Dear Friends:
Adolf Hitler’s agenda-establishing Magnum Opus is Mien Kampf. In English, it translates into “My Struggle.” Hitler fashioned his struggle into a maniacal worldview built on destruction of all opposing ideologies and the implementation of his own millennial aspirations, the perpetuation of a thousand-year reich, based on the Nazi mythology of blood and soil. The transformation of society would come by way of force to eliminate all competing worldviews. “Hitler was obsessed with an eternal struggle between two hostile forces, the ‘Aryan’ and the ‘Jew’, the stakes of which were the survival of mankind and the planet.”1 The struggle goes much deeper.
Nazism has been described as a “political religion” that demands “of its adherents total submission of their consciences and surrender of their souls…. It was unconditional in its claims, inspired fanaticism and practiced extreme intolerance of those who thought otherwise. A ‘Church-state’ had emerged, with cults, dogmas and rites, whose beliefs consisted of a form of millenarianism….”2 According to the late William L. Shirer, under the leadership of Alfred Rosenberg, Martin Bormann, and Heinrich Himmler, “who were backed by Hitler, the Nazi regime intended eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany … and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists.”3 Bormann, “one of the men closest to Hitler, said publicly in 1941, ‘National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.’”4 For Bormann, the Nazi worldview was the final truth. “For this reason,” Bormann wrote, “we can do without Christianity.”
The Christian Churches build upon the ignorance of men and strive to keep large portions of the people in ignorance because only in this way can the Christian Churches maintain their power. On the other hand, National Socialism [Nazism] is based on scientific foundations. Christianity’s immutable principles, which were laid down almost two thousand years ago, have increasingly stiffened into life-alien dogmas. National Socialism [Nazism], however, if it wants to fulfill its task further, must always guide itself according to the newest data of scientific searches.5
William Shirer would later write: “We know now what Hitler envisioned for the German Christians: the utter suppression of their religion.”6 With Christianity out of the way, all was possible.
The Struggle Revisited
Islam has followed a similar pattern. Everything non-Muslim must either embrace all things Muslim or be destroyed. The history of Islam is the history of perpetual warfare and bloodshed in the name of an uncompromising ideology, an ideology that is religious. Islam is known by the practice of jihad. While modern-day Muslims, especially those in the Christian West, want to put a kind face on jihad by defining it as a “spiritual struggle against sin,” in reality, jihad is best understood as a militaristic struggle against infidelity. The kinder, gentler definition of jihad prevails in mainline historical sources seeking not to offend. One of the best examples of this is Karen Armstrong’s “The True, Peaceful Face of Islam.”7 Jacques Ellul, writing in the Foreword to The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam, does a masterful job in unraveling the many definitions and interpretations of jihad:
At times, the main emphasis is placed on the spiritual nature of this “struggle.” Indeed, it would merely indicate a “figure of speech” to illustrate the struggle that the believer has to wage against his own evil inclinations and his tendency to disbelief, and so on. Each man is engaged in a struggle within himself (which we Christians know well and thus find ourselves again on common ground!); and I am well aware that this interpretation was in fact maintained in some Islamic schools of thought. But, even if this interpretation is correct, it in no way covers the whole scope of jihad. At other times, one prefers to veil the facts and put them in parentheses. In a major encyclopedia, one reads phrases such as: “Islam expanded in the eighth and ninth centuries…”; “This or that country passed into Muslim hands….” But care is taken not to say how Islam expanded, how countries “passed into [Muslim] hands”…. Indeed, it would seem as if events happened by themselves, through a miraculous or amicable operation … Regarding this expansion, little is said about jihad. And yet it all happened through war! … [J]ihad is not a “spiritual war” but a real military war of conquest.8
Talk about jihad is minimalized similar to the way the transmigration of souls is obscured for eastern religious enthusiasts in the West. Few Americans would adopt a religion that taught that they might come back as a lowly cow. The emphasis is placed on reincarnation where one might have been a prince or princess in a past life and might move up the cosmic totem to a movie star ala Shirely MacLaine.9
The majority of people born into the Islamic faith have never read the Koran and know little of its violent origin and precepts. They are taught the practical side of Islam. A Muslim believes that Islam is the only true religion, therefore all of life must conform to its precepts. While there’s a great deal of talk about an Islamic paradise, for the most part, Islam is a this-world religion. It is this aspect of Islam that appeals to so many people who have become disenchanted with an abstracted and non-practical Christianity:
[Islam] is considered a this-worldly religion in contrast to Christianity, which is perceived as abstract in the extreme. Muhammad left his followers a political, social, moral, and economic program founded on religious precepts. Jesus, however, is said to have advocated no such program; it is claimed that the New Testament is so preoccupied with his imminent return that it is impractical for modern life.10
The Black Book of Communism
Of course, every worldview is just as unrelenting, comprehensive, and religious as Islam even though a personal, transcendent god is not at its center. Communism viewed the state in religious terms – God walking on earth – and had no problem eliminating tens of millions of non-compliant citizens to advance its worldview in the name of its god.
A large percentage of the generation that knew Joseph Stalin died as a result of his directives. These were purely political killings, “exterminations,” “liquidations” of “the enemy class” and “undesirable elements.” How many were involved? Solzhenitsyn’s estimates reach as high as sixty million. Robert Conquest, author of The Great Terror, fixed the number at well into the millions. It is doubtful if we well ever know the true total – God alone knows.11
In The Black Book of Communism, the total number killed by Communist regimes around the world approaches 100 million.12 Former Communists have described Communism as “the god that failed.”13 Even though millions were offered on the altar of atheism, Communism still had its apologists.14
The Struggle Continues
Libertines make the individual their god. Abortion, in the name of “personal freedom” and “individual choice,” is its promethean statement of personal sovereignty and god-like decision making. The majority of homosexual journalists abhor ideological competition. In a panel featuring top news executives in 2000, Michael Bradbury, managing editor of the Seattle Gay News, asked, “We have a tendency to always seek an opposing point of view for gay and lesbian civil rights issues…. how does the mainstream press justify that?” Moderator and CBS correspondent Jeffrey Kofman added: “The argument [is]: Why do we constantly see in coverage of gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues the homophobes and the fag-haters quoted in stories when, of course, we don’t do that with Jews, blacks, et cetera?” These “journalists” want an ideological jihad on contrary opinion concerning their “sacred” lifestyle choice. Anyone who disagrees will be shouted down, forced out of long-held journalistic and educational positions, or run out of town.15 Many college campuses are filled with professors and procedures that denounce contrary opinions as an affront to all that’s liberally holy.
The True Struggle
One can even say that Christianity operates within the context of an “eternal struggle.” But while Christianity advances its worldview through internal change, by a real and discernable transformation of the heart, all competing worldviews must use external force. When critics of religion in general, unless it’s of a purely personal variety, point out that Islam and Christianity share similar goals, they fail to recognize that all worldviews are involved in an “eternal struggle” with competing worldviews. How should Christianity and Islam be distinguished? Jesus denounced the advancement of His kingdom through force. While He could have called on His servants to fight that He might not be delivered into the hands of a bloodthirsty mob (John 18:36), He refused. He rebuked Peter for using his sword (John 18:10-11). Paul tells us that we do not war against flesh and blood (Ephesians 6:12). We do go to war, however. “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses” (II Corinthians 10:3-4).
