Render unto Caesar

The following article was originally part of a larger paper on "Obeying the Authorities." Though it is related, we felt it better to break this out as a separate article. If you wish to read the full article click here. 

What does the bible have to say regarding taxes? In this paper, we will look at two key passages; 

 

1. Peter "volunteering" Christ to pay the temple tax and 
2. A quote often heard from a minister during a Sunday sermon..."Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"...

 Matt. 17:24 and following says,

24 "After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, "Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax?" 25 "Yes, he does," he replied. When Peter came into the house Jesus was the first to speak. (The idea of “first to speak” in the original suggests Christ spoke before Peter could raise the matter. Other translations and particularly "The Message" give a good sense of the original and render it,” But as soon as they were in the house, Jesus confronted him...") "What do you think, Simon?" he asked. "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes--from their own sons or from others?" 26 "From others," Peter answered. "Then the sons are exempt," Jesus said to him. 27 "But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours." (NIV)

 

• The temple tax

There are several things to note in the above passage.

1. Christ's quick querying of Peter was a mild rebuke to Peter for speaking before thinking. (A common characteristic of Peter).

2. Christ used this as an opportunity to instruct Peter.

3. Kings do not collect taxes from their own but others and therefore the sons are exempt. Most Christians simply read right over this focusing on a text and ignoring the context. What Christ is saying is both Christ and Peter, who were "sons" of Israel, are not obligated to pay but are exempt from this tax. But if they were exempt this raises the question, why did Christ instruct Peter to still pay it. We will address that shortly. (It just so happens the son's being exempt is also the case in our system when you study what our tax law REALLY says. You may not be aware of this if you have not taken the time to study what the tax law actually says. It is the foreigner, the non-resident alien, the "other" who are required to file and not the sons (sons being the offspring of the country if you will, i.e. its citizens. It makes one wonder how aware the founders were of this passage when writing the Constitution. You could make the argument that they patterned our tax system after these instructions from Jesus to Peter)

4. Christ did not use his or Peters own money or even money from the disciples "treasury" to pay this tax but Peter got it out of the mouth of a fish. (As a humorous aside could we say that it takes nothing short of a miracle to pay taxes? Just a thought.) Why didn’t Christ simply instruct Peter to pay with their own money or the disciples "treasury" fund? In addition, why didn't Christ have Peter pay for the rest of the disciples and not just for Himself and Peter? This is a clear indication it wasn't required of any of them but since Peter volunteered that Christ paid it, Christ instructed him to put money were his mouth had gone, when he didn't need to.

It is also worth noting Christ instructed Peter to "fix" the problem he created through that which he was most familiar with, fishing. 

How Christ handled this whole event, as well as his querying Peter and then accepting his reply, all indicate that paying the tax in this instance was not a requirement. Christ's reason for instructing Peter to pay the tax appears to be for other reasons listed above.

First, Christ used Peter's presumption and error in judgment as an opportunity to teach Peter an important lesson. As he often did, Peter spoke without thinking, creating a problem. Since Peter created this problem Peter needed to resolve it as well, therefore Christ's unusual instructions for Peter to find a fish and get the money out of its mouth and pay the tax he voluntarily agree (without checking with Christ first) that Christ paid.

Secondly, since Peter had already committed the Lord to pay this tax by saying, "yes he pays it…" obligating both himself and Peter, Christ had Peter pay it to avoid offending someone for the sack of the gospel. (Have you ever had someone volunteer you for something without getting your permission?)

I think it's fair to say if Peter had said, "you will have to ask my Lord", rather than speaking for Christ, Christ would have responded to the inquirers the same way he did Peter by asking them, "From who do the kings of the earth collect...taxes...?" If their response was correct, as was Peter's, their own reply would have acknowledged the tax wasn't required (the sons are exempt) and therefore neither Christ nor Peter would have needed to pay the tax. But for the reasons mentioned, Christ did instruct Peter to pay it, but not because it was required to be paid.

On a separate but related matter, it is worth noting in Luke 19:2-10 that Zacchaeus the tax collector was hated by all and referred to as a sinner. Christ's response was that he had come to save those who were lost, i.e. sinners. This suggests that Zacchaeus was a better than average example. Instead of refuting the crowds' view of Zacchaeus as a sinner, he confirmed it by his reply.

