The Giving Kingdom: Paying Taxes to the Emperor in the Synoptic Tradition

Dean Harrison AdamsREL 1250: Introduction to New Testament and Exegetical Methods

March 6, 2015

One of the greatest examples of both synoptic agreement and Jesus’ teaching on the

kingdom of God is the question about paying taxes to the emperor. Replete with historical

elements and plot tension, the pericope displays the growing discord between Jesus and the

political and religious leaders of his day. The entrapping nature of their inquiry is immediately

exposed, and Jesus responds with simplicity, authority, and profound wisdom: “Give therefore to

the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew

22:21). Whereas an exhaustive survey of the intense encounter would encompass several aspects

of the text, a more succinct interpretation will focus on three distinct areas: historical, narrative,

and redaction criticism. Each form of criticism reveals complex themes and societal structures

and attempts to add depth to the reader’s understanding of the 1st century background

surrounding the text, its narrative characteristics and plot development, and the way in which it is

treated in other synoptic traditions. Ultimately, the question about paying taxes to the emperor

displays the growing friction and stratification between the elites of society and the poor,

intimates the hatred of the religious leaders for Jesus, and creates a platform for him both to

denounce their malevolence and redirect their attention to that which is most important—God

and His kingdom.

To grasp more fully the significance of Jesus’ encounter with the Pharisees and

Herodians in the Jerusalem Temple (Matthew 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17; and Luke 20:20-26),

one must first view the story through the lens of its historical context. Such an approach seeks to

identify the major economic, political, social, and religious issues in the text. Thus, an

appropriate introduction to the historical criticism of the story identifies the sociopolitical

atmosphere of early 1st century Judea. Biblical scholar D. Downs asserts, “In the 1st century CE

Rome exerted its power and raised funds to support its military activities through levies on

Adams 2

conquered peoples.”1 Roman oppression was therefore a daily factor in the lives of those in

Judea, which became a tributary of Rome in 63 BCE under the occupation of Pompey2 and later

a Roman province in 6 CE.3 The shift to Roman rule affected nearly every aspect of people’s

lives, and only for a small minority of elites were these effects positive. It is true that a growing

empire requires a source of wealth to supply its needs and cannot reach its full potential without

a system of taxation.4 However, it is also true that the Greco-Roman elites possessed an

insatiable hunger for wealth, status, and leisure.5 Such a desire for power had to be sourced,

which in turn led to Rome’s suffocating practice of heavy taxation and forced labor.

Essential to understanding the historical background of the imperial tax pericope is a

general knowledge of Rome’s system of taxation. Warren Carter explains the system by which

states such as the Roman Empire maintain power and extract their resources:

Empires employ a proprietary theory whereby ruling elites claim a material share of all things: land, production, traded goods, and labor. The payment (often in kind) of taxes, tributes, rents, and forced labor by peasants to local and foreign elites ensures a continual source of wealth. Peasants who usually seek to supply their own needs locally are thereby forced to produce a “surplus.”6

1 D. Downs, “Economics,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 2nd ed., ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013): 223.

2 F. F. Bruce, “Render to Caesar,” in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. Ernst Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984): 251.

3

M. Eugene Boring, The Gospel of Matthew, in The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 8, ed. Leander E. Keck (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995): 420.

4 Daniel C. Snell, “Taxes and Taxation,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 6, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992): 338.

5 K. C. Hanson and Douglas E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus: Social Structures and Social Conflicts, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998): 97.

6 Warren Carter, “Taxes, Taxation,” in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 5, ed. Katherine Doob Sakenfeld, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2009): 478.

Adams 3

The tax system of Rome was oppressive and devastating to the lower class majority. Refusal to

pay the tax was considered a direct affront to Roman sovereignty and often entailed a military

response. Scholars estimate that “20–50 percent of peasant and artisan production was removed

through taxes, a significant and damaging amount for those living near subsistence levels,”7

while others postulate a number near 40 percent.8 For the common day laborer in 1st century

Judea, these expenses were debilitating, and many families required participation of the wife and

children in hard work to provide a subsistence living.9 Judean Jews, many of whom likely

gathered around Jesus to hear his response to the religious leaders, had even more layers of

financial indebtedness. In addition to Herod Antipas’s (4 BCE–39 CE) local agrarian taxes,10

Jews were responsible for funding another great project—the Temple.11 Realizing the weight of

financial oppression placed on Jews by Rome in the early 1st century, given its historical

significance in the question about paying taxes to the emperor, it is necessary now to survey the

political and religious groups present in the story.

In the accounts of Matthew and Mark, the Pharisees and Herodians are directly

mentioned, while in Luke these groups are either implied in context or referred to as “spies”

(Luke 20:20). Other groups are also significant to the story: Jesus’ disciples and the crowds

gathering in the Temple. It is clear from all three synoptic accounts that the Pharisees (Jewish

religious leaders) instigate the “trap” designed to ensnare Jesus in his words. Eugene Boring

7 Ibid., 479.

8 Bruce, “Render to Caesar,” 254.

9 David A. Fiensy, “Economics and the Bible: New Testament,” in Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception, vol. 7, ed. Dale C. Allison, Jr. (Boston: De Gruyter, 2013): 322.

10 Carter, “Taxes, Taxation,” 478.

11 Bruce, “Render to Caesar,” 254.

Adams 4

adds, “The Pharisees . . . were popular with the people because they in principle resented and

resisted the tax, but did not go as far as the radical nationalists who publicly resisted its

payment.”12 Further, they likely viewed Roman rule as a “necessary evil,”13 one that forcefully

asserted its power yet also offered the Pharisees, being in the upper class of society, the benefits

of an elite class under Roman control. Concerning the secular Herodian elites, F. F. Bruce

explains that “they were not a religious group but a party that promoted the interests of the Herod

dynasty and probably hoped for the re-integration of Herod’s kingdom under one of his

descendants. . . . they must have been pro-Roman in their policy.”14 Understanding the stark

contrast between the Pharisees and Herodians only adds to the tension brought before Jesus, and

having also discussed the sociopolitical atmosphere of 1st century Judea in which the tax question

was asked, a shift in focus to narrative criticism will journey deeper into the plot development

within the text.

The question about paying taxes to the emperor can be found in all three synoptic

Gospels, yet Matthew 22:15-22 will serve here as the text of choice. The reader finds in v 15 that

the Pharisees already have a deep-rooted hatred for Jesus. They are no longer passive observers

of Jesus’ controversial teachings and actions. Quite to the contrary, they are actively planning a

way in which they might “entrap him in what he said.” It is known from Matthew 21:23 that

Jesus is now in the Jerusalem Temple, the center of Jewish worship, culture, and society.

Moreover, it is not the first encounter that Jesus has had in the Temple—he has already

overturned the tables of the money changers and directly opposed the Pharisees with his

12 Boring, The Gospel of Matthew, 420.

13 Bruce, “Render to Caesar,” 251.

14 Ibid.

Adams 5

teachings and parables. Thus, the intention of the Pharisees is not to have an intriguing debate

with Jesus, but it is literally to find a basis on which to accuse Jesus of a crime punishable by

death. The Pharisees’ inclusion of their own disciples and the Herodians in v 16 is therefore an

attempt to gather reliable and influential witnesses to Jesus’ imminent “crime.” In the same

verse, the Pharisees introduce their question with a statement about Jesus’ sincerity, truthfulness,

and impartiality. Acknowledging the satirical motive of the Pharisees, it is difficult to hear these

words spoken genuinely. Instead, they likely frame the very aspects of Jesus’ teaching that the

Pharisees are attempting to undermine, for the title that they give him, “Teacher,” is most

certainly a mockery of his recent teachings in the Temple. Gathering these introductory details in

the first two verses is prerequisite to interpreting accurately the question about paying taxes and

Jesus’ subsequent response.

Verse 17 continues the dialogue of the Pharisees, as they present their trap, the command

and question that harbor their mal-intent and give identity to the pericope: “Tell us, then, what

you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?” The question itself and the setting in

which it is asked is complex in several ways. First, it presents a trans-political dynamic. The rule

of legislation referred to by the Pharisees is ancient Jewish law, and Jesus is asked to judge a

Roman practice in such a context. In this way, Jesus’ response speaks to something much larger

than a simple tax. In fact, it responds to a question occupying the minds of all 1st century Jews: is

Roman rule compatible with Judaism? Second, as Jesus is well aware and Boring explains, “It is

not against the Torah . . . to pay taxes to the emperor. The Pharisees acknowledge this by

participating in the economic system made possible by Rome, even by having Roman coins in

the temple area.”15 Third, it is known that even Jesus’ followers were required and agreed to pay

15 Boring, The Gospel of Matthew, 420.

Adams 6

the Roman tax.16 A response from Jesus at this point that denounced the Roman tax would create

confusion and distrust between him and his followers and contradict much of his teachings thus

far. Finally, it is also religiously complicated. A development in Jewish tradition that concerned

the emperor’s claim to deity and his image and inscription on the coin used for the tax was that

“the payment of tribute to the Romans was incompatible with Israel’s theocratic ideals.”17 Jesus

most likely acknowledges these complicated developments but does not respond immediately to

them. In v 18, he is far more concerned with the “malice” of the Pharisees in setting their trap for

him. He uses a common term for the religious group, “hypocrites,” and exposes their plot to trick

him. From this point forward, Jesus takes control of the situation.

Before giving his response, Jesus requests in v 19 to see the coin used for the tax, and

they bring him a denarius. Looking at the coin, Jesus’ first step in responding to the Pharisees is

in typical fashion—he asks a question. In v 20, Jesus asks, “Whose head is this, and whose

title?” Before moving too far forward, it is important to understand a few characteristics of the

coin itself. Albright states, “The denarius of Tiberius (14–37 CE) would carry the emperor’s

portrait, and also an inscription which accorded him divine honor.”18 Only this coin was valid for

tax payment, and Jews considered its inscription blasphemous: Tiberius Caesar Divi Augusti

Filius Augustus Pontifex Maximus, which means, “Tiberius Caesar, august son of the divine

Augustus, high priest.”19 It is possible that Jesus read these exact words before responding with

his own question. The response of the Pharisees in v 21 is concise and most likely unassuming:

16 Carter, “Taxes, Taxation,” 479.

17 Bruce, “Render to Caesar,” 254-55.

18 William Foxwell Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew, in The Anchor Bible, ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1971): 273.

19 Boring, The Gospel of Matthew, 420.

Adams 7

“The emperor’s.” They are very aware of whose head and inscription is on the coin. They have

lived under his oppression and the oppression of previous Roman rulers for decades and expect

Jesus to recognize this in his response to them. Thus, the trap is set before Jesus: to uphold the

Roman tax would be to pay allegiance to the image on the coin and to reject it would be open

rebellion. The response of Jesus, then, completely and entirely dismantles the plot of the

Pharisees.

“Then he said to them, ‘Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s,

and to God the things that are God’s’” (Matthew 22:21). The reaction of the Pharisees in v 22 to

Jesus’ ruling is one of amazement and retreat. Although the story ends abruptly in all three

synoptic Gospels, much is to be said about the dynamic of Jesus’ reply, the implication of his

response on the 1st century world, and its application on a theological level to the life of the

modern reader. Carter finds Jesus’ response to be carefully delivered: “Jesus’ instruction cleverly

combines apparent deference to Rome with a subversive agenda. He employs ambiguous, coded,

and self-protective speech to uphold paying a coin bearing the emperor’s image . . . while also

asserting overriding loyalty to God.”20 Shailer Mathews finds that Jesus’ response was more

elusive in nature, as he was trying to avoid both getting caught in a political debate and having to

establish a principle by which others were to follow.21 Whatever his means were, it stands that

they were exceedingly effective. The Pharisees “were amazed; and they left him and went

away,” leaving the contemporary reader with the task of interpreting the words of Jesus.

The implications of Jesus’ response in regards to the 1st century world are fundamentally

concerned with the kingdom of God. Ultimately, that which is God’s due is Jesus’ main focus,

20 Carter, “Taxes, Taxation,” 479.

21 Shailer Mathews, Jesus on Social Institutions, ed. Kenneth Cauthen (Philadelphia, PN: Fortress Press, 1971): 108.

Adams 8

and the theme of giving God his due becomes central to his ministry.22 Although paying taxes to

the emperor may seem like surrender, Carter explains otherwise: “As much as Rome sees, the tax

is paid; compliance is expressed. But Jesus’ instruction reframes the act. ‘Giving back’ to Caesar

becomes a disguised, dignity-restoring act of resistance that recognizes God’s all-encompassing

claim.”23 As a modern reader, the text of the imperial tax story can become personally applicable.

