Taxes and the Resurrection
Notes
Transcript
During Passion week, the religious leaders were trying to discredit or trap Jesus so that they could get rid of him. The animosity that had been building throughout his entire ministry had reached a peak when he exercised his Messianic right to purify the Temple. But Jesus had organized things so that he was constantly in public; and the people loved him. So any attempt to just arrest and kill him would result in a riot. And since Rome tended to react very strongly to riots, they did not dare arrest Jesus while he enjoyed so much popular appeal.
They already tried a directly political game - they challenged him to reveal the source of his authority to cleanse the temple; if he said God, they would report him to the Romans; if he said anything else, he would lose popular support and then they could get rid of him. He said neither; instead he challenged them to identify the source of John the Baptist’s authority. That turned the tables on them, so now they were trapped in the same quandary they were trying to put Jesus in.
But Jesus continued with a parable that connected them with the persecution of the prophets throughout Israel’s history, and warned them that if they opposed the Messiah, they would be destroyed. The veiled language prevented them from using it against him, while making it very clear to everyone what he was saying.
They would continue to try to trap Jesus with catch-22 situations. The first one was about paying taxes to Caesar.
Tribute to Caesar
Tribute to Caesar
Now this question was about taxes, but not just any tax - this was the poll tax to Caesar - that is, this is a specifically Roman tax. Jesus also addressed Jewish Taxes elsewhere - when Peter was asked whether Jesus paid the Temple Tax, he said yes, but Jesus indicated that while he did not actually have to pay, he did anyway. But this is a Roman tax, levied on all people.
Jews hated the Roman tax. It was from a pagan government; in fact on that Denarius that they handed Jesus was the inscription, “Tiberius Caesar, son of the divine Augustus.” That is, on the very coin itself was the declaration that Caesar was a god. Nationalistic Jews - especially Zealots - argued that since this was a pagan government, it was not lawful to pay the tax because it was not lawful to contribute to a government that used that money to worship false gods. In fact, they argued that paying taxes to Caesar was incompatible with the worship of God.
But Matthew and Mark tell us that among the spies in this group were Herodians, meaning people who believed that Herod ought to be King. They argued that since the Roman Government was in power, God had put it there; therefore paying taxes to Caesar was in fact part of being a loyal servant of God. They very well knew that their position was very unpopular. But the Pharisees had also sent people with them - that is, they used the Herodians because the Herodians believed in paying taxes to Caesar, and so could make the best case for something that would get Jesus in trouble.
They try to goad Jesus into declaring that paying taxes to Caesar was wrong, and then they could deliver him to Governor Pilate with the accusation that he had advocated not paying taxes. This was the charge of Insurrection. In fact, even though Jesus did not fall into their trap, they later tried to argue that he had taught this.
And they began to accuse Him, saying, “We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, saying that He Himself is Christ, a King.”
They pretend to be sincere, flattering him that they recognize that he speaks the truth without partiality and taught the way of God truly - this is exactly what you would say if you wanted Jesus to say that you ought not pay taxes to Rome.
Notice, however, that in fact their flattery is true. Jesus really does not show partiality. He freely ate with Tax Collectors and Pharisees alike.
The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’
Then one of the Pharisees asked Him to eat with him. And He went to the Pharisee’s house, and sat down to eat.
And he really did teach the way of God truly. This is an example of how it is possible to lie by telling the truth. Every word they said was true; yet it hid the deception that they wanted to learn the truth. They did not want to learn the truth; this was a “Gotcha” question.
Now the problem is that it would seem that even if Jesus did recognize the trap, he cannot answer either with a yes or a no. If he answers yes, he will lose the respect of the crowds who universally hate the poll tax and long for freedom from Roman oppression. If he answers no he will be arrested and killed as an insurrectionist by Rome. It would seem to be the perfect trap, except for one tiny detail. It didn’t work.
Jesus does not answer either yes or no, instead he calls for a denarius. Why? Why can’t he just say his proverb without this visual aid? Because pointing out that their own money is inscribed with Caesar’s likeness forces them to demonstrate that they are already using Roman Governmental services. They use Roman currency, so they are already submitting to Roman Rule whether they like it or not - now they are the ones that have to say they approve of the Roman Government. So they instantly lose the respect of the crowd. Furthermore, the point of this coin is that God has appointed Rome as the governmental authority at this time, and government, even pagan government, is appointed by God. Thus, Rome has the right to exist; and if it has the right to exist, it must collect taxes. Since it has to collect taxes to exist, then the subjects of Rome must pay those taxes. The use of Roman currency demonstrates that Israel is, in fact, part of the Roman Empire and thus the Jews there are subjects of Rome. Thus, the straightforward answer to the question is yes. God expects you to pay the poll tax. But because Jesus’ opponents said that, rather than Jesus himself, Jesus does not lose respect from the crowd.
