“Render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (KJV Mark 12:17)
When Jesus is confronted by his common adversaries, the Pharisees, who are also accompanied by the Herodians on this occasion, a famous situation unfolds. They ask him, “Is it lawful to give tribute to Cæsar, or not?”.
This presents an age old question regarding the relationship between religion and politics. If a religion is true, should its commandments, rules and regulations be considered the supreme law of the land? Or should the supreme law governing the people be left to unbelievers? If politics dictate the supreme law by which all citizens are subject, how can someone truly practice their religion? How can any set of beliefs be practiced when the ruling politics may present conflicts which inhibit the practice of some of those beliefs? Are all beliefs to be subject to political powers, whatever they may be? Do they really deserve ultimate authority over the land? How is one to resolve being subject to multiple authoritative sources, one being religious and another political? Which is more important? When there are conflicts between the two, which one should a person defer to?
When Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, he led them back to the mountain where he had encountered God. He sought to bring them into the presence of God and bring about a literal kingdom of God on earth. But when the people saw the thunderings and lightnings and heard God speak from the mount, they were afraid and told Moses to go speak with God on their behalf while they stayed safely separated, out of his presence (see KJV Exodus 20:19). This refusal by the people brought upon them a curse and they received a lesser law, which would not bring them into God’s presence, according their desires. They still became their own nation, and received a land inheritance but they would never achieve the kind of kingdom on earth that would align with heaven that could bring the two together. Instead they would fall further and further away from heavenly alignment as they degenerated as a kingdom on earth.
After wandering in the wilderness, they were eventually allowed to cross the Jordan river (the same river in which Jesus was baptized by John), and after passing through the river they became a people with power to drive out the inhabitants of the land. Though cursed with a lesser law, they were more righteous than the people who lived there (see LDS 1 Nephi 17:32-35). The military force which conquered the land for the children of Israel was led by their religious leader, Joshua. At the time, there was no distinction between the political authorities and the religious authorities because they were the same. The people had organized themselves by a pattern setup by Moses with a system of judges to help govern their society and settle differences among the people. Eventually the citizens of this society became dissatisfied with this system of government and favored adopting a government model like the other countries of the world which were subject to kings (see KJV 1 Samuel 8:5). They were warned against having a monarchy and told of the troubles it would bring upon them (Ibid. vs.6-9). They chose to have a king anyway (Ibid. vs.19). Eventually their government and society deteriorated to the point that God would no longer sustain their kingdom. Through a series of disturbances, upheavals, riots and wars upon wars, their government was overthrown and conquered by the Babylonians under king Nebuchadnezzar (see KJV 2 Kings 24:13-14).
Thus ended the kingdom of Israel and the times of the Gentiles began. From this point forward they were no longer subject to their own laws as an independent nation. The Gentiles would continuously rule over them in one form or another. A dream of king Nebuchadnezzar was interpreted by the prophet Daniel to mean that the leadership of the Gentiles, beginning with king Nebuchadnezzar (KJV Daniel 2:37-38), would become so great that various forms of Gentile rule would continue until the last of days. Gentile rule would only to be eclipsed by a kingdom established by God and would eventually overcome all forms of Gentile rule (KJV Daniel 2:44-45). Until that time, the Gentiles would reign.
When a group of Jews were allowed to leave Babylon and go back to the land of Israel to rebuild their temple, they were still subjects to the authority of king Cyrus (KJV Ezra 1:1-3). Rather than function as their own independent country, they were a religious community within a country, always subject to the overriding authority of the greater nation which ruled over them. The times of the Gentiles introduced separating various religious authorities from the ultimate authority of the state. Religious authority could exist as long as it was subservient to the greater nation state. If they began to show enough resistance to the goals and objectives of the greater nation state, the political leaders would put them back into place by the dominance of their military force.
The Jews longed to be liberated from these Gentile authorities. Jesus even had his own criticisms of how the Gentiles ruled and reigned over them. He told his disciples, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.” (KJV Luke 22:25-26) Jesus goes on to tell them how he is preparing them to serve in a kingdom setup by God, which is vastly different from the governing methods they had become accustomed to under Gentile rule.
When Jesus comes among them, his teachings and miracles demonstrate to some that the power of God is upon him. Among those who believe that God is with him, there are those who believe that Jesus presents an opportunity to be liberated from the current presiding and governing body of Gentiles, then in Rome. Moses had come demonstrating miracles and was able to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt. Perhaps Jesus could do the same for those subject to the Romans at this time.
