ROMANS 13: A FLIMSY REED

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority^[ does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.(Romans 13:1-7, New Revised Standard Version Bible)

These are the infamous words of “Saint” Paul in his letter (viz., epistle) to a budding Christian community in Rome. It was written by Paul in Corinth and, we may surmise, carried to Rome over land and sea by a trusted courier. The words comprise the first seven verses of Chapter 13 of Paul’s epistle, entitled “Romans,” which most scholars agree was written circa 58CE, and is authentically Paul’s own words, which isn’t true of all thirteen of his epistles. Since it is found in the canon Bible of the Christian Church, Romans 13:1-7, has been interpreted by statists as Christianity’s official endorsement of taxation and human government. Indeed, it is the official position of the Catholic Church as stated in its Catechism: “Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country.” It then cites from the above passage.

However, this was not–NOT–the position of Jesus of Nazareth, the founder of Christianity, although his brilliant riposte, “Give Caesar what belongs to Caesar,” in response to the question whether or not to pay Caesar’s tax, has long been misinterpreted by statists to mean, pay your taxes. But his words didn’t mean that at all. Rather they mean precisely what they say: “Give Caesar what belongs to him.” Clearly, Jesus meant give Caesar nothing, since no one among his listeners nor in the entire Roman Empire had anything in their possession belonging to Caesar. Caesar plundered, murdered, conquered, enslaved and took whatever he wanted, he did not give or lend anything–ever. Here is how the incident is recorded in the Gospel of Luke:

When the scribes and chief priests realized that he had told this parable against them, they wanted to lay hands on him at that very hour, but they feared the people. So they watched him and sent spies who pretended to be honest, in order to trap him by what he said, so as to hand him over to the jurisdiction and authority of the governor. So they asked him, “Teacher, we know that you are right in what you say and teach, and you show deference to no one, but teach the way of God in accordance with truth. Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?” But he perceived their craftiness and said to them, “Show me a denarius. Whose head and whose title does it bear?” They said, “The emperor’s.” ²He said to them, “Then give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were not able in the presence of the people to trap him by what he said; and being amazed by his answer, they became silent. (Luke 20:19-26 NRSV)

Obviously, the entrapping question was crafted with malice of forethought. The chief priests knew a great deal about Jesus–the man–both from previous encounters (he bested them on those occasions as on this), and from the reports of spies as recorded in he gospels. They knew Jesus was condemning Rome’s punishing taxes, which were impoverishing especially the peasant Jews who flocked to hear and be healed by Jesus–and it scared the hell out of them. After Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, the Gospel of John reports the chief priests’ concern:

Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him. But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what he had done. So the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the council, and said, “What are we to do? This man is performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.”

What could Jesus possibly be teaching that would cause the Romans to destroy an already subdued nation whose inhabitants were paying heavy taxes into Rome’s coffers? The only logical answer is he was preaching principles that forbid the practice of extortion by taxation.

The priests also knew Jesus wouldn’t recant statements he had previously made indicative of his opposition to taxes. They knew from bitter experience he would speak the truth as he saw it no matter who was listening. They had experienced the lash of his tongue in the form of not-too-subtle parables he told against them only minutes or hours before the render-unto-Caesar dust up. Their flattering preface to the insidious question was right on target. They knew he wouldn’t endorse Caesar’s tax, or they wouldn’t have chosen that question for their trap.

Would Jesus endorse Caesar’s tax? Taxes violate God’s Seventh Commandment, “Thou shall not steal.” Tax collectors employ force and coercion to mulct taxpayers. Their crime is identical to extortion as defined in every jurisdiction in America. Taxation is theft. Taxes obliterate Jesus’ core principles to love one’s neighbor as one’s self, and to do only to others what you would have done to you. Caesar’s tribute levy, the tax of the render-unto-Caesar incident, required payment with the Roman denarius, with its blasphemous graven image of Caesar and text proclaiming Tiberius “son of divine Augustus,” a violation of the First Commandment. Jewish law (the Torah) proscribes paying tribute to anyone but the God of Israel. Rome used the revenues of its taxes to engage in wars of of violent conquest, to plunder and loot, murder and enslave innocent people throughout much of the world then known. What would Jesus do? He would not pay taxes.

To make his point clear, he added this: “Give God what belongs to God.” This requires knowing what belongs to Caesar and God respectively from Jesus’ viewpoint. Sacred Jewish Scripture, which Jesus consistently called on to justify himself and his teaching, is emphatic. In at least six places it states, as in Psalm 24:1: “The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it,” which leaves nothing for poor old Caesar, and nothing is precisely what Jesus was telling his listeners to pay to Caesar in the form of taxes.

Pilate was governor and procurator, responsible for the collection of Rome’s taxes in Judea. The chief priests knew Pilate wouldn’t tolerate anyone preaching resistance to Caesar’s taxes within his jurisdiction. When those spies reported back to their handlers, the priests and lawyers, and told them what Jesus had said, these men were not befuddled as their dumb spies had been. They then sent armed Temple police to take Jesus by force. They couldn’t kill him themselves, because Rome reserved the subjugating power of execution to its sovereign self. So they turned him over to Pilate and charged him with sedition for opposing Caesar’s tax.

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 that 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.”(Luke 23:1-5 NRSV)

Note: The New Living Translation of the Bible, rather than “stirs up the people,” says ‘he is causing riots,” which alone would be sufficient reason for Pilate to execute him for sedition.

There is much more in the gospels indicative of Jesus’ unflinching opposition to taxes. So what could possibly lead Paul to pen Romans 13:1-7 in words so inimical to the teaching of his beloved Savior? I can imagine three possible answers to this conundrum.

1. Paul didn’t write the offending passage, rather it is an interpolation inserted in Paul’s Epistle at a latter date by a scribe or other interested party. This view was first enunciated by new-testament scholar, James Kallas in a 1965 article in a respected scholarly journal. (James Kallas, “Romans 13:1-7: An Interpolation,” New Testament Studies, 11 (1965), 365-66) An exhaustive exegesis of the text, and an analysis of Kallas’ remarkable conclusion is here: https://bible.org/article/paul-and-civil-obedience-romans-131-7

2. Paul’s words were meant to be ironic, and would have been understood as such by the intended recipients, the Christian community in Rome. Considering that the Emperor at the time was the notorious Nero, Paul’s words as read without irony were meant for any Roman official who might inspect and read his letter during its long journey from Corinth to Rome–all in territory under the control of the Romans, whereas the intended recipients would grasp the irony knowing none of the cosseting remarks about authority and paying taxes could apply to Nero or his evil empire. Think of a Jewish rabbi in Germany during the Third Reich writing a theological letter to what remained of his flock after Kristallnacht inserting in it some flattering remarks about their beloved leader, and calling for strict obedience to the edicts of the Nazis. No Jew in Germany at the time would misconstrue the remarks to mean what they said rather than the opposite.

3. Paul never met Jesus and did not know of his adamant opposition to Rome’s taxes, and his reforming at least two of the Empire’s tax collectors and possibly many more. One, Zacchaeus, was the chief tax collector in Jericho and under Pilate! Unlike Jesus, who was crucified by Rome in accordance with Roman law, Paul was a Roman citizen–and proud of it! As such, he was a beneficiary of those Roman taxes, and personally exempt from the tribute tax of the render-unto-Caesar incident. He did not renounce his citizenship even after his remarkable conversion on the road to Damascus. He depended on that citizenship like a vampire-repelling amulet in times of trouble:

The next morning the city officials sent the police to tell the jailer, “Let those men go!” So the jailer told Paul, “The city officials have said you and Silas are free to leave. Go in peace.” But Paul replied, “They have publicly beaten us without a trial and put us in prison—and we are Roman citizens. So now they want us to leave secretly? Certainly not! Let them come themselves to release us!” When the police reported this, the city officials were alarmed to learn that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens. So they came to the jail and apologized to them. (Acts 16:35-38)

As they were shouting and throwing off their cloaks and flinging dust into the air, the commander ordered that Paul be taken into the barracks. He directed that he be flogged and interrogated in order to find out why the people were shouting at him like this. As they stretched him out to flog him, Paul said to the centurion standing there, “Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who hasn’t even been found guilty?” When the centurion heard this, he went to the commander and reported it. “What are you going to do?” he asked. “This man is a Roman citizen.” The commander went to Paul and asked, “Tell me, are you a Roman citizen? “Yes, I am,” he answered. Then the commander said, “I had to pay a lot of money for my citizenship.” But I was born a citizen,” Paul replied. Those who were about to interrogate him withdrew immediately. The commander himself was alarmed when he realized that he had put Paul, a Roman citizen, in chains. (Acts 22:23-29)

It goes without saying that Paul relationship to Rome and its taxes was different, if not diametrically opposite, to that of Jesus, the expense of whose execution was funded by those taxes. Paul would never have written Romans 13:1-7, saying, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God,” if he had read the Gospel of Luke, which was written at a later date. From Luke’s Jesus Paul would have learned that the governing authority of human kingdoms with some men ruling others is derived from Satan–not God!

Then the devil led him up and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And the devil said to him, “To you I will give their glory and all this authority; for it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please. If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.” Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.’”

Although the devil is a notorious liar, crafty liars always weave some truth into their lies. Satan’s claim to the glory and authority of earthly kingdoms was evidently true, for Jesus did not dispute the claim, and if it wasn’t the truth, it would not have constituted a temptation, as Luke describes it. Furthermore, knowledge of this incident could only have come to Jesus’ disciples from Jesus himself, for he was alone in the wilderness with no one else to witness or report his exchange with Satan.

The featured image is in public domain.

Give a tip:

Paypal

Written By

Ned Netterville

Disciple of Jesus, Voluntaryist, Writer, "Tax Denier" (current IRS term) Illegal-Tax Protester (former IRS designation to which I added a hyphen to make what I protest clear), Founder, 2nd Abolition Movement rid American of the enslaving individual income tax.

Published On

Jesus On Taxes

The worlds first nonviolent tax resister.

