1. it was a trap for jesus... be a rabbi and teach torah vs inciting a rebellion 2. the coin was a denarius (sp) it was a special private coined used by the Ruler to pay his guards. It was not like the typical coins. 3. On it was a bust of Tiberius and it declared Tiberius the Son of God. 4. http://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/03/...aesar-amostmisunderstood-newtestamentpassage/ D. REFUTING BY RENDERING UNTO GOD In the Tribute Episode, it is only after Jesus' counter-question is asked and answered does He respond to the original question. Jesus tells His interrogators, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God, the things that are God's." This response begs the question of what is licitly God's and what is licitly Caesar's. In the Hebrew tradition, everything rightfully belonged to God. By using the words, "image and inscription," Jesus has already reminded His interrogators that God was owed exclusive allegiance and total love and worship. Similarly, everything economically belonged to God as well. For example, the physical land of Israel was God's, as He instructed in Leviticus 25:23, "The land [of Israel] shall not be sold in perpetuity; for the land is mine, and you [the Israelites] are but aliens who have become my tenants." In addition, the Jewish people were to dedicate the firstfruits, that first portion of any harvest and the first-born of any animal, to God. By giving God the firstfruits, the Jewish people acknowledged that all good things came from God and that all things, in turn, belonged to God. God even declares, "Mine is the silver and mine the gold." The emperor, on the other hand, also claimed that all people and things in the empire rightfully belonged to Rome. The denarius notified everyone who transacted with it that the emperor demanded exclusive allegiance and, at least, the pretense of worship — Tiberius claimed to be the worshipful son of a god. Roman occupiers served as a constant reminder that the land of Israel belonged to Rome. Roman tribute, paid with Roman currency, impressed upon the populace that the economic life depended on the emperor. The emperor's bread and circuses maintained political order. The propaganda on the coin even attributed peace and tranquility to the emperor. With one straightforward counter-question, Jesus skillfully points out that the claims of God and Caesar are mutually exclusive. If one's faith is in God, then God is owed everything; Caesar's claims are necessarily illegitimate, and he is therefore owed nothing. If, on the other hand, one's faith is in Caesar, God's claims are illegitimate, and Caesar is owed, at the very least, the coin which bears his image. Jesus' counter-question simply invites His listeners to choose allegiances. Remarkably, He has escaped the trap through a clever rhetorical gambit; He has authoritatively refuted His opponents' hostile question by basing His answer in scripture, and yet, He never overtly answers the question originally posed to Him. No wonder that St. Matthew ends the Tribute Episode this way: "When they heard this they were amazed, and leaving him they went away." there is a lot more very interesting info at the link. The writer points out parts of the Gospel which show the Gospel includes a message of sedition against Rome... sedition against big govt. and don't forget Devil offered all the kingdoms (of Rome) to Jesus and Jesus rejected them. Rejecting them showing the things of man, the govts of man are united with the devil and one must choose God or the Devil.
You know, I cringe at the thought of getting into this discussion with you guys, but I just want to add a quick thought. To me, Jesus isn't a "fictional bleeding heart radical wealth re-distributing socialist" at all. Putting aside the fictional or not question for a moment, let's suppose he existed for the argument. The one thing you have ignored was that Jesus was about personal choice. No where, ever does the Bible say he advocates the forcing of an individual to make a specific choice. In fact, frequently he turned questions around onto others as they asked him for advice. To that end, it is unlikely that Jesus would advocate big government asserting it's power on individuals in any way, much less to take money away from them and give it to the poor. Why? Because that would not earn the individual a place in the Kingdom of Heaven - and THAT was what Jesus was interested in. Saving the soul. Choice was what Jesus was after - making the right choice. I don't really believe Jesus would sit back and applaud a government official taking wealth from me in order to give it to the needy (never mind the fact for the moment of a portion of the needy being lazy and choosing not to work to get government benefits). In fact, I don't recall any parables where Jesus supported the tax collectors in their work, only in their humanity. He never stated, to my knowledge, that what the tax collector did was a needed service to mankind. Instead, he would want me to voluntarily give my wealth to the poor and needy, because that would earn my redemption in God's eyes (simplifying here). So he's not a socialist. He's a moralist. That's just how I see it.
Jesus was about anything but personal choice. Jesus " Do what I say and worship me or I'll torture you for eternity in fire." I think that's in Matthew toward the end of the chapter.
Matthew 25:41- "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." There is no reason for anyone to end up in the Lake of Fire since God has provided the perfect sacrifice in Christ Jesus...
Kinda reminds me of Marlin Brando in The God Father, "I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse".
Wrong! Our Creator sent his only begotten Son here to die for our wicked sins, and save those from a lake of fire. All that's asked for is believing in him, not doing a hit for him. Seriously?? Anyhow, I'm a WOP, and the Godfather is my "Star wars," but will point out to you that you're so vastly wrong on this one, it's scary. I thought you had a high iq wheelbarrow?
The Roman Empire? Certainly it was "big". It was also loathed by many including most Jews. No Sale stu. That's spin and a stretch the size of the Roman Empire itself. "Pay your taxes" in no way shape form or fashion endorses big government or government administrated wealth redistribution. You could just as easily interpret that quote to read "don't cheat on your taxes". For the individual follower, yes. With an emphasis on individual sharing kindness and philanthropy. There were also wealthy followers as I recall. That were favored by God no less. No, it does not. The modern day left wing promotes government administered stealing from the productive and giving it, rather inefficiently, to the unproductive. Can you show scripture, chapter and verse, where the (imaginary) Jesus specifically instructs his followers. To create a behemoth inefficient bureaucracy fraught with fraud and corruption for the sole purpose of stealing money from tax payers to give it to lazy unproductive citizens?
What insight. If God didn't want man to have personal choice, he simply would have removed it from the equation.
The Jesus character says, pay your taxes period. Just give it up. Why would you want to interpret that differently, other than to avoid the message.
"Stalk me or you burn" For personal choice read ultimatum. A true moral position would be to help others for the sake of it, not because you've been threatened by imaginary narcissistic sky monsters.