Clive S. Beed and Cara Beed give profound insight to what Jesus is implying: “In the saying

about Caesar, Jesus is emphasizing the need to give to God all that comes from God: people’s

lives, talents, commitment, priorities, time and fruits of production. Caesar can have what is left

—which, to Jesus, should be nothing of any value to God.”24 This radical and profound approach

of applying Jesus’ teaching and response to one’s life holistically is, perhaps, the reason for

which Jesus answers as he does. The focus moves from Caesar to God, and in the same manner,

one who loves God will likewise shift from their worldly way of living to one that aligns with the

will of God. Without falling into the Pharisees’ scheme, he both triumphs over them and

provides a theological teaching for his contemporaries and interpreters for millennia to come.

Having thoroughly analyzed the narrative aspects of the text, a final inspection of the text

using redaction criticism will identify the use of the imperial tax pericope in other synoptic

traditions. As previously mentioned, the question about paying taxes to the emperor is found in

all three synoptic Gospels and provides a heuristic example of synoptic agreement. Albright

attests in reference to the Gospels as entire works, “When Matthew and Luke are following the

same historical framework as Mark, the degree of agreement between them is high, notably when

22 Bruce, “Render to Caesar,” 262.

23 Carter, “Taxes, Taxation,” 479.

24 Clive S. Beed and Cara Beed, “Jesus and Equity in Material Distribution,” Evangelical Quarterly 77, no. 2 (April 1, 2005): 109.

Adams 9

they are reporting the words of Jesus.”25 However, some differences do exist, and an inspection

of these changes will reveal the specific foci of each Gospel.

Of the three Gospels, the accounts in Matthew and Mark are most similar. Luke contains

a longer introduction and dénouement, which attributes a greater attention to the intentions of the

“spies” and, later, the presence of the crowd. While Luke does not mention the Herodians,

Matthew “retains them from Mark, for they represent the overt supporters of the Roman regime

and would support paying the tax.”26 Yet Matthew does not always follow the Markan plot: “In

contrast to Mark, the Pharisees are not the agents of the chief priests, scribes, and elders, but are

themselves in charge and take the initiative.”27 This emphasis on the Pharisees in Matthew may

conform to its Jewish audience, as the Pharisees were the Jewish religious leaders of the day. The

words of those confronting Jesus are practically verbatim in each Gospel, though at times the

order is changed. Matthew 22:17 adds the phrase, “Tell us, then, what you think,” which is

unique to Matthew and may reflect changes in the oral tradition or sourcing from Q that Luke

found unnecessary. An interesting phenomenon occurs when the Gospels mention Jesus’

acknowledgement of the plot against him, because all three accounts use different phrases:

“aware of their malice” (Matthew), “knowing their hypocrisy” (Mark), and “he perceived their

craftiness” (Luke). Each phrase may carry its own unique interpretation or follow different

patterns (Matthew retains the Markan theme of hypocrite in 22:18). After this, Luke lacks Jesus’

stern rhetoric, likely because the intention of Jesus’ opposition is revealed in the story’s

introduction. But what Luke ssacrifices in the center of the passage is gained in its attention to

25 Albright, Matthew, xlix.

26 Boring, The Gospel of Matthew, 420.

27 Ibid.

Adams 10

the crowd in 20:26, a detail unrecorded by the other Gospels: “And they were not able in the

presence of the people to trap him by what he said.” The pericope ends with general agreement

that those present were “amazed,” yet each Gospel ends at a different stage. Mark stops at “they

were utterly amazed at him” (12:17), Luke adds that “they became silent” (20:26), and Matthew

goes even farther to include that “they left him and went away” (22:22). That Luke and Matthew

have closing material in addition to Mark suggests a possible reliance on Q, although these

details could easily arise from oral tradition. Whatever the case, it is clear that the account in

each Gospel carries an overarching theme of giving to God what is His due.