Next Up

Join The Discussion

83 Comments

Ned Netterville May 5, 2015 , 7:52 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

The second half of this article disappeared when I clicked on “publish” I must say this damn software is the most disconcerting I’ve ever used. From now on I’ll try to remember to create the article on other software and simply transfer it to this mind numbing thing.
- Grant Brown May 6, 2015 , 3:16 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  Hey Ned, did you check the revisions? We have version control enabled to help prevent you from losing work.
  - Ned Netterville May 6, 2015 , 4:33 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
    
    Thanks for your help, Grant. No, I hadn’t checked ’cause I didn’t know the revisions existed. After a 15-min search, I found them, but none included the second half of the article, which was the last thing I did before hitting publish. I notice that as it was published the word count is just below 1000 words, and that made me wonder if there is a limit on the number of words??? As you might surmise, I rather a klutz when it comes to word processing on anything more modern than my 1980s Word Perfect.
    - Grant Brown May 6, 2015 , 5:24 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
      
      There’s no limit on words. Sorry that happened! Normally the revisions are a saving grace here. 🙁
Scire May 6, 2015 , 5:56 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

I know its a pain, as similar things have happened to me, but i’d be very interested to see where you are going with this, especially if this is only half.
- Ned Netterville May 12, 2015 , 2:13 am Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  Scire, Thanks for your interest. I put a lot of work into that second half and to see it go up in smoke was disappointing. I’ve alread started to redo it, so eventualy… sorry for the delay, but maybe it will be better than it was.
- Ned Netterville May 14, 2015 , 4:08 am Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  I’ve put the completed article up now. Hope you like it.
  - Michael Reith May 14, 2015 , 4:16 am Log in to Reply Vote0
    
    Thanks for posting the rest of the article. It explains a lot as to how people can arrive at different conclusions. Christians who do not see the Word of God as inspired, could arrive at your conclusion, I suppose. And that seems to be the main basis for your argument, that the Bible is not inspired. That it is flawed and limited. That certain parts must be questioned logically. I respect your views as they are your own. Accepting the Bible as God’s inspired word leads to my own position. Thanks for the writing!
    - Ned Netterville May 14, 2015 , 4:38 am Log in to Reply Vote0
      
      Michael, First I must thank you for your very thoughtful comments. I hope to offer a more detailed reply to your lengthy comment in the future.
      
      I no longer think of myself as a Christian because there are so many things in the Christian religion–Christianity–with which I disagree. Rather I am a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth, by which I mean a student and a slipping, sliding follower of his principles and his example. I feel Christianity lost much of its legitimacy when it aligned itself with the Roman Empire during the reign of Constantine, and began sharing in the Empire’s illicit tax revenues. I suspect Jesus, who said “no man can serve two masters,” would have been spinning in his grave at that realignment–had he still been there. 😉
      
      I believe the Bible contains Divine wisdom diluted by the inspired-by-God-but-imperfect people who wrote it, transcribed it, translated it, recopied it, etc., etc.
      - Michael Reith May 14, 2015 , 5:20 am Log in to Reply Vote0
        
        Ned, Thanks for clarifying your position. I can understand how we would arrive at different conclusions as to the teachings of Jesus.
        
        Great discussion. It truly puts into perspective the difference that people can arrive at as to the meaning of the Bible, depending upon their beliefs in whether or not it is inspired. I think it also allows for those who proclaim Christ as Lord to weigh their response to the state. I hope many will be challenged, regardless of their current views.
  - Scire May 17, 2015 , 5:05 am Log in to Reply Vote0
    
    Awesome, i really apprecaite it.
    - Ned Netterville May 18, 2015 , 2:06 am Log in to Reply Vote0
      
      Scire, many thanks for the compliment.
James Smith May 12, 2015 , 11:53 am Log in to Reply Vote0

I don’t know. By some happy synchronicity the way it has finished, as is, is pretty powerful. It’s pretty amazing how much damage that one very ambiguous verse has done when there’s explicit notions to the contrary, as in, Jesus obviously didn’t like the Roman taxes, in other verses.
- Ned Netterville May 13, 2015 , 3:05 am Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  James, Thanks you for the kind words, but there is so much more in the Gospels refuting the standard Christian and government interpretation that I’ll feel remiss if I don’t add a little sauce to the Christian pudding.
Michael Reith May 13, 2015 , 5:02 pm Log in to Reply Vote1

Let me preface my remarks but stating that we likely have different views as to the authority of Scripture. From what I surmise, you may have questions or doubts as to the authorship of Paul’s Epistles, in the sense that some of his epistles may not be authentic. And, I presume, therefore do not carry the weight of God’s authority. If I have misinterpreted this, please forgive me.

I would also state that my remarks are founded not on the human authorship of the Bible, but upon the belief that they are are God’s very Word. That is, the words of Jesus are no less the words of God than the words written by Paul. That being so, we cannot arrive at the same conclusion regarding Romans 13, or the other teachings of the Bible which support it, such as 1 Peter, Chapter 2:13-17.

And before going further, let me point out that you seem to be making unwarranted assumptions concerning Jesus’ views as to Rome. That is, drawing upon the view that the was opposed to Rome’s taxes and rule, and therefore, would have been their enemy.

Let’s lay down, first of all, that Jesus made it abundantly clear that he did not come to fix the problem of Roman rule and to liberate Palestine. He stated as much to Pilate. Appearing before Pilate he had every opportunity put Rome in its place. He did not. For the Kingdom of God is not of this world.

Rome, despite it injustices, allowed for things that were remarkable. First, they allowed the Jews to carry on with their religion. They did not insist that Jews worship the gods of Rome, as they would later do of Christian’s. It was a time of terrorism, with frequent problems with Jewish zealots who regularly were involved in stabbing attacks upon Romans in the street. Eventually Rome would reach the end of its patience and submit Palestine to judgement, leveling Jerusalem in 70 AD. Yes, taxation was horrible. Private tax agents could levy as they wished, as long as they passed along an acceptable amount of the collections.

Jesus’ judgement was clearly and repeatedly of the Jewish religious rulers who had perverted the teachings of God. Over the course of his ministry, he laid out the case for what would be his final judgement upon the nation-state of Israel. It was for this that he was hated by the Jewish leaders—threatening their own power. They set about finding a reason to have him arrested, creating their argument to please Rome.

It is clear in Pilate’s dealings with Jesus that he wished nothing to do with him. He clearly saw him as innocent of any crime. Yet that weak man sought to handle the problem before him—another problem with the Jews. He cowardly gave in to their demands to punish Jesus, and set one of the local terrorists free.
 While I am a libertarian, I am obviously not an anarchist. Nor can I be as a person who believes that the Word of God is authoritative. It is clear from the words of Romans 13, and 1 Peter 2, that God places rulers over men. That does not imply that they are righteous. Nor just. But as an element of his common grace over men, God deals with what existed in the time of Noah, and the times recorded in the Book of Judges, by restraining utter evil. And it is clear that their authority is that of the sword.

Where I would join sides with you is in the area of the ways in which Romans 13 is wrongly used. I don’t have great issue with the Roman Catholic reference that you make. What I do take issue with is the use of Romans 13 by ultranationalistic warmongers and statists to go beyond the meaning of the text and support worship of the state and all its decisions and actions. To justify any war that it declares. This is where so many modern Christians err. They do not submit mere obedience, but base their support upon the belief that their nation somehow has a special relationship to God and is exceptional, as a consequence. The very wrong assertion that America was ever a Christian nation or is one, now. There never has been a Christian nation nor will there be on this earth because there is only one Christian nation—the Kingdom of God, and it is not of this world.

We must keep in mind that Paul is addressing that nation—the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. It’s citizens owe their first loyalty to him. While they walk this earth, their lives are to reflect their identity in Christ. And while they may suffer, and they are called repeatedly to suffer, they do so knowing that all authority on this earth is given by God.

This very understanding has been echoed by the fathers of the faith. From Augustine to Calvin and Luther, it is clear that the orthodox understanding is one of respecting authority, for the reason that it is established by God.   But what of Christians and their dealings when laws in are in conflict with the laws of God? God must be obeyed. And it for this reason that Jesus, Paul, Peter and others found themselves in trouble with the authorities. In those cases in which they chose to follow the higher law, that is to preach the Gospel, the did so even when it violated the laws of man. For the limit of the authority of earthly rulers ends when it presumes to supersede the higher law of the Kingdom of God. Tax and punish for earthly matters, yes. But oppose God, no.

The incident with the denarius that you refer to is an important one. Keep in mind that Jesus paid taxes. Keep in mind that Jesus was holy and perfect—he never sinned. He reinforced the right of Caesar to the things of this world.

Many choose to disembowel Romans 13 by concluding that only righteous earthly rulers are legitimate. But it is clear that there never has been and never will be a righteous government of men, for none are righteous.

The world-worshipers that throw about Romans 13 every time they want to explain why they love war and the NSA, are inconsistent in their application, of course. Their enthusiasm ends with the gay marriage and abortion. And this can be explained by a faulty theology, one that involves Christ as a means of reforming this world. Of bringing heaven down to earth. The wrongly identify their enemies as those of this world, rather than properly understanding that they wrestle not against powers of this world, but spiritual powers in high places. The Kingdom of God is the Church of Jesus Christ. It’s charge is to preach the Gospel and make disciples.
Martin Brock May 14, 2015 , 12:33 am Log in to Reply Vote1

Clearly, Jesus meant give Caesar nothing, …

The denarius pictured Caesar and titled him not simply “emperor” but “divine emperor”, so the coin itself was a pagan idol and therefore the height of blasphemy in a Jewish temple. Jesus clearly tells his listener to remove this idol from the temple and return it to Caesar, while evading a question inviting him to commit treason by denying a Roman right to levy taxes on Judeans. The context makes this interpretation indisputable.

