Matthew 22:15-21
A. INTRODUCTION
In life, there are a number of sayings, proverbs, or useful phrases that people hold in great store. Sayings like: “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”; “A stitch in time saves nine”; and “There are two things in life you can’t avoid, death and taxes”.
Of course, some of the sayings are very familiar. Others are less known. And if you’ve ever watched any of the quiz shows on TV you will have come across a number of them that are still held in great store, by people, even today.
The general idea behind the sayings, of course, is that they somehow encapsulate an element of the truth, and therefore can be of great assistance to everyday living. However, it is also true, that if they are taken too far—taken to be the ultimate statement on the subject concerned—then they can lose their generally intended meaning.
For example regarding nor being able to avoid death and taxes, the statement regarding taxes seems to be true, with income tax, GST, import duties, licence fees, stamp duty, and whatever else we pay today. Indeed, it would appear to be difficult to see how anyone could avoid paying taxes of some description. On the other hand, regarding death, we can only say that is generally true. Because there are two instances in the Bible alone that I can think of where someone didn’t die. Enoch, for example, was a man who walked with God, and when his time on earth was done, God simply took him away (Gen 5:18-24). And the prophet Elijah, was whisked away to heaven, in a whirlwind, (2 Kings 2:11-12), having been separated from Elisha by a chariot of fire.
Regardless of that minor glitch, however, the saying about death and taxes can be taken to be generally true.
But what about the saying, ‘Religion and politics don’t mix’? A phrase that often raises its head. How accurate is that saying? And how much should we be taking any notice of it?
Well, fortunately for us, the saying is in many ways encapsulated in the heart of this passage from Matthew’s gospel. As a consequence, we don’t have to go too far for the answer.
B. THE GOSPEL
1. Background
Now, the background to the gospel story revolves around a series of attempts, by the religious leaders of the day, to put Jesus in the bad books with either his followers or with the Roman authorities. And, in attempting to do so, the Pharisees and Sadducees came up with a number of traps. One of which is the one we are looking at today.
2. The Question (15-17)
The Pharisees, who led off the process (15), had learned enough about Jesus to respect him. So much so, that they had spent time doing their homework to make sure that they got it right. They went off, thought about how they could trap him, took advice. And then, in a move probably intended so they could deny all responsibility if the attempt backfired (16), they didn’t confront Jesus themselves, but sent some of their own disciples—some who were learning the Pharisaic way—together with members of a political party attached to the Herod’s, to bait the trap.
And in baiting the trap, the delegation, firstly, began with a bit of flattery. They stated their belief that Jesus was sincere, that he was a reliable teacher when he spoke the things of God. Not only that, but they said that he was faithful to the truth, and that what he said about the way of God was true. They also acknowledged that he was fearless, that he told the truth regardless of what people thought, and regardless of whether what he said pleased people or not.
And because he was like that, secondly, they were looking to him for an honest answer to a question that they said concerned them (17). And the question was, “Is it lawful to pay the poll tax to Caesar, or not?”
3. Comment – Politics and Religion Don’t Mix
Now this is where we see the truth behind the statement ‘Religion and politics don’t mix’. Because with this question, Jesus was faced with a dilemma. In the first century the poll tax was particularly unpopular. Customs duties were disliked, but at least when you paid them you got something. But with the poll tax there was no such benefit. It was a tax that simply removed money from the people, and transferred it to the emperor’s coffers.
And, if it were explained that the tax paid the expenses of the government, the people would have answered that no Jew wanted the Roman government anyway. Indeed, every religious Jew would have been happy to dispense with both the tax and the Roman government. As a consequence, the question, asked of Jesus, was a question that would appear to be one that Jesus couldn’t win.
The question was framed in such a way as to expect a yes or no answer. But if he said “Yes” you should pay a poll tax to Caesar, the supporters of the Herod’s would agree, but he would have alienated himself from the religious Jews. And if he said “No” you shouldn’t pay a poll tax to Caesar, he would satisfy the Pharisees, but be in trouble with the Roman authorities. Jesus was, consequently, in a dilemma which proved that, in one sense at least, religion and politics don’t mix.
4. The Answer (18-21a)
However, Jesus was not deceived for a moment (18). He perceived that despite the flattery, their motivation was from malice. They were not seeking information, but they were testing him. And, in view of this, he addressed them as hypocrites, because they were not really seeking an opinion from him at all. Rather, they had asked the question with the aim of destroying him. And that was not the action of honest men.
But Jesus continued to answer the question, anyway. Indeed, he asked them to provide a coin (19)—the same type used to pay the poll tax: a Roman denarius. A coin, he knew, was not usually carried by Jews because of their abhorrence to anything that carried a human likeness. And the Pharisees’ disciples, understandably, not carrying one themselves, consequently had to send away to get one.
However, when the denarius was finally presented, Jesus asked whose likeness and inscription it was that was on the coin (20-21). And, of course, with a Roman coin the answer was not difficult: Caesar’s.
Now the coin would have belonged to Jesus’s questioners. And even the questioners would have agreed that there were some things that were due to Caesar. So Jesus simply stated that one should give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s—to which they all would have agreed, religious leaders and political followers of the Herod’s alike.
5. Comment – The Tightrope Between Religion and Politics
Now perhaps, at this point, those who liked to maintain a deep division between politics and religion would have given a collective sigh of relief. Jesus had neatly walked the tightrope between the tensions of the day between religion and politics. He had neither upset the religious leaders, nor the political followers of Herod. He’d neatly kept the issues of religion and politics apart. So, to all present his answer was perfectly right. And the trap had consequently failed.
