I agree that Jesus came to restore the relationship, and to redeem from sin, etc., but there is actually debate about the "image" part. While J.I. Packer claims that we have fallen from God's image, some disagree. John Kilner, in a 2010 article in JETS[1], says, "There is no language indicating that any harm has been done to the image in which people were originally created; nor is there any suggestion of an image changing in any way."

About 2 Cor. 3.18, for instance, he says, "According to this text, the Lord provides (or is) the goal and the means of people’s growth.
While the image does not change, believers as people change. Accordingly, the biblical writers use a term other than image—that is, glory—to refer to that which changes. People are transformed from one degree of glory to another. It is the degree of glory that changes, not the image.
Instead of a damaged or lost image being restored, Paul writes in terms of something new happening because of Christ. The people of Israel were under the old covenant (14) and their minds were hardened. But now they are able to understand and accept the gospel message in Christ (14). There was glory in the old covenant, but the glory of the new is so much greater that the old has lost its glory. Whereas Moses was incapable of retaining the glory he gained form his personal encounter with God (13), believers now have a new capacity for ever-increasing glory (18). Shortly thereafter, Paul describes what is happening in believers as a new creation (5.17).
The problem being addressed here is not a corrupted image but sinful people oppressed by the god of this world (4.4). Paul recognizes that one reason something new is needed is that people are being prevented from being and living as God intends. When people turn to the Lord there is a veil over their inner selves which is removed (3.15). They then at last have the freedom (17) to begin a growth in glory whose standard is the Lord’s image. Whereas the image of God introduced first in the OT is about the status of humanity, the divine image concept introduced first in the NT is about the standard for humanity.
The image of Christ provides the standard for how humanity’s status should be lived out. In Christ alone, as perfect God and human being, do the status of the image of God and the standard of the image of Christ cohere perfectly. That’s why Christ alone can be said to be not only the “image of God” but also the “exact representation” of God (Heb. 1.3).
Again, there is nothing about this image of God that is deficient or damaged in any way. The image of God, whether in reference to Christ or human beings, is something that the Bible contrasts with human sinfulness—not something that is ever altered by sin."

About Romans 8.29 Kilner says, "Paul explains the end to which God has predestined Christians, whom God will ultimately glorify: God has predestined them to be conformed to the image of his Son. What is being restored through a process of justification and glorification are people, not the image.
There is no language indicating that any sort of image is changing. Rather, God is changing people; and the image of his Son is that to which people are being conformed. If anything, it is the constancy of that image that provides a sure goal for all believers. Interestingly, the goal is consistently referred to in terms of the “image of Christ,” not a broader “image of God” concept—suggesting that there may be involved here a development or glorification beyond what Adam and Eve experienced in the image of God before the Fall."

I don't really think this is worthy of a lot of discussion between us; I think we both agree on the points being made. I just find his comments intellectually curious, and therefore intriguing. Whether Jesus came to restore our "image" or some other term that amounts to the same kind of process, in this case I don't think it's worth the semantic debate. In my mind, though (and the reason I bring it up), is a further doubt that Jesus, in the Matthew "Caesar" text, is referring to Genesis 1.26.


[1]: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, "Humanity In God’s Image: Is the Image Really Damaged?",
JETS 53/3 (Sept 2010)

Your right there isn't much too go on in this exchange to suggest that Jesus is pointing back to Genesis. The Greek word used for image is used a few other times in the New Testament that could be referring back to the image of God that is first mentioned in Genesis 1. Another reason I want to say Jesus might be referring to the image of God is one of things Jesus came to accomplish. He came to restore a broken relationship and part of that meant we had to fufill our function as the image of God. Jesus came to restore our image. I feel, like the Kingdom, it is a now and later situation.

I enjoy conversation with you. Thanks for the exchange. I agree that Jesus is not really talking about politics, just as he was not really talking about divorce when questioned, or so many other traps. Jesus' concerns were always spiritual, and even though the debate at hand forced him into varied subject matters, his points were always deeper than the subject of the trap.

He had just cleansed the temple and cursed the fig tree, fulfilling prophecy but also making a huge statement about their religious hypocrisy and the inadequacy of their works to achieve salvation. The cursing of the fig tree is an important parable about the failures of Judaism and the religious errors of their day. Jesus' curse of the tree is a curse of their false understandings and practice.

The subsequent discussion (21.32-23), however, is both a religious and political attack: "By what authority do you do these things?" Jesus' authority threatened both Rome (the kingdoms of the world) and Jerusalem (the false kingdom of God). The Romans claimed no higher authority on earth than Caesar; Jesus challenged every inch of that claim. The Jewish authorities believed they represented God both in theology and practice; Jesus challenged every inch of that claim. Jesus was claiming Lordship over heaven AND earth, both Rome AND Jerusalem. He shows them the way of righteousness: humility, repentance, and true belief (32).

He follows with the Parable of the Tenants, a divisive parable of both political and religious import. He uses a common political situation to illustrate a spiritual truth about his identity and authority, and through it he condemns their actions of rejection. But his point is both political and spiritual: He is the proper Davidic king, the Messiah sent from God, and salvation is in Him, not in anything else.

The subsequent Parable of the Wedding Banquet also has both political undertones and spiritual overtones. It's about a king, doing a kingly thing, but it's really about the rejection of truth by the enlightened, and the consequent invitation being issued to whoever will come. There will be judgment for all who reject the Davidic king, no matter who they are, and blessing for all who accept, no matter who they are.

Following on the heels of all this comes your passage about Caesar. I think it would be very unfair to say this doesn't have any political sense to it, though I agree with you that Jesus is not teaching us to pay taxes or not. His point is that while God has given us earthly kings, and we do owe a certain fealty to them to create a just society, God is our Sovereign King to whom ultimate allegiance is due. John Yoder, in "The Politics of Jesus," says, "Every pericope in the section of 19.47-22.22 reflects in some way the confrontation of the two social systems and Jesus’ rejection of the status quo. The trap question about the denarius is the most openly political." But Jesus won't fall into a political quagmire. He has made it clear that his kingdom is not of this earth, and just about everything he has said is an upending of everything we know, believe, and value. It's a little difficult to see how a little penny (denarius) can bring the whole question of clashing kingdoms to a culmination, but remember he is headed to Jerusalem to be killed, so even the smallest things have import at this stage.

The very possibility that such a question would arise, though, belies the reality that people understood very well that his teachings had not just spiritual import, but social, societal, and political implications as well. He was properly perceived as prescribing a comprehensive change of hearts, minds, and ways. And therefore the powers that be are out to stop him. Power, as we learn, will stop at nothing to be stopped at all. Power uses its power to retain and advance power. Here the powers of heaven and earth spin on a penny.

The question has all the airs of innocence: Should we pay taxes? It's a simple yes/no of which either answer will sink him deeply into the abyss of irrelevance or into the limelight of insurgency.

"Bring a penny," he briefly posed, "and I'll asked you a question of blatant simplicity: What do you see on it?"

Unsuspecting, they answered him clearly: "Caesar."

With the swing of a shrewd sword, Jesus disarms his attackers. "Give back to Caesar what is already Caesar's, and to God what is God's." The kingdoms of this world and the kingdoms of God are not in inherent, necessary conflict. Harmony is not only possible but desirable. Both church and state have their clear and distinct roles, and those two roles coincide, not clash. We have legitimate obligations to the government to have the resources to maintain a just society. We also have legitimate obligations to God (as his image, as you stated) to have the resources to maintain righteousness.

Why does this matter at this point in the story, or at all? The crucifixion conflict around the corner will bring a crown of Rome and Jerusalem smashing scornfullly on Jesus' head, and all the while we know that the kingdom of sin and death is being fatally wounded by the Kingdom of our God. But we are told later, as well as here, that the kingdoms of heaven and earth are not axiomatically at odds, for all will be redeemed, and the kingdoms of this earth will become the kingdom of our God, and He shall reign for ever and ever, amen.

This story puts a penny deposit on the story of boundless prosperity.

As you have claimed (and I agree), Jesus' point is always about our holiness and godliness. Though you have used the word [i]image[/i], I'm still not convinced that Jesus is making a point about the image of God in us vs. the image of Caesar on the coin, though I agree that he is making a point about spiritual realities than about how one feels about the government.

I think I could have phrased it better. I'm not trying to say that Jesus is teaching us not to worry about paying taxes. I was just saying that Jesus was making a point about what is really important.

If you want to pay taxes then pay them but you must be the image of God. If you don't want to pay them, then change the laws but you must be the image of God. I'm not claiming this coming from Jesus but I'm making a point the image of God is what we need to focus on in this exchange and not use it as a passage to prove how one feels about the government.

Great thoughts. Thanks for them. At this point in Jesus' ministry he was the victim of an onslaught of opposition by his enemies in Jerusalem. Each of the gospel writers puts this in his own theological context, yielding a slightly different interpretation on the text, but with a common core. Matthew alone mentions the Herodians, a distinctly political group interested in loyalty to the Herodian dynasty.