I’ve heard some conservative commentors online arguing that all tax is theft. Jesus reveals that, sorry, no. Not all taxes are theft; government has the right to exist, and it cannot exist without collecting taxes. Even if the government is ungodly, God has appointed it to be the power at that time, therefore, government has the right from God to tax. That does not mean all taxes are inherently just; it is certainly possible for a government to commit injustice by taxation; however, just because a tax exists does not make it theft.
Jesus’ conclusion can only follow after establishing that Rome ought to exist since they already recognize it. Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s means that Government has a legitimate sphere of authority within which they have the right to demand obedience; if it were not so they could not protect citizens from foreign invaders or punish evildoers to protect the innocent. However, this sphere of authority is not unlimited; Jesus does not say that Caesar can do what he likes; he says that Caesar can demand what is rightfully his and no more; he does not elaborate on what the limits of government are. However, he does imply that there are limits, and if government goes beyond those limits, it need not be obeyed.
But we can observe that governmental authority does not fade because it does evil things; idolatry is the worse sin possible and Caesar still has his legitimate sphere of authority. that authority is not invalid because government is undemocratic; Caesar was a dictator. That authority is not invalid because it is a foreign conqueror. That’s what Rome was. Governmental authority does become invalid if it commands disobedience to God. At that point we must obey God rather than man.
But if he stopped there, he would look like he supported Rome unilaterally, and he does not; instead he continues that God too has a legitimate sphere of authority; and he has the right to demand obedience. But we ought not think that God’s authority and Caesar’s authority are equal; Jesus is not arguing for separation of church and state here. God’s authority is universal; there is nothing that God has no right to command. The important point to be made is not that God has a sphere of authority - that’s just everything. The important point to be made is that it is possible to do both; it is possible to render to Caesar the obedience that is rightfully his; it is possible to also obey God at the same time. It is not a contradiction to pay taxes to a pagan government and also obey God; at least, as long as Caesar stays within the authority that is rightfully his. Caesar can even take those taxes and build a pagan temple with it, and that does not make it invalid to pay taxes. Because that’s exactly what Herod the Great did - he built a temple to Caesar using the taxes he collected.
My point is that our government also does immoral things with our tax money. We can and should be frustrated by that, but this does not give us the right to fail to pay our taxes. Of course, unlike Jesus we live in a democracy where we can do something about the immoral actions of our government leaders. So you ought to vote for righteousness as much as it is possible. It’s impossible to vote for a perfect candidate who will do everything he ought to do; but it is possible to vote for someone who will do more good than the opposing candidate. But if your attempts to vote in righteousness fail, there is no contradiction between paying your taxes and speaking out against the evils that our government propagates.
Marriage in the Resurrection
Marriage in the Resurrection
So the direct political challenge failed; the Herodians failed to tangle Jesus in a political/theological debate. So the Sadducees then attempt to tangle Jesus in an unresolvable theological conflict. Luke reminds us that they do not believe in the resurrection; therefore they don’t actually think it will happen. In fact Josephus tells us that not only do they deny the resurrection, they believe that the soul dies with the body.
They aren’t asking about what the resurrection will be like - you only ask that if you believe it will happen. They are trying to prove that believing the resurrection ends up by contradicting the Law of Moses.
They don’t actually care about the obscure legal provision they bring up. It’s about making Jesus look like he is against the Law of Moses. If they succeed in doing that, they will discredit him before the people, since all of the people exalt the Law of Moses.
To do this, they have several assumptions - first, they only accept the Law of Moses as Scripture. So Daniel 12:2 is not accepted as Scripture.
And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Since they reject the prophets, they don’t care what Daniel said, and only care about the Law of Moses. But their scenario still ends up dealing with a situation created by the Law of Moses. Merely quoting Daniel to prove the resurrection wouldn’t do anything. Jesus must solve the problem they pose.
Second, that all marital relationships continue as normal in the resurrection. If this were not so, their entire argument falls apart. Third, they assume that it is immoral for one woman to be married to more than one man. That was a cultural assumption that ended up being correct. Jesus himself articulated the Biblical standard from Genesis 2:24
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
That is - one woman for one man for life. Thus both polygamy - one man with many wives - and polyandry - one woman with many husbands - are a departure from the Biblical ideal.
Therefore they intentionally set up a hypothetical situation where dutiful adherence to the Law of Moses ended up having many men married to one woman due to the resurrection.
To do this they noted the obscure provision of levirate marriage. The Sadducees’ summary is quite accurate in terms of the law itself.
“If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.
And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.
