119. Chapter 6 - Jesus and the Pharisees (Religious, Moral, and Political Issues)

Chapter 6 - Jesus and the Pharisees (Religious, Moral, and Political Issues) The Situation

Having been utterly humiliated by Jesus’ bold act in cleansing the temple, the hierarchy had to do something in order to recover their leadership. Whereas they had been publicly declaring their intention of arresting Jesus, they now suddenly found themselves placed on the defensive. Since the multitudes were so enthusiastic in His support, they did not dare to arrest Jesus. In the face of His surprising assumption of authority in entering the city in triumph and in cleansing the temple, they could think of no other scheme to attack His popularity than to demand a public demonstration of His right to take charge of the temple, which according to the Old Testament law was given into the hands of the priests. Although the Pharisees and Sadducees joined in this challenge, the main burden of attack throughout this day of furious discussion rested with the Pharisees, who by reason of their devotion to the Old Testament were in a better position to challenge Jesus than were the worldly and unbelieving Sadducees. The Debate The current of hectic debate during this “Great Day of Questions” is outlined by Plummer as follows: (1) A Personal Question (The Sanhedrin asking the authority of Christ; Christ’s counter question about the authority of John’s baptism); (2) A Political Question (The Pharisees and Herodians asking about tribute to Caesar); (3) A Doctrinal Question (The Sadducees asking about the resurrection); (4) An Ethical Question (The scribe asking about the greatest commandment); (5) A question about the Christ (Jesus asking about Psalms 110:1-7). In addition to these questions, Jesus delivered to the multitudes three parables in quick succession elaborating upon His reply to the demand for proof of His authority: (1) The Two Sons; (2) The Wicked Husbandmen; (3) The Wedding Garment. Following the period of questions, Jesus delivered His blazing denunciation of the sins of the Pharisees During a lull in the day’s combat, Jesus sat by the treasury and commented especially upon the gift of a poor widow. Jesus’ final public message to the nation “the Sermon on the Significance of Life and Death” (John 12:20-50) closed His public ministry. Their Rejection of God In the very moment that the chief priests and elders were challenging Jesus’ authority for cleansing the temple and thus implying that He was rejecting the authority which God had established in the Old Testament law, these evil leaders were showing their own scornful rejection of God. They had done this, first, by turning the temple court into a means of financial gain for themselves instead of keeping it dedicated to the worship of God as He had commanded them. Again, they were rejecting God because the Old Testament law and the prophets had predicted the coming of the Messiah and commanded all the faithful to hear and heed Him. This the rulers deliberately refused to do in spite of all the miraculous proofs He had given of His deity. The Two Questions In demanding His authority for taking the management of the temple out of their hands they asked two questions: “By what authority doest thou these things? And who gave thee this authority?” The implication is that they expect Him to answer the first question by affirming He is the Christ, just as the people all about have been publicly proclaiming. Anticipating such a reply they attempt, by attaching a supplementary question, to compel Him to affirm publicly His deity. Instead of assailing their evil management of the temple as a means of replying to their attack and instead of quoting from the Old Testament concerning their obligation to accept the Messiah as Lord of all (both of which He did later in the day), He publicly forced them to admit that they had been rejecting God’s message to the nation through John the Baptist. In their scramble to escape the embarrassing spotlight which Jesus had placed upon them in cleansing the temple, they had sought to cover up their confusion by an attack upon Him. They are not allowed to escape so easily, for Jesus turned the light right back upon them by throwing on the screen the photograph of their wicked past — their jeers, defiance, and hostility to John the Baptist. They had been trying to create the impression upon the nation that they were right in rejecting Jesus on the ground that all the great scholars could not be wrong in their conclusions concerning Him. The Baptism of John

