"Kings of the earth" = HIGH PRIESTS of the land of Israel

Post Reply
3Resurrections
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:32 am

"Kings of the earth" = HIGH PRIESTS of the land of Israel

Post by 3Resurrections » Sun Feb 03, 2019 8:56 pm

In preparation for writing this comment, I've listened to Steve's lecture on his Rev. 17:9-18 section, as well as his lecture on Matthew 17:24-27. These Matthew 17:24-27 verses are part of the proof that the phrase "kings of the earth" (appearing 9 times in Revelation, as well as other places in scripture) is referring specifically to the HIGH PRIESTS of the land of Israel. This single point has great ramifications for how one interprets Revelation's prophecies. If one doesn't understand this one definition of who these "kings of the earth" are, there are many passages where one's interpretations can go off track. This definition of "kings of the earth" as high priests can even confirm a pre-AD 70 date for Revelation as well.

Most who read the phrase "kings of the earth" immediately make a connection to those crowned members of royal families, such as the Egyptian Pharaohs, Roman emperors, the czars, the heads of state over various modern nations, etc., etc. Revelation, however, was written by a Jewish man, well-versed in Jewish history, giving multiple references to Old Testament prophets as he was composing his apocalypse. So, it is not radical to look to Jewish Old Testament scriptures for an interpretation of what John meant when he wrote about these "kings of the earth".

Besides a batch of Old Testament references to the high priest referred to as a "king", the strongest case I can bring for "kings of the earth" being Israel's high priests is the very words of Christ Himself in Matthew 17:25. Most will remember this brief story about the coin Peter was sent to find in the fish's mouth, which he was to use for paying the didrachma tax for both Christ and himself.

This was no ordinary coin; nor was it an ordinary tax. The "Temple Tax", paid annually, harked back to the days of the tabernacle, when every male over 20 capable of going to war was numbered, in order to calculate Israel's battle strength (Exodus 30:12-16 cp. Numbers 1:2-3). Each of these numbered males from Israel's tribes, being over 20 years old, and who was able to fight for Israel, had to pay a half shekel "ransom", to be used for the service of the tabernacle. No more, no less. All eligible males from all the tribes except ONE TRIBE had to pay this tax. That single, exempt tribe was the tribe of LEVI. None of the Levite males were numbered among the warriors of Israel, because their task was to serve the tabernacle in one fashion or another - not to fight Israel's physical battles (Numbers 1:47-53). So, since they were already acting in service to the tabernacle, none of the Levite males had to pay the half-shekel for the tabernacle's service, because they were to be the recipients of that half-shekel tax's benefits instead.

Fast forward to Christ's question to Peter in Matthew 17:25. During the New Testament times, that Temple Tax for the service of the temple was still being paid by every non-Levite male over 20 who was "battle ready". Those who came to Peter and asked if Christ was going to pay the Temple Tax were essentially asking if the Savior considered Himself physically capable that year of going to war for Israel if necessary, since that was one of the three Old Testament stipulations for being "numbered": #1) being over 20, #2)being a member of a non-Levite tribe, and #3) being capable of going to war.

Peter answered "Yes", that his master was going to pay this Temple Tax to the agents of the temple who were collecting. Once Peter got in the house, Christ posed the question to Peter in Matthew 17:25-26 (ESV), " 'What do you think, Simon? From whom do KINGS OF THE EARTH take toll or tax? From their sons, or from others?' And when he said 'From others', Jesus said to him, 'Then the sons are free.' "

These men collecting the Temple Tax were agents of the HIGH PRIEST, taking the tax from any other eligible males of Israel, except from their fellow-Levites - which also exempted the high priest's own sons. These "sons" of the high priest were "free" from paying the tax, (just as Christ told Peter), because those "sons" were the recipients of the Temple Tax and its benefits.

We know that Christ was the Son of His Father's house, the temple. Though coming from the tribe of Judah, Christ was going to become the ultimate High Priest of all high priests ever born. He, more than anyone else in Israel, should have been exempt from paying the annual Temple Tax, considering who He was, and what He would become on our behalf. Yet to demonstrate His utter humility, Christ voluntarily paid this Temple Tax anyway. Not only for Himself, but for Peter also. Though He could have legally pressed His right not to pay it, the agents of the high priest collecting the tax would not have understood His right to refuse, and would have been offended. Instead, Christ acted again the part of a servant, with the same heart attitude that would later bend to wash His disciples' feet.

