The Great Command and the Work of the Christ

Below is a rough translation and some preliminary comments on Matthew 22:34-46, the Revised Common Lectionary gospel lesson for the 21st Sunday after Pentecost. As always, your comments are welcomed.  

 

³⁴ Οἱ δὲ Φαρισαῖοι ἀκούσαντες ὅτι ἐφίμωσεν τοὺς Σαδδουκαίους συνήχθησαν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό.

Yet the Pharisees having heard that he muzzled the Sadducees were gathered together against him. 

ἀκούσαντες: AAPart, npm, ἀκούω, 1) to be endowed with the faculty of hearing, not deaf

ἐφίμωσεν: AAI 3s, φιμόω, 1) to close the mouth with a muzzle, to muzzle

συνήχθησαν: API 3p, συνάγω, 1) to gather together, to gather 

1. For some reason, only Young’s Literal Translation (of the five that I consult in my process) seems to try to capture the last three words of this sentence, ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό. The NIV, ESV, KJV, and NRSV seem to omit them entirely. In my Greek text there is not indication of a textual variant, so I think we may just be up against words that seem out of place, redundant, or indecipherable to the translators. 

2. My own use of “against” to translate ἐπὶ reflects how this preposition takes shape when combined with the accusative case, per the definition tool of thebible.org: “upon, by direction towards, marking the mental direction with a view to the act.” In many cases “against” might be too strong of a term, but here the context warrants it. 

3. And I like “muzzled” for φιμόω, but “silenced” is probably a better choice for a refined translation. I guess. Geez. It’s the same word in Mark and Luke that Jesus uses against the sea saying, “Peace, be still!” 

 

³⁵ καὶ ἐπηρώτησεν εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν [νομικὸς] πειράζων αὐτόν, 

And one out of them [a lawyer] interrogated testing him, 

ἐπηρώτησεν: AAI 3s, ἐπερωτάω, 1) to accost one with an inquiry, put a question to, ask, interrogate.

πειράζων: PAPart nsm, πειράζω, 1) to try whether a thing can be done  1a) to attempt, endeavour  2) to try, make trial of, test: for the purpose of ascertaining  his quantity, or what he thinks, or how he will behave himself

1. There are two terms here worth noting, both of them verbs. ἐπερωτάω, as the definition above suggests, is much more intentionally confrontational than “ask.” Matthew uses it in 12:10, 16:1, 17:10, 22:23, here, vv.41 and 46 below, and 27:11 (Pilate’s inquiry). All of them, except 17:10, come from those specifically identified as Jesus’ opponents or as trying to provoke Jesus in some way. I try to use “interrogate” consistently with this verb to distinguish it from more genuine questions or requests. 

2. The second verb πειράζω likewise has a sinister use throughout Matthew’s story. In 4:1 and 4:3 it describes the devil as tempting and tempter. In 16:1, 19:3, and 22:18 (last week’s text) it describes Jesus’ opponents trying to trick him with disingenuous requests or questions. 

3. Please note that putting the phrase “a lawyer” in brackets does not indicate and eyerolling aside (although one is tempted to read it that way). Not all of the early manuscripts identify this Pharisee as a lawyer, so it was probably added by a scribe along the way for clarification. 

 

³⁶ Διδάσκαλε, ποία ἐντολὴ μεγάλη ἐν τῷ νόμῳ;

“Teacher, which command greatest in the law?”  

1. There is no verb in this question. 

2. The verb that is implied and added is “is,” or some form of the verb “to be.” That addition gives the translator some interpretive choices. The words “which” “command” and “greatest” are all in the nominative case. With the verb “to be” both the subject and the object can be in the nominative case (the “nominative predicate.”) That is why translations vary from “which is the greatest command” to “which command is greatest.” Both are possible. 

3. I like how, simply on the face of the question and answer, Jesus and the Pharisees agree that there is a kind of priority among the many commands of the law. Even before identifying the two greatest commands, this approach toward the law is interesting in itself. 

