Sermon: Ritual, Piety, and Love

Wooden Love Sign

Lectionary: Proper 25(A)

Texts: Leviticus 19:1-2, 15-18; Matthew 22:34-46

Jesus was not against rituals and traditions of his Jewish religious context. He observed feast days and Sabbaths. He paid the temple tax. He wasn’t against bringing offerings and sacrifices to the temple. That Jesus’ interpretations of the law were at odds with other schools of interpretation would not have been unusual. Rabbis of various schools frequently disagreed with one another and debated their viewpoints.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, “I say to you that unless your righteousness is greater than the righteousness of the legal experts and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:20 CEB)

Jesus’ objection was not about the law or the desire and attempts of the legal experts and Pharisees to observe the law. The objection of Jesus was in the reason and goal of observing the law.

Here I need to disabuse us of the notion that Jewish religion was legalistic. We see portrayals of Pharisees and scribes, and they are often interpreted as focused on the law so that they can earn favor with God. This is the mainstream Christian interpretation of Pharisees and scribes for centuries into today.

But Jews would disagree with this interpretation. In Israelite history, the commandments and laws come only after deliverance. They are already God’s chosen people when they are given the laws. The laws were not given as a means for the people to become delivered. Rather, the laws were given as concrete ways in which God’s people could draw ever closer to God, to express their gratitude to God, and how the people could keep from offending God who had graced them with deliverance from oppression.

This might be likened to an orphan who is adopted into a wealthy family. The adoptee has done nothing to deserve this. They have not first signed a contract detailing their responsibilities to the adopting family. They simply become part of the family. Only after adoption and belonging do they slowly begin to have expectations made of them as a family member. These are not rules that the adoptee must keep to remain a family member. These are rules that are simply expected to be followed as a responsible member of the family. They help contribute to the well-being and harmony of the family. Disregarding the rules and disobedience does not make them any less family, but there are consequences that reach out and impact the entire household.

The problem that Jesus saw with the Pharisees and scribes was that their reason and goal for keeping the law did not go far enough. Throughout the Matthew’s gospel, the criticism of their piety is that they were doing it mostly to look pious and gain favor and honor from other people.[1] This is why Jesus called them out as hypocrites—play-actors.

Today’s gospel reading began, “When the Pharisees heard that Jesus had left the Sadducees speechless, they met together. One of them, a legal expert, tested him. ‘Teacher, what is the greatest commandment in the Law?’” (Matthew 22:34-36 CEB)

The question itself is relatively harmless. This was a common question rabbis asked one another. The law was divided into greater commandments and lesser commandments and clarifying the hierarchy of commandments was important when one commandment came into conflict with another.

In Mark’s version of this encounter, the questioner appears to be genuine and sincere in wanting to learn, and Jesus commends him.[2] But Matthew rewrites the story and changes the motives of the questioner.[3] In this way, the story fits into a series, found in Matthew chapters 21 and 22, where Jesus comes into conflict with the authorities.

This small digression highlights how the gospel writers were less concerned with recording facts and history, and more concerned with using Jesus’ story to record their theological perspectives.

How Jesus responds is of ultimate importance. R. T. France, in his commentary on Matthew, writes,

Since the five books of Moses contained, by rabbinic calculation, 613 commandments, some means of assessing their relative importance would be widely appreciated. But to provide this must involve choosing one legal principle over others, and this carried the risk that other teachers, who might have made a different choice, could accuse their colleague of belittling the importance of some other equally scriptural principle. Any answer must risk pleasing some at the expense of alienating others, and therein perhaps is the element of “test” from an unsympathetic dialogue partner, particularly in view of the suspicion already noted in 5:17 that Jesus had come to “abolish” the law. If he differed radically from mainstream Jewish orthodoxy, this question ought to reveal it.[4]

Jesus responds by quoting, first, from Deuteronomy, and next from Leviticus.

³⁷ He replied, “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your being, and with all your mind. ³⁸ This is the first and greatest commandment. ³⁹ And the second is like it: You must love your neighbor as you love yourself. ⁴⁰ All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commands.” (Matthew 22:37-40 CEB)

We might see a potential hierarchy of commands when Jesus says, “the second is like it.” But what Jesus meant by this is that the second is of the same quality, i.e., equal in value, to the first.

