The scene described in today's Gospel reading is remarkable for the Savior's wisdom and, one may even say, wit. Yet let us try to enter into its theological meaning, because unlike our ordinary human habit, Christ shows wit not for the sake of wit itself.

Why does He speak specifically about John? The main point is that John appears as the Forerunner of Christ not only in the historical, event-based sense, but also in the spiritual sense. He proclaims repentance, without which coming to Christ is impossible. That is why the Lord gives those who question Him no answer: giving it would be meaningless, just as it is meaningless to explain integral calculus to someone who has not yet mastered arithmetic.

The fact that John brings us only to the first step is also shown by the episode from the book of Acts (19:1-6): "He said to them, Into what then were you baptized? They answered, Into John's baptism. Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the One coming after him, that is, in Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

And although now we are not formally baptized with John's baptism, since spiritually it has been joined to Jesus' baptism, in practice we live through it as that very repentance which brings us into the church. Let us remember that our Lord, who has no need of repentance, also passes through baptism by John in order to show us the way, for He is "the way, and the truth, and the life." And it is precisely this way that He recalls to the chief priests, scribes, and elders who question Him.

The question about authority, asked of Jesus by the Pharisees, as can be seen, returns to them like a boomerang: He, in turn, asks them a counterquestion, one that they not only find difficult, but are simply afraid to answer openly. Where does this fear come from? Of course, there are "uncomfortable" questions that people do not want to answer, questions usually met, in one form or another, with the traditional "no comment." But when the Pharisees asked their question, should they not have expected a counterquestion?

Could they have foreseen that to an "uncomfortable" question they would receive an "uncomfortable" answer? Yes. Yet perhaps they still did not expect that this Preacher would play by rules other than the ones they had established. Behind the question about authority stood something quite understandable and definite, something in roughly the same sense as when the representatives of the Sanhedrin had earlier asked John the Baptist: who are you? A prophet? The Messiah? What should we report about you? And if you are neither one nor the other, on what basis do you do what you do? Jesus is asked about authority in evidently the same sense, with the expectation that He will declare Himself a prophet, the Messiah, or at least someone who has the right to do what He did in the Temple when He drove out the merchants.

He is not going to fit Himself into their framework. He asks a question about the substance of the matter: by what authority did John do what he did? He understands perfectly well, of course, that John, like every true prophet, received authority from His heavenly Father, and if the Pharisees recognized John as a man of God, they would have to look differently at His ministry as well. Of course, the issue here is not proving something to someone or justifying Himself in anyone's eyes.

The point is that, for the Pharisees themselves, such a view, a view "outside the rules," was essentially the only possible chance to see Christ Himself and His Kingdom in the true light. But they had to begin by rejecting all human fears, anxieties, and prejudices. In essence, by asking the Pharisees the question about John, Jesus invites them to do exactly this. But they refuse: they are afraid. And by this refusal they too make their choice. Far from the best choice, but a fully conscious one.

Such is the difficult fate of Christian revelation: all the time, everyone who could fish something out of it for himself tried to use it for his own purposes. But its true divinity consists in this, that these attempts never succeeded completely, and sooner or later they failed.

Such also is the fate of those who try to present the Christian gospel as a textbook of revolution and Christ as the chief revolutionary of all times and peoples. Such attempts have been made more than once in the history of European culture. Yet precisely to them one can present the words of today's Gospel reading: "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's." The apostles Paul and Peter were probably inspired by these words when they spoke the following words to the people of God. "Therefore be subject to every human authority for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors" (1 Pet 2:13). "Let every soul be subject to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist have been established by God" (Rom 13:1).

Only in one case is submission to the authorities impossible: when authority appropriates divine powers for itself; what is God's can be given only to God. That is why the early Christians went, on the one hand, against the words of Peter and Paul, but on the other hand, if one looks more deeply at all three quotations mentioned here, it becomes clear that they were walking the only true path.