The Pharisees went off and began to plot how they might trap Jesus in speech. They sent their disciples to him, accompanied by Herodian sympathizers, who said: "Teacher, we know you are a truthful man and teach God's way sincerely. You court no one's favor and do not act out of human respect. Give us your opinion, then, in this case. Is it lawful to pay tax to the emperor or not?" Jesus recognized their bad faith and said to them, "Why are you trying to trip me up, you hypocrites? Show me the coin used for the tax." When they handed him a small Roman coin he asked them, "Whose head is thin and whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied. At that he said to them, "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, but give to God what is God's." (Matthew 22:15-21)

We are now into chapter 22 of Matthew's Gospel, and in Chapter 22 there are four questions, important questions dealing with the life that the Church has to live after Jesus has departed. It always interests me that two of the three of the questions are put to Jesus, but the third question Jesus puts to his opponents. This morning we deal with the first question. next Sunday we deal with the third question.

The first question is about taxes: do we pay them or not? On the surface it might seem a very simple question, but it is fraught with difficulty, many traps, many ways in which one could stumble. It might help us to look at the Gospel and follow it along as it develops. The first thing we can notice is, who is it that comes to Jesus? Another thing we can notice is that you and I, thanks to Matthew, know their intention, but supposedly Jesus does not know their intention. There are Pharisees who come to him, and there are Herodians. There has always been the expression, we have it as a proverb in the English language, that "politics makes strange bedfellows," and such is the case this morning. There could be no two political or religious parties who are farther apart. They are at both ends of the spectrum, and they didn't have much love for one another because they have opposing views. Strange that these should come together to come to Jesus. Let us refresh ourselves on who the Pharisees are. The Pharisees are those Jewish followers who adhere strictly, absolutely strictly, to the Pentateuch, to the first five books of the Old Testament, the Torah. And if something cannot be found implicitly or explicitly in the Torah, in the law, then it is not to be done, nor may one do it. If it is not found there, then it cannot be done. There is nothing there about paying taxes to a foreign power, and therefore the Pharisees hold the view that such taxes may not be paid, ought not be paid. They are also very strict adherents to God's promises to Moses that He would give them the promised land, and therefore the promised land is theirs, no one else has a right there, no one else may exist there unless they abide by Jewish regulations, primarily the Pentateuch. They despise Herod Antipas, the puppet king of the Romans, and they are seething over Roman occupation of their land. Even though the Roman occupation did not touch their own customs, their own language or their own religious practices.

On the other hand are the Herodians. And the Herodians are those who are not opposed to the Romans. They favor Herod Antipas the puppet king, and furthermore they favor the taxes that the Romans impose. They see nothing wrong with it; they go along with the taxes. After all, Roman occupation gives them a footing in Jewish society, gives them a certain amount of power and protection.

So these two parties, who hold such divergent views--"East is East and West is West and ne'er the twain shall meet"--it is these who come to Jesus to pose the question, "Is it lawful to pay a tax to the Emperor or not?" But notice what they do before they ask the question: they do what all of us have a tendency to do. They "butter up" Jesus; they pile it on with a trowel, they flatter him to get him in a good mood, to make him favorable to them. "Teacher"--they don't call him Lord; they don't even call him rabbi; they're not believers who have any religious regard or belief in Jesus as a prophet, at least not in this place-"Teacher, you are a truthful man; you're no respecter of persons and you teach God's way"--and then they spring the question. It always amazes me how Jesus responds. Of course he sees through their flattery. He takes a knife and cuts through it like we would cut through soft butter--except it's not even butter, it's probably oleomargarine. But he simply pushes it away. But it's important what Jesus says to them: "Why are you trying to trip me up?" The English translation there is not faithful to the Greek (I don't like the New American Bible for this reason); the real thing that Jesus says there, if you take Jesus literally, is "Why are you trying to tempt me?" We've heard that kind of language before in Matthew's Gospel. We heard that in Chapter 4:1-11, where Satan comes to Jesus out in the wilderness and tempts him three times. And what Jesus says in response to the people who come to him with a question is, "You are satanic--you're trying to lead me astray. You're trying to get me to make an authoritative statement, and I won't make one." You're trying to get me in a trap, on the horns of a dilemma, so I have to answer one or another, and no matter which way I answer it's going to be the wrong answer." (It's kind of "you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. ") "If I say, Pay the taxes,' then the Pharisees can come in and say, You don't obey the Torah, and you are imposing a heavy burden on people who cannot afford an additional tax"'--and we hear that every year around election time, don't we. Now on the other side, if he says, "Don't pay the tax," then he has to contend with the Herodians, who are favorable to the Romans. It is one of those questions like, "Mrs. Smith, when did you stop beating your husband"--there's no way you can answer it.

How does Jesus handle this? "Show me the coin that is used for the tax." It's a very interesting statement on the part of Jesus. First of all, it's a kind of audio-visual method on the part of Jesus. He brings them into his own answer. They become part of the answer because they have to produce the coin. What is interesting and a great possibility, is that Jesus may not have had the coin himself. That's a possibility. Another important point is that Jesus is not afraid to touch the coin. He's not afraid to take it and handle it; he's not scrupulous. He's certainly not a pharisee, nor on the other hand is he an Herodian. But what is even more important, and here again we have to think of resonances with the Book of Genesis and the first and second commandment ("You shall honor the Lord your God who is one, and He only is your lord." And secondly, "You may not create an idol or image of God.") And here is the coin, which has an image of Caesar on it, a pagan God, and it is a violation according to the Pharisees of the first and second commandment of the Torah, even to be carrying the coin. But it is they and the Herodians who produce it. So what Jesus is doing by asking them for a coin is showing up their own hypocrisy. "You Pharisees say, Don't pay the tax'--then why do you have the coin? In having the coin you open yourself to the possible interpretation that you are worshipping a false god, and you are possibly carrying idols around with you in your purse. "

Then Jesus asks them the question, "Whose head is this? Whose inscription." They answer, as they must, "Caesar's." Again, our English translation isn't faithful to the Greek text, which is the oldest text of the Gospels we have. In Greek we would call this a genitive possessive. In other words, when you use the genitive possessive, it means ownership. "The coin belongs to Caesar. He owns it. " And when you tie that in with Jesus' answer to them, "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's," the Greek word is not "give"; the word is "give back what you have been lent." "Give back what Caesar gave you in the first place." In other words, you're simply returning to the owner what belongs to the owner. See how cleverly Jesus escapes the whole question. But then Jesus adds another statement: "Give to God what is God's." Every ruler in ancient times (and in present times, the Queen of England) is allowed to mint coinage with their own image on it. It is their coinage. If you've ever spent time, say in England it's "the Queen's money"; it's "the Queen's language"; it's "the Queen's government"--she doesn't actually rule, but it's the idea that it belongs to her, it belongs to the realm. And therefore an emperor could and did (it was an accepted practice in that day) mint coinage. What's the implication when Jesus says "Give to God what is God's," is that human beings are minted by God. Human beings are the coin of God, and of course that should resonate in our minds with another statement in Genesis, that human beings are created in the image and likeness of God. "You," says Jesus, "bear the image of God in your own being. God has given it to you. and therefore you give back to God what God has given to you, just as you give back to Caesar what Caesar has given to you. "

Now there is a principle that we can extrapolate from this, a very important principle, which goes way beyond the question of taxes, way beyond the question of idolatry. It's the relationship to the state. If we look at Jesus' answer, there are two gifts, or fruits, of Jesus' answer. The first fruit or gift of Jesus' answer is that you must honor the state, the government which is the state. And to show honor or respect to the state is a form of showing respect to God, because all authority comes from God. That's the first fruit.

The second fruit of Jesus' answer, and this is the controversial or difficult part, is that the state has limitations, the state is not God. The state is not all-powerful. The only total claim on a conscience is God, not the state. The state may never claim that it should control, or will control, the consciences of the people it serves. That's a prerogative that belongs to God only, not to the state. And the implication here is very clear that the state can become satanic as the Pharisees and the Herodians were becoming satanic when they demand a total subservience of the conscience to the state. And in history, if you look at it, when you have a totalitarian state, what are the two institutions that the state wants to control? Schools (education) and religion. They want to control the mind--what people think--and they want to control the heart, the conscience; and the state cannot require that. It exceeds its limitations if it does so. We are to give to Caesar, to the state, a great deal, but we are never to give to the state our consciences, because those belong to God. And only God can ask for them.

Implicit in this question or statement of Jesus is a critique. And we have to look at it in our own life. Do we give the state too little? Are we like the zealots, the Pharisees, do we hold back what should be given to the state? Or do we give the state too much? Do we give the state an almost divine, godlike status, like the Herodians? On which side do we lean, if not succumb entirely? It's a question of the relation of church and state, and what should be the right relationship. Notice that Jesus sets down a principle, he does not give specific cases. That is for you and me to work out each day of our lives. That is for the church to work out each day of its life, but it must be worked out. Jesus gives us a kind of slide rule, and he asks us perpetually to readjust our use of time, to reestablish constantly our priorities.

Let me give you an example in this regard. In the book of Maccabees, that marvelous book about domination by a foreign power, of Israel by the Greeks in the time of Maccabees. One of the things that the foreign power at that time tried to impose was to create gymnasiums, to impose dietary regulations that went so much against Jewish practice. And of course the primary one was the eating of pork. And they bring in the old man who was the revered elder of the people. They say, "Eat pork," and he says, "No, it is against my religion." Then they say, "We'll give you beef, and you'll eat it. You will know it's not pork, but the people won't know. They'll think it is pork. And if you eat this beef which you know and we know is not pork, but the people will think is pork, then they'll follow your example, and you will save your life." And I'm paraphrasing here, he says, "You may not demand that of me. You do not have the authority to demand that of me. I prefer to die." And he dies. This is conscience.

Years ago, when I was a novicemaster, I had a young man in the novitiate who came to the end of the novitiate and it was time to recommend for or against his taking first vows. It was one of those cases where I could not make a decision one way or another. I could not recommend him, and on the other hand I couldn't not recommend. I didn't know what his motive was. Why did he come? Benedict says in our rule that that's the primary thing a novicemaster should look for: does this man come to this community truly to seek God? I couldn't discern that. And it was decided in the various meetings of the abbot's council and the community that we would extend his novitiate up to a year at the discretion of the novicemaster. And immediately after being told this he came running to my office. "I have just got to make vows? Father! " I answered, "Why do just got to' make vows?" He said, "If I do not make vows, I don't believe in the Vietnam War, and I'm either going to have to go to Canada or I'm going to have to go to prison. So I just absolutely have to make vows." I said, "Young man, my advice to you is, go pack your bags, get out of here as quickly as you can get, and go either to Canada or to prison. You must follow your conscience. If you truly are convinced that it is immoral, then you have to follow your conscience. " That's what Jesus is telling us in this morning's Gospel. The state may never demand full allegiance. A very high-ranking Cardinal in this country used to say, "My country, right or wrong. " If I had ever met that man--he's now dead, God rest him--I would have said, "You're wrong. It's not, `My country, right or wrong,' but it's `My God,' always. "