Paul by contrast is clearly trying to pacify a revolutionary movement. Arguably, he saves the movement from self-destruction in the process, but he also dilutes its message to the point of banality, and conventional Christianity remains banal and pointless, at best, to this day. At worst, it is indistinguishable from its antithesis, anti-Christianity. If you want to know who the anti-Christians are, these days, look no further than your local Christian church, particularly “fundamentalist” churches led by the likes of John Hagee.
- Michael Reith May 14, 2015 , 1:05 am Log in to Reply Vote1
  
  Martin, I don’t see that in the text. Consider the comments of John Calvin on the passage, which I think truly interpret the text well:
  
  Matthew 22:21:
  
  21. Render therefore to Caesar those things which are Caesar’s. Christ reminds them that, as the subjection of their nation was attested by the coin, there ought to be no debate on that subject; as if he had said, “If you think it strange to pay tribute, be not subjects of the Roman Empire. But the money (which men employ as the pledge of mutual exchanges) attests that Caesar rules over you; so that, by your own silent consent, the liberty to which you lay claim is lost and gone.” Christ’s reply does not leave the matter open, but contains full instruction on the question which had been proposed. It lays down a clear distinction between spiritual and civil government, in order to inform us that outward subjection does not prevent us from having within us a conscience free in the sight of God. For Christ intended to refute the error of those who did not think that they would be the people of God, unless they were free from every yoke of human authority. In like manner, Paul earnestly insists on this point, that they ought not the less to look upon themselves as serving God alone, if they obey human laws, if they pay tribute, and bend the neck to bear other burdens, (Romans 13:7.) In short, Christ declares that it is no violation of the authority of God, or any injury done to his service, if, in respect of outward government, the Jews obey the Romans.
  
  He appears also to glance at their hypocrisy, because, while they carelessly permitted the service of God to be corrupted in many respects, and even wickedly deprived God of his authority, they displayed such ardent zeal about a matter of no importance; as if he had said, “You are exceedingly afraid, lest, if tribute be paid to the Romans, the honor of God may be infringed; but you ought rather to take care to yield to God that service which he demands from you, and, at the same the to render to men what is their due.” We might be apt to think, no doubt, that the distinction does not apply; for, strictly speaking, when we perform our duty towards men, we thereby render obedience to God. But Christ, accommodating his discourse to the common people, reckoned it enough to draw a distinction between the spiritual kingdom of God, on the one hand, and political order and the condition of the present life, on the other. We must therefore attend to this distinction, that, while the Lord wishes to be the only Lawgiver for governing souls, the rule for worshipping Him must not be sought from any other source than from His own word, and that we ought to abide by the only and pure worship which is there enjoined; but that the power of the sword, the laws, and the decisions of tribunals, do not hinder the worship of God from remaining entire amongst us.
  
  But this doctrine extends still farther, that every man, according to his calling, ought to perform the duty which he owes to men; that children ought willingly to submit to their parents, and servants to their masters; that they ought to be courteous and obliging towards each other, according to the law of charity, provided that God always retain the highest authority, to which every thing that can be due to men is, as we say, subordinate. The amount of it therefore is, that those who destroy political order are rebellious against God, and therefore, that obedience to princes and magistrates is always joined to the worship and fear of God; but that, on the other hand, if princes claim any part of the authority of God, we ought not to obey them any farther than can be done without offending God.
  - Martin Brock May 14, 2015 , 3:25 am Log in to Reply Vote0
    
    I don’t see Calvin’s interpretation in the text. The interpretation makes no sense in context. Jesus’ answer cleverly evades a crafty attempt to trap him. If the answer is simply, “Yes, it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar,” there’s nothing clever about the reply at all, regardless of any spiritualization of the resistance that Jesus clearly demonstrates at the temple. He has himself committed criminal acts (overturning the tables of the money changers) only moments before. Walk into any bank today and start turning over tables. This act is indisputably criminal and not at all submissive to worldly authority.
    
    In short, Christ declares that it is no violation of the authority of God, or any injury done to his service, if, in respect of outward government, the Jews obey the Romans.
    
    Jews marching obediently to concentration camps are doing the will of Christ? I rather suppose that Bentham understood Paul better than Calvin.
    
    Most self-described “Christians” must be following the anti-Christ.
    - Michael Reith May 14, 2015 , 3:34 am Log in to Reply Vote0
      
      That is not the intent of mine nor Calvin’s commentary as it is not the intent of the text. It is clear that the Jews had the desire to position Jesus such that his answers would diminish his increasing popularity with the people. They were not seeking Jesus to give them righteous advice and counsel. Merely to entrap him. They wanted him to either lose this popularity with those who hated Rome by saying simply responding, pay tribute to Rome. And if he did the opposite, that is replied that they should not, they would have effectively entrapped him and could make him into a criminal against Rome, to suit their desires to be rid of him.
      
      Jesus brilliantly avoided entrapment. As God, he also taught us much about the positions that we have in respect to both God and worldly rulers.
      
      Jesus could have made it clear that giving tribute to Rome was unlawful, in terms of God’s laws. He did not. But he made it clear that that there are two kingdoms, his and that of Caesar.
      - Martin Brock May 14, 2015 , 6:53 am Log in to Reply Vote1
        
        The conflict in the Temple is not between Jesus and the Jews. It is between Jesus and the chief priests. The text is explicit on this point. Jesus has just spoken the parable of the vineyard against the chief priests. In this allegory, the priests are the tenants of the vineyard. God is the owner of the vineyard, and Jesus is the heir. The tenants kill the heir, and God will kill them for it. Telling these authorities (who were lackeys of Rome) that God will kill them doesn’t sound like submission to worldly authorities to me.
        
        You suggest that Jesus avoids the trap by responding, complexly, “pay tribute to Rome,” rather than responding this way simply. I suppose he doesn’t respond this way at all, and the context supports this supposition. A man who is himself engaged in criminal acts (driving out the money changers) is not a convincing proponent of submission to worldly authorities.
      - Ned Netterville May 15, 2015 , 11:23 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
        
        I wish I’d said that!
      - Michael Reith May 14, 2015 , 7:57 am Log in to Reply Vote0
        
        Martin, further correction. The text indicates that they were disciples of the Pharisees, and included the Herodians, who were the perfect choice for their plot, considering their political leanings. They were sent by the chief priests as we see in Matt 22. The text is not explicit. Jesus’ enemies included some of the priests, but in this case it is moot point. They represented the power base of the Jewish government.
        
        Jesus never committed an illegal act. He kept the law perfectly. His righteous act in driving out the moneychangers was not a sin, nor did it break the law of God. Whether or not it broke the unspoken policies of the Jewish magistrates is a moot point.
        
        The trap was designed to try to get Jesus to align himself with Rome, and thereby earn the disapproval of the population, or to align himself against Rome, and thereby give the leaders of the Jews a reason to turn him over to Rome for sedition.
        
        Jesus knew the hearts of these men. For that reason he readily called them hypocrites. That they did not recognize as him as the Son of God. And he avoided their entrapment, brilliantly. The stunned reaction is proof.
        
        Again, one must decide if Jesus is God, or not. If he is speaking as a clever man, that might provide a basis for some other intent. He spoke with authority.
        
        If we intend to try to find a subversive in Christ, we will fail. If he was less than God, than he was merely one that consider him a wise man and moral teacher. But what sort of wise man or moral teacher would proclaim himself to be God? He would be either delusional or a sociopath.
      - Ned Netterville May 15, 2015 , 11:33 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
        
        Michael, Luke is says it was the chief priests.
        
        “The trap was designed to try to get Jesus to align himself with Rome, and thereby earn the disapproval of the population…”
        
        Luke also explicitly states the trap was designed EXCLUSIVELY to get Pilate to crucify Jesus–as he did. This gambit about disapproval of the population has been endorsed by a whole bevy of Christian exegetes, but not a one of them has ever provided any evidence in the gospels for this preposterous proposition, which was created out of whole cloth. I think the original author of that b.s. was Eusebius (a.k.a. Jerome), who was a tax-dependent Christian exegete who most subsequent tax-consuming exegetes have mimicked like parrots. In other words: PROVE IT.
      - Ned Netterville May 15, 2015 , 11:16 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
        
        There is no indication in the Gospels–NONE–that the purpose of the trap was to discredit Jesus with the crowds who adored him. His enemies new better; they never for a moment considered that Jesus might say, “Yes, pay Caesar’s tax.” Luke makes it unequivocal that there purpose was to have Pilate crucify him–as he shortly thereafter did. Their flattering words about Jesus, though insincere, were nevertheless right on target. His enemies knew Jesus better than his latter-day exegetes who posit the “damned if he does, damned as he doesn’t” scenario, in which Jesus’ doesn’t answer their question with an unequivocal “yes, pay,” so as not to lose the support of the crowd. These latter-day exegetes must think Jesus mission was to run for mayor of Jerusalem.
    - Ned Netterville May 15, 2015 , 11:08 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
      
      An important point, Martin. Thanks.
  - Ned Netterville May 15, 2015 , 10:49 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
    
    Michael, Calvin’s commentary is clearly nothing more than a whole raft of unwarranted assumptions and conclusions based entirely on a statist mindset without a shred of evidence. There in nothing in the words of Jesus in this passage nor anywhere else in the cannon and non-cannon Gospels to support his exegesis.
  - Ned Netterville May 15, 2015 , 10:53 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
    
    Matthew, John Calvin, like many Christians who have been supported by forcible taxation was obviously undone by the money. As Jesus said, “No man can serve two masters.”
- Ned Netterville May 15, 2015 , 10:40 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  Martin, Thank you for your thoughtful and thought provoking comment.
  
  @ “Jesus clearly tells his listener to remove this idol from the temple and return it to Caesar, while evading a question inviting him to commit treason by denying a Roman right to levy taxes on Judeans. The context makes this interpretation indisputable.”
  
  Actually your interpretation is not much different than mine,. The coin in question was evidently produced and held up for Jesus to see by one of his devious questioners, which immediately convicted him (them) of blasphemy for having the idolatrous coin in the Temple precincts where the incident likely–although not certainly as far as the Gospels are concerned–occurred. No disciple of Jesus nor any honest and observant Jew would have that coin in their possession, so Jesus telling them to give the coin back to Caesar was exactly the same as saying “give him nothing,” for those folks would have nothing–none of his coins–to give him back.
  
