In a discussion with a friend today, I was exposed to a new view of this passage today, which I have not heard before. I would like to know if anyone has consider this view, and what their opinion of its validity is. Contrary to what I have always assumed and been taught, the view is that Jesus was not authorizing the payment of taxes in this passage.
The reason is that the Old Testament makes clear in various passages that everything belongs to God (i.e. the cattle on a thousand hills). In particular all faithful Jews and Christians are correct to regard all they own as belonging to God. Thus when Jesus contrasts God's claims with Caesar's claims, it can only be the case that Caesar has no claim over what is God's. Hence, those who heard it marveled at his answer.
Matthew 17:24-27 is relevant as well: here Jesus paid the tax to accommodate Peter's initial statement that "Yes, Jesus does pay the tax". Peter should not have answered on his own, but rather asked Jesus about the matter first.
Luke 23:2 says "We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that He Himself is Christ, a King.". Those who said this may have been exaggerating, based upon Jesus approval of not paying taxes to Caesar as per the view above. Where else could this idea come from? was it outright fabrication upon which Jesus was falsely accused?
Thanks
Peter
Matthew 22:17 "Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar?"
-
thrombomodulin
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am
-
christopher
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:50 pm
Re: Matthew 22:17 "Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar?"
Hi Peter,
How would you square your friends' view with Paul's thoughts on the matter?
Rom 13:4-7
5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
NKJV
How would you square your friends' view with Paul's thoughts on the matter?
Rom 13:4-7
5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
NKJV
Re: Matthew 22:17 "Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar?"
I was going to make the same point as Christopher, which seems to reflect Paul's view of Jesus' words. Both passages use the word "render" (apodidomi)—which does not mean, simply, "to pay," but often, "to pay back" or "restore" to its rightful owner (or at least to give something to someone that is theirs by natural right, or their due—e.g., Matt.21:41; Luke 16:2; Rom.12:17;1 Cor.7:3).
Since this would not be the most natural way of speaking about payment of tribute money (tribute is something extorted by a conqueror, not necessarily owed by right—for example, apodidomi is not used in the passage about paying the temple tax—Matt.17:24-27), it seems that Paul's use of the term in Romans 13 is a deliberate echo of Jesus' choice of words in His famous statement about tribute to Caesar.
Jesus asked whose image was on the coin. When told that it was Caesar's image (the Jews should not have carried a graven image, and Jesus, of course, was not found to possess such a coin, but had to borrow one to make His point), His answer implied that what bears the image of Caesar must have come from Caesar and should be returned to him, if he required it. On the other hand, people themselves bear the image of God, having been "minted" by God. Therefore, they should restore themselves to their rightful Owner, as He requires.
Since this would not be the most natural way of speaking about payment of tribute money (tribute is something extorted by a conqueror, not necessarily owed by right—for example, apodidomi is not used in the passage about paying the temple tax—Matt.17:24-27), it seems that Paul's use of the term in Romans 13 is a deliberate echo of Jesus' choice of words in His famous statement about tribute to Caesar.
Jesus asked whose image was on the coin. When told that it was Caesar's image (the Jews should not have carried a graven image, and Jesus, of course, was not found to possess such a coin, but had to borrow one to make His point), His answer implied that what bears the image of Caesar must have come from Caesar and should be returned to him, if he required it. On the other hand, people themselves bear the image of God, having been "minted" by God. Therefore, they should restore themselves to their rightful Owner, as He requires.
Re: Matthew 22:17 "Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar?"
I tend to like Steve's analysis.
Now I do wonder which verses you (Peter) use to justify the idea about regarding our possessions as belonging to God where you said:
If the Law of Moses instructs us on property rights, then we are taught that we have possessions and rights to those possessions. If someone steals those possessions, they are guilty and were obligated to restore according to the Law of Moses. This is all to say that Jesus' words didn't protect us from a requirement to pay taxes since it was all God's property.
But this next passage you gave is applicable to the discussion now:
Now I do wonder which verses you (Peter) use to justify the idea about regarding our possessions as belonging to God where you said:
thrombomodulin wrote:The reason is that the Old Testament makes clear in various passages that everything belongs to God (i.e. the cattle on a thousand hills). In particular all faithful Jews and Christians are correct to regard all they own as belonging to God.