SOURCES:
1 Michael Burleigh, The Third Reich: A New History (New York: Hill and Wang, 2000), 92.
2 Burleigh, The Third Reich, 252.
3 William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960), 240.
4 Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 240.
5 Martin Bormann, “National Socialist and Christian Concepts Incompatible” in George L. Moss, Nazi Culture (New York Grosset & Dunlap, 1968), 244.
6 William L. Shirer, The Nightmare Years: 1930-1940 (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1984), 156.
7 Karen Armstrong, “The True, Peaceful Face of Islam,” Time (October 1, 2001), 48.
8 Jacques Ellul, “Foreword,” Bat Ye’or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude, trans. Miriam Kochan and David Littman (Teaneck, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1996), 17-18, 19.
9 F. LaGard Smith, “ReIncarnation, Western Style,” Out on a Broken Limb (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1986), 69-87.
10 Larry Poston, “The Adult Gospel,” Christianity Today (August 20, 1990), 24.
11 Lloyd Billingsly, The Generation that Knew Not Josef: A Critique of Marxism and the Religious Left (Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1985), 37.
12 Stéphane Courtois, et al., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), 4.
13 Richard H. Crossman, ed., The God That Failed (Chicago, IL: Regnery Gateway, [1949] 1983).
14 S.J. Taylor, Stalin’s Apologist: Walter Duranty – The New York Times’s Man in Moscow (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990).
15 Chuck and Donna McIlhenny, with Frank York, When the Wicked Seize the City (Lafayette, LA: Huntington House, 1993).
Respectfully,
Mark
Monday, December 27, 2010
Monday, December 20, 2010
The Economic Lessons of Bethlehem
Dear Friends:
At the heart of the Christmas story rests some important lessons concerning free enterprise, government, and the role of wealth in society.
Let’s begin with one of the most famous phrases: “There’s no room at the inn.” This phrase is often invoked as if it were a cruel and heartless dismissal of the tired travelers Joseph and Mary. Many renditions of the story conjure up images of the couple going from inn to inn only to have the owner barking at them to go away and slamming the door.
In fact, the inns were full to overflowing in the entire Holy Land because of the Roman Emperor’s decree that everyone be counted and taxed. Inns are private businesses, and customers are their lifeblood. There would have been no reason to turn away this man of royal lineage and his beautiful, expecting bride.
In any case, the second chapter of St. Luke doesn’t say that they were continually rejected at place after place. It tells of the charity of a single inn owner, perhaps the first person they encountered, who, after all, was a businessman. His inn was full, but he offered them what he had: the stable. There is no mention that the innkeeper charged the couple even one copper coin, though given his rights as a property owner, he certainly could have.
It’s remarkable, then, to think that when the Word was made flesh with the birth of Jesus, it was through the intercessory work of a private businessman. Without his assistance, the story would have been very different indeed. People complain about the “commercialization” of Christmas, but clearly commerce was there from the beginning, playing an essential and laudable role.
And yet we don’t even know the innkeeper’s name. In two thousand years of celebrating Christmas, tributes today to the owner of the inn are absent. Such is the fate of the merchant throughout all history: doing well, doing good, and forgotten for his service to humanity.
Clearly, if there was a room shortage, it was an unusual event and brought about through some sort of market distortion. After all, if there had been frequent shortages of rooms in Bethlehem, entrepreneurs would have noticed that there were profits to be made by addressing this systematic problem, and built more inns.
It was because of a government decree that Mary and Joseph, and so many others like them, were traveling in the first place. They had to be uprooted for fear of the emperor’s census workers and tax collectors. And consider the costs of slogging all the way “from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David,” not to speak of the opportunity costs Joseph endured having to leave his own business. Thus we have another lesson: government’s use of coercive dictates distort the market.
Moving on in the story, we come to Three Kings, also called Wise Men. Talk about a historical anomaly for both to go together! Most Kings behaved like the Roman Emperor’s local enforcer, Herod. Not only did he order people to leave their homes and foot the bill for travel so that they could be taxed. Herod was also a liar: he told the Wise Men that he wanted to find Jesus so that he could “come and adore Him.” In fact, Herod wanted to kill Him. Hence, another lesson: you can’t trust a political hack to tell the truth.
Once having found the Holy Family, what gifts did the Wise Men bring? Not soup and sandwiches, but “gold, frankincense, and myrrh.” These were the most rare items obtainable in that world in those times, and they must have commanded a very high market price.
Far from rejecting them as extravagant, the Holy Family accepted them as gifts worthy of the Divine Messiah. Neither is there a record that suggests that the Holy Family paid any capital gains tax on them, though such gifts vastly increased their net wealth. Hence, another lesson: there is nothing immoral about wealth; wealth is something to be valued, owned privately, given and exchanged.
When the Wise Men and the Holy Family got word of Herod’s plans to kill the newborn Son of God, did they submit? Not at all. The Wise Men, being wise, snubbed Herod and “went back another way” – taking their lives in their hands (Herod conducted a furious search for them later). As for Mary and Joseph, an angel advised Joseph to “take the child and his mother, and fly into Egypt.” In short, they resisted. Lesson number four: the angels are on the side of those who resist government.
In the Gospel narratives, the role of private enterprise, and the evil of government power, only begin there. Jesus used commercial examples in his parables (e.g., laborers in the vineyard, the parable of the talents) and made it clear that he had come to save even such reviled sinners as tax collectors.
And just as His birth was facilitated by the owner of an “inn,” the same Greek word “kataluma” is employed to describe the location of the Last Supper before Jesus was crucified by the government. Thus, private enterprise was there from birth, through life, and to death, providing a refuge of safety and productivity, just as it has in ours.
Respectfully,
Mark
At the heart of the Christmas story rests some important lessons concerning free enterprise, government, and the role of wealth in society.
Let’s begin with one of the most famous phrases: “There’s no room at the inn.” This phrase is often invoked as if it were a cruel and heartless dismissal of the tired travelers Joseph and Mary. Many renditions of the story conjure up images of the couple going from inn to inn only to have the owner barking at them to go away and slamming the door.
In fact, the inns were full to overflowing in the entire Holy Land because of the Roman Emperor’s decree that everyone be counted and taxed. Inns are private businesses, and customers are their lifeblood. There would have been no reason to turn away this man of royal lineage and his beautiful, expecting bride.
In any case, the second chapter of St. Luke doesn’t say that they were continually rejected at place after place. It tells of the charity of a single inn owner, perhaps the first person they encountered, who, after all, was a businessman. His inn was full, but he offered them what he had: the stable. There is no mention that the innkeeper charged the couple even one copper coin, though given his rights as a property owner, he certainly could have.
It’s remarkable, then, to think that when the Word was made flesh with the birth of Jesus, it was through the intercessory work of a private businessman. Without his assistance, the story would have been very different indeed. People complain about the “commercialization” of Christmas, but clearly commerce was there from the beginning, playing an essential and laudable role.