 

³⁷ ὁ δὲ ἔφη αὐτῷ, Ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ καρδίᾳ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ψυχῇ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ διανοίᾳ σου:

Yet he declared to him, “You will love the lord your God in all of your heart and in all of your soul and in all of your mind; 

ἔφη: IAI 3s, φημί, 1) to make known one's thoughts, to declare 

Ἀγαπήσεις: FAI 2s, ἀγαπάω, 1) of persons  1a) to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly 

1. It is an often-puzzling, sometimes-maddening habit of gospel writers to use pronouns without always identifying the clear antecedent. Here we have “he said to him.” In this case, it seems clear enough that Jesus is answering. In other cases, we just have to do our best. 

2.The preposition ἐν usually becomes “in,” but in this case I would end up refining it to be “with” as in all other translations.

3. It seems to me that the verb φημί has more intention and purpose than the common word for “to say” (λέγω). Jesus is saying something powerful here. 

4. Jesus is citing Deuteronomy 6:5, the “Shema,” which reads in the LXX: 

καὶ ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς δυνάμεώς σου. The difference between Matthew and the LXX would be that the Matthew uses ἐν instead of ἐξ as the preposition for each clause, and διανοίᾳ instead of δυνάμεώς or “mind” instead of “strength.”  

 

³⁸ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μεγάλη καὶ πρώτη ἐντολή. 

This is the greatest and first command. 

ἐστὶν: PAI 3s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present 

1. Unlike the question in v.36, n this instance the verb “to be” (εἰμί) is included. The “and” (καὶ) seems to insist that “this” is the subject and “command” is the object, with “great” and “first” as adjectives. The NIV says, “This is the first and greatest commandment.” The KJV and YLT say, “This is the first and great command(ment).” The ESV and NRSV say, “This is the great(est) and first commandment.” It’s like a slide puzzle of possibilities, all of which work. 

2. Not to be missed in the grammatical possibilities is how marvelous this declaration is. 

 

³⁹ δευτέρα δὲ ὁμοία αὐτῇ, Ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν. 

Yet a second like it, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.” 

Ἀγαπήσεις: FAI 2s, ἀγαπάω, 1) of persons  1a) to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly 

1. Any time a sentence begins with the conjunction δὲ (it is a post-positive word, meaning that it is often positioned after the first word but gets translated as the first word), I try to use the word “yet.” I do so because δὲ could mean either ‘and,’ ‘but,’ or ‘then’ indicating successive thought, contrasting thought, or simple a narrative continuation. I hope that ‘yet’ is more neutral, until I am ready in a later stage of translation to go with ‘and’ or ‘but’ or something else that seems to capture the flow better. 

I this verse, I certainly do not see contrast, but continuation. Therefore I wanted to clarify that I do not intend ‘yet’ to show contrast, although it could appear that way.

2. If Matthew 22:37-40 were all that we had for a New Testament, to summarize all that Jesus said, did, and represents, then I think it would be enough. More importantly, I think Jesus thought that it would be enough. Even in response to another trick question, what is there besides this answer? 

3. The second part of this answer comes from Leviticus 19:18 and is also in Matthew 19:19, where Jesus tucks it in with five of the ten commandments. 

 

⁴⁰ἐν ταύταις ταῖς δυσὶν ἐντολαῖς ὅλος ὁ νόμος κρέμαται καὶ οἱ προφῆται. 

On these two commands the whole law is hung and the prophets. 

κρέμαται: PPI 3s, κρεμάννυμι, 1) to hang up, suspend 

1. I’m using “is hung” to capture both the present tense and passive voice of κρέμαται. 

2. The whole law and the prophets! 

3. I almost feel that Matthew is having a moment as the writer of this story, because there is no follow-up acknowledgement to, from, or about the lawyer who posited this question in the first place. There may be a change in the wind, though, because next Jesus will do the interrogating. 

 

⁴¹ Συνηγμένων δὲ τῶν Φαρισαίων ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς 

Yet the Pharisees having gathered themselves together Jesus interrogated them 

Συνηγμένων: PerfPPart gpm, συνάγω, 1) to gather together, to gather 

ἐπηρώτησεν: AAI 3s, ἐπερωτάω, 1) to accost one with an inquiry, put a question to, ask, interrogate. 

1. The verb/participle συνάγω appears here for the third time in this chapter. Each time I get the sense that the Pharisees and their various partners have run a play that lost yardage, so they are going back to the huddle to try to come up with a better play. While my parsing notes say this is passive, it is functioning more as a middle verb, as they gather themselves together. 

