In Matthew 22.21, Christ responds to those who would entangle him by using a Roman coin with Caesar's image. He tells them to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's.
This passage has generated a great deal of discussion over the centuries and not a few are confused by it - and as a result end up explaining it away.
For some, His doctrine establishes two realms which some take as two aspects of God's governance. They are two aspects of his Kingdom - one (the Church) is redemptive, while the other (the state) is Providential or by some reckonings an expression of Common Grace.
This scenario tends to legitimize both aspects - as well as service to both. Obviously the Church is legitimate but this view grants Divine approval to the state - a point they would further emphasize by an appeal to Paul's teaching in Romans 13. The state is a minister for good and thus it follows (they argue) that we can 'render unto Caesar' by not only paying taxes, but by being good citizens and even working with and for the state. Some would also tie this in with the language in Jeremiah regarding a call to seek for the peace of the city - a call (this view argues) that permits Christians to serve in government and seek the interests of their country in things like commerce, diplomacy, and even war.
The only caution is to make sure the Two Kingdoms are not confused - a caution that critics deem to be empty, a confusion this model in fact all but enshrines. So in this case the Caesar-God dichotomy is resolved by a both-and solution. This view is sometimes referred to as Two Kingdoms but really it's a One Kingdom view with Two Aspects - both of which are ultimately part of God's Kingdom rule in this age. To be fair, proponents will admit that one of the kingdoms is temporal and will be done away with at the eschaton. If so, then in no respect can it be reckoned as God's Kingdom - at least not as the New Testament defines it.
This view is usually associated with Lutheranism although some in the Reformed world hold to something similar - particularly in the context of American Confessionalism - one thinks for example of the 1788 revision of the Westminster Confession. In some cases (under the influence of Dutch theology) the Reformed add another layer to the equation in arguing for continuity - that cultural attainments will transfer to the Age to Come.
Another quite different reading results in a kind of subsumation. Since (it is reasoned) everything belongs to God (including Caesar's coin) then it follows that the dichotomy is something of a fiction. Proponents of this view would say that all things belong to God including the coin and/or tax revenue, indeed the entire realm of Caesar is in fact God's. Thus, if Caesar's demands are out of accord with God's revealed will, then it might be legitimate to not pay the tax.
For this view, the Neronic context of Romans 13 and Paul's lack of concern regarding Nero's evil, as well as his corruption are explained away. Paul (it would seem) was not addressing the specific context of the Romans in the 1st century but instead laying out a model for good governance, a future ideal to be realized. The idea that the concerns of Caesar might somehow be separate from the covenant-oriented concerns of God and His people is inconceivable according to this camp.
Thus any attempt to take the text at face value is discounted. Jesus evidently meant what is functionally the opposite of what he said. One can grant, there might be a case to be made for this view if it were a parable, but try as one might, the exchange in Matthew 22 cannot be turned into some kind of metaphorical story.
So for this view (espoused by Evangelical and Reformed Dominionists) it's a case of either/or. The coin and thus the state must be either for Christ or against it. There's no middle ground.
The final view reads Christ's statements in light of all the Kingdom discourses that precede it. He's revealing something about the nature of the Kingdom and this marks a sharp break with the sacral order of the Old Covenant. Under the Last Days arrangement for the Kingdom (which is heavenly and eschatological) believers do not wield the sword and in terms of the coin - we are told to lay up treasures in heaven. We're also told in emphatic terms that you cannot serve God and mammon.
This view takes Christ at his word. Caesar has his realm, his things, and his concerns and these are separate from the Kingdom and its life. We live in Caesar's realm as strangers and pilgrims. This view harmonizes seamlessly with Paul's statements in 1 Corinthians 5 wherein he refers to those who are 'outside' and in connection to this argues that Christians do not seek justice from the courts. This is in keeping with Christ's statements in the gospels and also with Paul's statements in Romans 12 regarding vengeance - the vengeance that is expressed by the sword of the state in the next series of connected thoughts. Paul contrasts Christian conduct and ethics with that of the state. But pay your taxes for the state (though it can never be Christian) is legitimate and such powers are ordained by God.
This is why we are to pray for kings and all in authority - that we might transform and win their realm for Christ? By no means, as this is impossible. That they might enact God's law? If rulers pass laws that are outwardly or in form express morality we can be thankful to a point, but pagan states cannot legislate God's Law - which are His commands are for His people. The world is called to repentance, to embrace the gospel. Only then will God's Law have bearing on their lives in terms of how they live. Forcing them to go through the motions only creates hypocrites and brings no glory to God. A state confusing its interests and ethics with the language of God and His claims is actually blasphemous. The very ideal so many Christians are obsessed with is an affront to God and leads to apostasy.
No we pray that we might lead quiet and peaceable lives. Elsewhere we're exhorted to mind our own business and work with our hands and we're exhorted to not entangle ourselves in the affairs of this world. These numerous statements cannot be reconciled with either the One Kingdom in Two Aspects view or the Subsumation view which in particular is exegetically indefensible - a case of theological commitment and assumption resulting in a forced read of the text.
Caesar's coin is ultimately Caesar's and it will perish with his realm at the end of this present evil age. This is the true Two Kingdoms view. There is the Kingdom of God and kingdoms of this world that are under the prince of the power of the air. These are the kingdoms that easily transform into Beast powers. It is their nature. Caesar serves a purpose and thus as pilgrims we pay our due but his kingdom is at odds with the Kingdom of Christ which is not of this world.
The state is a temporary measure to restrain evil in this age. Often the state restraining the evil is itself evil. The 'good' this state pursues and rewards is not covenantal but in terms of Common Grace. The fact that the state is called a minister or servant is in keeping with the way God referred to Assyria and Babylon in the Old Testament when he used these bestial nations to achieve His ends and bring judgment on other nations - including apostate Israel. But because these bestial nations did not obey God or seek his glory, their works condemned them. In God's Providence they served His purpose but out of false and idolatrous motives. We find the same thing in reference to Judas in Matthew 26. Judas was fulfilling God's purpose but he of his own will committed the wicked deed and is held responsible. We also find the same principle at work in Acts 2.23 - the Jews fulfilled God's decree but were wicked in that they were motivated by evil ends.
This Two Kingdoms view is also a case of either/or but coming from a totally different vantage point than the Subsumation view.
The Subsumation view is correct that ultimately all powers and things will answer to God. But we don't need to jump the gun or force God's hand. All in due time - His time, not ours. We're called to be faithful to what He has revealed and that's the whole point in Romans 13. The powers that be are ordained by God. And that's true whether it's Obama, Biden, Buttigieg, Trump, Xi, Putin, or even Hitler. It was no less true when it was Nebuchadnezzar or Tiglath-Pileser - Hitler-like figures in their day.
We must beware of over-realized eschatology that looks for triumph and glory in this age and rejects the call to live as cross-bearing pilgrims who as Kingdom citizens eschew the sword and coin dreams and idolatries of the world.
Matthew 22 is pretty straightforward. Pay your taxes (even if unjust) and press on - and never ever confuse the two realms. Unfortunately the other views do spawn confusion and unfortunately the Church turned down this path in the 4th century. The errors and false commitments this turn engendered are still plaguing the Church after all these centuries.
We do well to remember that the gospel message is foolishness to the world. And that message includes and implies the kind of life we are to lead and the role of the Church in this age. The Early (Ante-Nicene) Church was accused of failing to fulfill civic duties and they did not counter this by arguing for such engagement or urging Christians to that end. They rejected the premise. I'm afraid they would be chased out of today's churches and called heretical.
No comments:
Post a Comment