Give Caesar's to Caesar, and God's to God.
%20Portraying%20Julius%20Caesar.jpg "Website image from Art Institute of Chicago")
Jesus wanted a denarius. Why? But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it” (Mark 12:15 ESV).
Jesus used a denarius. So what was going on? How did Jesus come to be asking for a coin? In view of its mandatory role in taxation, it is not so surprising a denarius would be available. Very many were minted. Even today, for a price, it is possible to buy a denarius - like the above "depicting" Julius Caesar.
The scribes and the chief priests sought to lay hands on him at that very hour, for they perceived that he had told this parable against them, but they feared the people. So they watched him and sent spies, who pretended to be sincere, that they might catch him in something he said, so as to deliver him up to the authority and jurisdiction of the governor. So they asked him, “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach rightly, and show no partiality,[a] but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar, or not?” But he perceived their craftiness, and said to them, “Show me a denarius.[b] Whose likeness and inscription does it have?” They said, “Caesar's.” He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” And they were not able in the presence of the people to catch him in what he said, but marveling at his answer they became silent (Luke 20:19-26 ESV).
Imagine: If their question, "is it right", was asked of a random passing carpenter, or fisherman, or farmer, what would their answer be? If there were no Romans nearby, do you think it would very likely be, "not"?
The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone?[b]
Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but on whomever it falls, it will shatter him. (Luke 20:17-18 NIV) I can not say definitively what the opponents took the application of that to be. The obvious thing is their rejection of Jesus would prove to be disastrous for them. They had, in fact, rejected their only hope. (This quotation from Psalm 118, plus reflection of Isaiah 8, was spoken at the end of a confronting parable, which is below.)
On the particular "Denarius day", there in front of the people, Jesus' enemies could not trick him into saying anything useful to them. If he said "yes" it would put Jesus in bad standing with the populace; if he said "no", that would give grounds for Roman arrest! They were amazed at his answer and were silenced. What exactly was Jesus saying in his amazing reply? “Give the Emperor what belongs to him and give God what belongs to God” (CEV). There were no credible grounds for saying Jesus opposed paying taxes to Rome. The subsequent record does not indicate Pilate was interrogating Jesus about taxes (but see further below).
Did they just show the requested coin to Jesus, or hand it to him? What do you think? That denarius, we learn, had an image representing the emperor and some text. The first used image of a person on the Roman coinage was that of Julius Caesar. See picture above for example denarius; that one has text only about the minter. The emperors of Rome had come to be recognised in Rome as divine; as being gods descended from gods. From the time of Augustus this claim was inscribed on denariuses (denarii). The coin shown to Jesus had the image of the Caesar, and text about the Caesar, therefore it could not be older than from Augustus. Was it a newer one, minted in Lyon, with TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVSTVS, ie, “Tiberius Caesar, Divi Augusti Filius Augustus” or, roughly, Tiberius Caesar, of Divine Augustus, Son, Augustus? (Reverse inscription PONTIF MAXIM). That coin? Perhaps.
In fact Jesus was able to readily use the word "denarius" (see Matthew 18 and 20) for a labourer's day's pay. We also see the word simply used in Mark 6:37, 14:5; and Luke 7:41, 10:35. No evidence of sensitivity to image, nor text, there. Incidentally, in the parable of the lost coin, Jesus chose twice to use a very different word for the silver coin (Luke 15:8-9). There he uniquely used the Greek coin (drachma), which was about equivalent to the denarius in value. (Other mentioned coins of lesser value in circulation include the lepton and the stater.)
Why did Jesus ask to be shown the coin? Was it really necessary? When he asked whose image and inscription, "they answered". They did not need to crane their necks or squint or shuffle closer. Whichever series it was, the answer was the same: "Caesar's". They knew whose currency it was. They knew all too well! The particular minting was of no significance. Do you think Jesus was giving the questioners, and any who heard about the exchange, something concrete to consider? As it were: "We all have in our possession and use regularly the coinage of Rome. Look at it whenever you use it". Rome "has the wheel", so to speak. Rome is not here by accident!
Jesus' answer says, in effect: Be real. You are subject to Rome; act accordingly, like it or not. Nonetheless, do so without ceasing to obey God, for God is the one you must worship and serve. Soon after that, during Pilate's interrogation of Jesus for his life, we read: Jesus answered him, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin” (John 19:11 NRSVUE). Pilate had the authority. The power of Rome was real! The authority was backed by the sword. Rome was not kind, nor interested in God. Pilate, and the opponent Jews, might not recognise it; nonetheless, the power Pilate wielded was given from above. That is, from the LORD.
"from above". What do you suppose - that Pilate, Rome's representative, simply batted aside any thought that the strange, invisible, God of the Jews was the source of his power?
Does that mean "above" was approving of unjust, cruel, dishonest and evil use of the given power? Not at all! Jesus said no such thing. Pilate, like all, had a conscience. He was accountable to God.
I think I can safely assume almost all, if not every, Jew, did not want Rome there. The nation had historically endured overwhelming invasion after invasion. Some invasion consequences were more dire, some were more lasting than others had been. To simplify, and just starting with the Assyrians, the northern state had been effectively deleted. Then followed the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks (Alexander and his successors); finally we see the Romans controlling the entire Mediterranean coast, and more. (Rome eventually refused to tolerate any Jewish expression of resistance.) The resistant Jews might ask, where was God in all this trouble?
The Hebrew prophets had long before pronounced that the people of God were coming under God's judgement, just as had been promised. Jesus had said the vineyard was being given to others (see below). The people of God had not kept their agreement with God.
In Jesus' day the impossible dream of an independent ("free") Kingdom of Israel may have been held by many, or possibly most, of those who were part of the Jewish religion. We even see evidence of that amongst the disciple band. The nation had the message that there was a promise, that God was still in control - so how could Rome's obnoxious presence be a failure of God's plan? Jesus reiterated that message from old and actually supports a kind of pacifism in the day.
Jesus gave no excuse to move away from following God.
The earth is the LORD'S and all that is in it,
the world, and those who live in it (Psalm 24:1 NRSVUE)
so that you may be children of your Father in heaven. For he causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous (Matthew 5:45 CSB).
Everything belongs to the LORD your God, not only the earth and everything on it, but also the sky and the highest heavens (Deuteronomy 10:14 CEV).
given you from above (to Pilate; John 19:11 NRSVUE)
Given the understanding of their Bible (and ours), Jesus' answer actually said everything was to be given to God. There was(is) no division into God's, and other. And yet, at the same time, there is "render to Caesar". What about that tax denarius? Give it to Caesar. God is not diminished by revenue going to Caesar. Denariuses going to Caesar do not make God poorer! This all gives the (possibly troubling) concept to think about, that the coin came from Caesar and was also God's.
Jesus gave no excuse to refuse to pay.
The unwelcome situation they were in was not because God had stopped looking or caring. Their whole community was affected by what had gone before and was going still.
It is surely very hard, in fact ugly, to suffer adverse consequences from outside agencies. So it was then; so it is now. It is even harder for some members of the community to be disadvantaged and harmed by and through the actions of other members of their own community.
Do you see a parallel with today's sad reports from many places, not least the tragedies in the news?
Here is that prior absurd and disturbing story Jesus told, which was altogether too much:
“Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him.’
“But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. ‘This is the heir,’ they said. ‘Let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
“What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.”
When the people heard this, they said, “God forbid!” (Luke 20:9-16 NIV)
No comments:
Post a Comment