[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Donate]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Breaking News:

Faces / Rollin' Stones Keyboardist Ian McLaglan Dies At Age Sixty Nine

Vladimir Putin's annual State of the Nation address

Romney's Inner Circle Is Convinced He's Running (NYC KoolAid Fest with Christie)

Hungary summons U.S. envoy over McCain's 'neo-fascist' comment

Rollin' Stones Saxophone Player Bobby Keys Dies At Age Seventy

Longtime Major League Baseball umpire Dale Scott says he's gay

Holder announces plan to target racial profiling

Why Putin Is Winning The New Cold War?

Obama's Uneasy Relationship With The Pentagon

Insanity: Washington sends war signals to Russia

Protests temporarily close malls, shut down trains

In 2008, Obama Knew About Immigrations’s Effect On Wages–Or His Ghostwriter Did

Russia Vows Support For Syria's Bashar Assad

What Obama left out

Elderly man on oxygen is allegedly attacked, carjacked, then run over in Ferguson by prote

A town explodes in anger

Ted Cruz: Joe Lieberman for Defense secretary

Ferguson grand jury says Darren Wilson will NOT face trial for shooting dead Michael Brown

United States, Canada and Ukraine vote against UN resolution on glorification of nazism

SNB says will [SELL] Swiss franc at 1.20 per euro to defend cap

Obama spurns GOP in speech.

Jim Webb announces 2016 exploratory bid for president

Obama says the border fence is 'now basically complete'

Have Sanctions Against Russia Failed?

Senate Democrats block Keystone XL Pipeline

Ted Cruz's Top Digital Operative Ditches Him For Rand Paul

US review of IS video confirms American's death - AOL.com

Police say someone is shooting ears of corn at cars in Carver (Massachusetts)

Islamic State Claims It Has Beheaded American Hostage Peter Kassig

Satellite photograph reveals Kiev Military Jet Shooting Down MH17


Other News:

Orion: a last-ditch effort by a fading empire that will never strike back

On a Roll ... Suddenly --- things look up for the GOP.

“My daddy would turn over in his grave ... if he knew --- I voted for a Republican,”

White House Ignores Ongoing Cyber Massacre on US

19 Signs That You Live In A Country That Has Gone Completely Insane

Reckless Congress ‘Declares War’ on Russia

Congress gives Native American lands to foreign mining company with new NDAA

Reports: Obama Mulling Sanctions on Israel

St. Louis PD : Teach Your Children To Be Afraid Of Cops So We Don’t Have To Kill Them

Police Chief: Turn in Friends & Neighbors Who Are ‘Gun Enthusiasts’ So Cops Can ‘Vet’ Them

Phoenix police officer shoots dead unarmed black man during scuffle

Judge DWI Case Dismissed, Shows What a Sham the System Is

Obama’s Nominee to Head Up ICE Agrees With Unlawful Amnesty

EXCLUSIVE: Rookie NYPD officer who shot Akai Gurley in Brooklyn stairwell was texting unio

Can't beat that meat! 84% of vegetarians go back to consuming animals, study finds

Denver student protesters cheered when car struck officer, union official says

Journey for Justice runs into hostile counter-protest, keeps marching

Warren Buffett, Reluctant PAC Man, Is Ready for Hillary

OBAMA’S MENTAL ILLNESSES JUSTIFIES HIS REMOVAL FROM OFFICE UNDER THE 25TH AMENDMENT

Goon Thug Cops Murder At Will

New York City Cops Murder Street Entreprenuer

The five most over-rated guns of all time

Don’t panic, but Pentagon now thinks Russia can jam American air-to-air missiles

US drugs now flowing INTO Mexico

Apple deliberately deleted its rivals' music from your iPod for YEARS, claim lawyers

Free Speech for the Rams—But Not for the Redskins

Revealed: Officer who shot 12-year-old Tamir Rice dead was 'weepy' and had 'dismal' handgu

