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)
