Matthew 22:15-22

SECTION 58
JESUS ANSWERS CAPTIOUS QUESTIONS
A. QUESTION OF TRIBUTE TO CAESAR

(Parallels: Mark 12:13-22; Luke 20:20-26)

TEXT: 22:15-22

15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might ensnare him in his talk. 16 And they sent to him their disciples, with the Herodians, saying, Teacher, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, and carest not for any one: for thou regardest not the person of men. 17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not? 18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why make ye trial of me, ye hypocrites? 19 Show me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a denarius. 20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21 They say unto him, Caesar'S. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar'S; and unto God the things that are God'S. 22 And when they heard it, they marvelled, and left him, and went away.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

In the splendid compliments the Pharisees-' disciples gave Jesus, are they telling the truth? Is there any statement in their estimate of His ministry and personal life that is false? If you think their words are their honest evaluation of our Lord, how do you account for Jesus-' unhesitatingly negative reaction to them? Do you think it possible to hide hatred and malice in such apparently generous praise? If so, how does this work?

b.

Do you think that Jewish nationalism versus Roman domination was the only motive behind the Jews-' question to tribute to Caesar, even if it were the one most obvious? To what extent would covetousness and greed be involved? Do you think the Jews wanted to keep their tribute money only for political reasons, and not also for personal use?

c.

Do you think that the Old Testament Law covered the problem these Pharisees present Jesus here? If so, what texts lead you to this conclusion?

d.

How was Jesus-' request to be shown a denarius an integral part of His answer to their challenging question? What did their possession of (or easy access to) a denarius have to do with their own politically compromised position that in turn validated the truth of His final answer?

e.

How did Jesus-' principle not only answer their questions but actually defuse the explosive political implications of their dilemma?

f.

What is the difference between their formulation of the question and Jesus-' answer? They said, Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar? He answered, Pay Caesar what is Caesar'S. Or do you see any difference between what each said? If so, what is it?

g.

Since the Pharisees are normally a religious sect, why should they here resort to political questions, when they could have brought up religious ones? Do you think they felt themselves at a disadvantage in the religious field trying to combat with Jesus? What possible advantage could they hope for in a political approach such as this?

h.

What do you see was particularly effective about the method Jesus used in this story? Instead of answering their question directly, He requested a denarius. In what way did He render His own answer so far more memorable to His original listeners by doing this? What may we learn from His way of handling this situation?

i.

What criteria would you list that help us to distinguish what is God's from what is Caesar'S?

j.

To what extent is Jesus-' answer binding on Christian consciences today? What must a Christian do when his own government is bad, i.e. follows anti-Christian policies by creating laws that violate the Christian conscience? Should we then continue to render Caesar what Caesar claims? What Biblical teachings are specifically given to cover this particular case?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

Then the Pharisees went out and plotted together how to trap Jesus in the course of conversation. So they kept Him under surveillance and sent their secret agents to Him, some of them disciples of the Pharisees themselves and some of them supporters of Herod's party. These pretended to be men devoted to righteousness. They hoped to lead Him to say something that might be useful to them so they could deliver Him up to the jurisdiction and authority of the Roman governor.
So they approached Him and asked, Rabbi, we are convinced that you are a man of integrity, and that you speak and teach God's way sincerely and correctly. You are not afraid of anyone and you show no partiality for anyone. You honestly and truly teach what God wants men to know. So, give us your ruling on the following question: according to God's Law is it right to give taxes or tribute to the Roman Emperor or not? Should we do it or not? Yes or no?
Jesus, however, aware of their malice, detected their hidden motives and challenged them, Why do you hypocrites set this trap for me? Hand me a denariusthe money for the tax. Let me look at it!
When they handed Him a denarius, Jesus quizzed them, Whose image and inscription are on this coin?
Caesar's was their answer.
That's fine, the Lord went on, So pay Caesar what belongs to him and pay God what belongs to Him!
So they were unable to trap Him in any of His public utterances. Rather, when they heard His reply, they were taken by surprise. Disoriented by His answer, they held their tongues and simply left Him and retreated.

SUMMARY

Determined opposition attempted to trap Jesus by remote control, using their own disciples posing as sincere seekers after truth, a deliberately mixed group composed of political conservatives and liberals. They attempted to blind Him with flattery as a smokescreen for their politically explosive question, Should the control of Caesar over our lives be admitted by free men under God? He parried their thrust by showing how thoroughly they already accepted the Emperor's influence, then brought balance to the question by specifying the proper sphere of influence rightly occupied by God and the State respectively.

