The Challenge of Politics (Matthew 22:15-22)

Title: The Challenge of Politics

Date: 04/10/2026

Text: Matthew 22:15-22

Preacher: Pastor Deepak Babu

At the end of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Harry witnesses Professor Snape hurl the killing curse at Dumbledore, thereby killing him. Shortly after that, Harry attempts to curse Snape with a curse that Snape himself had devised. Harry is obviously quite angry at Snape for having killed his mentor. It is only in the next book that Harry realizes that Snape had actually been a triple agent, secretly working for Dumbledore while pretending to work for Voldemort. To most readers this came as a surprise because we had been led to view Snape through Harry’s eyes. And Harry suspected Snape all through the first six books. While we had been introduced to the idea that Harry’s perspective was not always aligned with reality, this revelation was quite startling since it called into question almost everything Harry had told us throughout the books. 

A very similar thing happened here in the USA after 9-11. The desire for revenge made the citizens of this country believe their President when he said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, leading to the Iraq war. It was later revealed that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, Iraq had no connection to the 9-11 attacks. Further, the revelation that the US Army had engaged in torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay seriously called into question the moral foundations of what the USA was attempting to do.

This sort of reversal of perspective happens when we are faced with an unreliable narrator - Harry in the first case and Bush and his cronies in the second. The case of the unreliable narrator comes to us when we read the bible not necessarily because the narrator himself is unreliable, though that happens at times. We encounter this most often when commentators take a superficial view of the biblical text, leading us to hold beliefs that are diametrically opposite to what the text would have us accept.

“Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” Simple, right? It appears Jesus is saying that there are two spheres in our lives, one over which Caesar or the state is sovereign and the other over which God or religion is sovereign, leading to the idea that Jesus was a buddy of Jefferson who wanted to build a wall of separation between Church and State. Jesus would then seem to be just another advocate of the First Amendment some seventeen centuries before the US Constitution and the First Amendment were drafted. 

Unfortunately, Jesus had no clue that he was a First Amendment  proponent born out of season! He was a first century Jew and he expressed his politics in a way that his first century Jewish audience would have understood. So let us try to understand Jesus, not as an eighteenth century Deist, but as a first century Jew. 

Our episode begins with Matthew telling us that the Pharisees plotted to entrap him. And as part of this scheme they had their disciples go to Jesus along with some Herodians. To us living twenty centuries later, this might seem run of the mill. However, this would be like saying that some LGBTQ activists joined forces with members of the Westboro Baptist Church to question someone. You see, the Herodians supported Herod’s rule in the land even though he was not a Jew but an Idumean. Hence, to the Pharisees, Herod was nothing more than a pretender to the throne.

The slogan of most Pharisees was “no king but God.” On the other hand, since Herod’s rule was validated by Rome, the Herodians had no problem supporting Roman rule over the Israelites. In other words, the views of the two groups were diametrically opposite to each other on the issue of who could rightfully rule over the Israelites. Since the plan was to entrap Jesus, we can conclude that their question revolved around the issue over which they were divided so that, if Jesus supported one group, he would fall afoul of the other and vice versa. 

They come to Jesus and ask him… Well, what do they ask him? Most translations say that they asked him if it was right to pay taxes to Caesar. We who live in an age when the primary taxes we are concerned about are our income tax or perhaps sales tax easily misunderstand what is being asked. Now, the New Testament uses four different words to indicate four different taxes. The word telónés referred to the tax-collectors, who collected a tax that was added at the end of a purchase; in other words, a sales tax. The word phoros, meaning ‘burden’, was a tax on property. The word didrachmon, which appears only in one verse, referred to the tax paid for the upkeep of the temple. The fourth word is what is used here and we will get to it shortly. 

However, by translating all four words as ‘tax’, our translations make us believe that Jesus was responding to a question about taxes in general, the most general for us being income tax and sales tax, which is precisely not what is being addressed here. Some translations say it is a tribute to Caesar. But what would that mean? A handful of translations use the phrase ‘poll tax’ which is closer to the mark but quite archaic in phrasing.

You see, Jesus’ interlocutors ask him about the kénsos. That’s the fourth word from which we get the English word census. What is a census? It is simply a count of either citizens of a country or of residents of a country. The census process today may include the collection of all sorts of demographic data. But at the bottom a census is simply a count. The count could be used for all sorts of administrative purposes, like determining what level of taxation would produce sufficient revenue for the empire or how much grain and oil a certain region might need in the year ahead. It could reveal how strong an army the empire could build or how many teachers would be needed in five years. Whatever use the census is put to, the census itself is simply a count. 

