RBWords

     This well-known encounter between Jesus and the Pharisees/Herodians challenges us on a number of levels.  The setting is a trap designed to get rid of Jesus by putting him "between a rock and a hard place."  If he rejects the payment of taxes to Caesar, he can be denounced to the Roman authorities.  If he accepts the payment, he can lose "honor" and the support of the people, who hate the Romans.  His reply is to place the question in a different perspective that essentially regards the payment of taxes as a public necessity and not as a theological dilemma.  He does not endorse the idea that Caesar and God are dual rulers of separate realms, as many politicians then and now still do.  Our American notions of separation of Church and State would have been foreign to Jesus' time and place.  Rather, God is the supreme ruler and any public obligations are to be seen in that light.  Our current disputes over communion for public figures who support policies at odds with church teaching can provide us with ample material to consider in this regard.  Our secular civil religion, based on patriotism mixed with the political/philosophical theories from the Enlightenment and enshrined in a "scripture" (the U.S. Constitution) seems to create a dual kingdom that tries to force us to choose, just as the Pharisees and Herodians try to force Jesus to choose.  As Jesus points out, this is a false choice.  Add to this, the less than honorable intentions of those who try to force a choice on Jesus, and the drama becomes more intense.  

     Caesar is not on the same level with God, but God will sometimes work with Caesar to get some things done that are a matter of public necessity.  But Caesar will, like all of us, have to ultimately account for what the Lord demands.  AMEN