quote:

---

brother BATKOL
Thankyou for inquiring with your greek friend. No disrespect intended to your greek friend but for him to say in authority that"I know this, because I live in Greece and my native language is Greek." does not refute Jay Adams position....It would be like me saying "I know this, because I live in the kingdom of Yahuwah and I am annointed with the Set-Apart Spirit so my native language is the Set-Apart Scriptures/tongues."

---

quote:

---

nor my belief that getting dunked in a pool of wet water is a condition precedent to salvation.

---

quote:

---

Baptizo is a scriptural idea not a merely a greek word: to plunge; to merse; to merge; to be watered with the Spirit of Truth from above by Yahuwah.

---

quote:

---

Noah didn't get wet did he when the world was baptised!

---

quote:

---

Just for the record I know many Australians who live IN Australia and whose native tongue is "idiot" and I too speak that fluently!

---

quote:

---

bless you brother!
Rick

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BatKol

Christ, Peter and Matt 17:24-27

brother Robert and I discussed this in detail and how it relates to paying taxes today. This bit has been on my mind ever since so I wanted to discuss some items which were not covered before.

On key item is a major issue that, unless it is considered, renders the whole topic of our obligation to taxes useless.

That item is this.

Matt 17:24 is not speaking about a tax to Caesar!

It is speaking about the Temple Tax which was commanded in Exodus which declares that all Israelites must pay (Exodus 21:32). It makes sense that Peter so readily agreed to this. After all it is a law from the Torah.

Now let's read the whole section with this in mind:

Matt 17:24-27

Mat 17:24 When they came to Caper'na-um, the collectors of the half-shekel tax went up to Peter and said, "Does not your teacher pay the tax?"
Mat 17:25 He said, "Yes." And when he came home, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their sons or from others?"
Mat 17:26 And when he said, "From others," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free.
Mat 17:27 However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel; take that and give it to them for me and for yourself."

Here is a commentary on the item by Henery:

1. The tribute demanded was not any civil payment to the Roman powers, that was strictly exacted by the publicans, but the church-duties, the half shekel, about fifteen pence, which were required from every person or the service of the temple, and the defraying of the expenses of the worship there; it is called a ransom for the soul, Ex. 30:12, etc. This was not so strictly exacted now as sometimes it had been, especially not in Galilee.

I found this info which deals with the coinage:

Some translations say "didrachma". A didrachma is a Greek silver coin worth 2 drachmas, about as much as 2 Roman denarii, or about 2 days wages. It was commonly used to pay the half-shekel temple tax, because 2 drachmas were worth one half shekel of silver.}

So, in closing, to try to attach Matt 17:24-27 to anything other than the Temple Tax of the Israelites is certainly out of context to the verse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Servant

quote:

---

Originally posted by BatKol

Christ, Peter and Matt 17:24-27

brother Robert and I discussed this in detail and how it relates to paying taxes today. This bit has been on my mind ever since so I wanted to discuss some items which were not covered before.

On key item is a major issue that, unless it is considered, renders the whole topic of our obligation to taxes useless.

That item is this.

Matt 17:24 is not speaking about a tax to Caesar!

It is speaking about the Temple Tax which was commanded in Exodus which declares that all Israelites must pay (Exodus 21:32). It makes sense that Peter so readily agreed to this. After all it is a law from the Torah.

Now let's read the whole section with this in mind:

Matt 17:24-27

Mat 17:24 When they came to Caper'na-um, the collectors of the half-shekel tax went up to Peter and said, "Does not your teacher pay the tax?"
Mat 17:25 He said, "Yes." And when he came home, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their sons or from others?"
Mat 17:26 And when he said, "From others," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free.
Mat 17:27 However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel; take that and give it to them for me and for yourself."

Here is a commentary on the item by Henery:

1. The tribute demanded was not any civil payment to the Roman powers, that was strictly exacted by the publicans, but the church-duties, the half shekel, about fifteen pence, which were required from every person or the service of the temple, and the defraying of the expenses of the worship there; it is called a ransom for the soul, Ex. 30:12, etc. This was not so strictly exacted now as sometimes it had been, especially not in Galilee.

I found this info which deals with the coinage:

Some translations say "didrachma". A didrachma is a Greek silver coin worth 2 drachmas, about as much as 2 Roman denarii, or about 2 days wages. It was commonly used to pay the half-shekel temple tax, because 2 drachmas were worth one half shekel of silver.}

So, in closing, to try to attach Matt 17:24-27 to anything other than the Temple Tax of the Israelites is certainly out of context to the verse.

---

Why if it is refering to the temple tax as you suppose does Jesus say to Peter, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their sons or from others?". The kings of the earth do not pay the temple tax but the jews am I correct?

It appears to me that Peter as Jesus points out spoke to quickly about something he knew the truth about. It appears to me that Peter was agreeing to avoid conflict a sin or flaw in him that would show up again when he denies Christ to avoid conflict.

