'Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's', a recipe for revolution?

Mark 12:17

King James Bible
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

I'm quoting the King James' Bible above so I can use the Strong's Concordance to check the meaning of the word "render" in Mark 12:17:

Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
to deliver, to give away for one's own profit what is one's own, to sell
to pay off, discharge what is due
a debt, wages, tribute, taxes, produce due
things promised under oath
conjugal duty
to render account
to give back, restore
to requite, recompense in a good or a bad sense
www.blueletterbible.org...

It occurred to me that the meaning of the word "render" used in Mark 12:17 is actually the first definition given above, "to deliver" and not the second definition, "to pay off, discharge what is due."

Let's put the verse in context:

Paying Taxes to Caesar
(Matthew 22:15-22; Luke 20:19-26)

13And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words. 14 And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? 15 Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it. 16 And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's. 17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

I've always understood the word "render" (in the context above) to mean "to pay off" but if the word actually means, "to deliver" then I would say that we're talking about a revolutionary idea. Fiat money belongs to the government that created it. If Caesar created the money and gave it value by his fiat, then the money cannot truly belong to anyone but him and his government. That's the real meaning of "Federal Reserve Note" IMHO. It's their note, period. It belongs to them, it can't belong to anyone else in reality.

The above could explain why those questioning Jesus "marvelled at him." If we're going to take Mark 12:17 to have made use of the second definition of word "render", "to pay off, discharge what is due", I see nothing whatsoever to marvel at. In that case, Jesus was just telling them to pay their taxes. There's nothing special about that answer.

But, there's another aspect to this. Jesus wasn't necessarily only talking about money in Mark 12:17. Imagine if people "delivered" back every part of the system that truly belongs to the government:

1. All money

2. All licenses

3. All academic degrees

4. All authority that the government has given people

That would be an instant revolution. If we take "Caesar" in Mark 12:17 to represent all oligarchs and monarchs throughout history, the answer has always been the same in terms of human freedom.

Don't just give them your taxes, give it all back, the entire system.

That is the only way humanity could ever have become free.

I have bad news, it will never happen on a mass scale. Why?

People like their deal with the devil too much. They like the power the state has given them, they like the cushy lifestyle they get for having their licenses and degrees, etc.

They like all of that too much to simply give it back.

My answer to the people who think not paying taxes is the answer:

Don't just give them your taxes, "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's", meaning give back ALL OF IT.

I believe that is an answer to marvel at.

Except the Romans did not use a fiat currency, it was a hard, commodity currency minted from precious metals and had its own intrinsic value.

a reply to: Profusion

I think Jesus knew that they were trying to trip him up and so he turned their trickery against them by his saying.

To give Caesar what Caesar was due would be to give Caesar nothing, especially if you owed him nothing.

I don't think they marveled because he would have his people be servants to a tyrant -- I think they marveled at how clever he was in his response.

He finished his saying by saying give to God what is due to God. I think that should make it clear that Caesar is due nothing and everything is due to God, instead. If our very spirits, even our souls, belong to God, how much more should our bodies and material assets?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Except the Romans did not use a fiat currency, it was a hard, commodity currency minted from precious metals and had its own intrinsic value.

Damn. Did you just bugger the entire thread?

ETA: Early flag here.

Am curious to hear what other people think about dumping everything they have ... and how long they think they can hold out. Something's afoot with the petrol dollar (and that means every currency affected by the US $). It's gonna happen sooner or later. Every fiat currency dies.

originally posted by: Snarl
Damn. Did you just bugger the entire thread?

Just pointing out the obvious.

I also think you should look past what the word English "render" means, and dig into the Hebrew and or Aramiac words that it was translated from. The KJV translators were amazing, but not perfect.

Not that I have studied this particular scripture, just thinking its best to get as close to the original as possible before picking things apart.

Also want to state that I agree with Bieeeep, that it wasn't some seriously deep comment to upset the system. But I wasn't there, so I could easily be wrong.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Except the Romans did not use a fiat currency, it was a hard, commodity currency minted from precious metals and had its own intrinsic value.

I'll refer you to a Forbes article called "All Money Is Fiat Money." The last paragraph below expresses the basic truth that I was trying to get across in my original post:

"...while the government fiat matters, it is useless without the consent of the currency users."