NOTES
I. A QUESTION TO TRAP THE TEACHER (22:15-17)

Matthew 22:15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might ensnare him in this talk. Bested at their own game of Embarrassing Questions, they beat a hasty retreat (Mark 12:12) to seek advice from fellow Sanhedrinists on further strategy against the Galilean. Although Matthew's account appears at first glance to blame only the Pharisees for the plotting that hatched the political attack, the Synoptists all agree that the chief priests (= Sadducees) are as surely involved as the Traditionalists (Matthew 21:45; Luke 20:19 f.; cf. Mark 11:27; Mark 12:1; Mark 12:12 f., where they seems always to refer to the chief priests, scribes and elders). Even though the Pharisees may have taken counsel among their own at first, as the sequel proves, it was essential that they bring together representatives of politically contrasting views in order to make their trap work.

That the Pharisees should have been so keenly involved in a politically oriented ambush makes sense, if it be remembered that they were not merely or only concerned with specifically religious matters (so far as they can ever be detached), but for the proper ordering of the whole of society (Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees, 21). Their hope of making holiness possible for all Israel would necessarily affect their understanding of the political football involved in the tribute questions they direct to Jesus. In fact, if Israel is to function as a holy people under God, must it not be free from foreign hindrance? In the popular mind this must exclude Rome's domination. Therefore, the Pharisees-' popular, sympathetic contact with the people with whom they enjoyed extensive influence and from whom they received considerable support (cf. Ant. XVIII, 1, 3, 4; XIII, 10, 6), would appear to guarantee these sectaries-' power to punish Jesus unmercifully, if He made the politically suicidal choice of espousing the unpopular Roman tribute.

Matthew 22:16 And they send to him their disciples. Desperately struggling to recover the initiative, the ringleaders remained in the background. They ran in a team of understudies, perhaps hoping that Jesus would not recognize these younger men as their henchmen. Luke's word for these Pharisean henchmen is spies who pretended to be sincere that is, men paid to set up the ambush. Their cover consisted in their pretense to be sincere.

The second essential component in this ambush was the Herodians, supporters of the Roman puppet government of Herod Antipas. Because the Herods enjoyed their right to rule by the grace of Rome, the Herodians were essentially a pro-Roman political position. These would naturally favor the Roman tribute,

Some commentators see this combination of politicians as strange and ironic. This, because the Pharisees pretended high piety and endeavored to sidestep every contact with the ceremonial contamination of others, and because the Herodians were not at all concerned about keeping God's holy law. The common virulent hatred for Jesus, felt by Herodians and Pharisees alike, had now reached such a white-hot intensity that they temporarily forgot their mutual enmities and formed this temporary unholy alliance to stop Him.

However, it is not at all ironic that Pharisees should have willingly set this political trap. It is a historical misjudgment to perceive of the Pharisees as being TOTALLY uninterested in political questions, because, earlier, they had defied widely held public opinion by not swearing their goodwill to Caesar and his government (Ant., XVII, 2, 4). And they suffered for it.

So, the Herodians belonged in this plot, because Jesus-' denunciations undeniably targeted their purely materialistic concerns too (Matthew 22:5; Matthew 21:38). Further, these supporters of Herodian political rule could see nothing but trouble in the Messianic royalty implied in Jesus-' triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He had seriously disturbed the status quo whereby these fawning sycophants of Herodian rulers retained their position and influence. So, all the vested interests in the nation stand to lose, if the Galilean Prophet is not stopped and soon! This seemingly unlikely alliance is perfectly explicable in terms of sheer political expediency and dovetails neatly with the secret, devious ways the Pharisees and Herodians had shown in cooperating earlier (Mark 3:6) and against which Jesus warned (Mark 8:15). Both recognized that in this situation He could harm them worse than either of them could harm the other. Their only unity here is their common hatred and fear of the rabbi from Nazareth.

Teacher, we know that thou art true. Because they were about to place Jesus in the position of judge, it was important to affirm the judge's personal character as qualification for that function. Because teachers in Israel knew God's Law best, they naturally qualified as judges over all questions that concerned Israel's duty either personal or collective. Thou teachest the way of God in truth. Although among other nations this would not be a judge's qualification, in Israel this was a prime consideration, because the Law of God was the supreme standard of judgment. He dare not teach his own dream or vision, but the way God prescribes for men in truth! Thou carest not for any one does not mean He is indifferent or unconcerned about others. Rather, they mean that a magistrate cannot take into consideration whether the person judged is wealthy or destitute, influential or a nobody. (Cf. 1 Samuel 16:7; Leviticus 19:15; Exodus 23:3; Exodus 23:6.) Nor may he fear personal consequences from the verdict he renders against one side or the other. Truth and impartiality must be his primary concern (Deuteronomy 1:16-17; Deuteronomy 10:17; Proverbs 24:23 ff.). He must not care who is opposed to his final ruling, be it even the Emperor himself (Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 16:18-20; Deuteronomy 1:17; Malachi 2:9)! Thou regardest not the person of men. While a judge must take into consideration a man's character, he must not be influenced by his money, influence or position. (Study Acts 10:34; Galatians 2:6; James 2:1-12; 1 Peter 1:17 where respecter of persons. means partial.) In short, this high praise intends to describe a great and godly teacher. They picture a rabbi of unassailable integrity and honesty, one who is immune to blackmail, the precise opposite of an opportunist.

