Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 17:26
Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.
26. then are the children free ] “the sons are exempt from tribute.” The deduction is, “Shall He whom thou hast rightly named the Son of God pay tribute to the Temple of his Father?” The Romans called their sons free ( liberi), as opposed to slaves.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 26. Then are the children free] As this money is levied for the support of that temple of which I am the Lord, then I am not obliged to pay the tax; and my disciples, like the priests that minister, should be exempted from the necessity of paying.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
26. Peter saith unto him, Ofstrangers“of those not their children.”
Jesus saith unto him, Thenare the children freeBy “the children” our Lordcannot here mean Himself and the Twelve together, in some loose senseof their near relationship to God as their common Father. For besidesthat our Lord never once mixes Himself up with His disciples inspeaking of their relation to God, but ever studiously keeps Hisrelation and theirs apart (see, for example, on the last words ofthis chapter)this would be to teach the right of believers toexemption from the dues required for sacred services, in the teeth ofall that Paul teaches and that He Himself indicates throughout. Hecan refer here, then, only to Himself; using the word “children”evidently in order to express the general principle observed bysovereigns, who do not draw taxes from their own children, and thusconvey the truth respecting His own exemption the morestrikingly:namely, “If the sovereign’s own family be exempt,you know the inference in My case”; or to express it morenakedly than Jesus thought needful and fitting: “This is a taxfor upholding My Father’s House. As His Son, then, that tax is notdue by MeI AM FREE.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Peter saith unto him,…. The Vulgate Latin reads, “and he said”: and so the Ethiopic, and Munster’s Hebrew Gospel; but without doubt Peter is meant, and rightly expressed; whose answer to Christ’s question is,
of strangers: meaning not foreigners, or such who formerly belonged to other nations, but were now taken captive, and brought into subjection; but their own native subjects, so called, in distinction from their domestics, their children, and those of their own family:
Jesus saith unto him, then are the children free; from paying custom, tribute, and taxes, and leaves Peter to make the application; and which he suggested might be made, either thus: supposing it was a civil tax, that since he was the son of David, king of Israel, was of his house and family, and heir apparent to his throne and kingdom; according to this rule, he must be exempt from such tribute: or, thus; taking it to have respect to the half shekel, paid on a religious account, for the service of the temple worship; that since he was the Son of the King of kings, for the support of whose worship and service that money was collected; and was also the Lord and proprietor of the temple, and greater than that, he might well be excused the payment of it.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The sons ( ). Christ, of course, and the disciples also in contrast with the Jews. Thus a reply to Peter’s prompt “Yes.” Logically () free from the temple tax, but practically not as he proceeds to show.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
(26) Of strangers.The answer must be looked at from the Eastern rather than the European theory of taxation. To the Jews, as to other Eastern nations, direct taxation was hateful as a sign of subjugation. It had roused them to revolt under Rehoboam (1Ki. 12:4), and they had stoned the officer who was over the tribute. They had groaned under it when imposed by the Syrian kings (1Ma. 10:29-30; 1Ma. 11:35). It was one of their grievances under Herod and his sons (Jos. Ant. xvii. 8, 4). Judas of Galilee and his followers had headed an insurrection against it as imposed by the Romans (Act. 5:37). It was still (as we see in Mat. 22:17) a moot point between the Pharisees and Herodians whether any Jew might lawfully pay it. Peter naturally answered our Lords question at once from the popular Galilean view.
Then are the children free.The words are commonly interpreted as simply reminding Peter of his confession, and pressing home its logical consequence that He, the Christ, as the Son of God. was not liable to the tribute which was the acknowledgment of His Fathers sovereignty. This was doubtless prominent in the answer, but its range is, it is believed, wider. (1.) If this is the only meaning, then the Israelites who paid the rate are spoken of as aliens, or foreigners, in direct opposition to the uniform language of Scripture as to their filial relation to Jehovah. (2.) The plural used not only in this verse but in that which follows, the lest we should offend them, the payment for Peter as well as for Himself, all indicate that we are dealing with a general truth of wide application. Some light is thrown upon the matter by a fact of contemporary history. The very point which our Lord decides had been debated between the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Temple-rate question was to them what the Church-rate question has been in modern politics. After a struggle of seven days in the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees carried their point, made it (what it had not been before) a compulsory payment, and kept an annual festival in commemoration of their victory. Our Lord, placing the question on its true ground, pronounces judgment against the Pharisees on this as on other points. They were placing the Israelite on the level of a stranger, not of a son. The true law for the children of the kingdom was that which St. Paul afterwards proclaimed: not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver (2Co. 9:7).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
