And I hate it when reprovers of ministers come up with absurd exegesis under the premise that since they can invoke a refernce then it
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.
That is simply absurd. The question was whether taxes to the gov. was lawful or not, and not whether one owes themselves to God, which is a given that is not being contested. The image on the coin represented the earthly civil powers that are ordained of God (John 19:11) as being so, to whom conditional obedience is enjoined, (Rm. 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13,14) and reviling and cursing rulers is even forbidden of Israel. (Exodus 22:28)
And thus in the context of paying taxes the Lord affirms that the people are to give to the government that which belongs to it, and unto God that which is His. And who requires the former, but includes supporting God's spiritual ministers in the formal work of God. (Gal. 6:6; cf. Phil. 4:15,16; Heb. 13:16)
This was obvious to the hearers who marvelled and left him, and went their way, for they already supported giving to God, and the Pharisees and Herodians would have loved it if the Lord had in any way impugned paying taxes to Caesar. It is not complicated.
If the justification for rendering to Caesar is an image and an inscription, then the justification of rendering to God in the second clause must also be an image and an inscription, or God is due nothing analogous to the first clause. The two clauses amplify each other. I am not saying that the people needed to be convinced to render to God with this argument. I am saying that the argument made for rendering to God amplifies the argument for rendering to Caesar and vice versa. The issue I took was only with the correct biblical image implied in the second clause.
What you are saying is that the second clause is a meaningless addendum and there was no real point to Christ saying it.