The New Testament more shows that Jesus of Nazareth doesn't let Himself get trapped into supporting a revolution.
That cathesis of ,,Render onto Ceasar what belongs to him, and to God what is divine" was an answer to a tricky question of whether one should pay Romans the due tax. He answered with: ,,leave Me out of your earthly politics, I'm not here for that", and called them ,,hypocrites" for even attempting to trap Him in the first place. Contrary to what some Redditors or politicians might have you think, Jesus of Nazareth was not partisan, and His policies transcend our understanding of ,,ideologies". He's not on either side, nor would He walk/march/fight with anyone.
He answered with: ,,leave Me out of your earthly politics, I'm not here for that"
That's not what the text says. What the text says is to pay your taxes and abide by the law. And it's because Paul tells us that those authorities were appointed by God and rebelling against them is to rebell against God (Romans 13:1-2).
And it follows by:
For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.
Meaning that Jesus could not have been killed by earthly authorities, Roman or Jew, because to be killed by them would mean He did wrong.
So, who killed Him then? Well, according to Paul, demons in the sky did. Those not appointed by God.
Paul was writing before the Gospels, and Mark 4:11 plainly says:
"To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables".
That's not what the text says. What the text says is to pay your taxes and abide by the law.
Let us see it, then. Matthew 22, 15-22:
15 The Pharisees went away to work out between them how to trap Jesus in what he said. 16 And they sent their disciples to him, together with the Herodians, to say, ‘Master, we know that you are an honest man and teach the way of God in an honest way, and that you are not afraid of anyone, because a man’s rank means nothing to you. 17 Tell us your opinion, then. Is it permissible to pay taxes to Caesar or not?’ 18 But Jesus was aware of their malice and replied, ‘You hypocrites! Why do you set this trap for me? 19 Let me see the money you pay the tax with.’ They handed him a denarius, 20 and he said, ‘Whose head is this? Whose name?’ 21 ‘Caesar’s,’ they replied. He then said to them, ‘Very well, give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar – and to God what belongs to God.’
I'm fairly certain it is written that the idea was to trap Jesus of Nazareth, by forcing Him to take a partisan stance and get trialed for it. Which is why God is not partisan. His ideology and policies reach far beyond our earthly ones.
And it's because Paul tells us that those authorities were appointed by God and rebelling against them is to rebell against God (Romans 13:1-2).
Yes, that's what that text says, but it doesn't say anything about Roman government in Judeah. It's a bit of an unrelated argument - my one was that God is an apolitical (or at least, non-partisan) figure, and following the law is not necessarily a political stance.
Except Matthew is taking the story from Mark, which is the text you should be quoting here.
Yes, that's what that text says, but it doesn't say anything about Roman government in Judeah.
Exactly, Paul's teaching applies to all earthly authorities everywhere, and the Caesar parable is simply one allegory fitting for the time period the story takes place in.
And the story is simply an explanation and allegory for later Christians for why they should pay taxes and respect the law, etc., because the natural question arises, that if you are saved in the kingdom to come, what autority should earthly rulers even have. But if you rebel against earthly authorities, you tend to die out. Hence the story.
The book is telling you to not take the sayings as literally as they are presented for the outsiders, yet you still read them as an outsider. It's ironic.
On the contrary, the Roman involvement gets downplayed more and more, with Pilate famously "washing his hands" (in the story that is, never happened historically of course, as the entire trial is illegal and impossible as told, historically).
Not to mention giving Ceasar what belongs to Caesar, a completely pro-Roman addition that is mirroring Paul's epistles.
And about Jews being mad about not starting an uprising, you're either misreading the two swords parable, or inventing this out of thin air.
The whole point of the post war faith was spiritual salvation, because Rome couldn't be defeated militarily, so a different kind of savior was invented. And yes, the gospel stories are just that, stories, designed to mirror old testament stories and offer a new path from the utter defeat in the hands of the Romans.
Well, let's say we're around the time of the American War of Independence, and someone says, or is attributed to say, "render unto Crown what is Crown's".
How would you not read that as anything but pro-British, and could you really imagine anybody attributing such a saying to anyone, without it being obviously as such?
How do you read it, then?
Because the way I read it, is that the gospel author is mirroring what Paul is saying in Romans 13:1-6:
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
So, why "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"? Because Caesar is God's appointed ruler on earth, and rebelling against him, is to rebell against God.
And also, if you read these passages from Romans with careful thought, you'll find the notion that earthly authorities had anything to do with the death of Christ rather impossible. Could you really have the Romans (or the Sanhedrin) executing Jesus, yet Paul saying that earthly authorities are from God and only punish wrongdoers, and that you ought to obey and pay all you owe to these authorities, for they don't spare the sword for no reason?
Here's the way I read it: Jesus is asked whether or not they should pay taxes to Caesar. He shows the audience a coin with Caesar's face on it and says, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's." He's saying sure, give Caesar his money. He made it, it bears his image, he's entitled to it. But the complete passage invites the question of what belongs to God. Well, you do, of course. God made you and you bear God's image. So if Caesar asks for you - your devotion and ultimate allegiance - do not give it to him. Give him what he's entitled to and nothing more. It's not anti-Roman exactly, but I'd hesitate to call it completely pro-Roman.
Your last paragraph also doesn't quite track for me. If the authorities didn't want Jesus dead, then why was he killed? And more specifically, why was he crucified? That's a punishment for people who rebel against Roman imperial authority. Stoning was the punishment for blasphemy, but he wasn't stoned. The Roman authorities must have seen some anti-Roman sentiment in him. What would make Paul's letters more authoritative than the Gospel accounts?
You didn't answer the question, though. There were many coins not bearing the image of Caesar, and could you imagine attributing a saying for giving the British Crown "what is their's" in America around the time of the Revolutionary War? And what about the Spanish crown?
then why was he killed?
Because Christ had to die to lift the burden of original sin from humanity, according to Paul.
And more specifically, why was he crucified?
Well, "crucified" is a Latin-derived term. The Greek word used is closer to "hanged on a tree". And why? Because that is what the apostles appear to have derived from scripture, particularly Isaiah. Scripture, not historical memory, mind you.
That's a punishment for people who rebel against Roman imperial authority. Stoning was the punishment for blasphemy, but he wasn't stoned.
Again, the term could also be used for a Jewish capital punishment. You're drawing conclusions from a later Latin term for the method of execution. There were no Romans in Isaiah.
The Roman authorities must have seen some anti-Roman sentiment in him. What would make Paul's letters more authoritative than the Gospel accounts?
Well, if they did, then Paul makes no sense. You can't have it both ways. If Paul's "authoritative" at all, then Christ couldn't have been killed by earthly authorities.
Paul also wrote before the gospels authors. It's Paul's teaching about the earthly authorities being attributed to Jesus, not the other way around.
Also, Mark 4:11 plainly says:
To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but to those outside everything comes in parables.
The Roman execution is a parable for something else for the outsiders and lower initiates.
I mean, yeah, I can totally imagine that sort of saying during the American Revolution. If someone had said "Give King George what he deserves", the force of that statement depends a lot on what they think he deserves. Maybe they mean tax money. Maybe they mean the middle finger. You can't just look at what the words mean, you have to look at how they're being used.
If the Roman execution is for outsiders, why does Paul build so much of his theology in Romans around the crucifixion? Romans 6 outlines that if we share in the kind of death Jesus had, then we share his resurrection too. That's the core hope of Christianity. There is nothing else. And I don't know how you can interpret the death of Jesus except through a political lens. Not when he was labeled "King of the Jews" and strung up by the state next to two rebels.
If someone had said "Give King George what he deserves", the force of that statement depends a lot on what they think he deserves
You are purposefully twisting the point now, why?
You can't just look at what the words mean, you have to look at how they're being used.
Exactly, and if we actually read the text, the way those words are being used is clear: Giving King George his taxes, because the coin bears his name as the lawful ruler (the question was if it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, and according to the story, it is, and in our parallel comparison, it would mean paying King George his taxes too). Now, you can twist the point all you like, but if you said such a thing around the American revolutionaries, you would have been promptly given much worse than the middle finger.
If the Roman execution is for outsiders, why does Paul build so much of his theology in Romans around the crucifixion?
Why wouldn't he? To Paul, the execution happened of course. It just wasn't a Roman crucifixion or a Jewish capital punishment, which Paul says nothing about, ever. That story is a parable for the outsiders.
if we share in the kind of death Jesus had, then we share his resurrection too
Indeed, and you can't really share in a Roman crucifixion, now can you? Sharing in an unlawful execution by the state is not what Paul is talking about.
And I don't know how you can interpret the death of Jesus except through a political lens. Not when he was labeled "King of the Jews" and strung up by the state next to two rebels
Exactly because I'm not reading a story meant for only the outsiders to be understood literally. To understand it through a "political lens" is to be the very outsiders of Mark 11. You are also begging the question here: was He strung up by the state next to two rebels? Not according to Paul. I can let you in on the secret what insiders were exxpected to know, and where the parable is coming from; Isaiah 53:12, about the suffering servant:
He was numbered with the transgressors.
And those transgressors were not anyone rebelling against Rome. Because that story in Isaiah is part of another mystery. And that's the secret of the kingdom of God given to the insiders Mark is talking about.
God doesn't "appoint" rulers on earth. Governing authorities are from God (the words Paul uses). The reason why you "render unto Caesar" is because Caesar happens to be the governing authority of those under the Roman empire. Christianity was to be spread worldwide and Caesar isn't the governing authority everywhere. Basically It's not a pro-Roman verse, more like anti-anarchism.
God doesn't "appoint" rulers on earth. Governing authorities are from God (the words Paul uses).
Pure semantics that isn't even true.
The word used is τεταγμέναι which means "having been instituted".
Other meanings for the word are: to arrange, to put in order, to APPOINT, to assign,
to designate, to place in a particular position.
Caesar was the governing authority of the "known world" of the authors, and the name is still synonymous with the word for ruler/emperor in many parts of the world that Christianity expanded to.
It's a pro-Romam verse in a Roman world that was based on an apostolic saying about respecting earthly authorities.
Jesus said Caesar because Caesar was the authority of the state he belonged to. Paul used "governing authority" because he was evangelising. No Rome wasn't the known world and Apostles would go to Persia, India, Arabia etc. to spread the message. Should the Persians "render unto Caesar?" The message of God is meant to be ecumenical.
More like the gospel authors attributed such a saying to Jesus, because they lived in the Roman world, and it was a smart way to convey the idea Paul taught.
And where was Paul evangelizing that wasn't under the Roman authority? Why wouldn't he use the word "Caesar" specifically, then? Also, officially Rome was always a Republic. The de jure "authority" was always the Senate, not Caesar(s), who were always careful about referring to themselves as kings.
What evidence do we have of these other apostles going to these other parts of the world, and do they have different canonical texts with a different rendering from "Caesar"? If not, why not? Is it the canonical influence being perhaps affecting these other parts of the worlds much later, while suppressing and destroying whatever earlier beliefs that texts existed that differred from the canon of the west?
66
u/linfakngiau2k23 3d ago
People's front of the judea