Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn’t we?” But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” And they were amazed at him.
Mark 12: 13-17
Having created a stir in the temple courtyard by his actions, Jesus continues to stir things up with his teaching. The poll tax was regarded with deep hatred by the Jews and presumably the Pharisees and Herodians (a strange and unholy alliance!) thought they had Jesus by the proverbials with their question: if he says, “Don’t pay” he can be dobbed in to the Romans; if he says “Pay up” the people can be turned against him. Gotcha.
There is nothing evasive in Jesus’ answer. By asking them to produce a denarius, the coin used for the paying of the poll tax, Jesus has his questioners “hoist by their own petard”. In carrying Caesar’s money, they are implicitly accepting Caesar’s authority. More seriously, they have brought images of the emperor into the temple, an act strictly forbidden by the Law. In doing so, they have shown here their loyalties lie.
“If you owe Caesar, pay Caesar.”
What we have here is not parallelism of God and Caesar, but a clear opposition between the two. Further confrontation is inevitable.
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
Kim 04.20.11 at 9:23 am
Richard, are you just winding up Earl so he can wave the flag at us?
Allan R. Bevere 04.20.11 at 11:18 am
OK, Richard… Yesterday I was going to post on the cleansing of the Temple, but you beat me to it, so I didn’t. Today I was going to write on rendering to Caesar, but you are ahead of me again. Either you’re in my head or I’m in yours. Whichever one it is, it’s feeling rather creepy.
A Goblin Man 04.20.11 at 12:42 pm
Allan, no, I’m in your head.
~alec
Alec Macph 04.20.11 at 12:44 pm
This puts me in mind of the contradictions of those who express a desire to emulate Tolstoy. Surely holding any money - with or without a monarch’s head on - is stating an allegiance to the State which he would have been highly uncomfortable at?
~alec
Joseph W 04.20.11 at 3:32 pm
“In carrying Caesar’s money, they are implicitly accepting Caesar’s authority.”
What are they supposed to do instead?
Not buy or sell?
“More seriously, they have brought images of the emperor into the temple, an act strictly forbidden by the Law. In doing so, they have shown here their loyalties lie.”
That can’t be true, because Jesus praises a woman for giving two coins (all she has left) as an offering to God.
Jesus does not condemn the woman because Caesar’s image is on the coin.
I think of the story like this:
Jesus asks “Whose image is on the coin?” Obviously, the coin is made with Caesar’s image. But whose image is Caesar made in? Caesar is made in God’s image.
In other words, whatever you do on this earth, remember there is a heavenly ruler in whose image even Caesar is made.
That’s not the same as saying that Jews should not carry money.
Kim 04.20.11 at 5:46 pm
Of course Jesus is not saying that Jews should not carry money. What he is saying is that they should not carry this money, minted to pay the popularly despised pagan poll tax. Observe: Jesus himself does not carry the coin - but his hypocritical opponents do. Nor is it the case that Jesus is proposing a balance between the competing claims of Yahweh and Caesar. That is both anachronistc and bourgeois church/state exegesis. On the contrary, what we have here is what is called, rhetorically, an “antithetical aphorism”: Jesus is not telling folk to pay the tax; just the opposite - to pay the tax makes one an idolator, because it is an implicit acknowledgement of the deity of the emperor.
doug 04.20.11 at 7:18 pm
I’m with Joseph on this one. If Jesus didn’t think people should pay the tax Jesus wouldn’t have created the coins in the mouth of the fish to actually pay the tax in the first place.
“Nor is it the case that Jesus is proposing a balance between the competing claims of Yahweh and Caesar. ” I don’t see how this can NOT be the reading of the tax for the reason I described.
Kim, in fact, by way of Judas Iscariot, Jesus may HAVE carried this money. Where does it say that He NEVER carried this money? We know He didn’t at this time. Who is to say that Jesus already paid His tax and therefore didn’t have the coin? Nowhere in the text does it state He never had this money. Also nowhere does it say that paying the tax is the same as being an idolator. It makes no sense in light of the fact that Jesus created the coin for the individual to pay the tax. So in your logic Kim, Jesus is enabling the person to be an idolator by having the guy pay the tax. I say hogwash
doug 04.20.11 at 7:21 pm
Kim, what about this from Joseph W as well?
“That can’t be true, because Jesus praises a woman for giving two coins (all she has left) as an offering to God.” You understanding makes no sense whatsoever.
Clearly Jesus is gbreater than Caesar and I so no reason to call it “bourgeouis church” when that is a fact and Jesus many times has stated that “I and the Father are One” or “When you have seen Me you have seen the Father”. etc., etc. One cannot diminish the fact that Jesus referred to Himself as being the One true Triune God.
Joseph W 04.20.11 at 7:58 pm
“Observe: Jesus himself does not carry the coin - but his hypocritical opponents do. What he is saying is that they should not carry this money, minted to pay the popularly despised pagan poll tax.”