Now you may ask me, “Deepak, what’s the big deal with a census?” There are two problems from a first century Jewish perspective. First, God had promised Abraham, “Look toward heaven and count the stars, if you are able to count them. So shall your descendants be.” If it was possible to count the Israelites, this would mean that God had failed to fulfill his promise to Abraham. Indeed, this is the reason for which God was angry at David when he conducted a census of the people. You can read about that in 2 Samuel 24 or 1 Chronicles 21. A successful census would mean that God’s promise to Abraham had failed. And because of this, except for the two censuses in Numbers, at the start of the forty years in the desert and at the end, no other census is taken. And the two in Numbers specifically indicate that, though the generation who experienced the Exodus passed away, their descendants were as numerous as they had been. Hence, the Roman requirement that the Judeans should pay the census tax would have gone against God’s promise to Abraham. As a result most Judeans, including the Pharisees, opposed the census tax. The Herodians, obviously, supported the census tax. 

This is because, second, only a rightful ruler could conduct a census tax. What would the citizens of the USA say if, for example, Mark Carney came South and decided to conduct a census in the USA? I’m sure there would be more people clamoring to make Canada the 51st state of the USA!

A census can only be conducted by an authorized representative of a legitimate government. By supporting the census tax, the Herodians were agreeing that Caesar, who had validated Herod’s rule, was the legitimate ruler over Judea. But this would have gone against the Pharisee idea “no king but God.” So you see, the issue of the census tax was not some trivial issue. It was precisely one of the issues of tension between the Pharisees and the Herodians.

You can see how this would have put Jesus in a bind. If he said that the census tax was illegitimate, he would give the Herodians fuel against him, allowing them to tell Herod he ought to bring Caesar in to deal directly with Jesus. But if Jesus said that the census tax was legitimate, the Pharisees would be able to claim that all of Jesus’ talk about the kingdom of God was empty nonsense. 

Jesus recognizes that this was just an elaborate ruse to trap him. So he asks them, “Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites?” The accusation of hypocrisy is twofold. First, and quite obviously, they had approached Jesus with flattering words even though they were trying to trap him. In other words, their words did not match their actions, which is the sign of hypocrisy. 

Second, their positions did not match their claimed allegiances. The Pharisees, despite having the slogan “no king but God” paid the census tax. And the Herodians were committed to Herod, not Caesar per se. If another, more powerful empire was willing to authorize Herod’s rule, they would have switched sides in a heartbeat. Today, in India and the USA, we know of people so committed to a person that they will change their stance on just about anything. In other words, for both sides, their stated positions were simply instances of empty posturing. 

Jesus then proceeds to answer their question by asking for the coin used to pay the census. Right away we should be asking, “Why is there a particular coin used to pay a tax?” Taxation is something no citizen likes. If tomorrow the state of Idaho declared that it was reducing or doing away with the sales tax, I can guarantee you that there would be no Idahoan of sound mental health who would be sad at this development. And if someone owed the state one dollar in state income tax, I know that no one would insist on paying two.

A denarius was a silver coin that was the equivalent of a day’s labor. Most day laborers were paid a denarius at the end of a day’s work. If you were asked to pay one day’s wage as a census tax, would you pay two? Hardly! Since it was a day’s wage, the denarius was the most common coin. Hence, it provided an easy way to number the people, which is precisely what a census was supposed to do. So Jesus asked for a coin used to pay the census tax. 

Now, if the denarius was the most common coin in the Roman Empire, does it not strike you as strange that Jesus did not have one on him? I mean, if any of you are used to carrying currency with you, I’m quite certain you would have a one dollar bill with you. But Jesus did not have the most common coin that represented a day’s wage. Perhaps those who propose a health and wealth message should take note of this. 

Anyway, Jesus asks for a denarius and they give him one. Jesus asks them, “Whose image is this and whose inscription?” The first word he uses is eikón and the second is epigraphé. In the 3rd century BC, the Old Testament was translated into Greek. This translation is known as the Septuagint. In this translation, the word eikón is used in Genesis 1, when God says, “Let us make humans as our image.” The New Testament uses this word twenty-three times and only in this passage and its parallels in Mark and Luke do some translations translate it with a word other than ‘image’. In all other occurrences, eikón is translated as ‘image’. By doing this our translations obscure what the text is telling us by severing the link we have with Genesis 1. 

The word epigraphé appears only five times in the New Testament and is a compound word. It means ‘inscription’, but signifies writing on an object that indicates ownership depending on the context. If you saw two golden arches, what short phrase comes to your mind? “I’m loving it!” The logo and the tagline are modern day equivalents to the image and inscription on the coin Jesus held.

But what we need to understand is that the idea of inscribing something on someone is central in the bible. The Israelites were told to inscribe the words of the Torah onto their hands and heads. Jeremiah promised that God would inscribe his laws on the hearts of his people. And in the final book of the bible, one main way of determining whether a person belongs to the lamb or to the beast is by the name that is inscribed on their foreheads.

When Jesus asks, “Whose image is this and whose inscription?” he receives the response, “Caesar’s.” Now when he says, “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” we could be forgiven if we concluded that Jesus is asserting that, since the coin belongs to Caesar, we should give him that coin. However, this conclusion is absurd. Let us think about what such a conclusion would imply.

