New Thoughts (12/19/08-12/22/08)
As I consider this brief exchange I see four interconnected points to take note of. Briefly, I might list them as legalism, adoption, the second commandment, and right motives. Looking at these, I notice that the list begins and ends with motivation. It is a question of whether our motivation is right or wrong. But, let me begin with the beginning.
The scene opens with the tax-collector come to visit. As an aside, I find it interesting that when the taxman represented Caesar and Rome, the secular, he was the lowest of the low, the worst of sinners. But, when the taxman represented the Temple, even the temple so heavily corrupted by that same Roman secularization and politicization, he was accepted and well-received. There is a certain danger in this that we should recognize and check for in ourselves.
Not every claimant to church authority is truly representing God’s authority. That much is pretty obvious to us in this day and age, as pulpit after pulpit preach humanistic nonsense in place of Scriptural Truth. Equally important, though, is this: not every rite and tradition of any given church is truly representative of God’s heavenly order. Nobody has it completely right. It’s sad, but that’s the way it is with us. We cannot help but corrupt all that we touch, and this holds true even in the most earnest attempts at properly worshiping God. So, what does this mean for us? What are we to do? Fundamentally, we must never accept the physical form of the act as being what is significant. It is not the act at all which measures the goodness. It is motive.
It’s not the giving that marks the believer. No, not even the tithe can be taken to indicate true belief. It’s the why of giving. On the other side of the basket, we might as easily suppose that it is the why of receiving that determines the righteousness of the collection.
If one looks back over the times a collection was taken to meet this need or that, as we see God’s house developed through the record of Scripture, we will surely see the leadership declaring the need. Nor do they simply state the need and leave it to the congregation to sort out what they should do. No. They issue instructions. Bring this, or bring that. Well and good. In all this, we must suppose that they have but relayed God’s plan to their charges.
Still, I will say that if the only reason the people gave was because the priests demanded payment, then their offerings would come to nothing. They would avail nothing. This may strike us as odd, but really, legalism is not so much in the demands of the more ‘righteous’ among us. Legalism is far more a question of how and why we respond to those demands. Legalism is a disease in us that leads us to do the right thing for the wrong reason. Legalism will take something like the tithe and make it about us instead of about God.
When the legalistic heart tithes, it has no great concern for supporting the work of the kingdom. The legalistic heart gives with eyes firmly focused on receiving. We don’t support God’s work, we plant seeds. What’s the difference? The one who supports God’s work gives for the simple reason that God’s work needs to get done, and he finds himself with the means to help that work along. The one who plants seeds is looking for a harvest. He has learned that one seed planted removes that seed from his possession for a time, but can generally be counted on to provide many more seeds in return. His eye is not on the accomplishment but on the return.
Doesn’t this sound rather like the business climate of our day? Nobody invests in producing something, accomplishing something. What they invest in is returns. Thus, businesses are more focused on maintaining quarter to quarter profits than on even so much as a five year plan. They cannot plan that far ahead because everything is focused on the immediate returns. Thus the de facto five year plan tends to be a plan to fail.
But, returning to the economy of God, just consider Peter’s reaction to this taxman. He does not even think about his answer, just asserts that of course Jesus pays the temple tax, just like any other good Jew. The key as the he doesn’t even think about it. It is an automatic reaction, all but stripped of any spiritual connection. It’s just something one does, this double-drachma. It’s like any other rite. We have known it since our youth, and we wouldn’t dream of questioning it. Certainly, no man of God, no teacher of His Word, would speak against such practices.
The heart is not involved. The mind is not even involved, for there’s really nothing that needs calculating here. Unlike the tithe, this one’s fixed rate. One double-drachma per head. Just pay up. If this is what our giving has become, God help us! If we are tithing simply because we always have, or because that’s what we were taught, or, God forbid, because we’re counting on that hundred-fold return, then let us not be fooled into supposing there is any spiritual merit to our actions. Those who cried out for the crucifixion of the Son of God most assuredly paid the double-drachma, too.
