Is it wrong to keep more of what you earn than the government says you can?

[bricklayer]

My advice is that if you're going to steal, steal enough so that when the time comes you can afford the best American justice - money can buy.

You need not look any farther than the lack of convictions of those associated with the big American banks on Wall Street who were responsible for the 2008 financial meltdown - despite the fact that they reside in a nation that has 25% of the world's prison population but only 4% of its population.

Do you consider keeping too much of what you earn theft?
Would it matter if the tax rate was 100%? Would evasion still be theft? sin?

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Do you consider keeping too much of what you earn theft?
Would is matter if the tax rate was 100%? Would evasion still be theft? sin?

Keeping anything you earn which you are supposed to pay as taxes is theft. This is Biblical. The Bible says to pay your taxes.

If the tax rate were 100% (which would never happen) that would be slavery. The Bible admonishes slaves to be obedient to their masters. The Bible does not condone slavery by any means, but it does acknowledge institutions like slavery or governments (even those which are oppressive and tyrannical) and commands Christians who are in the oppressed position to be obedient servants. God is in control and rules the Christian's life. The only exception allowing any disobedience is when obedience would mean directly sinning against God.

Why do you work so hard to avoid accepting God's Word on this issue? The love of money is the root of all evil. You cannot worship money and God, you can serve only one master. If God is your Master then you have nothing to worry about, even if you're penniless. He takes care of the sparrows in the fields, how much more would he take care of His children???

Matthew 6:25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

 

[rambot]

Render Unto Caesar: A Most Misunderstood New Testament Passage by Jeffrey F. Barr

Here is the problem with using your brain:

With one straightforward counter-question, Jesus skillfully points out that the claims of God and Caesar are mutually exclusive.

This point is VERY poorly proven but it allows him to move along:

If one’s faith is in God, then God is owed everything; Caesar’s claims are necessarily illegitimate, and he is therefore owed nothing.

The problem of being a poor hermeneutical scholar is that you can take words and twist them, so much so that the meaning you give them is the exact opposite of what the sentence represents:
"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" SOMEHOW, in some crazy outlandish logic, has becoming "DO NOT give to Caesar what is Caesar's".

If, on the other hand, one’s faith is in Caesar, God’s claims are illegitimate, and Caesar is owed, at the very least, the coin which bears his image.

Hmmm. And now I'm beginning to wonder if English is this guy's first language.

So, as a simple observation, I would suggest that this author has somehow injected a hypothetical into this discussion. He tosses ALL these "if"s in his understanding; and in truth, they are CRUCIAL to leading to that conclusion. There is no "ifs" in the Bible verse.
You GIVE to Caesar his due and to God HIS due. Period. No ifs and or buts. I hate to continue on the "if" train that this author goes down but to follow the logic down the rabbit hole:
If God is due EVERYTHING, then we need to give EVERYTHING to God. And if we give EVERYTHING to God, then we would have nothing for ourselves. I know nobody who does that; nor anyone who is willing to do that (though I'd wager there are some mental gymnasts ready to reason that out). So would we be in a better "financial positition" if you actually followed the commandment you yourself are arguing for? I mean, that argument that you shouldn't pay taxes would ACTUALLY be supplanted with "you get NO money at all".


The general message of hte Bible is that ALL THE THINGS of the earth will fade and pass away. We are to bear them as the curse of living; we will outlast them when we get to heaven. Money, government, possessions. ALL these things will pass. We are surrounded by them and we need to basically, function within them, but we need to keep our focus on God at ALL times. To obsess about keeping all your money, is not what pleases God (and perverting his word to do so, is kind of....awful IMHO)

 

[lordbt]

I'm actually pretty shocked that someone professing to be a Christian would ask this... but here you go:

Mark 12:
14 And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?
15 Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it.
16 And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's.
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.

So there you go, Jeff - look at the money in your wallet - whose inscriptions and symbols and images and emblems and names are on it? Render unto the US Government that which is the US Government's, and to God the things that are God's. It's no different today than it was in the day of Christ and the Pharisees.

