Matthew 27:51-53: The Ur Zombies?

The passage Matthew 27:51-53 is one of the most intriguing in all of the New Testament because what it describes ought not to happen according to most Christian theology. The passage, which is only found in Matthew, reads as follows:

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53 After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many. (NRSV)

This occurs immediately after Jesus' breathes his last and is certainly intended to demonstrate the cosmic and salvific impact of Jesus' death on the cross. The problem is that the Jewish and Christian understanding of resurrection - Jesus' excepted of course for Christians - is that it is to take place at the end of time. The Christian understanding of what happens at the end of life is that the souls of the dead receive their immediate reward or punishment, but these souls are separated from their bodies until the end of time or the general resurrection (see 2 Cor. 5:1-10; Phil. 1:21-23; Catechism of the Catholic Church 997-1001, where both Pauline passages are cited). How is it that these bodies are raised from their tombs?

The Greek is clear, it is somata, "bodies," which are raised up. It is these "resurrected" or "reanimated" bodies which are said to have entered Jerusalem after Jesus' resurrection. Note that they are said to come to life after his death (v.52), but only to have entered the Holy City after Jesus' resurrection (v.53). According to Matthew, they were saints, or "holy ones," which in itself is interesting: is Matthew describing followers of Jesus? How many would have died in the course of his short ministry? Or is he describing a broader group of "holy ones" who had died at many different periods of history?

Matthew also says these holy ones appeared to "many" in Jerusalem (polloi), yet then ends the account without explaining anything else about these newly raised holy ones. Who are they? Where are they? Do the bodies return to their tombs? Do they go to their heavenly reward? It is an account that seems to run counter to the Christian understanding of death, afterlife and resurrection, not in terms of hope, but in terms of order. The saints who appeared in Jerusalem are out of place and out of time.

Any thoughts on this as Halloween turns into All Saints' Day? Is Matthew simply trying to make a theological point that ought not be taken literally or was there something else going on in Jerusalem those many years ago? And again, where are they now?

John W. Martens
Follow me on Twitter @Biblejunkies

Gospel of Mark Commentary Act 5. Scene 9

This is the thirty-eighth installment, comprising Act 5, Scene 9, chapter 12:28-44, in the online commentary on the Gospel of Mark, which I am blogging on throughout the liturgical year. Please see the thirty-seventh installment here. Links to the entire series are available in one spot at The Complete Gospel of Mark Online Commentary.

This is my division of the Gospel:

Prologue,  1:1-13;

Act  1, 1:14-3:6;

Act 2, 3:7-6:6;

Act 3, 6:7-8:26;

Act 4, 8:27-10:52;

Act 5, 11:1-13:37;

Act 6, 14:1-16:8(20).

Scene 9: 12:35-44

35 While Jesus was teaching in the temple, he said, "How can the scribes say that the Messiah is the son of David? 36 David himself, by the Holy Spirit, declared, "The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet." ' 37 David himself calls him Lord; so how can he be his son?" And the large crowd was listening to him with delight. 38 As he taught, he said, "Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, 39 and to have the best seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets! 40 They devour widows' houses and for the sake of appearance say long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation." 41 He sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the crowd putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. 42 A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny. 43 Then he called his disciples and said to them, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. 44 For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on." (NRSV)

 

Jesus has not left the Temple, regardless of how difficult his encounters with the authorities at the Temple have been. After Act 5, Scene8, Mark has actually let some of the suspense dissipate and allowed time for Jesus to teach. The tension has been relaxed, at least for a time, while we are allowed to catch our breath and join the “large crowd” which listens to him with “delight” (12:37). Jesus puts to the crowd a conundrum,

“How can the scribes say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, by the Holy Spirit, declared, “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.’” David himself calls him Lord; so how can he be his son?” (12:35-37)

What is behind this riddle? The Scripture itself, precisely Psalm 110:1: 1: “The Lord says to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.’”