France explains Jesus’ response:

Jesus’ choice of Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18 is notable for two reasons. In the first place, by focusing on “love” rather than on more tangible regulations to be obeyed it lifts the discussion above merely adjudicating between competing rules, and gives the priority to a principle which has potential application to virtually every aspect of religious and communal life. When Jesus declares that “the whole law and the prophets” depend on this principle, he is repeating the point he made in 7:12, “this is the law and the prophets.”[5]

Jesus, by avoiding pointing out specific laws, but rather to a principle that undergirds the entirety of laws, he avoids the trap that was set to divide the crowd and his followers and by extension, shame him.

There is a similar story in Matthew, Mark, and Luke where a lawyer asks Jesus how to gain eternal life.[6] In Matthew’s and Mark’s versions, Jesus responds by listing several commandments. When the lawyer says he has kept the commandments, Jesus responds by telling him that he lacks one thing: give away his wealth to help the poor. The questioner goes away disappointed because he cannot give up his wealth.

The version found in Luke is intriguing, because instead of Jesus listing commandments, he asks the lawyer what the law says and how he interprets it. In response, the lawyer answers by quoting the very same texts from Deuteronomy and Leviticus that Jesus quotes in the Matthew story. (It seems that Luke merged two stories to create a new one.) But the lawyer is not satisfied and asks, “Who is my neighbor?” This becomes the impetus by which Jesus tells the parable of the Good Samaritan and the meaning of “neighbor.”

Although we, along with Luke, tend to criticize the lawyer for asking “who is my neighbor?”, it could be seen as a reasonable and justifiable question. Here is a portion of today’s Leviticus reading with my emphasis on how “neighbor” could be understood.

¹⁵ You must not act unjustly in a legal case. Do not show favoritism to the poor or deference to the great; you must judge your fellow Israelites fairly. ¹⁶ Do not go around slandering your people. Do not stand by while your neighbor’s blood is shed; I am the LORD. ¹⁷ You must not hate your fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your fellow Israelite strongly, so you don’t become responsible for his sin. ¹⁸ You must not take revenge nor hold a grudge against any of your people; instead, you must love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD. (Leviticus 19:15-18 CEB)

As you have heard, the immediate context of the “love your neighbor” strongly favors fellow Israelites. However, when we keep reading, the text goes on to expand the definition of who fits into “neighbor.”

³³ When immigrants live in your land with you, you must not cheat them. ³⁴ Any immigrant who lives with you must be treated as if they were one of your citizens. You must love them as yourself, because you were immigrants in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 19:33-34 CEB)

What Jesus does with his parable of the Good Samaritan is to further expand the boundaries of “neighbor.” It is no longer just people of your own tribe and nation; it is no longer those who live in your land; “neighbor” extends to those outside of your family, tribe, nation, and those within your borders. Everyone in the world is your neighbor, including those that you consider enemies. Jesus introduced this expansive definition in his Sermon on the Mount.

⁴³ “You have heard that it was said, You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy. ⁴⁴ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who harass you ⁴⁵ so that you will be acting as children of your Father who is in heaven. He makes the sun rise on both the evil and the good and sends rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. ⁴⁶ If you love only those who love you, what reward do you have? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same? ⁴⁷ And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing? Don’t even the Gentiles do the same? ⁴⁸ Therefore, just as your heavenly Father is complete in showing love to everyone, so also you must be complete. (Matthew 5:43-48 CEB)

Jesus criticizes religious ritual and piety not because they are useless, but because too many people stop there. And that is the danger that all of us face. It is much easier to fall on rituals and piety as the full expression of love to God. But Jesus taught ritual and piety are insufficient. When Jesus said, “Unless your righteousness is greater than the righteousness of the legal experts and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven,”[7] he meant that the purpose of ritual and piety was to become more like God and learn to fully love as God does. If religion, rituals, and piety don’t lead to us becoming more sensitive to the needs of all and to become willing to sacrifice ourselves to meet those needs that we encounter, then our religion and religious activities are worthless.