So, Jesus teaches His disciples that this is the wrong perspective. Don’t do it because it’s demanded of you, or seems to be. If you know your position, then you should recognize that the demands they place upon you cannot be of God, and therefore cannot be binding. But, here I am getting a bit ahead of myself. Before I look more fully at this curative message, let me turn the problem back around for a moment, and consider the one demanding what is inappropriate.
Who are they collecting for? This is a question worth asking. It is not one that is presented directly by our Teacher in this case, and yet it seems to be lurking just beneath the surface. Who are these taxmen representing, really? Are they here as God’s representatives, collecting for His work? It’s possible, you know. Even the worst, most misguided ministry heads may yet be served by earnest if unwitting believers. But, if they collect for the kingdom of God, we can use the habits of earthly kings to recognize that this practice is invalid.
If, on the other hand, these men of come for their own profit, or for the profit of those they serve? Well, then it must be perfectly plain that the tax is wholly illicit, and ought be viewed more as extortion. It is nothing at all to do with God’s kingdom any more, but is simply the world seeking its normal path, but in disguise. It is the wolf come in sheep’s clothing. But, smell it! It stinks of its scavenging ways. Don’t be fooled. It is no spiritual danger to reject such as these.
Oh, in this Christmas season, so much is thrown at us in the name of celebrating the Christ that has nothing to do with Him. So much is sold to us as the right thing to do for this holy day that have nothing of holiness to offer. Giving gifts to one and all? On what basis? God has already given better than we ever could in providing His own Son. Neither is there cause, in that great gift, for us to pour out our worldly largesse on friends and family. It’s all crap anyway, and likely serves more to tug their attention away from God than not.
Nor is this restricted to the Christmas season, though it is by far and away at its worst in this time. No. Christians have become a targeted market. The eyes of worldly commerce have noticed that there’s a profit to be made, and Christians have, in large part, allowed themselves to be dumbed down sufficiently that they are easy marks. Put a cross or a fish on just about anything, and watch them jump to buy it! Give them something that looks like the world, sounds like the world, smells like the world, but has an occasional hint of Jesus in it – doesn’t even have to be explicit – and woohoo! Look at the sales. Christianity may not sell well in the marketplace, but Christianese is turning a tidy little profit.
For whom do they collect this profit? For themselves or for God? Oh dear. Well, it’s not necessarily wrong to have a profitable business that happens to serve a church need. It’s no more wrong than to have a profitable business of any other sort. But, c’mon. We think, somehow, that buying this stuff we’re supporting some ministry or another. No such thing is promised. It’s business, pure business, as often as not. The more it ventures into the realm of gifts and entertainment, the more likely that the one profiting from your purchases has as little to do with holiness as he can.
Just look at what has happened to various Christian music labels over the years. One by one, they have been bought up or bought out by the usual players in the music field, just one more imprint amongst the many in the corporate fold. Oh, sure, there’s a certain expectation as to what type of music one will find on that particular imprint. How is that different from expectations for other such imprints? If, for instance, I buy something from Blue Note, I’m pretty certain it’s going to be jazz, and probably jazz of a particular style. Likewise, if I buy something from Word (a subsidiary of Sony, as I recall), I expect something of the CCM vein. But, either way, the profit goes to the corporation who owns the label. What have I supported that’s different based upon my purchase? I don’t know.
Neither do we know that by buying from some ‘non-Christian’ store, whether or not we may be supporting people of faith. The whole conception is off. Yes, there are certainly those sorts of businesses that we can conclude pretty readily are neither owned nor operated by godly people. Sure. But, that leaves quite nearly the entire economy still in the unknown category. Most businesses are spiritually neutral in nature. Almost any business you might deal with is likely to have both believers and non-believers in their employ, if not at their helms. The fact is, we are not given to know whether or not our purchase do or don’t directly or indirectly support a believer somewhere, somehow.
Legalistic giving: giving that is done more in response to demand than in consideration of purpose, is rejected. Whatever may have prompted the collecting, if it has moved to demand, it is off base. This has been shown. Either the demand is self-aggrandizing and therefore wholly illegal as far as God is concerned, or it is for God, but therefore nothing He would demand of His own family.
