Matthew 22:17 "Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar?"

[steve]

mikew wrote:

This doesn't quite sound right yet.

PROBLEM 1
The first kings/sons reference spoke of the kings of the earth. So the practice described was associated with the likes of Caesar and Herod. Such idea also could be inferred from the mention of the toll or tribute tax (where I would guess that at least one of these types of taxes would be different from the temple tax).

The second reference to kings/sons (where the mention of a king is omitted and then could be God or Christ Jesus) then would properly refer to believers -- but Jesus didn't explicitly state that He was excluded as being a son -- but this last distinction may not be useful though.

I understand Jesus to be referencing the policies of the "kings of the earth" as an analogous illustration of the policies of God as a King, just as He later uses the practices of "the rulers of the Gentiles" to illustrate a teaching about the practices of Christian leaders—Matt.20:25ff. He is not teaching a new lesson about earthly kings that Peter did not already know. He asks him a question about royal policies, and Peter already knows the correct answer. From that, Jesus moves to His point of comparison.

PROBLEM 2
The tax appeared not to be valid as a temple tax cause there was only one valid instance where the tax applied -- from the standpoint of the Law. So there may not have been reason for Jesus to indicate that Peter should ever pay the tax.

Jesus might, in fact, have felt that no one is obligated under God's law to pay this tax. However, often the duty to pay taxes is additionally enforced by societal opinions about such things (e.g., we may have no constitutional obligation to pay income taxes, but most people will think of us as violators if we don't). Jesus had Peter pay the tax for that reason alone.

PROBLEM 3
There doesn't seem to be any other New Testament passages that point to God as the king. My impression is that Jesus was the one to get glory as the King or Christ.

The idea of God being Israel's King was absolutely fundamental to the mentality of the Jews (e.g., it provided the only rationale for the Zealot party's resisting payment of the Roman tribute—and many non-Zealots were in sympathy with their conclusions, but paid anyway to avoid being crucified). Elsewhere, Jesus referred to God as a king in Matthew 5:35 (Jerusalem called "the city of the great King"), and in the parable of the wedding feast (Matt.22:1-14).

Thrombomodulun wrote:

Who are God's subjects who are not also exempted sons? Does this mean no one is required to pay the tax, or that the tax burden falls only upon unbelieving Jews?

I think the unbelieving Jew are the ones who were not sons, but subjects, of God (Exodus 19:5-6). Support of the temple may have been their special duty because it was there that they sought atonement with their King. The sons have a different basis for acceptance with Him, because He is their Father.