Does God Want You To Follow The Law?

I’m sick of hearing people quote the biblical passage “render unto Caesar…“. It’s usually deployed as an argument designed to bolster the concept of enforcement of some sort of law – most recently related to immigration enforcement. So let’s take a look at that. First of all, Jesus’ exact quote, as recorded in Matthew 22:21, is:

“So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.“

To make sure we truly understand the context, here is the full passage since the context itself is extremely relevant to the argument:

Matthew 22:15–22

Then the Pharisees went and plotted to entrap him in what he said. So they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and teach the way of God in accordance with truth, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality. 

Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?” But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin used for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. 

Then he said to them, “Whose head is this, and whose title?” They answered, “The emperor’s.” Then he said to them, “Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” 

When they heard this, they were amazed; and they left him and went away.

The Passage is Not a Command To Obey Every Law

The response wasn’t particularly a lesson about being a good citizen. It was a clever redirect from an obvious trap. If we were to rephrase it contextually, he was basically saying – “whatever” to the money, I don’t care about that! I care about God’s kingdom. Turning this into anything more focuses attention on the redirect instead of where Jesus wanted the focus placed – preparing one’s self for what comes next.

His point, basically: pay what you legitimately owe the state (taxes) – because he doesn’t care about that! That doesn’t logically expand into “therefore comply with every rule a government issues.” In fact, even the structure of the saying implies the possibility of conflict arising from the worldly vs godly spheres.

How Broadly Should We Interpret This

So now we know this iconic phrase came after being asked by Jewish leaders (Pharisees and Herodians) who were trying to trap Jesus by asking if paying taxes to Rome was permissible. Jesus responded by asking whose image was on the coin (Caesar’s)? And stating that earthly rulers have claims on earthly things, while God has ultimate claim on spiritual matters. 

If someone claims “Jesus said ‘render unto Caesar‘, therefore you must follow every law and every government requirement,” especially as relates to supporting brutal and inhumane deportation orders – well, that’s a fallacy filled argument. It’s basically a mix of these:

• Appeal to authority (Jesus) – It uses Jesus as a trump card to end discussion rather than make the actual ethical and policy case for a specific enforcement approach.
• Non sequitur – “Render unto Caesar” is a statement people commonly apply to paying what’s owed to civil authority. It doesn’t logically entail “therefore every Christian must support every enforcement action,” and it definitely does not entail “therefore you must personally make sure people get kicked out.”
• Hasty generalization (overgeneralizing a context-specific principle) – it takes one passage and turns it into an absolute, no-exceptions rule about every government requirement, in every domain, including morally contested ones.
• Is-ought fallacy – “It’s illegal” (a descriptive claim) is treated as if it automatically answers “therefore it’s morally required for me to pursue the harshest outcome”. Even if someone believes laws matter morally, they still have to argue the moral step, not assume it.
• Equivocation – In U.S. immigration law, “illegal” gets used loosely. A mere unlawful presence, like overstaying a visa, is generally a civil violation – not a criminal offense. So the argument often trades on a criminal-sounding label to justify a moral conclusion. Additionally, equating paying taxes with law enforcement is not established as an equal principle.
• Contextomy (quote mining): It yanks a short quote out of its historical and textual context to make it say more than it does.

The Bible Contains Explicit “NO” to Government Orders

There are multiple biblical narratives where faithful people refuse state commands when those commands violate God’s requirements. The underlying principle is: government authority is real, but not ultimate.

Common examples people cite:

• “We must obey God rather than men” – Acts 5:29 (used as a direct principle when authorities demand wrongdoing).
• Daniel and his friends refusing state-mandated worship practices. – Daniel 3:12-18
• The Hebrew midwives refusing an order to kill infants. – Exodus 1:15-21

“Caesar” is Not Automatically “Legitimate”

Even within the biblical worldview, rulers can be unjust, corrupt, or tyrannical. “Render” does not equal “endorse,” and it does not equal “comply with immoral demands.” It can mean: pay what you owe, acknowledge civic reality, but do not confuse state power with moral authority.

What May Be Defensible

A Blanket “Obey Everything” View Collapses Into Absurdity Fast

If every government requirement must be obeyed because “render to Caesar,” then:

• Conflicting laws across jurisdictions would all be morally required.
  • Putting salt on a railroad track is punishable by death in Alabama.
  • Married women legally can’t parachute on Sundays in Florida.
• Laws that require immoral actions would become morally mandatory.
  • Slavery is legal.
  • Beating your wife is legal.
• Any regime, including openly evil ones, would deserve total compliance.
  • Hitler
  • North Korea

Most people who cite the verse do not actually accept those implications. That’s a sign the verse is being overextended.

A More Defensible Christian Position is “Qualified Obedience”

A balanced formulation many Christians land on is:

• Obey laws that are just and within the government’s proper domain.
• Pay taxes and meet ordinary civic duties.
• Refuse laws that require sin or that directly violate higher moral obligations.
• Accept the consequences of civil disobedience if necessary.

That stance fits both the “render” line and the civil disobedience examples without twisting either.

Should Christians Support Removal of Illegal Immigrants?

Having already established that the “render unto Caesar” line doesn’t cut it, the real question is – would Jesus (Christ – not Jose’s brother) want his followers to support the forced removal of good, hard working people from America?

Well, to start with – indiscriminate removals that ignore family ties, community roots, and basic dignity, are hard to square with “I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”

A defensible Christian framing is:

• Government can have a role in borders and law.
• Christians still have a non-negotiable duty to treat outsiders as human beings made in God’s image, and to resist cruelty, dehumanization, and scapegoating.
• “It’s illegal” does not automatically become “it’s righteous to expel,” especially when the policy choice is not binary and the enforcement methods can be more or less humane.
• Enforcement must be constrained by mercy, proportionality, and due process, and should weigh family unity and human dignity.
• Christians should support reforms that reduce chaos and harm and increase lawful pathways, rather than romanticizing suffering as “just consequences.”

It’s also worth noting that major Christian leadership bodies argue explicitly for humane enforcement and protections for families and dignity, not blanket expulsions. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, for example, states that deportations and enforcement actions should be carried out with due regard for families and community ties, while advocating broader reform.

Bottom Line

Christians can disagree on the best policy mix, but they cannot responsibly claim Jesus blesses cruelty or collective scapegoating.

Matthew shows Jesus as a refugee. Jesus also says the stranger is someone we’re morally accountable for. So Christianity doesn’t give you a blank check to cheer forced removals of decent people as a righteousness test. You can argue for border enforcement, but if your approach requires dehumanization, cruelty, or indifferent family destruction, you’re arguing against the moral direction of the Gospels.

And let’s not ignore the most obvious solution to the issue – allow long settled community members citizenship. Just as it was done for YOUR ancestors.