21 CALLING VS. OCCUPATION And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him (Matt 9:9).
The theocentric principle here is obedience to God's call. God possesses the lawful authority to call us into His service. We are required to heed this call.
Tax Farming Matthew was a publican: a tax collector. Tax collectors were hated more in the ancient world than they are today. Today's tax collector is the agent of an elected government. This provides a degree of legitimacy to the tax system that Rome did not possess in the eyes of its tribute-paying foreigners. Also, the modern tax collector works as a salaried bureaucrat. This was not true in Rome, which did not employ collectors. The government sold to companies the right to collect taxes. These companies bid for this privilege. The government collected its revenue in advance from the bidders, who in turn sent agents out to collect the taxes from the people. This system is known in retrospect as tax farming.
The sums paid by tax farming associations to Rome were immense. Men do not take such large risks for free. Investors in a tax farming company expected to reap more than they sowed. If the group's bid won the privilege of collecting taxes from a particular region, the investors expected to collect more money than they had paid to Rome. This meant that tax farmers were allowed considerable discretion in establishing the amount of taxes owed by any individual. They estimated how much they could collect before they placed their bids.
The Roman government stood behind these tax farmers. A revolt against the tax man, then as now, was a revolt against government authority. But publicans were businessmen. They represented a profit-seeking business as well as the government. Their job was to extract as much money as they could from taxpayers. There was no government tax code. They were not bureaucratic agents of a State. The taxpayers were at a great disadvantage in dealing with them.
Under such a system, tax collectors had an incentive to overcharge taxpayers, and taxpayers had an incentive to lie. Many taxpayers would have known about the nature of the tax farming system. It was to the taxpayers' advantage to pay as little as possible. If tax revenues dropped, the bids at the next tax farming auction might be lower. What was it to them if some profit-seeking Roman monopoly made less profit than its investors had hoped? If Rome collected less as a result, the tributaries would shed no tears.
The publican was an agent of two masters: the State and his employer. The publican who collected more money than his quota could keep the excess for himself: another level of tax farming. He had the force of law behind him, but not the rule of law. This was a condition ideal for tyranny. John the Baptist recognized this temptation and dealt with it openly: "Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do? And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you" (Luke 3:12-13). The structure of Roman tax farming rewarded dishonesty and arbitrariness. The tax collector in the Roman world was assumed to be dishonest. John's comment went to the heart of this distrust. But he did not tell them that they were immoral for being tax collectors. He told them only they were immoral if they raised taxes on their own authority and then kept the difference.
Nevertheless, his warning was in fact a condemnation of the tax-farming system. The temptation to cheat the taxpayer through intimidation applied to everyone in the system. At every level, he implied, the rule of law should be honored. Tax collectors should know in advance what they are expected to collect. This means that taxpayers should know in advance what they are required to pay. The predictability of law is to apply to taxation. The tax farming system was inherently corrupt because it made possible theft on a massive scale. The system imposed the monopolistic force of law without the rule of law.
Occupation There is a familiar saying in English that is equally true in every other language: "Nothing is certain except death and taxes." Every civil government must collect taxes in some form. Taxpayers prefer to keep more of their wealth than less, so they resist the imposition of taxes. Although they know that some taxation is necessary for their protection, they prefer to have other taxpayers pay. They resent taxes and they resent tax collectors.
A Jew who served as a tax collector would have been especially resented in Israel. Most of all, a member of the tribe of Levi would have been resented. Levi was the priestly tribe. The parallel accounts say that Matthew was also named Levi (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27).(1)
Matthew was sitting at a table, collecting taxes. As soon as he heard Jesus' call, he walked away from his job. But he did more than this, according to Luke's account. He left the money behind. Then he invited in fellow publicans to hear Jesus. In doing so, He gave Jesus another opportunity to confront the religious leaders of the nation. "And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he said unto him, Follow me. And he left all, rose up, and followed him. And Levi made him a great feast in his own house: and there was a great company of publicans and of others that sat down with them. But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners? And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:27-32; emphasis added). Levi left it all behind. Then he had a party.
Matthew-Levi recognized that Jesus was offering him a higher calling. He was making money at his job. He probably was making a lot of money. He left the money behind. He owed most of it to his superiors unless he was extremely crooked. By walking away from it, he became liable to make up the difference out of his own capital. He must have had capital. He could also afford to entertain guests at a feast. He invited other tax collectors, and they came. He was probably not a low-level official. He had money to spend on entertaining and gaining influence among his peers.
Why did he walk away from his money? That was an odd thing to do. He could have turned it in. Instead, he left it sitting there. Perhaps he thought that no one would steal it. But that took considerable faith on his part. Fear of Roman soldiers might have restrained men from reaching into the box(2) to grab a handful of coins, but such theft would be difficult to prove unless soldiers were present next to Levi, which no text indicates. He must have counted the cost of losing the money he had collected so far.
Leaving the money behind was a symbolic act. To pick up a box of money would not have required much effort. He did not pick it up. He walked away from it. He soon joined the disciples (Luke 6:15). He became an apostle (Acts 1:13). Visibly, he switched sides: from Rome to Jesus. He did so in a way that could not have failed to gain attention. Word about a Levite publican who had walked away from a box of money would have spread very fast.
