Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's

Render to Ceasar the Things That Are Ceasars

Render unto the Caesar the Things that are Caesar's

"Render unto Caesar what belong to the Caesars" is the beginning a phrase ascribed to Jesus in the synoptic gospel, which fully reads, "Render unto the Caesar what are Caesar's, and unto God what belong to God." This phrase has been a widely quoted and controversial summary on the relationship between the contemporary secular authorities and Christianity. The origin of this message was from the response posted to a question on how lawful it was for the Jews to pay taxes to the Caesar. This phrase gave rise to all possible and multifaceted interpretations (Robert & Miller 1995, 421) concerning the conditions under which it could appear desirable for Christians to earthily commit themselves to earthly authorities. All the three synoptic gospels elicit a group of hostile questioners who tried to trick Jesus into taking a dangerous and explicit stand on whether the Jewish citizens should pay or should not pay taxes to the Roman authorities (Anne & Desmond 1993, 35). Reflecting from different accounts, both Matthew, 22: 15-21 and Mark 12: 13-17 state that the "questioners" were Herodias and Pharisees while in Luke 20: 20-25, the questioners are revealed as "spies" sent by the chief priests and teachers of law (David & Marshall 2001, 734). This paper serves to explain the meaning of this controversial phrase, and takes a deep consideration into its multifaceted interpretations.

Jesus' response when his opponents tried to hold him down by asking whether it could be right for the Jews, whose populace was snatched by the Romans, to pay homage to the Roman emperor. Jesus took a Roman Coin, which would be used for paying the tribute and then questioned whose picture was on it (Brown & John 1839, 187). All his questioners answered- Caesar's. His response thereby implied that by using the Roman coin, the Jews accepted the Roman rule, and the Roman government owned the right to tax them, so long as the Jewish religious duties were not compromised (Anne & Desmond 1993, 39). Jesus' main point was that the Jews should offer to the worldly authorities the things which belonged to them, and to God what was God's. By rendering to them Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's, Jesus meant that everything was God's hence the point seemed to be- if someone could realize that the entire life including all the Caesar's belongings, powers and rights belonged to God, then one would be within the proper frame of mind; surrender unto the Caesar what is Caesar's (Brown & John 1839, 184).

When one realized that everything belong to God, then they would also realize that anything that they rendered unto the Caesar was for the sake of God (Geoffrey & Davis 1992, 408). Any authority that one could ascribe to the Caesar could be ascribed for the sake of God's high authority; any kind of obedience rendered unto the Caesar would be for the sake of the great obedience rendered to the Lord, and any claim or accusations that the Caesar made on someone could be a reflection of the infinitely high claim which God had on that someone. Rendering to the Caesar is definite and limited to rendering to God. The determination of what is Caesar's strongly relies on the fact that everything belongs to God in the first position, and can only become Caesar's through the permission and design by God (Calvin, George & Kennedy 1986, 109). Elaborately, only God can decide on or determine what is rightful or limited for rendering unto the Caesar. Jesus did not say unto the Jews to render everything to the Caesar, but he rather said that they should only render unto the Caesar what is Caesar's. A clear example of what God views as His can be found in Psalms 24: 1, which states that the earth is Lord's, as well as its fullness and everything that dwells in it. Moreover, Jesus meant that every human has to decide on who is their "god"- was it the God of Abraham, or the prince of the world (Calvin, George & Kennedy 1986, 97).

One can suggest that it could be a mistake to imagine that in his reply, Jesus separated life into two diverse spheres- the sacred and the secular, just as many people supposed. Rather than separating, his argument accumulates. He did not imply that on one hand, the Jews should respect the Caesar; and on the other extreme end, obey God. What he simply points out is that if they respected the Caesar's property just as they should do, then the more they ought to respect God's property (Alfred & Tennyson 1994, 102). Consequently, his comprehensive answer was, "well, render to the Caesar what belongs to the Caesar, but while at it, render unto God everything since all belong to God." The sole reason as to why God ordains the Caesar's rights is solely for the sake of God. Therefore, in his book- 1 Peter 2: 13-14, Peter encourages every human to be a subject of the "Lord's sake" in every institution, be it within the empire, supremacy or governance as set by God (Alfred & Tennyson 1994, 89). For the sake of the Lord, Peter reveals that everything is God's hence limiting what is Caesar's and how to render it to him. Peter gives an alternative to the saying that, "render unto the Caesar nothing that an individual cannot render for the sake of the Lord" (Peter & Davis 1999, 147).