Aside from the practical message in this Matthew 17:24-27 text of acting in humility and service to others, the one critical fact we can pull from this short story is that Christ referred to the HIGH PRIESTS specifically as the "KINGS OF THE EARTH". The word "earth" (tes ges) in Revelation is almost always referring to the land of Israel - NOT the globe or the world at large. Therefore, when we come to the tricky Revelation 17 passage that talks about the "great city" who was "reigning over the kings of the earth" at the time when John was writing (Rev. 17:18), this meant that the great city Jerusalem / the harlot had the high priests under her control at that time.

This was exactly the upside-down case for Jerusalem's high priests in the era leading up to the Jewish rebellion which broke out later in AD 66. In OT times, the high priests were to be the ultimate overriding authority in Jerusalem in cases of judgment for the people of Israel (see Deuteronomy 17:8-13). However, in the times John was writing, this authority of the high priests over Jerusalem had been flipped upside down, and the high priests instead had become subservient to the Roman government with its troops garrisoned in Jerusalem, in order to retain their lucrative position. Rome appointed the high priests and deposed them at will, sometimes yearly, and occasionally even more quickly than that. Even the high priest's vestments, (which originally were to be stored in a special chamber in the temple under OT regulations), were taken by the Romans to be stored in the Roman fortress of Antonia, and doled out to the high priest in time for the feast-day celebrations and rituals - if the high priests and the people remained properly submissive to Roman control.

This humiliating state of affairs for the high priesthood remained in place until AD 66, when the revolt broke out under the Zealot's leadership. Therefore, Revelation HAD to be written BEFORE AD 66, at a time when Roman-controlled Jerusalem / the harlot was still "reigning over the kings of the earth" - the high priests. This is internal evidence for dating Revelation prior to AD 66.

If no one has any protesting comments regarding what I've written above, in the next comment I'll cover the 8 "kings of the earth" in Revelation 17:10-11. This passage also opens up completely for our understanding, as long as we recognize these 8 "kings" as being 8 particular high priests of Israel - not 8 monarchs of the world.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: "Kings of the earth" = HIGH PRIESTS of the land of Israe

Post by Homer » Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:55 am

3Ressurections,

I think you are incorrect in your idea about the "Kings of the Earth" in Matthew 17 being high priests.

Matthew 17:24-25 New American Standard Bible

24. When they came to Capernaum, those who collected the two-drachma tax (Grk. didrachmas) came to Peter and said, “Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax (didrachmas)?”

25. 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 (Grk. telo) or poll-tax (Grk. kenson), from their sons or from strangers?”

didrachmas referred to the tribute money for the maintenance of the temple.

telo in this context referred to the custom charged to strangers in the land.

kenson was tribute paid by the conquered people in order to remain in good favor with their conquerers.

Note from R. T. France's commentary on the Matthew:
"The Latin loanword kensos is singular, and refers specifically to the Roman poll tax which will be the subject of debate in 22:15-22..
.
Thus the "kings of the earth referred to the Romans (et al).

3Resurrections
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:32 am

Re: "Kings of the earth" = HIGH PRIESTS of the land of Israe

Post by 3Resurrections » Mon Feb 04, 2019 11:36 am

Hi Homer,

Thank you for reading this and adding a rebuttal. There does seem to be a division between the commentators, with some saying this Matt. 17:24-27 tax is a Roman one, and others telling me that we should NOT confuse the half shekel Temple Tax (to be paid by Christ for Himself and Peter by the stater coin) with the denarius coin that Christ held up, having Caesar's image and superscription on it, as mentioned in Matt. 22:15-22. I'm inclined to believe these are NOT BOTH Roman taxes in Matt. 17 and 22, simply because the parallel account for Matt. 22:15-22 found in Luke 20:22 has called that "tribute" coin Christ held up by the name "pheros" - which IS a tribute made by a conquered nation. In the Matt. 17 "tribute", as you have said, the word "kenson" is used, (connected to the word "census"), which could have been either a Roman poll tax or the Israelite Temple Tax, based on taking a census of the battle-ready, non-Levite, Israelite males over 20.

