The Twentieth Sunday after Trinity is October 22, 2023.

Readings for Year A can be found here, also used for the Nineteenth Sunday after Trinity on October 18, 2020.

The Gospel is as follows (emphases mine):

Matthew 22:15-22

22:15 Then the Pharisees went and plotted to entrap him in what he said.

22:16 So they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and teach the way of God in accordance with truth, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality.

22:17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?”

22:18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites?

22:19 Show me the coin used for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius.

22:20 Then he said to them, “Whose head is this, and whose title?”

22:21 They answered, “The emperor’s.” 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.”

22:22 When they heard this, they were amazed; and they left him and went away.

Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

In Year A, the Gospel readings have been largely from Matthew’s Gospel. Over the past month, the Lectionary has suggested us to three parables, all of which Jesus directed at the Jewish hierarchy — that of the Two Sons, the Vineyard (Wicked Tenants) and the Wedding Feast.

Jesus delivered these parables just days before His death on the cross. The Jewish hierarchy became more hateful of Him as time progressed and they were determined to have Him killed.

Immediately following His delivery of the Parable of the Wedding Feast, the Jewish religious elite regrouped. They could find nothing wrong in what He said and they knew He was condemning them for their unbelief.

So, the Pharisees went and plotted to entrap Jesus via His words (verse 15).

As Matthew Henry’s commentary points out:

See how unwearied the enemies of Christ and his kingdom are in their opposition!

Their dogged determination for His death was quite something, to put it mildly. Yet, for those who are unfamiliar with the Old Testament, the Jews also killed their prophets. In our Lord’s time, Herod had John the Baptist beheaded. In just a few days’ time, His own moment would come.

Henry alludes to this:

1. They took counsel. It was foretold concerning him, that the rulers would take counsel against him (Ps 2 2); and so persecuted they the prophets. Come, and let us devise devices against Jeremiah. See Jer 18 18; 20 10. Note, The more there is of contrivance and consultation about sin, the worse it is. There is a particular woe to them that devise iniquity, Mic 2 1. The more there is of the wicked wit in the contrivance of a sin, the more there is of the wicked will in the commission of it.

2. That which they aimed at was to entangle him in his talk. They saw him free and bold in speaking his mind, and hoped by that, if they could bring him to some nice and tender point, to get an advantage against him. It has been the old practice of Satan’s agents and emissaries, to make a man an offender for a word, a word misplaced, or mistaken, or misunderstood; a word, though innocently designed, yet perverted by strained inuendos: thus they lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate (Isa 29 21), and represent the greatest teachers as the greatest troublers of Israel: thus the wicked plotteth against the just, Ps 37 12, 13.

Not enough clergy explain the leaders’ spiritual blindness and the resultant hate that run through the Gospel accounts. Our own vicar fears it would lead to anti-Semitism. Yet, the same Gospel accounts show us that those who followed Jesus came from the population of the Jewish people, not their leaders. Zacchaeus and Joseph of Arimathea were exceptions, but it was the hierarchy who pushed the people to demand His death. Sadly, the people who did not believe in Jesus were so wrapped up in their earthly messianic thoughts of being free from Roman rule that they unknowingly went along with the evil plot.

I did not really understand the full import of their hate until I began writing here in 2009 — and I had been a regular churchgoer. It wasn’t explained at home or in school, either. Yet, the hierarchy’s spiritual blindness is the principal element in the opposition to Jesus, just as they had opposed the prophets centuries before. It’s very important that people understand this.

The Pharisees decided to send their own disciples and Herodians to entrap Jesus, beginning with hypocritical flattery, falsely calling him ‘Teacher’, the highest Jewish accolade and stating the truth about His personal perfection, although they meant it not (verse 16).

MacArthur says:

… the Talmud says, “The one who teaches the law shall gain a seat in the academy on high.” I mean that was to be revered above all others, a teacher of the law. Great respect.

And then they say, “We know that You are alēthēs.”

“You are truthful; You have integrity; You really are a man of great integrity; if You believe it, You say it,” that’s the implication. That’s an honor, “You really believe what You believe; You really live what You believe; You’re a truthful person. Not only are You a truthful person, and You teach the way of God in truth, You have truthful information to give. You have truthful content. You have a truthful message. You’re a man of great integrity, and You’re a man who speaks truly the way of God.”

