The Pulpit Commentary — Matthew — Volume 2 — Section 368

\at€ the conduct of men in all ages. "Render therefore unto Cmsl\r the things which are Crosar's, and unto God the things that are God's." Crosar had hie rights; the fact that his coin was current in Palestine showed that ihe Jews were under his govern- ment, under the protection of his laws. The Lord does not enter into any political discussions; he simply refers his questioners to the logic of facts. As a fact Cmsar WBB paramount; in the providence of God, Palestine had come under his don'iinion; the Jews used money coined in his mint; that denarius which they had just put into the Lord's hand was stamped with his name and image. Therefore it was lawful, it WBB more than lawful, it was a duty, to pay tribute unto Cresar, for that tribute was Cresar'e due. "Render therefore to all their dues," St. Paul wrote afl€rwards; "tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour." Christianity does not interfere with the obedience due to the laws under which we live. Dut if the denarius was due to Cresar, the half-shekel was due to God; the Berodians must not forget this. "Render unto God the things that are God's." The principle is of wide application. "Ye are not your own," the apostle tells us. God made man after his own image. He wrote bis law in the heart. That image was marred, not wholly lost, by the Fall (see Gen. ix. 6; Jas. iii. 9). It may be recovered; God's chosen must bear the image of the heavenly ; they must be conformed to the image of his Son, changed into the same image from glory to glory, renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created them. Then if we render unto God the things that are God's, we shall give him ourselves, our souls and bodies, which are his-his by right of creation, his again by right of redemption, for we are bought with a price. The second clause of our Saviour's rule both qualifies and includes the first. We may not give unto Cmsar the things that are God's; if, unhappily, there should be a collision between our duty to God and our obedience to the civil power, we must obey God rather than ma.n. Under all other circumstances, in rendering unto Ciesar the things which are Ciesar's, we so far render unto God the things which are God's; for "the powers that be are ordained of God: whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God." The great principle of obedience to God covers the whole of the Christian life. Our duty to God contains and implies our duty to our neighbour. The best Christian will be the best subject, the best son, the best servant. LEssoNB. 1. Hate fiattery. Do not flatter others; speak the truth. 2. Render unto all their dues. The Christian must be just in his dealings, obedient to the law. 3. Give God his due.s-your whole heart. Vera. 23--33.-17ie SaddU,CUS. L TllEIB CABE OF CASUISTRY. 1. Their d~trin~ They held that there was no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit (Acts xxili. 8). Some of them now came to Christ, asserting their unbelief. They had not hitherto, like the Pharisees, taken a decided stand against our Lord. The chief priests, indeed, who were Sadducees, had been provoked into hostility by our Lord's action in the temple; but we do not read of Sadducees, as such, joining in the opposition against the Lord before this time, except in the one case mentioned by St. Matthew (eh. xvi.1). They were few in number, but rich and powerful through their possession of the chief places in the Church. Their rank, their sceptical tendencies, seem to have led them to rerrard our Lord up to the present time rather with indifference than with active hostility. They had not hitherto taken much interest in bis teaching and miracles. But he had become a power in the land, the most conspicuous Figure in Palestine; they could not go on ignoring him as they had done. Sadduceeism !-nd Pha~sais!ll represent tendencies diametrically opposed to one another, yet sometimes united in :ipposition to the truth. Philosophic indifference on the one side, superstition and hypocrisy on the other, are th~ two ~pposite poles of opinion. Doth s~and aloof from that simple, loving, earnest faith which marks the real follower of Chnst ; sometimea. they unite against it. 2. Their question. 'l'hey proposed a difficulty, a possible com- plication arising out of the institution of levirate manfage. A woma~, they suppose. had married in successiou seven brothers: whose wife should-she be Ill the resurrec- tion? Some of the rablis bad already decided the question-a woman who ha~ been married more than once would, they thought, be the wife of the first husband m the wurld to come. So said the rabbis ; but what was the opinion of the great Teacher: from Nazareth? 'CH, xxu.1-40.J THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW. 373