Answering the Pharisees

The basic sources of authority through which Christians learn the will of God are scripture, church, and Spirit. This study seeks to understand how one of these sources, scripture, directs Christians on the morally agonizing question of whether those who seek to follow the Prince of Peace should support a war-oriented federal budget. Can we be Good Samaritans and support a systematic spiraling of weaponry that maintains "the balance of terror" and portends human genocide?

The Temple Tax

When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the half-shekel tax went up to Peter and said, "Does not your teacher pay the tax?" He said, "Yes." And when he came home, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their children or from others?" And when he said, "From others," Jesus said to him, "Then the children are free. However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel; take that and give it to them for me and for yourself." -- Matthew 17:24-27

Though many might cite this text to support payment of taxes, it has little relevance to this discussion. The tax under question was not a tax that directly benefited Rome, but Judaism itself. It was the half-shekel temple tax, instituted in Exodus 30:13. Jewish law required every Jewish male over 20 years of age to pay this tax annually. It is more accurate to call this tax the annual temple tithe. Even the Zealot who opposed Rome's rule with dagger and sword had no problem in paying this tax.

The punchline of the text comes not with the decision to pay or not to pay the tax (and certainly not in the method of securing the tax money) but in the subtle declaration that Jesus is the son of the Lord of the temple. His words "Then the children are free" mean that Jesus is the son of the temple's ruler and thus exempt from payment. Then in order to avoid offense, Jesus ordered the payment. But, clearly, the punchline is on Jesus' sonship, not on the payment of tax.

Tax to Caesar

And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to entrap him in his talk. And they came and said to him, "Teacher, we know that you do not regard the human position, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them or should we not?" But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, "Why put me to the test? Bring me a coin, and let me look at it. "And they brought one. And he said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" They said to him, "Caesar's." Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they were amazed at him. -- Mark 12:13-17

Before focusing on the meaning of Jesus' oft quoted "Render unto Caesar..." statement, I make four observations about the historical context of this scripture:

• The goal of this encounter was to entrap Jesus. The crafty opponents are specified: "some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians." The Pharisees resisted the tax in principle but compromised in practice in order to make life possible under Roman occupation. The Herodians, a party we know little about except that they favored King Herod and the Herodian rule of Palestine, cultivated good favor with Rome and hence supported payment of this tax. Both parties must have suspected Jesus' position to be otherwise, else the question would not be a trap from their point of view.

• The tax denoted in the text was a specific tax, the poll tax, instituted in A.D. 6. A census taken at that time (cf. Luke 2:2) to determine the resources of the Jews provoked the wrath of the country. Judas of Galilee led a revolt (Acts 5:37) which was suppressed only with some difficulty. Many scholars date the origin of the Zealot party and movement to this incident. Blood had already flowed because of this tax, and Jesus' anticipated answer to the question was calculated to be grounds for his arrest (see Mark 12:12).

• The Sicarii or Zealots categorically refused payment of this tax. The land of Palestine belonged to God. God gave it to Israel. No other nation had a right to it. A head tax levied by Rome was utterly abhorrent. Such was the Zealot view. In this incident particularly, one wonders whether the Pharisees and Herodians suspected Jesus of Zealotism and were therefore seeking to publicly expose him as a tax resister, a position that would inevitably lead him to the Zealot death penalty, crucifixion on a cross.

• Rome required that the poll tax be paid with the denarius, a silver coin. During Augustus' reign (27 B.C.-A.D. 14), several hundred different denarii were issued. But during Tiberius' reign (A.D. 14-37), only three types of denarii were struck, with only one circulating widely, from Lyon to India.

The Zealots would not have been caught alive with this coin in their possession. On its obverse side the coin showed a bust of Tiberius wearing the laurel wreath, a sign of divinity. The legend read: TI(BERIUS) CAESAR CIVI AUG(USTI) F(ILIUS) AUGUSTUS, meaning "Emperor Tiberius, august Son of the august God." On the other side was the title PONTIF(EX) MAXIM(US), meaning high priest, with Tiberius' mother, Julia Augusta, sitting on the throne of the gods. The coin was the most official and universal sign of the worship and power of the emperor in Christ's time.

