Excerpts from a forthcoming ebook by the same title:


This essay contains three hypotheses. The primary thesis is: Contrary to what most people have been taught by church and government leaders, Jesus did not condone taxation nor endorse the concept of nation-states with human rulers when he said “render unto Caesar therefore the things which are Caesar’s.” If we succeed in persuading readers of that one point, and we are confident all who come with an open mind will be persuaded, our research, writing and prayers will be vindicated.

The second hypothesis is this: Jesus taught and lived by principles diametrically opposed to government and taxes. If that is true, then those who would live their lives according to the principles Jesus taught will neither levy, collect, receive, consume, nor voluntarily pay taxes, nor be involved with the tax-funded state in any way they can possibly avoid.

Finally, although Jesus died of his own volition in compliance with his Father’s will in order to save us from the consequences of sins, our third hypothesis holds: It is most likely Pontius Pilate crucified Jesus because he had been “forbidding the payment of taxes to Caesar,” as the Gospel of Luke puts it, and teaching his disciples taxation violates God’s Commandment, “Thou shall not steal.” Pilate didn’t kill Jesus to save mankind from sin, although Jesus died for that purpose. Did he die to save us from taxes? If taxes are sinful because they violate God’s Commandment, it follows as night follows day that indeed he did…


When Jesus was brought before Pontius Pilate by high-ranking Jews who wanted him crucified, the Gospel of Luke records the event as follows: Then the assembly rose as a body and brought Jesus before Pilate. They began to accuse him, saying, ‘We found this man perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying he himself is the Messiah, a king…He stirs up the people by teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee where he began even to this place.’”

Was Jesus guilty of these charges? Most exegetes believe he was not. However, we intend to show the Gospels themselves as well as other evidence prove the scholars wrong. The record is clear. On the count of forbidding the payment of taxes to Caesar, Jesus was guilty! Thus, pursuant to Roman law, he was a dangerous criminal who warranted the sentence handed down by Pilate. Of course the fault wasn’t in Jesus; it was in Rome’s man-made law.

The criminal cause of action preferred against Jesus before Pilate of “perverting our nation” must be interpreted to mean the Roman nation, not Israel. Israel at the time was not a nation but part of an imperial province of the Roman Empire. Moreover, the charge could hardly refer to the Jewish nation because perverting the then-extinct Jewish nation would be of no concern to a haughty Roman magistrate administering Roman law. The specification, “forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor,” was brought not only because it was likely to incite Pilate’s wrath against Jesus, but also because it could readily be supported by solid evidence. Furthermore, regarding the tax charge, Jesus’ accusers were justifiably confident based on experience he would not deny the many things he had said and done, which implicated him as a tax resister. Resisting the emperor’s tax augured harm to Pilate and to Rome, not Israel…