2. This is the one time when Matthew applies the verb ἐπερωτάω (see v.35, n.1 above) to Jesus. Jesus becomes the interrogator. However, I think the form of this interrogation is similar to vv.31-33, when takes a trick question scenario about marriage that was supposed to upend the doctrine of the resurrection and then turns on the Sadducees with a verse from the Torah, the part of the OT that they gave greatest legitimacy, to show that the principle of resurrection is at work even there. 

 

⁴² λέγων, Τί ὑμῖν δοκεῖ περὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ; τίνος υἱός ἐστιν; λέγουσιν αὐτῷ, Τοῦ Δαυίδ. 

saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The [son] of David.” 

λέγων: PAPart nsm, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak 

δοκεῖ: PAI 3s, δοκέω, 1) to be of opinion, think, suppose

ἐστιν: PAI 3s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present 

λέγουσιν: PAI 3p, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak 

1. The answer is literally “the of David,” in the genitive case. The question clearly implies that the answer intends “the son of David.” 

2. [Warning: Long, wordy sidebar ahead. Enter at your own risk.] The gathering point for Jesus and the Pharisees is some kind of messianic expectation. Of that they are not in dispute. I think that is a reflection of some of the theological innovations from the 2nd - 3rd century BCE, which is often called the ‘intertestamental’ period. I believe the 2nd half of Daniel was written during this time, along with many of the books that have been listed among the OT Apocrypha. It was a very fertile theological time and the messianic interpretation of the Psalms, the Suffering Servant motifs, the nemesis of the “desolating sacrilege” and the hope of the “son of man coming in the clouds” are all part of this theological movement. Some of the questions would be whether the older theological suppositions were still in play: Is the temple the place to look for God’s presence? Is the Davidic throne the place to look for God’s activity? Does God’s faithfulness to the covenant mean that the nation of Israel shall prosper? If God does not evidently reward faithfulness during one’s earthly life, does that mean that God will do so after death? I think many of those questions arose when the Greek Empire swept through, when a Seleucid general name Antiochus IV Epiphanes desecrated the altar in the temple with a pig sacrificed to Zeus, and so forth.

I think the theology that emerged from that period is different than, or perhaps even challenges, the kind of “follow me and I will give you great lands, many children, and you will live well and be buried in peace” kind of theology that seems to be at work in many of the earlier OT books. And I think socio-politico-theological tragedies, like the exile, the execution of a king, and the destruction of the temple, are what provoked these new expressions of theology. My point is that by the time Matthew is writing in the late 1st century CE, there were some beliefs largely accepted by Jews as different as John the Baptist, Jesus, the Pharisees, and the chief priests (a kind of messianic expectation, resurrection, and after-life judgment). The lone exception seems to be the Sadducees and their rejection of the doctrine of the resurrection, which Jesus addresses in 22:23-33. 

Having said that, Jesus shows that some of those doctrines that seem newer and which the Sadducees would think were novel – like resurrection – were actually presumed in many of the older writings. The Psalm “the stone that the builders rejected has returned to become the chief cornerstone,” as well as God’s words 
to Moses, “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (rather than “I was” the God of these long-dead patriarchs”) presume resurrection in some way. (As a lifelong celebrant of Easter, I am still trying to grasp how resurrection is the lens through which the Scriptures are to be read, rather than another doctrine that we derive from Scripture.)

 

⁴³ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Πῶς οὖν Δαυὶδ ἐν πνεύματι καλεῖ αὐτὸν κύριον λέγων, 

He says to them, “How then does David in spirit call him lord saying, 

λέγει: PAI 3s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak 

καλεῖ: PAI 3s, καλέω, 1) to call 

λέγων: PAPart nsm, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak 

 

⁴⁴ Εἶπεν κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου, Κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν σου;

‘The lord said to my lord, Sit out of my right until I place your enemies underneath your feet’?

Εἶπεν: AAI 3s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak 

Κάθου: PMImpv 2s, κάθημαι, 1) to sit down, seat one's self

θῶ: AASubj 1s, τίθημι, 1) to set, put, place

1. How do you mark a tertiary quote? Matthew is quoting Jesus who is quoting David who is quoting God. I decided to move from double quotes to single quotes to italics. So, um, … English majors, please help a brother out! 

