Tribute to Caesar - Matt 22:15-19; Mark 12:13-15; Luke 20:20-23

The chief priests definitely understand that Jesus is denouncing them, and they are not pleased about it. While Jesus continues to teach in the temple, the Pharisees have been making plans to trap Him. The Pharisees and Herodians approach Jesus together to ambush Him. First, let’s stop and consider the fact that the Pharisees and herodians are working together. An article discussing this incident on gotquestions.org reminds us, “The Herodians were a non-religious Jewish party who supported the dynasty of Herod and the general policy of the Roman government.” We know that the Pharisees were uber-strict observers of the Mosaic law and constantly made changes to and complicating it. It doesn’t make sense that the group of people who regard themselves as the most adherent followers of the Mosaic law would meet and plan together with a group of Herodians, who they considered traitors, as a group of Jews who supported Roman occupation. You know that the situation is dire when these two polar opposites ignore their hatred for each other and work together for a common goal. It’s also interesting to note that Jesus has pissed off both of these groups, the uber religious and the uber non-religious, with the same message.

This unlikely group approaches Jesus and seems to flatter Him, either to antagonize him or to make him think that they are his disciples. They say, “Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of man, but teachest the way of God in truth.” What are they really trying to do with these words here? My understanding when reading it is simply that they are trying to con Jesus into believing that they will not question his answer, therefore implying that he might not have to work as hard for the answer, kind of a “whatever you say, I’ll believe you.”

A very interesting perspective comes from lewrockwell.com who says, “As David Owen-Ball forcefully argues in his 1993 article ‘Rabbinic Rhetoric and the Tribute Passage,’ this opening statement is also a challenge to Jesus’ rabbinic authority; it is a halakhic question- a question on a point of religious law. The Pharisees believed that they, alone, were the authoriztative interpreters of Jewish law, the questioners accomplish two goals: (1) they force Jesus to answer the question; if Jesus refuses, He will lose credibility as a rabbi with the very people who just proclaimed Him a King; and (2) they force Jesus to base his answer in Scripture. This they Thus, they are testing His scriptureal knowledge and hoping to discredit Him… As Owen-Ball states, ‘The gospel writers thus describe a scene in which Jesus’ questioners have boxed him in. He is tempted to assume, illegitimately, the authority of a Rabbi, while at the same time he is constrained to answer according to the dictates of the Torah.’”

I found that to be a most interesting perspective, it might not have been just pure flattery or deception, it might have been more like a proposed duel, and these people are setting the terms. The Torah is considered to be the word of God, so I can see how they would be asking Him to keep his answer within the law set by the Torah. Here’s the question the group poses, this is what they’ve come up with to trap Jesus, and really, it is kind of brilliant. I’m sure that when considering this question themselves, they cannot find a way to answer it without discrediting themselves to at least one group of people. I highly doubt it was a matter of “well he might answer like this… but let’s hope that he doesn’t think about it.” I feel like, to them, this was a set in stone, cross roads, no way out question.

The question of the day is, “Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?” Why is this a loaded question? Let’s think about the possible answers for a second. If Jesus answered “No, it’s not lawful to give tribute to Caesar,” that would have put him firmly inline with the Jewish nationalists who viewed Roman occupation to be illegal and needed to be fought on every hand at every opportunity. The Jewish people would have loved that because they were anxious to throw off the oppressive Roman chains, and were looking for a Messiah to lead them in that rebellion. It also could have given more fuel to the “Messiah as conqueror” groups and inspired revolts that would be quickly and brutally crushed by the Romans, causing loss of life and political instability. The Jews might love that answer, but the Romans surely would not and would have taken Jesus as a traitor to Rome and crucified him, probably by day’s end.

The other possible answer Jesus could give was “Yes, it is lawful to pay tribute to Caesar.” This would have pleased the Romans because an influential Jewish figure is advocating for them in a place where the dissention is high. However, the Jews were looking for a Messiah to lead them to war against Rome, and surely the man who answered, “yes, give Rome your money” would not have been that man. The IM quotes President Howard W. Hunter as teaching, “If he had said, ‘Yes, pay the tax,’ he would have been called a traitor. It would have driven a wedge between him and his followers and created rebellion. If his answer had been, ‘No, it is not lawful to pay the tax,’ they would have delivered him into the hands of Rome on the charge of treason. His adversaries intended that Jesus would be gored on whichever horn of dilemma he might choose.” Either the Pharisees would have exploited his answer to prove that he wasn’t the Messiah, or the Herodians would have taken him as an instigator against Rome and killed him, it looks pretty lose-lose to me.

Jesus sees right through their question, he knows what they are trying to do, and calls them on it, “Why tempt ye me?” He’s not interested in their games. He continues, “Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.” There are a few interesting points that need to be made here. First, the tribute money. Roman taxes were required one denarius, I don’t know if it was per man or per person, but it was roughly about the amount of money that a common laborer would earn in one day. Let’s say that in our society, it would be equal to about, $200 on the high end. When I figured that out, I thought, “wow, I wish my taxes were only one days wages.” I think that they estimated that most workers spend the first 5 months of the year working just to pay their taxes. If they thought “taxation without representation” was bad, they should see how bad it is withrepresentation.

Anyway, Tiberius was the emperor during this time and he commissioned the creation of three coins, the first two types were rare, but the third kind, presumably the denarius, was common and was what the people in the conquered areas were required to pay their tribute in. The article points out, “The denarius was truly the emperor’s property: he used it to pay his soldiers, officials, and suppliers; it bore the imperial seal; it differed from the copper coins issued by the Roman senate… The denarius circulation in Judaea was likely scare. The only people to transact routinely with the denarius in Judaea would have been soldiers, Roman officials, and Jewish leaders in collaboration with Rome. Thus, it is noteworthy that Jesus, Himself, does not possess the coin. The questioners’’ quickness to produce the coin at Jesus’ request implies that they routinely used it, taking advantage of Roman financial largess, whereas Jesus did not.”

As influential a person that Jesus was within that society, surely he could have used his prominence to work the system a little bit and make a more comfortable life for himself. It wouldn’t have even had to be to excess, it could have been conservative, but the article even made a point that “the denarius was a remarkably stable currency,” meaning that anyone who was so inclined could have traded money in the system, just like we do today, and made some money on the side. It’s also interesting to note that many of Jesus parables have to do with the master of an estate leaving his servants with large sums of money, and those servants either make money with the “money changers” or are rebuked because they didn’t make any profit and could have at least “given it to the lenders.” So clearly there was a monetary system in play at that time that would have been skillfully navigated to a person’s advantage, but Jesus, even with all this power and prestige and resourcefulness, didn’t focus on the monetary, instead dedicating himself to the spiritual. The money was readily supplied, indicating that the people accusing him of various dealings were in fact the guilty ones. That’s human nature isn’t it? Accuse someone else of doing what you are doing to distract the attention from your own sins.