The tribute money

Q. What is the meaning of the tribute money in Matthew 17?

Text: Matthew 17:24-27 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

A. The tribute here is a sort of tax. Probably it is the half shekel “temple tax” of Exodus 30:11-16.[i] “Tribute” is a didrachma (δίδραχμα), which Strong’s says is equal to one-half a shekel.

Peter was often quick to answer. Here his quick answer was that, yes, his master did pay tribute.[ii] However, Jesus stops him and questions him making him think more deeply about it. If this supported the worship of the temple or synagogue, and he was really who Peter believed he was – the Son of God (Matthew 16:16) – Jesus would not actually owe or pay the tribute. It is his Father’s house! Nevertheless, Jesus said he would pay the tribute because it could be an offense or obstacle. Not all would understand why he should be exempt.

The money in the fish’s mouth is an obvious miracle.[iii] It demonstrates that, though Jesus has the position not to pay, but he has the passion and power to pay anyway – confirming what he told Peter. Interestingly, the piece of money is the Greek statera (στατῆρα), which is equal to a Jewish shekel. Therefore, it was enough to pay a half-shekel for Jesus and a half-shekel for Peter, who owed the tax. The piece of money was just enough to pay the tribute, accenting our Lord’s moderation. He had no love for temporal things, and they had no hold on him (Proverbs 15:27).

Finally, the owner of all silver and gold (Haggai 2:8) did not have the money to pay the tax. Rather he borrowed it from his creation (Genesis 1:20-23)! This reminds us that “though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor” (2 Corinthians 8:9).

---

[i] It is not the Roman civil tax, discussed elsewhere (see footnote 2), but for religious service; the point of the story depends on that fact.

[ii] On another occasion, Jesus supported paying the taxes of a temporal government, Matthew 22:15–22.

[iii] Though perhaps only a miracle of omniscience rather than a miracle of creation. That is, Jesus knowing the money was in the fish’s mouth and providing that Peter catch that particular fish, as opposed to creating the coin in the fish’s mouth as Peter caught it. It matters little, in that the God who can do one can do the other. Compare Matthew 9:5.

The Johnson Amendment

About the Johnson Amendment - "Repealing the Johnson Amendment will have no impact upon what my church (or most churches) do. It is an empty gesture."

The so-called Johnson Amendment originated with Lyndon Johnson, as a senator. He believed that a tax-exempt foundation financially supported his opponent in a tough election. After he was elected, Johnson proposed an amendment to the bill which eventually became the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. That amendment provides that 501(c)(3) organizations may "not participate in, or intervene in ...any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office."

Title 26 U.S. Code § 2522 (a) 2 - Charitable and similar gifts:

(2) a corporation, or trust, or community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), including the encouragement of art and the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, which is not disqualified for tax exemption under section 501(c)(3) by reason of attempting to influence legislation, and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office;

HERE is an IRS bulletin opinion on it, from 2007:

There has been much said and written about the so-called Johnson Amendment, from the first time Donald Trump promised he would "destroy it". It generated a lot of talk and a lot of heat, but in the end Bart Barber is probably right. Nevertheless, I favor getting rid of the Johnson Amendment. Trump didn't quite do what he promised. Section 2 of his Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty addresses it.

"Respecting Religious and Political Speech. All executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall, to the greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by law, respect and protect the freedom of persons and organizations to engage in religious and political speech. In particular, the Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that the Department of the Treasury does not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office by the Department of the Treasury. As used in this section, the term "adverse action" means the imposition of any tax or tax penalty; the delay or denial of tax-exempt status; the disallowance of tax deductions for contributions made to entities exempted from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of title 26, United States Code; or any other action that makes unavailable or denies any tax deduction, exemption, credit, or benefit."

I have two thoughts about the government penalizing political speech in churches.

• Biblically, churches should not endorse candidates. We have a higher calling, and are to be partisans for the kingdom of heaven rather than political parties.
• Legally, it is a matter of freedom of speech and freedom of religion should be nobody's business whether or not a church does it. The government should butt out.

Before the Johnson amendment, churches were both free in their speech and tax exempt. It's not like the Johnson amendment first created the idea of tax exemption for churches. The decision should be an internal issue for churches, and the government should stay out of it. Political and religious speech is just the kind of speech the First Amendment is intended to protect, and the government has not been beckoned to intercede when the lines of political and religious speech are blurred. Let a church rather than the government determine who to endorse or whether to endorse. Let that church reap the benefits or suffer the consequences of its choice. 

It is amusing to me that many religiously-minded who are on the left politically rail against politics in the pulpit, while plastering it all over their social media.  On his blog of Pastor Wade Burleson of Emmanuel BC, Enid, Oklahoma cleverly captured the irony of it all: "In our day of Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms, a pastor would have to be blind and deaf not to know the preferences and personal biases of church members, whether it be about politics, entertainment or religion." What he says regarding the pastor knowing the preferences and biases of the church members is also true of the church members knowing about the pastor's. While "carefully guarding" the pulpit from endorsing politicians, many are not all that careful otherwise!

Churches having their own voices independent from the government's oversight -- whether I like that voice or not, and whether or not they use it wisely -- is more important than the tax issue.

Linked below is a "middle view" on the Johnson Amendment: "We should limit political activity by churches—but not speech from the pulpit...repeal the Johnson Amendment with respect to things that cost no money, and leave it in place for the things that do."

Don't repeal the Johnson Amendment, fix it

New middle class tax

During his 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised that there would be no taxes on the middle class. He and the Democrats in Congress have doggedly kept up that rhetoric, promising to tax the rich instead. Fuggedaboudit. It ain't true. There is now a new tax (effective 2014) on all of the middle class (and everyone else). Not only that, it will be a repressive tax that negatively effects those least able to pay it. The tax will not be on what you earn or what you buy. It will be on you, taxed for existing and what you do not do. It's called the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," aka Obamacare.

A question for Texians

...and Republican Texians in particular.
Tomorrow is the primary election in Texas. The Republican Executive Committee has placed five propositions on the Republican primary ballot. These questions are designed to collect the opinions of active Republican voters on these issues.

I wonder what you might think of this one:
Ballot Proposition #5: Sonograms
The Texas Legislature should enact legislation requiring a sonogram to be performed and shown to each mother about to undergo a medically unnecessary, elective abortion.
YES or NO

Abortion murders should be illegal. Unfortunately they are not. The design of this legislation to require sonograms would be to cut down on the amount of legal abortions. But who is going to pay for this? The doctor, the woman getting the sonogram, or Texas taxpayers?

How will/would you vote on this?

[Note: feel free to comment whether or not you live in Texas or are a Republican. All that is required for you to comment is to have one (a comment).]