If Moses was given power to lead the Israelites from bondage in Egypt, couldn’t Jesus have power to lead the Jews out from under Roman authority. If Moses could overcome Pharaoh with the power of God, couldn’t Jesus overcome Caesar by the same power? If Jesus had power to free his people like Moses, wouldn’t he do it? Then why didn’t he?
The problem that Moses found with his people, who were freed from the bondage of Egypt, was that it was actually easier to change the outward circumstances than it was to change the inner man. The Israelites indeed came out of Egyptian bondage, but the governing principles and customs of Egypt did not come out of them. They had grown up for generations and known nothing but the rule of law enforced upon them by a corrupt society. Even though they knew there were wrongs in their society, it was the only society that they really knew.
While they may have learned some lessons about Egyptian abuses, the tendencies stayed with them. Ultimately, changing their circumstances was not enough to change the kind of people they were. In the wilderness, they ended up rejecting a higher form of governance and were cursed to live a lesser law which they took with them into the land of Israel. This lesser law was an improvement over the slavery they experienced in Egypt but it could not bring about the serious changes that their society would need to be merged with heaven. To achieve that kind of society requires a people who are able to leave Egypt, or Babylon, or Rome or other forms of lesser government behind.
While they wanted to be their own free and independent nation, even their own kingdom, they really didn’t know how to operate one that would be significantly different from the way the Gentiles were ruling to really make any difference. Removing them from Roman bondage would not have established a kingdom that mirrors how things are governed in heaven. If they had been given their own kingdom right then, they would have set it up to mimic and compete with the Gentile kingdoms they were accustomed to. They would have done as their predecessors had done when they set up a kingdom that mirrored the governments of their neighbors. What they really needed wasn’t their own independent nation but first and foremost, they needed a whole new and different way to view and govern themselves.
It is not intended for them to setup an even more dominating Gentile kingdom to replace the currently most dominant Gentile kingdom. There can be differences among various Gentile kingdoms for sure. But on the whole they are still Gentile kingdoms, fraught with all of the flaws that such a title implies. Among the common Gentile problems is that Gentile leadership inevitably ends up using their position of authority to lord it over the people rather than truly serve them. They become the real beneficiaries of their leadership. This invites envy of leadership. There is constant fighting to be the one who gets to tell others what to do and get credit for all the accomplishments made. The goal is not to establish equality but dominance.
In contrast, the system Jesus seeks to ingrain into his disciples is one where a person who has greater talents or abilities than another, is to serve those who are less capable. A leader is to help those with less to become equal with him. Those with more are to serve those with less. Where much is given, much is required. Those with more are to help those with less, that there might be equality.
What Jesus intends to establish on earth is a kingdom that is all together different from any of the Gentile governments. They are not to lord it over one another. If one is greater than another, the greater can serve the lesser to make them great. A leader is not impose his will by compulsory means. But that can’t happen until after his disciples let go of their Gentile-like ambitions and begin to govern themselves in a manner that is consistent with how the residents of heaven govern themselves.
This is the same problem we face today. There are a lot people who can recognize the ills of society and long to be free from its flaws. But if you simply take these same people and change their outward circumstances, they’ll only end up forming another Gentile kingdom with all the tyrannical tendencies that exist in such societies. If a real change is going to be made, it has to start by changing what is inside each individual. The desires to rule, reign and lord it over others that they might be the benefactors, needs to come to an end. Each person has to look within themselves and begin to excise the tyrant that is living within. Each person has to recognize his or her own tendencies to act in tyrannical ways. If the tyrant within is not fully recognized and properly addressed, it does little good to change the tyrant outside. It is the tyrant within that is the real problem. Until that is addressed, there is not much to be gained by creating some new society. While the hearts and minds of men know little more than what the traditions and governing principles that have been handed to them can teach, there is little reason to get excited about creating a new order for society. Until the tyrant within is properly addressed and vanquished, a truly free society, a Zion, can never come.
When Jesus prays, “thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven”, that prayer is not done in vain. Those words are not simply an expression of some lofty idea. He means it. His desire is for mortals to align themselves to live as those in heaven live but to do so as mortals. Each one of us can pray that the Lord’s kingdom will come upon the earth and for what is done on earth to be just as much aligned with the will of God as it is done in heaven. For that to happen, it requires a tremendous change in the very nature of man. If any one of us can hope to be a citizen of that kingdom when it comes, we must have prepared by rooting out the tyrant, however big or small, that lives within each one of us.