Seems like a good start for our "stewardship/commitment Sunday." Isn't money often used as a subject, or excuse, for malice? Whose money is whose? The Donovan excerpts indicated that Jesus' response revealed their hypocrisy; they were not supposed to use anything that had governmental links but they did regularly. Sounds like our on-going grappling with not only church/state but material/heavenly possessions. Our treasures are to be in heaven, but how do we buy food without green bills and coins? Is asking the blessing over a plateful of checks and government dollars a divine form of money laundering?
Sally in gA
The Imago Romana is on the coins of the realm.
The Imago Dei is imprinted in us.
As the coinage is given to the Emperor, so we belong to God ... but how do we do that ... how do we express that we belong to God except through the surrendering of the Emperor's toys, the idol which prevents us from believing (MONEY), to God.
It is an ironic twist, I think. Where is the very source of our security. Psychologically money is viewed in two ways: feces (holding on, refusing to let go) and milk (nurturing, surrendering, offering). The church's mission is to transform feces into milk.
I am interested in the whole trickery thing. Seems to me that those ones who emphasized Jesus' honesty and sincerity were entirely dishonest in their motives. I'm not sure I would say the point of the story is jsut stewardship of money. It may be stewardship in the broader sense, since God does not only own our money but all of creation.
I had a meeting with a pastor whose views I respect. He told me, in no uncertain terms, to "quit worrying about the budget!" He read Luke 18:24 ff as part of our discussion, "how hard it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven..." Since commitment Sunday is on my mind, and as is THE BUDGET (it's charge conference time 'round here), I interpreted that God was trying to tell me just what "unsigned" said. It's a broader issue - are we being held down by our worries over earthly things - coins to Caesar, budgets, keeping-up-with-the-Joneses so as to prevent us from stepping out in faith, giving to God the things of God?
Sally in GA
What are God's things? Interesting question.
To answer this it might be helpful to first think of what Jesus said belong to the emperor. A small coin. Its worth has only earthly value. In fact, not only is it earthly it is paid with reluctance. Who likes to pay taxes?
But how would one give to God what belongs to God? Most likely one would give willingly, with generosity, and most importantly with gratitude. Otherwise, it isn't true giving.
And what is it that ones gives to God? Well, God doesn't want our money, but God does want our worship and praise. God wants us to give our entire lives in service. And our lives belong to God.
The challenge for all of us is to give our money. I am a pastor and I know that this is not something that only Pharisees struggle with. It isn't something that stingy church members wrestle with. It is something that all of us find difficult. But Jesus gives an even greater challenge - He wants us to give God what belongs to God. That means our entire lives.
Think of what this really means. Jesus wants our total and full devotion. Not just our money. Even though money might satisfy an emperor, it is not enough for God. No, God demands it all.
At this point I am still wondering why the Pharisees left amazed. What was it that amazed them? Perhaps the realization that being faith to God is more difficult than being faithful to the emperor.
A New Pastor on the Jersey Shore...
I can relate to Jesus' feeling trapped by the question of the Pharisees. I too feel trapped when people ask me either/or questions: Are you liberal or conservative? Pro-choice or Pro-life? On the side of Israel or Palestine? Do you like contemporary or traditional music for worship? Are you high church or low church? And so often for me, the answer lies not at either extreme but somewhere in the middle. Jesus gives an answer that is both/and instead of either or. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and God what is God. Of course all that we are belongs to God. And yet we live in a world where choices must continually be made where we have loyalties to our nation, family, sports teams, etc. It seems to me that Jesus wants us to struggle with the tension of conflicting loyalties, always living in a way that shows our truest and final allegiance to God.
GB in MI
Isn't it odd that the Pharasees would be in possession of a coin that is an idol? Maybe it came from one of the Herodians.
GB in MI, You might gain from reading a book by Patrick Henry, The Ironic Christian' Companion: Finding the Marks of God's Grace in the World, New York, Riverhead Books, 1999.
Deke in TX - Pace e Bene
A New Pastor on the Jersey Shore, I once heard a great sermon on this lection, When the preacher ended he asked the question, "What belongs to God?" and his last line was, "For the answer come back next week."
