Render Unto Caaesar

Article
Currents in Biblical Research

2018, Vol. 16(2) 157–190
‘Render to Caesar the Things © The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
of Caesar and to God the sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1476993X17742292
https://doi.org/
Things of God’: Recent journals.sagepub.com/home/cbi
Perspectives on a Puzzling
Command (1945–Present)
Simeon R. Burke
University of Edinburgh, UK
Abstract
This article surveys post-1945 scholarly attempts to interpret Jesus’ command to ‘render
to Caesar the things of Caesar and to God the things of God’ (Mk 12.17; Mt. 22.21; Lk.
20.25). It suggests that part of the confusion surrounding the interpretation of this phrase
lies not only in the disputed nature of the data, but also in the failure to clearly define the
interpretive categories. This has resulted in contradictory interpretations being described
with the same label, as well as scholars failing to notice similarities between the different
readings. To this end, the following article attempts to more precisely outline the four major
approaches to the command which have emerged since the Second World War (while also
noting the various connections between some of these views): (1) exclusivist interpretations
in which ‘the things of God’ nullify the ‘the things of Caesar’; (2) complementarian readings
in which the two elements are held to be parallel; (3) ambivalent readings that stress the
ambiguity and open-ended nature of the utterance; and (4) subordinationist readings that seek
to uphold both elements of the command while prioritizing the second element (‘the things
of God’) over the first (‘the things of Caesar’). The discussion then turns to considering four
areas that might prove fruitful in future analysis of this command.
Keywords
Render to Caesar, render to God, tribute pericope, Mark 12.17, Genesis 1.27, history of
interpretation, post-colonial criticism, maxim, pronouncement story, ancient rhetoric
Corresponding author:
Simeon R. Burke, PhD Candidate and Wolfson Scholar at New College, University of Edinburgh, Mound
Place, Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX, UK.
Email: simeonrburke@gmail.com
158 Currents in Biblical Research 16(2)
Introduction
The famous tribute pericope in the Synoptic Gospels ends on a note of marvel,
amazement, even confoundment. Hearing Jesus’ climactic response (‘render to
Caesar the things of Caesar and to God the things of God’, hereafter referred to
as the ‘render command’), the Jewish interlocutors leave in silent defeat (Mt.
22.22; Mk 12.17b; Lk. 20.26). The astonishment of the various Jewish author-
ity figures is one, no doubt, in which contemporary scholars and readers have
shared. This can, in part, be explained by the fact that scholars have come up
with such a variety of interpretations for this command. The last seventy years
or so have witnessed commentators confidently asserting radically contradictory
conclusions for both the referents and relationship of ‘the things of Caesar’ (τὰ
Καίσαρος) and ‘the things of God’ (τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ). Interpreters have referred to
Caesar’s property as his ‘coin’ (Lane 1974; France 2002: 446), ‘the Pharisees
and Herodians’ (Bünker 1986), ‘taxes, commerce, the imperial cult and mili-
tary service’ (Carter 2014: 6), while others contend that Jesus’ statement means
that ‘nothing’ in fact belongs to Caesar (Brandon 1967: 346; Horsley 2003: 99).
Scholarly definitions of ‘the things of God’ have been much more numerous,
ranging from ‘everything’ (Myers 1988: 312), to ‘the land of Israel’ (Horsley
2001: 113), ‘the human person’ (Giblin 1971: 510-27), ‘divine honours’ (Wright
1996: 505-6) and ‘the temple tax’ (Stauffer 1955: 133; Tagawa 1971: 117-25),
among others. It appears that at present, the significance of the ‘render’ com-
mand—and the relation of ‘the things of God’ and ‘the things of Caesar’—remain
as contested as ever. The goal of this article is to examine the post-1945 attempts
of New Testament scholars to relate the two Synoptic referents (‘the things of
God’ and ‘the things of Caesar’). Its aim is to guide those seeking to understand
this phrase within its historical context.
Focusing on the period following the Second World War is justified on at least
two grounds. First, as Luz has noted, the post-1945 period in many ways marks
a series of water-shed moments in the understanding of the ‘render’ command
(Luz 2005: 64). To begin with, there has been a marked tendency to argue that
the Historical Jesus and/or the Synoptic Evangelists devalued and even rejected
‘the things of Caesar’ (Luz 2005: 64). Even when scholars maintain that the
tax was to be paid, interpreters provide a variety of factors (e.g. the impend-
ing arrival of the kingdom of God), which severely limit Caesar’s demands. In
general, the deep suspicion with which many scholars have come to look upon
readings of the command that deal with church–state relations can be attrib-
uted to the growing suspicion, at least in certain quarters, towards the misuse
of power by both state and church (Luz 2005: 64). There are, for instance, the
rather worrying examples of New Testament scholars with affinities to German
National Socialism attempting to shore up the authority of the state through the
‘render’ command and Romans 13.1 (see Kittel 1937, 1939; Stauffer 1955: 131;
Burke: Recent Perspectives on the ‘Render’ Command 159
for a discussion which notes the varied approaches of German theologians under
the Third Reich, see Rizzi 2009: 7-23). A further influencing factor which has
arisen in the period after the Second World War is the emergence of readings that
attend to the circumstances of those living in post-colonial situations (Moore-
Gilbert, Stanton and Maley 1997: 12). Post-colonial readings of the command
assume a high degree of correspondence between the context of those living in a
post-colonial world, and the Gospels as texts that present Jesus living in a space
between the Roman dominators and the Jewish revolutionary groups seeking to
overthrow it (see further below). Thus, geopolitical events continue to shape the
history of interpretation of this command (as with a good many biblical texts),
despite protestations to the contrary.
A second impetus for providing the following analysis is the perceived inad-
equacy of several of the labels employed to describe the interpretive categories.
Förster, to take one recent example, lists four categories of interpretation for the
‘render’ command (2012: 3-6). First, there are anti-Zealot readings that present
Jesus in opposition to the Jewish revolutionary group that resisted Roman rule
and taxation. Second, there are pro-Zealot readings which take the opposite view,
so that Jesus’ response was anti-Roman in nature (on the existence and influence
of the ‘Zealot’ party in the first century, see Hengel 1967; see also the sober
assessments in Deines 2004: 626-30; 2011: 403-48; Horsley and Hanson 1999;
Förster 2012: 1; Lichtenberger 2013). Third, Förster lists eschatological readings
that interpret Jesus’ command squarely within the context of Jewish ‘eschatolo-
gischen Enwartungen’ (eschatological expectation) and Jesus’ own proclama-
tion of the nearness of God’s kingdom, which relativized all human and earthly
rule (2012: 6). Fourth and finally, there are the two-kingdoms interpretations
in which the political ‘is distinguished from religious matters, and the earthly
states were given their legitimacy solely by God, to whom man owed obedience’
(2012: 6, my translation). Bonnard’s earlier list provides three of these options,
omitting the pro-Zealot interpretation but otherwise keeping the others (1970:
322-23; cf. Giblin 1971: 510-13 who follows Bonnard’s scheme; cf. for a differ-
ent list of options, Ukpong 1999: 434-36).
Two examples demonstrate the deficiency of current interpretive categories.
First, scholars use the label ‘ironic interpretation’ to refer both to readings in
which the command amounts to meaningless ‘nonsense’ (Fitzmyer 1985: 1292:
‘a flash of wit, devoid of any serious import’), or alternatively, to describe a sub-
versive reading of the command in which giving Caesar back his coin comes to
signify an underhanded remark about the uncleanness of the imperial denarius.
One throws the coin back at Caesar simply to avoid the taint of impurity (Wright
1996: 505). The label ‘ironic interpretation’ can thus be used to describe the view
that the command is devoid of all meaning, as well as the position that the state-
ment constitutes a subversive piece of teaching (for yet another ‘ironic’ read-
ing, see Patte 1987: 309). Such diversity of interpretation is not limited to those
readings labelled ‘ironic’. Förster’s ‘eschatological’ interpretation also requires

