[b]Matthew 22:[/b]21Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
This statement was made by Jesus, and interestingly, the account is carried by all the authors of the Gospels except John.  I have often wondered what the ramifications of this statement are?  Is it limited to finances as the entire context may suggest?  Or is that statement a statute of general application?  What obligations do we have as Christians to our country?  Are we to be a part of the Government?  Should we vote?  Should we run for offices, and if we can who amongts us can?  What examples do we have in the Bible with regards to our participation in Politics?   What should our relationship with the State be as an institution and as individuals?  Can we be loyal to one without compromising our relationship with the other?

Unfortunately, I do not think I can exhaust the endless possibilities that this statement offers in my introduction.  So, I expect as many sides to this issue as can come.  I am particularly interested in having my brother, TV01 on this forum.  My decision to post this topic is a direct result of his contribution on another thread.

Anyway, let the debate begin!

By the way, Moslems are also invited to give us the Qu'ranic view on this important matter of State and Religion.

Hi TayoD,

Apologies for the delay. I actually posted something earlier, but I've no idea what might have happened to it?

To set the ball rolling may I say this;

"All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient, all things are lawful, but not all edify".

Would I say point blank that a Christian cannot seek political office or be active politically?
No, I would'nt, but I would definitely say, "only if you can do it without compromising your faith and more than that, do it in a way that glorifies God", then by all means.

Truth is, I don't see it. He Himself said "My kingdom is not of this world". The Jews were anticipating a political/warrior messiah. That is, salvation throught the commomnly accepted worldly norms. No! no!! and thrice no!!! The whole message of the gospel is about entering the kingdom of God, not grabbing political power in this one (either through the ballot box, or by "holy wars" ~ the spiritual oxymoron of the 21st century!) and making it over for The Lords return. The current system lies under the sway of the wicked one. It's not meant for recreation or re-engineering (thats for individuals, who will then inherit the new kingdom of God/heaven).

I do believe we are to be subject to civil authorities (even tyrannical or despotic ones)and obey the law, in as much as the do not contravene the holy law (or royal commandment) given to us by the Lord.

A quick post to start. Lots more, but I'm keen to hear what others have to say. And TayoD sir, what sayest thou?

God bless

TayoD,

I think immeadiately one is struck by the idea of God's and Ceasar's things being two different things and having two different systems.

It seems to me that there is no voting in God's system.

So voting would be Ceasars and you can give it to Ceasar, if you like.

Since there is no voting in God's system, there are of course no elected officials in God's system.

So being an elected official, is part of Ceasars system also.

For the christian, being an elected official would be the same requirements as being a postman: be honest, don't steal, do a good job, pray in your closet, think about others.

All Christian obligations are only to God. Those would be God's not Ceasars.

Ceasar's system benefits from having Christians in it.

Christians do not benefit from being in Ceasars system.

I wouldn't want to disagree with you two (Drusilla and TV01), just for the sake of keeping this conversation going, but I want to point out one important fact that I think you both missed in your write-ups. Jesus wasn't offering us a suggestion when He made that statement, it was actually a command. To make matters more serious, He actually asked us to give unto Ceasar as much as we will give unto God. Our dedication to Ceasar must be total as much as our dedication to God is total. This is actually something that was difficult for me to swallow until God revealed to me from the scriptures that the secular Government is actually an extension of God's authority on earth, and you all know how much God frowns at violation of constituted authority.

Every human endeavour presents the Christian with the opportunity for compromise. My question is, what sets politics apart that many of us will not even touch it with a ten-foot pole? I am waiting for answers. If politics is that ungodly, why have some believers excelled in it as we se in the case of Daniel?

TV01, the only reason why Jesus didn't take up the Jew's offer is because the time wasn't right yet. What the Jews wanted on Jesus' first coming is what He has planned to do on His second coming. He is going to be both a Political and Spiritual Leader during the Millenium. This is one reason why a lot of Jews do not believe in Jesus. They expected their Messaiah to be a mighty warrior who will deliver them from oppression and this He will do when He comes back. The Jews were blinded to the fact that He was to come first as a sheep before He will return as the Lion.