It's the identity of the particular coin itself that clears up the ambiguity, for me at least. That coin in Matt. 17, as I said above, was no ordinary coin. It was the Tyrian shekel, with the image of the demi-god Herakles on the obverse, and the Roman eagle on the reverse, having the stamped initials of "KP", standing for "kratos Romaion", or "power of the Romans". The high concentration of pure silver contained in this Tyrian shekel was so reputable that the avaricious high priests insisted that all temple taxes and transactions were to be made using this Tyrian shekel or half-shekel. No buying or selling without that particular coin. (Sound familiar?) As a result of this rule imposed by the high priests, the money-changers made exorbitant profits on currency exchanges for the temple, by the surcharge of additional prutot coins they put on those exchanges; thus earning Christ's indignant response in the temple during Passover, when He overturned their tables.

When Christ questioned Peter, ("Of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or from others?"), He used the Greek word "allotrion", which is simply the generic word for "OTHERS". To make these "others" into foreigners, or conquered subjects introduces something specific to this general category of "others" that really doesn't have to be there. Using the word "allotrion" simply meant that these "others" were not sons of those kings of the earth, (which I believe to be the high priests). Turning the description of "others" into conquered foreigners is an arbitrary choice that the context doesn't really require.

3Resurrections
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:32 am

Re: "Kings of the earth" = HIGH PRIESTS of the land of Israe

Post by 3Resurrections » Mon Feb 04, 2019 4:20 pm

Perhaps it would help to give a little better foundation to this idea of scripture calling high priests the "kings of the earth" by listing the OT scriptures that give the title of "King" or "Prince" or "Ruler" to the high priests.

#1) We know Peter gave the high priests this title shortly after the day of Pentecost, when he quoted the OT prophecy from Psalms 2:1-2, and announced that it had been fulfilled at Christ's arrest and crucifixion. "The KINGS OF THE EARTH stood up, and the RULERS were gathered together against the Lord, and against His Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. And now, Lord, behold their threatenings:" (the threats of the kings of the earth and the rulers) "and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word..."

Just who was threatening the disciples at that time? It was the rulers, elders, scribes, and the high priests Annas, Caiaphas, John, Alexander, and every one of the kindred of the high priest that was present at that Sanhedrin counsel against the disciples after Pentecost (Acts 4:5-6, & 21). Herod and Pontius Pilate were named in Acts 4:27, but that only helps to limit the fulfillment of this prophecy to the location of Jerusalem alone being called the "earth" in this text - NOT the globe or the world at large with its monarchs. The words "THEIR threatenings" (which we know was the high priests heading that counsel who were pronouncing the threats) refers back to the "kings of the earth" and / or the "rulers" who took counsel together against Christ. This was a plot developed and brought to pass by Annas and Caiaphas, who had long been conspiring to put Christ to death, and forced Pilate's hand into crucifying Him.

#2) Exodus 19:6 - "And ye shall be unto me a KINGDOM OF PRIESTS and an holy nation." The leadership over Israel was originally intended to be her high priesthood - not a typical monarchy like the nations around her. The time came when the Jews rejected this set-up in favor of a "real" king. God then announced His displeasure to Samuel about this. When they said they wanted a king LIKE the nations around them, this is a tacit admission that they already HAD a "king" - a high priest who represented them before God - which they wanted to reject in favor of a "real" monarchy instead. When King David said in Psalm 122:5 that there were "thrones of judgment" set up in Jerusalem, he was reminding Israel of Deut. 17:8-13 with its injunction to Israel to take their difficult judicial cases to the city where the tabernacle was set up, where the priest in charge was to hand down a sentence on these matters. It wasn't just spiritual things that the high priest was to provide leadership for; he was also to provide the final word of decision between the Israelites and their litigious disputes with each other, just as a king would have done.

#3) I Samuel 2:10 (LXX) - Hannah's prayer of praise extols a God who "...gives strength to OUR KINGS..." Hannah had to be referring to God strengthening the high priests, because Saul, the first "real" king over Israel hadn't even been born yet.

#4) Exodus 22:28 - When Paul was on trial before Felix in Acts 23:5, he quoted this OT verse when he referred to Ananias the high priest as "the RULER OF THY PEOPLE".

#5) Psalms 102:22 (LXX) - An aged King David was considering the glories of Zion and Jerusalem, which the Lord would build up. "...the Lord looked upon the earth from heaven; to hear the groaning of the fettered ones, to loosen the sons of the slain, to proclaim the name of the Lord in Zion, and His praise in Jerusalem, when the people are gathered together, AND THE KINGS (plural) to serve the Lord." This is plural high priests, gathering together with the people to serve the Lord in the periodic feast day celebrations. Since this is plural "KINGS", it has to be high priests gathering together with the people, since there would only have been one "real" monarch reigning on Israel's throne in Jerusalem - not two at the same time. (And the high priest always had a backup high priest, in case the first one became ritually impure in some fashion, rendering him unable to perform his duties. A "sagan", I think they called the 2nd one.)

