SONS OF FREEDOM
by Jeremy Chance Springfield
5/1/2026
Scripture covers all kinds of topics relevant to the human experience. From the backdrop of the Creator’s will for mankind the Word presents situations with which we can all sympathize. They challenge us to adapt and dare us to stand with integrity when faced with uncomfortable moments. The text addresses what it is like to live with the reality of the spiritual in a physical world while also touching upon what our physical duties are that somehow transcend the corporeal and affect the supernal.
One such topic that may be surprising is that of taxes. It is a controversial subject for several reasons and is very often avoided to prevent unproductive debate. What makes it notable is Scripture does not speak merely to taxation alone. Rather, it presents it in the context of religious duty. To pair it with the provocative spirit of religion means the theme becomes a true double-edged sword. Indeed, a quote traditionally attributed to the American author Mark Twain captures the delicate nature of discussing taxes and religious sentiment.
One such topic that may be surprising is that of taxes. It is a controversial subject for several reasons and is very often avoided to prevent unproductive debate. What makes it notable is Scripture does not speak merely to taxation alone. Rather, it presents it in the context of religious duty. To pair it with the provocative spirit of religion means the theme becomes a true double-edged sword. Indeed, a quote traditionally attributed to the American author Mark Twain captures the delicate nature of discussing taxes and religious sentiment.
The New Testament, however, makes no retreat from the complex two-fold topic but addresses it with incidents that highlight the fragile place it holds in the arena of politics. It also presents compelling commentary on the spiritual application of taxation. The result is a profoundly insightful treatment of the topic from which much worth can be derived.
A perfect example of this can be found in Matthew 17:22-27, which records an event during Yeshua’s ministry that occurred in Galilee a few weeks before his inevitable execution in the month of Nisan during the holy season of Passover.
A perfect example of this can be found in Matthew 17:22-27, which records an event during Yeshua’s ministry that occurred in Galilee a few weeks before his inevitable execution in the month of Nisan during the holy season of Passover.
|
22 Yet, when they had returned to Gelila, Yeshua said to them, “It is prepared that the Son of Man shall be delivered into the hands of the sons of man,
23 and they shall kill him, and at the third day he shall rise.” And it was very grievous to them. 24 And when they came to K’farnachum, those who take the two zuzin—the silver of the head—drew near unto Kifa, and they said to him, “Your master—does he not give his two zuzin?” 25 He said to them, “Yes.” And when Kifa entered to the house, Yeshua preempted him, and said to him, “How do you see it, Shemun? The kings of the earth, from whom do they take the silver, and the silver of the head? From their sons, or from the strangers?” 26 Shemun said to him, “From the strangers.” Yeshua said to him, “Then the sons of freedom are the sons. 27 Yet, that we do not offend them, you must go to the sea, and cast the hook, and the fish that ascends first you must open his mouth, and shall find the estira, and you must take it, and you must give it on my behalf and on your behalf.” |
|
This English translation I have crafted carefully and faithfully from the Aramaic of the ancient Peshitta. This is done with the intent that the reader will be able to appreciate several important factors that will help to better understand the situation and where the concern for how Yeshua handled it arises.
Firstly, it is important to clarify when this event occurred, and that is accomplished by the detail in the Aramaic text where it mentions unidentified individuals who are seeking answers about a certain tax. Although unnamed, they are authorized to inquire about the status of Yeshua’s tax situation, and the Aramaic refers to the amount sought as two ZUZIN. This is the plural form of a ZUZ or ZUZA—referring to a coin used by the Jewish people of antiquity.
The specific detail of two zuzin should not be overlooked. The reason is because the Aramaic Targum Yonatan to 1st Samuel 9:8 reveals a piece of information that suddenly makes the request for two zuzin take on a very precise meaning.
The Hebrew original says that the young man had in his hand REVA SHEKEL KASEF “a fourth of a shekel of silver.” The Aramaic converted that sum to ZUZA CHADA D’CHASPA “one zuza of silver.” A brief detour into Bible math means if a fourth of a shekel equals one zuza, then two zuzin equal a half shekel.
