Pay Taxes to Caesar or God? Jesus' Answer to a Trap

JESUS WAS UNTRAPABLE
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Paying Taxes to Caesar
LUKE 20:20-2620 Keeping a closewatch on him, they
sent spies, who pretended to be sincere. They hoped to
catch Jesus in something he said, so that they might
hand him over to the power and authority of the
governor. 21 So the spies questionedhim: “Teacher,
we know that you speakand teach what is right, and
that you do not show partialitybut teach the way of
God in accordancewith the truth. 22 Is it right for us
to pay taxes to Caesaror not?”
23 He saw through their duplicity and saidto them, 24
“Show me a denarius. Whoseimage and inscription
are on it?”
“Caesar’s,” they replied.
25 He saidto them, “Then give back to Caesarwhat is
Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
26 They were unable to trap him in what he had said
there in public. And astonishedby his answer, they
became silent.

BIBLEHUB RESOURCES
QuestionOf The Tribute Money
Mark 12:13-17. Parallelpassages:Matthew 22:15-22;Luke 20:20-36
J.J. Given
I. A SNARE LAID. This tribute money (κῆνσος)was the poll or capitation tax
payable to the RomanGovernment, from the time Judaea became subjectto
the Romanpower. Judas of Galilee headed a revolt againstthis tax, but
perished with his followers. If our Lord allowedthe lawfulness of paying
tribute to Caesar, itwould have compromisedhim with the Jewish
nationalists, who would not have been slow to charge him with contempt of
the Law of Moses forthe words of Deuteronomy 17:15, "Thoumayest not set
a strangerover thee," were explained by them as forbidding the payment of
tribute to a foreign power. If he acknowledgedthe unlawfulness of such
payment, he came into direct collision with the Roman authorities. In the one
case, he offended the Judaeanpatriots and his own Gaiileanfollowers;in the
other, he incensedthe Herodian royalists who acquiescedin Roman rule. On
the one side, it was treacheryto national and patriotic aspirations and
Messianic prospects;on the other, it was treasonagainstthe Roman Caesar
and Pilate his governor. Such was the snare laid for him; such was the trap
they setin order to catchhim. Thus they thought to entangle him, rather,
ensnare (παγιδεύσωσιν) him, in his talk, as a fowlerensnares a bird.
II. THE SUBTLETYWITH WHICH THE SNARE IS LAID.

1. They put the question in such a categoricalform as seemedto them to
necessitatea simple "yea" or "nay; "thus, "Is it lawful to give tribute, or not?
Shall we give, or shall we not give?" The double question is to emphasize their
earnestness, andto invite a prompt reply, affirmative or negative;though the
first question may refer to the lawfulness of the payment, and the secondto its
expediency or advisability.
2. The motive which actuated them to interrogate our Lord so peremptorily
was most sinister and insidious. The evangelists, viewing their conduct from
different standpoints, characterize it differently. This difference, which we
discoverby comparing the parallel passages, is most instructive. Their
conduct in propounding this ensnaring interrogatorywas wickedness
according to the first evangelist;it was craftiness (πανουργίαν), according to
the third; while, according to the second, it was hypocrisy (ὑπόκρισιν). Their
question had a close connectionwith and combined all these three elements;it
was conceivedin wickedness,cradledin craftiness, and cloakedby hypocrisy.
Thus the interrogators actedas spies, or "liers in wait" (ἐγκαθέτους), as St.
Luke calls them, while they feigned themselves just men. Our Lord tore off
their mask, exposing them in their true colors, and addressing them in their
real character, when, according to St. Matthew, he says, "Why tempt ye me,
ye hypocrites?"
3. The object they had in view was to embroil the Savior with the royalists,
and so compass his destruction. For this purpose it is plain they desired a
negative answer, as appears suggestedby the words, "Thou regardestnot the
person of men," implying such fearlessnessas would enable him to reject
foreign authority as inconsistentwith acknowledging Godas their King. Their
ulterior object, as stated by St. Luke, was "that they might take hold of his
speech, so as to deliver him up to the powerand to the authority of the
governor;" in other words, to deliver him to the Roman power, rule, or

magistracy(ἀρχῇ), and to the lawful authority or jurisdiction (ἐξουσία) of
Pilate, the Romanprocurator.
4. Necessitybrings togetherstrange companions. The Pharisees were as mean
as they were unprincipled, and as untruthful as they were unprincipled and
mean. They proved their want of principle by the unnatural coalitionwhich
they formed with the Herodians - the patriots so called who opposedforeign
dominion with the elastic politicians who ownedthe Roman power; the foes
with the friends of Caesar;sticklers for the Law with the supporters of an
authority deemed inimical to the Law. Their meanness was manifestin the
fulsome flattery with which they addressedour Lord; while in their base
untruthfulness they pretended to approachhim with a quasi-case of
conscience, thoughin reality they were carrying out the counselfor his
destruction.
III. THE SAVIOUR'S REPLY. Had he replied in the affirmative, he would
have forfeited his popularity; had he answeredin the negative, he would have
forfeited his life. The latter was the consummation wished for by the members
of this unholy alliance of superstition with political expediency. To give
vividness to the transaction, our Lord orderedthe production of a Roman
penny, or denarius, a small silver coin of the value of sevenpence halfpenny,
or eightpence halfpenny at most. On that coin was an image, the head of the
then reigning sovereign, Tiberius, while round it ran the usual superscription
or inscription, consisting of the name and titles of the emperor. Our Lord, as
if in surprise, asks, halfin irony and half in indignation, what all this meant,
and whose it was? Their unavoidable answerwas, "Caesar's;" and this very
answerbroke the snare, and the bird escapedoutof the net of the fowler.
Then said our Lord - Give back (ἀπόδοτε)to Caesarwhat belongs to him; pay
back to Caesarwhatyou acknowledge to be his. The coinage proves the king,
the currency affords evidence of his property; while, on the other hand, you
render to God the things that are his.

IV. IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE.This principle, so important and far-
reaching, though plain enough in its generalbearing, has been differently
understood. Some have regardedthe two parts of the answeras entirely
distinct, as though belonging to different spheres, or placed on different
planes, and so incapable of clashing or even coming in contact;as though he
said, "Payyour taxes, and perform your religious duties, but keepthe two
things apart." More usually they are understood as two separate departments
of human duty, coexisting and compatible; or as standing to eachother in the
relation of the part to the whole. According to the secondof these three views,
the payment of civil dues and the observance ofreligious duties stand side by
side together, and as equally obligatory: that is, render to Caesar, as civil
ruler, the obedience that belongs to him, and to God, as spiritual Sovereign,
the homage of the soul stamped with the Divine image, and therefore his due;
or, in a more literal and narrow sense, according to some, pay the civil taxes
to the government of Caesar, andthe didrachma, or temple-tribute, for the
support of the sanctuaryand service of God. We understand it in the larger
sense ofobedience to our earthly sovereignand duty to our heavenly King, as
co-ordinate and coexistent, perfectlycompatible but not competitive; or,
according to the third view, the former may be regardedas part of the latter.
This greatprinciple, properly understood and actedon, would have prevented
many an unseemly collisionof Church and State, and many a sinful
encroachmentof one on the domain of the other. It would have prevented the
papal power from trampling the crownof kings in the dust, as in the reign of
John, and it would have prevented, on the other hand, the persecutionof the
Church by the State, as in the days of the Puritans. Our Lord intimated by his
reply, that so long as the Jews were allowedto worship God according to his
own appointment, and enjoyed the protection of the Romanpower therein,
they were under obligations to contribute to the taxes that supported that
power. But these obligations to civil government were not to suspend, or set
aside, or in any way interfere with the higher and holier obligations which
they owedto God. Duty to God must be the regulating principle of duty to
civil rulers; the latter is then part of, or rather part and parcelwith, the
former. Thus our Lord clearly indicated the respective provinces of civil
rulers and of religious teachers -the relative positions of secularauthority and
spiritual power. Thus he solvedthe problem of two kings and two kingdoms in

one realm; thus he taught obedience to civil governors in temporal things,
while in spiritual their duty to God was paramount. No doubt many nice
points may present themselves, and many delicate questions may arise in
practically carrying out the principle stated; but we are not without light from
other parts of Scripture to guide us in the application of this principle, even in
casesofgreatestdifficulty. - J.J.G.
Biblical Illustrator
They watchedHim.
Luke 20:20-26
Christ was watched, and so are we
H. J. Wilmot-Buxton, M. A.
The chief priests and rulers of the Jews watchedJesus, but not to learn the
way of salvation. They watchedHim with the evil eyes of malice and hatred,
desiring to take hold of His words, to entangle Him in His talk, that they

might accuse Him, and deliver Him up to die. He loved all men, yet He was
hated and rejectedof men; He went about doing good, yet they tried to do
Him harm. The enemies of Christ are ever watching for our fall, eagerto hear
or to tell any evil thing about us, ready to castthe stone of slander againstus.
You know that the whitestrobe first shows the stain, let us remember whose
purity we wearif we have put on Christ. Let us strive "to walk circumspectly,
not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil." If we
are tempted to sayor do something which is equivocal, though the way of the
world, let us pause and ask ourselves whetherit will bring discredit on our
faith, whether it will dishonour our Master. But there are others who watch
us, and in a different manner. The Church in Paradise watchesthe Church on
earth and prays for it. Our path of life is compassedby a great cloud of
witnesses;the saints who have fought the battle and wonthe crown, they
watchus. St. Paul, resting after his goodfight, and his many perils, is
watching to see how we are fighting againstsin, the world, and the devil. St.
Peter, restoredto the side of Jesus, watchesto see if any of us deny their Lord.
St. Thomas, no longer doubtful, watches to see if our faith be strong. Holy
Stephen watches us when the stones of insult and persecutionassailus; the
forty martyrs, who died for Jesus on the frozen pool at Sebaste, watchus
when the world looks coldly on us, and many another who passedthrough fire
and waterwatches us in our battle and the race that is setbefore us. Thus
with the enemies of God watching for our fall, and the saints of God watching
for our victory, let us watch ourselves, andlet our cry be, "Hold Thou me up
that my footsteps slip not."
(H. J. Wilmot-Buxton, M. A.)
Cowards are like cats
Dallas, "NaturalHistory of the Animal Kingdom."
Cowards are like cats. Cats always take their prey by springing suddenly
upon it from some concealedstation, and, if they miss their aim in the first
attack, rarely follow it up. They are all, accordingly, cowardly, sneaking
animals, and never willingly face their enemy, unless brought to bay, or

wounded, trusting always to their powerof surprising their victims by the aid
of their stealthy and noiselessmovements.
(Dallas, "NaturalHistory of the Animal Kingdom.")
Whose image and superscription hath it?
The Divine image in the soul
Bishop Ehrler.
1. The Divine image ought to be our highest glory.
2. Let the Divine image which we bear be a constantexhortation to serve God.
3. Neverdefile the Divine image by sin.
4. Endeavour to increase everyday the beauty of the Divine image.
5. Respectthe Divine image in your neighbour.
(Bishop Ehrler.)
Man is God's property
Grimm.
More than all visible things, we ourselves, with the faculties of body and soul,
are God's. Man is God's image, God's coin, and therefore belongs to God
entirely.
I. ON WHAT IS THIS DIVINE OWNERSHIP FOUNDED?

