Bible Verses That Freak Me Out # 25 – Mo Money, Mo Problems - “Render to Caesar to things that are Caesar’s” – Mark 12:13-17

Happy tax day, everyone!

We all know Jesus hung out with tax collectors, even including a former tax collector in his group of twelve disciples. But what did Jesus say specifically about taxes? And what did He mean…

“And they (the chief priests) sent some of the Pharisees and the Herodians to Him, in order to trap Him in a statement. And they came and said to Him, ‘Teacher, we know that you are truthful, and defer to know one; for you are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not? Shall we pay, or shall we not pay?’

But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, ‘Why are you testing me? Bring me a denarius to look at.’ And they brought one. And He said to them, ‘Whose likeness and inscription is this?’ And they said to Him, ‘Caesar’s.’ And Jesus said to them, ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.’”

A couple of interesting things about this passage:

1. The Pharisees and the Herodians were NOT friends. They teamed up in “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” move. The first group was anti-Rome, anti-Greek, anti-everything except the Law of God (as they perceived it). The Herodians, as you might could guess, were Herod’s posse. Big fans of Rome. Whatever straight answer Jesus gave “Sure, pay the tax” or “Don’t pay the tax” there was a group there to cry foul.

2. “You defer to no one and are not partial to any” – is their way of saying “If anybody doesn’t care what Caesar thinks, it’s you.” They are encouraging Him to get in touch with his revolutionary side.

3. You want to talk about taxation without representation? The first-century Jews were an occupied territory. Their taxes funded a government that was, in their minds, evil and idolatrous.

4. Speaking of idolatrous, most Jews regarded Roman coins as idolatrous. If the picture of the emperor weren’t enough, the inscription, which in this period probably read “Tiberius, son of the divine Augustus” certainly was. “Son of the divine?” Nice.

5. “Render” here means more than just “give.” It has the specific meaning of giving back someone something that belongs to them.

So, what does Jesus mean? Is Jesus teaching “separation of church and state?” That’s a pretty common interpretation – that Jesus is slyly acknowledging the temporary sovereignty of Caesar, but holding out the true sovereignty of God.

But there’s something else going on here, too. Jesus is saying “no” to a particular way of revolution, and encouraging people to say “yes” to His way. Not paying your taxes is not the way to conquer Rome, Jesus is saying. “Pay back Caesar what is his” may mean “the only appropriate thing to do with junk like this is send it back where it came from.” It may mean “God doesn’t want or need your money. If Caesar wants it, he can have it.”

“Render to God the things that are God’s.” What belongs to God? Who bears God’s image? How do we give that which belongs to God back to Him? Jesus answered those questions in His teaching, His ministry, His death, and His resurrection. That’s the real revolution.

Further reading if want to have your mind blown:
"Hard Sayings of Jesus" - F.F. Bruce
"Jesus and the Victory of God" - N.T. Wright
"The Politics of Jesus" - John Howard Yoder

And Now, A Word From Our Sponsor - Mo' Money, Mo' Problems

"Bow before me, and I shall grant your heart's desires!!"

In these difficult financial times, many of us find ourselves thinking about money. We may even find ourselves thinking about how we think about money. We’ll call it “Economic Epistemology.” I realize it’s election season, but when public figures start using moral words like “greed,” you know things are going badly.

Public figures have also been using the word “socialism,” a lot. One party has used the term more than the other, but both have used it to insult the other.

And a few days ago I had a startling revelation. People accuse each other of socialism when they propose to use government money (which is really public money) to benefit people who are not like them.

It works like this:
If you offer to give tax cuts to the lower and middle classes, Republicans cry “socialism!” They do this because they are rich, and would like the government to help them stay that way. And a good way to do that is to keep other people from getting any.

If you offer corporate bailouts and tax cuts to corporations, Democrats cry “socialism!” They do this because they would like to be rich, and for the government to help them get that way. And a good way to do that is to take money from people who already have a bunch.

Am I way off?

Anyway, enough incendiary talk from me. Here’s some incendiary talk from our friend G.K. Chesterton on democracy, the doctrine of human sinfulness, and the corrupting power of wealth:

“If clean homes and clean air make clean souls, why not give the power (for the present at any rate) to those who undoubtedly have the clean air? If better conditions will make the poor more fit to govern themselves, why should not better conditions already make the rich more fit to govern them? On the ordinary environment argument the matter is fairly manifest. The comfortable class must be merely our vanguard in Utopia.

