LATER THEY SENT some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. 14They 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? 15Should 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.” 16They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?”
“Caesar’s,” they replied.
17Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”
And they were amazed at him.
Original Meaning
ALL OF THE questions directed to Jesus in the temple (cf. 11:27) concern “Jewish” issues. Can one pay taxes to Caesar and still honor God? Is the resurrection hope verifiable from the books of Moses? What is the first of all God’s commandments? How do you explain the contradiction in Scripture about the Son of David? Jesus’ ability to parry these challenges reveals his authority as one “from heaven” (11:30).
The first challenge comes when the triumvirate of chief priests, teachers of the law, and elders send Pharisees and the Herodians to ensnare Jesus in a carefully laid trap (11:27; 12:13). They try to throw him off balance with a fawning approach, praising him for his impartiality. Ironically, they feign sincerity as they affirm Jesus’ candor. He does not butter up others or sugarcoat the way of God (see 1:3) when he teaches. They are wrong about one thing, however. Jesus does show partiality and does not give straight answers to those who do not sincerely seek the truth.
These interrogators bait the trap by asking a yes or no question about an explosive issue, taxes. Judea became a Roman province in A.D. 6 after the failed tenure of Herod Archelaus as tetrarch. A census was then taken, from which the Romans levied a head tax, a tax distinct from the one on property and from customs on articles.1 Its establishment provoked Judas of Galilee to lead a revolt because it placed God’s own land at the service of foreigners (Acts 5:37).2 The question asked of Jesus is loaded because it raises the issue of fidelity to the God of Israel. Can one pay taxes to Caesar and still give allegiance to the God of Israel? Are people traitors to God for supporting Caesar’s hegemony over the land?
These opponents probably peg Jesus as an extremist who will flash the same militant zeal as Judas the Galilean. If he openly rejects the head tax, he will be like those diehard rebels who incited revolt and will be subject to arrest for treason. But if he endorses the tax, he will undermine his support among the zealous, who chafe under Roman rule. Almost every resident of Palestine knew someone, even a father or a brother, whom the Romans had victimized. They were sold into slavery (temporarily or permanently), forced off their land when caught in a maelstrom of debt caused by decreasing harvests and increasing tax demands, or executed for rising up against the oppression. Furthermore, a yes answer will also throw into question whether he is really the Christ since the Messiah was expected to depose those who tyrannized God’s people and to enforce justice.
Jesus knows his questioners’ hypocrisy, adroitly evades their ambush, and sets a trap of his own. By asking for a coin, which he does not possess, he throws them off guard. They must dig through their purses to come up with one while they wonder about his intentions. The head tax was paid by a silver denarius. In Jesus’ time, it was probably a Tiberian denarius. Coins in the ancient world were used for propaganda effect, and this coin bore an image of the emperor and proclaimed Roman ideology. The coin’s obverse had the effigy of the emperor and the superscription read: “TI[berius] CAESAR DIV[i] AUG[usti] F[ilius] AUGUSTUS” (“Tiberius Caesar, August Son of the Divine Augustus”). The reverse had a female figure seated on a throne, wearing a crown and holding an inverted spear in her right hand and a palm or olive branch in her left. The superscription read: “Pontif[ex] Maxim[us]” (“High Priest”). The woman was either a priestess or Livia, the wife of Augustus and mother of Tiberias, and the coin proclaimed the pax Romana that had put all the world in subjection. It was, in effect, a portable idol promulgating pagan ideology.
The opponents produce the coin, and Jesus asks them to identify whose image it bears.3 When they answer, “Caesar’s,” Jesus can now answer their question. Caesar’s coins belong to him. Since they have no qualms about doing business with Caesar’s money, they had better pay Caesar’s taxes. And since they are able to produce the coin, Jesus also exposes that they have no qualms about bringing an image of Caesar and an emblem of his worldly power and his pretension to deity into God’s temple.4 He makes them look foolish and impious. They already pay a kind of tribute to Caesar by possessing his coin. Therefore, they owe Caesar the tribute he demands from taxes.5 In effect, Jesus says, “Let Caesar have his idols!”
