I was reading this morning in Matthew, and came across a portion of scripture that I've read before, but didn't really ever think about;
Matthew 17:24-27
24 On their arrival in Capernaum, the tax collectors for the Temple tax came to Peter and asked him, "Doesn't your teacher pay the Temple tax?" 25 "Of course he does," Peter replied. Then he went into the house to talk to Jesus about it. But before he had a chance to speak, Jesus asked him, "What do you think, Peter? Do kings tax their own people or the foreigners they have conquered?" 26 "They tax the foreigners," Peter replied. "Well, then," Jesus said, "the citizens are free! 27 However, we don't want to offend them, so go down to the lake and throw in a line. Open the mouth of the first fish you catch, and you will find a coin. Take the coin and pay the tax for both of us."
It struck me that Jesus would be worried about offending the tax collectors and not the Pharisees, with whom he had an often antagonistic relationship. My guess is that the temple tax collectors are the same type of people that were grouped together with the prostitutes and thieves, and I understand him interacting with them differently than with the Pharisees, but it raises questions. Knowing that Jesus wasn't afraid of confrontation, was it just anecdotal that he chose not to seek confrontation at that time, rather than engage a tax collector with specifics of why he shouldn't pay taxes (why he's a "citizen" of the temple)? His desire not to offend also seems to fly in the face of some modern evangelists who insist on being in peoples' faces and showing them their sin, and more along the lines of those who advocate winning people by God's love (servant or friendship evangelism). Maybe I'm thinking about it too much, maybe I'll see if my friend Adam would like to come and enlighten me on the topic...
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
I wonder...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Jesus' claim of Messiahship had radical political implications. When Peter is questioned about Jesus paying taxes the following issues are raised. If Jesus is who he says he is then he should be in opposition to Roman rule of the Jewish people and should support (pay taxes) icons of Jewish culture. Those who supported the temple were the true people of God in the minds of the Jewish people.
Jesus, not one to align himself with a political ideology, makes the point that those who are truly citizens of the people of God are free from such obligations. Yet, not wanting to alienate those whom he was trying to reach, Jesus became a temple tax payer in order to reach temple taxpayers.
Does that make sense?
I think it makes sense, so it was an "outreach" situation where the focus was to not polarize the people in that particular political context? I really don't know a whole lot of the context, is the tax levied by the Jews, or by Rome? what's its purpose? I'm assuming that the tax collector is Jewish. His stance on the temple tax issue would define his role in regards to the temple - he makes himself a member by paying the tax as opposed to putting himself above the temple by claiming his Messiahship. Is that close?
Yeah, that's the gist of it. It would be like someone today asking Jesus if he gave money to pro-life organizations.
Actually, I think you might want to bust out a commentary. I don't have the best knowledge on this particular issue.
Post a Comment