Carter 2003

[JSNT 25.
4 (2003) 413-431]
ISSN 0142-064X
Toll and Tribute: A Political Reading of Matthew 17.24-27
Edward J. Carter
St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle
Abstract
The pericope of the coin in the sh’s mouth (Mt. 17.24-27) has lent itself to
an unusually large number of disparate interpretations. This article argues for
a political reading, notwithstanding the identity of the tax in question. By
means of careful attention to the text, and through an appeal to the
corroborating hermeneutical approach applied by Luther, it is suggested that
the passage points to an element within the Jesus tradition that, while not
denying a role for political authority in the world, does not af rm as God-
given such worldly structures of power. It is argued that the passage
maintains a duality in the present, in common with Mt. 13.33, rather than
anticipating an eschatological resolution, as has sometimes been suggested.
The pericope concerning the coin in the sh’s mouth (Mt. 17.24-27) has
been encumbered with a greater variety of interpretations than is usual in
the eld of biblical scholarship. The number of signi cant and diverse
elements within the passage contributes directly to this observation,
important exegetical questions being attached to most of these elements.1
While uncovering the identity of the tax itself has often been taken as the
key hermeneutical step, this article will argue, notwithstanding that par-
ticular issue, and by means of careful attention to the text, that the passage
must be read within a political framework. Such a reading, it will be argued,
should lead to a particular and distinctive conclusion regarding the placing
of this passage within a study of the Matthaean material, and will also
provide insights when it comes to a consideration of the continuing fact of
secular political authority, and the stance that might be taken towards it.
1. The constituent elements include: the setting in Capernaum; the role of Peter;
the tax; the reference to Jesus as ‘teacher’; the kings of the earth; the sons; the ‘others’;
the freedom of the sons; the ‘offence’ which might be caused and those to whom it might
be directed; the coin in the sh’s mouth, taken from the sea.
© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003, The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX and 15 East
26th Street, Suite 1703, New York, NY 10010, USA.
Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 27, 2015
414 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25.4 (2003)
The Identity of the Tax

It has occasionally been suggested that Mt. 17.24-27 does not form a
cohesive whole, but most commentators are content to take the passage as
a unit.2 If this is the case, and if, therefore, a single species of tax is in
view, the identity of the tax becomes the rst matter of interpretation.
Two possibilities present themselves. The rst is that the tax in question
should be identi ed as the pre-70 Jewish temple tax, the half-shekel levy
referred to at Exod. 30.11-16, 38.26, and Neh. 10.32-33. The alternative is
to understand the tax as being the post-70 Roman tax, raised to fund the
temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in the aftermath of the destruction of the
Jerusalem temple in 70 CE. This exegetical point is of signi cance, and a
consideration of the evidence and arguments is called for.
The tax itself is referred to in the text as the di/draxmon. Referred to as
such, and without taking any other evidence into account, either the pre-
70 or the post-70 tax is the potential subject. The provisions of the pre-70
Jewish temple tax are subject to some dispute, but, in essence, stipulate a
liability to pay a half-shekel of silver3 towards the cost of maintaining the
on-going worship at the temple in Jerusalem. Such an amount corresponds
to the didrachm found in both the Tyrian and Antiochian coinage,4 both of
which had a tetradrachm, known as a stater.5 Who should pay,6 and how
often7, remain unresolved questions, but the principle is unaffected: this
2. For example, Davies and Allison point to the pleasing rhythm and parallelism,
W.D. Davies and D. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel
According to Saint Matthew (ICC; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991–97), II,
p. 737; see also U. Luz, Matthew 8–20 (ET; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2001), p. 413,
for observations on a possible textual history.
3. The provision is for a third of a shekel at Neh. 10.32.
4. The half-shekel is translated as di/draxmon at Exod. 30.13 in the LXX.
5. J.D.M. Derrett, ‘Peter’s Penny’, in Law in the New Testament (London: Darton,
Longman & Todd, 1970), pp. 247-65 (248-49).
6. Derrett asserts, following Exodus, that ‘every free male Jew over 20 was
liable…’ but that priests were exempt, ‘Peter’s Penny’, pp. 248-51. David Garland
clari es that women, slaves, Samaritans and Gentiles were excluded, D. Garland
‘Matthew’s Understanding of the Temple Tax (Matt 17.24-27)’, in K.H. Richards (ed.),
Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 1987 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), pp.
190-209 (190). In contrast, S. Mandell argues that the temple tax was probably only
paid by Pharisaic Jews, ‘Who Paid the Temple Tax when the Jews were under Roman
Rule?’, HTR 77 (1984), pp. 223-32. There is also some suggestion that the tax was
voluntary, see Garland, ‘Temple Tax’, p. 197.
7. Exod. 30.11-16 nowhere speci es the frequency of payment, although most
© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

CARTER Toll and Tribute 415
was a head-tax levied on those who in some sense belonged to the