The passage is straightforward in many ways. The Psalm is attributed, as are many Psalms, to King David himself. Psalm 110:1 was seen as a royal or messianic Psalm, in which God says to the King that he is to sit at God’s side while the King’s enemies are subdued. Jesus asks why the scribes say the Messiah is to be a son of David, but certainly Jesus knows it is not just the scribes, but Scripture itself, such as 2 Samuel 7, where God says he “will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me” (7:12-14). So, not just the scribes suggest that the Messiah will be a “son of David;” it seems Scripture makes the same claim.

The verse which Jesus cites from Psalm 110, though, contains the phrase, “The Lord said to my Lord,” which Jesus interprets as God speaking to his royal son who is himself “Lord,” or God. This cannot be a simple, human “son of David” (though Matthew 1:1 will certainly claim Jesus is at least that). What makes Jesus’ statement here interesting, though, is his willingness to push at common scriptural understandings: “David himself calls him Lord; so how can he be his son?” It is an odd place to push, since Scripture captures this meaning of the Messiah as “son of David,” but Jesus’ exegesis points to another level of meaning: however the Messiah is a “son of David” it does not mean he is simply a human descendant, for Psalm 110:1 tells us by David’s own lips that God acknowledges him as Lord.

Note that this challenge to Jewish understanding not just of the Messiah, but of the divine itself is met with “delight” (12:37). But note, too, where Mark has situated this scene, namely, immediately following the scene in which Jesus reiterates the Jewish belief in the oneness and unity of God. Now Mark has Jesus make an outstanding claim, that the Messiah - and as readers and listeners of this Gospel we know this is Jesus - is not just human but somehow divine. It could hardly be more subtle or profound, yet the crowd according to Mark is excited by this claim. How will the authorities accept a Jesus who claims divinity for himself, when they cannot accept a Jesus as Messiah who had yet to make such a bold claim?

As he continues to teach, we see that the calm which Mark has granted us cannot last, it is only a means to allow Jesus to explain himself and not a turning of official sentiment towards him. We know this, or sense it, because even as Act 5, Scene 8 presented a positive portrayal of a scribe, now Jesus segues in this scene into a warning against the scribes:

Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have the best seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets! They devour widows' houses and for the sake of appearance say long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation. (12:38-40)

Jesus presents the scribes as a callous, self-righteous group, who seek human respect, wealth and honor. It is a bit jarring coming after a scene in which a scribe is called “not far from the kingdom of God. Mark’s juxtaposition begins to ratchet up the suspense and warn us that these interludes of teaching cannot change the ultimate end to which Jesus is destined to go.

Mark allows Jesus one more comment to his disciples, though, one more moment of private teaching. He sat down after teaching the crowds“opposite the treasury” and I think Mark indicates that he is taking a break with his disciples. He "watched the crowd putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny” (12:41-42). After observing this, Jesus called his “disciples and said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on’” (12:43-44). She demonstrates by her actions all that has been intended by Act 5, Scenes 8: by giving all she has to the temple treasury she has shown love of God and love of neighbor; she has put them above herself. By doing so, she has acted out her profound belief that God will care for her and the fact that she will rely on her neighbors to make God’s care for her known in her life. What she cannot know is that according to Jesus' exegesis of Psalm 110:1, God was watching her as she did it.

 John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @BibleJunkies

Gospel of Mark Commentary Act 5. Scene 8

This is the thirty-seventh installment, comprising Act 5, Scene 8, chapter 12:28-34, in the online commentary on the Gospel of Mark, which I am blogging on throughout the liturgical year. Please see the thirty-sixth installment here. Links to the entire series are available in one spot at The Complete Gospel of Mark Online Commentary.

This is my division of the Gospel:

Prologue,  1:1-13;

Act  1, 1:14-3:6;

Act 2, 3:7-6:6;

Act 3, 6:7-8:26;

Act 4, 8:27-10:52;

Act 5, 11:1-13:37;

Act 6, 14:1-16:8(20).