But that is not an example of Jesus endorsing taxation. That is what they were attempting to have him do but he did not. The idea was to leave him with no right answer. If he advised them to pay tribute, then he was saying it was right to pay tribute to an earthly tyrant. If he said not to pay he could be arrested for tax evasion. By saying what he said, he allowed taxes to be paid without endorsing them or paying tribute to unjust rule. What he was willing to render unto Caesar was to him a worthless piece of metal. What was to be rendered to God was everything else. It was actually an insult to Caesar if you follow along.

 

[iluvatar5150]

But that is not an example of Jesus endorsing taxation. That is what they were attempting to have him do but he did not. The idea was to leave him with no right answer. If he advised them to pay tribute, then he was saying it was right to pay tribute to an earthly tyrant. If he said not to pay he could be arrested for tax evasion. By saying what he said, he allowed taxes to be paid without endorsing them or paying tribute to unjust rule. What he was willing to render unto Caesar was to him a worthless piece of metal. What was to be rendered to God was everything else. It was actually an insult to Caesar if you follow along.

However you want to look at it, even by your logic, we're still supposed to pay up. There's freedom within Jesus' instruction for a person to work within the system to reduce the amount of taxes which "Caesar" claims (since in our government, we are all Caesar), but there is no freedom to not pay.

-Dan.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

But that is not an example of Jesus endorsing taxation. That is what they were attempting to have him do but he did not. The idea was to leave him with no right answer. If he advised them to pay tribute, then he was saying it was right to pay tribute to an earthly tyrant. If he said not to pay he could be arrested for tax evasion. By saying what he said, he allowed taxes to be paid without endorsing them or paying tribute to unjust rule. What he was willing to render unto Caesar was to him a worthless piece of metal. What was to be rendered to God was everything else. It was actually an insult to Caesar if you follow along.

The bigger story in that passage is that the things of Caesar are not of God. But in making that point, Christ does endorse taxation. Furthermore, the rest of God's Word endorses obedience to government, including paying of tribute/taxes to one's government. Scripture interprets scripture. A ruler or government being "unjust" is not an excuse for disobedience from Christians. So many examples of unjust rulers and God's followers always obeyed and remained subject with the sole exception of when they were in the position that obedience to the ruler meant sin against God, in which case they didn't sin against God.

So, for Christians, it is required to pay taxes. iluvatar makes a good/interesting point that since "we are Caesar" it's an interesting situation, but we are Caesar indirectly; we still must obey our government directly, the only exception being those times where we are forced to sin (which isn't an issue and hasn't been an issue in this nation in our lifetimes).

 

[Yekcidmij]

Which is why I added earlier (willing to assume you just didn't notice that), that this rule applies ONLY so long as obeying Caesar doesn't mean disobeying God.

It could be argued that it's immoral to take my earnings away from me without my consent.

However, God has given us no command saying: "Thou shalt only pay XX% of what Caesar demands",

I think Jesus only said to give to Caesar the things that are Caesars. I don't recall him saying that we are to give to Caesar whatever he demands as long as it's not disobeying God.

And did Jesus actually pay required taxes?

Matt 17:24 After they arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the temple tax came to Peter and said, “Your teacher pays the double drachma tax, doesn’t he?” 17:25 He said, “Yes.” When Peter came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do earthly kings collect tolls or taxes – from their sons or from foreigners?” 17:26 After he said, “From foreigners,” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free. 17:27 But so that we don’t offend them, go to the lake and throw out a hook. Take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth, you will find a four drachma coin. Take that and give it to them for me and you.”

 

[ArmenianJohn]

It could be argued that it's immoral to take my earnings away from me without my consent.

That couldn't be argued from a Christian's perspective. For Christians, it is not immoral for the government to tax us, and we are commanded by God's Word to pay those taxes.

I think Jesus only said to give to Caesar the things that are Caesars. I don't recall him saying that we are to give to Caesar whatever he demands as long as it's not disobeying God.