In contrast, the Greek manuscripts have the term DIDRACHMA “double drachma.” This would at first appear to parallel the “two zuzin” of the Peshitta, except that the Aramaic Targum Yonatan to Exodus 38:26 has the loanword DARCHEMONA “drachma” in place of the Hebrew phrase MACHATZIT HASHEKEL “the half shekel.” The appearance of DIDRACHMA in the Greek of Matthew 17:24 is thus an instance showing the fluctuation of the coin’s value [the Targum is believed to have originated in the 2nd Temple Era ~ circa 1st century AD].
With these clarifications in place, especially that two zuzin would equal half a shekel, the precise purpose of the request is suddenly without question: the individuals were inquiring if Yeshua had paid the “half-shekel” tax.
In contrast, the Greek manuscripts have the term DIDRACHMA “double drachma.” This would at first appear to parallel the “two zuzin” of the Peshitta, except that the Aramaic Targum Yonatan to Exodus 38:26 has the loanword DARCHEMONA “drachma” in place of the Hebrew phrase MACHATZIT HASHEKEL “the half shekel.” The appearance of DIDRACHMA in the Greek of Matthew 17:24 is thus an instance showing the fluctuation of the coin’s value [the Targum is believed to have originated in the 2nd Temple Era ~ circa 1st century AD].
With these clarifications in place, especially that two zuzin would equal half a shekel, the precise purpose of the request is suddenly without question: the individuals were inquiring if Yeshua had paid the “half-shekel” tax.
This is a Biblical tax commanded in Exodus 30:12-16.
|
12 “When you lift up the head of the sons of Yisra’el for their numbering, then each man shall give an atonement for his soul to YHWH when you count them. And there shall not be a plague among them when you count them.
13 This they shall give: a half shekel by the shekel of the Holy Place [is for] all who passes by to be numbered; the shekel is twenty gerahs; the half shekel is the offering to YHWH. |
14 All who passes by to be numbered, from a son of twenty years and above, shall give an offering of YHWH.
15 The wealthy [pay] no more, and the poor [pay] no less than the half shekel when giving the offering of YHWH to atone for your souls.
16 And you shall take the silver of the atonement from the sons of Yisra’el and shall give for the service of [the] Tent of Meeting, and it shall be for the sons of Yisra’el for a memorial before YHWH, to atone for your souls.”
15 The wealthy [pay] no more, and the poor [pay] no less than the half shekel when giving the offering of YHWH to atone for your souls.
16 And you shall take the silver of the atonement from the sons of Yisra’el and shall give for the service of [the] Tent of Meeting, and it shall be for the sons of Yisra’el for a memorial before YHWH, to atone for your souls.”
This is the tax incumbent upon all men in Israel who are twenty-years old or more, and it was collected yearly. The individuals who were asking were therefore official collectors for the Temple whose duty it was to make these collections as the new year was weeks away from arriving.
The text of the Mishnah, Shekalim 1:1, provides some excellent illumination that is a secondary witness to the details preserved in Matthew 17:24.
The text of the Mishnah, Shekalim 1:1, provides some excellent illumination that is a secondary witness to the details preserved in Matthew 17:24.
This proclamation went forth throughout the land in the twelfth month of the Torah’s Nisan-based calendar to ensure the people were sufficiently funding the Temple services in accordance with the Torah. The Mishnah’s text continues in 1:3 and explains that this proclamation involved the dispersal of officials throughout the nation to remind people of the payments.
The witness of the Mishnah provides a more contextual backdrop for the unnamed individuals who sought the two zuzin in Matthew 17. Those who made the rounds were collecting for the actual moneychangers who were stationed at various temporary locations. This is why those who questioned Simon Peter did not demand immediate payment—if the half shekel could not be paid in full at that moment, then the individual would need to convert his smaller change at the money-changing stations on his own.
