When he came into the house, before he had time to speak,
Jesus asked him, "What is your opinion, Simon?
From whom do the kings of the earth take tolls or census tax?
From their subjects or from foreigners?"
Jesus had been aware of the conversation Peter had with the tax collectors. Peter had perhaps answered with a guess based on how he might emphasize the piety of Jesus, or with a fear of what others would think if he said that Jesus was not in the habit of paying the tax.
Jesus wanted to emphasize to Peter the difference between him and those who were required to pay the temple tax. It was not that Jesus didn't think that the support of the temple was a worthwhile endeavor. Rather, he was something greater than the temple. So in a way, it wasn't fitting for his resources to be diverted to a lesser good. To explain this he referred to kings of the earth who take their tolls from those whom they rule, not from their own sons. The sons would be exempt in such situations. Jesus was the first born Son of the God who was worshipped in the temple. Peter was therefore not to think of Jesus as someone obligated to pay in the way that others were. In saying that the the sons were exempt Jesus expanded his natural privilege as the Son of God to include those like Peter who were sons of God by adoption.
But that we may not offend them, go to the sea, drop in a hook,
and take the first fish that comes up.
Open its mouth and you will find a coin worth twice the temple tax.
Give that to them for me and for you.
Jesus explained why he and his disciples were not obligated to pay the temple tax. But then after all of that he told Peter to pay it on his behalf anyway. Peter was to pay for them both using the one coin he found to highlight his particular union with Jesus. But we should wonder why, if he was going to pay it all along, he spent time explaining why he was exempt. In answer to this, we can say that it seemed to be a way for Jesus to reveal an additional aspect the exulted nature of his divine identity as the Son of the Father. But he did not reveal this identity for the sake of grasping the privileges associated with it. He was the Son of king of the universe but did not lord it over his subjects. He demonstrated an amazing humility, choosing to pay as any subject would pay, one more way he opted to share in the lot of sinful humanity even though by rights he was exempt.
Had Jesus insisted on what was his right and not paying the temple tax it would not have led to any good or useful outcome. No one would have been enriched or enlightened, but only potentially scandalized and offended. May this be a lesson to us who are quick to insist on our rights, often under the banner of concern for the truth, even when such insistence only causes offense to others. If the divine Son, the very one described in such majestic terms in today's first reading, can act with such humility, then ought we not learn to imitate him? We should pick the battles that truly matter and generally speaking only give offense when it might help, or at least might prevent significant and problematic misunderstanding. We have a great dignity as sons and daughters of the king. But we are meant to live that dignity for the sake of others, just as Jesus himself demonstrated.
Upon it was seated, up above, one who had the appearance of a man.
Upward from what resembled his waist I saw what gleamed like electrum;
downward from what resembled his waist I saw what looked like fire;
he was surrounded with splendor.
Like the bow which appears in the clouds on a rainy day
was the splendor that surrounded him.
Such was the vision of the likeness of the glory of the LORD.
No comments:
Post a Comment