Police are killing even more people than FBI figures show

That Moment When You Realize They’re “Grubering” You…

Obama Appoints Notoriously Corrupt Police Chief to Improve Cops’ Credibility


Taxation
See other Taxation Articles

Title: The Unusual Way That Jesus Paid Taxes and
Source: A Crowded Mind
URL Source: http://www.ecclesia,org
Published: Sep 25, 2005
Author: Loy Robert; Bost, III
Post Date: 2005-09-25 00:55:09 by loybost
Views: 632
Comments: 12

The Unusual Way That Jesus Paid Taxes and How It May Be a Message to Modern Christians

By: Loy Robert: Bost, III

Jesus and His disciples had traveled to Capernaum. The tax collectors asked Peter if his Master, Jesus, paid tribute to Caesar; Peter told the tax collector that Jesus did pay tribute to Caesar. When Peter returned to the house that they were staying in, Jesus was upset with what Peter had done, and He prevented him from entering the house. He asked Peter, what he was thinking when he gave his answer to tax collector (Bible, Matthew 17: 24 and 17:25). Jesus was of the Royal Bloodline of King David. Jesus was, and is, the King of kings. God’s only begotten Son surely owed no tax to any man; however, Jesus did not wish to offend anyone by not being true to the word of His disciple, so He instructed Peter to go to the sea, and cast a hook into the water. He further instructed Peter to take the first fish that he caught, and open its mouth and remove a piece of money therein, and use that piece of money to pay the tax for both of them (Bible, Matthew: 1:1 and 17:27).

What is the meaning of this strange ritual? Why didn’t Jesus tell Peter to take a coin from his pocket or money pouch? Why not ask Peter to take a coin from under a rock? Jesus performed miracles; this was an opportune time to perform the old coin behind the ear trick, but instead he had Peter perform this unusual ritual instead; why? What message was Jesus trying to tell Christians by his actions?

The Pharisees apparently saw an opportunity to discredit Jesus when He paid the tax to Caesar. They asked Jesus if it was lawful to pay tribute to Caesar. Jesus asked the Pharisees to show Him a coin used to pay the tax, which they did. Jesus then asked them whose name and superscription was on the coin; they answered, Caesar’s. Then Jesus told them to give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and give God the things that are God’s. They marveled at his words and went on their way (Bible, Matthew: 22: 15 through 22:22, Mark: 12:12 through 12:17, Luke: 20:19 through 20:25).

Why did the Pharisees marvel so? Was Caesar trying to take something that was God’s? If Caesar were not trying to take something that was God’s, there would have been no point to the Pharisees even bringing up the subject, would there? Was there some process in the Roman tax laws that required the taxpayer to worship Caesar or some pagan god? If so, how would the unusual manner in which Jesus paid the tax prevent such worship from taking place? Just as importantly, are there any similarities between the tax laws of today and those of Jesus’ time, which should cause modern day Christians to be careful of how they pay their taxes? Does pagan Roman law still exist in the modern world? These are the questions being addressed in this treatise.

It is difficult to know the exact procedure used to pay Roman taxes in Jesus’ time on earth. However, it is interesting to note that Joseph and Mary, full with child, had gone to Bethlehem, the City of David, to be counted for what may have been the very first world-wide tax. While they were there, Jesus was born (Bible, Luke: 2:1 through 2:6). It is noteworthy to understand that God never wanted His people to be numbered. This practice has always been the work of Satan (Bible, 1 Chronicles: 21:1). In this instance, God may have used an evil work of men to fulfill an earlier prophesy; Jesus was to be numbered with the transgressors (Bible, Isaiah: 53:12). So it seems that Jesus was numbered by men, and with men, from the very day of His birth, and so the prophesy was fulfilled in Him. Though we do not know the exact procedure of worldwide Roman taxation, we do know that it started at essentially the same time as Jesus’ birth. We also know that this taxation was based on pagan Roman laws, and thus it was not based upon Gods laws.