unpacking. It has been possible for scholars to use Jesus, or the Evangelists’
eschatological expectation, as evidence of a desire to undermine Caesar’s claims
altogether (Horsley 2003: 98-99). Alternatively, scholars have claimed that the
context of his eschatological preaching supports a reading in which Jesus both
acknowledges Caesar’s right to the coin, while relativizing the importance of this
act given the imminently emerging kingdom of God (Förster 2012: 220; Wright
1996: 505). Just as with the term ‘ironic’, so also has the use of the ‘eschatologi-
cal horizon’ of Jesus’ teaching resulted in numerous, seemingly contradictory
interpretations of the ‘render’ command.
Given the lack of clarity surrounding some of the previously employed inter-
pretive labels, I would suggest that a better way forward is to recognize that
these groupings do not constitute watertight compartments in which there is no
similarity between different exegetical options. That is, differences and similari-
ties between the views of scholars within, and beyond, a single category should
be noted. Thus, part of the purpose of this article is to more clearly define the
set of interpretive categories used, while also noting that most of the readings
fit together on a spectrum. The four interpretive options, which I will explore
below, can be summarized as follows:
(1) Exclusivist readings hold that ‘the things of God’ nullify the ‘the things
of Caesar’. The two elements of the phrase operate in a relationship of
mutual exclusivity.
(2) Complementarian readings can be defined as interpretations in which the
two elements are held to be parallel by the Historical Jesus and/or the
authors of the Synoptics. Interpreters of this kind generally see no need
for excluding either element, and hold that both can be upheld simultane-
ously as comparable and non-conflicting demands.
(3) Ambivalent readings stress the ambiguity and open-ended nature of the
utterance. Interpreters who stress the uncertain quality of the command
have done so either through applying the insights of post-colonial and
reader-centred approaches, or through attending to ancient rhetoric and
the genres of the pronouncement story and the maxim.
(4) Subordinationist readings seek to uphold both elements of the command
while prioritizing the second element (‘the things of God’) over the first
(‘the things of Caesar’).
It should be stated that these categories operate at the etic level as useful heuris-
tic devices to organize the recent history of interpretation, rather than as strict
categories which authors would use to describe their own points of view. Having
discussed these major options, I turn to assessing the approaches of commen-
taries in the post-war period, before, finally, outlining four fruitful avenues for
future research.
Preliminary Issues
Before beginning the analysis, however, two points about the scope of this article
are in order, the first relating to source-critical concerns and the second to audi-
ence and authenticity. First, the tribute passage and the ‘render’ command with
which it climactically concludes were extremely popular in early Christianity.
At least five early textual versions of the command circulated between the sec-
ond half of the first century and the mid-second century: Mark 12.17, Matthew
22.21, Luke 20.25, Thomas, 100.2-4 and possibly Romans 13.7 (for a literary
relationship between Rom. 13.7 and an oral version of the Synoptic versions,
see Thompson 1991: 111-20; Dunn 1988: 768; for the view that Paul’s version
is independent see Neirynck 1986: 291). The relevant source-critical issues
related to these versions have received ample treatment in the voluminous work
of Förster (2012: 226-81; see also Cuvillier 1992: 329-44. Papyrus Egerton 2r
contains a similar version of the tribute pronouncement story, although the ‘ren-
der’ command itself is absent, perhaps contained within the question asked of
Jesus). Among the early Gospel versions, the best case for inclusion is, argu-
ably, Thomas 100. Although some kind of literary relationship almost certainly
exists between the three Synoptic versions, the case for Thomas’ connection
with the Synoptics is far more debated, with some arguing for its secondary
dependence on the Synoptics (tentatively, Gathercole 2011: 134-35; 2012: 154;
Goodacre 2012: 112-15; Davies and Allison 2004: 218), and others positing its
independence (Crossan 1983: 399-400; Gibson 2004: 296–97, 314, 314 n. 110;
for a general discussion of the relationship between Thomas and the Synoptics,
see Kloppenborg 2014; Gathercole 2014b; Denzey Lewis 2014; Patterson 2014;
Goodacre 2014). For the sake of simplicity, then, this article does not consider
the Thomasine version in the analysis below (for an assessment of the options
for the Thomasine referents, see Gathercole 2014a: 561-65). This is not to deny,
of course, that widening the focus of investigation to include additional early
Christian versions, as well as patristic reuse, opens up new directions in the study
of this text (on which see Bori 1986: 451-64; Luz 2005: 63-65; Rizzi 2009; 2010:
227-34; Förster 2012: 226-81; Burke forthcoming).
Second, it is worth noting that scholars have differed on what is meant by ‘his-
torical context’, with some attributing their interpretations to the Historical Jesus
and others to the Synoptic authors. This raises the question of the ‘authenticity’
of the phrase. In his 1922 published Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition,
Bultmann commented that there were no reasons to doubt either that the com-
mand travelled within its current setting or that it could be traced back to the
Historical Jesus (Bultmann 1922: 33; so also Collins 2007: 552-55; Bruce 1984:
250. Brandon 1967: 271, 346 thinks that while vv. 14-17 are original, v. 13 is
a product of the author(s) of Mark). The Jesus Seminar attributed Mk 12.17 to
the Historical Jesus, the only saying in Mark to receive their ‘red letter’ rating
(Funk and Hoover 1993: 549). Yet the authenticity of the phrase has not achieved
global affirmation. Those who question the command’s authenticity in the life
of the Historical Jesus do so on several grounds. Petzke, for instance, thinks that
‘the things of God’ is a pious addition to the original version (1975: 232-35).
More commonly, scholars have had cause to doubt that the command goes back
to the Historical Jesus on numismatic grounds (Mell 1994: 222-27). Since there
appears to be little to no evidence for a poll tax (tributum capitis) in Judea or the
use of denarii in the pre-70 period, others posit that the scene cannot be authen-
tic to the Historical Jesus (Udoh 2005: 207-38; Carter 2014: 2). There is some
numismatic evidence to the contrary, however (Collins 2007: 555; Hart 1984:
242-48). Moreover, the recent work of Eck on Roman taxation suggests that the
form of taxation, and the coins in use, in Roman Judea remain open questions
(Eck 2007: 210; see the recent discussion of Zeichmann 2017: 422-37). In the
discussion below, therefore, I attempt to note where scholars attribute the com-
mand to either the Historical Jesus or the Synoptic Evangelists, or to both.
1. Exclusivist Readings
First, there has arisen an array of interpretations which have often resulted in
a seditious image of Jesus in relation to the Roman empire. The central feature
of these readings is that the Historical Jesus and/or the authors of the Synoptics
define ‘the things of God’ in such a way as to exclude, or nullify ‘the things of
Caesar’ altogether. These readings, which I label ‘exclusivist interpretations’,
boast a long history in the modern period, dating back as far as Reimarus in his
1778 essay ‘Vom dem Zweke Jesu und seiner Jünger’ (‘On the Aims of Jesus and
his Disciples’, Reimarus 1970: 59-269; see also Leander 2013: 18). The follow-
ing analysis starts with Brandon, who was its first major proponent in the post-
war period (Brandon 1967: 346; cf. for an important pre-1945 forerunner, Eisler
1929; cf. Bammel 1984: 11-68 for a slightly dated but highly useful historical
overview of revolutionary portrayals of the Historical Jesus).
In his famous work, Jesus and the Zealots, Brandon seeks to re-examine the
reasons for Jesus’ suffering and death (Brandon 1967: xi-xii). Brandon contends
that despite noting Jesus’ trial by Pilate as ‘revolutionary’ or ‘brigand’ (Mt.
27.38; Mk 15.27), the Synoptic Gospels present Jesus as a loyal subject of Rome
(cf. also Brandon 1968: 30-31). The reason for Mark’s perceivably more irenic
account, Brandon argues, is because the Markan community was writing in the
aftermath of the dreadful Jewish War of 66–70 CE, in which Christians were
suspected of participation in insurrectionist activities against Rome. Within this
context, Mark writes an Apologia ad Christianos Romanos (Apology for Roman
Christians) in which he presents Christ, and his followers, as obedient and com-
pliant subordinates of Caesar who, among other things, pay their taxes (Brandon
1967: 221-82). And yet Mark, Brandon claims, does not entirely succeed in this
aim. Mark’s inclusion of various narrative details (including Jesus’ selection of
a Zealot among his twelve disciples, his call for his disciples to ‘take up their
crosses’ and his crucifixion between two brigands) suggested to Brandon that
the narrative should be read more critically as an apologetic cover-up of Jesus’
seditious aims (1967: xii). Each of these passages drove Brandon to re-consider
Jesus’ relationship to the Zealots and to conclude that Jesus, while not a Zealot
himself, held much in common with the beliefs and aims of these revolutionary
groups.
Turning to Brandon’s exegesis of the ‘render’ command, the author clearly
states his position that ‘the very essence of the Zealot case against the payment
of tribute was that it meant giving to Caesar what belonged to God’ (1967: 346).
The ‘things of God’, for Brandon, should be understood as the land of Israel
which is currently possessed by Caesar and belongs to him. While Brandon does
not explicitly define the ‘things of Caesar’, the implication of all things belong-
ing to God is that ‘devout Jews’ owed nothing to Caesar since the land was not
rightfully his but God’s. According to Brandon, the relationship between these
two elements is one of mutual exclusivity. That is, the ‘things of God’ include
the land of Israel which belongs exclusively to God and not to Caesar. Taken
together, the command was ‘doubtless…intended, to rule that the payment of
tribute to Caesar was an act of disloyalty to Yahweh’ (1967: 348). As a conse-
quence, the command to ‘render to Caesar’ signifies that one should not pay
the tax to Caesar. The ‘render’ command was therefore ‘a saying of which any
Zealot would have approved’ (1967: 347).
Turning to more recent proponents of the exclusivist reading, one of the most
influential is Horsley who comments on the ‘render’ command in at least three of
his works (1987, 2001, 2003). Horsley’s concern is with those who simplify the
complexity of ‘political conflict’ in first-century Palestine by conflating it with a
‘unitary’ account of Judaism, which smooths over the revolutionary qualities of
certain groups. To counter this perceived trend, Horsley re-constructs a narrative
of the political dimension of first-century Palestinian experience, particularly
among those seeking to overthrow the Roman empire and create an alternative
and theocratic society (2003: 35; cf. Horsley and Hanson 1999: 190-200). The
protests and revolts of ‘the Galilean and Judean people’ becomes what one might
call a controlling narrative or central lens through which Horsley reads the Gospel
narratives (2001: 34; 2003: 35). Crucial to Horsley’s definition of ‘the things of
Caesar’, and his interpretation of this pericope, is the assumption that Jesus oper-
ated with a similar religious-political ideology as the ‘Fourth Philosophy’, com-
monly equated with the Zealots (Horsley 2003: 99, 104; cf. 2001: 113). Josephus
describes the origins of this philosophy as starting with Judas the Galilean, or
Gaulanite, who along with a certain Pharisee called Saddok led a revolt against
the census in 6 CE, during the governorship of Quirinius (Ant. 18.26). In line
with the earlier Fourth Philosophy, Horsley’s Jesus preaches ‘the kingdom of
God’ which judges rulers and which establishes the ‘renewal of Israel’ (2003:
98-99). When turning to the ‘render’ command itself, Horsley champions the
view that since ‘Israelite covenantal theology’ operated with the assumption that
all things belonged to God, then nothing was due to Caesar (2003: 98-99; 2010:
142-43). Thus, Jesus holds that ‘if God is the exclusive Lord and Master, if the
people live under the exclusive kingship of God, then all things belong to God,
the implications for Caesar being fairly obvious’ (2003: 99).
The exclusivist position has found support in numerous other monographs
and treatments (Kennard 1950; Maccoby 1973: 132-33; Myers 1988: 312; ten-
tatively, Ukpong 1999: 442; Herzog 2000: 219-32; Oakman 2012: 12). More
recently still, Bermejo-Rubio in a string of articles has led the clarion call for
an ‘open-minded’ and unblinkered analysis of the evidence for Jesus’ relation-
ship to Rome (2013: 19-57; 2014: 1-105; 2015a: 232-43; 2015b: 131-65; 2017:
41-67). Bermejo-Rubio considers Jesus’ response as ‘crafty’, entailing ‘frontal
opposition to the taxes whilst not openly recognizing it’ (2013: 41). Like several
interpreters, Bermejo-Rubio borrows from Scott’s theory of hidden and pub-
lic transcripts. In Scott’s theory, colonized subordinates employ a public tran-
script to appear loyal to the colonial power, while simultaneously presenting an
implicit transcript that allows the individual to remain faithful to the commit-
ments of the native community (see Scott 1990: 3; Herzog 1994: 342; see for
wider methodological issues, Herzog 2004: 41-60). For Bermejo-Rubio, Jesus
in his public transcript seemingly presents the duties to God and Caesar as two
reconcilable demands so that he might avoid the danger of being arrested by pro-
Roman forces (Lk. 20.19-20 presents the political danger most vividly; Bermejo-
Rubio 2017: 60). At the same time, Jesus’ true hidden transcript, contained in the
implicit message of his words, makes it clear that he stands with the revolution-
ary groups and against the Roman taxation. ‘Thus, what appear to be two parallel
spheres are in fact two mutually exclusive domains, in which no compromise is
possible’ (Bermejo Rubio 2017: 60, my translation).
In offering this renewed and nuanced case for Jesus’ anti-Roman stance,
Bermejo-Rubio has also provided a useful survey and rebuttal of a vast array of
counter-arguments against it (2013: 19-57; see also 2015b: 131-65). Among the
many positive arguments he puts forward, the most crucial include the allega-
tions made against Jesus in Lk. 23.2 (2014: 13; 2017: 61. Yet see for a differ-
ent interpretation of these accusations, Derrett 1970:313-38; Schneider 1984b:
403-14), as well as the existence of roughly contemporaneous tax revolts both in
Judea and Galilee which, for Bermejo-Rubio, increase the likelihood that Jesus’
position towards the Roman tribute was also revolutionary (Bermejo-Rubio
2014: 28-34; Bermejo-Rubio 2015b: 131-65). Finally, Bermejo-Rubio contends
that the exclusivist reading makes best sense of various complex conundrums
within the tribute anecdote (see Bermejo-Rubio 2013: 41 n.104). For instance,
it appears to explain the fact that Jesus’ opponents knew his position was one
of opposition and that they could trap him in his talk (Mk 12.13, 15; Lk. 20.20;
although for different readings of the Pharisaic and Herodian views on tax, see
Hooker 2001: 280, Taylor 2000: 299-310. On the difficulty of knowing the posi-
tion of the Herodians on the tax problem, see the wise judgment of France 2007:
832: ‘We simply do not know’).
In sum, the exclusivist reading has grown out of a renewed desire to attend
to the political situation of Jesus’ day. Although it currently remains a minority
position, the number of scholars espousing these readings has greatly increased
since the end of the Second World War. Such a meteoric rise can be attributed, in
part, to the emergence of post-colonial criticism, and the proliferation of schol-
arly interest in both the Roman imperial order and the variety of first century
Jewish responses to it.
2. Complementarian Readings
The second trend, which I refer to as complementarian in nature, holds that Jesus’
statement offers a harmonious analogy between the things of Caesar and the
things of God. Here, the two demands constitute parallel duties that can be car-
ried out simultaneously. As such, complementarian readings are the opposite of
the exclusivist interpretations outlined above. Yet it should be noted that comple-
mentarian readings represent something of a spectrum within which numerous
positions can reasonably be held. The most obvious complementarian reading
holds that the Evangelists, and/or the Historical Jesus, never intended to place the
two elements in conflict. Alternatively, other complementarian readings contend
that conflict was a potential, and perhaps even inevitable, outcome of living in
Caesar’s domain. On this view, it is down to the discernment of the reader who is
obliged to decide when this might be the case (France 2002: 489). That is, conflict
between God and Caesar is not yet envisaged by the authors of the Gospels but
will at some indefinite point become clearer. Until then, the Evangelists and/or the
Historical Jesus teach that one must submit to the ‘sober reality’ of the times and
commit to faithfulness to God and the world (Ernst 1981: 346-47, my translation).
I will note further below the overlap between this looser version of the comple-
mentarian position and some of the ambivalent and subordinationist readings.
A significant proponent of the classic complementarian reading of the ‘render’
command is Stauffer, a mid-twentieth-century German scholar who maintained
an ambivalent relationship towards the German National Socialist Movement
(on which see Nicklas 2014: 276). In his Christus und die Caesaren, Stauffer
provides a series of diverse and wide-ranging ‘Historische Skizzen’ (histori-
cal sketches) which touch on the Roman empire and the ministry of Jesus, as
well as early Christian encounters with imperial power (1948; 1955). Among
these episodes is the encounter recorded in the tribute passage. Stauffer defines
the first part of the sentence, τὰ Καίσαρος, as the ‘poll-tax’ which one should
pay as a loyal citizen (1955: 131, 133) and the ‘things of God’ as ‘the temple
tax’ (1955: 134). Stauffer arrives at this conclusion through a combination