Peter, as well as Jesus calls for Christians to bear a mind-set of an owner and alien simultaneously. They secretly imply that all humans are not servants of any government, but are servants of God (Michael 1996, 49). They should thereby be free from any kind of governance and human institutions since everyone belong to the owner of the whole universe, enjoy and share within that inheritance. They are aliens on earth; they all serve the sole owner of the world- God. Various supportive illustrations from other books within the New Testament may be useful in explaining the phrase in question. First Corinthians 6: 20 states that God made human and brought them to himself; first Corinthians 7: 22 states "we are not slaves of any man or any government," and according to Philippians 3: 20, all people are citizens of the heavens- meaning that everyone is an alien on the earth. Furthermore, 2nd Corinthians 5: 8 affirms this sentiment by stating "we are never at home here on earth, but wait for the Lord from heaven." Through this freedom from the worldly things and from the Caesar, God sends humans for a season back to the "alien" institutions and structures of the society in order to bear witness that these institutions and structures are not the ultimate, but God is. Since humans should always live out of the aliens' ideas of a different kingdom amidst the earthly homeland, a tension shall always arise at any instance when they live within two kingdoms. Additionally, John 19: 12 warns the Jews to take caution of too much rendering unto the Caesar the same way Pilate did, and when rendering unto the Caesar, they opt to do it only for the Lord's sake- that if they cannot, then they should not (Calvin, George & Kennedy 1986, 97).

That we should render unto the Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's has been one of the most well-known phrases in the Christians bible (Practice & Doctrine 2001, 876), but one of the most confusing, controversial, or the least understood verse of the Jesus' sayings or teachings. According to Geoffrey and Davis (1992, 406), the gospel setting illustrates that Jesus' opponents were out to trap him into a corner by posting to him a controversial question on whether the Jews could be an exemption by law, from paying taxes to the Roman power, which occupied their territory (Brown & John 1839, 179). The gospels disclose to us that Jesus was definitely aware of the intentions of his opponents, and he knew of the best way to handle them. A number of documented theological ideas understood this passage by Jesus as a way of making the distinction between two diverse spheres (Anne & Desmond 1993, 36). One of the spheres relates to the Caesar and the worldly or secular matters while the second sphere relates to God and matters concerning God, thereby concluding that we should respect and/or recognize what belongs to every sphere. Humans have the obligation to respect the civil or secular sphere of the society in its own setting (render unto the Caesar what are Caesar's), but Christians must also bear in mind their duties to respect and obey God within the sacred or religious context (David & Gross 2008, 31).

On the historical course of relating the above spheres, the two spheres have been subject to diverse understanding and have in various occasions raised serious tension among the public. Several explanations give detailed information on how political matters correlate with the moral or religious considerations (Peter, Lewis & Bolden 2002, 26). Perhaps, other people have come to a great deal of considerations and view the secular setting or sphere to be absolute, and state totalitarian, thereby justifying the matter of laying down laws even when it comes to worship and religious matters. Nevertheless, the criticism to this claim always relies on the rider to which Jesus supplemented that we must also offer unto the Lord what belongs to Him. "We must always obey the Lord rather than any other human authority- Acts 5: 29" (Calvin, George & Kennedy 1986, 104), this is the claim that Peter together with other apostles had when they received an order to stop preaching about Jesus.