#6) Exodus 29:30 - In keeping with the idea of Israel being a "KINGDOM of priests", the high priest's vestments included a CROWN with "Holiness to the Lord" engraved on it.

#7) Zechariah 6:9-14 - In preparation for the post-exilic return, God told Zechariah to make CROWNS of silver and gold to put on the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the "HIGH PRIEST". This Joshua was scheduled to be serving as high priest in the rebuilt temple, where he would "sit and RULE upon his THRONE: and he shall be a PRIEST upon his THRONE..." This is symbolic language that shows the high priest was regarded as a "king" over Israel.

#8) Daniel 8:24-25 - The particular high priest that Antiochus Epiphanes IV would set himself against was called the "PRINCE OF PRINCES". There are also multiple references to "THE PRINCE" in Ezekiel 44, 45, and 46, who as a high priest, would offer the sacrifices in the rebuilt temple. Just a couple examples are Ezekiel 45:17 and 46:2.

#9) Revelation 16:14 (Interlinear) - "For they are spirits of demons doing signs, to go forth to the KINGS OF THE EARTH" (tes ges - referring to the LAND of Israel here and in multiple places in Rev.) "and of the habitable world whole" (tes oikoumenes holes - in contrast to just the land of Israel alone) "to gather them unto the battle of the day great of God the Almighty."

Just as in Rev. 16:14, in Rev. 14:6, the category of "them that dwell on the earth" (tes ges - Israel) is a separate identity from those in "every nation and kindred and tongue and people" (referring to the Gentile world). The moderate high priesthood loyal to Rome (some of the "kings of the earth" in Revelation) ended up finally battling not only the Zealot factions whose leaders came from "Galilee of the nations", but they fought the nation of Idumea also, who sent 20,000 under 4 commanders to attack the 2 moderate high priests who were leading Jerusalem in AD 67/68. Plus, we have Titus with his troops culled from various nations of the known world, and the kings Antiochus of Commagene and Sohaemus of Sophene from the Euphrates that came to assist Titus. Everybody from the "kings of the earth" high priests in Israel, in addition to the "kings of the whole habitable world" ended up getting a piece of the action in AD 70.

#10) All his language that gives the title of "king" to the high priests tells me that the name for Christ describing Him as "KING OF KINGS, and Lord of lords" in Rev. 19:16 means that Christ is the "High priest of all high priests, and Lord of all lords". He is also called "the Prince of the kings of the earth" in Rev. 1:5, which also presents His high priesthood's superiority over every Levitical high priest that ever served, because (unlike the former high priests whose role ended when they died) He "ever liveth to make intercession for us".

Again, if anyone has counterpoints to this line of reasoning for the high priests being called "kings" over Israel, I'd welcome the input.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: "Kings of the earth" = HIGH PRIESTS of the land of Israe

Post by Homer » Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:16 am

#1) We know Peter gave the high priests this title shortly after the day of Pentecost, when he quoted the OT prophecy from Psalms 2:1-2, and announced that it had been fulfilled at Christ's arrest and crucifixion. "The KINGS OF THE EARTH stood up, and the RULERS were gathered together against the Lord, and against His Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. And now, Lord, behold their threatenings:" (the threats of the kings of the earth and the rulers) "and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word..."
But you neglected the context of Psalm 2:1-2. Verse one indicates gentiles are in mind, not Jewish priests. Seems to me the reference is clearly to earthly kings.

3Resurrections
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:32 am

Re: "Kings of the earth" = HIGH PRIESTS of the land of Israe

Post by 3Resurrections » Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:10 pm

Hi again Homer,

Much obliged for your taking the time to challenge this. Not everyone has the available time to do that. As I wrote before to Steve, if there are any contradictions or mistakes in these comments, it's a favor to me to mention it, so I can do a re-think if necessary.