1. On creation. Man is God's property.(1) As God's creature. All that is
createdbelongs to God, by whose omnipotence it was made.(2)As God's
creature he bears the Divine image.
2. On redemption.(1) The soulof the first man was a supernatural image of
God, createdin original justice and sanctity.(2)In consequenceofthe first sin,
the soulwas deprived of sanctifying grace (Romans 5:12).(3)God had
compassiononman, and found means (through the Incarnation) to restore
His image in the human soul.
II. CONSEQUENCES RESULTINGFROM THIS DIVINE OWNERSHIP.
1. We should render to God our soul.(1) Our understanding.(2) Our will.(3)
Our heart.
2. Our body and all its members.
(Grimm.)
The medal made useful
One day, when Martin Luther was completelypenniless, he was askedfor
money to aid an important Christian enterprise. He reflecteda little, and
recollectedthat he had a beautiful medal of Joachim, ElectorofBrandenburg,
which he very much prized. He went immediately to a drawer, openedit, and
said: "What art thou doing there, Joachim? Dostthou not see how idle thou

art? Come out and make thyself useful." Then he took out the medal and
contributed it to the objectsolicitedfor.
Render unto Caesarthe things which he Caesar's
Caesar'sdue and God's due
S. Hieron.
I. THAT KINGS AND PRINCES HAVE A CERTAIN RIGHT AND DUE
PERTAINING TO THEM BY GOD'S APPOINTMENT, WHICHIT IS NOT
LAWFUL FOR ANY MAN TO KEEP FROM THEM. This is plain here as if
Christ had said: "It is of God, and not without the disposing and ordering of
His Providence, that the RomanEmperor hath put in his foot among you, and
is now your liege and sovereign:you yourselves have submitted to his
government, and have in a manner subscribed unto that which God hath
brought upon you; now, certainly, there is a right pertaining to him
respectivelyto his place. This he must have, and it cannotbe lawful for you,
under any pretext, to take it from him." So that this speechis a plain ground
for this. But what is Caesar'sdue?
1. Prayerfor him (1 Timothy 2:1).(1) That he may be endowedwith all
needful graces forhis place.
(a)Wisdom.
(b)Justice.
(c)Temperance, i.e., sobrietyand moderation in diet, in apparel, in delight,
etc.

(d)Zeal and courage in God's matters. This it is which will make kings
prosper (1 Kings 2:2, 3).(2)That he may be delivered from all dangers to
which he is subject in his place. Kings are in danger of two sorts of enemies.
(a)Enemies to their bodies and outward state. Traitors. Conspirators.
(b)Enemies to their souls. Flatterers.
2. Submission to him. By this I mean "an awful framing and composing of the
whole man respectivelyto his authority."And now here, because I mention the
whole man, and man consistethoftwo parts; therefore I will declare, first,
what is the submission of the inner man due to a king by the Word of God;
and then, what is the submission of the outward man.
1. Touching the submission of the inner man, I accountthe substance ofit to
be this — "A reverent and dutiful estimation of him in regard of his place."
"Fearthe Lord and the king," said Solomon. As the "fearing of God" argueth
an inward respectivenessto His Divine majesty, so the fearing of the king
intends the like, the heart carrietha kind of reverent awe unto him. And this
is that honouring the king which St. Petergiveth charge of (1 Peter2:17).
Honour is properly an inward act, and we honour a superior when our
respectis to him according to his dignity. That this reverent estimation of a
king, which I term the substance ofinward submission, may be the better
understood, we must considertouching it two things.(1) The ground of it is a
right understanding of the state and condition of a king's place.
(a)Its eminence.

(b)Its usefulness.(2)Now the companion of this reverent esteemof Caesaris a
ready and willing disposition to perform to him and for him any service he
may require.
2. I come now to speak ofthe outward submission, which is that which is for
the testificationand manifestation of the inward. An outward submissiveness
without an inward awfulness were but hypocrisy; to pretend an inward
respectwithout giving outward evidence thereof, were but mockery. This
outward submission is either in word or in action. It includes —(1)
Conformity to the laws.(2)Yielding of the person in time of war.(3)
Furnishing supplies.
II. THAT IT IS NOT LAWFUL FOR ANY MAN TO DEPRIVE
ALMIGHTY GOD OF THAT WHICH IS HIS DUE. "You are careful," saith
our Saviour, "as it seemeth, to inquire touching Caesar'sright, as if you were
so tender consciencedthat you would not keepought from him that were his.
It becometh you to be, at the least, as careful for God; there is a right also due
to Him, look you to it, that you give it Him." Thus is the doctrine raised, God
must have His due as well as the king his. Nay, He is to have it much more;
"He is the King of kings, and Lord of lords. By Him it is that earthly kings do
reign. He beareth rule over the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whosoever
He will." Let me begin by explaining what is here meant by the Lord's due.
The conscionableperformance of any good duty is in some sense the Lord's
due, because the same is required by Him; and so even that which was spoken
of before, by the name of Caesar'sdue, is God's due, because the law of God
binds us to it. When we speak, therefore, of God's due, we intend thereby that
which is more properly and more immediately be, longing to Him. For
example's sake — in a house, whereofevery room and corner is the master's,
yet that where he lieth himself is more particularly called his; so whereas all
goodservices, eventhose which appertain to men, are the Lord's, He being the
commander of them, yet those are more preciselyand speciallytermed His
which belong to Him more directly. And of the dues of this sortwe are now to

treat; and these may justly be referred to two generalheads. The first I may
call His "prerogative," the other His "worship." Under God's" prerogative" I
comprehend two things.
1. "Thatthe things which concernHim must have the pre-eminence."
2. "ThatHe must have absolute obedience in all things." And now I come to
the next part of His due, "His worship." By His worship is understood that
more direct and proper service which we do to God for the declarationof our
duty to Him, of our dependence on Him, and of our acknowledgmentboth to
expectand to receive all goodand comfort from Him.Here the particulars to
be consideredof, under this head of worship, are —
1. "ThatHe must be worshipped."
2. "ThatHe must be so worshipped as Himself thinks good."
(S. Hieron.)
Duty discriminated
W. Baxendale.
"Go with me to the concertthis afternoon?" once askeda fashionable city
salesmanof a new assistantin the warehouse. "Icannot." "Why?" "My time
is not my own; it belongs to another." "To whom?" "To the firm, by whom I
have been instructed not to leave without permission." The next Sabbath
afternoonthe same salesmansaidto this clerk, "Will you go to ride with us
this evening?" "I cannot." "Why?" "Mytime is not my own; it belongs to

another." "To whom?" "To Him who has said, 'Remember the Sabbath-day
to keepit holy." Some years passed, and that clerk lay upon his bed of death.
His honesty and fidelity had raisedhim to a creditable position in business
and in society, and, ere his sickness, life lay fair before him. "Are you
reconciledto your situation?" askedanattendant. "Yes, reconciled;I have
endeavouredto do the work that Godhas allotted me, in His fear. He has
directed me thus far; I am in His hands, and my time is not my own."
(W. Baxendale.)
Religionand politics
F. W. Robertson.
It is a common saying that religion has nothing to do with polities, and
particularly there is a strong feeling current againstall interference with
politics by the ministers of religion. This notion rests on a basis which is partly
wrong, partly right. To saythat religion has nothing to do with politics is to
assertthat which is simply false. It were as wise to saythat the atmosphere
has nothing to do with the principles of architecture. Directly nothing,
indirectly much. Some kinds of stone are so friable, that though they will last
for centuries in a dry climate, they will crumble awayin a few years in a damp
one. There are some temperatures in which a form of a building is
indispensable, which in another would be unbearable. The shape of doors,
windows, apartments, all depend upon the air that is to be admitted or
excluded. Nay, it is for the very sake ofprocuring a habitable atmosphere
within certainlimits that architecture exists at all. The atmospheric laws are
distinct from the laws of architecture;but there is not an architectural
question into which atmospheric considerations do not enter as conditions of
the question. That which the air is to architecture, religion is to politics. It is
the vital air of every question. Directly, it determines nothing — indirectly, it
conditions every problem that canarise. The kingdoms of this world must
become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ. How — if His Spirit is
not to mingle with political and socialtruths?

(F. W. Robertson.)
No division of allegiance
Canon Duckworth.
Our Lord here recognizes no division of allegiance. He does not regard man as
under two masters — as owing duty to Caesarand duty to God. Is there a
trace in all His other teaching that He contemplated such a division? Did ever
a word fall from Him to indicate that He lookedupon some obligations as
secularand others as sacred? No;God is setforth by Him always and
everywhere as the sole Lord of man's being and powers. Nothing man has can
be Caesar's in contradictionto that which is God's. Christ claims all for the
SovereignMaster. Body, soul, and spirit, riches, knowledge, influence, love —
all belong to Him; there is but one empire, one service, one king; and life, with
all its complexity of interest, is simple — simple as the Infinite God who has
given it. Rightly understood, therefore, the greatprecepts of the text are in
perfect accordwith the doctrine of God's sole and supreme lordship over
every thought, and faculty, and possessionof man. "Renderunto Caesarthe
things that are Caesar's."Why? Who enacts it? Who has the right to require
it? The answeris "God." It is a part of your religious obedience to be a loyal
citizen. Within the sphere that belongs to him Caesarclaims your service as
the ordained representative and minister of God. Civil obedience is an
ordinance of the Church; civil societyis the creationof God Himself. It is He
who, through the earthly ruler, demands your tribute. The result, the order,
and the progress of societyare His work;and thus the principle of all duty is
ultimately one. The inclusion of the lowerobedience in the higher has been
well illustrated from the world of nature. The moon, we know, has its own
relation to the earth; but both have a common relation to the sun. The moon's
orbit is included in the earth's orbit, but the sun sways and balances both of
them; and there is not a movement of the moon in obeying the inferior earthly
attraction, which is not also an actof obedience to the superior spheres. And
just so, God has bound up togetherour relation to " the powers that be " in
this world, with our relation to Himself. He has set us under rulers and in

societiesas a kind of interior province of His mighty kingdom, but our loyalty
as subjects and our duty as citizens are but a part of the one supreme duty
which we owe to Him.
(Canon Duckworth.)
Secularand religious duties not in conflict
Anon.
I. Our secularand spiritual relations are coexistentand co-relative in fact.
II. The obligations which arise from eachare to be recognizedequitably, and
the respective duties performed faithfully.
III. They ought not to be in conflict, but mutually helpful. Both are of God,
and with Him are no discords.
IV. Application of the principle to —
1. Secularbusiness, society, politics, etc.
2. Soul culture, worship, Christian work.
(Anon.)
Christ Supreme in Debate
R.M. Edgar