This new strategy stands in contrast with the authorities-' earlier attack. There they had challenged His authority from their position of official dignity. Here they pretend to bow humbly to His authority, trusting His integrity. But this is escalation, not retreat, because few are the men who, while courageously and ably defending their position against all assailants, can withstand the subtler danger of warm praise. But these apparently earnest, courteous compliments were triply treacherous:

1.

The common people standing there listening, unaware of any sinister motive, could not have guessed that the apparently sincere people who make these positive public declarations of confidence in Jesus, would ever mean Him harm. This disarmed any popular resistance to the attack.

2.

They hoped to disarm Jesus Himself in the process. They calculated His hard, countable results to be few and far between (discounting, of course, the mob enthusiasm of the triumphal entry), so He NEEDED public recognition by someone like these friendly, potential disciples. So, if they could just say a few kind words that anyone in His shoes would be straining to hear, hopefully they would succeed in setting the fatal trap while He suspected nothing.

3.

By laying particular emphasis on Jesus-' courageous stand taken in the past without fear or favor against the rich and influential by His bold denunciations of their corruption and sins, these hit-men hope to push Jesus into taking the fatal dare to come out fearlessly either against Rome or against His own nation.

Matthew 22:17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? On the basis of His claim to speak God's message, they freely expect Him to act in character as a typical rabbi accustomed to resolving difficult questions of conscience and duty. He could not now refuse their question without discrediting Himself as a Teacher.

When Matthew states that the questioners are Pharisees and Herodians, does he imply that this fact was revealed as part of their approach and question? Farrar (Life, 522) says yes: They evidently designed to raise the impression that a dispute had occurred between them and the Herodians, and that they desired to settle it by referring the decision of the question at issue to the final and higher authority of the Great Prophet. However, if their purpose was to keep their relative positions and interest in the question unknown to Him, so as to make their trap function better, these men probably presented themselves as strangers to Jesus. Matthew only informs his readers what he learned later about their true political colors.

In order to execute Jesus, His enemies must secure the consent of the local Roman authorities (John 18:31). However, they yet have no legal basis to accuse Him, unless some compromising statement of His could enflame the Romans. The Jewish authorities are not averse to stoning Him themselves, even without prior authorization, were the conditions right (cf. John 5:18; John 7:1; John 7:19; John 7:25; John 8:59; John 10:31; John 11:8). What prompts their hesitation here is His powerful public image and extraordinary popularity. The Jewish authorities must deflect from themselves all responsibility for His removal, so they could survive the furor that might erupt over His elimination.

Is it lawful? (éxestin) asks: Is it permitted, possible or proper? (Arndt-Gingrich, 274), but the basis of judgment for God's people is ever the Law and will of God. Because these men's preamble pretended interest in Jesus-' teaching the way of God truthfully, this question means: According to you, what does God's Law require of us on this subject? They care not whether other peoples should pay it, but is it lawful for GOD'S PEOPLE to pay it? Is it lawful? in this context, intends to force Jesus into a three-way bind, because He may not answer according to some political expedient forged for a given period but which might conceivably be altered as conditions change. Not only must He avoid offending the Romans while satisfying the Jewish nationalists. He must answer to God, truth and righteousness.

The tribute to Caesar in question was a poll-tax to be paid to the imperial treasury, instituted in Judea when Archelaus, son of Herod the Great, was deposed in A.D. 6 (Ant. XVIII, 1, 1; Matthew 2:1; cf. Matthew 2:22). Because the tax was not one denarius, it was not excessive, being equivalent to one day's work of a common day-laborer. Rather, it was galling because it was Roman, the tangible expression of foreign domination of God's people. More than one Jew who paid this tribute was unsure of the basis on which supporting a pagan government could be defended. Several factors contributed to this confusion:

1.