Switching to a gold-backed currency regime does not mean switching away from fiat currency, it means switching to a fiat currency system where the money supply is linked to a commodity.

This is one of those things where our instincts fight our good sense. We want to believe things have intrinsic value, whereas value in a marketplace is determined by supply and demand, not anything intrinsic. It’s scary to think that the US dollar is backed by “nothing”, until you realize that any currency system is backed by “nothing”, or rather by the same thing, which is a common agreement to use the currency.

(* Actually, properly understood, no currencies are “fiat” currencies, since the word “fiat” refers to a government decree that makes money money, but in reality, while the government fiat matters, it is useless without the consent of the currency users. But insofar as we use the expression “fiat currency” to refer to currencies that have no “intrinsic value”, then all currencies are fiat currencies.)
All Money Is Fiat Money

originally posted by: chelsdh
I also think you should look past what the word English "render" means, and dig into the Hebrew and or Aramiac words that it was translated from. The KJV translators were amazing, but not perfect.

Did you miss my examination of the meaning of the word "render" from the Strong's Concordance?

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Profusion

I think Jesus knew that they were trying to trip him up and so he turned their trickery against them by his saying.

To give Caesar what Caesar was due would be to give Caesar nothing, especially if you owed him nothing.

That contradicts Romans 13:1-7 completely. How do you explain that?

Romans 13:1-7 NLT

1 Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. 2 So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. 3 For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. 4 The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. 5 So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience. 6 Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority.

a reply to: Profusion

While I wouldn't consider Roman currency to be a fiat system, I do understand what you mean.

My pastor calls it 'the weak controlling the strong'.
So many people are happily addicted to the US fiat/credit system that those with more independent minds are pigeonholed somewhere in with the rest of the crowd.

For this reason, Jesus also taught Christians to obey authority as it is a mere temporary formality...a sort of political correctness necessary to prevent the mass violence of revolution.

a reply to: Profusion

Still not the same. The Romans used actual precious metal, the specie had intrinsic value besides that of a currency. It was not a fiat currency.

a reply to: Profusion

That is only in accordance with just laws. If your government wants you to do something unjust, then you should not.

In the matter of Caesar, his taxation was understood to be unjust, and that was the issue: would they submit to Caesar before God. (Who would he have his disciples serve: Caesar or God?)

Again, I do not think they marveled because he wanted them to submit to unjust rule, but to how clever his saying was. If he was to have them submit to unjust rule, that would contradict basically everything in the Bible.

Yes, we must give ourselves to the unjust, but not if we are unjust in doing so. I must serve the unjust and just alike but I cannot sin for him by holding Caesar above God. (Which is what was at question.)

Do you understand? I cannot serve someone unjust if I am unjust in doing so. You have to separate the sinner and the sin. I can help a theft by giving him food and water but I cannot help him by going out and thieving with him. And that is what Caesar wanted. He wanted what was Gods.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Profusion

That is only in accordance with just laws. If your government wants you to do something unjust, then you should not.

What scriptures can you use to support that assertion?

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Profusion

While I wouldn't consider Roman currency to be a fiat system, I do understand what you mean.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Profusion

Still not the same. The Romans used actual precious metal, the specie had intrinsic value besides that of a currency. It was not a fiat currency.

I have the same answer for both of the above posts.

1. I was using the following definition for "fiat money":

Fiat Money. Money which a government declares shall be accepted as legal tender at its face value.

That definition is from a book called "Money And Investments" by Montgomery Rollins.

A government cannot create money without it being fiat money. Claiming that it's not fiat money because it has "intrinsic value" is a lie as is pointed out in the following article:

All Money Is Fiat Money

2. The following article (from Tulane University) proves beyond any doubt that Rome had a fiat currency by any definition just a few hundred years after Jesus:

In 64, Nero reduced the standard of the aureus to 45 to the Roman pound (7.20 grs.) and of the denarius to 96 to the Roman pound (3.30 grs.). He also lowered the denarius to 94.5% fine. Successive emperors lowered the fineness of the denarius; in 180 Commodus reduced its weight by one-eighth or 108 to the pound.

...