Luke 20:20-40
And they watchedhim, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves
just men, that they might take hold of his words…
We have seenin the last sectionhow our Lord told a parable whose bearing
was unmistakably againstthe Jewishrulers. They are determined, in
consequence,to so entrap him in discussionas, if possible, to bring him within
the graspof the Romangovernor. But in entering the doubtful field of debate
with a base purpose such as this, it was, as the sequelshows, only to be
vanquished. Jesus proves more than a match for the two batches of artful men
who try to entrap him. Let us look at the victories separately, and then at
Jesus remaining Masterof the field.
I. HIS VICTORY OVER THE REVOLUTIONARY PARTY. (Vers. 21-26.)
This party was composedmainly of Pharisees. Theycorrespondedto the
modern revolutionary party in settled or conquered states. Theywere
constantly fomenting sedition, plotting againstthe Roman power, the sworn
enemies of Caesar. Theycome, then, with their difficulty about tribute. But
notice:
1. Their real tribute to Christ's characterin their pretended flattery. (Ver.
21.)They own to his face that he was too brave to make distinctions among
men or to accepttheir persons. In other words, their testimony clearlyis that,
like God his Father, Jesus was "no respecterof persons." No one is fit to be a
teacherof truth who panders to men's tastes orrespects their persons. Only
the impartial mood and mind can deal with truth truthfully. In the hollow
flattery of the Phariseeswe find rich testimony to the excellencyof Jesus.
2. Notice their scruple about paying tribute. (Ver. 22.)The law of the nation
might possibly be made to teachthe duty of being tributary to none. It was

this they wishedto elicit from him, and so hand him over to the governoras
seditious. They wished a pretext for revolution, and if he furnished them with
one and perished for it, so much the better, they imagined. The basenessofthe
plot is evident. Their hearts are hostile to Caesar, but they are ready to
become "informers" againsthim for the sake ofgetting rid of him.
3. Notice how simply he secureda victory. Showing them at once that he knew
their designs, he asks them to show him a penny. In his poverty he hardly
possessedat this time a spare penny to point his teaching. Having got the
penny, he asks about the image on the currency, and receiving for answerthat
it was Caesar's, he simply instructs them to give both CaesarandGod their
due. Caesarhas his domain, as the currency shows. He regulates the outward
relations of men, their barter and their citizenship, and by his laws he makes
them keepthe peace. Butbeyond this civil sphere, there is the moral and the
religious, where God alone is King. Let God gethis rights as well as Caesar,
and all shall be well. These words of Christ sounded the death-knell of the
Jewishtheocracy. Theypoint out two mutually independent spheres. They call
upon men to be at once loyal citizens and real saints. We may do our duty by
the state, while at the same time we are conscious citizens of heaven, and serve
our unseenMasterin all things.
II. HIS VICTORY OVER THE SADDUCEES. (Vers. 27-38.)The Pharisees
having been confounded by his subtle power, he is next besetby the rival
party, the party of scepticaland worldly tendencies. Theyhave given over
another world as a no-man's land, the region of undoubted difficulty and
puzzle. Especiallydo they think it impossible to settle the complicated
relations into which men and women enter here in any hereafter. Accordingly
they state a case where, by direction of the Mosaic Law, a poor woman
became successivelythe wife of sevenbrothers. In the other life, ask they,
whose wife shall she be? Christ's answeris again triumphant through its
simplicity. In the immortal life to which resurrectionleads there shall be no
marrying or giving in marriage. All shall be like. the angels. No distinction in

sex shall continue. All are to be "sons of God, being sons of the resurrection"
(RevisedVersion). The complicatedearthly relations shall give place to the
simplicity of sonship. God's family shall embrace all others. His Fatherhood
shall absorb all the descending affections whichon earth illustrate feebly his
surpassing love, and our sonship to him will embrace all the ascending
affectionwhich his descending love demands. The Simplicity of a holy family,
in which God is Fatherand all are brethren, and the angels are our highborn
elder brethren, will take the place of those complex relationships which
sometimes sweetenand sometimes sadden human love. But, in addition, our
Lord renders Sadducceismridiculous by showing from the Scriptures these
sceptics reveredthat the patriarchs had not ceasedto be, but were still living
in the bosomof God. For God, in claiming from the burning bush to be the
God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, revealedthe reality of life beyond death.
It was a demonstration of the resurrection. The patriarchs must have been
living worshippers when God was still their God, and this life unto him
demands for its perfection the resurrection. The plenitude of life is guaranteed
in the continued and worshipful life beyond the grave. In this simple and
perfect fashionJesus silences the Sadducees.
III. HE REMAINS COMPLETE MASTEROF THE FIELD. (Vers. 39, 40.)
They are beatenin the field of debate. Jesus is Victor. There is no question
now which they can ask him. All is over on the plane of intellectual and moral
argument. Not even a Parthian arrow can be shot againsthim. But treachery
and brute force remain, and they can have him betrayed and crucified whom
they cannot refute. Resortto weapons like these is always proof of weakness.
Victory has always been really with the persecutedparty. Persecutionon the
part of any cause ororganization demonstrates its inherent weakness. Hence
we hail the Christ in the temple as the supreme Masterand Conqueror of
men. The very men who put unholy hands upon him must have felt that they
were doing the coward's part after ignominious defeat. The weapons of our
warfare should always be spiritual; with carnalweapons we only confess
defeatand court everlasting shame. - R.M.E.

COMMENTARIES
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
20:20-26 Those who are most crafty in their designs againstChrist and his
gospel, cannothide them. He did not give a direct answer, but reproved them
for offering to impose upon him; and they could not fasten upon any thing
wherewith to stir up either the governoror the people againsthim. The
wisdom which is from above, will direct all who teachthe wayof God truly, to
avoid the snares laid for them by wickedmen; and will teach our duty to God,
to our rulers, and to all men, so clearly, that opposers will have no evil to say
of us.
Barnes'Notes on the Bible
See this explained in the Matthew 22:15-33 notes, and Mark 12:13-27 notes.
Jamieson-Fausset-BrownBible Commentary
22. tribute—(See on [1710]Mt17:24).
Matthew Poole's Commentary
See Poole on"Luke 20:21"
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, orno? The Syriac and Persic
versions here, as in the other evangelists, renderit, "headmoney". The
phrase, "for us", is here added, and on it lies the emphasis, and stress ofthe
question; for the doubt pretended, was not whether it was lawful for the
Romans to pay tribute to Caesar, but whether it was lawful for them who
were Jews, were Abraham's seed, and, as they boasted, were never in
bondage, but were the Lord's free people, to pay tribute to an Heathen
emperor, or no.
Geneva Study Bible

Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, orno?
EXEGETICAL(ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Expositor's Greek Testament
Luke 20:22 f. The question.—φόρον= κῆνσον, a Latinism, in the parallels.
Cambridge Bible for Schools andColleges
22. is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Cesar, or no?]The question was
devised with so superlative a craft that it seemedimpossible for our Lord to
escape. IfHe said ‘It is lawful,’ the Pharisees hopedat once to undermine His
popularity with the multitude. If He said ‘It is not lawful’ (Deuteronomy
17:15), the Herodians could at once hand Him over, as a traitor, to the secular
power. For ‘tribute’ eachEvangelistuses a different word—epikephalaion,
‘poll-tax’ (Mark in D); the Latin kenson‘census’(Matt.); and the classical
phoron here and Luke 23:2. It was a capitation-tax, the legality of which was
indignantly disputed by scrupulous legalists.
craftiness]panourgian, a classicalwordonly found in St Paul and St Luke, 2
Corinthians 4:2; 2 Corinthians 11:3, &c.
Vincent's Word Studies
Tribute (φόρον)
From φέρω, to bring. Something, therefore, which is brought in by wayof
payment. Luke uses the Greek word instead of the Latin κῆνσον, census, in
Matthew and Mark.
STUDYLIGHTRESOURCES

Cambridge Greek Testamentfor Schools andColleges
22. ἔξεστιν ἡμᾶς Καίσαρι φόρονδοῦναι ἢ οὔ; The question was devised with
so superlative a craft that it seemedimpossible for our Lord to escape. IfHe
said ‘It is lawful,’ the Pharisees hopedat once to undermine His popularity
with the multitude. If He said ‘It is not lawful’ (Deuteronomy 17:15), the
Herodians could at once hand Him over, as a traitor, to the secularpower. For
‘tribute’ eachEvangelistuses a different word—ἐπικεφάλαιον, ‘poll-tax’
(Mark in D); the Latin κῆνσον ‘census’(Matt.); and the classicalφόρονhere
and Luke 23:2. It was a capitation-tax, the legality of which was indignantly
disputed by scrupulous legalists.
πανουργίαν. A classicalwordonly found in St Paul and St Luke, 2 Corinthians
4:2; 2 Corinthians 11:3, &c.
[τί με πειράζετε;κ.τ.λ.]Our Lord saw at once that it was a cunning test-
question meant only to entrap Him. Not for a moment did these fawning spies
deceive Him though
“Neitherman nor angelcan discern
Hypocrisy, the only evil that walks
Invisible, exceptto Godalone.”