The Psalms 2:1-2 verses you mention? I can understand why David saying the Gentiles (ethne) are involved in this prophecy might make you think this prophecy is talking about Gentile kings, not high priests. But we have to rely on Peter, John, and the disciples' inspired interpretation to understand this prophecy. Acts 4:25-29 was applied specifically to the arrest and crucifixion of Christ in the very city of Jerusalem. Were there any Gentile "kings" involved in Christ's crucifixion that were "raging" against Christ? One might suggest Pilate, since he is named in Acts 4:27, but Pilate was only a governor (although acting under Rome's delegated authority). And also, Pilate "found no fault in Him", and was actually seeking to RELEASE Christ (Luke 23:20). This hardly matches the "rage" of the Gentiles (ephryaxan - which expresses haughtiness and insolence) which Psalms 2:1-2 prophesied. So it looks as if Pilate is disqualified as being a Gentile "king".

What this Gentile insolence and haughtiness DOES match with is the actions and attitude of the entire band of Roman soldiers who mocked and spat upon Christ (Matt. 27:28-31). This must be what Acts 4:27 was referring to when listing the opponents of Christ (i.e., Herod, Pilate, the nations and peoples of Israel). However, the whole band of Gentile Roman soldiers could not be called "kings of the earth" or "rulers" in this Ps. 2:1-2 prophecy, either.

How about Herod Antipas, also mentioned by name in Acts 4:27? Was he the "kings of the earth" that were "raging" against Christ? Herod was only a Procurator, the tetrarch of Galilee, and he could not have fulfilled the title of PLURAL "kings of the earth", since he was only one man.

That leaves only the high priests who could be the "kings of the earth" in Acts 4:6-27. Besides the entire band of Gentile Roman soldiers mocking Christ in Pilate's common hall, the Psalms 2:1-2 insolent "rage" against Christ was also participated in at the palace of the high priest, as we see in Mark 14:53-65, and Luke 22:63-66. "And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote Him. And when they had blind-folded Him, they struck Him on the face, and asked Him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? And many other things blasphemously spake they against Him. And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together and led Him into their council..."

It was the chief priests and elders of the people who persuaded the multitude of the people to have Barabbas released and Christ destroyed (Matt. 27:20). These chief priests were the ones causing the increased "tumult" at Christ's trial before Pilate (Matt. 27:24). These chief priests and the people were the ones who became "more fierce" when Pilate was trying to be an advocate for Christ's faultless reputation (Luke 23:4-5). It was the chief priests who led the people to "imagine a vain thing" (meletao - to plot or devise a plan). They were part of the "rulers" who would "take counsel together against the Lord and against His Christ" by the conspiracy to send a multitude from the high priest with swords and staves to arrest Christ (including Malchus, the high priest's servant). To me, this seems like a stack of evidence for the high priests being the "kings of the earth" who would rise up, and who would "imagine vain things" against Christ by persuading the people to crucify Christ.

Homer, perhaps the difficulty is that you aren't linking the word "earth" as being applied specifically to the land of Israel, instead of to the entire world? It took a while before I could see this, but it makes sense when we look at verses such as Luke 21:23. "But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in THE LAND" (tes ges) "and wrath upon THIS PEOPLE". The people warned of this distress were to flee from Judea and Jerusalem, which defines this particular "LAND" under discussion. Steve also makes the same point in his lectures, that "the earth" (tes ges) is very, very often referring to the "land" of Israel.

Remember when God personified the land of Israel by addressing it directly in Jeremiah 22:29? "Oh earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord." This was spoken to the land of Judah in particular; the land that Coniah desired to return to, but would never see again after his Babylonian captivity.

In Joel 2:21, God again personified the land of Israel and His people, "Fear not O land; be glad and rejoice, for the Lord will do great things."

This identity of Israel being "the land" (tes ges), or "the earth" (tes ges) becomes very important in Revelation. I've mentioned above how "the earth" or "them that dwell on the earth" are separated as being different than "the whole habitable world" (tes oikoumenes holes) in Rev. 16:14 and Rev. 14:6. For example, this distinction becomes important when we have Satan loosed in Rev. 20:8-9 to go deceive the nations which are in the "four quarters of the earth" (tes ges), "Gog and Magog..." (which is Israel and the land of Israel, as based on Numbers 24:5-9 in the LXX). We see Israel itself as having been divided into these same four quarters, or four corners of the earth in Ezekiel 7:2-7: "Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord God unto THE LAND OF ISRAEL; An end, the end is come upon the FOUR CORNERS OF THE LAND. Now is the end come upon thee, and I will send mine anger upon thee...O thou that dwellest in the land…"

John the Revelator, as a Jewish man immersed in Jewish history, would have naturally adopted the OT language referring to "the earth" or "the land" (tes ges) in Revelation as being the land of Israel, his own people. Therefore, he would have naturally referred to the "kings of the earth" as the leaders in his own homeland - the high priests of the land of Israel.