“The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven or from men?” Two questions are matched against the two which they have asked. Baptism was such a concrete, vivid, impressive act they could not avoid His question about John by asking “What teaching?” and then beclouding the issue with fine distinctions. Moreover, the baptism of John had been an innovation. Since nothing like it had been commanded in the law, the same acute issue was faced: Did John have the right to set up an institution for the forgiveness of sins when the Old Testament plainly declared the sacrifices in the temple were to be offered for that purpose? Only on the ground that John was a prophet directly inspired to speak for God, as had been the case with Moses when he gave the law, was John justified in doing this. Whether their decision as to a reply resulted from an immediate, covert, desperate exchange of ideas by looks and whispers or by withdrawal and lengthy consideration, their public reply which was awaited by Jesus and the multitude left them utterly discomfited. They refused to answer the question as to whether the authority of John’s baptism was from heaven or merely from men, but their refusal constituted the most humiliating kind of confession. And in thus admitting that they dared not answer the dilemma (their hypocritical statement, “we know not,” was too thin to deceive any one), they showed that the nation knew, and they did not dare deny, that John had been sent with a message from heaven.

Jesus had answered their question with a question because He had already made repeated and explicit declarations covering the ground of their question as to His deity and authority. They were not willing to be convinced and hence did not deserve further assurance. By a question which was much more effective than a mere affirmative reply, Jesus really answered their question and at the same time revealed to the multitude the revolting hypocrisy of the Pharisees John’s main thesis was that all should heed the Christ. The whole force of his ministry and testimony was to direct the nation to Jesus as the Christ. Thus the proof of the Pharisees’ rejection of God in the person of His Son was made plain to all in a manner that the leaders did not dare to deny. The manner of Jesus’ reply made very pointed reference to their hypocrisy. They had said: “We know not”; Jesus now replied: “Neither tell I you.” This means: “Yes, you do know, but you are too cowardly and corrupt to tell the truth you know. I simply refuse to answer because it is unnecessary. You have already answered your own question.”

John’s Authority

Gould contends that the question which Jesus raised was whether “authority is communicated externally and through regular channels” or “if it comes inwardly and is attested by its fruits.” He holds that John’s authority was purely a matter of his inner consciousness and had no external proof. This is the customary modernistic line of attack upon miracles as proof of divine truth and divine authority. It is true that John did not work miracles, but he made miraculous predictions which were subject to speedy testing (the immediate appearance of the Messiah: “In the midst of you standeth one”). He pointed Jesus out as the Messiah to his disciples and in so doing John called to their minds the miraculous proof which sealed the identification: the descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove. The tremendous miracles which Jesus worked to prove the truth of His claims became necessarily credentials of the truth and authority with which John had spoken. Thus, Jesus by citing the Pharisees back to the question of John’s authority concentrated attention upon the proof of His own divine authority in His whole miraculous ministry.