Drusilla, your statement: "Christians do not benefit from being in Ceasars system." seems very noble, but I can't disagree more. As Christians we benefit from good governance which a righteous man is sure to bring. Are you telling me that Christians have been immune from the collective suffering that our Politicians have subjected us to over the years in Nigeria? Do we buy food from a different market and do we get paid on a different salary scale than other unbelievers in Nigeria? I don't think so, and I believe you know that too. Maybe I misunderstand what you are trying to say, but from my response, I'm sure you know your argument does not hold water.

Your analysis of voting and otherwise within the the two systems are well noted and accepted, but are we not to take advantage of each for our good. In God's system, we know we only have to obey and believe God for understanding as we do His bidding, but in Ceasar's system, we are to use our influence to make positive changes within the polity. The case of Mordecai readily comes to mind here. His influence in government is what saved an entire nation from destruction. That is one other way the righteous are to make a differnce in government.

Hi TayoD,

TayoD:

I wouldn't want to disagree with you two (Drusilla and TV01), just for the sake of keeping this conversation going, but I want to point out one important fact that I think you both missed in your write-ups. Jesus wasn't offering us a suggestion when He made that statement, it was actually a command. To make matters more serious, He actually asked us to give unto Caesar as much as we will give unto God. Our dedication to Caesar must be total as much as our dedication to God is total. This is actually something that was difficult for me to swallow until God revealed to me from the scriptures that the secular Government is actually an extension of God's authority on earth, and you all know how much God frowns at violation of constituted authority.

I had to read (and re-read) the above statement a couple of times  .

Particularly this bit;

TayoD:

Jesus wasn't offering us a suggestion when He made that statement, it was actually a command. To make matters more serious, He actually asked us to give unto Caesar as much as we will give unto God. Our dedication to Caesar must be total as much as our dedication to God is total.

My disagreement with you on this point is unequivocal.

Matthew 22:21
They said to Him, "Caesar's." And He said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
Mark 12:17 
And Jesus answered and 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.
Luke 20:25
And He said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

For completeness, I've copied your previously referenced scripture and the parallel ones.
Pray tell, where does this demand equal dedication to Caesar (and the things of) or God (and the things of).
It quite clearly demands we render to Caesar the things that are his.

I know we have points of doctrinal difference, and to be honest, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing or even a problem. It's a walk, it's growth, it's a maturing. We are all, by the grace of God growing into The Head.
But on this one I think we are poles apart.

For starters, your reading of this contradicts other passages of scripture.
How about not being able to serve two masters for a start?
Have you considered the scale of the conflict of interest that equal devotion to state and God would create for any devout Christian believer?

We are to be "subject" to authorities.
That is obedient to the laws of the land, not agitators against civil government (even if despotic or tyrannical) or even where there is a culture of civil disobedience (i.e strikes, protest marches etc. etc are not for Christians). But not in any way that compromises our adhering to the clear leading of scripture.

The answer the Lord gave was in response to a question specifically about taxation.
Whilst I agree it can be applied more broadly (say voting etc), I do not see how it can be construed to mean dedication or devotion to the state.

I'd be interested to know how one applies this practically (which is where many of the unsound doctrines being preached these days hit the rocks).

A quick aside at this point:
The narrative speaks specifically to rendering taxes to Caesar, as they are his due.
Please explain why so many churches (in countries where it is provided for) take advantage of tax breaks or reclaims on tithes or offerings from members. Do Christians not use the infrastructure and facilities provided for by taxes just like every other law abiding citizen? It's particularly puzzling when these breaks make participating churches legally subject to the state. My stance is that taking Caesar denarius is to "unequally yoke" the church to the state.

So to this point at least, I don't think either Drusilla or myself where wrong, quite the reverse.

Allow me to briefly comment about Daniel.