Jesus is not quoted directly as saying all that but His Word teaches that. His Word teaches us that government is God's Servant and agent on earth to enforce His justice and order on earth and that we are to pay taxes because of this. His Word also shows us that the only times disobedience is ever permitted is when obedience to government would cause one to sin.

And did Jesus actually pay required taxes?

Matt 17:24 After they arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the temple tax came to Peter and said, “Your teacher pays the double drachma tax, doesn’t he?” 17:25 He said, “Yes.” When Peter came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do earthly kings collect tolls or taxes – from their sons or from foreigners?” 17:26 After he said, “From foreigners,” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free. 17:27 But so that we don’t offend them, go to the lake and throw out a hook. Take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth, you will find a four drachma coin. Take that and give it to them for me and you.”

Jesus was making the point that He was the King's son and didn't owe any tax; but he makes an amazing point by saying "so that we don't offend them", teaching us that while He is not in any way abdicating His position as the Son of God, Son of The King, He also knows that His teaching to us is to be respectful and subordinate to government as men. On top of the fact that He is the King's Son, the fact was that by earthly standards He had no money or earthly possessions. Jesus was "homeless" in the earthly sense - he had a rock for a pillow. So as a penniless, homeless man he would likely owe no tax, just as the poor today are not taxed in most societies.

Here, he teaches again that the paying of tax is THAT important as to not be a point that Christians should be standing against for any reason. He pays the tax even though He doesn't owe it on a couple levels. He states that it is important to not offend and that it is worth paying the tax for that reason alone, if none else.

As we read the rest God's Word, we see He teaches us that it is our duty to be subject to our governments and pay the taxes they require from us. It is very clear. Christians who don't understand this are not reading His Word or perhaps are even in rebellion against Him.

 

[lordbt]

The bigger story in that passage is that the things of Caesar are not of God. But in making that point, Christ does endorse taxation. Furthermore, the rest of God's Word endorses obedience to government, including paying of tribute/taxes to one's government.

If Jesus endorsed the paying of tribute to Caesar, why did he not just say so when asked? Instead He responds "Why tempt ye me?"

Scripture interprets scripture. A ruler or government being "unjust" is not an excuse for disobedience from Christians.

Under what conceivable moral code would it be right to disobey an unjust state? Are Christians to obey laws they know to be unjust? Should Christians have fought things like slavery or just sat by in silence?

So, for Christians, it is required to pay taxes. iluvatar makes a good/interesting point that since "we are Caesar" it's an interesting situation, but we are Caesar indirectly; we still must obey our government directly, the only exception being those times where we are forced to sin (which isn't an issue and hasn't been an issue in this nation in our lifetimes).

If we are Caesar, I will simply pay my taxes to myself then.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

My advice is that if you're going to steal, steal enough so that when the time comes you can afford the best American justice - money can buy.

You need not look any farther than the lack of convictions for those associated with the big American banks on Wall Street who were responsible for the 2008 financial meltdown - despite the fact that they reside in a nation that has 25% of the world's prison population but only 4% of its people.

Please demonstrate what crimes these people have been proven guilty of, but then aquitted of.
Oh, you can't and it's just bottomhurt? Why am I not surprised?

It could be argued that it's immoral to take my earnings away from me without my consent.

It's immoral and sinful for any private person to take from someone else, property or money that does not belong to them. There is, however, no indication whatsoever in the NT, that governments collecting taxes is considered the same as this.

I think Jesus only said to give to Caesar the things that are Caesars. I don't recall him saying that we are to give to Caesar whatever he demands as long as it's not disobeying God.

Whatever Caesar has authority over, is Caesar's, and the original listeners understood this. The coin was imprinted with Caesar's image, no less.

And did Jesus actually pay required taxes?

Your own example shows that He DID. Also: Are you aware of the context of this verse - and what tax Jesus was speaking of?

 

[lordbt]

It's immoral and sinful for any private person to take from someone else, property or money that does not belong to them. There is, however, no indication whatsoever in the NT, that governments collecting taxes is considered the same as this.