Parable of the Two Sons The answer to the Pharisees, devastating though it was, now was made more potent by a series of parables which revealed clearly the character and motives of His enemies. We sometimes forget that Jesus did not permit the Pharisees to ask all the questions. He had answered their first challenge with a question. Now he follows with parables, the first two of which are really questions. The answers given by the Pharisees were in the nature of sentences of condemnation passed upon themselves. Nothing could possibly enrage the pious Pharisees (who lost no opportunity to show their horror and contempt for the common sinners, the publicans and the harlots) more than to have it said that they, for all their pious pretenses, were farther away from God than these notorious sinners. This Jesus now affirmed before all by relating a simple parable of a father and two sons; one of whom promised to go and did not, the other refused to go, but later repented and went. Jesus asked the Pharisees which of the two sons really obeyed his father and they had to respond, the one who finally went. Jesus then delivered this fiery blast: “Verily I say unto you, that the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not; but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye saw it, did not even repent yourselves afterward, that ye might believe him” (Matthew 21:31, Matthew 21:32). Not only had the Pharisees rejected God’s commands, warnings, and promises through John when he first appeared and set the nation ablaze, but the actual results of his preaching in the reformation of the lives of the most outrageous sinners had not influenced the hypocritical leaders to give belated obedience. In a manner characteristic of the self-complacence of our unbelieving generation, the criticism has been made of this parable that Jesus should have added a third son who readily agreed to obey and actually and promptly carried out his father’s orders, in order to represent “us.” This is typical of a philosophy which would deny the reality and punishment of sin. The two sons represent the two types of humanity: the one, disobeying and then repenting and obeying; the other, promising to obey, but actually failing to do so. A third son who promised at first to obey and actually did so would represent some of mankind as sinless, which is not true to life, with the exception of Jesus. The parable was kept brief and simple with the fewest possible elements so that it traveled like a barbed arrow straight to the hearts of the hearers. Even though the picture presented in the parable was so simple and true as to be clear to all, yet the objective was so veiled that the Jewish leaders, when suddenly faced with the problem as to which son was most obedient, passed judgment upon themselves before they knew it. In all the fury of this combat there is the most delicate, underlying element of appeal, even to these corrupt and deceitful leaders who are plotting to slay God’s Son. The verb in the present tense, “are going before you into the kingdom of God,” suggests that the kingdom is about to be instituted. Those who have obeyed the preaching of John and have accepted Jesus as the Christ are leading the way into the kingdom when it shall directly he established. The highway is pointed out and a gentle appeal to walk therein is added by the words of Jesus: “go into the kingdom of God before you” and “did not even repent yourselves afterwards.” It was getting late, but it was not yet too late. The Parable of the Vineyard The Parable of the Vineyard and the Wicked Husbandmen was then delivered as a further blast at these hardened sinners who claimed to be so righteous. A householder with great expense and labor planted a vineyard; set a hedge to protect it from animals; built a tower for watchers to protect it from marauders; and dug in the solid rock a winepress to assist in harvesting. Then he let it out to husbandmen who thereupon took possession as if they had created this paradise and refused to return to the owner any of the fruitage, even though one messenger after another was sent by the owner. Finally, he sent his only son, hoping they at least would heed him; instead, they killed him that they might have no rival for the ownership.

Jesus turned again upon the Pharisees with another of His crucial questions asking what, in their opinion, the lord of the vineyard would do in such a situation. Since they had started the questioning and had dodged the first question Jesus had asked them, since they claimed to be the learned scholars of the nation and had sought to overthrow Jesus in public discussion, they could not keep on saying, “We do not know.” Again, therefore, they were forced to pass sentence upon themselves: “He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard to other husbandmen.” The first parable had been directed to the leaders with the multitude listening in. This second was a direct appeal to the multitude since the leaders had sneeringly rejected the implied offer of pardon and hope in the first parable. They would not even yet repent, and in this second parable there is a fierceness of God’s wrath wreaked upon those who reject and defy Him. Moreover, they must have anticipated that this second parable was being directed against them, since the first had suddenly been turned upon them with such staggering force. Inasmuch as there was no way for them to escape, they were forced to listen in as He delivered this second parable to the people. Thus they found themselves forced to give the inevitable answer to the question which was placed before them at the close. The Parable inIsaiah 5:1-7 The setting of the parable and the burning denunciation of wicked ingratitude reminds one of the similar parable in Isaiah 5:1-30. The vineyard in the parable of Isaiah is the nation itself (Isaiah 5:7), which is barren and useless even after all the wealth of effort and attention God has given to it. In the parable of Jesus the vineyard is the privileges of the Old Testament revelation which have been bestowed upon the Jewish people — the husbandmen who refuse to return to God the portion of the fruit that is His due (obedience and faithfulness). Some scholars claim that in Isaiah the leaders of the nation are not mentioned: the whole nation is condemned; while in the parable of Jesus the leaders in charge of the nation are condemned, and the vineyard is not destroyed, but is transferred to more faithful stewards. They argue that in earlier times the nation deliberately chose its course which led to captivity, but now it was being led astray by false teachers and leaders. False leaders, however, had been in action as much in the Old Testament times as now, and the people have the right to choose their own course now as much as then. It is true that at the close the Pharisees “perceived that he spake of them,” but it is clear that the entire nation, if it follows their leading, is under the same condemnation: “The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”

