Caesar's coin

[Randy_Carson]

We have a new priest, his voice does not carry as well as the old priest, however, a mans’ ears do open on Sunday.
Today’s Gospel was about currency and power. Caesar’s.
Jesus was subjected to some pointed questions with regard to currency. The people doing the asking were looking for the relationship God had with money, even though they did not believe Jesus was God.
I don’t think Jesus had any money on him because he asked for a coin, when he was given one he asked who’s head was on it, they said, ‘Caesar’s,’ he said, ‘then give it to him.’

I waited on the new priest after Mass, but he was busy so I spoke to Angus the Acolyte, asked him what would happen if all of Jerusalem emptied their pockets of coins, and gave them all back to Caesar. What if everyone did. The whole country. All of Rome. His entire empire from horizon to horizon.
‘What do reckon might happen Angus?’
‘Well,’ 'he said, ‘it would blow the wind out of his sails.’
That’s how you topple the empires we build.
In any case, that’s what I took home with me today. Warm up here in the ranges, a bit of tropical cloud around. The orchids are finished.

Just a word on your reflection…

We are to give to Caesar that which Caesar requires of us, and no more. Thus, we pay our taxes but the rest of the coins in our purse are ours to keep.

God blesses us with many gifts, and we are to return a portion of that to Him. The rest is His provision for our daily bread.

 

[tanachanswers]

But trap him in what?
Peace
James

You’re kidding me right ! They were always testing Iesus and trying to trap him. They were trying to prove his message was not from G-d.

 

[JRKH]

You’re kidding me right ! They were always testing Iesus and trying to trap him. They were trying to prove his message was not from G-d.

I Generally don’t kid in these discussions.
What I am trying to do is to tie together your various comments into a cohesive whole that I can understand.
Your original reply to the OP was this:
Originally Posted by tanachanswers View Post
I think that you missed the biblical message. If the coin has on it the face of a pagan god, then it is an idol. Have you ever asked yourself why the need for the money changers at the Temple ?
Their purpose was to take the Roman coins [pagan idols] and exchange them for kosher coinage that were not idols; so that they could purchase a sacrifice without using pagan idols [which would be a sacrilege.]

In other words, if you had Roman coinage you could buy anything but a sacrifice. But if you had kosher coinage, you should buy a sacrifice or give it to G-d as in the tithe or charity.
To which I replied as follows:
I like your insight here but I don’t think that this is the answer we are looking for. The question that Jesus was asked was, “Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” (Matthew 22:17).
So the question was not about the temple, or sacrifices, but about paying a tax to the occupying authority. - - - - Unless I’m missing something in your answer…
Then our conversation went like this:
You: Why would it not be good to pay your taxes ? The Torah commands us to follow the laws of the land, as long as it does not violate Torah law.
Me: I don’t have an answer to this - - I only relayed what is written in Scripture and IMHO what is written does not jive with your earlier explanation.
You: Because, it is not what is stated in the Christian scriptures, but the commentary that everyone quotes.
No one can understand the Christian Scriptures; unless they first understand Judaism, as Iesus and the apostles were Jewish.
Me: OK - then help me to understand.
I appears that what you are saying is that it was perfectly lawful for the Jews to pay the tax and the Jews would have know that it did not violate the Torah. So then why did they ask Jesus this question if they already knew it was lawful?
You: They were hoping to trip him up as the common opinion of Iesus was of an illiterate. Because Iesus was thought of as an illiterate person, and as always they were trying to trap him.
Me: But trap him in what?
**You: ** You’re kidding me right ! They were always testing Iesus and trying to trap him. They were trying to prove his message was not from G-d.

So - here we are…No kidding…
I am still trying to figure out how the question asked of Jesus, as recorded in Scripture, ties in with your original assertion that it had something to do with the temple and sacrifices etc…

Peace
James

 

[Nelka]

I love Jesus!

 

[tanachanswers]

So - here we are…No kidding…
I am still trying to figure out how the question asked of Jesus, as recorded in Scripture, ties in with your original assertion that it had something to do with the temple and sacrifices etc…
Peace
James

Since discussions on the board are fragmented, and scripture is seldom quoted i have to fill in gaps from my memory.

• (Mat 22:15 BBE) Then the Pharisees went and had a meeting to see how they might make use of his words to take him.
  (Mat 22:16 BBE) And they sent to him their disciples, with the Herodians, saying, Master, we see that you are true, and that you are teaching the true way of God, and have no fear of anyone, because you have no respect for a man’s position.
  (Mat 22:17 BBE) Give us, then, your opinion of this: Is it right to give tax to Caesar, or not?