There is not anything necessarily or inherently wrong with taxes or those who collect them, but it is interesting that even in Christ's day the tax system seemed to be a receptacle for the despised and unethical. Do we see any indication this may also be the case today? Zacchaeus was said to be a wealthy man yet his sole source of earnings - supposedly - was the collecting of taxes. He later acknowledged, by his willingness to pay back to those he had collected from, that he had illegally stolen from others by extracting from them more than they owed and using tax collection as a guise. Is there a pattern here we can learn from?

• Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's… 

Those who advocate that any and all taxes should be paid without question, appear to consistently rely upon the superficial translation of the following passage rather than the context in which this story is set. The key to properly interpreting this statement "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is to understand the context which clearly shows that Jesus was responding to a trap being set for him. How he avoided this trap is actually the focus of this passage, not taxes.

Mark 12: 13-16

¹³Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in  his words. ¹⁴They came to him and said, "Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth (when your antagonists seek to flatter you, beware). Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? ¹⁵Should we pay or shouldn't we?" ¹⁶But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. (i.e. their question wasn't sincere and the real reason thy were raising it) "Why are you trying to trap me?" he asked. "Bring me a denarius and let me look at it." They brought the coin, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied. ¹⁷Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him.

To be a trap, the intent was that any answer would result in the desired outcome by the trappers. If Christ’s answer was to not pay Caesar the tax (As probably anticipated by the questioners. It is very possible that Jesus was suspected of leading a group of tax rebels who would have disapproved of their leader paying taxes to Rome), Jesus would have convicted himself of a capital crime under Roman law and the questioners would now have an excuse to bring him before Pilot for sentencing. To protest the tax in that day was punishable by crucifixion. The fact that Caiaphas raised this issue later before Pilot to persuade him to crucify Christ supports this. (Lk 23:2 "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king.”)

If, on the other hand, Christ had said it was right to pay Caesar, they would likely have tried to accuse him of being unfaithful to God and therefore not truly the Son of God as he claimed but an impostor, worthy of death.

The Pharisees thought they had set a clever, inescapable trap for Christ. No matter how he answered, they "had" him, or so they thought.

However, the response by Jesus amazed them. Christ saw through their guise i.e. ¹⁶… Jesus knew their hypocrisy… and did not give them either response they were hoping for but completely eluded their question and therefore their trap. Christ, instead turned the table and simply put the problem back on them. "Whose portrait is this...?" Christ asked. In essence, he was saying to them, you figure out what belongs to whom and if a tax is due, pay it to the appropriate party.

His answer was not at all an admission of a requirement much less a command to pay taxes to the government of his day - as some often suggest when quoting this particular phrase. To just take the isolated statement, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" without looking at the context is to miss entirely why he made that statement, to begin with. He wasn’t giving a command, He was giving them an answer to their question in a way that avoided the trap they were trying to set.

Because we all tend to approach a passage with preset ideas, we have to always be on guard not to read into the passages what we have predetermined (or wrongfully told) but instead prayerfully seek to see what any given passage is actually saying. Our goal should be extracting from passage within the context as well as the text the meaning, not read a predetermined interpretation into it. As my Hermeneutics professor was fond of telling us, "a text without a context is a pretext."

Tied to this is that we are all prone to interpret the bible according to our fears and emotions. By that I mean if we are afraid of the responsibility a passage places on us (such as taking responsibility for our choices) we will interpret a passage in such a way as to avoid facing those responsibilities or subsequent fears. Instead of changing our thinking, we “change scripture” to fit what is comfortable. Interpretation of certain passages often has far more to do with our emotions than our correct understanding of a passage, i.e. our fears and emotions often color our view/understanding of things, including God's very words.

In addition, there is still the matter of WHO is Caesar and WHAT belongs to "him?" As Christians, we are not opposed to Government (when it operates according to God's word) or the necessity of raising revenue under the specific conditions clearly spelled out in the Constitution. Local authorities do maintain "law and order" by preventing evildoers from wreaking havoc on their fellow citizens (though things have often gone upside down of late when addressing the police). However, we are opposed to those in Government violating the law and raising revenues outside of what the law allows. When they do, this is theft, not unlike what Zacchaeus committed. When this occurs we are not obligated to participate in such thievery but in fact, as stewards, we are entrusted to manage the resources God gives us and to resist attempts at interfering with that responsibility. As Jefferson once said, resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. Though Jefferson was just a man, and possibly not even a Christian, I trust you agree his wisdom was sound and scripturally based.