Thread by @jess_bbg, -'Give to Caesar' for Dummies-I posted before about Romans 13, and as [...]

-'Give to Caesar' for Dummies-

I posted before about Romans 13, and as promised, I'll drill down on the infamous Luke 20 (& Matthew 22 & Mark 12)/"Render unto Caesar" event that comes up often and is frequently taken and used out of context. Just as it was for the Romans

passage, in order to understand this historical text, it is crucial that we factor into our analysis the those same three key elements of original language, the immediate/situational context surrounding the event, and the broader social/cultural and historical context of the day.

For the purposes of really digging down for clarity on this, we want to have as much information as possible, so although I refer to it as the Luke 20 passage in shorthand, I'm referring to all three synoptic gospel accounts because each has detail that is useful in helping get a

better picture of what happened and what it means.

So let's look at the broader picture of what life was like back then, what was going on, & what specific social differences existed which could impact how we interpret what we're reading: This is a retelling of an actual event

and not a parable, and it involved a particularly widely varied sampling of society--so we'll need to understand the role their own differences played in the set up as well. We know that Tiberius was ruling at this time, and that the event took place right after Jesus' grand

entrance into Jerusalem, and the people loved him. Pontius Pilate was the prefect of Rome charged with oversight of Judea at the time and he was there in Jerusalem at the time this unfolded. We also know (but I've never once heard it talked about in church in relation to these

passages, yet it is absolutely crucial to understanding them) is that Jerusalem with all of Judea and beyond was rife with turmoil because they were in a decades long tax revolt, basically, that was really heating up. This was not simply a portion or faction of Jews either, but

was a shared sentiment among pretty much all of them, from zealots to Pharisees and beyond. And what we need to understand about this widespread, riotous, and bloody tax revolt is that it revolved significantly around a very particular "tax".

The reason this particular tax was

so vehemently rejected was two-fold. First was that it was a special tax only the Jews had to pay as a special tribute to Caesar, and second was that Jewish law forbid "graven images" (they were expressly and explicitly forbidden inside the city proper), yet they were required to

obtain and use this specific coin and only this coin, which contained precisely such an image, that of Tiberius and his inscription exalting himself as a god. So it was far beyond a nuisance, it was enormously offensive and against their own law (and a really really significant

one to them). In modern day times it would be the equivalent of China invading and claiming dominion over the US and then instituting a law requiring each and every US citizen to violate something really significant, like requiring everyone to house & feed a soldier indefinitely,

or requiring each citizen to regularly purchase and burn an American flag in homage to China's president.

We also recall now that all Jews wanted out from under Roman rule, the Pharisees and Sadducees and Herodians for their own reasons, and the common man predominantly for

for relief, the principle of the matter, and hope of the Messiah. We recall as well that it was widely believed the Messiah would specifically be delivering them from Roman rule much the same way Moses freed them from Egyptian rule. In the passage as it is relayed in Mark, the

Herodians are mentioned specifically. Why is that significant? Two reasons: 1. The Herodians were a group that was particularly loyal to King Herod and his dynasty who were primarily devoted to seeing a Herod restored to the throne of Judea, distinct from the two predominant

factions of Judaism (Pharisees and Sadducees) and 2. The Herodians LOATHED Jesus even more than the Pharisees and Sadducees. Where the Pharisees and Sadducees wanted him out of their way for the threat he posed to their grip on the people and their political and religious

authority, the Herodians viewed Jesus as a direct threat to Herod's dynasty, a direct usurper. Basically all the leaders and their loyalists wanted this man silenced, whether by disgrace, arrest, or death.

Now that we have the sort of "mood" of the day and age, if you will,

let's look at the immediate context. Jesus has made his grand entrance and Jerusalem is buzzing. Immediately before we are told of the tax questioning, we are told that Jesus is in the temple courts, teaching. The priests and elders and whatnot are watching him like a hawk,

they've got spies following him around everywhere reporting on everything he says and does. They keep trying to set traps for him to get him out of their hair, but he continually evades their attempts and they can't seem to get him to trip up enough to warrant his arrest or get

people to turn on him. So someone among the Pharisees comes up with a brilliant plan to stick it to Jesus directly and force his hand by asking him flat out about the hot button of the day: that highly contentious tax to Caesar. They figure no matter which answer he gives (yes

you should pay the tax or no you should not), someone can arrest him. His answer has to violate the law of or inflame either the Romans (remember Pilate was in town so the city was teeming with even more soldiers than normal) or the Jews. Now they would finally be rid of Jesus.

So what happens? The Pharisees send their disciples along with some Herodians to confront Jesus with their trap. They start by sucking up to him, then they lay it: should we or shouldn't we pay that tribute? Is it lawful and right or is it not? If he says yes they should, the

people will tear him to pieces. If he says no they shouldn't, he'll be arrested on the spot for insurrection against Rome. Jesus sees it coming a mile a way and directly confronts them right back: Why are you trying to trap me? I wish I could have seen the looks on their faces.

Knowing they wouldn't answer, he's already moving on: Bring me a denarius, he says. Notice that the accounts in Mark and Matthew specifically note that Jesus instructed them to bring him one--NOT hand or give him one--because remember this is not a coin that anyone in Jerusalem

would simply be carrying around. They had to go outside the city and get one and bring it back to him. So they do and he asks two key things: whose image? and whose inscription? He didn't ask whose coin, only whose inscription and likeness. He neither states nor implies the coin

is Caesar's. Only the likeness, only the inscription. Jesus was not an idiot. And Jesus was not a casual converser. He is the word of God incarnate, and he is far more clever than they, as he shows over and over again--right before this they wouldn't answer him about something,

so he wouldn't answer them. He's playing their own games against them. So he has basically, with this right here, already extricated himself expertly from their trap, they just don't know it yet. So he informs them: Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. What

did they just tell him was Caesar's? Ha. Good luck giving back an inscription and image. And in all three accounts, we are told of their amazement, their astonishment at his answer. In Luke it specifically states that they couldn't trap him. There was NO WAY to use his words

against him. His answer eluded their trap completely. That means he did not say that it should be payed, which would anger the Jewish people. But neither did he directly state it should not be paid, thus garnering an arrest by Romans.

So what does that tell us? First, that the

prevalent interpretation is not supported by the evidence. If Jesus was saying "pay your taxes" then he'd have been lynched by a mob of Jews on the spot. Instead, we find the trappers amazed & empty-handed for their efforts. They would have LOVED for him to say "pay your taxes."

That would have immediately discredited Jesus and restored their power over the people. Him saying no you shouldn't would not have been as good for them, though it still would have gotten him out of the temple and off the streets where he'd been filling the people's heads with

his "poisonous" message. Second, it tells us that Jesus showed no interest in paying tribute to government, neither Jewish nor Roman, and had no qualms about using cleverness to stay out of their traps. Why is this significant? Because we're told to become like him. Remember

when he said to be shrewd as snakes? Or the parable of the shrewd steward? Use their games against them. Blow their minds just like he did. Jesus wasn't about lipservice and maintaining the status quo. But that's what we're told this passage means. And this closer look proves

that that interpretation has no basis in reality whatsoever. Jesus was game changer and a status quo destroyer, and he used their own tactics to keep them spinning their wheels, frequently turning their traps back on them.

Note: Because of the nature of the contention here in

what this means & because we know what Jesus was talking about (the tribute & to whom it was to be paid) the original language is not as crucial a clue in answering this question, though we already learned phoros meant tribute or gift & could be to anyone.

There you have it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: