Jesus taught many things in His earthly ministry. He taught many difficult things, and many things still debated to this day. Here’s one such teaching from Matthew 22 (found also in Mark 12 and Luke 20):

Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his words. 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. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” 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.” When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away.

The more famous phrase used today comes from the King James Version: “Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.”

I’ve heard various, challenging ways of interpreting a teaching like this. Some are primarily about a historical dispute—an interpretation about the political authority of Caesar in the region, an interpretation over whether paying tribute to Caesar freed them from contributing tribute at the temple, and so on.

But another, and greater, challenge is to consider what the “render unto God” component means—ultimately, our fealty as followers of Christ is to God, in all faith and love and obedience due Him. There are deep and abiding challenges for many Christians throughout the centuries about the scope of obedience to earthly authority when that authority runs up against one’s commitments to Christ, the martyrs first and foremost among them. A clever interpretation I once heard is that just as the face of Caesar is stamped upon the coin, the face of God is stamped upon man imago Dei, and it is why we belong to Him.

Finally, the more nuanced interpretation, and I think the best answer, recognizes the clarity of Jesus’s answer—one’s obligation is not an either/or, but a harmonious and seamless obligation to obey both at once. This is the brilliance of Jesus’s answer, and it is recognition that the Pharisees’ either/or is a false choice. Jesus’s response is not a clever way to parcel out the either/or; it is instead a clever turning of the question into a both/and. While there is a distinction He identifies, it is not an impossible-to-reconcile distinction. (It’s worth emphasizing not everyone agrees with this interpretation—after all, this is a hard teaching!)

Now, at times, matters of conscience in good-faith obedience to Christ will often define the scope of obligation to earthly authorities where the two cannot be reconciled with one another—but that is assuredly not the point of this passage, in which Jesus explains that the paying of taxes to Caesar would not run afoul of the dictates of either earthly or heavenly kingdoms.

That’s a long wind-up for this blog. But it’s the wind-up for a recent per curiam Sixth Circuit opinion from a panel consisting of Judges Jeff Sutton, John Nalbandian, and David McKeague. Professor Josh Blackman has an excerpt about restrictions on religious assemblies due to the coronavirus pandemic:

The balance is more difficult when it comes to in-person services. Allowance for drive-in services this Sunday mitigates some harm to the congregants and the Church. In view of the fast-moving pace of this litigation and in view of the lack of additional input from the district court, whether of a fact-finding dimension or not, we are inclined not to extend the injunction to in-person services at this point. We realize that this falls short of everything the Church has asked for and much of what it wants. But that is all we are comfortable doing after the 24 hours the plaintiffs have given us with this case. In the near term, we urge the district court to prioritize resolution of the claims in view of the looming May 20 date and for the Governor and plaintiffs to consider acceptable alternatives. The breadth of the ban on religious services, together with a haven for numerous secular exceptions, should give pause to anyone who prizes religious freedom. But it's not always easy to decide what is Caesar's and what is God's—and that's assuredly true in the context of a pandemic.

Professor Blackman emphasizes the last sentence, with his gloss, “The last sentence had a subtle, but effective reference to religion.”

Maybe subtle and effective, but, I think, assuredly wrong—at least, from a biblical perspective.

First, the opinion turns what is a Christian mandate into a judicial line-drawing exercise. The Christian has obligations to both God and man. I doubt this kind of exercise would be appropriate in, say, any other case of non-Christians—could you imagine a case of a judge trying to ascertain what things are God’s to those who don’t believe in Him? Are judges supposed to make these distinctions?

Second, the opinion turns a question about harmonizing heavenly and earthly authority into a question of distinctive domains between the two of them. Again, at a superficial level, Jesus is offering a distinction between the two in His answer; but His answer only makes sense, I think, in that he converts the either/or into a both/and.

Third, the opinion uses the phrase by defaulting to, as Professor Marc DeGirolami says, “plenipotentiary powers” of the state, then asking whether Christians are exempt from those powers. That’s certainly not the context of that inquiry for Jesus, as noted above.

I have little to say about the merits of the decision—of balancing existing restrictions on assembly (including religious assembly) during a pandemic, of the appropriate scope of executive authority, and the like. Others may have much more to say.

People can use a phrase from Jesus, from Shakespeare, or from Thomas Jefferson to advance a particular line of reasoning, even if it’s not what the author or speaker intended in its context. But, I think, for the Christian, phrases like this, pulled from Scripture, should be reviewed skeptically. They are not necessarily appropriate interpretations of the Gospel, in my view—whether one even necessarily agrees with my interpretations above or not. Indeed, here, the court inverts many of the principles of the Gospel that Christ places upon His followers. And, in my view, it’s a disappointing decision to use a phrase like this for such a purpose, when it tends to confuse rather than illuminate the scope of of Christian obligation.

This post has been updated for clarity.

UPDATE: This post prompted some great reactions from friends—agreement and disagreement about the passage, engagement about the points of emphasis of Jesus’s teaching, questions about Pauline or Augustinian interpretations of Christians’ obligations to authority in instances of disobedience and punishment, and so on. All this is to say, I think, that these are matters of profound importance in the Christian faith. But, I think, they’re not well-suited to judicial line-drawing…. Then again, maybe it's just a botched metaphor and I'm overthinking it.