Jesus had called him. He heeded the call immediately. He did not hesitate. Others did. "And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God. And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house. And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God" (Luke 9:59-62).(3)
Levi's occupation was tax collecting. He left it for a calling: to be a disciple of Jesus. There was a conflict between the two. He would have found it difficult to remain a tax collector and become a disciple. Surely, he could not have been part of Jesus' closest associates, for Jesus was constantly on the move. He could not have become an apostle. But Matthew did not know anything about the apostolate. All he knew was that Jesus had called him.
When he invited other publicans to come to a party, they came. Word must have spread to them, too. One of their colleagues had walked off the job, leaving the money behind. Why? Then he invited them to come to dinner and meet the man who had called him. Here was an opportunity to get answers to their question.
Tax farming had a deservedly bad reputation. The scribes and Pharisees linked publicans with sinners. Jesus did not deny this link. Instead, He turned their criticism against them. He was a physician who healed the sick. The guests were on the list of the sick. His critics were not on the guest list. They did not regard themselves as sick men; thus, they believed that they had no need of a physician. They were critical of the physician's methods of healing, including sharing a meal with tax collectors. Jesus was condemning them. They were as sick as the guests. They were in need of healing.
Matthew had humbled himself before Jesus by walking off the job. As a man protected by Roman troops, he possessed great authority. He would soon possess greater authority as an apostle. But the road to this authority was a walk into unemployment. He possessed wealth. He would soon possess a share of God's kingdom. But that kingdom was barely visible. To use the language of modern investing, he sold power and wealth short and went long in kingdom futures. He had a choice of two masters: God or mammon. He chose God. There is no clearer New Testament example of a man who made the correct choice in the face of such an explicit set of circumstances. He was the opposite of the rich young ruler, who made the incorrect choice.
Calling Jesus had important tasks for Matthew-Levi. The most important, presumably, was writing the first gospel.(4) But Jesus did not call to him with this offer: "Leave the money behind, and you'll be able to write the first book in the New Testament, a book that will re-shape the world. Your name will be known by millions of people down through the ages." He just called him to follow. Matthew heeded the call.
What was the most profitable thing Matthew could have done: collect taxes or write the first gospel? In retrospect, most people would probably say "write the book." Men want to be remembered favorably. Fame is a powerful lure; so is a good reputation. Combine the two, and you have a powerful offer. Jesus did not verbally offer the first. The second -- a good reputation -- was part of the deal, but only by comparison to the universally bad reputation of tax farmers. He would go from being despised by nearly everyone to being misunderstood by many and hated by a few.
To gain this long-term profit -- fame and a good name -- he would have to pay. What he paid was the income that he would otherwise have received. This payment was symbolized by the box of money he left behind. That abandoned box of money was an earnest -- a down payment -- on all the other money that he would not receive.
He entered a world of far greater uncertainty. He had been a tax collector. This was one of the more certain occupations in Rome.(5) Income was assured: a form of rent. In contrast, it was not clear to him where the income would come from as Jesus' disciple, wandering the roads of Judaea. Matthew became an entrepreneur. He chose uncertainty over rent. He ceased being a combination of Roman bureaucrat and businessman.
There was no question that he was not going to have the same level of money income as a follower of Jesus. He knew that. He demonstrated this understanding by walking away from the money box. He was abandoning his occupation. Why? Because he had been called to something more profitable. He had received a higher calling.
His calling was in opposition to his occupation. What do I mean by his calling? I mean that way of life and that work which Jesus would assign to him. This was the most important work he could do. He could make more money on the old job, but this work was not very important compared to Jesus' work. Money income was higher as a tax farmer, but money income was less profitable to him than Jesus' work. He was faced with a choice: occupation or calling. He chose the calling.
I define that calling as follows: the most important work a person can do in which he would be most difficult to replace.(6) The account of Matthew's calling is illustrative of this definition. Jesus had a new career for him. His old career was profitable financially, but he could be replaced. There is no doubt that the tax farming company hired a replacement. We do not know his name. He is no longer important. He was important to himself, his employers, and the taxpayers, but he is no longer important. He left no visible legacy. Matthew did.
The gospel of Matthew cannot be replaced. The other three gospels supplement it, but they did not replace it. It is only in Matthew's gospel that we are told of the virgin birth of Christ.(7) It is only in this gospel that we read the account of the Great Commission: "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen" (28:18-20). Can you imagine the history of the church without these two passages?
Non-Monetary Bidding
Matthew's choice was not based on monetary income. The company that employed him paid more than Jesus offered. Jesus offered nothing in the way of monetary compensation. This is typical for most people. Their place of highest-value service is rarely their place of greatest monetary income.
A bidding war was in progress. The company that employed him had bid up his income to keep him in a job that suffered from a major social liability. Jesus offered him nothing except discipleship. He had a choice: remain a social pariah or become a social eccentric. Go with the money or go with . . . what? God and mammon were bidding against each other. The high bid wins, but the individual must decide in terms of his own scale of values what the high bid is. Rarely is the high monetary bid the high bid from God's point of view. "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (Matt. 19:24).