To understand why the Pharisees took offense to Jesus’ tax paying, one must have a basic understanding of the laws of pagan Rome. The Romans worshiped a multitude of false gods; the belief in the powers of these false gods influenced the laws of pagan Rome. The god, Mars, was the Roman god of war. It is common knowledge that Martial law and Maritime law, which are generally enforced in Admiralty courts, are modern legal descendants of Roman law (Concentes Dii. Page 1).

Martial law is implemented in times of war or national emergency, and Maritime law is used primarily on the high seas. It is a commonly known historical fact that the expansion of ancient Rome was advanced largely by military action; therefore, the Roman’s belief in the false god, Mars, was likely to have been influential in the ruling of the lands conquered by Rome. The false god, Mercury, was the messenger of the gods. He was also the god of commerce; law Merchant and Mercantile law are also modern day descendants of Roman law. The wealth and commerce of the lands conquered by ancient Rome was likely to have been a motivational factor for invading the lands to begin with, so the Roman’s belief in the false god, Mercury, may have been very influential in the laws governing the lands conquered by Rome as well (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996. See: Admiralty, Law Merchant, Maritime, Martial law. Concentes Dii. page 1. A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States and of the Several States of the American Union, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856, See: Admiralty, Maritime, Maritime Law, War).

The pagan god worship associated with Roman laws, combined with the fact that there were temples in some Roman cities that were erected for the worship of Caesar himself, makes it easy to see why the Pharisees may have thought that Jesus was honoring false gods by paying taxes to Rome. However, it is not quite clear how the ritualistic methodology used by Jesus clearly showed to the Pharisees that no such honor to false gods was being bestowed. Therefore, in order to understand Jesus’ instructions to Peter, one must first understand what the sea, the fish, and the coin symbolize under the Roman law. Only then can the full magnitude of Christ’s instructions be completely understood. Therefore, it is convenient for the sake of this treatise that Roman law is still in existence today, and can be studied in its present form quite carefully (8. Historical Setting. Page 1).

The following may seem off topic at first; however, it is relevant to the subject at hand, which will be obvious later in this treatise. The people of the United States are subject to the Civil law; Civil law is legally defined simply as “Roman Law” by Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996. Thus, a look at our own laws might give some insight as to the function of the laws in Jesus’ time on earth. Contrary to popular belief, it is an established fact that the United States Federal Government was dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719. It was declared by President Roosevelt to be bankrupt and insolvent. The “Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause” [H. J. R. 192, 73rd. Congress in session June 5, 1933] dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Government Offices, Officers and Departments (United States Congressional Record. page H-1303).

If the United States Federal Government exists today, it is in name only. The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments now operate within a de facto status under Emergency War Powers. These International Bankers have become the “Caesars” of the modern world. Just as in Jesus’ time on earth, the government, the people, and the money are in the hands of a foreign power (Caesar) and the rules of Roman law (United States Congressional Record. page H-1303).

To understand how Roman law is enforced in the United States, one must understand that the Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and distinct from the federal United States government. It operates exclusively under Admiralty/Maritime law. The Maritime law compels specific performance in paying the interest (tax), or premiums on the National Debt. The Federal Government borrows as much of the credit based “money substitute” [debt based credit] that it wishes from the privately owned Federal Reserve System. In return, the Government has "hypothecated" all of the property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a "beneficiary" of an alleged trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their "subjects," the 14th Amendment U.S. citizens, to the Federal Reserve System. The purported tax that is paid by US citizens is merely interest being paid on the government’s debt obligations to the Federal Reserve System. Thus, the Federal U.S. bankruptcy is serviced. This may seem irrelevant to the subject at hand; however, it illustrates the very essence of the basic mechanics of modern Roman law (United States Congressional Record. page H-1303)