Severan emperors (193-235) steadily debased the denarius from a standard of 78.5% to 50% fine; in 212 Caracalla reduced the weight of the aureus from 45 to 50 to the Roman pound. They also coined aes from a bronze alloy with a heavy lead admixture and discontinued fractional denominations below the as.
www.tulane.edu...

a reply to: Profusion

All scripture? Doesn't all scripture basically say that we're meant to be just?

And so it should be obvious that what Paul wrote there was only meant to be followed if it was in accordance with being just.

Unless he is saying that people like the Nazi did well by followings orders? I mean, he must have if we are to follow unjust leadership as well, right? No, of course not. We are not to do what is unjust. Clearly. What are you even asking me? lol Be serious.

Edit: In that passage it should be clear that Paul is only referring to all governance [that is just].

What is at question there is whether or not we should obey man's laws (social order), and so it shouldn't have to be said that, if he wants you to be just by paying into society, then he must also be speaking to the larger effect of being just in general. Basically, if you are apart of a society, pay your dues and obey the laws where they do not compromise God's laws. Like jaywalking or paying the road tax, for example.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Profusion

All scripture? Doesn't all scripture basically say that we're meant to be just?

I'm not a Christian but the following looks like a good argument for the other side of the debate:

Question: "What does the Bible say about paying taxes?"

Answer: In Matthew 22:17-21, the Pharisees asked Jesus a question: "Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought Him a denarius, and He asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied. Then He said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." In full agreement, the Apostle Paul taught, "This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor" (Romans 13:6-7).

....

The most frequent objection to paying taxes is that the money is being misused by the government or even used for evil purposes by the government. That, however, is not our concern. When Jesus said, "Give to Caesar...," the Roman government was by no means a righteous government. When Paul instructed us to pay taxes, Nero, the most evil Roman emperor in history, was the head of the government. We are to pay our taxes even when the government is not God-honoring.
www.gotquestions.org...

a reply to: Profusion

Go ask GotQuestions if Christians should have honored China's one child policy in order to be in accordance with what Paul wrote about "submitting to governing authorities." - they will have to change their thinking quick.

Also, you should realize that you're mixing two different lessons, and neither of them are really about taxes, but authority. Jesus' lesson is about Caesar wanting to usurp God's authority and whether or not Jesus would openly speak against Caesar, and Paul's lesson is on whether or not societal order is to be abided by. What you should take from both lessons is that there is no authority which demands that you do unjust things - there is only God's authority and he only calls for you to be just. If it is just, do it, as it is from God. If it is unjust, don't do it, as it is not from God and it is not law - there is no law to be unjust.

a reply to: Profusion

The Emperor Constantine was responsible for putting Christianity together with the obvious help of his merry band of religious folk. He was a supposed 'convert himself probably because he saw religion as the only way of keeping his problematic empire together and one of his greatest problems was getting his taxes.

So obviously along with a lot of other things argued about at Nicea was what was acceptable that the acceptable Jesus taught. One of those things was going to be pay your taxes however it was worded.

People forget or simply don't know that part of Nicea's objective was to decide between a lot of different 'Christian' doctrines, one of which was Arianism which is food for a lot of thought. Arianism lost out and the nicene creed was forced upon everyone.

That is true what you say, but really the value of that gold and silver was stolen from other locations. Once a certain amound was banked, then the value was given. So in reality, the value is set by the ones who held the most gold. This was a way of creating poor and rich citizens. Before hand those differences where only apparent between king and rulers, they did much the same as the Romans but on a smaller scale. In Spanish we have a saying "that heros exist as long as the cowards allow them to". Remember, to know value one has to know what are the essentials. To be able to eat, have a home and to be free. Just like the birds and bees do. Are there dangers? yes there always are and always was.a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

a reply to: Profusion

You could have made your point simply by repeating that those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.

I wonder why I find myself suspecting your post is more about pushing the bible than anything else.

I don't have to give Caesar anything, I am American.

a reply to: Yazidi

so your government is Caesar

Jesus is a combo of the historical Yeshua and the dying sun god Mithras.

A nod to the Zoroastrians is the mention of the Magi. The doctrines borrowed by Christianity are mostly Zoroastrian.