If the Law of Moses instructs us on property rights, then we are taught that we have possessions and rights to those possessions. If someone steals those possessions, they are guilty and were obligated to restore according to the Law of Moses. This is all to say that Jesus' words didn't protect us from a requirement to pay taxes since it was all God's property.
But this next passage you gave is applicable to the discussion now:
By divine providence Peter actually supported what Jesus advised, namely that we should pay taxes. Jesus paid the tax without having the proper coins on hand. This wasn't an offense to Jesus since the Roman government was working in the scope of God's design. And Jesus said the tax was not owed by children of the king but believers still would pay it -- the reason that believers would pay it was so as not to make an apparent arrogant boast that "we are kids of the king so we don't have to pay." Such attitude would not have worked well to dispel the accusations of the Roman leaders against Christians.thrombomodulin wrote:Matthew 17:24-27 is relevant as well: here Jesus paid the tax to accommodate Peter's initial statement that "Yes, Jesus does pay the tax". Peter should not have answered on his own, but rather asked Jesus about the matter first.
It would be an outright fabrication. The accusers in Luke 23 likely didn't hear about the the tax gatherer's encounter with Peter and Jesus nor was there basis in that encounter for the accusation by the Jews. Even with the claim of being Christ or king, Jesus made no public statements that He was the Christ. So the accusations were made by the leaders of the Jews and were unsubstantiated claims based on their perceptions of what the Christ should do.thrombomodulin wrote:Luke 23:2 says "We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that He Himself is Christ, a King.". Those who said this may have been exaggerating, based upon Jesus approval of not paying taxes to Caesar as per the view above. Where else could this idea come from? was it outright fabrication upon which Jesus was falsely accused?
Please visit my youtube channel -- http://youtube.com/@thebibledialogues
Also visit parablesofthemysteries.com
Re: Matthew 22:17 "Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar?"
It might help to clarify that the temple tax, of Matthew 17, was quite a different matter from the Roman tribute money discussed in our main text.
The former was based upon the one-time half-shekel that was to be given by each Jewish male for the upkeep of the sanctuary (Ex.30:11-16). This had become an annual tax, paid at Passover, by the time of Jesus, though it was controversial. The Sadducees opposed this tax, and the men of the Essene party paid it only once in a lifetime. Even those who supported the annual tax held certain individuals (like rabbis and priests) to be exempt. That is why Peter was asked whether Jesus paid it or not. He might regard Himself as a rabbi and plead an exemption. Instead, Jesus pled that He was a Son of the owner of the house, and would be exempt on that basis. However, He chose to pay in order to avoid offense (Interestingly, He did not use any money from the apostolic treasury to do so). The Romans had no interest in this tax, and there was no enforcement to be feared by those who chose not to pay.
By contrast, the Roman tribute was a part of the spoils of war rewarded to the conquerors. It was controversial among the Jews also, but for different reasons. While paying the temple tax was widely regarded as a patriotic duty, many Jews believed that paying the Roman tribute was an act of treason against Israel's God, who alone should be regarded as Israel's ruler.
In discussing the duty (or lack thereof) of modern Americans regarding the payment of taxes, we should be careful to apply these two biblical stories in a valid manner. There is no exact parallel between our situation and either of the two discussed above, which introduces a degree of subjectivity into the matter of modern application.
If we feel that the government is run by oppressors, whom we did not appoint nor vote for, and we object to their policies, then we might consider our taxation as the Jews did the Roman tribute. Even in such a case, Jesus would seem to recommend payment. After all, the government does provide at least a few welcome and legitimate services (e.g., police and national defense) for which citizens are indebted.
On the other hand, if we see ourselves and the government as being in league together to fulfill certain goals (of which we approve) for the benefit of society, we might have an attitude similar to that of the Jews toward the temple tax. We might even be glad to do our part in meeting the needs of the government programs.
For most of us, there is likely to be a mixture of these attitudes, and a leaning more toward one than toward the other.
Many have pointed out (apparently correctly) that the U.S. income tax is unconstitutional. It was not authorized in the original Constitution, and was only permitted by the 16th Amendment, in 1913. However, according to many, that amendment was never properly ratified. There is actually no law on the books requiring a U.S. citizen to file a personal income tax form. When asked, even the top brass at the IRS have been unable to cite such a law. Many of those who are privy to these facts (including a number of former IRS employees) have opted not to file their 1040s any longer. They do so, however, at the risk of arrest and imprisonment, if they can't beat the IRS in court. Some, like a friend of mine in Idaho, actually do beat the IRS—but some do not—depending on the honesty of the judge (not something to count on!).