The above described Maritime law is the law of the sea. The sea was where Jesus told Peter to cast his hook; perhaps the “sea,” that Jesus spoke of, may have been representative of the pagan Roman legal system, which still exists today. Spurning further similarities to His parable, the Certified Birth Certificates that are now issued to all children born in the United States are presently used as a commercial paper hypothecated to back the Federal Reserve Notes. A “certificate” by legal definition can be defined as: “a document that is proof of ownership or indebtedness.” The all capitalized name on the Certified Birth Certificates indicates that the individual named is a “legal person.” A “legal person” is legally defined as “a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and esp. the capacity to sue and be sued.” Thus, the people of the United States have become a corporate entity, both individually and collectively as part of the Gross National Product (Gross National Product. Page 1). Further, a “corporation” is defined as: “an invisible, intangible, artificial creation of the law existing as a voluntary chartered association of individuals that has most of the rights and duties of natural persons but with perpetual existence and limited liability”. It is obvious that a fish owes its existence and charter powers to the sea, so perhaps the “first fish” that Jesus spoke of might be referring to the corporate “person” created at birth by the Roman civil law, which owes its existence and powers to the law of the sea (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 1996. See: corporation).

In present times people in the United States are legally considered corporate (legal) persons created by the State through the application of Roman law. This is evident by the fact that U.S. citizens are legally required to get permission from the State in the form of licenses and permits to engage in rights that were originally considered God given but are now legally considered to be civil rights granted by the State. To support this contention, consider the requirement to get driver’s licenses, building permits, fishing licenses, hunting licenses, passports, zoning permits, and marriage licenses just to name a few. All of these licenses and permits bear the all capitalized and/or initialed names of persons created by the State under Roman civil law.

A Christian name is not properly spelled with all capital letters or initials (Style Manual, Chapter 3 at § 3.2). It is interesting to note that the translators of the King James Version of the Holy Bible translated Jesus’ name in all capital letters six times in the New Testament: Matthew:1:21, Matthew:1:25, Matthew:27:37, Luke:1:31, Luke:2:21, and John:19:19. All of these verses refer to Jesus’ name given at His birth or His death. The modern day birth and death certificates bear similar all capitalized names.

Perhaps Jesus was falsely considered to be a “legal person” by the Roman authorities of His day, just as we are today. New Testament Scripture states that God has no respect for persons at: Acts: 10:34, Romans: 2:11, Ephesians: 6:9, Colossians: 3:25, James: 2:9 and 1 Peter: 1:17. Simon Peter warned the Christians that “false teachers” through greed and lies would make merchandise of them (Bible, 2 Peter: 2:1 through 2:3). It seems quite plausible that the same situation might still exist today. When one looks at modern day 1040 tax forms, instructions, and Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code, one will notice that the instructions apply to certain “persons” as distinguished from “people.” The word “people” refers to men and women. Men and women are the creation of God (Bible, Genesis: 1:26 through 1:27 and Genesis: 2:7 through 2:8). No matter which legal dictionary one chooses, “man” nor “woman” nor “people” will ever be used in the definition of a “person.” Further, no legal dictionary attempts to define “people” at all. Therefore, one must conclude that “persons” and “people” are not considered to be synonymous in the eyes of the law (A Dictionary of Law 1893, A Law Dictionary 1856, Websters Dictionary of Law 1996. See: person, “people” not listed in any source).

When one fills out a 1040 tax form, he/she is apparently admitting, by swearing an oath under the penalty of perjury, to being a legal person, which is a creation of Roman civil law. “Perjury” is legally defined as: “the act or crime of knowingly making a false statement (as about a material matter) while under oath or bound by an affirmation or other officially prescribed declaration that what one says, writes, or claims is true.” “Oath” is legally defined as: a solemn attestation of the truth of one's words or the sincerity of one's intentions” specifically: “one accompanied by calling upon a deity as a witness” (A Dictionary of Law 1893, See: perjury, and oath). Jesus warned Christians that above all they should not to swear any oaths or they would fall into condemnation (Bible, James: 5:12). Jesus told Peter that He would give him the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, but in the same verse He told Peter that whatever is bound on earth is also bound in Heaven; further, he stated that what is lost on earth is also lost in heaven (Bible, Matthew: 16:19).