2. In a college class I was assigned to go through the NT and find every time a psalm was quoted. Of course, this was pre-google, so it was just me reading through the NT looking for psalms. According to my research, Psalm 110:1 is the psalm most commonly quoted in the NT. It is here, in parallel synoptic gospel texts, and Acts 2:34-35, where Peter makes the argument that since David is dead and buried, this text is about Jesus. 

3. The quote begins with the redundancy of “Lord said to my lord.” If David is speaking, who is the “my lord” to whom the original “lord” is speaking? Well, the Christ/Messiah, of course. There seems to be a tradition of teaching around the 110th Psalm that has sorted out who is speaking about whom. This is also the Psalm from which the letter to the Hebrews gets the language of the Christ/Messiah being “a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” What feels like coded language to the likes of me appears to be language for which the first century Jews and early Jewish Christians had a lot of clarity. 

 

⁴⁵ εἰ οὖν Δαυὶδ καλεῖ αὐτὸν κύριον, πῶς υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἐστιν;

“Therefore if David calls him lord, how is he his son?”

καλεῖ: PAI 3s, καλέω, 1) to call 

ἐστιν: PAI 3s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present 

1. Again, it seems that some assumptions are at work in this argument, which are not evident to 21st century readers. One is that David is speaking in this Psalm about the Christ/Messiah. Another is that a father, when speaking of his son, would never use the phrase “my lord.” The next verse shows that Jesus’ interlocutors do not argue about these assumptions but seem to accept them.  

2. Hence, the whole “Son of David” phrase comes into question. At the same time, Jesus is described genealogically in both Matthew and Luke as a descendant of David. And palm-waving crowds, blind beggars, etc. throughout the gospels seem to use this phrase without being challenged. It seems that order and rank are the issue here, rather than lineage. But even then I’m not altogether clear on how this argument matters. 

 

⁴⁶καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο ἀποκριθῆναι αὐτῷ λόγον, οὐδὲ ἐτόλμησέν τις ἀπ' ἐκείνης τῆς ἡμέρας ἐπερωτῆσαι αὐτὸν οὐκέτι. 

And no one was able to answer to him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day to interrogate him nothing. 

ἐδύνατο: IMI 3s, δύναμαι, 1) to be able, have power

ἀποκριθῆναι: APInf, ἀποκρίνομαι, 1) to give an answer to a question proposed, to answer 

ἐτόλμησέν: AAI 3s, τολμάω, 1) not to dread or shun through fear  2) to bear, endure  3) to bring one's self to  4) to be bold  5) bear one's self boldly, deal boldly

ἐπερωτῆσαι: AAInf, ἐπερωτάω, 1) to accost one with an inquiry, put a question to, ask, interrogate.

 

After the rough translation and all my comments above, three interpretive questions remain for me. I do not pretend to be able to answer them but I will offer some responses. 

1. What difference does it make that the question regarding the greatest command is another trick question, a test, to ensnare Jesus? 

To many Christians, this pericope is precious and powerful because it gets to the heart of the matter – What is the greatest of the commands in the law? It is to love God with everything and to love one’s neighbor as oneself. However, given the context of this chapter, especially from v.15 on, Matthew argues that the Pharisees are conspiring to entrap Jesus. Mt. 19, Mk. 12, and Lk. 10 are other places where something as fine and wonderful as this text can be found apart from a trick question. The latter part of the greatest command is found in Matthew 19:18-19, where Jesus answers the question of what commands one must follow to gain eternal life. Jesus said, “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother; also, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 

So, while the context is a trap, it seems like the power of the response is greater than the dynamics of this story. 

 

Mark 12:13-34, which we assume was written prior to Matthew’s gospel and was a source for Matthew’s gospel, sets the sequence of questions and answers, with the Pharisees setting out to trap Jesus with the question of the coinage, then the Sadducees taking Jesus on over resurrection. But when Mark introduces this last question, he seems to take it out of the context of a trick question: “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?’” (v.28). That introduction does not suggest subterfuge, but a real question. 

 

Luke 10:25-37, which contains the story of the Good Samaritan, begins with a lawyer standing to test Jesus with the question of the greatest command. However, it is the lawyer himself, in Luke’s telling, who answers the question (correctly, according to Jesus.) 