Within the context of these considerations, Jesus' first word of response, "Why put me to the test? Bring me a coin," touched the moral anguish of the Pharisees and Herodians. But the agony of the moment intensified when Jesus asked, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" I expect the Herodians, sooner than the crushed Pharisees, replied: "Caesar's." In that one word lay the despair of the nation.

Then comes Jesus' stunning response: "Render unto Caesar ... and render unto God." What does belong to Caesar and what does belong to God?

Three considerations must illumine interpretation of the text.

• The historical and literary contexts favor the interpretation that Jesus' answer condemned the testers. The parable against the wicked tenants of the vineyard (Mark 12:1-12) condemned the religious leaders, both Pharisees and Sadducees. The test question posed by the Sadducees on the question of the resurrection (Mark 12:18-27) received an answer which also condemned the position of the questioners. The same point applies to the scribe's question regarding the greatest commandment (Mark 12:28-34), though in a milder manner. Hence if this interpretation of the passage is correct, Jesus' reply would have sounded as follows: (with irritation) "(Then) render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and (with strong affirmation) to God the things that are God's." Jesus thus forbade the payment of the tax for those who are faithful, implying, further, that once one has compromised so much as to possess the idolatrous coin, then the tax matter is no longer a real issue.

• Mark 2:1-3:6 records five additional encounters between Jesus and the religious authorities. Like the three in Mark 12, all five have the same form of questioning, accusing intent from the adversary (Mark 2:7,16,18,24, and 3:2) and each ends with a succinct, incisive reply from Jesus (Mark 2:10,17,19-22, 27-28, and 3:4). Significantly, this series of episodes ends with the Pharisees seeking counsel from the Herodians in order to determine "how to destroy him." These two groups do not appear together again in the gospel until 12:13; then comes the tax question -- the plot to destroy him.

  Jesus' answer, "Render unto Caesar..." is also very similar in type to the answers given in Mark 2:1-3:6. In these cases we observe that 1) Jesus' position opposed that of the Pharisees, and 2) his answer transcended the mentality of his questioners. By applying these principles to Jesus' answer to the tax question, we must conclude that Jesus' answer opposed the Pharisees' position. But this does not necessarily classify Jesus with the Zealots' position of tax refusal, although it appears that the Pharisees did in fact so accuse Jesus (see exposition of Luke 23:2 below).

• A further consideration enters the case. In Mark 3:4 Jesus responded with the typical rabbinic formula: "Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" The Pharisees could not answer. Then in Mark 12:14, having now collaborated with the Herodians, the Pharisees phrased their question also with the rabbinic formula: "Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?"

The phrase, "Is it lawful ..." merits more attention. In Mark 2 Jesus answered not on the level of legality, but pointed beyond the letter of the law to the basic morality and religious authority upon which the law rested. Clearly, the Pharisees regarded Jesus as a lawbreaker. Hence when Jesus in 3:4 responded, no doubt with tongue in cheek, "Is it lawful ...?" and the Pharisees introduced the tax question with the same phrase, "Is it lawful ...?", it would appear to indicate that 1) the Pharisees were still committed to their law above everything else, 2) they planned to use the power of their law against Jesus on a very sensitive issue, and 3) they knew that the tax question was so politically volatile that if Jesus hedged in any way in his response, they would have a case for the cross.

In light of these considerations, in our effort to derive contemporary moral guidance from this text we must be careful that we do not simply adopt the position of the Pharisees that law is the final word on moral issues. Significantly, Jesus' reply pointed beyond the rights of Caesar to the rights of God. God's claim and Caesar's claims must never be put on the same level. The text may not be interpreted in such a way as to equalize God's and Caesar's rights.

What guidance, therefore, does this text give to the question of paying taxes used for war? 1) In view of the hypocritical and accusing intent of the questioners as well as the cryptic nature of Jesus' response, it is most likely that Jesus' opponents considered him a tax resister. 2) We must not allow ourselves to take the Pharisees' side in making law the sole judge of moral obligation. 3) We should see clearly that Jesus' answer does not tell us to give Caesar whatever he asks for.