And yet we don’t even know the innkeeper’s name. In two thousand years of celebrating Christmas, tributes today to the owner of the inn are absent. Such is the fate of the merchant throughout all history: doing well, doing good, and forgotten for his service to humanity.
Clearly, if there was a room shortage, it was an unusual event and brought about through some sort of market distortion. After all, if there had been frequent shortages of rooms in Bethlehem, entrepreneurs would have noticed that there were profits to be made by addressing this systematic problem, and built more inns.
It was because of a government decree that Mary and Joseph, and so many others like them, were traveling in the first place. They had to be uprooted for fear of the emperor’s census workers and tax collectors. And consider the costs of slogging all the way “from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David,” not to speak of the opportunity costs Joseph endured having to leave his own business. Thus we have another lesson: government’s use of coercive dictates distort the market.
Moving on in the story, we come to Three Kings, also called Wise Men. Talk about a historical anomaly for both to go together! Most Kings behaved like the Roman Emperor’s local enforcer, Herod. Not only did he order people to leave their homes and foot the bill for travel so that they could be taxed. Herod was also a liar: he told the Wise Men that he wanted to find Jesus so that he could “come and adore Him.” In fact, Herod wanted to kill Him. Hence, another lesson: you can’t trust a political hack to tell the truth.
Once having found the Holy Family, what gifts did the Wise Men bring? Not soup and sandwiches, but “gold, frankincense, and myrrh.” These were the most rare items obtainable in that world in those times, and they must have commanded a very high market price.
Far from rejecting them as extravagant, the Holy Family accepted them as gifts worthy of the Divine Messiah. Neither is there a record that suggests that the Holy Family paid any capital gains tax on them, though such gifts vastly increased their net wealth. Hence, another lesson: there is nothing immoral about wealth; wealth is something to be valued, owned privately, given and exchanged.
When the Wise Men and the Holy Family got word of Herod’s plans to kill the newborn Son of God, did they submit? Not at all. The Wise Men, being wise, snubbed Herod and “went back another way” – taking their lives in their hands (Herod conducted a furious search for them later). As for Mary and Joseph, an angel advised Joseph to “take the child and his mother, and fly into Egypt.” In short, they resisted. Lesson number four: the angels are on the side of those who resist government.
In the Gospel narratives, the role of private enterprise, and the evil of government power, only begin there. Jesus used commercial examples in his parables (e.g., laborers in the vineyard, the parable of the talents) and made it clear that he had come to save even such reviled sinners as tax collectors.
And just as His birth was facilitated by the owner of an “inn,” the same Greek word “kataluma” is employed to describe the location of the Last Supper before Jesus was crucified by the government. Thus, private enterprise was there from birth, through life, and to death, providing a refuge of safety and productivity, just as it has in ours.
Respectfully,
Mark
Monday, December 13, 2010
You Have The Right To Remain Silent: Fifth Amendment Explained
Dear Friends:
The fifth amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The right to remain silent is a fundamental principle of liberty. It gives American citizens better privacy. The burden falls on the accuser to build a case against a person. If the accuser does not meet that burden, the accused is free to go. The accused never, ever, is required to furnish any evidence or testimony against himself. In other words, liberty requires that you have the right to remain silent.
If the accused were forced to produce evidence that they did not commit an act, innocent people would be forced to prove a negative. Proving a negative is usually far more difficult, if not impossible to do. Anyone without an alibi would be convicted. No one could afford to spend even one minute alone in that kind of world. The right to remain silent preserves a functioning system of justice and a functioning society.
The fifth amendment to the United States Constitution does not say explicitly that you have the right to remain silent. It does say that you do not have to be a witness against yourself. This means that you cannot be compelled to reveal information that might implicate you in a crime.
Law-abiding citizens are particularly at risk because they think that the truth will set them free. They feel compelled that if they just tell their story they will be exonerated. This is not true. Numerous opportunities abound for an innocent individual to become entrapped by speaking with police.
Innocent people often overstate or understate some fact while vigorously defending their innocence. This makes their testimony technically untrue, or at least a prosecutor can make it look like it’s untrue. Once attention is called to the misstatement, the rest of the testimony is suspect because of the one untruth. This suspicion may be sufficient to land the innocent person in jail.
Police officers may make an innocent mistake and not remember correctly what you said. If you claim you told the cop one thing, and he claims you said another, the police officer will be believed over an accused any day. If you had said nothing, the cop would have to flat out lie that you said something. That is not likely to happen.
There may be a witness that will mistakenly identify you as the suspect in a crime. If you claim one thing that is absolutely true, there may be a solid witness that is honestly mistaken about seeing you. If your testimony contradicts theirs, the witness will be believed instead of the accused. If you don’t say anything, there will be nothing to contradict and the honesty of the accused will not be in play.
The federal criminal code contains over 10,000 crimes. State laws add even more crimes to the list. Not even the government knows them all. Many of these crimes are for seemingly innocent behavior, such as buying 2 packages of cold medicine, or possessing a flower that any other country in the world has outlawed. Thus, telling your true story about your seemingly completely innocent behavior could, in and of itself, implicate you in a crime, you should never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever speak to government agents, ever.
Criminals know that talking may incriminate them and so are much more aware of their right to silence and are much more inclined to use it. Innocent people like you aren’t aware of these dangers. And, if someone is truly innocent, they need to know this right and know how to use it far more than criminals do.
Under no circumstances should you ever talk to a police officer, fire fighter, ticket enforcer or street sweeper. All of them are government agents and can be a witness to use anything you say to them against you in a court of law.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that to invoke your right to silence, you have to break your silence and speak. They might need the fifth amendment explained to them again, but that is what they said. A simple phrase such as “I am invoking my right to remain silent” should suffice.
Remaining silent can give you better privacy when re-entering the country. Customs will still have the right to do a thorough search of you and your belongings irrespective of whether you invoke your right to remain silent. Threatening a search, or actually subjecting you to a search for invoking your rights is within their power.
To avoid being targeted for a search, it helps if you are not the only one invoking your rights. If lots of others are invoking their right to remain silent on a regular basis, no single individual will stand out any more than normal. The more people that exercise their rights, the better privacy for everybody.
The following web sites link to a couple of YouTube videos with more information on the right to remain silent. The two videos are actually parts 1 and 2 of a longer video. The first part – 27.4 minutes long – is a lecture by Mr. James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School and a former defense attorney. It the video, he tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police. The second part – 21.2 minutes long – is of an experienced police officer telling you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=i8z7NC5sgik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&feature=player_detailpage
The overwhelming majority of people convicted of a crime are convicted based upon their conduct and speech AFTER being confronted by law enforcement. It is always best not to speak to law enforcement.
Respectfully,
Mark
The fifth amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The right to remain silent is a fundamental principle of liberty. It gives American citizens better privacy. The burden falls on the accuser to build a case against a person. If the accuser does not meet that burden, the accused is free to go. The accused never, ever, is required to furnish any evidence or testimony against himself. In other words, liberty requires that you have the right to remain silent.