These Phariseeswere illustrating the truth that “no form of self-deceitis more
hateful than that which veils spite and falsehoodunder the guise of frankness,
and behind the professionof religion.”
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesyof BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliography
"Commentary on Luke 20:22". "Cambridge Greek Testamentfor Schools
and Colleges".https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/cgt/luke-
20.html. 1896.
Return to Jump List return to 'Jump List'
PeterPett's Commentary on the Bible
“Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar, ornot?”
Their question was as to whether it was ‘lawful’ or not to give tribute to
Caesar. Thatis whether it was in line with the teaching of Moses. Now strictly
speaking the Law does not deal with that question. But the Law does make it
clearthat the people of Israel were God’s people, God’s holy nation, and thus
that for them to be ruled over by anyone else was contrary to God’s intention.
It was something that would only happen to them as a result of disobedience.
So to every Jew the answeras to whether tribute should be paid to Caesar
would have been a resounding ‘No!’ Forwhile they reluctantly did on the
whole give such tribute, they certainly did not see it as ‘lawful’. In their view
the Law required rather that they directed their gifts towards God, His

Sanctuary and His people, and the Romanpoll tax was highly and deeply
resentedas an imposition, and as an evidence of their submission to Rome.
Thus if Jesus answeredthe question by declaring that it was lawful He would
instantly have been denounced by the whole nation as a false prophet. On the
other hand if He said that it was not lawful, (and that was the answertowards
which they were working), then they could immediately denounce him to the
Roman governorfor stirring up the people to avoid paying their taxes, a
crime subject to the most serious punishment.
George Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary
our divine Saviour had returned them for answer, that they ought to give
tribute to Cæsar, they would have accusedhim of being an enemy to the law;
but if, on the contrary, he saidit was not lawful, they would have accusedhim
to Pilate as an enemy of the state. (Theophylactus) --- For there was then a
greatmisunderstanding among the Jews:some, who wished to keeppeace
with the Romans, saidthat it was lawful; but the Phariseesdenied it, and said:
"The people of God ought to be exempt from such a tax. They were bound by
the law to give tithes and first-fruits to God; therefore they ought not to be
bound by human laws to give likewise taxto men who were heathens." (St.
Jerome)
ON VERSE 23
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

But he perceivedtheir craftiness,.... Knowing what was in them, and being a
discernerof the thoughts and intents of their hearts, he clearly saw that their
view was either, that they might have a charge againsthim to the Roman
governor, should he declare againstpayment of tribute; or that they might
expose him to the people of the Jews, shouldhe assertthe lawfulness of it:
and said unto them, why tempt ye me? with this ensnaring question.
Robertson's WordPictures in the New Testament
Perceived(κατανοησας — katanoēsas). Fromκατανοεω — katanoeō to put
the mind down on. Mark has ειδως — eidōs “knowing,” and Matthew γνους
— gnous coming to know or grasping (secondaorist active participle of
γινωσκω — ginōskō).
Craftiness (πανουργιαν— panourgian). Old word for doing any deed.
Matthew has “wickedness” (πονηριαν— ponērian) and Mark “hypocrisy”
(υποκρισιν — hupokrisin). Unscrupulous they certainly were. Theywould
stoopto any trick and go the limit.
ON VERSE 24
Show me a penny,.... A Roman denarius, value sevenpence halfpenny of our
money. The Persic versionadds, "they showed it, he askedof them"; and the
Ethiopic version, "and they brought it, and he said unto them", as follows;

whose image and superscriptionhath it? for the penny had an head upon it,
with something written, as the name of the emperor, whose image it was, his
titles, the date of the coin, or some motto on it:
they answeredand said, Caesar's;very likely Tiberius Caesar's,who was at
that time emperor of Rome; See Gill on Matthew 22:20 and See Gill on
Matthew 22:21.
Alexander MacLaren's Expositions ofHoly Scripture
Luke
WHOSE IMAGE AND SUPERSCRIPTION?
Luke 20:24.
It is no unusual thing for antagonists to join forces in order to crush a third
person obnoxious to both. So in this incident we have an unnatural alliance of
the two parties in Jewishpolitics who were at daggers drawn. The
representatives ofthe narrow conservative Judaism, which loathed a foreign
yoke, in the person of the Pharisees andScribes, and the Herodians, the
partisans of a foreignerand a usurper, lay their heads togetherto propose a
question to Christ which they think will discredit or destroyHim. They would
have answeredtheir own question in opposite ways. One would have said, ‘It
is lawful to give tribute to Caesar’;the other would have said, ‘It is not.’ But
that is a small matter when malice prompts. They calculate, ‘If He says, No!
we will denounce Him to Pilate as a rebel. If He says, Yes!we will go to the

people and say, Here is a pretty Messiahfor you, that has no objectionto the
foreign yoke. Either way we shall end Him.’
Jesus Christ serenelywalks through the cobwebs, andlays His hand upon the
fact. ‘Let Me see a silver penny!’-which, by the bye, was the amount of the
tribute-’Whose head is that?’ The currency of the country proclaims the
monarch of the country. To stamp his image on the coin is an actof
sovereignty. ‘Caesar’sheaddeclares that you are Caesar’s subjects,whether
you like it or not, and it is too late to ask questions about tribute when you pay
your bills in his money.’ ‘Render to Caesarthe things that are Caesar’s.’
Does not the other side of Christ’s answer-’to God the things that are God’s’-
rest upon a similar fact? Does notthe parallelism require that we should
suppose that the destiny of things to be devoted to Godis stamped upon them,
whateverthey are, at leastas plainly as the right of Caesarto exacttribute
was inferred from the fact that his money was the currency of the country?
The thought widens out in a greatmany directions, but I want to confine it to
one specialline of contemplation, and to take it as suggesting to eachof us this
greattruth, that the very make of men shows that they belong to God, and are
bound to yield themselves to Him. If the answerto the question be plain, and
the conclusionirresistible, about the penny with the image of Tiberius, the
answeris no less plain, nor the conclusionless irresistible, when we turn the
interrogationwithin, and, looking at our own being, sayto ourselves, ‘Whose
image and superscription hath it? ‘
I. First, then, note the image stamped upon man, and the consequent
obligation.
We canvery often tell what a thing is for by noticing its make. The instructed
eye of an anatomist will, from a bone, divine the sphere in which the creature

to whom it belongedwas intended to live. Justas plainly as gills or lungs, fins
or wings, or legs and arms, declare the element in which the creature that
possesses themis intended to move, so plainly stamped upon all our natures is
this, that God is our Lord since we are made in a true sense in His image, and
that only in Him can we find rest.
I need not remind you, I suppose, of the old word, ‘Let us make man in our
own image.’Nor need I, I suppose, insist at any length upon the truth that
though, by the fact of man’s sin, the whole glory and splendour of the divine
image in which he was made is marred and defaced, there still remain such
solemn, blessed, and awful resemblances betweenman and God that there can
be no mistake as to which beings in the universe are the most kindred; nor
any misunderstanding as to who it is after whose likeness we are formed, and
in whose love and life alone we can be blessed.
I am not going to wearyyou with thoughts for which, perhaps, the pulpit is
not the proper place;but let me just remind you of one or two points. Is there
any other being on this earth that can say of itself ‘I am’? God says ‘I am that
I am’. You and I cannot saythat, but we alone, in this order of things, possess
that solemn and awful gift, the consciousnessof our personalbeing. And,
brethren, whoeveris able to say to himself ‘I am’ will never know rest until he
can turn to God and say‘Thou art,’ and then, laying his hand in the Great
Father’s hand, venture to say ‘We are.’ We are made in His image, in that
profoundest of all senses.
But to come to something less recondite. We are like God in that we can love;
we are like Him in that we can perceive the right, and that the right is
supreme; we are like Him in that we have the power to say‘I will.’ And these
greatcapacities demand that the creature who thus knows himself to be, who
thus knows the right, who thus canlove, who thus canpurpose, resolve, and
act, should find his home and his refuge in fellowship with God.

But if you take a coin, and compare it with the die from which it has been
struck, you will find that wherever in the die there is a relief, in the coin there
is a sunken place;and conversely. So there are not only resemblances in man
to the divine nature, which bear upon them the manifest marks of his destiny,
but there are correspondences, wants, onour side, being met by gifts upon
His; hollow emptinesses in us being filled, when we are brought into contact
with Him, by the abundance of His outstanding supplies and gifts. So the
poorest, narrowest, meanestlife has in it a depth of desire, an ardour, and
sometimes a pain and a madness of yearning and longing which nothing but
God can fill. Though we often misunderstand the voice, and so make ourselves
miserable by vain efforts, our ‘heart and our flesh,’in every fibre of our
being, ‘cry out for the living God.’ And what we all want is some one Pearl of
greatprice into which all the dispersed preciousnessand fragmentary
brilliances that dazzle the eye shall be gathered. We want a Person, a living
Person, a present Person, a sufficient Person, who shall satisfy our hearts, our
whole hearts, and that at one and the same time, or else we shall never be at
rest.
Because, then, we are made dependent, because we possessthese wild desires,
because immortal thirst attaches to our nature, because we have consciences
that need illuminating, wills that are only free when they are absolutely
submissive, hearts that are dissatisfied, and left yearning, after all the
sweetnessesoflimited, transient, and creatural affections, we bearon our very
fronts the image of God; and any man that wiselylooks at himself cananswer
the question, ‘Whose image and superscription hath it?’ in but one way. ‘In
the image of God createdHe him.’
Therefore by loving fellowship, by lowly trust, by ardour of love, by
submissiveness ofobedience, by continuity of contemplation, by the sacrifice
of self, we must yield ourselves to God if we would pay the tribute manifestly

owing to the Emperor by the fact that His image and superscription are upon
the coin.
II. And so let me ask you to look, in the next place, at the defacementof the
image and the wrong expenditure of the coin.
You sometimes getinto your hands money on which there has been stamped,
by mischief, or for some selfish purpose, the name of some one else than the
king’s or queen’s which surrounds the head upon it. And in like manner our
nature has gone through the stamping-press again, and another likeness has
been deeply imprinted upon it. The image of God, which every man has, is in
some senses andaspects ineffaceableby any course of conduct of theirs. But in
another aspectit is not like the permanent similitude stamped upon the solid
metal of the penny, but like the reflection, rather, that falls upon some
polished plate, or that is castupon the white sheetfrom a lantern. If the
polished plate be rusty and stained, the image is faint and indistinct; if it be
turned awayfrom the light the image passes. And that is what some of you are
doing. By living to yourselves, by living day in and day out without ever
remembering God, by yielding to passions, lusts, ambitions, low desires, and
the like, you are doing your very bestto erase the likeness which still lingers in
your nature. Is there any one here that has yielded to some lust of the flesh,
some appetite, drunkenness, gluttony, impurity, or the like, and has so sold
himself to it, as that that part of the divine image, the power of saying ‘I will,’
has pretty nearly gone? I am afraid there must be some who, by long
submission to passion, have lostthe control that reasonand conscienceanda
firm steadypurpose ought to give. Is there any man here who, by long course
of utter neglectof the divine love, has ceasedto feel that there is a heart at the
centre of the universe, or that He has anything to do with it? Brethren, the
awful power that is given to men of degrading themselves till, lineament by
lineament, the likeness in which they are made vanishes, is the saddestand
most tragicalthing in the world. ‘Like the beasts that perish,’ says one of the
psalms, the men become who, by the acids and the files of worldliness and

