Modern American Christians read the passage Mark 12:13-17 and see a straightforward teaching requiring the existence of a state unhindered by religious affiliation.
What is interesting is that, though we like to quote the phrase “separation of church and state” and even claim that this is what is being taught in Mark 12, we should understand that the genesis of that phrase was Thomas Jefferson, as thoroughly an athiest as it was possible to be in the Eighteenth Century. The sentiment was one brought forth by Enlightenment thinkers opposed to the Church, who desired that there be no power center competing with the state.
Truthfully, separation of church and state is not, as we sometimes like to think, a claim that the two exist independently of one another, like I exist independently of my neighbor. It is a separation of *concerns*. It is a claim that the church ought not to interfere with civil society, at the same time that the government does not interfere with matters of faith. It would be as though I claimed that my neighbor should only be allowed to have jurisdiction over the trees in both of our yards and I would have jurisdiction over everything else, so long as the trees don’t get leaves on my stuff.
It is manifestly NOT a Biblical idea that we should be looking to non-believers to provide the correct interpretations of passages. The fact that no Christian thinkers for 1800 years prior had ever thought that there ought to be separation of church and state means we ought to consider this an *innovation*, and therefore likely a false teaching.
But let’s not slip too far into the Genetic Fallacy. Though it came from a person who did not have the Spirit, perhaps he was being used by God to correct the understandings of believers. Let us consider the passage and try to exegete it for ourselves.
Our Passage
Mark 12:13-17: 13 Later, they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to catch Jesus in His words. 14 “Teacher, they said, “we know that You are honest and seek favor from no one. Indeed, You are impartial and teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay them or not?
15 But Jesus saw through their hypocrisy and said, “Why are you testing Me? Bring Me a denarius to inspect. 16 So they brought it, and He asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?
“Caesar’s, they answered.
17 Then Jesus told them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.
And they marveled at Him.
We should first note that Jesus is responding to a challenge designed to entrap him. Therefore we should not be surprised if there is more going on here than is obvious upon first reading. Clearly the Pharisees thought they had him in a trap.
Before we can understand Christ’s response we should first consider what “hypocrisy” Christ saw through.
One possibility is that they are hypocrites because they do not really want to know the answer to the question, but are merely looking to entrap him. This is not normally what I think of as hypocrisy, perhaps a better word would have been “deception”.
In fact, looking at Strong’s Bible Concordance, deception is within the range of meaning of the Greek word.
ὑπόκρισις hypókrisis, hoop-ok'-ree-sis; from G5271; acting under a feigned part, i.e. (figuratively) deceit ("hypocrisy"):—condemnation, dissimulation, hypocrisy.
I think therefore that we can move forward under the assumption that they are not seeking actual enlightenment. If Christ’s response was based on the knowledge that they were not seeking a true answer, we should expect that the answer he gives is not intended to enlighten, but to confound.
This is an important thing to consider with regard to comprehending Jesus. We must always take into account the context of what situation He is dealing with. Christ never lies, but He does not always speak clearly. In fact, He explicitly states that He often spoke in parables with the direct end of not making everything entirely clear.
Matt 13:11 He replied, “The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:
‘Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.’
This means that, at least in the context of parables, we must consider and seek out the knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom. For those who seek, we will understand, for those who merely hear, they will not understand. If we have understanding of Christ, we can add to our understanding by careful meditation on his parables. Those who do not understand Christ will fail to understand his teachings through the parables.
This is not a parable, but the acknowledgment that his response is in the context of knowing that these men do not seek enlightenment but merely to entrap him, we should assume that the truth is hidden from their eyes as well, but present for those of us who understand Christ.
Other Biblical Context
Christ taught again on taxes in another place.
24 After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma temple tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?”
25 “Yes, he does,” he replied.
When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own children or from others?”
26 “From others,” Peter answered.
“Then the children are exempt,” Jesus said to him. 27 “But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.”
In this passage, we are not speaking about Roman taxes but about Jewish ones. Yet it is worth considering what is being taught here. It appears that this is straightforward statement that Christ should not be required to pay the tax, yet He still does so “so that we may not cause offense”.
What consideration causes Christ to claim exemption from the temple tax? It is his claim to be the child of the King, in this case God. He is pointing out that a child of the one in authority is not taxed by that authority. This would also seem to be a verse in contention with mandatory tithing as all believers are children of God.
Then, does this shed any light on the question of rendering unto Caesar? At first glance, no, because the one to whom the tax is being paid is Caesar, so Jesus does not qualify for exemption under the rule of being the child of the authority in question.
Let’s cast further afield for discussions of human authority.
Paul discusses this in Romans 13:
1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which is from God. The authorities that exist have been appointed by God. 2 Consequently, whoever resists authority is opposing what God has set in place, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the one in authority? Then do what is right, and you will have his approval. 4 For he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not carry the sword in vain. He is God’s servant, an agent of retribution to the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore it is necessary to submit to authority, not only to avoid punishment, but also as a matter of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes. For the authorities are God’s servants, who devote themselves to their work. 7 Pay everyone what you owe him: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
In this, Paul requires Christians to submit to the governing authorities, specifically because these authorities are appointed by God. Therefore rebellion against human authority is rebellion against God’s authority.
This now *does* shed some light on the question of Mark 12. The answer to the question, what is Caesar’s, is this right to tax. What is God’s? Everything, including Caesar himself. All human authorities are subsidiary to God’s authority.
And considering this, it also sheds light on why Jesus paid the temple tax. Though he claims a higher authority than that of the priests, he also recognizes that submitting to the human authority (in this case, the priests) is a form of submission to God. But he seems to go further in saying that the tax is being wrongly applied. So he critiques the actions of the human authority in this case by pointing out the misapplication of the tax, but pays it anyway out of respect for the human authority.
Conclusion
I think this gives us enough to solve the puzzle of “render unto Caesar”. We recognize that all authority is subordinate to God. We render unto God, everything. At the same time, we recognize the subordinate authority as “appointed by God”. This does not mean that they may not make mistakes in applying the law, as in the example of the temple tax, but it does mean that regardless of such mistakes, we respect that authority anyway. Christ goes much further in “respecting human authority” later as he allows himself to be unfairly condemned to death. The Resurrection was the annunciation of his final authority, not only over all human authorities, but over death itself. He firmly planted the flag in the ground of reclaiming the world for God’s final authority.
The new heaven and the new earth will still have human authorities, beyond just Christ. We are told in 2 Timothy 2 that we will “reign with Him”. But in the final reckoning, all human authorities will exercise such in full and correct subordination to the will of God the Father, under whose authority Christ exercises His.
Therefore, we should state that “render unto Caesar” teaches subordination to human authorities. It does NOT authorize those human authorities to act independently of God’s will. We, as subjects, are required to submit to the human authority, but that authority is responsible to submit to God’s will.
Therefore, we may justly critique any human authority that claims to be independent of the law and will of God. This does not change our responsibility to them. The call for those authorities is to conform their actions to the will of God and exercise his law and moral will, not their own. To the extent they fail to do so, they will be judged for their failure. The same is true of husbands in authority over their wives or parents over their children. Claiming a Biblical mandate for a separation of church and state is as nonsensical as believing that we ought to have separation of church and marriage, or separation of church and family.
No authority is outside God’s authority, as Christ has claimed:
Matt 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Therefore we know that the will of God is that all human authorities submit themselves to Christ, as it says:
Phil 2:10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.