(Audio version; Music: "Believe" by: All Things New and "Say The Word" by: Hillsong)
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 was drawing the crowds away from them and to Himself. Suddenly,
a servant interrupts with news of an unexpected visitor. The mood in the room quickly
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 it smashed on the rocks below
and burst open—was it worth 30 pieces of silver? We know the story; we see the
images in our mind and all we can do is shake our 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 right?
Well
before you answer that question too quickly, consider this: 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. Not long ago a copy
of a letter received by another pastor crossed my desk. It was 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 was technically accurate.
However, it was also a not-so-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.
And don’t think for a minute that there aren’t serious consequences to being
silenced by the money—even deadly consequences.
Last week
in France, a Catholic priest had his throat slit by a Muslim as the priest was performing
Mass. Of course this kind of behavior has become all too common in cities all
over Europe. Perhaps not quite as brazen as this particular incident but the
brutal murder of Christians is nevertheless commonplace throughout Europe and in
cities of the Middle East. Yet pastors here in America seem terrified of
speaking out against the heinous behavior of Muslims who continue to hold fast
to their 1,400 year-old ideology that infidels (non-Muslims) and apostates
(unfaithful Muslims) deserve death. In part that’s because pastors are
paralyzed by political correctness and the fear of being labeled intolerant by
those who are intolerant of those who are intolerant (just let that sink in for
a minute). Mainly, however, pastors here in America are always fearfully
conscious of the possibility of losing their tax-exempt status if they are
deemed to be engaging in political speech from the pulpit.
“This 501(c)(3)
corporate mentality is another one of the roots of the denial of the Christian
suffering. If you are willing to see the doctrinal roots of the ongoing murder
of Christians by Muslims, then you might have to speak about it from the
pulpit, and that could be seen as political speech. In spite of the fact that
there has never been a 501(c)(3) revoked because of political speech by a
minister, the imagined loss silences ministers. Hmmm...if a minister is worried
about the IRS revoking his 501(c)(3), then whom is the minster serving? Caesar
or Christ?”[2]
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-exempt status
if you had spoken out in the face of a culture in moral and spiritual decline?
Will you be able to stand before God flanked by all those who were martyred by
Muslims and explain that you couldn’t say anything because you didn’t want to
risk losing your tax-exempt status? 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; our world, did not get to this point because of the failings of
any one political party or because of one specific sinful behavior. Our world
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 around them and the murder of our
brothers and sisters in Christ because they don’t see their church leaders take
a strong stand for fear of drawing the ire of America’s hated tax collector—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
15Then the Pharisees
went out and laid plans to trap him in his words.
16They 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. 17Tell
us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or
not?” 18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites,
why are you trying to trap me? 19Show me the coin used for paying
the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20and 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.” 22When 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. 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
15Then the Pharisees
went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16They 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.
The religious leaders in vv. 15-16a 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.”[3] 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.
17Tell us then, what is your
opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”
The question in v. 17 that 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. They think the question requires a “yes” or “no”
answer. One answer will put Jesus at odds with the Pharisees and the other
answer at odds with the Herodians. 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.”[4]
18But Jesus, knowing their evil
intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19Show
me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20and
he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?” 21“Caesar’s,”
they replied.
Jesus immediately recognizes their
evil intentions in v. 18 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.”[5] Jesus
asks them to identify the image on the coin whom they correctly identify as
Caesar.
Then he said to them, “So give back to
Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” 22When they
heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.
Jesus gives them, and us, the now
famous answer to the question in v. 21b
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 taxes, according to the law, is
not an implicit or explicit approval of or agreement with the institution
imposing the tax. 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
A few weeks ago while sitting in
class, the professor made a comment that our culture here in America is making
a noticeable shift away from being understood as predominantly Christian to
being a predominantly atheistic culture. On the heals of the Supreme Court’s
ruling legalizing same-sex marriages, news articles began to surface suggesting
that the time was ripe to strip religious institutions of their tax-exempt status.
That means that people who give money to tax-exempt organizations would no
longer receive a tax write-off either. I had read some of those articles prior
to my professor referencing them in class so I knew they were circulating
around out there. Others in class, however, seemed unaware of the voices
wanting to strip churches of their tax-exempt status so you can imagine the
kind of looks I got when I cheered that idea out loud. One of the students
actually said, “That would put me out of business.” Think about that absurdity
of that for a minute—At least one of the pastors believes his ministry depends
on a government subsidy. Seriously? When did we stop trusting God to provide
for what our ministry needs? Perhaps this particular pastor revealed his belief
that people would stop giving if they no longer received favorable tax
benefits. Is that a legitimate concern? Before you judge the business of the
church too harshly, examine your own heart and ask yourself, “Would I continue
to faithfully tithe and/or donate (assuming you do either), if I received no
tax benefit or any other benefit in return but simply gave out of obedience to
God and love for others?”
I’ll let you in on a little secret—Hypothetically, if you depend on me
for your survival, in a sense, I own you! You will say what I want you to say,
or be silent when I want you to be silent. If you are a pastor, please listen
to what I am saying—I know the intentions of most of you are pure but you have
to believe me that despite your best intentions, if you take government money,
you are no longer free to perform one of the most important tasks God has
entrusted you to perform—to speak truth to power! And the result is that the
Church becomes irrelevant; a social club with some nice ideas and some really
good outreach both locally and globally. But what the Church is powerless to do
is bring the power of God’s Word to bear on the brokenness of a sinful world.
Jesus’ answer appears to set the stage
that perpetuates the idea that 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. However, 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. The Church organizes and supports
groups that 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. The
Church supports and organizes groups that go to abortion facilities to protest
against murdering babies yet they are unable to condemn specific public figures
that appropriate the tax 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 Text—To give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. They have
therefore 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 they were Silenced
for 30 Pieces of Silver?
[1] George
Barna, The Second Coming of the Church,
(Nashville, TN: Word Publishing, 1998), pp. 5-6.
[2] Bill
Warner, “The Silence of the Pulpits,” American Thinker, August 19, 2012,
accessed July 29, 2016, http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/08/the_silence_of_the_pulpits.html.
[3] Joel B.
Green, Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall, eds., Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1992), p. 325.
[4] Craig L.
Blomberg, Matthew, The New American
Commentary, (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992), p. 331.
[5] 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