sensuality and passion, have so rubbed awaythe likeness ofGod that it is
scarcelyperceptible in them. Do I speak to some such now? If there is nothing
else left there is this, a hunger for absolute goodand for the satisfactionof
your desires. Thatis part of the proof that you are made for God, and that
only in Him can you find rest.
All occupations ofheart and mind and will and active life with other things to
the exclusionof supreme devotion to God are, then, sacrilege andrebellion.
The emperor’s head was the tokenof sovereigntyand carried with it the
obligation to pay tribute. Every fibre in your nature protests againstthe
prostitution of itself to anything short of God. You remember the story in the
Old Testamentabout that saturnalia of debauchery, the night when Babylon
fell, when Bel-shazzar, in the very wantonness ofgodless insolence, couldnot
be satisfiedwith drinking his wine out of anything less sacredthan the vessels
that had been brought from the Temple at Jerusalem. That is what many of us
are doing, taking the sacredcup which is meant to be filled with the wine of
the kingdom and pouring into it the foaming but poisonous beverageswhich
stealawayour brains and make us drunk, the moment before our empire
totters to its fall and we to our ruin. ‘All the consecratedthings of the house of
the Lord they dedicatedto Baal,’says one of the narratives in the Book of
Chronicles. That is what some of us are doing, taking the soul that is meant to
be consecratedto God and find its blessednessthere, and offering it to false
gods in whose service there is no blessedness.
For, dear friends, I beseechyou, lay this to heart that you cannot thus use the
Godlike being that you possesswithoutbringing down upon your heads
miseries and unrest. The raven, that black bird of evil omen, went out from
the ark, and flew homeless overthe weltering ocean. The souls that seek not
God fly thus, strangers and restless, througha drowned and lifeless world.
The dove came back with an olive branch in its beak. Souls that are wise and
have made their nests in the sanctuary canthere fold their wings and be at
peace. As the ancient saint said, ‘We are made for God, and only in God have

we rest.’ ‘Oh, that thou hadst hearkenedto me, then had thy peace beenas a
river, and thy righteousness as the waves ofthe sea.’Cannotyou see the
blessed, gentle gliding of the full stream through the meadows with the
sunshine upon its ripples? Such is the heart that has yielded itself to God. In
solemn contrastto that lovely image, the same prophet has for a repeated
refrain in his book, ‘The wickedis like the troubled sea which cannot rest,’
but goes moaning round the world, and breaking in idle foam upon every
shore, and still is unquiet for evermore. Brethren, only when we render to
God the thing that is God’s-ourhearts and ourselves-have we repose.
III. Now, lastly, notice the restorationand perfecting of the defacedimage.
Becauseman is like God, it is possible for God to become like man. The
possibility of Revelationand of Redemption by an incarnate Saviour depend
upon the reality of the fact that man is made in the image of God. Thus there
comes to us that divine Christ, who lays ‘His hands upon both’ and being on
the one hand the express image of His person, so that He can say, ‘He that
hath seenMe hath seenthe Father,’on the other hand ‘was in all points made
like unto His brethren,’ with only the exceptionthat the defacementwhich
had obliterated the divine image in them left it clear, untarnished, and sharply
cut in Him.
Therefore, becauseJesus Christhas come, our Brother, ‘bone of our bone,
and flesh of our flesh,’ made like unto us, and in our likeness presenting to us
the very image of God and eradiationof His light, therefore no defacement
that it is possible for men or devils to make on this poor humanity of ours
need be irrevocable and final. All the stains may be blotted out, all the
usurping superscriptions may be removed and the original imprint restored.
The dints may be elevated, the too lofty points may be lowered, the tarnish
and the rust may be rubbed off, and, fairer than before, the likeness ofGod
may be stamped on every one of us, ‘after the image of Him that createdus,’ if

only we will turn ourselves to that dear Lord, and castour souls upon Him.
Christ hath become like us that we might become like Him, and therein be
partakers of the divine nature. ‘We all, reflecting as a glass does the glory of
the Lord, may be changedinto the same image from glory to glory.’
Nor do the possibilities stop there, for we look forward to a time when, if I
might pursue the metaphor of my text, the coinage shallbe calledin and
reminted, in new forms of nobleness and of likeness. We have before us this
greatprospect, that ‘we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is’; and
in all the glories of that heaven we shall partake, for all that is Christ’s is ours,
and ‘we that have borne the image of the earthly shall also bear the image of
the heavenly.’
I come to you, then, with this old question: ‘Whose image and superscription
hath it?’ and the old exhortation founded thereupon: ‘Render therefore to
God the thing that is God’s’;and yield yourselves to Him. Another question I
would ask, and pray that you may lay it to heart, ‘To what purpose is this
waste?’Whatare you doing with the silver penny of your own soul?
Wherefore do ye ‘spend it for that which is not bread?’ Give yourselves to
God; trust yourselves to the Christ who is like you, and like Him. And, resting
upon His greatlove you will be savedfrom the prostitution of capacities,and
the vain attempts to satisfyyour souls with the husks of earth; and whilst you
remain here will be made partakers of Christ’s life, and growinglyof His
likeness, andwhen you remove yonder, your body, soul, and spirit will be
conformed to His image, and transformed into the likeness ofHis glory,
‘according to the mighty working whereby He is able even to subdue all things
unto Himself.’
ON VERSE 25

And he said unto them, render therefore unto Caesarthe things which be
Caesar's,.... The Arabic version renders it, "give to the king what is the
king's";the tribute that was due to him; since they were under his
government, and were protectedby him, and traded with his money; the
currency of which among them was an acknowledgmentof him as their
sovereign:
and unto God the things which be God's; which relate to his worship, honour,
interest, and kingdom; See Gill on Matthew 22:21.
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
things which be Caesar‘s — Putting it in this generalform, it was impossible
for seditionitself to dispute it, and yet it dissolvedthe snare.
and unto God — How much there is in this profound but to them startling
addition to the maxim, and how incomparable is the whole for fullness,
brevity, clearness, weight!
James Nisbet's Church Pulpit Commentary
NO DIVISION OF ALLEGIANCE

‘And He saidunto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar, the things which be
Cæsar’s and unto God the things which be God’s.’
Luke 20:25
Let us look at the use which has so long been made of our Lord’s reply, and
ask whether it is justifiable or wise. His words have been perpetually quoted,
as if ‘Cæsar’meant civil government, and ‘God’ ecclesiasticalgovernment,
and as if Cæsarand God had separate spheres ofjurisdiction, eachlimiting
the other.
I. All intelligent students of the New Testamentknow that our Lord has made
no such distinction as He is popularly supposedto have made. The question on
which He was askedto pronounce had nothing whateverto do with the rival
claims of Church and State; their respective rights were not even
contemplated, the cunning cavillers who had conspiredto entangle Him knew
nothing of the distinction betweenthe two. It was, indeed, a distinction utterly
foreign to the Jewishmind. What feature in the prophetic writings is more
marked than the interpretation of religion and politics?
II. Our Lord here recognises no division of allegiance.—He does notregard
man as under two masters—as owing duty to Cæsarand duty to God. No;
God is setforth by Him always and everywhere as the sole Lord of man’s
being and powers. Nothing man has can be Cæsar’s in contradiction to that
which is God’s. Christ claims all for the SovereignMaster. Rightly
understood, therefore, the greatprecepts of the text are in perfectaccordwith
the doctrine of God’s sole and supreme lordship over every thought, and
faculty, and possessionofman. ‘Render unto Cæsarthe things that are
Cæsar’s.’Why? Who enacts it? The answeris, ‘God.’ It is a part of your
religious obedience to be a loyal citizen. God has bound up togetherour

relation to the ‘powers that be’ in this world with our relation to Himself. He
has setus under rulers and in societies as a kind of interior province of His
mighty kingdom, but our loyalty as subjects and our duty as citizens are but a
part of the one supreme duty which we owe to Him.
—Rev. Canon Duckworth.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Nisbet, James. "Commentaryon Luke 20:25". Church Pulpit Commentary.
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/cpc/luke-20.html. 1876.
Sermon Bible Commentary
Luke 20:25
I. Let us look at the use which has so long been made of our Lord's reply, and
ask whether it is justifiable or wise. His words have been perpetually quoted,
as if "Cæsar" meantcivil government, and "God" ecclesiasticalgovernment,
and as if Cæsarand God had separate spheres ofjurisdiction, eachlimiting
the other. All intelligent students of the New Testamentknow that our Lord
has made no such distinction as He is popularly supposed to have made. The
question on which He was askedto pronounce had nothing whateverto do
with the rival claims of Church and State;their respective rights were not

even contemplated, the cunning cavillers who had conspired to entangle Him
knew nothing of the distinction betweenthe two. It was indeed a distinction
utterly foreignto the Jewishmind. What feature in the prophetic writings is
more marked than the interpretation of religionand politics?
II. Our Lord here recognises no division of allegiance.He does not regard
man as under two masters—as owing duty to Cæsarand duty to God. No;
God is setforth by Him always and everywhere as the sole Lord of man's
being and powers. Nothing man has can be Cæsar's in contradiction to that
which is God's. Christ claims all for the SovereignMaster. Rightly
understood, therefore, the greatprecepts of the text are in perfectaccordwith
the doctrine of God's sole and supreme lordship over every thought, and
faculty, and possessionofman. "Renderunto Cæsarthe things that are
Cæsar's."Why? Who enacts it? The answeris, "God." It is a part of your
religious obedience to be a loyal citizen. God has bound up togetherour
relation to the "powers that be" in this world with our relation to Himself. He
has setus under rulers and in societies as a kind of interior province of His
mighty kingdom, but our loyalty as subjects and our duty as citizens are but a
part of the one supreme duty which we owe to Him.
R. Duckworth, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxviii., p. 27
25. ἀπόδοτε. ‘Payas their due.’
τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι. St Paul very clearlyenforces the same duty in Romans
13:6-7. The ‘tribute’ in Matthew 17:24 was quite different; it was the Temple
didrachma.

τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τῷ θεῷ. To Caesaryou owe what he demands in his own coinage;
to the Temple the tribute which you can only pay in the shekelof the
sanctuary; to God you owe yourselves. Payto Caesarthe coins which bear his
stamp, to God the duties of your own souls which bear His image. Thus both
the conspiring parties—Pharisees andHerodians—obtaineda lessonwhich
they needed.
‘And he said to them, “Then render to Caesarthe things that are Caesar’s,
and to God the things that are God’s” ’
His reply was then, in that case, “Renderto Caesarthe things that are
Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”. It was a very wise reply. It
was pointing out that anyone who could produce a denarius was thereby
testifying to the overlordship of Caesar. It was right therefore that they
rendered back to him, what they had receivedfrom him. All denarii
essentiallybelongedto Caesar. Furthermore a goodpatriot should strictly not
have touched a denarius with a bargepole, and so goodpatriots would actually
have agreedwith Jesus that all denarii should be gotrid of by handing them
back to Caesar. Ofcourse, if they would not touch a denarius they would have
to go into hiding for non-payment of taxes, but at leastthey would see
themselves as being kept pure. However, the moment one descendedto the
depths of obtaining a denarius in order to pay the tax he was by it
acknowledging his debt to Caesar. And it was therefore right that he gave the
hated coin back to him. Thus Jesus was both in the clearwith the extreme
patriots, who agreedwith Him on the fact that the denarii should be handed
over to Caesar, andshould not be touched by any patriotic Jew, while all else
belongedto God, and also with the Roman authorities, whose only concern
was to be paid the denarius in poll tax.

