The pericope is cut off from the previous section by the phrase "then" (v. 15), the beginning of a new action by the Pharisees who decide to trap Jesus in what he says, and the arrival of new interlocutors: the students (mathetas) of the Pharisees with the Herodians. The episode closes with their departure (v. 22)
The present debate with the lay leaders of Jerusalem are to be understood within the series of confrontations that began with the elders and high priests in Matthew 21:23. The interrogations will end in 22:46 but Jesus will have something to say about these confrontations in Matthew 23, when as Son of Man he pronoounces judgment on the representatives of Jerusalem's power groups, both lay and priestly.
In Matthew 21:23, the chief priests and elders which are also mentioned in Jesus' predictions about his death begin the series of interrogations about his authority. At the end of 21:45 the Pharisees are mentioned together with the chief priests as those who react to Jesus is implying in his parables. It is the group of Pharisees who initiate the action to trap Jesus sending to him their disciples and the Herodians. Following them (Matthew 22:23-33) are the Sadducees who belong to the priestly class and enemies of the Pharisees. After them (Matthew 22:34-40) the Pharisees themselves will interrogate Jesus.
After Jesus' parabolic answer that he has come with the authority of the Son sent to look for fruits in God's vineyard, Israel (see the Parable of the Wicked Tenants), the questions put forward to him are about taxes paid to Caesar (22:15-22), the Resurrection (22:23-33) and finally about the two greatest commandments (22:34-40). At the end of this, Jesus, makes his own question about the Christ, the Son of David (22:41-45). Highlighted in this last is Jesus' understanding that the Christ is not only Son of David, but also Son of God. In Matthew's Gospel, "Son of God" is also "Son of Man", the title that Jesus uses for himself. Thus, the pronouncements of Jesus in Matthew 23-24 where as Son of Man he pronounces judgment over the leaders of Jerusalem, Jerusalem itself, and the Temple. 1
The Pharisees, while hatching the ploy to trap Jesus in his words do not confront him directly at first. They send to him their students who come in the company of the Herodians. The Herodians, like the Pharisees were lay. They were not just a political party but a sect that distinguished themselves from the Pharisees and the Sadducees in that they promoted the idea that Herod the Great's dynasty is Messianic. 2
The question that they put forward is a question about taxation. It is double-pronged: If Jesus answers "No", then he can be accused of treason. If Jesus answers "Yes", however, he can be accused as a lover of the Empire, one who acknowledges a foreign deity and numbered among those who collaborate with the enemy, like the tax collectors. The interlocutors preface this with a statement intended to hide their duplicity.
It is to be noted that this is the second time in Matthew's gospel that Jesus deals with a question about taxes. The first time (Matthew 17:24-27), the issue is raised to Peter and Jesus, without being asked about it, tells Peter to pay the tax for the both of them, taking money from the mouth of a fish. The idea behind this is conciliatory: while Jesus thinks that they should not pay -- they are exempted from it -- they still have to so as not to scandalize anyone. 3 The matter about the tribute to Caesar was different, because of its religious and political implications.
Jesus, answer moves in three steps. First, he asks for a coin. This first step already turns the table on his interlocutors. They produce the coin thereby showing they are the ones using it and are the ones who have subjected themselves to Caesar. Second, Jesus tells his interlocutors to describe the coin for him. "Whose picture is there", he asked, "and what is the inscription?" The coin had on it inscribed the face of Tiberius and the words: "Tiberius Caesar, Son of the Divine Augustus, great high priest." On the basis of the answer given to him, Jesus replied to the original question: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's"
The interlocutors are the ones who show that they are using the coin of Caesar and therefore are to be included among those enjoying the benefits of the Empire's economy. Thus they should be ones paying the tribute. Jesus does not have the coin, but he is interested in justice. The second part of his answer shows what kind of justice he seeks.
The previous parable on the Wicked Tenants and the episode of the fruitless fig tree should already give us a hint of what Jesus is implying by this. He has come to look for the fruits of Jewish religion that the leaders of Jerusalem should guarantee but he has found none (the symbol of the fig tree). His response, which is actually a command, puts the question of taxes on a different basis: the Jewish leaders should be concerned, not with Caesar's money, but with the fruits of conversion and repentance that God demands from them.
Subsequent reflection on this gospel passage have led interpreters to see her an incipient distinction between Church and State. There are some interpreters however who would contend that such an idea as the separation of powers is not being promoted here. Instead, what we have here is simply an ad hominem argument that unmasks the insincerity of Jesus' interlocutors.
The context provided by Matthew's gospel is one that is inclined towards the idea of giving to God what is His. We have seen this implied in the Parable of the Wicked Tenants where the interest of the owner of the vineyard is to get his share of the vineyard's fruits. We also see this in the Parable of the Wedding Banquet where the interest of the king is that his invited guests give value to his invitation (that is, not to take it lightly). Jesus' second statement -- Give to God what belongs to God -- is both a command and a reprimand. The Jerusalem leaders like the wicked tenants have not been giving the fruits that they should be giving to God and now are even poised to trap Jesus, the Son who has come to collect the fruits of righteousness.
It has been suggested that when Jesus says "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" Jesus appears portrayed as friendly to the state although his lifestyle is so revolutionary that the Romans themselves will put him to death4. The statement about Jesus being supportive of the state should be taken within the proper perspective: Even the Jews taught that nothing be done that would provoke civil anarchy. Paying taxes was a burden that kept the Empire from interfering with the relative peace that the Jews enjoyed and which guaranteed the continuing practise of Israel's religion. Thus the command "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" should be understood within an attitude that takes the status quo of Roman Imperialism as a lesser evil. But as we have shown above, Jesus' interest is really to counter the pretensions of his interlocutors and expose their duplicity, and not really to expound a teaching on Religion and State.
- 1. We have described how the titles "Son of Man" and "Son of God" are used in the Gospel of Matthew in the article The Disciple and the Cross of Christ.
- 2. See the Wikipedia article on the Herodians
- 3. The question about the temple tax existed while the Christians were still considered Jews. It was of particular interest to Matthew's community since it was in Palestine and lived in the shadows of the Temple. The paying of the Temple tax then was the community's way of living in communion with the Jews.
- 4. The suggestion is in a footnote of the Harper Collin's Study Bible, in loco Matthew 22:21