How does this play out with what we see of God’s actions, particularly as Israel was being established? Did He not make certain demands upon His people? Bring this, give that, do things this way. Well, certainly He issued instructions. Certainly He expressed certain desires as to how things would be done. Absolutely. Was it a demand? Quite possibly, although I find myself reticent to state that as an absolute. So, too, was the Law a demand. Yet, it was a demand that even as it was given was clearly beyond any hope of our complying. Should we maybe see the whole matter of providing for God’s temple and so on as equally beyond our ability to fully comply? This also seems like a possible truth to me.
Yet, in neither case is the impossibility sufficient cause not to try. The Law is impossible, and yet it is the true ideal, the true goal for us. The support of the Church is perhaps equally impossible for us, and yet our true goal and ideal. So, we do our best because it matters to us. We no longer obey the Law because our life depends on perfect compliance. It’s not the threat of the Law that moves us to do our best. It’s love of the Lawgiver. It’s the recognition that He has provided for our inabilities, that He has loved us so fully that He covers our failings that moves us to keep trying however many times we fail.
So it is in this matter of giving, too. Notice how Jesus solves the issue of the tax. We need to recollect that the disciples have pretty much left the family businesses to fend for themselves the last few years while they trekked about with Jesus. Perhaps they have been using some of the business profits to keep their group in food and clothing. We don’t know. What is pretty certain is that Peter’s business didn’t just close up when he walked off with Jesus. There’s still a house to come home to when they’re in town, and when everything falls apart there at the end, what does he do? He returns to his fishing. The boats are still there. The work continues without him. I bring this up simply to point out that there was not necessarily any great reason that Jesus needed to provide for Peter’s tax burden. Maybe there was, maybe there wasn’t. It’s not the necessity of provision that is in view though, only the fact of provision.
Peter, go catch a fish. Just one. I know, I know. You’re more used to netting your fishes, and then you either get a whole lot or you get none at all. But, in this instance you only need one, and I’m sure you recall how to use hook and line, even if it isn’t your preferred method. We’re not looking to feed and support the town, after all, just to pay this tax. One fish will do. God will provide.
That is the big point to take here. God will provide. Just as He provided the ram for Abraham’s offering, He will provide for the double-drachma. If we have the spiritual understanding to see it, He provides every offering that we shall ever give. Oh, we like to pretend we have earned our paychecks by the sweat of our brow, or the sharpness of our skills. But, it is God Who provides. It is God Who signs the check, else no check is forthcoming. We can be as skilled as can be and still find ourselves subject of economic downturns. When the plant closes, it closes for one and all. But, it is God Who provides.
I find myself thinking on the old Margaret Becker lyric, “What do I have that You did not give? There’s nothing that I can see.” We might well rewrite that just a bit. “What do I give that You did not give? There’s nothing that I can see.” We cannot give Him anything that was not already His. Period. If we tithe, it is no great thing to our favor. We’re just returning His own property to Him. God will Provide. That’s all it means in the end. We don’t provide. God does. If it’s a thing He wants accomplished, then He provides the ways and means to accomplish it. Face it. He doesn’t particularly need our help to do it anyway. He is kind enough to let us play a part. But, God provides, particularly for His sons and daughters.
The next point we must consider, in light of what has been said thus far, is that God is more concerned with offending the false sensibilities of another who just might come to real faith than He is about legalism. No sooner does Jesus make it clear to Peter that there’s really no reason either one of them should be paying this tax, then He says, “But, we’ll do it anyway. No need to offend.” Wow!
Well, let’s understand that briefly. If it does us no spiritual good to give heed to these legalistic demands, well, it does us no spiritual harm, either. Not if we have our motivation sorted out. If our responding to those legalistic demands is not legalistic in its own right, then any response is as good as another. But, notice how Jesus has firmly shifted the motivation. Don’t give because it’s required. Give so that they won’t suffer an unnecessary offense. Don’t give from fear. Give from love. Besides, God will provide. It’s nothing demanded of you in the end. It really won’t cost you anything. How could it? You have nothing. God will provide.
For today, this is really the message I need to hear over and over again, so forgive me if I’ve been sending it to myself. God will provide. He will provide through His children for the needs of His kingdom. He will provide through whatever means for the needs of His children. He signs the checks. He ordains the labors. God will provide. In Him we trust. Still, that remains on the currency of this nation: In God we trust. For my part, I hold that to be Truth. In God I trust. He will provide. Whatever may be going on in this crazy world, however bleak the outlook, God will Provide and in that I will take my comfort.
