Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 22:21
They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.
21. Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar’s ] The Jewish doctors laid down the principle that “He is king whose coin passes current.” St Paul expands this principle, which underlies our Lord’s answer (Rom 13:1 foll. Cp. also 1Pe 2:13-17). Render = “pay back as due.”
and unto God the things that are God’s ] The claim of the kingdom of Heaven is equally cogent. As the subjects and “husbandmen” of God, the Jews owe Him service and fruit. Neither in regard to Csar nor to God do the facts of the case leave any doubt as to what is due, and to whom, nor does obedience to the one of necessity clash with obedience to the other.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 21. They say unto him, Caesars.] The image was the head of the emperor; the superscription, his titles. JULIUS CAESAR was the first who caused his image to be struck on the Roman coin. Tiberius was emperor at this time.
Render therefore unto Caesar] The conclusion is drawn from their own premises. You acknowledge this to be Caesar’s coin; this coin is current, in your land; the currency of this coin shows the country to be under the Roman government; and your acknowledgment that it is Caesar’s proves you have submitted. Don’t therefore be unjust; but render to Caesar the things which you acknowledge to be his; at the same time, be not impious, but render unto God the thing’s which belong to God.
This answer is full of consummate wisdom. It establishes the limits, regulates the rights, and distinguishes the jurisdiction of the two empires of heaven and earth. The image of princes stamped on their coin denotes that temporal things belong all to their government. The image of God stamped on the soul denotes that all its faculties and powers belong to the Most High, and should be employed in his service.
But while the earth is agitated and distracted with the question of political rights and wrongs, the reader will naturally ask, What does a man owe to Caesar? – to the civil government under which he lives? Our Lord has answered the question – That which IS Caesar’s. But what is it that is Caesar’s? 1. Honour. 2. Obedience. And 3. Tribute.
1. The civil government under which a man lives, and by which he is protected, demands his honour and reverence.
2. The laws which are made for the suppression of evil doers, and the maintenance of good order, which are calculated to promote the benefit of the whole, and the comfort of the individual should be religiously obeyed.
3. The government that charges itself with the support and defence of the whole, should have its unavoidable expenses, however great, repaid by the people, in whose behalf they are incurred; therefore we should pay tribute.
But remember, if Caesar should intrude into the things of God, coin a new creed, or broach a new Gospel, and affect to rule the conscience, while he rules the state, in these things Caesar is not to be obeyed; he is taking the things of God, and he must not get them. Give not therefore God’s things to Caesar, and give not Caesar’s things to God. That which belongs to the commonwealth should, on no account whatever, be devoted to religious uses; and let no man think he has pleased God, by giving that to charitable or sacred uses which he has purloined from the state. The tribute of half a shekel, which the law, (Ex 30:13-14,) required every person above twenty years of age to pay to the temple, was, after the destruction of the temple, in the time of Vespasian, paid into the emperor’s exchequer. This sum, Melanethon supposes, amounted annually to THREE TONS OF GOLD.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
They say unto him, Caesar’s,…. Either Augustus Caesar’s; for there was a coin of that emperor’s, as Dr. Hammond reports, from Occo, which had his image or picture on it, and in it these words written, Augustus Caesar, such a year, “after the taking of Judaea”; which if this was the coin, was a standing testimony of the subjection of the Jews to the Romans; and this being current with them, was an acknowledgment of it by them, and carried in it an argument of their obligation to pay tribute to them; or it might be Tiberius Caesar’s, the then reigning emperor, in the nineteenth year of whose reign, Christ was crucified; and seeing he had reigned so long, it is reasonable to suppose, his money was very common, and most in use: we read in the Talmud s, of , “a Caesarean penny”, or “Caesar’s penny”, the same sort with this: now this penny having Caesar’s image and inscription on it, our Lord tacitly suggests, that they ought to pay tribute to him; since his money was allowed of as current among them, which was in effect owning him to be their king; and which perfectly agrees with a rule of their own, which runs thus t:
“A king whose “coin” is “current” in any country, the inhabitants of that country agree about him, and it is their joint opinion, “that he is their Lord, and they are his servants”.”
