The Global Liberty Community
RENDER UNTO CAESAR–AS ON MARCUS BORG’S BLOG
“The question put to Jesus was a trap. Either a yes or no answer would have gotten Jesus in trouble. ‘Yes’ would have discredited him with those who found the imperial domination system reprehensible and unacceptable. ‘No’ would have made him subject to arrest for sedition.”–Marcus Borg (New-Testament Scholar)
Mr. Borg, in this regard you are surely mistaken. The question was indeed a trap, but only because the questioners were confident Jesus would condemn Caesar’s tribute tax, which would give them cause to hand him over to Pilate as a tax resister and certain death. This is made explicit in Luke’s gospel: “They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said, so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor.” (Luke 20) The governor was Ponitus Pilate. He was responsible for collecting Rome’s heavy burden of taxes in Judea. Taxes were the lifeblood of the Empire–as well as its Achilles heel. Pilate would brooked no public opposition to Caesar’s taxes lest he lose his lofty imperial office, and perhaps even lose his head.
Jesus’ religious enemies knew him very well from past encounters and from their network of informants who had been reporting on Jesus’ activities from early in his public ministry. Thus they knew Jesus would not deny his outspoken opposition to the Empire and its taxes. His questioners commenced their effort to entrap him with flattering words, but they were one-hundred percent accurate in what they said of him. “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.” (Mark 12) It was as obvious to those men, as it should be to you and me, that Jesus would not decline to tell one and all, “you should pay your taxes”–if that was what he believed regardless of who he might offend. Jesus never deviated from the truth whether speaking to power or weakness.
On the other hand, if Jesus believed, as I am confident he did from all that he said and did regarding taxes and tax collectors in the course of his ministry, that Caesar’s tribute tax and all of Rome’s taxes violated his Father’s Commandment against stealing. Taxation is indistinguishable from the crime of extortion, a type of theft. It is for this Frederic Bastiat rightly dubbed it “legal plunder”.
Jesus couldn’t say, “no don’t pay that thieving Caesar anything,” without being made the fool by his deceitful enemies. Jesus knew and had so told his disciples he was going to die at the hands of Pilate, but he was not about to let those arrogant pretenders to Moses’ seat bring about his death by means of a venal trick. So he told them to give back to Caesar (ONLY) what belongs to Caesar. Of course nothing, literally nothing, in the possession of anyone in Palestine belonged to Caesar. Caesar was a taker–not a giver nor a lender. Jesus meant precisely what he said, and what he said meant precisely, “GIVE CAESAR NOTHING!” The fact that nothing anywhere belongs to Caesar is declared at least six times in Sacred Jewish Scripture, as in Psalm 24 verse 1: “The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it…” which leaves nothing for poor old Caesar.
Those spies were flummoxed by Jesus brilliant response to their question. However, when they returned to their handlers and told them what had transpired, the chief priests were not fooled. So they sent their henchmen to take Jesus by force and bring him before the Sanhedrin at night in violation of Jewish law–as Jesus would have it. When they dragged him before Pilate the next day, the Gospel of Luke tells us they reported to Pilate the gist of what he had told their spies: “[T]hey began to accuse him, saying, ‘We have found this man subverting our nation He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar.’” (Luke 23)
It is logical and most likely that for that reason Pilate crucified Jesus.–Ned Netterville (Disciple of Jesus).
Join The Discussion
2 CommentsThoughts? Comments?
Please login or register to post a comment.
Edward Perry January 3, 2015 , 4:40 pm Vote0
Good stuff. My own reinterpretation in modern terms would go something like this: since fiat money is debt, then “Render unto Caesar” would mean extinguish your debt. Debt gets extinguished and the fiat pimps have no more power over you.
Ned Netterville January 3, 2015 , 9:39 pm Vote0
Good thought, Edward. However, Jesus’ original comment, was a truly brilliant retort to a prosecutorial question meant to entrap him. It needs no interpretation whatsoever. It is a plain, clear. unambiguous statement of the truth regarding how one is to treat the property of another, which is in one’s possession. Give it back!
In effect, Jesus walked right into their trap, took the bait–viz., he did what they hoped he would do, telling those listening (carefully), “give Caesar nothing!”–and walked back out unscathed, leaving his deceitful questioners completely discombobulated by their own duplicity and “amazed,” as the Gospels say, by Jesus’ stunning audacity, rendering them impotent, their cunning trap empty.
For nigh on to 1865 years, Christian exegetes (scholarly interpreters of the Bible) have repeatedly misinterpreted Jesus’ plain-spoken words to mean, “Pay your taxes and do what the Emperor (viz., the state) tells you to do,” which is exactly opposite of what Jesus said. One has to wonder if the state could have survived in those places where Christianity has been the dominant religion if the truth of Jesus’ stern antipathy to the state and its taxes had been honestly reported by leading Christians.
Misinterpreting the render-unto-Caesar incident began with Justin Martyr around 150AD in a letter (Justin’s “First Apology”) to the concurrent emperor in an attempt to gain favor for Christians. The misinterpretation became Christian-Church dogma soon after the Church was subsumed by the Roman empire during the reign of Constantine, and began sharing in the loot from Rome’s taxes.