Introduction
For
many of us the term “30 pieces of silver,” conjures up images from antiquity of
that sniveling little weasel, Judas, slinking through back alleys at night shrouding
his face in the hope of going unnoticed. We picture him peeking around corners
to make sure the coast is clear until he finds himself at the entrance to the
place where the chief priests are meeting. We can imagine the arrogant chief
priests wringing their hands and pacing the floor debating the best way to deal
with Jesus who is drawing the crowds away from them and to himself. Suddenly, a
servant interrupts with an unexpected visitor. The mood in the room goes from an
angst “what are we gonna do?” to a jubilant “can you believe our luck?” in the
matter of moments when Judas offers to make a deal with them to hand over Jesus.
The only thing that remains is the terms of the deal. I haven’t always been a
simple carpenter and pastor. In another life, I managed and negotiated
multi-million dollar real estate deals. There were countless factors that went
into the value of a deal but the one most important element that impacted the
value of a deal without fail was this: The higher the return on the investment,
the higher the price. Not a surprise really, this is a fairly universal and
fundamental principle. Therefore, considering who Jesus was, Judas was looking
at a serious payday—or so one would think. So what was the deal Judas made to
betray Jesus? 30 pieces of silver—Judas sold out God for 30 pieces of silver!
But maybe it was worth it—what do you think? How did it turn out for Judas? Let’s
see: He immediately regretted what he did and unsuccessfully tried to return
the 30 pieces of silver, he went outside the city and hung himself and then his
body broke from the hangman’s noose and his body smashed on the rocks below and
burst open—was it worth 30 pieces of silver? You know the story, you see the
images in your mind and all you can do is shake your head in disgust. At the
same time we nervously insist that we would never do anything so ridiculously
tragic. We would never sell out God—well at least not knowingly, right?
The
foremost complaint that unbelievers have about the Church today is that it is
irrelevant. “Irrelevant” is defined fairly simply as: 1) Unimportant, and/or 2)
Not applicable. By extension, unbelievers define the Church as unimportant
and/or not applicable to their lives! Researcher George Barna writes,
“The stumbling block for the
Church is not its theology but its failure to apply what it believes in
compelling ways. The downfall of the Church has not been the content of its
message but its failure to practice those truths…Those who have turned to
Christianity and churches seeking truth and meaning have left empty-handed,
confused by the apparent inability of Christians themselves to implement the
principles they profess. Churches, for the most part, have failed to address
the nagging anxieties and deep-seated fears of the people, focusing instead
upon outdated or secondary issues proposing tired or trite solutions. The
profound practical irrelevance of Christian teaching, combined with the lack of
perceived value associated with Christian church life, has resulted in a
burgeoning synthetic faith.”[1]
As a
pastor, those are painful words to hear but I know they are true. I see how
some Christians try desperately to make a difference, and they do in a small
way, but it’s in the context of the efforts of an individual believer or as a relatively
small group of believers not as the “Body of Christ” acting in a uniform effort
to advance the gospel and transform the culture. And this failure, I am placing
squarely at the feet of church leaders. It is their duty and responsibility to
instruct and guide their respective flocks as a unified body of believers by
educating them, admonishing them, encouraging them and finally by showing them.
I
have no doubt that most pastors believe they are doing just that but clearly
they are missing the mark in some way. Like most things, there aren’t any
simple answers to this problem. Nevertheless, as with any struggling
institution, if you want to begin solving systemic problems that plague the
Church as an institution, you must first follow the money. This week, a copy of
a letter received by another pastor crossed my desk from Reverend Barry W. Lynn,
Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. It
was a form letter addressed generally to “Religious Leader.” In the letter,
Lynn reminds recipients of the letter that there is a strict prohibition
against endorsing any particular political candidate when institutions are approved
as IRS Section 501(c)(3) Tax Exempt Organizations. The letter references the
severe penalties historically levied against religious organizations that have
violated this tax law. The information in the letter is technically accurate.
However, it is also a thinly veiled threat that pastors had better remember
their place and watch what they say from the pulpit. Consequently, church
leaders willingly abandon their freedom and responsibility to speak out.
As a
pastor or some other church leader, are you prepared to look into God’s face
with the answer that you would have jeopardized your 501(c)(3) tax status if
you had spoken out in the face of a culture in moral and spiritual decline?
