Caesar

[OttomanScribe]

In a couple of other threads this has come up so I thought I would consolidate it here. Several people have quoted 'give unto Caesar' to me. I wondered about the applicability of this line in a monotheistic religion. Specifically the deliberate separation between what is God's and what is not.

What is the correct position of a Christian when they are Caesar?

What is the correct position of a Christian when their morality conflicts with those of secular authority? Are they then to give themselves unto Caesar?

My understanding was that while Jesus (as) apparently uttered that line, he also threw those who dealed Caesar's face around the temple, out into the street. Does this not conflict with a decidedly submissive understanding?

Also pertinently, Christianity was traditionally used as an argument for slavery in many countries, while simultaneously being also a force behind abolition. Is the slavery gospel still in vogue, and if not, why not?

 

[Adoniram]

The Bible is pretty clear that we as Christians are to obey the laws of the land.

Rom. 13
1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

The exception would be only when those laws contradict God's law. Example, in Daniel's day, the law of the land (a new one designed by Daniel's detractors to trip him up, BTW) said that if anyone prayed to someone other than Darius, the king, during a period of thirty days, they should be thrown in the lion's den. Of course, Daniel would not pray to Darius, and when found praying to God, he was thrown in the lion's den, but God protected him.

Jesus threw out the money-changers from the temple because they were not acting in accordance with God's law. They were overcharging and cheating their customers...i.e., they were thieves.

Slavery in the Bible did not have the same connotations that it has come to represent in today's language. They were more of an indentured servant, and in many cases, considered part of the family.

 

[drich0150]

rendering unto Caesar usually has to do with paying taxes or secularly serving the state. as shown in Mt 22:

19Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

Only in so far as rendering unto Caesar what belongs to the state keeping separate what belongs to God.

Also pertinently, Christianity was traditionally used as an argument for slavery in many countries, while simultaneously being also a force behind abolition. Is the slavery gospel still in vogue, and if not, why not?

You know, I have heard it said that many angry Muslims find passages in the Quran to justify a "holy war" with all of those who do not believe as they do... Would it be fair to ask you if this too was also spiritually in vogue?

We both know Evil men do not need scripture (Christian or otherwise) to find reasons to do what they want to do. Even so we also know that they often turn to scripture when they want justification and popular support when being of a certain faith fits their needs. In both cases I think we can both agree that some of the verses used to support inhumane treatment of our fellow man is at best taking scripture out of context.

So to directly answer your question, no. Because in the states "Caesar" abolished slavery.

 

[OttomanScribe]

The exception would be only when those laws contradict God's law. Example, in Daniel's day, the law of the land (a new one designed by Daniel's detractors to trip him up, BTW) said that if anyone prayed to someone other than Darius, the king, during a period of thirty days, they should be thrown in the lion's den. Of course, Daniel would not pray to Darius, and when found praying to God, he was thrown in the lion's den, but God protected him.

So in this case, one is told not to follow the law, even if it leads to imprisonment or death?

What about a guidance for rulers whom are Christian? Is there one?

Slavery in the Bible did not have the same connotations that it has come to represent in today's language. They were more of an indentured servant, and in many cases, considered part of the family.

This is different to what is said below. I understand this point, in that slavery does not always mean what occurred under Christian rule in South America, North America, the Caribbean and Africa. So it does not explicitly speak against slavery, rather it describes a specific type? How is the collection of slaves managed?

Only in so far as rendering unto Caesar what belongs to the state keeping separate what belongs to God.

This is rather the core of my confusion. What is not God's?

You know, I have heard it said that many angry Muslims find passages in the Quran to justify a "holy war" with all of those who do not believe as they do... Would it be fair to ask you if this too was also spiritually in vogue?

Indeed they do. In fact I believe that Muslim government should act to spread their influence as much as is humanely possible, adhering to the appropriate rules of warfare. So I guess you could say it is in vogue, though in the case (as now) when there is no Islamic state in the world, one can argue about its relevance.

We both know Evil men do not need scripture (Christian or otherwise) to find reasons to do what they want to do. Even so we also know that they often turn to scripture when they want justification and popular support when being of a certain faith fits their needs. In both cases I think we can both agree that some of the verses used to support inhumane treatment of our fellow man is at best taking scripture out of context.

Indeed, long have evil men come wearing the cloak of religion.

So to directly answer your question, no. Because in the states "Caesar" abolished slavery.