  However, I think my somewhat different interpretation is rather more “indisputable,” for it explains why Jesus added “give God..etc.” In order to support the proposition that Jesus was telling his listeners to give back their denarii to Caesar, quite a few Christian exegetes have posited the preposterous proposition that the coin in question, though it came from the pocket of one of those dopey spies, in fact belonged to Caesar, for at the time Roman coins were “legally” the property of the Emperor. I have been unable to uncover any such law, and even if there was such a law, it is unlikely Jesus would recognize and rely on it, let alone endorse it, and it would be a meaningless law that was never enforced because if it was enforced no one would ever accept denarii, which remained the property of a third party, in an exchange transaction and the coin would not circulate. Archeologists have found Roman denarii with an emperor’s puss on ’em throughout what was the Roman empire and beyond–indicating if not proving they were commonly used in trade and there was no such law.
  
  You’re interpretation of the offending passage in Romans is not orthodox, but has been subscribed to by several exegetes. It certainly doesn’t cast Paul in a “saintly” light, that’s for sure.
Joe Johnson May 14, 2015 , 12:38 am Log in to Reply Vote0

Thank you for a very thought-provoking article.
In regard to render under Caesar, you’ve hit the nail on the head nicely. A central aspect of this is often missed though – that man is God’s image bearer. In responding the way Jesus did, He’s practically dismissing Caesar. He’s stating, “Render unto Caesar what bears his image, render unto God what bears His image”. In the face of this, in a Jewish context strongly influenced by Hellenism, the Pharisees were being called out on their duplicity and hypocrisy – attempting to wield the law of man against God the Son, yet facing an indefensible parry and riposte by His mastery of law of God.
- Michael Reith May 14, 2015 , 1:27 am Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  This has prompted a great discussion. Thanks for the topic. I can’t help but note that so many comments are directed as taking away the justification for taxation by earthly powers. Yet Paul makes it clear that we are to pay taxes. This does not make the most evil system of taxation right or righteous. It give guidance to the Christian as to how he is to live in this world, as he waits for the return of Christ. It is not practical advice as how to get along and go along so things will be well, while it may serve some of that purpose. It is how to honor God. And it properly directs the attention to why he is here and how he is to live, as a consequence. The Christian is not here to fight the powers of the world. He is to advance the Gospel while living a life that honors God. His peace and joy is found in resting in Christ. In the sovereign reign of God over all the matters of this universe, knowing that even if he lives under persecution or suffers because of his faith, it will ultimately glorify the Father.
  
  I’m glad to see that it seems clear among us that there is a difference between giving due respect to authority and worshipping authority, which is idolatry. When the modern nation-state is elevated to position of being looked to as the means of correcting the problems of this word–poverty, inequality, disease, and war–we have entered into idolatry. It has neither the power or ability to remedy the fall of man and the world that is the consequence. God is about one thing only in our time–redeeming his Elect.
  
  This does not mean that Christians are not to challenge injustice. One can be respectful and submissive to authority and still challenge wrong-doing. Of course, because the Christian shall not use violence against authority, he is left to truly show that he has the willingness to suffer personally for his beliefs. When Christians were hauled before the Roman emperors to be directed to bend the knee to the pantheon of Roman gods, or to worship the emperor, if they refused as their faith demanded, then they suffered. This sort of warfare does not sit well with many Christians who lack an understanding of the Gospel. Who turn to their own arms for strength, and resort to the means and weapons of this world to bring about the world as they would like it to be.
  
  In the end, the Christian must decide who is God–Caesar or the Lord. By rebelling against worldly authority, he states in his actions that he is not content with God’s order and provision for this world. Not content to suffer, if that is God’s pleasure for his life.
  
  Lest it be thought that I do not find this current government corrupted and evil, I do. As I live in a body that is corrupt and evil. I personally do not engage in politics. The system is so polluted that I think to do so would be only to harm my neighbor, to contribute to the very means that causes his suffering. My primary goal is to work for the only thing that accomplishes change in the heart of man–the Gospel of Jesus Christ that saves men. I pray for my rulers, that they would, too, turn and see the laws of God as the only true authority, and submit to them. I pray that they will not impede the Gospel, but work for its benefit. There have been times when society has more fully seen God as the only moral authority. And during those times, the nation was blessed as a result. My hope is that we may see a return to such times, and even those who are not believers in God will benefit from upholding his laws.
  - Ned Netterville May 15, 2015 , 11:06 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
    
    If your understanding is Paul’s, I’m glad I’m a disciple of Jesus–not Paul. I posit three possibilities for Paul’s authority cossetting remarks, and a fourth has been offered by another commenter, all of which are contrary to your interpretation, which is the orthodox one–and has been ever since the Church was amalgamated with Rome and began to share in its taxes, thereby compromising its position on this issue (and many other issues, I would add). One thing certain, Jesus would never have sanctioned the violent state, and likely would have chastised Paul if he hadn’t been murdered by the Empire Paul would have his listeners revere and financially support.
- Ned Netterville May 15, 2015 , 10:43 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  Hear! Hear! And thanks for the kind words and insightful comment, with which I agree.
Voluntary Law Guy May 14, 2015 , 6:18 am Log in to Reply Vote0

The history of the early church is full of civil disobedience and persecution of believers who refused to obey Roman edicts for three hundred years, not to mention Paul’s own persecution at the hands of the Romans (read the book of Acts). All of this persecution was justified (by the Romans) as punishment for disobedience to Roman authority. For those who read Romans 13 with knowledge of the contexts in which the words were written and later became accepted as canon, the meaning is clear: Paul is writing about the “authority of God” and “higher powers,” not worldly power. To confuse higher spiritual powers — true authority — with the profane Roman empire and the institutions of state that evolved from it is a most profound error, a blasphemous confusion of good and evil. Paul may have been choosing his words carefully to avoid unnecessary persecution, but any true believer of Christ would have understood exactly what he meant.
- Michael Reith May 14, 2015 , 8:04 am Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  There is no confusion of power, unless one posits God as less than sovereign. Christian martyrs who suffered for their obedience to God obeyed him in those things that pertained to the Kingdom of God. When they refused to worship Caesar and the Roman gods. This was obedience to the higher authority. It does not negate their obligation to be those that did not subvert the authorities placed by God on this earth.
  
  One cannot take this passage apart from the support of 1 Peter 2, which validates the teaching. If we are looking for subversives, we won’t find one in Paul or Peter. Their trouble with authorities resulted from their refusal to obey man over God when it pertained to the Kingdom of God. The preaching of the Gospel.
  
  As far as accusing me of blasphemy, I think you go to far. That is uncalled for.
  - Ned Netterville May 15, 2015 , 11:48 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
    
    “This was obedience to the higher authority. It does not negate their obligation to be those that did not subvert the authorities placed by God on this earth.”
    
    Michael, God didn’t place anyone in authority over others. Have you not read how Israel became a kingdom and what God said of the Jews stupid decision to replace God as their lawmaker with a king? Have you not read Luke 4 where the Bible clearly states that the authority of human kingdoms is derived from Satan? There never was any obligation to obey human authorities.
    
    Look at it this way. All governments depend on taxes for their existence. Taxes clearly violate God’s commandment not to steal. If government agents do not have to obey God’s command, as anyone who endorses taxes must believe, than the state is superior to God. That is why I love Mises term, “Statolatry.” It is the religion of those who believe in the authority of the state.
    
    @ “One cannot take this passage apart from the support of 1 Peter 2, which validates the teaching. If we are looking for subversives, we won’t find one in Paul or Peter. Their trouble with authorities resulted from their refusal to obey man over God when it pertained to the Kingdom of God. The preaching of the Gospel. ”
    
    I hope to post a subsequent article explaining where Peter went wrong in 1 Peter 2, written when Jesus was no longer around to reprimand him as he so often did while he was alive.
    - Michael Reith May 16, 2015 , 1:34 am Log in to Reply Vote0
      
      As is becoming evident in our discussions, the difference in conclusions is a result of a very different belief in who Jesus was and is, the inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible, and whether or not God is perfectly sovereign over his Creation.
      
      For those who do believe that the Bible is free from error that would challenge its truth, they have a difficult position. Since it then is reduced to patchwork, which bits are true and which are not? This leaves us free to simply claim those portions that support whatever thesis we go to the Bible wishing to prove.
      
      For those who do not believe in a sovereign God who has ordered the affairs of man, he is merely an observer detached from any purpose in the person of Christ related to redemption of man.
      
      Perhaps the greatest influence in arriving at a classically orthodox view of the relationship of man to authorities is how man and God are viewed. The Bible makes is clear that man is fallen, wicked beyond our own understanding. Totally depraved and unable to do good in terms of his own righteousness. God could have continued to deal with such wickedness as he did in the days of Noah and wipe all but a remnant off of the earth. As he did in Sodom. As he did when Israel entered the Holy Land, commanded to kill every living thing.
      
      I am grateful that he chose to graciously establish authorities on this earth, as the alternative is the unrestrained wickedness that was Israel in the days recorded in Judges. Ruling authorities are his common grace provision to the world, until that day that Christ comes again to remove this creation from existence and remake it anew in eternity.
- Ned Netterville May 15, 2015 , 11:21 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  Hear! Hear! Thanks VLG. I think your explanation nearly comports with my interpretation that Paul was speaking ironically to save the recipients of his letter from disaster.
Michael Reith May 14, 2015 , 8:12 am Log in to Reply Vote0

I am all the more glad to have this post here, as it has truly ignited some important discussion amongst Christians (as well as though who do not claim that belief). I think when one side starts accusing the other of blasphemy, it is evidence of the weakness of their argument, and violation of civil behavior. Perhaps this brings up the need for a different thread, but it would likely fall outside of the intent and purpose of liberty.me.

I am more than glad to engage anyone is civil discourse by email concerning the relationship of the Christian to authority on this earth. It is not unimportant, as it as area of difficulty for those who consider themselves libertarian but also Christian. Perhaps this because of the difficulty in fitting a few of civil obedience neatly into agreement with various positions of anarchy. I personally do not have trouble with that melding, as long as anarchy is carefully defined, as in the presence of a cooperative order versus no order at all. I hope that libertarians can be open-minded enough and civil enough to discuss different opinions.

