Friday, November 20, 2020

Connor Boyack on "Render unto Caesar" and the meaning of "Law of the Land"

 

 

It is one thing to focus on the coin itself—an idolatrous object that would have caused concern for any faithful Jew. The real meat of the question, however, is found in the tension between Christ and Caesar and their competing claims of authority. When Jesus answered that we ought to render unto Caesar what is his, and unto God what is His, what does that mean? What is actually Caesar’s? Narrowly speaking, one might argue that the coin itself was the emperor’s property. It was used by him to pay for people working in and helping the government, and it was used by his subjects to pay tribute to him. An object that bore the mark of an individual denoted ownership by that individual. Perhaps, then, Christ simply meant that the coin itself was imperial property and therefore should be paid back to Caesar upon demand (as in the case of taxes). Modern money is also minted and authorized by the government, so is Jesus simply saying here that we should pay taxes because the physical money we pay with belongs to the state?

 

The eternal tension between Christ and Caesar strongly suggests that His statement is about more than mere money or the clash for control between Jerusalem and Rome. All things belong to (Leviticus 25:23; Deuteronomy 10:14; 1 Corinthians 10:26; Psalm 24:1; Doctrine and Covenants 104:14-15; 38:39) and are beneath (1 Chronicles 29:12-16; Psalm 47:2; 2 Chronicles 20:6; John 17:2; Doctrine and Covenants 63:59) God. We are mere stewards  of what is actually God’s (Doctrine and Covenants 104:55-56; 78:22; 136:27). And yet Caesar claims jurisdiction and ownership of wide swaths of land and large segments of society. This is why Jesus asked his interrogators about the Caesarean “image and inscription” on the tribute coin, no doubt to remind them that God is owed exclusive allegiance and love and worship (Exodus 20:4). By suggesting that they render unto Caesar and God what belongs to each, Christ flipped the question into a challenge, inviting them to act according to their allegiances. Do they submit to, reverence, and support Caesar? Or are they faithful to God above all else? In the tension between two masters, who do they align with? More to the point, who do we align with?

 

Caesar owns and lawfully controls nothing, so it therefore follows that we are not obligated to “render” anything “unto Caesar” since nothing actually belongs or is subject to him. Our allegiance ad loyalty must lie only with Christ. Of course, as a counterfeit, Caesar contends that he has authority over us. Pilate, for example, asserted that he had “power to crucify” Christ. Jesus responded that “Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above” (John 19:11). The state lacks inherent authority and therefore our obligations to it are not inherent and divinely mandated. Whether there may be strategic prudence to abide by Caesar’s demands to a point, so as to be left alone so we can continue to ignore Caesar and focus on Christ, is an entirely different question.

 

The conventional wisdom that God demand submission to and support for Caesar is not justified by Christ’s response to the Pharisees. In fact, the opposite is true: by rendering unto God, we honor Him and keep His commandments. We love others and follow the Golden Rule. We do not trespass against others. The state, of course, violates these requirements; Caesar, as counterfeit, cannot comply with Christ’s counsel to love others. For this reason, rendering unto God demands that we reject Caesar. (Connor Boyack, Christ Versus Caesar: Two Masters, One Choice [Springville, Utah: CFI, 2020], 78-79)

 

Christians, particularly in America, are prone to regurgitate an apparent obligation to obey “the law of the land”—and in the case of the US Constitution, the “supreme law of the land” (Article VI, US Constitution). We are told to “strictly obey every law of God, including the constitutional law of the land in which [we live]” (Marion G. Romney, “The Rule of Law,” Ensign, February 1973), but this raises problems for the committed Christian. What if Caesar’s constitution contradicts Christ’s counsel? And does every edict from Caesar become the “law of the land” we are divinely obligated to obey? . . . the law of the land is something different. As understood at the time of America’s founding, and the era in which the aforementioned scriptures [D&C 58:21; 98:6] were recorded and the term used, the law of the land was not whatever Caesar said—it instead centered around the fundamental protection of one’s God-given rights. Legal dictionaries all pointed to a definition given by Daniel Webster as a shared consensus about what it meant:

 

Perhaps no definition is more quoted than that given by Mr. Webster in the Dartmouth College Case: “By the law of the land is most clearly intended the general law; a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgement only after the trial. The meaning is that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities, under the protection of the general rule which govern society. Everything which may pass under the form of an enactment is not therefore to be considered the law of the land. (Thomas M. Cooley, A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations Which Rest Upon the Legislative Power of the States of the American Union [Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1890], 431) (Ibid., 79-81)