Give to Ceasar’s What is Ceasar’s and to God what is God’s

I’ve been doing some research lately on Christian Anarchy, a way of looking at Christianity and politics that I’m finding quite interesting.

This study was sparked off by a number of events in my own life that generally resolve around money. Because economics and government have an obvious link, my studies have led to me to Christian anarchy.

I’ve discovered a few sites in the process but wanted to quickly quote this interesting insight I discovered in an article by Greg Boyd.

It revolves around the popular scripture about giving to Ceasar’s what is Ceasar’s. Here’s the scripture:

Matthew 22:15-22
Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial taxa to Caesar or not?”

But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.”

Here’s some of what Greg Boyd says about the scripture:

Christians often cite this episode to argue that Christians have a duty to the state (”give to Caesar what belongs to him”). The passage actually implies nothing of the sort.

To grasp the ironic brilliance of Jesus’ response, we need to realize that the Jews of this time were deeply offended by currency that bore the image of the emperor. They saw it not only as egotistical on the part of the emperor but as a direct violation of the commandment against making images (Ex. 20:4; Lev. 26:1). Only God can make an image of himself, and he did so when he made humans (Gen. 1:26-27).

Jesus ingeniously linked the issue of pagan egotism and idolatry with the issue of paying taxes. With a tinge of sarcasm, Jesus was in essence saying, “You of course believe this coin is an egotistical and idolatrous offense to God. So why should we who are God’s people fight with each other over how much of this we should keep or give back to the egotistical, idol-making offenders? If it bears his image, give it all back to him for all I care.”

The thing people should rather be concerned with, Jesus is saying, is whether or not they are giving to God what bears his image and what therefore belongs wholly to him – namely, their very lives. Indeed, Jesus was ironically suggesting that an inappropriate preoccupation with what we should do with Ceasar’s image may reflect a heart that is insufficiently preoccupied with what should be done with God’s image. Even if someone comes up with the “correct” position on paying taxes (is there one?), what good does it do her if she loses her soul (Mk 8:36)?

So why is this interesting? Well, for one thing, this scripture is often not only used for teaching on taxes but also used for teaching on tithing. Effectively, some teach that Jesus was saying, “Pay your tax to Ceasar and pay your tithe to God.” When, in fact, he may have been talking about something entirely different! (As Greg Boyd mentions above.) The scripture may rather be talking about whether or not we are giving ourselves to God. Very interesting!

Apologetics influences theology

Many of the early church fathers, including Augustine, formed theology through the realm of apologetics. Their apologetics then became accepted theology.

This seems to be the case. You can’t really separate theology and apologetics, because the apologetic wants to present a clear-cut case of theology, but in doing so he can affect theology.

Well, to illustrate my point, let me give you an example. In discussions with an atheist on the Internet we were arguing about the foreknowledge of God. I was saying that just because God has absolute foreknowledge of an event doesn’t mean God purposed for the event to happen, nor does it mean we don’t have choices in life.

He was saying that if an event is “destined” to occur it is predetermined. There’s nothing I can do to change the event. I have the illusion of choice but I don’t really have the ability to change the event – so do we REALLY have free will? We have the illusion of free will, yes.

I argued my point thoroughly that foreknowledge of an event does not necessarily mean the event is predetermined only to realise he was right and I was wrong. The event IS predetermined.

Then I stumbled upon this intriguing and excellently written essay on the topic: http://www.cresourcei.org/freedom.html

To quote the writer, Dennis Bratcher:

The biggest problem for the foreknowledge of God is the relation of foreknowledge to human freedom. If God knows that something will happen, then it will happen. That is, if God knows the event to be a historical reality, then that event must occur; it is predestined. If it does not occur than God did not know.

If you have time to read the article, you should. Basically, Bratcher advocates that the absolute foreknowledge or omniscient model is not exactly wrong, just perhaps not the whole story. A better model would be incarnation, and he attaches this to the realm of prophecy, referring to certain prophecies in the Bible that didn’t come true the way the prophet initially prophesied it, but it did come true in just a different way (a different nation etc.).

I’m aware of Gregory Boyd’s work into the concept that God, in his sovereignty, actually chooses not to know the future absolutely but rather the infinite possibilities of every choice. This means the future is not determined, and not even God really knows which choice I’m really going to make. He knows all of the infinite possibilities and has a plan for all of them, but ultimately my freedom is my freedom.

I find it fascinating and intriguing, and some of the apologetics on Boyd’s site and Bratcher’s are incredibly compelling.

The problem is that this presents theology that is unconventional and sometimes seen as heretical. In an earlier post I mentioned that we’re all going to be a heretic to someone, eventually, so I guess we have to accept that. The issue is what do we DO – if an apologetic presents a compelling case, based on the Scriptures and reason, that goes slightly against (or even opposite) to the “accepted” theology on the topic, what do we do? If the case is so compelling it may bring skeptics to faith in Christ, what do we do? What do I do in my own apologetics? When am using “heresy” to bring people to Christ, and is that wrong? Right? Are we not making a big deal out of periphery stuff?

This is a conundrum. Should I defend certain theology just because it’s the “accepted” theology, but doesn’t stand up to intellectual scrutiny of the day? Or should we be forming new theologies based on new apologetics and intellectual discoveries? Why is it so difficult to say that Augustine may have been wrong, or he wasn’t necessarily wrong he just didn’t have the whole picture – or the questions been asked were entirely different?

One thing that Bratcher mentions is how the new generation asks different questions, but we attempt to answer it with the answers to older questions.

Yet, in the process of answering the new questions – new because the new generation is mainly post-modern or existential in its outlook – how much does this affect theology? And what should theologians, pastors, etc. do about it? What should writers do about it? 😉