“Give to Caesar” does not give Caesar a carte blanche. Jesus does more than balance this statement when he tells them to render to God what is God’s. God is Caesar’s Lord. One may owe Caesar what bears his image and name—money. One owes God what bears God’s image and name. Since we are created in the image of God (see Gen. 1:26; Prov. 7:3; Isa. 44:5; Jer. 38:33; cf. Ezek. 18:4) and bear his name as children of God, we owe him our whole selves.6 Exactly what we owe God becomes clear in Jesus’ answer to a certain teacher of the law: We owe God love from all our heart, soul, mind, and strength (12:30, 33).
Bridging Contexts
THIS PASSAGE RAISES the important issue of the relationship between God and the government, which has been debated through the ages. Christians in every generation and society must confront this issue. In this section, I will discuss extreme forms of false alternatives that one must guard against. Then we can discuss the implications of the text for our own situation.
Jesus does not divide life into two realms, the sacred and the secular. “The things that are Caesar’s” should not be interpreted to mean that Caesar has control of the political sphere while God keeps control only of the religious sphere. Obviously, Jesus would not regard Caesar and God to be counterparts. There is only one Lord of the world, not two (12:29). The interpretation given above treats this phrase as a snide word of dismissal. The coin is Caesar’s idol, and he can have it back. We therefore must be cautious about building any political theory from this verse.
In the past, however, the church has wanted to exercise sovereign control over Caesar (the state) in the name of God. When the papacy reached the apex of its power, for example, the emperor was considered to be no more than the pope’s arm, who enforced the church’s will in the secular sphere. Luke 22:35–38 was interpreted allegorically to mean that the pope possessed “two swords,” a spiritual and a temporal sword. The papal bull Unam Sanctum, issued by Boniface VIII, argued:
Both swords are thus in the power of the Church, the material and the spiritual, but the former is wielded on behalf of the Church, the latter by the Church; the latter by the hand of the priest, the former by the hand of king or knight, on the word, and with the consent of the priest. It is in fact needful that one sword should be below the other and that the temporal authority should be subject to the spiritual power.7
Jesus does not envision that his followers will become the church militant and all powerful. The church of glory and power always loses both its moral compass and its spiritual vigor. It has also done as much harm to God’s purposes and God’s servants as the satanic state. We cannot imbue the world with Christ’s spirit by exercising political force. The view that might makes right is pagan.
Another false alternative wants to place the church under the authority of the state, so that the church becomes a court chaplain. Nazi Germany provided an extreme example of this when its totalitarian rulers attempted to establish a national religion, “the German Christians,” under the authority of a Reichsbishop with leaders pledged to Nazi Party ideals. The church was expected to obey the dictates of state officials regarding creed, ritual, and discipline. Rosenberg’s Mythus in the Nineteenth Century argued:
The religion of Jesus doubtless was a gospel of Love … but a Germanic religious movement which wants to become a People’s Church will have to declare that the love of our fellow men must be subordinated to the idea of National Honor.8
We must reject these extreme views regarding the relationship between the church and the state.
Contemporary Significance
THE CHURCH HAS always been plagued with self-appointed inquisitors who try to root out suspected heretics with guile and trick questions. The name-calling propaganda and the campaign of dirty tactics in political campaigns are nothing new. Jesus’ response to his opponents in this section serves as a model for his followers. These opponents testify that as a man of God Jesus does not curry favor, wheedle, fawn over others, or humor them. Jesus is not concerned with preserving his position. He speaks God’s truth with such utter conviction that people will listen.
What are the implications of Jesus’ response for our situation? (1) Jesus rejects violence as an alternative. The opponents fully expected such a zealous prophet as Jesus would expose seditionist tendencies when they posed their question. They mistook Jesus the Galilean for another revolutionary, Judas the Galilean (see 14:71), who endorsed subversive action against Rome. Jesus was not intent on supplanting a violent Roman regime with a violent Jewish one, however. That would simply trade one form of oppression for another.