This being the case now with the Jews, Christ’s advice is,
render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God, the things that are God’s: give Caesar the tribute and custom, and fear, and honour, and obedience, which are due to him; which may be done without interfering with the honour of God, and prejudicing his interest and glory, when care is taken, that all the worship and obedience due to God are given to him: subjection to civil magistrates is not inconsistent with the reverence and fear of God; all are to have their dues rendered unto them, without entrenching upon one another. And the Jews themselves allow, that a king ought to have his dues, whether he be a king of Israel, or of the Gentiles:
“a publican, or tax gatherer, (they say u,) that is appointed by the king, whether a king of Israel, or of the Gentiles, and takes what is fixed by the order of the government; it is forbidden to refuse payment of the tax to him, for , “the right of a king is right”.”
Just and equitable, and he ought to have his right.
s T. Bab. Avoda Zara, fol. 6. 2. t Maimon. Hilch. Gerala, c. 5. sect. 18. u Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Nedarim. c. 3. sect. 4. & Maimon. Hilch. Gezala, c. 5. sect. 11.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Render (). “Give back” to Caesar what is already Caesar’s.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
21. Render therefore to Caesar those things which are Caesar’s. Christ reminds them that, as the subjection of their nation was attested by the coin, there ought to be no debate on that subject; as if he had said, “If you think it strange to pay tribute, be not subjects of the Roman Empire. But the money (which men employ as the pledge of mutual exchanges) attests that Caesar rules over you; so that, by your own silent consent, the liberty to which you lay claim is lost and gone.” Christ’s reply does not leave the matter open, but contains full instruction on the question which had been proposed. It lays down a clear distinction between spiritual and civil government, in order to inform us that outward subjection does not prevent us from having within us a conscience free in the sight of God. For Christ intended to refute the error of those who did not think that they would be the people of God, unless they were free from every yoke of human authority. In like manner, Paul earnestly insists on this point, that they ought not the less to look upon themselves as serving God alone, if they obey human laws, if they pay tribute, and bend the neck to bear other burdens, (Rom 13:7.) In short, Christ declares that it is no violation of the authority of God, or any injury done to his service, if, in respect of outward government, the Jews obey the Romans.
He appears also to glance at their hypocrisy, because, while they carelessly permitted the service of God to be corrupted in many respects, and even wickedly deprived God of his authority, they displayed such ardent zeal about a matter of no importance; as if he had said, “You are exceedingly afraid, lest, if tribute be paid to the Romans, the honor of God may be infringed; but you ought rather to take care to yield to God that service which he demands from you, and, at the same the to render to men what is their due.” We might be apt to think, no doubt, that the distinction does not apply; for, strictly speaking, when we perform our duty towards men, we thereby render obedience to God. But Christ, accommodating his discourse to the common people, reckoned it enough to draw a distinction between the spiritual kingdom of God, on the one hand, and political order and the condition of the present life, on the other. We must therefore attend to this distinction, that, while the Lord wishes to be the only Lawgiver for governing souls, the rule for worshipping Him must not be sought from any other source than from His own word, and that we ought to abide by the only and pure worship which is there enjoined; but that the power of the sword, the laws, and the decisions of tribunals, do not hinder the worship of God from remaining entire amongst us.
But this doctrine extends still farther, that every man, according to his calling, ought to perform the duty which he owes to men; that children ought willingly to submit to their parents, and servants to their masters; that they ought to be courteous and obliging towards each other, according to the law of charity, provided that God always retain the highest authority, to which every thing that can be due to men is, as we say, subordinate. (63) The amount of it therefore is, that those who destroy political order are rebellious against God, and therefore, that obedience to princes and magistrates is always joined to the worship and fear of God; but that, on the other hand, if princes claim any part of the authority of God, we ought not to obey them any farther than can be done without offending God.