This situation appears to find a measure of parallel in the temple tax story. Jesus knew Himself to be exempt from the tax, by divine right. Yet, He chose to pay it anyway, in order to avoid unnecessary friction that might arise from offending the Jews unnecessarily. Jesus was willing to offend them on points of greater importance to Him, but He wisely reserved the right to "choose His battles"—and this was not a hill He wished to die on. There would be another.
I have taken this same approach to income taxes here in America. I fully believe that the personal income tax is invalid, and that we are rightly "exempt" from it. However, I have other hills on which I would prefer to die. I would rather comply with the demands of the IRS, even while denying their legitimacy, and remain free from their harassment, so as to be able to pursue my real goals without interruption. If they were asking me to compromise my Christian discipleship, that would be a different story.
The former was based upon the one-time half-shekel that was to be given by each Jewish male for the upkeep of the sanctuary (Ex.30:11-16). This had become an annual tax, paid at Passover, by the time of Jesus, though it was controversial. The Sadducees opposed this tax, and the men of the Essene party paid it only once in a lifetime. Even those who supported the annual tax held certain individuals (like rabbis and priests) to be exempt. That is why Peter was asked whether Jesus paid it or not. He might regard Himself as a rabbi and plead an exemption. Instead, Jesus pled that He was a Son of the owner of the house, and would be exempt on that basis. However, He chose to pay in order to avoid offense (Interestingly, He did not use any money from the apostolic treasury to do so). The Romans had no interest in this tax, and there was no enforcement to be feared by those who chose not to pay.
By contrast, the Roman tribute was a part of the spoils of war rewarded to the conquerors. It was controversial among the Jews also, but for different reasons. While paying the temple tax was widely regarded as a patriotic duty, many Jews believed that paying the Roman tribute was an act of treason against Israel's God, who alone should be regarded as Israel's ruler.
In discussing the duty (or lack thereof) of modern Americans regarding the payment of taxes, we should be careful to apply these two biblical stories in a valid manner. There is no exact parallel between our situation and either of the two discussed above, which introduces a degree of subjectivity into the matter of modern application.
If we feel that the government is run by oppressors, whom we did not appoint nor vote for, and we object to their policies, then we might consider our taxation as the Jews did the Roman tribute. Even in such a case, Jesus would seem to recommend payment. After all, the government does provide at least a few welcome and legitimate services (e.g., police and national defense) for which citizens are indebted.
On the other hand, if we see ourselves and the government as being in league together to fulfill certain goals (of which we approve) for the benefit of society, we might have an attitude similar to that of the Jews toward the temple tax. We might even be glad to do our part in meeting the needs of the government programs.
For most of us, there is likely to be a mixture of these attitudes, and a leaning more toward one than toward the other.
Many have pointed out (apparently correctly) that the U.S. income tax is unconstitutional. It was not authorized in the original Constitution, and was only permitted by the 16th Amendment, in 1913. However, according to many, that amendment was never properly ratified. There is actually no law on the books requiring a U.S. citizen to file a personal income tax form. When asked, even the top brass at the IRS have been unable to cite such a law. Many of those who are privy to these facts (including a number of former IRS employees) have opted not to file their 1040s any longer. They do so, however, at the risk of arrest and imprisonment, if they can't beat the IRS in court. Some, like a friend of mine in Idaho, actually do beat the IRS—but some do not—depending on the honesty of the judge (not something to count on!).
This situation appears to find a measure of parallel in the temple tax story. Jesus knew Himself to be exempt from the tax, by divine right. Yet, He chose to pay it anyway, in order to avoid unnecessary friction that might arise from offending the Jews unnecessarily. Jesus was willing to offend them on points of greater importance to Him, but He wisely reserved the right to "choose His battles"—and this was not a hill He wished to die on. There would be another.
I have taken this same approach to income taxes here in America. I fully believe that the personal income tax is invalid, and that we are rightly "exempt" from it. However, I have other hills on which I would prefer to die. I would rather comply with the demands of the IRS, even while denying their legitimacy, and remain free from their harassment, so as to be able to pursue my real goals without interruption. If they were asking me to compromise my Christian discipleship, that would be a different story.
-
thrombomodulin
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am
Re: Matthew 22:17 "Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar?"