The coin was a denarius, a coin Jesus frequently talked about and used himself. It wasn’t specially minted to pay the poll tax, was it? Rather, Rome forced Jews to pay this tax in dinarii, and this denarius had Caesar’s image on it. That is the fault of Rome, not the Jews!
In Matthew 20, Jesus compares God himself to a vineyard owner paying workers in denarii.
Does the Bible say that paying the poll tax was immoral, or just unpopular?
If it was so immoral to collect the poll tax, then why does Zaccheus not repent of taking it from others, but merely repent of taking too much?
“to pay the tax makes one an idolator, because it is an implicit acknowledgement of the deity of the emperor.”
Again, Zaccheus should have repented for charging people for the poll tax, if this were the case. Jesus does not call Zaccheus an idol-worshipper, but he does recognise Zaccheus as a sinner.
The Zaccheus incident is worth mentioning here for another reason. Zaccheus was despised by the crowds as a tax collector, and a collaborator with Rome.
The people were condemning Zaccheus as a particularly awful sinner, because of the way he colluded with Rome. That should give us some idea of how popular Roman taxes were with most Jews at the time.
doug 04.20.11 at 10:57 pm
Joseph, your analysis from the story of Zaccheus is very telling in this discussion. Also, your reference to denarii as well. Thank you so much for the wonderful insight God has given you from His Word.
Kim 04.21.11 at 7:54 am
Matthew 17:24-27 is quite a yarn on which to build a theology of taxation. But even here - interestingly, the tax collectors approach Peter, trying to catch out his master, on the assumption that Jesus does not pay the Temple tax; and Jesus indeed says that the tax is superfluous. That he says “pay it” here does not gainsay his clever critique of the tax in Matthew 22:15-22, in the same way that his support for the Temple here does not gainsay his scathing critique of it in Matthew 22:12-16. Besides, the passage, with it fantastical legendary miracle story, smells very much like a justification for the community practice of the very Jewish Christian church of Matthew, to whose gospel this story is unique. Finally, observe how the pericope is part of a didactic series on “not causing offense”, which also speaks to its Matthean orchestration. I mean, like Jesus was not in the habit of causing offence. He was a model citizen was our Lord.
Joseph W 04.21.11 at 9:34 am
Thanks all for very interesting follow-up comments.
Okay, regarding taxes:
If you say the poll tax was Pagan, you would have to argue that essentially, all taxes were Pagan.
All taxes went towards supporting and funding the Roman empire, ensuring that new temples were built and maintained, priests were paid, and sacrifices could be offered before the Roman gods.
Jews who paid taxes were propping up the Caesar cult.
A Jew himself, Jesus also paid taxes. Therefore, Jesus was propping up the Caesar cult.
That is the argument you would have to make, if you think the Jews were being hypocritical, heretical, idolatrous or evil by paying the poll tax.
Kim 04.21.11 at 10:27 am
We do not know that Jesus paid taxes. But, sure, as Jesus rejected the way of the Essenes - the way of total withdrawal - one way or another he was going to be complicit in the System. Nevertheless, he was unreservedly critical of empire, and his entire project theatened its very foundations. Hence the crucifixion of Jesus by the State - it was not some kind of terrible misunderstanding or tragic mistake. Whatever Pilate’s motives, the theo-logic of the mission of Jesus rendered his execution inevitable. It was the correct call.
Joseph W 04.21.11 at 11:01 am
I’m writing something up about the political reasons as to why Jesus was killed, which I hope to publish tomorrow.
I agree that Jesus was put to death for cynical reasons.
I don’t think it was because of his critique of the state and empire, I do think it was expedient for people compromised by the empire to have him put to death.
Alec Macph 04.21.11 at 11:27 am
Excellent observations, Joe. It minds me of what I said above Tolstoy, who saw the ma nifestations of State power as a means of war… idolatory, if you will.
I’m flummoxed here, Kim. D’you mean that he didn’t carry money, like the Queen? It’s the only conclusion I can come to considering Joe’s reminder about what was in the fishes’ gobs.
~alec
Joseph W 04.21.11 at 11:45 am
Agreed, Alec. It’s aslightly Docetist view of Jesus, isn’t it, to suggest that he never paid taxes?
Frankly, to suggest Jesus didn’t pay taxes, is a bit like saying that Jesus never went to the toilet, or never cried.
Jesus was a carpenter during his late teens and throughout his 20s. If he refused to pay taxes as a carpenter, he would likely have been put to death before he even began his public ministry.
doug 04.21.11 at 3:40 pm
Alec and Joseph are tapping the nail on the head on this one in light of all of the passages and the only things that make sense from God’s Word.