I didn't get to hear the follow up sermon but it was a great lead to the next Sunday's Gospel.
Deke in TX - Pace e Bene
Deke in TX asked, "Isn't it odd that the Pharasees would be in possession of a coin that is an idol?"
Not really. Although I'm sure they didn't like handling Roman coin, you have to remember that Israel was a two-coinage country at the time. Temple tithes and offerings had to be made in approved Israelite coinage (that's why there were money-changers in the outer courtyard), but the Roman tax had to be paid in Roman coinage. So the Pharisees would have had to have Roman money to pay the taxes about which they are questioning Jesus.
Another thought ...
At St. Francis Parish we are following the Exodus cycle of Hebrew Scripture readings and this week's lesson is the episode in which God tell's Moses that he can't see God's face, only his backside. Do you suppose the Lectionary demons put these two lessons together out of some sly, ironic sense of humor? God's backside vs. Caesar's face???
Early-in-the-week-mental-meanderings....
Blessings, Eric in KS
Another thought: Last winter, I was talking to my own best friend about how easy it would be to meet the budget if every member shared an equal sacrifice. I'd done some number crunching and averaged it out to $75.00 a month per member (I know, it's not equal gifts but equal sacrifice - widow's mite and all), but I was astounded how little money it would take if all would commit $75.00 a month. Her response: "That's too much. I know I don't have that kind of money to give to charity."
I was hurt, because I was shivering in an office we can't afford to heat (or cool) and my work is viewed as a "charity" that people just can't "afford." When will the church cease to be viewed as a "charitable cause" and instead the spiritual center of our relationship with God and our lives?
Is this not what Jesus was saying, "What's Caesar's is Caesar's, but what's God's is God's." It's about investment. What are we investing, why, and to whom? Have we really grasped the concept of God's work NOT being our own selves and for our own enjoyment? I think we've taught that "church" is for the members' satisfaction alone for too long.
Sally in GA
If I were to preach a stewardship sermon this week I might title it: "God doesn't want your money".
This text seems to indicate that giving money is not worship. Anyone can pay taxes. Anyone can throw a few bucks in the offering plate as it goes by. Anyone can give the homeless woman a dollar. But who can give it all to God? Who can give what really belongs to God - our lives?
God doesn't want our money. God wants our worship and praise. God wants our full devotion. God wants relationship. If it were just about money we could buy our way into heaven.
God is not interested in wallets. He is interested in hearts. Where is your heart? Jesus once said where your treasure is, there your heart shall be also. If you treasure God, the way God treasures you, nothing will seperate you from the love of Christ - not even your wallet!
A New Pastor on the Jersey Shore...
God does want our money we are supposed to return a portion of all that we have been given, but he does not just want our money, he wants our full and total devotion as Sally said. Could you run your church without tithes and gifts? It takes money to keep God's work going here on this earth. When we give our money to God we are only returning a small portion of what has been given to us.
No it is not just about money but when we give to God the things that are God's I think money has to factor in there somewhere.
Kathy in NC
Maybe the Pharisees went away amazed because Jesus had once again avoided their trap! "Where your treasure is, there also is your heart". So if we give God our heart, will we be more willing to part with our "treasure" for the sake of God's work?
How about the fact that our money says "In God We Trust" and some people have a problem with that...some early thoughts. REVJAW
Funny how the Pharisees and Herodians didn't seem to have any trouble coming up with a coin. They are in Casear's realm whether they like it or not. We live "in the world" although we are not to be "of the world". All things are God's, even Caesar and the government.
In a sermon that would work better in print than as spoken word, you can take the phrase "the things that are God's" and remind the folks that one of our beggest problems is "the things that are gods".
JRW in OH
I like the question the Pharisees are posing, "Is it lawful?"
What is underlying their 'taxing' question? Aren't they asking whether or not paying taxes to the king is idolatrous? I wonder, did Jesus pay taxes? If not, what happened to those who didn't pay the emperor?
It seems to me that pledging allegiance to anyone other than the One god would be troublesome for Jews. I wonder how Jews got around this technicality?
A New Pastor on the Jersey Shore...
