But, lo, when they show Him a coin and would constrain Him against His will to take sides with one party or the other - what then? Oh, the worldly passion of partisanship, even when thou callest thyself holy and national - nay, so far thou canst not stretch as to ensnare His indifference! He asks, “Whose image is this that is stamped upon the coin?” They answer, “The Emperor’s.” “Then give to the Emperor what belongs to the Emperor, and to God what is God’s.” Infinite Indifference! Whether the Emperor be called Herod or Shalmanezer, whether he be Roman or Japanese, is to Him the most indifferent of all things. But, on the other hand - the infinite yawning difference which he posits between God and the Emperor: “Give unto God what is God’s!” For they with worldly wisdom would make it a question of religion, or duty to God, whether it was lawful to pay tribute to the Emperor. Worldliness is so eager to embellish itself as godliness, and in this case God and the Emperor are blended together in the question, as if these two had obviously and directly something to do with each other, as if perhaps they were rivals one of the other, and as if God were a sort of emperor - that is to say, the question takes God in vain and secularizes Him. But Christ draws the distinction, the infinite distinction, and he does this by treating the question about paying tribute to the Emperor as the most indifferent thing in the world, regarding it as something which one should do without wasting a word or an instant in talking about it - so as to get so much more time for giving unto God what is God’s. And it is Him they would proclaim king! Oh, but what suffering to be so misunderstood!
—
Kierkegaard, Training in Christianity
(and who is it that’s on that dollar of yours?)