 

To me, Matthew’s way of beginning this story in v.34 is a key to whether he sees this as a trick question or a sincere question that arises when Jesus demonstrates such insight in parrying off the earlier trick questions. Per my notes 1 and 2 of v.34 above, I think Matthew’s use of ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό indicates that this question emerges out of a continued attempt to entrap Jesus. 

 

Still, it is a marvelous question, which opens me up to the possibility that a devious intent may still lead to a marvelous teaching moment. 

 

2. What is the relationship between the three trick questions? 

The first question was a question about the Imperial Tax, which, I believe is one of those enduring questions that arise again and again: What is the relationship between or ultimate loyalty to God and our relative/required loyalty to the Empire? In many ways, I think this is the question at the heart of much of the drama of the Old Testament and even of the history of the church (as H. Richard Niebuhr describes in his classic, Christ and Culture.) 

The second question was about the resurrection, which I also think is a politico-theological question. When Jesus tells the story of the landowner whose slaves and son are murdered by evil tenants (21:33-46), he asks what the landowner should do. The Pharisees and chief priest answer, “Kill the bastards!” Jesus answers with what I consider a form of resurrection, which is present throughout the Old Testament: “The stone that the builders rejected has returned to be the chief cornerstone.” Resurrection, in this sense, is the opposite of revenge. It is not just a religious doctrine of life after death; it is a political direction that is posited over and against the cycle of violence that comes from vengeance. 

The third question is at hand: What is the essence of our calling? And it is a radical love of God that is inseparable from a love of neighbor. 

It strikes me that these questions are not just trick questions, but are trick questions that reveal the heart of faith for the People of Israel in Jesus’ time. From the perspective of his enemies, Jesus would not be liable for action by the Romans or for rejection by the people over a fruitless question, but over questions in which the people have investment of meaning. 

 

3. What is the relationship between the first half of this pericope about the greatest command and the second half about the argument that Jesus makes regarding the Son of David? 

Jesus moves directly from the conversation about the greatest command to the argument about the superiority of the Messiah to David. My suspicion is that the question “Whose son is the Christ?” is a huge matter. If the Christ is the son of David – therefore subordinate to the glory of David – then the activity of the Christ would be to restore the throne of David. If the Christ is greater than David – to the point that David calls him “my lord” – then the activity of the Christ would be greater than restoring the throne of David. Is this, perhaps, a way of saying that the radical love, which fulfills the law and prophets, is greater than a restoration of the Davidic throne? 

 

 

The Structure of Entrapment

Below is a rough translation of and some initial comments for Matthew 22:15-22, the Revised Common Lectionary gospel reading for the 19th Sunday after Pentecost. Your comments are always welcomed. 

 

¹⁵ Τότε πορευθέντες οἱ Φαρισαῖοι συμβούλιον ἔλαβον ὅπως αὐτὸν 

παγιδεύσωσιν ἐν λόγῳ. 

Then having gone the Pharisees took counsel how they might entrap him in a word.

πορευθέντες: APPart npm, πορεύομαι, 1) to lead over, carry over, transfer  1a) to pursue the journey on which one has entered, to continue on  one's journey

ἔλαβον: AAI 3p, λαμβάνω, 1) to take  1a) to take with the hand, lay hold of, any person or thing  in order to use it

παγιδεύσωσιν: AASubj 3p, παγιδεύω, 1) to ensnare, entrap  1a) of birds  

1. The context of this pericope is that Jesus has entered Jerusalem with great fanfare (21:1-11) and having cleansed the temple (21:12-17) he is back now teaching in the temple. The chief priests and elders question his authority, which evokes two parables, at the end of which Matthew says “When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they realized that he was speaking about them. They wanted to arrest him, but they feared the crowds, because they regarded him as a prophet” (21:25-26). Again Jesus gives a parable that is aimed at the leadership, the parable of the wedding banquet and the addendum of the wrongly-dressed guest (22:1-14). Today’s pericope is the first of three attempts by various groups allied in leadership to entrap Jesus. Following that, Jesus goes on the offensive in challenging them (22:41-46). 