I realize this is a different tack from the usual interpretation, Homer, but hopefully you can at least consider this idea as a reasonable possibility, based on scripture.
Last edited by 3Resurrections on Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: "Kings of the earth" = HIGH PRIESTS of the land of Israe

Post by Homer » Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:42 pm

Hi 3Resurrections,

In your OP you wrote:
Besides a batch of Old Testament references to the high priest referred to as a "king", the strongest case I can bring for "kings of the earth" being Israel's high priests is the very words of Christ Himself in Matthew 17:25.
I think you should revisit your "strongest case regarding what Jesus said in Matthew 17:25" in regard to the sons paying the tax. Consider the command of the Lord that was the origin of the temple tax:

Exodus 30:11-16 New American Standard Bible
11. The Lord also spoke to Moses, saying, 12. “When you take a census of the sons of Israel to number them, then each one of them shall give a ransom for himself to the Lord, when you number them, so that there will be no plague among them when you number them. 13. This is what everyone who is numbered shall give: half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary (the shekel is twenty gerahs), half a shekel as a contribution to the Lord. 14. Everyone who is numbered, from twenty years old and over, shall give the contribution to the Lord. 15. The rich shall not pay more and the poor shall not pay less than the half shekel, when you give the contribution to the Lord to make atonement for yourselves. 16. You shall take the atonement money from the sons of Israel and shall give it for the service of the tent of meeting, that it may be a memorial for the sons of Israel before the Lord, to make atonement for yourselves.”

We see from this that the priests were not exempt from the tax themselves, let alone their adult sons. In practice, however, the priests argued that they shouldn't be required to pay the temple tax, based on an argument they made over sacrifices being burned and those that were eaten, which I will not get into for now. So they were exempted. But we see from the Mishnah (the compilation on the oral traditions) in the tractate Shequalim that that Israelites, including Levites, had to pay the tax. Thus a high priest's son over the age of 20 had to pay the tax:
MISHNAH 3. ON THE FIFTEENTH THEREOF TABLES [OF MONEY CHANGERS]15 WERE SET UP IN THE PROVINCES.16 ON THE TWENTY-FIFTH THEY WERE SET UP IN THE TEMPLE. WHEN [THE TABLES] WERE SET UP IN THE TEMPLE, THEY BEGAN TO DISTRAIN.17 WHOM DID THEY DISTRAIN? LEVITES AND ISRAELITES,18 PROSELYTES AND FREED SLAVES,19 BUT NOT WOMEN OR SLAVES OR MINORS.20 A MINOR ON WHOSE BEHALF HIS FATHER HAD BEGUN TO PAY THE SHEKEL, MAY NOT DISCONTINUE IT AGAIN. BUT NO DISTRAINT WAS LEVIED ON THE PRIESTS, IN ORDER TO PROMOTE PEACEFULNESS.
The distraint (archaic) is said to have been a confiscation of property.

The point Jesus was making was that He was the Son of the King (God) and that kings do not tax their own children. His words were not about the priests.

3Resurrections
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:32 am

Re: "Kings of the earth" = HIGH PRIESTS of the land of Israe

Post by 3Resurrections » Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:52 pm

Hey again Homer,

Did you catch the Old Testament reference I put up earlier that gave the exemption for the Levite tribe from paying the tax for the service of the tabernacle? You might have passed it over, since I tend to heap up too much commentary for anyone to wade through. It's found in Numbers 1:47-50, and later in Numbers 2:33. After the entire numbered list of the tribes and their families are listed in Numbers 1:20 through 1:46, it says, "But the Levites after the tribe of their fathers were NOT numbered among them. For the Lord had spoken unto Moses, saying, Only thou shalt not number the tribe of Levi, neither take the sum of them among the children of Israel: But thou shalt appoint the Levites over the tabernacle of testimony, and over all the vessels thereof, and over all things that belong to it: they shall bear the tabernacle, and all the vessels thereof; and they shall minister unto it, and shall encamp round about the tabernacle." And the Numbers 2:33 verse: "But the Levites were NOT numbered among the children of Israel; as the Lord commanded Moses." They were NOT to be going into battle with their fellow Jews, because they were to "keep the charge of the tabernacle of testimony".