For those that are not Christian, I hope that it can be seen that there are varied beliefs. From those who would see that there is not agreement among the Christian community. Despite our disagreements, I have found that Christians active in libertarian circles are not the sort that would promote the worship of government seen in some groups in America, those that see America as a once-great Christian nation, made exceptional by a special relationship with God, using that position to rubber-stamp any government action they find acceptable to that end, and then denounce any act that rubs their morality the wrong way. Support war, hate homosexuals, for example. I have found that I don’t find easy acceptance in Christian circles or amongst most libertarians, because of my own view that Christians are to not be subversive to authority. The basic tenant of non-aggression, as perfectly supported by the Golden Rule, often serves well in trying to bridge the gap, but strangely I find a sad amount of professing Christians who have no trouble supporting aggression when it serves there cause of supporting a violent nation-state, ala Ayn Rand.

Oh, we have so much to work out!
- Ned Netterville May 16, 2015 , 1:25 am Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  @ Michael: “The basic tenant of non-aggression, as perfectly supported by the Golden Rule, often serves well in trying to bridge the gap, but strangely I find a sad amount of professing Christians who have no trouble supporting aggression when it serves there cause of supporting a violent nation-state, ala Ayn Rand. ”
  
  Michael, I am a nonviolent voluntaryist. As per Jesus, I don’t even believe in resorting to force (violence) even in self defense. Most libertarians, and virtually every Christian, believes violence in self defense is justified. After the pagan Cicero concocted it, Augustine, with help, introduced the abominable Christian Just War Theory into the Church, which embraced it. CJWT negates everything Jesus taught!
  
  Taxes depend on force and/or coercion for their collection. The blatantly violate Jesus teaching, particularly in his Sermon on the Mount and Sermon on the Plain. Those who vote to levy, collect, receive, consume or voluntarily pay taxes cannot profess to being nonviolent, for they participate in the violence of taxation.
  - Michael Reith May 16, 2015 , 1:48 am Log in to Reply Vote0
    
    Thanks so much for your comments. It is refreshing to know that there is such a variety of views. However, violence from the hand of God or those he designates is not subject to our judgement. God is the Creator. He has ownership, that is property rights, over all of us. He is right and good when he exercises those rights. As Paul says in Romans, who are we to question whether God chooses to make out of a lump of filthy and sinful clay something that is for honor or for destruction? When it so pleases God to violently deal with man, it is by default, a good and just thing because he is good and just. I think what leads to the confusion is when Christians elevate the principle of non-aggression to the point of becoming their idol. For many Christian libertarians, it becomes their god. Yet God is clearly exempt from that principle. If the principle of non-aggression has any basis in truth, it is because it has basis in his law. We are to love our neighbor. We are to seek his good and avoid his harm. Where the principle of non-aggression falls short is in the area of passive vs active obedience to the law of love. Yes, we are not harm. But that does not fulfill the law. We must also actively seek his good. That requires actions on our part. It is not enough to steal from our neighbor. We are to provide assistance and help in time of need.
    
    Personally, I do see a role for violence within the boundaries of God’s law. When it involves protecting our neighbor or family from aggression. And when, in authority, it subdues those who threaten the general order of society through war, for example.
    
    Before I get flamed to a crisp by some, let me clarify my position. The fact that I suggest war can be used in fulfillment of the law of love, we all recognize that wars on this earth are rarely if never such things. Because the causative and active agents in such wars are as all men are, evil. It is clear form the Bible that God uses war, as well, to punish and exact wrath upon nations and peoples. Even when the agent he uses to punish another is evil in intent, God can and has used that agent to carry out his will. His use is just and holy, while our involvement is generally evil.
Martin Brock May 14, 2015 , 7:11 pm Log in to Reply

@Michael Reith

… they were disciples of the Pharisees, and included the Herodians …

The passage from Luke (NRSB) above states that they were “scribes and chief priests”, so I don’t know what you’re correcting. That the chief priests were Pharisees seems less relevant than the fact that were the chief priests. They were themselves authorities and at this time, as loyal subjects of Herod, also lackeys of the Romans.

Jesus never committed an illegal act.

He does commit illegal acts in fact. Turning over the tables of the money changers and driving them from the Temple courtyard with a whip (according to John) is clearly an illegal act. Try doing the same today and see how long you avoid arrest. Was the law more liberal in Roman occupied Judea?

Whether or not it broke the unspoken policies of the Jewish magistrates is a moot point.

Turning over the tables of the money changers and driving them forcibly from the Temple was hardly violating an “unspoken policy”. These acts are clearly criminal. They would certainly have been criminal acts under Herod’s rule of Jerusalem under Roman occupation.

The trap was designed to try to get Jesus to align himself with Rome, and thereby earn the disapproval of the population, or to align himself against Rome, and thereby give the leaders of the Jews a reason to turn him over to Rome for sedition.

I agree, but his answer is not simply neutral in this regard. He aligns himself against Rome but phrases his opposition in a way that also can be interpreted as submission. His reply is clever for this reason, not because he actually advocates submission but does so cleverly to fool his own followers.

That they did not recognize as him as the Son of God.

He did not recognize himself as the Son of God.

Again, one must decide if Jesus is God, or not.

Jesus is not God and never claims to be God. Speaking sacred truth to power does not make a man God in this tradition. It makes the man a prophet. The messiah is not an incarnation of God in Hebrew tradition.

If we intend to try to find a subversive in Christ, we will fail.

Anyone reading the gospels finds a subversive in Jesus. The plain text of the gospels is subversive.

But what sort of wise man or moral teacher would proclaim himself to be God?

Men like Caesar Augustus did it, and no right thinking Jew accepted this proclamation. A man like Jesus never did it. Jesus was the Son of Man, not the Son of God.
- Michael Reith May 14, 2015 , 7:28 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  From your last comment it is clear that our views on the divinity and reality of Jesus Christ establish the foundation of our positions, and they are not compatible. Our discussions would likely be a string of pointing out flaws rather than contributing to understanding. If you would like to dialogue further as to the divinity of Christ, I wouldn’t mind an email interaction. But trying to argue a higher point when we disagree so radically on the person of Christ would not be especially helpful, I think. Peace.
  - Martin Brock May 15, 2015 , 1:11 am Log in to Reply Vote0
    
    We may agree to disagree, but I prefer to discuss the divinity of Jesus publicly.
    - Michael Reith May 15, 2015 , 1:15 am Log in to Reply Vote0
      
      I have no problem but this thread is off-topic. Out of respect for the authors OP, perhaps you could establish a different forum, group, or article?
      - Martin Brock May 15, 2015 , 10:32 am Log in to Reply Vote0
        
        I don’t know where Ned stands on the trinity or how he would limit the topic of this thread, but I suspect that he agrees with me. You raised the issue here. I’m only responding with my unitarian opinion, which is also the opinion of Locke, Jefferson and many other classical liberals.
      - Michael Reith May 15, 2015 , 4:08 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
        
        My concern is merely for Ned’s post and the fact that it is about Jesus and taxation. I wouldn’t want to steer away further discussion from that point, although the discussion of issues such as the divinity of Christ or the inerrancy of the Bible, etc, are not unrelated. I have quickly hobbled together an article at https://michaelreith.liberty.me/2015/05/15/on-being-christian-and-libertarian/.
        
        I was not aware that you were a unitarian. I would imagine that we will easily get lost with a shared view of inerrancy and inspiration. My own background is one of adhering to Reformed theology and the central creeds and confessions of orthodox Christianity (not as inspired,but as properly expressing the true meaning of the Bible), e.g., the Westminster Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, The Canons of Dordt, and the Belgic Confession.
      - Michael Reith May 15, 2015 , 4:19 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
        
        I should have said, “we will easily get lost WITHOUT a shared view of . . .”
      - Martin Brock May 16, 2015 , 3:55 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
        
        I understand your point, Michael, and I appreciate your willingness to engage contrary views here.
Zeroth Position May 15, 2015 , 1:47 am Log in to Reply Vote1

http://www.simpleliberty.org/giaa/render_unto_caesar.htm
Capitalist Thought May 15, 2015 , 9:18 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

Great Article, very well read.
Michael Reith May 16, 2015 , 1:17 am Log in to Reply Vote0

Please feel free to be more specific. . . .
- Ned Netterville May 16, 2015 , 2:26 am Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  Which two? Zealots and the Temple Hierarchy. I’m having the same problem with WP.
  
  Michael, many people, including A. Schwietzer who may have been first, have said that anyone who writes about Jesus will reveal more about himself than about Jesus. I have found this to be true in every case, from the canon and non-cannon gospels to this discussion.
  
  If the Bible “is the inerrant and authoritative Word of God,” what version? I know some Christians who claim that only the KJV is inerrant. What say you?
  
  I sincerely thank you for your participation in this discussion, which has been a pleasure to me. I respect your contrary position on all of the issues discussed.
  
  I hold the authentic words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels as divine wisdom and truth. I think of myself as a disciple of Jesus because I try to adhere to the principles he preached and demonstrated. But what is authoritative and what not, you no doubt will ask, since I don’t believe any version of the many is inerrant? What is required is sound reasoning (logic) leavened with experience. I try putting his principles into practice; if they work, they are authentic. Where I doubt their authenticity, I put those on the shelf until I gain sufficient enlightenment to understand them, then give them another try.
  
  Shalom.
  - Michael Reith May 16, 2015 , 2:35 am Log in to Reply Vote0
    
    Thanks, Ned. You voice your position well. And you’ve really contributed an important OP, here, as is evident in the activity! Hope you will continue to write.
Michael Reith May 16, 2015 , 1:25 am Log in to Reply Vote0

Of course there is evidence. The very fact that the Jews sent along Herodeans supports their desire to discredit him. I completely agree that they wished to be rid of him. He was a problem form them in that he was messing up a very good thing. They had corrupt rule over the Jews via their religion. A cushy place for those in a nation that occupied. Not unlike the tax collectors who enjoyed being able to wield the power of Rome to extract from the people any amount they could get, keeping the gain for themselves.

We must not make the error of confusing the Jewish leadership with the zealots of the time. Zealots were the Middle Eastern terrorists of the day, turning to criminal violence against Rome in their desire to free Palestine from their rule. The Jewish religious leadership, along with Herod, enjoyed a posh life.