(63) “ Est subalterne, comme on dit; c’est à dire, en depend;” — “is subordinate, as we say; that is, depends upon it.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(21) Render therefore unto Csar.As far as the immediate question was concerned, this was of course an answer in the affirmative. It recognised the principle that the acceptance of the emperors coinage was an admission of his de facto sovereignty. But the words that followed raised the discussion into a higher region, and asserted implicitly that that admission did not interfere with the true spiritual freedom of the people, or with their religious duties. They might still render to God the things that were Hisi.e. (1), the tithes, tribute, offerings which belonged to the polity and worship that were the appointed witnesses of His sovereignty, and (2) the faith, love, and obedience which were due to Him from every Israelite. The principle which the words involved was obviously wider in its range than the particular occasion to which it was thus applied. In all questions of real or seeming collision between secular authority and spiritual freedom, the former claims obedience as a de facto ordinance of God up to the limit where it encroaches on the rights of conscience, and prevents men from worshipping and serving Him. Loyal obedience in things in different on the part of the subject, a generous tolerance (such as the Roman empire at this time exercised towards the religion of Israel) on the part of the State, were the two correlative elements upon which social order and freedom depended. Questions might arise, as they have arisen in all ages of the Church, as to whether the limit has, or has not, been transgressed in tins or that instance, and for these the principle does not, and in the nature of things could not, provide a direct answer. What it does prescribe is that all such questions should be approached in the temper which seeks to reconcile the two obligations, not in that which exaggerates and perpetuates their antagonism. Least of all does it sanction the identification of the claims of this or that form of ecclesiastical polity with the things that are Gods.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
21. They say unto him, Cesar’s And thus they acknowledge that Cesar’s superiority is peacefully submitted to in the quiet of society and the commercial exchanges. The things which are Cesar’s If you consent to receive the gift of peace and order from Cesar, you must consent to render the payment of the expenses of his government.
In this reply our Lord evades the peculiarity of every party, yet sustains the truth in question. The Herodians cannot complain, for Cesar’s government is not attacked. The Pharisees cannot complain, for his decision is but their own confession put in shape. The very Gaulonites cannot complain; for he does not decide that there are no just grounds for revolutionizing the government from the foundations, and asserting independence alike of Cesar’s coin and Cesar’s authority. All he decides is, that while Cesar’s government is the acknowledged government, it must receive its dues. Our Lord refused to act as a political patriot or as a political arbiter. He simply decides as a religious teacher that government is right, and that an acknowledged government must receive the dues of a government. Unto God the things that are God’s But Cesar has no right to infringe the rights of God. Human laws are limited by the divine law. The Christian must as far as possible comply with both. Where the human law conflicts with the divine, he must obey the latter and suffer the consequences.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Then he says to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
Jesus’ reply was masterly, for it clearly answered the question, and yet did it in such a way that all, even the most fervent, had to acknowledge that He was right. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” In other words He was saying, ‘this coin clearly belongs to Caesar, for it contains his image and superscription, so give it back to him, for you should not possess it anyway unless you acknowledge his overlordship. On the other hand you are made in the image of God (Gen 1:27), and God has designated His people as ‘holiness to the Lord’ in the superscription on the golden plate on the High Priest’s headpiece (Exo 28:36; compare also Exo 19:5-6; Isa 44:5). The consequence is that you should therefore live your lives wholly for God.’
The remarkable nature of the reply comes out in that the Zealots would have agreed with it wholeheartedly, considering that to own denarii was unpatriotic. If they could have done so, they would gladly have bundled up all the denarii and handed them back to Caesar. And the Romans would have found nothing amiss in it, for that is what they asked, the return of their denarii in taxes. All who came in between would also have had to agree, for they felt uneasy about holding denarii, and recognised that such were not of God, and yet they did so. Thus by holding them and using them they were thereby compromising with Rome and as a result putting themselves under an obligation to Rome, and at the same time, even if only theoretically, they fervently admitted that all that they had belonged to God. Each could therefore interpret Jesus’ words to speak to his own position and as in the end seeking to turn them back fully to God.