2. The word ‘entrap’ (παγιδεύω) is used here for the only time in the NT. As the definition suggests, it is a hunting term. I am not clear on whether their hope is to trick Jesus into saying something actionable, in order to arrest him, or to make him say something that will turn the tide of his popularity against him. 

 

¹⁶ καὶ ἀποστέλλουσιν αὐτῷ τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτῶν μετὰ τῶν Ἡρῳδιανῶν

λέγοντες, Διδάσκαλε, οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀληθὴς εἶ καὶ τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν 

ἀληθείᾳ διδάσκεις, καὶ οὐ μέλει σοι περὶ οὐδενός, οὐ γὰρ βλέπεις εἰς 

πρόσωπον ἀνθρώπων. 

And they send to him their disciples with the Herodians saying, “Teacher, we have known that you are true and you teach the way of God in truth, and you do not care about no one, for you do not look into a face of humans. 

ἀποστέλλουσιν: PAI 3p, ἀποστέλλω, 1) to order (one) to go to a place appointed  

λέγοντες: PAPart apm, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak 

οἴδαμεν: PerfAI 1p, εἴδω, ἴδω, to see, the other to know.

εἶ: PAI 2s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present 

διδάσκεις: PAI 2s, διδάσκω, 1) to teach

μέλει: PAI 3s, μέλω; it is a care: τινί, to one; 

βλέπεις: PAI 2s, βλέπω, 1) to see, discern, of the bodily eye 

1. The fact that the Pharisees are in a position to send, not only some of their disciples but some of the “Herodians” as well, indicates that they are in consort with the Herodians. Mark also mentions the Herodians – twice (3:6 and 12:13), both times as co-conspirators with the Pharisees. The term does not arise anywhere else in the NT. Beyond the self-evident name, it does not appear that there is a lot of information about this group. 

2. This is very handsome praise! Of course, it has already been described by Matthew as the bait in a snare. Still, it is effusive praise and puts me in mind of the 24th Psalm: 

Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord?
   And who shall stand in his holy place? 
Those who have clean hands and pure hearts,
   who do not lift up their souls to what is false,
   and do not swear deceitfully. 
They will receive blessing from the Lord,
   and vindication from the God of their salvation. 
Such is the company of those who seek him,
   who seek the face of the God of Jacob.

I mention the 24th Psalm because, as I will show in my comments after the text, I think the theology that it reflects is part of the background to the question that will be posed to Jesus. There may be other psalms that are even more clearly echoed in this story; the 24th is the just one that comes to my mind most readily. 

 

¹⁷ εἰπὲ οὖν ἡμῖν τί σοι δοκεῖ: ἔξεστιν δοῦναι κῆνσον Καίσαρι ἢ οὔ; 

Therefore, say to us what you opine: Is it lawful to give the imperial tax to Caesar or not?” 

εἰπὲ: AAImpv 2s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak 

δοκεῖ: PAI 3s, δοκέω, 1) to be of opinion, think, suppose  2) to seem, to be accounted, reputed  3) it seems to me 

ἔξεστιν: PAI 3s, ἔξεστι, 1) it is lawful 

δοῦναι: AAInf, δίδωμι, 1) to give  2) to give something to someone 

1. The word “lawful” (ἔξεστι) appears 9x in Matthew, as well as in the other gospels, Acts, and Paul’s letters to the Corinthians. It does not refer strictly to religious laws, like the law of Moses. In Acts 22, for example, Paul asks a Centurion whether it is lawful for him to flog an un-condemned Roman citizen, making reference to Roman laws and not the law of Moses. 

2. The ambiguity of the word “lawful” may be part of the trap. Hebrew law may suggest one thing; Imperial law may suggest another. How Jesus hears and responds to the word “lawful” itself may be an indicator of this religious blasphemy or his political sedition – the twin jaws of this trap. 

3. I have translated as “imperial tax” following the ESV because the root of the word κῆνσον is the word for “census,” which would be taken of conquered areas and on which the tax/tribute would be levied. 

4. While the practical aspect of the imperial tax would be that conscripting armies is a costly affair (and many would-be emperors were done in by debt as much as military strategy), the symbolic effect is that one acknowledges the emperor’s lordship. This question, then, is not unrelated to questions regarding King David and the expectation of a messiah from David’s lineage – the topic of Jesus’ question to the religious leaders at the end of this chapter.