Perhaps through ignorance of the mechanics of Roman civil law, many Christians are unwittingly swearing an oath to God, via 1040 tax forms, stating that they are “persons” created by the operation of pagan Roman law and are therefore not “people” created by God the Father; if so, this would be a direct breach of the First Commandment (Bible. Exodus: 20:3). In the opinion of this author, the unusual way that Jesus paid taxes was an example to all Christians as to how they should pay their taxes. Jesus knew full well that He was not a creation of pagan Roman law, the law of the “sea.” He had Peter remove a coin from the mouth of the “first fish” that he caught, and instructed Peter to use that coin to pay the tax. Therefore, by removing the money from the mouth of the fish, Jesus was refusing to speak as a creation of the law of the “sea.” Thus, one can conclude that Christians should speak as the man/women and living soul that God created and pay the tax that is requested without compromising the lawful stature granted to them by God (Bible. Genesis: 2:7). In this manner Jesus rendered unto Caesar the things that were Caesars, and rendered unto God the things that were Gods. If this hypothesis is correct then it is no wonder that the Pharisees marveled at Jesus’ words.

Works Cited

God. The Holy Bible. King James Version

The Speaker - Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House. United States Congressional Record. March 1, 1993 VOL. 33, page H-1303.

Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. 1996 ed.

United States Government Printing Office. Style Manual. March 1984 ed. [provides comprehensive grammar, style and usage for all government publications, including court and legal writing]. William C. Anderson.

A Dictionary of Law: A Dictionary and Compendium of American and English Jurisprudence. T. H. Flood and Company: Chicago, 1893.

Bouvier, John. A Law Dictionary: Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America and of the Several States of the Union: With References to the Civil and other Systems of Foreign Law. 6th ed. Childs and Peterson, Philadelphia, 1856.

Concentes Dii. Internet Source. Available at: http://members.tripod.com/~onespiritx/gods35.htm#Mars Ares .

8. Historical Setting. Internet Source. Available at: http://www.apocalipsis.org/rev-hist.htm.

Gross National Product. Internet Source. Available at: http://www.cftech.com/BrainBank/CORPORATEADMINISTRATION/GrossNatlProd.html.

Loy Robert: Bost, III

Post Comment   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: loybost (#0)

Works Cited: God. The Holy Bible. King James Version

Doesn't mean a thing in a court of law.

buckeroo  posted on  2005-09-25   1:54:18 ET  Reply   Trace  


#2. To: loybost (#0)

I announce your inititation in to the High Order of Goofy Kooks.

DAnconia55  posted on  2005-09-25   10:51:08 ET  Reply   Trace  


#3. To: DAnconia55 (#2)

Hello All,

1. I just wanted to make a quick acknowledgment of your comments. First, although the present court system doesn’t promote freedom of religion, unless one is devoid of it, one is still required to swear or affirm their honesty by placing their right hand on the Bible. It is indeed difficult at best to get a judge to recognize the Common Law, the roots of which can be traced to Biblical times. There are those who have done it, but it’s a rare occasion indeed.

2. High Order of Goofy Kooks, huh? Oh well, I’ve been called worse. The purpose of the article above was simply to attempt to analyze a passage of Scripture that I have always found unusual and confusing. I have never found anyone who has even attempted to make sense out of Jesus’ unusual tax paying practice. Perhaps what I have written is no more than a flight of fancy, or perhaps it leans toward accuracy. Either way, I hope that those who read it find it thought provoking. I would welcome another interpretation of Jesus’ actions in this instance, so please feel free to expound your own interpretation. Many people, both Jew and gentile alike, found Jesus to be in the High Order of Goofy Kooks, so I fear that I’m unworthy of the title, but I’ll continue to strive for perfection. :)

loybost  posted on  2005-09-26   20:33:31 ET  Reply   Trace  


#4. To: loybost (#3)

one is still required to swear or affirm their honesty by placing their right hand on the Bible

No. One does not have to place a hand on a bible. As either an atheist or as one who believe the use is blasphemous, you are required only to affirm, by your own word, that your testemony is true.