of linguistic observations and historical reconstruction. The verb ἀποδιδόναι
refers to giving back, or paying tribute, which entails not only an obligation
that must be fulfilled but ‘a moral duty’ (1955: 129). He furnishes a variety of
Old Testament (Jer. 27.5), early Jewish (Baruch 1.10-11; Josephus, Ant. 12) and
early Christian texts (Shepherd of Hermas 3.1; Origen; Hilary; Vulgate—the
latter three all lack specific textual references however) to support his conclu-
sion that for the Evangelists, there were no grounds to refuse the payment of the
tax. He observes that in the Septuagint, when the verb ‘render’ (ἀποδιδόναι) is
used in conjunction with the dative ‘to God’, ‘it is a common technical usage for
the ceremonial discharge of obligations in the cult’ (1955: 132 in reference to
Num. 8.13; 1 Chron. 29.9; Ps. 76.11). In Jesus’ day, Stauffer avers, these cultic
obligations refer to paying the temple tax. Combined with this lexical point is
Stauffer’s brief discussion of the situation of Roman tax revolts. He maintains
that while tax rebellion was an existing phenomenon within Roman Judea, it
was equally possible that a zealous Jew could fulfil both the temple and the
imperial tax (1955: 130). Moreover, since the two clauses are strictly parallel,
with the ‘and’ (καὶ) functioning as a simple conjoining of two equal halves, the
command should be taken to mean ‘payment’ of both taxes (1955: 133). Hence,
the overall interpretation of the command for Stauffer is that the two clauses
refer to parallel expressions of obedience to both the empire and to the kingdom
of God (1955: 133).
Stauffer hints towards a subordinationist reading when noting the ten-
dency of the world to glorify Caesar in contrast to Jesus who ‘affirmed the
symbolism of power’ but ‘rejected the symbolism of worship’ (1955: 132).
Even still, Stauffer does not develop this point and maintains that the two
duties can be upheld simultaneously. Moreover, he concludes on a highly
controversial note by remarking that the payment of the tribute to Caesar is
‘the contribution of the people of God to the maintenance of the empire’ and
is ‘to fulfil God’s will for history’ (1955: 131). In Stauffer’s account, the two
duties appear not only to be complementary, but equivalent, even cotermi-
nous—to obey Caesar is to obey God, since the power of the former flows
naturally from the latter.
A second and rather different complementarian reading of the tribute passage
is put forth by Derrett (1970: 313-38; 1983: 38-48). The impetus for Derrett’s
approach to this pericope is the perceivably troublesome doctrine of two king-
doms. Derrett argues that some used the ‘render’ command to distinguish between
ecclesiastical and civil spheres. The author then questions whether Jesus invoked
such a distinction and, more generally, whether ‘first-century Jews were capable’
of understanding, or even producing, a contrast of this type (1970: 313). In chal-
lenging such a view, Derrett defines ‘the things of God’ in terms of obedience
to the commandments of God and those of Caesar. His words are worth quoting
in full: ‘The original meaning is therefore not an evasion, nor an equivocation,

but simply “Obey the commands of the king and obey (thereby) the command-
ments of God.” There is no dichotomy between God and Caesar, nor between the
“world” and the kingdom of God, but a straightforward application of the bibli-
cal verse’ (1970: 335). The general rule which the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospel
invokes is that of two duties which one can ‘straightforwardly’ undertake. Derrett
invokes Eccl. 8.2 (‘I say: Keep the king’s command, because of God’s oath to
him’) as the key text for understanding the ‘render’ command (1970: 323). Based
on this verse, ‘obedience even to non-Jewish rulers is within one’s comprehensive
obedience to God’ (1970: 335). Yet Derrett is more explicit than Stauffer concern-
ing the conditionality of obedience to Caesar. He notes that the historical Jesus
had in mind occasions when ‘Caesar’s orders implied disobedience to any one of
the divine commands’ which would imply a division of loyalties and a prioritiza-
tion of ‘the things of God’ over ‘the things of Caesar’ (Derrett 1970: 336; see also
Klemm 1982: 254). Moreover, he notes that the reader must consider whether by
paying taxes, one was contributing to morally dubious projects (military cam-
paigns, for instance; Derrett 1983: 48). ‘Where a conflict might arise between’
one’s duties to God and Caesar, then ‘Caesar’s right must take second place’
(1970: 338).
In summary, the harmonious view as represented by Stauffer, Derrett (and
others) rests on the parallel structure of the clauses in Mk 12.17, which suggests
that the interpretation must also be taken in a parallel way (see also Bonnard
1970: 323). The interpretation also rests on a straightforward reading of the com-
mand of Jesus to give back (ἀποδιδόναι) to the ruling authorities that which
belongs to it. It therefore resists the attempt to read the command in an ironic
fashion. Moreover, scholars of this interpretation offer textual data in support of
these readings and point to the apparent strain within the Hebrew Bible, espe-
cially in the prophets, in which one is commanded to pray for and faithfully serve
the ruler (cf. Jer. 27.5; Baruch 1.10-12; Eccl. 8.2; Dan. 2.21; Prov. 8.15). This
evidence offers a very different picture compared with the texts offered in the
exclusivist readings of Bermejo-Rubio and Horsley, both of whom invoked the
shema of Deut. 6.4 as evidence for the exclusivity of divine honours (Horsley
2001: 199; Bermejo-Rubio 2017: 60-1). Moreover, and as will be seen below,
among subordinationists, Wright refers to Jesus’ hearers’ minds being ‘stocked,
kitted out one might say, with stories and symbols about kingdom, slavery, battle,
and freedom’ (1996: 502). Wright includes the exodus and the liberation from
Pharaoh’s unjust rule, the Maccabean revolt (1 Macc. 2.66-68), and the revolt
of Judas the Galilean as significant texts and historical traditions that inform his
reading of the command. These three examples raise an important question for
future investigation: What texts, traditions and historical events, to the extent
that it is possible to determine, might have shaped the political viewpoint of the
Synoptic Evangelists and the Historical Jesus?
3. Ambivalent Readings
The third interpretive tendency in the post-war approach to the tribute pericope
has been to lay stress on the ambiguity of the phrase. Scholars espousing this
view often distance the ‘historical setting’ of the command and the tribute peri-
cope from perceivably worrisome applications to ‘church and state’ discussions
in the present. One notes a tendency among those adopting ‘ambivalent’ read-
ings to label such applications as anachronistic since the notion of a nation-state
with a conscious relationship to political power was not yet born in the history of
ideas and politics (see Collins 2007: 550-57). According to ambivalent readings
of the command, the referents of τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ and τὰ Καίσαρος remain purpose-
fully ambiguous, and thus the teaching of Jesus as represented in the Synoptic
Gospels is to some extent open-ended in its application. Two significant meth-
odological insights have shaped ambivalent readings. The first is post-colonial
theory which stresses the social location of the colonized individual in the face of
pressure from imperial forces. The second is rhetorical-criticism and the genres
of the pronouncement story and maxim.
On the first of these, post-colonial theory offers a variety of discourses that
biblical scholars have mapped onto the tribute passage (and the New Testament
more generally). Post-colonial criticism, as it is applied to the New Testament,
seeks to take account of the pervasive experience of colonialism and postcolo-
nialism in recent history (Moore-Gilbert, Stanton and Maley 1997: 12). As a
literary practice or reading strategy, it is particularly attuned to the discursive
practices of colonial powers and the mimicking and rupturing of these discourses
by the colonized ‘other’. As Moore writes, post-colonial criticism is less a the-
ory and more a ‘critical sensibility’ to certain ‘interrelated historical and textual
phenomena’ believed to be latent within texts (Moore 2006: 7). Post-colonial
theory has received critical response from New Testament scholars. Its insights
appear particularly relevant where the author of the text specifically engages the
political and economic issues raised by Roman rule. In the case of the Synoptic
Gospels, post-colonial readings appear to be justified on at least prima facie
grounds, given the narratives feature the birth of Jesus during the ἀπογραφή
of Caesar Augustus (Lk. 2.2), locate his ministry in Galilee, an outpost of the
Roman province of Judea (Mt. 2.22; 3.13; 4.12, 23; Mk 1.14, 28; 3.7; 6.21; 9.30;
Lk. 1.26; 2.4; 2.39; 3.1; 23.5), and present his trial, death and crucifixion under
Roman authorities (Mt. 27.2, 11-37; Mk 15.1-27; Lk. 23.1-25; see the guarded
affirmation of applying post-colonial theory to the Gospels by Barclay 2016:
32-33).
Turning more specifically to the ‘render’ command, the application of post-
colonial theory has yielded fascinating results. This is best seen in two recent
works, both on Mark’s Gospel (Samuel 2007 and Leander 2013). In his post-
colonial reading of Mark’s Gospel, Samuel assumes that the community behind
the Gospel constitutes a minority movement negotiating the dominant Roman