After comparing and contrasting the pericope in its synoptic traditions, a brief analysis of

its placement in the greater context of the Gospels and its reception in later traditions will offer

unique insight into the purpose of the text. The question about paying taxes to the emperor is

found late in each Gospel in the context of Jesus’ Temple teachings during the last week of his

life, also known as Holy Week. The amount of material in each Gospel that focuses on this time

in Jesus’ ministry is massive, which assumes a great deal of importance to such accounts. Much

of what Jesus says in these traditions is intended to provide his followers with a key insight into

the kingdom of God. Bruce agrees that the imperial tax pericope’s “life-setting during the

ministry—more particularly during the later Jerusalem ministry—of the historical Jesus is plain

enough. But it was not remembered and recorded simply as an interesting incident in the life of

Jesus: it was recorded as a precedent for the guidance of his followers.”28 The charge of not

paying the imperial tax is brought before Pilate in Luke 23:1-2, revealing the significance of the

encounter earlier that week and the refusal of the religious leaders to accept Jesus’ impressive

response. Further, Paul teaches a submission to the authorities that involves paying taxes

28 Bruce, “Render to Caesar,” 263.

Adams 11

(Romans 13:6), a likely acknowledgement of Jesus’ teaching. The tax dialogue is also found in

the Gospel of Thomas, though more succinct, perhaps “reflect[ing] a situation in which the

original urgency of the question had been forgotten.”29 These traditions attest to the expansive

influence of Jesus’ teaching and its continuing effect on the 1st century world.

Conclusively, the question about paying taxes to the emperor offers a unique facet of 1st

century Judea, Jesus’ radical and controversial ministry, and the synoptic traditions. A survey of

the historical elements of the pericope reveals the tension created by Roman oppression, which

gives the divisive Pharisees a topic with which to test Jesus. A narrative focus further exposes

the murderous intentions of the religious leaders and highlights both Jesus’ profound wisdom

and his kingdom of God message. Moreover, a discussion in redaction criticism uncovers the

unique voice of each Gospel and the ways in which the main theme of Jesus’ teaching has been

preserved. Thus, when Jesus says, “Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the

emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21), he is inviting his followers to

join in the kingdom of God, a kingdom that ultimately values giving more than receiving—an

entirely foreign concept to Caesar’s Rome. In this way, Jesus invites the Pharisees, the

Herodians, Luke’s “spies,” the gathering crowd, the poor, the disciples, the Evangelists, the

Church, and every interpreter that has ever read the text to give themselves entirely to the one

true God—not the emperor—but to God, the Father of Jesus, and to His giving kingdom.

29 Ibid., 250.

Adams 12

Bibliography

Albright, William Foxwell, and C. S. Mann. Matthew. In The Anchor Bible, edited by William

Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1971.

Beed, Clive S., and Cara Beed. “Jesus and Equity in Material Distribution.” Evangelical

Quarterly 77, no. 2 (April 1, 2005): 99-118.

Boring, M. Eugene. The Gospel of Matthew. In The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 8, edited by

Leander E. Keck. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995.

Bruce, F. F. “Render to Caesar.” In Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by Ernst Bammel

and C. F. D. Moule. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Carter, Warren. “Taxes, Taxation.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 5,

edited by Katherine Doob Sakenfeld, 478-80. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2009.

Downs, D. “Economics.” In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 2nd ed., edited by Joel B.

Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, 219-26. Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity Press, 2013.

Fiensy, David A. “Economics and the Bible: New Testament.” In Encyclopedia of the Bible and

Its Reception, vol. 7, edited by Dale C. Allison, Jr., 319-23. Boston: De Gruyter, 2013.

Hanson, K. C., and Douglas E. Oakman. Palestine in the Time of Jesus: Social Structures and

Social Conflicts, 2nd ed. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998.

Malina, Bruce J. The Social Gospel of Jesus: The Kingdom of God in Mediterranean

Perspective. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001.

Mathews, Shailer. Jesus on Social Institutions. Edited by Kenneth Cauthen. Philadelphia, PN:

Fortress Press, 1971.

May, David M. “Ancient Economics—Modern Interpreters: The World of Jesus.” Review &

Adams 13

Expositor 107, no. 4 (September 1, 2010): 481-98.

Snell, Daniel C. “Taxes and Taxation.” In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 6, edited by David

Noel Freedman, 338-40. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Tuchett, Christopher M. “Jesus and the Gospels.” In The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 8, edited

by Leander E. Keck, 71-86. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995.

Adams 14