Scene 8: 12:28-34

28 One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, "Which commandment is the first of all?" 29 Jesus answered, "The first is, "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; 30 you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' 31 The second is this, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." 32 Then the scribe said to him, "You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that "he is one, and besides him there is no other'; 33 and "to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength,' and "to love one's neighbor as oneself,'—this is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." 34 When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." After that no one dared to ask him any question. (NRSV)

Act 5, Scene 8 does not have the same tension as  Act 5, Scene 6  or Scene 7, though it emerges directly from the  previous scene with the Sadducees. A scribe who has been listening to the disputation between Jesus and the Sadducees has approved of Jesus’ response to them.  Scribes were common in the ancient near east and could belong to one of the religious parties of the day, work for one of them, or work independently. They were not mere copyists, but often they wrote documents and were in the ancient Jewish context interpreters of the Law. We are not certain if this scribe is associated with the Sadducees or the Pharisees, some other party, or was independent. We do know from Mark, however, that he appreciated Jesus’ answer to the Sadducees regarding the resurrection, which indicates that he was not associated with them since they rejected the resurrection.

The scribe asks Jesus another question, but it does not seem to be a question designed to test or trap Jesus as were the previous questions.  He simply asked, “Which commandment is the first of all?” (12:28). Jesus answers in a straightforward manner, offering the Shema: “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength’” (12:29-30). This commandment is an obligation for Israel to recite and contains within it the basic belief in God’s unity (Deuteronomy 6:4-5). To this Jesus adds a second commandment, taken from Leviticus 19:18, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (12:31).   It is derived from the second part of the verse in Leviticus, which reads in whole, “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord” (Lev. 19:18). Jesus adds, “There is no other commandment greater than these” (12:31).

Important to keep in mind with these verses, and in examining Jesus’ mission as a whole, is the fact that however difficult the tensions are between Jesus and the Jewish parties of his day, they share a foundational belief in the authority of Scripture and basic understandings about what is enjoined by Scripture. That is, Mark has allowed free rein for the dramatic tension amongst Jesus and his foes, which reflects the reality of the historical situation certainly, but the tension is not because they do not share beliefs in common, such as God’s oneness, the truth of Scripture, and the need to care for neighbor; tension exists precisely because they share beliefs in all of these things, but differ over Jesus’ authority as the Messiah and so his authority to teach them or bring these things in the Scriptures to completion. The Jewish Scriptures are shared by all of these groups and so is their love of God. The Jews are not Jesus’ enemies – they are his neighbors and kinsmen.

When the scribe responds to Jesus, saying, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that ‘he is one, and besides him there is no other’; and ‘to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength,’ and ‘to love one's neighbor as oneself,’—this is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices” (12:32-33), there is a genuine meeting of the heart and mind between them, because they are brothers in faith. Jesus has done nothing but exegete the word of God shared in common and so too has the scribe in return. He has acknowledged that at the heart of the Law of God is love of neighbor and God and that sacrifices pale in comparison as, for instance, Hosea 6:6 states: “For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.” The scribe is neither snide nor sarcastic; he has found a kindred spirit in Jesus.  Jesus’ response to the scribe is equally welcoming, for he acknowledges that the scribe has “answered wisely” and says to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God” (12:34).

It is a breath of fresh air, this meeting of the minds, in the midst of conflict after conflict that has marked Jesus’ time in Jerusalem from the beginning of Act 5. Mark has subtly alerted us that however deep the problems are between Jesus and the authorities, there is a ground floor level on which they share so much in common. What Jesus says to the scribe at the end, though, tells us that the one thing that separates them might still exist: “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” What is still needed from the scribe to go the whole way to the kingdom? He is not far, but how can he cross the last step of the bridge? It is only implied, but it seems that that the scribe’s step toward Jesus is Mark’s way of indicating that metaphorically, with a move to consider Jesus, he has moved to accepting the kingdom.  We do not know if the scribe does so or not, for Mark says, “After that no one dared to ask him any question” (12:34). But why will no one ask him a question, not even the scribe? Is it because they have misread him and are surprised by the ordinariness of his answer from the scriptures? Or do they sense that he is asking something more from him? Or do they want to hear even more from him?This moment of teaching has resulted in a rare time of contemplation in Mark's Gospel.