Nor was it an evasion. It was a recognised principle of the time that to use a ruler’s coins was to acknowledge his overlordship, that was one reason why they were issued. The use of them therefore indicated a recognition that the users accepted civil responsibilities. Thus Jesus was saying that those who did so also had to fulfil those civil responsibilities. And yet He was also emphasising that God must have the prior claim in all things, for all things belong to God. Thus when it comes to a choice between God and the state, God must be pre-eminent. These are the principles of the new Kingly Rule of Heaven.
The idea that men could owe allegiance to an earthly sovereign, even a foreign sovereign, was not new. The principle is enunciated in Jer 27:5-22; Jer 38:17-20. It is based on the fact that God is sovereign over men’s affairs, and that when He brings judgment on His people they must recognise their civil responsibilities even with regard to foreign overlords. The principle is confirmed by Paul in Rom 13:1-7.
But in contrast man is made in the image of God with the responsibility of watching over the world in His Name (Gen 1:26-28; Psa 7:5-8). His prime responsibility is thus to God, and to live before Him with the openness and responsiveness of little children (Mat 19:13-15, compare Mat 18:1-4). Had the Chief Priests, Scribes and Elders been living to God they would not have neglected God’s vineyard or have rejected His Cornerstone (Mat 21:33-42). Had they been living to God they would have responded to the Kingly Rule of Heaven (Mat 21:31-32). And thus for those under the Kingly Rule of Heaven all must be submitted to God, while at the same time recognising civil responsibility in its rightful place.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 22:21 f. “There He catches them in their own trap,” Luther. The pointing to the image and inscription furnishes the questioners with ocular demonstration of the actual existence and practical recognition of Caesar’s sway, and from these Jesus infers not merely the lawfulness, but the duty of paying to Caesar what belongs to Caesar (namely, the money, which shows, by the stamp it bears, the legitimacy of the existing rule); but He also recognises at the same time the necessity of attending to their theocratic duties, which are not to be regarded as in any way compromised by their political circumstances: and to God what is God’s (what you derive from Him in virtue of His dominion over you). By this is not meant simply the temple tribute , nor the repentance which God may have desired to awaken through punishing them with a foreign rule (Ebrard), nor merely the life of the soul (Tertullian, Erasmus, Neander); but everything, in short, of a material, religious, and ethical nature, which God, as sovereign of the theocratic people, is entitled to exact from them as His due. By the , on the other hand, we are not to understand merely the civil tax , but everything to which Caesar was entitled in virtue of his legitimate rule over the theocratic nation. So with this reply Jesus disposes of the ensnaring question, answering it immediately with decision and clearness, and with that admirable tact which is only met with where there is a moral insight into the whole domain of duty; in a quick and overpowering manner He disarmed His adversaries, and laid the foundation for the Christian doctrine which was more fully developed afterwards (Rom 13:1 ff.; 1Ti 2:1 f.; 1Pe 2:13 f., 1Pe 2:17 ), that it is the duty of the Christian not to rebel against the existing rulers, but to conjoin obedience to their authority with obedience to God. At the same time, there cannot be a doubt that, although, in accordance with the question, Jesus chooses to direct His reply to the first and not to the second of those two departments of duty (in answer to Klostermann’s note on Mark), the second is to be regarded as the unconditional and absolute standard, not only for the first of the duties here mentioned (comp. Act 5:29 ), but for every other. Chrysostom observes that: what is rendered to Caesar must not be , otherwise it is , . Thus the second part of the precept serves to dispose of any collision among our duties which accidental circumstances might bring about (Rom 13:5 ). According to de Wette, Jesus, in the first part of His reply, does not refer the matter inquired about to the domain of conscience at all, but treats it as belonging only to the sphere of politics (Luk 12:14 ), and then adds in the second part: “You can and ought to serve God, in the first place, with your moral and religious dispositions, and should not mix up with His service what belongs to the domain of civil authority.” But such a severance of the two is not in accordance with the context; for the answer would in that case be an answer to an alternative question based on the general thought: is it lawful to be subject to Caesar, or to God only? Whereas the reply of Jesus is: you ought to do both things , you ought to be subject to God and to Caesar as well; the one duty is inseparable from the other! Thus our Lord rises above the alternative , which was based on theocratic notions of a one-sided and degenerate character, to the higher unity of the true theocracy , which demands no revolutions of any kind, and also looks upon the right moral conception of the existing civil rule as necessarily part and parcel of itself (Joh 19:11 ), and consequently a simple yes or no in reply to the question under consideration is quite impossible.