You could all find this on Bill Loader's "first thoughts" site, but I found these two concluding paragraphs of his current look at this Gospel very pertinent:
"With this passage we must expose the fallacy of dividing reality into God's area and other areas. It invites us to reflect on this primarily in relation to big issues of the day. It also relates closely to individual spirituality: 'Seven whole days not one in seven...' Let the transforming love of God also affect my relationships, my budget, my planning; our family, our congregation, our community, our nation, our world! The words of the testers spoken in patronising sarcasm (22:16) were in fact correct; he teaches the way of God in truth!
"In Australia this Sunday has been declared a day of mourning for the loss of life and injury sustained by the terror attacks in Bali. Knee jerk reactions will call for revenge, but equally limited in vision is the approach which says we must stamp out terrorism as if that is the sole issue. There is a wider and deeper mourning which while decrying acts of terror also senses the less articulate pain which people suffer through poverty and the massive structural injustices of the world economic system. It is important at the same time to make space for the immediate reactions of grief and shock. Without this we cannot expect people to go oin the journey to the wider vision, which can so easily become moralising. We need to hold open the God-space for people so that they can make the journey, engage their immediate pain, but also not be lured to stop off at the slogans which reduce the issues to terror alone or to 'other religions'. Only so can we help stop the cycle of violence. Flip the coin: God's actually on all sides!"
Blessings, Eric in KS
New Pastor on Jersey Shore,
I think we can assume Jesus paid the taxes, as he didn't require anything of his disciples and followers that he didn't do himself. Then again, I wouldn't mind paying taxes if I could get the money the same way to pay them that Jesus did - from the belly of a fish! (See Matthew 17). But since my salary's being cut 10% next year, I guess I can look at it as less taxes to pay?
Bonnie in PA
Well, it's not stewardship Sunday here and I am tired of looking at this as a stewardship text, so I am going a different direction. Help me out here (all criticism accepted.) Since this is a Matthean text it is important to look at the undercurrent of that community. Matthew has several texts that underscore the conflict between Pharisees and Jesus. In each case, I think, the conflict is over the question, "Who gets to define 'God'?" In order to show Jesus as illegitimate to the task the Pharisees continually challenge his authority. When I read this text it would seem that they are the ones vying for that right as they see themselves perched high on the Moses seat. But even Moses wasn't given the task of answering the question at hand as God told him, "I am Who I am!" Then Jesus, to be sure that they understand that they are in the wrong and He is the one who holds the definition, answers them with the challenge, "Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites?" After all isn't it from the mosaic writings that we get Deut. 6:16 "Do not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah."
OK, so throw me all your challenges. It's only Tuesday and this is a new direction.
RevIsrael
Rev.Israel highlights an important verse - Jesus' question, "Why are you questioning me, you hypocrites?"
I don't think any of us is insisting that this is solely a "stewardship" text. It is, hwoever, about commitment, and priorities, and investment. We question Jesus every time we decide not to follow his teaching. We question Jesus every time we say, "let someone else take care of the bake sale," we question Jesus every time we say, "the Bible says if you don't work you don't eat," we question Jesus every time we stand in judgment on another...
Sally in GA
Matthew 22 contains three stories about Jesus being challenged, by religious and secular Jewish leaders. This is the first story. After He meets each riddle/stumper/tough question, Jesus throws on in their laps (22:41 ff).
This is not a text about money. Jesus answers in a sarcastic, disinterested, offhanded manner. He is not asked a legitimate question, how can we expect that he will answer in a legitimate way? Instead, as he does with his own riddle in vv. 41-46, he makes the issue something different.
There seem to be two pieces to Jesus response: 1) To paraphrase The Big Lebowski, "Don't mess with the Jesus!" and 2) It's all about God.
1) Don't mess with Jesus. Each question wants to trap Jesus, force him into a corner, tree him. But Jesus is too clever; he undoes their snares. He says, in effect, "Don't come to me with your silly questions, asking meaningless questions." He instead points to God...
2) It's all about God. Give God what he owns. Since the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdom of our God and of his Messiah (Revelation something something), it's all his. Give up trying to dychotomize life. It ain't that neat, anyway.