 

¹⁸ γνοὺς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὴν πονηρίαν αὐτῶν εἶπεν, Τί με πειράζετε, 

ὑποκριταί;

Yet Jesus, having known their evil, said, “Why are you testing me, hypocrites! 

γνοὺς: AAPart nsm, γινώσκω, 1) to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel 

εἶπεν: AAI 3p, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak 

πειράζετε: PAI 2p, πειράζω, 1) to try whether a thing can be done  1a) to attempt, endeavour  2) to try, make trial of, test:

1. I think the key word here is “hypocrites!” Jesus does not just summons a clever answer; his answer exposes the hypocrisy behind the trap. 

2. The verb “test” (πειράζω) is used of the religious leadership here and elsewhere, and of the devil in c.4. 

 

¹⁹ ἐπιδείξατέ μοι τὸ νόμισμα τοῦ κήνσου. οἱ δὲ προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ 

δηνάριον. 

Show me the coin of the imperial tax.” And they brought to him a denarius. 

ἐπιδείξατέ : AAImpv 2p, ἐπιδείκνυμι, 1) to exhibit, show  1a) to bring forth to view, to show  1a1) furnish to be looked at, produce what may looked at

προσήνεγκαν: προσφέρω, 1) to bring to, lead to 

1. As many have pointed out, this conversation seems to be taking place in the temple (21:23), where this coin would be unwelcomed because it bears the image of a living thing. Temple coinage – which one would obtain via a money-changer – was imprinted with numbers, letters, or even depictions of harvested wheat, but not a living thing, in deference to the commandment in Exodus 20:4. (I find the collection of coins to be one of the most interesting parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit whenever I visit it. Roman coinage was all about asking, “Who’s your Daddy?” while Jewish coinage fastidiously avoided images of living beings.) 

2. Some commentators say the mere fact they were able to produce Roman coinage in the temple shows that they were in violation of their own laws against graven images in the temple. Matthew uses the term “temple” widely, and my guess is that they may be in that portion of the temple courts where such coinage was allowed for the purpose of exchanging it into temple coinage before entering the temple proper. I do love the “gotcha!” feeling of them being in violation of their own rules, but I don’t know how strong of a point that is. 

 

²⁰ καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Τίνος ἡ εἰκὼν αὕτη καὶ ἡ ἐπιγραφή; 

And he says to them, “Who [is] this icon and the inscription?” 

λέγει: PAI 3s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak 

1. The word εἰκὼν is not the word in the LXX of Exodus 20:4 (εἴδωλον or “idol”), but is the word in the creation story of Genesis 1:27, where God creates humanity in God’s image (εἰκόνα). 

2. TIP FOR “YOUNG CHURCH”: Once I had a small ornate square glass box with a lid. I told the children during worship about this biblical story and showed them coins that had presidential images. Then I told them that inside of my box was an image of what God is like. I was very mysterious about it, because nobody can say, exactly, what God is like, but in this box they could see something of what God is like. Finally, I let them persuade me to open it so they could see and, one by one they saw the mirror that made up the bottom of the box. You know you’ve scored when one of the children turns around and yells to his parents, “Oh, that was so cool!” 

 

²¹ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ, Καίσαρος. τότε λέγει αὐτοῖς, Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τῷ θεῷ. 

They say to him, “Caesar.” Then he says to them, “Therefore, give the things of Caesar to Caesar and the things of God to God.” 

λέγουσιν: PAI 3p, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak

λέγει: PAI 3s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak 

Ἀπόδοτε: AAImpv 2p, ἀποδίδωμι, 1) to deliver, to give away for one's own profit what is one's  own, to sell  2) to pay off, discharge what is due 

1. As far as I can tell, this is the only time Jesus mentions Caesar by name. 

2. I’m not Lutheran, but this answer sure sounds like the foundation of Luther’s ‘two-kingdom’ approach to the question of Christ and Culture. 

 

²² καὶ ἀκούσαντες ἐθαύμασαν, καὶ ἀφέντες αὐτὸν ἀπῆλθαν.

And having heard, they marveled, and having left him they went away. 