In other words, the set up for the situation is that if a married man dies with no heir, his widow is not permitted to just marry anyone else. Instead, the brother of the dead man must take the woman as his wife, for the purpose of producing an heir who will inherit the estate of the dead man.
To add to this, if the brother refused, the city was to perform a shaming ceremony for his refusal. In other words, you can’t claim that this provision was for the hardness of people’s hearts, the way it was for divorce under the law. This really was legislated by God.
Now as originally intended it would normally be a bit of a sacrifice to do this, as if the dead man did not inherit, the remaining brothers would inherit a larger portion of their father’s estate. raising up an heir for the dead man would mean a smaller portion for the one who performed the levirate marriage.
The most notable examples of something like Levirate marriage in the Bible are (1) Ruth. Boaz was not her husband’s brother, but he was a near relative, and he did produce an heir for the dead man’s estate. The other example was Judah in Genesis 38; but that had all kinds of other problems. My point is that this law probably wasn’t carried out that often. That’s why the Sadducees picked it. They were hoping to find a legal loophole that Jesus hadn’t ever heard of before.
But the Sadducees wanted a situation where multiple brothers had the same legitimate claim on the same woman. Therefore in their hypothetical scenario, seven brothers all marry the same woman and none of them produce an heir at all. Thus, none of them can say - I am the one with the kid; I should have her. Now I don’t know but if I was brother number 4-6, I think it might be a good time to become a confirmed bachelor! But no, all seven brothers dutifully carry out the law of Moses and try to produce an heir by the same woman, and none of them do.
So at this point they think they have Jesus caught. Only brothers who were really dedicated to the law would carry out levirate marriage so faithfully, so it seems like they are in the ridiculous situation of all being truly married to the same woman. This isn’t just awkward; it’s immoral. Yet the immoral situation is caused by following the law faithfully. It isn’t caused by someone doing evil and ignoring the law. They think they will force Jesus to admit that the resurrection creates immoral situations by nature, and therefore Jesus would appear to sanction immorality.
Here Jesus has to resolve the situation by theological reasoning. It isn’t enough to play political games; he needs to have an answer for a really obscure theological dilemma, and it need to be comprehensible to the crowds who are listening. Quite the challenge.
And Jesus resolves it by attacking their assumptions about the resurrection. They assumed that all relationships continue as before the resurrection, but this is not the case. Instead, marriage as an institution will cease to exist. None of the brothers are married to the woman, because resurrected beings don’t marry.
Levirate marriage is all about inheritance. It is a provision designed to make sure that no one is without a legitimate heir to carry on his name after he dies. But immortal beings do not need this; they don’t have heirs because they never have to pass on their stuff. Instead, they are sons of God in the same way the angels are. The angels are the sons of God because each of them are directly created by God. The Resurrected Humans have new bodies directly created by God as well, so the provisions of inheritance no longer apply.
Now this means a complete restructuring of social relationships. Marriage is the first human relationship - Adam and Eve. However, all human relationships have been contingent on the need for mankind to fill the earth; once the resurrection takes place, those who rise from the dead will not be needed for that role; instead, we are going to rule. This means that we will have many relationships that are rich and fulfilling, as rich and fulfilling as family has been in this life.
But Jesus isn’t really interested about describing life in the resurrection; the issue of levirate marriage is really the smokescreen for the real issue - that the Sadducees do not believe what God has taught about the resurrection. Now for Jesus to persuade them, he has to work only from the Pentateuch. Quite the challenge. And you need to pay attention to follow him. He alludes to the passage about the burning bush, when God first addresses Moses, he says
Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.
Now in Hebrew the “am” is implied. Hebrew uses the to be verb much less than English requires; yet Jesus derives information from the fact that God is claiming to be the God of the patriarchs in the present - who were obviously long dead by the time of Moses.
The other point that Jesus makes is that God is not the God of the dead but of the living. That is, for God to be someone’s God implies a continued relationship. That what God means when he declares that he will be the God of Israel.
I will take you as My people, and I will be your God. Then you shall know that I am the Lord your God who brings you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.
Now it is impossible to have a relationship with someone who does not exist, thus, if God declares that he is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then the patriarchs must have existence in the afterlife. It’s the only way that God could still have a relationship with them; furthermore, the dead cannot have a relationship with God
For in death there is no remembrance of You; In the grave who will give You thanks?
That is, if the dead are to continue to worship and praise the Lord among the living, there must be a resurrection at some point. And for God to be their God, they must demonstrate worship in the land of the living.
Now the scribes - who were predominately Pharisees, were pleased with this defense of the resurrection, because they believed in the resurrection as well. So in spite of their hatred of Jesus, they couldn’t help by be happy that Jesus helped defend it.