In the Mosaic legislation God had not spelled out His will for His people when they became subjects of foreign powers, so no Old Testament text could be cited. True, various prophets had addressed themselves to specific situations, but what should Israel do in Jesus-' day? THAT was the issue. The whole debate revolved around the contradiction between ideal Israel (under God alone) and actual Israel (under Caesar too), or between what seemed to be prophesied for Israel and what Israel suffered under Rome at the time. Although Mosaic legislation had decreed that Israel must establish as king over them only men of Hebrew descent, the choice must be God's appointment (Deuteronomy 17:14 f.). Since the close of the Old Testament no genuine prophet had arisen to indicate the Lord's choice and anoint His appointee (cf. 1Ma. 14:41; 1Ma. 4:46).

2.

Before Christ's coming the Jewish people had been conquered various times by pagan peoples and had been forced to pay them tribute. Naturally, this subjugation bred its deeply-felt bitterness and fiercely proud resentment toward the occupying powers, be they Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek or Roman. As a result of these invariably heathen influences in the national life, there arose religious patriots at various intervals who fomented political revolution. They preached holy war against the pagans as God's will. Engaging in terrorist activities, they sowed terror in the land. Their war-cry was No King but Jahvé! No Law but the Torah! (Cf. Ant. XVIII, 1, 1, 6; Wars, II, 8, 1.)

3.

One of the great ironies of Jewish history especially in this context is that around 4 B.C. the Jews sent their best ambassadors to plead with Caesar to establish ROMAN government over them in decided preference to semi-Jewish Herodian rule! (Ant. XVII, 11, 1-2; and again in 6 A.D., Ant. XVII, 13, 1-2, 5; XVIII, 1, 1) And, if they had requested it, should they not also pay for it?

So, the Pharisees-' baited trap was a vexed question at the center of furious debate in Israel. (Cf. Judas the Galilean's bloody revolt over this issue.) So, it is misguided to refer to this issue as a purely political question and not a religious issue, because in the ideal theocracy of Israel, what is political can very well be a highly religious issue too. The tragedy here is that the question is legitimate, but the questioners do not really care about His answer. They only intend to push Jesus to make a fatal commitment.

The trap is now set and the designated victim incited to walk into it. The instigators add further pressure by demanding a straightforward yes or no answer (Mark 12:15). In their repeated question there is the urgency of spiritual anxiety: Shall we pay or not? to push Him into the deadly two-way trap of positive self-commitment either way,

1.

Should He opt for paying Roman taxes, the Pharisean contingent could shout to the four winds that the Galilean prophet had given the nod to paying the hated pagan tax. Thus He would be blackballed as impious toward God and unpatriotic, a traitor to Israel, the people of God. Any hope that He might be the great Messianic King must then be laughed off as absurd. He would instantly alienate many of His Galilean disciples and infuriate the Zealots whose violent nationalism would explode. These would perhaps destroy Him themselves, leaving the national leaders unscathed to run the country in relative calm.

2.

If He chose the popular, nationalistic position that tax-paying to the oppressor was tantamount to unfaithfulness to Godthe option they hoped He would choose (Luke 20:20)the pro-Roman Herodian group could carry His pronouncement directly to the Roman governor, Pilate. The pragmatic Romans did not concern themselves with the religious questions of a subject people so long as that nation behaved itself and paid its taxes. (Cf. Acts 18:15 f.) But to declare in favor of non-payment of Roman tribute is an audacious declaration of independence, hence a treasonable offense against Rome. The Jewish leadership was so confident that this accusation would move Pilate that they falsely accused Jesus of declaiming against the tax (Luke 23:1 f.). They well knew that Pilate's policy of reckless tyranny had a low combustion point, especially toward dangerous subversives or those who might be suspected of being revolutionaries (cf. Luke 13:1).

Their formulation of the dilemma is clear: either one must be a rebel against Rome and a true, Jewish patriot, or else a traitor to Israel and a Roman puppet. They were certain that there could be no acceptable third alternative. Their dilemma, however, is badly formed, because it wrongly assumes that one cannot have both Israel and Rome, both God and Caesar. Essentially, Jesus-' debating tactic will consist in nothing more complicated than disposing of their false dichotomy by showing that a reasonable third alternative exists which embraces the best parts of both extremes.

II. A COUNTER-TRAP (22:18-20)

Matthew 22:18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness. Does wickedness here mean their motives, which only God can know, or their result, which anyone could perceive? That is, did He perceive their wickedness by omniscience or by normal godly insight? This latter is the more interesting choice for us, because it reveals that evil is self-defeating! Jesus perceived their wickedness, not only or merely by His power of supernatural insight to expose their clever plotting (cf. Acts 5:1-11), but because of the unintended truth spoken by these very hypocrites. He really was all that they said!