If the accused were forced to produce evidence that they did not commit an act, innocent people would be forced to prove a negative. Proving a negative is usually far more difficult, if not impossible to do. Anyone without an alibi would be convicted. No one could afford to spend even one minute alone in that kind of world. The right to remain silent preserves a functioning system of justice and a functioning society.
The fifth amendment to the United States Constitution does not say explicitly that you have the right to remain silent. It does say that you do not have to be a witness against yourself. This means that you cannot be compelled to reveal information that might implicate you in a crime.
Law-abiding citizens are particularly at risk because they think that the truth will set them free. They feel compelled that if they just tell their story they will be exonerated. This is not true. Numerous opportunities abound for an innocent individual to become entrapped by speaking with police.
Innocent people often overstate or understate some fact while vigorously defending their innocence. This makes their testimony technically untrue, or at least a prosecutor can make it look like it’s untrue. Once attention is called to the misstatement, the rest of the testimony is suspect because of the one untruth. This suspicion may be sufficient to land the innocent person in jail.
Police officers may make an innocent mistake and not remember correctly what you said. If you claim you told the cop one thing, and he claims you said another, the police officer will be believed over an accused any day. If you had said nothing, the cop would have to flat out lie that you said something. That is not likely to happen.
There may be a witness that will mistakenly identify you as the suspect in a crime. If you claim one thing that is absolutely true, there may be a solid witness that is honestly mistaken about seeing you. If your testimony contradicts theirs, the witness will be believed instead of the accused. If you don’t say anything, there will be nothing to contradict and the honesty of the accused will not be in play.
The federal criminal code contains over 10,000 crimes. State laws add even more crimes to the list. Not even the government knows them all. Many of these crimes are for seemingly innocent behavior, such as buying 2 packages of cold medicine, or possessing a flower that any other country in the world has outlawed. Thus, telling your true story about your seemingly completely innocent behavior could, in and of itself, implicate you in a crime, you should never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever speak to government agents, ever.
Criminals know that talking may incriminate them and so are much more aware of their right to silence and are much more inclined to use it. Innocent people like you aren’t aware of these dangers. And, if someone is truly innocent, they need to know this right and know how to use it far more than criminals do.
Under no circumstances should you ever talk to a police officer, fire fighter, ticket enforcer or street sweeper. All of them are government agents and can be a witness to use anything you say to them against you in a court of law.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that to invoke your right to silence, you have to break your silence and speak. They might need the fifth amendment explained to them again, but that is what they said. A simple phrase such as “I am invoking my right to remain silent” should suffice.
Remaining silent can give you better privacy when re-entering the country. Customs will still have the right to do a thorough search of you and your belongings irrespective of whether you invoke your right to remain silent. Threatening a search, or actually subjecting you to a search for invoking your rights is within their power.
To avoid being targeted for a search, it helps if you are not the only one invoking your rights. If lots of others are invoking their right to remain silent on a regular basis, no single individual will stand out any more than normal. The more people that exercise their rights, the better privacy for everybody.
The following web sites link to a couple of YouTube videos with more information on the right to remain silent. The two videos are actually parts 1 and 2 of a longer video. The first part – 27.4 minutes long – is a lecture by Mr. James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School and a former defense attorney. It the video, he tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police. The second part – 21.2 minutes long – is of an experienced police officer telling you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=i8z7NC5sgik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&feature=player_detailpage
The overwhelming majority of people convicted of a crime are convicted based upon their conduct and speech AFTER being confronted by law enforcement. It is always best not to speak to law enforcement.
Respectfully,
Mark
Monday, December 6, 2010
Render unto God what is God’s. You, too, Caesar.
Dear Friends:
Most people who refer to the phrase “render unto Caesar” don’t consider the biblical account in its context – either its biblical context, or historical context. This causes considerable misunderstanding and confusion about the issue of legitimate Authority among Christians.
The Context
The confrontation (Matthew 22:15-22) takes place in the setting of a larger narrative about Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:1-23:39) referred to as Palm Sunday in present day. As soon as he arrived he entered the temple “and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, ‘It is written, “My house shall be called a house of prayer,” but you make it a den of robbers’” (Matthew 21:12-13). And the very next interaction he had in each of the synoptic Gospels was when the Chief Priests and the elders (most likely Pharisees) met him walking in the temple and demanded to see His badge: “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” He confounded them with His own question and got out of the situation.
So here’s a guy who allowed Himself to be worshipped as He enters Jerusalem, He entered riding on a donkey indicating the fulfillment of a messianic prophecy, received the appellative “Son of David,” by force drove out the moneychangers, et al, and healed people in the temple. The Jewish leaders had been watching Him and these things He did for some time – they had been sending out delegations to inquire about this fringe messianic activity as early as John the Baptist (John 1:19, 24) – so the priests and elders knew very well about Jesus and how powerful He was.
And yet, as the blindness of pride would have it, they stood before Him demanding He give an account of His authority to them.
Of course, this implies that they had the authority to demand that accounting. And there is some legitimacy to their demand, since they did hold the offices of the Priesthood and of Moses seat, which Jesus himself later recognized right before he scolded their hypocrisy in Matthew 23. But they had not, could not, see that Jesus was the True High Priest and the True Shepherd of Israel. And thus, they stood at loggerheads (temporarily anyway) over the issues of Sovereignty and Authority.
The whole narrative in which this story sits deals with this theme of the greater authority of heaven versus earthly authority, and the inability of the Jews to tell the difference. This is the very issue Jesus used to confound the temple leaders when they ask Him about His authority. But the issue is that heaven has authority which man does not; man’s authorization pales in comparison to God’s. The episode and some attendant parables stung these leaders, and they began to plot, particularly the Pharisees, on how they might “entangle him in his words.” (This concept and the very word “entangle” or “snare” is used throughout Proverbs in relation to the words or lips or mouth of the wicked and the fool.)
The Tax Plot
It is with great irony that when they took their first shot – which is this question about Caesar’s tax – that they set up a dichotomy between heavenly authority and earthly authority. Where had they learned that tactic? It’s as if they counseled together trying to find a way to trick and trap him intellectually, and finally decided, “Hey, let’s use the same trick against Him that He used against us.”
Their sole aim, however, was to discredit him. The Pharisees were a popular movement aimed at the lay people. They were a combination religious and political movement among the people. When the people turned in masses to follow Jesus, and He then confounded the Pharisees, the Pharisees began to lose their audience. In fact, three times this larger narrative emphasizes the fact that they were jealous of Jesus’ popularity and yet could not answer Him or arrest Him because they feared the people. So they plotted, partly out of revenge because He had bested them once publically, but mainly because He had encroached on their turf – stealing their audience, their thunder – so they felt.
So they applied the trick: “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?”
Notice a few things here: First, they set up the question by characterizing Jesus as one faithful to God only, and who is not a respecter of persons. “Not swayed by appearances” in the KJV is, “regardest not the person of men”; the literal text is “you do not look into the face of men.” This is a direct reference to Leviticus 19:15:
“Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect [receive, cp. Luke 20:20] the person [“face” in Hebrew and LXX] of the poor, nor honour the person [face] of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.”
