This past week I attended the Broadway musical Dear Evan Hansen, which was spectacular (one of the best musicals I’ve attended) largely because it spoke to the deep desire we have as humans to be seen and loved.
It came on the heels of reading, earlier in the week, the account of the Pharisees and Herodians testing Jesus regarding the payment of taxes to Caesar. Mark 12:13-17 tells the story:
Then they sent to him some Pharisees and some Herodians to trap him in what he said. And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why are you putting me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me see it.” And they brought one. Then he said to them, “Whose head is this, and whose title?” They answered, “The emperor’s.” Jesus said to them, “Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were utterly amazed at him.
Mark 12:13-17, NRSV
This story is usually referenced as an example of some sort of a two-tiered teaching on economics when people talk about the implications of Jesus’ social teachings. It is frequently used to suggest that God’s system is over there, and our economic system (usually captialism) is over here, separating the two. However, I’d like to look at it a bit differently, if possible, stemming from the comment that “they were utterly amazed at him,” because, to me, reading that text through the typical lens of separate economic systems just doesn’t seem to be that amazing. Why were the Pharisees and Herodians so amazed by this?
The Pharisees and Herodians thought they were going to be clever and get Jesus to either repudiate the paying of tribute to the emperor, thus breaking the law and revolting against the emperor; or declare the legitimacy of Roman rule through the payment of taxes, placing himself at odds with the Jewish longing for Zion. Jesus, however, turns the tables on them by asking them to bring him a denarius (Roman coin).
Jesus then asks the Pharisees and Herodians whose image is on the coin, and whose title. The Greek word here is εἰκών, or icon/image in English. His testers then state that it is Caesar’s image and title on the coin, so Jesus states that they should return to Caesar that which is Caesar’s property, at which point they become amazed.
So, why are they amazed? I’d suggest the answer to that question requires a reference to Genesis 1:27:
So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Genesis 1:27, NRSV
Here, in the LXX (Greek version of the Old Testament), the word translated as image is εἰκών, the same word used in Mark’s telling of the “render unto Caesar” story. So, if the coins with Caesar’s image on them are his property, then by extension humanity, which bears God’s image, not Caesar’s, is not. In one fell swoop Jesus emphasized that, while Caesar’s kingdom made claim to ultimately worthless material, God’s kingdom makes claim to all of humanity. And what does this King do with his possession? He gives them freedom, lavishes grace upon them, loves them, and gives his very life for them. Such a statement – along with its implications for economics, politics, and class – is truly amazing.
- What people, powers, and structures make claim to us?
- What are the implications for systems which try to divide us into insiders/outsiders, worthy/unworthy, etc.?
- What are the implications of this for our class structure?
- What are the implications for capitalism, with its treatment of humans as a commodity to feed an economic engine?
- What are the various ways we seek to objectify and use people for our own purposes? Could this be construed as theft?
This is a new insight for me. I love it. Thank you. I really dislike current industry attitudes to employees as so much fodder. Where businesses act entitled and expect governments to provide all the necessary education and training, while the businesses themselves invest very little but want a ready-made cog. Well perhaps not all businesses, but it feels more and more like that. And then there are the businesses where, once upon a time, everyone working there was an employee from the cleaners to the CEO. But now cleaners are outsourced, contracts to the lowest bidder, and the cleaners get poorer pay and conditions etc than they had previously.. it’s infuriating.
Which is why it was so refreshing to read about this company just recently : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-51332811
Do we believe in a Zion society as the ideal? Should we work for the ideal that there be no poor?
CEO income has risen 940% since 1978Typical worker compensation has risen only 12% during that time Moving the opposite direction from a zion society.
More than 12% of the population of USA live below the poverty line. 38 million people. The poverty line for 2 parents with 2 children is $24,500.
If the GDP is devided by the population the average per person is $60,000, so the family of 4 would have $240,000 if money were distributed evenly. No poor?
We should be attempting to move our country toward a more equitable society.
First you need a society willing to agree this is important to do. Quite a lot of countries agree this is something worth doing.
The things that work are making education equally available.
Have powerful unions
A living wage. The minimum wage is raised, and if that still is not at the living wage rate you have reverse taxationntop it up, or some other form of welfare
A progressive tax system with a high threshold(above the poverty level).
Universal health care.
There is a global happiness index which relates to how equitable a society is along with income, healthy life expectancy, having someone to count on in times of trouble, generosity, freedom and trust, with the latter measured by the absence of corruption in business and government.
The first 5 countries a northern european, then comes Canada, New Zealand, Australia.
The USA is a story of reduced happiness. In 2007 the USA ranked 3rd among the OECD countries; in 2016 it came 19th. The reasons are declining social support and increased corruption (see Chapter 7) and it is these same factors that explain why the Nordic countries do so much better.
If we could vote for a more equitable country, and attemt to make our country happier for the common good, I thing we would feel better, it would be a worthy goal.
The highest paid employee should not be paid more than 20 times the lowest.
Sorry I missed that out.