1.

Because He was a man of integrity, i.e. true. His genuine humility would instantly sense how sharply the grotesqueness and absurdity of their high-sounding compliments lavished on Him contrasted with His own view of Himself. The fact that they were; in His eyes, unqualified to judge Him even favorably, disqualified their praise and warned Him.

2.

Because He taught the way of God in truth, He breathed the same air as Jeremiah and John the Baptist and all the other great prophets whose clear vision of Israel's uniqueness in the world always included appropriate disclaimers of any Jewish spiritual superiority and exclusive privilege. For all of these prophets, including the Nazarene, the timely use of evil foreign powers to chasten Israel and prepare her to accomplish her Messianic mission was not at all beyond God's range of options (2 Chronicles 12:8; Habakkuk). From this perspective, Roman government, Roman taxes and Jewish submission are not the mutually exclusive options implied in the text question now before Jesus. His knowledge of God's will expressed in Hebrew history saved Him.

3.

Because He really did not show partially to anyone or pay attention to a person's rank, He could actually look past their great show of respect and discern their need for correction. They ranked themselves among His would-be disciples, as sincere seekers after truth. But, unbeknown to them, Jesus did not even show partiality for His own followers! He could challenge their basic presuppositions with as much equanimity as that with which He battled those of His opponents. (Cf. John 3:1-12; Matthew 15:12 f; Matthew 16:5-12; Matthew 16:21-23; Matthew 17:16-21; chapter 18; Matthew 19:10-15, Matthew 19:23 to Matthew 20:16, Matthew 20:20-28, etc.) So, His dispassionate impartiality saved Him.

His pure spirit recoiled from this fumbling appeal to His pride. He thirsted, not for the paltry praise of ignorant men, but for that approval that comes from GOD ALONE (John 5:44).

Why make ye trial of me, ye hypocrites? In their question our Master could sense something more than the latent nationalism burning in the people who usually pondered this problem. These questioners, rather, exposed their lack of integrity by demanding that He commit Himself first on an obviously loaded and politically dangerous question that could not fail to call down wrath upon Him regardless of which option He selected. This is no free, academic discussion about the meaning of God's Law. It is a frame-up pure and simple! So Jesus called their hand, shattering their carefully constructed illusion. You hypocrites is a just sentence, because there was no correlation between what they were thinking or planning and what they were saying publicly. So, by unmasking them instantly, He proved to the gullible bystanders that His enemies-' cleverness had not deceived Him. By suddenly attacking as hypocrites those whom the unsuspecting might judge to be friends and potential disciples, the Lord surprised everyone, causing them to give far more attention to the reasons behind this unexpected move. So doing, He demonstrated personally what it means to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves (Matthew 10:16).

Matthew 22:19 Show me the tribute money means: Bring me the legal coin with which the tax is paid. Mark adds: Let me look at it. There is a flicker of humor here, because, although the dilemma was already resolved by the coin's common circulation in Palestine, Jesus called for the coin as if He must carefully ponder the question. The point is really that THEY TOO must look at it, because it contained irrefutable proof of His conclusion. To ask for the legal coin they knew meant, Bring me a denarius (Mark 12:15; Luke 20:24). Hendriksen (Matthew, 802) affirms that the denarius was minted specifically for this tax. While Jewish and even Greek coins might be used in everyday business, all knew that the Roman tribute must be paid with Roman money. But, by demanding Roman money, Jesus asked for a coin bearing the image and inscription of Caesar, and consequently, representing his authority. Thus, He cocked His counter-trap.

And they brought unto him a denarius, apparently having no trouble finding the right coin. Its commonness in the Palestine of Jesus-' day is well illustrated. (Cf. Matthew 18:28; Matthew 20:2; Matthew 20:9 f., Matthew 20:13; Mark 6:37; Mark 14:5; Luke 7:41; Luke 10:35; John 6:7; John 12:5.) The Jews-' relation to Caesar and his institutions, including the current monetary system, was not so tenuous and distant as they would believe after all. Rather, whether or not they were carrying in their own purses the very coin of the realm, the damning proof that they themselves had tacitly accepted the reality, if not also the benefits of Caesar's rule, is that the coin was current in their country. The fact that they brought him a denarius need not be construed to mean that they necessarily had to go some distance (e.g. to the money-changers) to find and return with the requested coin, as if they would not have carried heathen money with him. After all, the Herodians are present, and they reek of paganism: this is why they are there! In fact, all attention is focused on what the Prophet would do with the coin, rather than on the fact that they were caught using Caesar's money in Israel.