Richard Floyd writes in a commentary,

Our culture entices us to begin and end with a kind of expressive individualism: What are my needs, my rights, my desires? What will bring me self-actualization and contentment? This kind of solipsistic thinking contributes to the disintegration of society… and the impoverishment of our planet…

Congregations are not immune to the acids of this expressive individualism. Many congregations are tempted to turn from self to God without consideration of the neighbor. Thus we begin with my needs as a sinner and ends with God’s salvation in Christ, cleanly circumventing the hurting neighbor (which must be understood to include the whole of creation). Other congregations are tempted to turn from self to neighbor without consideration of God. Thus their ethical passion easily dissipates into self-righteousness or despair.[8]

True religion needs both the vertical and horizontal dimensions. Rituals and piety help us draw closer to God and conforms us increasingly to God’s desires for the world. God’s desires for the world are enacted and made concrete by our activities in loving the whole of God’s creation. But lest we become self-sufficient and self-aggrandizing, we return to religion to worship and acknowledge God as the source and goal, the beginning  and end, of love for the world.

In the name of God who created the world,

In the name of God who sacrificed for the world,

And in the name of God who discomforts our narrowness of love, Amen.

References

Enns, P. (2026, October 24). Pete Enns - Pete Ruins Leviticus. Retrieved from The Bible for Normal People: https://thebiblefornormalpeople.com/episodes/episode-204-pete-enns-pete-ruins-leviticus

Enns, P., & Barker, J. (2026, October 24). James Barker - Writing and Rewriting the Gospels. Retrieved from The Bible for Normal People: https://thebiblefornormalpeople.com/episodes/episode-337-james-barker-writing-and-rewriting-the-gospels

France, R. T. (2007). New International Commentary on the New Testament: Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Garland, D. E. (2001). Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing.

Jarvis, C. A., & Johnson, E. E. (2013). Feasting on the Gospels--Matthew, Volume 2: A Feasting on the Word Commentary. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Wilson, W. T. (2022). Eerdmans Critical Commentary: The Gospel of Matthew, Volume 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Wilson, W. T. (2022). The Gospel of Matthew: Volume 2 (Matthew 14-28). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

 

 

---

[1] C.f., Matthew 6:1-2, 5, 16; 23:2-6.

[2] Mark 12:28-34.

[3] (Enns & Barker, James Barker - Writing and Rewriting the Gospels, 2026)

[4] (France, 2007)

[5] (France, 2007)

[6] Luke 10:25-37; Matthew 19:16-19; Mark 10:17-19.

[7] Matthew 5:20 (CEB)

[8] (Jarvis & Johnson, 2013)

Sermon: Who Is Jesus?

Lectionary: Proper 25(A)

Texts: Leviticus 19:1-2, 15-18; Matthew 22:34-46

Introduction

Who is Jesus and what is his manifesto? These are the two central questions that swirl around Jerusalem during the week starting with Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem and his crucifixion.

Our reading today comes from a part of that final week. Mark’s account has a more precise timeline than Matthew. Days blend in Matthew’s account. Also, the sequence of events differs between the accounts. Over the next little while, I will point out some of these differences. Matthew borrowed from Mark but put his own spin to the traditions around the story of Jesus. Matthew arranged things to better suit his purposes. I think that too often, we have been told and taught that these are historical records, but they are not. They contain history, but they are primarily devotional memories of Jesus.

So…

Setting Up the Context

Jesus had entered Jerusalem on Sunday where the crowds that were accompanying Jesus had declared him to be “Son of David.”[1] On the other hand, the rest of the people in Jerusalem thought him to be a prophet from Nazareth.[2]

In Matthew Jesus goes to the Temple on the same day and drives out the merchants from the grounds. In Mark, this occurs on the following day.[3] In Matthew’s account the children who then approached Jesus declared him to be “the Son of David.”[4] He leaves Jerusalem and stays overnight in Bethany.[5]

On Tuesday, Jesus returns to Jerusalem and along the way he curses a fig tree. In Matthew’s account, the tree immediately withers.[6] In Mark’s account, the cursing of the tree occurs before the temple cleansing, and the withering occurs the following day.[7]

The primary conflict that Jesus encounters with the religious authorities occurs on this same day. It begins with them asking Jesus about where he receives his authority.[8] Even though it does not directly question his identity, it is indeed a question about his origins and identity. Jesus turns the question back on his questioners and asks under whose authority John the Baptizer preached. They refuse to answer, seeing that both the affirmative and negative responses would place them in a bind. As a result, Jesus too, refuses to answer the question that was posed to him.

