Gotcha political and religious questions are nothing new. Neither is taking Bible stories out of context. Sometimes when we think about Jesus’ reply to the religious elites about paying taxes, we treat the story as if it was a sincere question and Jesus’ response is authoritative teaching about taxes. We also sometimes assume that taxes in the first century Roman Empire were used for the same purposes and collected in the same way modern governments collect taxes.1 We need to remember all of that when we read this story.
Then the Pharisees went and plotted to entrap him in what he said. So they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and teach the way of God in accordance with truth, and show deference to no one, for you do not regard people with partiality. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the Caesar, or not?” But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin used for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. Then he said to them, “Whose head is this and whose title?” They answered, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Give therefore to Caesar the things that are the Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” When they heard this, they were amazed, and they left him and went away. Matthew 22:15-22 NRSVue
Religious elites were trying to figure out how to get rid of Jesus. They asked him where his authority came from. In the three preceding parables he accused them of not being faithful to God’s kingdom, but rather seeking power for themselves. Next they tried to trap Jesus by causing him to say something that would either have upset the Roman authorities or caused him to lose the trust of his followers who believed, as the Messiah, he would deliver them from the oppression of the Empire. Either outcome served the religious elites purpose.
Their question reflected real concerns and a real controversy. Periodically in the first century there were tax revolts.2 They used the real controversy in an attempt to discredit Jesus. Jesus’ response was not an occasion of teaching like the Sermon on the Mount. This is not a teaching about the proper relationship between church and state. This is part of a series of confrontations between Jesus and the religious elites that took place in the Temple in the week before his arrest, trial, crucifixion, and resurrection.
Jesus and the religious elites were still jousting over authority- Jesus’ authority, the religious elites authority, the Empire’s authority and God’s authority. Since entering Jerusalem, Jesus had been challenging the authority of the Empire. From Palm Sunday to Easter Sunday, Jesus challenged the status quo. In his interactions with the religious elites in the Temple, he questioned their allegiance. Actually he did more than question, he challenged them. He accused them of misplaced allegiance, putting loyalty to the Emperor and survival in the Empire over their loyalty to God.
With his answer about paying taxes, Jesus put the challenge right back on them. Give therefore to Caesar the things that are the Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.”
The implication was, I think, that the religious elites have already chosen incorrectly. They have chosen power and wealth over faithfulness to God. Their choice, what they give to Caesar and what they give to God, reveals where their allegiance is. Jesus was asking, once again, where was their loyalty? Are they willing to change their ways?
But now, what should we make of the religious elites’ question and Jesus’ answer? Does it stay a first century controversy? Or do the questions raised about authority, loyalty, faithfulness still matter?
We often look for a clear rule that divides the world into sacred and secular. We ask, as disingenuously as Jesus questioners, “Just tell us what to do.”
However to read Jesus’ response as an endorsement to divide the world into sacred and secular- this is for the state, this is for God- is to miss his point. Neither is this a call to withdraw from the world as it is.
Warren Carter puts the issue this way, “That is, does Jesus urge outright revolt, accommodation, or nonviolent subversion of Rome? This last option is more convincing…. The clause [give to God the things that are God’s] recognizes payment within the context of God’s far greater gifts and authority. It relativizes tribute payment, and establishes loyalty to God and God’s purposes as the ultimate loyalty… Disciples who live in God’s world and Rome’s world, are challenged to live faithfully to God “in both” worlds until Jesus returns to establish God’s empire over all (19:38;24:27-31)3
Throughout the gospels, much of Jesus’ teaching focused on how we live in the world as it is. We are to work for God’s kingdom, while living and working in this particular world. The question, always, is how do we do that? What do our times require of us?
We must periodically, even frequently, honestly look at the actual world we live in. We must honestly assess our actions and where our allegiance has been. Our question is always, how can we live more faithfully in the world that we are part of? How do we serve God in this time, and in these circumstances?
This can be an uncomfortable question. It should be an uncomfortable question. But we need to ask it, as individuals and as communities.
- Taxes in the Roman Empire might better be thought of as tribute. The Roman economy was an extractive economy. The Empire took goods and food and money from people which ended up enriching Caesar and his colleagues, as well as funding the military. The Roman military was not primarily designed to protect people from outside threats. Rather it was to keep people compliant with the will of the empire. ↩︎
- Carter, Warren, Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading, Orbis Books 2001. p 439 ↩︎
- Carter, 440. He uses Matt 17:24-27 The tax in the Fish’s mouth and Jesus teaching in chapters 24-25 to support this claim. ↩︎
Leave a Reply