These two quotes from the Mishnah also provide the contextual backdrop that shows when the incident from Matthew 17 generally occurred. The deputizing of collectors for the Temple tax began at the beginning of Adar—the twelfth month and continued up to the 14th of Nisan at the Passover event. They were therefore active in the year for a month and half period, and that provides the setting for when this occurred in the ministry of Yeshua.
It is important now to return to the incredibly interesting words of Yeshua that he presents to Simon Peter about this topic of tax-paying in Matthew 17:25-26.
These two quotes from the Mishnah also provide the contextual backdrop that shows when the incident from Matthew 17 generally occurred. The deputizing of collectors for the Temple tax began at the beginning of Adar—the twelfth month and continued up to the 14th of Nisan at the Passover event. They were therefore active in the year for a month and half period, and that provides the setting for when this occurred in the ministry of Yeshua.
It is important now to return to the incredibly interesting words of Yeshua that he presents to Simon Peter about this topic of tax-paying in Matthew 17:25-26.
25 He said to them, “Yes.” And when Kifa entered to the house, Yeshua preempted him, and said to him, “How do you see it, Shemun? The kings of the earth, from whom do they take the silver, and the silver of the head? From their sons, or from the strangers?”
26 Shemun said to him, “From the strangers.” Yeshua said to him, “Then the sons of freedom are the sons.”
26 Shemun said to him, “From the strangers.” Yeshua said to him, “Then the sons of freedom are the sons.”
In this response lay the intriguing words that have caused most interpreters to view the sentiment of Yeshua as implying he is exempt from the Temple tax. The justification for this claim is that Yeshua believes his special spiritual position excludes him from the Torah’s tax.
The assertion is that those identifying as “sons” of the heavenly King are not subjected to the Torah’s tax. The phrase Yeshua uses in the Aramaic to describe these privileged people is BENAI CHIRE “sons of freedom.”
The assertion is that those identifying as “sons” of the heavenly King are not subjected to the Torah’s tax. The phrase Yeshua uses in the Aramaic to describe these privileged people is BENAI CHIRE “sons of freedom.”
The phrase is an Aramaic idiom to simply mean a person who is “truly free”—not a slave or anyone subject to the controlling decrees mandated by higher powers—excluding the Creator, of course. The typical interpretation encountered by the student of Scripture is that because Yeshua claims to fall into the category of “sons of freedom,” that he is not obliged to offer the half-shekel commanded in the Torah.
The truth, however, is much different, and addresses a viewpoint of ancient Jewish sentiment about how the tax was taken from the people. The text from Matthew 17:25 is slightly more nuanced than the broader interpretation usually accounts for. Yeshua’s question highlights two very different types of taxes: the silver and the silver of the head.
The truth, however, is much different, and addresses a viewpoint of ancient Jewish sentiment about how the tax was taken from the people. The text from Matthew 17:25 is slightly more nuanced than the broader interpretation usually accounts for. Yeshua’s question highlights two very different types of taxes: the silver and the silver of the head.
The first—MACHSA “the silver”—is a generic tax—its identity not specified. The second—KESEF RISHA “the silver of the head”—is the Torah’s commanded half-shekel. The notion that the second refers specifically to that tax is derived from the words of Exodus 30:12 and 38:26, which respectively mention that the half-shekel is based on the census made from each ROSH “head” or GULGOLET “skull” of every male 20 years old and above.
It is vital that this distinction of Yeshua speaking about two different taxes is perceived and recognized as meaningful in the assertion Yeshua is making. If this subtle detail is missed, then the reader is left to accept only one possible interpretation: Yeshua spoke against performing a clear commandment of the Torah that absolutely applied to him even as the Messiah.
By noting the presence of two different taxes in the hypothetical situation Yeshua proposes to Simon Peter, then the bigger picture suddenly comes into focus and aligns seamlessly with the contextual background facing them at that very moment. This is because when the text of the Mishnah is returned to, the situation surrounding the payment of the half-shekel becomes more complex, as it explains there in Shekalim 1:6.