This is followed by Jesus speaking in parables, which is followed by a question about paying taxes posed by some of the Pharisees in cahoots with some Herodians, and then a question about the resurrection posed by the Sadducees.[9] No one can trip up Jesus into giving a compromising answer.

Question Asked and Question Posed

It is in this setting that the question about the Greatest Commandment is posed to Jesus. In Matthew, it is posed as a hostile challenge to Jesus.[10] In Mark, the questioner does not appear to have hidden motives, and appears possibly to even be friendly.[11]

In Matthew’s account, Jesus’ response to the question of the Greatest Commandment is then followed by his asking a question about “David’s Son” to the questioners; and these might be seen as the climax of the series of conflict episodes. The series of stories ends with, “No one was able to give him an answer, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions.”[12]

The Question of Jesus’ Identity

The question of Jesus’ identity begins Matthew’s gospel. The gospel immediately identifies Jesus as the Messiah and the son of David. It provides a genealogy in which David is central (the fourteen generation divisions of the genealogy is a reference to David).[13] The irony is that Jesus is a son of David only through adoption.[14] This question of Jesus’ identity and mission has come to a head during this final, Passion week.

At first glance, the two stories seem rather unrelated. The first one, about the Greatest Commandment, is likely one of the most known and appears to be about as straightforward as a story can be. The second one seems odd and the logic behind Jesus’ question seems opaque.

Word Linkage in Hebrew Literature

One of the ways in which two seemingly different subjects are linked together by ancient authors is the use of a common word or phrase between the two sections. The two sections in today’s text have the word and title “Lord” common to both. A key to interpretation and understanding why the two sections can be related is to read the text through the lens of the word “Lord.”[15]

The Greatest Commandment(s)

Jesus is asked which is the greatest commandment. His answer comes from the Shema prayer, one of the centerpieces of Jewish religion. “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.”[16] But then, Jesus continues by adding a second commandment. “And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”[17] And Jesus follows it with a commentary of his own, “On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”[18]

First, Jesus affirms that religious traditions that help draw a person closer to God through worship and rituals is valuable and necessary. These are ways through which a created being can gain understanding of the awe and holiness of the Creator and their relationship to God. It is to be expressed through love of the entirety of being toward God.

Love, in English, has the connotation of affection and feelings. But love, when found in the Bible, is much more than that. It can include affections and feelings, but it is also loyalty and total devotion. And it must include activities that express total devotion. Love for God cannot be merely intellectual, and cannot be merely meditation and prayer, or individual devotion and worship. Love for God includes outward manifestations of devotion to God.

And religion might be easier if it stopped there. It would be easier if holiness was a set of rules that defined how to keep from becoming defiled. And it is easy for religions to devolve into a set of such rules and outward expressions of devotion.

But Jesus does not leave things that simple. He quotes a sentence from part of the holiness code found in Leviticus. To be holy as God is holy is to relate to others as God relates to God’s creation. Love for neighbor stands at the same level as love for God. The two are not identical, but one cannot be expressed apart from the other. When a person calls God “Lord” that means that person has agreed to follow God’s commands, and that includes not just devotion and loyalty for God, but devotion and loyalty to one’s fellow human neighbors.

Whose Son Is Jesus?

After answering the question posed to him, Jesus asks a question of his own. “What do you think of the Messiah? Whose son is he?”[19] This question brings things back full circle to Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, and for Matthew’s gospel account, the very reason it was written.

The Pharisees respond, “The son of David.” This answer is correct, but incomplete.

Jesus follows up with a riddle. “How is it then that David by the Spirit calls him Lord, saying, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet”’? If David thus calls him Lord, how can he be his son?”[20]

It needs to be noted that the longed-for Messiah had no inherent connotation of divinity in Jewish understanding. Messiah simply means Anointed One, and in theory, it could be applied to any individual.

The Messiah from the line of David was most likely expected to be in the pattern of David, a warrior and a king; one who would defeat foreign occupiers and fulfill the nationalistic desires of the people.

Adding New Interpretation to Scripture

What Jesus does is redefine the identity of the Messiah. He uses the quote from Psalm 110 to show that the conquering descendant of David would be someone that David would and could call as “Lord.”[21] To call someone “Lord” necessarily means that person or being is greater than the other. No sovereign would call one of their descendants “Lord.”[22] So, is the Messiah David’s son or not? If the Messiah is someone greater than David, who could it possibly be?