1. He was not a politician, he was commandeered into service. He was a servant.
2. He served with a Christian conscience, diligently and faithfully.
3. He did not allow his service to compromise his devotion to God.
4. It was the refusal to obey a state ordinance that led him to being cast to the lions.

(please note, I would apply this equally to a civil servant or a career politician).

I'll stop for now so we don't digress or tackle too many points at once.

I'm interested to hear you expound further.

God bless

Drusilla, your statement: "Christians do not benefit from being in Ceasars system." seems very noble, but I can't disagree more. As Christians we benefit from good governance which a righteous man is sure to bring. Are you telling me that Christians have been immune from the collective suffering that our Politicians have subjected us to over the years in Nigeria? Do we buy food from a different market and do we get paid on a different salary scale than other unbelievers in Nigeria? I don't think so, and I believe you know that too. Maybe I misunderstand what you are trying to say, but from my response, I'm sure you know your argument does not hold water.

TayoD,

I throughly understand your point. What your talking about is something different from me.

The bible allows for a Christian revolution to be run at the level of the state. God in facts says: All ye nations come to me. I will heal your land. (pp)

It would do Nigerians well to devote themselves to God's principals on a state wide level. Meaning that we act in ways that serve the stranger, the fatherless, the widow -- in otherwords act right towards the poor.

Once a nation seeks God's righteousness towards the poor, oppressed and downtrodden. Which is what the bible is overwhelmingly about. Then God adds all of those other things they need to it.

I am not surprised when I hear that Ghana seems to keep the streets clean, the lights on and seems to be a beautiful country any American could easily live in without feeling the loss of creature comforts.

Because I also hear how the Vice-President is asking the whole nation to pray to Jesus Christ, and the bible is the biggest selling book in Ghana. I think that is why Ghana does well.

Jerry Rawlings did not consider himself such a big man, that he could not get down with the people and return to the farms and teach them how to systematically farm.We have films of him on his hands and knees putting a seed in, why the people he is teaching stand nearby watching. And he was the president of the country.

That is the humbleness that God requires. When you are devoted to the least of them, then God will give you all of those other things you desire.

Similarily in south africa, it is the same thing. Christian African students who began school boycott, that Mandela would lead, which led to the sowetto massacre, Mandela's imprisonment, which led to the freedom of their country.

One of the first books I read about South Africa, was a book called "Why Lord?" from a christian in exile for fighting for the end of apartied.

God does help nations who seek His righteousness and now South African Christians have more than they could have ever dreamed of in South Africa.

God answers prayers for nations and does want Christians to turn their problems as a nation over to him.

However, what I was talking about is something different.

You can not take Ceasar's things and improve someone's christian walk.
No devotion to state will raise your place in heaven.
Being patriotic does not make you a less sinful christian.

I think you can understand that.

TayoD

Reading your post, i wonder how that scripture you quote applies to politics! honestly, because, from what i get, you're trying to say that we should be entangled with civilian affairs in the name of the gospel, which, to me o! is totally wrong! in that scripture Jesus wasn't commanding nothing, he wasn't even talking about mixing church and politics, he was talking about following the right order of a thing! it's like saying "obey the law of the land," and "obey God." Controversial as that may seem, we know we're not of this world, though we live here! God's already told us not to love the affections of this world (1 John 2:15-16), as Christians in this world, it's our duty to pray for those in authority over us! which includes our pastors, presidents, senators and bla bla bla!

Maybe you will say that it will take a righteous man to bring things to order in a country like ours, cuz i believe this thread was started because of Chris Okotie and his beed to run for office. I'm not saying a righteous man shouldn't go for office, but if he's not going to waver in his faith--then that's fine. You talked about Daniel, he didn't run for office, it was his faith and wisdom that got him there, and we know he didn't waver! Joseph's also another man, he got there by faith and wisdom! David, got there by faith in God. None of these men ran for office, nor desired the position of office, God exalted them there! God never told them to run for anything.

I'm of the opinion that if God wants to raise a politician, He's more than capable of doing just that! He knows that righteousness exalts a nation, and we are the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus--we are the ones that exalt the nation, we are the ones who change things in the arena of the spirit. We are God's soldiers, we don't dabble with civilian matters (2 Tim 2:4).