Henry explains the sinful flattery, on the same base level as the Judas kiss:

2. The preface, with which they were plausibly to introduce the question; it was highly complimentary to our Saviour (v. 16); Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth. Note, It is a common thing for the most spiteful projects to be covered with the most specious pretences. Had they come to Christ with the most serious enquiry, and the most sincere intention, they could not have expressed themselves better. Here is hatred covered with deceit, and a wicked heart with burning lips (Prov 26 23); as Judas, who kissed, and betrayed, as Joab, who kissed, and killed.

Now, (1.) What they said of Christ was right, and whether they knew it or no, blessed be God, we know it.

[1.] That Jesus Christ was a faithful Teacher; Thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth. For himself, he is true, the Amen, the faithful Witness; he is the Truth itself. As for his doctrine, the matter of his teaching was the way of God, the way that God requires us to walk in, the way of duty, that leads to happiness; that is the way of God. The manner of it was in truth; he showed people the right way, the way in which they should go. He was a skilful Teacher, and knew the way of God; and a faithful Teacher, that would be sure to let us know it. See Prov 8 6-9. This is the character of a good teacher, to preach the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and not to suppress, pervert, or stretch, any truth, for favour or affection, hatred or good will, either out of a desire to please, or a fear to offend, any man.

[2.] That he was a bold Reprover. In preaching, he cared not for any; he valued no man’s frowns or smiles, he did not court, he did not dread, either the great or the many, for he regarded not the person of man. In his evangelical judgment, he did not know faces; that Lion of the tribe of Judah, turned not away for any (Prov 30 30), turned not a step from the truth, nor from his work, for fear of the most formidable. He reproved with equity (Isa 11 4), and never with partiality.

(2.) Though what they said was true for the matter of it, yet there was nothing but flattery and treachery in the intention of it. They called him Master, when they were contriving to treat him as the worst of malefactors; they pretended respect for him, when they intended mischief against him; and they affronted his wisdom as Man, much more his omniscience as God, of which he had so often given undeniable proofs, when they imagined that they could impose upon him with these pretences, and that he could not see through them. It is the grossest atheism, that is the greatest folly in the world, to think to put a cheat upon Christ, who searches the heart, Rev 2 23. Those that mock God do but deceive themselves. Gal 6 7.

MacArthur tells us why the Pharisees could not reappear before Jesus with more questions:

Now, why do you think the Pharisees sent their disciples? Why didn’t they go themselves? I’ll tell you why. Because they long ago had been revealed to be fake. I mean there was no way they could go up to Jesus and pretend to really believe in Him. There was no way they could go up to Jesus and pretend to ask an honest question. Right?

I mean He would have recognized them. He knew who they were; He’d seen their faces. It would have been just another appearance of the people who’d already been identified as false religionists, as hypocrites. And so, they don’t dare go themselves. They find a group that Jesus doesn’t know of their followers. They brief them thoroughly and send them in their place to masquerade as very honest questioners. They’re going to fool Jesus. They’re going to sucker Jesus into their trap. They’re going to bait Him with those that He doesn’t know. He won’t know that they’re Pharisees’ disciples. He won’t recognize them as the ones that He’s already given the parables to. And so, they pick some other ones because it’s a sneaky approach they have in mind.

The Pharisees add Herodians to the group, strangely enough.

However, ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’, as MacArthur is about to explain:

This is really fascinating. By the way, Luke doesn’t mention the Pharisees or the Herodians; he just calls all of them spies. He says, “They sent their spies.”

That is why Wednesday of Holy — Passion — Week is called Spy Wednesday. But I digress.

MacArthur explains how the Romans took over and why the Herodians were a political force:

I’m not going to give you a whole big history on the Herodians because we don’t have much information, honestly. Basically, what we can gain is gain from the name of the group. They were identified with Herod. They were the ones belonging to Herod, like Christians belonged to Christ, Herodians belonged to Herod. They were not religious by that identification; they were political …

The Herods had ruled that land. And in A.D. 6, just a few years after the birth of Christ, Archelaus, who was the son of Herod the Great, was deposed. Herod had split up His empire. One of the sons was in the north in Galilee and Perea, another son in the south in Samaria and Judea. And so, it was sort of split between them. But in A.D. 6, Archelaus, who was the son ruling in the south, was deposed, and in his place the Romans put a governor. And that’s how we identify Pilate – as the Roman governor occupying the seat of rule in the southern part of that country of Palestine.