The religious leaders have no response and dare not ask any more questions of Jesus. From this side of Christ and as Christians, we assume that they should have known the answer and just didn’t want to admit that Jesus was son of David, the Messiah, and Lord. But perhaps that is not being entirely fair. There is no surviving record that Psalm 110 was viewed as a Messianic psalm.[23] The use of Psalm 110 as pointing to the Messiah, and Jesus in particular, is a New Testament innovation.[24]

Perhaps this was Jesus’ cryptic way of self-identifying as Messiah and Lord. That through it he wanted to break his audience out of traditional understandings and expectations of the Messiah. Or, to look at it another way, if you claim God as your Lord, if David called one of his descendants Lord, if the Messiah is the son of David, and if Jesus is being proclaimed as the son of David, and if Jesus is performing signs that signify authority that appears to be straight from God, perhaps one should consider the possibility that Jesus is the Messiah, and if the Messiah, then also Lord.

Conclusion

If one concludes that Jesus is Lord, then up to this point he has lived and exemplified what it means to love God and to love neighbor. And over the next few days, Jesus will further live out what it means to be fully devoted and loyal to humanity and loyal to God’s desires to be with humankind, to the very acceptance of death on a cross.

If God’s love and holiness means being devoted to the good of even one’s enemies, ones that would torture and kill you, what does that mean for those who claim that Jesus is Lord? If God’s love and holiness means being devoted to the good of even one’s enemies, to ones that would torture and kill you, what does that mean for those who claim that Jesus is Lord? Are we willing to take up our crosses and follow him? In this day where hostilities are real, to encourage and promote division is encouraged, where violence is all too frequent, and where historical enmities flare into wanton murder, how shall we live? Who is our Lord?

Works Cited

Feasting on the Gospels: A Feasting on the Word Commentary. (2013). Feasting on the Gospels: Matthew, Volume 2. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Feasting on the Word: preaching the revised common lectionary. (2011). Feasting on the Word: Year A, Volume 4. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

James, J. T. (2023). Psalms for Normal People. Harleysville, PA: The Bible for Normal People.

McGrath, J. F. (2023). The A to Z of the New Testament: Things Experts Know That Everyone Else Should Too. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

---

[1] Matthew 21:9.

[2] Matthew 21:10-11.

[3] Mark 11:12, 15.

[4] Matthew 21:15.

[5] Matthew 21:17.

[6] Matthew 21:18-20.

[7] Mark 11:12-14, 20-21.

[8] Matthew 21:23.

[9] Matthew 21:28-33.

[10] Matthew 22:34-40.

[11] Mark 12:28-34.

[12] Matthew 22:46.

[13] Gematria was used to denote significance of names. (McGrath, 2023, pp. 25-26)

[14] No, Luke’s genealogy doesn’t provide a tracing back to David through Mary. (McGrath, 2023, p. 28)

[15] “Having identified ‘Love the Lord’ as the greatest of all commandments, Jesus next probes the term ‘Lord’ with his Pharisaic interlocutors.” (Feasting on the Word: preaching the revised common lectionary, 2011, pp. Kindle, approximate location 7278)

[16] Matthew 27:37, from Deuteronomy 6:5.

[17] Matthew 22:39, from Leviticus 19:18.

[18] Matthew 22:40.

[19] Matthew 22:42.

[20] Matthew 22:43-45.

[21] There is plenty of evidence that David didn’t write Psalm 110 (and likely little to none of the Psalms). But Jesus makes the assumption that David did. That doesn’t prove David wrote the Psalm, contrary to some traditional interpretations and logic. (James, 2023, pp. 41-43)

[22] (Feasting on the Gospels: A Feasting on the Word Commentary, 2013, p. 577)

[23] (Feasting on the Word: preaching the revised common lectionary, 2011, p. Kindle locaton approximately 7327)

[24] And this raises the question, did Jesus actually quote Psalm 110, or was it the New Testament authors who provided these connections based on their interpretation of Jesus?

Sermon: Dismantling the Status Quo

Lectionary Year A, Proper 24
Gospel Text: Matthew 22:15-22

I was looking at my calendar from three years ago and discovered that I had preached on this exact same passage at this very location. I glanced through what I had written down and didn’t see anything that I would really change. For a brief moment I thought about using the exact same sermon to see if someone might recognize it.