I have been in court, recently, and swear no oath on any religious objects.

RobertLangDirect  posted on  2005-10-05   14:17:30 ET  Reply   Trace  


#5. To: RobertLangDirect (#4)

I stand corrected, sir. "Required" was a poor and misleading choice of words. I won't swear any oaths either. To my knowldge, they still offer a Bible to swear on in court, but it is not a requirement that one does so. Thank you, sir, for that clarification.

Loy

loybost  posted on  2005-10-05   20:44:39 ET  Reply   Trace  


#6. To: loybost (#3)

The purpose of the article above was simply to attempt to analyze a passage of Scripture that I have always found unusual and confusing. I have never found anyone who has even attempted to make sense out of Jesus’ unusual tax paying practice. Perhaps what I have written is no more than a flight of fancy, or perhaps it leans toward accuracy. Either way, I hope that those who read it find it thought provoking. I would welcome another interpretation of Jesus’ actions in this instance, so please feel free to expound your own interpretation.

Being that one coin paid the tribute for both Peter and Jesus, it must've been a temple tribute rather than a Roman tax. Further proof that this was a temple tribute was what Jesus said about kings taxing their children. The temple was God's house and therefore Jesus being God's son did not have to pay tribute to His Father.

This temple tribute was called "atonement for the soul". Jesus being sinless needed no atonement for his soul and therefore owed no tribute for it even in that regard. Jesus arranged for the tribute to be paid only in order not to offend the temple collectors or the rest of the congregation. Peter being a fisherman had to earn the tribute to be paid and therefore Jesus devinely assisted him in arranging the tribute for two to be in the fish's mouth when Peter set out to do what he did for a living before the ministry. Peter put in some work, Jesus divinely assisted him in earning the temple tribute for two, and therefore the tribute was paid without Jesus actually paying for the atonement of nonexistent sins.

Sabre  posted on  2005-10-05   21:31:45 ET  Reply   Trace  


#7. To: Sabre (#6)

Good one, Sabre. Suddenly lostboy isn't that interested in comments.

Some Mothers Son  posted on  2005-10-06   8:24:28 ET  Reply   Trace  


#8. To: Some Mothers Son (#7)

Yeah, it looks that way. lol

Sabre  posted on  2005-10-06   18:13:50 ET  Reply   Trace  


#9. To: Sabre (#8)

I'm sorry that I haven't looked at this thread recently. I did not realize that someone had made an intelegent counter theory. I do not entirely agree you, but I do not have time to make an inteligent, documented response tonight. I will do so in the near future as my schedule allows. Please keep checking this thread. I look forward to a discussion on the matter with you.

Take Care,

loybost  posted on  2005-10-10   21:50:02 ET  Reply   Trace  


#10. To: loybost (#9)

I sometimes take up to a month off myself when I get busy. Didn't mean to assume anything.

Sabre  posted on  2005-10-12   21:20:50 ET  Reply   Trace  


#11. To: loybost (#0)

(Bible, Matthew: 22: 15 through 22:22, Mark: 12:12 through 12:17, Luke: 20:19 through 20:25).

I would like to invite you to visit the website, http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com, where a book-length essay JESUS OF NAZARETH, ILLEGAL-TAX PROTESTER is published and available free of charge. I feel confident in saying that it is the first and so far the only comprehensive analysis of everything Jesus said or did relative to taxes and tax collectors. Its remarkable conclusions are solidly supported by Scripture and many other authoritative sources. If you do read it, I hope you will also offer your comments or criticisms, which could have an influence on the final version of the book, which will be made available in print. With thanks to you in advance, I am sincerely yours, Ned Netterville

Ned Netterville  posted on  2005-12-15   22:18:19 ET  Reply   Trace  


#12. To: loybost (#0)

"The Pharisees apparently saw a chance to discredit Jesus when he paid the tax to Caesar."

I believe your analysis of Jesus' relationship to taxes is flawed, and as a result your conclusion "that Christians should pay the tax that is requested..." is also wrong.