religious tradition focused upon the temple. To pay was to share the burden
of the expense involved in maintaining the cult, but also to identify with
it. As such, and bearing in mind the use of the terminology both of the
di/draxmon and of the stath/r within Mt. 17. 24-27, a connection to the
temple tax is plausible. However, after the failed revolt and subsequent
destruction of the temple in 70, the Jerusalem temple tax was re-directed
to the temple of Jupiter on the Capitol, and was still referred to as the
di/draxmon.8 Those taxed now included women and children, as well as
slaves. The terminology of the pericope in view does not preclude the
possibility that the post-70 tax is the subject of consideration, while the
references to overtly civil taxes in v. 25 support the possibility that it
might be.9
The dating of Matthew’s Gospel could potentially resolve the dif culty,
but the preference for a post-70 date leaves the matter open. Davies and
Allison, in their comprehensive review of this interpretative issue, outline
seven reasons that point to the post-70 secular tax imposed by the
Romans,10 but then address them each in turn before nally overruling
them in the following statement:
One observation is decisive. Jesus’ words presuppose that the discussion is
about a tax levied in the name of God. Kings are towards their sons as God
is towards his sons. The whole point is that God’s children are free with
commentators assume that the tax was payable every year, at the beginning of the
month of Nisan, to correspond to the Passover commemoration. It has been argued that
members of the Qumran community paid just once, at the twentieth anniversary of
birth, see Garland, ‘Temple Tax’, p. 192.
8. See for example Philo, Rer. Div. Her. 186, and Josephus, Ant. 16.166, as cited
by Garland, ‘Temple Tax’, p. 197.
9. See R.J. Cassidy, ‘Matthew 17.24-27—A Word on Civil Taxes’, CBQ 41
(1979), pp. 571-80 (572-74), for an approach that assumes that civil taxes are the
subject of the pericope. For a discussion of the role of Judas of Gamala and the Zealot
party, see F.F. Bruce, ‘Render to Caesar’, in E. Bammel and C.F.D. Moule (eds.), Jesus
and the Politics of his Day (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), pp. 249-
63, who argues that ‘the payment of tribute to the Romans was incompatible with
Israel’s theocratic ideals. This must have been because the Romans were pagans: no
religious objection seems to have been raised against the payment of taxes to Jewish
rulers, mortal men though they might be—not even to the Herods, who were undeni-
ably Jews by religious law’ (pp. 254-55). On this matter, see also G. Vermes, The
Changing Faces of Jesus (London: Allen Lane–The Penguin Press, 2000), p. 226.
10. Davies and Allison, Matthew, II, pp. 739-40.

respect to God their Father: he does not tax them. Clearly the tax in question
must be a religious one.11
The assertion here is that a religious tax must be seen as being distinct
from a political tax, and that in particular there is implicitly nothing political
about the Jerusalem temple. This assertion should be challenged. The
involvement, recorded in all four of the Gospels, of the temple hierarchy
in the arrest and eventual execution of Jesus serves as the most prominent
reminder that the temple was a political force as well as a religious one.12
There is a close interest in tax collectors in the Gospels, and the framework,
as in this pericope, is always one that connects to the political context.13
If this approach is sustainable, the need to distinguish between the pre-
70 Jerusalem temple tax and the post-70 Roman tax becomes less
pressing. That the meaning behind the passage is political is all that need
be asserted.14 Such a conclusion accords well with most, although not all,
of the interpretative approaches taken by commentators in the seventeenth
century and earlier.15 One of the most interesting treatments, within the
context of his wider teaching on secular authority, is that of Martin Luther.
11. Davies and Allison, Matthew, II, p. 741 (italics original).

12. This general point is made by Oliver O’Donovan: ‘It resolves the dif culty
suf ciently to re ect that the temple authorities were also political authorities, and that
Israel’s whole structure of social and political order, not only colonial domination, had
been felt as alienating and provisional’, The Desire of the Nations (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 93. Warren Carter presents a similar viewpoint:
‘First, religious leaders are members of the retainer class, part of the ruling elite
committed to defending the current social order from which they bene t… And second,
religious matters are not separate from social and political issues in the imperial world.
No con ict is “just” or “simply” a religious one. The con icts have social, political, and
economic dimensions also’, Matthew and Empire: Initial Explorations (Harrisburg,
PA: Trinity Press International, 2001), p. 35.
13. For a further discussion of this point, see B.D. Chilton, ‘A Coin of Three
Realms (Matthew 17.24-27)’, in D.J.A. Clines, S.E. Fowl and S.E. Porter (eds.), The
Bible in Three Dimensions (JSOTSup, 87; Shef eld: JSOT Press, 1990), pp. 269-82
(276-77).
14. With Warren Carter, who concludes his discussion of this point: ‘Debates
among scholars as to whether the tax was political or religious thereby assume a false
divide’, ‘Paying the Tax to Rome as Subversive Praxis’, JSNT 76 (1999), pp. 3-31 (18).
15. Irenaeus, Origen and Jerome all assume a political context, as do, for example,
Zwingli and Vitoria among interpretations from the Reformation era. Most striking,
perhaps, of these is the conclusion reached by Benedictus Aretius in 1607, that Christ
‘by means of an amazing miracle and his memorable example af rmed the obedience
that is due the political magistrate’, see summary in Luz, Matthew 8–20, p. 419.

He makes reference to Mt. 17.24-27 at a number of points, notably in his

Letter to the Council of the City of Stettin of 1523, where he links the
passage to Mt. 22.21 and Rom. 13.1, and proposes as their meaning the
fact that Christians should ‘voluntarily submit to bearing the common tax
burden of the city like other citizens’.16
Reclaiming a Political Interpretation