 

 John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @BibleJunkies

"The Gospel of Jesus' Wife"

I wrote this post a couple of weeks ago for the blog at the University of St. Thomas. It is an overview for a general audience. Sentiment seems to be turning against the authenticity of this fragment to a greater extent than I propose in my blog post, but I decided to stick with my initial assessment because we still need to get a dating on the ink. Probably all of the hullabaloo could have been avoided if Professor King would have waited for the testing, but I still think she rolled out the paper in a scholarly manner.

Here's a couple of excerpts from my piece:

King made one mistake, however, in her release of this fragment and that was in calling it “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife.” Why is this a mistake? It is not a Gospel, it is a fragment (of something) and we do not know where it comes from or to what larger text it belongs. Perhaps, it is a gnostic Gospel and perhaps it is not.

And:

The evidence, therefore, points to a modern forgery, but this is not certain either. Let’s say it was real. Does the text tell us anything new or different from what we know about early Christianity? I suppose that the two words “my wife” from the mouth of Jesus would be new if we were certain that it referred to an actual woman who was his wife, but we are not certain that is the case.

Keep in mind, too, that even if it did say these words, the text is thought to emerge (if genuine) from a second century context. It would not be proof that Jesus was married. It would be proof that some later Christian group – gnostics or others – thought he was or wished he was married for theological reasons which are not clear to us.

Read the rest of the post at The Weigh-In at UST's Newsroom.

John W. Martens
Follow me on Twitter @Biblejunkies

Gospel of Mark Commentary Act 5. Scene 7

This is the thirty-sixth installment, comprising Act 5, Scene 7, chapter 12:18-27, in the online commentary on the Gospel of Mark, which I am blogging on throughout the liturgical year. Please see the thirty-fifth installment here. Links to the entire series are available in one spot at The Complete Gospel of Mark Online Commentary.

This is my division of the Gospel:

Prologue,  1:1-13;

Act  1, 1:14-3:6;

Act 2, 3:7-6:6;

Act 3, 6:7-8:26;

Act 4, 8:27-10:52;

Act 5, 11:1-13:37;

Act 6, 14:1-16:8(20).

Scene 7: 12:18-27

18 Some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him and asked him a question, saying, 19 "Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. 20 There were seven brothers; the first married and, when he died, left no children; 21 and the second married the widow and died, leaving no children; and the third likewise; 22 none of the seven left children. Last of all the woman herself died. 23 In the resurrection whose wife will she be? For the seven had married her." 24 Jesus said to them, "Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God? 25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 26 And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the story about the bush, how God said to him, "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? 27 He is God not of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong." (NRSV)

After the Pharisees and Herodians have made their attempt to trap Jesus in Act 5, Scene 6, the Sadducees take the challenge upon themselves. Mark allows no gap or period of transition between the end of one attack and the beginning of another. In this case, the High Priestly party attempt to trap Jesus on a religious belief that would have been shared not just by Jesus and the Pharisees, but by the majority of Jews at the time. It is not clear that the Sadducees would have gained much traction from anyone else, that is, had they been able to score points against Jesus on the issue of resurrection. It is not clear, therefore, whether they could have turned any of the crowd against him if he could not show decisively why the belief in the resurrection was a reasonable belief that arose from revelation. It might have been enough for them just to knock Jesus down a peg, though that goal does not fit with the overall movement of the Gospel towards bringing Jesus to his death. Perhaps the intent is just to wear Jesus down and show the inadequacy of his teaching and thus create doubt amongst the crowds and his disciples.    

It is known from both Jewish (Josephus, Jewish War 2.162-166) and Christian (Acts of the Apostles 23:6) sources that Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, so this challenge to Jesus is one for which they were noted. The belief in the resurrection does not permeate the Tanach (Old Testament), but had become a part of common Jewish belief in the Hellenistic era. The Sadducees represent this older, more conservative stream of Jewish thought. Mark’s introduction to this scene, introducing  the “Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection” (12:18), fits with all we know of them on the question of life after death.