God's rule was that if you were numbered, you did pay the half-shekel; if you were NOT numbered, you didn't pay the half-shekel. Whether the Israelites followed this rule faithfully or not made no difference to God's original intent to make the Levite tribe and its sons exempt from paying this tabernacle tax. That applied to any Levite male from the high priests on down.


Your mention of the Mishnah procedure (the "early collection" on the 15th in the provinces, and on the 25th in the temple) I think I remember reading about in Edersheim's "Life and Times", because that sounds familiar. It explains why there were agents of the high priest collecting in Capernaum where Peter and Christ were.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: "Kings of the earth" = HIGH PRIESTS of the land of Israe

Post by Homer » Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:13 am

3Resurrections,

I think you have confused the census regarding the temple tax with a census taken for military purposes. The Levites were not exempt from any military purpose at all, they were separated to guard the tabernacle. Any who trespassed were to be put to death.
Only thou shalt not number the tribe of Levi, neither take the sum of them among the children of Israel
You didn't think the word "sum" referred to money did you?

In Numbers 3:14ff you will find that the Lord had commanded Moses that the Levites were to be numbered for another purpose. The Levites had many duties regarding the tabernacle; not all of them were priests. Neither of these instances of numbering the people had anything to do with who paid the temple tax as far as I can see. Do you have any text that exempts all Levites from the tax?

3Resurrections
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:32 am

Re: "Kings of the earth" = HIGH PRIESTS of the land of Israe

Post by 3Resurrections » Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:43 pm

Hi Homer,

No, I'm not really assigning any special monetary significance to the word "sum" - it just means a total "poll" count.

The Numbers 3:14ff census of the Levite males you mentioned? As you have said, this was a totally distinct census for another purpose, taken of every Levite male from a month-old baby upward (not to be mistaken for the census taken for those 20-year-old non-Levite males capable of going to war). This other numbering process in Numbers 3:14ff was taken as part of a "first-born redemption" of all Israel. It is NOT connected to the Temple Tax. This other "first-born" census was done to count only the FIRST-BORN male Israelites from a month-old baby upward. When comparing the total count of every first-born Israelite male from one month old upward (22,273), to the total count of ALL the Levite males from one month old upward (22,000), there was a discrepancy of 273. This number of 273 Israelite males then had to pay a 5-shekel per poll redemption to Aaron and his sons. A totally different census than the Temple Tax involved here, as I think you would agree.

You asked if there were any texts that exempted all Levites from paying the Temple Tax. When I identify the census regarding the Temple Tax as being the same as the census taken for military purposes, it's because Exodus 30:11-16 compared to Numbers 1:3 and following does this very thing. Everyone who is numbered "from 20 years old and above" in Exodus 30:11-13 who pays the half-shekel Temple Tax is the same who are numbered "from 20 years old and upward", capable of going to war in Numbers 1:3 and following. This Exodus 30:11-16 text is talking about the SAME CENSUS as the one for non-Levite, battle-ready, 20-year-old and above males in Numbers 1:3 and following. There are NO LEVITES included in this Numbers 1:3ff count. Therefore, no Levites had to pay the Temple Tax. We arrive at this conclusion by cross-referencing these two texts from Exodus 30 and Numbers 1 and 2.

There is a historical example of the Levites and also the high priest being the recipients of a tribute (telos) given to them from the spoils of war taken by Israel's armies. Look in Numbers 32:25 and following. God told those who went out to battle against the Midianites to divide in half all the spoil taken from Midian. Out of a one-half portion of the total spoil (which was the portion of the men of war), Moses and Eleazar and the chief fathers were to "levy a tribute" (telos) of 1/500th of that one-half portion of everything, and give it to Eleazar the high priest for a heave offering. Out of the other one-half portion of the total amount of spoil (which was the portion of the congregation of Israel), 1/50th was to be given to the Levites which kept the charge of the tabernacle. This plainly illustrates the segregation God had put between the Levites and the high priest from the rest of the congregation and those who were numbered to go to war. The high priest and the Levites had a specific tribute given to them; they were not those who had to pay out to the congregation.

God designed the system to give "perks" like this to the Levites, and in particular, to the high priest. The reason for this, as we all know, was because they did not receive any portion of land inheritance among the tribes. Instead, the Lord was their inheritance, and He provided for them by having the congregation of all the other tribes render tributes such as this one found in Numbers 31 - and in their lone exemption from having to pay the half-shekel Temple Tax also.

Post Reply

Return to “Revelation”