As to the question of who can run for office, there's no one in my bible that i saw (maybe i've not seen it yet) who ran for office! or who rigged an election! they were elected by God. If we observe the pattern, they didn't get there easily. It was faith and wisdom that got them into office, not man's wisdom or big English! if any righteous man gets into office, i believe it will follow the same pattern! he won't have to run for office! In a post somewhere else, you put an extract from "a man of God," whom i have never seen demonstrate anything of the spirit! now i'm not talking about healing the sick here! i'm talking about the demonstration of the spirit! Paul said he chose not to know anything save Jesus Christ, nor did he come with enticing words of man's wisdom--so, on that basis, i think your candidate is disqualified, in my book!

@dearzi,

because i believe this thread was started because of Chris Okotie and his beed to run for office

I will appreciate if you do not second-guess my intentions.  If I choose not to believe the best of you, I could accuse you of calling me dubious and conceited, but I wont go that route.   It seems to me you have a problem with accepting things that people say.  Could it be that you place that much little value on words as you seem to believe others do?  How would you like me to relate with you with sceptism, believing you mean something else when you are telling me another?   Maybe you do not understand that you are passing such a message across, but that is exactly what I am getting from your contribution.  If you care to read my intro, I gave the reason why I started the thread and the person involved never contributed to the Chris Okotie discussion, and he has been here to contribute his 2 cents.  So, while I can't help your reviling of that Man of God, I can at least defend my stancce which I believe is biblically based, and this I shall do in parts.

To start, I think you should define for us, what the Bible means by "civilian affairs". If I understand what you are driving at, you seem to equate "civilian afairs" to politics, or better still democracy. Please correct me if I'm wrong. While you are on that quest, please try and tell us also how 1 John 2:15-16 which you quoted relates to politics. What is the "world" as described within that scripture? And if I may throw this in, why does the Bible say for God so loved the world, and yet we are not to love the world? Doesn't that make you think that we need to balance scripture with scripture before we make conclusions?

I never insinuated that Jesus encouraged mixing church and politics together. Do you understand what I wrote at all? If anything, I tried to bring a balance to that quote by saying that the general context probably suggests that Jesus could as well be refering only to financial matters.

So now, Jesus no longer issues "commands' but only suggestions!!! Your lame effort to attach your meaning to that verse is evidenced by saying Jesus was talking about order. If that is so, why would he mention Ceasar ahead of God? So are we to give first to Ceasar before we think about God? You need to think deeper about the implications of your statements before you make them.

I hope to respond to your other posts subsequently, but in the mean time, please try and use the scriptures "scripturally". I have told you this several times but it seems your emotions and prejudice just takes the better of you.

And by the way, you know I love you, so be careful with me when responding as i can't handle kayuta rockets like Isreal is doing with Hezbollah.

TayoD

I love you too, but none the less, i've said all i'll say on this issue. While you're making yourself happy by speaking grammer, i will make myself happy, by ignoring you completely. You asked for input, i gave mine. Your response, as usual, doesn't suprise me--it's expected!
I've never denied being a skeptic--never! but only on certain issues! i don't see anything wrong with questioning ones motives! as i can remember, i ran into this post through the Okotie issue, and that's why i lumped them together! i use the scriptures as i see them, i don't have to use them to suit you. Like i've told you before, nothing gives you the authority to tell me how to apply a scripture! use it as you seem it fit, and i'll use it as i seem it fit! and dude! don't try to get cute with me, by bringing in Israel and Hezbollah!

By the way, i don't revile nobody! to each his own!

@dearzi,

Being a sceptic of an idea is alright, but being a sceptic of a statement made by a person is implying the person is lying. I hope you will try to make that dinstiction subsequently.