26. Then are the children free Kings do not take tribute of their own sons. Now of the temple God is king, and I am his Son. Why then, Peter, did you so far forget my Sonship as to pledge me to become a tribute-payer? Peter had but lately confessed his Lord in the most solemn style, at Cesarea Philippi, as Son of the living God. He had but a few days previously heard God’s voice, on the mount of transfiguration, proclaim Jesus as his beloved Son. Why then should God’s Son pay tribute for his own house? Nevertheless our Lord did not avail himself of this divine exemption.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And when he said, “From strangers,” Jesus said to him, “Therefore the sons are free.” ’
When Peter necessarily replies, ‘of strangers’, Jesus then points out that therefore the sons, (and especially the Son), are free of the burden of the tax, for no King will look to his sons for the tax. This primarily means Himself as the Father’s Son, but it also includes in the end all those who through Him are sons of God.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 17:26 . ] Application : Therefore I, as the Son of God, am exempt from the tax which is payable to Jehovah, i.e. to His temple. The inference in this argument, which is of the nature of a dilemma, and which proceeds on the self-consciousness of Jesus regarding His supernatural sonship (comp. note on Mat 22:45 ), is an inference a minori ad majus , as is indicated by . . If, indeed, in the case of earthly kings their sons are exempted from the taxes they impose, it follows that the Son of the heavenly King, the Son of God , can be under no obligation to pay the taxes which He imposes (for the temple). The plural is justifiable in the general proposition as a generic (comp. note on Mat 2:20 ) indefinite plural, but the application must be made to Jesus only, not to Peter as well (Paulus, Olshausen, Ewald, Lange, Hofmann, Schriffbew . II. 1, p. 131, Gess, Keim), inasmuch as the predicate, in the sense corresponding to the argument, was applicable to Jesus alone, while , taken in the wider spiritual sense, would embrace not merely Peter and the apostles, but those believers in general whose connection with the Jewish temple was not broken off (Joh 4:21 ) till a somewhat later period.
The principle laid down by Jesus, that He is under no obligation to pay temple-tax on the ground of His being the Son of God, is, in thesi , to be simply recognised, and requires no justification (in answer to de Wette); but, in praxi , He waives His claim to exemption, and that from a regard to the offence which He would otherwise have given, inasmuch as the fact of His divine sonship, and the (Mat 12:6 ) which it involved, were not recognised beyond the circle of believers, and He would therefore have been looked upon exclusively as an Israelite, as which He was, of course, subject to the law (Gal 4:4 ). If on some other occasion we find Him asserting His Messianic right to subordinate certain legal enactments to His own will (see Mat 12:8 ; Joh 7:21 ff.), it must be borne in mind that in such cases He had to do with enemies , in answer to whose accusation He had to appeal to the authority implied in His being commissioned to bring about the Messianic fulfilment of the law (Mat 5:17 ). This commission did not supersede His personal obligation, imposed upon Him in His birth and circumcision, to comply with the law, but only gave to His obedience the higher ideal and perfect character which distinguished it.
] put well forward for sake of emphasis.
The idea that the is given to God , is found likewise in Joseph. Antt . xviii. 4. 1.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.
Ver. 26. Then are the children free ] q.d. And much more I (who am the natural, the only begotten Son of that King everlasting, the heir of all) am privileged from payments. Yet because few knew, what Peter did, that he was the Christ, the Son of the living God, the Son also of David, according to the flesh, lest by his example he should occasion and encourage either the Jews to deny payment, or the Romans to defy the gospel as contrary to monarchy, he would not make use of his immunity, but sent to sea for money to make payment.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Mat 17:26 . on the force of this particle vide at Mat 7:20 . The lends emphasis to the exemption of the . It virtually replies to Peter’s = then you must admit, what your answer to the collectors seemed to deny, that the children are free. The reply is a jeu d’esprit . Christ’s purpose is not seriously to argue for exemption, but to prepare the way for a moral lesson.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Then = It followeth, then, that.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Mat 17:26. , free) The argument is as follows: Jesus is the Son of God (Mat 17:5), and the heir of all things; but the Temple, for the sake of which the didrachms are paid, is the house of God: it behoved Jesus, on paying the didrachm, to do so under protest. They who received the tribute were not capable of comprehending (non capiebant) the protest, therefore it is addressed to Peter. They who pertain to Jesus, possess also the right of Jesus.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Mat 17:17
Reciprocal: Deu 15:3 – General 1Sa 17:25 – free in Israel Luk 9:50 – Forbid Luk 16:8 – in 1Th 5:22 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
7:26
Jesus and his apostles were citizens of that nation and would not rightly be under obligation to pay such a tax.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 17:26. Surely then the sons are free. Peter had lately confessed that Jesus was the Son of the living God; and yet now so readily admits the obligation to pay the temple-tax. The real Temple need not pay tribute to that which foreshadowed it. The saying does not refer to taxes to the State (see chap. Mat 22:19), nor imply that the clergy should be exempt from taxation. Christians are free, not from the duties of citizens, but from the yoke of legality the priesthood would put upon them.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 26
That is, Jesus, as. the Son of God, might justly have claimed exemption from taxes assessed for the service of his Father.