Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 65:1 (Mar 2022)
Article: A Tax Not His Own: Matthew 17:24–27 As An Enacted Parable Of Atonement
Author: Justin Jackson

JETS 65:1 (March 2022) p. 79

A Tax Not His Own: Matthew 17:24–27 As An Enacted Parable Of Atonement

Justin Jackson*

^* Justin Jackson is Lead Pastor at Grace Church in Ovilla, Texas, and Director of Biblical Studies at Southern Bible Institute and College, 7200 S. Hampton Road, Dallas, TX 75232. He may be contacted at [email protected].

Abstract: This article argues that Matthew 17:24–27 should be read in the context of Jesus’s preceding passion prediction in Matthew 17:22–23. In light of Jesus’s statement of his impending death and resurrection, his discourse about the temple tax and his miracle of the stater in the fish’s mouth can be viewed as an enacted parable of Jesus’s impending atonement on the cross. This article seeks to demonstrate that interpretations of this narrative as a moral example, polemic sarcasm, or a mixture of Jewish and Greek mythology simply do not demonstrate the Christological value of Matthew 17:24–27. When read in the context of Matthew 17:22–23, Matthew 17:24–27 gives an illustration of Jesus’s person and work. As the free, royal Son, Jesus pays a ransom tax, from which he is exempt, in order to demonstrate what he has come to do for those who follow him.

Key words: New Testament, temple tax, atonement, Christ, sacrifice

Matthew 17:24–27, at an initial glance, seems to be an odd account and sits awkwardly in the context of Matthew’s overall theological message. Some scholars believe that the account was mistakenly included in Matthew’s Gospel as an adaptation of Jewish mythology. For example, Hugh Montefiore writes, “It may be assumed that Matt. xvii. 27 is a compressed version of a Jewish Christian Haggadah, taken from Jewish fable and adapted to this context in order to give special sanction to the payment of the Temple Tax by Christians before A.D. 70. It may be steadily detached from Matt. xvii. 24–6.”1 Others, such as Rob Haskell and Neil J. McEleney, argue that the text serves primarily as a model of virtue. Following Jesus’s example, Christians should avoid scandal whenever possible—even if it means paying a tax from which they are, in reality, exempt.2 Grant R. Osborne’s interpretation would fit into this category as he argues, “All decis...