Jesus was in Jerusalem, in Judea, when the the chief priests and the Pharisees sent "spies" to ask Jesus if it was lawful--i.e., in accordance with God's law--to pay taxes to Caesar or not. Your analysis suggests that the Pharisees anticipated Jesus would say it was lawful to pay the tax. This is manifestly wrong. The Gospel of Luke spells out exactly how and why the Pharisees thought they could "trap" Jesus by asking his opinion regarding paying Rome's taxes. It is made plain by Luke what the chief priests and Pharisees thought his answer would be. They full expected Jesus to say it was not lawful to pay the tax, don't pay it. As the gospel of Luke clearly and explicitly explains, "The chief priests, the scribes, and the leaders of the people kept looking for a way to kill him..." (Luke Ch. 19 vs. 47) "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." (Luke Ch. 20 vs. 20)

Obviously, the chief priests and the Pharisees fully expected that Jesus would condemn Caesar's tax, and when he did so, the governor would do the job of killing Jesus for them, which of course is exactly what happened a few days later when they dragged Jesus before Pilate and accused him of "forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor." (Luke Ch. 23 vs. 20) If the priests thought Jesus was going to condone paying Caesar's tax, as your analysis suggests the Pharisees thought he would, there would have been no point in asking his opinion on taxes. For if Jesus suported paying taxes, the governor (Pilate) would not crucify him. More likely, he would congratulate him.

It is also wrong to conclude that Jesus paid the "temple tax" after Peter has falsely (mistakenly) told the tax collectors that he (Jesus) would pay it. Jesus castigated Peter for shooting off his mouth and saying he (Jesus) would pay a tax, when in fact he never would and never did. However, in order to save Peter from the consequences of his stupidity, and perhaps to save the poor tax collectors who believed Peter's false promise from getting in trouble with their superiors, Jesus afforded Peter a miraculous way out of the dilema he had created for himself. He told Peter to go fishing, and in the mouth of the first fish he caught he would find a coin, and to give that coin to the tax collectors to satisfy the promise Peter had made. By no means can it be construed that Jesus thus paid the tax. If Peter did as Jesus instructed, then clearly Peter--not Jesus--paid the tax, for it was Peter--not Jesus--who committed to pay it, Peter who caught the fish, Peter who found the coin, and Peter who gave the coin to the tax collectors.

It is also unlikely that the Pharisees in Jerusalem, which is in Judea, which is where they tried to "trap" Jesus, were even aware of the incident of Peter and the temple tax, which took place in Capernaum, which is in Galilee. It is much more likely, even certain given the design of their trap, that the chief priests and Pharisees were well aware of Jesus' often-expressed antipathy for taxes and the occupation of collecting taxes, which depends on the use of force, violence and coercion. They fully expected Jesus to condemn Caesar's tax, which he did. When asked, shall we pay the tax, Jesus as much as told them, no, don't pay it. He said "give Caesar what is Caesar's," which means exactly what it says. Give Caesar what belongs to him--no more no less. Since no ordinary Jew would have anything in his possession belonging to Caesar, they were told by Jesus to give Caesar nothing. And that is exactly what the chief priests reported to Pilate a few days later, which almost certainly was the reason Pilate put Jesus to death. All of the crimes committed by states, like war, genocide, executions, etc., are made possible by taxes. I believe that those who would follow the teachings, principles and example of Jesus will always refuse to pay any tax, unless not paying can only be accomplished through violence or dishonesty. Taxes inevitably lead to violence and dishonesty. It would be counterproductive, and against everything Jesus stood for, to resort to these to avoid a tax. For a book-length analysis of virtually everything in the Bible related to taxes, go to the website, www.jesus-on-taxes.com, where you can download the essay, JESUS OF NAZARETH, ILLEGAL-TAX PROTESTER. Sincerely, Ned Netterville

Ned Netterville  posted on  2007-05-14   13:58:37 ET  Reply   Trace  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Donate]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]