When do we stop rendering unto Caesar continued

The Mighty Gerbil

Tribe of Judah TF 2 Chapter Leader & CGA Admin
Staff member
I think people misconstrued the point of my post in the previous thread because it really wasn't about slavery or torture. Whether you believe in either can be considered a different discussion but as examples they go to the heart of the original thread.

For a completely, totally, theoretical, example only. Did you get that? I am only using the below as an example. I am not referencing something that is happening in my life, though there is the unrelated possibility my Father, Bird of Pray on Steam, might be looking for help, this is written here only as an example.

The example Let's ask would you follow a law that resulted in your Mother not being able to get the medication she needed to prevent going blind or dying on a legal technicality? Keep in mind intent of the law was to do the opposite but this is the result. Nor are you stealing or hurting anyone it is purely a legal technicality.

Again using torture. Laws against torture were intended to protect people but by flatly forbidding it you theoretically endanger more lives. Let me put it this way...

1. A terrorist has a detonator in his hand so you beat him up to make him let go.
This man is hailed as a hero.

2. A terrorist has planted a bomb that is going to go off at noon so you beat him up to make him tell you where it is at.
This man committed torture and is a criminal.

The same men, the same threat, the same intent, the same certainty of guilt, the same amount of force and the same result. Yet because our society is so brainwashed one is a hero and the other is a criminal. Would you do number two? Remember the guilt is certain I'm not talking about rogue cops. Bear in mind I am well aware of the abuses of torture and slavery. I am not making any statement about bringing them back nor wish to debate them in this thread.

They'll condemn something completely because the law or "the people" say so without giving thought to the moral intent of the law. It's like saying...

All food is bad, it's not, gluttony is.
or
Killing is bad, it's not, murder is. (and I did not specifically say killing people you can kill plants)

A just law that deviates from it's intent is no longer just. That's why I stated the thing about coppa in the last thread. A law intended to protect children is hurting them. Likewise the original other thread included a law intended to prevent abuses that is now in fact hurting people. It was asking at what point do you continue to follow that law over what is morally right? Bear in mind I am willing to submit myself to the suffering and yoke of an unjust ruler but should we tolerate that ruler doing it to others? Should we tolerate it if it goes against the Bible?
 
Last edited:
Gerbil, are you asking, What does God say about...you follow[ing] a law that resulted in your Mother not being able to get the medication she needed to prevent going blind or dying on a legal technicality?

Or, from your title for this thread, are you asking, What does God say about...when do we stop rendering unto Caesar...?

I'm not sure what your terrorist example has to do with either of those questions, but either question will be interesting to explore.

Give us a focus here. I know this is close to home for you, but let us know which you want this thread to be about.

I'll remind everyone - the question is: What Does God Say About...

Make sure you include what God says in any response.
 
I resent a third of my paycheck being taken, part of it going to a fund which I will never see because it is going bankrupt, but I have to contribute to it. Or the fact the government breaks the law all the time concerning the military (the US should not have a large standing army, the national guard should never go overseas, etc...). Were the people who resisted the Nazis in Europe disobeying God because the Nazis ruled their country at the time? Why do drug dealers (or people who possess enough to be considered them) go to prison longer than sex offenders? How much is "Caesars"?
 
Gerbil, are you asking, What does God say about...you follow[ing] a law that resulted in your Mother not being able to get the medication she needed to prevent going blind or dying on a legal technicality?
Yes I am asking that as an example of the issue. You could also ask the general question of what does God say about how far do you follow man's law against what is morally right by God. Clearly God's law is to be taken over man's. Otherwise in theory a law could be made negating the Bible in it's entirety, not to mention the Bible is from God, duh, but where is the line drawn?

I'm not sure what your terrorist example has to do with either of those questions, but either question will be interesting to explore.

The terrorist example is just another question asking how far should we follow man's law before disobeying it. Torture is illegal. Should have it been done in that case etc. ?

I'd guess I should also mention the historical context of render unto Cesar. If I get this wrong or to curt please correct me XD. At the time of Christ the Jews wanted and awaited a savior who would come and physically fight and remove the Romans. They suffered under the taxes of the Romans. So the Pharisees tried to get Jesus to say something rebellious against the Roman taxes so they could put the whammy on him by law, not that they needed the excuse later. So "render unto Cesar" could be taken a lot of ways. Does obeying apply to paying Caesar's tax only. Does it cover all unjust taxes? Does it mean one should obey all unjust laws the Bible does not cover? BUT AT THE SAME TIME I assume the money changers were operating legally (I mean everyone knew they were there so how could they not?) so was it illegal for Jesus to whip the money changers? Overt taxation could have the same effect as the money changers. Christ said in effect to obey one and whipped the other. So is it a question of the amount of harm something is causing? At what point do unjust laws call for disobedience to them?

I believe anything that furthers the will of God is just because God's will is always just. Whether obeying man's law and suffering to show the mercy of Christ or disobeying to show the righteousness but when does it flip? Clearly there is a determining limit.

Sorry if I am all over the place Abba. I don't know if it's any clearer now. Not that I would mind a long thread that a lot of people would look at.
 
Last edited:
Well thank you. I've wondered how "Render unto Cesaer" related to "Follow unjust or immoral laws".

Obviously there is a line between "Obey them which have the rule over you" (even unjust rulers) and disobeying because it goes against God and the Bible. We see that in Daniel very clearly and you use the money changers in the temple as an example as well. Unfortunately, I think most people use personal morality to draw that line instead of the Bible or the Holy Spirit (your example of the hero vs torture shows that).

Where does that line exist in the Bible? I'm not really sure.

As I stated in the closed thread, I have a hard time fitting together Christ's clear commandment to obey those which have the rule over you with the clear examples of disobedience. I've always stayed on the side of obeying and let God take care of the rest. It's not always been comfortable but He's always taken care of me and I find looking back a lot of personal and spiritual growth. But I'd love to see where others define the line at and what their opinion is on it.

(Really good sermon on submission but fairly unrelated - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzc9ig9QXwY )
 
Does man's law go against God's law?

No: Follow man's law.
Yes: Don't follow it.

As Christians it really is that simple.

Are the laws just? Probably not. However, we are not the judge. By us choosing to disobey the law, because we do not agree with it, we are making ourselves the judges.

I understand that what I just said is very broad, however in the end, that is what it comes down to. We follow God's law first, man's law second. It doesn't matter if we agree with the law or not, we follow it. However, if you don't like the laws, get up, get out, and do something about it. Get the laws changed.
 
Last edited:
Caesar wasn't a just ruler by any stretch of the imagination. Yet Christ did not disregard our responsibility to this ruler and authority.

"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." Romans 13:1
 
Caesar wasn't a just ruler by any stretch of the imagination. Yet Christ did not disregard our responsibility to this ruler and authority.

"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." Romans 13:1

Which brings us full circle. Obviously the 3 Hebrew men were disobeying the ruler established and placed over them by God and yet Jesus still walked in the fires with them.

When are we obligated to ignore the rulers (and their rules) that God has ordained and placed over us and when do we just submit? How do we know it's Gods will and not our own to disobey?
 
Which brings us full circle. Obviously the 3 Hebrew men were disobeying the ruler established and placed over them by God and yet Jesus still walked in the fires with them.

I don't quiet understand how you get to your point. What does Romans 13:1 have to do with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego?

Of all possible examples I don't think there is a more clear cut case for following God's law over mans. There is no question as to why they would do what they did.

When are we obligated to ignore the rulers (and their rules) that God has ordained and placed over us and when do we just submit? How do we know it's Gods will and not our own to disobey?

When what they command goes against what the Bible says.
 
To me, Romans 13:1-7 tells us that we are to obey the rulers over us because God has placed them there. If we fail to obey them we risk damnation because God has ordained them. We should only fear them if we are doing evil.
God placed the three Hebrew men under that ruler. God placed that ruler where he was. Yet they chose to disobey him. They were willing to receive the punishment for their disobedience, even death but that goes against what Romans 13 teaches.
 
To me, Romans 13:1-7 tells us that we are to obey the rulers over us because God has placed them there. If we fail to obey them we risk damnation because God has ordained them. We should only fear them if we are doing evil.
God placed the three Hebrew men under that ruler. God placed that ruler where he was. Yet they chose to disobey him. They were willing to receive the punishment for their disobedience, even death but that goes against what Romans 13 teaches.
"If we fail to obey them we risk damnation..." this is legalism. Obeying or not obeying any earthly authority is not going to bring salvation or damnation. Only God's grace can bring salvation and only ignoring it and rejecting Jesus can bring damnation.
 
To be honest, I'm missing the part where Jesus said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's until he disagrees with me."

He said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's."

Yes, the early church ran afoul of the law of Caesar when they refused to give Caesar their worship, but that worship was God's (and only his.)
 
"If we fail to obey them we risk damnation..." this is legalism. Obeying or not obeying any earthly authority is not going to bring salvation or damnation. Only God's grace can bring salvation and only ignoring it and rejecting Jesus can bring damnation.

In this context think of damnation as being death. Not eternal lake of fire damnation and it makes more sense.
 
I should probably indicate the point of dismay expressed by myself and the original poster. No one will make a committal to breaking any law in any circumstance save explicitly stated things, like renouncing Christ. Perhaps because this started with a specific personal circumstance in another thread it muddled the subsequent larger matter. For that I apologize and one should forget that circumstance for a moment. I'm not looking for approval or "I would do that too in your circumstance Gerbil" in any of this. Rather I've been giving examples of things I have thought on before. Believing that if I followed man's laws in those circumstances I'd go against God's will.