It is vital that this distinction of Yeshua speaking about two different taxes is perceived and recognized as meaningful in the assertion Yeshua is making. If this subtle detail is missed, then the reader is left to accept only one possible interpretation: Yeshua spoke against performing a clear commandment of the Torah that absolutely applied to him even as the Messiah.
By noting the presence of two different taxes in the hypothetical situation Yeshua proposes to Simon Peter, then the bigger picture suddenly comes into focus and aligns seamlessly with the contextual background facing them at that very moment. This is because when the text of the Mishnah is returned to, the situation surrounding the payment of the half-shekel becomes more complex, as it explains there in Shekalim 1:6.
The text abruptly mentions the requirement of a premium to be paid by all who are obligated to give a half-shekel. The assumption is that the value of a half-shekel must be paid in full, requiring an actual and recognized shekel coin to be given as payment. To do this, not just any sum of money could be given to the Temple. Rather, the weight of silver for a half-shekel had to be presented.
This is where the moneychangers themselves enter the topic. Their duty is to accept the provincial currencies of varying value and convert them to the recognized weight of a silver half-shekel. For this transaction a tax was levied—a premium for converting the sundry coinage from various provinces in the Roman Empire and presenting a reliable weight of silver for each man.
While the premium is not explicitly stated to be done in the Torah, the Hebrew canon of Scripture does have a curious detail that appears to support something at least very similar to it as having been instituted after the exile to Babylon, as the text of Nehemiah 10:33 (32 in most English versions) preserves an oddity worth mentioning.
While the premium is not explicitly stated to be done in the Torah, the Hebrew canon of Scripture does have a curious detail that appears to support something at least very similar to it as having been instituted after the exile to Babylon, as the text of Nehemiah 10:33 (32 in most English versions) preserves an oddity worth mentioning.
|
And we established for ourselves commandments—to appoint for ourselves a third of a shekel yearly for the service of [the] House of our Deity.
|
|
The half-shekel is incumbent upon all males of a certain age or more, yet here we see an additional tax inaugurated during the initial timeframe of the Second Temple Era that consisted of a “third of a shekel.” It is unclear if this commitment to an additional third of a shekel was intended only for that time or was meant to be binding, but it is worth noting that the sages, in the Talmud Yerushalmi, Shekalim 2:3, understood this to not be read as a “third of a shekel” but rather that every man committed to giving an additional whole shekel “three separate times” a year to help expedite the filling of the Temple treasury so the needs of the Biblical worship system would be fully met for it to function at all times without issue.
However it was applied at the time, it reveals that levying a premium upon the people giving diverse coins for the precise weight in silver of the half-shekel would likely have been an experience most would have just followed through with and not given a second thought about.
In this, however, is where we see the words of Yeshua coming to particular prominence. Since he does assert that the “sons of freedom” are exempt, it can only make sense that his point of contesting the tax was solely in the premium that was added to the Torah-mandated half-shekel.
In this sentiment Yeshua was not entirely alone, as expressed in the second-century view of Rabbi Meir recorded in the Talmud Yerushalmi, Shekalim 1:4.
However it was applied at the time, it reveals that levying a premium upon the people giving diverse coins for the precise weight in silver of the half-shekel would likely have been an experience most would have just followed through with and not given a second thought about.
In this, however, is where we see the words of Yeshua coming to particular prominence. Since he does assert that the “sons of freedom” are exempt, it can only make sense that his point of contesting the tax was solely in the premium that was added to the Torah-mandated half-shekel.
In this sentiment Yeshua was not entirely alone, as expressed in the second-century view of Rabbi Meir recorded in the Talmud Yerushalmi, Shekalim 1:4.
This similar perspective is worth emphasizing because it reveals for certainty that the premium added to the half-shekel tax was only enforced when the giver did not provide the Temple with the precise value of a valid silver half-shekel. It is very important to understand this nuance of the currency that could be given, for it factors directly into Yeshua's response in Matthew 17:27.
“Yet, that we do not offend them, you must go to the sea, and cast the hook, and the fish that ascends first you must open his mouth, and shall find the estira, and you must take it, and you must give it on my behalf and on your behalf.”