Thanks for your replies. It was an oversight on my part not to have remembered Romans 13:7. I asked my friend about this this afternoon, and the end of the matter is that he disputes Paul's correctness on this point and/or his authority. I do not agree with my friend on dismissing Paul, so this view of Jesus statement is wrong.
Mikew - Psalm 24:1; Job 41:11; Haggai 2:8; Psalm 50:10-11. The law of Moses does instruct on private property, and I believe we can deduce from this and other scripture that God has established a law of nature regarding private property rights. The command "Do not steal" necessarily presumes private property rights.
The foundation of some government systems, such as socialism, is that government involuntarily expropriates funds from some citizens for the sole purpose of giving those funds to others. In so far as this assessment is technically accurate, it leads to the conclusion that such a system is necessarily in violation of God's law about theft. However, if God has granted Caesar the authority to tax in an unlimited manner and/or for any purpose whatsoever, then socialism is not here correctly condenmed. I'd appreciate any thoughts on the correctness of this point - i.e. Is Caesar's taxation authority, granted by God, without any limit whatsoever?
As a side note: I've been reading lately from some who advocate the idea of private coinage. Namely, there are those who dispute that government ought to claim the exclusive legal right to issue paper money or coins. I think their ideas are good. If private coinage were common practice when Jesus was alive, he could not have responded as he did because Caesar's image would not be on the coin. Nevertheless, should private coinage ever come about in the future I don't see this as causing any problems serious enough to modify our view on taxation.
Mikew - Psalm 24:1; Job 41:11; Haggai 2:8; Psalm 50:10-11. The law of Moses does instruct on private property, and I believe we can deduce from this and other scripture that God has established a law of nature regarding private property rights. The command "Do not steal" necessarily presumes private property rights.
The foundation of some government systems, such as socialism, is that government involuntarily expropriates funds from some citizens for the sole purpose of giving those funds to others. In so far as this assessment is technically accurate, it leads to the conclusion that such a system is necessarily in violation of God's law about theft. However, if God has granted Caesar the authority to tax in an unlimited manner and/or for any purpose whatsoever, then socialism is not here correctly condenmed. I'd appreciate any thoughts on the correctness of this point - i.e. Is Caesar's taxation authority, granted by God, without any limit whatsoever?
As a side note: I've been reading lately from some who advocate the idea of private coinage. Namely, there are those who dispute that government ought to claim the exclusive legal right to issue paper money or coins. I think their ideas are good. If private coinage were common practice when Jesus was alive, he could not have responded as he did because Caesar's image would not be on the coin. Nevertheless, should private coinage ever come about in the future I don't see this as causing any problems serious enough to modify our view on taxation.
Re: Matthew 22:17 "Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar?"
Steve,
If the two drachma tax is the temple tax, what is the logic of Jesus then speaking on the question from whom the kings collect taxes?
Here's the passage again:
Mat 17:24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received the half-shekel came to Peter, and said, Doth not your teacher pay the half-shekel? (25) He saith, Yea. And when he came into the house, Jesus spake first to him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? the kings of the earth, from whom do they receive toll or tribute? from their sons, or from strangers? (26) And when he said, From strangers, Jesus said unto him, Therefore the sons are free. (27) But, lest we cause them to stumble, go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a shekel: that take, and give unto them for me and thee. (ASV)
There was no kingship identified with the temple service or priestly service yet Jesus asks a question scoped around the kings of the earth receiving toll or tribute.
I see several different options here:
1. The tax somehow involved the Roman rulers
2. The temple service was somehow managed by the rulers.
3. There was a king implied as part of the temple
4. There was no connection between the idea of kings and the scope of the temple. So the discussion continued on a mere common thread of any sort of taxation (and that kings also tax people).
5. This collection wasn't actually the temple tax -- or, similar to option 1, was managed by the king Herod.
Since I don't know any historical context of the temple tax I can only speculate that option 5 could have validity, that somehow the tax was reinstated or revised to be run under Herod (and his successors) since Herod had the temple built.
If the two drachma tax is the temple tax, what is the logic of Jesus then speaking on the question from whom the kings collect taxes?
Here's the passage again:
Mat 17:24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received the half-shekel came to Peter, and said, Doth not your teacher pay the half-shekel? (25) He saith, Yea. And when he came into the house, Jesus spake first to him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? the kings of the earth, from whom do they receive toll or tribute? from their sons, or from strangers? (26) And when he said, From strangers, Jesus said unto him, Therefore the sons are free. (27) But, lest we cause them to stumble, go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a shekel: that take, and give unto them for me and thee. (ASV)
There was no kingship identified with the temple service or priestly service yet Jesus asks a question scoped around the kings of the earth receiving toll or tribute.
