Matthew 25:15-22

Imperial Taxes

2. THE QUESTION OF IMPERIAL TAXES: Matthew 22:15–22

This was the Wednesday of Passover week, and Jesus was teaching in the Temple, which He had cleansed the day before when he turned over the tables of the moneychangers!

He had just finished telling and explaining three judgment parables against unbelieving Israel, particularly directed against the Temple rulers who had challenged His authority (Matt 21:23). After the second parable the chief priests and Pharisees were so enraged that they would have had Him arrested on the spot had they not “feared the crowds”(Matt 21:46).

The religious leaders resented Jesus because He exposed their pride, hypocrisy, and self-righteousness. They envied His great popularity with the people, especially in light of the fact that He had never sought or received official Sanhedrin certification as a rabbi. Most of all, they were incensed at His claim to be the Messiah and the Son of God, a claim which in their eyes was blatant blasphemy. He even dared to publicly humiliate them in the Temple, the one place where they thought their honor was sacrosanct and their authority incontestable.

Now, after the third scathing parable, they were all the more determined to find a means of doing away with Him.

BUT TO DO SO, THEY NEEDED TO TURN THE ROMANS AGAINST HIM AND HAVE HIM CONVICTED OF A CAPITOL OFFENCE! Luke 20:20, “So they watched him and sent spies, who pretended to be sincere, that they might catch him in something he said, so as to deliver him up to the authority and jurisdiction of the governor.”

As we have already noted, the Pharisees raised the question of Imperial taxes to trap Jesus in His words. And it was a clever trap! Literally an “entangle”!

It was the imposition of direct Roman taxation that had sparked off the revolt of Judas of Galilee in AD 6, and Judas’ ideology was the mainspring for many of the resistance movements which we conveniently label collectively as ‘Zealots’.

To approve of Roman taxation was to come out openly against this militant nationalism which enjoyed strong popular support, and it was no doubt the hope of Jesus’ questioners that he would thus forfeit much of his following.

But the opposite answer would be a convenient proof of Jesus’ treasonable attitude, to be used in persuading the Roman governor to act against him.

The Herodians, who appear only here in Matthew, were presumably partisans of the Herodian family (and therefore of Antipas in particular), whose political allegiance was therefore indirectly to Rome. Their rather unlikely collaboration with the Pharisees here represents therefore the two sides of Jesus’ dilemma, for the Pharisees, while not usually noted for political activity, are unlikely to have approved whole-heartedly of the Gentile rule over the people of God.

The address to Jesus, while it contains an element of flattery,- “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” - reflects what was surely his actual reputation, that of a fearless teacher and controversialist. Also it shows the hypocissy and duplicity of these pretend admirers of Jesus. To address a Jewish man as Teacher was a high form of honour, reserved for rabbis who had distinguished themselves as astute students and interpreters of Jewish law and tradition. The Talmud said, “The one who teaches the law shall gain a seat in the academy on high.”

All that has happened since his arrival in Jerusalem amply illustrates his willingness to speak his mind. (“Not swayed by opinions” means literally, ‘not look at the face of’, an idiom taken up in the word translated ‘partiality’, e.g. in Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Eph. 6:9; Jas 2:1, 9).

The tax (the Greek is singular) is specifically the poll-tax levied on all Jews and paid direct to Rome. There were other indirect taxes on sales, customs, etc., but this tax was the primary mark of their political subjection to a foreign power.

Poll-tax translates kēnsos, taken from the Latin (i.e., Roman) censere, from which is derived the English census. Of the many taxes the Romans exacted from occupied territories, none was more onerous to Jews than the poll-tax, a tax payable yearly by every individual and therefore sometimes called the head tax. Among other things, it was for the purpose of collecting the poll-tax that Rome took a periodic census, such as the one that had required Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem just before Jesus was born (Luke 2:1–4).