Kim 04.21.11 at 3:46 pm
I said we do not know. He may well have. In any case, as I explicitly state, Jesus was complicit in the sytem by the very act of refusing to withdraw from it. From within the system he lived and taught its critique; indeed, he procalimed its imminent demise.
But the notion that not paying taxes is inherently docetic is, quite frankly, ridiculous.
doug 04.21.11 at 4:01 pm
Kim, it seems you have “changed your tune” in light from what Joseph and Alec have said.
Here you say in reference to the coin and tax: “What he is saying is that they should not carry this money, minted to pay the popularly despised pagan poll tax. Observe: Jesus himself does not carry the coin - but his hypocritical opponents do.”
and then you say this in reference to Jesus paying taxes (by the nature of the coin itself): “I said we do not know. He may well have.
Whats ridiculous (not yourself but what you are saying) is that Jesus didn’t carry this money when Christ talked about a denarii and carried it as well and in light of “Jesus was a carpenter during his late teens and throughout his 20s. If he refused to pay taxes as a carpenter, he would likely have been put to death before he even began his public ministry.” to say Jesus didn’t pay taxes is again ridiculous as well.
Tony Buglass 04.21.11 at 9:55 pm
“Jesus didn’t carry the coin” clearly refers to this occasion - he has to ask someone for it, so he obviously hasn’t got one. I didn’t read Kim as arguing that Jesus NEVER carried money, and indeed NEVER carried such a coin. On that occasion, and in that place, he didn’t.
doug 04.21.11 at 10:02 pm
Well Tony, I would argue how do we know He didn’t carry the coin? Just because He created it in the mouth of the fish doesn’t necessarily mean that He didn’t have the coin.
Tony, look what Kim says here “What he is saying is that they should not carry this money, minted to pay the popularly despised pagan poll tax.” This presupposes that Jesus never carried this money if we assume the meaning of what Jesus is saying as stated by Kim. Being that He did carry money all of which had some reference to Caesar and his empire then the premise of Kim’s statement falls flat in light of this. For Christ can’t say not to carry this money when He himself is carrying this money. We know Jesus wasn’t a hypcrite for that would be sin and to presuppose that Jesus is saying not to carry this money indirectly assumes that is the case when in fact its not.
Alec Macph 04.21.11 at 10:07 pm
Tony, Kim said fairly plainly that we didnae ken that the Big Yin peyed cess.
As this discussion is in the context of the poll tax and other Roman charges, which were payed through the dinari, it’s reasonable to construe from Christ’s magiking-up these coins from a fish’s gob that He was acquiescent towards them.
~alec
Kim 04.21.11 at 10:41 pm
Thanks, Tony. Nice try.
Tony Buglass 04.22.11 at 9:58 am
“Tony, Kim said fairly plainly that we didnae ken that the Big Yin peyed cess.”
Ye mean he gorrit on tick?
#18: “I said we do not know. He may well have. In any case, as I explicitly state, Jesus was complicit in the system by the very act of refusing to withdraw from it.”
“We don’t know” says we’re not told. I suggest we don’t need to be told, because the norm would apply: in order to live and work as a man in his family and society, Jesus would have used whatever money was in normal circulation and use.
As to ‘docetic’ - stretching a point, but I can see why the word is used. Surprising how many Christians don’t really believe in the full incarnation, and see Jesus as being not quite like us - the idea he got ill or went to the toilet somehow doesn’t fit with the guy with the halo. Except if he wasn’t fully human, and did things the way the rest of us do things, the whole thing falls apart.
Tony Buglass 04.22.11 at 10:02 am
“it’s reasonable to construe from Christ’s magiking-up these coins from a fish’s gob that He was acquiescent towards them.”
Did Jesus really resort to magic? Note that the story doesn’t end “and Peter went and found it as the Lord had said.” It is more likely that Jesus was humorously suggesting that catching a fish would earn enough to pay the tax - fully human, had a sense of humour, yes?
Insisting on a miraculous interpretation to a normal process does remind me of the Sign of the Holy Sandal in “Life of Brian.”
Joseph W 04.22.11 at 4:52 pm
FWIW, here’s my take on the political climate leading up to the crucifixion:
http://hurryupharry.org/2011/04/22/annas-caiaphas-and-the-death-of-jesus
Ned Netterville 08.07.11 at 3:44 am
For the most comprehensive analysis of the render-unto-Caesar incident and everything else Jesus had to say about taxes and tax collecgors, see the essay JESUS OF NAZARETH, ILLEGAL-TAX PROTESTER, available here: http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com/Page_7.html. Suffice to say here that Psalm 24:1 says that the earth and everything in it are the Lord’s, which leaves nothing for poor old Caesar, and that is precisely what Jesus meant. And when his enemies belatedly figured out what he meant, they dragged him before Pilate and charged: We found this man perverting our nation, he opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar…Lk 23:2