Our next example comes two chapters later, at the end of Matthew 17 (24-7), and is in some ways a mirror image of the previous one. There, the Pharisees complained to Jesus about the behaviour of his disciples; here, as Jesus and his disciples are entering Capernaum, the collectors of the Temple tax question Peter about his Rabbi: “Does your teacher pay the Temple tax ?” There is no suggestion here that the question is hostile, or that the collectors are critical of Jesus. Peter’s reply is a monosyllabic “yes”. When he gets home, Jesus anticipates him: “What do you think, Simon? Do earthly kings collect taxes from their sons or from their subjects?” The answer is obvious, and Peter gets it right. “So”, Jesus continues, “the sons are tax-exempt.” The basis of this half-shekel, or, in Greek currency, two-drachma, tax is set out in Exodus 30. 11-16, verses which provide for the taking of a census of God’s people. But, since God alone knows the number of his elect, for men to take a census infringes God’s sovereignty and incurs his wrath. So each Israelite who willingly identified himself with God’s people by ‘crossing over’ to join them had to pay this fixed tax (the same for rich and poor) to redeem himself from God’s wrath. God’s people, therefore, was a redeemed people, constituted not (just) by the accident of birth, but by personal choice. The implication of Jesus’ analogy seems to be that the children of the Kingdom have already had their redemption from God’s wrath paid for by the great Redeemer, Christ himself, and so are ‘tax-exempt’. Nevertheless, he wants to avoid ‘scandalizing’ the Temple authorities by refusing to pay the tax, and so refusing to identify himself with God’s people. Whereas, in his confrontation with the Pharisees, the ceremonial washing was not prescribed by scripture but only by human tradition, here the payment of the temple tax was part of God’s law, and so Jesus made arrangements for Peter to pay it: he should catch a fish and he would find a coin in its mouth, a 4-drachma coin, enough to pay both of their taxes. Just as at the beginning of his ministry (Matt 3.15) Jesus, though sinless, had received baptism from John to identify with sinful man, and to “fulfil all righteousness” (i.e. the requirements of the law), so now he pays the Temple tax, though the Son of the King of kings, to identify with God’s people, and, in fulfilling all righteousness, to avoid giving unnecessary offence. This means that, on the cross, Jesus did not have to pay for his own redemption, but could give his life “as a ransom for many”. The miraculous provision of the money for the Temple tax shows that the same God who demands payment for redemption from his wrath also graciously provides that payment in the person of his Son.
Tuesday, 10 January 2012
SKANDALON 4 (h) Jesus avoids 'scandalizing' the Temple authorities
Our next example comes two chapters later, at the end of Matthew 17 (24-7), and is in some ways a mirror image of the previous one. There, the Pharisees complained to Jesus about the behaviour of his disciples; here, as Jesus and his disciples are entering Capernaum, the collectors of the Temple tax question Peter about his Rabbi: “Does your teacher pay the Temple tax ?” There is no suggestion here that the question is hostile, or that the collectors are critical of Jesus. Peter’s reply is a monosyllabic “yes”. When he gets home, Jesus anticipates him: “What do you think, Simon? Do earthly kings collect taxes from their sons or from their subjects?” The answer is obvious, and Peter gets it right. “So”, Jesus continues, “the sons are tax-exempt.” The basis of this half-shekel, or, in Greek currency, two-drachma, tax is set out in Exodus 30. 11-16, verses which provide for the taking of a census of God’s people. But, since God alone knows the number of his elect, for men to take a census infringes God’s sovereignty and incurs his wrath. So each Israelite who willingly identified himself with God’s people by ‘crossing over’ to join them had to pay this fixed tax (the same for rich and poor) to redeem himself from God’s wrath. God’s people, therefore, was a redeemed people, constituted not (just) by the accident of birth, but by personal choice. The implication of Jesus’ analogy seems to be that the children of the Kingdom have already had their redemption from God’s wrath paid for by the great Redeemer, Christ himself, and so are ‘tax-exempt’. Nevertheless, he wants to avoid ‘scandalizing’ the Temple authorities by refusing to pay the tax, and so refusing to identify himself with God’s people. Whereas, in his confrontation with the Pharisees, the ceremonial washing was not prescribed by scripture but only by human tradition, here the payment of the temple tax was part of God’s law, and so Jesus made arrangements for Peter to pay it: he should catch a fish and he would find a coin in its mouth, a 4-drachma coin, enough to pay both of their taxes. Just as at the beginning of his ministry (Matt 3.15) Jesus, though sinless, had received baptism from John to identify with sinful man, and to “fulfil all righteousness” (i.e. the requirements of the law), so now he pays the Temple tax, though the Son of the King of kings, to identify with God’s people, and, in fulfilling all righteousness, to avoid giving unnecessary offence. This means that, on the cross, Jesus did not have to pay for his own redemption, but could give his life “as a ransom for many”. The miraculous provision of the money for the Temple tax shows that the same God who demands payment for redemption from his wrath also graciously provides that payment in the person of his Son.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment