Cyrus, the pagan king

FIRST READING—God addresses the king in a formal statement, like a royal decree, empowering him to undertake some tasks. What makes this decree extraordinary is that it is addressed to a pagan king, Cyrus, who unknowingly is anointed by God to defeat the enemies of Israel and return the exiles to their homeland.

©2020 Fr. Eamon Tobin. Commentary used with permission.

Cyrus does not know he is an agent of God

FIRST READING—Cyrus, King of Persia, does not know that he is God’s agent. He will be acting according to the Lord’s interest when he allows the people of Israel to return to their homeland and to rebuild their temple after the Exile in Babylon. Isaiah refers to Cyrus as the Lord’s Anointed (a messiah). God will arrange that Cyrus be successful in his conquests of other nations so that he can afford to let the Israelites go back home after he has overcome Babylon and set free its slaves in a general amnesty. God is Lord also of the other nations, and kings do his bidding even when they do not know the Lord. This section from the Book of Isaiah comes to us from a disciple of the original Isaiah. This one is with the Jewish people in their exile in Babylon. He writes to give them hope that Cyrus of Persia will overcome Babylon and allow the Jews to return to their homeland.

© 2017 Portland Diocese / Father Clement D. Thibodeau. Commentary used with permission.

The oracle of Isaiah 45

FIRST READING—The oracle of Isaiah 45 shows us how the prophet understood God’s action in human history. In language that would shock the orthodox, Isaiah presents the Persian emperor and warrior Cyrus as God’s anointed one, literally a messiah. Unthinkable as it may seem, Isaiah quotes God as saying to Cyrus, “I formed you from the womb … I say of Cyrus, my shepherd … I will go before you and level the mountains … I will give you treasures … that you may know that I am Lord” (Isaiah 44:24-45:3). God used covenant language with a pagan!

The people may have longed for salvation, but they didn’t expect it to come via a foreign dictator. Oppressed people long for the moment when one of their own will rise and free them, showing the rightness of their cause and the greatness of their nation. Even if he acted as a benevolent dictator, Cyrus was an alien monarch. Unlike other emperors, Cyrus respected local cultures and religions, greatly diminishing the resentment and desire for rebellion of the conquered people. Cyrus allowed the Jews to return to their capital and even to rebuild their Temple. Thus Isaiah saw the saving hand of God in his rule.

The lesson that God can and does work through pagans and foreigners was a hard one to accept. While a people may appreciate the good that comes from someone like Cyrus, we humans cling to the tendency to think that all good people should think and believe as we do. Therefore, only those who are like us can do the works of God.

That partisan tendency can have the tragic effect of widening unnecessary breeches among peoples with different philosophies or belief systems. One example of that in more contemporary history was the knee-jerk condemnation of liberation theology by people who refused to believe that anything tinged by socialism could bring about any good.

The Christian Scripture antidote to any approach which specializes in polarizing is found in statements like Jesus’ advice to judge proposals by their fruits or Paul’s assurance that God can make all things work for good for those who love God (Matthew 7:15-20, Romans 8:28). Isaiah could believe in Cyrus as God’s servant not because of his creed but because of what Cyrus did for God’s people.

©2017 National Catholic Reporter. All Rights Reserved. Sr. Mary McGlone  is a Sister of St. Joseph of Carondelet. 2017 Reflections,  2020 Reflections can be read at National Catholic Reporter website.

Our reading from the Book of Isaiah is a royal enthronement prophecy like those in Psalm 2 and 110 for Davidic kings.  God will summon Cyrus by name and will give him the title “Yahweh’s anointed” (in Hebrew = mashiach, “anointed,” also translated “messiah”).  It is usually a title reserved for the Davidic kings of Israel, and it became the title of the Savior-King the prophets promised was to come from David’s lineage to redeem Israel (i.e., Is 11:1-4, 10-12; Jer 23:5-6; Ez 34:23-23; Zec 3:8-10).  The paradox is that here the title is conferred upon a Gentile ruler who does not know Yahweh (stated twice in Is 45:1 and 6).  However, to the Biblical writers, the term “Yahweh’s anointed” is more than a title.  It also connotes a theology.  “Yahweh’s anointed” is a legitimate king appointed and protected by God (c.f., Psalm 2:6-10; 18:47-51).