ἀκούσαντες: AAPart npm, ἀκούω, 1) to be endowed with the faculty of hearing, 

ἐθαύμασαν: AAI 3p, θαυμάζω, 1) to wonder, wonder at, marvel  

ἀφέντες: AAPart npm, ἀφίημι, 1) to send away  … 3b) to depart from anyone

ἀπῆλθαν: AAI 3p, ἀπέρχομαι, 1) to go away, depart 

1. The Herodians and disciples of the Pharisees have struck out. On deck are the Sadducees and in the hole are some more Pharisees. Jesus will pitch a one-two-three inning. This comment has been brought to you by the ongoing playoffs of Major League Baseball. 

 

Many scribes near and far have pondered the implications of this conclusion to Jesus’ query. I’m not sure if there is content here, as much as form. The structure of the whole encounter has been between two options – compromise one’s faith in acquiescence to the emperor or resist the emperor in the name of fidelity to God. The structure is introduced by the persons involved – Herodians and Pharisees, who are strange bedfellows, since their commitments should have put them on opposite sides of this matter. But, again, it is not a genuine question; it is a trap. And now I will proceed to allegorize the heck out of this trap.

 

The chum around the trap is the ironic praise that the Herodians and Pharisees offer to Jesus, as one who teaches the way of God in truth and does not give attention to the face of humans. I call it ironic because, while it is lovely praise and begins with “we know,” it does not appear that the speakers themselves believe a word of it. The bait of the trap is the question that the Herodians and Pharisees ask, “Yes or no to the imperial tax?” I suggest that the hinge of the trap is implied in the word “lawful,” which can refer to the imperial “law of the land” or the religious “law of God.” As I state above, the twin jaws of the trap are sedition, if Jesus opposes the tax to Caesar, or blasphemy, if he upholds it. If Jesus goes for the bait, he’s simply going to be caught between these two realities and they will have him. My sense is that they hope he will either provoke the Roman authorities or lose his popularity among the people. 

 

Jesus’ answer simply accepts that there is an imperial system at hand and there is the reign of God at hand. But, Jesus structures the answer in a way that the questioners are put into the position of having to interpret the content. To give the things of Caesar to Caesar means … what? From the empire’s point of view, it is whatever Caesar requires or demands from a vassal state. To give the things of God to God means … what? From a religious point of view, the earth is the lord’s and everything in it. Jesus’ answer – it seems to me – does not resolve specific questions we might have regarding taxation and the interplay between church and state. It deftly avoids the trap that has been laid for him. 

 

Beyond the interplay of the Pharisees setting traps and Jesus responding to them, this text may provide a structure for considering the questions that arise when we live with both the reality of imperial regimes and the reality of God’s reign. However, it seems to me that it only provides a form for framing those questions, not a whole lot of content for fleshing out what it means. There are still competing claims between the reign of God and the Empire of Rome. Compare this description of how Rome would declare war from Book I of Livy’s History of Rome to the 24th Psalm.  

 

The ambassador binds his head in a woollen fillet. When he has reached the frontiers of the nation from whom satisfaction is demanded, he says, "Hear, O Jupiter! Hear, ye confines" - naming the particular nation whose they are - "Hear, O Justice! I am the public herald of the Roman People. Rightly and duly authorised do I come; let confidence be placed in my words." Then he recites the terms of the demands, and calls Jupiter to witness: "If I am demanding the surrender of those men or those goods, contrary to justice and religion, suffer me nevermore to enjoy my native land." He repeats these words as he crosses the frontier, he repeats them to whoever happens to be the first person he meets, he repeats them as he enters the gates and again on entering the forum, with some slight changes in the wording of the formula. If what he demands are not surrendered at the expiration of thirty-three days - for that is the fixed period of grace - he declares war in the following terms: "Hear, O Jupiter, and thou Janus Quirinus, and all ye heavenly gods, and ye, gods of earth and of the lower world, hear me! I call you to witness that this people" - mentioning it by name - "is unjust and does not fulfil its sacred obligations. But about these matters we must consult the elders in our own land in what way we may obtain our rights."

https://www.unrv.com/forum/topic/10295-the-roman-declaration-of-war/

 

The earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it, the world, and those who live in it; 
for he has founded it on the seas, and established it on the rivers.     Psalm 24:1-2