The solution to the situation is admittedly very bizarre and is worth further attention. But the coin that is mentioned in this passage also merits addressing first. The Aramaic has the word ESTIRA, which is an Aramaic loanword from the Greek term STATIRA, or STATER.
Yeshua’s assertion is that the ESTIRA / STATER coin would be sufficient to pay for himself and Simon Peter. That Yeshua only pays for himself and Simon Peter is a secondary point of interest suggesting that perhaps the rest of the disciples were likely under the age of twenty and thus not yet obligated to pay the tax.
The main point, however, is that the mention of this specific coin that was to be found is significant, because when the Aramaic Peshitta translation of the aforementioned Nehemiah 10:33 is consulted, the SHELISHIT HASHEKEL “third of a shekel” reading of the Hebrew was rendered instead as TULTHEH ESTIRA “third of a stater.”
The main point, however, is that the mention of this specific coin that was to be found is significant, because when the Aramaic Peshitta translation of the aforementioned Nehemiah 10:33 is consulted, the SHELISHIT HASHEKEL “third of a shekel” reading of the Hebrew was rendered instead as TULTHEH ESTIRA “third of a stater.”
This shows that a shekel was equal to an ESTIRA / STATER. Indeed, historically, the shekels—under the Roman mint and bearing its blatant idolatrous insignia, were traditionally pressed at the coastal city of Tyre up until 66 AD and so were commonly referred to as a “Tyrian shekel” or a “Tyrian stater.” The miraculous finding of such a coin in a fish’s mouth would have paid for two half-shekel taxes without the imposing of the premium that Yeshua obviously did not deem valid.
It is also important to note that this rejection of a tax not compulsory by authority of the Torah is presented in Yeshua’s words as being unfair due to the spiritual standing enjoyed by those dedicated to a life of Torah observance and ministry.
This is a view shared in the Talmud Bavli, Bava Batra 8a after the actions of one authority figure earned him the accusation that he had transgressed clearly-established precedent from all three sections of Hebrew Scripture.
This is a view shared in the Talmud Bavli, Bava Batra 8a after the actions of one authority figure earned him the accusation that he had transgressed clearly-established precedent from all three sections of Hebrew Scripture.
Those engaged in a concerted effort to share the Word with others were not supposed to be burdened with the excessive taxation that was otherwise obligatory for the nation. Yeshua’s stance is thus seen to be basically identical to those men of faith who came after him. His comments were never about withholding the binding half-shekel tax of the Torah, but about properly parsing what was Torah and what was a misuse of authority by those in leadership.
This disdain for the abuse of power is hinted at in Yeshua’s plan of action to deal with the payment of the half-shekel. While he clearly sought to not contribute to the unfair taxation, his actions are weirdly specific: Simon Peter, a fisherman by trade, was tasked to catch only a single fish—and by hook instead of net!
Historically, the hooks used by fisherman in the sea of Galilee were of bone or copper—but the fish that would have been caught, while not specifically identified, is usually assumed to be the Redbelly Tilapia (tilapia zillii), or what is called in Arabic the musht "comb" fish—and most widely known as “St. Peter’s fish.”
This disdain for the abuse of power is hinted at in Yeshua’s plan of action to deal with the payment of the half-shekel. While he clearly sought to not contribute to the unfair taxation, his actions are weirdly specific: Simon Peter, a fisherman by trade, was tasked to catch only a single fish—and by hook instead of net!
Historically, the hooks used by fisherman in the sea of Galilee were of bone or copper—but the fish that would have been caught, while not specifically identified, is usually assumed to be the Redbelly Tilapia (tilapia zillii), or what is called in Arabic the musht "comb" fish—and most widely known as “St. Peter’s fish.”