Matthew 22:20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? What an exciting piece of showmanship! His request for the coin already attracted everyone's attention, but this question now raises their level of curiosity about how He would handle this tense situation. But what keen-witted diplomacy! He began by asking them to identify the coin's image and inscription. His approach was neither due to ignorance on His part nor merely to gain time, but because He could thereby better expose the illogic of their stance. The coin bore stamped on it the answer to their own question.

Whose is this image and superscription? Because the Law had forbidden the making of images, most Jewish coins bore no human picture, just a design with an inscription.

After the time of Christ, Herod Agrippa (47-44 A.D.) struck coins bearing the head of the emperor with the title of Augustus in Greek. Also Agrippa II (48-100 A.D.) issued coins with Nero's head as well as that of Agrippa (I.S.B.E., III, 2079b). After Jerusalem's fall this same ruler even issued coins with a DEITY on the reverse side! (ibid., 2080b)

Even Roman coins intended for circulation in Palestine were coined without the emperor's image by concession to this Jewish scruple (Farrar, Life, 524). But as Providence would have it, the very coin they brought to Jesus that day was a completely Gentile piece, in that it bore both the image and superscription (Edersheim, Life, II, 386). So, right in Jerusalem, God's holy City, the considerations of business pressures and personal convenience had quietly brushed aside scruples against using these ungodly, pagan coins.

Whether they saw it immediately or not, His question implied a recognized principle: the power to define legal money belongs to the State. Consequently, that government which can declare what constitutes legal tender for the payment of all debts, public and private, is the government which is commonly recognized as legitimate and having the right to rule. The making and financial backing of coins is one of the areas wherein the State most obviously represents the interest of the citizens. They must see that they could not consistently refuse to pay the tax that enabled the government to guarantee their own economic system, while at the same time making use of Tiberius-' coins as a medium of exchange. This image and superscription implied not only Caesar's right to coin money, but his right to organize the economic world, a right that the circulation of his money involved and implied. Although belonging to Caesar, the coin Jesus held up was employed as a medium of exchange by people all over the empire without any relationship to their religious or political leanings. Their use of it as legal tender implied their concession to Rome's political claim to organize Mediterranean world economics.

It is not a side issue to notice that the inscription on that denarius read: TI[berius] CAESAR DIVI AUG[usti] F[ilius] AUGUSTUS or Tiberius Caesar Augustus, son of the deified Augustus, virtually ascribing godhood to the emperor in violation of Jewish religious convictions that no human being could pretend to be a god. Jesus-' final dictum (v. 21), while not implying any criticism of their using coins bearing images of the emperor and his blasphemous titles, definitely condemns the idolatry involved in worship of the images themselves or in confessing the content of the inscriptions. The reverse side of the denarius portrayed a seated figure with the inscription: PONTIF[ex] MAXIM[us], or Highest Priest or religious head of the State.

III. THE THEOLOGY OF DOUBLE TAXATION (22:21)

Matthew 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar'S. Whether or not they could have surmised where He would go with their answer, evasion and denial were impossible. Plainly visible on the coin was the image and inscription of Tiberius, the then-reigning Caesar (A.D. 14-37; cf. Luke 3:1). Jesus-' point is not so much that this particular coin is Caesar's as the right to coin is his. He does not mean Caesar personally, but his office and function.

Jesus went straight to the heart of the reality and stripped away perplexities from this perennial problem that had troubled many conscientious Jews for centuries and had sparked controversy as useless as it was endless. In one simple, concise sentence He clarified the issue so logically and so universally that His questioners appear foolish for not having seen it first.

A. Man's Relationship to the State

1.

Render unto Caesar. Jesus-' attackers had asked, Shall we give tribute unto Caesar (doûnai kênson Kaìsari)?Although dìdômi, when used in contexts involving taxes, tribute, rent and the like, should be rendered pay, its usual meaning is give. (Cf. Arndt-Gingrich, 191ff.) Nevertheless, because Jesus Himself does not use their term in His answer, but rather the intensified form, apodìdômi. He implies a subtle verbal contrast between their word and His. Accordingly, their question means, Is it right to GIVE taxes to Caesar? and He retorts, PAY BACK Caesar and God what is their right. Your tribute is no voluntary gift as your question implies. You are paying back the Roman government money you legally and morally owe for every benefit and advantage that this regime provides its subjects.

2.

The things that are Caesar'S. What does this involve?

a.

