I have often mentioned the 'coin' episode in Matthew 22 as an
occasion in which Evangelicals and other Sacralists attempt to make an argument
for citizenship and civic duty. They believe the terminology 'render unto
Caesar' is some kind of imperative to be engaged in the affairs of Caesar,
economics, politics and the like.
Of course we could point to many passages which negate this
understanding. Paul's statements in 2 Timothy 2 immediately come to mind which
completely counters this understanding but even the immediate context of
Christ's confrontation with the Herodians falsifies the view. I am of course
well aware of the arguments about democracy, stewardship, salt and light or
even just 'doing what we can', but all of these assertions fail and can be
refuted by an examination of the salient texts. And none of the arguments can
be built on the episode before us in Matthew 22.
The Herodians were of course political agitators, while of a
different stripe and character than the Pharisees they nevertheless represented
a type of Anti-Roman Jewish nationalism. For them Roman coinage was an offence,
a sign of subjugation and the insult was amplified in the Jewish mind by the
coins themselves which bore the image of Caesar, giving them an idolatrous
aspect.
Attempting to trap Jesus into either making a public
anti-Roman statement and thus getting him into legal trouble or forcing him to
publically declare submission to the Romans and thus alienating much of his
audience, they confront him with the coin and the question of the tribute or
tax.
Christ does not dispute the payment of the tax nor the right
of Rome to demand it. It's not his concern and though this lesson should be
basic to Christians it remains surprising just how few understand it or are
willing to submit to it.
He knows they are trying to trap him but his answer is not a
case of evasion or cleverness. He reframes the question and thus escapes their
trap and teaches an important lesson. In fact his very method remains
instructive as so often the problems and questions that vex us are in the
framing and we shouldn't let our adversaries and gainsayers box us in as it
were. All too often the questions they ask are rooted in false assumptions, and
that's certainly the case in Matthew. Christ exhibits great wisdom in showing
how to peel back the layers and deal with the fundamental issues rather than
get caught up in debates over what amount to symptoms of a much a deeper
problem.
The Herodians held deeply Sacralist assumptions which during
the Old Covenant were not a problem per se. However they had effectively
refused to submit to the Covenant sanctions enacted by Jehovah as announced
through the prophets. The Old Covenant was still active but not in full
standing. While the return from exile was a kind of restoration, the Shekinah
never indwelt the second temple and thus the Divine Presence was never fully
restored. As New Testament Christians we understand that the promise of
restoration hinted at by Jeremiah, Ezekiel and others in fact pointed to the
New Covenant era, the time of the Church. James strongly reiterates and
confirms this in Acts 15 among other places. In other words even though the Temple
was rebuilt when groups of Jews returned from Mesopotamia, things were not as
they should have been. The old order was on its way out, something Christ hints
at in the previous parable regarding the wedding feast.
The non-submissive sacralism of the Second Temple Period and
especially in the post-Maccabean era was no longer rooted in Biblical or
Covenantal thinking but a skewed tribal-nationalism that perverted the holy
symbols such as the Temple. In a familiar echo everything became about
politics.
Rome was certainly the Fourth Beast of Daniel and thus an
evil entity and yet as Paul would later make clear its rule was Providential
and thus God ordained. A hard pill to swallow for some, Jesus (during his
ministry) was already hinting at the post-Old Testament era and the inclusion
of the Gentiles. A mere forty years after his death and resurrection the old
epoch would be ended once and for all.
The new era would be one of pluralism as opposed to
sacralism. Not an absolute or religious pluralism but as the covenant would be
internationalised (as it were), no earth-bound nation would claim sacral
privilege and the Heavenly or truly sacral nation would no longer possess any
earthly political power. This new paradigm would radically change the nature of
the Covenant People (the Church in the New Testament) and its relation to the
state, power and the world system... and thus by implication issues like the
law and economics.
While wealth and power were typological pointing to the
glories of heaven and thus to some degree were appropriate during the Old
Testament, the inaugurated Kingdom of Heaven which would be the Covenantal
order of the Church Age would be ruled by pilgrim ethics as outlined in the
Sermon on the Mount and in other passages. The sword would have no place in
this new order, and mammon while still necessary on one level became no longer
a glory but a temptation, a rival power that could be directly juxtaposed with
the service of God. While not intrinsically evil, thus allowing for even the
idolatrous coin to be used, it nevertheless possesses an inherent danger
especially when accumulated.
Part of the temporal order and the non-sacral political
system, Caesar's coin (as it were) is something we must interact with but it's
not something we as Christians seek after, trust in or worry about. It's part
of the order that is passing away. We don't waste it as indeed it can be used
for valid and even good things, but we don't seek it and recognise that it's
potentially dangerous... and can keep one from entering the Kingdom.
The Herodians understood that the coin and economics are
closely wed to the political order and thus for them these questions were all
bound together. Just as in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is drawing a sharp
contrast, an antithesis between Caesar's coin and Heavenly treasure. You cannot
serve God and mammon and Caesar's coin is certainly emblematic of the latter.
Touch it, use it but don't serve it. And getting caught up in the 'questions of
coin' is certainly to get entangled and caught up in the political struggle and
control of Caesar's throne. They are inseparable and this is just as true
today.
Just look at how wealthy people get pulled into larger
circles. Indeed as they accumulate wealth they seek and are sought by those
circles. On the extreme end of this one need only look to figures like Bill
Gates and Jeff Bezos. Their interests, concerns and energies have radically
transcended their original business interests. They are now men of influence
and power, among the power-elite that shape nations. That's the extreme but I
can think of similar men who function on a state or even a multi-county level.
The wealthy store owner or timber merchant starts to branch out and get into
buying and starting other businesses and procuring real estate and long before
he's running for political office he has hobnobbed with the politicians and has
already exerted his influence in those circles. I've seen it more than once.
Just as in the Sermon on the Mount the two, service to God
and service to mammon are presented as two rival religions... one is the
sacralisation of the secular and the other is service to the true and only sacral
realm of Heaven itself. The contrast is reiterated in Matthew 22. Render unto
Caesar the coin that is his, the coin we don't seek or really care all that
much about. Pay it and submit to Providence and be thankful that there is a
state of some kind even if it is an evil one.
This is contrasted with Render unto God the things that are
God's. The two realms, the two kingdoms, the two concerns are not directly
connected. In fact there is an antithesis between them but one that we as
pilgrims in this present evil age must navigate.
The common Evangelical reading literally turns this passage
on its head and makes it teach the exact opposite of what Christ is trying to
say. The two realms are separate and Caesar's coin, the currency and treasure
of this age has no part in the Kingdom of Heaven. By implication the coin in
representing the world system also represents the ideas and ethics surrounding
security, respectability, power and citizenship and Christ is contrasting
Christian values with the values born of Caesar's realm, the very values the
false church sanctifies and seeks to transform... but is in the process ensnared
in a way reminiscent of the Parable of the Sower and the example of the gospel-plant
choked by weeds or rather the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of
riches. That choked plant becomes unfruitful and falls away, just as the
churches do that teach the veneration and sanctification of Caesar's coin.
This passage is a locus
classicus of Christ's teaching regarding antithesis but unfortunately the
sacralists have hijacked it and utilising their tortured 'worldview'
hermeneutics they have made it to say something entirely different.
No comments:
Post a Comment