Westserve

Rendering to Caesar...

Another (new) blogger at TAC is David
Recently Dave posted what was for me, a pretty provocative article and one that I think mis-reads Scripture. So after a slightly rocky start to the discussion (see the comments to the article), I respectfully present some breif and incomplete thoughts on the issue of the authority of human governments, and how we should view taxation. I suggest a read of Dave’s article first, as I refer to and quote from it here.

Main Bible passage:
Some comments and exegesis on Romans 13:1-7

One of the first things we can see here is that the authority of the state is something God has established. (v1b). This goes beyond the general truth that ‘government is part of God’s provision for the wellbeing of the world’. Paul is saying here that every actual government is there by God’s decree: “those that exist have been instituted by God”.
Lest we think that this couldn’t possibly apply to modern times, remember that Paul is writing during the reign of Nero: a despot whose rule over the world included a military occupation of Palestine, which was deeply and passionately resented by many pious Jews (sound familiar?).
The clear meaning is that, in today’s terms, our constitution, and all the authorities who exist under it – federal, state and local – are there because of God’s providence.
So immediately there is an implication that people who rebel against lawful authority, rebel against God, because to resist such authority opposes what God has put in place. But hold that thought for a moment…

The primary purpose of the state according to this passage is to serve its people by restraining evil and promoting good: “he is God’s servant [diakonos – one entrusted to serve the needs of believers] for your good.” V4
So government is part of God’s way of taking care of people: he is constantly caring for the world through ‘natural’ means – seasons, sunshine, rain, and he also extends his care into the affairs of human beings.
The human race was created to govern God’s creation on his behalf (Genesis 1:26-29). Authority is not a consequence of evil; it belongs to the original structure of things and arises from the relationship within the Godhead himself.
Certainly evil and sin distorts and corrupts authority, but authority is nonetheless part of God’s plan for his creation.
So, since the majority of people refuse to live voluntarily under God, he rules them by means other than his Word: he establishes authorities and power structures to enforce a measure of good behaviour.
Without such discipline we know that communities rapidly self-destruct, so it could be argued that even a tyrant is better than no ruler at all, for no ruler means a multitude of tyrants and endless disruptions to people’s lives. Thus Jesus says: ”...Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Mark 12:17 and Peter writes: “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.” 1 Peter 2:13-14 (ESV)

Back in Romans 13, Paul next affirms that God has committed certain rights and sanctions to the authorities that he has appointed. This includes the levying of customs and taxes, the right to receive respect and the duty to punish.

Dave said in his post:

“The idea that princes (authorities) are servants of God seems pretty compelling… Until you remember that these servants are the very same people who often persecute Christians or even command Christians to do things against conscience. Is such rulership serving God? To resolve this paradox it is possible to suggest a tension between obediance to princes and disobediance for Godly purposes. Yet, this tension is not a doctrine one can derive propositionally from Scripture. It is simply a hypothesis to harmonise one apparent call to obey the state with another to disobey.”

Quote: “…this tension is not a doctrine one can derive propositionally from Scripture…” I believe that this is indeed addressed by Romans 13, 1 Peter, Mark 12, and Daniel – to name a few places. That it is possible to conscientiously object on some issues is sustainable. For example, Daniel did it to the Babylonians (a government put there by God).

Dave also said “Another hypothesis is that princes are not ordained by God in the sense that they have some special status that allows them to tax folk without bein called brigands.”
I find this a strange argument. Where do we get the idea that civil authorities need any special status to tax people? Certainly taxes can and are misused, but they also provide a plethora of services and facilities essential to health, well being and smooth running of our communities.
Jesus said plainly to pay taxes, even to a corrupt Roman Emperor. Paul says the same here in Romans 13.
In the Mark 12 passage, there is no suggestion that the taxes are ‘owed’. And of course, the Jews would not have thought of the Roman taxes in that way. Yet Jesus says ‘pay’ (lit. ‘pay or ‘reward’). He doesn’t say how much, so your question of the amount of tax (_“However, what is the level of taxation that one ‘owes’ to the prince? 10%? 20%? 80%? 100%?”_) is not really relevant here.
But the taxation reference here is almost beside the point (and one that Jesus seems to assume). The real point of this encounter with the Pharisees is actually to remind them that they must give themselves to God, as the image of God is upon all humans.

Back to Romans 13. Dave said: “Paul’s primary purpose in the passage is to stop Christians from taking their freedom in Christ and use it to justify contraventions of CHRIST’S law, making the point that they should not complain when the civil authorities punish them if they don’t heed this.”
I don’t know where you get this as Paul’s primary purpose. The context of chapter 13 is a section dealing with Christians in relationship – with each other (12:9ff) and with the world (13:1-7). There isn’t a suggestion that it is Christ’s law that is discussed here.

Critical problems in Dave’s argument:
“I have become convinced by the simple elegance of the idea that God’s command for us not to steal implies mere tolerance of rulers not specifically appointed by God, and not their legitimacy.” While the Bible laments the presence of corrupt and crooked rulers, it’s abuntantly clear the all authorities are in power because they are appointed by God.

Dave: “I conclude that all taxation is theft and all state coercion illegitimate, bar that which is specifically sanctioned by God.” This is a very tough (impossible?) angle to sustain from Scripture, but one I would be interested in reading about.

Over to you Dave, or anyone who wants to comment…