Both Jesus and Paul explain that what is Caesar'S has been delegated to him by God in the first place. (Romans 13:1; John 19:11; Study Psalms 82:1; Psalms 82:6 in connections with Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:8 f., Exodus 21:28 and John 10:34 f. Had the Jews forgotten Daniel 2:21; Daniel 2:37 f.; Daniel 4:17; Daniel 4:24-32; Daniel 5:21; Daniel 5:23?) The political irony of the historical situation in which the first century Hebrew nation found itself was the fact that God had not intervened to free them from Roman domination. It could be argued, therefore, that it was at least His permissive will that this domination continue to exist. Even king Agrippa argued similarly (Wars, II, 16, 4).

Could any Jew seriously affirm that Rome's liberal policy toward the Jewish faith interfered with its free exercise? Had not Rome rectified the controversy over the images? (Ant. XVIII, 3, 1; Wars, II, 10) Had not Rome recalled and banished Archelaus? (Ant, XVII, 13, 1-5) Was not even Jewish religion solicitous of the Emperor's good health and government by virtue of the sacrifices offered on his behalf? (Wars, II, 10, 4; Matthew 17:2) Did not even the Jewish authorities themselves distinctly admit that the acceptance and use of a sovereign's coin was tantamount to recognizing his sovereignty? (Edersheim, Life, II, 385, cites Babha K.113a and Jer.Sanh. 20b) This was not unlikely based on earlier practice (1Ma. 15:6). In fact, Jewish independence from Rome was celebrated by coins blatantly celebrating the first Jewish revolt (66-70 A.D.) Later, Bar-Cochba's revolt spawned a new series of Jewish shekels around 132-135 A.D. (Davis Dictionary of the Bible, 512) Jesus too had expressed the common understanding that taxes were leveled upon subject people (Matthew 17:25 f.). For Jews, therefore, to pay Caesar's head-tax meant that they thereby admitted his political lordship, an admission they later shouted to Pilate (John 19:15).

Insofar as the political government does not interfere with the activities and adoration of God and His people, there is no violation of religious liberty in the paying of revenue to the State to pay for goods and services on behalf of the taxed. Money must come from somewhere to pay for law and order, to build highways for ready access to the entire empire, to construct harbors and public buildings. God expects His people to help pay for the whole realm of governmental activity whereby the State benefits all its citizens by good laws, the protection of civil and religious rights and the general administration of justice. This is no gift to Caesar, but a legal and moral obligation. Can it be right to accept the advantages of orderly government and yet be unwilling to pay the cost of them?

b.

Jesus-' word is the State's charter that guarantees its right to function. It also condemns every conniving attempt of tyrannous churchmen to usurp the State's authority. Duty to God recognizes the sphere of obedience to State law too (Romans 13:1-10; 1 Timothy 2:1 f.; 1 Peter 2:13-17).

c.

But we must render ONLY the things that are Caesar'S to him, nothing more. Jesus-' second dictum demands this limitation. (Cf. the position taken by Daniel and his three friends: Daniel 1:3-16; Daniel 3:16-18; Daniel 3:28; Daniel 6:1-27.)

B. Man's Relationship to God

1.

But the first is that we must be religious about paying our taxes! Obedience to God means to respond conscientiously and positively to His ministers who are attending to this very thing (Romans 13:5-7). There is a direct chain of command running from God down to the common citizen, a chain which runs right through the hands of the governing authorities of the land. Recognition of this reality should take all the sting out of paying all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. From this point of view, to render unto Caesar IS to render unto God what is God'S!There is no necessary conflict of responsibility between God and the State.

2.

The crisis of conscience arises for the believer only when Caesar thinks that he is god and begins to require that we render unto Caesar the things that are God'S. Despite Jehovah's Witnesses-' protestations to the contrary, Christ has not established a theocracy wherein we must render unto God what is Caesar'S. The Kingdom of God and the State are not essentially in competition.

At this juncture we must face the dilemma of Acts 4:19; Acts 5:29. The Lord does not suggest that no situations would ever arise where the choice would be the State over against God. In fact, many such occasions have arisen in Church history when wicked rulers have persecuted and slaughtered God's people for refusal to render to Caesar what belongs to God, their highest loyalty and worship. (Study Revelation 13.) Such times call for resolute refusal to submit to this pagan worship and the choice of death to compromise. God has already demonstrated His sovereign might against rulers who claimed His rights (Acts 12:10-23; Daniel 4:5; Isaiah 36, 37). And He will do so again (Revelation 16:6; Revelation 19:11-21; Revelation 20:7-15)!

3.