In verse 5, Yahweh states the reason for this unusual choice of a Gentile Messiah: it is for the sake of God’s chosen people, referred to as “Jacob” in verse 4.  Jacob was the physical father of the covenant people who God renamed “Israel.”  In His judgment on an apostate covenant people, God brought about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 BC and condemned the remainder of the Israelites to an exile far from their homeland in Babylonia for seventy years (Jer 25:11-12, 29:10).  The purpose of their exile judgment was to cause the people to reject their false gods and later to recall a faithful remnant of the people back to their homeland to renew their covenant relationship with Israel’s God.

The historical fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy occurred when a Persian king who took the throne name, Cyrus II, defeated the Babylonian Empire. Cyrus the Great was the Persian king of Fars, a southern province of present-day Iran. Greek historians and the chronicle of the last Babylonian king, Nabonidus, record that in 553 B.C, Cyrus rebelled against the ruling Medes.  By 550, he had defeated them and consolidated the Medes and Persians into one Empire, ruling from 539-530 B.C.  After conquering the Medes, Cyrus turned his armies to the West.  By 546, he had defeated the Lydians (in modern Turkey).  Next, Cyrus set out to conquer the most powerful kingdom in Central Asia: Babylon.  By the end of 539, he had taken Babylon and captured its king, Nabonidus, extending the Persian Empire from the Aegean Sea to Central Asia.  It was probably in the fall of 538 B.C. that Cyrus issued a decree permitting all peoples conquered and displaced by the Babylonians to return to their homelands. The royal Persian proclamation, known as “the Edict of Cyrus,” included the people of Judah who Cyrus encouraged to return to Jerusalem and rebuild Yahweh’s Temple (see 2 Chr 36:23; Ezra 1:1-11; 5:13-15; 6:1), foretold two centuries earlier by Isaiah in 44:24, 28.

Agape Bible Study by Michal E. Hunt; used with permission.

The power of the Holy Spirit working in our lives

SECOND READING—For the next five weeks, the second reading will be from Paul’s First Letter to the Thessalonians. The tone of the book is warm, tender and positive. Paul obviously has great affection for this particular Christian community. In these opening verses, Paul warmly thanks God for the way the Thessalonians are growing in faith, hope and charity. He reminds them that their conversion is due to the power of the Holy Spirit working through him.

©2020 Fr. Eamon Tobin. Used with permission.

Paul knows about their faith, hope, and love

SECOND READING—Paul writes to the Church at Thessalonica, this first of all the books of the Christian Scriptures. He had proclaimed the good news of Jesus Christ there just 20 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Forced to leave the city when a great disagreement arose among the Jews in the city, Paul, now preaching in Corinth, is gratified to hear that his words have surely taken root and flourished, bearing good fruit, as he has just heard through Timothy. There is also bad news, about which he will write in this letter also. We will come to that problem later as we read this letter. The word of God has come to them with power, it seems. The result is that a marvelously powerful faith is present among them in Thessalonica.

© 2017 Portland Diocese / Father Clement D. Thibodeau. Commentary used with permission.

A church is different from any other grouping

SECOND READING—Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians is the oldest document of the Christian Scriptures, probably written in the early 50’s of the Common Era. As in most of his letters, Paul named his coauthors,  Silvanus and Timothy who were also his coworkers, demonstrating that they worked in teams, thinking, teaching and writing together.  This is just one of many signs that the early Christians theologized and evangelized in a collegial fashion.  Silvanus, also known as Silas, is the least well-known of the three. We hear most about him in Acts 16-18. Timothy, apparently younger than the other two, was with Paul in many adventures and often acted as his messenger. The three of them were imprisoned together in Philippi just before going to Thessalonica (Acts 16).

While the opening of the Christian Scripture letters follows a format, there is also a theology embedded in how Paul adjusted the traditional letter form. Each noun tells us something about Paul, the community and their spirituality.

Paul addressed this letter to the “church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” The word “church” (ekklesia) denoted an assembly or more broadly the people of God. It was neither a building nor an institution, but a living community.  The second half of the statement “in God the Father…” indicates that this group became a community at God’s initiative.  God called them together in Christ.  There was no other reason for this group to be together except for God’s gracious call.  The simple address of the letter reminds the community of how Paul sees them in relation to God and the world. It reminds us that being together as a church is different from any other grouping. Church is not a voluntary association but a community called together by God for God’s own purpose.