] the ordinary expression for paying what it is one’s duty to pay , as in Mat 20:8 , Mat 21:41 ; Rom 13:7 .
Mat 22:22 . ] “conspicuo modo ob responsum tutum et verum,” Bengel. , Euthymius Zigabenus.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
21 They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.
Ver. 21. Render therefore unto Caesar ] Not give, but render; as who should say, Ye give him but what belongs to him; ye do him but right, ye help him but to his own, and that which he may justly require of you, In reddendo hostimentum patrocinii et defensionis, in lieu of his care toward you.
And unto God the things that are God’s ] The Greek article is twice repeated, when he speaks of God more than when of Caesar; to show, saith one, that our special care should be, , to give God his due. For if Caesar will take to himself God’s part, by commanding that which is sinful, to pay him such a tribute, Non est tributum Caesaris, sed servitium diaboli, saith Chrysostom, it is not a paying of tribute to Caesar, but a doing service to the devil. Cur non et animam nostrum Dei imaginem soli Deo consignemus, saith one. Let God only have our soul, since it bears his image. That was a witless and wicked speech of him, that said, that he had two souls in one body, the one for God, if he pleased, the other for any one else that would. But that was a gallant speech of the Prince of Condee, who being taken prisoner by Charles IX of France, and put to his choice whether he would go to mass or be put to death, or suffer perpetual imprisonment? Ut eligeret ex his tribus unum vel missam, vel mortem, vel perpetuum carcerem, &c. (Hist. Gall.) The former, said he, by God’s grace, I will never do. And for the two latter, let the king do with me what he pleaseth. God, I hope, will turn all to the best.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Mat 22:21 . , the ordinary word for paying dues (Meyer), yet there is point in Chrysostom’s remark: , , (H. lxx.). The image and inscription showed that giving (Mat 22:17 ) tribute to Caesar was only giving back to him his own. This was an unanswerable argumentum ad hominem as addressed to men who had no scruple about using Caesar’s coin for ordinary purposes, but of course it did not settle the question. The previous question might be raised, Had Caesar a right to coin money for Palestine, i.e. , to rule over it? The coin showed that he was ruler de facto , but not necessarily de jure , unless on the doctrine that might is right. The really important point in Christ’s answer is, not what is said but what is implied, viz. , that national independence is not an ultimate good , nor the patriotism that fights for it an ultimate virtue . This doctrine Jesus held in common with the prophets. He virtually asserted it by distinguishing between the things of Caesar and the things of God. To have treated these as one, the latter category absorbing the former, would have been to say: The kingdom of God means the kingdom restored to Israel. By treating them as distinct Jesus said in effect: The kingdom of God is not of this world, it is possible to be a true citizen of the kingdom and yet quietly submit to the civil rule of a foreign potentate. This is the permanent didactic significance of the shrewd reply, safe and true ( tutum et verum , Bengel), by which Jesus outwitted His crafty foes.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Mat 22:21. , render) sc. as it is just.-, therefore) In these days the coins of one country are used promiscuously in others, as happens with French money in Germany; but none except Roman money appears to have been current at that time in Judea. But if the Jews had not been subject to Csar, they were not of such a disposition as to have employed foreign coin, especially when stamped with heathen likenesses (imaginibus).-, …, and, etc.) The one duty is not, as you suppose, destroyed by the other. The things which are Gods, those which have been set apart and dedicated to Him are not Csars; but the things which are Csars are, in some sort, also Gods.[961]- , the things that are Gods) whose cause you wish to appear to plead; see Mat 22:16.