Most of the commentators seem to think the leaders’ approach to Jesus is mere flattery, as if this country bumpkin from Galilee who receives praise from the people will fall prey to false praise. But this is not the case – He has already outwitted them once – He is no shallow praise-seeker, and they know this by now. They were not trying flatter Him; they were trying to trap Him with God’s Word, as if they said, “You truly serve God only and refuse to bow to any man. Therefore, is it right to give tribute to Caesar?” If the way of God says do not respect persons whether small or mighty, then is it right to pay respect in the form of giving or paying tax to mighty Caesar who is a man? This is the nature of the challenge.
Second, notice they asked a legal question, “Is it lawful….” The word itself leaves it unclear whether they meant Roman law or God’s law, but since it was already Roman law to pay the tax, the question certainly aimed at the law of “the way of God.” The question, again, and the Greek [exestin; cp. exousia, Matthew 21:23] makes it clear that the issue is one of fundamental authority. Does Caesar have legitimate authority to demand tribute? Do we have authority from God to pay to Caesar?
Thirdly, the reference is not to “taxes” in general as so many of the translations have it, but to a particular tax called the kānsos – a Greek version of a Latin word we translate as census. This had nothing to do with sales taxes, duties, commerce or business taxes, or travel tolls, etc. This particularly had to do with the “poll tax” or “head tax” which was based on a census of the people and had to be paid on all persons including women and slaves. And by law it had to be paid by means of Roman coinage.
The Message of the Coin
Jesus responded immediately by calling them hypocrites, obviously because they were hardly sincere in asking. Luke (20:23) refers to their panourgia, meaning something like willingness “to do anything.” The Herodians, especially, played the hypocrites, for they were of the party that supported one of the most ruthless tax collectors in Judean history, Herod. Herod the Great had so heavily taxed the Jewish people that Caesar himself demanded Herod lower taxes in the region. Herod refused, and so Caesar called for a census to be taken in the realm. It is this enrollment of the people, likely, that appears in the story of Jesus birth (Luke 2:1-7).
The trap of the question is well understood: If Jesus said “No” He could be in trouble with the Roman authorities for encouraging tax evasion and treason against Caesar; if Jesus said “Yes” He would certainly lose the support of the people who saw Him as a Messiah against Roman occupation. Either way, the Pharisees and Herodians would win; so they asked; and the implication is “Speak into this microphone when you answer.” They wanted everyone to hear.
Since the census had to be paid by Roman coinage, Jesus asked to be shown that particular money – the “tribute money” or literally, “the money of the census.” And they brought Him such a Roman coin: a “denarius.”
“Whose likeness and inscription is this?”
They knew already they were in trouble. Jesus simply didn’t throw around the “image” or “likeness” casually. In fact, it only appears in all of the Gospels in their accounts of this story. Why so sparse? Because it is a technical term, a term that has a very specific place in the Jewish religion: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (Exodus 20:4).
Jesus also specifically made them note the inscription on the coin. This was perhaps more damning than the image. The denarius itself – most likely a coin from the current Emperor – carried not only his image but an inscription that read TIBERIUS CAESAR DIVI AGUSTI FILIUS AGUSTUS (“Tiberius Caesar August Son of the August God”), and the back side continued PONTIFEX MAXIMUS (“High Priest”). If this was not a graven image of a false god, nothing is. And Jesus made it a point to enter these facts into the record.
The Currency of Idolatry
Keep in mind, this confrontation begins all the way back in Matthew 21:23 and is taking place in the temple. There was a particular taboo about having the idols in the temple itself. Had not Israel been sent into exile for such infractions? Why did these holy men of Israel, Pharisees and Herodians, now have idols in the temple? Why were they so readily able to produce a denarius when Jesus asked? Hypocrites indeed!
This hit the Pharisees acutely in that they prided themselves in purity and separation from non-biblical practices. A real poke at their bid for popularity, that! – look everyone, the “Pure” “Holy” Pharisees are carrying false gods through their own Temple! By the way, did you say you wanted me to speak into the microphone?
Jesus could have had some real fun here at the expense particularly of the Sadducees (surely close by, as they are featured in the next confrontation) who were the Chief Priests of the Temple, including the High Priest. What are you doing carrying a coin around the Temple which bears an inscription that calls Caesar the “High Priest”? You are supposed to be God’s High Priest! Since when did you abdicate your office for the pagan ruler?
And it was certainly not an isolated incident, all of the people carried Roman coinage every day. For example, the Temple itself had a yearly head tax that all Jews had to pay, and it was a half-shekel of silver. But they were forbidden to pay that tax with Roman coins. This is why there were moneychangers in the Temple to begin with. They had a virtual monopoly on special silver coins that were acceptable to pay the Temple tax; and as with any monopoly, you can understand how high the exchange was: these guys were extorting people for specialized coinage which they had to have. This is why Jesus called them robbers: they were literally extorting the people. As they were engaged in a forced exchange, they grew rich in terms of Roman coins.
You can imagine, then, that they had tables and bags filled with Roman denarii throughout the Temple courts. In fact, the moneychangers all wore one of these coins in their ear as a mark of their trade. [They have ears but can’t hear (because of their idols)!] You can imagine that passers-by and pilgrims to the Temple saw plenty of displays of these images right there in the Temple itself. You can imagine, also, that as Jesus overturned the chairs and tables and poured out the money, that the streets rang with sound of silver pings and clangs as coins rolled down the stone pavements. [Some (Caesar’s) heads are gonna roll!]
The entire Jewish civilization had given in to the usage of idolatrous Roman coins. Roman currency was the basis of their commerce. They had thus, despite whatever idolatry they judged to be involved, accepted the social benefit of Caesar’s rule, and thus legitimized it.
Thus, the only answer Jesus’ opponents could give was “Caesar’s.” Not only did the bare facts of the coin itself require this answer, obviously, but it also related to the total dominance over political and economic life throughout the Jewish culture. The coining of money is a symbol of power. The acceptance of that money as common currency is submission on the part of the people to that power. (This does not address the issue of legal tender.)
“Is it lawful?” “Why are you asking? You already do it all day every day.”
Payback Time
But now that Jesus had them in the headlights, He fired the fatal shot: “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
Important here in Jesus’ answer is the verb: “render.” The opponents had worded the question wrongly: Is it lawful to “give” or to “pay”? The word is different. The Pharisees’ word is didomi “give”; Jesus says not “give” but apodidomi “give back” or “pay up.” It is a term used for paying what is due to someone, or what belongs to them to begin with. This was an acknowledgement of several things, all of which would have angered the Jews to have to admit: 1) Caesar owns the coin, it is His; 2) the usage of Caesar’s property to your own benefit implies your debt to him to the extent that you do; and 3) Caesar’s enforcement of the recalling of this money (the tax itself) meant that the Jewish people were not free as they pretended, but under foreign bondage still (a clear implication that God’s judgment was still upon them).
They profited by the means, so they had no right to refuse the tax on the means on economic grounds. They enjoyed the order of the Roman Empire, so they had no right to refuse on political grounds. They carried his money right into their own Temple despite the implications, so they had no right to refuse on theological grounds (at least not without repentance). So the Pharisees stood before Jesus and before the crowds, themselves entangled by His words: “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s.”