Violent overthrows of oppressive regimes change little. The cartoon character Dick Tracy said, “Violence is golden when it is used to put evil down.”9 The trouble is that evil never stays down, particular when one employs brutal force. It takes something far more revolutionary to make a significant dent in the evil that engulfs our world—a whole transformation of values. Wink observes: “Violent revolution fails because it is not revolutionary enough. It changes the rulers but not the rules, the ends but not the means. Most of the old androcratic values and delusional assumptions remain intact.”10 Jesus, however, offers a whole new way of confronting evil with bold love, turning the other cheek, going the extra mile, forgiving enemies and praying for them, and giving one’s life for others.
(2) Jesus rejects militant nationalism but does not propose that his followers drop out completely from society. He does not tell them to have nothing to do with government, nor does he invite them to withdraw to some desert stronghold (as the sectarians at Qumran did). We as Christians may hold citizenship in heaven (Phil. 3:20), but that does not exempt us from being exemplary citizens on earth. Jesus does not call us to disengage from the world, nor does he confer us with special status that allows us to escape its obligations. Christians may be free from the law, but we are not free from civil law designed to promote order.
(3) Jesus’ statement limits what one owes the government. His answer subverts the pretensions of pagan rulers. There is another Lord over them, and their idolatrous coins are worthless in God’s realm. Jesus outwits his opponents and exposes to all that they already acknowledge Caesar’s authority by having in their possession a coin bearing his image. If they do business with Caesar, they must play by Caesar’s rules. His statement does not grant power to Caesar.
One only owes Caesar those things from which one gains benefits. The early Christians took advantage of the Roman road system and the relative peace and order that Roman power imposed on the world to spread the gospel. If we make use of the state’s money and benefit from its highways and sewers, we are bound to pay its taxes. Taxes are a trivial matter compared to what we owe God. The “things” of God are not limited to coins; they are defined in 12:29–31. We owe God all our heart, soul, mind, and strength; and we also owe God a loving concern for our fellow human beings. We may owe Caesar money, but we do not owe Caesar the love that is to be directed only to God.
The problem comes when government oversteps its legitimate bounds and encroaches on the religious allegiances of Christ’s followers. States can become idolatrous, and respect for the powers that be can lead to idolatry (see Rev. 13; 17:1–19:10). Jesus was killed by both king and priest. Not only must his followers resist any attempt to make religion a tool of the state, they must also resist any would-be lords who want to be worshiped in some cult, whatever form it might take. God’s law prevails over the state’s law. The Christian owes Caesar something but not everything. Obedience must be vigilant and discerning because the state is also answerable to God. The demands of God are infinitely greater. We who bear God’s image and are inscribed with Jesus’ name owe God everything.
(4) The early Christians adopted a positive view of government’s role but argued that it derived its authority from God.11 They advocated submission, but not because of any reverence for Caesar. When one pays taxes to Caesar, one does so out of obedience to Jesus’ command, not out of reverence for any earthly ruler.12 The New Testament proclaims that Jesus is king, which means that Caesar is not (see 1 Tim. 6:14–16). Peter applies Jesus’ words in Acts 5:29 when he says, “We must obey God rather than men!” (cf. 4:19–20).
(5) This passage warns against a danger we face in our society, namely, the development of civil religion. Civil religion exists when the state “assumes religious dimensions” or religion identifies with or succumbs to the state.13 Each Christian must know where to draw the line between the things that are Caesar’s and those that are God’s and to act responsibly and vigilantly to see that it is not crossed. Martin Luther said:
The church of the New Testament did not attempt to save its existence by making a concordat with Nero and Domitian and Decius in their great persecution, or by stirring up a revolution against these tyrants, or by making an alliance with the Persian empire—but simply confessing the truth of the gospel and building up a truly confessing church whose members were prepared to die for their faith.
An unhealthy union between church and state has been the undoing of both churches and governments throughout history. One must always be cautious about politicizing the church, for that inevitably means that the church becomes involved in power struggles that will detract from its mission, even if its members are fighting for a good cause. The church can become identified solely with political agendas and not the proclamation of the gospel, which transcends society and government. The church must deter politicians from girding their policies and programs with divine authority or branding their opponents as inherently evil or sinful. The church must be far enough removed from the political machine to allow it to speak prophetically.