Now, Herod Antipas still ruled in the north, and he was the one responsible for beheading John the Baptist. But they were not Jews; they were Edomites. They were political rulers. They were kings of a dynasty. The Romans left them, at least in part, in power in the north because it served their purposes. In the south it didn’t, and they occupied the leadership with a governor.

Now, perhaps the Herodians, therefore, would be those Jews who identified with the political viewpoint and the political power of the Herods. And it may well be that they wanted a Herod in the south, that they would have much preferred a Herod ruling in Judea than a Roman. They were pro Herod. We don’t know why; we don’t know particularly what they had to gain by that, but that is how they are identified. They were of the political party of Herod.

Now, note this, the Pharisees were vocally anti-Rome. They despised the Roman oppression; they hated the Roman tyranny. Many of them belonged to a group which later became known as the Zealots, and they were insurrectionists. They went around doing acts of terrorism. They would start little fires here, and fights here, and things like that to bang away at the Romans. Some of them flamed into rather large insurrections. And later, as I said, they became known as Zealots. It may well be that Simon the Zealot, one of the disciples of the Lord, belonged to that particular nationalistic, almost terroristic group of people.

Bu the Pharisees leaned that way. They were very anti-Rome. Rome coming into their land was a great intrusion. Rome, with all of its paganism invaded the theocracy, and it offended them greatly. So, the Pharisees were anti-Rome, and many of them no doubt were Zealots.

The Herodians – and here’s what’s interesting – were pro-Rome. The Herodians pro-Rome. They were pro-Rome in the sense that Rome had allowed Herod Antipas to stay in as ruler. And if there was to be another Herod moved into the southern part, it would have to be because the Romans appointed him. So, they sought the favor of Rome. They played to Rome because they knew their only hope of getting their Herod in power, or getting one Herod to rule the whole land would be by Roman intervention and Roman appointment. And by the way, the Herods themselves seemed to have played to Rome as well.

So, here are the anti-Roman Pharisees and the pro-Roman Herodians getting together against Jesus Christ …

They recruited the Herodians because when Jesus said His anti-Roman things, they needed to have some pro-Roman witnesses who then having access to the governor and his people could run in there and say, and be accepted in saying, because they were known as pro-Roman, “This man is an insurrectionist. This man is leading an anti-Roman rebellion,” and so forth and so on.

Now, if the Pharisees ran in and said that, they’d sort of look at them funny and wonder what they were plotting, because they knew they wouldn’t come to warn Rome about an insurrection. So, they had to have the Herodians …

… the Herodians didn’t like Jesus either. In fact, Herod Antipas cut off the head of His forerunner, John the Baptist, because John the Baptist confronted Herod about His vile, wicked, wretched, life. And they didn’t like Jesus who was the heir, in a sense, to the prophetic office of John any better than they would have liked John. And if you follow closely the last part of the Lord’s ministry, you find that He judiciously avoided the territory of Herod because of hostility toward Him there.

So, they agree that they’re against Jesus, even though they can’t agree maybe on religion or politics, and that sort of sets the stage.

The disciples of the Pharisees along with the Herodians asked Jesus whether it was lawful to pay tax to the emperor (verse 17).

To them, this was a loaded question for religious and political reasons.

MacArthur addresses the flattery and the question:

The aim? Trap Him in a statement. The approach? Flatter Him; get his ego so built up that He’s stuck with having to say exactly what he believes. That leads, thirdly, to the attack. Watch this in verse 17, fascinating, “Tell us, therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not?” You see, that’s a very simple question. Sure, they thought about that one a long time. Simple, but very delicate. “What do You think? What is Your opinion? Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not?” And Mark adds, in his parallel account, “Shall we pay it or shall we not?”

As students of the Gospel accounts know, the Romans levied all sorts of taxes and the much-despised tax collectors took even more so that they could live in material comfort.

This particular tax, MacArthur says, had to do with the census:

Now, look at the word “tribute,” because that’s the key. It is the word kēnsos borrowed from the Latin census from which we get the census, or the counting of every individual. “Should we pay the census?” Now, it refers to a specific tax. The Romans counted all the people, and the Syriac Peshitta calls this head money. In other words, they attached an individual tax to everybody. Each year, every individual had to pay this census tax, like a poll tax. It was a personal tax on an individual …

… this census tax, or a head tax. Each individual played a set – paid a set amount once a year. And the amount was one denarius. One denarius. A denarius was one day’s wage. One day’s wage – one day’s wage for a Roman soldier, a fair wage for any worker. That’s what was required.

This did not sit well with the Jews for religious reasons which is why it seemed the perfect entrapment question from our Lord’s enemies:

This Roman taxation system they felt was an abuse, because they saw themselves as a people of God. They saw themselves as a theocracy ruled by God. And when Rome – pagan Rome moves in, imposes itself on them, starts taxing, they have the feeling that they’re giving what belongs to God to Rome.

Now, the upshot of this was that in A.D. 6, the same year Archelaus was deposed and a Roman governor was put in, a rebellion began. And that rebellion was led by a man named Judas of Galilee. And Judas collected an insurrectionistly mind – an insurrectionist-minded group and brought about this fervor and furor and so forth in 6 A.D. His theme was, “God is our only God; God is our Lord, and God is our Ruler, and we will not pay this tax to Rome.”

And by the way, it was a census for taxation purposes that spawned their revolution led by Judas of Galilee. It was the very census situation that angered him. Well, if you read Acts 5:37, you read a speech by Gamaliel, and Gamaliel talks about what happened to Judas. What happened to Judas? His followers were scattered, and he was dead. But, he had fomented an attitude that remained. Though his revolution had ended in failure, the attitude of not liking the census and not having to pay that tax to Rome stuck with the people.

And it may have been that they felt that that head tax was the most offensive of all because it may have been that they could see the property tax and the income tax and the business tax as going to Rome, since they rendered services, but as individuals, they belonged to God, not Rome. And so, the most galling of all this taxes may well have been this particular census tax. And no doubt it was a real issue with the people. And that’s why they use it as the point of question here.

The sentiment, therefore, remained. And Josephus, who writes about the revolution of Judas of Galilee, who lived through the destruction of the temple – the great Jewish historian Josephus says that in 66 A.D., it was this same attitude toward this taxation problem that started the revolution of 66 A.D. that ended in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

So, this is a big issue, folks. They didn’t just pull this one out of the hat. If Jesus says, “Pay the tax,” He’s going to have the whole bunch of Jewish people, the whole nation of people angry at Him. He’s going to be seen as anti-Jewish. And so, they don’t believe He’ll say that. They also believe that He does speak for God. In spite of the fact they don’t like Him, they think that He really believes He speaks for God …

Yet, incredibly:

There were many Zealots, no doubt, in the crowd who eagerly wanted a revolution, but would rather have Jesus dead and postpone the revolution.

Jesus, aware of their malice, asked them why they put Him to the test, calling them hypocrites (verse 18).

MacArthur says:

He knew it because He was God, and He was omniscient. Marvelous. They’re flattering tongues were tipped with deadly poison, and He knew it. It was a Judas kiss they were offering Him.

And so, He says, “Why are you tempting Me? Why are you putting Me to a test you think I will fail? Why do you want me to fail, you phonies? Your flattery was fake; it was hypocritical.” That’s such an ugly sin – hypocrisy, flattery – one so condemned in the Old Testament again and again. Read the Proverbs sometimes. Look up all the places in Proverbs where it talks about flattery and a lying tongue. So, Jesus’ accusation was very serious. And again, He turns the tables on them and unmasks them.

Jesus asked them to show Him the coin used for the tax; they brought him a denarius (verse 19).

Henry contrasts currency then and currency in his own era in Britain (the late 17th and early 18th centuries):

They presently brought him a penny, a Roman penny in silver, in value about sevenpence half-penny of our money, the most common piece then in use: it was stamped with the emperor’s image and superscription, which was the warrant of the public faith for the value of the pieces so stamped; a method agreed on by most nations, for the more easy circulation of money with satisfaction. The coining of money has always been looked upon as a branch of the prerogative, a flower of the crown, a royalty belonging to the sovereign powers; and the admitting of that as the good and lawful money of a country is an implicit submission to those powers, and an owning of them in money matters. How happy is our constitution, and how happy we, who live in a nation where, though the image and superscription be the sovereign’s, the property is the subject’s, under the protection of the laws, and what we have we can call our own!

MacArthur discusses why the Jews found the denarius so offensive:

… every time a Jew reached in his little pouch and pulled out a denarius, it offended him. And it offended him for two reasons. Reason number one, it was a reminder of Roman oppression and the fact that they were under Gentile authority. Reason number two was it was an image, and they knew well that the Old Testament had said that they were to have no graven imagery. Right? And they were offended by that. If you go to Israel today, you will find there are places where you cannot take a photograph …

Those coins were stamped with Caesar’s image, whether from the rein of Augustus or the reign of Tiberius, we wouldn’t know. They stamped coins from both those Caesar’s. But a denarius from the time of Tiberius, for example, had on one side the image of Tiberius’ face. On the other side, it had him sitting up on his throne in high priestly robes – high priestly robes. And it had a crown on his head. And it identified – there was an inscription in the coins of Tiberius that identified him as the highest priest. The highest priest. So, the coinage was more than secular; it was religious. And the emperors not only believed they were high priests, they actually believed they were – what? – they were gods. And in fact, Christians were killed in the Roman persecution of the Church because they failed to worship the emperor. Emperor worship was a part of the Roman Empire.

So, every time a Jew had in his hand one of those denarii with the image of Tiberius on it, it was the recognition that he held in his hand a little idol. A little idol of a god who was a false god. And you can imagine with what hatred they identified coinage.

Now, the Roman emperor was always called the high priest. The Roman senators were seen sort of as priests because religion was all mixed up with their secular society. So, the Jew would say to himself, “Paying taxes, having to take my Hebrew money and convert it into that thing and give it to Rome is an offense to me. That is not right. I will not give to some false god what belongs to God – the true God.”

… They were offended by the thought of rendering that which they believe was for God to anyone other than God, particularly some pagan priest and self-styled deity.

Jesus asked them whose head was on the coin and whose title (verse 20).

They answered, ‘The emperor’s’ (verse 21).

Henry explains the subtlety of our Lord’s enquiries, both of which pointed to a religious answer:

Christ asked them, Whose image is this? They owned it to be Cæsar’s, and thereby convicted those of falsehood who said, We were never in bondage to any; and confirmed what afterward they said, We have no king but Cæsar. It is a rule in the Jewish Talmud, that “he is the king of the country whose coin is current in the country.” Some think that the superscription upon this coin was a memorandum of the conquest of Judea by the Romans, anno post captam Judæam—the year after that event; and that they admitted that too.

Jesus said to give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s and to God the things that are of God (verse 21).

I believe the word ‘give’ should be replaced by ‘render’, as it is in traditional translations.

Henry explains the difference between ‘give’ and ‘render’:

… he inferred the lawfulness of paying tribute to Cæsar (v. 21); Render therefore to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s; not, “Give it him” (as they expressed it, v. 17), but, “Render it; Return,” or “Restore it; if Cæsar fill the purses, let Cæsar command them. It is too late now to dispute paying tribute to Cæsar; for you are become a province of the empire, and, when once a relation is admitted, the duty of it must be performed. Render to all their due, and particularly tribute to whom tribute is due.“

MacArthur also points out the preferred use of ‘render’ rather than ‘give’:

First of all, notice the word “render,” would you please. It is the word apodidōmi, to pay back, to give back. It speaks of a debt; it speaks of an obligation; it speaks of a responsibility. It is not something you have a choice about. “Give back,” He says. “Give it back. He made it; he minted it; it belongs to his economy. Give it back to him.” It refers to the payment of a debt, the payment of an obligation, a rightful duty, something that doesn’t even belong to you to give it back.

Now, when they posed the question back in verse 17, they didn’t use that word, they used a different word. They said, “Is it lawful to give as a gift? Is it lawful to give as a gift?” You see, their perspective was that they owned all that and that they could do what they wanted with it. And if they didn’t want to give it, they wouldn’t give it. It was a gift if they did give it.

