Dr. Robert Crilley

Sunday, September 16, 2012

It took money to run the Temple in Jerusalem . . .



It took money to run the Temple in Jerusalem—quite a bit of money, actually—which is why, going all the way back to when the Temple was first established, a tax was collected.  It wasn’t a huge tax—one half-shekel a year; roughly the equivalent of two days work.  But it was mandatory.  Every Jewish male over the age of twenty was required to pay it.

So, it’s not surprising that, eventually, those in charge of collecting this tax approach Peter and ask whether Jesus intends to comply with the law.  “Does your teacher not pay the tax?” they ask.  “Yes, absolutely,” Peter responds.  But later, when the matter is brought up, Jesus seems to suggest that the tax may not even apply to him.  After all, a king doesn’t tax the members of his own family.  “The Temple is my Father’s house,” argues Jesus.  “It is not necessary for me to pay this tax.”  However, just so no one will be offended, Jesus agrees to pay it anyway.

It’s how he plans on paying it that has always struck me as a bit puzzling.  What happens is that Jesus tells Peter to go down to the lakeside and cast a line into the water.  The first fish he hooks will have a four-drachmae coin in its mouth with which Peter can pay the tax for both of them.

Now, if you take this story literally, then without a doubt, it is the strangest miracle that Jesus ever performed.  Moreover, it is categorically different from every other miracle.  In the other miracles, Jesus is always helping someone else.  He restores sight to the blind; he commands the paralyzed to “get up and walk”; he cleanses the lepers.  But in this miracle, Jesus is basically serving himself.  He is using his God-given powers to find an easy way out of a difficult situation.

But what if we’re not meant to take this story literally?  Maybe the intent here is more metaphorical.  They need to pay the tax, and so Jesus says to Peter, “Go back to fishing for a few days and earn enough money to meet our obligations.”  In effect, the coin will still come out of the fish’s mouth—it’s just that Peter will first need to catch the fish and sell it, in order to get the money!

Some may object that such an interpretation strips the story of its miraculous nature, but I’m not sure if this particular story needs to be viewed as a miracle.  The miracles that Jesus performed were never meant to relinquish us for personal responsibility.  Perhaps the lesson here is that when you need money, don’t expect God to drop it from the heavens; go out and work for it!

2 Comments:

  • Thanks for interpreting something I've always wondered about. Putting together all those things Jesus said about tax was so helpful. You are amazing with your insights.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:40 AM  

  • Well... it's true that it's a very strange miracle. Not sure it's true, though, that it's unique in that regard. Not every other miracle helped someone. Examples: cursing the fig tree; walking on water. Anyway, it's a bold move for a pastor to suggest that a miracle story shouldn't be taken literally. That's almost certain to rub some people in his congregation the wrong way. They start to wonder what other parts of the gospels he might not take literally. And if there wasn't a compelling reason for him to make such a suggestion -- well, in tennis that's called an unforced error.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:14 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home