Paul then prays the blessings of grace and peace for them.  That choice of words modified the traditional greeting to become a blessing.  The phrase “grace to you” was both a proclamation and a blessing. In Paul’s writing, grace was the grace of election, the fact of being chosen by God. When Paul prayed for grace as a blessing instead of proclaiming it as a fait accompli, we realize that he saw being chosen something God was doing continuously, something to which the community and each member should respond on a daily basis.

Peace (shalom) is the result of grace.  It speaks of salvation which gives us peace with God. It describes the internal confidence in God that makes one genuinely imperturbable.  It also refers to the graced mutuality the community is called to cultivate and enjoy.  In sum, Paul’s blessing of grace and peace asks that the recipients may fully know the internal joy of living in God’s presence as a chosen community.

That blessing, which we hear often in our own liturgies, sums up the Christian lifestyle. If a community and each of its members can maintain an awareness of God’s gracious activity in their lives, they will know and be instruments of the peace which comes from being called together in God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

©2017 National Catholic Reporter. All Rights Reserved. Sr. Mary McGlone  is a Sister of St. Joseph of Carondelet. Her 2020 Reflections can be read at National Catholic Reporter website.

St. Paul was writing to the Christian converts living in Thessalonica in the Roman-controlled province of Macedonia.  In the summer of A.D. 50, he founded the Christian community during his second missionary journey (Acts 17:1-10).  It would appear that Paul wrote this letter to the community in the winter of AD 50-51 in the company of his missionary companions Silvanus and Timothy.  Christians there had reported back to Paul that, despite their persecution, the people remained faithful to Jesus’ Gospel message, and Paul is pleased with the community’s progress in the faith.

Agape Bible Study by Michal E. Hunt; used with permission.

Jesus’ entrapment story

GOSPEL—Today’s Gospel is the first of four clashes (often called ‘entrapment’ stories) between Jesus and various representatives of Judaism. In today’s Gospel or entrapment story, the Pharisees and the Herodians ask Jesus, “Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor or not?” The question is put to Jesus to see whether he would declare himself on the side of the Pharisees who oppose paying taxes to the Romans, or on the side of the Herodians who collaborate with the Romans. If Jesus conceded to the payment of taxes to Caesar, he would lose the esteem of ordinary Jews who very much resent the payment of taxes to the Romans. On the other hand, if he opposed it, he could be accused of instigating rebellion against the Romans.

Jesus, aware of the malicious intent of the Pharisees and the Herodians to trick him, and knowing full well that they are not really interested in God or in taxes, asks for a coin: “Show me the coin that pays the census tax.” The fact that there is such a coin shows that they have accepted Roman rule, revealing their hypocrisy. Jesus duly declares that if the coin has Caesar’s image on it, then it belongs to Caesar and they should give it to Caesar.

But Jesus adds something they did not expect. While they (and we) are obliged to pay taxes, Jesus tells them (and us) that they (and we) are to“give to God what belongs to God.” In essence, Jesus is telling them (and us) that there is a kingdom much greater and more important than Caesar’s. Since God made all things (which bear his image), everything belongs to God.

Patricia Sanchez writes: “Everywhere we go we belong to God for we bear his imprint. We belong to God, not just in church but in our homes, our work places and in the voting booth and we must bring God’s values to all of these places.”(Used with permission The Word We Celebrate: Commentary on the Sunday lectionary Years A, B, C, by Patricia Sanchez, Sheed & Ward publisher (9-1-89.)

©2020 Fr. Eamon Tobin. Commentary used with permission.

Responsibilities to God and to the world

GOSPEL—By the time Matthew wrote his Gospel for a community of Jewish followers of Jesus (around 85 CE), the Jewish community as a whole, that small group who believed in Jesus Christ and those who did not, was in serious disarray. The Herodian, who had been supporters of the Roman occupation and of the puppet-king Herod, had been totally discredited in the eyes of the Jewish people. The Romans had retaliated against dissident Jewish zealots who had tried to overthrow the imperial forces; the Temple had been destroyed in Jerusalem (70 CE); the leaders of the Jewish faith were scattered around the empire. Could it be that the Pharisees had been right? Coexistence with Rome might be against God’s law!

Matthew reaches back into the tradition of his community and offers Jesus’ teaching on responsibility in the public order: Obey civil authority, even Caesar, in matters that pertain to the civil order, but obey God in whatever pertains to the religious and moral order. The structures of traditional Judaism are no more! What are Jews to do? How is God to be served now that temple worship has been obliterated? The hereditary priesthood cannot function without a temple. Christian Jews, those who believe in Jesus but have continued to observe the laws and practices of ancient Judaism, are also in a quandary. How are they to distinguish between duties to God and duties to society?Matthew would have them be very clear about these matters.God still comes first, even though the outward signs of religion are no more:the Temple, sacrifices, priesthood, etc. God is still God. The civil order is a reality. There is no escaping the needto conform to the laws of the empire as concerns everyday life,commerce, taxes, etc. Caesar must not be rejected just because Caesar has destroyed the Temple!

The Greek text uses a word for entrapment thatreally refers to the use of a snare that always results in the death of the victim. Our translation says that the Pharisees wanted to entangle Jesus in his talk. That is a very weak English verb for the Greek verb which is closer to our words: to trap in a snare where the victim will choke to death! They want Jesus to choke on his words so that he can be put to death.

Civil authority is not to be opposed just because it is not identical to religious authority. The governments of this world can be instruments of God’s will also.

© 2017 Portland Diocese / Father Clement D. Thibodeau. Commentary used with permission.

Jesus asks to see a coin

GOSPEL—In the past few weeks, we’ve heard Jesus narrate parables that called friends and enemies to conversion. That’s another way of saying that he told parables that angered his opposition. Today’s Gospel opens with the explanation that Jesus’ enemies were forging new alliances in their campaign to undo him. This is the first time we hear about the Herodians — a group that doesn’t need any more description than their name indicates; they aligned themselves with the brutal ruler, Herod Antipas. The disciples of the Pharisees and the Herodians, a very odd coalition, plan a verbal trap for Jesus.

The oil of insincerity oozes through the scene as they open their ambush with praise for Jesus as a truthful teacher who doesn’t pander to anyone. (This is not the only time that Jesus is in the awkward position of having hypocrites or demons praise him for who he really is.) The loquacious speakers finally get to their point and ask about the legitimacy of collaborating with the Romans by paying taxes. Lest anyone wonder what Jesus really thought about his questioners and their creative dilemma, he immediately addresses them as hypocrites, and makes it clear to everyone listening that their intent is only to test him. They have no interest in looking for an answer and no personal investment in the question.

Disingenuous as they may be, their question is legitimate. If Jesus tells people to refuse to pay taxes, he’s siding with rebels and perhaps calling down more wrath than the case warrants. On the other hand, paying taxes could be read as a sign of accepting and thereby legitimizing the rule of the pagan Romans. This is probably the first description of a church/state conflict in Christian history.

When Jesus asks to see a coin, the first thing we notice is that his questioners have Roman money, thereby collaborating with the system at least to the extent that they carry something that bears the sort of graven image forbidden by strict Jews. The injunction against images was a stringent application of the commandment in Exodus: “You shall not make for yourself an idol or a likeness of anything in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth” (20:4). While the application of that commandment forbad any sort of depiction of human beings or creatures, its intent was to forbid idolatry, the worship of or consecration to any person, creature or thing other than God.

When Jesus asked whose image was on the coin, the group’s ability to produce one pointed out that they carried Roman money which featured an image of Caesar, the inscription on which called Caesar Augustus a divinity. Jesus didn’t comment on the coin’s idolatrous implications but neutralized the dichotomy, rising above it with a typically enigmatic response.

While our translation says “repay” to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, others say “give” or “render.” Whichever translation one uses, the answer is a riddle. The first part is fairly simple: With some prayer and discernment, we can determine what belongs to Caesar. There may be some debate about government’s legitimate rights, but at some point, there will be a limit to what the government can demand of citizens. We can be genuinely dedicated to the nation and the common good without falling into the idolatry of blind obedience. But when it comes to giving to God what belongs to God, what falls outside of that category?