Don’t mistake my point here, this is not about which political party or
candidate is best or which issue is the most important. Our culture did not get
to this point because of the failings of any one political party or because of
one specific sinful behavior. Our culture got to this point because the Church
has been irrelevant—because church leaders are afraid to take a stand. Many of
the people in our churches are indifferent about the moral and spiritual
decline in our country because they don’t see their church leaders take a
strong stand for fear of drawing the ire of the Internal Revenue Service. Is it
any wonder that a watching, unbelieving world thinks the Church is irrelevant? The
Church wants to avoid paying taxes so it keeps quiet about relevant people who
drive relevant issues in the lives of the people of the Church as well as those
the Church is trying to reach! This is what happens when The Church is Silenced for 30 Pieces of Silver. No one likes paying
taxes but paying taxes has been part of virtually every civilized culture
throughout history. Jesus talked specifically about paying taxes that I’d like
to take a look at this week.
Subject
Text
Matthew
22:15-22
15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his
words.
16 They sent their disciples to him
along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of
integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You
aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your
opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?” 18 But Jesus, knowing their evil
intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for
paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
21 “Caesar’s,” they
replied. Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to
God what is God’s.” 22 When
they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.
Context
You have to go back to the previous chapter
to understand the setting and significance for these verses. Remember that the
day before our subject text takes place was Jesus’ triumphal entry into
Jerusalem and the clearing of the temple (See previous post—Title: Turning the Church into a Den of Robbers,
Label: Pastoral Care, Date: 10/3/12). After a confrontation with the religious
leaders, Jesus leaves the city. For our subject text, Jesus has come back to
the city and has entered the temple again and is teaching the people. No doubt
the religious leaders are still seething from the events of the previous day.
Jesus’ teachings center around the pronouncement that God’s Kingdom was open to
anyone willing to enter. Jesus is inaugurating a new age illustrated with the
parable of the wedding feast at the beginning of chapter 22. The parable tells
the story of a wedding celebration for the king’s son (Jesus) where the invited
guests (Israel) refused to come to the celebration. Consequently the king sent
his servants (Old Testament Prophets) out to invite his guests (Israel) personally
but they beat and killed his servants. So the king sent his army to kill those
who refused to come and burned the city (perhaps a foretelling of the destruction
of the temple in 70 A. D.). The king then sent his servants (perhaps Jesus’
disciples) to invite anyone, good and bad, to fill the wedding hall to
celebrate his son (Jesus). Now that the religious leaders are sufficiently
fuming with anger, we move on to our subject text as the religious leaders
continue their schemes to trap Jesus into saying something they could use to
have him arrested and condemn him.
Text Analysis
Vv. 15-16a make clear that the
religious leaders had no interest in being taught by Jesus. They weren’t even
partisan bystanders. They were there specifically to trap Jesus with his
answers to their questions. But what was the point of bringing along the
Herodians? I’ll try and give you a thumbnail sketch without getting too deeply
into the weeds on the subject but it will be helpful to understanding the
forces at work during the time of Jesus. Who were the Herodians? It is best to
describe the Herodians as “accomodatists.” Herod the Great was king of
Jerusalem at the time of Jesus’ birth. However, Herod was not a Jew. His father
was an Edomite who converted to Judaism. Herod was appointed king of Jerusalem
by the Roman Senate because of his ability to keep the peace (“pax romana” =
Roman peace) between all the competing parties in the region. Herod recognized
and generally practiced the customs of the Jews. However, he was quite clever
in doing so without offending the various Roman religions. He easily moved to
recognize whatever religion was necessary to advance and maintain peace. The
Herodians were not necessarily descendants of Herod but aligned themselves with
Herod socio-economically, politically and religiously. The Herodians were
closely associated with the Sadducees who aligned themselves with the Hasmonean
dynasty which immediately preceded the Herodian dynasty. “In summary, the
Herodians were theologically in agreement with the Sadducees and politically
both of these parties would have been the opposite of the Pharisees who were
anti-Hasmonean, anti-Herodian and anti-Roman. The Pharisees looked for a
cataclysmic messianic kingdom to remove the rule of the Herods and Rome,
whereas the Herodians wanted to preserve the Herodian rule. However, the
Herodians and the Pharisees worked together to oppose Jesus, because he was
introducing a new kingdom that neither wanted.”[2] V.
16b records just how dastardly they are as they, in the hearing of everyone
present, characterize Jesus as someone who can’t possibly give a wrong answer
thinking that they have formulated a question that will illicit an answer that
will lead to Jesus’ precipitous fall in the eyes of his followers; they believe
they have the perfect lose-lose question that will trap Jesus.
