Or start another thread. The religion threads seem to get the most action on the intanetz fowumbs.
From reading the articles linked by Liberty Student (I haven’t gotten to those linked by others yet), this is also my understanding.
Assuming that is correct, is taxation supported by Biblical principles? As I said originally, I believe taxation is theft. However, it seems like Jesus teaches people to pay their taxes when directly threatened by the state in order to continue living for Christ and sharing the Gospel.
I don’t think it was supported, I just think that Jesus didn’t see it as a big issue for him in the grand scheme of things. Give to Cesar what belongs to Cesar he said. Jesus was talking about more important things than taxation.
Actually, “render unto Caesar” could be taken as an endorsement of agorism, as the early silver shekels observed abrahamic law, and did not have images on them. They were plain. One could argue that Jesus was saying, render unto Caesar what is his, knowing full well that the money Jews preferred to use was not Caesars.
Depending on your situation, goals, beliefs, and any number of other variables, it may be better (subjectively) to pay taxes than to face what may happen if you resist. You don’t sin by letting someone [not resisting them] steal your property. The thief sins, but that’s their problem. Your problem is your rights are unfortunately going to be violated regardless of your decision to resist or not, and you have to choose whether you want to give up a little bit of your property now, or deal with more severe punishments/theft for resisting them. That’s what your choice is forcibly limited to. Which violation of your rights do you find to be better (not as bad) in the short, medium, and/or long term, or however you want to look at it (such as the likelihood of getting your property back, likelihood of punishing those that violated your rights, etc)?
Even if the ridicule notion that an ordinary book had divine origin, it does NOT follow that ‘human’ interpretations are as true as ‘god’s word’.
So, to an ordinary mortal like you (or me), the bible can mean anything.
In this case it says that people must pay taxes to a specific ROMAN GOVERNMENT ? Well, since that roman gov’t exists no more you don’t need to pay taxes.
Well he wasn’t spreading the Roman doctrine. This is common sense.
1 Samuel 8:5,6,7 “…now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.”
Im a jew and even I know that Jesus was killed by the Romans, and not because he towed the roman line, but because he was a threat to them polticially, he was a political leader, he made political statements, his ‘movement’ was an inteloreable rebellion to roman sovereignty over Judea.
It says that the government is “the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the evildoer”. That is not exactly flattery.
Firstly, the State is necessarily a “servant of God” in the sense that they are incapable of resisting the will of God. Hitler, for example, is a “servant of God” because he is burning in hell and can’t get out.
Secondly, “avenger of God’s wrath” is not exactly a complement. Especially since it is the responsibility of those in power to pacify divine wrath (see Psalm 106:23).
In other words, the State is an unwilling servant of God, whom God allows to run rampant merely because their victims are unworthy of divine protection. For illustration on that point, see Isaiah 37: 26-28
There is hope, however. We know that God pours contempt on princes (psalm 107:40-41), the meek shall inherit the earth (matthew 5:5), and that God’s will is for none to live in slavery (Jeremiah 34:8-22)
It is also known that Jesus paid taxes.
Matthew 17:
24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? 25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? 26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. 27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.
Firstly, Jesus confuses us by asking if governments should collect taxes “of their children, or of strangers”. Jesus and his disciples were not Roman citizens, but were under military rule by the Roman government. As such, they were no different than slaves, and had NO constitutional rights under Roman laws. It seems to be then, that the king in question was not the Roman Empire, but the Eternal One. Jesus, and Peter, were not “children” of the Roman king, but they were “children” of the divine king.
Jesus basically explains that they were under no obligation to the Roman government, but then continues, “nevertheless, lest we should offend them…” and proceeds to pay the tax.
It should also be known that in Jesus’s time, the Roman Empire was in a time of peace. Taxes, then, were funding roads, aqueducts, palaces, theaters, etc. If Rome were at war, Jesus would have said “no way, I’m not paying for this bloodshed” and skipped town.
Even if they were at war, Jesus may have not wanted to offend them. We don’t know. If Jesus didn’t pay taxes he would have been in prison, just like any of us, and then possibly killed (I don’t know Roman law on this non payment of taxation issue). That would have completely changed the course Jesus was on to be out and about with the people, giving his sermons, and trying to educate his disciples. There is a long term strategy to all of this.
I think Jesus still would have refused to pay war taxes.
Luke 9
51 When the days were approaching for His ascension, He was determined to go to Jerusalem; 52 and He sent messengers on ahead of Him, and they went and entered a village of the Samaritans to make arrangements for Him. 53 But they did not receive Him, because He was traveling toward Jerusalem. 54 When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” 55 But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; 56 for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” And they went on to another village.
Great to meet a fellow Christian minarchist! In any event, this is something that is a mistranslation of the original text, most likely due to political reason (doesn’t make it right, on the translators part, but I can see why they probably did it).
You se,e the term “powers” is not correct; the Greek word there is actually “exousia” which does not translate to “powers”, but rather “Freedom” or “power to choose”, therefore, a more accurate translation would likely be:
"“Let every soul be subject unto the higher liberty. For there is no liberty but of God: the liberties that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the liberty, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the liberty? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same.” Romans 13: 1,3
if you want to take it to the nth degree and assume an Anarcho-Capitalist society, the ‘rulers’ would be libertarian law itself, along with the private court, police, jail, and defense agencies, along with the voluntary contract…so within the context of scripture, IMHO, there isn’t any conflict.
It’s just like this passage:
“Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s. When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.” -Matthew 22:17-22
Keep in mind the Pharisees never made up questions which Jesus could answer and not convict himself; they would nearly always pose questions along the lines of “are you still beating your wife” kind of thing…in any event, this passage ultimately begs the question (which Jesus doesn’t answer) “what is Caesars?” not only that but within the context of the Bible, everything is really God’s, since he created ths world and universe we inhabit (and the laws that govern it, as well).
It’s also rather interesting to note that the single time Jesus did pay taxes, it was purely on the basis of not offending anyone; nothing else is mentioned of the government’s “authority” to tax anyone.
Just my two cents.
What I’m saying is I have a hard time believing the Roman tax money didn’t involve killing. All those crucifixions remember. Jesus wasn’t the only one hung up by Roman soldiers paid by tax money. That’s a war. It’s just that the people in and around Jerusalem were in the Military State stage. These weren’t armies fighting it out in the battlefields, but soldiers patrolling the streets and killing whomever got in their way. That’s still a form of war. Like Germany occupying France during World War Two. I don’t think France thought the war was over.
Not religious, so I can’t help ya. But if I didn’t know any better, I’d say Joe Biden went back in time and snuck this stuff in there.
Check out these links:
http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/israelking.html
http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/satanownsgov.html
http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/romans13.html
http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/taxes.html
The third link specifically refers to the passage the OP is concerned with. God bless.
In liberty,
Chris
As a Catholic, this was a real dilemma for me as well. I clung to the minarchist position for years, until I came to the realisation that there was no fixing government, ever. It kills needlessly and steals from us for immoral purposes. If ever there was a reason to stop paying taxes, ObamaCare (in the future) forcing me to pay for someone elses abortion (in effect, making me a party to it) could be the final straw. Simply put, there isnt enough of ‘us’ (Christians - of all variants) and alot of ‘them’ (statists, sometimes also Christian sadly) to ever hope for a positive outcome.
Chris, great links. Thanks.
Thanks for those links, Chris! Very good!
the problem with his links, though, is it still puports that the translation “higher powers” or “governing authorities” is correct; which isn’t not…again, the word that is translated to “powers” is the Greek word exousia which means the power of choice, the ability to do as one pleases, or literally, liberty.