Although this parable ends with the fierce wrath of God being turned upon rebellious man, there is even in this parable the same strain of emphasis upon the mercy of God as well as His justice. The husbandmen were not dispossessed and punished when they refused the fruits due at the request of the first messenger. Another, and still another, are sent as God in His long-suffering mercy and kindness pleads with men to repent and turn from their wicked ways. The differences in the personality and approach of the messengers and the circumstances might be expected to bring favorable reception at last, but the husbandmen only grow more insolent and defiant. The climax of sending His own Son to plead with those who had mistreated His servants is the most touching presentation of God’s love and mercy. Here is another answer to their first challenge of His authority. God’s Son is in the presence! How terrible the swift vengeance of God’s wrath will finally be! This parable warns the leaders and reveals to all that He knows the plans to kill Him, that He will not resist them now or seek to save Himself, but that God in the final day will pronounce judgment which these wicked men themselves are forced to declare will be just.

Luke adds two interesting details to our knowledge of this exciting scene. An ejaculation of horror, “God forbid,” and a searching look which Jesus gave the leaders add considerable color to the scene. The exclamation is taken by some to refer to the terrible punishment which they are suggesting; others hold that it refers to the unspeakable conduct of the husbandmen in killing the Son Himself. The two thoughts may have been inseparable in the minds of the speakers and the exclamation may have been the inadvertent outcry of the leaders or the deep-seated protest of a multitude which is still favorable to Jesus.

Further answer to their original challenge is now given in two quotations from the Old Testament which predict the rejection of the Messiah by the Jewish nation and the punishment that is to result. “By whose authority?” Verily, they shall find out when it is too late, if they do not heed these repeated warnings and appeals. The rejection of the stone (the Messiah) by the builders (the Jewish leaders who claim to want God’s kingdom established) and the glorious consummation when God makes this rejected stone the head of the corner introduce another figure into the midst of the explanation of the parable, but the same line of thought prevails. Jesus followed the quotation with the application of the parable and then closed with the further quotation concerning the “stone.” This picture of the Jewish leaders attempting to construct a building (the Kingdom of God), rejecting the cornerstone which is the key to the structure of the whole building, and then finding themselves unable to fit the stones together because they have discarded the very stone (Jesus) which can hold the building together, becomes all the more impressive when we realize that it is a quotation from Psalms 118:1-29, the very Psalm from which the multitude had quoted at the triumphal entry. The very next words in the Psalm are: “Save now [Hosanna], we beseech thee, O Lord. . . Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.” With what breathless awe must the crowds who had just quoted this Psalm in praise of Jesus, have now heard its preceding phrases quoted by Jesus in condemnation of His enemies! And is there another subtle appeal to the rulers to repent and pray: “Save now”? In the last quotation the figure of a person stumbling over a stone and breaking his bones is from Isaiah 8:14, Isaiah 8:15 and that of a great stone falling upon a person and grinding his body to dust is from Daniel 2:34, Daniel 2:35, Daniel 2:44. The Jewish leaders were stumbling over the stone (Jesus) which seemed to block their selfish, worldly path; they would fall over it and break their bones (destruction of Jerusalem). In the final day of judgment the stone would fall upon them and destroy them (eternal condemnation in hell). Magnificent is the use which Jesus makes of the Old Testament in this debate with the scholars who claim to be its exponents, as He weaves together in a new form the parable from Isaiah about the vineyard and the unbelieving nation with the three Messianic passages which picture the Messiah as a stone, rejected and bringing destruction to the unbelieving. The effect of the parable on the leaders was to infuriate them, for while they did not understand all its details and meaning, they could plainly see the tremendous indictment it brought against them as rejecting and fighting against God. Awed and thrilled, the people watched the terrific struggle helplessly, but the effect on them is suggested by the fact that their reverence for Jesus prevented the leaders from arresting and slaying Jesus: “They feared the multitudes because they took him for a prophet.”