Within modern scholarship such political interpretations of Mt. 17.24-27
are comparatively rare. The two most frequent approaches put forward are
apolitical, the rst focused upon the need to avoid offending others, the
second concerned with the supposed rejection of Israel by the emerging
church. As Warren Carter has noted, both of these interpretative traditions,
as well as many other more marginal readings, are not concerned with
taxes as such.17 Instead, the payment of the tax becomes a metaphor, repre-
senting some other concern of the early church.
Oliver O’Donovan does, however, put forward a political interpretation,
suggesting that the payment of the tax is purely peripheral in character,
made so as to signal acceptance of the principle of God’s mediated rule
within human affairs, but containing within it the assumption that such
social institutions had no future: ‘[Jesus] gave them neither dutiful obedi-
ence within their supposed sphere of competence nor the inverted respect
of angry de ance’.18 Carter, although not citing O’Donovan, also presents
a conclusion framed in political terms, arguing that the anticipation of
God’s future victory is key, and that: ‘Payment expresses the community’s
allegiance to and anticipation of God’s reign, subverting the claims of
Roman rule’.19 The argument that is developed in this article is aimed at
16. M. Luther, ‘To the Council of the City of Stettin—Wittenberg, January 11,
1523’, in Luther’s Works. XLIX. Letters II (trans. G.G. Krodel; Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1972), pp. 25-28 (26). Other references to this passage are made by Luther in
The Gospel for the Festival of the Epiphany, Receiving Both Kinds in the Sacrament,
The Freedom of a Christian, as well as various of his Epistles, in all of which he
assumes a political meaning and secular taxes. The reference in On Temporal Authority
is important, as part of Luther’s discussion of ‘the two kingdoms’, and will be examined
closely at a subsequent stage within this article.
17. Carter, ‘Paying the Tax’, p. 7.
18. O’Donovan, Desire of the Nations, p. 93.
19. Carter, ‘Paying the Tax’, p. 9. For the broader interpretation applied to
Matthew’s Gospel by Warren Carter, see his Matthew and the Margins: A Socio-
Political and Religious Reading (JSOTSup, 204; Shef eld: Shef eld Academic Press,

following, and, in places, correcting, such examples of the reclaiming of a

political reading of Mt. 17.24-27, and is set out in six subsidiary sections.
The Locus of the Taxes

While time, implied by language invoking the future, as used by both
O’Donovan and Carter, is certainly a key factor within any political inter-
pretation, and under which a changed political situation will either be
imposed or emerge, it can be argued that what is in view within this pericope
is not so much the tension between the present and the future, but the
signi cance of the place or geographical locus of sovereignty. The refer-
ence to toll and tribute within the passage is of importance when consider-
ing such an assertion.20 A toll (te/loj) is a tax that is always geographically
based, being a customs duty. The most common tolls have always been
those levied upon users of a road or bridge, or upon any who enter or leave
a particular place. While the toll is often levied at different rates, relating,
for example, to the size of a vehicle or the value of goods moved, the key
element is that of the place. It is the xedness of any particular place that
makes the raising of taxes using tolls popular with tax authorities, since
evasion or avoidance is much more dif cult.
In similar terms, what is here usually translated as tribute (kh=nsoj) is
always offered from a particular geographical location, being a sign of the
subservience accepted with respect to the governing power. The root
meaning of the terminology employed derives from the census, an implic-
itly geographically based means of reckoning. While it is often claimed
that, in contrast to the toll, which is an indirect tax, what is usually rendered
here as ‘tribute’ is a direct tax, the geographical earthing of both forms of
taxation is not always recognized. In the assertion that ‘Together the two
words cover indirect and direct taxes, that is, taxes of every kind’21, the
2000), and his Matthew and Empire, which reprints an updated version of ‘Paying the
Tax’, and which puts forward a thesis that Matthew’s Gospel ‘contests the claims of
imperial theology that assert the empire and emperor to represent the gods’ sovereignty,
will, and blessing on earth’ (p. 57) with a parallel claim that ‘God’s purposes run
through Israel and Jesus’ (p. 1). The different political stances taken by O’Donovan and
Carter with regard to Mt. 17.24-27 are, arguably, nevertheless subsumed within the
future focus they share.
20. See Garland, ‘Temple Tax’, p. 202, Davies and Allison, Matthew, II, p. 744,
and J.P. Louw and E.A. Nida, Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament (2 vols.;
New York: United Bible Societies, 1988–89), I, p. 578, for summaries of the back-
ground meaning attached to each of these terms.
21. Davies and Allison, Matthew, II, p. 744.

issue at hand is potentially confused and misstated, and the impression is

given that what is being talked of here is a universal sovereignty over
economic and political matters, in rather abstract terms. At Rom. 13.7 a
different combination of words is used, with fo&roj employed in place of
kh=nsoj. The Pauline word carries with it a sense of direct taxation or tribute,
whereas kh=nsoj does not to the same extent.22 It is possible to argue that
the pair of words used at Mt. 17.25 is not meant to be so all-encompassing
or conceptually abstract, but rather re ects a very practical and literal
concern with the exercising of political power, via the taking of customs
duties and the census head-tax (te/lh h2 kh=nson).
The Identity of the Kings

The expression ‘kings of the earth’, closely connected to the levying of
the taxes mentioned in the passage, has usually been taken as having been
set in antithesis to the king of the heavens.23 This supposed antithesis
creates an impression that the meaning of ‘kings of the earth’ is a general
one, standing for earthly power as a conceptual category. The usual form
of words employed by the rabbis in such a context is a ‘king of esh and
blood’, and there exists no exact parallel in rabbinic parables with the
‘kings of the earth’ of Mt. 17.25.24 At Josh. 12.1 the ‘kings of the land’ are
speci cally stated to be Sihon king of the Amorites and Og the king of
Bashan.25 While these are particular and concrete political regimes, the
‘kings of the earth’ referred to in a number of the so-called ‘royal psalms’26
are best seen as representing a generic category of such rulers and regimes.
The ‘kings of the earth’ at Mt. 17.25 cannot seemingly refer to a single
concrete and particular political regime, namely Rome, since the ‘kings’
are in the plural, and the reference would be to Caesar, or the emperor, as
is the case at Mt. 22.21. Better, as in the royal psalms, is to suggest that
the expression has in mind the generic category of concrete political
22. As highlighted by Luz, Matthew 8–20, p. 416.