Is it not interesting also that Jesus instructs Peter to go back to his old job of fishing to catch a fish and get the coin and to only pay the tax for Peter and Himself. Was this not because Peter had obligated the both of them by his words and Jesus said lest we cause an offense to what you have spoken and then He chastised him not ot be so foolish again. Jesus also did not mention the other disciples or apostles as needing to have a tax paid for them, why, indeed?

These and more questions need to be asked for what we learn may be great and the Truth will set us free. It is so difficult to discern the Truth through the eyes of the flesh is it not?

These are questions, no assertions to your accuracy are made, I am seeking the Truth as I would believe you are also.

Blessings;

Servant

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BatKol

quote:

---

Originally posted by Servant

quote:

---

Originally posted by BatKol

Christ, Peter and Matt 17:24-27

brother Robert and I discussed this in detail and how it relates to paying taxes today. This bit has been on my mind ever since so I wanted to discuss some items which were not covered before.

On key item is a major issue that, unless it is considered, renders the whole topic of our obligation to taxes useless.

That item is this.

Matt 17:24 is not speaking about a tax to Caesar!

It is speaking about the Temple Tax which was commanded in Exodus which declares that all Israelites must pay (Exodus 21:32). It makes sense that Peter so readily agreed to this. After all it is a law from the Torah.

Now let's read the whole section with this in mind:

Matt 17:24-27

Mat 17:24 When they came to Caper'na-um, the collectors of the half-shekel tax went up to Peter and said, "Does not your teacher pay the tax?"
Mat 17:25 He said, "Yes." And when he came home, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their sons or from others?"
Mat 17:26 And when he said, "From others," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free.
Mat 17:27 However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel; take that and give it to them for me and for yourself."

Here is a commentary on the item by Henery:

1. The tribute demanded was not any civil payment to the Roman powers, that was strictly exacted by the publicans, but the church-duties, the half shekel, about fifteen pence, which were required from every person or the service of the temple, and the defraying of the expenses of the worship there; it is called a ransom for the soul, Ex. 30:12, etc. This was not so strictly exacted now as sometimes it had been, especially not in Galilee.

I found this info which deals with the coinage:

Some translations say "didrachma". A didrachma is a Greek silver coin worth 2 drachmas, about as much as 2 Roman denarii, or about 2 days wages. It was commonly used to pay the half-shekel temple tax, because 2 drachmas were worth one half shekel of silver.}

So, in closing, to try to attach Matt 17:24-27 to anything other than the Temple Tax of the Israelites is certainly out of context to the verse.

---

Why if it is refering to the temple tax as you suppose does Jesus say to Peter, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their sons or from others?". The kings of the earth do not pay the temple tax but the jews am I correct?

It appears to me that Peter as Jesus points out spoke to quickly about something he knew the truth about. It appears to me that Peter was agreeing to avoid conflict a sin or flaw in him that would show up again when he denies Christ to avoid conflict.

Is it not interesting also that Jesus instructs Peter to go back to his old job of fishing to catch a fish and get the coin and to only pay the tax for Peter and Himself. Was this not because Peter had obligated the both of them by his words and Jesus said lest we cause an offense to what you have spoken and then He chastised him not ot be so foolish again. Jesus also did not mention the other disciples or apostles as needing to have a tax paid for them, why, indeed?

These and more questions need to be asked for what we learn may be great and the Truth will set us free. It is so difficult to discern the Truth through the eyes of the flesh is it not?

These are questions, no assertions to your accuracy are made, I am seeking the Truth as I would believe you are also.

Blessings;

Servant

---

The money being collected was indeed the Temple tax. In fact, the Jewish zealots of the day used to proclaim, "no tax but the temple tax". Peter used to be called 'Simon the Zealot' so it makes perfect sense how he would immediately say that Christ paid the Temple tax. The Temple tax was considered a commandment of Israelite law. We can find this Temple tax collection in practice back in the Old Testament sections of Neh. 10:37-38; 12:44; 13:5,12 as well as 2 Chron 31:5,6,12 allegedly sanctioned (depending on interpretation) in Deut 12, Lev. 27:30-31 and other places.

Concerning the story in question Christ is using an example. The context of "the King" was the Most High to whom the Temple was built to honor. The children were 'the Israelites' who visited the Temple with all manner of tithes and sacrifices. Basically Christ was saying "Why should YHWH's children be taxed at the Temple if the heathen king does not tax his own children in his temple".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by oneisraelite

Mattith’yahu 17:24 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, Yahushua prevented him, saying,

Here is Yahushua’s response after anticipating and preventing Simon from paying them that received tribute money.

What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom [G5056] or tribute? [G2778] of their own children, or of strangers?

If this was a discussion about a “temple tax” then Yahushua was way off base in his response to Simon. Take a look at “custom [G5056]” and “tribute [G2778]”.