Is there any answer to the proposition that those who have had the best opportunities will probably be our best guides? Is there any answer to the argument that those who have breathed clean air had better decide for those who have breathed foul? As far as I know, there is only one answer, and that answer is Christianity.
Only the Christian Church can offer any rational objection to a complete confidence in the rich. For she has maintained from the beginning that the danger was not in man's environment, but in man. Further, she has maintained that if we come to talk of a dangerous environment, the most dangerous environment of all is the commodious environment. I know that the most modern manufacture has been really occupied in trying to produce an abnormally large needle. I know that the most recent biologists have been chiefly anxious to discover a very small camel. But if we diminish the camel to his smallest, or open the eye of the needle to its largest -- if, in short, we assume the words of Christ to have meant the very least that they could mean, His words must at the very least mean this -- that rich men are not very likely to be morally trustworthy. Christianity even when watered down is hot enough to boil all modern society to rags. The mere minimum of the Church would be a deadly ultimatum to the world. For the whole modern world is absolutely based on the assumption, not that the rich are necessary (which is tenable), but that the rich are trustworthy, which (for a Christian) is not tenable.

You will hear everlastingly, in all discussions about newspapers, companies, aristocracies, or party politics, this argument that the rich man cannot be bribed. The fact is, of course, that the rich man is bribed; he has been bribed already. That is why he is a rich man. The whole case for Christianity is that a man who is dependent upon the luxuries of this life is a corrupt man, spiritually corrupt, politically corrupt, financially corrupt. There is one thing that Christ and all the Christian saints have said with a sort of savage monotony. They have said simply that to be rich is to be in peculiar danger of moral wreck. It is not demonstrably un-Christian to kill the rich as violators of definable justice. It is not demonstrably un-Christian to crown the rich as convenient rulers of society. It is not certainly un-Christian to rebel against the rich or to submit to the rich. But it is quite certainly un-Christian to trust the rich, to regard the rich as more morally safe than the poor. A Christian may consistently say, "I respect that man's rank, although he takes bribes." But a Christian cannot say, as all modern men are saying at lunch and breakfast, "a man of that rank would not take bribes." For it is a part of Christian dogma that any man in any rank may take bribes. It is a part of Christian dogma; it also happens by a curious coincidence that it is a part of obvious human history.

In the best Utopia, I must be prepared for the moral fall of any man in any position at any moment; especially for my fall from my position at this moment.”

Preach on brother!

Bible Verses That Freak Me Out #10 - Mo' Money, Mo' Problems - "When you give to the poor" - Matthew 6:1-4

"Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you." - Matthew 6:1-4

I have trouble with this verse. Not so much because I like people to know when I give to the poor (although I do), but for another reason. I have been the beneficiary of the generosity of strangers. I have received significant help in my education from people I have never met. I have met for class and worship in buildings, have rested comfortably on benches, have studied in libraries, all sponsored by people I do not know. But I know their names. I know them because they are on shiny plaques, or doorways, or large gilt letters on the front of the building.

I am very, very grateful that these people gave, either from their abundance, or out of their need, to further the education, and particularly the religious education, of whippersnappers such as myself.

But...I wonder sometimes if the gilt letters are the pinnacle of the honor they will receive for their gifts, because of the verses above.

Perhaps they did not have a choice. Perhaps they gave their gift, and the trustees of the library, or the chapel, or the bench said with a loud decree (and a trumpet), "Henceforth, this bench shall be the Desmond R. G. Underwood bench!" I don't know what I'd do in such a situation - would I have the chutzpah to say, "That's alright guys, let's just leave it anonymous" - ?

Like I say - the verse freaks me out.

Bible Verses That Freak Me Out #9 - Mo' Money, Mo Problems - "Camel through the eye of a needle" - Matthew 19:23-24

You know something Jesus talks about A LOT? Money.

There are a lot of preacher types these days who talk about money, they aren't hard to find. But they don't talk about money like Jesus did.

"Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." - Matthew 19:23-24

We had a "Jerusalem Marketplace" themed Vacation Bible School at our church about a month back, and on the last day we had two camels, named Richard and Ibrahim, hanging out at the soccer field. Camels are big. Up to nine feet tall at the hump. See, Jesus is saying here that it's really hard for rich people to line up their desires with God's. Darn near impossible.
Saturday Night Live had a very funny skit a few years back with Bill Pullman as a billionaire whose "life is changed" by the above verse. He reads Matthew 19:24 and devotes his fortune to making it easy for a camel to go through the eye of a needle by genetically engineering tiny camels and building very large needles. Classic line: "We pureed a camel and poured it through the needle, but we think that might be cheating. We have lawyers looking into it."