I love the post and I think the insight is spot on. The discussion questions, not so much. Jesus is telling us that we’re to render ourselves to God. The discussion questions make it sound like he’s just given instruction on how society and economic systems should be structured. It’s a pretty big stretch to use it as a social justice commentary, especially considering that the whole point of Jesus’ answer is to side-step that exact question.
I really enjoyed this. This same premise is described in Jesus the Christ Chapter 31.
“Every human soul is stamped with the image and superscription of God, however blurred and indistinct the line may have become through the corrosion or attrition of sin….. Render unto the world the stamped pieces that are made legally current by the insignia of worldly powers, and give unto God and His service, yourselves – the divine mintage of his eternal realm.”
Thank you for the comments, everyone.
Martin, it does not seem that Jesus was sidestepping the topic, but rather turning it all on it’s head. If God is King what are the implications for our human-made governments and economic systems? If God stakes claim to us, what are the implications for our relationships, power structures, class systems, boundary markers, or in/out groups? Jesus’ rejection of the powers and principalities (as Paul claimed) of the day was, and is, most certainly a social justice commentary – one I think we frequently overlook in our attempts (varied, and by all of us) to justify or minimize the things we do.
Cody, when I said that Jesus tried to sidestep the whole issue, I’m not suggesting that he doesn’t care about such things or that they don’t matter. What I am saying is that the instructions Jesus gave were almost (if not entirely) exclusively to the individual. He was always trying to get people to change in their hearts, he was not trying to change the system that they were stuck in. That was the whole point of rendering to Caesar that which is Caeser’s and turning the other cheek. That wasn’t because he felt the Romans should rule over them (which they felt was socially unjust), but because it wasn’t his primary concern. You could even make an argument that he felt his people should just submit to the unjust Romans (you know, he embraced the tax collectors and counseled to go two miles when compelled rather than just one), but I don’t think that was really his intention either. He specifically wanted to turn the focus inward rather than outward. He wanted to change the person, not the system. Your discussion questions do the opposite.
Social justice isn’t about how you personally relate to people in their various circumstances, but about how the system subjects and abuses those under it, and how others within the system take advantage of it. Social justice is about trying to change the system and other people to fit one’s world view about what is fair and equitable. I’m not saying this is a bad thing, but it is literally the exact thing Jesus was sidestepping. He wasn’t trying to change the system. He wasn’t about overthrowing the Romans and he wasn’t about overthrowing socialism or capitalism. He was about changing the people. As the people changed, they would change their behavior. When they became unified (of their own free will), they could collectively act as did the early saints to decide to have all things in common or help the poor or whatever, but that would be from within their own freely organized collective, not from any imposition on others external to their collective. It was never a call to revolution. The only time Jesus bucked the system was to rail against the hypocritical priests and teachers whose teachings directly contradicted what he was trying to teach.
While I’m all for religious enlightenment informing our political outlooks, it bothers me when either conservatives or progressives try to co-opt Jesus’ words to justify however they want the system to be changed. Jesus wasn’t trying to change the system. He was trying to change us. We can try to change the system, and I’m not saying we shouldn’t, but we should be humble enough to acknowledge that we’re moving past what Jesus was trying to do and are merely trying to act according to the light and knowledge we think we have. I realize that’s what you’re trying to do, but what I see is a jump from what Jesus said directly to a discussion systems and structures, and they’re just not related.
Martin, when one takes Jesus’ teachings about embracing the outsider, the downtrodden, loving one’s neighbor as oneself, etc. into context (the full scope), and couple it with the texts of the prophets in the OT (e.g., Amos, Malachi, Jeremiah), the Psalms, or read the letter of James and the letters of Paul, the idea that Jesus wasn’t advocating for the overturning of our human-made political and economical systems is unsustainable. For sure, he wasn’t advocating for violent revolution, but it was revolution nonetheless. To those who possessed some portion of power (the elders and scribes, for example) he called them whited sepulchers and vipers for their oppression, and said they devoured widow’s houses in matters of money.
One can scarcely read a Psalm or something from Amos without reading scathing condemnations of Israelite leadership’s betrayal of the weak and poor. It’s written in Israel’s history, where the younger brother consistently receives the inheritance, against the prevailing social norms of the time (where eldest received the inheritance and the youngest was dependent upon the eldest’s grace for his survival).
There’s a reason the East India Company banned the recitation of the Magnificat during evening prayers – the message of the poor being lifted up and the rich/powerful being sent away empty is scandalous and revolutionary. It’s a threat to the power structures which stand in defiance of that kingdom.
Keep in mind that Jesus was primarily speaking to those without any political power. They couldn’t change their political or economic systems. Jesus described how they could work to change those systems, given the limited power they had, but it seems bizarre to similarly restrict ourselves to only acts of piety when we have political and economic influence to move our systems in a more just and equitable direction. Certainly we should approach such efforts with humility, recognizing our imperfect perspectives, but it beggars belief to claim that Jesus wasn’t trying to change “the system” – that’s the very essence of declaring a *new kingdom*, Jesus being declared King, Jesus being called Son of God – such declarations put him completely at odds with the power of the empire.