While tilapias are rather abundant in the sea of Galilee, the identification of the fish with this miracle is also due to the location where it likely occurred. The text is nonspecific as to where Simon Peter performed the command to go fishing, but it is noteworthy that about two miles southwest of Capernaum—where the events of Matthew 17 played out, was the village that was in antiquity called Heptapegon, or Tabgha as it is now called in the Arabic tongue—where seven springs fed into the lake and provided a warmer water conducive to an increased tilapia presence there as they used those waters for spawning pits for their young.
Aside from the traditional identification and the location’s convenience as being frequented by the fish, the tilapia is also proposed to be the type of fish Simon Peter would have caught due to a detail mentioned in Matthew 17:27 ~ “and the fish that ascends first you must open his mouth and shall find the estira.”
A fish having a coin in its mouth is in no way a common occurrence. For a tilapia, however, it would not be so far-fetched a scenario to imagine. Tilapias are mouthbrooders, or what is known as oral incubators—fish who place their underdeveloped young in their mouths for safety until they can fend for themselves. For a tilapia to be holding something in its mouth—particularly a coin—would be entirely feasible in a physical sense and is something that has been seen in anecdotal accounts throughout the centuries.
Aside from the traditional identification and the location’s convenience as being frequented by the fish, the tilapia is also proposed to be the type of fish Simon Peter would have caught due to a detail mentioned in Matthew 17:27 ~ “and the fish that ascends first you must open his mouth and shall find the estira.”
A fish having a coin in its mouth is in no way a common occurrence. For a tilapia, however, it would not be so far-fetched a scenario to imagine. Tilapias are mouthbrooders, or what is known as oral incubators—fish who place their underdeveloped young in their mouths for safety until they can fend for themselves. For a tilapia to be holding something in its mouth—particularly a coin—would be entirely feasible in a physical sense and is something that has been seen in anecdotal accounts throughout the centuries.
It must be admitted that while these are the instructions of Yeshua, he did not clarify why this was how he wanted to go about fulfilling the Torah’s commandment. We can only surmise his intentions with some careful consideration. As such, it is worth approaching with the understanding that he did not want to pay the extra premium tax that came with using coinage other than the accepted shekel weight. This is evidenced in the type of coin he says would be in the mouth of the fish: a silver Tyrian stater. Based on this contempt for the unbiblical premium tax, it is not illogical to view the method of paying what was needed as a subtle jab at the corruption that had taken hold of the family of Annas the high priest in those days [see my study: A HIGH PRIEST IN HELL for more details on the very problematic situation of that time].
If this negative view of the situation is taken, then locating a fish with a coin in its mouth that depicted a Roman idol upon its stamped face may have an intended allusion to the dark mythology of those pagan peoples and how the ruling priestly family ignored the idolatry involved in order to be enriched by the unusually high percentage of purity in the silver coin. This is supported by the Roman religious motifs of the ferryman Charon, whose Abyssinian ship forever traversed the murk of the river Acheron as he ferried the souls of the dead to the other side for the price of a small coin—an OBOLOS—also minted in Tyre.
To make sure this infernal toll reached the underworld, the living inserted it into the mouth of the deceased during burial preparations. The prevalence of the practice in antiquity is encountered even in excavated Roman burials where the coin has long since been pillaged, but the jawbone itself exhibits a greenish stain where the copper coin once rested and produced its verdigris from oxidization [see: L.V. Grinsell, "The Ferryman and His Fee: A Study in Ethnology, Archaeology, and Tradition," writing in Folklore 68 (1957), pp. 264–268.]
The fee for Charon that went into the mouth of a corpse was referred to in Roman Latin as a viaticum “sustenance for a journey.” In an occasion of cultural transference, the term viaticum was adopted a few centuries later to refer to the practice of the final Eucharist placed in the mouth of a dying Christian as early as 397 AD [see: Paulinus of Nola’s Vita Sancti Ambrosii 47.3, Patrologia Latina 14:43]. However, the practice of a death-bed Eucharist was officially instituted without the inclusion of the term viaticum in the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. From this also was adopted the funerary practice itself among many Christians [see: Stevens, "Charon’s Obol," p. 226; G.J.C. Snoek, Medieval Piety from Relics to the Eucharist: A Process of Mutual Interaction (Leiden 1995), p. 103].