Charges against Jesus

And they began to accuse him, saying, "We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king." -- Luke 23:2

The Jews accused Jesus of forbidding the payment of taxes to Caesar. How do we assess this accusation? Two observations are relevant:

• In view of the historical and literary contexts of the tax question in Mark 12, this charge appears to have some foundation. The Pharisees and Herodians identified Jesus with the Zealot cause and proceeded accordingly. Like other Zealots, his doom was the cross.

• Yet, Luke carefully shows that Pilate found Jesus innocent of the charges (23:4,14, 22). How does one resolve these apparently contradictory portraits of Jesus: one, the revolutionary Jesus projected by reconstruction of the historical context and two, the pacific portrait which the gospels and the early church give us?

Oscar Cullmann's resolution of this problem is still the best, in my judgment. Cullmann says:

1) Throughout his entire ministry Jesus had to come to terms with Zealotism; 2) He renounced Zealotism, although he also assumed a critical attitude toward the Roman State; 3) He was condemned to death as a Zealot by the Romans.

The crucial instruction that this insight gives us in our day is that we must be willing to be understood by others in a less favorable, more revolutionary way than we understand ourselves. In our relationships to political authorities, this is a difficult matter. Whether in conscientious objection to war or war tax resistance, we must accept the liability that political forces will brand both our resistance and nonresistance as revolutionary. But it might well be that such discrepancy between their perception and our self-understanding is the critical test of our faithfulness to the ethic of Jesus.

Paul's Word on Payment of Taxes

For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. -- Romans 13:6-7

If, as various commentators have suggested, Paul modeled his counsel after Mark 12:17, Paul apparently understood Jesus to say that taxes are due Caesar. But Paul's statement also recognizes the need for discrimination in making such a decision, a principle also dependent upon Jesus' statement.

Two grammatical features emphasize need for ethical discrimination in the payment of taxes. The phrase, "attending to this very thing," might be translated as a temporal participle, "when they attend to this very thing." Hence Paul gives notice that the rulers may refuse their God-mandated function, pervert their task (see 1 Corinthians 2:8), and become demonically inspired (see Revelation 13). In such a case the reader cannot be sure that Paul would regard payment of taxes a clear obligation. The second call for discrimination comes from the phraseology of verse 7. As John Howard Yoder states in an article, "The Things That Are Caesar's" (Christian Living, July, 1960):

We are not called to submit to every demand of every state. When Paul instructs the Roman Christians (Romans 13:7) to give "tax to whom tax is due, toll to whom toll, respect to whom respect, and honor to whom honor," this is the opposite from saying that tax, toll, respect, and honor are due the state. He is saying, as the similarities to Matthew 22:21 and 1 Peter 2:17 confirm, that we are to discriminate and give to each only his due, refusing to give to Caesar what belongs to God.

Further, the call to be subject to the governing authorities (Romans 13:1) is not a command to obey the authorities. Obedience (hupakouo) is reserved for God alone (Acts 5:29). The text asks for subjection (hupotasso), which allows for disobedience when God's command contradicts the government's requirements. In that case, subjection means that the person disobedient for conscience' sake accepts the punishment. Yoder calls this ethical alternative "revolutionary subordination."

The larger context of Romans 13:1-7 calls us to "overcome evil with good" (12:21b) and "owe no one anything, except to love one another" (13:8a). As Donald Kaufman stresses in his book What Belongs to Caesar? (Herald Press, 1969) no part of these seven verses can be properly understood apart from this call to active love which frames the "believers-authorities" discussion.

Right at this point, as this command to owe no one anything but love is joined to Paul's counsel to pay taxes, the difficulty of decision emerges regarding payment of taxes used for war. Can financial support of the arms race be harmonized with "owe no one anything, except to love one another" or "overcome evil with good"? Or, as we discriminate between what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God, do we say, "No, these taxes we cannot pay because they violate our Christian being as God's people and his ethic of love for all people, even those considered enemies"?

Willard Swartley was an associate professor of New Testament at Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminaries in Elkhart, Indiana, when this article appeared.