I see several different options here:
1. The tax somehow involved the Roman rulers
2. The temple service was somehow managed by the rulers.
3. There was a king implied as part of the temple
4. There was no connection between the idea of kings and the scope of the temple. So the discussion continued on a mere common thread of any sort of taxation (and that kings also tax people).
5. This collection wasn't actually the temple tax -- or, similar to option 1, was managed by the king Herod.
Since I don't know any historical context of the temple tax I can only speculate that option 5 could have validity, that somehow the tax was reinstated or revised to be run under Herod (and his successors) since Herod had the temple built.
Please visit my youtube channel -- http://youtube.com/@thebibledialogues
Also visit parablesofthemysteries.com
Re: Matthew 22:17 "Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar?"
In the statement about the kings not imposing tribute on their sons, Jesus was suggesting that He and Peter would not be subject to the temple tax, because they were children of God, who is the king whom Israel was to honor by paying the temple tax. The king does not exact tribute from members of his own family.
To read any other "king" into the analogy (e.g., Caesar or Herod) would encounter the problem of Jesus implying that His exemption arose from the circumstance of His being the son of one of them. There is no doubt among scholars that this story involves the temple tax, and Jesus' argument about the king and His sons only makes sense if the king is God (the Father of Jesus and the Christians), and the temple tax is God's taxation of His subjects.
To read any other "king" into the analogy (e.g., Caesar or Herod) would encounter the problem of Jesus implying that His exemption arose from the circumstance of His being the son of one of them. There is no doubt among scholars that this story involves the temple tax, and Jesus' argument about the king and His sons only makes sense if the king is God (the Father of Jesus and the Christians), and the temple tax is God's taxation of His subjects.
Re: Matthew 22:17 "Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar?"
This doesn't quite sound right yet.steve wrote:In the statement about the kings not imposing tribute on their sons, Jesus was suggesting that He and Peter would not be subject to the temple tax, because they were children of God, who is the king whom Israel was to honor by paying the temple tax. The king does not exact tribute from members of his own family.
To read any other "king" into the analogy (e.g., Caesar or Herod) would encounter the problem of Jesus implying that His exemption arose from the circumstance of His being the son of one of them. There is no doubt among scholars that this story involves the temple tax, and Jesus' argument about the king and His sons only makes sense if the king is God (the Father of Jesus and the Christians), and the temple tax is God's taxation of His subjects.
PROBLEM 1
The first kings/sons reference spoke of the kings of the earth. So the practice described was associated with the likes of Caesar and Herod. Such idea also could be inferred from the mention of the toll or tribute tax (where I would guess that at least one of these types of taxes would be different from the temple tax).
The second reference to kings/sons (where the mention of a king is omitted and then could be God or Christ Jesus) then would properly refer to believers -- but Jesus didn't explicitly state that He was excluded as being a son -- but this last distinction may not be useful though.
PROBLEM 2
The tax appeared not to be valid as a temple tax cause there was only one valid instance where the tax applied -- from the standpoint of the Law. So there may not have been reason for Jesus to indicate that Peter should ever pay the tax.
PROBLEM 3
There doesn't seem to be any other New Testament passages that point to God as the king. My impression is that Jesus was the one to get glory as the King or Christ.
(Probably the Lord's prayer of Matt 6:9-15 would be seen by many interpretations to say that God is king. Yet the passage only speaks of the kingdom as being God's -- belonging to God or being from God. Still it is known that the Jesus is installed as the king -- Ps 2)
Sorry if I have gotten into too much detail here. I certainly appreciate the clarification that this was a temple tax. Its a passage I have at least partly misused in addressing the tax issues involving believers so I would like to nail this meaning down as much as practical.
Please visit my youtube channel -- http://youtube.com/@thebibledialogues
Also visit parablesofthemysteries.com
-
thrombomodulin
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am
Re: Matthew 22:17 "Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar?"
Who are God's subjects who are not also exempted sons? Does this mean no one is required to pay the tax, or that the tax burden falls only upon unbelieving Jews?steve wrote:... only makes sense if the king is God (the Father of Jesus and the Christians), and the temple tax is God's taxation of His subjects.