colonial and the ‘relatively dominant’ Jewish collaborative and nationalist dis-
courses of power. With a nod to renowned postcolonial theorist, Bhabha, Samuel
concludes that Mark represents a third, interstitial space between these two dom-
inant discourses (2007: ix, 5, 158). In his reading of the tax pericope, Samuel
contends that the community of Jesus-followers face a dilemma—whether to be
‘in liaison with the temple or with the colonial order’ (2007: 140). Jesus’ answer
appears to be ‘ambiguous’, containing ‘a public and a hidden transcript’. In other
words, Jesus sounds as though he both ‘consents to and prohibits the payment
of taxes to Rome’ (2007: 141 see for a similar phrasing, Wright 1996: 505).
Against the exclusivist interpretations, Samuel affirms that there is ‘an apparent
recognition of the emperor’ so that ‘Jesus wants people to give to the emperor
what belongs to him, to be affiliated to the imperial system’ (2007: 141). Yet at
the same time, ‘there is recognition of God and of the need to give to God what
belongs to him’ (2007: 141). Jesus legitimizes the ‘strategic stand’ whereby one
can be ‘apparently affiliated to Rome but at the same time remaining potentially
detached from her’ (2007: 141). Samuel goes on to imply that while the action of
the Zealots was open to Jesus, since ‘outright rebellion against the imperial order
would be ruinous’, the more ‘strategic stand’ offered the only legitimate option
(2007: 141). For Samuel, then, the command affirms the Markan community’s
strict adherence to the God of Israel while rejecting the sedition and ‘nativist
essentialism’ of nationalist groups (2007: 5, 16). It simultaneously acknowl-
edged the right of Caesar to receive the tax while rejecting collaboration with its
imperial system of government.
Leander’s post-colonial reading of the Gospel of Mark differs from Samuel’s
in that it examines the interplay between commentaries on the Gospel of Mark
from the nineteenth century and contemporary times (2013: 269). Yet, similarly
to Samuel, Leander recognizes the ambiguity of the episode which leaves ‘a
lot of room for hermeneutical variation’ so that ‘the interpretive possibilities
are considerable’ (2013: 269; see also Moore 2006: 33). Leander locates anti-
Roman tax discourse as the key point of the discussion. A survey of the uses of
the Latin loanword κῆνσος in Greek literature from 1 Maccabees and Josephus’s
Jewish War 1.154, 2.402, yields the meaning ‘penalty’ (Leander 2013: 275-81,
302). More particularly, the κῆνσος represented a foreign tribute paid as a sign
of subjugation to slavery. Jesus’ interlocutors ask him to consider whether he
distances himself from imperial symbols or not. Leander compares the saying
of Jesus as recorded in Mark with Rom. 13.1-7, concluding that in the latter
the power of the emperor was divinely sanctioned. By contrast, Jesus’ use of
ἀποδιδόναι does not entail that the tax was to be paid back by divine mandate
since the Markan Jesus distinguishes the claims of God and Caesar. Instead,
payment of the tax, in Leander’s view, was contingent upon the situation of the
audience. The more important consideration is ‘the things of God’. Jesus forces
his opponents to ponder what truly belongs to Caesar ‘now that God’s empire is
emerging’ (2013: 283). His statement ‘establishes a certain distance in relation
to imperial demands, by which Mark’s audience is granted a sense of negotiating
agency’ (2013: 284). Although Jesus is a split subject, speaking, as it were, with
a two-forked tongue, he is still in some sense represented as independent from
Roman power. From this position, he permits a position of critical distance in
relation to the Roman empire for the communities reading the Gospel of Mark.
These two examples of the ambivalent interpretation of Jesus’ statement have a
good deal of overlap with the exclusivist, complementarian and subordinationist
positions. The pragmatic appearance of obedience comes close to the exclusivist
position, since Jesus’ desired response is apparently to denounce the oppressive
taxation, even if in a non-violent way. One can note parallels here between the
ambivalent positions of Leander and Samuel and the extremes of the subordi-
nationist position where the acquiescence to Caesar’s demands is made on a
pragmatic basis and with a critical attitude towards Caesar’s coin (see Wright
1996: 505). One can also note parallels with Bermejo-Rubio who also applies
Scott’s theory of hidden transcripts. Yet, in contrast to Bermejo-Rubio’s position,
Samuel draws a stronger contrast between the Historical Jesus and nationalist
groups (Bermejo-Rubio 2017: 60). Moreover, both Samuel and Leander main-
tain that the text generally upholds the payment of Caesar’s tax, even if it allows
for rare occasions where one can opt out of the system altogether. Above all,
what sets the ambivalent readings apart is that it recognizes the intentional ambi-
guity in the utterance which, in turn, empowers those engaging colonial powers.
The second kind of ambivalent reading emerges, in large part, from rhetori-
cal insights drawn from the genre and function of the anecdote or pronounce-
ment story (Gk.: χρεία; Lat.: exemplum) in antiquity (see Tannehill 1981a:
1-13; 1981b: 101-19; on Roman exempla see Langlands 2015: 68-80; 2011:
100-122; Roller 2004: 1-56; Morgan 2007: 122-59; Hock and O’Neill 1986;
on rabbinic rhetoric and the tribute passage, see Owen-Ball 1993: 1-14; ear-
lier, Daube 1951: 45-48). For many who subscribe to the ambivalent reading,
the ambiguity reflected in the ‘render’ command is the result of the constraining
circumstances the Synoptic Evangelists describe. The command as it appears in
the Synoptic Gospels is merely a rhetorical thrust intended to defeat Jesus’ enemies
(and especially in the Gospel of Matthew, the Pharisees; see Repschinski 2000:
259). Jesus emerges as an exemplary hero who defeats his enemies in rhetorical
combat. The appeal to rhetoric can take on an extreme position, whereby Jesus’
response becomes devoid of all didactic significance. In his reader-response com-
mentary on Mark, van Iersel argues that the ‘render’ command is not offered as an
answer to a question but as a meaningless quip or ‘piece of verbal jugglery’ in a
tricky situation (van Iersel 2004: 372; cf. Fitzmyer 1985: 1292). On this view, the
saying as recorded in the Synoptics offers no substantive teaching and means very
little, if anything.
More commonly, readings that are sensitive to the form of the pronouncement
story stress that the saying contains some didactic content, even if its applica-
tion is limited to the historical context in which it was uttered. (It should be
noted that it is possible to observe the rhetorical nature of the episode while still
maintaining that it offers genuine teaching. Rhetorical awareness is not the sole
preserve of those who hold to the ambivalent reading—see Davies and Allison
2004: 219; France 2002: 60). Collins, for instance, believes the applicability of
the command extends only as far as its original audience (Jesus’ interlocutors—
the Jewish authorities), whom he sought to provoke into considering what might
belong to God (2007: 557). The significance of the command continues no fur-
ther, however, since Collins remarks that the teaching is ‘too general to provide
a practical guide for conduct’ (2007: 552).
Yet Collins’s point about the generality of maxims begs the question: How
do gnomic utterances work? In antiquity, maxims (Gk: γνώμαι; Lat.: senten-
tiae) offer universal pieces of instruction or reflection on the world which then
must be played out in specific ways according to the varying circumstances
facing the reader (i.e. one’s social status, gender, etc. For non-Christian, early
Roman examples, see Morgan 2007: 122-59; for the tribute passage, see Koch
2014: 203-17). The more general a maxim was, the more arenas it could be
applied to. The best maxim was therefore the one that spoke to as many issues
as possible. The presence of a version of the ‘render’ command in an ascetic
collection of gnomic sayings known as the Sentences of Sextus, (ca. 180–210
CE) demonstrates the ‘render’ command’s ability to speak as a maxim to issues
beyond taxation (Chadwick 1959; Pevarello 2013: 98-132). It is clear, then,
that the status of the ‘render’ command as a gnomic utterance, entails that it
was perfectly designed for a variety of specific applications. The discussion
will return to the issue of rhetoric and genre further below (see section 6).
4. Subordinationist Readings
Fourth, a good number of interpreters have stressed that while emphasis in the
command lies on the second half of the sentence, ‘give to God the things of God’,
‘the things of Caesar’ are still to be paid. This interpretation is best described as
‘subordinationist’ because it upholds ‘the things of Caesar’ (in distinction from
exclusivist readings) while prioritizing ‘the things of God’ (in distinction from
complementarian or parallel readings). Interpretations of this kind also fit along
a spectrum, moving from ‘soft subordinationist’ readings which hold that Jesus/
the Evangelists prioritize ‘the things of God’ but stress that the two demands are
not necessarily in conflict (France 2002: 69; Marcus 2009: 826; Bryan 2005:
115) to ‘hard subordinationists’ who see the demands of Caesar strongly subor-
dinated almost to the point of exclusion (Wright 1996: 505, Witherington 2001:
326; Hengel 1971: 33; Wengst 1987: 60-61).
In the first case, the ‘soft subordinationist’ readings stress the subservience of
‘the things of Caesar’ while noting that there need not be conflict between the
two spheres. The force of the command is to distinguish between God and politi-
cal power (Bock 2008: 1615). France describes the assumption of necessary con-
flict as false since ‘the way the pronouncement is formulated suggests that such
conflict should be expected to be exceptional rather than normal’ (2002: 69).
France’s comment raises an important observation about the subordinationist
position. Readings of this kind often emerge in reaction against the exclusivist
interpretations (see Bock 2008: 1614: ‘Whatever he is teaching, it is not political
insubordination’; see also Hengel 1970; 1971; 1974). The softer subordination-
ist readings are more commonly at pains to define ‘the things of Caesar’ as the
coin (France 2002: 466; Bruce 1984: 258), than ‘the things of God’, which are
often left open-ended. Bryan, for instance, in his 2005 monograph, Render to
Caesar, seeks, in part, to challenge the idea that Jesus and the early church were
concerned with overthrowing Roman authorities. A good deal of Bryan’s mono-
graph appears to be set by the terms of Horsley’s arguments (Bryan 2005: 6). In
response, Bryan argues that the Gospels, and in particular the ‘render’ command,
offer a fundamentally different critique of the governing authorities by confront-
ing them with the message of ‘God’s providence and power’ (Bryan 2005: 51).
That is, ‘Jesus does not question the authority of the pagan Caesar, within the
spheres that God has allotted to him (“Whose likeness and inscription is this?”
They said to him, “Caesar’s”), but still he sets that authority firmly within the
sphere of God’s overarching providence and power’ (2005: 51). By transcend-
ing the claims of all earthly authority, Jesus is no more anti-Roman than he was
‘anti-Jewish, or anti-Parthian or anti-anything else’ (2005: 51). Bryan interprets
the command in a subordinated fashion and contends that Jesus critiques the
power of Caesar, not by seeking to create an alternative political reality, but
through reminding the political powers of God’s fundamental oversight of his-
tory (Bryan 2005: 43-44).
The most recent and cogent presentation of the subordinationist reading comes
in Förster’s study of the religious and political background of the tax pericope.
Like Bryan, Förster aims to elucidate the meaning of the episode within the life
and teaching of the historical Jesus. Förster describes his reading as one that takes
seriously the context of early Jewish eschatological expectation. Förster eschews
older approaches, which categorized Jesus’ approach as pro- or anti-Zealot in
favour of contextualizing the ‘render unto Caesar’ tradition within Jesus’ teach-
ing about the nearness of God’s kingdom. The approach of this kingdom relativ-
izes all political allegiances and powers and, in turn, portends the destruction of
the Roman Empire (2012: 5). Förster argues that Jesus does not oppose the tax
per se, but instead highlights the corruption of the Roman imperial government
and criticizes Jewish authorities for negotiating with this tainted power. Förster
identifies τὰ Καίσαρος as the denarius since the image and inscription identify
the coin as Caesar’s currency (2012: 155). The emperor’s claim extended to
the money he had produced and which was managed by his tax controllers and
his treasuries for imperial projects (2012: 157). Thus, Förster concludes that
‘Jesus acknowledges the imperial rule and their taxes, albeit pragmatically, but
at the same time relativizes it by pointing to God’s ownership of his creation’
(2012: 220, my translation). In Förster’s view, the ‘render’ command pragmati-
cally acknowledges the right of the imperial authority to collect taxes but places
this within an eschatological schema in which earthly authority awaits imminent
judgement. This subordinationist reading, built upon a reconstruction of Jesus’
eschatological perspective, both upholds τὰ Καίσαρος but also relativizes it to
God’s greater authority.
The second kind of subordinationist reading (‘hard subordinationist’) is more
extreme in the way it relates the two elements of the phrase, since it almost nul-
lifies ‘the things of Caesar’ altogether. This reading has often been accomplished
through stressing that the coin is worthless or even blasphemous. The two claims
are upheld but those of Caesar are basically illegitimate. Witherington III, for
example, paraphrases the command in these terms: ‘O.K. Give Caesar back these
worthless pieces of metal he claims, but know that we are to render to God all
things since God alone is divine and to God belong all things’ (2001: 326). The
issue of earthly obedience appears insignificant given the in-breaking of God’s
eternal kingdom; thus, Jesus’ response ‘could be seen as ironic’ since it mattered
little whether one paid—or refused to pay—the tribute (Witherington III 2001:
326; 1990: 102; cf. also Just 1997: 773). Somewhat similarly, Wright upholds
the payment of the tax as part of the Evangelists’ intention although he argues
that the first half of the command is ironic at this point. ‘Had he told them to
revolt? Had he told them to pay the tax? He had done neither. He had done both.
Nobody could deny that the saying was revolutionary, but nor could anyone say
that Jesus had forbidden payment of the tax’ (1996: 505). That is, because the
coin is idolatrous, containing the inscription of Tiberius’ status as the son of the
Divine Augustus (TI. CAESAR DIVI AVG.F.AVGVTVS, see Hart 1984:241-8)
it should be returned not as part of being a good citizen but to avoid the idolatry
associated with the image of Caesar on the coin (so also Schneider 1984a: 402-
403). Yet the evidence for Jewish scruples with foreign coins appears to be rather
late, a point that scholars may wish to take up in further analysis of this argument
(Lane 1974: 423-24). In any case, by arguing that the tax is not to be paid as part
of being a good member of Roman Palestinian society, but is rather to be thrown
back at Caesar as a means of avoiding idolatry, Wright’s view comes close to,
although is ultimately distinct from, the exclusivist reading outlined above. The
coin is a sign of immoral rule and should be given back at the earliest opportu-
nity. Even still, Wright differs from the exclusive readings since he maintains
that the coin is to be paid, even if for different reasons than those given by most
subordinationist readings.
In summary, the subordinationist position holds that Jesus and/or the

Evangelists prioritized ‘the things of God’ without nullifying payment of taxa-
tion to Caesar. Several scholars (Bruce 1984:259; Wright 1996, Witherington III
2001) have asserted that the command to pay Caesar his coin is to be read ironi-
cally in light of Caesar’s idolatrous claims to divinity.
5. Analysis of Commentaries on the ‘Render’ Command

As a final point of analysis, it is worth focusing on the trends among commen-
tators for each of the Synoptic Gospels (see Tables 1-3). The tables below pre-
sent the positions of twenty commentators in English as well as several German
and French language commentaries. The tables also present the positions of
seven major English language commentaries: Hermeneia (H), the Post-colonial
Commentary on the New Testament (PCNT), Word Biblical Commentary (WBC),
New Testament Library (NTL), Sacra Pagina (SP), Anchor Bible (AB) and Black’s
Commentary Series (BNTC). In the case of Matthew, the data set does not list
the AB commentary since the authors (Albright and Mann 1971) do not provide
a substantive interpretive comment. The NTL monograph on Matthew is not yet
published.
Each table includes the number and percentage of post-Second World War
commentators that subscribe to the four positions outlined above ([1] exclusivist
= things of God nullify things of Caesar; [2] complementarian = things of God
and Caesar in parallel; [3] ambivalent = things of God and Caesar unclear in
definition and relationship; [4] subordinationist = things of God prioritized over
things of Caesar, both upheld).
One thing that is immediately clear is that the majority of commentaries sub-
scribe to the subordinationist position. Although it is worth noting that ‘[t]ruth
and cogency of arguments…have nothing to do with the number of scholars
holding a certain stance’ (Bermejo-Rubio 2013: 20; repeated in 2014: 3), it is
still striking to note this trend. Of the nineteen commentaries from the seven
major commentary series, fifteen were subordinationist (79%), three ambiva-
lent (16%), and one exclusivist (5%). It is worth noting that the examples taken
from the ‘Post-colonial Commentary on the New Testament’ subscribe to the
subordinationist, exclusivist and ambivalent readings, demonstrating the varied
outcomes which emerge from the application of post-colonial criticism.
Once more, it should be reiterated that these interpretive categories do not nec-
essarily act as mutually exclusive or incompatible forms of thought. Two exam-
ples will suffice to highlight this point. First, Burrus’s position in the PCNT on
Luke seems to comport with three of the readings outlined here—the exclusivist,
ambivalent, and subordinationist positions. In similarity to the exclusivist readings,
Burrus argues that Jesus does object to the taxation and the coin, so that the accu-
sation in Lk. 23.2 has an air of truth to it. Yet the comment is also ‘deliberately
duplicitous’ and ‘veiled in ambiguity’ (2007: 141). Finally, Burrus overlaps with
‘hard subordinationist’ readings when commenting that the radical element of the
command arises from the fact that Jesus is demanding the return of the coin, even
as he denounces the Roman economic system and its imperial exploitation (Burrus
2007: 141). Second, France’s reading is also hard to pin down (2002; 2007). In
similarity to the complementarian reading, France notes that the ‘pronouncement
assumes that there is no clash between the legitimate claims of Caesar and of God’,
although he does note that there are occasions when conflict is inevitable (2002:
466). France’s position comes close to Derrett’s here. Yet France aligns most closely
with the ‘softer’ end of the subordinationist spectrum as he notes that Jesus’ answer
is ‘an answer no Zealot could have given’ (France 2002: 466). Finally, in similarity
to the ambivalent readings, France observes that Jesus ‘gives no specific guidance
as to what is one’s obligation to each party’ (2002: 466; see also Marcus 2009:
826; Boring 1995: 420-21; 2006: 335-36). This open-endedness has bounds to it, of
course, but ultimately it is left to the judgment of the reader to exercise appropriate
discernment in any given situation (cf. also Boring 2006: 335-36).
6. New Avenues for Research

Having assessed the major currents within the interpretation of the ‘render’ com-
mand, the discussion now turns to outlining four potential avenues of research
for those considering the command in future study. The first avenue relates to
several questions concerned narrowly with the tribute passage in its historical
context. The second fertile area for future research pertains to the history of
interpretation of the command, and the third and fourth to work that is being con-
ducted in the adjacent fields of classical rhetoric and Roman popular morality.
First, the discussion has already noted at least three areas of investigation
which more narrowly relate to the tribute pericope in its historical context.
These are worth highlighting once again for the benefit of future investigation.
First, scholars might wish to consider which texts, historical events and tradi-
tions should inform readings of the tribute passage and ‘render’ command in
their historical context. How might one go about adjudicating between these
in a methodologically rigorous way? Second, given the variety of conclusions
surrounding the semantic range of terms such as κῆνσος and ἀποδιδόναι, inter-
preters might wish to circumscribe this data by re-examining contemporaneous
usage of these words. Third, and in light of Eck’s groundbreaking work (2010),
future study might explore the implications for the ‘render’ saying of numismatic
evidence from Roman Palestine. What is the evidence for early Jewish attitudes
towards Roman taxation in our period? There still appears to be a wealth of
numismatic data to be evaluated.
Second there is still much work to be done on the history of interpretation
of this command, particularly in challenging overly simplified conceptions of
Table 1. Gospel of Mark
Exclusivist Complementarian Ambivalent Subordinationist

Commentators Belo 1981: Cranfield 1959: Schweizer Moule 1965: 97; Lane 1974:
187 372; Gundry 1971: 244; 424; Ernst 1981: 346; Juel
1993: 699 Evans 2001: 1990: 165; Perkins 1995: 674;
240-48 Hooker 2001: 280 (BNTC);
(WBC); Rodd Witherington 2001: 325-26;
2005: 144; France 2002: 466;
Collins 2007: Donahue and Harrington
550-57 (H) 2002: 347 (SP); Boring 2006:
336 (NTL); Liew 2007: 109-
10 (contra the designation
of Leander 2013: 272 n. 5,
PCNT); Stein 2008: 546-47;
Marcus 2009: 826 (AB)
Number 1 2 4 13
Percentage 5% 10% 20% 65%
Table 2. Gospel of Matthew
Exclusivist Complementary Ambivalent Subordinationist

Commentators Carter 2007: Bonnard 1970: Buchanan Filson 1960: 235 (BNTC);
91 (PCNT) 322-23 1996: 853 Argyle 1963: 169; Schweizer
1975: 194; Sand 1986: 441-
42; Schnackenburg 1987:
213; Gnilka 1988: 248-49;
Harrington 1991: 310-11
(SP); Blomberg 1992: 331;
Hare 1993: 254-55; Boring
1995: 420-21; Hagner 1995:
637 (WBC); Keener 1999:
525-26; Davies and Allison
2004: 216-18; Luz 2005: 67
(H, cf. 1997: 258-60); France
2007: 833-34; Turner 2008:
529; Nolland 2008: 899
Total Number 1 1 1 17
the interpretive history. What this assessment of post-Second World War inter-
pretations of the ‘render’ command has revealed is the enduring importance of
the political framework for the command. Scholars still operate on the princi-
ple that the command discusses the respective arenas of power ruled by God
and Caesar (or the church and the state). That the political import of the com-
mand continues to pervade scholarship is most obviously the case with comple-
mentarian and subordinationist readings, but it also rings true for anti-imperial,
Table 3. Gospel of Luke
Exclusivist Complementarian Ambivalent Subordinationist