The Sadducees approach Jesus without any transition in the text, giving the sense of one test after another, saying,

“Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. There were seven brothers; the first married and, when he died, left no children; and the second married the widow and died, leaving no children; and the third likewise; none of the seven left children. Last of all the woman herself died. In the resurrection whose wife will she be? For the seven had married her.” (12:19-23)

The reality which the Sadducees describe, however absurd the manner in which they situate it, is based upon the ancient Israelite practice of levirate marriage, as described in Deuteronomy 25:5-10:

5 When brothers reside together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband's brother shall go in to her, taking her in marriage, and performing the duty of a husband's brother to her, 6 and the firstborn whom she bears shall succeed to the name of the deceased brother, so that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.

The reasoning behind the law is to maintain both the family name and the family’s property. The Sadducees present what for them is a reductio ad absurdum meant to disprove the resurrection: given the legal force of levirate marriage, how could a woman marry seven brothers and be a “wife” to all of them in the resurrection?  

Jesus does not dispute the Mosaic Law, not even their absurdest rendering of it, but the Sadducean understanding of the resurrection. His response to them indicates that the gloves are off in his disputes with the Temple authorities; there is no attempt to couch his answer in the gentlemanly terms of academic disputes, but to push them either to acknowledge who he is or to reject him completely. Enough with the verbal niceties: “Jesus said to them, ‘Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God?’” (12:24). Jesus flatly rejects their knowledge of Torah and God.  This is generally not the way to win friends and influence people, but Jesus’ verbal parry indicates he is has left that hope behind or he believes that only provocation can lead them to consider his claims.

Jesus does not attempt initially to prove the resurrection, he just asserts its reality: not if but when they rise from the dead. “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (12:25). He brushes away the Sadducean proof of the absurdity of resurrection by explaining that the resurrected person, male or female, does not marry. The heavenly life is a life beyond sex and marriage – it is a life of the angels. It is only after this proof that Jesus responds to the reality of the resurrection itself and he does this with a passage which on first consideration is not a "go to" passage for proof of the resurrection.  This is Jesus’ full answer:

“And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the story about the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is God not of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong.” (12:26-27)

The passage to which Jesus is referring is in Exodus 3 when God appears to Moses in the burning bush and reveals himself as “I am who I am” and, more importantly for Jesus’ proof, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Jesus utilizes a passage to prove the resurrection that on first glance simply identifies God as the God of their ancestors, but Jesus interprets this to mean that he is still the God of these ancestors. If God remains the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then Abraham, Isaac and Jacob also still remain! It is an interesting argument and an interesting passage to choose. That is, why not choose Daniel 12: 1-4?  Because the Sadducees do not accept the authority of Daniel; they accept the authority of the Torah. If the Torah is what the Sadducees accept, then Jesus will use the Torah to prove his case. Mark ends the conflict with Jesus’ proof. Either the Sadducees are not given a chance to answer or they have no answer. It would be strange to think, though, that they will not have something else to say later. Most religious scholars hate to be told they know neither the Scriptures nor God. It rankles.

 John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @BibleJunkies

Gospel of Mark Commentary Act 5. Scene 6

This is the thirty-fifth installment, comprising Act 5, Scene 6, chapter 12: 13-17, in the online commentary on the Gospel of Mark, which I am blogging on throughout the liturgical year. Please see the thirty-fourth installment here. Links to the entire series are available in one spot at The Complete Gospel of Mark Online Commentary.

This is my division of the Gospel:

Prologue,  1:1-13;

Act  1, 1:14-3:6;

Act 2, 3:7-6:6;

Act 3, 6:7-8:26;

Act 4, 8:27-10:52;

Act 5, 11:1-13:37;

Act 6, 14:1-16:8(20).

Scene 6: 12:13-17

13 Then they sent to him some Pharisees and some Herodians to trap him in what he said. 14 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? 15 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." 16 And they brought one. Then he said to them, "Whose head is this, and whose title?" They answered, "The emperor's." 17 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. (NRSV)

The push against Jesus is now the driving force of the whole narrative; his teaching, miracles, and healing seem to belong to another world. The entire focus is now on one skirmish after another, raising the suspense and the tension. One scene of conflict and adversity fades and another takes its place. The viewer is on pins and needles as there can be no resolution, except Jesus’ death, if those who oppose him do not accept the source of his authority, an authority he is said to hold in his very being. How can the powers that be acknowledge a power they do not believe? Jesus has in some ways pressed the issue of his authority, his Messiahship, since Act 5, Scene 1, asking all of the religious authorities to decide for or against him; now the religious and political authorities press back. Even if they are wary of the crowds’ responses, there is no other way open to them. Since they do not accept his power and authority, how can they let him wield it without opposition?