23. See, e.g., D. Hagner, Matthew 14–28 (WBC, 33B; Dallas: Word Books, 1995),
p. 512; Garland, ‘Temple Tax’, p. 193 n. 10.
24. Luz, Matthew 8–20, p. 416.
25. Other biblical examples sometimes cited include Ezra 9.7, Lam. 4.12 and Ezek.
27.33, all of which relate to speci c historical situations. The reference at Rev. 6.15 is
different in scope, and is to be noted as signalling the political concerns of that text.
26. See Pss. 2, 76, 89, 102, 138 and 148. The context within which the kings of the
earth are mentioned makes it clear that a category of real earthly political rulers is
meant, as indicated by the references to rulers, nations, and the establishing of a line.

regimes.27 It is therefore unhelpful to interpret the phrase ‘kings of the

earth’ as representing a broad heading set in opposition to the king of
heaven, an interpretative route that has a de-politicizing effect, and so a
step that is often proposed when an apolitical interpretation is to be made.
This should be resisted, and the political reality of the passage af rmed
instead, through the acknowledgment of the ‘kings of the earth’ as a
speci cally political referent.
Parable or Event?
Another way in which an apolitical reading of this pericope is often
sustained by commentators arises out of the implicit interpretative device
of taking it as a parable. The way in which kings act towards their sons is
taken as a parable of how God acts towards his own children.28 Matthew
17.24-27 is clearly not presented as a parable in its nal form. However, it
has been argued that episodes in the Gospels, presented as historical
narrative, are derived from parables given by Jesus. A strong example of
such a possibility is that of the parable of the dragnet and the sh at Mt.
13.47-50, which, it has been suggested, lies behind the dramatized episodes
narrating the great catch of sh at Lk. 5.1-11 and Jn 21.4-11.29 The narrative
setting of both of these episodes is clearly connected to the missiological
concerns of the dragnet parable. In addition, it is noteworthy that two para-
bles concerning the king are to be found in Matthew’s Gospel. Matthew
22.1-14, the parable of the marriage feast, which is set just before the
pericope on paying taxes to Caesar, is explicitly stated to be a parable, the
meaning of which equates the king’s attitude towards his guests to that of
God towards those who are called by him. Matthew 18.23-35 must also be
taken as a parable, as a comparison of 18.23 with 22.2 makes clear. The
parable of the debtor servant that it contains once again equates the king
of the parable with God, and the king’s servants with the Christian
community.
The question arises, therefore, as to whether Mt. 17.24-27 should be
interpreted as a parable. An answer to such a question would revolve around
the likelihood of the core historicity of the episode, and the tendency that
Jesus has of talking about kings in a non-parabolic sense within Matthew’s
Gospel. As set out above, the tax, either before or after 70 CE, was a
27. With Carter, see ‘Paying the Tax’, p. 21.

28. See Davies and Allison, Matthew, II, p. 741, cited in full above.
29. J. John, The Meaning in the Miracles (Norwich: Canterbury Press, 2001),
p. 231.

historical reality, and the central theme of the episode ts well with a
commonplace of life in Jesus’ day. However, events and themes such as
this one tend to become the vehicle within which a parable is presented.
The incident of the coin in the sh’s mouth, arguably less historical, could
also be taken to be the stuff of parables, akin, perhaps, to the bountiful
yield from the seed that fell in the good soil, in the parable of the sower.30
However, while there is nothing here that need preclude the origin of
the passage as having been a parable, it is important to note that Jesus is
reported, in Matthew’s Gospel and elsewhere in the Gospels, as referring
to kings and kingdoms in a real, historical sense. Matthew 5.35 makes
mention of Jerusalem as the city of the great king, 10.18 of governors and
kings as rulers before which Jesus’ followers will be dragged, 12.25 of
kingdoms being laid waste if they are divided against themselves, and
24.7 of a more abstract rising of kingdom against kingdom, as part of the
apocalyptic end-times. The evidence suggests that there is nothing that
requires an interpretation of Mt. 17.24-27 as a parable, and an examination
of the structure of the pericope arguably suggests that it could not be an
adapted parable. The expression ‘kings of the earth’, as has been noted,
conveys a historical meaning, quite unlike the ‘king’ of 18.23 or of 22.2.
The half-shekel tax is likewise entirely historical, unlike the fantastic sum
at 18.24. It is hard to see how the passage could be prefaced with the
opening, ‘The kingdom of heaven may be compared to…’, given the
different conversations that take place involving the historical gures of
Jesus, Peter and the tax collectors, and the nature of the question in v. 25.
The conclusion should be drawn that Mt. 17.24-27 is not, in fact, at root a
parable, but a reported version of an incident that brought to the fore
issues to do with political sovereignty, much as in Mt. 22.15-22.31
The Sons
Confusion is sometimes also introduced by interpreters when they come
to consider the identity of the ‘sons’. An apolitical reading will often take
the sons as being analogous to the Christians, set over against the Jews,32
30. Mt. 13.3-9.

31. In agreement with Carter, who opposes any posited similarity between the kings
and God, Matthew and Empire, p. 139, but who does not consider the fact that parables
involving kings are used by Jesus in the Gospels.
32. See, e.g., G. Stanton, A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992), p. 141.

or the Israelites, set over against the Gentiles.33 However, many commen-
tators are content to allow the literal and straightforward meaning to stand,
and to accept that the sons of kings of the text are indeed their immediate
physical offspring.34 Matthew’s Gospel employs the term ui9oi/ in a variety
of contexts, and with different meanings. At 5.45 and 13.38, for example,
it stands for the disciples, who are sons of their heavenly father, or sons of
the kingdom, but elsewhere ui9oi/ refers to other categories of people.35
While not making speci c mention of ui9oi/, Mt. 11.8 is enlightening as
regards the interpretative point under consideration. In its acknowledgment
that ‘those who wear soft raiment are in kings’ houses’, the phrase touches
on a subject matter similar to that proposed for 17.25-26. The theme of the
‘sons of kings’ as a favoured category of individuals is established. There
is, then, no reason to stray away from what is the straightforward reading,
one that acknowledges a commonplace of political authority as exercised
in concrete form. The ‘sons’ of Mt. 17.24-27 should therefore provisionally
be accepted as being the privileged offspring of the kings of the earth.
In order to test this provisional conclusion concerning the sons, thought
must be given to the way in which the idea of freedom is referred to in v.
26. Allusion is often made, on the part of commentators, to other biblical
passages where freedom is of central concern in association with sonship,
leading examples being Jn 8.31-38, Rom. 8 and Gal. 3.23-29. However,
these passages are in reality quite different in content and scope, being
concerned with the sonship of Jesus, and the freedom from the law and
from sin that he brings. Such spiritual concerns are far removed from the
focus of Mt. 17.26, where the sonship of Jesus is nowhere to be seen, and
the sonship of the people of God can only be found in allegory, an
approach that should be held back from, as argued above. It is signi cant
that the Greek word e0leu&qeroi is a synoptic hapax legomenon,36 and that