Commentators Schweizer Geldenhuys 1951: 505; Leaney
1984: 306; 1958: 252-53 (BNTC); Caird
Craddock 1963: 223; Marshall 1978:
1990: 236; 736-37; Schmithals 1980: 194;
Burrus 2007: Schneider 1984a: 403; Fitzmyer
141 (PCNT) 1985: 1293 (AB); Sabourin
1987: 322; Johnson 1991:
312 (SP); Nolland 1993: 961
(WBC); Culpepper 1995: 386;
Tannehill 1996: 294; Green
1997: 716; Wolter 2008:
653-54; Carroll 2012: 398
(NTL); Bovon 2012: 52-54 (H);
Parsons 2015: 294
Number 0 0 3 17
exclusivist interpretations. With these readings, the God-Caesar framework

endures. Caesar’s domain is delegitimized, but a domain belongs to Caesar
nonetheless since God’s kingdom can only exist over and against the Roman
empire. Even readings which divest the command of any political application
(Collins 2007; van Iersel 2004) react against an assumedly political framework
for the command. How does this recent focus on religio-political power compare
with the previous centuries of interpretation? In his comment on Mt. 22.21, Luz
observes that ‘the issue in this text is precisely not a determination of the rela-
tionship of Jesus or of his followers to the state. To that degree the most impor-
tant concern with the text in the history of interpretation completely misses its
intention’ (Luz 2005: 67). Luz appears to portray the history of interpretation in
an overly singular way, especially considering recent work on patristic interpre-
tations that highlights some of the less obviously socio-political applications of
the command (Bori 1986; Rizzi 2009; 2010: 227-34; Burke forthcoming).
Accordingly, there is still much work to do in terms of contemporary theo-
logical interpretations of the command, which might look to patristic interpreta-
tions for resourcing such readings. Those ambivalent readings that are reliant on
ancient rhetorical theory have taken initial strides towards noting the open-ended
nature of the gnomic utterance. Yet, by assuming that there is no genuine alter-
native to political applications of the command, the rhetorical readings ignore a
wealth of other non-political ways of reading the command in earlier scholar-
ship (see for an earlier instance of the co-existence of political and non-polit-
ical readings Knabenbauer 1922: 254-55). Moreover, by considering political
applications to be necessarily harmful, contemporary appreciation of the rhetori-