[961] Very frequently human sagacity fastens only upon one side, whichever side it be, of Duties [having a twofold side or aspect]: true wisdom weighs all things at the same time and together. These hypocrites were thinking thus: tribute ought to be given either to God for the use of the Temple, or else to Csar. Jesus saith, It is right, according to divine law, that both be done. So also the Sadducees were thinking thus: If the resurrection be admitted, the wife must be given back either to the first brother, or to the second, etc. But Truth subjoins the reply, She is to be given back not even to any one out of them all.-V. g.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Render: Mat 17:25-27, Pro 24:21, Luk 23:2, Rom 13:7
are Caesar’s: This conclusion is drawn from their own maxims and premises. They held that “wherever the money of any king is current, there the inhabitants acknowledge that king for their lord.” Now, by admitting that this was Cesar’s coin, and by consenting to receive it as the current coin of their country, they in fact acknowledged their subjection to his government, and of course their obligation to pay the tribute demanded of them. This answer was full of consummate wisdom, and it completely defeated the insidious designs of his enemies. He avoided rendering himself odious to the Jewish people by opposing their notions of liberty, or appearing to pay court to the emperor, without exposing himself to the charge of sedition and disaffection to the Roman government.
and: Mat 22:37, Mat 4:10, Dan 3:16-18, Dan 6:10, Dan 6:11, Dan 6:20-23, Mal 1:6-8, Mal 3:8-10, Act 4:19, Act 5:29, 1Pe 2:13-17
Reciprocal: Num 31:28 – levy Jos 7:11 – stolen 1Sa 12:3 – his anointed 1Ki 18:46 – ran before Luk 20:25 – Render 1Ti 6:3 – the words Tit 3:1 – to be subject 1Pe 2:17 – Fear
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
GODS CLAIM
Render therefore unto Csar the things which are Csars; and unto God the things that are Gods.
Mat 22:21
These words were an answer to the Herodians and Phariseees, and their question had not been an honest one. They asked it tempting Him.
I. An adroit answer.Our Lords words are put in the oracular form which Eastern wisdom loved, which seems at first glance to state a truism, to lend itself equally to opposite interpretations. It was an escape from a skilfully laid trap. They marvelled and left Him, and went their way.
II. Its purpose.But it cannot have been related by the evangelists as an instance only of adroitness in baffling human wit and malignity. The question would be asked in after days, in some form or other, by humble souls eager for guidance in real difficulties. The answer must have been meant for them too. Should they give tribute to Csar or not? The world as they lived in it was in the hands of heathen rulers. How were Christians to live with such a society?
III. The two claims do not clash.The sting of the question lies in the false views which men have taken of the meaning of our Lords words, as though He had meant to distinguish two provinces, two claims. So men in age after age have set the claims of temporal power against those of spiritual, Emperor against Pope, State against Church, and matters of thought and truth against orthodoxy, science against theology. The point of our Lords answer was to heal and reconcile. The two claims, He implied, did not exclude one another. It was possible, it was a duty, to satisfy both: To Csar what is Csars, and to God what is Gods. The two did not clash, for when they met, one was but a department of the other. What is Csars really is what God has given to Csar, and in satisfying that claim to the very largest extent, we are satisfying, so far, that larger claim which exists on all our heart and life. Social life, civil life, has the fullest claim on us, and this must be frankly, thoroughly met and discharged. This, so far as we are ruled; but in a self-governed country every citizen is also in part a ruler, he has some voice, actual and potential, some influence in a larger sphere or a smaller, in determining the course of government. There, too, he must give to Csar what is Csars, and also To God that which is Gods. The claim of God is the very ground of the legitimate claim of Csar.