As important as God’s Provision is to me, personally, it is not the main point of the conversation between Jesus and Peter. It is really somewhat incidental to the lesson Jesus is giving. But, then, God’s Provision is mostly perceived by us as incidental to the issues of our lives. Until we come to one of those times where we are forced to notice our utter reliance upon His Provision, we are inclined not to notice it. While the storehouses are full, the bank account flush, and every little problem within our capacity to resolve, God’s Provision slips from our minds and we fall back into the illusion that we’ve got things under control all by ourselves. Ah, foolish mortal! But, let Him turn His attention from you for just the briefest of moments. Let Him decide not to provide for you, and where shall you be? How much shall you remain in control of? Not even the air you breathe is yours to control, and on your wiser days you know that all too well. The reality is as God has said, “Apart from Me, you can do nothing” (Jn 15:5). Ah! But, the corollary of that is marvelous indeed! “With God, nothing shall be impossible” (Lk 1:37). Or, more accurately, perhaps, “with God, ‘impossible’ does not apply.” The concept becomes meaningless in His presence. Thus, if we will but learn to truly abide in His presence and in His will, the same becomes our Truth. When we are truly and fully ‘with God’, our will subsumed by His own, wholly submitted as His Son was wholly submitted in life, then truly, the concept of impossibility no longer applies to us.
It is only when we have attained to this perspective that we can afford to let our sense of God’s Provision shift off screen just a bit. And, I am not so certain we can afford it even then. But, this is rather where I see Jesus in His lesson for Peter. God’s Provision is not center stage in His lesson, but it is there on the edge, clearly visible. The central matter of His lesson, though, is that of offense. He has just corrected Peter’s misconceptions as to the ritual necessity of this double-drachma tax the temple representatives have come to collect. It is not a given. It is not an outward sign of inward holiness. Indeed, as Jesus points out, it would be much more accurate to suppose that it was an outward sign of a near total lack of inward holiness. Those of whom the tax is naturally collected are those who have no real part in the kingdom. They are the aliens, the vanquished, members of the empire, but not citizens of the kingdom.
Well! I need to detour briefly on this point. Do you see, then, that Jesus, far from being the rebel leader of an anti-Roman offensive is actually promoting the propriety of their rule? If, after all, the order imposed by their empire is a reflection, however pale, of the order established in heaven, then does this not reflect the reality that their authority is indeed a thing apportioned to them by God? However poorly they may acknowledge the source of their authority, the fact of that source does not change. Hello! Back to modern day America. The same message needs to ring in our ears. However poorly the President, the Congress, the Senate may acknowledge the real source of authority; for that matter, however poorly the people may acknowledge it, the fact of that Source is unchanged and unchanging. We remain ‘one nation under God’. I dare say, if we expect to remain a nation, we had best learn to remember that ‘under God’ is not a choice we have made, it is a necessary fact of existence.
Just as we must return to acknowledging God’s hand in our leadership, for good or for ill, there is something else we should learn when it comes to the governance of our nation. Just as it behooves us to hate the sin but love the sinner, for as fallen as he is, he remains the image of God, so too our government. We rightly hate the corruption and abuse of the offices of governance, and yet we are instructed by this lesson to love and honor the office itself, for it remains the image of God’s heaven. Isn’t that something? I know my tendency is to look rather askance at the example of Rome in its age of empire. I have this natural inclination to think in terms of the abusive treatment (a gross understatement!) they meted out to the Christians under their rule. But, look! Jesus is holding them up as an example of the natural order, the proper order. They don’t tax their own sons. This is a reflection of God’s own treatment of His children.
It is a poor reflection, yes, but a reflection nonetheless. Hate the sins of government, then, just as you ought rightly to hate the sins of the individual. But, love and honor the government itself, as duly authorized by God Himself, and serving as His representation here. We can see that in regards to the civil authority. Indeed, this is a theme Paul picks up on in greater detail. We should see it, as well, in regards to the religious authorities. Notice that to the end, Jesus reserves respect for the office, if not the officers currently holding office.
