So far, our consideration of the corporate responsibility of nations to confess Jesus Christ has focused on the Old Testament. Critics will say that this is the Achilles heal of the Covenanter position. Sure the Old Testament has a great deal to say about nations submitting to God’s Kingly rule, but that is, after all, the Old Testament. What about the New Testament? Doesn’t Jesus make it clear that His Kingship is a spiritual matter wholly unconnected to the political realities of the kingdoms of this world? Those who would take their faith into the public square are reminded of their duty to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s (Matt. 22:21).†Good advice. The question remains, what exactly belongs to Caesar? And more precisely, what does Caesar owe to God?
A Gordian Knot
In Matthew 22 we find Jesus in Jerusalem. Embraced by the crowds at the triumphal entry (Matt. 21:9-11), the Lord did not find nearly as warm a reception from their leaders. Smarting from a series public rebukes at the hands of a Galilean upstart, the Pharisees plotted against Jesus. Seeking to “entangle Him in His talk†(Matt. 22:15), the Pharisees sent their disciples to speak to Jesus. Their disciples did not go alone. Accompanied by a number of Herodians (supporters of King Herod) this mixed company proves that politics really do make strange bedfellows! Who would expect common purpose between puritanically minded Pharisees, zealous defenders the holy law of God, and worldly Herodians, crass apologists of Herod’s impious regime? Only a common hatred for the righteousness of Christ could bring such bitter enemies into union.
Following a prelude of hypocritical flattery the conspirators ask, “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?†The problem set before Jesus was exquisite. Pious Jews resented Roman rule. The fortress of Antonia with its Roman Legions and symbols of foreign tyranny were looked upon as blasphemy. Zealots sought to liberate Jerusalem through violent rebellion. The Pharisees were less militant in deed but no less venomous in word. Jerusalem’s crowds shared the hostile sentiment. If Jesus were to declare it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar would He not loose all credibility among the pious? On the other hand, Jesus is confronted by the Herodians. King Herod reigned at the pleasure of Rome. All of the prerogatives of power enjoyed by he and his supporters stood upon the authority of Caesar to rule (and tax) the people. If Jesus declared the unlawfulness of paying taxes to Caesar He would be immediately arrested and put to death.
The enemies of Christ believed that they had backed Him into a corner and tied His tongue into a proverbial Gordian knot. They quickly learned that one greater than Alexander was before them.
The faithful must give Caesar his due
Jesus requested a coin. A Roman denarius was provided. Jesus asked, “whose image and inscription is this (vs. 20)?†The coin bore an image of Caesar Tiberius. On the front an inscription read, “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Son of the Divine Augustus.†On the back the were the words, “Highest Priest.†Such blasphemy was an outrage to pious Jews. What would Jesus say of it?
Jesus expounds the 5th Commandment duty of men to their rulers declaring, “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s (vs. 21).†Jesus calls attention to Caesar’s image impressed upon the coin. What purpose does an image serve but to glorify its object? Since the coin bears Caesar’s picture (and his name) it must belong to Caesar. Those who take from Caesar must give back to Caesar.
Further, Jesus teaches that the coin in their pockets was a symbol of the benefits of Caesar’s authority enjoyed by the Jews. Although not legally obligated to pay their taxes with the denarius, it is obvious that the same people who despised the coin for its blasphemy were unwilling to forego its benefits. Jesus declares that dependence upon Caesar’s courts for justice, his roads for travel, and his coin for commerce create a duty to render to Caesar the honor that belongs to him as a minister of God’s justice. Jesus declares, “render to Caesar the things that are Caesars.â€
The faithful must give God His due
Further, Jesus rebukes Jerusalem for her hypocrisy. Days earlier Jesus had cleansed the Temple of its money-changers (Matt. 21:12,13). Jerusalem was filled with false shepherds and inequity. Do those who legalistically pervert God’s covenant of grace, flaunt their additions to God’s Holy Worship, and bind the conscience of God’s people with human regulations have a right to claim moral indignation against Caesar? To such men Jesus declares, “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.†God gave authority to Caesar to rule over Jerusalem in order that violence might be restrained, order preserved, and that the wicked might be punished (Romans 13:1-7). To Caesar the faithful owe fearful respect and humble submission in all things lawful and/or indifferent. To God the faithful owe doctrinal integrity, purity of worship, and a zealous love for honorable conduct.
Caesar must give God His due
The image of God
Jesus declared that the image bearing coin must belong to Caesar. The image must bring glory to its object. Upon this principle we look again at Caesar. This time our focus is not his image impressed upon a coin. Rather, focus your attention on Caesar himself. What do you see? First and foremost we see a man. No matter what court flatterers might have told him, Tiberius was not the divine son of a god. Rather, Tiberius Caesar, like all men, was a son born of Adam’s flesh. To look upon Tiberius is to look upon the image of God (Gen. 1:27).
