"Does not your teacher pay the temple tax?"
There was apparently some debate among the religious factions of the time about whether or how often the temple tax ought to be paid. The collectors of the temple tax might have been concerned the Jesus would have opposed the practice, since it was hard to tell exactly into which slot of possible viewpoints he would fall on any question like this. At another time there was a question about on what grounds divorce was permissible and he answered not at all. When he was later asked about paying taxes to Caesar his answer was not a carte blanche approval. But here, about this issue, no public point was made. The collectors of the temple tax were left with the knowledge that Jesus did indeed make the payment. Only Peter received the nuance, which it seems that he himself had not known when he answered the collectors about the practice of Jesus.
“What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tax? From their sons or from others?”
The sons of kings were not typically the source of taxation. Nor would the Son of God be required to pay a tax the reason of which was supposed to be his Father, since it sustained the temple where his Father's presence was found. Jesus did not pay the temple tax out of obligation, since "the sons are free". This also implied that Peter, who would be a son of God by adoption, also shared in this freedom. But even though they were both free they both nevertheless paid in order "that we may not offend them". Some things were just not worth the fight. Yes, if they had fought against it to make the point that Jesus was a Son, in order to exercise his full prerogative as the Word incarnate, he could have used it to teach about his divine nature. But, by contrast, paying it did not concede that he was not divine, nor did paying it imply that he was required to pay it. The sons were free, which meant they were free to choose to pay a tax that was in support of a good, noble, and spiritual cause, such as the temple, although the obligation to support it was strictly speaking only the requirement of others.
Open its mouth and you will find a coin worth twice the temple tax.
Give that to them for me and for you.
This shared source of payment was an example of the unique privilege of Peter to share in that which was proper only to Jesus himself. All of creation was in the service of Jesus, the one for whom and through whom all things were made, and in whom they continued to exist. Peter was destined to be a steward of the Church Jesus founded. But he was not to lord this authority over others, nor even cause offense when to do so would be more a matter of pride than clarity of truth. He would need to follow in the footsteps of Jesus who came not to be served but to serve, who did not grasp at equality with God, or insist on overwhelming others with the force of his innate glory, but embraced humility.
We may speculate that the internet, including the Christian and Catholic corners thereof, have not thought long and hard about this line, "that we may not offend them". We internet culture warriors seem to be more intent on winning and being proven correct than on following the example of Jesus. It isn't just about the truth for us, in the way that the truth was always central to Jesus. It is more about not losing to others. We think, somehow, that our reputation is directly correlated with the credibility of the claims of the Church. And God help us if that were so. Let us lean into this idea of not causing offense when nothing essential is on the line. God's creation has enough abundance that it doesn't all come down to our own resources.
No comments:
Post a Comment