©2017 National Catholic Reporter. All Rights Reserved. Sr. Mary McGlone  is a Sister of St. Joseph of Carondelet. Her 2020 Reflections can be read at National Catholic Reporter website.

Balancing God and Caesar

The money of the United States bears the official national motto: “In God We Trust.”  It’s a curious and sometimes contentious part of our history. Apparently, the motto first appeared on coins during the Civil War, a not so subtle assertion that God was on the side of the Union. During the height of the Cold War, when the atheistic Soviet Union was our most frightening enemy, Congress passed laws making the phrase the official motto of the United States and ordering that it should be printed on all U.S. paper currency.

When the motto and its exhibition have been challenged in court, the decisions have ruled that it does not favor the establishment of religion and therefore is not unconstitutional. A 2004 Court of Appeals ruling said that references to God on money or in the Pledge of Allegiance “have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content.” On the other extreme, President Teddy Roosevelt called references to God on coins sacrilegious. God and country, church and state, the debate has confounded Christians since the time of Jesus.

In today’s Gospel, we see the start of a strange alliance between Pharisees and Herodians, groups whose only commonality seemed to be their opposition to Jesus.  In one sense, they might be taken as the representatives of strict religion and the folks who could drop all scruples and self-servingly support the local dynasty.  When this odd combo of church and state factions questioned Jesus about the legitimacy of paying taxes, they thought they had come up with the perfect dilemma. If Jesus said, “pay,” he implicitly acknowledged the legitimacy of the Roman occupation, pagan rule over God’s people. On the other hand, those people remembered that less than 30 years before this happened, a man called Judas the Galilean had been executed for starting a revolution based on refusing to pay taxes. His sons met the same fate in the year 47 CE. Tax resistance was dangerous in those days.

Jesus was never one to be bested in political theater. Just when they thought they had him on the hook, he reeled them in.  It was time for show and tell. He asked for a coin. Whose picture was on it?  The coin they carried displayed not only an image of Tiberius Caesar but also a written declaration that he was the son of the divine Augustus.  The other side of the coin had the words pontifex maximus declaring that Caesar was the most high priest.  The very sight of such a coin would rankle strongly religious or nationalistic Jews. For the Gospel writers, the memory of the coin was the height of irony.

Then Jesus responded to their interrogation. When they admitted that the coin bore an image of Caesar, he handed them a riddle: “Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.”

Jesus’ response would satisfy no purist. The righteous religious would see him as promoting capitulation to the pagans. The Herodians, the “if you can’t lick ‘em, join ‘em” crowd, would realize they had just been given a very tenuous pass. The underlying question is what could belong to Caesar that does not already belong to God?  Jesus left it to each age to discern how to interpret that for their own times.

The Gospel gives us Jesus’ response to groups that were out to trap him.  What about folks who are sincere in wondering when supporting Caesar stops being legitimate?  When must we be conscientious objectors?  There are a few details in the story that offer clues to the riddle. First of all, any practicing Jew who heard Jesus say something about what belongs to God would have heard echoes of prayers like Psalm 24 which begins, “The earth is the Lord’s and all it holds, the world and those who dwell in it.”

The second hint comes through the part of the story that Jesus didn’t emphasize. The coin the questioners were carrying was blasphemous to religious Jews. It symbolized all the institutions that tend to divinize themselves as the ultimate in importance or authority. The inscription on the coin could be compared to the statement, “My country, right or wrong,” or any other declaration of absolute allegiance to anything on the Earth.  That inscription and attitude cross the line giving to Caesar what belongs to God.  Seen in that light, an answer to the riddle begins to appear.  Caesar, the common good, society, can all make legitimate claims on us.  We are responsible to create societies which serve the good of all.  That’s what we owe to Caesar.

If the God in whom we trust is the God of Jesus, what we owe to God is a blank check.

©2017 National Catholic Reporter. All Rights Reserved. Sr. Mary McGlone  is a Sister of St. Joseph of Carondelet. Her 2020 Reflections can be read at National Catholic Reporter website.

Render to Caesar

The Gospel for today raises the famously complex question of the relationship between “religion” and “politics.” Though there is a legitimate distinction between the two, this can never turn into a separation. We should certainly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but we must never forget that even Caesar belongs to God.