34. Derrett widens the meaning to include royal households, ‘Peter’s Penny’,
p. 255; Daube settles for ‘family member’, D. Daube, Appeasement or Resistance and
Other Essays on New Testament Judaism (Berkley: University of California Press,
1987), p. 41; see also R.H. Mounce, New International Biblical Commentary: Matthew
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), p. 171; Davies and Allison, Matthew,
II, pp. 744-45; Carter, ‘Paying the Tax’, p. 23; Luz, Matthew 8–20, p. 416, who makes
the point that while the Semitic ‘son’ can have a broader sense of meaning, the par-
ticular words used are then different.
35. For example, see 12.27; 20.20-21; 21.28.
36. See Carter, ‘Paying the Tax’, p. 25, where he asserts that the adjective ‘com-
monly refers to political or imperial freedom consistent with a scene involving kings’.

the connotations attached to it re ect well the essentially political nature
of the freedom being referred to here. Once again, allegorizing and spiritu-
alizing tendencies on the part of interpreters should be resisted, and the
‘free sons’ con rmed as being the kings’ own offspring.
Two Issues of Translation

It can further be argued that the Greek is often mistranslated in two
important and speci c respects within the purpose clause at the beginning
of v. 27, both serving to distort the meaning away from what is being
claimed here as the straightforward interpretation. At the opening of v. 27
the expression i3na de/ is frequently translated to indicate a contrast, so
‘however’ in the RSV. The impression then given is that Jesus is implying
freedom from the tax, perhaps as a ‘son’. When de/ is used with me/n, a mean-
ing conveying contrast is certainly implied,37 and the same sense of contrast
is also often present when de/ occurs alone.38 Despite this, it is always the
context that supplies the contrast, and not the use of de/ as such. For a
more de nite sense of contrast, the use of a)lla& is to be preferred.39 Far
more common is the association of de/ with a very loose connective sense.
Examples are ubiquitous, not least within the opening phrase of the peri-
cope under consideration here, 0Elqo&ntwn de\ au)tw~n ei0j Kafarnaou_m, and
give a feel of continuity without contrast. In principle, then, de/ should be
seen as neutral in meaning, and any proposed sense either of contrast or of
connectedness should be derived carefully from the context of the passage
in question.
Here at Mt. 17.27, it can be suggested, the context is not clear, and it is
the translation of i3na de/ that sets the meaning, rather than it being the case
of an otherwise clear meaning providing the appropriate way of making
the translation. It would seem that ‘however’ is too strong a translation to
promote. Far better is ‘but’, although this still conveys noticeable contrast.
If a loose connective sense is preferred, the translation should read: ‘And
so that we might not…’40 This approach is arguably superior in this
37. See, e.g., in the Parable of the Mustard Seed at Mt. 13.31-32: ‘o$ mikro&teron me/ n
e0stin pa&ntwn tw~n sperma&twn, o#tan de\ au)chqh=|...’, ‘it is the smallest of all seeds, but
when it has grown…’
38. Within Matthew’s Gospel, notable examples can be seen at 6.15, 20, 23, 29;
10.13, 33; 12.31, 32; 15.5; 18.20, 28; 19.14, 26; and 25.29.
39. See, e.g., at Mt. 20.26-28.
40. See Carter, ‘Paying the Tax’, p. 26 n. 116, who argues for a connective meaning
for de/ in this verse.

instance, since any sense of contrast at the point in question would tend to
dominate the meaning of the passage in a way in which the conjunction de/
is not strong enough to support. Something much more neutral is clearly
safer.
The second mistranslation arises over the verb skandali/zw. Davies and
Allison smoothly assert that: ‘It obviously does not mean “cause to sin”’.41
No justi cation is given for this stance, an approach that must at least be
argued for carefully, given the repeated use of the same verb in Mt. 18.6-
9, where it is indeed usually translated as ‘cause to sin’. Such divergent
meanings seem unlikely, unless strong evidence can be produced in their
favour.
Davies and Allison42 settle for ‘give offence’, thus providing the entire
meaning of the passage in one move. The pericope becomes one that
yields the message that ‘freedom does not mean licence’.43 Duncan Derrett,
in his interpretation of this key phrase, prefers to stay with the translation
that is in line with the early verses of ch. 18: ‘Jesus was not afraid of
offending [the collectors]. But his refusal might lead them into sin.’44 The
meaning thus becomes, ‘And so that we might not lead them astray…’
Such a translation accords well with both the root meaning of the verb
skandali/zw, and the way in which it is used in Matthew’s Gospel. No
non-biblical example of skandali/zw has ever been found, and it has as its
root meaning ‘to jump up’ or ‘to snap shut’. The associated noun was
originally the piece of wood that kept open a trap for animals, but the
biblical usage develops this secular starting point. At Amos 3.5, Josh.
23.13, Judg. 2.3 and 8.27, Pss. 106.36 and 141.9, and 1 Sam. 18.21 the
LXX uses ska&ndalon to mean snare or trap. Similarly, at Lev. 19.14 the
meaning is that of a stumbling block before the blind. In the Qumran
literature the tendency for a move towards a more metaphorical usage is
seen, meaning ‘to stumble’ or ‘to sin’. The New Testament usage is in
places based directly upon Old Testament sources, for example Mt. 24.10
on Dan. 11.41. The verb is used more in Matthew’s Gospel than any other
New Testament book. In its active form it always means ‘to stumble’ or

42. With most others, including the RSV.
44. Derrett, ‘Peter’s Penny’, p. 256. Derrett himself is working with an interpretation
that assumes the passage is concerned with the Jerusalem Temple tax, and that the
collectors were bound by the Torah, but his rendering of skandali/ swmen should be
seen as independent of this general interpretative approach.