How do you mean? Does the bible itself speak against slavery?

 

[drich0150]

This is rather the core of my confusion. What is not God's?

As the verse in Matthew stated, Jesus ask to see a coin, and then He asked who's picture was on that coin? they replied Caesar's. That action separated "Caesar's" domain from God's. Which means the carnal belongs to the state, and the Heart, Mind, Spirit and Strength belongs to God. (We know what Belongs to God From another verse)

You asked what's not God's? Whatever He decides to give to us or in this case, gives the state.

Does the bible itself speak against slavery?

No, the bible gives proper rules for slavery. They were established in OT times. Slavery Now (in the last few hundred years) and slavery then are not even the same thing. Slavery then (according to scripture) was a way for a poor man to purchase large items, buy their way into a family, Survive a famine, or as a means to repay a large debt. There were things a slave owner could and could not do. Slaves had rights and were only bound to their "contract" for a limited period of time. If a slave wished to renew his contract He could do so at the end of I believe it was 6 years.

This type of slavery carried over to Jesus's Day. Where it was not condemned, it was expanded upon. This time focusing on the attitude of a slave/servant.

What evil men had done was to take the name of a good and righteous principle, and used it to cover the depravity their hearts had for their fellow man.

It is sad to say that the "church" for the most part turned a blind eye.

 

[Adoniram]

So in this case, one is told not to follow the law, even if it leads to imprisonment or death?

Not specifically "told not to follow the law" of the land, but rather released to follow their own conscience and what they know to be God's law. We are more responsible to God than to man. The greatest commandment to love and honor God supercedes any commandment in regards to the relationships between men (which is basically what state laws encompass). And yes, even if it leads to death. In the book of Revelation (Chapter 13), John tells of a coming time when the Antichrist will rule the world and try to abolish all worship of God. If people bow down to his laws and his worship, take his mark, etc., they shall certainly be lost spiritually. If people do not bow to his will, they will be subject to extreme persecution and even death by him.

Mt. 22
36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

What about a guidance for rulers whom are Christian? Is there one?

Christian rulers are held to the same standard as above.

This is different to what is said below. I understand this point, in that slavery does not always mean what occurred under Christian rule in South America, North America, the Caribbean and Africa. So it does not explicitly speak against slavery, rather it describes a specific type? How is the collection of slaves managed?

I will defer to drich's explanation, which is spot on.

This is rather the core of my confusion. What is not God's?

If you want to get technical, all that exists belongs to God. Man was put on the earth to manage and maintain it. God gave man dominion to subdue, but not ownership (except for the land that He gave to Abraham and his descendants).

Gen. 1
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

 

[OttomanScribe]

As the verse in Matthew stated, Jesus ask to see a coin, and then He asked who's picture was on that coin? they replied Caesar's. That action separated "Caesar's" domain from God's. Which means the carnal belongs to the state, and the Heart, Mind, Spirit and Strength belongs to God. (We know what Belongs to God From another verse)

You asked what's not God's? Whatever He decides to give to us or in this case, gives the state.

I would have thought (and this may be due to translation problems) that the logical understanding of the verse was that Jesus (as) is asking his disciples to reflect on Caesar's demands. While Caesar's head may be on the coin, it is not his own, it is God's. All things are his dominion. To say render unto God what is God's, is to say render all things unto him. Of course we also must take into account that Caesar was a pagan, does the answer remain the same when Caesar is Christian. Is it right for a Christian ruler to maintain a state that makes such a distinction?

Would that not compromise the ruler as a Christian? Furthermore in the context of liberal democracies, does not democracy affirm a Christian state in places like America? Is not liberalism then contradictory to democracy in that it affirms values opposite to Christianity?

It is sad to say that the "church" for the most part turned a blind eye.

God willed it. Is there any benefit for one who frees a slave? In Islamic law, the freeing of slaves is a means of tawbah (seeking God's forgiveness) and an act of charity. This is explicitly stated. In Christianity is this the case, and if so is it implied or stated (not as an act of repentence, but I mean as a good work).

On a side note, what makes a saint a saint? If not good works? Can one judge the heart of another?

Not specifically "told not to follow the law" of the land, but rather released to follow their own conscience and what they know to be God's law. We are more responsible to God than to man. The greatest commandment to love and honor God supercedes any commandment in regards to the relationships between men (which is basically what state laws encompass). And yes, even if it leads to death. In the book of Revelation (Chapter 13), John tells of a coming time when the Antichrist will rule the world and try to abolish all worship of God. If people bow down to his laws and his worship, take his mark, etc., they shall certainly be lost spiritually. If people do not bow to his will, they will be subject to extreme persecution and even death by him.

When Jesus (as) returns he will march in an army against the Dajjal (anti-Christ), will Christians take up arms alongside him?

Why then is 'render unto Caesar' so prominent, when the wages of the state are so often spent upon sin (in America, state funded gambling for example)?

If you want to get technical, all that exists belongs to God. Man was put on the earth to manage and maintain it. God gave man dominion to subdue, but not ownership (except for the land that He gave to Abraham and his descendants).

So how then can one claim to own a coin, let alone a state?

 

[drich0150]

I would have thought (and this may be due to translation problems) that the logical understanding of the verse was that Jesus (as) is asking his disciples to reflect on Caesar's demands. While Caesar's head may be on the coin, it is not his own, it is God's. All things are his dominion. To say render unto God what is God's, is to say render all things unto him.

Let's look at the exact phrasing Starting in Mt 22:
15Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"

18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." 22When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

We know Jesus (As the Son of God) is telling us to surrender ourselves to our governing authorities (In the way of paying taxes) because of the question asked in verse 17. Verse 20 He asks "The Question" Then He recognizes Cesar's God given authority by asking who's Inscription, and who's portrait is this... When the Pharisees answered He didnot correct them and say all belongs to God and that we should ignore the state (Which is what the Pharisees wanted Him to say thereby entrapping Him as an enemy of the State.) Jesus Made the first division between God and the authority God has given the state. By saying Give the State what you owe it, and Give God what you owe Him.

This preserves God's direct Authority over your life as an indivisual and it also preserves the Authority God has given the governing body over you. All is under God, but at the same time God has given authority to lessor governing bodies. To undermine that Authority is to undermine God.

So how then can one claim to own a coin, let alone a state?

If I may, It is through the Authority Given to them by God. That is unless you believe that God does not have the authority to give something to someone.

Of course we also must take into account that Caesar was a pagan, does the answer remain the same when Caesar is Christian. Is it right for a Christian ruler to maintain a istate that makes such a distinction?

I believe this line of reasoning is based on the Idea that it is wrong to segregate State affairs and one's belief in God. God has no doubtedly blessed the nations that directly and openly serve His righteousness, even so We have a documented history of those countries collecting tax. for example, Solomon the wise King who built the 1st Temple of God He did so by collecting a temple tax that His Father King David started. David was a King placed in authority by God's own hand. If i remember correctly David wanted to build the temple Himself, but God placed him in charge of instituting the temple tax.. Keep in mind this "tax" was above and beyond the 10% tithe one already gave to God.

Would that not compromise the ruler as a Christian? Furthermore in the context of liberal democracies, does not democracy affirm a Christian state in places like America?

Only if the voting majority believes in Christianity... Currently it seems the tides are turning. The only time we unite as "one nation under God" is when we seem to be under attack in one form or another. Otherwise the general population seems to stray from solid Christian beliefs when there isn't a perceived threat to the general population.

Is not liberalism then contradictory to democracy in that it affirms values opposite to Christianity?

Liberalism embraces Democracy as a means to lawfully oppose Christianity. Democracy is not inherently a "christian" form of government. Even so we have been successful in implementing it in our past.

God willed it. Is there any benefit for one who frees a slave? In Islamic law, the freeing of slaves is a means of tawbah (seeking God's forgiveness) and an act of charity. This is explicitly stated. In Christianity is this the case, and if so is it implied or stated (not as an act of repentance, but I mean as a good work).

Not to my knowledge. Infact the book or letter of Philemon was a Letter Paul wrote to a slave owner to allow a run away slave to return to His masters service. This book really show some of the differences of a first century slave/Master verses a 17th century slave/Master.

On a side note, what makes a saint a saint? If not good works?

According to Scripture, Nothing but a relationship with God through the Blood sacrifice of Jesus.

In certain denominations Performing 2 documented and confirmed "miracles" and a majority vote in a gathering of the leadership of that specific denomination.

Can one judge the heart of another?

Not accurately. We can only inspect the "fruit" one produces. Only God can tell if that fruit is any good.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Thank you Drich for your extensive replies I shall ponder them and intend to write a longer reply in time.