"Give
to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" (Matthew 22:21).
For some politicians and rulers this verse ranks among the most popular verses in
the Bible. Until a few years ago, many African countries were under a military dictatorship.
The military succeeded in disorganising the labour union and the academic
elite. The only viable resistance left was the church. The Bishop's Conference (of Ghana) issued fearless and incisive statements denouncing the dictatorship. The
military often replied by quoting this passage and accusing the church of
interfering in politics. Didn't the Bible say to give to Caesar what is
Caesar's -- meaning the whole sphere of civil, economic and social affairs --
and to God what is God's -- meaning the sphere of spiritual affairs? According
to this interpretation, human affairs are divided into two areas: the spiritual
side which belongs to God and God's ministers, and the secular side which belongs
to civil authorities. Does Jesus really teach this kind of dualistic view of
human existence? To understand the full import of this saying of Jesus we need
to consider it in relation to the context in which Jesus said it originally.
While the
statement, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's"
is true, we must not forget that Jesus said it as a way to escape from a trap.
"The Pharisees went and plotted to entrap him in what he said. So they
sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, ... Is it lawful
to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?" (Matthew 22:15-17). This is not
a sincere question coming from people who really wanted to know the truth about
church-state relations. It would, therefore, be wrong to treat the saying as a
straightforward teaching of Jesus on the ideal relationship that should exist
between church and state. Faced with the double-ended trap of the Pharisees and
Herodians, in which it was unsafe to clearly say yes or no, Jesus framed his
answer in such enigmatic language that it would be hard for either party to
trap him. In this way he succeeded in confusing not only his interrogators but
also many of us who read the Bible today. If you think Jesus meant that we
should have two parallel loyalties, it might help to know that the Pharisees
who heard him did not understand it in that way. In the trial of Jesus before
Pilate one of the charges they brought against him was that he forbade paying
taxes to Caesar (Luke 23:2).
An
interesting shift in Jesus' answer could point us in the direction of the
import of the saying. The question was whether one should give (Greek didômi)
tribute to Caesar. But Jesus' answer spoke of giving back, paying
back (paradidômi), as if one already owed something. What Jesus said
could be paraphrased as: "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's due, and to
God what is God's due." Instead of answering the direct question of
whether one should pay the forced tribute to Caesar or not, Jesus raises the
question to another level, that of the principle of justice. Greek philosophers
before Jesus defined justice as "giving back to everyone what is their
due." Jesus seems to be saying that the only binding obligation is that of
justice, that of giving back to every person what is due to them. Serving God
is basically a matter of justice? If God has given us all that we are and have,
then we are bound in justice to give back to God some gratitude, loyalty, and
service. The central act of Christian worship is called Eucharist,
which means "thanksgiving." It is basically a question of paying back
the debt of gratitude we owe to God.
To conclude, what then is
Jesus teaching here regarding loyalty to civil authority? Jesus is recommending
not absolute but qualified loyalty. That is to say, if a government provides
needed goods and services then we must, in justice, give back to the government
our loyalty and support. But where a government is a dictatorship that imposes
itself on the people's will, a leech that sucks itself fat from the life-blood of
the people and provides no services, what then do the people have to give back?
To such despotic governments, the principle of justice does not demand that
people give their loyalty and support. To use this passage as a justification
of unconditional loyalty and support of corrupt and totalitarian governments in
a misunderstanding of what Jesus is teaching. Christians must together discern
whether and to what extent a given government and its policies merit their
loyalty and support. But total and absolute loyalty and service is a debt that
we owe to God and to God alone.
