My wife and I have had the privilege of traveling to various countries. No matter how well you prepare, there are always surprises whenever you do something for the first time. One of those surprises had to do with currency, or, as we generally call it, money.
We were in Southeast Asia, and when we left the airport, a fee needed to be paid at the exit. I had been advised not to exchange currency at the airport because the exchangers often take advantage of travelers and charge higher rates.
So, when the attendant asked for the airport fee, I told him I had no local currency. In my naivete, I pulled a US 20-dollar bill out of my wallet. When he saw it, he indicated it would be sufficient and took it. I later discovered that what I had paid was exorbitant—much more than required. My ignorance had a cost.
That experience taught us the importance of exchanging some US currency for the host country’s currency. It enabled us to pay those pesky fees, do business with local artisans and shopkeepers, or contribute offerings to the local church. On our earliest visits, we would ask, “Will you accept US dollars?” often, the answer was, “No, we can’t.” We quickly learned that you can’t transact business without the proper currency.
Currency is more than money. It can also refer to words and ideas. You can’t discuss certain subjects unless you know the acceptable or prevalent terms used. Much like money, language is a currency, and much like money, we assign meaning to words in the same way we assign value to physical coins and bills. Like the economy, we can inflate the meaning of some words by overusing or contextualizing them.
Let’s also remember the context in which these events are taking place. This is the final week of Jesus’ life, and He is teaching daily in the Temple. Just before this, the religious leaders confronted Him for cleansing the Temple, asking by what authority He did that. He then told them the parable of the wicked vinedressers, and they knew He was talking about them. Our text is a continuation of these incidents.
We don’t usually think of the world’s nations as “kingdoms,” but the concept of a kingdom was well understood in biblical times. While Jesus didn’t use the word kingdom in our text, He implied it. We want to consider His teaching from Mark 12:13-17, “Kingdom Currency.”
In this text, Jesus uses a simple object lesson to teach several ASPECTS of kingdom currency.
The First ASPECT is,
Political Expedience
Perhaps you wonder how political expedience can be the currency of a kingdom. Unless you live in a country ruled by an absolute dictator, your government thrives on political expedience. Compromise and mutual favors grease the wheels of political parties and governments. The money of lobbyists buys access and influence. A simple definition of expedience is “The end justifies the means.” We have a clear example of this in our text.
Our text begins by saying, “Then they sent to Him some of the Pharisees and the Herodians…” They were the Sanhedrin, the council of Jewish 70 elders. The council originated in Moses’ time, when God told him in Numbers 11:16, “Gather for Me 70 elders from the men of Israel.” In modern terms, they were Israel’s Supreme Court. In Jesus’ day, they were seated in a special part of the Temple compound. So, they were close to where Jesus was teaching.
As a result, the Sanhedrin sent some Pharisees and the Herodians to confront Jesus. If you’ve been with me throughout this study, you’ve seen this combination of characters before. In Mark 3:6, after the man’s healing with the withered hand on the Sabbath, we read, “Then the Pharisees went out and immediately plotted with the Herodians against Him, how they might destroy Him.” Why such animosity?
I said then that the Herodians were a political party that wanted to restore Herod to the throne of Judea. No one hated the Herodians more than the Pharisees. Herod Antipas had the ambition of reuniting all of Palestine under his rule. The Herodians opposed the Pharisees because the Pharisees hated Herod and wished for a descendant of David on that same throne. So, they were enemies. Yet because of their hatred for Jesus, it became politically expedient for them to work together to destroy Jesus. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Both saw Him as an unwelcome usurper of the throne.
So, here they came to “catch” Him in something He said. Luke calls them spies, and Matthew vividly depicts this effort to trap Jesus in His speech, like trapping a bird or a wild beast.
Oh, but look how pious they act! “Teacher, we know that You are true and care about no one, for You do not regard the person of men but teach the way of God in truth.” What a statement. Sniveling sycophants, all of them! A sycophant attempts to gain an advantage by flattering influential people or behaving in a servile manner. That describes these guys to a T. When they said that Jesus didn’t care about anyone, they didn’t mean He was hardhearted; they meant He didn’t show favoritism based on wealth, rank, or status.
What they said about Jesus was true; it was high praise, but their motives were dishonest. Earlier, they had accused Him of blasphemy; now, they say, “You always speak the truth.” Which is it? Did they genuinely think that Jesus couldn’t see through their hypocrisy?
Do you think political expediency ended with the Pharisees? Not a chance! It’s still with us today. Those who use politics in the church to protect their privileged positions are often compromised to the point where their commitment to Christ can be legitimately questioned. In appearance, they serve God, but in reality, they serve themselves.
These supposed religious leaders had unequally yoked themselves to a party avowed unbelievers. God had called His people, Israel, to be exclusively for Him, but these men saw how their alliance with the Herodians could help them achieve their plans.
Do you and I enter into unholy alliances to accomplish what we want, even if our desires aren’t necessarily wrong? Do we compromise our faith to protect our position or escape ridicule? Do we publicly say one thing to the Lord and pursue the opposite privately? The Pharisees wouldn’t eat without washing their hands, but they allied themselves with unbelievers. Are we willing to enter unholy alliances to preserve the status quo? These questions demand serious reflection.
Another ASPECT is,
Willful Disobedience
So, the Pharisees set the stage for the big question: “We know that You’re not going to answer according to public opinion, Jesus. You’re not going to give us an exercise in political correctness. You’re going to speak the unveiled Word of God. So then, answer our question. “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?Shall we pay, or shall we not pay?”
