Now when they came to Capernaum, those who collected the two-drachma (temple) tax came to Peter and said, “Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?” He said, “Yes.” And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?” When Peter said, “From strangers,” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are exempt. However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a stater. Take that and give it to them for you and Me.
Why? Why not create a coin out of nothing, or tell Peter where one was dropped by the roadside? Why tell him to fish? Pete was a fisherman, but with nets. Did he carry a hook and line around with him, or did he have to borrow one?
This morning I was puzzling about this one, from the point of view of "Who learns what?" The explicit lesson for Peter was "don't offend without cause", but there's an implicit "fishing is going to be different for you now." Since he'd already been told that when he was called the first time, the lesson doesn't seem particularly pointed.
There are other characters in this episode. The temple-tax collectors had challenged Jesus (through Peter): "Do you support the temple or are you of a temple-hating party?" (e.g. Essenes) They're going to remember the fisherman's story of how he got the tax money, and remember this rabbi who answers a question with a wonder. Jesus could have shrugged and taken coins out of thin air to pay them, but He didn't bother. One of His disciples could do the equivalent for Him.
3 comments:
I think you add to the understanding, but I admit I still don't get it. There are lots of Jesus's actions that I simply stare at, slack-jawed, wondering "What is going on here?"
FEAR NOT! Much of what "goes on" is incomprehensible to us, even among our compatriots. Consider texts of our language and culture that refer to "making the railroads run on time". Older people may understand that as a critique of Mussolini's fascism, but younger people might actually see hear the phrase as a call for improvements. And the next generation may ask, "what's a railroad?" or "why run a transport system on a schedule instead of adjusting to the immediate demand?"
Of the coin story, I have a favorite personal heresy; but to explain it I must first provide some "running a railroad" backstory. The subtext and context of the text, if you will.
The Jews had dozens of words and ideas about "sin". (So do we.) Mostly, what we identify by that English word are problems the Hebrew original language might have easily been translated as "mistakes". Shooting an arrow but missing the target. Marking and cutting a chunk of wood for a piece of furniture, but finding it doesn't fit -- mis-cut or mis-marked. Mistakes, missteps, faux pas , errors, misunderstandings, oopsies... sins. All have "sinned" and "fallen short" in this imperfect physical world. There are other problems that are more serious, more intentional, and therefore more avoidable. Moving a boundary marker between fields. Bribing a judge, or taking a bribe. Counterfeiting convenent documents. Using false weights or measures in the market or, relatedly and especially, trading with counterfeit coins. These sorts of sins were (are?) an abomination to God and all mankind.
The Temple Tax was a distinct obligation for Jews apart from tithes and other contributions made in faith. Originally, deliberately, it was nominal -- small value. Half a common silver coin. Imagine a modern dime. Like a lot of Hewbrew/Jewish laws and customs it was helpful in forming relationships among the community. Two-by-two friends and neighbors would go, together, to temple and each pair would pay in one coin, clearing both men (heads of households) of the annual obligation. A master and apprentice might be such a pair, as well.
Over time the Temple fell and was rebuilt, and the value of the particular coin rose and fell. But the law did not changed. (Was not "indexed for inflation" as we might say now.) So the Temple Tax became something of a burden that could only be fulfilled by men of more wealth than typical. And, of course, those men who could and did pay the fee looked down upon those who couldn't and didn't. A widow woman, for instance, who could only chip in a few COPPER coins instead of the legally required SILVER coin, was not generally considered especially virtuous.
Let's digress on that because the Gospels show Jesus did teach that such a contribution was noteworthy. And the tale as told has a number of features. (Mk 12:38-44). A woman alone, not a man who heads a household. Specifically TWO coins, not one half of one coin. Given as a sacrifice from poverty not from a surplus of wealth. Simple base metal coins, worn and abraded in frequent trade, as might be exchanged for yesterday's leftover bread... Specifically, the contribution was NOT made in pure silver coins hallmarked by an approved mint, shiny and new of full size and weight and silver purity. If the widow's copper pennies had included similar sized Roman or Greek or Egyptian copper or bronze or brass coins, minted with graven images of Horus or Ishtar, damaged with age and wear -- well, so long as the baker might have taken them for the widow's own daily bread the Temple might just as well take those coins to buy meals for their priests. The POINT of this story is that the COIN is NOT the point. The pure intention of the sacrificial gift matters more than the purity of the coin.
This is getting long, so I am going to break here. I can (and will, if encouraged) continue on to the point about fish-hooks in later remarks.
Having dealt with pure silver (temple) coins and cheap copper (marketplace) coins, we must at least mention the legal currency of the time and place, the Roman denarius.Neither silver nor copper and certainly was not gold, the denarius was an alloy of silver and whatever cheap metal the Roman mints had in abundance the year more coins must need be struck. Often the metal was lead. Sometimes bronze. Who knows beyond the numismatists?
The whole point of coins at all is to get to a recognized standard size and weight of a standard metal. And while size is apparent to the mark-one eyeball and weight is easily determined by no more than a pan balance, comparing this coin to that coin, the composition of the metal is somewhat difficult to determine. Not impossible -- the story of Archimedes' test for the density/purity of a golden crown was already nearly 300 years old by the time of Jesus, Pontius Pilate, and Zacchaeus. Still, manufacturing a graduated cylinder of volume is more difficult than setting up a pan balance for mass, right? So getting to a "recognized" value is, from Archimedes to Caeser to right now, usually a matter of trust in the hallmarks of the mint, or metalsmith.
SO -- the moment of clarity on the denarius. When the Pharisees and supporters of the Roman's puppet tyrant Herod came to ask about taxes , Jesus asks for a denarius . Everybody is to understand that the Roman taxes are assessed in the currency of the Empire. It is NOT explicit, and probably was not required, that the remittance of the value due, would be paid in Roman coin. We moderns do scientifically understand the economics of Gresham's Law such that "bad money drives out good"; and so we know that the butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers of Jerusalem would rather take Greek silver coins -- like drachmas -- than the putative "silver" of the denarius. And overall then it was custom of the time that the market traded mostly in other coin and taxes were the only thing a denarius was good for.
So, with THAT in mind, whose hallmark was on the half-sheckle demanded of Peter? Whose face? Whose mint struck such coins? And was the coin from the fish's belly the coin the Pharisees expected?
Post a Comment