The doctrine of separation of Church and State is solidly rooted in Jesus-' declaration. Our Lord did not demand unquestioning submission to all tyrants whatever their requirements, because this would render it absolutely impossible to render unto God the things that are God'S. His latter demand places the freedom of conscience and the Church above every secular claim. But only bad, wrong-headed exegesis could ever justify the conclusion that our Lord left the respective spheres of influence of God and of Caesar as so separate that God's will cannot interfere with the Christian citizen's relationship and duty to the State. (Religion and politics do not mix!) Rather, the State could not exist or function without God's permission and it is responsible to Him for the exercise of its proper functions. The child of God must always act in harmony with God's will therefore, even when he serves as a citizen of the State. God is ABOVE the State, not sharing equal time with it!

4.

Jesus-' sharp distinction between God and Caesar denounces all forms of Caesarworship. Any godless political philosophy that would deify the State must reckon with Jesus-' spiritual demand: and to God!Although His questioners could object that His reply evades what they considered the real issue, His word was clear and definite enough to uphold the principle of the State and civil government. His view of the abuses of the Roman state is more clearly and concretely expressed elsewhere. (See notes on Matthew 20:20-28.) For Jesus, the ruthless exercise of raw power, or power for power's sake, is Satanic. In His eyes, all ambition to become great and to maintain power by arbitrary and oppressive rule is to be decisively rejected and stedfastly resisted by His disciples. Only humble, useful service is the path to true greatness and proper dominion. (See notes on Matthew 18.)

IV. THE TRAPPERS GIVE UP (22:22)

Matthew 22:22 And when they heard it, they marvelled, and left him and went away. Despite their hostility, His attackers could not miss the fact that, not only had He deftly eluded their clever trap, but, more importantly, He had brilliantly resolved a hotly-debated issue with one clear pithy pronouncement that, because of its profoundness and simplicity, really left no phase of the issue untouched. With unimpeachable wisdom He had adroitly outmaneuvered them, avoiding political entanglements and, in the same stroke, He left them responsible to both God and Caesar!

To those multitudes who yearned for a political Messiah who would establish an earthly Kingdom of God and launch a violent revolt against Rome, this answer of Jesus was highly disappointing. He did not denounce Rome outright nor repudiate the tribute. This is a tacit admission of Rome's continued right to demand it, a confession of Rome's right to rule over Israel. In this, He stood on the side of the Herodians. This compromise would have damned Him in the eyes of the Zealots and tarnished His image in the mind of all partisans longing for independence.

They marvelled. True, Jesus had refused to bow before the worldlyminded ambitions of wrong-headed patriots months before (John 6:14 f.). Among His own disciples He had found and denounced political ambition (Matthew 20:20-28) and exposed its misguided principles (Matthew 18:1-35). But it was precisely this immunity to flattery that left His attackers open-mouthed. They could not imagine a man who, in their view, so desperately needed hard, countable results and eager supporters (as they pretended to be), but who, at the same time, could be so immune to their flattery! Did not every man have his price? Further, they just could not fathom how anyone could propose to establish his own kingdom while demanding loyalty to the existing State. This completely baffled these materialists. He was clearly not their kind of Messiah. (Praise God!)

But why did they leave Jesus? A Teacher who had so quickly avoided their trap and who taught eternal truth with such finesse could perhaps teach them more. Perhaps He who so dexterously solved this long-standing puzzle, could lead them into the secrets of life's other problems. But they have no interest in learning; only in destroying Him. Rather than stay to grow in His light, they simply left him and went away.

FACT QUESTIONS

1.

What religious group led in this attack?

2.

Why was another party brought into this question, even though they were the political enemies of the others? How could their presence create significant trouble for Jesus?

3.

Matthew informs us that they sent their disciples to present Jesus this question. How does Luke explain this particular choice? How would sending disciples help them achieve their goal?

4.

Quote the fine introduction these disciples made to Jesus. Show how these words, in and of themselves, accurately picture our Lord.

5.

Now explain why such true words could hide the malice that Jesus exposed in His reaction to them.

6.

Explain the background of the question posed to Jesus, showing how there could ever have arisen such a problem. What is the tribute involved here?

7.

In what did their trap consist? Show the ingenuity of their plot.

8.

What was Jesus-' first reaction to their approach?

9.

What was the first answer He gave to their question? How did this pave the way for His second, final answer?

10.

What is a denarius? How did their having one in common use help Jesus-' argument?

11.

What basic principle did Jesus appeal to in answer to their original question?

12.

Show how the Jews were unable to evade the truth of His answer,

13.

What was the effect of Jesus-' answer on His questioners?

14.

What did the questioners do next?