Caesar and Christ

We must render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. But we must also recall that everything belongs to God, including Caesar! Secular government and culture have their legitimate place, but they are not independent of God and God’s purposes.

© Word on Fire / Bishop Robert Barron

Commentary on Matthew 22:15-21

SOURCE:  StudyLight.org

The Jewish Pharisees and Herodians were unlikely allies.  According to the priest/historian Flavius Josephus (37-100 AD), who identified himself as a Pharisee, the Pharisees were the religious/political group that was most influential with the people.  They were known for their scrupulous observance of Jewish religious practices and their authoritative interpretations of Mosaic Law (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 13.5.9, 10.6; Life 38).  The Pharisees despised Roman rule, and as a group, they refused to take the oaths of allegiance to Rome and the Herodian rulers (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 17.2.4).  On the other hand, the Herodians were Greek culture Jews who cooperated with and even admired the Romans.  Herodians were not viewed as faithful observers of the Law.

The same Pharisees that had challenged Jesus earlier didn’t return with this challenge.  Instead, they sent their disciples who one assumes had not been present in the earlier confrontation with Jesus.  Perhaps the strategy was that Jesus wouldn’t recognize their disciples, and He might speak more freely so they could entrap Him.  Their representatives begin by attempting to flatter Jesus.  Their flattery and their plot to trap Jesus underscore their malice and wickedness.  What is ironic is that, for once, even though they are insincere, their statements concerning Jesus are accurate.  They ask Jesus if it is “lawful,” meaning acceptable according to God’s Law, to pay the Roman poll tax (verse 17).

Agape Bible Study by Michal E. Hunt; used with permission.

The verb pagideuo in verse 15 means “to set a snare or trap” and appears only in this passage in the New Testament.
The trap they intended to set for Jesus was a two-way trap depending on Jesus’ answer.  If He condemned the tax, He encouraged the people to reject Rome’s authority over Judea and Jesus and could be arrested by the Romans for encouraging insurrection.  If, however, Jesus agreed that Jews should pay the Roman tax, using a coin bearing the image of the Roman emperor who claimed to be the son of a god, He would be taking a position contrary to the feelings of the majority of the Jewish people.  Most Jews saw the claim that Augustus was a god as a sacrilege, and they were unlikely to follow Jesus because they were looking to Him as the liberator-Messiah sent to free them from the Romans.

The joining of the forces of these two groups (the Pharisees and Herodians) to “trap” Jesus may be an application of the adage, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”  And considering the trap they intended to set, it was expedient for the Pharisees to include the Herodians.  The Pharisees did not support the Roman tax, but the Herodians did.  If Jesus condemned the Roman tax, who better than the Herodian allies to make the charge to the Roman governor that Jesus was undermining obedience to Roman rule?

Agape Bible Study by Michal E. Hunt; used with permission.

18 Knowing their malice, Jesus said, “Why are you testing me, you hypocrites?  19 Show me the coin that pays the census tax.”  Then they handed him the Roman coin [denarius].  20 He said to them, “Whose image is this and whose inscription?”  21 They replied, “Caesar’s.”  At that, he said to them, “Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.”

Their flattering language did not deceive Jesus.  He accused them of hypocrisy, using the Greek word hupokrites, which means “an actor who plays a part.”  There is no equivalent for this Greek word in Hebrew or Aramaic (Aramaic is the common language Jesus is speaking).  Jesus calls the Pharisees “hypocrites” fourteen times in Matthew’s Gospel (Mt 6:2, 5, 16; 15:7; 16:3; 22:18; 23:13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29; 24:51).

Agape Bible Study by Michal E. Hunt; used with permission.

Notice how cleverly Jesus reversed the trap.  Since the Jews had to pay the tax with Roman coinage that bore Caesar’s image, the coins belonged to Caesar.  Paying the denarius was giving back to Caesar what was his.  However, in addition to telling His adversaries, “Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar,” Jesus also said, “and to God what belongs to God.”  This statement left the Pharisees without an answer.