Callings are only occasionally salary-producing occupations, such as minister of the gospel or teacher. Because so few men are ever directly confronted with a choice between calling and occupation, they do not think much about their callings. They may think more about this when they reach their mid-40's, when they see their mortality more clearly. But the kind of life-changing decision that Matthew made is rare. Few men ever hear the call of God so plainly.
The Division of Labor The division of labor has increased dramatically in the modern world since the late eighteenth century. Occupations have become more specialized. Low-level or entry-level jobs have become plentiful. It does not take seven years of apprenticeship training to teach a person to be a clerk in a fast food restaurant. It takes just a few days. But it takes far more training to become a physician than it did in medieval times. The assembly line of the modern factory has made average men productive, but factory jobs tend to move to less developed nations or regions. It takes more education to train a knowledge worker than an assembly-line worker.
As specialization increases, people find more opportunities to exercise their talents. They achieve greater productivity because their creativity progressively matches consumer demand. They find their niche in the labor market. This benefits consumers, who gain a wider selection of products and services to choose from, and more highly skilled producers working to serve them.
Were it not for the decrease in the cost of information, it would be increasingly difficult to replace workers in the capital-intensive job market. Information costs have dropped, however, offsetting the fact that the closer a person's skills match the requirements of the production process, the more difficult it is to find his replacement. To retain him in the production process, his employer must pay him enough to keep him from seeking employment elsewhere. Because of more accurate and more widely available information about rates of pay, people can bargain with employers. Meanwhile, employers can locate replacements. The zones of ignorance are narrowed, meaning that workers are paid closer to what their services are worth to the consumer by way of the employer. Only a few people in the organization provide such unique services that the organization's decision-makers cannot replace them readily.
Job-switching is common today. Men seek out better-paying jobs. They are not locked into one job for life. When a person asks: "What is my most productive area of service?" he means for a few years. Men change their occupations and their specialties within these organizations.
The bidding war goes on, day by day. The results can be seen in the price of labor. But nothing comparable exists for the bidding system for callings. There is no visible indicator comparable to the money wage. There is no numerical value that men can place on the calling. While there has been an increase in information regarding callings, there is nothing comparable to the job market.
With the increase in the division of labor, callings have become more specialized. But without a unique numerical success indicator, the participants and would-be participants in the market for highest service are still as blind, comparatively, as Matthew was. When God calls us into service, He does not present us with an employment contract enforceable in a court of law, with fringe benefits listed. He just says, "Hey, you! Come." There is great uncertainty. Why some men respond while others do not remains a mystery. They do not base this decision on quantitative measures. There is some unexplained factor that is at work in God's issuing of a call. "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God" (Deut. 29:29a).
Because we cannot know the future exhaustively, an element of faith exists in every decision. What distinguishes market decisions is the degree of specificity possible in assessing the future. There are prices. Prices are the result of men's decisions regarding the present value of expected future supply and demand. Men bid for resources in terms of these assessments. The result of this bidding process is an array of prices. So, there is less faith required to make a market decision than a decision regarding the calling. Accepting a calling is more like taking a wife than hiring a housekeeper. The potential is greater, a mistake is more permanent, and the terms of employment are less specific.
Conclusion Matthew had to make a decision. He had to assess the call of Christ and compare its potential with that of his occupation. No decision would still have been a decision: to stay right where he was. He made his decision in an instant. We are not told what factors motivated him. Maybe it was only that Christ had called him, despite his position as a social outcast. Maybe he had been looking for a way out the tax farming business. Or maybe it was something beyond his own power to explain. He wrote the account, yet he did not explain his motivation.
Jesus' call persuaded him to act in terms of his priorities. Because he had not sought out Jesus, I assume that the call initiated a major shift in these priorities. The visible indicator of this shift was the money box. The more radical the shift, the less likely that he would take the box with him.
Footnotes:
1. Matthew was one of three brothers who became apostles. He was the son of Althaeus (Matt. 10:13; Mark 2:14). James was the son of Althaeus (Luke 6:15). Judas (not Iscariot) was the son of Althaeus (v. 16).
2. I assume that he had a box or other container for the money. This is not a major assumption.
3. Chapter 19, above.
4. Because the Matthew account alone refers to the tax collector as Matthew rather than Levi, Bible scholars have assumed that he was the author of the book.
5. Two centuries later, it was equally certain but one of the most burdensome occupations. Tax collectors had to pay the State, despite their future revenue, which fell as Rome became impoverished. It became an inherited office which could not be abandoned. It became a form of slavery.
6. Gary North, "The Calling," Christian Reconstruction (March/April 1981).
7. One passage in Luke presupposes the virgin birth: "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli" (Luke 3:23).
If this book helps you gain a new understanding of the Bible, please consider sending a small donation to the Institute for Christian Economics, P.O. Box 8000, Tyler, TX 75711. You may also want to buy a printed version of this book, if it is still in print. Contact ICE to find out. icetylertx@aol.com