 

However, even if the scripture is the same and most of what I had expressed then is still valid, we are in a different chronological year with some very different life circumstances. And with that in mind I dug into the text and various resources to glean new perspectives that are pertinent for us today.

 

I want to start out by saying that even though the question in the passage is specifically about a type of Roman tax, what I found this time isn’t really about taxes at all. 

Context of Today’s Reading

In order to place today’s reading in its proper context, we have to back up all the way to the beginning of Matthew chapter 21, which begins with Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem at the start of Passion Week. On that Sunday, after his entry into the city Jesus makes his way to the Temple and drives out the money changers and the merchants who had set up their tables in the court area. He accused the temple officials of “making it [the Temple] a den of robbers.” And the officials became angry, not just because of what he did, but of the kinds of people Jesus attracted to the Temple — the blind, the lame, and children.

 

He leaves Jerusalem for the night but returns the following day to the Temple. The officials gather to question Jesus about the authority he exercises and from where it comes. Of course, Jesus gives a non-answer answer, but which is utterly clear to the officials what Jesus infers. And in response Jesus tells three parables.

Three Parables

The first parable is the parable of two sons where the father asks each to go work in the vineyard (which is a metaphor for Israel). One says no, but goes. The other says yes, but doesn’t. Jesus provides the explanation for this parable in which the repentance of the first son who says not, but actually does, is the way of righteousness. This is the way followed by tax collectors and prostitutes into the kingdom of heaven, but one that so far, has been rejected by the leaders and officials who are tasked with tending the vineyard of Israel.

 

The second parable is about wicked tenant farmers who have been leased the vineyard from the landowner, but when the landowner sends his servants to collect the proceeds due to the landowner, the tenants beat and kill the servants. The landowner finally sends his son, but the tenants kill the son and seize the vineyard for themselves. Jesus then says that the wicked tenants will be put to death and the vineyard will be leased to other tenants who will give back the appropriate produce. The leaders and officials realize Jesus is speaking of them as the wicked tenants. They wanted to arrest Jesus, but were afraid of the crowds so took no action at that time.

 

Jesus continues speaking in the Temple court a third parable. This one is about a wedding banquet. Invitations had already been sent, but on the day of the banquet, the king sends his servants to bring all the invited to the banquet. But those invited all refuse. More servants are sent, but the invited pay no heed, going as far as mistreating and killing the servants. The king sends his army to destroy the murderers of his servants and all their property. Then the king sends servants to the streets to bring in anyone who could be found, both good and bad.

Three Questions

It is still this same day that the Pharisees hatch another plot to discredit and destroy Jesus. In their honor-shame society, the earlier exchanges I retold have severely undermined their honor and credibility. The only way to restore their honor and eliminate their shame is by shaming Jesus and discrediting him in front of the crowds. In their plot, they bring in the Herodians, an unlikely group, to assist them. The Pharisees, at least on the surface, despised Roman subjugation of the Jews. The Herodians were more accommodationist and pragmatic, seeing Roman rule as something they benefited from.

 

Following this exchange about taxes, Jesus is approached by the officials and leaders two more times. The Sadducees, associated with the priestly class at this time, and pro-Roman due to their appointment by the Romans, ask Jesus about the resurrection. The Pharisees then try one more time — this final question by a lawyer to ask about the Greatest Commandment. 

History and Politics

It should be noted that the Temple is not simply a religious location, but the center of Jewish politics. The Jews had some autonomy under Roman rule, and the temple and its leaders and officials were both religious and political leaders of this semi-autonomous Jewish nation. 

 

Additionally, there have been numerous other Messiahs in their recent history. Their revolutions had, in every case, been violently and ruthlessly quashed by the Romans. It would appear to some that Jesus could be following in the footsteps of some of these revolutionary predecessors. 

The Gospel Challenge

Throughout Jesus’ public ministry, the gospel challenged the status quo. He started out in the less populated and more rural Galilee region, but he has been coming closer and closer to Jerusalem. And now, he has finally reached Jerusalem and brought his radically different view of how the society should operate and how members of that society ought to relate to one another. And he was proclaiming it from the sacred precinct of the Temple itself. Jesus brought the challenge against the status quo directly to those most vested in keeping it, and he was winning the battle of competing kingdoms with his rhetoric and with the crowds. 