Jesus’ declaration that one must repay “to God what belongs to God” is a significant statement related to Jesus’ question about the “image” on the coin (verse 20).  The Jews, especially the Pharisees, did not miss the significance of Jesus’ statement.  They remembered that according to Genesis 1:27, all humans were “made in the image of God.”  While the Roman coin had the Roman emperor’s image, God was his Creator and had created the emperor in His image.  Therefore, the emperor was ultimately subject to God’s sovereignty over his life.  The Pharisees and Herodians went away “amazed” that Jesus had turned their “trap” against them: 22 When they heard this, they were amazed, and leaving him, they went away (not in our reading).

Agape Bible Study by Michal E. Hunt; used with permission.

Here are some of the Church Fathers that Aquinas used in his commentary:

Third Century

• Origen  – Alexandrian biblical critic, exegete, theologian, and spiritual writer; analyzed the Scriptures on three levels: the literal, the moral, and the allegorical
• Cyprian  – pagan rhetorician converted to Christianity; acquired acquired a profound knowledge of the Scriptures and the writings of Tertullian; elected bishop of Carthage; martyred in 258

Fourth Century

• Eusebius  – Bishop of Caesarea; author of Ecclesiastical History, the principal source for the history of Christianity from the Apostolic Age till his own day; also wrote a valuable work on Biblical topography called the Onomasticon
• Athanasius  – Bishop of Alexandria; attended the Council of Nicea; opposed Arianism, in defence of the faith proclaimed at Nicaea—that is, the true deity of God the Son
• Hilary  – Bishop of Poitiers; the earliest known writer of hymns in the Western Church; defended the cause of orthodoxy against Arianism; became the leading Latin theologian of his age
• Gregory of Nazianzus  – one of the “Cappadocian Fathers”; a great influence in restoring the Nicene faith and leading to its final establishment at the Council of Constantinople in 381
• Gregory of Nyssa  – one of the “Cappadocian Fathers”; Bishop of Nyssa; took part in the Council of Constantinople
• Ambrose  – Bishop of Milan; partly responsible for the conversion of Augustine; author of Latin hymns; it was through his influence that hymns became an integral part of the liturgy of the Western Church
• Jerome  – biblical scholar; devoted to a life of asceticism and study; his greatest achievement was his translation of the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate); also wrote many biblical commentaries
• Nemesius  – Christian philosopher; Bishop of Emesa in Syria
• Augustine  – Bishop of Hippo (in northern Africa); a “Doctor of the Church”; most famous work is his Confessions; his influence on the course of subsequent theology has been immense
• Chrysostom  – Bishop of Constantinople; a “Doctor of the Church”; a gifted orator; his sermons on Gen, Ps, Isa, Matt, John, Acts, and the Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews) established him as the greatest of Christian expositors
• Prosper of Aquitaine  – theologian; supporter of Augustinian doctrines; closely associated with Pope Leo I (“the Great”)
• Damasus  – pope; active in suppressing heresy
• Apollinaris of Laodicea  – Bishop of Laodicea; close friend of Athanasias; vigorous advocate of orthodoxy against the Arians
• Amphilochius of Iconium  – Bishop of Iconium; close friend of the Cappadocian Fathers; defended the full Divinity of the Holy Spirit

Fifth Century

• Asterius of Amasea  – Arian theologian; some extant homilies on the Psalms attributed to him
• Evagrius Ponticus  – spiritual writer; noted preacher at Constantinople; spent the last third of his life living a monastic life in the desert
• Isidore of Pelusium  – an ascetic and exegete; his extant correspondence contains much of doctrinal, exegetical, and moral interest
• Cyril of Alexandria  – Patriarch of Alexandria; contested Nestorius; put into systematic form the classical Greek doctrines of the Trinity and of the Person of Christ
• Maximus of Turin  – Bishop of Turin; over 100 of his sermons survive
• Cassion (prob. Cassian)  – one of the great leaders of Eastern Christian monasticism; founded two monasteries near Marseilles; best known books the Institutes and the Conferences
• Chrysologus  – Bishop of Ravenna; a “Doctor of the Church”
• Basil “the Great”  – one of the “Cappadocian Fathers”; Bishop of Caesarea; responsible for the Arian controversy’s being put to rest at the Council of Constantinople
• Theodotus of Ancyra  – Bishop of Ancyra; wrote against the teaching of Nestorius
• Leo the Great  – Pope who significantly consolidated the influence of the Roman see; a “Doctor of the Church”; his legates defended Christological orthodoxy at the Council of Chalcedon
• Gennadius  – Patriarch of Constantinople; the author of many commentaries, notably on Genesis, Daniel, and the Pauline Epistles
• Victor of Antioch  – presbyter of Antioch; commentator and collector of earlier exegetical writings
• Council of Ephesus  – declared the teachings of Nestorious heretical, affirming instead the unity between Christ’s human and divine natures
• Nilus  – Bishop of Ancyra; disciple of St John Chrysostom; founder of a monastery; conducted a large correspondence influencing his contemporaries; his writings deal mainly with ascetic and moral subjects

