How did Jesus escape the questioners' trap in the "Render to Caesar" incident?

[Joel]

I believe it has to do with the 'graven image' of the emperor on the coin. In Pharisaic understanding, it seems to have been a violation of the Second Commandment. In order to pay the taxes, one would need to use the offending coins. In demonstrating that they also had the coins, he caught out their hypocrisy.

I have seen that pointed out. The inscription on the denarius said that the emperor was divine. It was explicitly a graven image of a false god. While on the other hand the inscription they are supposed to carry around is from the law. The Shema (the Lord our God is one), right?

Was it legally an option to avoid paying the tax on the grounds that you don't have any denarii? Would the Romans have said, "Oh, okay, then. Never mind."?

I think the trap was that they wanted Jesus to say that paying taxes was something to be avoided, that he would be giving what should be given to God to the Romans, so they could turn him over to the Romans for promoting rebellion.

So one side of the trap is arresting Jesus. What was the other side of the trap? Is it that he would appear to be teaching contrary to the law by "giving what should be given to God to the Romans"? If so, and if Jesus' answer is to pay the tax, then why didn't the questioners respond, as they surely had planned to, with, "Gotcha. Look everyone, this guy is teaching contrary to the law!"? (And let's stone him as a false prophet?) Why were they instead amazed into silence?

Another important verse here that is debated is Luke 23:2. Many scholars believe this is evidence that Jesus did oppose the paying of taxes. Citing the passage discussed above, conservative scholars conclude that this must be a false accusation. However, this seems like a facile dismissal; there very likely was a kernel of basis for this accusation, even if the assembly was lying in their accusations of Jesus.

Yes, I've seen it argued that from Jesus' "Render unto God" answer, the questioners believed that Jesus did oppose paying the tax. Interesting, huh?

[KingsGambit]

Another important verse here that is debated is Luke 23:2. Many scholars believe this is evidence that Jesus did oppose the paying of taxes. Citing the passage discussed above, conservative scholars conclude that this must be a false accusation. However, this seems like a facile dismissal; there very likely was a kernel of basis for this accusation, even if the assembly was lying in their accusations of Jesus.

[Sparko]

I believe it has to do with the 'graven image' of the emperor on the coin. In Pharisaic understanding, it seems to have been a violation of the Second Commandment. In order to pay the taxes, one would need to use the offending coins. In demonstrating that they also had the coins, he caught out their hypocrisy.

The (false) praise of Jesus was IMO intended to make him feel important, so he would be more inclined to answer.

I think the trap was that they wanted Jesus to say that paying taxes was something to be avoided, that he would be giving what should be given to God to the Romans, so they could turn him over to the Romans for promoting rebellion.

[One Bad Pig]

I believe it has to do with the 'graven image' of the emperor on the coin. In Pharisaic understanding, it seems to have been a violation of the Second Commandment. In order to pay the taxes, one would need to use the offending coins. In demonstrating that they also had the coins, he caught out their hypocrisy.

The (false) praise of Jesus was IMO intended to make him feel important, so he would be more inclined to answer.

[Joel]

It seems any interpretation of the passage needs to at least answer the following two questions:
1) What was the trap set by the question? ("plotted to entrap him")
2) How did Jesus escape/avoid the trap? ("they were amazed; and they left him and went away")


According to a common interpretation that I've heard, the dilemma was between answering "don't pay your taxes" and being handed over to the Romans, or answering "pay your taxes" and having the populous and/or followers upset and reject Jesus. So whichever Jesus chose, they would cry, "Gotcha!" And then Jesus' answer is commonly interpreted as being equivalent to "Pay the taxes." But if Jesus just picked the latter fork of the dilemma, why didn't the questioners clap their hands and say, "Aha! Gotcha."? Why instead were they silenced in amazement and simply left? This interpretation isn't a satisfying answer to my two questions. There were other incidents in the Gospels where Jesus is asked a question where either answer is a gotcha, and Jesus cleverly avoids the trap. So what is it here?

I have some ideas for answers to these questions, but I'd like to see what other people think first.



Some possibly related issues:

I find it interesting that the question is not whether paying taxes is required, but whether it is even permitted ("lawful").

A third question that may need to be answered in conjunction with the first two:
3) What was the questioners' hypocrisy?

What was the purpose of the questioners' praise of Jesus before posing the question?