Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Luke 3:12-13 -- Scriptural interpretation and taxation as theft

Howdy folks,

I'm a lurker here, and scan the forums every few days just for kicks. Like several others here, I'm one of the thoroughly convinced, dyed-in-the-wool "confiscatory taxation is theft" types.

There's a passage in Scripture that's relevant here, but I'm not sure how it applies. It's Luke 3:12-13 (John the Baptist teaching tax collectors to only take what was actually due), and if someone were to say something like "See, it must be OK for Christians to tax others by force, because if it were not, John would have taught differently", then I'm not sure that I'm properly equipped to respond. So, I figured I'd ask y'all.

If I were trying to switch sides and make the "taxation isn't necessarily theft" argument, I would refer to these verses and point out that, were all taxation inherently theft (and a sin), then John would not have told the tax collectors to take only what's "legally" due, but rather not to take any at all. An analogy might be that were these people employed by Rome as murderers, and were accustomed also to doing extra personal murders on the side, John would not have said "only commit the murders you're supposed to commit." Rather, his response would be something along the lines that obeying Rome in that instance would require disobeying God, and that they should therefore leave the job.

The real me could point out that not all taxes are the same, and that some of the taxes that the publicans collected might realistically be considered fees (entering the city, using the market, travelling on this road, etc.). But I don't know enough about Roman tax implementation to know whether they also collected confiscatory taxes in addition to taxes-in-fee. If they did, or rather if these particular ones did, then I'm not sure how to apply that to the idea that confiscatory taxation is theft.

I'm also trying to avoid any reverse-logic that goes like "If these particular ones were committing confiscatory taxation, then he wouldn't have given that particular advice, and since he did, then therefore that means they weren't." Know what I mean?

Anyway, any insight into this (and particularly into Roman tax policy and implementation) would be much appreciated.

Thank you.

I do not want to get into any religious discussions on the internet, but I will try to answer your question. Remember, this is only my opinion and intrepretation, and is not intended to have any bearing on what others might believe, think, or do.

It is my understanding that in those days, a tax collecter could, and probably did, take as much as he could con, extort, steal or take any way he could get it from the people.

Just guessing, but a tax collecter might have had a lot of power and authority, and any extra taxes he could collect, he kept for himself, and my opinion is that is the reason for the passage of Scripture you refer to.

Another guess is there were tax laws in those times, maybe legal and maybe not, and the tax collectors collected it for the government, whoever that might be. If he collected more than was due, he put it in his pocket. Things probably haven't changed all that much today.

Some people still get rich by the old fashioned way--stealing.

Isnt there a quote in the bible about giving Ceaser what is Ceaser's?

Yep. It's in three of the four Gospels. Here's the one from Mark:

Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him. KJV

Here's another Scripture passage about taxation:

Matt 17:24-27
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.
KJV

You'll have to put a pretty wicked spin on the Gospel to show it advocates avoiding taxation or other requirements of governments. Unfortuately for your perspective the Bible is very pro-submission to authority. Go figure.

Oh brother what a bunch of baloney

The "common stuff should be free" group needs to pull their heads out and get some air.

Money is the legal tracer of responsibiliy becuase it follows value.

You don't get value for nothing, nor should you get a free ride which is value to you without taxatoin.

People who don't want to pay are free loaders and need to move to mexico where things are free if you can live off the land.

what a crock... wake up

I supose this is left over "child" everything is free - your parents didn't think so

God's original and current preference is that humans look to Him (only) for guidance, governance, and provision. But early on, His people insisted on having human government, so He allows it � and allows it to operate in normal, inevitable human fashion.

He allows us now, as one inevitable consequence of man having rejected His rule, to be subject to all the natural, inevitable idiosyncracies of human rule. He does not specify who is to govern us (He did that with Saul and David, and they proved His point � that human government is doomed to be far less wise and trustworthy than His).

IOW, God lets men rule men but does not specify which men rule or exactly how they rule us.

"Render unto C�sar" is therefore His endorsement of the rule or role of human government, not of C�sar himself or of C�sar's specific requirements or SOP.

I'd say Dr. Howell has it right--as far as he goes, but as you might guess, given my well-known proclivities, I don't think he goes far enough.

I think this fits fairly well into the well-established pattern of God giving his people over to others for chastisement, but only within certain limits. The hand-picked oppressors of Judges were allowed by God to loot and rape and kill, but they were never allowed to expunge the last remnant of God's people, and they always got their comeuppance when the people returned the Lord. Satan was allowed to afflict Job, but only within well-defined limits. The Babylonians were allowed to kidnap the Israelites, carry them away, and do horrible things to them; but as Belshazzar found out, when their time was up, it was up.

I think this is more of the same. Because of the sin of the people, God punished them by granting their wish and giving them human government; but the human government is allowed to carry out that punishment only within the limits that God establishes; and when it becomes too corrupt, it finds its comeuppance waiting, same as the oppressors in the book of Judges did.

Both Rome and Jerusalem had a fixed tax rate. However, if the tax collectors could manage to get more, they could keep anything over what was owed to Uncle Caesar. As a result, the collecters were usually corrupt and hated for their 'legal' theft.

Nowhere in the Bible does is say to not pay taxes. To the contrary, it says to pay what's owed.

Interestingly, though, it doesn't clarify "owed."

How much tax do I owe to the government?