The situation depicted in the Gospel is of special note in that this pagan practice was known and even at times adopted among the Jewish population of the first century, as some excavated Jewish burial ossuaries have still contained such coin in the skull’s mouth. [see: Craig A. Evans, "Excavating Caiaphas, Pilate, and Simon of Cyrene: Assessing the Literary and Archaeological Evidence" in Jesus and Archaeology (Eerdmans Publishing, 2006), p. 329].
The Roman custom was even alluded to in Judaism with the lament that is preserved in the Talmud Bavli, Moed Katan 28b.
The Roman custom was even alluded to in Judaism with the lament that is preserved in the Talmud Bavli, Moed Katan 28b.
This negative attitude towards the unbiblical tax premium is further expressed in Yeshua’s response several weeks later in the Temple in Matthew 21:12-13.
|
12 And Yeshua entered into the Temple of the Deity, and drove forth all those who sold and bought in the Temple, and overturned the money-changing tables of the moneychangers, and the chairs of them who were selling doves,
13 and he said to them, “It is written: ‘My House shall be called the House of Prayer,’ yet you have made it a burial cave of rebels!” |
Yeshua’s actions and words display his abiding antagonism towards those who callously incorporate shady business with spiritual purity. These moneychangers caught the fury of Yeshua’s views about the premium he had expressed a few weeks earlier.
In fact, his furious attitude upholds the assumption that the miracle of the stater was indeed a barbed response to the unbiblical tax on “sons of freedom” that alluded to the tax practice via a Roman underworld concept. This is best seen in the wording of the Aramaic expression he used during the outrage of his Temple tantrum. He claims the presence of such moneychangers defiled the Temple’s hallowed halls as a “House of Prayer” [see: Isaiah 56:7] into a ME’ARTHA D’LESTAYE “burial cave of rebels.”
This disgust towards the antics of the moneychangers reveals how Yeshua truly felt: they were defiling the people’s communion with the Creator with their pagan-like enforcement of taxation, thus bringing a tone of death into a place of life. This abuse of power could not go unaddressed, and Yeshua’s frenetic display of fury emphasized the outrage their crimes were worthy of inciting.
The situation in the Temple was tense, and Yeshua’s zeal was not about to be quelled, as he proceeded to criticize the behavior of the Jewish rulers for their hypocrisy and sin. As the minutes passed after his public outburst over the moneychangers and he only amplified his disapproval of them, they attempted what they thought was a clever trap to catch him in an impossible answer, as chronicled in Matthew 22:15-22.
The situation in the Temple was tense, and Yeshua’s zeal was not about to be quelled, as he proceeded to criticize the behavior of the Jewish rulers for their hypocrisy and sin. As the minutes passed after his public outburst over the moneychangers and he only amplified his disapproval of them, they attempted what they thought was a clever trap to catch him in an impossible answer, as chronicled in Matthew 22:15-22.
|
15 Then the Prishe came, taking counsel of how they might ensnare him by a word.
16 And they sent unto him their students with [those] of the House of Herades, and they said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are of the truth, and the way of the Deity you teach in truth, and that you do not carry the concern of man, for you do not receive the faces of a man. 17 You must tell us, therefore, how you see it: is it permitted to give silver [of the] head to Qesar, or not?” 18 Yet, Yeshua knew their wickedness, and said, “Why do you test me, you receivers of faces? 19 You must show me the dinara!” And they handed him the dinara. 20 And Yeshua said to them, “Whose image is this? And inscription?” 21 They said, “That of Qesar.” He said to them, “You must give, therefore, that of Qesar to Qesar, and that of the Deity to the Deity.” 22 And when they heard, they marveled, and they left him, and went away. |
|
In a masterful turn of events, Yeshua dodges the cunning question meant to find blame in him no matter how he answered: making him “guilty” of allegiance to Rome if he said to honor Caesar by an idolatrous coin, or else making him “guilty” of treason to the Roman Empire if he promoted not paying the tax. One word perceived as leaning too far in either direction would have been a spark setting off a fuse igniting a riotous flame of passion by those in the Temple.