Radical Attacks on the Parable

Jülicher, Loisy, and others assail this parable as the invention of Christians attempting to harmonize their belief in the Messiahship of Jesus with his death. They claim it is an effort to give an explanation — a religious one — to His death. Denny sharply replies to them with two major contentions: (1) Christians inventing such a parable to explain the death of Jesus would never have propounded a parable which left the Son dead, but would have made vital use of the resurrection. The parable implies the resurrection and ultimate triumph of Jesus through the introduction of the two quotations (Psalms 118:1-29 and Daniel 2:1-49), but inventors would not have been satisfied with a veiled reference like this. (2) The early Christians in the period when Jülicher supposes this parable to have been invented were not so much troubled about the death of Jesus (the resurrection and the gospel plan of redemption had made this clear) as they were by the proposition of the gospel being brought to the Gentiles. Christians would not have invented a parable which flatly predicted that the Kingdom of God would be taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles (Matthew 21:43). As a matter of fact, the date of writing of the Gospel narratives entirely precludes the radical assumption of the invention of such a parable and its publication as having been delivered in the temple on the eve of Jesus’ death before a vast multitude of people. Any such invention would have been immediately exposed by the enemies of Jesus and disowned by His followers who had been present. Denny maintains that this is not a parable but an allegory, on the grounds that an allegory is not true to life and depends for its existence merely on the things illustrated. He holds that the account of the husbandmen and the Master is not true to life and never would have occurred in real life. But in what way is the account not true to life? In the ingratitude and cruelty of men? How about the record of history? Is not the account of the punishment of the wicked husbandmen in accord with life? Let the Pharisees themselves testify on that point with their sweeping reply passing judgment on the men. While the details of the parable are sharply dramatic, they are generally true to life as it has often been enacted. One might as well say that the life story of the Old Testament prophets and of the ministry of God’s Son is “not true to life.” The Scripture itself declares the account to be a parable.

Basis of Christ’s Authority The fact that Jesus, when challenged to defend His authority, referred to John the Baptist and the Old Testament does not mean that His authority is not absolute and final. He had repeatedly declared His deity and, by affirming and proving that He always spoke and did the things which God directed, He had made known the direct character of His contact with God. His concentration of this discussion upon the authority of John the Baptist was not to bolster His own claim to divine authority, but to reveal the infamy and rebellion against God of which the Pharisees were guilty. Weaving in a marvelous pattern the scarlet thread of tragic predictions from the Old Testament concerning the unbelief and disobedience of the nation and the death of the Messiah, He again was not attempting to rest His authority upon that of the Old Testament. He was rather showing to all that the Pharisees not only had rejected God in rejecting John the Baptist, but they were now rejecting the very Old Testament which they had claimed to defend in their original challenge. The unity and wonderful harmony of God’s revelation through all the prophets and John the Baptist and now finally in His Son were placed in profound contrast with the continuous rebellion which they confronted. The Parable of the Wedding Garment The last of the three parables by which Jesus gave crushing emphasis to His answer as to His authority seems at first sight to be an anti-climax. It should be remembered, however, that this last parable reaches out with a strong reference to the listening multitude. Jesus has taken the offensive from the Jewish leaders in this phase of the discussion, but there is still a strong undercurrent of appeal and warning as well as denunciation. One of the fascinating characteristics of the parables of Jesus is seen in the many possible applications which confront the reader and stir his conscience. In this contemptible man who profaned the wedding feast of the King’s Son with his vile, working garments, was Jesus depicting the shallow devotion of listening multitudes who had hailed Him as the Messiah, but had no idea of sacrificing too much of their own convenience in His service? At any rate, there is a tenderness of appeal in this parable and an emphasis upon the great joy of the kingdom lost by those who reject the invitation or who do not equip themselves to share its glory, which gives a touching glint of pathos in the midst of the fierce denunciation. Even to these hypocritical fiends who are plotting His death, Jesus still gives gentle intimations of mercy, if they will but repent.

There is a subtle thread of connection between this parable and the Old Testament where God is the Bridegroom and Israel the bride. Here Jesus is clearly set forth as the Son of the King and as the Bridegroom. The identity of the bride vanishes in the swift march of the parable to its central teaching. The double invitation pictured in the parable is true to the customs of the East and is variously explained as referring to the prophets and John, and to Jesus; or the invitation given by Jesus and later on by the apostles. The introduction of the “city” of the rebels which is to be burned by the King sharply presents a further prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem. How many of those who heard this fearful warning of the parable were reminded of His prediction of the doom of the city at the time of the triumphal entry?

