The way I have long interpreted this story is, VERY SIMPLY put, Jesus is espousing a sort of spiritual vs. physical dualism; He was saying "You have Earthly obligations and you have spiritual obligations, and one does not erase the other. I saw it as anti-zealot in that he did not make a condemnation of Rome or those who did not resist Rome, and anti-orthodox in that He did not shrink from holding a coin that had a graven image (one that likely had a god on the reverse, or even on the obverse depending on which Caesar it was).
However, I was listening to a lengthy interview with Reza Aslan, author of the new book Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, and his interpretation is far more radical: he believes that Jesus was saying “give Rome their coins (and everything else that is Roman) back, but give the land of Israel back to God”- little short of an endorsement of the Zealots in fact.
I have not read the book yet- I have ordered it and may download it for iPad- so I’m not sure how annotated this section is.
How do you interpret that story?
*You’ll notice the book has very few stars: if you read the reviews you’ll learn why. Most are from morons who haven’t actually read it but are giving it one star because Aslan is Muslim- this isn’t my opinion, they say so in their “reviews”. Infuriating; not only does Aslan not hide this- he mentions it on page 2 of the book- but he’s far less fanatical or fundamentalist than the people giving the one-stars.
The people who DID read him give him generally positive reviews, the main criticism being that there isn’t a lot new here, just sort of rehashing of existing literature.
I heard Aslan interviewed on Fresh Air, and didn’t find him particularly convincing. While the historical Jesus may or may not have been a Jewish Nationalist as Aslan theorizes, that’s certainly not how he’s depicted in Matthew or Mark, so its kinda silly to say a quote from them is supporting that viewpoint.
Plus the story doesn’t make a lot of sense in that context. You have to work pretty hard to get from “You should pay taxes to Rome” to “We should be independent of Rome”.
It says Jesus responded “knowing their evil intent,” i.e., they were trying to get him to say something that the Roman authorities could consider as inciting rebellion. He skillfully parried their attack, nothing more.
"I have the theory that with all his connections with the local tax collectors of the day he knew or stumbled upon a way to subvert the collection of taxes for his group of early “commies”, that is that while on the open he said what amounted to a white lie, on the background he was organizing his communities in a way that it would confuse the publicans and minimize or deny the payment of taxes to the empire, I would not be surprised that this was a huge reason why the Romans did crucify him. "
This, but a little more, I think ;). He did skillfully parry their attack, but Jesus was famous for asking questions in return that put his questioners in very awkward positions. Obviously using a coin that had the image of Caesar (when Judaism was very much against graven images) with the words “Son of God” on the border (when the Jews would be scandalized by such things) would not be something that the teachers of the Law should be doing - but they obviously were. So Jesus puts them on the spot here - are the Pharisees working for God or Caesar?
After all, everything is God’s under the Jewish world view is it not? He was the Creator of all things.
Also Matthew 22 is a chapter in which Jesus speaks in parables which seem to indicate that the Kingdom of God is a bit different than what most Jews are assuming. Right after this text, there is the story about how marriage will apply at the resurrection, with Jesus turning the assumptions around by no one will be married at the resurrection - these stories are partially about turning questions (sometimes trick ones) around to give a different view of the Kingdom of God than people had been assuming.
We’re dealing with a rather old source document, so I like to start by referring to the thoughts of the Jesus seminar, then the footnotes in my (Oxford) annotated Bible.
The core saying: “Pay the emperor what belongs to the emperor and God what belongs to God!”, gets a red letter, indicating their greatest (relative) confidence that the epigrammatic words were spoken by Jesus. The saying is depicted in Mathew, Mark, Luke, Thomas and the Egerton Gospel. The Egerton gospels tells a similar story, but ends with a different saying. So the original context of the saying may have been lost. As background, the sayings that the Jesus Seminar give the most credibility are those that hagiographically inclined followers would be least likely to ascribe to Jesus. With that in mind, I’ll quote:
[QUOTE=The Jesus Seminar]
Everything about this anecdote commends its authenticity. Jesus’ retort to the question of taxes is a masterful big of enigmatic repartee. He avoids the trap laid for him by the question without really resolving the issue: he doesn’t advise them to pay the tax and he doesn’t advise them not to pay it; he advises them to know the difference between the claims of the emperor and the claims of God. Nevertheless, the early Christian interpretation of the story affirmed the Christian obligation to pay the tax. Paul struggled with this issue…
[/QUOTE]
The story reminds me of those who justify their actions by saying they are legal. At times they are correct, but it is best to keep the distinctions between legal, ethical and moral duties clear in one’s mind. To lay down a universal that one should support the Roman emperor or not support the Roman emperor seems foolish. To encourage contemplation of one’s deeds is sensible.
The Oxford Annotated Bible provides some helpful background. As noted by my fellow posters, Jesus was being set up. If he approved of the tax, Jesus would piss off Jewish nationalists. If he disapproved of it he would be committing a form of treason. The poll tax would later instigate a revolt in 66 CE.
In terms of narrative, we see that Jesus’ attempts to spread his teachings into the big city of Jerusalem are heading into some resistance.
Thanks MfM for the Seminar’s take. I tend to agree with them, and with the more traditional interpretation. I’ve read a few interviews with Aslan and my impression is that he is getting a lot of press because of his unusual biography (being an Iranian / former Christian / moderate Muslim) than because of any particularly scholarly insight on the historical Jesus.