V. 17 presents us with the question
the conspirators think will give them what they needed as an indictment against
Jesus; “is it right to pay taxes to Caesar?” Remember the two sides
representing the question: The Pharisees who opposed Caesar’s rule and the
Herodians who supported Caesar’s rule. They believe there is no right answer to
the question. It is important to remember what kind of tax is being discussed
here. “This is not the same tax as in 17:24-27 since there Peter was asked
about the Jewish temple tax commanded by the Torah. The poll tax for Judea at
issue here went to support the foreign, pagan oppressors.”[3]
In v. 18 Jesus immediately recognizes
their evil intentions as hated enemies are suddenly curious allies. Jesus gives
the answer that transcends time and culture in vv. 19-21a. Jesus first asks to
see a coin that was used to pay the tax. He was presented with a denarius. “The
silver denarius of Tiberius, including a portrait of his head, minted
especially at Lyon, circulated there in this period and is probably in view
here. The coin related directly to pagan Roman religion and the imperial cult
in the East: one side bore Caesar’s image and the words ‘Tiberius Caesar, son
of the Divine Augustus,’ while the other side referred to the high priest of
Roman religion.”[4] Jesus
asks them to identify the image on the coin whom they correctly identify as
Caesar.
In v. 21B Jesus then gives us the
now famous answer to the question when he says that we should give to Caesar
what belongs to Caesar and we are to give to God what belongs to God. In this
brief answer, Jesus gives a principle to be applied throughout the ages:
Payment of tax, according to the law, is not an implicit or explicit approval
of or agreement with the institution imposing the tax. Nor is the payment of
the tax specifically an offense against God. What is important is that we give
to God those things that are specifically reserved for God alone such as
worship and obedience to his Word. Jesus recognizes that organized and
civilized societies require governance and that governments don’t have a means
to fund themselves outside of imposing a tax. It is important to remember that
although governments cannot exist without the cooperation (voluntary or forced)
of people, people cannot exist for long, in any context, without God. The
brilliance of Jesus’ answer is not lost on his questioners in v. 22 as they
leave in amazement.
Application
Jesus’ answer appears to set the
stage that perpetuates the idea the Jesus is separating the institutions of the
Church and the State. But nothing could be farther from the truth. You see,
Jesus understood that the two can and must exist in harmony with the
understanding that both have a specific purpose within God’s created order. Both
institutions must, however, operate under the authority of God’s will. Any
society that fails to do so necessarily operates in opposition to itself and
will eventually collapse. Having said that, it is the Church’s responsibility
to point all people and institutions toward God and the truth of God’s Word. Therefore,
the State must advance the efforts of the Church by allowing its free
expression and assembly and the Church must aid the efforts of the State by
contributing to the State’s financial solvency so that the Church can continue
in its efforts to point all people toward God. The failure of one to support
the efforts of the other necessarily leads to the eventual deterioration of
society at large; and isn’t this precisely where we find ourselves today?
Today, the Church has limited freedom of expression specifically because it has
made arrangements to forego supporting the State by paying taxes. I can already
hear the howling from pastors around the country who will insist that the money
they save from having to pay taxes pays for programs to care for the poor yet
they are unable to publicly condemn the policymakers specifically who pass
legislation that creates the financial environment leading to the very poverty
they are now serving to alleviate; they pay for groups to go to under-achieving
schools to help in the class or with after school programs to provide the
education the children don’t receive in the classroom yet they are unable to
condemn the specific elected officials that perpetuate a failing educational
system they are now trying to supplement; or they pay to organize groups that
go to abortion facilities to protest against murdering babies yet they are
unable to condemn specific public figures that appropriate the taxes revenues that
fund the very abortion providers that the Church is protesting against. The
Church has removed itself from an aspect of society that impacts
everyone—believer and unbeliever alike. As such, the Church has failed to do
what Jesus instructed in our subject verses; to give to Caesar what belongs to
Caesar and have willingly forfeited their duty to give to God what is God’s.
What good is the Church if it will not speak freely with respect to all areas
of people’s lives? These are all very important issues and if the Church will
not speak; will not take a stand, then what good is it? The Church therefore voluntarily
renders itself irrelevant in the larger context of society simply because it
wants to avoid paying taxes. During the civil rights movement Martin Luther
King, Jr. once said, “He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it
as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting
against it is really cooperating with it. Our lives begin to end the day we
become silent about the things that matter.” Is it worth it? Can the Church and
its leaders stand before God with a clear conscience and explain why The Church is Silenced for 30 Pieces of
Silver?
[1] George
Barna, The Second Coming of the Church,
(Nashville, TN: Word Publishing, 1998), pp. 5-6.
[2] Joel B.
Green, Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall, eds., Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1992), p. 325.
[3] Craig L.
Blomberg, Matthew, The New American
Commentary, (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992), p. 331.
[4] Grant R.
Osborne, D. Stuart Briscoe, Haddon Robinson, eds, Matthew, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, (Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), p. 326.
No comments:
Post a Comment