Strong’s Greek Dictionary tells us that the “custom” that was being discussed by the anointed one and Simon was “specifically an impost or levy (as paid)” and Joseph Thayer in his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament states that this “custom” was a “2) toll, custom (i.e. indirect tax on goods)”.

IM'POST, n. [L. impositum, impono.] 1. Any tax or tribute imposed by authority; particularly, a duty or tax laid by government on goods imported, and paid or secured by the importer at the time of importation. Imposts are also called customs. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

TOLL, n. [Gr. toll, custom, and end, exit, from cutting off; Eng. dole; diolam, to sell, to exchange, to pay toll. This is from the root of deal. See Deal.] 1. A tax paid for some liberty or privilege, particularly for the privilege of passing over a bridge or on a highway, or for that of vending goods in a fair, market or the like. (Ibid.)

Does this sound like a “temple tax” to you? Nor to us!

Now, let us examine the tribute [G2778] that is being spoken of.

Strong’s Greek Dictionary tells us that G2778 is “properly an enrolment (“census”), that is, (by implication) a tax”, while Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament gives us this information, “1) census (among the Romans, denoting a register and valuation of property in accordance with which taxes were paid), in the NT the tax or tribute levied on individuals and to be paid yearly. (our capitation or poll tax)”.

And where do we see this "enrollment"?

Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled [G583].

G583
apographo
Thayer Definition:
1) to write off, copy (from some pattern)
2) to enter in a register or records
2a) specifically, to enter in public records the names of men, their property and income
2b) to enrol

During his [Cyrenius'] tenure of office, at the time of our Lord's birth (Luk_2:2), a “taxing” (R.V., “enrollment;” i.e., a registration) of the people was “first made;” i.e., was made for the first time under his government. (See TAXING.) - Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

And, fortunately for us, there are three other verses where G2778 is also used, so let’s take a look at those before deciding.

Mattith’yahu 22:17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute [G2778] unto Caesar, or not?

Mattith’yahu 22:19 Shew me the tribute [G2778] money.

Mark 12:14 And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of Yahuwah in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute [G2778] to Caesar, or not?

Again, we are forced to ask the question, “Does this sound like a “temple tax” to you?” We vote, no! Moreover, we speculate that it may have been as a direct result of this incidence with Simon that they knew to set the snare for our Wonderful Counsellor with the question “Is it lawful to give tribute [G2778] to Caesar or not?”

GALILE'AN, n. A native or inhabitant of Galilee, in Judea. Also, one of a sect among the Jews, who opposed the payment of tribute to the Romans. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

Galilean
...All the apostles, with the exception of Judas Iscariot (Act_1:11), were Galileans.
This was also one of the names of reproach given to the early Christians. Julian the Apostate, as he is called, not only used the epithet himself when referring to Christ and his apostles, but he made it a law that no one should ever call the Christians by any other name. - Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

"The Zealots absorbed the Galileans, a sect which was charged by Jospehus with causing much sedition and trouble in the Jewish nation. The Galileans taught that all foreign control was unscriptural, and they would neither acknowledge or pray for foreign princes. Their successors, the Zealots, emphasized and broadened these principles." - George H. Sandison, Ph.D.

Pay close attention here, one plus one equals two; [the Galilieans] ...opposed the payment of tribute to the Romans [and] All the apostles, with the exception of Judas Iscariot [the traitor] (Act_1:11), were Galileans.

And, the Galileans, [was] a sect which was charged by Jospehus with causing much sedition [and] All the apostles, with the exception of Judas Iscariot [the traitor] (Act_1:11), were Galileans.

The rational mind begins to see how this all adds up.

We also readily see from George Sandison's study that the "national party" known as the Zealots were even stricter than their predecessors whom they absorbed, the Galilean party, and yet they still had this as their watchword, "No Lord but Yahuwah; no tax but that of the Temple; no friend but the Zealots."

If there was a political faction more zealous than the so-called Zealots, we have yet to hear about them, and even the Zealots, evidently, paid the Temple tax.

P.S. The modern day Romans don't want anyone to know this; thus the very deliberate disinformation concerning it.

disinformation n. deliberately false information leaked by a government, as to confuse another nation's intelligence operations. - Webster's 1988 New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition, page 394

brother Robert:

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA or STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.

---

quote:

---

Great response!

---

quote:

---

I dont know if I am convinced or not which is not your issue but mine to find the truth.

---

quote:

---

It does lead me to another though...

If Jesus is saying hey stop paying the temple tax and we would have to understand why He would stop them from doing what God had instituted, was it new covenant coming or something else?

---

quote:

---

But my greater question is this!

If Jesus is saying stop paying the temple tax then why if it is ok to stop rendering unto the temple and God's system why would we argue or have problem to stop rendering unto Caesar?

---

quote:

---

If it is because the Jews had become corupt we could use the same reasoning with Caesar?

---

quote:

---

As we are called to be good stewards do you suppose that God smiles at us as we hand over the first and second fruits of our labor over to pay for what God calls abominations?

---