The pericope begins with some situational irony, complimenting Jesus as a man of integrity and truth when all the while they have come to trap and denigrate him. Matthew poses the question as a political challenge: "Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" The presence of the Herodians in Matthew's mention shows us their intent to create a political dilemma: If he says yes, the people (who hate Roman oppression) will turn against him; if he says no he can be arrested for treason. It's a great trap.

Jesus' interest is in spiritual things, and so his first response is a spiritual one: "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?" A godly person so affronted by "truth" and "integrity" would repent; a false-godliness will rise up in offense. Jesus' request for a coin is to expose their spiritual hypocrisy, but that's what you want to examine. They obviously use the Roman coins and benefit from the favorable economics of the Roman presence. Since they use the coins (and many coins of the era were locally struck, not a national currency as we know in our society), they openly display their acceptance of Roman rule. They're hypocrites for trying to trap him into saying that he accepts Roman rule.

Mark Clancy, in Biblical Archaeology, says that in this era the coins struck in Galilee were issued by Herod Antipas. Like other Jewish coins of this period, they didn't depict living things (no graven image). But these weren't the only coins in circulation. Different regions had their own currency, but hey, gold was gold no matter what shape it was in. The Roman coins often had images on them, often offensive to Jews.

The Pharisees obviously gave him a coin with Caesar's image on it. (Hm, why would PHARISEES be carrying around a coin with Caesar's image on it, when it was offensive to Jews and thought to be contrary to the 10 commandments?) Hence their hypocrisy. Many Jews wouldn't even TOUCH such a coin.

Chuck Colson (politician, Christian) comments, "Jesus was remarkably indifferent to those who held political power. He had no desire to replace Caesar or Pilate with his apostles. He gave civil authority its due, rebuking both Zealots and Peter for using the sword. ... In his reply he eluded the trap, but he also put Caesar in his place. If he had just said, 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's,' that would have been one thing, but in adding the second half he put a limit on the state's authority. Government is to be respected and its rule honored. But worship is reserved solely for God. The distinction is clear: both church and state have clear and distinct roles ordained by God. It gets tricky to apply the principles in today’s volatile world. Governments often try to expand their power beyond the mandate to restrain evil, preserve order, and promote justice by venturing into religious or moral areas."

Barclay says, "Every Christian has a double citizenship. 1 Peter 2.17. And as Christians, we are to be responsible citizens; failure in citizenship is also failure in Christian duty. But we are also citizens of heaven. There are matters of religion and of principle in which the responsibility of the Christian is to God."

Erdman and France say, "If they accept the coins of Caesar, meaning if they enjoy the privileges or benefits of citizenship and/or protection/trade/justice, etc., then they are under obligation to support the government.
But we also have a higher allegiance that includes the former. The secular finds its proper place within the overriding claim of the sacred. Jesus’ enemies suggest a conflict of duties; Jesus shows that harmony is possible."

I say that the government isn't automatically the enemy, and a citizen's obligations to the government are not inherently immoral. Rom. 13.6; Mk. 12.17. We have legitimate obligations to the government to have the resources to maintain a just society.

I have never come across anything that mentions what you suggest about the image of God from Gn. 1.26. It's true that Matthew's concern is repeatedly the Kingdom of Heaven, and I doubt, as you do, that Jesus is really talking about taxes.

Niclas Forster says that Jewish theology, as Christian theology, states that all things ultimately belong to God and will eschatologically be returned to his undivided rule (Isa. 60.1-7). Jesus accepts Roman authority, but knows it to be stewardship of a responsibility that is given by God (Jn. 19.11; Rom. 13.1-7). He is implicitly announcing the superiority of his kingdom, but he is not calling for the overthrow of Rome and/or all secular rule.

I don't agree with you that he is saying that we don't have to worry about taxes. Rom. 13.1-7 tells us that we have legitimate obligations to the government.

In Matthew 22:16-22 we have the exchange where Jesus gives his famous line, "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's." I have heard a couple of different points of view on these verses. One says that Jesus is endorsing taxes. We should pay taxes and help support the current administration. The other point of view says nothing belongs to Caesar so all must be given to God. I could be mistaken but I think both of these views are wrong. I really believe that Jesus is pointing back to Genesis 1:26 and the image of God. In the Gospel according to Matthew it states everything Jesus did and said was about the Kingdom of Heaven. I don't think Jesus decided to stop and discuss taxes. I feel the Gospel really starts in Genesis with the establishment of the Kingdom so Jesus is trying to teach them about the image and how someone who is the image of God would behave and what they would believe in this Kingdom.He is saying that people who are the image of God do not worry about things like taxes. If you pay then the Kingdom must come first. If you don't like paying taxes then help change the laws but the Kingdom must come first. Am I assuming to much about this short exchange?