Now, one other thing I wanted to note in this regard. What Jesus is saying about the taxes imposed by the civil authority is said as a matter of common knowledge. It is no mystery. Nobody in the Roman Empire had the least misunderstanding about the differences between a true citizen and a conquered people, least of all the Jews, who chafed under the burden of submission. The benefits of citizenship were well understood, sought after. The conquered, if they had the means, would gladly pay to receive those benefits, and would make certain that their citizenship was clear to any who had doubts about it. This is, if I recall correctly, a matter that was on Paul’s mind in writing to the church in Colossus. Here was a proud city of the empire, citizens all! Paul himself had leaned pretty heavily on the rights of citizenship. But he reminds his readers and himself that there is a far greater citizenship. Yes, Roman citizenship was a thing of value. But, it paled to nothing in comparison to heavenly citizenship. It was, after all, but a shadow of the infinitely greater reality of membership in God’s family. If one was exempted from certain taxes as a citizen of Rome, how much greater the exemptions we are granted as sons of God’s own household! The difference is beyond measure.
And yet, we come back to the point Jesus is making. Yes, you are exempt. Yes, you could truly state that God requires no such tax upon you, for you are a member of His household. Yes, and you could even tell this poor taxman that his position is (or could be) just the same as your own. But, why offend them? Why give them cause to step farther away from the Way? It is, my friends, less important to be theologically correct than it is to be salvifically supportive, if I might put it that way. I am by no means whatsoever saying that theology, correct and accurate theology, is unimportant. Far be it from me! But, notice the order Jesus establishes. Yes, if you understand it as I am telling you, you are quite correct in your beliefs (how could you not be correct to understand as Jesus understand!) But, that is secondary. You can be right and be most sinfully right. How? By holding your correct view of Truth to be more important than the soul before you.
“Lest we give offense.” That is the most important guiding principal for the Christian. That is the fulfillment, as it were, of the second table of the Law. That is loving others as you would yourself. Far better to win this soul to salvation first and later correct his misperceptions, than to hammer him with the Truth now in such a way that he is driven from it. Now, let us understand some controlling parameters here. We must balance this together with the lesson about casting pearls before swine. There’s a time and there’s a place. There is a time when offense must be given, but that time is not in addressing the tender shoot, the bruised reed. Where one is earnestly in pursuit of righteousness, we do a great disservice to become so fully engaged in debate of some relatively benign point of theology that we drive another further from holiness by our truthful argumentation.
Consider it this way: There is a finite amount of time contained in any given lifespan. Within that finite lifespan, the possessor of life has opportunity both to know Life and salvation, and to reach a greater understanding of Truth. Now, then, if there is not sufficient time in that lifespan to properly pursue both goals, which do you suppose is of greater importance to the liver of that lifespan? If he passes from this life certain of his salvation, but a bit shaky on certain matters pertaining to the true nature of God and heaven, will he not find himself straightened out on those shaky points in pretty short order? If, on the other hand, he passes from this life clear on the truth, but devoid of salvation, what use is the truth to him? He remains as eternally damned with understanding as without. And, like that one who was saved, any lack of understanding will quickly find itself filled up. But, this changes nothing for that poor man’s eternity.
This is what I see Jesus explaining here. This is what I hear Paul saying in Romans and elsewhere. Time enough for understanding. Right now, it’s passing the exam that counts. This is the way I understood a similar problem as I went through my college courses. We have a lifetime to come to grips with all the minutia, all the implications of this grace of faith. We have a lifetime to learn exactly (hah!) what grace means, what mercy means, what forgiveness really looks like. But, we may have just this one chance to lay hold of all that grace, mercy and forgiveness. We may not have another opportunity to receive what Jesus has laid Himself out to offer. Here, then, are your adoption papers, your proof of citizenship. You have but to reach out and take them. No price is asked but your life. No price is asked but everything you are. And, in return is offered everything God is! A bargain, if ever there was one. Yes, and the only possibility of attaining to true Life, the only possibility of passing through the courtroom of heaven and entering into the city of God. Do you see how much more important this is, in God’s eyes, than is your more accurate perception of Himself?