Sixth Century

• Dionysius Areopagita  (aka Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite) – mystical theologian; combined Neoplatonism with Christianity; the aim of all his works is the union of the whole created order with God
• Gregory the Great  – Pope; a “Doctor of the Church”; very prolific writer of works on practical theology, pastoral life, expositions of Job, sermons on the Gospels, etc.
• Isidore  – Bishop of Seville; a “Doctor of the Church”; concerned with monastic discipline, clerical education, liturgical uniformity, conversion of the Jews; helped secure Western acceptance of Filioque clause
• Eutychius (Patriarch of Constan­tinople)  – consecrated the church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople; defended the Chalcedonian faith against an unorthodox sect; became controversial later in life
• Isaac (Bp. of Nineveh)  (aka Isaac the Syrian) – monastic writer on ascetic subjects
• Severus (Bp. of Antioch)  – Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch; the leading theologian of the moderate Monophysites
• John Climacus  – ascetic and writer on the spiritual life; later Abbot of Mt. Sinai; best known for his Ladder of Divine Ascent which treats of the monastic virtues and vices
• Fulgentius  – Bishop of Ruspe in N. Africa; scholarly disposition; follower of St. Augustine; wrote many treatises against Arianism and Pelagianism

Seventh Century

• Maximus ( of Constantinople, 645.)  – Greek theologian; prolific writer on doctrinal, ascetical, exegetical, and liturgical subjects

Eighth Century

• Bede (131CESK) – “the Venerable Bede”; a “Doctor of the Church”; pedagogue, biblical exegete, hagiographer, and historian, the most influential scholar from Anglo-Saxon England
• John Damascene  – Greek theologian; a “Doctor of the Church”; defender of images in the Iconoclastic Controversy; expounded the doctrine of the perichoresis (circumincession) of the Persons of the Trinity
• Alcuin  – Abbot of St. Martin’s (Tours); a major contributor to the Carolingian Renaissance; supervised the production of several complete editions of the Bible; responsible for full acceptance of the Vulgate in the West

Ninth Century

• Haymo (of Halberstadt)  – German Benedictine monk who became bishop of Halberstadt; prolific writer
• Photius (of Constantinople)  – Patriarch of Constantinople; a scholar of wide interests and encyclopedic knowledge; his most important work, Bibliotheca, is a description of several hundred books (many now lost), with analyses and extracts; also wrote a Lexicon
• Rabanus Maurus  – Abbot of Fulda in Hess Nassau; later Archbishop of Mainz; wrote commentaries on nearly every Book of the Bible
• Remigius (of Auxerre)  – monk, scholar, and teacher
• Paschasius Radbertus  – Carolingian theologian; wrote commentaries on Lamentations and Matthew, as well as the first doctrinal monograph on the Eucharist, he maintained the real Presence of Christ

Eleventh Century

• Theophylact  – Byzantine exegete; his principal work, a series of commentaries on several OT books and on the whole of the NT except Revelation, is marked by lucidity of thought and expression and closely follows the scriptural text
• Anselm  – Archbishop of Canterbury; a “Doctor of the Church”; highly regarded teacher and spiritual director; famous ontological argument for the existence of God as “that than which nothing greater can be thought”
• Petrus Alphonsus  – Jewish Spanish writer and astronomer, a convert to Christianity; one of the most important figures in anti-Judaic polemics
• Laufranc (prob. Lanfranc)  – Archbishop of Canterbury; commented on the Psalms and Pauline Epistles; his biblical commentary passed into the Glossa Ordinaria

15. Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.

16. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.

17. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar, or not?

18. But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

19. Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

20. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

21. They say unto him, Cæsar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.

22. When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.