And when He’s answering their question, He says, “Give it back. You’re not giving him a gift. You’re giving him what belongs to him. It is a debt, and it must be paid. You know what the Lord says here? Pay your taxes. That’s right, pay your taxes. The payment of a tax is a debt. It’s a debt set by a government. Even a pagan, idolatrous government; even a blasphemous government; even a government about to be the executioner of the Son of God; even a government which will hammer nails into His hands, ram a spear into His side, and watch Him die, even that kind of government that executes the Christ, pay your taxes. It is not a gift; it is not a choice; it is a debt for the benefits received, the benefits enjoyed. Caesar has his rights. And for the provision of physical, social, economic benefits, protection, et cetera, he’s d[ue] a debt; pay it.

So, Jesus affirms that the State can demand what belongs to it within its sphere.

Henry says:

[3.] His disciples were instructed, and standing rules left to the church.

First, That the Christian religion is no enemy to civil government, but a friend to it. Christ’s kingdom doth not clash or interfere with the kingdoms of the earth, in any thing that pertains to their jurisdiction. By Christ kings reign.

Secondly, It is the duty of subjects to render to magistrates that which, according to the laws of their country, is their due. The higher powers, being entrusted with the public welfare, the protection of the subject, and the conservation of the peace, are entitled, in consideration thereof, to a just proportion of the public wealth, and the revenue of the nation. For this cause pay we tribute, because they attend continually to this very thing (Rom 13 6); and it is doubtless a greater sin to cheat the government than to cheat a private person. Though it is the constitution that determines what is Cæsar’s, yet, when that is determined, Christ bids us render it to him; my coat is my coat, by the law of man; but he is a thief, by the law of God, that takes it from me.

Now to the divine half of our Lord’s answer:

Thirdly, When we render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, we must remember withal to render to God the things that are God’s. If our purses be Cæsar’s, our consciences are God’s; he hath said, My son, give me thy heart: he must have the innermost and uppermost place there; we must render to God that which is his due, out of our time and out of our estates; from them he must have his share as well as Cæsar his; and if Cæsar’s commands interfere with God’s we must obey God rather than men.

One example would be worshipping our rulers rather than God.

MacArthur gives us one from Russia in 1984, the year he delivered this sermon:

… if you or I were living today in a society that became totalitarian, where the head of that society or some element of that headship in that society declared that it was God, and not only was it to be pay taxes, but it was to be worship, that’s where we would draw the line.

And do you want to know something? In a sense, that’s where Georgi Vins from Russia told me they draw the line … “The Russian Church is persecuted, and it is persecuted singly and only because of its religious conviction.” He says, “We obey every law of the totalitarian state of Russia as Christians. But when they rule in the area of our religious conscience, we do not obey, because now Caesar is claiming what belongs to God. And if” – he said to me – “if we are to be persecuted, and if we are to be imprisoned, and if we are to lose our lives, it will be because of our faith in God, not because of our violating some government order.” Do you see the distinction?

Romans 13 has Paul’s defence of earthly government:

Look at Romans 13 for a moment, very important passage. Romans 13, “Let very soul be subject unto the higher powers.” He’s referring here to the institution of government. “For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” Government’s ordained by God. Government is an institution of God just like marriage and the family is, just like the Church is. Just like Israel was a special institution of God. “Whosoever therefore resists the power” – that is the government – “resists the ordinance of God.” I don’t know how people can avoid that. If you don’t pay your taxes and resist the government, you’re resisting God who ordained the government for the preservation of society. And if you do that, “you resist and receive” – it says – “to themselves judgment.” It’s a sin not to pay your taxes. It’s a sin to resist.

“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. With thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same.” Just do what’s right. Just do what’s right. Government – even some government that’s poor government is better than none. And it’s there for the protection of the good, the punishment of the evil. Do what’s right and you’ll be all right.

“For those who represent the government” – verse 4 says – “are ministers of God to thee for good. But if you do that which is evil, then you have reason to be afraid, for he bears not the sword in vain.” God has given government the right of punishment. “He’s a ministry of God to avenge and execute wrath on him that doeth evil.” A policeman, soldiers, those in authority stand in the place of God, as it were, for the preservation of society. So, you do resist the government, you do resist God. And God has given to the government the right to deal with those who resist. So, you must needs be subject.