The Greater Debt
But, also, render “to God the things that are God’s.”
What most commentators miss or ignore here is that Jesus implied a clear argument a fortiori from the lesser to the greater – if it is true for the lesser case of the man Caesar, how much more true is it for the Greater. If Caesar has authority to demand payment, how much more authority does God have? Instead of this, most commentators see something more of a dichotomy between the two instead of a hierarchy. The State has authority over here, and God has authority over there (your thoughts, emotions, and energies).
But this is not the point, for at least two very outstanding reasons: the image and the inscription. These are the two things to which Jesus called attention in regard to the coin. They are both overtly theological concepts.
We have already mentioned the idea of image in regard to the commandment against graven images. Why was this a commandment? Man is to make no graven image of any living thing, and certainly nothing to be used in reference to divinity. Why not? Because the creation of living things is the exclusive Province of God; and the placing of His image is the exclusive Province of God. The man who creates images in this way is both demeaning God Himself through the inadequate representation, and himself attempting to play the part of God by being the Creator and the Image-giver.
In contrast, God is the one who places His image: He places it on man; or more properly, He creates man in His image and likeness. All men bear this image.
The same is true with God’s inscription. We bear His Word written on our hearts, though the fall had some consequence on that. Paul indicates this is true even of the natural man (Romans 2:14-15). This was especially true of the Pharisees: they literally wore the word of God on their heads and the arms. This appears in Matthew 23:5, when Jesus criticizes them for making “broad their phylacteries.” A phylactery is a small box in which is kept small parchments of Scripture (Exodus 13:1-10; Deuteronomy 6:4-9; 11:13-21). Some of the Jews took the command literally: “these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes…” (Deuteronomy 6:6, 8). So they literally wore that section of Scripture in a small box on their forehead, between their eyes, and on their forearm like a wristwatch. The Pharisees went over the top in this regard, using larger boxes than everyone else to show how much more eager they were to recall God’s Word.
This was true yet even more relevant to the priests: the High Priest wore a golden plate on his hat that read HOLINESS TO THE LORD (Exodus 28:36). He as well literally bore the inscription of God as representative of the entire people of God.
So literally, outwardly, whose inscription was on these guys? The theological implications of both the image and the inscription would have been obvious to everyone listening. The impact of the lesson would have nearly made the Pharisees a laughingstock among the people. Yet it would have been a stark wake-up call to everyone listening.
Yes, the people had something of a legitimate debt to Caesar, but Jesus’ lesson was a far cry from saying that the authority of the State is separate or removed in some way from the authority of God, or that we must wait until the end of time until the State comes under God’s authority and judgment. The lesson here is much more challenging, much more comprehensive.
The lesson is, more fully, that all men bear God’s image and God’s inscription. We are all God’s coinage. We all belong wholly to God. All men must “render to God what is God’s.” All men. The Pharisees, Sudducees, the Herods, the masses, and even Caesar himself. Caesar has as much obligation to “render unto God” – bow and submit to God – as everyone else. He has as much obligation to love his neighbors and to obey God’s law as everyone else. He is not a god or a high priest, he is not the source of law and providence; he, like all men, is a man subject to God Almighty’s providence, and God’ Law, and God’s High Priest, Jesus Christ. He has as much obligation to obey; in fact, he has a greater obligation to obey because he represents multiple people in a public office.
Render unto God. All of Jesus listeners would not only have understood the concepts involved, they would have immediately understood the theological nature of the idea of rendering to God. It appeared throughout the psalms of the Jewish worship:
“My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation: I will pay [render; same Greek word] my vows before them that fear him” (Psalm 22:25).
“Thy vows are upon me, O God: I will render praises unto thee” (Psalm 56:12).
“I will go into thy house with burnt offerings: I will pay [render] thee my vows” (Psalm 66:13 KJV).
“Vow, and pay [render] unto the LORD your God” (Psalm 76:11 KJV).
“I will pay my vows unto the LORD now in the presence of all his people (Psalm 116:18).
It even appeared in the Levitical law: where the Levites were set apart for Temple service, they were presented before the High Priest and “offered” or “rendered” unto God as an offering (Leviticus 8:13). Their whole persons were rendered unto God.
Authority, Loyalty, and Freedom
Man is free, because God made him that way. Man is not free to the extent that he renders all to God; and societies are in bondage to that same extent. Therefore, where human institutions infringe upon God’s law, you have a decision about loyalty to competing authorities. We must obey God and not men, even to death if necessary in necessary matters. Yet we can denounce and resist tyranny in other matters as an expression of our loyalty to God, and of the proper place of human governments.
It is not improper, therefore, for other men to call Caesar to be accountable before God. And, it should not be considered unlawful for other men to refuse either to use or to accept as payment any particular currency, no matter what human image or inscription is upon it. We must resist tyranny, though never through violent revolution, and there are many non-violent ways to do so.
By what Authority do you do these things? What believer in God ever truly has to question what Authority?
“The earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it” (Psalm 24:1). God says, “[E]very beast of the forest is Mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird of the mountains, and everything that moves in the field is Mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell you; for the world is Mine, and all it contains” (Psalm 50:9-12).
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, sure. But render unto God what is God’s.
Respectfully,
Mark
Most people who refer to the phrase “render unto Caesar” don’t consider the biblical account in its context – either its biblical context, or historical context. This causes considerable misunderstanding and confusion about the issue of legitimate Authority among Christians.
The Context
The confrontation (Matthew 22:15-22) takes place in the setting of a larger narrative about Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:1-23:39) referred to as Palm Sunday in present day. As soon as he arrived he entered the temple “and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, ‘It is written, “My house shall be called a house of prayer,” but you make it a den of robbers’” (Matthew 21:12-13). And the very next interaction he had in each of the synoptic Gospels was when the Chief Priests and the elders (most likely Pharisees) met him walking in the temple and demanded to see His badge: “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” He confounded them with His own question and got out of the situation.
So here’s a guy who allowed Himself to be worshipped as He enters Jerusalem, He entered riding on a donkey indicating the fulfillment of a messianic prophecy, received the appellative “Son of David,” by force drove out the moneychangers, et al, and healed people in the temple. The Jewish leaders had been watching Him and these things He did for some time – they had been sending out delegations to inquire about this fringe messianic activity as early as John the Baptist (John 1:19, 24) – so the priests and elders knew very well about Jesus and how powerful He was.
And yet, as the blindness of pride would have it, they stood before Him demanding He give an account of His authority to them.
Of course, this implies that they had the authority to demand that accounting. And there is some legitimacy to their demand, since they did hold the offices of the Priesthood and of Moses seat, which Jesus himself later recognized right before he scolded their hypocrisy in Matthew 23. But they had not, could not, see that Jesus was the True High Priest and the True Shepherd of Israel. And thus, they stood at loggerheads (temporarily anyway) over the issues of Sovereignty and Authority.