Alternatively, other explanations view this saying to be supportive of the strict distinction between the civil and religious spheres, or between the States and the Church (Maule & Joshua 2008, 372). Evidently, the government introduced this consideration into their constitution, decreeing that the Congress shall create no law respecting the American religious establishments, or even prohibiting its free exercise (Lawrence, Scotty, McLennan & John 1988, 215). Remarkably, during his visit to the U.S. In 2008, Pope Benedict commended the American separation for the way by which, historically, not only the Catholics, but also all other American believers found the freedom to worship the Lord in compliance with the dictates of their conscience (David & Marshall 2001, 739). At the same time, the United States also deliberated, accepted and respected the worship of God as part of the commonwealth considerations within which every individual or group has the right to voice hearing. On the other hand, other people understood and considered the Church's rule, or God's sphere as absolute, leading to theocracy, which offers no scope for autonomy or independence, just as found in the ancient Israel or in Geneva (Lawrence, Scotty, McLennan & John 1988, 208). The 2nd Vatican Council strived to strike the balance between the secular and sacred matters when it observed that within their suitable spheres, the Church and the political community are self-governing and mutually independent (Michael 1996, 46). However, through diverse titles, each serves the social and personal vocations of the same human beings who collectively initiate them (David & Gross 2008, 34). Critics supported that this service could be more effective for rendering to the good of all; supposing each could work best for the wholesome mutual teamwork, depending on both time and place circumstances (Peter & Davis 1999, 145).

Taking a detailed analysis at this New Testament passage, various sources drew a further conclusion that Jesus simply implied that he, together with his fellow citizens owed no obligations to the Roman authorities through acknowledging the public benefits, which they accrued from the Caesar's rule (David & Gross 2008, 24). This similar context also lied behind the St. Paul's statement to the Roman Christians (Peter, Lewis & Bolden 2002, 21), stating that they were not to pay taxes to the governing authorities since he perceived the authorities as God's servants and their fundamental role was to ensure everyone's security and protection, as well as peace and order for the entire public within their jurisdictions (Brown & John 1839, 184). If one looks definitely at the exchange of questions and responses between Jesus and his opponents, it clearly appears that none can really succeed in looking into the two diverse spheres of activities- one concerning God and the other not the Lord's concern. These two dominions can never lie on the same plane of comparison- individuals may sometimes opt to prefer God over the Caesar, but will surely never prefer the Caesar to God (Maule & Joshua, 2008, 370). According to the observation made by the Vatican II, even during the secular affairs, no individual can ever withdraw from a single activity from God's dominion. Indeed, the Caesar together with all that are his, belong to God (David & Gross 2008, 41); however, the will of the Lord may be that the humans respect the secular authorities, as long as they too do not trespass on God's prerogatives.

Today's gospels often cite the biblical authorities for separating the church from the state through different interpretations of the meaning of rendering unto Caesar what are Caesar's and unto God the things that belong to God (Robert & Miller 1995, 407). Jesus is trapped in making a suggestion on the questions whether the Mosaic laws that bind the Jews to the covenanting population allow for the payment of taxes to the much hated "foreign occupying power" in Judaea (Brown & John 1839, 180). On the contrary, Jesus supports the separation of the church from state (Lawrence, Scotty, McLennan & John 1988, 217), but without demoralizing his opponents who were plotting to trap him using the simple question. The Pharisees alongside Herodias were struggling to challenge Jesus against the sacred temple walls in Jerusalem. The Herodias served as explicit supporters of the Roman rule (Geoffrey & Davis 1992, 411), which placed Herod as the local Jewish King having powers over the Judean territory. On the other hand, the Pharisees were the Jewish intellectual elites, distinguished by their comprehensive knowledge of the Mosaic laws, which they explicitly studied and strongly got attached to. They begrudged the Roman tax payment; however, they would not go beyond the radical nationalists- the Zealots, and publicly resist the payment (Anne & Desmond 1993, 34). Nonetheless, the Herodias buttressed the payment of these taxes, thereby putting Jesus on the spot, "would he support the payment of taxes, and appear apologetic to the eyes of the Roman authorities and Jewish nationalists, or would he oppose the payment of taxes, thereby making himself a subject an automatic arrest for violation of the Roman law?" (Brown & John 1839, 182).

According to Evans & Joshua (2008, 90), Jesus' response was in a very clever way. It turned out as if the Roman taxes could only be payable through the Roman coins, which mostly had the inscription and image considered blasphemous by many Jews. Translated in parts, it read "Tiberius Caesar son of the divine Augustus " So Jesus asked for the kind of coin used for the payment of tax (David & Marshall, 2001, 737). They brought him a small coin- Roman denarius. Notably, this meant that the Jewish biblical teachers- the Pharisees were enforced to offer, within the temple's most sacred context, a Roman coin with its inscription and image that quite was idolatrous, yet proclaiming the divinity of the Caesar (Evans & Joshua 2008, 92).

