The Weekend Word

You may also like...

15 Responses

  1. Jean says:

    “This is the merging of enemy groups. The Herodians were supporters of Herod – they were Roman sympathizers. Caesar sympathizers.”

    So, is it okay for the Pharisees to kiss the butts of the Herodians in exchange for the Herodians supporting the religious causes of the Pharisees?

    Don’t we have the same thing happening today, where religion and state seek a symbiotic relationship where both sides have something they want from the other? But, when this happens, is there a corruption of prophetic voice?

  2. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Jean, it’s the reason I always thought Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton should have been defrocked by their congregations. Too much mixing of church & state.

    The difference is that the Pharisees hated what Rome was doing and what they represented – but they hated Jesus more (actually hated God more).

    Today, there is no hate coming from the church just another business association.

    Now I guess I had better go read the article as I have not looked at it for a couple of months.

  3. Jean says:

    While reading the article, you may want to also catch up on your news. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are history from another era. The mixing of church & state is still alive and ongoing, but the players and issues are different today. Do people only lament the misuse of God’s name when the misuse is carried out by their political adversary or political opponent?

  4. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Jean, you have the wrong guy here. I would prefer that the church, any church not lobby the government for anything.

    But you miss the point in the article to make your political statement. The Pharisees hated the Herodians because of their support for Her of who was a political puppet of Rome. However, because of their hate for Jesus they joined forces. This had nothing to do with the Pharisees lining up with a government entity. The Pharisees here are playing the role of anti Christ.

  5. Jean says:

    “But you miss the point in the article to make your political statement.” No. The pericope has a political dimension. Political applications are far game.

    “However, because of their hate for Jesus they joined forces.”

    They joined forces before Jesus. When John was arrested for speaking truth to power, do you ever hear of an Pharisees doing likewise or sticking up for John? The Pharisees hated Jesus because Jesus called them out for their hypocrisy. That hypocrisy included collusion with Herod. What were the Pharisees doing with a Denarius in the first place?

    The Pharisees may have hated the Herodians, but they traded their hate for the patronage of the Herodians to a certain extent. When you accept the patronage, you will end up compromising your confession. This is applicable today as well, as is easily seen.

  6. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    It sounds like you are making political patronage the acceptable manner to get the “churchy” work done. I don’t. I see it as a bastardization of the church’s function.

    This is why I made the claim that ‘give to God what is God’s’ is the point of the passage – not the give to Caesar’ part.

  7. Jean says:

    “It sounds like you are making political patronage the acceptable manner to get the “churchy” work done.”

    I get it, you don’t like the topic, so slander your conversation partner. Very well. Good day.

  8. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    To any others here who don’t want this passage to be a political statement or a political primer this passage is about authority.

    But I do like that the passage does not present Jesus as the metrosexual version of Jesus as many wish to see. He does not bend to the opposition – he does not even attempt to establish a relationship with his opposition.

  9. Michael says:

    There is a political implication here because Jesus was being asked to address the burning political issue of the day…that being whether the Jews should have to pay taxes to their Roman occupiers.

    The expectation of the people was that the hoped for Messiah would overthrow Caesar.

    As Jean points out, the Pharisees showed by ownership of the coin itself that they were compromised…Jews weren’t allowed to carry coinage with a persons image on it…especially when the image was accompanied by an inscription declaring that the image was of the Son of God.

    I don’t think Jesus was setting up two kingdom theology here, but pointing out that the Pharisees were the real hypocrites…in bed with Caesar,but still prattling about God.

    Jesus was coming as a king with His kingdom, but it wouldn’t be manifested as some would have it done.

    Some may see a resemblance to todays political climate…make your own application.

  10. em... again says:

    this seems a strange passage to require a debate…

    i can ‘amen’ most of MLD’s comment @2

    BTW that ‘hate’ is a hate that is nurtured by pride that has risen to self aggrandizement tainted with strong sense of entitlement 🙂

    “pericope – an extract from a text, esp. a passage from the Bible.” had to look it up, a useful word for the PhxP

  11. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Michael, then you also miss the meaning of the passage. The Pharisees were not there to settle a long lasting dispute about political associations or taxation… at all.
    Verse 15 says it clearly, they were there to entangle him in his words. They didn’t care about coinage and neither did Jesus. In fact, Jesus is saying that the political side does not matter. What matters is to recognize the authority of God and give to God what is God’s — and there is a whole theology wrapped up in that alone.
    And that shut them up.

  12. Michael says:

    “In fact, Jesus is saying that the political side does not matter. ”

    That’s silly.
    They were using the burning political issue of the day to try to entrap him.

    One cannot fully understand this passage without understanding the political and social situation it is composed in.

  13. Xenia says:

    The book of Revelation is all about politics, in coded language.

  14. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    As I said, the picked a political topic to tangle Jesus in his words and make one group or the other mad at him. It even says they didn’t care about his political point of view. You may note that Jesus made no comment about the alliance and did not care. This was all about God’s authority.

    But if people want to make this about ‘political’ Jesus, that’s fine.

  15. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    I don’t think what they are asking is to make a political point as to trying to start a bar fight. Like back in the old NY days drawing a line between a Dodgers fan or a Giants fan.

    I think my very last bullet point under the last verse tells it all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: