The Tribute-Money

S. Mark xii. 13–17

Nothing could express more clearly the determination of the chief men of Jerusalem to destroy Jesus, than to be told that for the second time the Pharisees and Herodians had entered into a compact together against Him. It would be difficult in the annals of history to find a more striking example of what is meant by “an unholy alliance.” The ecclesiastic and rigidly orthodox Religionist makes common cause with the political and freethinking Secularist — the one bound hand and foot to the Theocracy, the other the time-serving adherent of the Herodian Court.

It is not easy to discover the motives which prompted the Herodians to accept such a position, for they evidently played only a secondary part in the transaction. It is the Pharisaic character that is stamped alike on the design and the mode adopted for carrying it out. Their aim was to “catch Him in His words.” S. Matthew says to “entangle” Him. Both expressions 1 in the original suggest the craft and wily cunning of the hunter, who sets his traps warily, that the prey may fall into them without any suspicion. They approach Him with a courteous address, which reminds us of the traitor’s kiss, calculated as they believed to throw Him off His guard; and they praise Him for the well-known impartiality 3 and fearless independence of His conduct; and they made as though they were in a difficulty which they had no hope of solving for themselves. If He could help them to unravel it, a favour would be conferred upon them. Such manifestly is the tone which they assumed. The question was an oft-debated one, but it may have been revived at this time through the presence in Jerusalem 4 of Pontius Pilate, the representative of Rome, and also of Herod, its vassal king. At all events, under the circumstances, none more calculated to “entangle” our Lord could be imagined. “Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?” Supposing He should admit the Roman supremacy, and uphold the payment, they would take care that the people should hear of it, and His growing popularity would receive a severe check. The nation’s hopes of finding in Him the promised Messiah Who should sweep the alien invader out of the land, would be dashed to the ground by such a confession. If, on the other hand, He should take the opposite course, as they doubtless expected, and counsel resistance, their most eager wishes would be realised, because it would place Jesus completely at their mercy. They had only to turn to the Herodians and bid them to delate Him to the Roman Governor, promising at the same time to appear in court as witnesses of His seditious counsels. The revolt of Judas of Gamala a few years before, and the wide sympathy of the people with the course he had taken, would show Pilate the necessity of dealing with such a case in the most summary manner. Such was their deep-laid plot for placing Jesus in a position from which, as they thought, there was no escape.

We can see them as they stood round Him, waiting after the question was put, almost in breathless expectation, hardly able to conceal their satisfaction that their Victim was snared at last. But what a rude shock their hopes must have received by the very first words of His reply! “Ye hypocrites! why do you tempt Me?” It swept away at a stroke the whole web of their craft and cunning, and must have prepared them for another of those withering denunciations with which their ears were so familiar. But “before the people,” and doubtless for their sakes, He chose rather to answer the question deliberately; and He did it, so to speak, out of the very mouth of His questioners. As by a sudden flash of inspiration, and with a presence of mind that made them marvel, He called for the coin in which the tax was paid, not “the shekel of the sanctuary,” but the Roman denarius, and pointing to the Emperor’s head, and the familiar “legend” l that was inscribed on the rim, asked what it meant.

One of the most learned of their Rabbis has told us what the full force of that question was, and thereby enabled us to understand the bewilderment with which they must have heard it.

It was a common proverb among the Jews, “Wherever a king’s coin is current, in that country his authority is accounted supreme;” and it is illustrated by a curious dialogue between David and Abigail. She begins by asking what evil she has done to him. David replies that her husband has vilified his kingdom. Abigail rejoins that it can hardly be David’s kingdom, seeing that Saul’s coinage is still in circulation; and she concludes by the very pertinent question, “Is it not true that Saul is to be regarded as king so long as the people use his money?” In further support of the acceptance of this principle, at a date not very remote from that of which we are writing, it is said that when the famous Barchochba raised the standard of revolt in the reign of Hadrian, giving himself out to be the promised Messiah, he issued “a new coinage dating from the liberation of Jerusalem.” This, then, is the whole gist of our Lord’s reply: “You must recognise the fact. You use Caesar’s money, and by your own admission, without the need of consulting Me, you are bound to acknowledge him as your lord, and pay him his due.” It is no matter of surprise, then, that “when they heard these words they marvelled,” and were put to silence.

That command to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” involved a great deal. It taught them first the fact that their cherished expectation of a promised freedom from alien subjection was without foundation. It was nowhere taught in Scripture, as they falsely boasted, that they should be exempted from such a condition. “Thou mayest not set a stranger over thee” was a prohibition against adopting such a king of their own choice; it had no reference to what should be imposed by God as a punishment for national apostasy. Christ’s words awoke them to the realisation of the unwelcome truth that they had forfeited their ancient privilege. Caesar’s government, therefore, demanded their recognition; for it was their bounden duty to make a proper return l for the advantages of protection for life and property enjoyed through it. And such an acknowledgment was in no way incompatible with their allegiance to God. There need be no clashing between the two spheres of obligation. Caesar might claim their tribute as their emperor, but there was One to Whom, as their God, something higher was due, even their faith and reverence and love. The two sentences joined together by Christ may never be dissevered, and they teach men in every age, and under whatever government, that “they may never do anything contrary to the rights of God in obeying princes; and never violate the rights of princes under pretence of serving God.”

In this world there are many Caesars. Our Queen, our country, our family ties, our business occupations, all are involved in the command to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” No faith however sublime, no prayers however devout, can set a man free from the obligation imposed upon him, to do his duty in that state of life unto which it has pleased God to call him. “If any man provide not for his own, he is worse than an infidel.”

But while we are zealous for all these public and private considerations, as viewed from the side of temporal interests, let us never forget to acknowledge Him by Whom kings reign and prosperity is secured.

We ourselves are His every bit as much as the coin was Caesar’s. Our bodies are stamped with His Image, our souls redeemed by Christ’s Blood, our lives sanctified by His Holy Spirit; and for all these several blessings we are called not merely to give, but to give back — to make a return for — what we have received: as creatures, to Him Who created us; as redeemed, to the Redeemer; as regenerated and sanctified, to Him Who hath washed us in the laver of regeneration, and renews us day by day with the spirit of holiness.

Note: Trayideiju), to ensnare, or entrap, aypevw, to take in hunting.

Note: AiSdaKaXe, Rabbi, a deferential acknowledgment that they were prepared to “sit at His feet.”

Note: “To regard the person” of any one hardly conveys the meaning of the original (BXtTreiv et’s irpoawirov. It is to look at the external circumstances of any one: the position, wealth, influence, etc. irpawirov was the persona, the mask an actor wore, the character he assumed.

Note: Pontius Pilate was so unpopular that he usually resided at Cassarea, and only came occasionally to Jerusalem, as at the Passover, when his presence would be required in case of disturbances. The same motives, to a less degree perhaps, influenced the Herods.

Note: It was accidental that this particular coin bore the Emperor’s head, for out of deference to Jewish prejudice this was usually omitted, and only the name and title engraved on it.

Note: Not dore, but dirodore, “pay back.”