Mark 12:13-17. Tax to Caesar.

From The Christian and the Payment of Taxes Used for War
by Willard Swartley
Mark 12:13-17. 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.
Before focusing on the meaning of Jesus' oft quoted "Render unto Caesar..." statement. I make four observations about the historical context of this scripture:
1. 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.
2. The tax denoted in the text was a specific tax (not "taxes" as in RSV6 ). It was a poll tax, a tax instituted in A.D. 6. A census taken at that time (cf. Lk. 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).
3. The Sicarii or Zealots categorically refused payment of this tax. They regarded this tax as "an introduction to slavery and an affront to the sovereignty of God." 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 seeking therefore to publicly expose him as a tax resister, a position that would inevitably lead him to the Zealot death penalty, crucifixion on a cross.
4. Rome required that the poll tax be paid with the denarius, a silver coin worth about twenty cents. During Augustus' reign (27 B.C.-14 A.D.), several hundred different denarii were issued. But during Tiberius' reign (14-37 A.D.), 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...adorned with the laurel wreath, the sign of his divinity."11 The legend read: TI(BERIUS) CAESAR DIVI 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 apotheosis of power and worship of the homo imperiosus (the Emperor) in the time of Christ."
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? The difficulty of arriving at an assuredly correct interpretation is illustrated by the following typical textbook commentary:
(1) Some see it as a clever evasion. The answer 'was primarily intended to be non-committal.' Jesus was really anti-Roman, but he refused to get caught on either side of the question before him....
(2) Jesus clearly asserted that the tax should be paid. Coins with Caesar's image on them belonged to the emperor. He had a perfect right to demand them.
(3) Others see the answer as advice which caught the testers. They had Caesar's idolatrous coin in hand. Of course they were obligated to return it to him. It was his property.
(4) Still others view the answer as an endorsement of the Roman head tax comparable to the advice Jesus gave Peter to pay the Temple tax (Mt. 17:24-27). Some think Jesus simply reaffirmed the Jewish position of loyalty to God and the government except when the latter demanded apostasy....
(5) Others argue that Jesus approved the double obligation to God and government, but he left to the individual the determination of the proper claims of each.
While one might advance arguments supporting each of these various interpretations, three considerations illumine interpretation of the text.
The historical and literary contexts favor the interpretation that Jesus' answer condemned the position of the testers. The preceding parable, spoken against the wicked tenants of the vineyard (Mk. 12:1-12), condemned the position of the religious leaders, those who questioned Jesus' authority (11:27-28). The test question about the resurrection posed by the Sadducees (12:18-27), which follows the tax question, received an answer which also condemned the position of the questioners. The same point applies to the scribe's question regarding the greatest commandment (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 that once one has compromised so much as to possess the idolatrous coin, then the tax matter has already been settled in principle.
2. Mark 2,3:1-3:6 records five additional encounters between Jesus and the religious authorities. Like the three in Mark 12, all five have the same questioning, accusing intent from the adversary (vv. 2:7, 2:16, 2:18,2:24, and 3:2) and each ends with a succinct, incisive reply from Jesus (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 planned to destroy him.
Jesus' answer, "Render unto Caesar...," is also very similar in type to the answers given in 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 Pharisee's position. But this does not necessarily classify Jesus with the Zealot's position of tax refusal, although it appears that the Pharisees did in fact so accuse Jesus (see exposition of Luke 23:2 below).
3. A further consideration enters the case. In Mark 3:4 Jesus responded with the typical rabbinical 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 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 law-breaker. Hence when Jesus in 3:4 responded, no doubt with tongue in cheek, "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 (i.e., they came "to entrap him"), 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; i.e., 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.










