Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

	Interesting idea. Of course that was a different time. There were
	lots of currencies in use during that time. Barter was very common
	as well. So one could opt out of using roman money. It's not clear
	that one can as easily opt out these days. So what then is the message
	in this passage today?

	And for that matter what did Jesus mean by them buying into the system?
	Was that good or bad or nutral?

			Alfred

Well, Alfred (.1), I think, like so many things Jesus said, it can't be
answered in absolute terms.

I personally see it as a less than positive commentary, because I see
possession of the Roman coin as indicative of an "unholy alliance" with
the Roman oppressors; that is, a passive acceptance of systemic injustice.

You'll recall the money changers from John 2.  The very reason for their
existance was to exchange foreign currency (at a hefty profit, I might add)
for that which could be used in the Temple.  Foreign coinage was not
acceptable in the Temple.

How is it applicable today?  Well, here again I believe we need to examine
our lives and, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, determine to what degree
we are a part of an unjust system and what we are willing to do about it, if
anything.

Peace,
Richard

    I do not believe that it was "less than positive".  The parallel
    construction of the sentence is clear "Render to Caesar... Render to
    God".

    Recall, the context was "Should I pay the tax?".  Since all governments
    tax their citizens, I don't think this was a comment regarding the
    Roman form of government compared to a restoration of the House of
    David or self-rule.  A Davidic king would also levy taxes.

    In fact, in the Gospels I don't believe there is any direct commentary
    regarding the unfairness or oppression of Roman rule.  The greatest
    injustice committed by government in the Gospels is the slaughter of
    the innocents by Herod (Mt 1:16).  However in these times, the killing
    of innocent children is probably viewed as less unjust than the payment
    of taxes.

    Jesus himself was part of that "systemic injustice" because he did not
    counsel rebellion to Roman authority and when convicted by it, he
    passively submitted to death.

    The Roman Empire after all was part of God's plan.  The state of the
    world (Europe-Middle East-North Africa) at the time was peaceful which
    fulfilled the prophecies and allowed the propagation of the faith after
    Pentecost and the Baptism of millions, centuries of persecution and the
    miraculous conversion of Constantine the Great.
         

re Note 478.3 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     Jesus himself was part of that "systemic injustice" because he did not
>     counsel rebellion to Roman authority and when convicted by it, he
>     passively submitted to death.
  
        Interesting thought -- a passive victim (or pacifist in
        general?) has, by being passive, become an ally of the
        oppressor?

        Bob

re: Note 478.3 by Pat "Gotham City's Software Consultant" 

>    Jesus himself was part of that "systemic injustice" because he did not
>    counsel rebellion to Roman authority and when convicted by it, he
>    passively submitted to death.

In "convicted by it", does the _it_ refer to Roman authority? 

Thanks,

Jim

    Jesus was condemned to death by Pontius Pilate for violating Roman law,
    not by the Jews or under Jewish law. No Jewish tribunal could impose a
    death sentence.

Hi Pat,

Thanks for your reply.  I thought Pontius Pilate found Jesus innocent of any 
wrongdoing under his jusisdiction.  Can you tell me what the charge was?

Thanks,

Jim

    Jim,
    
    	In modern terms: insurrection; Rex Iudeorum.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Retrieval rating: 100, Document: bible$disk:[BIBLE.NT]01-MATT-17.-KJV;1
***********************
him, Then are the children free.
17:27  Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to
the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the �fish� that first
cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find
a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and
***********************

Matthew 17.24-27 presents us with an interesting insight on an instance
where Jesus actually came up with the money for the payment of a tax.

Notice where Jesus acquires the money for the tax.  He doesn't take it
out of his earnings or the group's treasury.  He instructs a disciple to
get the money from a place you don't often even think to look, from the
mouth of a fish.  Granted, this contribution was for the payment of the
Temple tax, not the Roman tax.  I do tend to wonder whose countenance
appeared on this coin.

	And, in reference to the basenote, I also wonder what Jesus might
have said if he'd been presented with a coin which did not have the Emperor's
image upon it.

Peace,
Richard

    The Hasmoneans were deposed by the Romans and Herod, but their coins
    survived, but these coins were bronze (source: Young's Compact Bible
    Dictionary)
    
    On the other hand, the temple tax had to be paid in pure silver, and
    the most common coin of this type was Phonecian shekel with the image
    of the pagan god Melqart and an eagle.  "The Phoenecian shekel
    qualified its pagan symbols.  (source: Reader's Digest Atlas of the
    Bible)

Note 369.270 

>    My understanding is that the Jews of that time carried a separate purse
>    to carry the Roman coin as it was required to pay the tax...and a tax
>    collector could accost any citizen and say pay up at his very whim. 

Then why didn't the inquisitor reach into the other purse?

>   It would be an act of idolatry to
>   even bring the coin into the temple.

Such coins were considered unclean.
    
>    So if I'm not understanding this, then why Did Jesus say to render to
>    Ceaser what is Ceasers?

If Jesus were alive today would he have said, "Render unto dead presidents
what is dead presidents" (assuming you don't believe our presidents to be
gods)?  Or better yet, if the coin had been an Indian head nickel, "Render
unto the Native Americans what is theirs"?  (We'd have to give the whole
country back!)

Let me ask you this, Jack.  Whose image do you bear?  And who will you render
yourself unto?

Richard

    That I would try to keep Jesus as the focal point of my life...yet
    expecting to fail at times.
    
    Yet I would ask you a question...do you perceive me to do otherwise?  
    If fact let me be specific...If one is for spending within our means as
    a country, eliminating wasteful programs, supporting limited taxation, 
    practicing nationalism to a point, reducing dependency on centralized
    government, then would I be considered as one who does NOT render to
    Ceaser what is Ceasers?
    
    -Jack

    I think we could *all* do much, much better at putting God before
    Caesar.  Apparently, we all think we can juggle two purses.
    
    Richard