Act 5, Scene 6 brings us back, in fact, to the initial opposition to Jesus expressed openly in 3:6, Act 1, Scene 9, where Mark writes “the Pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.” This plan has been in the making since the early stages of Jesus’ Galilean ministry. So, when we read that “they sent to him some Pharisees and some Herodians to trap him in what he said” (12:13), this is only the direction Mark has been leading us from the beginning of the Gospel. It is the second and last time the two groups, Pharisees and Herodians, are paired in the Gospel – it appears elsewhere in the Gospels only in Matthew 22:16. It also raises the question, who are the “they” who sent the Pharisees and Herodians to trap Jesus? It must, of course, from context be the Temple authorities, which means that the entire religious and political establishment is now gunning to bring Jesus down together. Mark has presented all of these groups as opponents of Jesus, but now we see them working in conjunction.

The Pharisees and Herodians present to Jesus a scenario which has both religious and political ramifications. They ask 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?” (12:14-15)

The “trap” they set for Jesus consists most significantly in the content, whether he will disregard political considerations and argue that religiously it is improper to pay a tax to the Roman oppressors, or whether he will disregard religious considerations and state that it is just to pay a tax to the Roman rulers. They have hoped to set the “trap” with honeyed words – “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” – but Mark explains that Jesus knew “their hypocrisy”(12:15). Their words lacked sincerity. They do not so much care for Jesus’ answer, but that they can accuse him one way or another on the basis of his answer. If he says the tax is lawful, which must mean according to Jewish law, perhaps his religious bona fides can be attacked, but if he says the tax is not lawful, he might be accused on the basis of insurrection against the Romans, with whom the Herodians are formally aligned. It is intended to be a Catch-22.

Jesus perceives the true nature of the challenge: “Why are you putting me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me see it” (12:15). The verb translated as “test,” peirazo can also be translated as “trial,” which is what its noun form peirasmos means in the Lord’s Prayer for instance.  Jesus asks about the purpose of this “trial,” but he already knows that he is intended to stumble. By asking for the denarius, the actual physical evidence of the concrete poll tax, he places the burden upon his interlocutors. When they bring the coin to Jesus, he asks them, “‘whose head is this, and whose title?’ They answered, ‘The emperor's’”(12:16).  What he has asked them to do is answer a simple statement of fact about what is the very heart of taxation: money. 

Jesus’ answer is just as simple and straightforward.  “Jesus said to them, ‘Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's’”(12:17).  But if the answer is simple, as I suggest, what does it mean precisely? There is a temporal order to which, Jesus says, we have a responsibility. More importantly, there is a divine order and it is to this order which we must also give back all that is due. The extent of what is due to God, however, Jesus does not, or cannot, explain as simply as pointing to a coin. The limits of good government are temporal and material; the demands of God are spiritual and, I would argue, unlimited, though this pushes beyond the limits of the text. One can make an educated guess, though, on the basis of the Gospel thus far, in which the material always points to the greater good of the spiritual.

The scene ends with this statement, “and they were utterly amazed at him” (12:17). Who are “they” we ask once again? It could be just the Pharisees and Herodians who have sought to trap Jesus, to divide him as tending to favor the religious or the political, but who has given both their due. It could perhaps be the crowd in general, including all of the religious leadership, who are amazed at how he has walked through the trap set for him and given the temporal and spiritual realities their due. His answer would probably not satisfy Jewish zealots, however, who desired their country be rid of a foreign oppressor, so I tend to think that the “amazement” is on the part of the religious authorities who have set the trap and who realize that his answer has won the crowd. They cannot arrest him here and now.

 John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @BibleJunkies