In a different interpretation, Jesus in his phrase made it crystal clear that the Caesar is not God, and God is also not the Caesar hence the most important meaning here was that the things that are God's were not just some oppressive coins from the foreigners (Brown & John 1839, 185). In the similar chapter of Matthew towards the end, in an answer to a different question posted by the Pharisees, Jesus explicitly answers what he meant to belong to the Caesar when he states that one should love the Lord with all their heart (Maule & Joshua 2008, 369), and with all their soul, and with all his/her mind, and that everyone should love one's neighbor just as one loves themselves. According to Calvin, George & Kennedy (1986, 105), these two statements or commandments meant a lot as they entirely cling onto the Mosaic laws and other prophecies within the bible (Practice & Doctrine 2001, 871). Brown and John (1839, 183) further elicit that it turned out that tax payment to an occupying power nowhere violates the Mosaic laws hence; the Pharisees together with their learning could not actually manage to theologically trap Jesus. However, their intent was basically sensible and political anyway. As revealed earlier in Matthew 12, the Pharisees had conspired against Jesus, and were plotting to kill him. He thereby tactfully responded by giving an unexpected answer, which had both theological and political implications. Taking a keen consideration into the main verse Matthew 22: 15, - then the Pharisees went and conspired on how they could entangle Jesus through talks. (17) Then tell us what things? Is it lawful to offer tribute unto the Caesar, or not? (22) When they heard this response, they marveled and left him, then went their ways. After confronting a great challenge from Jesus concerning the payment of taxes (Anne & Desmond 1993, 39), they terminally hoped to alienate him either from the Roman authorities or from the Jewish oppressed masses.

An alternative way of seeking an explanation to this phrase quoted by Jesus is through considering that he was operating within a high religiously charged political environment. As a result, he never shied from publicly doing or performing what he had a conviction that was religiously correct within the political setting or environment. So it could be a misreading of this phrase or passage to view it as a proof text for isolating the Church from the State (Lawrence, Scotty, McLennan & John 1988, 210). Very many people regarded Jesus as a prophet, and the Israelite prophets always deeply involved themselves in posting challenges to their kings, principles and powers, as well as challenging the political authorities in the name of the highest authority of God (Calvin, George & Kennedy 1986, 98). When Jesus began his ministry, he first identified himself with prophet Isaiah, and claimed that the spirit of God was upon him since the Lord anointed him to convey good news to the underprivileged and/or deprived people. David and Gross (2008, 37) affirm that he proclaimed the release of the captives and rendering freedom to the oppressed. In his home town- Nazareth, Jesus' fellow congregates turned so dubious of his authority when he declared that truly, no prophet was accepted in his hometown. In his very last lesson or teaching to his disciples before his death, Jesus instructed his disciples to be the world's activists through directing themselves, listening and understanding the least privileged people around them, feeding the hungry, being welcoming to strangers, clothing the undressed caring for the sick, and visiting the prisoners.

In close analytical relations, the question here is to scrutinize what all these could mean to the contemporary world; right at this age when many people tend to imagine that there is a cozy relationship between the church and state; or at least between the governmental authorities and the Church (Lawrence, Scotty, McLennan & John 1988, 213). The current Romanian constitution offers freedom to religions, as long as their exercises do not harm the public's morals and order. Practically, this outlaws all the commentaries from the church podiums, which correlated religious principles to the political life, within a prophetic and critical way (Calvin, George & Kennedy 1986, 101). Any emanating social change from the churches was not only prohibited, but also regarded as charity. Picking on the neighboring country of Warsaw pact- the Soviet Union, explained that charitable activities could not directly relate to the rites of religious performances, thereby becoming prohibited, neither does a practical need for such activity exists. Famine, unemployment, and poverty have currently been done away with within the Soviet Union. Therefore, the social state assumes the responsibilities for the social security hence relating to the religious duties of clothing the naked, caring for the sick, and feeding the hungry as Jesus instructed or taught his disciples and/or followers to do (Robert & Miller 1995, 402).