‘to lead into sin’, although in the passive it can mean ‘to take offence
at’.45 At Mt. 17.27 the verb is in the active form. There is no good reason
to translate the verb in a unique manner here, given that the expected
meaning can stand alongside a straightforward political interpretation of
the passage.46
Locating the Audience and Message

The need now is to return to the opening phrase of v. 27. It has been
suggested that this should be translated, ‘And so that we might not lead
them astray…’ The identity attached to ‘them’ (au)tou&j) becomes impor-
tant. Possibilities include the ‘kings of the earth’, the collectors of the tax,
or Jesus’ followers.47 Given the more straightforward translation of skan-
dali/swmen being put forward here, the former possibility seems wrong.
The political authority, to whom the tax is due, would not be led astray by
an inability to produce the money required. In similar terms, it seems
dif cult to see how the tax collectors could be led astray by a non-payer.48
More promising is the understanding that Jesus’ followers are intended.49
45. Even at Mt. 15.12, which is usually cited as the only other example of skanda-
li/zw with the meaning ‘to offend’, and which is any case in the passive, there might be
grounds for holding to a meaning of ‘leading astray’, given the context of Jesus’ words
about the blind leading the blind.
46. This section draws upon the analysis presented in The New International
Dictionary of New Testament Theology (ET; 2 vols.; Carlisle: The Paternoster Press,
1986), II, pp. 707-10.
47. See Garland, ‘Temple Tax’, p. 202.
48. Against Derrett, ‘Peter’s Penny’, p. 257, whose argument is based upon Jewish
tax collectors operating under the provisions of the Torah, but which seems somewhat
fanciful.
49. With regard to Jesus’ followers, the precise audience will depend upon the
historical authenticity of the passage. William Horbury has argued that it should be
‘taken as probable that both teaching and payment should be assigned to Jesus’
ministry, since the two cohere with one another and are comprehensible within the
settings of contemporary Judaism and the life of Jesus’. See W. Horbury, ‘The Temple
Tax’, in E. Bammel and C.F.D. Moule (eds.), Jesus and the Politics of his Day
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), pp. 265-86 (267). If Horbury is correct
in this assertion then Jesus’ followers can be allowed also to be his contemporaries.
The alternative is to accept the teaching within the pericope as being focused upon the
Matthaean community. A detailed argument supporting the historical authenticity of
the passage lies beyond the scope of this article, but were it to be sustained there might
be the possibility of integrating Mt. 17.24-27 into a consideration of the historical
Jesus’ understanding of the kingdom of God, as set out, for example, by Ed Sanders,

At the opening of the pericope the collectors’ question is directed to Peter,

but refers to your (u(mw~n) teacher. The plural form is noteworthy. The
opening exchange of the passage sets the context, with a group of Jesus’
followers, or at least interested observers, implied in the background.
These, it can be argued, come back into the picture as the recipients of
Jesus’ teaching, by example, in the paying of the tax.50
If such a line of argument is accepted, the connections to Mt. 22.15-22
become very strong indeed.51 There, the context is speci cally created to
be one in which teaching is to be provided for the ‘crowd’, through the de-
vice of a trap set by Jesus’ enemies. The stylistic parallels between the two
pericopes include the reference to Jesus as teacher (dida&skaloj), the
question ti/ soi dokei=, and the use of the word kh=nsoj for the tax.52 If a
political reading for Mt. 17.24-27 is allowed, the only substantial difference
between the two passages becomes the source of the coin. At Mt. 22 it is
the Pharisees and Herodians who provide a coin for Jesus to inspect,
whereas at Mt. 17 the coin comes from the sh’s mouth. The fact that, in
the episode recorded at 22.15-22, his inquisitors are able to bring Jesus a
coin is of importance. As John Habgood notes:
[T]he cleverest part of Jesus’ answer to the question, ‘Is it lawful to pay
tribute to Caesar or not?’ lay in his request, ‘Show me a penny’. His ques-
tioners’ ability to produce one was evidence that they were already involved
in Caesar’s world. The tribute money was a special coinage, one of the
outward signs of Roman sovereignty. Their possession of it was thus an
admission of that sovereignty and a sign that they, like all of us, were inevi-
tably mixed up in it and compromised by it.53
Here at Mt. 17.24-27, Jesus, by his reported action of paying the tax, is
see E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Allen Lane–The Penguin
Press, 1993), pp. 169-88, under which the six categories of such an understanding
re ect different combinations of the heavenly and earthly kingdom, as well as a
present–future aspect.
50. Such an interpretation is re ected implicitly in Masaccio’s ne fresco, Tribute
Money, in the Brancacci Chapel, Florence, in which the centre of the image is dominated
by Jesus, Peter and the tax collector, with the other disciples all gathered around.
Separate portrayals of Peter taking the coin out of the sh’s mouth, and paying the tax
collector, are placed to the sides.
51. See Daube, Appeasement or Resistance, p. 51, and O’Donovan, Desire of the
Nations, p. 92, for particular interpretative approaches based upon the connectedness of
the two passages.
52. See Chilton, ‘A Coin of Three Realms’, p. 277.
53. J. Habgood, Making Sense (London: SPCK, 1993), pp. 137-38.

