Context
So, there are a few interesting contextual aspects to lift up about this text before we jump into the meaning (which I take a very traditional angle here).
First, narratively, there is an interesting dance going on with who is speaking to Jesus next. As you remember last week, Jesus was speaking to the chief priests and the Pharisees. Presumably we are to understand that the chief priests have either left or they are just heading to the back of the group and taking a backseat for a while. Here at the beginning of the text, we hear that the Pharisees leave to plot against Jesus, but they send their disciples along with the Herodians.
This is a little confusing for several commentators. There is not much evidence to suggest that the Pharisees had “disciples” as we have come to understand the word. Ulrich Luz says this may mean “pupils of the scribes.” Matthew is lumping them in with the Pharisaical perspective but there seems to be a minor distinction that they are not the Pharisees themselves. That is important as you read your commentaries. Are they equating these “disciples” as equal or equivalent to the Pharisees or are they viewed as distinct and different? Luz seems to suggest that there is a slight difference and that the Pharisees themselves are not in this conversation.
Additionally, there are about a hundred different takes on who the Herodians are and what they represent. Luz reports, “Since the ancient church (Apollinaris of Laodicea, frg. 111 = Reuss, 38; cf. Jerome, 203) there has been the thesis that the Herodians were people who regarded Herod the Great as the Messiah…Other hypotheses are that the Herodians are followers of Herod or of his sons or that they are Herod’s soldiers.”[1]
Regarding the specific tax, there are about 4 different taxes that would support Rome that Matthew could be referring to in this interaction: tributa (poll tax), fiscus Iudaicus (post revolt tax imposed on Jews), Vectigalia (tax on goods bought and sold that benefited the elite), and portoria (tarrifs at custom stations).[2] The most likely, in my opinion would be the poll tax (tributa) that spurred the revolt in 66CE. Matthew wants to set up this scene where Jesus ‘could’ easily incite revolt and rebellion. The crowd—who is stirred up by the entry of Palm Sunday, the conversation around John the Baptist, this growing number of religious authorities who are testing Jesus, and now a question of allegiance to Rome or Israel—is rife with tension that is ready to burst. If Jesus wanted to, he could incite a rebellion right here.
Now, returning to the calling of the disciple, Matthew the tax collector (9:9), the poll taxes or tributa, would have been collected by residents of the province. Culpepper writes, “The poll tax (Greek, kēnsos; Latin, tributa) was based on a census. After 167 BCE, except in emergency situations, tributa were collected, not from Roman citizens, but only from inhabitants of Roman provinces, thus enforcing their status as conquered provincials.”[3] This is why I think this is the tax Matthew is referring to because it calls back to the calling of Matthew and encourages an idea seeing a wider community in this conversation.
The nitpicking details of all of these groups and taxes are somewhat lost on us, but Matthew’s larger representation is not. The Pharisee’s disciples seem to represent a group that will nitpick allegiance to any Roman figure. And who be more popular with the crowd who would be in favor of more autonomy and separation from Rome. Whereas the Herodians represent loyalty to the empire and see any answer that contradicted Roman rule as a seditious action.
Matthean Context
Each synoptic Gospel includes this text. So, when commentators posit that this must have been a question that the early church was asking about, I think there is definitely validity to that. But I think each Gospel is coming at it from a different angle.
Mark is writing closest to the fall of the temple and believes that the end times are imminent. It’s almost tongue and cheek to say “Give to Caesar” because wealth will mean nothing in a short time. If you’ve seen Parks and Rec, it’s like the doomsday followers of Zorp who “write checks” because they’ll be worthless tomorrow.
Luke is arguably within the most Roman of territories and (including Acts) has the most examples of Roman citizen converts. While he’s highly critical of empire, Rome is also his mission field. How do you subversively interact with them?
