“Render Unto Caesar What Is Caesar’s, and to God What Is God’s”
Someone emailed and asked me to discuss the famous “render unto Caesar” story. So I’ll quote it in full (from Matthew 22), but I’m going to follow with what comes after, to put it in context:
Paying Taxes to Caesar
15 Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his words. 16 And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances.[b] 17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius.[c] 20 And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” 21 They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” 22 When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away.
Sadducees Ask About the Resurrection
23 The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question, 24 saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother. 26 So too the second and third, down to the seventh. 27 After them all, the woman died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her.”
29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” 33 And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching.
So the first thing to realize, is that the question about taxation was an attempt to trap Jesus. And it was a good strategy, because apparently no matter what He answered, they would have him. Remember that the Jews were suffering under the occupation of the Roman army, paying tribute to the distant Caesar. They longed for the Messiah to appear, as the prophets had promised. They thought that their king would rise up from the line of David and deliver them from their enemies.
So in that context, the Pharisees in public ask Jesus, should we Jews be paying taxes to Caesar? Now what could He do?
(1) He could say no. But then the Pharisees would be sure the Romans heard about that, and they would get rid of him as a rabble rouser.
(2) He could say yes. But then the hopeful Jews would have stopped speculating that maybe this healer was the Messiah.
(3) He could hem and haw and not answer. Then the crowds would realize he was afraid and his support would also dissolve.
Now that you realize the situation and how the Pharisees would have thought they had Him no matter what, go re-read what actually happened. It is one of the coolest little stories in literature.
Notice that it’s crucial for the “effect” that Jesus didn’t say the punchline first. He had to disarm everyone, suck them in (as it were), by telling them to pull out a coin and asking about it. This is absolutely masterful. It’s like a magician misdirecting the audience, or a comic professionally pacing the timing of his grand finale joke before saying goodnight.
What’s so astounding about his actual answer is that, simultaneously:
(A) He’s speaking a tautology that nobody could possibly doubt, and yet,
(B) It seems as if He’s giving them a very specific answer to their question.
I’m not saying this as a joke: Jesus’ answer here, in addition to all its other attributes, might be an example of a true synthetic a priori proposition.
Beyond all of that, His answer invites you to explore yourself, your worldview, your value system. The devout Jew could have paid taxes to Caesar because those tokens of secular commerce had nothing to do with the kingdom of God. (This is probably what most people think He was saying.)
However, He also could have been saying that God owns everything, and that the servant of God does not serve two masters. If a devout Jew thought that the tax money were being used for purposes contrary to God’s instructions, then he could have in good conscience disobeyed participation in an evil system. (After all, later on Christians would be fed to lions because they refused to pay allegiance to Caesar.)
The Primary Determinants of Your Child’s Weight
“They just grow up so fast…” said one of the parents as we watched the graduation ceremony.
People talk like this a lot, but there’s really no mystery about the size of your child, once we specify the units (such as pounds). School lunch policy drives the growth in class calorie consumption, and the growth in class calorie consumption (divided by the number of kids per class) is by far the most important determinant of child weight gain. (The other determinant is the ratio of child weight gain to total class calorie consumption.)
I mean, once you spell it out like that, it’s all crystal clear why the kids are growing at the rate they are.
For more clarifications like this, check out EconLog.
Potpourri
==> In the latest Contra Krugman, Tom and I tackle the eternal question: Is taxation theft?
==> Speaking of Krugman, Rob Bradley discusses a Resources for the Future (RFF) post that says Krugman is full of it when he breezily claims that wind and solar will produce all of our energy.
==> Although he’s inexplicably got a bunch of fans, turns out Jordan Peterson is not literally Jesus. reason breaks the story.
==> As Tho Bishop joked on Facebook, it seems the Swiss watched my recent debate with George Selgin. Speaking of which, this guy says he learned to stop worrying and now loves fractional reserves.
==> Some of you might be interested in my Twitter exchange with climate policy economist Richard Tol.
Free Traders Should Be More Careful When Defending Trade Deficits
In a recent WSJ piece, Robert Barro pushed back against Trump’s mercantilism by arguing: “Imports are things we want, whether consumer goods, raw materials or intermediate goods. Exports are the price we have to pay to get the imports. It would be great, in fact, if we could get more imports without having to pay for them through added exports.”
Now this is a typical argument in the free-trade camp; I’ve used variants of it myself. But lately, something has been bugging me about it. When I saw the way Barro’s argument misled the WSJ editor who (?) wrote the title and subtitle, I put my finger on it.
So, here is the title along with the offending (I claim) subtitle:
Trump and China Share a Bad Idea on Trade
Imports are things we want, and we pay for them with exports. Isn’t getting more for less a good thing?
If you want to see what’s the problem with that, go read my latest blog post at the Independent Institute.
“That’s My King!” Full Sermon
Ryan Griggs tipped me off to this full sermon that contained the awesome “That’s My King!” portion (which I’ve posted here on the blog several times). I haven’t been able to listen to this yet but here ya go:
Another Arrow in Your Quiver
Here are my class notes on Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem (thanks to Transformer for hosting the PDF). You have to be able to read formal set theory notation, but other than that there’s no prior knowledge required.
The Slugfest Continues: My Article on the FRB Debate With Selgin
My one regret in the Soho Forum debate with George Selgin–besides the fact that he won according to Oxford rules–is that we didn’t have time to spell out our respective positions a bit more clearly. For example, a lot of people on social media assumed I thought (a) fractional reserve banking was fraudulent and (b) it needed to be outlawed by legislation. I think (a) is way more subtle than a simple treatment allows, while I’m definitely against (b).
In my new Mises Wire post, I explain what Mises’ nuanced views were (and here I draw on excellent documentation provided by Joe Salerno), and then I give this analogy:
In closing, let me offer an analogy. I think that government ownership of roads causes far too many traffic accidents. Under a regime of “free roading,” the number of traffic accidents would plummet, but it wouldn’t hit literally zero simply because the cost of wringing out the last few accidents would be higher than the benefits.
At the same time, Selgin surely thinks that government subsidies currently lead to too much corn being planted in the U.S., and that a regime of “free agriculture” would lead to a lower equilibrium amount of corn. Yet Selgin wouldn’t view the new, lower amount of corn as a necessary evil; he would think it was a boon to consumer welfare.
Thus, even though my views on traffic accidents and Selgin’s view on corn are superficially similar—in that we both think a move to the free market would reduce the amount of each—there is a sense in which my views on traffic accidents are far different from Selgin’s views on corn production.
This contrast is analogous to our views on the same issue, namely fractional reserve banking. Selgin and I both favor a free market in banking, and we both agree that FDIC and the Fed’s “lender of last resort” policy subsidizes credit expansion. Yet I would view any remaining fiduciary media in a genuinely free banking system as a regrettable evil (that caused an attenuated boom-bust if large enough), whereas Selgin would view it as a healthy boon to consumer welfare.
Potpourri
==> I just became aware of this being available–it’s my QJAE article saying that Roger Garrison’s framework is compatible with neoclassical growth theory.
==> The latest Lara-Murphy Show tackles some tough objections, like, “If I expect a dollar crash, why do I want life insurance?”
==> Other people critique Krugman too, from National Review and then Quillette.
==> Texas Public Policy Foundation critiques a carbon tax, citing work from *this guy*.
Recent Comments