12.13-17 Rendering to Caesar
Background
2nd of 4 questions: authority, taxes, resurrection, greatest commandment
‘They [who] sent to him’ = chief priests, scribes and elders (11.28). Follows
from 12.12 ,“They were seeking to arrest him…”
3.6. “The Pharisees went out and immediately held counsel with the Herodians
against him, how to destroy him.”
Same unlikely alliance of antagonists” (Barnett).
Pharisees = religious rigorists
Herodians = Jews but supporters of Herod, no religious scruples about taxes
upon which their livelihood depended.
Mark states quite specifically that their intention/aim was to ‘trap him in his
talk’. Truly, for Jesus to give the wrong answer would mean certain death.
The tension was between offending Herodians (result = treason) or giving
Pharisees opportunity to incite anger crowds, whose support they needed to
kill Jesus (cf. 11.32;12.12).
---Lay a trap of flattery first, to sway him to say not lawful to pay taxes.
Everything they say about Jesus is true. His answer won’t be shaped by desire
for self-preservation.
Historical background re taxes:
 Augustus brought Judea under direct Roman rule in 6AD and held a
census for the purpose of levying taxes (Gk. kensos = head tax)
 A patriotic Galilean Zealot called Judas led a revolt, on the basis that
paying the tax meant Jews were no longer under God’s rule (God’s free
people) but under the rule of a man, and a Gentile man to boot
 AD 17 the Jews again sought relief from taxes. So very much a hot issue!
Jesus of course also a Galilean, and in Luke’s Gospel at his trial is accused by
the Sanhedrin of “misleading our nation and forbidding us to give tribute to
Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king.” (Luke 23.2)
Poll tax = one denarius which = average day’s wage (Matt 20.2,9). Because
many Jews were not prepared to touch the denarius, there was an alternative
Jewish coin.
Jesus’ options:
1. No, it’s not lawful. Then he would be a traitor, like the rebel Judas.
2. Yes, it is lawful. Then he would be a supporter of Rome against Israel,
and therefore against God. The Passover crowd would go wild.
The denarius bore on one side Tiberius’ image and was inscribed (in Latin) ‘son
of the deified Augustus’, i.e. Augustus a god.
On reverse = Tiberius’ mother Livia, and the inscription ‘High Priest’. Emperors
were routinely high priests of the main Roman cult.
Any graven image = repugnant to Jews as violation of 2nd commandment.
200 years earlier a saying: “Pay back the Gentiles what they deserve – and
obey the commands of the law!” (1 Maccabees 2.68)
Jesus’ answer:
 First asks them for a denarius (hypocritical that they should have one),
and then makes them say what’s on it (image of emperor AND
inscription). He forces them to face the reality of what they’re asking.
Irony: here we have people sent by the Jewish High Priest, having to pull
a coin with graven image of Roman high priest on it! (Lime asking antidrug campaigner to produce evidence of what opposing, and that
person going to car and pulling a joint out from under seat)
 Also reinforces idea that this is filthy stuff: why would God want it
On not paying taxes to support work contrary to God’s purposes:
1. Elizabeth Boardman. When filing her federal tax returns for the 2007
and 2008 tax years, Plaintiff fully completed the returns with
accurate information but remitted only 59%of her federal income
tax liability. In a letter attached to the tax returns, Plaintiff
explained that “her conscience and religious beliefs would not allow
her to pay the full amount due.” Assessed that 41% going on military
spending. Plaintiff’s letter also offered evidence that the withheld
funds were on deposit with a financial institution and maintained
that she would pay the funds if they were allocated toward peaceful
purposes.
2. Ralph Dull. Ohio farmer, Brethren, so disturbed by US support of
contras in Central America that on 15 April 1982 drove a farm truck
heaped with 325 bushels of bright yellow corn to the ERS office in
Daytona. Offered it in lieu of the portion of taxes he determined
would be used to fund military, incl. CIA funding to contra rebels in
Nicargua. Commissioner refused so sold it and had the cheque made
out to a Food for Poland project sponsored by the National Farmers’
Organisation.
Conclusions
1. Jesus identifies their lack of sincerity (flattery) and their hypocrisy (they
pay, and they have a denarius). When anyone challenges us about our
faith/Christianity, identify spirit behind it. Jesus always does this. Cf. 4th
question re greatest commandment.
2. Jesus rejects revolt, actions that would lead to violent conflict. Also
rejects total withdrawal from secular society. Jesus (and Paul) resist all
forms of political anarchy, and – to a point – direct political action.
3. Limits our debt to Caesar: only has claim on a limited part of our
lives/property. Give to Caesar civil obedience and the payment of taxes.
If a coin bears his image, then it belongs to him
4. Upholds secular authority. Things God has entrusted to us/human
authority, to be used for good. They accountable to God still, but we also
accountable to them. See Rom 13, 4, 7; 1 Tim 2.1-6 and 1 Peter 2.13.
5. Jesus does not go on to define what is Caesar’s and what is God’s –
leaves that to them to work out. Boardman & Dull
6. Demonstrates his own superiority as teacher and interpreter of law
7. State cannot assume religious dimensions and replace God in people’s
lives. Govt must not be idolatorous Cf. Rev 13; 17.1-19.10).
Worship and conscience may only be given to God. Humans bear God’s
image (Gen 1.26), so they belong to him. God is ultimately sovereign
over all human affairs.
Suggested Discussion Questions – for use after having reviewed the daily
study outcomes
1. How important is discerning people’s motives when engaging in
debate about Christian faith/belief? Think of some different scenarios
you have been involved in and consider how they might require
different types of response.
2. Which things in daily life belong to Caesar and which to God? How
does one determine what belongs to God or how one uses things that
are – in themselves – ‘neutral’?
3. What are the limits to Christian civil disobedience? What do you think
of the actions of Elizabeth Boardman and Ralph Dull? Have you ever
engaged in any sort of protest or civil disobedience against the Govt.?
4. How might a Christian respond to important ethical issues if the Govt
is promoting what is clearly contrary to God’s word?