acknowledging that he and his followers are mixed up in the world of

secular political sovereignty, but by the unlikely and miraculous source of
the coin, the message is conveyed that he is not compromised by it. To be
compromised would be to reach into a pocket and produce the coin, which
is exactly why Jesus cannot be seen to be doing so. Instead, Peter must go
to the sea, which will yield up the tax money through the device of a sh.
It is arguably the sea which is more signi cant here than the sh. The
kings of the earth are speci cally not kings over the sea (qa&lassan). In
political terms, the sea is not a place at all.54 Jesus, then, does pay the tax,
but only by breaking out beyond the normal boundaries within which
political power is exercised. Thus the passage should be seen as echoing
the Johannine sentiment, of being in the world but not of the world, or,
put differently, of being truly present and involved in worldly things, but
never being compromised by that presence into the idolatry of making
such things rank ahead of God. Put another way, it could be argued that
Matthew, in this pericope, presents Jesus as articulating a present but
distinctive kingdom of God.55
Corroboration from Luther

There is a strong resonance within the interpretative approach argued for
above with Luther’s arguments in his On Temporal Authority. It is there
that he rehearses his famous ‘two kingdoms’ doctrine: ‘Here we must
divide Adam’s children, all mankind, into two parts: the rst belong to the
kingdom of God, the second to the kingdom of the world’.56 He goes on to
cite Jn 18.36, invoking the idea of being ‘not of this world’, in support of
his argument. However, the two kingdoms are only separate in a certain
sense. While ‘if all the world were true Christians…there would be
54. Somewhat against Carter, who argues in Matthew and the Margins that ‘ sh are
subject to God’s sovereignty’ (p. 359) and that ‘this story shows that the tax is subject
to God’s power and sovereignty’ (p. 360). It might be suggested that the ancient
understanding of the sea as a place of chaos, prior to God’s creative ordering, and as
re ected at Ps. 74.12-14 and Ps. 89.9-10, is of signi cance here.
55. The passage could therefore be placed with Mt. 13.33.
56. The translation of Luther’s On Temporal Authority used here is made by Harro
Höp , see H. Höp (ed.), Luther and Calvin: On Secular Authority (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 8. For an alternative translation, see M. Luther,
‘Temporal Authority: To What Extent it Should Be Obeyed’, in Luther’s Works. XLV.
The Christian in Society II (trans. W.I. Brandt; Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1962),
pp. 81-129.

neither need nor use for princes, kings, lords, the sword, or law’,57 since
there would be nothing for them to do, the reality is that secular law and
rule is required, since every human being is counted as a sinner. Therefore,
‘Christians readily submit themselves to be governed by the Sword, they
pay taxes, honour those in authority, serve and help them, and do what they
can to uphold their power’.58
It is in developing this line of thought that Luther presents his most
subtle teaching as to the role of the Christian when faced with secular
authority, in a passage that concludes with Mt. 17.27 as the underpinning
biblical authority:
And neither does [the Christian] serve authority because he himself stands
in need of it, but because others do, in order that they might enjoy protection,
and so that the wicked might not grow even worse. Such service does no
harm to him, and he suffers no loss by it, but the world bene ts greatly. To
omit to do it would not be the act of a Christian; it would be contrary to [the
Christian duty of] love, and would give a bad example to [the Unchristian]:
they too would refuse to submit to authority, although they are unchristian.
And all this would bring the Gospel into disrepute, as if it taught rebellion
and created sel sh people unwilling to be of use or service to anyone,
whereas the Gospel makes the Christian a servant to everyone. Thus Christ
in Matthew 17[27] paid the tax, although he had no need to do so, in order
not to give offence.59
The stance struck by this excerpt from Luther’s On Temporal Authority

seems to postulate some distance between, on the one hand, the Christian,
and, on the other, political authority. The Christian serves authority for
limited reasons: rst, because of the needs of those who are not Christians;
secondly, to set a good example; and thirdly, to avoid rebellion, and the
consequent bringing of the Gospel into disrepute. These reasons can be
said to be limited, because they fail to af rm that the temporal political
structures of the world are part of God’s provision for human society.
Elsewhere, Luther refers to the ‘temporal kingdom’ (weltliches Reich)
as part of God’s creation in a much more integral manner, and the more
usual ‘two kingdoms’ theory emerges, under which the two natures of the
human being are governed by the two divinely appointed orders of human
existence. However, here we have evidence of Luther’s other strand of
57. Luther, On Temporal Authority (Höp , Luther and Calvin, p. 9).

58. Luther, On Temporal Authority (Höp , Luther and Calvin, pp. 13-14).
59. Luther, On Temporal Authority (Höp , Luther and Calvin, p. 14). All brackets
except the rst set are original to Höp ’s translation.

thought, which was well observed by Johannes Heckel, summarized by

Cargill Thompson in the following way:
For although the Christian has to live out his natural life on earth, his
position in the world is always that of a ‘stranger’ (advena, hospes); he is in
the world, but not of it, just as he is not really subject to the authority of the
temporal regiment, even though he must be prepared to submit himself
voluntarily to its commands.60
The two approaches, both of which can be supported by reference to