But the idea that they were trying to trap him is in the context of the source. Which is why i asked if you were kidding.

 

[JRKH]

Since discussions on the board are fragmented, and scripture is seldom quoted i have to fill in gaps from my memory.

• (Mat 22:15 BBE) Then the Pharisees went and had a meeting to see how they might make use of his words to take him.*
  (Mat 22:16 BBE) And they sent to him their disciples, with the Herodians, saying, Master, we see that you are true, and that you are teaching the true way of God, and have no fear of anyone, because you have no respect for a man’s position.
  (Mat 22:17 BBE) Give us, then, your opinion of this: Is it right to give tax to Caesar, or not?

But the idea that they were trying to trap him is in the context of the source. Which is why i asked if you were kidding.

You still have not explained how your first comment - that the whole thing revolved around the temple sacrifice - fits in with what is recorded in Scripture.

Peace
James

 

[tanachanswers]

You still have not explained how your first comment - that the whole thing revolved around the temple sacrifice - fits in with what is recorded in Scripture.
Peace
James

Because, i tied it in with the story of the money changers. Are not they both the same story in reality.

 

[JRKH]

Because, i tied it in with the story of the money changers. Are not they both the same story in reality.

No - I don’t think that they are.

One is talking specifically talking about paying the tax to the Emperor - a very specific question.
The other - the money changers - was about a misuse of the Temple precincts and having nothing to do with the Romans
Two very different contexts…

Peace
James

 

[tanachanswers]

No - I don’t think that they are.

One is talking specifically talking about paying the tax to the Emperor - a very specific question.
The other - the money changers - was about a misuse of the Temple precincts and having nothing to do with the Romans
Two very different contexts…
Peace
James

Not entirely, the reason for the money changers was the Roman coinage. Without the Roman coinage there would have been no need for the money changers.

 

[JRKH]

Not entirely, the reason for the money changers was the Roman coinage. Without the Roman coinage there would have been no need for the money changers.

Fair enough - - Though I’m not entirely certain this is true. Even if Judea was not occupied by the Romans, Jews would have been coming from many places outside of Judea and would very likely have had foreign currency. Thus there could very well still be a need for money changers.

Also - the question posed to Jesus makes no reference to the temple, or money changers, or sacrifices. Instead it goes in an entirely different direction:
“Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” (Matthew 22:17)
You claim that we Christians miss the point of this…that is isn’t about this question of taxes at all, but about the coin and the temple and moneychangers and so forth…

Sorry - I just don’t get the connection and don’t see how your replies to me so far are suppose to fit together and make sense with Mt 22:17.

Peace
James

 

[steve53]

The official “line” of the Second Temple Preisthood during the occupation by the Romans was that no one can come into great power unless they are approved by God.

So the Roman were de facto agents of God, and it was not unreasonable to pay tax to them.

It was a “belief” of convenience, as the Second Temple Preists retained their power under Rome, and, indeed, certain families became very wealthy off of the festivals that the Romans allowed to go on and even encouraged.

Rome let the High Priesthood rule the Jewish East, as long as it was peaceful.

THEN JESUS came on the scene and threatened to ruin EVERYTHING!!!

 

[tanachanswers]

Fair enough - - Though I’m not entirely certain this is true. Even if Judea was not occupied by the Romans, Jews would have been coming from many places outside of Judea and would very likely have had foreign currency. Thus there could very well still be a need for money changers.

This was not the modern world. Until the Greek-Roman world commerce was virtually unknown.

Also - the question posed to Jesus makes no reference to the temple, or money changers, or sacrifices. Instead it goes in an entirely different direction:
“Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” (Matthew 22:17)
You claim that we Christians miss the point of this…that is isn’t about this question of taxes at all, but about the coin and the temple and moneychangers and so forth…

Then you miss what i have been saying. I was just being inclusive of both stories as being the same general subject.

 

[tanachanswers]

The official “line” of the Second Temple Preisthood during the occupation by the Romans was that no one can come into great power unless they are approved by God.

So the Roman were de facto agents of God, and it was not unreasonable to pay tax to them. [/agreed]

Agreed.

It was a “belief” of convenience, as the Second Temple Preists retained their power under Rome, and, indeed, certain families became very wealthy off of the festivals that the Romans allowed to go on and even encouraged.
Rome let the High Priesthood rule the Jewish East, as long as it was peaceful.