IV. Gods claim.Does Gods claim, then, in no way limit the rights of earthly rule, or the motives of earthly politics? Surely it does. But what is Gods claim? Not that something should be reserved for Him, but that everything should be viewed as Hisour heart, our life, ourselves, our politics as well as our religion, the world as well as the Church, things temporal as well as things eternal.
Dean Wickham.
Illustration
I remember a gentleman in business in London saying to me: Well, you know, I ought to be converted. I promise directly I get 30,000 to retire and give up the world. He got his 30,000but God would not take his heart. After having retired for fifteen years, he could not say that he was a converted man. He wished it; but God will not be dictated to. If you will have the world, have it, but remember there is nothing else. If you will have God, you may have the world too, you may walk upon the very waves of this worlds troubles. God can make all things work together for good if you trust Him out and out.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
2:21
In their answer they committed themselves beyond recall, for they directly said the whole thing belonged to Caesar, the very article that he was asking people to give to him as tribute. No one would say it is not “lawful” to give to a man what belongs to him. They had said this money belonged to Caesar, hence it would be lawful to give it back to him. And by the same token it would be right to give to God what belongs to him, namely, their religious devotion.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 22:21. Cesars. Imperial money was current among them. Wherever any kings money is current, there that king is lord; is reported as a Rabbinical saying. The standard currency is an indication or symbol of the civil authority; the right to coin has usually implied the right to exact tribute.
Render therefore unto Cesar, etc. Render to the powers that be, the service due them. Comp. Rom 13:1-7. Obedience to this precept would have spared Jerusalem, but the subtlest snare they devised for our Lord became their own destruction.
Unto God the things that are Gods. Religious duties are to be rendered to God. Possibly a hint that in denying Him, they denied the honor due to God, and also a reference to man as bearing the image of God, so that political and religious duties are distinguished, but not divided. The Jews themselves were under tribute to Cesar, because they had not rendered God His dues. Real religion makes men better citizens, since it enjoins a religious fulfilment of political obligations. The few exceptional cases that arise are to be decided by the principle of Act 5:29. Under a free government, this religious fulfilment of political duties is essential to preserve the State against anarchy.This answer settles in principle, though not in detail, the relations of Church and State. Both are of Divine origin and authority: the one for the temporal, the other for the eternal welfare of men. They ought to be kept distinct and independent in their respective spheres, without mixture and confusion, and yet without antagonism, but rather in friendly relation in view of their common origin in God, and their common end and completion in the kingdom of glory where God shall be all in all.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Jesus’ answer accorded with the Old Testament teaching that people should pay taxes to those over them, even pagans, because rulers ultimately owe their positions to God (Pro 8:15; Dan 2:21; Dan 2:37-38; cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1Pe 2:13-17). He did not side with the Zealots, a party that sought the violent overthrow of Rome, or with any other group that wanted Messiah to bring immediate political independence to Israel.
"The questioners had said dounai ["to give"] (Mat 22:17), as though of a gift which might be withheld; the Lord replies with apo dote ["render to"], the payment of a rightful due." [Note: M’Neile, pp. 319-20.]
However, Jesus also advocated rendering to God what belonged to Him. As the coin bore the emperor’s image and so testified to his ownership of it, so human beings bear God’s image and so testify to His ownership of them. God has an even more fundamental claim on people than Caesar did. The Jews should acknowledge Caesar’s claim by paying their taxes, but what is more important they should acknowledge God’s claim by obeying Him. This was a condemnation of Israel’s leaders who were not obeying God as well as an exhortation to all the people to follow God’s will. For them that involved believing in and following Jesus.
This incident shows Jesus’ great wisdom and authority, the intensity of the leaders’ opposition to Him, and how Jesus prepared His disciples for what lay ahead of them (cf. Romans 13; 1Pe 2:11-17).