cal genre of the pronouncement story differs radically with the previous history
of interpretation in which political and non-political readings often sat side-by-
side (see Origen, Hom. in Luc. 39 in Lienhard 2009: 161; see Knabenbauer 1922:
254-55 and Meyer 1883; 1890: 380-81, both of whom exhibit a concern among
nineteenth-century commentators to place one’s own interpretations in dialogue
with previous readings). The bounded diversity in the early use of the command
challenges Luz’s claim that the history of interpretation of the command has
been concerned solely with discussions of political and religious power (Luz
2005: 67). The examination of the ‘render’ command’s history of interpretation
might encourage other scholars to become better acquainted with the multiplic-
ity of applications and so be in a better position to critically evaluate the claims
made, for instance, by Luz (for a clear example of this in relation to a different
theme, the ‘Johannine Jews’, see Azar 2016).
One specific area of the history of interpretation to which scholars might wish
to attend is the use of Old Testament intertexts. The extent to which the Synoptic
texts permit or intend such intertextuality remains a live and interesting her-
meneutical question. Beyond the concerns of what the Historical Jesus or the
Synoptic authors meant by the phrase, there are also the doctrinal purposes to
which later readings put this text (for the significance of the afterlife of scriptural
texts, see Bockmuehl 2006: 66). The ‘render’ command contains a long interpre-
tive history that remains relatively understudied. In particular, my own research
explores patristic combinations of the ‘render’ command with other texts to fuse
new ‘cotexts’. Such exegetical strategies mirror practices of non-Christian Greek
and Latin readers of Homer (van der Valk 1963–64) and rabbinical readings of
the Mishnah (Samely 2002). Cotextual practices refer to the processes of fusing
two passages (linked by catchword or some other un/known criteria) to form a
new textual unit of meaning (Samely 2002). It would be impossible to discuss all
the proposed intertexts for the tribute pericope (see Förster 2012: 226-81). One
example, however, is pregnant with interpretive potential: Gen. 1.27 (‘So God
created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and
female he created them’).
The North-African, Church Father Tertullian (ca. 155–220 CE) was arguably
the first to read the εἰκών in a parallel fashion (De Idolalatria 15.3; Scorpiace 14.2;
De Corona 12.4; De Fuga in Persecutione 12.10; Adversus Marcionem 4.34.8).
Tertullian creatively proposed that just as the ‘image’ on the coin meant that it
belonged to Caesar, the human person (homo) bears God’s image and so belongs
to God. Several interpreters have picked up on this insight—some c onsciously not-
ing the history of interpretation (Giblin 1971: 525), with others not referencing it
(Edwards 2002: 364; Bornkamm 1960: 123; Anderson 1976: 275-76; Pesch 1979:
227; Just 1997: 773 with a Christological note). Yet this reading has not been with-
out its detractors (Gundry 1994: 700; France 2002: 469 n. 39; Boring 2006: 335;
Marcus 2009: 818). Marshall notes that the observation that man belongs to God
remains ‘a (correct) theological deduction from the saying [rather] than an inher-
ent element in the argument’ (Marshall 1978: 736). Moreover, the comparison is
between God and Caesar rather than the coin and the human person (1978: 736).
For Förster, the fact that the imago dei contained no significance to New Testament
authors in general speaks against its importance for the Evangelists and the histori-
cal Jesus (Förster 2012: 174; cf. Jervell 1960: 295 n. 409). Beyond the appropri-
ateness of this intertext for the first readers, the use and combination of scriptural
passages such as Gen. 1.27 in the early reception of the command remains a fruit-
ful hermeneutical and exegetical road for future exploration.
The third and fourth areas for further research relate less narrowly to the peri-
cope at hand, and instead focus on issues that relate to the arts and humanities
more generally. Third, I submit that more attention should be paid to rhetorical
units and their use by early Christian writers (see Tannehill 1981a, 1981b; Koch
2014). As Koch has noted recently, ‘The answer [of the ‘render’ command] is in
the form of a gnome, that is, as a universally held saying, which wants to convey
the basic life-orientation’ (2014: 222-23, my translation). Gnomes, or maxims,
work like general principles which the reader must apply in concrete situations
to solve specific problems. The maxim’s significance is ‘so general that its
potential meaning must not be exhausted, but can also be applied to comparable
questions’ (Koch 2014: 222-23, my translation). In the case of the ‘render’ com-
mand, as was seen above, the Sentences of Sextus demonstrate the application
of the saying to less obviously political situations. Some commentators have at
least implicitly recognized the gnomic quality of the utterance by observing that
the command does not offer a universal rule of thumb, but rather encourages a
degree of situation-specific application (Beare 1981: 440; Culpepper 1995: 386;
Tannehill 1996: 294). This attention to the rhetorical unit of the maxim might
explain the multiple applications of the command in the early Roman period.
Future work must take into consideration the range of these applications (see for
an appreciation of the additional theological resonances of the command within
Renaissance Italy, Nygren 2016: 449-88).
Third, and very briefly, further appreciation of the command’s rhetorical
genre holds significance for early Roman popular morality (see Roller 2004;
Langlands 2011: 100-122; Morgan 2007: 122-59), and early Christian ethics,
specifically. The use and reuse of maxims was not only a rhetorical exercise but
also an ethical enterprise. Future studies might explore the extent to which it is
appropriate to describe early Christian (including the Synoptic Gospels’) use of
the ‘render’ command (and other sayings of Jesus) in terms of ‘situation ethics’
(see Morgan 2007: 179-82; Langlands 2011: 100-122). In these and the multi-
tude of other ways in which research could continue, it is clear that this short and
enigmatic phrase still has manifold riches to render to its readers.
Bibliography
Albright, W.F., and C.S. Mann
1971 Matthew: Introduction, Translation and Notes (AB; Garden City, NY: Dou-
bleday).
Anderson, H.
1976 The Gospel of Mark (NCB; London: Oliphants).
Argyle, A.W.
1963 The Gospel of Matthew (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Azar, M.G.
2016 Exegeting the Jews: The Early Reception of the Johannine Jews (Bible in
Ancient Christianity, 10; Leiden and Boston: Brill).
Bammel, E.
1984 ‘The Revolution Theory from Reimarus to Brandon’, in E. Bammel and
C.D.F. Moule (eds.), Jesus and the Politics of His Day (Cambridge and New
York: Cambridge University Press) 11-68.
Barclay, J.M.G.
2016 ‘Pauline Churches, Jewish Communities and the Roman Empire: Introducing
the Issues’, in Barclay, Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans) 3-36.
Beare, F.W.
1981 The Gospel According to Matthew: Translation, Introduction, and Commen-
tary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Belo, F.A.
1981 A Materialist Reading of the Gospel of Mark (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books).
Bermejo-Rubio, F.
2013 ‘Has the Hypothesis of a Seditionist Jesus Been Dealt a Fatal Blow? A Sys-
tematic Answer to the Doubters’, Bandue 7: 19-57.
2014 ‘Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance: A Reassessment of the Arguments’,
JSHJ 12: 1-105.
2015a ‘Jesus as a Seditionist: The Intertwining of Politics and Religion in his Teach-
ing and Deeds’, in Z. Garber (ed.), Teaching the Historical Jesus: Issues and
Exegesis (London and New York: Routledge) 232-43.
2015b ‘“Sub Tiberio quies?” La situación política en Judea bajo los prefectos (6–41
e.c.), entre realidad e ideología’, Gerión 33: 131-65.
2017 ‘Dios y/o el César: la oposición al tributo a Roma en el judaísmo palestino
de época julio-claudia’, in G. Bravo and R. González Salinero (eds.), XIV
Coloquio de la AIER. Ideología y religión en el mundo romano (Madrid/
Salamanca: Signifier) 41-67.
Blomberg, C.
1992 Matthew (NAC, 22; Nashville, TN: Broadman Press).
Bock, D.L.
2008 Luke Vol. 2 9:51–24:53 (BECNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic).
Bockmuehl, M.
2006 Seeing the Word: Refocusing New Testament Study (STI; Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic).
Bonnard, P.
1970 L’Évangile selon saint Matthieu (Commentaire du Nouveau Testament, 1;
Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé).
Bori, P.C.
1986 ‘“Date a Cesare Quel Che è Di Cesare” (Mt. 22. 21). Linee Di Storia Dell
“Interpretazione Antica”’, Cristianesimo Nella Storia 7: 451-64.
Boring, M.E.
1995 ‘Matthew: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections’, in The New Inter-
preter’s Bible 8 (Nashville, TN: Abingdon) 89-505.
2006 Mark: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press).
Bornkamm, G.
1950 Jesus von Nazareth (Urban-Bücher, 19; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer).
1960 Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Harper & Row).
Bovon, F.
2012 Luke 3: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 19:28–24:53 (Hermeneia;
Minneapolis: Fortress).
Brandon, S.G.F.
1967 Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christian-
ity (New York: Scribner).
1968 The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth (London: Batsford).
Bruce, F.F.
1984 ‘Render unto Caesar’, in E. Bammel and C.F.D. Moule (eds.), Jesus and the
Politics of His Day (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press)
249-64.
Bryan, C.
2005 Render to Caesar: Jesus, the Early Church, and the Roman Superpower
(Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press).
Buchanan, G.W.
1996 The Gospel of Matthew (Lewiston: Mellen Biblical Press.
Bultmann, R.
1922 Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rup-
recht).
1968 The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford: Blackwell, 2nd edn).
Bünker, M.
1986 ‘“Gebt dem Kaiser, Was des Kaisers ist!”— Aber was ist des Kaisers? Uber-
legungen zur Perikope von der Kaisersteuer’, in L. Schotroff and W. Schott-
roff (eds.), Wer ist Unser Gott? Beiträge zu einer Befreiungstheologie im
Kontext der “ersten” Welt (Munich: Chr. Kaiser) 153-72.
Burke, S.R.
forthcoming ‘Tertullian’s Martyrological Maxim: A Case Study for the Multiple Rhetori-
cal Functions of the Command to “Render to Caesar the Things of Caesar
and to God the Things of God” in the Writings of Tertullian’, in H. Houghton
(ed.), Studia Patristica (Leuven: Peeters).
Burrus, V.
2007 ‘The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles’, in F.F. Segovia and R.S.
Sugirtharajah (eds.), A Post-colonial Commentary on the New Testament
Writings (London: T&T Clark) 133-55.
Caird, G.B.
1963 The Gospel of St. Luke (London: Penguin).
Carroll, J.
2012 Luke: A Commentary (New Testament Library; Louisville, KY: Westminster
John Knox Press).
Carter, W.
2007 ‘The Gospel of Matthew’, in F.F. Segovia and R.S. Sugirtharajah (eds.), A
Post-colonial Commentary on the New Testament Writings (London: T&T
Clark) 69-104.
2014 ‘The Things of Caesar: Mark-Ing the Plural (Mk 12:13–17)’, HTS Teologiese
Studies/Theological Studies 70.1: 1-9.
Chadwick, H.
1959 The Sentences of Sextus: A Contribution to the History of Early Christian
Ethics (Texts and Studies, 5; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Collins, A.Y.
2007 Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
Craddock, F.B.
1990 Luke (Interpretation; Louisville, KY: John Knox Press).
Cranfield, C.E.B.
1959 The Gospel According to Saint Mark: An Introduction and Commentary
(CGTC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Crossan, J.D.
1983 ‘Mark 12:13–17’, Interpretation 37: 397-401.
Culpepper, R.A.
1995 ‘The Gospel of Luke: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections’, in The
New Interpreter’s Bible 9 (ed. L. Keck; Nashville, TN: Abingdon) 1-490.
Cuvillier, E.
1992 ‘Marc, Justin, Thomas et les Autres: Variations autour de la Pericope du
Denier à César’, ETR 67: 329-44.
Daube, D.
1951 ‘Four Types of Question’, Journal of Theological Studies 2.1: 45-48.
Davies, W.D., and D.C. Allison
2004 Commentary on Matthew XIX–XXVIII (London: T&T Clark International).
Deines, R.
2004 ‘Zeloten’, in G. Müller (ed.), Theologische Realenzyklopädie 36 (Berlin: De
Gruyter) 626-30.
2011 ‘Gab es eine jüdische Freiheitsbewegung? Martin Hengels “Zeloten” nach
50 Jahren’, in Martin Hengel, Die Zeloten: Untersuchungen zur jüdischen
Freiheitsbewegung in der Zeit von Herodes I. bis 70 n. Chr. (ed. R. Deines
and R.-J. Thornton; WUNT, 283; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck) 403-83.
Denzey Lewis, N.
2014 ‘A New Gnosticism: Why Simon Gathercole and Mark Goodacre on the Gos-
pel of Thomas Change the Field’, JSNT 36.3: 240-50.
Derrett, J.D.M.
1970 ‘Render to Caesar…’, in Derrett, Law in the New Testament (London: Dar-
ton, Longman & Todd) 313-38.
1983 ‘Luke’s Perspective on Tribute to Caesar’, in R.J. Cassidy and P. Scharper
(eds.), Political Issues in Luke-Acts (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books) 38-48.
Donahue, J.R., and D.J. Harrington
2002 The Gospel of Mark (SP, 2; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press).
Dunn, J.D.G.
1988 Romans 9–16 (WBC; Dallas, TX: Word Books).
Eck, W.
2007 Rom und Judaea: Fünf Vorträge zur römischen Herrschaft in Palaestina
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Edwards, J.R.
2002 The Gospel According to Mark (Pillar; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; Leices-
ter: Apollos).
Eisler, R.
1929 Iésous Basileus ou Basileusas (2 vols.; Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universi-
taitsbuchhandlung).
Ernst, J.
1981 Das Evangelium nach Markus (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet).
Evans, C.A.
2001 Mark (WBC, 34B; Nashville: Thomas Nelson).
Filson, F.V.
1960 A Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew (BNTC; London:
Black).
Fitzmyer, J.A.
1985 The Gospel According to Luke, X–XXIV: Introduction, Translation, and
Notes (AB, 28; Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
Förster, N.
2012 Jesus und die Steuerfrage: Die Zinsgroschenperikope auf dem religiösen und
politischen Hintergrund ihrer Zeit: mit einer Edition von Pseudo-Hierony-
mus, “De haeresibus Judaeorum” (WUNT, 294; Tübingen: Mohr).
France, R.T.
1990 Divine Government: God’s Kingship in the Gospel of Mark (London: SPCK).
2002 The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster Press).
2007 The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Funk, R.W., and R.W. Hoover (eds.)
1993 The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? The Search for the Authentic
Words of Jesus (New York and Toronto: Macmillan).
Gathercole, S.J.
2011 ‘Luke in the Gospel of Thomas’, NTS 57.1: 114-44.
2012 The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas: Original Language and Influ-
ences (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press).
2014a The Gospel of Thomas: Introduction and Commentary (Texts and Editions
for New Testament Study, 11; Leiden: Brill).