Anyone can use the scripture as they see it, but we are instructed to rightly divide the Word, and for your references to be considered by me, it must have been rightly divided, or else, you are just giving me your opinion. In these days where many arrogate to themselves divine honors by calling themselves prophets, teachers etc, everyone must be able and trained to read and understand the scriptures by themselves. The alternative is to have someone push their lop-sided theology down your throat and keep you wallowing in dillusion.

Right now, I do not even think I should reply some of your posts as the scriptures you based your arguments on are totally irrelevant to the points you made. However, I think a few of them needs to be addressed.

I'm not saying a righteous man shouldn't go for office, but if he's not going to waver in his faith--then that's fine.

So how do you pre-determine who will not waiver in his faith? And tell me, don't we all waiver and compromise our faith on a daily basis irrespective of our role in the society? Strength of character is required of us all as Christians, and that character if well developed, will hold up whether you find yourself in politics or in banking.

I'm of the opinion that if God wants to raise a politician, He's more than capable of doing just that! He knows that righteousness exalts a nation, and we are the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus--we are the ones that exalt the nation, we are the ones who change things in the arena of the spirit.

As to the question of who can run for office, there's no one in my bible that i saw (maybe i've not seen it yet) who ran for office! or who rigged an election! they were elected by God.[/

It is interesting how we often spiritualise things and fail to understand that for every spiritual action, their must be a corresponding physical action to cause that which has being effected in the spirit to manifest in the flesh. While indeed God can put his man in office, how do you expect Him to do that in a democratic setting? As we all agree that it is the handiwork of God for Obasanjo to have become our President right from Prison, do you think he would have ascended into that office without running and campaigning for that position? If you are going to operate in a political office governed by the constitution, then you must follow the rules of that constitution and believe God to bring His influence to bear on the outcome. Even ministerial nominees are still subject to the vote within the legislature to be appointed to serve.
God is a God of order, and just has He commanded us to be subject to the laws of our land, He is also bound by the same laws. He leads by example you know.

Acts 6: 3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. 4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. 5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: 6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.
The above scripture is just to show you how God uses democracy to get His will done. The people chose those they wanted to adminster over them, and notice that the qualification required was wisdom and being filled with the Holy Spirit. God left the people to use their discernment to pick the individuals of their choice and as the book of Proverbs 16:33 says: The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD. In this way, God has His man in charge without violating the free will of the people.

@ Tayod

I wouldn't want to disagree with you two (Drusilla and TV01), just for the sake of keeping this conversation going, but I want to point out one important fact that I think you both missed in your write-ups. Jesus wasn't offering us a suggestion when He made that statement, it was actually a command. To make matters more serious, He actually asked us to give unto Ceasar as much as we will give unto God. Our dedication to Ceasar must be total as much as our dedication to God is total. This is actually something that was difficult for me to swallow until God revealed to me from the scriptures that the secular Government is actually an extension of God's authority on earth, and you all know how much God frowns at violation of constituted authority.

I agree with you on this point. Romans 13 gives credence to what you are saying.

I am of the opinion that Jesus wanted to leave in the minds of the disciples the matter of showing respect even to a governing power that had no respect for other beliefs. In other words intolerance should be met with love and respect, and humilty, and not with resistance.

I am also seeing the bigger lesson that the real kingdom is to come soon, so don't worry about how powerful this present kingdom appears to be, and especially how subdued the disciples felt under Roman sway. They were encouraged to become submissive which will go a far way in expanding the work of ministry later on.

@ Tayod

I will appreciate if you do not second-guess my intentions. If I choose not to believe the best of you, I could accuse you of calling me dubious and conceited, but I wont go that route. It seems to me you have a problem with accepting things that people say. Could it be that you place that much little value on words as you seem to believe others do? How would you like me to relate with you with sceptism, believing you mean something else when you are telling me another? Maybe you do not understand that you are passing such a message across, but that is exactly what I am getting from your contribution. If you care to read my intro, I gave the reason why I started the thread and the person involved never contributed to the Chris Okotie discussion, and he has been here to contribute his 2 cents. So, while I can't help your reviling of that Man of God, I can at least defend my stancce which I believe is biblically based, and this I shall do in parts.

To start, I think you should define for us, what the Bible means by "civilian affairs". If I understand what you are driving at, you seem to equate "civilian afairs" to politics, or better still democracy. Please correct me if I'm wrong. While you are on that quest, please try and tell us also how 1 John 2:15-16 which you quoted relates to politics. What is the "world" as described within that scripture? And if I may throw this in, why does the Bible say for God so loved the world, and yet we are not to love the world? Doesn't that make you think that we need to balance scripture with scripture before we make conclusions?

I never insinuated that Jesus encouraged mixing church and politics together. Do you understand what I wrote at all? If anything, I tried to bring a balance to that quote by saying that the general context probably suggests that Jesus could as well be refering only to financial matters.

So now, Jesus no longer issues "commands' but only suggestions!!! Your lame effort to attach your meaning to that verse is evidenced by saying Jesus was talking about order. If that is so, why would he mention Ceasar ahead of God? So are we to give first to Ceasar before we think about God? You need to think deeper about the implications of your statements before you make them.

I hope to respond to your other posts subsequently, but in the mean time, please try and use the scriptures "scripturally". I have told you this several times but it seems your emotions and prejudice just takes the better of you.

And by the way, you know I love you, so be careful with me when responding as i can't handle kayuta rockets like Isreal is doing with Hezbollah.

Well said my friend!

My goodly brother might just be misunderstanding you from the get-go!

As I said before I agree with you 1000%. Christ knew that not everything about Caesar's kingdom was evil. Kings, emperors, were no exception to the plan of salvation. He came to die for all, and that is why "God so loved the world, "

If we had more practising christians in our parliaments our countries would be far better. Joseph, Daniel served dynasties as Prime Ministers that were at large against God's rule. It witnessed some of those kings and emperors acknowledging the God of heaven.

The only problem I have with the state is when it gets too eager to regulate one's conscience. As long as it stays clear of that I find no problem following the command of Jesus to render what is due to the state.

TayoD,

How are you? I trust all is well.
You seemed very keen to initiate this discussion and now you have become somewhat scarce?
Does that mean you have realised the unsustainability of you (previous) postion?

There apppear to be a few people arguing for a sort of dual citizenship. no way Jose!
I don't believe the plain reading of scripture in anyway supports this.

God bless

TV01,

I have been somewhat busy recently, and I was hoping to get more input from people. I didn't initiate this topic just to get my views across but to get an understanding of other's viewpoint. That is a good way to learn.

I will definitely make an input once I see it necessary.

How did you come about your opinion that I shifted position? I don't think anything in my previous posts suggests that at all. And by the way, what is my position?

Hi TayoD,

TayoD:

How did you come about your opinion that I shifted position?

Your silence.
You stated a position (see below). Some posters (myself included) responded to the contrary, and then you kind of went quiet. So I thought maybe you had shifted position. Apologies if I mis-read you.

TayoD:

And by the way, what is my position?

You earlier wrote this;

TayoD:

Jesus wasn't offering us a suggestion when He made that statement, it was actually a command. To make matters more serious, He actually asked us to give unto Ceasar as much as we will give unto God. Our dedication to Ceasar must be total as much as our dedication to God is total.

Which I consider at best to be sorely misguided and at worst? well let's not go there.
The point is do you still maintain this stance?

God bless

Hi TV01,

I made my stand known to dearzi when she implied that the statement was only talking about order. I quickly pointed out that if it was order, then why would Jesus mention Ceasar ahead of God? The order when it comes to worship must be God first before any other person.

So if Jesus wasn't trying to show an order in the statement, then He must be doing some comparisons. He said "give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, and give unto God that which is God's". My understanding of the english language suggests to me that he wants us to give to each one what is required of us. I know God requires nothing less than our all, and I believe Ceasar also requires the same.

So my poser has always been this: Can you give to both without jeopardising your allegiance to one over the other? What exactly are we to give unto Ceasar?

These are issues I wanted us to tackle here and I dare not say I have all the answers.

bump....