Obey authorities, obey Rome

[Willum]

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. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 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? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 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. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 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.

Romans 13

Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.� And they marveled at him.

Mark12:17

So Jesus implores both of these above.
However, Rome was a divine republic, the will of Jove was identified with the will of the state, and the Caesars semi-divine, if not actually divine.

Knowing Jesus attachment to Judaism, how is it possible for him to take these stances in the face of a jealous god?

Isn't there an actual commandment against it?

I am betting most of you didn't think I could quote the Bible without my fingers turning into flame, huh? Probably just this old Nick quoting scripture.

BTW, I am not accepting the position Rome was just a government. It was a divine government with Capitoline Jove as its head, AND theologically in charge of its revenue. "A loan to Jove is a loan to the state." R Graves.

[Willum]

So is this the shot heard 'round the world, ending Christianity?

That Jesus was supporting a Pagan Republic, and this is irreconcilable with "Thou shalt have no other gods before me?"

Is there any other explanation then Rome developed Christianity to remove the problematic "warrior-savior" to replace him with a pacifist "render to the divinity of Caesar, what is Caesar's?"

How could Jesus advocate obeying Rome and other Gods;
Caesar was deemed a demi-god, Augustus a God, Caligula a God, Claudius a God. Capitoline Jove, the God of the will of the Roman Empire, when there was only one god, Jehovah, who was a jealous god?
Or even worse, worship men as divinities, knowing that they were men?

[tam]

You're reading too much into a simple statement that actually supports a distinction between Caesar and God.

Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. (Such as the money that had his face upon it.)

But render to God the things that are God's. (Such as worship, love, faith, obedience. What does God care about money?)

Keep in mind that the people asking Christ questions were looking for a reason to accuse him of something so as to be able to arrest him. Treason to the state/king would have given them that excuse; telling people NOT to pay taxes would have done the same.


Obey the law of the land/Caesar. (Unless the law of the land conflicts with the law of God. In that case, obey God.)

Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Zzyzx]

.

You're reading too much into a simple statement that actually supports a distinction between Caesar and God.

Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. (Such as the money that had his face upon it.)

Add obedience and loyalty.

But render to God the things that are God's. (Such as worship, love, faith, obedience. What does God care about money?)

According to televangelists and mega-church preachers (who speak to and for millions) God DOES care about money. Does someone's personal opinion outweigh those opinions?

Keep in mind that the people asking Christ questions were looking for a reason to accuse him of something so as to be able to arrest him.

Was Jesus supposedly trying to avoid being arrested -- or was he preordained to be arrested and executed?

Obey the law of the land/Caesar. (Unless the law of the land conflicts with the law of God. In that case, obey God.)

Did Jesus actually say the "unless" part – or is that someone adding their two cents worth and trying to make it sound official?

[Willum]

[Replying to tam]

Tam, I am sure you didn't mean to be disparaging, but...

Jesus knew very well that Caesar was worshiped with festivals that dwarfed anything ceded to God in Jerusalem.
Jesus knew very well that Jove was the God of the Roman Empire: Much like the Pope or Kings ruled through God: Caesars, men, semi-divine or gods themselves, ruled through Jove.

So, in saying I am reading too much into it, is turning a blind eye to what Jesus must have known. To obey Rome is to obey Jove. To obey Jove is disparage (the Jewish) God.

To obey a Caesar, who claims to be divine is the same, if not worse.

You do have an excellent point though, one close to Tiberius Caesar's heart. Tiberius' issues were the molestation of tax collectors, disregard of Roman law, failure to obey Roman (Jovian) edicts and failure to pay Roman tax-probably because of the godhead of Caesar, something you note, Jesus was vehement about. Tiberius was SERIOUS about taxes.

Odd, Tiberius Caesar and Jesus saw eye-to-eye, when you consider what a vile person Tiberius was... his nickname in Rome was "Mud-well-mixed-with-blood" and "The Beast," and there is reason to suggest he was the Beast of Revelation.

"Render to Caesar what Caesar wants, render to God all that Caesar doesn't want." Seems true enough.

[tam]

.

You're reading too much into a simple statement that actually supports a distinction between Caesar and God.

Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. (Such as the money that had his face upon it.)

Add obedience and loyalty.

That particular quote from the OP (from Christ) was in reference to the money. The other quote in the OP is from Paul.

But render to God the things that are God's. (Such as worship, love, faith, obedience. What does God care about money?)

According to televangelists and mega-church preachers (who speak to and for millions) God DOES care about money. Does someone's personal opinion outweigh those opinions?

Christ's words would outweigh anyone's personal opinion, including my own.

No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.


Regardless, it was a question that I asked: what does God care about money? In other words, what does He need it for?

Christ said that the money was Caesars's (as it had his face on it). So go ahead and give to him what belongs to him.

As far as I understand it, televangelists are getting rich for themselves (sure they may give some to charities - I have no idea). But Christ did not ever solicit others for money and get rich. He also paid his and his disciples' taxes. Unlike the televangelist, who I assume pays no taxes and certainly does not pay the taxes of their followers. Unlike any sect/denomination in Christendom at all for that matter, which also pay no taxes, and certainly does not pay the taxes of their followers.

Something to think about.

Keep in mind that the people asking Christ questions were looking for a reason to accuse him of something so as to be able to arrest him.

Was Jesus supposedly trying to avoid being arrested -- or was he preordained to be arrested and executed?