Both the relatively good and bad were invited, and those who had been noble and those who had been very sinful alike realized their destitute appearance and attired themselves in the wedding garment provided by the King — all of the guests, except one complacent man who was without regard for his own filthy attire and without reverence for the King or gratitude for His merciful invitation. Gibson holds that the man without the wedding garment represents not the man who fails to add righteous living to his acceptance of Christ, but the hypocrite in the church whose moral failure is known only to God. He holds that there was no visible difference between the man and the other guests: “he lacked the invisible garment of righteousness” and only the King knew it. But it does not follow that the other guests had not observed the man’s lack of preparation from the mere fact that this is not discussed in the parable or that they had not compelled him to leave. They may have been absorbed in their own affairs, but even when they noticed his condition and, perhaps, urged him to secure the wedding garment, they would have lacked the authority to drive him out and would wait for the King’s judgment in the matter. The fact that the wedding garment represents the life of obedient righteousness does not suggest that we earn our salvation by our fidelity. The guests were not present because they had on wedding garments, but because of the gracious invitation of the King. The punishment is thought by some critics to be too harsh in the light of the offense of the man; so easily does man undertake to assume the prerogatives of God. The violation of the hospitality of the King was as great by the man who brazenly refused to show appreciation of the occasion and to prepare himself for it as by those who scorned and rejected the invitation. This seems to be directed at the fickle crowd who had cried “Hosanna” and were soon to shout “Crucify.” If their acceptance is only selfish, half-hearted, and hypocritical, they must suffer the same fate as those who reject from the first.

Pharisees and Herodians The united attack of the Sanhedrin having failed, the separate groups now undertook to entrap Jesus. Matthew notes that the Pharisees chose some of their disciples to make this very clever attack — the leaders too often had been in collision with Jesus and had revealed their venomous attitude. For this new venture they needed fresh leadership which had not yet been involved in the struggle and hence could piously pose as earnest seekers after the truth, deeply perplexed by conscientious scruples. Brilliant young students of the Pharisaical school would have been chosen. Leaders of the Herodians were brought in to join in the assault. The Pharisees and Herodians who were natural enemies allowed their desire to kill Jesus to overcome their partisan hatred. We would have expected that the Pharisees would have called in the Zealots, since they were the ones who were most bitter against paying tribute to Rome and would have been best fitted to raise the hue and cry against Jesus amid the multitude if He should declare in favor of such payment of taxes. Perhaps the Zealots were still wavering toward support of Jesus, hoping He would show signs of a more militant policy. And the Pharisees may have felt perfectly capable of turning the multitudes against Jesus, if He should declare that tribute should be paid to Caesar, while the Herodians, sycophants of Herod’s court, would have been in a position to assist in the charge of treason with the Roman governor, if Jesus should declare that tribute should not be paid. The Trap The Pharisees framed their question in such a setting of piety and flattering praise that it makes particularly vivid and effective the Greek verb used to describe their treacherous plot. The verb “ensnare” has the root idea of catching an animal in a trap or net. They felt that they had everything so skillfully arranged on a hair-trigger that there was no possibility for Jesus to escape. He must say either “yes” or “no”; either way gave them a ruinous charge to make against Him. As a matter of fact, at the final trials of Jesus, even though they knew their charge was false, they did charge before Pilate that Jesus had forbidden to pay tribute to Caesar. Had it been true, they would have been able to make an elaborate case, presenting witnesses and urging the crime of treason against Rome.