I saw an old woman on a talk show recently. She was giving advice to the audience. Most of the questions were like, "What's the secret to long life?", and "How do I make a marriage work?" But one guy asked, "If a UFO landed in your yard and Jesus got out, what would you say to him?" The old lady said, "Well, first of all, I'd have to say that that is the stupidest question I've ever heard. I don't like that! That doesn't make any sense."
Is that partially what Jesus is saying? Ask a real question, get your priotities straight.
Eric in KS writes:
"Do you suppose the Lectionary demons put these two lessons together out of some sly, ironic sense of humor? God's backside vs. Caesar's face??? "
As I read Exodus I find myself being moved. The traditional Isaiah reading never openned an inner door into my thoughts like this one! I am not sure why, but it's got to do I think with Eric's question.
I think its got to do with the "hiddenness of God" and the almost obscene iconography of the emperor. God/Jesus is not known in the pagan practice of material exchange or taxation, but in the hidden majesty of his glory experienced with hearts are open and generosity is expressed.
Help with this is needed.
tom in ga
Like Eric at St Francis, I am intrigued that the lectionary put or threw these texts together and when I read them I thought of a conversation I had with my duaghter when she was barely four, after my Mom's death. We were having the difficult conversation about what happened to bodies after they die (my mother had requested cremation) and I was telling her that I thought God would provide us with a body that was for heaven and that Grammy would be in heaven in some kind of body but I didn't know what it would be like exactly --- you know how those conversations with our own children go and we wonder if we really did get a seminary education. Ginny, after thinking about it for a minute said, "well, Mommy, Grammy will have to have her face." And when I asked her why she said, "Because we have to know who we are." Now I think she meant that we coudldn't recognize Grammy without some features and it was interesting that unknowingly she connected the Hebrew understanding of face as "person" in the sense of "being" but it was interesting to me also that she said, "we have to know who 'we' are." I heard that and I thought about how much the Hebrew really has it right for our faces really are what defines us. I wonder what it would be like to think about ourselves if we had never seen ourselves in a mirror or photograph. Just some musings about a simple word, "face".
Blessings, Avis in KY
I think this week I'll show the congregation sometime with the "Image of God" stamped on it and walk down the aisle of the church with a oval portrait size mirror and repeat the line "render unto God the things that are God's"
Pr.del in Ia
I think I’ll show the congregation something with the “Image of God” stamped on it and walk down the aisle of the church with an oval portrait size mirror repeating the line “Render unto God the thing’s that are God’s.”
Pr. del in IA
In our hands we control our money. The icon of the emperor moves about in our daily exchange, but we cannot control the things of God, his attributes that define his existence are simply gifts in ours. We own nothing, our hands are empty, it is he who fills them. The imageless God defines our life as we return to him all that he has given us in thanksgiving and praise.
tom in ga
This is laity Sunday at our church, and Children's Sabbath. So, I get to hang out in the congregation and enjoy worship. Still, I managed to find my way to my local (as opposed to online) lectionary group. I arrived to find discussion already under way on this text.
What struck me is that here in the U.S., our income tax is considered a "voluntary" tax, but there are consequences if we fail to pay. Likewise, our giving back to God His tithes and our offerings (whether monetary or otherwise) is also voluntary in the sense that God does not need our money (as has already been stated here). He owns the cattle on a thousand hills. But when we fail to return back to Him what is really His to begin with, there are consequences: We not only rob God, but we rob ourselves of the blessings that come with giving back to God.
PastorBuzz in TN
I'm thinking about what belongs to Caesar/government versus what belongs to God. The government asks us to pay our taxes, to be good citizens, to do our duty. These are all good things, necessary for life in community. But God asks us to love. That may include doing our duty, but goes beyond it.
My grandmother once asked me if it "counted" when she did a good deed for her neighbor, but resented it. She had a strong sense of duty, and if she ever thought of doing something nice for someone, she would do it. But her heart wasn't always in it. I would say, of course all good deeds "count". But are we judged by our deeds, or by what is in our hearts?
My husband says that Thomas Acquinas said something to that effect, not being judged by how many good deeds we have done, but by what we love. Anyone know where that's from?
DGinNYC