What this did not teachwas that a certain amount should be given to God,
and the rest could then be lookedon as ‘Caesar’s’,to be lookedon as
‘secular’, and therefore usable as a man wished. It applied to a specific
situation. It might, however, be seenas saying that for any benefits that we
receive from the state we have an obligation to make a contribution back to
them. But while that is true, it is not really what Jesus was positively teaching.
For what was of generalapplicationin what He said was the command to
render “to God the things that are God’s”. The point here was that all that we
have, we have receivedfrom God, and we should therefore recognise thatfor
it we are accountable to God as His stewards. This is continuing the theme of
numerous parables that we have already lookedat. It is confirming that every
man must give an accountof himself to God with regard to his use of wealth.
ON VERSE 26
And they could not take hold of his words before the people,.... Whichwas
what they wanted; that if he had dropped any seditious and treasonable
expressions againstthe government, they might be witnessesagainsthim; or if
he had not vindicated the liberties of the people, and the rights of the Jewish
nation, these might be exasperatedagainst him, and leave him:
and they marvelled at his answer;which was so formed, as to give them no
handle againsthim either way:

and held their peace;they were silenced, and had nothing to say to him, nor
againsthim, but left him, and went their way.
Copyright Statement
The New John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible Modernisedand adapted
for the computer by Larry Pierce of Online Bible. All Rightes Reserved,
Larry Pierce, Winterbourne, Ontario.
A printed copy of this work can be ordered from: The Baptist Standard
Bearer, 1 Iron Oaks Dr, Paris, AR, 72855
Bibliography
Gill, John. "Commentary on Luke 20:26". "The New JohnGill Exposition of
the Entire Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/luke-
20.html. 1999.
Robertson's WordPictures in the New Testament
They were not able (ουκ ισχυσαν — ouk ischusan). They did not have
strength. An old verb ισχυω — ischuō from ισχυς — ischus (strength). They
failed “to take hold (cf. Luke 20:20)of the saying before the people.” These
“crack”students had made an ignominious failure and were not able to make
a case forthe surrender of Jesus to Pilate. He had slipped through their net
with the utmost ease.
Held their peace (εσιγησαν— esigēsan). Ingressive aoristactive of σιγαω —
sigaō Theybecame silent as they went back with the “dry grins.”

26. θαυμάσαντες. Comp. Luke 2:47. They thought that escape was impossible
for Him; and yet He instantly shatters their deeply-laid plot to pieces by
shewing that they—Phariseesand Herodians alike—haddecidedthe question
already (according to their own rule “He whose coin is current is king of the
land”), so that there is no need for Him to give any opinion about it. The point
was this,—their national acceptanceofCaesar’s coinage wasanadmission of
Caesar’sright. Tribute to them was no longer an offering, but a due; not a
voluntary gift, but a political necessity. The very word He used was decisive.
They had asked“Is it lawful to give (δοῦναι)?” He answers, ‘Give back’
(ἀπόδοτε). By using these coins they all alike admitted that ‘they had no king
but Caesar.’The Christians understood the principle perfectly (1 Peter2:13-
14) as the ancient Jews had done (Jeremiah 27:4-8). Yet these hypocrites
dared to shout three days afterwards that Jesus ‘had forbidden to give tribute
to Caesar’!
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
"Commentary on Luke 20:26". "Cambridge Greek Testamentfor Schools
and Colleges".https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/cgt/luke-
20.html. 1896.

‘And they were not able to take hold of the saying before the people, and they
marvelled at his answer, and held their peace.’
The ‘spies’were staggeredatHis reply. They recognisedhow cleverly He had
avoided their trap, while at the same time teaching something very positive.
And they recognisedthatthere was nothing in His reply that they could take
hold of in order to use it to setthe people againstHim. He had indeed agreed
that all that a man had should be dedicatedto God, apart from the hated
denarius which no godly person would touch. And yet that by leaving the
latter open for those who wanted them to pay their tax, howeverreluctantly,
He was preventing them coming under condemnation for doing so.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Pett, Peter. "Commentary on Luke 20:26". "PeterPett's Commentaryon the
Bible ". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/pet/luke-20.html.
2013.
Expository Notes ofDr. Thomas Constable
Jesus" answerin Luke 20:25 has become so commonplace to us that we fail to
appreciate the impact it must have had on those who heard it for the first
time. Jesus" critics couldnot criticize either His logic or His statement. Wisely
they kept quiet (cf. Luke 14:6; Luke 20:40), a factthat only Luke noted. Luke
also drew attention to their failure to "catch" (NIV "trap," Gr.

epilambanomai) Jesus, which he earlier identified as their purpose ( Luke
20:20).
This teaching would have been helpful to Luke"s originalreaders who, as all
Christians do, had responsibilities to paganpolitical authorities as well as to
God.
George Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary
may here be astonishedat the incredulity of the chiefs of the Jews, who,
though they ought to have admired his wisdom, as something divine, and
believed in him, are only surprised that he should have escapedtheir duplicity
and snares. (Ven. Bede) --- Their pride must have been a gooddeal hurt, to
have been thus publicly refuted and confusedby the wisdom of our Saviour's
answer. (Theophylactus)
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(26) And they could not take hold of his words.—As St. Luke is fuller in his
accountof the plot of the questioners (Luke 20:20), so is he in that of its
defeat.
They marvelled at his answer.—There is an interesting, though obviously
undesigned, parallelism with the narrative of the incident in which the Lord
Jesus was first brought face to face with the Rabbis of Jerusalem. Then also
“they were astonishedat His answers” (Luke 2:47). The childhood was, in this
respect, a prophecy of the manhood.

PRECEPTAUSTIN RESOURCES
BRUCE HURT MD
Luke 20:20 So they watchedHim, and sentspies who pretended to be
righteous, in order that they might catchHim in some statement, so that they
could deliver Him to the rule and the authority of the governor.
Luke 20:20KJV And they watchedhim, and sent forth spies, which should
feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they
might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.
NLT Luke 20:20 Watching for their opportunity, the leaders sentspies
pretending to be honest men. They tried to getJesus to say something that
could be reported to the Romangovernor so he would arrestJesus.
NIV Luke 20:20 Keeping a close watchon him, they sent spies, who
pretended to be honest. They hoped to catchJesus in something he said so that
they might hand him over to the powerand authority of the governor. (Luk
20:20 NIV)
So they watchedHim Ps 37:32,33;38:12;Isaiah29:20,21;Jer 11:19;18:18;
20:10;Mt 22:15,18;Mark 12:13,15

and sent spies who pretended to be righteous, in order that they might catch
Him in some statement, 2 Sa 14:2; 1 Kings 14:2-6; Ps 66:3; 81:15; 2 Peter2:3
so that they could deliver Him to the rule and the authority of the governor
Mt 27:2; John 18:28-32
Parallelpassages - Matthew 22:15-22;Mark 12:13-17
Luke 20 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries
Luke 20:20-26 Guile, Government, and God - StevenCole
Luke 20:19-26 The Diagnosis ofthe Christ Rejecters -John MacArthur
THE PLAN TO PRESENT
JESUS TO PILATE
Luke and Mark do not have the parable of the marriage feastwhich is found
in Matthew 22:1-14 and follows the same events describedin Luke 20:17-19 (
= Mt 21:42-46).
This brood of vipers hatches their serpentine, satanicallyinspired scheme to
snare the Son of God in a verbal trap. These religious snakeshad made deceit
an art form!
So (kai) - In context this conjunction functions as a term of conclusion. What
is being concluded by the religious leaders?
They watchedHim, and sentspies - In context"they" is clearly the Jewish
religious leaders who saw their "powerbase" threatenedby Jesus. And so
they were intently watching Him, hoping for a slip of tongue or a other
mistake which they could use this to turn the crowdagainstHim and to
convince the Romans to arrestHim.

Watched(NET = "watchedHim carefully")(3906)(paratereofrom para =
beside + tereo = to watch) to watch closely, observe carefullywatch
(maliciously) as in Lk 6:7 (and Mk 3:2) where we read "The scribes and the
Pharisees were watching Him closelyto see if He healed on the Sabbath, so
that they might find reasonto accuse Him." In Lk 14:1 we read "It happened
that when He went into the house of one of the leaders of the Pharisees onthe
Sabbath to eat bread, they were watching Him closely." In short, Jesus was
always on the "radarscreen" ofthe evil religious leaders in Israel.
H. J. Wilmot-Buxton applies the watching of Jesus by His enemies to us as His
followers - The chief priests and rulers of the Jews watchedJesus, but not to
learn the way of salvation. They watchedHim with the evil eyes of malice and
hatred, desiring to take hold of His words, to entangle Him in His talk, that
they might accuse Him, and deliver Him up to die. He loved all men, yet He
was hated and rejectedof men; He went about doing good, yet they tried to do
Him harm. The enemies of Christ are ever watching for our fall, eagerto hear
or to tell any evil thing about us, ready to castthe stone of slander againstus.
You know that the whitestrobe first shows the stain, let us remember whose
purity we wearif we have put on Christ. Let us strive "to walk circumspectly,
not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil." (Eph
5:15-16-note)If we are tempted to say or do something which is equivocal,
though the way of the world, let us pause and ask ourselves whetherit will
bring discredit on our faith, whether it will dishonour our Master.
Let our cry ever be, "Hold thou me up, and I shall be safe." (Ps 119:117KJV)
Spurgeon- Hold thou me up: as a nurse holds up a little child. "And I shall be
safe," and not else, for unless Thou hold me up I shall be falling about like an
infant that is weak upon its knees. We are saved by past grace, but we are not
safe unless we receive presentgrace. The Psalmisthad vowedto keepthe
Lord's commands, but here he pleads with the Lord to keephim: a very
sensible course of procedure. Our version reads the word "uphold," and then

"hold up;" and truly we need this blessing in every shape in which it can
come, for in all manner of ways our adversaries seekto castus down. To be
safe is a happy condition; there is only one door to it, and that is to be held up
by God Himself; thank God, that door is open to the leastamong us.
Spies (1455)(egkathetosfrom from en = in + kathíēmi = to let down, set in
ambush) means literally one sitting in ambush, lying in wait (Sept.: Job 31:9
and Job 19:12). An agent, someone hired to trap one by crafty words, one who
is hired to lie in wait Used metaphorically of an insidious person, spy (Only
NT use = Luke 20:20). Matthew calls them "disciples" ofthe Pharisees but
Luke minces no words in labeling them outright as spies ("secretwatchers")!
Who pretended to be righteous (ESV = sincere) - This is one of the sadder
phrase in the New Testament. They were not evensubtle about their
hypocrisy. These unrighteous men put on a pretense of personal
righteousness. Now before we are too hard on them, the question comes to
mind, do I ever pretend to be righteous before others, especiallyif I have
known, unconfessedsin? Woe! I'll let you answerthat one for yourself.
Pretended (used only here)(5271)(hupokrinomaifrom hupo = under in sense
of secrecy+ krino = to judge) means to make believe, to make believe with the
intent to deceive (as in the presentpassage the only NT use). To give a false
appearance ofbeing, possessing, orperforming. To dissemble meaning to hide
under a false appearance. To dissimulate means to deceive by concealing the
truth or in the case ofhalf-truths, concealing parts of the truth, like
inconvenient or secretinformation. Notfound in the non-apocryphal
Septuagint. Clearly this verb is related to the word from which we get
"hypocrite," regarding which these men have to go down as one of the
consummate examples in all of world history!
Vine says hupokrinomai "denotes to give an answer;then, to answeron the
stage, play a part and so ... to feign, pretend."