Paying for the support of the occupying forces and providing the many beneficial services for which Rome was famous required an enormous amount of money, necessarily supplied by taxation. Consequently, a land tax of one tenth of the grain and one fifth of the wine and oil produced was assessed annually, as was a one percent income tax on wage earners. Customs taxes on merchandise were collected at all ports and major crossroads.

The Romans offered many services to conquered peoples, not the least beneficial of which was the Pax Romana, or Roman peace. Because of their strategic military and commercial locations, many countries of the Near East had had little respite from war for centuries. They fought one invader after another and were ruled by one conqueror after another. At least under Roman protection they were free from war and could travel in relative safety anywhere in the empire. The Romans also provided valuable roads and aqueducts, many ruins of which still exist today.

Lawful does not refer to Roman law (there was no question about that!), but to the law of God; is it permissible for the people of God to express allegiance to a pagan emperor?

Jesus’ response is telling, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? The word hypocrites, as we have observed ebfore from Matthew means, two-faced! (see Matt 6:2). Jesus knows that they are insincere both in their flattery of him and with teh question being asked, because, whatever the merits of the question, the intent behind it is one of “malice”!

The money for the tax was the Roman denarius (see on Matt 20:1–7), a coin which strict Jews found objectionable because it bore a portrait of the Emperor (and the Decalogue forbade the making of images) and also an inscription describing him as ‘son of a god’. For normal commerce special copper coins were minted without these features, out of deference to Jewish susceptibilities; so no Jew need handle the objectionable denarius except to pay his tax, for which it was obligatory.

The fact that Jesus’ questioners could provide one on demand cut the ground from under their feet—they were using Caesar’s money, so let them also pay his taxes! Unless of course they were willing to be inconsistent in the application of their principled objections! Hence their hypocrissy!

The verb Jesus uses here reinforces this point: “give to Caesar” menas, literally “give back’, whereas the verb they had used in v. 17 was simply ‘give’. It is the verb for paying a bill or settling a debt; they owe it to him.

But Jesus’ reply does not stop with a simple acceptance of Roman taxation. To God the things that are God’s has sometimes been regarded as virtually cancelling the previous words, since God’s claim is above that of Caesar. But that is to make nonsense of Jesus’ argument drawn from the production of the coin. The addition serves rather to put the whole issue in a wider perspective. It was loyalty to God which was the basis for Zealot objections to Roman taxation, but Jesus, without reducing the demands of loyalty to God, indicates that political allegiance even to a pagan state is not incompatible with our loyalty to God. There is no rigid division of life into the ‘sacred’ and the ‘secular’, but rather a recognition that the ‘secular’ finds its proper place within the overriding claim of the ‘sacred’. What should happen when the two conflict is not at issue here; in the political situation of Jesus’ time he, unlike the ‘Zealots’, clearly sees no such conflict.

It was of course an answer with which no Zealot could be content, if he understood Jesus’ meaning, but the words could not be unambiguously construed as firmly for or against the Zealot option. So it was a clever answer, at which they marvelled.

But if the interpretation given above is correct, Jesus did not just evade the trap with slick ambiguity, but laid down an important principle for his followers who would soon face the issue of the legitimacy of secular authority, even though there is no easy rule of thumb by which to apply that principle to each specific situation.

So what do we learn from all of this? The general principle derived from both accounts is clear. A believer is obligated to fulfill his duties as a citizen of this world.

The New Testament makes clear that a believer’s primary citizenship is not in this world. “Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. But cour citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself. Therefore, my brothers, whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, stand firm thus in the Lord, my beloved. (Phil. 3:17–4:1)

Likewise in Ephesians 2:19, Paul says “You are fellow citizens with the saints, and members of the household of God” (Eph. 2:19).

But, although our ultimate and eternal citizenship is in heaven, we are in this world and we must submit to governing authorities, who are appointed by God to rule over the affairs of mankind. Paul, makes this absoluitely clear in Romans 13:1-7 “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.”