The whole narrative in which this story sits deals with this theme of the greater authority of heaven versus earthly authority, and the inability of the Jews to tell the difference. This is the very issue Jesus used to confound the temple leaders when they ask Him about His authority. But the issue is that heaven has authority which man does not; man’s authorization pales in comparison to God’s. The episode and some attendant parables stung these leaders, and they began to plot, particularly the Pharisees, on how they might “entangle him in his words.” (This concept and the very word “entangle” or “snare” is used throughout Proverbs in relation to the words or lips or mouth of the wicked and the fool.)
The Tax Plot
It is with great irony that when they took their first shot – which is this question about Caesar’s tax – that they set up a dichotomy between heavenly authority and earthly authority. Where had they learned that tactic? It’s as if they counseled together trying to find a way to trick and trap him intellectually, and finally decided, “Hey, let’s use the same trick against Him that He used against us.”
Their sole aim, however, was to discredit him. The Pharisees were a popular movement aimed at the lay people. They were a combination religious and political movement among the people. When the people turned in masses to follow Jesus, and He then confounded the Pharisees, the Pharisees began to lose their audience. In fact, three times this larger narrative emphasizes the fact that they were jealous of Jesus’ popularity and yet could not answer Him or arrest Him because they feared the people. So they plotted, partly out of revenge because He had bested them once publically, but mainly because He had encroached on their turf – stealing their audience, their thunder – so they felt.
So they applied the trick: “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?”
Notice a few things here: First, they set up the question by characterizing Jesus as one faithful to God only, and who is not a respecter of persons. “Not swayed by appearances” in the KJV is, “regardest not the person of men”; the literal text is “you do not look into the face of men.” This is a direct reference to Leviticus 19:15:
“Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect [receive, cp. Luke 20:20] the person [“face” in Hebrew and LXX] of the poor, nor honour the person [face] of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.”
Most of the commentators seem to think the leaders’ approach to Jesus is mere flattery, as if this country bumpkin from Galilee who receives praise from the people will fall prey to false praise. But this is not the case – He has already outwitted them once – He is no shallow praise-seeker, and they know this by now. They were not trying flatter Him; they were trying to trap Him with God’s Word, as if they said, “You truly serve God only and refuse to bow to any man. Therefore, is it right to give tribute to Caesar?” If the way of God says do not respect persons whether small or mighty, then is it right to pay respect in the form of giving or paying tax to mighty Caesar who is a man? This is the nature of the challenge.
Second, notice they asked a legal question, “Is it lawful….” The word itself leaves it unclear whether they meant Roman law or God’s law, but since it was already Roman law to pay the tax, the question certainly aimed at the law of “the way of God.” The question, again, and the Greek [exestin; cp. exousia, Matthew 21:23] makes it clear that the issue is one of fundamental authority. Does Caesar have legitimate authority to demand tribute? Do we have authority from God to pay to Caesar?
Thirdly, the reference is not to “taxes” in general as so many of the translations have it, but to a particular tax called the kānsos – a Greek version of a Latin word we translate as census. This had nothing to do with sales taxes, duties, commerce or business taxes, or travel tolls, etc. This particularly had to do with the “poll tax” or “head tax” which was based on a census of the people and had to be paid on all persons including women and slaves. And by law it had to be paid by means of Roman coinage.
The Message of the Coin
Jesus responded immediately by calling them hypocrites, obviously because they were hardly sincere in asking. Luke (20:23) refers to their panourgia, meaning something like willingness “to do anything.” The Herodians, especially, played the hypocrites, for they were of the party that supported one of the most ruthless tax collectors in Judean history, Herod. Herod the Great had so heavily taxed the Jewish people that Caesar himself demanded Herod lower taxes in the region. Herod refused, and so Caesar called for a census to be taken in the realm. It is this enrollment of the people, likely, that appears in the story of Jesus birth (Luke 2:1-7).
The trap of the question is well understood: If Jesus said “No” He could be in trouble with the Roman authorities for encouraging tax evasion and treason against Caesar; if Jesus said “Yes” He would certainly lose the support of the people who saw Him as a Messiah against Roman occupation. Either way, the Pharisees and Herodians would win; so they asked; and the implication is “Speak into this microphone when you answer.” They wanted everyone to hear.
Since the census had to be paid by Roman coinage, Jesus asked to be shown that particular money – the “tribute money” or literally, “the money of the census.” And they brought Him such a Roman coin: a “denarius.”
“Whose likeness and inscription is this?”
They knew already they were in trouble. Jesus simply didn’t throw around the “image” or “likeness” casually. In fact, it only appears in all of the Gospels in their accounts of this story. Why so sparse? Because it is a technical term, a term that has a very specific place in the Jewish religion: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (Exodus 20:4).
Jesus also specifically made them note the inscription on the coin. This was perhaps more damning than the image. The denarius itself – most likely a coin from the current Emperor – carried not only his image but an inscription that read TIBERIUS CAESAR DIVI AGUSTI FILIUS AGUSTUS (“Tiberius Caesar August Son of the August God”), and the back side continued PONTIFEX MAXIMUS (“High Priest”). If this was not a graven image of a false god, nothing is. And Jesus made it a point to enter these facts into the record.
The Currency of Idolatry
Keep in mind, this confrontation begins all the way back in Matthew 21:23 and is taking place in the temple. There was a particular taboo about having the idols in the temple itself. Had not Israel been sent into exile for such infractions? Why did these holy men of Israel, Pharisees and Herodians, now have idols in the temple? Why were they so readily able to produce a denarius when Jesus asked? Hypocrites indeed!
This hit the Pharisees acutely in that they prided themselves in purity and separation from non-biblical practices. A real poke at their bid for popularity, that! – look everyone, the “Pure” “Holy” Pharisees are carrying false gods through their own Temple! By the way, did you say you wanted me to speak into the microphone?
Jesus could have had some real fun here at the expense particularly of the Sadducees (surely close by, as they are featured in the next confrontation) who were the Chief Priests of the Temple, including the High Priest. What are you doing carrying a coin around the Temple which bears an inscription that calls Caesar the “High Priest”? You are supposed to be God’s High Priest! Since when did you abdicate your office for the pagan ruler?
And it was certainly not an isolated incident, all of the people carried Roman coinage every day. For example, the Temple itself had a yearly head tax that all Jews had to pay, and it was a half-shekel of silver. But they were forbidden to pay that tax with Roman coins. This is why there were moneychangers in the Temple to begin with. They had a virtual monopoly on special silver coins that were acceptable to pay the Temple tax; and as with any monopoly, you can understand how high the exchange was: these guys were extorting people for specialized coinage which they had to have. This is why Jesus called them robbers: they were literally extorting the people. As they were engaged in a forced exchange, they grew rich in terms of Roman coins.
You can imagine, then, that they had tables and bags filled with Roman denarii throughout the Temple courts. In fact, the moneychangers all wore one of these coins in their ear as a mark of their trade. [They have ears but can’t hear (because of their idols)!] You can imagine that passers-by and pilgrims to the Temple saw plenty of displays of these images right there in the Temple itself. You can imagine, also, that as Jesus overturned the chairs and tables and poured out the money, that the streets rang with sound of silver pings and clangs as coins rolled down the stone pavements. [Some (Caesar’s) heads are gonna roll!]