Since Judea became a Roman province in A.D. 6, the Romans required the Jews to pay a yearly poll (head) tax into the emperor’s treasury. It was a denarius, the chief silver coin of the Romans at this time, worth about $.17. It was the equivalent of one day’s wages for a laborer or a Roman soldier. One day’s wages once a year for taxes would be fantastic!
The Jewish Zealots later refused to pay it, claiming it acknowledged Rome’s right to rule over them. Many of the ordinary people just “neglected” to pay the tax. The Pharisees paid it but objected strongly. The Herodians paid it willingly since they supported Roman rule.
So, this motley crew of religious and political leaders was setting a trap for Him. The Pharisees put the question before Jesus, and it is easy to see why. No matter how He answered the question, they would have a reason to accuse Him.
If He said it was okay to pay taxes to Caesar, then the people would rise up against Jesus. If He said they should not pay taxes to Caesar, the Pharisees would go to the Roman government and say, “This man is out there propagating rebellion and advising people not to pay their taxes.” Either response would be disobeying a “king,” Jehovah or Caesar.
However, Jesus saw through their subterfuge. He said to them, “Why do you test me? Bring a denarius to me so I can see it.” So, they brought a coin to Him.
Jews disapproved of images on coins. Out of respect for this prejudice, none of the earlier Herods had his image impressed on them. Herod Agrippa I, who murdered James and imprisoned Peter, introduced the practice.
Which Caesar was on the coin? At this time in Jewish history, the Caesar whose image appeared on the denarius was Tiberius Caesar, who reigned after Augustus Caesar from AD 14 until AD 37. His image was pressed upon the coin’s surface, and his name was inscribed. The Latin inscription on the Roman denarius of this period is translated as, “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, son of the divine Augustus.”
At this point in history, the emperor worship cult had already been initiated in Rome, and the Romans believed in deifying their emperors. In addition to these words extolling the fact that Tiberius Caesar was the son of the “divine” Caesar Augustus, the inscription on the coin included the title pontifex maximus, that is, “high priest.” This title is similar to that of the Roman Catholic Pope. So, you can see the potential consequences of Jesus’ answer to their question.
After looking at the coin, Jesus asked His adversaries, “Whose likeness and inscription are stamped on the coin?” Without hesitating, they said, “Caesar’s.” Since Caesar’s image and name were on it, it indicated his possession according to Roman law. Caesar owned the coin.
That leads us to the final aspect of kingdom currency.
The Final ASPECT is,
Divided Allegiance
Typically, divided allegiance is not viewed in a positive light. But Jesus makes a clear statement regarding this division. After viewing the Roman coin bearing the likeness of Caesar and the inscription lauding his office, He said to His questioners, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.” With this statement, Jesus separates the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of men.
Just a few weeks ago in January, a little-noticed anniversary took place – the 500th Anniversary of the Anabaptist movement. While the pillars of the Reformation, like Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, advocated a return to the Word of God, salvation by grace through faith, and other changes, they failed to deal with the crucial matter of the separation of church and state.
The tiny Anabaptist Movement saw the need for a clear separation between the kingdoms of this world and the Kingdom of God, and it implemented that teaching at the cost of many martyrs. It embraced the teaching of the New Testament that the church was comprised of adult Believers who had voluntarily chosen to be members of Jesus’ church.
Their very name, Anabaptist, which was given as a derogatory epithet, means “re-baptizers.” Recognizing the practice of infant baptism into a state-authorized church as unbiblical, they chose to be rebaptized upon their confession of faith in Christ. As a result, many were tortured and killed at the hands of the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed Church authorities in cooperation with state governments. The blood of these martyrs eventually led to the doctrine of the separation of church and state becoming a part of mainstream Christianity.
When Jesus said, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God,” His questioners were speechless. They had no suitable retort.
His reply meant they should pay the annual poll tax because God established human governments to control evil and fulfill His purposes. In the middle of the second century, the great apologist Justin Martyr argued in his open letter to the emperor Antoninus Pius that Christians were scrupulous in their civil obedience and always paid their taxes.
Paul’s writings in Romans 13 and elsewhere clearly indicate Believers’ responsibility to their governments. Neither Jesus nor Paul taught that Believers should withhold taxes from their government as a means of civil disobedience. However, neither did they instruct the Church to involve itself in the affairs of civil government. This doesn’t mean we have no interest in or interaction with human governments. It means our primary commitment to the Kingdom of God governs all our actions.
I don’t know if you thought about it, but what is the underlying principle in this interaction? It’s authority. We’ve been following that thread for several weeks in our study. Here, Jesus indicated that human authority should be respected, honored, and obeyed. At the same time, He also affirmed that God’s rule should be respected, honored, and obeyed. There are two kingdoms, each with its respective requirements and obligations.
However, having said all that, the primary focus of the Christ-follower is logically the Kingdom of Christ. His priority is to render to God what belongs to God. The Jewish leaders claimed this as their goal, but they had become entangled with the political movements of their day, attempting to gain and retain their positions of power. Unfortunately, many in the church today also entangle themselves in the affairs of civil government, leading to divided allegiance.
Let’s avoid political expedience by yoking ourselves with unbelievers like the Pharisees did with the Herodians. If we have been entrusted with leadership positions, there is no need to protect those at all costs, especially if we must compromise truth and love.
Which of these two kingdoms has priority in your life? Jesus clarified that to be His follower, my primary allegiance must be to Him. Yes, I am a citizen of my country, which affords certain rights and privileges. But if, and when, the requirements in those two kingdoms collide, the kingdom of Christ takes precedence.