Now, of course this is challenging, particularly because human governments can sometimes be terrifyingly autocratic and really corrupt. Even then however, if we cannot by deomcratically lawful means remove such a Government, it is our duty to obey such a Government, unless that Government requires the Christian to disobey God directly. Then we are bound by divine law to refuse subjection to human law.

Paul, writing to Timothy said:. “I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior” (1 Tim. 2:1–3).

Peter declared early in his ministry, there are obvious limits to a believer’s submission to human authority. When he and John had been charged by the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem not to preach the gospel, the two men responded, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19–20; cf. 5:28–29). Many believers in the early church lost their freedom, their possessions, and even their lives because they refused to offer incense to Caesar. They would honor him as a human leader, but they would not worship him as a god.

The Christian, for example, has no right to lie, steal, commit murder, or worship a false god, no matter what the dictates of a human government might be and no matter what the consequences for disobedience might be.

Out duty in the face of living in a corrupt society is to Philippians 2:15 “be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world.”

So, Peter says to Christian believerts to whom he writes later, “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right” (1 Pet. 2:13–14). They are to do this because of their privileges status: “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9). Because of this lofty status, Peter says, “I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts, which wage war against the soul. Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may on account of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation” (1 Pet 2:11–12).

Jesus shows us by His own example that Christians are not to opt out of any secular government involvement, including paying taxes, just because they are citizens of God’s kingdom and members of His family.

Living in a sinful human society that, for the most part, does not take into account God’s will and pattern for our lives and tramples on His standards of righteousness, blaspheming His name, and sometimes even celbrating the thigns that He condemns, does not give us a licence to refuse to cooperate with its demands!

The people to whom Paul and Peter wrote were experiencing increased persecution and oppression at the hands of Rome. Yet the apostles told them not only to be loyal and law-abiding citizens but helpful citizens as well.

The early church did not start an insurrection against Rome or a campaign against slavery, wicked and cruel as both those were. In fact, the Holy Spirit took the words of slavery (slave, bond-slave, bondage, servant, etc.) and made them the symbols of Christian dedication and submission.

In His omniscient providence God also used the pagan Romans to spread the Greek language, a universal language used to record His Word and carry it to the ends of the known world of that day. God used them to build a system of roads over which His messengers could easily travel as they carried the good news throughout the empire. And God used the Pax Romana, or Roman peace, to allow those messengers to travel in relative safety

We are left to ask what is the Christian’s reasonable relationship to human society and to governmental authority in particular?

We are to do this “for the Lord’s sake.” The key to the command is not that every human law and ruler is godly and just, a lot are far from it. But we obey the governing authorities because He asks us to!

Christians should have an attitude of genuine respect for human government, not because it is always deserving of respect but because that is the will of their Lord, who instituted it for man’s benefit.

Likewise, a Christian, as a member of the citizenry as a country may be afforded the right to try and change society for the better. We have the right to protest and help change unjust laws and governments when we have the opportunity to do so.

But in a democratic society especially, the major injustices and evils within it are never primarily the result of poor government or poor laws, bad as those might be. When the people have no respect for law, God’s or men’s, and when their standards and motives revolve around their own selfish interests, no government can be stable or provide justice and order.

Even the most godly and moral leaders cannot infuse morality into an immoral society. It is futile to work at changing evil laws and removing evil leaders without changing the evil hearts of those whom the laws try to control and the leaders try to rule.

Also when faced with unjust suffering, should follow the example of our Lord, who “suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously” (1 Pet. 2:21–23).

Jesus submitted to suffering He did not deserve from those who had no right to judge Him in the first place. He committed no sin, outwardly or inwardly, yet He submitted to corrupt and sinful authorities, both religious and political. He took unjust abuse in order that He might better win men to Himself, and He is the example for everyone who calls Him Lord.

And so the NT appeals to slaves to be submissive to their masters, Peter declared, “with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a man bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly” (1 Pet. 2:18–19).