He was going to be innocent, and yet arrested and executed. Falsely accused.

So it is not that he was avoiding being arrested; but that he was being cautious so as to not be trapped by those who wanted an excuse to have him arrested, or deem him false.

His response actually kept him free from the accusation that he was teaching the people to rebel or revolt against Caesar; as well as kept him free from the accusation that he was teaching people to give to Caesar anything that belonged to God.

There is no accusation that could be brought against him according to the answer that he gave.

Obey the law of the land/Caesar. (Unless the law of the land conflicts with the law of God. In that case, obey God.)

Did Jesus actually say the "unless" part – or is that someone adding their two cents worth and trying to make it sound official?

[/quote]

The whole thing in this last part was my summary. I could give biblical precedent for it if you like though. Such as Daniel's fellow prophets in Babylon who refused to obey the law of the land and worship the golden image, because it went against the law of God. Such as the apostles stating that they must obey God, rather than men. Christ saying (as is written) that if one loves Him, they will obey His commands. God saying that we are to listen to His Son.


Such also as those who would have hidden Jews from the nazis did, even though that would have been against the law (of the land), and they would have even had to lie if asked if they had seen any Jews (which lying may be a sin, except that they would have done so from love, and love covers over a multitude of sins)



Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[bluethread]

Obey the law of the land/Caesar. (Unless the law of the land conflicts with the law of God. In that case, obey God.)

Did Jesus actually say the "unless" part – or is that someone adding their two cents worth and trying to make it sound official?

Yeshua did not actually say, "Obey the law of the land/Caesar" either. So, what is your argument with regard to what He did say?

[Elijah John]

You're reading too much into a simple statement that actually supports a distinction between Caesar and God.

Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. (Such as the money that had his face upon it.)

But render to God the things that are God's. (Such as worship, love, faith, obedience. What does God care about money?)

Keep in mind that the people asking Christ questions were looking for a reason to accuse him of something so as to be able to arrest him. Treason to the state/king would have given them that excuse; telling people NOT to pay taxes would have done the same.


Obey the law of the land/Caesar. (Unless the law of the land conflicts with the law of God. In that case, obey God.)

Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

I agree, Jesus just wanted to appease the Romans, not endorse their gods. Remember, the Romans allowed the Jews their Temple, and did not interfere with their religous practices UNTIL the rebellion when they descecrated the Temple.

They just cared about law and order, tribute and taxes...until that time.

Also, the OP seems to be ignoring or downplaying the "Render unto God" part. The God Jesus was refering to was not Jove, it was YHVH, none other.

Give Caesar his portion of the money, give God, YHVH God, your devotion. Simple as that.

It's not like Pilate was forcing the Jews to bow down to Jove or Caesar or anything like that. He allowed them to bow to YHVH, as long as they were peaceful, compliant and paid their taxes.

[catnip]

[Replying to tam]

Tam, I am sure you didn't mean to be disparaging, but...

Jesus knew very well that Caesar was worshiped with festivals that dwarfed anything ceded to God in Jerusalem.
Jesus knew very well that Jove was the God of the Roman Empire: Much like the Pope or Kings ruled through God: Caesars, men, semi-divine or gods themselves, ruled through Jove.

So, in saying I am reading too much into it, is turning a blind eye to what Jesus must have known. To obey Rome is to obey Jove. To obey Jove is disparage (the Jewish) God.

To obey a Caesar, who claims to be divine is the same, if not worse.

You do have an excellent point though, one close to Tiberius Caesar's heart. Tiberius' issues were the molestation of tax collectors, disregard of Roman law, failure to obey Roman (Jovian) edicts and failure to pay Roman tax-probably because of the godhead of Caesar, something you note, Jesus was vehement about. Tiberius was SERIOUS about taxes.

Odd, Tiberius Caesar and Jesus saw eye-to-eye, when you consider what a vile person Tiberius was... his nickname in Rome was "Mud-well-mixed-with-blood" and "The Beast," and there is reason to suggest he was the Beast of Revelation.

"Render to Caesar what Caesar wants, render to God all that Caesar doesn't want." Seems true enough.

Except at the time, the Jews were the subjects of the Empire. Overtaxed, overburdened, their ability to live the way that they were accustomed to compromised by Roman rule. Jesus preached the kingdom of Heaven (God) and that is release from oppression in that no state could ever usurp.

God was a jealous God, but Jesus wasn't preaching other gods. Nor were the Jews worshiping other gods. A person can actually go through the form of worship without worshiping, truth be told. I think when the rubber hit the road was when Christians were later required to denounce their faith.

Oh, as far as revelation goes, the beast is the natural man, the person we think we are. "You can win the world at the cost of your true self (soul)." Revelation is hardly a literal work despite the fact that people like to read it that way. I think it is Peter who warns against interpreting prophecy without the Holy Spirit.

[Zzyzx]

.

Obey the law of the land/Caesar. (Unless the law of the land conflicts with the law of God. In that case, obey God.)

Did Jesus actually say the "unless" part – or is that someone adding their two cents worth and trying to make it sound official?

Yeshua did not actually say, "Obey the law of the land/Caesar" either. So, what is your argument with regard to what He did say?

I do not pretend to know what Jesus may have said or not said 2000 years ago. Notice carefully that I make no claims in that regard. Later writers evidently attributed to him words that would have been acceptable to Roman authorities.

Do you (generic term) KNOW who said or wrote what?