Gilbrant on hupokrinomai - Hupokrinomai appears in classicalliterature as
early as Homer (Eighth Century B.C.). Its early uses included “to explain,
interpret.” As well, it could mean “to answer” (“hupokrinomai,” Kittel,
8:559). In Attic Greek hupokrinomai also means “to play a part” on the stage
(here it is connectedwith the hupokritēs, the actor introduced into Athenian
tragedy by Thespis in 536 B.C.). Occasionallyit could mean “to deliver a
speech, to represent dramatically,” or “to exaggerate”(Liddell-Scott). In the
Septuagint hupokrinomai assumes a negative sense absentin classical
literature. In Sirach 1:29 the RSV translates this word as “hypocrite”:“Be not
a hypocrite” in men’s sight. In 2 Maccabees 5:25 it describes a man who
pretended to be favorable towardthe Jews (cf. 2 Maccabees6:21). In 4
Maccabees6:15 certainfollowers of the king exhorted Eleazerto “pretend” to
eat pork. (Complete Biblical Library Greek-EnglishDictionary)
In order that - This phrase usually identifies a term of purpose or result and
so begs the question of for what purpose or result? The answeris
straightforwardin this passage!To catchJesus like an animal.
They might catch Him in some statement - They were like "malicious"
hunters trying to trap Jesus like one would ensnare a bird or hook a fish.
They will "bait the trap" in the following verses.
It is interesting that the NT uses three different verbs to describe the nefarious
attempts of the religious leaders to ensnare or entrap Jesus. And so in
Matthew and Mark we read the following...
Matthew 22:15 adds "Thenthe Phariseeswentand plotted togetherhow they
might trap (pagideuo used only in Mt 22:15 - means to lay snares for Jesus -
see discussionofroot word pagis = a trap used by bird catchers. Satansets a
snare or pagis for men and holds them captive in 2 Ti 2:26-note and

undoubtedly he is behind the scenes urging on these evil men to trap) Him in
what He said."
Mark 12:13 adds another detail about the identity of the evil plotters - "Then
they sent some of the Phariseesand Herodians to Him in order to trap (agreuo
used only in Mk 12:13 = used in hunting and fishing to catchthe animal; here
trying to catchJesus in making a wrong statement. Their purpose was to hunt
and catchHim like some wild animal.) Him in a statement (ONE THAT
WOULD TURN JEWISHSENTIMENTAGAINST HIM OR CAUSE
ROMANS TO ARREST HIM).
In Mark 3 after healing on the Sabbath we see a similar collusionbetween
those who were otherwise enemies, the Phariseesand the Herodians, Mark
recording "The Phariseeswentout and immediately beganconspiring with
the Herodians againstHim, as to how they might destroy Him." (Mark 3:6) So
even early in His ministry these men wanted to kill Jesus!
Herodians - At the time of Jesus, there were certaingroups—the Pharisees,
the Herodians, and the Sadducees—thatheld positions of authority and power
over the people. Other groups were the Sanhedrin, the scribes, and the
lawyers. Eachof these groups held powerin either religious or political
matters. The Herodians held political power, and most scholars believe that
they were a political party that supported King Herod Antipas, the Roman
Empire's ruler over much of the land of the Jews from 4 B.C. to A.D. 39. The
Herodians favored submitting to the Herods, and therefore to Rome, for
political expediency. This support of Herod compromised Jewish
independence in the minds of the Pharisees, making it difficult for the
Herodians and Pharisees to unite and agree on anything. But one thing did
unite them—opposing Jesus. (see enemyof my enemy is my friend) Herod
himself wanted Jesus dead(Luke 13:31), and the Phariseeshad already

hatched plots againstHim (John 11:53), so they joined efforts to achieve their
common goal. (See full article - Who were the Herodians?)
Hughes adds "Two opposite powers canbind people together. One is love, and
the other is hatred. Of course, love is to be preferred by far. It is the glue of
the Holy Trinity. It is God’s ordained adhesive for the Church as well (cf.
John 13:34, 35). Nevertheless, hatred, though fragmenting and destructive,
serves as a diabolicalsuperglue among otherwise diverse people.Suchwas the
case with the Pharisees and Herodians. There could hardly be two groups
with such opposing outlooks. The Pharisees were nationalistic.Theylonged
for the messianic kingdom and the overthrow of the Romans. The Herodians
had sold themselves out to the Romans and servedas their well-cared-for
stooges. The Phariseesrepresentedconservative Judaism, whereas the
Herodians were liberal and syncretistic in their convictions. The Pharisees
were (so to speak)right-wingers. The Herodians were left-wingers. The
Pharisees representedcautious resistanceto Rome, the Herodians wholesale
accommodation. But they were cementedtogetherby their mutual hatred for
Jesus. The Phariseeshatedhim because he was disrupting their religious
agenda, the Herodians because he threatened their political arrangements.
They both wanted him dead." (Ibid)
Might catch (1949)(epilambano from epi = upon + lambano = take hold of)
means to lay hold of, get a goodgrip on, take possessionof. All NT uses are in
the middle voice. Figuratively to take any one in one's speech, i.e. to lay hold
of something said by Jesus which could be used againsthim (here and Lk
20:26). "CatchHim in a word." Let's turn this around for believers "Oh that
we might seize upon His words!(the right way, not to entrap)." (Bell)
Cowards are like cats. Cats always take their prey by springing suddenly
upon it from some concealedstation, and, if they miss their aim in the first
attack, rarely follow it up (In Luke 20 they make 3 attempts to trap Jesus, but

eachtime by a different religious group). They are all, accordingly, cowardly,
sneaking animals, and never willingly face their enemy, unless brought to bay,
or wounded, trusting always to their power of surprising their victims by the
aid of their stealthy and noiselessmovements.
So that (hina) (a term of purpose or result) begs the simple question "What
was their purpose?"
They could deliver Him to the rule and the authority of the governor - This
statementis not found in either Mark or Matthew. The religious leaders had a
problem and that problem was the fact that only the Romans could carry out
capital punishment. The Jews could not carry out crucifixion. So their goal
was to somehow have Jesus arrestedby the Romans and then press their case
againstHim, which is exactly what they did with the governorPilate who was
otherwise disposedto release Him.
Deliver (3860)(paradidomi from para = alongside, beside, to the side of, over
to + didomi = to give) conveys the basic meaning of to give over from one's
hand to someone or something, especiallyto give over to the power of another.
Paradidomi is the very verb used to describe the nefarious actof Judas and is
translated appropriately as betray (betrayed, betraying) - Lk 22:4, 6, 21, 22,
48. Luke uses paradidomi to describe the successful"deliverance" ofJesus to
Pilate, a feat which was orchestratedby the evil, hypocritical Jewishreligious
leaders...
Luke 24:7+ saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of
sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.”

Luke 24:20+ and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to the
sentence ofdeath, and crucified Him.
All of Luke's uses of paradidomi - Lk. 1:2; Lk. 4:6; Lk. 9:44; Lk. 10:22;Lk.
12:58;Lk. 18:32;Lk. 20:20; Lk. 21:12;Lk. 21:16;Lk. 22:4; Lk. 22:6; Lk.
22:21;Lk. 22:22;Lk. 22:48; Lk. 23:25;Lk. 24:7; Lk. 24:20;Acts 3:13; Acts
6:14; Acts 7:42; Acts 8:3; Acts 12:4; Acts 14:26;Acts 15:26; Acts 15:40;Acts
16:4; Acts 21:11; Acts 22:4; Acts 27:1; Acts 28:17 = Luke's lastuse describes
Paul's being "deliveredas a prisoner from Jerusaleminto the hands of the
Romans" who by tradition executedhim even as they had His Lord, which
was the ultimate "imitation" of Christ Paul calledall believers to follow in 1
Cor 11:1-note (but of course Paul's death nor that of any Christian martyr
has no atoning value as did the Lord Jesus Christ's substitutionary sacrifice!)
Rule (746)(arche)strictly means primacy, the state of being first in
importance and here is in the contextof rank or position, so that this is the
person who has the authority and the power. He is over this domain (the
jurisdiction of Jerusalemand Judea).
Authority (1849)(exousia froméxesti = it is permitted or is lawful) means the
powerto do something, the authority or rightto do it and so it can be summed
up as the "right and the might," and from a human perspective refers to
attributes which have been granted to the person. In this case the right and
the might was granted to Pontius Pilate (for you skeptics see archaeology find
with his name) the "Sixth Roman procurator of Judea, appointed in Tiberius
Caesarin A.D. 25 or 26. The pagan historian Tacitus (Annals 15:44 - I cannot
find this exactquote but die find the relatedquote below)writes: "Christ,
while Tiberius was emperor, was capitally executedby the procurator Pontius
Pilate." The procurator was generallya Roman knight, acting under the
governorof a province as collectorofthe revenue, and judge in casesarising
under it. But Pontius Pilate had full military and judicial authority in Judea,

as being a small province attachedto the largerSyria; he was responsible to
the governorof Syria. (Faussett's Bible Dictionary)
Quote from Tacitus (Annals 15:44 - scroll down to lowerhalf of page) -
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastenedthe guilt and inflicted the
most exquisite tortures on a class hatedfor their abominations, called
Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin,
suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one
of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus
checkedfor the moment, againbroke out not only in Judaea, the first source
of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from
every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an
arrestwas first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information,
an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the
city, as of hatred againstmankind. Mockeryof every sort was added to their
deaths. Coveredwith the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished,
or were nailed to crosses, orwere doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as
a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.
Of the governor- Sometimes termed the prefect (chief magistrate)or
procurator (person authorized to actfor another) and here referring to Pilate
the imperial provincial officer assignedby Rome over this district. See article
on Pilate. See also Who was Pontius Pilate?
Luke 20:21 They questioned Him, saying, "Teacher, we know that You
speak and teachcorrectly, and You are not partial to any, but teachthe way
of God in truth.