Do I owe it whatever it says I owe it, just because it says so? Where does it get the authority to make that kind of unilateral pronouncement and have it stick? Do you owe me whatever I say you owe me, just because I say so? If not, why not--and why doesn't the reason that applies to me apply to government?

Do I owe it nothing whatever because I never agreed to pay for the "services" it claims to provide? Well, I expect that's pretty much the argument you'd make against me if I forcibly provided you with some unsolicited "service" and used it as a pretext to claim you owed me something. If it applies to me, why doesn't it apply to government?

Well, now. It's quite clear from most of the responses that I was not sufficiently clear in my first post. Please go back and reread the second paragraph. The question I'm asking is NOT "Do I have to pay this or that tax?" or "Does Scripture support avoiding a tax?" or anything like that. Rather, the issue I'm trying to address is this: "Am I, as a Christian, permitted to tax my neighbor?" I believe the answer is clearly a "No".

The nutshell version goes like:
1. Taxation is theft.
2. "Thou shalt not steal."
3. Therefore, any person who claims to believe Point #2 (and not just Christians, by the way) cannot participate in the taxation of his neighbors.
Q.E.D.

The difficulty in this case is that John didn't tell them to stop collecting taxes altogether, as one would expect if they were hired to do something inherently sinful. One obvious issue that's important is the type of taxes these particular folks were collecting. Let's break them (for now, at least) into 2 types:

The first category we'll call Confiscatory Taxation. It's the sort of situation where a government says "You have X. Because we're the government, we're going to assert the power to take some of it from you." Typical examples are income, property, and death taxes. I'm not a scholar in either Roman tax policy or Greek verbiage, but as far as I can tell right now, these were collected by folks in the office of gabbai. If you don't pay these taxes, they're going to find you and take them from you by force. This sort of tax is theft.

The second category we'll call Use Taxes or Taxation-in-Fee. It's the sort of situation where a government has a recognized control over some function, place, or political border, and the government says "If you're going to bring goods across this border, you must pay a tax." or "If you're going to use this market that we control, you must pay a tax." or "If you want to cross this bridge, you must pay a tax." Typical examples are tariffs, tolls, sales taxes, etc. You must pay them to do a particular thing (bring goods over a border or cross a bridge). If you don't want to pay them, then you don't get to do that particular thing. This sort of tax is something that we might argue is infringement on certain rights (free trade, free travel), but it is not necessarily theft. Again, as far as I can tell right now, these were collected by folks in the office of mokhe. Matthew (Levi) seems to have actually been one of these.

If the folks to whom John was speaking were mokhes, then it makes plenty of sense. If they were gabbai, then it doesn't. As far as I know right now, we're unable to tell. I was hoping somebody had better insight than I into either the Greek text or the Roman tax history.

And regarding the previous replies/slurs/etc.:
It is entirely true that we are required to pay taxes. Period. It is abundantly clear that we are not to resist taxation. We are also not to resist being assaulted, robbed, sued, etc., but that does not make such things right, and neither does it give us the right to tax others. This and other verses that say "Pay your taxes" are not a logical rejoinder to an argument that we should not tax others.

And ditto on what Barak said.

Hope this helps.

Pine

I guess I've always had my own interpretation of the "render unto Caesar" quote.

I've never really seen it as a specific command to pay taxes,... but rather as demonstration by Christ of how insignificant materialism is as compared to spiritualism.

Christ asked the Pharisees to look at the denarius and tell them who was on it.

When they told him it was Caeser, he was like, "Well,... give it to him, then. You need to concern yourself with something more important."

Doesn't seem to me that Christ would bother himself with worrying about taxes or any other form of materialism.

The Messiah wasn't here to be H&R Block.

By definition, an individual taking money from your neighbor isn't taxation. That can only be done by a governmental unit. I think most of us interpreted this to mean something like 'is it Christian to impose a tax'.

The context of that passage is Mt 22:17 "Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
If you take it out of context, you change it's meaning entirely.

From a spiritual viewpoint,.... it's immaterial whether you do or not. My opinion is,.. Christ's opinion was,.. it's a waste of time to dwell on it. If you read the entire passage,... it was a test by the Pharisee's to see if Christ would advocate a tax revolt. Christ pretty much told them,.. "I can't be bothered with this 'money' nonsense,... and you shouldn't either."

People have twisted that into, "God says to pay your taxes!"

Money is of the world. It really doesn't figure into spiritual matters.

I mean, seriously,.... you think God sits up there and keeps track of who pays their taxes?

Well, I doubt it's His first concern, but I'd doubt more He doesn't know. He wouldn't be much of a God if He didn't.

Here's another passage where Jesus tells Peter to pay taxes for both of them. Maybe with a little more faith and a Zebco I could make this work for me too.

Matt 17:24-27

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 .
KJV

You *really* need to shake that material fixation loose.

It don't mean nuthin',....

I think you would have to be drinking some pretty powerful cool-aid to use God as an excuse for greed and not paying your taxes.

Read Matthew 17:27

Who did Christ say to not offend?

The Kings of "the earth"

"Go catch a fish,... give them the coin that's in his mouth."

In other words,...."Give them fools a coin so they'll go away and leave us alone."

Once again,.... the Messiah didn't come to Earth to play H&R Block.

The idea that he was concerned with who pays their taxes is ridiculous.