Now verse 6, here’s the practical implication of what he’s just said, “So, for this” – or because of all this – “pay your taxes, for they are God’s ministers, attending continually on this very thing” … “So, render therefore to all their dues” – don’t be selective and pick the ones you want; you pay them all – “tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.” Pretty straightforward.

I have more here:

Romans 13:1-7 – God, civil authorities, obedience, taxes

Paul tells us how to conduct ourselves in civil society: obey God’s authority on earth via civil authorities, pay taxes, pay what is due to people.

These are among some of the most important verses in the New Testament, yet, the three-year Lectionary compilers chose to omit them from readings for public worship!

Paul wrote similarly to Timothy:

In 1 Timothy 2, he says that we should pray for the kings and pray for all that are in authority – 1 Timothy 2:2 – that we may lead a quiet, peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. You should live in the world in a godly and an honest and a peaceable way, and you should render to those who are in authority exactly what that authority calls for.

Peter also advocated submission to government, even though his converts were subject to persecution:

Look at 1 Peter chapter 2 and verse 13. And Peter agrees, of course, with Paul because they are both under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit. “Submit yourselves to ever ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake.” You do it for the Lord’s sake. For the Lord’s sake, “whether the king as supreme, or governors, or them that are sent by them for the punishment of evildoers” – soldiers, and policemen, and people in authority; do it – “and for the praise of them that do well. For it’s the will of God” – why? – “that you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.” In other words, that you might shut the mouths of critics who say Christians are not good citizens – “that you might not use your liberty” – he says – “as a means of being malicious. Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God and honor the king.” God wants Christians to be models of virtue, models of integrity in the world.

That said, MacArthur tells us that Peter also had to oppose the rules of his day, although those had to do with the temple rather than the Romans:

… where this really becomes a problem would be if all of a sudden the president of the United States announced that he was god, and all the Senate and all the Congress were high priests, and everything we gave to them would be given to a religious system, and not only did we have to give it to them, but we have to worship them, and that’s where we say – what? – “No. No.”

And they say, “If you don’t, we’ll kill you.”

We say, “We’ll die.” We’ll die.

It’s just what Peter came to. The Sanhedrin said, “Don’t preach.”

He said, “Whoops, you just overstepped your bounds. You judge whether I ought to obey God or man.” And when it comes to that nexus, you obey God. You obey God.

And so, Caesar has limits. And when Caesar oversteps those limits and starts demanding worship, then you’ve got a problem. And if you or I were living today in a society that became totalitarian, where the head of that society or some element of that headship in that society declared that it was God, and not only was it to be pay taxes, but it was to be worship, that’s where we would draw the line.

Coming to the end of our reading, Matthew tells us that when the men asking the question about the census tribute heard our Lord’s answer, they were amazed; they left Him and walked away (verse 22).

Some might think, as I once did, that their amazement caused them to believe.

However, Henry puts the focus on ‘went away’:

One would think they should have marvelled and followed him, marvelled and submitted to him; no, they marvelled and left him. Note, There are many in whose eyes Christ is marvellous, and yet not precious. They admire his wisdom, but will not be guided by it, his power, but will not submit to it. They went their way, as persons ashamed, and made an inglorious retreat. The stratagem being defeated, they quitted the field. Note, There is nothing got by contending with Christ.

MacArthur says that the same thing happens today:

Why do people do that? There are people here this morning – you’ve lived this event with those people today. And you just leave … I mean this is as much a revelation of the deity of Jesus Christ and the incredible genius of God as it is anything about taxation, isn’t it?

MacArthur’s closing prayer concludes with this:

O Lord, we can’t help but think, too, the sad fact about these people standing in front of Jesus … They weren’t giving God what You were due. They just weren’t giving it. They were all concerned about what to give Caesar and were actually planning to kill the Son of God.

Lord, help us to not only be concerned about what we give to Caesar, but to be concerned about what we give to You. We owe things to the government; we need to give them back. And we owe things to You; we need to give them back, too. As the image of Caesar was stamped on the coin to be given to Caesar, so the image of God is stamped on a life to be given back to God.

We pray that each of us might give ourselves to You, full submission and obedience, in the Savior’s name, Amen.

May all reading this have a blessed Sunday.