In fact, almost forty years later it was an extremist view of taxation that ultimately led to the Jewish revolt that resulted in the destruction of the Temple and an exile we have yet to see resolved, as chronicled by the first-century historian Josephus in his Antiquities, 18.1.2-4.
Yeshua’s answer ingeniously avoided any implication in either direction—staving off accusations that could have easily sent the situation spiraling out of control. Those who set the trap immediately realized he was not intimidated by even the craftiest tricks they could imagine, and in that humbling they ceased trying to embarrass him before the rest of the people.
It is important to note his disdain for the unfair taxing is infused even in his answer, for its interpretation creatively allows for one to view it as potentially validating either way while actually committing to neither: one could conceivably pay tribute to the Gentile government in power based on how he worded it, or one could conversely refrain from paying tribute to the Gentile government in power: essentially, if you did not engage in the currencies of idolatry that were being used, then you were not technically subject to the Empire's taxes. The genius in Yeshua’s response is that it is crafted in such a manner that the individual must decide for himself the intended meaning, and that reinforces the loathing expressed by Yeshua in Matthew 17 when it comes towards forcing citizens of the Kingdom to pay taxes to bolster earthly realms.
It is important to note his disdain for the unfair taxing is infused even in his answer, for its interpretation creatively allows for one to view it as potentially validating either way while actually committing to neither: one could conceivably pay tribute to the Gentile government in power based on how he worded it, or one could conversely refrain from paying tribute to the Gentile government in power: essentially, if you did not engage in the currencies of idolatry that were being used, then you were not technically subject to the Empire's taxes. The genius in Yeshua’s response is that it is crafted in such a manner that the individual must decide for himself the intended meaning, and that reinforces the loathing expressed by Yeshua in Matthew 17 when it comes towards forcing citizens of the Kingdom to pay taxes to bolster earthly realms.
In these accounts of Yeshua’s attitude toward taxes, the concept that the believer is free from compulsory payment of them is clearly presented in his words. He sought to infuse into his followers the value they held as spiritual heirs of a Kingdom independent of earthly worth or being bolstered by elemental money to bring a false sense of security. If payment is to be made, it must be done with the mindset that it is being provided for by the providential hand of the King to whom our only and eternal allegiance is sworn.
Yeshua therefore offers everlasting liberty in his words found in John 8:31-36.
|
31 And Yeshua said to those Yihudaye who had trusted in him, “If you persevere in my words, truly my students you are!
32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth—he shall free you!” 33 They said to him, “The seed of Awraham are we, and from always, servitude to a man we have not performed. How do you say that we shall be sons of freedom?” 34 Yeshua said to them, “Amin! Amin! I say to you that all who commits sin is the servant of the sin, 35 and the servant does not abide forever in the house, yet the son abides forever. 36 If he, therefore—the Son—shall liberate you, truly shall you be sons of freedom!” |
The believer’s value is in our inclusion to the Creator’s eternal Kingdom—an offer that has gone forth into the ears of all peoples. Israel stands as the people of the Holy One, and all who join to the Creator are likewise included in His Kingdom. Although we are presently bound to the borders of nations not allied with His ways, we can find comfort in knowing that our value is more than the taxation levied upon us by the world. As sons of the Kingdom of heaven, we have a liberty surpassing what this world can understand.
We exist as physical beings in a world with laws that affect us in many ways, but our true citizenship is in a Kingdom that knows no borders, and our true fealty ultimately lay in that supernal realm. We were not meant to be subject to the fleeting decrees of kingdoms that are just as ephemeral, even if, for a time, we find them enforcing such carnal decrees upon us. Man was made to be a spiritual citizen whose allegiance is linked to the Holy One and His Messiah, whose spiritual merit offers a life of liberation befitting every son of freedom.
All study contents Copyright Jeremy Chance Springfield, except for graphics and images, which are Copyright their respective creators.