15Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" 18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" 21"Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." 22When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away (Matthew 22:15-22).

The scene is in Jerusalem. It is the countdown towards the crucifixion. The disciples of the Pharisees and the Herodians are looking to catch Jesus out. They want evidence against him and they want to get him to incriminate himself with words from his own mouth. They mingle with the crowd, which had gathered to hear Jesus speak and ask their question of him. Jesus sees through their hypocrisy immediately (Mt 22:18, Mark 12:15, Luke 20:23).

The crude meaning of this passage is self-evident. It affirms the right of governments to levy taxes and then to spend the money as they deem fit (Rom 13:6-7) - we are to render to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is God's (Matthew 22:15-22). The money collected finances the execution of civil justice and law and order (Rom 13:2-4,7). Taxes are seen to be not so much money paid to the secular authorities but as paid back for services received where the Greek word for 'dues' in Rom 13:7. As God's appointed rule, the Roman government had every right to collect money for the enforcement of law and order and even for the upkeep of their own political system.

• All authority on this earth has been put there by God: Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. God has established the authorities that exist. (Romans 13:1). Jesus says to Pilate - 'You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above...' (John 19:11). This is a direct affirmation that Pilate's authority was divine in origin rather than being simply delegated from the ultimate authority of the Emperor. In the Old Testament also, we find God being spoken of as specifically appointing those who were in positions of authority over people - I Sam 10:1,24 (Saul), 16:1 (David), I Chron 22:8-10 (Solomon) and notice also II Kings 8:7-15 and I Kings 19:15-16.
• Civil disobedience can sometimes be appropriate: Peter and John, then all the apostles rebel against the clear instructions given to them by the Sanhedrin not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus (Acts 4:18-20 and 5:28-29). Peter announces that they were obliged to'...obey God rather than men'. In the Old Testament three Jews will not bow down and worship the golden image set up by the king of Babylon (Daniel chapter 3 especially v.16-18) and Daniel refuses to acknowledge the king's order and, instead, openly defies it (Daniel chapter 6 especially v.7-10). The story of the Exodus out of Egypt is also a clear case of a religious authority refusing to obey a secular one by the command and direction of God. When Pharaoh opposed the Word of God, Moses didn't give in to his will but persevered in obedience to God, rebelling against the words of the king (Ex 5:1-2). Such rebellion is clearly warranted when whatever leadership exists is actively opposing the revealed will of God.

I want to use this passage to use the passage as a case study to illustrate how we might read scripture. There are two questions to ask when looking at a passage:

• What did it mean then?
• What does it mean now?

Those hearing Jesus speak would have drawn different conclusions, than we would today, from idea of 'rendering to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is God's'. Jesus would have been understood (then) as affirming the right of the Romans to levy taxes. This would have been a disappointment to the Jews who hated the Roman occupation of their land and were seeking in Jesus, one who would throw off the yoke of oppression from their shoulders and institute the visible expression of the Kingdom of God (John 6:15). He is telling them that he is not going to be the revolutionary they might have hoped for. His words would have been heard as telling people to accept the political structures.

Jesus would be understood (now) as saying that followers of Christ'...are citizens of two cities, the earthly and the heavenly, and they have duties to discharge in both'. His words are telling is that we all have civic as well as religious obligations. His words are heard as telling people to accept the political structures. The scripture needs always to be interpreted to fit the context within which it is spoken. So we ask of ourselves

• Who do we see ourselves as in this story?

The danger is that we always see ourselves in the virtuous role. This passage states very clearly that the authority of God must overrule the authority of man whenever the two stand in opposition, and civil and religious leadership can only effectively exist and be followed when they clearly don't contradict the revealed will of God. It is easy for us subconsciously to assume that it is always us opposing injustice and standing up for what is right? It is the same mistake that people make when interpreting historical records of the Holocaust. If we always see ourselves in the role of the oppressed Jews and never in the killing role of the Nazis then we never recognise the potential for evil and wrongdoing in our hearts. It is a thinly disguised form of complacency.

Finally we have to decide what this passage might be saying to us individually. What is it we want to take away? What challenge might the words be giving to us? Brian Mclaren gives us some reflections of this type.

In Jesus' day, "Caesar is Lord was the political pledge of allegiance, required in a way not unlike 'Heil Hitler' was required ion the 1930s and early 1940s in Nazi Germany. To call Jesus Lord meant that there is a power in Jesus more important than the power of the king of the greatest state in history. To say "Jesus is Lord" was then and should be now a profoundly political statement - affirming the authority of a powerless Jewish rabbi with scared feet over the power of Caesar himself with all his swords, spears, chariots and crosses (Maclaren 2004:91)

Caesar's authority was symbolised in a cross on which rebels and revolutionaries suffered and failed. Jesus' authority is symbolised in a cross on which he suffered as a rebel and a revolutionary and succeeded. How many of us have used the cross in Caesar's way to dominate, rather than in Jesus' way to liberate.

Brian Mclaren (2004) A Generous Orthodoxy, Grand Rapids, Zondervan