6. The Challenge (21b)
Except for the fact that Jesus didn’t leave it there. Because he then went on to remind his hearers that in addition to their obligations to the state, they also had obligations to God. And those too needed to be rendered. In other words he suggested that they lived in a world of tension. They were not only citizens of some earthly state, But they were also citizens of God. And their obligation to both should not be neglected.
And, from a superficial reading, that too may seem like Jesus was trying to keep both issues apart. And that he had managed to walk that tightrope between religion and politics to everyone’s satisfaction.
In doing so, though, he had effectively raised the bar regarding the tension between religion and politics. He wasn’t concerned with the petty squabbling and the opportunism between the religious leaders and the political followers of Herod. What he was concerned with, was peoples relationship to God.
And in his one phrase: ‘Return to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and return to God the things that are God’s’ Jesus effectively underpinned the different aspects of the conversation with the disciples of the Pharisees and the Herodians, which even they, despite their trickery, would have believed.
C. IMPLICATIONS
Except for the fact that the meaning of the phrase ‘Return to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and return to God the things that are God’s’ goes a whole lot deeper than any superficial understanding of the statement. Because there are three very important clues, wrapped up in this one statement.
1. The Motivation behind The Question
And the first clue relates to the motivation of the religious leaders. Because their motivation was not to get Jesus to answer a serious question about taxes, but it was designed to put Jesus offside with either his followers or the followers of the Herod’s.
Now the fact that the disciples of the Pharisees possessed Roman coins—and could agree to giving Caesar his due while still continuing to express their religious faith—says that they too believed that to some extent that there was a place for politics in their religious lives. They may not have been happy with the Roman occupation, but they could still agree to pay Caesar what was his due.
And this has implications for us. Because when someone tells us that religion and politics do not mix, it may be helpful, like Jesus, to seek out the motivation of the people making that statement. Are they politically motivated? Do they want to limit any opposition? Is there something that they are afraid of? Is there something they want to hide? Or why is it that they want to silence us from speaking on political issues?
2. The Importance of Politics for a Believer
The second clue is that in the first part of the saying of Jesus. ‘Return to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s’, even Jesus, the man of faith, did not try to deny the place of politics in life. Indeed he held it up to be something that was important, and something to which his hearers were obligated to respect.
Politics for Jesus, the Son of Man, the Son of David, the Son of God, was a very important part of life. But then part of his Jew heritage was that the state played a very important role in the order of creation. Indeed, it was part of God’s creation plan. Politics, and involvement in politics therefore is not something to be dismissed as irrelevant to Christian living. But rather something to which all of God’s people should play their part, to some degree.
3. Putting Politics Into Perspective
And the third clue is that the second half of Jesus’ phrase ‘Return to God the things that are God’s’ puts the whole thing in perspective. Indeed, that we need to give God his due in all things relating to God, and that we should not limit God to only certain aspects of life. Because, whereas Jesus has called on all of us to give to the state the things that belong to the state, his emphasise is much more on giving God his due.
a). Limitations on the things that are Caesar’s
As a consequence, this means that whereas we should uphold the importance of the state—and indeed play our role within it—the state is not to be an all-embracing body that can demand anything of anyone. Rather it is to be limited by the fact that people should never allow their obligations to the civil state to encroach on their payment of the things that are God’s.
b). No Limitations on the things that are God’s
On the other hand, according to Jesus’s teaching, there are no such limitations regarding our obligations to God. God should encompass every aspect of our lives (without restriction). And therefore if there are no parts of our lives where God is excluded, we cannot exclude God from anything, not even politics.
D. SUMMARY
As a consequence, if God is in charge of every aspect of our lives—including our obligations to the state—we can categorically state that religion and politics do mix. In fact we would be failing in our duty to God to exclude God from anything political at all.
The example of Jesus himself—the way he lived his life—for us, is an example to behold. In Jesus we perhaps have no better example of a religious man who was regularly involved in politics at a very basic, hands on, level. Jesus not only preached the message of the kingdom of God. But, as part of that, he actively spoke out about the abuses of the leaders of the time. And, in particular, in regard to the way they treated the poor, the outcast, and those who were being discriminated against.
Far from keeping the church and the state completely separate, for Jesus, part of his duty in proclaiming the gospel naturally included speaking out on political issues. As a consequence, if we’ve been called to speak out—to tell others about Jesus—then we’ve been called to speak out on political issues as well.
The overriding message however is that while we’ve been called to involve ourselves in politics, which should cover only part of our lives, religion—or our faith in God—should cover all of our lives. There should be no part of our lives of which God should not be a part. Because that is the meaning of those words of Jesus: ‘Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s’.
E. CONCLUSION
Now, I began today by raising the issue in regard to the use of sayings, proverbs, and useful phrases, and the great store that some people have in their use.
And in regard to the saying ‘There are two things in life you can’t avoid, death and taxes’ we may consider that to be generally true. However in regard to the saying “Religion and politics don’t mix” for Christians, at least, nothing could be further from the truth.
According to Jesus, we have obligations where politics is concerned. We are expected to take our part. However not to the exclusion of God. And that makes nonsense of the whole saying ‘Religion and politics don’t mix’. Because, while politics may be limited in its scope, God’s influence should affect every aspect of our lives, including our relationship to the state, of which we are called upon to take our part.
Posted: 12th April 2023
© 2023, Brian A Curtis
www.brianacurtis.com.au