Jesus posed a true problem. On the one hand, he threatened the Jewish religious leaders because he might further inspire the zealots were he to be seen as leader. The Jewish leadership did not want this because it would bring the wrath of Rome (as it eventually did in 70AD). On the other hand, he represented a threat to their spiritual leadership. As he pointed out the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders, indeed, denied the very validity of claim to be the true spiritual descendants of Abraham, he threatened to depose them (in their minds). While they did indeed serve God’s purpose in the execution of Jesus for the sins of the Elect, their own intent was to be rid of him.
Ned Netterville May 16, 2015 , 1:53 am Log in to Reply Vote0

Michael, Where is the evidence? Citation, please. The Herodians were good to bring along, because Jesus’ anti-tax rhetoric had been preached in Galilee , where Herod was responsible for the collection of Rome’s taxes, as well as in Judea, where Pilate was the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Herodians, who benefited from those taxes, as did the Pharisees and chief priests (probably Saducees), and all of those Jews who had been given some authority by the Romans in order to ensure the collection of those taxes, on which the Empire depended, and to pacify the rabble. But again: where is the evidence, contrary to the explicit words of Luke, that the trap was intended to cost Jesus his popularity. I am well aware that his enemies were jealous of his popularity, but they had no reason to believe Jesus would endorse Caesar’s tax to remain popular. Search the Gospels diligently and you will find no evidence of that design. It was fabricated by early Christians after the Church began sharing in Rome’s tax revenues in order to be able to dismiss Jesus obvious animosity to taxation, which had become the source of those Christian exegetes wealth.
- Michael Reith May 16, 2015 , 1:57 am Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  Don’t get your panties in a bunch. The point is that the Jews had every intent of disposing of Jesus in some way. They wanted him gone. While their intent was sinful, God’s purpose was holy. He sent his son to be crucified. In the end, the Jews served that purpose.
  - Ned Netterville May 16, 2015 , 9:18 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
    
    Michael, I get my panties in a bunch whenever I hear repeated the ignorant or dishonest proposition concocted by early, tax-dependent Christian exegets, which was fabricated out of whole cloth without a shred of evidence from the gospels or any other source. Whoever concocted it first, and I think it was Jerome, has served as the one and only source for many, many subsequent Christians who have parroted the unsupported nonsense, including John Calvin. The disreputable proposition: The question posed to Jesus regarding Caesar’s tax was designed to trap Jesus whether he answered yes or no. We know what “no” would do and did do to him–had him crucified by Pilate, and the gospel of Luke makes it abundantly clear that that “no” was the only answer wanted or expected. Thus, Jesus response , “give (back) to Caesar what belongs to Caesar,” had to mean give him nothing and stood in stark condemnation of Caesar’s tax. Now for Christians reaping the fruits of Roman taxation, this wouldn’t do. So in order to place Jesus on the side of taxes and the empire rather than the adamant foe he was, they concocted the two-fold, damned if he said no or yes, as a means of falsely placing Jesus on the side of the violent state and its thieving tax collectors so as to encourage those whom taxes mulcted to submit, and thus make the priestly class rich and the taxed class participants in the crime of extortion. Michael, neither Jerome, nor Calvin nor you can show any biblical evidence of the two-fold design of the trap, and it is refuted explicitly by Luke’s version of the tax-question incident. Fortunately, the purpose behind the fabrication–to facilitate the collection of taxes by putting Jesus on the side of the state and its taxes–is self evident to anyone who has ever studied the institution of taxation. Those who benefit from it will go to any length to defend it, stooping to the most reprehensible tactics, including smearing the reputation of Jesus for impeccable integrity.
    - Michael Reith May 16, 2015 , 10:03 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
      
      There is more than a shred of evidence for taxes. Which brings up a good side topic. Were the Jewish leaders right in imposing levies for the temple upon the Jews?
Michael Reith May 16, 2015 , 1:55 am Log in to Reply Vote0

Great to see so many responses. The variety brings to the fore the various conclusions that people can come to in interpreting the Bible, depending upon how they view it. Is it the very Word of God, inspired and inerrant? Or is it some collection of truth and error, a mere historical document? Or something inbetween, having spiritual truths that we are to distill, filtering out error?

Do we come to the Bible seeking to know God? Or do we come seeking to find evidence that will support our own established view of the world? This variance in approaches turns such discussion as this one into a never-ending debate, if only because there is no agreement on the inherent validity of the source document. To me it is the inerrant and authoritative Word of God. Written in entirety about one subject–Jesus Christ. Thus, when I read Genesis to Revelation I accept that Jesus himself claimed everything written to apply to him. While it may have other value and meanings, it is first and foremost an account of the plan of redemption of sinners, as it was revealed to man historically. From the first promise of a redeemer in Genesis, to his ultimate glorification in the Revelation.
Ned Netterville May 16, 2015 , 1:56 am Log in to Reply Vote0

I’ve never confused the two.
- Michael Reith May 16, 2015 , 2:00 am Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  Ugh. WordPress comments don’t always fall out in clear order! (I do like WordPress, just not the comment form).
  
  Ned, I’m responding to so many comments made in reply to my own, that now I’m needing clarification. Which two have you not confused?
Ned Netterville May 16, 2015 , 8:14 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

@ Michael: “Personally, I do see a role for violence within the boundaries of God’s law. When it involves protecting our neighbor or family from aggression. And when, in authority, it subdues those who threaten the general order of society through war, for example.”

Jesus was a pacifist who would not resort to violence against another human to save his life or for any other cause, and he preached nonviolence explicitly, particularly in his Sermon on the Mount. The nonviolence Jesus preached is at all times and in all places a more effective meas of securing our family and neighbors from aggression than is violence. This is a spiritual concept that is as real as steel girders holding up a building. Jesus did not preach nonviolence to his disciples because he wanted them to be defenseless against aggression. He did so because nonviolence is the only efficacious means of addressing or redressing violence. It is an indisputable spiritual and real-world axiom that violence, for whatever motivation, only and always produces more violence. Can a grapevine produce thistles; can a bramble bush produce grapes? Believe in Jesus and his principles and God will keep you unharmed.
Ned Netterville May 16, 2015 , 8:24 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

Before someone ppos up with jesus’ cleansing of the Temple, a careful reading shows he did not resort to violence against any person, only objects and perhaps animals in order to move them out as a shepherd uses his staff to move his sheep.

Also, to clarify another passage: The KJV of the Sermon on the Mount mistakenly had Jesus say, “Resist not evil,” whereas almost every later version corrects the translation to read, “Do not resist an evildoer.” Jesus would have us resist paying taxes, because taxation is evil, but would not have us resort to force in the resistance nor against any tax collector, for this would violate Jesus’ instruction, and make the tax resister no better than the collector. Tax collectors require our love, as Jesus showed us.
Michael Reith May 16, 2015 , 8:35 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

Jesus certainly used violence against no man.

When we interpret Jesus from the perspective of his claims, that he is God, and in light of the whole Bible, we arrive at a fuller understanding of the Bible. Of course, this requires the view that he is God, not merely a historical figure. So, your comments are perhaps appropriate for the view of him as a man.

This is the same God that flooded the world. The same Christ that we are told will come again. And in that return trip, violence will be the mode. That said, it is violence from the only being that can claim the right to use it righteously.

The deep question is, “Was Jesus God?” Which word of his shall we take as actually his, and which will we not? This is the same Jesus that pronounced judgment upon Israel for rejecting him.

While Jesus walked this earth he lived a perfect life, keeping the whole law of God. Thus, he exhibited the perfect example of nonviolence and was the model man, operating totally in love of God and love of his neighbor. What an incredible example!
- Ned Netterville May 16, 2015 , 9:25 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  “While Jesus walked this earth he lived a perfect life, keeping the whole law of God. Thus, he exhibited the perfect example of nonviolence and was the model man, operating totally in love of God and love of his neighbor. What an incredible example!”
  
  Hear! Hear! I wish I’d said that.
  
  Why or how do you exonerate tax collectors from following the Golden Rule?
Michael Reith May 16, 2015 , 10:02 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

They are no more exonerated from their filthy sins than you and I are from ours, Ned. We all stand guilty before a holy God.
Michael Reith May 17, 2015 , 12:16 am Log in to Reply Vote0

Into the fray we should rightfully inject Matthew 17:24-27. Not for the obvious reasons that it involved taxes, but because the motive behind Jesus doing so. The fact that there are taxes does not make them just or right, either in general or degree. And for this reason, Paul, in Romans 13, is often misunderstood. Paul, nor Jesus, intend to declare a tax righteous because it is paid. Jesus, as well as Paul, paid taxes for a higher reason, to please God. As Christ says in Matt 27, it is paid in order not to give offense. And this message flows through Romans 13. It has to do with how Christians are to live in this world.

One of the disputes between the Reformers and the Papists was over the Papists use of this passage to prove that they were exempt from taxes. Is this some of the reason why nonprofits have such status today? The Reformers, by the way, did not agree with it. That is, they did not believe it right for the Papists to declare themselves exempt while other’s had to pay. Like Christ, they would do better to pay the same tax, rather than give offense. Those in the Kingdom of God should live in such a way that honors God and brings him glory.

In saying that Christians should pay taxes that are demanded, for the sake of the honor of God, is not to say that taxes should be encouraged. Taxes on property and person amount to slavery and all Christians should work as is given to them by their position in life to free people from them. But when demanded by rulers, they would do right to follow the Bible and pay the taxes, rather than give offense. It is by doing so that they fulfill God’s command to honor authority.

Payment of said tax does not make the tax righteous or just. It is subjection to authority placed by him that God desires. In doing so, we honor him . Because every human on this earth a moral cesspool, there will never be a righteous government by and of men. Perhaps the closest we can come is the rule of law, as long as those laws reflect the moral laws of God.

In this, in the willing honoring of earthly authority, in recognition of the source of its power, we honor God. This does not equate to spirited support of evil, nor empowering it by our energies beyond mere submission. Nor joining in to share the booty of power held by evil. As Paul writes elsewhere, Christians should seek freedom from their slavery when they are able. God does not ask us to make the bed of our own suffering. But should we find ourselves in one and unable to extract ourselves, to rest in his sovereign and wise rule, knowing that he has ordained our suffering and will see us through. In the end it will be to his glory and our own good.