The entire Jewish civilization had given in to the usage of idolatrous Roman coins. Roman currency was the basis of their commerce. They had thus, despite whatever idolatry they judged to be involved, accepted the social benefit of Caesar’s rule, and thus legitimized it.
Thus, the only answer Jesus’ opponents could give was “Caesar’s.” Not only did the bare facts of the coin itself require this answer, obviously, but it also related to the total dominance over political and economic life throughout the Jewish culture. The coining of money is a symbol of power. The acceptance of that money as common currency is submission on the part of the people to that power. (This does not address the issue of legal tender.)
“Is it lawful?” “Why are you asking? You already do it all day every day.”
Payback Time
But now that Jesus had them in the headlights, He fired the fatal shot: “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
Important here in Jesus’ answer is the verb: “render.” The opponents had worded the question wrongly: Is it lawful to “give” or to “pay”? The word is different. The Pharisees’ word is didomi “give”; Jesus says not “give” but apodidomi “give back” or “pay up.” It is a term used for paying what is due to someone, or what belongs to them to begin with. This was an acknowledgement of several things, all of which would have angered the Jews to have to admit: 1) Caesar owns the coin, it is His; 2) the usage of Caesar’s property to your own benefit implies your debt to him to the extent that you do; and 3) Caesar’s enforcement of the recalling of this money (the tax itself) meant that the Jewish people were not free as they pretended, but under foreign bondage still (a clear implication that God’s judgment was still upon them).
They profited by the means, so they had no right to refuse the tax on the means on economic grounds. They enjoyed the order of the Roman Empire, so they had no right to refuse on political grounds. They carried his money right into their own Temple despite the implications, so they had no right to refuse on theological grounds (at least not without repentance). So the Pharisees stood before Jesus and before the crowds, themselves entangled by His words: “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s.”
The Greater Debt
But, also, render “to God the things that are God’s.”
What most commentators miss or ignore here is that Jesus implied a clear argument a fortiori from the lesser to the greater – if it is true for the lesser case of the man Caesar, how much more true is it for the Greater. If Caesar has authority to demand payment, how much more authority does God have? Instead of this, most commentators see something more of a dichotomy between the two instead of a hierarchy. The State has authority over here, and God has authority over there (your thoughts, emotions, and energies).
But this is not the point, for at least two very outstanding reasons: the image and the inscription. These are the two things to which Jesus called attention in regard to the coin. They are both overtly theological concepts.
We have already mentioned the idea of image in regard to the commandment against graven images. Why was this a commandment? Man is to make no graven image of any living thing, and certainly nothing to be used in reference to divinity. Why not? Because the creation of living things is the exclusive Province of God; and the placing of His image is the exclusive Province of God. The man who creates images in this way is both demeaning God Himself through the inadequate representation, and himself attempting to play the part of God by being the Creator and the Image-giver.
In contrast, God is the one who places His image: He places it on man; or more properly, He creates man in His image and likeness. All men bear this image.
The same is true with God’s inscription. We bear His Word written on our hearts, though the fall had some consequence on that. Paul indicates this is true even of the natural man (Romans 2:14-15). This was especially true of the Pharisees: they literally wore the word of God on their heads and the arms. This appears in Matthew 23:5, when Jesus criticizes them for making “broad their phylacteries.” A phylactery is a small box in which is kept small parchments of Scripture (Exodus 13:1-10; Deuteronomy 6:4-9; 11:13-21). Some of the Jews took the command literally: “these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes…” (Deuteronomy 6:6, 8). So they literally wore that section of Scripture in a small box on their forehead, between their eyes, and on their forearm like a wristwatch. The Pharisees went over the top in this regard, using larger boxes than everyone else to show how much more eager they were to recall God’s Word.
This was true yet even more relevant to the priests: the High Priest wore a golden plate on his hat that read HOLINESS TO THE LORD (Exodus 28:36). He as well literally bore the inscription of God as representative of the entire people of God.
So literally, outwardly, whose inscription was on these guys? The theological implications of both the image and the inscription would have been obvious to everyone listening. The impact of the lesson would have nearly made the Pharisees a laughingstock among the people. Yet it would have been a stark wake-up call to everyone listening.
Yes, the people had something of a legitimate debt to Caesar, but Jesus’ lesson was a far cry from saying that the authority of the State is separate or removed in some way from the authority of God, or that we must wait until the end of time until the State comes under God’s authority and judgment. The lesson here is much more challenging, much more comprehensive.
The lesson is, more fully, that all men bear God’s image and God’s inscription. We are all God’s coinage. We all belong wholly to God. All men must “render to God what is God’s.” All men. The Pharisees, Sudducees, the Herods, the masses, and even Caesar himself. Caesar has as much obligation to “render unto God” – bow and submit to God – as everyone else. He has as much obligation to love his neighbors and to obey God’s law as everyone else. He is not a god or a high priest, he is not the source of law and providence; he, like all men, is a man subject to God Almighty’s providence, and God’ Law, and God’s High Priest, Jesus Christ. He has as much obligation to obey; in fact, he has a greater obligation to obey because he represents multiple people in a public office.
Render unto God. All of Jesus listeners would not only have understood the concepts involved, they would have immediately understood the theological nature of the idea of rendering to God. It appeared throughout the psalms of the Jewish worship:
“My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation: I will pay [render; same Greek word] my vows before them that fear him” (Psalm 22:25).
“Thy vows are upon me, O God: I will render praises unto thee” (Psalm 56:12).
“I will go into thy house with burnt offerings: I will pay [render] thee my vows” (Psalm 66:13 KJV).
“Vow, and pay [render] unto the LORD your God” (Psalm 76:11 KJV).
“I will pay my vows unto the LORD now in the presence of all his people (Psalm 116:18).
It even appeared in the Levitical law: where the Levites were set apart for Temple service, they were presented before the High Priest and “offered” or “rendered” unto God as an offering (Leviticus 8:13). Their whole persons were rendered unto God.
Authority, Loyalty, and Freedom
Man is free, because God made him that way. Man is not free to the extent that he renders all to God; and societies are in bondage to that same extent. Therefore, where human institutions infringe upon God’s law, you have a decision about loyalty to competing authorities. We must obey God and not men, even to death if necessary in necessary matters. Yet we can denounce and resist tyranny in other matters as an expression of our loyalty to God, and of the proper place of human governments.
It is not improper, therefore, for other men to call Caesar to be accountable before God. And, it should not be considered unlawful for other men to refuse either to use or to accept as payment any particular currency, no matter what human image or inscription is upon it. We must resist tyranny, though never through violent revolution, and there are many non-violent ways to do so.
By what Authority do you do these things? What believer in God ever truly has to question what Authority?
“The earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it” (Psalm 24:1). God says, “[E]very beast of the forest is Mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird of the mountains, and everything that moves in the field is Mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell you; for the world is Mine, and all it contains” (Psalm 50:9-12).
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, sure. But render unto God what is God’s.
Respectfully,
Mark
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)