 

Jesus’ message was good news to all who had nothing and nothing to lose. It was good news to those who were already outcasts, marginalized, and oppressed. Jesus’ message of inclusive society, egalitarianism and shared resources was good news to those who fought for every scrap they needed to stay alive another day. 

 

But the same message was not nearly so good news to those who would see those they had looked down upon be granted the same level of honor and privilege. Power and privilege only mean something when there exists those who are “less than.” The leaders and officials might be under the thumb of the rule of Rome, but at least they were in possession of power and privilege over others in this current social order. To accept Jesus’ way would mean giving all that up. Not only that but if Jesus’ movement resulted in another revolution, it could destroy the social fabric and stability they depended upon to maintain what they possessed. They certainly didn’t possess everything they wanted, but what little they had, they were vested in protecting.

 

Jesus must go. He cannot be allowed to continue spreading his anti-social order message.

Desire to Maintain the Status Quo

This first question about taxes is framed as a question about the interpretation of the Torah, the Law, but it is a political one. And it doesn’t matter if Jesus loses credibility with his followers, or if Jesus’ response prompts action from the Romans. Either way, Jesus and his message is destroyed. 

 

On surface their initial addressing of Jesus looks like flattery, but it is contempt. In a society where adherence to tradition and authority is valued, their words accuse Jesus of disregarding tradition, operating without proper sanction, and committing the sin of independence. 

 

“What do you think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar?” they ask.

 

They are the experts in the law and politics. They have trained for debates and have long experience with rhetoric. This is supposed to be a “Gotcha” question. It is designed to have just two possible responses. 

 

But first, Jesus calls them out on their motives. And then he pulls out a new option. He asks for a coin. He himself does not possess one, nor probably any of his disciples. But the questioners seem to easily produce one. 

 

Jesus asks whose image and inscription is on the coin, a Roman silver denarius. The only coin authorized to pay the poll tax which is under question. They respond, “The emperor’s.”

 

The whole point of having money changers at the temple was because the Pharisees and others committed to keeping the law found the denarius and other Roman coins offensive. They featured images of the emperor and the inscription “son of a god.” The Romans permitted the Jews to mint their own copper coins which did not contain any offensive features. These were the coins typically used by Jews, especially within the temple grounds. There was no practical need to carry anything else. 

 

To possess a Roman silver denarius within the temple grounds meant at least some of them were violating their own traditions. It also suggests that they had enough wealth to casually carry around coins of higher denominations than necessary for daily commerce. It may be a metaphor for where their true allegiance lies.

 

Jesus declares, “Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

 

This might sound like two separate realms and a person is obliged to both. But Psalm 24:1 reads 

 

The earth is the LORD’s and all that is in it,

the world, and those who live in it. (NRSV)

 

and earlier in Matthew (6:24) Jesus has already stated that

 

“No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.” (NRSV)

 

In light of this the response Jesus gave is, on its literal face, ambiguous, but to those who knew the scriptures and had been listening to his teachings, the implied answer is clear: all things belong to God. Payment or non-payment of civil taxes levied must be decided in light of how will or will not serve God. The leaders understood what Jesus meant, and can be inferred from the Lucan gospel (23:2) where they charge Jesus before Pilate saying, “We found this man perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor.” (NRSV)

 

I also find it interesting that the betrayal of Jesus is paid for with thirty silver coins from the temple treasury. Although the text doesn’t specify the exact coin, some commentators suggest that the silver coins were most likely to be  Roman denarii. If that were indeed the case, how ironic and absolutely hypocritical to have the ostensibly despised Roman coin in the heart of the temple.  

What About Our Status Quo?

In our present time, the year 2020 has been an year of unplanned upheavals. For a great many, the previous status quo has been broken. From pandemics and its direct effects on society, to economic upheavals, to the increasing racial and socio-economic tensions, this has been a revelatory year.

 

There is a great and strong desire to “return to normal.” But I would dare ask these questions: Was the previous normal good for all humanity? How many of us were beneficiaries of a status quo maintained at the expense of other human beings? 

 

The gospel of Jesus Christ is the breaking and dismantling of all human-based systems of society. It is the breaking in of a new kind of society that can only be birthed and maintained by Christ and through the Spirit of Christ. 

 

There is frequently talk of having to find a “new normal.” Will that new normal be more equitable, more egalitarian, more like the society proclaimed by Jesus?