Hypocrisy

Plummer says of the honeyed words of praise with which the Pharisees attempted to cast their net about Jesus: “The falseness of those fulsome compliments in their mouths stamps this as one of the most dastardly of the attacks on Christ.” When one contemplates what they said, he finds that these enemies again have furnished a concise and impressive tribute; it was unintended, and made hypocritical by the infamy of their real thoughts and purposes. Here are the elements in their tribute: (1) that Jesus was a true man; (2) that He taught the way of God in truth; (3) that He had no fear of any person; (4) that He was not influenced by the wealth, power, fame, or other possessions of His hearers in His presentation of the truth. Every one of these is a significant, though inadequate, tribute to Jesus, and the exact opposite of each affirmation is true of these corrupt hypocrites who were attempting to ensnare Him. The whole ministry gives abundant proof of the truth of His teaching and the perfection of His character which they appear to affirm. His courage had been shown repeatedly in His denunciation of the powerful leaders of the nation. This fact these very enemies now note. In any estimate of the courage of Jesus there is apt to enter the thought that since Jesus was the Son of God and all-powerful, His advantage was so enormous that the quality of His courage is impinged. It is a strange fact that everywhere we turn in the earthly ministry of Jesus, it is His death which is its central fact and which gives the peculiar meaning to everything else which He said and did. It is the very fact that Jesus voluntarily permitted His enemies to slay Him which makes His courage real to us. The mysterious combination of the human and the divine in Jesus is always the key to His unique character. The Taxes

Two general types of tribute were paid to Rome: taxes and customs. For the collection of taxes, levied with the assistance of the Sanhedrin throughout the eleven districts of Judaea, the Roman procurator was responsible. Herod Antipas and Philip were responsible for the taxes in their respective tetrarchies. Much of these taxes was spent upon the upkeep of roads, harbors, public buildings, and the governments. The remainder was sent on to Rome. The right to collect customs having been purchased by senatorial corporations in Rome, these taxes were collected by them through the commissioners and the horde of publicans they employed. Customs included export and import duties, bridge and harbor tolls, market taxes, tax on salt and many similar duties. While the system of collection was full of corruption and the publicans notorious for extortion, the Romans in general had a genius for government and maintained their dominions most efficiently. They preserved law and order, permitted remarkable freedom of local rule and worship, and built such highways and buildings as have resisted the march of time in an astonishing way. The Question Inasmuch as Israel was not subject to a foreign power when the law was given and this phase of the national life was not discussed in the law, there appeared the necessity for a ruling from the great teachers of Israel upon the subject of tribute to Caesar. Israel’s disobedience to God had repeatedly brought about such a situation in the history of the nation. Israel’s history offered something in the nature of precedents, but since the law gave no ruling upon it, it was more a question of being loyal to the nation than of being loyal to the law.