Luther’s writings, arise, so Thompson argues, out of an ambiguous use of
‘das weltliche Regiment’ by Luther. The important determining factor is
that of distinguishing between theory and practice. In theory the ‘temporal
kingdom’ is part of God’s creation, but in practice, when faced by the
‘power of the Sword’ and the reality of political authority as exercised in
particular places, a more limited role for the ‘temporal kingdom’ is
implied.61 It is when operating in this more ‘limited’ sense, in On Temporal
Authority, that Luther elects to make reference to Mt. 17.27. A connection
to the argument above, that Mt. 17.24-27 is concerned with the practical
reality of political power, is thus established.
The question then arises as to the extent to which Luther’s full inter-
pretation of Mt. 17.24-27 can be supported. He clearly sees it as a ‘political’
passage. At least at certain points he appears to align the meaning that it
conveys with the view that the Christian is in the world of political
authority, but not of it. In an important sense, Luther sees the fact that
Christ did pay the tax as representative of the Christian calling, to be a
servant to everyone. For this service to become a reality, an engagement
with the political authorities of the world is required. It can, however, be
argued that the key expression within Luther’s thinking on this matter, at
the heart of the excerpt from On Temporal Authority set out above, is the
assertion that, ‘Such service does no harm to him, and he suffers no loss
by it, but the world bene ts greatly’. The mark, then, of a proper Christian
attitude towards political authority for Luther is signi ed by an asymmetric
relationship. The Christian is not harmed, and suffers no loss—one might
say, is not compromised—by the relationship. The world, in which the
Christian is actively present, or mixed up, gains great bene ts.
60. W.D.J. Cargill Thompson, ‘The “Two Kingdoms” and the “Two Regiments”:
Some Problems of Luther’s Zwei-Reiche-Lehre’, JTS 20 (1969), pp. 164-85 (176).
61. See Thompson, ‘The “Two Kingdoms” and the “Two Regiments”’, pp. 178-79.

Conclusion
The reading of Luther outlined here lends support to the conclusions
arrived at above, in respect of Mt. 17.24-27. The pericope, properly under-
stood as political in scope, provides teaching on the nature of a correct
engagement with worldly authority. This is not, as some would have it, in
terms of a present–future tension, under which the passage is seen as
pointing to a transitory duality, which will be swept away once the arrival,
now imminent, of God’s kingdom has come to pass.62 Nor is it to be under-
stood as setting out ‘a resisting and subversive praxis which anticipates
God’s future victory’.63 Rather, it is a duality maintained in the present;
not a duality that af rms two separate divinely ordained spheres of in u-
ence, but rather one that allows for Peter’s ‘yes’, even while re ecting the
lack of an explanation, within the passage, as to the justi cation for the
kings of earth to take toll or tribute. Thus, although the passage is not
ostensibly concerned with the kingdom of God, it coheres well with Jesus’
parable at Mt. 13.33, under which God’s kingdom is like the leaven in the
lump.
For the Christian, then, there is always a need for a degree of ‘distance’
from political authority, if this line of interpretation is followed through.
However, this is never to deny the need for a concern with the reality of
political power, and the practical manner in which it is exercised. To ee,
in physical terms, into a place where there is no such power exercised
cannot be an option. The Christian is always ‘in the world’. The ‘distance’
comes, rather, from the asymmetry of the relationship, under which the
Christian should avoid being sucked into the murkiness of the practical
exercising of political authority in particular places, where compromise is
always necessary, even while they are engaged with such authority. Any
engagement, represented by the giving over of the stath/r, should always
be, one might say, at arm’s length, as re ected in the lack of a coin in
Jesus’ or Peter’s hand, and in the source of that coin from the sea, which
62. Against O’Donovan, Desire of the Nations, p. 93, who argues that: ‘The
coming era of God’s rule held the passing era in suspension’.
63. Carter, ‘Paying the Tax’, p. 30. Despite his focus upon ‘God’s future victory’
(see especially his programmatic statement in Matthew and the Margins, p. xvii),
Carter also sketches out a provisional role for the Christian community as a separate
entity: ‘[The Gospel] calls disciples of Jesus to live these claims as an alternative
community’, Matthew and Empire, p. 74. See also pp. 175-77, where the point is made
that solidarity is needed with other communities also seeking justice.

lies outside of the normal political sphere of in uence and control, even
though it lies within ‘the world’ in a more general sense. Such a reading
of Mt. 17.24-27 does not deny a role for political authority, as it takes
shape in the form of the kings of the earth, or otherwise. Neither, however,
does it af rm as God-given such worldly structures of power and authority.
Rather, it suggests a ne balance for Christians, under which, as Luther at
times argued, they should serve political authority, even while they should
never be seen as being subject under it.


Carter 2003

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carter 2003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[JSNT 25.

Toll and Tribute: A Political Reading of Matthew 17.24-27

The Identity of the Tax

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

was a head-tax levied on those who in some sense belonged to the

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

11. Davies and Allison, Matthew, II, p. 741 (italics original).

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

He makes reference to Mt. 17.24-27 at a number of points, notably in his

Reclaiming a Political Interpretation

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

following, and, in places, correcting, such examples of the reclaiming of a

The Locus of the Taxes

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

issue at hand is potentially confused and misstated, and the impression is

The Identity of the Kings

22. As highlighted by Luz, Matthew 8–20, p. 416.

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

regimes.27 It is therefore unhelpful to interpret the phrase ‘kings of the

27. With Carter, see ‘Paying the Tax’, p. 21.

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

30. Mt. 13.3-9.

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

33. Davies and Allison, Matthew, II, p. 745.

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

Two Issues of Translation

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

41. Davies and Allison, Matthew, II, p. 746.

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

Locating the Audience and Message

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

At the opening of the pericope the collectors’ question is directed to Peter,

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

acknowledging that he and his followers are mixed up in the world of

Corroboration from Luther

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

The stance struck by this excerpt from Luther’s On Temporal Authority

57. Luther, On Temporal Authority (Höp , Luther and Calvin, p. 9).

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

thought, which was well observed by Johannes Heckel, summarized by

The two approaches, both of which can be supported by reference to

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2003.

You might also like

57. Luther, On Temporal Authority (Höp , Luther and Calvin, p. 9).