“So, what comes first?”
By Rev. Michael Stonhouse
Meditation – Saturday, December 9, 2023
Matthew 22:15-22 (Forward, p. 41) CEV p. 1012
The Pharisees and Herodians certainly knew how to set a trap, how to stage a seemingly no-win situation for Jesus. There are very few people, if any, who relish the prospect of paying taxes, but this feeling of distaste and unhappiness was even more pronounced among the Jewish people in the Holy Land at the time of Jesus. It was because the tax, the tribute money, reminded them of two things. Firstly, it reminded them of the hated and odious fact that they were a conquered, subjugated people. Certainly, Israel had been under a foreign yoke many times previously, but this time it was all the more unwelcome, given that they had enjoyed a brief episode of national freedom and independence only a few years earlier under the Maccabees.
But perhaps even more distasteful—and rather disturbing in a religious sense—was that the coins designated as the only lawful way to pay the tribute bore the image of Caesar and the inscription, ‘Tiberius Caesar Divi Augustus Filius Augustus’ (Tiberius Caesar, son of the Divine Augustus, the Augustus). This gave a clear message that not only did this coinage belong to Caesar, but that even their lives in themselves and their very existence were things that that they owed to him--who was not only their earthly ruler but truly a god in himself. To faithful and dedicated Jews this was a sacrilege of the very worst sort. And yet, they were forced to ‘put up with it.’
So, for the Pharisees and all loyal Jews, any answer from Jesus affirming that they should pay this tax would be most offensive and would ‘cost’ Jesus a great deal of popular support. But then, should Jesus say ‘no’, He would immediately be seen as a rebel and insurrectionist by the Roman authorities and be arrested. It was, as seen by the Herodians and Pharisees, a truly no-win situation for Jesus.
But Jesus was a sly one. He knew that people in general, no matter what their allegiance or beliefs might be, could not really be expected to put aside such ‘niceties’ over against simple practicalities. Properly speaking, no respectable Jew should ever have brought unto the Temple Mount a denarius, the coin used for the tribute, seeing as it was tainted by such
idolatrous and sacrilegious motifs. But Jesus knew fully well that His critics were not likely to leave their purses behind—or empty them of their offending coins—simply to come to sacred worship at the Temple.
And so, He asks them to produce such a coin. And in so doing, ah, ah, He ‘has them’. They are ‘caught’, you might say, in their own double dealing, deceit and hypocrisy. They are not quite so holy as they pretend to be.
But Jesus is not finished with them. “Whose coin and whose inscription does this bear?’ He asks them. They can but give one answer. ‘Caesar’s’ they reply, to which Jesus then says, ‘Then give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s’. That shuts them up, fine and good. They have no recourse, no way of coming back on Jesus.
However, this seemingly simple reply on the part of Jesus has left Christian people struggling ever since. What does it mean to ‘give onto Caesar’ what belongs to him, or to God what belongs to Him? Many have taken this to mean that there are two separate realms, that of Caesar and the state on the one hand and that of God and the church on the other, two water-tight compartments you might say. Interpreted this way, it means that your personal and private beliefs cannot, and must not, interfere with or have a bearing upon your civic and public duties and decisions. The champions of this view then state that morality or ethics have no place in the marketplace, in government decision making or anywhere in the public sphere. Thus, well-meaning people can say, “I was only doing my duty’, even when that action or decision ran entirely counter to what they actually believed.
I would suggest rather categorically that this water-tight compartmentalizing is not only wrong, but totally foreign to the overall thrust of Scripture. All of it states rather firmly and decisively that God is sovereign over all things—including, I must say, ‘the realm of Caesar’! In other words, even though Caesar, the state, has purposes and powers unto itself, they are all, no matter what they might be, subject ultimately to the will, and the accountability, of Almighty God. We can’t ‘get off easily’ by saying that it had ‘nothing to do with God.’ Everything does, and we mustn’t forget it.
Forward notes: “Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (verse 21).
“My father was a commercial loan officer who had been poor as a child. He believed that money could be used for good. He also warned me constantly against ‘worshipping money.’ I scoffed at him because I didn’t think I put money first in my life.
“But the truth is, there have been times when I took writing assignments about subject that I knew too little about or did not feel invested in, just because of the money. The work went badly; in some cases, the editors rejected the stories. When I work outward from my skills, I have found that I do find work, enough work to do my part in our household. In Matthew 22, Jesus tells us to live in the world as it is but keep money in its place. Separate money and taxes from matters of love and faith. Participate in the economy, but do not expect worldly things to drive away evil and loneliness.”
Moving Forward: “What role does money play in your life? Is it time to re-evaluate?
A concluding note: I’m afraid that the author has missed the point entirely of what Jesus is saying. He is not saying anything about money, except in a somewhat periphery sense, but about what is first and foremost in our lives, what it is that ultimately claims our allegiance. Yes, this may be money, but it can also be a whole lot of other things besides, power, prestige, pleasure, possessions, and a lots else.