s why Jesus asked Peter this question
Peter and the other disciples did not yet see Jesus as He truly was: God in the flesh
And if Peter had known that, he would have handled this moment very differently
Ask yourself this question…what if the Son of God had appeared inside Peter’s house not in His lowly form as Jesus of Nazareth
Rather, imagine Jesus standing in Peter’s house in His full glory
Imagine Peter’s house filled with the glory of God shining as brightly as the sun, with a voice like thunder and all the rest
And then while Peter is standing in awe at the glory of Christ, there comes a knock at the door
Then Peter goes outside to greet tax collectors who ask Peter if Jesus was going to pay the temple tax or not?
How do we imagine Peter would respond to that question under those circumstances?
Do you suppose Peter might have said, “You guys are welcome to go inside and collect it from Jesus yourselves.”
The point is clear: if Peter had appreciated the deity of Jesus, he never would have imagined asking the Son of God to pay a tax
Especially a tax levied on Israel for the upkeep of God’s house
So then why did Peter tell those men that Jesus should pay that tax?
The answer is Peter failed to appreciate the incarnation of God
Peter knew Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God, but he had not fully grasped that Jesus was God
We too struggle at times to appreciate what it means that God became man
But for all that we can’t know, there is this at least we must know: Jesus is fully God and fully man, and no less one for the sake of the other
So as hard as that may be to appreciate that truth in all its dimensions, we must be careful not to dismiss it either
We can’t see Jesus only as God such that we overlook what it meant for Him to enter into His Creation
And of course, we cannot see Jesus merely as human so that we fail to appreciate Him as our Creator
Both sides are essential to the Gospel, for without both Jesus cannot be our Savior
If Jesus wasn’t fully man, then His death couldn’t pay the price for our sin
God requires a person’s life for the sin of a person, so Jesus had to be fully human to serve as a substitute for us
But if Jesus wasn’t also fully God, sinless and perfect, then He wouldn’t have been qualified to be our substitute
Being only divine, Jesus entered the world without sin of His own
And therefore His death was available as a payment for our sin
So if Jesus is going to save anyone, He must be both God and man
That’s why Christians maintain that no one may enter Heaven except by faith in Jesus
No one else could do what is required to reconcile us with God
In this case Peter was seeing Jesus more as man and less as God – and perhaps not as God at all
And his confusion on this point is one reason why he and the other disciples were struggling to understand why Jesus would die
If Jesus was merely a man and not God, then the prospect of His untimely death is devastating
It’s like Alexander the Greek dying early or JFK dying early…it would seem to bring an end to the Messiah’s mission
It would seem to suggest God failed in His promises and it would call into question God’s authority
But when I understand that Jesus is God becoming man so that He may die, now I see the outcome very differently
It’s not a failure of the plan…it is the plan!
And so I’m forced to consider what did God accomplish by becoming a man and dying and then returning to life?
And that question leads me to the important theology that is the cornerstone of the Christian faith
So if you learn nothing else from your Bible, you must learn this: Jesus’ death was the plan of God to save you and me from eternal punishment
This simple lesson was Jesus’ way of leading Peter to a larger thought…to consider the importance that Jesus is the Son of God
And as the Son of God, Jesus is the lawgiver and as such He is not subject to the laws given to mankind
More importantly, Jesus is divine
Perhaps the hardest thing for Peter and the other disciples to accept was not that a man could be God but that God should be willing to become a man
Every time Peter set his eyes on the earthly Jesus, he saw something very ordinary
But plain and ordinary aren’t what we expect to see when we think of God
So the temptation is to explain it away as if Jesus was something less than God…it’s as though His humility denied His divinity
And that’s the way the Father wanted it to be…as Jesus says
God did not come to earth as a man to show off His power and authority…though He did show Himself to possess great power
He didn’t come to rule over us…though one day He will rule over the world
No, rather as Paul says
And He came in ordinary packaging as a part of that strategy
Jesus wanted to be approachable so that no one might feel as though God was too powerful or awesome to accept them
So that He could sympathize with our circumstances, identify with our needs, and model righteousness as our example
But that ordinary appearance also allowed Peter to underestimate Jesus’ divinity
And Jesus’ divinity and humility come together in a beautiful way at the end of Chapter 17
Jesus has explained to Peter that He is God and therefore He is exempt, but the problem of the tax collectors remains
Imagine if Peter had gone back outside and told those men that he was mistaken, and since his teacher was God, he was exempt from the tax
How do you think that scene would play out?
At the very least, it would have become opportunity for the Pharisees to make an accusation against Jesus
More over, any suggestion that Jesus was God would have been very offensive to the religious leaders of the day
It would have been seen as blasphemy though of course it was a true statement in Jesus’ case
So Jesus says to avoid offending these men, we will pay the tax but in a way that reaffirms the lesson He’s teaching Peter
He tells Peter to go fish in the Sea of Galilee, which was barely a few hundred feet away
The first fish he catches will possess a shekel in its mouth and with that one shekel Peter can pay the tax for himself and for Jesus
This solution is notable for several reasons
First, it’s obviously a miraculous provision, which only serves to underscore that Jesus is God
How else could you explain this situation except that God is providing a payment for Himself by His own means
That a fish could be prepared to swallow a coin and then be directed to the hook at exactly that moment
Certainly, it’s another reminder that Jesus is not merely a man
Secondly, it demonstrates the humility of Jesus to condescend to pay a tax He didn’t owe, which is itself a picture of the Gospel
He is fulfilling His purpose in putting Himself in our place which was an act of humility on God’s part
Thirdly, consider why Jesus elected to use the mouth of a fish to provide the payment? Why not have Peter find a coin under a rock or behind a tree?
Jesus was extending the teaching a step further for Peter’s sake
When Peter was called by Jesus to follow Him, Jesus said He would make Peter a fisher of men
So here Peter goes fishing and returns with a needed provision
The message there was clear…obey Jesus and He will provide through your ministry
The act of fishing for men will also result in the receiving of provision for all needs
In fact, notice Jesus tells Peter to use that shekel found in that fish to pay for both of them
Remember, the tax was half a shekel per man, so Jesus is allowing Peter to pair up with Him for that payment
But also notice, Jesus doesn’t say pay for “us” but rather for “you and me”
I think that detail is important because Peter and Jesus were not equals
Jesus was providing for Himself and providing for Peter but for different reasons
Peter was obligated to pay a ransom, but Jesus was humbling Himself to make that payment on Peter’s behalf
The incarnation of God is both the means by which we are saved and the example by which we serve others
We receive the payment of Jesus made on our behalf recognizing He made the ultimate sacrifice for us
And from that understanding, we seek to serve Him selflessly by mimicking His humility in our own work
If Jesus can leave the right hand of the Father to become man and then die on a cross for my sin, maybe I can get out of my recliner and serve someone in the body of Christ
Maybe I can set aside my own desires for the glory of Jesus
Maybe I can serve others the way He served me