Again, let me stress that it is not a matter of our accurate perception of God and heaven being unimportant. By no means! How else shall we discern true faith from idolatry? How else shall we make certain in ourselves that it is the One True God that we are in pursuit of, and no false, misleading spirit? It is only that, as important as this pursuit of Truth is to our personal growth, and to the personal growth of every believer, it pales in comparison to that which establishes a believer in the first place. Let salvific faith be established first, then we can concern ourselves with growing in Truth. Let the seed be planted and sprouted first. Then we can look to watering and weeding and ensuring as best we may its proper growth to full flower.
In light of what Jesus is teaching us here, let me state it even more bluntly. Unnecessary offense of another potential believer is a greater sin than the worst legalism. Does that seem harsh? Does it seem unreasonable to us that a strong and vigorous defense of God’s Truth is more offensive to Him than to insist on rituals and observances that He has not established? Well, change your perspective just a bit. Which is more harmful, more likely to keep one of His own from finding their way home to Him (as if such a thing were truly possible!) Yes, we can be assured that His own will indeed find their way to Him, for He would hardly suffer it to be any other way. But, woe to the one who causes His own to stumble along the way!
If legalism is an issue, it is at least an issue aimed at holiness. It errs on the side of caution. Better to overly restrict our rightful liberty lest we sin beyond hope of repair than that we should do less to restrict our liberty than we really ought because of our perceptions of Truth. If by my liberty I lead another to exceed his proper bounds; if by my liberty I place another in position to condemn himself as a sinner, and therefore, place him in a position to decide he is beyond redemption, have I served my God well? I think not. I have allowed unnecessary offense on my own part to become a stumbling block to my brother. How long will such an offense postpone that one’s reconciliation? We cannot know. Is it just possible that such a postponement will cause that one to fail utterly of reconciliation? We cannot know, but I think we must assume it is indeed possible.
So, we find Jesus here instructing Peter. “Truly, Peter, there is no real need for us to pay. But, lest we give them offense, we shall do so most willingly.” Hear the echo of that in Paul’s writing. “If food causes my brother to stumble, then I shall never again eat meat” (1Co 8:13). Look, if it’s going to take me becoming a vegetarian for you to become a Christian, I’m for it. What sin is there in eating vegetables? What sin is there in restraining from meat? None whatsoever. It is a choice I can freely make in my liberty. No least precept of the kingdom is violated by my so choosing.
Now, if it’s going to require my sin to obtain your salvation, we may need to rethink things just a bit. I dare say such a requirement is unlikely to arise in any real case, though. Indeed, I dare say that if we perceive such a requirement we are only fooling ourselves. Our becoming a drunkard, a drug-addict, a whore, is unlikely to save another who is already so, or even another who isn’t. The road to salvation is hardly likely to be paved with sins. Indeed, it is a road which has made straight the crooked path of sin, made level the valleys of our despair, and also the mountains of our pride. It is not paved with sin, but over sin and sin’s outfall. Far be it from us to sin in the name of saving another! That is no true path for the believer.
But, within that necessary bound, let us take this lesson to heart, as incredibly difficult as we shall doubtless find it to be. Do this because they need you to do it. Don’t do it because you think you have to. You don’t. But, do it anyway. It is needful for their progress. Let your love for them exceed you need to be right. Let your love for them exceed your urge to be comfortable. As your God willingly set aside His rights and His comforts to bring about your salvation, so do yourself. Yes, you have the right. Yes, you are at liberty to do differently. All things are permissible to you and you know it. But, not all things are fruitful, particularly as measured by the kingdom. It’s not about you, don’t you know. It’s about the kingdom of heaven. It’s about the kingdom’s King. Do nothing, then, to hinder any child of the house.
Oh, how hard this is on us! More than any other aspect of this Christian life, this cuts against the grain of our natural inclinations. What? In spite of what I know, I must act as if I didn’t? In spite of the liberty I know is mine, I ought to restrict myself gladly? Gladly!? How shall I gladly don these chains I need not wear? Ah, my child, the same way Paul did: knowing that the kingdom of God is advanced by your efforts as it never could be by your insistence on your full rights.