Further, if we consider Tiberius’ heart we recognize the inscription of God. There is written the law of God. Paul reminds us that the Gentiles (of which Caesar was certainly one), “show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness… (Romans 2:15).†The glory of God is impressed upon Caesar’s being and the signature of His law is written upon his heart. As the Roman coin was an image of Caesar’s glory, and therefore under Caesar’s authority, so Caesar himself was an image of God’s glory and therefore under God’s authority!
An image of wrath
While Caesar, as a man, reflects the Divine image, so Caesar, in his office, reflects the divine image as well. The Scriptures teach that civil authority is not outside of God’s providence. Paul warns those tempted toward evil, “But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he [the civil authority] does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer (Romans 13:4).†The title Caesar reflects the office of Tiberius as chief civil magistrate of the Roman Empire. After the flood, God armed the civil magistrate in order to restrain violence and punish the wicked. While the church’s ministry is called to reflect the image of God’s mercy offered, the magistrate’s ministry is called to reflect the image of God’s wrath enforced (Rom. 13:4).
Let us conclude where we began. What does Caesar owe to God? The biblical answer is everything.
A Glorious Image
April 23, 2007 by William Chellis
Bill, if Caesar owes God everything, does that mean he also has a mandate to make other magistrates give God what he deserves? In other words, does your view of the magistrate’s duties allow the president of the United States to invade nations that lack a Christian heritage and seek to give them one? Or are there limits on the magistrates duties that might also have implications for the religious aspects of his work? In other words, if rendering unto God what is God’s means the U.S. doesn’t have a right to invade Canada, maybe that same rendering means allowing liberty for institutions (such as families and local governments that are not Christian) that are under his jurisdiction.
Darryl,
Ok the article ended with ambiguity. Word limit from the Witness, you know. I will tease out the role of the magistrate when I start writing about the two kingdoms. I think it is a limited role but it a least begs the magistrate to recognize his status as a creature and a sub-ruler under Christ’s greater rule.
Darryl asks a very good question that can be re-phrased in the following way: “How can a Christian establishment avoid using force to propagate the faith, contravening the approved means of preaching the Gospel?”
The short answer to be given is that confession of the faith should be a requirement for holding public office and influencing national policy. Unconverted families would have limited political rights, but full civil rights. There would be no need to enforce things like church attendance.
Much less is there a mandate to convert other nations through military conquest. To engage in war to such an end is clearly contrary to the logic of the Prince of Peace’s reign.
I am curious why Matthew would be content with only requiring a confession of faith for the U.S. but not for other nations. That doesn’t sound like a very expansive view of Christ’s kingship.
Come on Darryl. Play nice. I cannot go and force my neighbors to worship Christ. I can offer them the gospel. Nations can freely allow the church to offer the gospel to other nations but do you really expect anyone here to say that the sword should be used to “compel them in?” Augustine thought so but I think he was wrong. Here Augustine was more “theocratic” than I am!
Bill, I was actually trying to play nice (but maybe that’s what all bullies think). I’m only going on the basis of what I hear from you and others. Magistrates have a duty to obey Christ. That is your position in some fashion. Said magistrates may not be able to force others to worship the true God. Even David couldn’t do that as far as worship from the heart. But magistrates may enforce laws that forbid idolatry — so they can abolish false worship. That’s the domestic policy. For international affairs, Christian magistrates must have a duty to make sure that other magistrates are following the true religion. So why not some kind of holy war? This is certainly plausible because of Israel’s experience.
Now, you may say that you draw the line before reaching these implications of your views. That’s fine and I would hope that many of those who assert Christ’s kingship and Lordship would draw such lines because non-Christian Americans might be reassured that Calvinism doesn’t breed theocracy. At the same time, if holy war is not in view in assertions about Christ’s reign (Christendom did engage in the Crusades, after all), then how is your position any less “liberal” than mine? I’ve separated the swords so that the state will not enforce the true religion, either domestically or internationally. You haven’t separated the swords (at least the same way as I) and yet you seem to think that the state should not enforce the true religion. If that’s the case, then I’m encouraged because liberals, like misery, love company.
Fair enough. At risk of sending Caleb through the roof, I will admit that a little liberalism must leaven the lump. I think I have said before, in re-reading Martin Bucer’s original De Regno, I was left thankful that I live on this side of the Scottish enlightenment (as well as Reformation). Certainly this was Machen’s view and I heartily assent. Yet, whatever this suggests, it cannot mean that the bible’s clear insistence that civil authorities “kiss the Son” can be buried. Seven worse devils might well overcome us.
Woohoo. I’m not alone on the liberal side of the street.
I have an uncomfortable feeling… like I have just been “outed!”