We must begin by realizing that there is no way of distinguishing one denarius from another. If the denarius Jesus was given belonged to Caesar, then every denarius would belong to Caesar. And if the denarius given to Jesus was to be given as tax to Caesar, then every denarius should have been given as tax. Or how would you decide which coin should be given as tax and which not? What criteria could you use? If we understand Jesus in this way then there would be nothing like a genuine wage since every coin used to pay a person would actually belong to Caesar. 

However, Jesus does not stop there. He continues with the words, “And to God the things that are God’s.” After receiving the coin, Jesus asked just one question. “Whose image is this and whose inscription?” We have seen that the language of image and inscription are ways of speaking about representation and ownership. The image of Caesar on the coin represented Caesar himself. And Caesar’s inscription on the coin indicated that the coin eventually belonged to him. So when Jesus says, “And to God the things that are God’s,” we are to search for whatever represents God and whatever belongs to God.

Of course, we have already referred to the opening chapter of Genesis, in which humans are declared to be God’s images. And we have seen that humans are the ones who are expected to bear the name of God on their foreheads, indicating that they belong to God. We humans - all of us - have been created to represent God. And we humans - all of us - belong to God. 

But Caesar was a human. Contrary to the blasphemous claim of divinity on the coins, Caesar was just another human. He too was the image of God. And he too bore the inscription that indicated he belonged to God. In other words, Caesar, by virtue of being God’s image and bearing God’s inscription, had to be given to God. Note that Jesus does not answer the question he was asked. Did he agree with the Herodians that the census tax was legitimate? Or did he side with the Pharisees in asserting that it was not a tax that God’s people should pay?

Since Jesus has not given us a direct answer, there have understandably been a wide variety of responses. Most of these responses do not take into account two key ideas in the text. First, and we have covered this already, the tax being discussed is not a general income tax or sales tax or anything of that kind. Presumably, if we are able to function adequately in a society, we ought to fulfill certain responsibilities that would enable the society to continue to thrive. Roads, public transportation, healthcare, education , social security and other similar things are developed and maintained using the revenues the state gains from its residents. 

Hence, everyone who benefits from them, has some sort of obligation of contributing to these revenues. However, this is not what this passage is about and we water down Jesus’ words if we fail to differentiate between the census tax and other taxes that help support society. He is not addressing whether paying income tax or sales tax is okay. He is not touching the issue of whether or not we should help with the upkeep of our church buildings. What he was asked about and what he is addressing is far more foundational, far more revolutionary.

Recall that he was asked about the census tax. And recall that only a legitimate authority in a region has the right to conduct a census. And recall that a census is, at its root, a simple count. What is being counted? I mean, we know that it is people who are being counted. But when the count is tallied, what does it reveal? When the USA reports that it has about three hundred million citizens, what does that tell us? What it says is that there are about three hundred million people who would have no objections to reciting, with conviction, the Pledge of Allegiance.

A census, in other words, is not simply a count of the number of people. Rather, it is a count of the number of people whom the sovereign could count on. It is a count of the number of people who are loyal to the nation. So when Jesus says, “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” he is indicating that the census tax reveals how many people are loyal to Caesar. But when he says, “And to God the things that are God’s,” he indicates that since every human is created as God’s image, every human - ironically including Caesar - is expected to be loyal to God.

Therefore, when Caesar - or the state - does not allow people to be loyal to God, it is revealing itself to be a treasonous regime. Note what I am saying. If the state stifles the ability people have of being loyal to God, the state has committed treason against God. Of course, taken in a superficial manner, this statement of mine could be used to support the disengagement of escapism or the engagement of dominionism that we looked at two Sundays back. However, as we saw last Sunday, everything we do must be done with the ethos of love.

This means that the state cannot be tyrannical and still expect to be considered not treasonous because the tyranny itself will stifle the ability of people to be loyal to God. You see, loyalty, like love, is an exercise of freedom. You cannot compel a person to be loyal, just as you cannot compel a person to love. At best you will get disgruntled obedience that just waits for an opportunity to shrug off the yoke of the tyrant. This is the reason why every tyrant has been eventually deposed while we Christians believe that Jesus’ reign will never end.

In this episode from the Gospels, Jesus asks us to take a closer look at our politics. But not the views we have per se. Rather, he is more concerned about the ways in which we would want to spread our perspectives. That’s why he does not answer the question he was asked, but turns the focus to the issue of loyalty. Do we bear Caesar’s image and inscription, pushing our views down the throats of people regardless of what they believe and how they are affected? Or are we God’s images, bearing his inscription, and, therefore, attempting to persuade rather than coerce?

The challenge of politics is the challenge of how we wield power when we have it. Do we force people to do what we want because we have the power to force them? Or do we try to convince people to freely accept the positions we propose because loyalty cannot be forced? It is a tricky thing because power is seductive. Caesar’s image and inscription on his coin were a daily reminder of the overwhelming force with which the Empire subjugated the conquered people. Jesus, on the other hand, is content with having his image and inscription reside in people. Are we content? Or do we succumb to the challenge of politics?