0

Since Jesus is sinless, He was not required to undergo John's baptism, which symbolized repentance. When John hesitated to baptize Him, in Matthew 3:15, Jesus said;

“Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” (NIV)

In Matthew 17:24-27, collectors approached Peter and Jesus for the temple tax. Jesus declared that the Son was not obligated to pay the tax to the Father. At that time, it is likely that only Peter knew Jesus is the Son of God (Matthew 16:16).

Therefore my question is;

Can the statement in Matthew 3:15 be applicable in this situation, suggesting that Jesus should demonstrate fulfilling righteousness as a righteous Jew?

In your answer, please elaborate as well the implication of tax money retrieved miraculously from the fish's mouth, as opposed to funds taken from their own pockets.

1 Answer 1

0

First a correction: In Mt. 17 Jesus does not say the Son is exempt from paying taxes to the Father. (This may be true, but he does not say so.) He says that only foreigners have to pay tolls and census taxes, but subjects do not. The temple tax was imposed by God on his people and Jesus taught that the temple tax should indeed be paid. This is the meaning of "render unto God what belongs to God." (Matthew 22:21) In that sense, Matthew's account of the temple tax seems to compare apples to oranges. The historic temple tax was imposed by Jewish authorities, even when the Romans were in charge. The census tax as described by Jesus is a different matter, imposed by a king on foreigners.

(One explanation of this apparently discrepancy is that the account is an anachronism based on the time when Matthew was written, when the Romans forced Jews to pay a temple tax for the upkeep of a non-Jewish temple see footnote here).

Regarding John's baptism, even Jesus would become ritually impure from time to time. This is not a sin in the moral sense, but it does require that the person bathe in water. (Lev. 15) This may be what he referred to in his conversation with John in Mt. 3:15. In this sense I would answer yes to the OP's question about John's baptism. Both immersion and paying the temple tax were religious duties that, at least during his lifetime, Jesus taught should be observed.

The miraculous provision of the temple tax is apparently due to the poverty of Jesus and the disciples, who carried no money and relied on charity for their daily needs. (Matthew 10:9-11)

9 Do not take gold or silver or copper for your belts; 10 (no sack for the journey, or a second tunic, or sandals, or walking stick. The laborer deserves his keep. 11 Whatever town or village you enter, look for a worthy person in it, and stay there until you leave.

As Peter declared, Jesus taught that his disciples (probably himself as well) were supposed to pay the temple tax. Since they did not carry money and the tax-collectors were demanding payment, God provided the means for them to pay.

Conclusion: Yes, Jesus had a religious obligation to pay the temple tax, as well as to follow the rule to cleanse oneself after accidentally becoming ritually impure. Both of these duties applied at this time in history, whether or not one has sinned.

3
  • Thank you for your answer. The temple tax was an annual obligation for righteous Jews. If Jesus acknowledged His obligation, wouldn't the conversation between Peter and Jesus in Matthew 17:25-27 seem unnecessary? And Jesus should have the money set aside for this annual event, for God would not be pleased with those who treated their obligations casually. Commented May 22 at 3:00
  • @VincentWong.. sorry for not seeing this earlier. Some commentators believe this conversation is there to teach the members of Matthew's community, when the original temple tax itself no longer existed by the Romans required Jews and Jewish Christians to pay a temple tax for the new temple in Jerusalem, which was dedicated to Jupiter. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscus_Judaicus Commented Oct 18 at 19:33
  • Thank you for your response. According to these commentators, the narrative in Matthew's Gospel is comprised of secular elements and lacks divine inspiration. Have I got that right? Commented Oct 19 at 1:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.