I hope that I’ve been able to convey that a Christian’s willing submission to authority is driven by his love of God and desire to please him. And that it must never be construed as an active support or furtherance and the evils of this day. By resting in God, in trusting him, knowing that this life is fleeting and what awaits is eternal, we can live joyfully here, for once we have become followers of Christ our new mission in life is not our personal prosperity and fulfillment of this life in and for itself, but the furtherance of the Gospel that is the only eternal hope of man.
- Ned Netterville May 17, 2015 , 2:24 am Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  Michael: “Into the fray we should rightfully inject Matthew 17:24-27. Not for the obvious reasons that it involved taxes, but because the motive behind Jesus doing so. The fact that there are taxes does not make them just or right, either in general or degree. And for this reason, Paul, in Romans 13, is often misunderstood. Paul, nor Jesus, intend to declare a tax righteous because it is paid. Jesus, as well as Paul, paid taxes for a higher reason, to please God. As Christ says in Matt 27, it is paid in order not to give offense. And this message flows through Romans 13. It has to do with how Christians are to live in this world.”
  
  Before I dispute your misunderstanding of Matthew 17, I ask that you go back and read the pertinent passage very carefully. You may be surprised to discover that Jesus did not pay that or any other tax during his short life.
  
  Again, if you have any biblical evidence he paid the tax, please cite chapter and verse.
  - Michael Reith May 17, 2015 , 2:57 am Log in to Reply Vote0
    
    Ned, there is a point when we read into the text what we wish to see. Peter responded to the fact in the prior verses when he confirmed that his Lord paid taxes. Of course, we can play exegetical musical chairs and seek desperately for something else, but I think it reasonable to believe that Peter was more aware of Jesus’ activities prior to this incident. He new is master and his history.
    
    If you wish to find a man rebellious towards good behavior, you won’t find it in Jesus. Keep trying.
    - Ned Netterville May 18, 2015 , 2:04 am Log in to Reply Vote0
      
      “f you wish to find a man rebellious towards good behavior, you won’t find it in Jesus. Keep trying.”
      
      Michael, As I envision Jesus, he had nothing against good behavior. What he rebelled against was the wantonly evil behavior of rulers who had their authority from Satan. Certainly Tiberius, a reputed pedophile and known murderer fit the description of one whose authority could only have derived from the devil.
- Martin Brock May 20, 2015 , 3:31 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  Matthew 17:24-27 reads a lot like another plausibly deniable statement opposing Roman taxes, but though Jesus seems clearly to say that children are exempt (and everyone is someone’s child), let’s take the statement at its most superficial level as a tale of Jesus paying taxes.
  
  Jesus also tells his followers to turn the other cheek, to give to anyone who asks and to offer more, not to demand the return of stolen goods and the rest. In this sense, every beggar and every thief is one of Paul’s governing authorities to whom respect is due.
  
  I could admire a Christian who actually follows this law to the letter while telling others that paying taxes pleases God, as I can admire a Jain who carefully avoids stepping on an insect. These practices seem overly zealous to me, and I don’t practice them myself, but they somehow seem noble to me regardless.
  
  In reality, I only see nominal Christians telling others to yield to the state while also accepting whatever mastery of wealth the state grants to them, oblivious to anything else Jesus allegedly says.
  
  So when nominal Christians behave just like everyone else and quote the gospels only when the gospels happen to support what everyone else is doing, what should I conclude?
Ned Netterville May 17, 2015 , 2:13 am Log in to Reply Vote0

@ Michael: “They are no more exonerated from their filthy sins than you and I are from ours, Ned. We all stand guilty before a holy God.”

That’s for sure, but there is a difference. I can at least try to follow Jesus’ Golden Rule, a tax collector cannot do so if he or she continues collecting taxes. Realization of that fact, plus the guilt and remorse it had to engender, likely explains why at least two–and I suspect many more–tax collectors realized redemption in Jesus and became disciples.

From a pragmatic standpoint, it would be wise of those in charge of collecting taxes to get rid of Jesus before too many tax collectors became disciples and Rome’s stream of tax revenues dried up.
- Michael Reith May 17, 2015 , 3:01 am Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  Ned–reference tax collectors.
  
  Tax collectors were some of the worst enemies of the people. Not difference between them and mafia. Like bureaucrats everywhere, they are prone to use their positions for their own gain, as though their regular work was rotten enough.
  - Ned Netterville May 21, 2015 , 7:11 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
    
    Michael, Tax collectors today are among the most reviled people in America. IRS agents routinely disguise their occupation from casual acquaintances, neighbors and even from close friends. My daughter’s teammate on her rugby team, which qualified for the national competition, only revealed her employer was the IRS after a year of building a close relationship. Have you ever run across and IRS agent in a non-official context?
    
    But here is the crux: Tax collectors do unto others what they do not allow others to do to them. This is contrary to Jesus’ teaching of righteous behavior. How can you support the tax collectors in their shameful violation of Jesus’ precept, in the absence of which the governments you defend would cease to exist? How can you support the violence inherent in collecting taxes, and the violent state taxes support?
Ned Netterville May 17, 2015 , 2:18 am Log in to Reply Vote0

@ Michael: “Which brings up a good side topic. Were the Jewish leaders right in imposing levies for the temple upon the Jews?”

Depends on what constituted “imposing.” The leaders had no right to use force to collect the Temple tax. This, btw, explains why Jesus would not pay the tax. (Matthew 17)
- Michael Reith May 17, 2015 , 3:37 am Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  Ned, I’m glad that we agree on the sinful nature of man. That we all fall woefully short of God’s law and are deserving of his eternal judgement. Which is precisely why Jesus came. Not to fix the world. This was what the zealots had hoped, and it is the truth that confused his followers (and still does.) He came neither to set a good example for us to follow or to defined good government. He came for sinners. To live a perfect life and to die for those that the Father had sent him to redeem.
  
  Jesus’ appearance before the Jewish authorities and Pilate brings into focus in reason for walking among us. Had he wished to condemn the rule of man, or taxation, he had ample opportunity to bring Pilate to task. Yet before Pilate he stood virtually silent. Most importantly he clarified two things–Pilate’s position and his own. Jesus’ kingdom is not of this earth. Praise God for that!
  
  I don’t mean to apply these comments to you, due to your own views as to the errancy of the Bible. It is logical in your own mind that you come to your own conclusions. I suppose we all do that to some degree. Thomas Jefferson had his own copiously edited version of the Bible. The rest of us either disregard or ignore the parts that don’t fall comfortably on our hearts. And we can only ask a man to finally judge based upon his conscience.
  
  Some may be frustrated with those of us who are professing Christians but who are not deeply troubled by taxation. Not that I was always this way. There was a time, before I came to understand the distinction between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Man, that I was very politically active. As I have come to understand my true identity in Christ, those days have passed, thankfully. Not that I am free of all anger at injustice. But God patiently works on me.
  
  The many Christians who influenced the earlier laws of this nation certainly shared a better understanding of the evils of taxation. It should be no surprise that we did not kick off this nation with property and income taxes. Taxes hurt our neighbor. And any Christian who understands the nature of men knows that men in power are prone to corruption. Give them the power to take another man’s wealth, and they will.
  
  When I stand by the position that as a Christian I should pay my taxes, it is not because I support such laws. It is rather that I see troubling the rule of the land by refusing to pay taxes (or cheating on them) to be dishonoring to God. There has not been a righteous government in the history of man. But because I believe that God places authorities into the positions that they hold for the benefit of all men, I respect that authority. Not “respect” in the sense of believe them to be good or righteous men. I respect the office as appointed by God.
  
  Many will say to me, “Well should a man respect Hilter if he is under him?” Again, no! But respect the office of ruler. Is there a time that a Christian must break the law of Hitler? Yes, when it opposes the laws of God. Now here is the division in our thinking, I am guessing, at least. Forgive me if I presume too much.
  
  You believe that taxes are against God’s law, so they must be disobeyed. I do not come to that conclusion from the body of the Bible. Taxes vary in type and extent. To levy a toll on the use of a road is far different than the taxation of property or wealth. To levy a tax to give welfare is far different than raising money for national defense when a nation has been invaded.
  
  I admire your passion against the sort of taxes that are now common. The worst of taxes that can be imagined–of wealth and property and every action we can think of. And a population that not only utters not a comment, but many who actually support the use of violence to collect them. I share the essence of your belief, if we vary on our responses.
  
  To me, and I think to you, the only proper libertarian response is non-violence. Searching to find legal ways to avoid the taxes. Using whatever influence we have to change the system (good luck). And, leaving the jurisdiction if at all possible. Were I younger and had health, I would certainly give serious consideration to moving to a less oppressive nation.
  
  I join in the efforts to expose and condemn the people in power in the government, and those in religious leadership, who paint taxation as a patriotic act. As though we should feel proud and noble to pay our taxes. This is travesty. It is neither biblically right or even right by common law or natural law. Interesting that these same folks are often the ones that want us to worship the warfare state, as well.
  
  One of the formative examples that has helped me has been the various historical records of the appearances of Christian martyrs before Roman rulers. These certainly started with the apostles like Peter and Paul. They remained respectful towards the positions of the rulers, but firm in their commitment to the preaching of the Gospel. They understood the two kingdoms.
  
  I understand that there are some Christians who simply refuse to pay taxes. I do not judge them for that, although they are not therefore justified to lie and cheat the government. Such would be sin. And I am aware of principled Christians who have gone to prison rather than pay income tax. They were willing to leave the matter to God, and I respect that, knowing that God has the means of freeing them from incarceration at any time. And accepting it if he didn’t.
  
  I hope that the ultimate communication of your OP is to make it clear that taxes are not righteous merely because a government imposes them. They are no more righteous than the wars that men conduct. Yes, Christians have composed the Just War Doctrine. But find a historical war that neatly fits that doctrine! Ultimately it comes down to the decision that Christians must make when life events are thrust upon them.
  