As always while we must look for Biblical standings on issues you will find more implicits than explicits. You will have to pray and ask God on many things. Similar to the Jew in the good Samaritan I believe inaction is wrong. If a law was made to stop you from helping the victim in that parable would it have changed what should have been done? I cannot see Christ abandoning that man in the parable for an Earthly law. Do we stop loving our neighbor by physically helping him when man's law says to let him die? The question was asked "What is the greatest commandment?" The second of all commandments was to love thy neighbor as yourself. All law hangs on it and the first therefore any commandment to obey earthly governments must rank lower. (Ponders: Perhaps love is the determining factor for when to break man's laws).

To everyone's credit they have said God's law over man's law but no one will make a specific committal, a definitive statement and that is the point of dismay.

Perhaps you disagree with the examples I've given. That's fine it's not about arguing them as I've already stated, make your own, in fact I'd prefer it so you could be certain of them. I tried to give ones in abstract countries with slavery. I gave another one in the closed forums set in China which was "In China a secular Chinese woman is fleeing a forced abortion and asks to be hid. Do you hide her and break the law or turn away?

Use a foreign, fictitious or abstract country if you wish. I don't see how there could be legal repercussions if you do. The worse you'll get is people might disagree with you. I am not trying to trick anyone but provide realistic circumstances that...

1. Have no doubt of right and wrong. They are about innocent people suffering and dying unjustly and/or people of certain guilt.
2. Have no alternate legal means out. You either break the law or someone else gets hurt.
3. That don't deal with issues directly addressed in the Bible. It's not about denouncing God etc.
4. Aren't based on personal gain (though I guess my circumstance would be so again omit it).

Still no one will say "I would break that law then". It's important because we are always being pulled to conforming to the world. We cannot prepare for all circumstances but I routinely ask myself would I do this, is it right by God, so I am ready to make the choice if and when I am tested. Perhaps you fear the Peter experience. Similar to denying Christ after saying he wouldn't but if you can't even make the statement...

Someone please state plainly I will break man's law in a realistic, specific, circumstance. I will not attack you. State you specifically don't want to be debated on it and I am sure people will respect you here. Only make a definitive statement already.

Perhaps this is beyond the scope of a "What does God say" question but it's where I was told to come.
 
Last edited:
Such a wide array of possible situations to choose from. . .it almost make it impossible to select one or two to list. For your China example (although my understanding is that they just fine families that have more than one child), I would definitely assist the woman since I see abortion as [government-sanctioned] murder. I think Jesus gave a pretty clear example when he flouted the "law" of the pharisees. He would then explain how they were ignoring the important stuff and emphasizing the unimportant (Matthew 23:23-24).

I think it could be helpful to look at it from the other direction. We should follow God's law all the time. And when it coincides with man's law there is no problem (and the people rejoice - Proverbs 29:2), but when they conflict we should continue to follow God's law.
 
One of the reasons I got involved in this conversation is because I can see where the Bible clearly teaches obedience to man's laws and the rulers that make them but also gives clear examples where it is necessary to not obey man's law and the rulers that make them. It's a conundrum I'm still looking to resolve.

Personally, I can't give you an example where I would definitely break the law or the rules of those placed over me. Part of it is the Peter Principle (if you say you definately won't do something then the Lord will put you in a position to have to do it) and part of it is the Job Question (How would I react if I was the one in Job's position? - Don't know because I'm not as strong as Job was spiritually).

I'm not strong enough spiritually to be placed in a position where I have to choose between obeying God's commandments or Man's law so God has never placed me there without giving me an out. It may be that spiritual strenght gives me the ability to see the out.

I wish I had a better answer for you. I've never had to actually make such a decision and the situations I've faced that might have required it were taken care of by God before it got to the point of decision.
 
Galatians 5:22-23 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law."

Matthew 12:1-8 "At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn: and his disciples were an hungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did when he was an hungered, and they that were with him: How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath and are blameless? But I say unto you, that in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day."

It may be a matter of interpretation, but I take from these that:

1) It is always Christ-like to act in compassion for other human beings.
2) It can be Christ-like to stand against authorities who place higher value on the legalism of an issue than the care of a fellow human being.

Consequences may have to be accepted for disobedience merited by higher principles -- that's part of having to bear our share of the cross in this fallen world -- but I don't think you'll ever go wrong with God by earnestly trying to care for other people.
 
Here's my answer:

In context of "rendering unto Caesar," Christ says give to Caesar what is Caesar's and God what is God's. I don't think it's a huge stretch to say that God is more important than Caesar (or Harper -- for Americans, Obama) in this case.

I would circumvent the law of Harper ONLY when it requires me to give something to Harper that is God's, or when it takes something that is God's and makes it Harper's.

By which I mean my worship. I also mean my family. If the government moved to take my family, I would pray and act.

My job is largely a vehicle by which God provides for me. I wouldn't act if the government took that; God's provision isn't something the government can touch.

I'd have to think long and hard about welfare. Is that the government taking my provision over from God? I'm not sure.
 
Back
Top