Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle [Jesus] in his words. And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away.
Ping.
Not quite right. I hate it when ministers get too cute by half.
The correct analysis of “render unto God that which is God’s” is not a made-up analogy. You can’t give Jesus to God.
The correct analysis comes directly from Genesis 1:27 “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them”
So if you are the image of God then you owe yourself to God for that reason.
And God’s inscription is in the heart, for example:
Jeremiah 31:33 “But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.”
Hebrews 10:16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;”
This was obvious to the hearers.
Ministers, get it right, for God’s sake.
Dear Reverend Henrickson, I am sorry you used a modern translation of Scripture, because it is wrong. The Authorised Version got it right:
“And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things *which* are Caesar’s; and unto God the things *that* are God’s.”
The two phrases are not parallel, and I have presumed to highlight the difference. The word “which” expresses contingency: this is so, but need not have been so. Indeed, had the Battle of Actium gone the other way, that image and superscription would have been Pharaoh’s. It is Caesar’s only because Providence made it so.
The word “that” expresses necessity: the things that are God’s are necessarily so, by virtue of the divine omnipotence and stewardship. And in the last analysis, as on the last day, all things in Heaven and Earth shall be God’s alone. Deo gratia.
The Lord's wisdom is no less manifest in the interrogation you mentioned before, and which deals with a profound question and is very revealing:
And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. (Matthew 21:23-27)
"By what authority doest thou these things?" is a fundamental question. For the Lord Himself had affirmed "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not." (Matthew 23:1-3)
Likewise obedience to civil authorities is enjoined in Rm. 13:1-7, but we also see that all such proscriptions of obedience to man are conditional upon not being in conflict with what God ordained and requires (cf. Exodus 1:15-21; Acts 5:29). However, as occupying the magisterial seat over Israel then they had the right to require ministers be sanctioned under their authority and to challenge those who were not or who were heretical. And in this case they were dealing with not just one but two itinerant preachers who not only were not ordained under them but who reproved them by Scripture.
However, as so often seen in Scripture, God can raise up men from outside leadership in order to reprove it, and whose authority is established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, being consistent with prior men and revelation of God. And thus the church was not built upon the foundation of the scribes and Pharisees (though not in rejection of magisterial authority, but in rejection of presumed ensured veracity) but upon those who dissented from it, being "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone," (Ephesians 2:20) all of whom those who sat in the seat of Moses rejected.
To whom was directed this reproof of their presumption of sanction due to historical lineage:
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. (Matthew 3:7-9)
And in response to the question of where Jesus of Nazareth obtained His authority, the Lord asked them where John the baptizer obtained his. Which was a problem since "all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed." (Mark 11:32) Meaning that the common people - who heard Jesus gladly - (Mark 12:37) rightly discerned in this case who and what was of God but which their leadership did not.
The response therefore of these leaders was classic political: "And they answered and said unto Jesus, We cannot tell. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things." (Mark 11:33)
Meaning that if they would not be honest and admit what is obvious, that John was of God regardless of their rejection by them, then they were unworthy to hear from the lips of Christ what was obvious, that His authority also manifestly came from God.
However, this again does not negate the validity of leadership with its magisterial oversight, but as seen in the history of the OT, it negates the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. Meanwhile we have many wacko pseudo-prophets and preachers presume that they are a John the baptizer or an apostle, and who typically rail against any authority and who themselves presume some sort of ensured veracity, and stand in stark contrast to the apostles of Scripture. Who could testify,
But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:4-7)