Luke 20:21KJV And they askedhim, saying, Master, we know that thou
sayestand teachestrightly, neither acceptestthouthe person of any, but
teachestthe wayof God truly:
TeacherPs 12:2;55:21; Jer 42:2,3;Mt 22:16; 26:49,50;Mark 12:14;John 3:2
we know that You speak and teachcorrectly2 Cor 2:17; Galatians 1:10;1 Th
2:4,5
You are not partial to any 2 Chronicles 19:7; Job34:19; Acts 10:34,35;
Galatians 2:6
Parallelpassages - Matthew 22:15-22;Mark 12:13-17
Luke 20 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries
Luke 20:20-26 Guile, Government, and God - StevenCole
Luke 20:19-26 The Diagnosis ofthe Christ Rejecters -John MacArthur
THE SETUP:
FALSE FLATTERY
Flattery - excessiveorinsincere praise given especiallyto further one's own
interests ; praise that is not sincere but is intended to getyou something that
you want ; the actof giving excessive compliments, generallyfor the purpose
of ingratiating oneselfwith the subject. Historically, flattery has been used as
a standard form of discourse whenaddressing a king or queen.
Note that they make two attempts to set Jesus up: First, by flattery and second
by asking Him a double-edgedquestion.

Hughes adds that "Theirstrategywas perfumed with flattery. Flattery is the
reverse mirror-image of gossip. Gossipinvolves saying behind a person’s back
what you would never sayto his face. Flatteryis saying to a person’s face
what you would never saybehind his back. How ingratiating their language
was—like puffs from a perfume bottle: (squeeze) “Teacher, you’re always
right.” (squeeze)“Preacher, youdon’t play favorites. You show us the true
way.” How sweetit seemed!" Like politicians, preachers are peculiarly
susceptible to flattery. It is a professionaltitillation. A preacher, extravagantly
flattered by a fawning parishioner, responds, “What you sayis very kind, and
of course, untrue. But tell me more about your thoughts …”Of course, Jesus,
the Preacher, smelledit for what it was—the stenchof duplicity. Jesus well
knew the wisdom of the Word: “a flattering mouth works ruin” (Proverbs
26:28). “Whoever flatters his neighbor is spreading a net for his feet”
(Proverbs 29:5). “May the LORD cut off all flattering lips” (Psalm12:3).
(Ibid)
They questioned Him, saying "teacher, we know that You speak and teach
correctly- They are saying we know Your teaching is "orthodox"
("correctly" = orthos as discussedbelow). Well, if they knew that, then why
didn't they believe it? Of course, the heart of the issue is always an issue of the
heart! They had spiritual "heart disease,"whichis the worstkind, because
only a supernatural heart transplant can cure this eternally fatal condition.
Mark 12:14 has "we know that you are truthful" which is alethes signifying
that He was true in the sense that He could not lie. How fascinating since these
tricksters are "lying through their teeth" as we might say today!
Steven Cole - Luke states that these religious leaders sent spies who pretended
to be righteous or sincere, but their secretmotive was to catchJesus in some
statementso that they could deliver Him up to the rule and authority of the
governor. That way, they could look goodto the people (“We didn’t do it!”)

and let the governordispose of this troublesome teacher. Their flattery is
ironic, because eventhough they did not believe what they were saying, it was
totally true: Jesus did “speak and teachcorrectly.” He was not “partial to
any.” He did “teachthe way of God in truth.” If these hypocrites had believed
what they were saying, they would have submitted themselves to Jesus!(Luke
20:20-26 Guile, Government, and God)
Kistemakeron teacher - As to "Teacher,"this form of address was certainly
correct. Notonly do the evangelists constantlydescribe Jesus as such, but so
do also many others (see Mark 4:38; 5:35; 9:17,38;10:17,20,35;John 3:2;
etc.). In fact, Jesus himself statedthat teaching was one of his main activities
(Mark 14:49;cf. Matt. 26:55;Luke 21:37; John 18:20). He was the greatest
Teachereverto walk the earth. Being God's true Prophet he taught men as
the Fatherhad taught him (John 1:18; 3:34; 8:28; 12:49). It was a pity that
those who now addressedhim as "Teacher" did not accepthis teaching.
(BakerNew TestamentCommentary – Exposition of the GospelAccording to
Luke)
Teacher(1320)(didaskalosfrom didasko = teachto shape will of one being
taught by content of what is taught <> cp didaskalía)is one who provides
instruction or systematicallyimparts truth, which certainly is a perfect "job
description" of Jesus and should be the same description for all who claim to
follow in His steps. When you teach, do you teachsystematically? When you
preach, do you preach verse by verse (expositionally)? This title reservedfor
the most respectedand honored rabbis.
THE FLATTERY
BEGINS
You speak and teachcorrectly - Jesus saw through their words - true words
(about Jesus)from these hypocrites.

Teach(1321)(didasko from dáo= know or teach;English = didactic) means to
provide instruction or information in a formal or informal setting. It is the
word that is used to refer to a choir director who trains a choir over a long
period of rehearsals until they are able to perform. And so didasko describes
the ability to pass on truth in a systematic manner so that one receives it,
implements it, and experiences a change ofbehavior.
Correctly(3723)(orthós from orthos 3717 = right, straight, correct;English
orthopedics - straight bones;orthodoxy - correctdoctrine) means rightly,
Rightly, plainly (Mk 7:35 = "he beganspeaking plainly"). Orthos is used most
often in the NT in a figurative moral/ethical sense - twice by Jesus and once by
His hypocritical enemies (Lk 7:43; Lk 10:28; Lk 20:21).
Orthós - Mk. 7:35; Lk. 7:43; Lk. 10:28;Lk. 20:21 Orthós - 18x in 17v in the
Septuagint Ge 4:7; Ge 40:16;Ex. 18:17; Nu 27:7; Dt. 5:28; Dt. 18:17; 1 Sa
16:17;Pr. 14:2; Pr. 16:7; Ezek. 22:30;
Genesis 4:7 “If you do well (Lxx = orthós), will not your countenance be
lifted up? And if you do not do well (Lxx = orthós), sin is crouching at the
door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.”
Proverbs 14:2 He who walks in his uprightness (Lxx = orthós)fears the
LORD, But he who is devious in his ways despises Him.
Stein on not partial - The flattery of Jesus continued. Compare Acts 10:34;
Gal 2:6. Jesus was no respecterof persons. Yet this very quality for which
Jesus’opponents commended him is why Jesus ate with tax collectors and
sinners and one of the reasons his opponents sought to kill him. (New
American Commentary – Volume 24:Luke)

R M Edgar - They own to His face that He was too brave to make distinctions
among men or to accepttheir persons. In other words, their testimony clearly
is that, like God his Father, Jesus was "no respecterofpersons." (Acts
10:34KJV) No one is fit to be a teacherof truth who panders to men's tastes
or respects their persons. Only the impartial mood and mind can deal with
truth truthfully. In the hollow flattery of the Pharisees we find rich testimony
to the excellencyof Jesus.
You are not partial to any - Notpartial is two words, lambano (receive)and
prosopon(face) so they are say literally You "do not receive a face." (See
similar description in Matthew's parallelbelow). This assessmentis accurate,
for one of the attributes of God, and Jesus is God, is the attribute of
Impartiality which speaks ofGod's attribute whereby He treats all men and
women equally, not demonstrating favoritism. In short, God does not show
prejudice either towards or againstany person.
Kistemakeron not partial - "You do not look on anyone's countenance." They
mean, "No matter to whom you speak, whatyou sayis still the same. You do
not allow yourself to be swayedby rich or poor, learned or unlearned, master
or slave...." (Ibid)
MacArthur - The Lord did not adjust His message basedon the kind of
response He receivedor who He was talking to. He did not equivocate because
of human opinion or possible consequences.
Rieneckeronnot partial - Used in the expression“to acceptthe face,” which is
a Hebraism meaning “to regard w. favor,” “to show partiality” (Geldenhuys).
Pres. indicates the habitual practice.
Th’ eternallaw before Him stands;
His justice, with impartial hands,

Divides to all their due reward,
Or by the scepteror the sword.
(Isaac Watts - Play hymn)
Matthew has
And they (PHARISEES - Mt 22:15)sent their disciples (mathetes = cf Mk 2:18
= There were two Pharisaic theologicalseminaries in Jerusalem - House of
Hillel and House of Shammai) to Him, along with the Herodians (partisans
not family members - see note above. Cp similar collusionin Mk 3:6), saying,
“Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teachthe wayof God in truth,
and defer to no one;for You are not partial (two words - blepo = look +
prosopon= face - Vivid an idiom, literally ‘to see into the face'= to judge on
the basis of external appearances,rendera superficial judgment) to any -
same idiom in Mk 12:14 below). (Mt 22:16)
Question- Beloved, aren't you glad our Jesus is not impressed by external
show or lavish appearance!He accepts us as we come to him, beggars in
desperate needof a holy handout of grace!
Mark has
They came and said to Him, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful
(alethes)and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any, but teachthe way
of God in truth. Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, ornot? (Mark 12:14)

But teach(didasko)the way of God in truth - Three times in this verse they
emphasize Jesus as one who teaches.Theysaid it but did not believe Him
when He said “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the
Father but through Me." (John 14:6).
Kistemakeron the way - The word way, as here used, indicates the manner in
which God wants people to think and to live. It is his will for man's heart,
mind, and behavior. They are saying, therefore, "You are a teacheron whom
people candepend; you faithfully declare the will of Godfor doctrine and
life." (BakerNew TestamentCommentary – Exposition of the Gospel
According to Luke)
This phrase wayof God in truth is found in all three Gospels - Mt 22:16, Mk
12:14, Luke 20:21. In addition, Luke uses the phrase the way of God in Acts
18:26 where Paul explains the way more fully to Apollos (Mt 18:24-25).
NET Note:Teachthe way of God in accordance withthe truth. Very few
comments are as deceitful as this one;they did not really believe this at all.
The question was specificallydesignedto trap Jesus.
Swete on the Herodian spies'flattery - The preamble is skillfully arranged
with the view of disarming suspicion, and at the same time preventing escape.
So independent and fearless a teacherof truth could not from fear of
consequenceseitherrefuse an answerto honestand perplexed inquiries, or
concealHis real opinion … There is veiled irony in the words. He had shown
little considerationfor men of learning and hierarchicalrank; doubtless He
would be equally indifferent to the views of the Procuratorand the Emperor
himself; when the truth was concerned, His independence would assertitself
with fearless impartiality.”

Pay Taxes to Caesar or God? Jesus' Answer to a Trap

Pay Taxes to Caesar or God? Jesus' Answer to a Trap

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Pay Taxes to Caesar or God? Jesus' Answer to a Trap

Similaire à Pay Taxes to Caesar or God? Jesus' Answer to a Trap (20)

Plus de GLENN PEASE

Plus de GLENN PEASE (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Pay Taxes to Caesar or God? Jesus' Answer to a Trap