First Reply In His first reply Jesus, by tearing the mask of hypocrisy from them before the entire multitude, showed that their flattery had no more effect upon Him than their threats. “Why make ye trial of me, ye hypocrites?” Had He waited until He had solved their problem, this might not have been so plain to the crowd. Their clever wiles were parried by His forthright denunciation of their treacherous character. After showing all that He saw through their base conduct, He proceeded to demolish their trap. The question has been asked as to why it should have been necessary to send for a denarius. Even though the temple tribute was paid in the Jewish coin such as the shekel or half-shekel, yet some of those in the crowd may have had in their possession a Roman denarius (sixteen and two-thirds cents). It is not indicated as to whether some one had to go out in search of the coin. From the money changers, who had been driven from the temple, such coins could readily be secured. It is probable that there was no difficulty in securing the coin. Since the right to coin money is one of the elemental attributes of a government, the Romans permitted the Jews to coin their own money and refrained from putting the image of Caesar on the coins they circulated in Palestine during the early days of the conquest. This was a concession to the Jewish objections to images and image worship based on the law of Moses. What the Romans had refrained from doing, Jewish quizlings had undertaken. Herod Antipas, for example, had flooded the country with coins on which he had placed the image of Caesar. This was an act of flattery to the emperor. A number of these coins have been recovered. They carry the inscription TI CAESAR DIVI AUG F AUGUSTUS (Tiberius Caesar of the divine Augustus, the son Augustus). The Trappers Trapped The Jews were unable to object to His demand that they produce a denarius because they had raised the question, had asked for information, and were accustomed to use the coin in payment of tribute. Once it was in their possession they could not escape the deadly force of His question as to whose image and superscription it carried. “O answer full of miracle” is the description applied to the words of Jesus. “You have publicly declared that the coin belongs to Caesar, pay to him what belongs to him.” Very skillfully Jesus corrected their question: “Shall we give tribute to Caesar?” “No, pay it; you merely are paying for value received.” They said, didomi — give”; Jesus corrected it to apodidomi — “pay.” The coin represented not merely the authority of Caesar and obligation to him, but all the benefits which resulted from Roman organization, law and order, security of person, facilities of transit, and other like assets of civilization. The Fundamental Principles The declaration that they were to render to God the things that are God’s is the crowning word of the reply. It rules all else. It implies that we must not render to Caesar the things that are God’s. Human governments are ordained of God in the sense that He wills law and order to prevail, the innocent to be protected, the wicked to be prevented from destroying all that is noblest and best. The twelfth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans might well have the caption: “Render unto God the things that are God’s”; the thirteenth chapter then would carry the title: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” No real conflict existed between the two at the time, since the Roman government permitted complete freedom of worship. When the days came that the Romans, in a frenzy of corruption and hate, turned upon the Christians to compel them to worship Caesar and deny Christ, then the Christians, true to this marvelous, all-inclusive word of the Master, refused to render unto Caesar the things that belong to God. Earnest Christians in Russian prison camps, where they have been sent because they refused to join the Kremlin in its campaign to destroy Christianity and to inaugurate a bloody campaign of world conquest raise their voices with the first-century martyrs: “We will not render to Caesar the things that are God’s.” Pathetic in its emphasis upon the empty shell instead of the living soul within is the repeated cry of so many world-famous commentators from America today urging over the radio that we must convert the communist nations to “democracy.” Have we forgotten the Christian heritage which gave birth to American democracy and which alone can sustain the life of democracy anywhere? Can we only talk of the things that are Caesar’s? Have we utterly forgotten the things that are God’s and that give meaning to all variant forms of government, parties, and systems of rule — if they be worthy to exist? No democracy deserves to endure save one that owns Christ as King. “Our fathers’ God to thee, Author of liberty, To thee we sing. Long may our land be bright; With freedom’s holy light, Protect us by Thy might, Great God, our King.” There is no such thing as an absolute democracy. We live under a monarchy with our Creator and Lord as King. It is when we forget this, seek to please ourselves, and deny God’s authority and way of life that we face anarchy and chaos. “Render unto God the things that are God’s.” The answer of Jesus is not only marvelous because it answered so uniquely the needs of a very critical moment, but because it is broad enough to meet the needs of all times. A narrower definition might not fit in some cases, but the reply of Jesus was couched in such terms and on such a fundamental basis that all questions of religious and political obligations, of freedom, of separation of church and state, and all similar problems find their inevitable solution within its compass. The attempt of godless governments to prevent the Christian from rendering to God the things of God, and the attempt of politico-religious organizations to seize political power and prevent the Christian from rendering to Caesar the things of Caesar are alike excluded. When such situations arise, the individual must walk in the light of the teaching and the life of Jesus.

Aftermath

Klausner, in his perverse way, claims that the downfall of Jesus and the turning of the multitudes away from Jesus started here and was the result of His refusal to repudiate tribute to Caesar. But the refusal of Jesus to yield to the ambitions and ideas of the worldly minded Zealots and those who followed after them had been fought out in Galilee at the feeding of the five thousand long before. There is no indication of any great change in the popular situation after this clash with the Pharisees in Jerusalem. The people rather marveled at the wonderful reply He had given. His enemies, utterly humiliated, began to work with more feverish hate and zeal as they poisoned the minds of the people against Him. The failure of Jesus to use His miraculous power to defend Himself and destroy His enemies and thus to proceed as a worldly Messiah such as the worldly minded demanded was interwoven with this refusal to start a rebellion against Rome. Incited by demonic leaders the rabble turned upon Jesus at the last, but the refusal of the Master to turn from a spiritual to a political movement did not begin on this final day of His ministry.