Matthew is often hypothesized to be in Syria and within a mixed community or heavily Jewish community. Additionally, Matthew refers to “tax collectors” 6 times in the Gospel and often it is in a sense that they will change their mind and be in line for the kingdom of heaven. While I think the other two synoptic gospels may be thinking about this interaction from a tangible monetary perspective and question of empire, I think Matthew is looking at this from an inclusive angle. As mentioned above (and representative of the Herodians), the taxes are not being collected by Roman citizens or Roman soldiers. They are being collected by community members. Given the explicit calling of Matthew, the tax collector (9:9), it makes me wonder who is in Matthew’s community that may represent this figure?
The Traditional Meaning is a Good One
There are a lot of two kingdom takes on this text that are important theologically and for the nuances of our understanding of institutional ethics and Christian relationship within our government structures. But I think that if we begin preaching on the necessity (or lack thereof) of taxes on April 15th, then we’ve strayed a little too far down the money rabbit hole.
Instead, the traditional angle helps to keep us centered. As early church writers focus on, this is a call to give of ourselves to God.
Tertullian writes, “That means render the image of Caesar, which is on the coin, to Caesar, and the image of God, which is imprinted on the person, to God. You give to Caesar only money. But to God, give yourself.”[4]
And Augustine writes more concisely, “To Caesar his coins, to God your very selves.”[5]
Culpepper has a beautiful reflection on this:
Jesus’ response, “Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God”, assumes that those who hear him know that human beings were created in the “image” (Grk. eikōn; Heb. selem) and “likeness” (Heb. děmût) of God (Gen 1:26-27; 5:1; 9:6; cf. Ps 8:5-8). The imago dei has been interpreted variously as rationality, free will, dominion, or the capacity for creativity…Ben Azzai argued that Gen 5:1, “When God created humankind, he made the in the likeness of God,” was the central statement of the Torah; R. Akiba noted that it was a sign of God’s love for humanity that God not only created human beings in God’s image but also made known to them that they bore the image of God (m. ʾAbot 3:15). The command to lover one’s neighbor as oneself (Lev 19:18; Matt 22:39) flows directly from the recognition of the sacredness of human life: we are to recognize the image of God in one another (Gen 9:6).[6]
Be Wary of the Pitfall
When preaching this traditional model, we have to wary of the pitfall of falling into the antisemitic trope that Jesus was correcting a faith gone wrong. Matthew has set up a straw man argument here. He is not reporting on historical accounts. He is establishing the theology for his own community. Rather than Jesus’ response being interpreted as a correction of Jewish interpretation (as noted above, Jesus’ response is a continuation of Jewish tradition), this is an example how to respond to institutional leaders that fall into earthly binary mindsets. Do we live in the world of Caesar or the world of God? Matthew is asking, what if we saw God and God’s kingdom within our world, here and now?
What lines in the sand were Matthew’s community trying to draw. Where was the imago dei being missed or ignored in his community?
Preaching Possibilities
Imprinted Image of God
I don’t think that we can preach too often on bearing the image of God and seeing the image of God in others.
When we preach on that, it makes the following week’s lesson (which is Reformation Day, so maybe change the Gospel to Matthew rather than John) “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” all the more important.
In a nation so divided, when we so quickly villainize and turn on one another, what does it mean that each of bears the divine image of God? What does it mean that even Caesar bears the divine image of God?
How do we try to entrap Jesus?
How do we try to entrap Jesus on one side or the other?
There are going to be many sermons this week that are going to pit love of God vs love of politics and country this week. There are going to be many sermons that are going to call for the Christian church to be against culture. While we may be preaching against the empire of the world, we could accidentally be creating an empire of Christianity and stray away from God.
The point of this text is not to reject the world. The point is to see God within our world and to see God within one another. When we try to pit sides and create these false binaries, all we are doing is cutting off the possibility of greater connection and relationship with those whom we are called to love.
[1] Ulrich Luz, Matthew vol. 3, 63.
[2] R. Alan Culpepper, Matthew, 421.
[3] R. Alan Culpepper, Matthew, 421.
[4] Tertullian, of Idolatry, 15.
[5] Augustine, Tractates on John, 40.9.
[6] Culpepper, 423.
Micah Krey 
Leave a comment