  I’m looking forward to a men’s retreat in a few weeks in which we will study the lives of three Civil War generals who where men of faith. I’m eager to get a better grip on what it must have been like to live in a time far different than our own. When they firmly believed that the states were of superior authority than the federal government. It certainly helps to understand why a man might have been able to say that he must defend his state, rather than fight on the side of the national government. As with taxes, these men had to struggle internally with the issue of the authority of rulers, albeit in a somewhat different way than just the concern over taxes. Interestingly, taxation was part of the problem . . .
  
  I’m going to be drawn away from the computer for several days and will miss the continued discussion. It’s likely to draw down before I return. Thus my long reply. Thanks for a great thread. I hope to see a lot more of these on liberty.me. You’ve taken concepts that are normally left to philosophy and intellect and put them into a practical and real example that forces readers to make some moral judgments and decisions. Well done.
  - Ned Netterville May 18, 2015 , 1:58 am Log in to Reply Vote0
    
    Michael: “I see troubling the rule of the land by refusing to pay taxes (or cheating on them) to be dishonoring to God.”
    
    My view is similar. I see paying taxes as dishonoring God by supporting the evil state, Satan’s domain according to Luke, and, once Jesus’ adamant opposition to taxation is understood and the distortions of the exegetes made clear, I see paying as knowingly deviating from his principles and his way.
    
    Michael: “Your own doubts of the accuracy and historicity of the book allow you to pick and choose, ala Jefferson, the parts you accept and don’t , based upon a standard of your own logic.”
    
    Micheal, I contend you do the very same picking and choosing on the very same grounds parts you accept and those you don’t. For instance, you dismiss Jesus’ response, “give Caesar what belongs to Caesar,” because it does not comport with your world view, and you even go so far as to put your words into his mouth when you say he said, “pay Caesar’s tax.” You zero in on Peter’s cosseting remark to honor the emperor, but you ignore his comments upholding slavery. You say rulers are given their authority by God, but you ignore the words of Luke attributing that authority to Satan. You say Jesus paid the Temple tax, without any scriptural authority for that position. You say every verse in the Bible has the ultimate and final interpretation in the person of Jesus, yet you are unwilling to uphold his Golden Rule when it comes to the act of collecting taxes by force and coercion. (All taxes ultimately depend on force or coercion, for every tax law incorporates enFORCEment provisions, which authorize the collecting agents to use all the force and violence necessary to ensure the tax is paid, which is true of even seemingly benign taxes.) Although it wasn’t discussed, I assume like me you look forward to Jesus’ Perusia, even though he explicitly said more than once that his second coming would occur within the lifetime of his Apostles, a time long past. I have yet to find among Christians any who did not pick and choose among seemingly conflicting Bible verses, nor any who could successfully “harmonize” the conflicts–except, perhaps, in their own minds and to their own satisfaction no matter how contrary to the dictates of the reasoning powers God so generously bestowed on them.
    
    Michael, I see your position on the issues we’ve discussed as being derived from the orthodox interpretations of Christian exegetes, men who to a man (and they were all men) had a share in the revenues of their respective empire’s or nation-state’s taxes. They may have honestly tried to serve God and their nation, but could not accomplish what Jesus said no man could do.
Ned Netterville May 17, 2015 , 5:59 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

Michael, you duck and bob and weave, but you haven’t yet landed a blow to my arguments. I’d be interested to learn where in Scripture you find God surrendering his authority as the Divine Law Giver into human hands. As I read the biblical account of Samuel’s excjamge with God on this issue, God didn’t give his law-making power to any human government, rather the Jews rejected God as their lawgiver. That hasn’t changed.

Please read Matthew 17 more carefully and before your very eyes the real Jesus on the issue of taxes may appear. Believe in him.

No self-respecting tax collector ever framed a question like the one in Mt. 17 asked of Peter. “Does your master NOT PAY the Temple tax?” Tax collectors do not ask people if they pay, and they most emphatically never ask a person if he does not pay. They TELL people to pay, or else. The manner in which the question was posed strongly implies the tax collectors were aware that Jesus had NOT been paying, or, as a new and extraordinarily unique resident of Capernaum had yet to show up to pay the tax. As a person exhibiting more personal and spiritual authority than anyone they had ever before encountered, by far, they may have wondered if he was a man who might be exempt from the Temple tax by virtue of his unique being, as Jesus in fact states that he is when he upbraids Peter for mistakenly saying Jesus paid taxes. Their reluctance to just tell Peter to tell Jesus to pay the tax may have stemmed from their reverence for this uncommon man. Had Peter simply told them the truth, that Jesus was exempt, they probably would have accepted it and the matter would have been concluded. Your assumption that Peter knew Jesus paid is without any scriptural support.

Did you notice as well that the tax collectors didn’t ask Peter about his own payment or nonpayment of the tax. The logical reason for this is that Peter, a long time resident of Capernaum, was known by the tax collectors to obediently pay the tax. Peter consistently exhibited fear of authority, which you seem to misconstrue as respect. I sincerely doubt if anyone pays taxes out of respect as opposed to fear of the consequences of not paying..

If, as you say, Peter knew Jesus did in fact pay the Temple tax, why did Jesus upbraid him for giving the tax collectors the wrong answer? And why did he point out that he and Peter were both legally–pursuant to God’s law–“exempt” from taxes?

Of course by now you have noticed that Matthew’s Gospel does NOT report that Peter followed through and did what Jesus suggested, so I hope at least you won’t continue to assert that Jesus paid any tax. As far as the cannon Gospels are concerned, that tax could well remain unpaid to this day, as I suspect is the case. Peter, a professional fisherman all his life, knew Jesus was pulling his leg, that there was no fish swimming around in the Sea of Galilee, which he had fished for so many years, with a coin in its mouth. He must have known Jesus was either speaking ironically or pulling his leg to teach him a lesson about shooting his mouth off before engaging his brain. Peter, as you must know, often misjudged Jesus. (“Get behind me Satan,” he once told Peter.) Peter almost drowned because of his lack of faith in Jesus.

But even in the unlikely event that Peter on this rare occasion showed sufficient faith in Jesus to take him at his word, catch the fish, find the coin, and pay the tax “for you and me,” as Jesus put it, the important point which you cannot fail to see but nevertheless seem to deny, is the only reason Jesus allowed for paying the tax was because Peter had shot off his big mouth–again. So in order to save Peter from being made a liar, and emphatically not out of any other reason for paying, he gave Peter an out from his self-inflicted dilemma–if he had sufficient faith. Jesus wouldn’t use money from the common purse to pay the tax, because that would make him complicit in the theft of money that was not has. So he conjured the money miraculously from no human source. And you must admit that if Jesus had the power to make money appear in the mouth of a fish, he also had the power to make that same coin disappear from the tax collectors’ coffers sometime after Peter had acquitted himself, thereby nullifying the tax collectors’ larcenous gain and saving Peter’s behind. If Peter did pay, I’m sure the coin never reached those who levied the tax. Jesus was smarter than some folks give him credit.

Michael, enjoy your retreat. I’ve been thinking about doing the same sometime before the year is out, maybe at Gethsemane, KY.
Michael Reith May 17, 2015 , 9:05 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

Ned, I’ve only got a minute. Because of our very different views of God, we no doubt seem to be “ducking, bobbing, and weaving” when we examine the other’s use of the Scriptures. Your exegesis seems equally shallow to me, as it would to any orthodox Christian. God is sovereign. He never surrenders authority. There are good ways to study ancient and modern texts. And there are sloppy ways. Your own doubts of the accuracy and historicity of the book allow you to pick and choose, ala Jefferson, the parts you accept and don’t , based upon a standard of your own logic. My own method is internal examination. Comparing scripture with scripture. Because I believe the entire book to be inspired, I can do so. So, we come up with divergent views. It’s the only real outcome possible.

I’m not suggesting that your points are stupid. From your perspective, they are the only place to arrive, as I might perhaps, if I held the same view of God and Scripture. We see Jesus very differently. To me, and I say this only to give some insight as to why I conclude what I do, every verse in the Bible has the ultimate and final interpretation in the person of Jesus.

Well, I’m off. Hope you enjoy KY!
Ned Netterville May 18, 2015 , 5:26 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

@ Michael: “I understand that there are some Christians who simply refuse to pay taxes. I do not judge them for that, although they are not therefore justified to lie and cheat the government. Such would be sin.”

One cannot cheat the government by nonviolently refusing to be extorted. Lying is indeed a sin. Back in the early years of the new century, the IRS conducted its most extensive survey to determine the level of compliance with the income tax laws. auditing something like 60,000 returns. The result: most (67%, I think) taxpayers failed to report income not reported to to the IRS by a third party. Not only do most Americans–and we can safely assume the percentages hold equally for American Christians–lie on their returns, and they do so under an oath. We can also safely assume the relatively few who do not lie only are honest out of fear of being caught and punished. In other words, the vast majority of Americans and Christians are either liars or would-be cheaters if they think they can get away with it. This is understandable, given the fact that the money is question is theirs and the government is taking it from them under duress, but it is dishonest and sinful nevertheless. Furthermore, as pertains to Christians who file 1040s, even if they do so honestly out of a sense of responsibility they nevertheless are guilty of ignoring Jesus’ admonition not to swear an oath at all. To paraphrase Will Rogers, the income tax has made liars of almost all Americans. Do you believe Christians should ignore Jesus and do as Uncle Sam would have them? Of course those who do not file tax returns do not have this dishonesty problem.
Voluntary Law Guy May 18, 2015 , 11:45 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

@michaelreith, to clarify, I am not suggesting anyone on this thread is guilty of blasphemy, certainly not you, although those who worship earthly coercive power as if it were divine do commit this gravest of errors.
Grant Brown May 18, 2015 , 11:49 pm Log in to Reply

@voluntarylawguy For the record, I blaspheme all the time. “These fries are overcooked. There is no god!”
Ned Netterville May 19, 2015 , 1:43 am Log in to Reply Vote1

@ Grant Brown, try the fries at The Breslin Bar & Dining Room in NYC and you’ll believe there is a God. Leaving one uneaten on your plate is blasphemy.