2014b ‘Thomas Revisited: A Rejoinder to Denzey Lewis, Kloppenborg and Patter-
son’, JSNT 36.3: 262-81.
Geldenhuys, J.N.
1951 Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Giblin, C.H.
1971 ‘“The Things of God” in the Question Concerning Tribute to Caesar (Lk
20:25; Mk 12:17; Mt 22:21)’, CBQ 33: 510-27.
Gibson, J.B.
2004 ‘The Tradition of Jesus’ Tax Question Temptation’, in Gibson, The Tempta-
tions of Jesus in Early Christianity (London and New York: T&T Clark)
288-317.
Gnilka, J.
1988 Das Matthäusevangelium. Teil 2: Kommentar zu Kap. 14, 1-28, 20 und Ein-
leitungsfragen (HTKNT, 1; Freiburg: Herder).
Goodacre, M.
2012 Thomas and the Synoptics: The Case for Thomas’s Familiarity with the Syn-
optics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
2014 ‘Did Thomas Know the Synoptic Gospels? A Response to Denzey Lewis,
Kloppenborg and Patterson’, JSNT 36.3: 282-93.
Green, J.B.
1997 The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Gundry, R.H.
1993 Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd-
mans).
1994 Matthew: A Commentary on his Handbook for a Mixed Church under Perse-
cution (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Hagner, D.A.
1995 Matthew 14–28 (WBC, 33B; Dallas, TX: Word).
Hare, D.R.A.
1993 Matthew (Interpretation; Louisville, KY: John Knox Press).
Harrington, D.J.
1991 The Gospel of Matthew (SP; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press).
Hart, H.St.J.
1984 ‘The Coin of “Render unto Caesar...” (A Note on Some Aspects of Mark
12:13–17; Matt. 22:15–22; Luke 20:20–26)’, in E. Bammel and C.F.D.
Moule (eds.), Jesus and the Politics of His Day (Cambridge and New York:
Cambridge University Press) 241-48.
Hengel, M.
1967 The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period
from Herod I until 70 A.D. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark).
1970 War Jesus Revolutionär? (Stuttgart: Calver Verlag).
1971 Was Jesus a Revolutionist? (Philadelphia: Fortress).
1974 Christus und die Macht—die Macht Christi und die Ohnmacht der Christen:
Zur Problematik einer Politischen Theologie in der Geschichte der Kirche
(Stuttgart: Calver Werlag).
Herzog, W.R.
1994 ‘Dissembling, a Weapon of the Weak: The Case of Christ and Caesar in Mark
12:13–17 and Romans 13.1–7’, Perspectives in Religious Studies 21.1: 339-
60.
2000 Jesus, Justice, and the Reign of God: A Ministry of Liberation (Louisville,
KY: Westminster John Knox Press).
2004 ‘Onstage and Offstage with Jesus of Nazareth: Public Transcripts, Hidden
Transcripts, and Gospel Texts’, in R.A. Horsley (ed.), Hidden Transcripts
and the Arts of Resistance: Applying the Work of James C. Scott to Jesus and
Paul (Semeia, 48; Leiden: Brill) 41-60.
Hock, R.F., and E.N. O’Neill (eds.)
1986 The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric. Vol. 1: The Progymnasmata (SBL Text and
Translation Series, 27; Atlanta: SBL Press).
Hooker, M.D.
2001 A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark (BNTC; London: Con-
tinuum).
Horsley, R.A.
1987 Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Pal-
estine (San Francisco: Harper & Row).
2001 Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark’s Gospel (Louisville,
KY: Westminster John Knox Press).
2003 Jesus and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder (Min-
neapolis: Fortress).
2010 ‘Jesus and the Politics of Roman Palestine’, JSHJ 8: 99-145.
Horsley, R.A., and J.S. Hanson
1999 Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus
(Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International).
van Iersel, B.
2004 Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary (London and New York: T&T
Clark).
Jervell, J.
1960 Imago Dei. Gen. 1, 26 f. im Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den paulini-
schen Briefen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Johnson, L.T.
1991 The Gospel of Luke (Sacra Pagina; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press).
Juel, D.H.
1990 Mark (ANTC; Minneapolis: Augsburg).
Just, A.A.
1997 Luke 9:51–24:53 (Saint Louis, MO: Concordia).
Keener, C.S.
1999 A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Kennard, J.S.
1950 Render to God: A Study of the Tribute Passage (New York and Oxford:
Oxford University Press).
Kittel, G.
1937 ‘Das Urteil des NT über den Staat’, ZST 14: 651-80.
1939 Christus und Imperator: das Urteil der Ersten Christenheit über den Staat
(Stuttgart: Kohlhammer).
Klemm, H.
1982 ‘De Censu Caesaris: Beobachtungen zu J. Duncan Derretts Interpretation der
Perikope Mk. 12:13–17 Par.’, NovT 24: 234-54.
Kloppenborg, J.S.
2014 ‘A New Synoptic Problem: Mark Goodacre and Simon Gathercole on
Thomas’, JSNT 36.3: 199-239.
Knabenbauer, J.
1922 Commentarius in evangelium secundum Matthaeum. 2, 2, cap. 14–28 (ed. A.
Merk; Cursus Scripturae Sacrae, 3; Paris: Lethielleux).
Koch, D.-A.
2014 ‘Die Kontroverse über die Steuer (Mt 22,15–22 / Mk 12, 13–17 / Lk 20,20–
26)’, in G. Van Belle and J. Verheyden (eds.), Christ and the Emperor: The
Gospel Evidence (BTS, 20; Leuven: Peeters) 203-228.
Lane, W.L.
1974 The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposi-
tion, and Notes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Langlands, R.
2011 ‘Roman Exempla and Situation Ethics: Valerius Maximus and Cicero de Offi-
ciis’, JRS 101: 100-122.
2015 ‘Roman Exemplarity : Mediating between General and Particular’, in M.
Lowrie and S. Lüdemann (eds.), Exemplarity and Singularity: Thinking
through Particulars in Philosophy, Literature, and Law (London and New
York: Routledge) 68-80.
Leander, H.
2013 Discourses of Empire: The Gospel of Mark from a Post-colonial Perspective
(Atlanta, GA: SBL).
Leaney, A.R.C.
1958 A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke (BNTC; London: Black).
Lichtenberger, H. (ed.)
2013 Martin Hengels ‘Zeloten’: ihre Bedeutung im Licht von fünfzig Jahren For-
schungsgeschichte (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Lienhard, J.T.
2009 Origen, Homilies on Luke: Fragments on Luke (Fathers of the Church, 94;
Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press).
Liew, T.B.
2007 ‘Mark’, in F. Segovia and Sugirtharajah (eds.), A Post-colonial Commentary
on the New Testament Writings (London: T&T Clark) 105-32.
Luz, U.
1997 Das Evangelium nach Matthäus 3. Teilbd. Mt 18–25 (EKK; Zürich: Benziger
Verlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag).
2005 Matthew: A Commentary. 3. Chapters 21–28 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: For-
tress).
Maccoby, H.
1973 Revolution in Judaea: Jesus and the Jewish Resistance (London: Orbach and
Chambers).
Marcus, J.
2009 Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 27;
New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press).
Marshall, I.H.
1978 Commentary on Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Mell, U.
1994 Die ‘anderen’ Winzer : eine exegetische Studie zur Vollmacht Jesu Christi
nach Markus 11,27–12,34 (WUNT, 77; Tübingen: Mohr).
Meyer, H.
1883 Kritisch exegetisches Handbuch über das Evangelium des Matthäus (Kri-
tisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament, 1; Göttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 7th edn).
1890 Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the Gospel of Matthew (trans. P. Chris-
tie; New York: Funk and Wagnalls).
Moore, S.D.
2006 Empire and Apocalypse: Post-colonialism and the New Testament (Bible in
the Modern World, 12; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press).
Moore-Gilbert, B.J., G. Stanton and W. Maley (eds.)
1997 Post-colonial Criticism (Longman Critical Readers; London: Longman).
Morgan, T.
2007 Popular Morality in the Early Roman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press).
Moule, C.F.D.
1965 The Gospel According to St. Mark: An Introduction and Commentary (CBC;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Myers, C.
1988 Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis).
Neirynck, F.
1986 ‘Paul and the Sayings of Jesus’, in A. Vanhoye (ed.), L’Apotre Paul: Person-
nalité, Style et Conception du Ministere (BETL, 73; Leuven: Peeters) 267-
321.
Nicklas, T.
2014 ‘Anti-Semitism and the Bible’, in M. Lieb, E. Mason and J. Roberts (eds.),
The Oxford Handbook of the Reception History of the Bible (Oxford: Oxford
University Press) 267-80.
Nolland, J.
1993 Luke 18:35–24:53 (WBC, 33C; Waco, TX: Word Books).
2008 The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Nygren, C.J.
2016 ‘Titian’s Christ with the Coin: Recovering the Spiritual Currency of Numis-
matics in Renaissance Ferrara’, Renaissance Quarterly 69: 449-88.
Oakman, D.E.
2012 The Political Aims of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
Owen-Ball, D.T.
1993 ‘Rabbinic Rhetoric and the Tribute Passage (Mt. 22:15–22; Mk. 12:13–17;
Lk. 20:20–26)’, NovT 35.1: 1-14.
Parsons, M.C.
2015 Luke (Paideia; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Patte, D.
1987 The Gospel According to Matthew: A Structural Commentary on Matthew’s
Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress).
Patterson, S.J.
2014 ‘Twice More—Thomas and the Synoptics: A Reply to Simon Gathercole,
The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas, and Mark Goodacre, Thomas and
the Gospels’, JSNT 36.3: 251-61.
Perkins, P.
1995 ‘The Gospel of Mark: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections’, in The
New Interpreter’s Bible 8 (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press) 507-733.
Pesch, R.
1979 Das Markus-Evangelium (Wege der Forschung, 411; Darmstadt: Wissen-
schaftliche Buchgesellschaft).
Petzke, G.
1975 ‘Der Historische Jesus in der Sozialethischen Diskussion: Mk 12,13–17 Par.’,
in G. Strecker (ed.), Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie: Neutestament-
liche Festschrift für Hans Conzelmann zum 60. Geburtstag (Tübingen: Mohr)
223-35.
Pevarello, D.
2013 The Sentences of Sextus and the Origins of Christian Ascetiscism (Studien
und Texte zu Antike und Christentum, 78; Tübingen: Mohr).
Reimarus, H.S.
1970 ‘On the Aims of Jesus and his Disciples’, in Reimarus, Fragments (trans. R.S.
Fraser; Lives of Jesus Series; Philadelphia: Fortress Press) 59-269.
Repschinski, B.
2000 The Controversy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew: Their Redaction, Form
and Relevance for the Relationship between the Matthean Community and
Formative Judaism (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Rizzi, M.
2009 Cesare e Dio: Potere Spirituale e Potere Secolare in Occidente (Saggi, 712;
Bologna: Il Mulino).
2010 ‘Romans 13 in Early Christian Exegesis’, in J. Baun, A. Cameron and M.
Edwards (eds.), Studia Patristica Vol XLIV (Leuven: Peeters) 227-34.
Rodd, C.S.
2005 The Gospel of Mark (Epworth Commentaries; London: Epworth Press).
Roller, M.B.
2004 ‘Exemplarity in Roman Culture: The Cases of Horatius Cocles and Cloelia’,
Classical Philology 99.1: 1-56.
Sabourin, L.
1987 L’Évangile de Luc: Introduction et Commentaire (Rome: Editrice Pontificia
Universita Gregoriana).
Samely, A.
2002 Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture in the Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press).
Samuel, S.
2007 A Post-colonial Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus (LNTS, 40; London: T&T
Clark).
Sand, A.
1986 Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (RNT; Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet).
Schmithals, W.
1980 Das Evangelium nach Lukas (ZBK, NT, 3.1; Zürich: Theologischer).
Schnackenburg, R.
1987 Matthäusevangelium 16,21–28,20 (NEB, NT 1.2; Würzburg: Echter).
Schneider, G.
1984a Das Evangelium nach Lukas (ÖTKNT, 3; Gütersloh: Mohn; Würzburg: Ech-
ter-Verlag).
1984b ‘The Political Charge against Jesus’, in E. Bammel and C.F.D. Moule (eds.), Jesus
and the Politics of His Day (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 403-414.
Schweizer, E.
1971 The Good News According to Mark (trans. D.H. Madvig; London: SPCK).
1975 The Good News According to Matthew (trans. D.E. Green; Atlanta: John
Knox).
1984 The Good News According to Luke (trans. D.E. Green; London: SPCK).
Scott, J.C.
1990 Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (New Haven, CT
and London: Yale University Press).
Stauffer, E.
1948 Christus und die Caesaren: Historische Skizzen (Hamburg: F. Wittig).
1955 Christ and the Caesars: Historical Sketches (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press).
Stein, R.H.
2008 Mark (BECNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Tagawa, K.
1971 ‘Jesus critiquant l’ideologie theocratique: Une etude de Marc 12, 13-17’, in S.
Frutiger (ed.), Reconnaissance à Suzanne de Diétrich: Études et documents
recueillis dans le monde à l’occasion de son 80 anniversaire (CB, 70; Paris:
Foi et Vie) 117-25.
Tannehill, R.C.
1981a ‘Introduction: The Pronouncement Story and its Types’, Semeia 20: 1-13.
1981b ‘Varieties of Synoptic Pronouncement Stories’, Semeia 20: 101-19.
1996 Luke (ANTC; Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press).
Taylor, N.H.
2000 ‘Herodians and Pharisees: The Historical and Political Context of Mark 3:6;
8:15; 12:13-17’, Neotestamentica 34.2: 299-310.
Thompson, M.
1991 Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12.1–
15.13 (JSNTSup, 59; Sheffield: JSOT Press).
Turner, D.L.
2008 Matthew (BECNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic).
Udoh, F.E.
2005 To Caesar What is Caesar’s: Tribute, Taxes and Imperial Administration in
Early Roman Palestine (63 B.C.E.–70 C.E.) (Providence, RI: Brown Judaic
Studies).
Ukpong, J.S.
1999 ‘Tribute to Caesar, Mark 12:13–17 (Mt 22:15–22; Lk 20:20–26)’, Neotesta-
mentica 33.2: 433-44.
van der Valk, M.H.
1963 Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill).
Wengst, K.
1987 Pax Romana and the Peace of Jesus Christ (Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
Witherington III, B.
1990 The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
2001 The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans).
Wolter, M.
2008 Das Lukasevangelium (HzNT, 5; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Wright, N.T.
1996 Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress).
Zeichmann, C.B.
2017 ‘The Date of Mark’s Gospel apart from the Temple and Rumors of War: The
Taxation Episode (12:13–17) as Evidence’, CBQ 79: 422-37.

Render Unto Caaesar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Render Unto Caaesar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article

Currents in Biblical Research

readings labelled ‘ironic’. Förster’s ‘eschatological’ interpretation also requires

tax’ (1955: 134). Stauffer arrives at this conclusion through a combination

in full: ‘The original meaning is therefore not an evasion, nor an equivocation,

the Gospel constitutes a minority movement negotiating the dominant Roman

In summary, the subordinationist position holds that Jesus and/or the

5. Analysis of Commentaries on the ‘Render’ Command

6. New Avenues for Research

Table 1. Gospel of Mark

Exclusivist Complementarian Ambivalent Subordinationist

Table 2. Gospel of Matthew

Exclusivist Complementary Ambivalent Subordinationist

Table 3. Gospel of Luke

Exclusivist Complementarian Ambivalent Subordinationist

exclusivist interpretations. With these readings, the God-Caesar framework

applications to be necessarily harmful, contemporary appreciation of the rhetori-

You might also like