Explorations in Theology

The series explores a theology that is human friendly! Jesus as the true human shows us who God is, and because of his consideration for us ('who are we, that God should make note of us?') defines who humanity was created to be. The nature of sin is to fall short of the glory of God. The glory of God as revealed in the truly human one - 'we beheld his glory full of grace and truth'. This volume is a foundation for the other volumes. And there are ZOOM groups available...
Volume 2 Significant Other and Volume 3 A Subversive Movement now also available!
El libro electrónico (en Español) también ya está disponible

So go on... you know you want to!!! Order a copy Boz Publications


Render to Caesar

Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s (Matt. 22:21).

A nice neat verse to keep my spiritual life and my relationship to the powers separate. Be a good boy and just do whatever the powers ask because the two are ever so separate.


The context for the ‘render to Caesar / God’ reply is toward the climax of the ministry of Jesus. It is centred in occupied Jerusalem and the compromised Temple. The revolutionary has come to town. He has made his entry into Jerusalem on a donkey coinciding and contrasting with the military parade coming in from the west (see: https://3generations.eu/posts/2017/03/provocative-or-what/). The whole city was in turmoil as ‘the prophet from Galilee’ had arrived (Matt. 21:10, 11). Soon after this he makes the very dramatic (and deeply prophetic) act of turning over tables in the Temple, calling for it to be a house of prayer for the nations.

So the scene is set. Tension is high. How dangerous is he? What kind of revolution is he likely to spark? What will be the event that provokes the start of something that will be hard to stop?

The Pharisees with Herodians look to trap him. He is being set up to lose. They pose the question about the legality (from the Torah point of view) of paying taxes to Rome. Pay taxes (the Herodian view) and how ineffective Jesus will appear. He will be seen as lacking courage and selling out. However, refuse to pay taxes and he can be arrested on the grounds of sedition.

Jesus first asks for a coin. They produce the coin, and he deliberately asks them about the image and title on the coin. These ‘holy’ questioners are able to produce a coin with an image on it that is an affront to their own religion, even blasphemous. The image is of Tiberius and the wording is ‘high priest’, ‘son of the divine Augustus’.

In that world the coin (or any such article) belonged to the person whose image appeared on it. The coin therefore was Caesar’s – or so he claimed. Here they (religious Jews) are with pagan coinage, image and titles proclaiming the Imperial myth. ‘Give it back, have nothing to do with that system’ is certainly how Jesus’ response can be understood. (We might well argue though without money we cannot buy and sell… and we might wish to object in one less that 667 ways!). Further you (Jews), as a sign to the world, are image bearers, you bear the image of God (as do all humans). Indeed the whole world belongs to God. The coin belongs to Caesar – that is his claim – but you belong to God. So there is a simple transaction that is to take place. (Caesar’s claim was also false – thus complicating the response required.)

The question started at the wrong end. If the second part is not worked out in totality how can the first part ever be answered? In the light of 100% to God now what are you going to do with the first part, the demand for taxes by Caesar?

There is probably another aspect underneath the passage, a strong allusion to 1 Maccabees 2:29-41 where the dying Mattathias says to his sons:

Judas Maccabaeus has been a mighty warrior from his youth; he shall command the army for you and fight the battle against the peoples. You shall rally around you all who observe the law, and avenge the wrong done to your people. Pay back the Gentiles in full, and obey the commands of the law.

The result of ‘paying back the Gentile in full’ was the armed revolt, the Greeks were defeated, the Temple cleansed and a royal dynasty that lasted 100 years was established.

The instruction was to ‘give back to the Gentiles what they deserve’, and do it within the boundaries of zealous observation of the law.

The texts and the events of the Maccabean period were well known as part of the context in which the people understood the Roman occupation. In the light of that Jesus response is not a clever division of state over here and faith over there – one public and one private. His answer is revolutionary. Give back to Caesar what he deserves. Pick up arms as per the former rebellion against the powers? Maybe some understood it as that.

In the context of being an image bearer how do we respond to the state? The state is not ordained from above. All powers are relative, none can command absolute obedience.

Allegiance to Jesus? Revolution with Jesus.

6 thoughts on “Render to Caesar

  1. This is so nuanced I am not able to completely understand. I am probably a bit slow on the uptake. I imagine you don’t believe that Jesus wanted us to take up arms against the state so in what way do you think he wants us ‘to give back to the gentiles what they deserve’. I imagine that ‘gentiles’ would mean unbelievers now or the secular state or something else I’m missing. Sorry if I’m missing something obvious but I just want to understand or are you asking us to work it out for ourselves? Do you mean that as redeemed people now we give back to others/unbelievers/the world what they don’t deserve ie. love and grace, as Jesus has turned cause and effect, an eye for an eye etc. on it’s head ? Loving our enemies etc. praying for those who persecute and reject us? Just wondering. Thank you.

    1. I meant it sounds very interesting and I just wanted to understand more should probably just have said that. I apologise if I rambled on too much about things! I really value your posts.

    2. Hey Joanna:
      I’ve been thinking about this though I’m not Martin so you might want to wait for him to explain his words. But as I read it the question is what do those who claim to follow Jesus owe to the state which at that time was authoritarian and imperial, and more broadly what do we owe to unbelievers.

      I suspect, and I confess I haven’t picked up a Bible in a long, long time, that Jesus would say we owe them love, sacrificial love.

      What struck me about the post is how radical Jesus is. The answer to what do we owe Ceasar, as the imperial state, is really ‘nothing’. If you belong to the Kingdom of God, you don’t owe anything really to the old kingdom. But you may choose to live in particular ways. . . loving everyone, pay taxes as these enable many to live better (yes, I know they also enable the military so you have to think that through), take care of your neighbors, take care of your wee piece of the planet, fight for better conditions for others. Could be any number of things that are thoughtfully considered and acted upon out of a context of loving one’s neighbors. But the imperial state? It is essentially meaningless in light of the cross.

      But what really stood out to me in the post (which does raise all manner of questions) is how we have de-radicalized Jesus over the years. The evangelical Jesus is not radical at all. In fact, in some circles, he actively supports Caesar and the imperial state, demands it and celebrates it. We seem to have lost the radical Jesus somewhere along the way. It was refreshing to get a peek at him in the post.

    3. Thank you Ann for responding to my comments and explaining how you understand what is being conveyed it is all extremely interesting. Yes I think it’s true that the Evangelical church have de-radicalised Jesus you’re right. In fact people tend to make him fit into a particular box that suits a viewpoint when really what he says is always so much more than we could easily fathom a lot of the time. Thanks again

  2. I have been off-line for a few days, so late to reply. Thanks for the comments / questions. Take up arms – certainly Jesus opposed this totally in his own approach. Rome ruled, and they crucified Jesus. I think Judas was expecting Jesus to exert authority over the soldiers who came to arrest him. Judas’ view of the kingdom was so different to Jesus. Power v. love. In connecting Jesus words to the Maccabean words there was a deep challenge to the understanding of Jesus instruction. My (inadequate) point was to suggest our relation to the state cannot be ‘yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir’.

    Interesting story Geoff puts up. No biblical basis not to pay taxes, Paul in Rom. 13 and elsewhere is both using irony and being deeply practical. Avoid trouble if you can… but all responses to the state coming from a whole-hearted commitment to Jesus.

    So we work out what our response has to be, but Jesus is not nearly giving carte blanche to the state. Civil disobedience is part of following Jesus.

Comments are closed.

Post section built on the WordPress platform. | Theme: Perspectives 18, a fully-responsive, mobile-first design developed by © Martin Scott. | Site contents © Perspectives, 2007 - 2021, all rights reserved. | If interested in a customised site email: Martin Scott.
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!