Indeed. Check out his interview by Lauren Green on Fox News. The stupid bitch does not appear to hear a word he says; it’s like she’s gonna pose every accusatory pseudoquestion on her prepared list no matter what.
In this story Jesus did not touch or hold the coin. The coin was SHOWN
to Jesus. Had Jesus touched the denarius before that crowd, it would have
been a contamination spiritually.
This parable is popular in Chinese Christian circles because it demonstrates
that Jesus was not against state power.
I was told the story of an American visiting in China who was invited to speak
to a Christian congregation. The American was not a preacher but he did know
this parable. He was able to deliver a short sermon about the separation of
religion from the government according to Jesus.
No need to interpret. Jesus meant exactly what he said, and he said exactly what he meant. If you have anything belonging to that thief, Caesar, give it back to him, otherwise don’t give him anything. Voluntarily complying with thieves only encourages them to continue violating God’s command, “You shall not steal!” That is the only way a righteous person deals with the property of others. Notice that Jesus did not say give that coin to Caesar because the coin in question didn’t belong to Caesar, no more than the quarter in your pocket belongs to George Washington because his face is on it. So, why did Jesus ask to see the coin used for the tax, which obviously has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not to pay the tax, which is what he had been asked? His purpose was to discombobulate his vicious questioners who were hypocrites trying to trap him. And it worked marvelously, didn’t it? Perhaps too well. Not only did it discomfit his adversaries, it has confused countless so-called Christians who have inadvertently, and often maliciously for self-serving purposes, conjured the nonsense that Jesus said pay your taxes. He didn’t, He said precisely what he meant: Give Caesar whatever you have that belong to him. Nothing else! And what Jesus said of Caesar applies to all who would, like Caesar, pretend to the authority that belongs to Jesus’ Father alone, mankind’s one and only lawgiver, author of the Decalogue: God. Tax laws are not laws but subtle devices of the most prolific thieves the world has ever know–governments.
Almost every year, someone will come out with a new book explaining that the REAL Jesus was…
A made-up character based on earlier legends.
Or a Zealot.
Or a Pharisee.
Or an Essene
Or gay.
Or a minor prophet.
Or a sorcerer.
Or married
Or a fraud who faked his own death.
And every year, the weekly news magazines and the talk shows will give the author a host of free publicity and a lot of sycophantic interviews.
Reza Aslan has as much right as anyone to write a book or offer an opinion, but he offers absolutely no proof of any kind for his takes. He hasn’t found any new archaeological evidence. He hasn’t found any letters written by Jesus’ contemporaries. He has a bold thesis, but offers absolutely nothing that should shake any Christian’s faith in the least.
I mean, all we have here is a Muslim who doesn’t believe in the divinity of Jesus. Whoa! Stop the presses!
It seems our interpretations of the passage vary with what we bring to it. When I read the gospels, the meta-message I typically perceive is: “Aim for decency and use your God-given head. But be wary -hostile even- of being caught in legalistic conceptual weeds. God wants decent outcomes: he doesn’t just tally a spreadsheet.”
Oddly, that last half isn’t something that’s especially near to my heart, as I think that point of His is pretty well understood now.
That just means he has not found any new proof. But he does cite sources that count as “proof,” doesn’t he? What he’s done – based on media accounts and reviews of the book, which I have not yet read – is re-interpret the evidence in a persuasive way, including evidence previous writers have tended to ignore. Isn’t that pretty much the only form “proof” could take here?
Their evil intent was also to get Jesus into trouble with the masses, with whom the Roman tax was wildly unpopular. So (the Pharisees thought) Jesus is damned if He does and damned if He doesn’t - say “no, you shouldn’t pay the tax” and get into trouble with the Romans, or say “yes, you should pay the tax” and get into trouble with the ordinary Jews. Jesus gives an answer that is closer to “pay” than “don’t pay” but is quite a bit more subtle than that.
FWIW I agree (mostly) with Sampiro’s interpretation - that you gotta do some stuff because you gotta do it. Remember that this is the same Jesus who taught the part about “if someone forces you to carry a burden for one mile, carry it two miles” which is where we get the expression “go the second mile”. That was something the Romans sometimes imposed on the Jews, making them carry stuff for them for a certain distance. Jesus says there what He says here - don’t let your earthly obligations and burdens and unfairnesses distract you from seeking and serving God.
Jesus may even be pointing out in a subtle way the benefits of the Pax Romana. Remember the scene in Life of Brian - “apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?” And thus I agree with Simplicio - the Jesus Seminar’s interpretation does not make sense to me in the context.
Again, if you’re determined not to believe that the Gospels mean what they say, you can come up with any number of “Real” Jesuses. As I said, there’s a new one every year.
But Aslan’s “Jesus was a zealot” thesis has no more to recommend it than, say, Hyam Maccoby’s “Jesus was a radical Pharisee” thesis or Hugh Schonfield’s “Jesus had himself crucified in order to fake a resurrection” thesis or Dan Brown’s “Mary Magdalene was the Holy Grail” thesis or the “Jesus was gay and in love with the rich young ruler” canard that gets floated around regularly.
I went to a Jesuit high school, Glutton- I’ve heard them all. And none of them amounts to more than speculation.
Again, there’s nothing shocking in the fact that Muslims, like ALL non-Christians, don’t believe Jesus was divine. There’s nothing new or even interesting here.
The question is not what the Gospels mean. The question is what historical events actually happened and why. The Gospels are a useful source in considering that question, but not the only such nor the best. They were not written by historians but by evangelists.