Verse
Then He said to them, “Therefore, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”
Matthew 22:21 (LSB)
Jesus was asked a question designed to limit His kingdom: “Should we pay taxes to Rome?” The wrong answer could put Jesus at odds with the most powerful force in the world. The Pharisees and Herodians naturally believed one man couldn’t fight an empire. They expected Jesus to waffle and ultimately say, “Taxes must be paid.”
By giving this answer, Jesus would admit His power had boundaries. Since Jesus was on earth, within creation, and in a material body, He appeared to be vulnerable to earthly powers like an army, a jail, and a cross. Jesus had subjected himself to pressure and coercion, forces that He never before had to contend with. The Pharisees and Herodians wanted Jesus to buckle under this pressure and betray that He wasn’t the son of God but a powerless man.
Jesus did say, “Pay your taxes.” And yet, He didn’t see it as a power struggle. Jesus relegated the concern over taxes to trivial, material, lower, and finite. The Kingdom of God being eternal, highest, and infinite, Jesus answered by claiming the only kingdom worth eternal significance. The material world couldn’t affect the Kingdom of God, and God claims all of its domain as His.
Political statement
Pastors today use the coming Kingdom of God as a reason to avoid discussing the here and now: “Politics has no place in a Christian discussion.” Applying the Gospel to cultural issues is seen as a mistake, a spiritual weakness. It makes the Gospel a means to an end, advancing a human will and exposing a faithless attitude.
This charge of faithlessness is a conversation-ender. Does the modern Christian want to overstep God? As contemporary life grows darker, it’s as if the church has entered a contest. Who can flinch the least? Who can ignore the most? Who can do and say less to show the most faith in God? Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” It’s a verse used to steer the church away from everyday relevance. Jesus is interpreted as saying, “The world is hurting, yes, but it’s a temporal place.” The modern pastor betrays a Gnostic view that the world can go to hell while we await deliverance. Today’s pastor voluntarily limits the kingdom to increase his pious capital and stay out of trouble.
And yet, Jesus made a bold political statement that had far-ranging repercussions for every believer. Rather than shy away from the topic of Caesar, Jesus answered a dangerously loaded question. He surprised his listeners by acknowledging the coercive nature of a fallen world (encouraging the payment of taxes), and yet, He claimed the rest of a believer’s life for God. Jesus took something from Caesar without apology. Jesus’s command would inspire Christian persecution under the Roman Empire—a political outcome.
Political fallout
As head of the empire, Caesar was in charge of its religion, making Jesus’s remarks an instant act of political rebellion. The shameless Pharisees would goad the Romans to arrest Jesus as an insurrectionist over this teaching. In seeking to brand Jesus a criminal, the Pharisees recognized Caesar’s role as a demigod.
Render unto God what is God’s would continue to bring strife as Roman emperors increasingly saw themselves as deities. By the 90s AD, the emperor Domitian demanded worship and thus persecuted Christians such as John, who was exiled to Patmos. Jesus’s message in Matthew 22:21 was the reason.
The passage would reach into our time, sparking controversy during the global pandemic. The American church enjoyed a laissez-faire relationship with the government. Suddenly, government leaders were shutting down churches over public safety. Congregations complied. As the nature of the pandemic became better understood, some churches reopened in defiance of government orders. These churches believed worship to be God’s domain.
Political reality
When Jesus said, “In this world, you will have trouble,” He referenced political persecution. Jesus asked his followers to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:16-20). Everyone involved knew what it meant. There would be resistance. One could say it’s a regrettable by-product of faith, not its desired aim. Jesus did not come to get embroiled in human affairs. He told Peter to put away his sword. The goal is to preach the Gospel.
The modern age has seen miracle solutions to the problems of famine, disease, and poverty. It’s only natural the modern Christian would seek a new remedy for political persecution when preaching the Gospel. Unfortunately, the only solution is to avoid a message that riles up the opponents of Christ. What we would prefer to be a simple witnessing turns political without trying. It’s an issue of domain. Who is in charge? The Gospel seeks to influence people for the Kingdom, a territory claimed by others, the modern version of Caesar. We notice that what is viewed as “belonging to Caesar” continues to grow in scale. What is owed to God is increasingly under attack. To honor Jesus’s teaching in Matthew 22:21, the modern pastor would need to preach about what belongs to God. He would need to court controversy.
Does today’s pastor accept the heat that comes with advancing God’s territory? We would know if he did, yet one can live in the United States and not realize the Church still exists. Like a word-of-mouth restaurant, a church is a destination only for the most committed. Membership is at an all-time low. The church is nearly invisible because pastors ignore or avoid issues that drive the conscience of modern people. Is it ironic that many church sanctuaries lack windows? The church doesn’t seem to look outside.
Unlimited kingdom
There’s a trend that limits the Church to specific priorities. Pastors will rightly argue that God deserves our worship, time, money, and commitment to serve others. Many churches devote all their energy to this message, training assemblies in spiritual maturity. Many would argue it’s all a church is supposed to do.
Yet, no one can claim that God’s message is limited to the sanctification of believers. The Great Commission requires churches to explain the message of Christ to everyone outside the church walls. This is to risk disputes. The unchurched population is steeped in a gospel of the world, a near-perfect inversion of Christianity. What is considered holy and blameless is following individuality to its most destructive outcomes. What is considered evil is anything that impedes individuality and its progress toward self-destruction.
Reformed pastors such as John MacArthur brave this conversation with a physician’s matter-of-factness. MacArthur has criticized the Church for not speaking up for Christ, the Gospel, and the Holy Spirit. He has guided his church as a truth-teller, accepting contention and conflict if necessary. The number of prominent pastors preaching an unlimited gospel is small. The others seem to complain, “MacArthur is different. He can get away with it.”
God’s own
A pastor may truly believe his call is to avoid political disputes. “The whole creation groans and suffers” under sin (Romans 8:22), as God has allowed for a time. The pastor may say, “It’s the Lord’s to work out.” Even so, there is another domain that God claims: the weak and vulnerable who are at the fallen culture’s mercy.
“Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me,” Jesus says in Matthew 9:14, “for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
Even the most pacifist-minded pastor can see the assault on children today. From gender reassignment surgery to college-level political propaganda in primary schools to the legalization of drugs that are easier than ever for children to find, the world has declared war on the innocence of childhood. In the past ten years, these advancements in social engineering have gone unimpeded by school boards, politicians, and, sadly, the clergy. Many pastors hold cultural capital in their towns. Do they use it to aid children’s rights?
No choice
The pastor, who has many other agendas, replies, “It’s a conflict of interest, a slippery slope, not my job.” The modern pastor becomes a conscientious objector in the war on God’s people. High-mindedness for Gospel purity becomes a snare. It wasn’t always this way. The American church has a rich tradition of exhortation. Jonathan Edwards’s powerful sermons ushered in the first Great Awakening.
Edwards knew Jesus did not follow standard rules of engagement. Jesus spoke of a kingdom not of this world and simultaneously fought for the weak and vulnerable. His message was unpopular with the powers that be and deservedly so. The cultural elites were leading people down a hopeless path.
All piety aside, if a pastor’s sermons don’t incite any discomfort in society’s leaders, how can that pastor claim to follow Christ’s example? Jesus told Peter to put away his sword, but he fully expected Peter to use his voice.
Leave a Reply