The Tax Man and The Zealot

Watching all of the partisan political bickering and mudslinging makes me pine away for the good old days when our leaders could disagree on policy, yet walk away in peace and respect with a common greater good in mind. That common greater good was the preservation of the great democratic experiment that is America.  Instead, what we see today is nothing but vitriolic and childish idiocy that is tearing apart our great Union. 

Gone are the days of compromise forged by the likes of Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton, and of Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neal. While these men fought vigorously from their ideologically opposite corners, they were also able to put aside personal and petty differences to forge ahead together for the good of the country. Their efforts led to bipartisan legislation that had a lasting positive effect on the nation.  As Ronald Reagan once said, “If you get seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later”.

However, what we see today is the exact opposite. The new mantra seems to be, “If you can’t have 100% of what you want then walk away with zero percent until your enemy is destroyed”.  Compromise is at the very core of democracy, and I will go as far to say that it is impossible for a democratic republic like ours to continue to exist without it. The alternative and currently prevalent approach of “winner take all” will continue to move us from the democratic ideals of our forefathers to an autocratic plutocracy, where the majority imposes its will on the helpless minority.   

“If you get seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later”.

Ronald Reagan

This got me thinking about this issue relative to the politics of Jesus’ day. How did Jesus and his followers deal with the ideological differences that existed in ancient Israeli society? What lesson can we learn from them?

We can find a perfect example of this in the political and philosophical differences that must have existed between the Apostles Simon and Matthew. The title “Matthew the Tax Collector” and “Simon the Zealot” are used consistently in bible discussions, but I’ve never really given thought to what these descriptions mean in the context of the political times of the day.

When I think of a tax collector I picture a mild mannered, bean counting IRS agent who collects taxes primarily from my paycheck. When I hear the word “zealot” I think of someone who is excited or really dedicated to a cause or a belief. However, the actual picture of these two labels were quite different in ancient Israel. 

For instance, we often think that Simon was described as a zealot because he was just really passionate and dedicated to Jesus and the early church. However, the Zealots were actually a violent political group or sect of Judaism which believed that the Messiah would come in the form of a military leader who would lead the Jews in a bloody and violent rebellion against the Romans. They were considered extremists even by the Jewish religious leaders, who were more inclined toward the status quo as long as the Romans allowed them to rule in all religious matters.

To the Romans, they were considered terrorists who often attacked and murdered Roman officials. It was said that they always kept a sharp blade on their person for such a purpose if the opportunity arose. It is amazing that from such a movement came Simon, who willingly followed a man who fit a diametrically opposed idea of the Zealot’s version of the Messiah. 

“Compromise is at the very core of democracy, and I will go as far to say that it is impossible for a democratic republic like ours to continue to exist without it.”

On the other hand, tax collectors were despised in ancient Israel because they were responsible for brutally collecting taxes and giving their hard-earned wealth to fill the coffers of the Roman occupiers. They were also notoriously corrupt since they would often collect more taxes than were due and kept the difference for themselves.  They were the equivalent of the modern-day mafia, and many times were just as brutal in their collection efforts.  As a result of this, they were typically very wealthy but were ostracized by Jewish society and were considered traitors who were unclean because of their interactions with the Romans. Their testimonies were even rejected in court and they were considered irredeemable under the law of Moses.

I can only imagine the shock of those who witnessed Jesus walking up to the tax collector’s booth and telling Matthew to get up and follow him. Then to further prove the point that everyone is welcome in the kingdom of God, Jesus went back to Matthew’s house and had dinner with Matthew and his friends. The Pharisees were horrified beyond belief that Jesus would even speak with these men, much less sit down and have a meal with them. Yet there he was, breaking bread with the dregs of Jewish society. Jesus overhears the Pharisees asking his disciples why he is associating with sinners in such a manner. Jesus replied, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor but the sick. But go and learn what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice. For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Matthew 9: 12-13).

So how did these two apostles get along? How did men with such diverse beliefs work together in the ministry of Christ? There is no mention of any tension or disagreement or even any discussion about their polarized political beliefs. It can only be that instead of focusing on their worldly ideological differences, they rallied around their common faith in Jesus as their Messiah and savior. In order for this to happen, both men had to put their political differences aside and submit those beliefs of the worldly kingdom to the unifying belief in the heavenly kingdom of God brought to earth by Jesus himself. 

“It is not the healthy who need a doctor but the sick. But go and learn what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice. For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners”

Matthew 9: 12-13

The early church was in effect no longer a group of individuals with a national or political ideology. These had disappeared when they submitted themselves to their master. They instead were working together for the common good of sharing the gospel with the rest of the world. 

The great German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer said that the church is not to be a national community like the old Israel, but a community of believers without political or national ties. Under the old covenant, Israel had been both a chosen people of God and a national community. In other words, ethnicity and nationalism did matter.  

However, Jesus came to replace the old covenant with the new which in essence took away the national and ethnic identity of God’s people/kingdom under the law of Moses.  As the scripture declares, “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1: 12-13). 

Unlike the old kingdom, this new heavenly kingdom here on earth does not occupy any specific land, nor is it defined by national boundaries, national creeds, political parties, or particular races or ethnicities. Instead, the real estate that comprises the kingdom of God exists in the body of Christ which is made up of all believers everywhere in the world, regardless of which form of worldly governmental control they live under.

“But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

John 1: 12-13

So what relevance does this have in our broken world today? How can our common belief in the gospel help to heal the divisions in our society?  The answer is that it starts with us, the members of the body of Christ. Instead of seeking answers from political leaders, Christians with different worldly ideologies should come together under the common banner of Christ as citizens of the kingdom of God to have real discussions about our differences. We should then present these differences together to the Lord and submit them to the scrutiny of His word. We can let Him lead us to common ground the way He did for Simon and Matthew. In doing this we will be an example to the rest of the world by promoting peace and attracting others to Christ. The truth is that we may be the only hope for the world. The world is watching.