But that conclusion should be obvious. The principle is still the same. Taking what doesnt belong to you is theft. That a government or third party does it on your behalf does not alter the fundamental principle involved. That would be like me saying "the Bible says murder is wrong, but the NT gives no idication whatsoever that me hiring someone to commit the crime is considered the same." The end result is the same: someone has been robbed and someone has been murdered.

Whatever Caesar has authority over, is Caesar's, and the original listeners understood this. The coin was imprinted with Caesar's image, no less.

Jesus didnt indicate that Caesar had any authority whatsoever. He simply determined ownership by whose face was one the coin. He endorsed nothing in his statement other than the overarching principle of rendering to each what is his own. In a way it is a perfect moral argument for property rights.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

If Jesus endorsed the paying of tribute to Caesar, why did he not just say so when asked? Instead He responds "Why tempt ye me?"

He almost always responded to them "Why tempt ye me?" because every time they asked Him a question they tried to trap Him into breaking God's Law with His answers. In this case, they were insinuating that Jews ought not pay tribute to an unjust ruler, yet Christ made clear that A) tax is a money issue and money is not of God, and B) taxes ought to be paid, regardless of how "unjust" Caesar may be.

Under what conceivable moral code would it be right to disobey an unjust state? Are Christians to obey laws they know to be unjust? Should Christians have fought things like slavery or just sat by in silence?

Under God's commandments in His Word. He makes it clear that we are to be subject to government and only disobey (not launch a rebellion) those things which are against God's Law. Slavery and other societal ills can be fought while still respecting governmental authority. In some cases, where God's Law is threatened, civil disobedience is the right action to take.

If we are Caesar, I will simply pay my taxes to myself then.

Way to distort what I said, champ. Hope you feel like you "won" some kind of point there...

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

But that conclusion should be obvious. The principle is still the same.

A robber stealing from you, is the same as the government, which is instituted by God to keep order, keep the peace, and punish criminals, collecting taxes to fulfill that purpose?
Mother of God.....

Jesus didnt indicate that Caesar had any authority whatsoever.

NO ONE WAS DOUBTING THAT CAESAR HAD AUTHORITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And if someone was stupid enough to do so, he'd only need to look out his window and observe what soldiers were patrolling the streets.

He simply determined ownership by whose face was one the coin. He endorsed nothing in his statement other than the overarching principle of rendering to each what is his own. In a way it is a perfect moral argument for property rights.

No one has questioned property rights. What IS questioned, is whether or not the *censored* "tax is theft"-dictum has any merit whatsoever, and can be backed by the Bible.
It clearly can't, and your insistence on individual portions of Scripture meaning something entirely different than what they ACTUALLY mean, because that's what you WANT them to mean due to your anachronistic reading based in nothing but your own wishful thinking, does not change this.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

But that conclusion should be obvious. The principle is still the same. Taking what doesnt belong to you is theft. That a government or third party does it on your behalf does not alter the fundamental principle involved. That would be like me saying "the Bible says murder is wrong, but the NT gives no idication whatsoever that me hiring someone to commit the crime is considered the same." The end result is the same: someone has been robbed and someone has been murdered.

The Bible explicitly tells us that we are supposed to pay taxes to our governments. The Bible does not contradict itself, so this makes it obvious that your conclusion (that the government taking money is "theft") is completely wrong.

Jesus didnt indicate that Caesar had any authority whatsoever. He simply determined ownership by whose face was one the coin. He endorsed nothing in his statement other than the overarching principle of rendering to each what is his own. In a way it is a perfect moral argument for property rights.

Putting aside my disagreement with this interpretation, even if what you're saying were the case, the rest of God's Word makes it clear that Christians should subject themselves to governmental authority and pay taxes, no matter how "unjust" the authority. Read about Daniel and King Nebuchadnezzar. Read Romans 13.

 

[lordbt]

He almost always responded to them "Why tempt ye me?" because every time they asked Him a question they tried to trap Him into breaking God's Law with His answers. In this case, they were insinuating that Jews ought not pay tribute to an unjust ruler, yet Christ made clear that A) tax is a money issue and money is not of God, and B) taxes ought to be paid, regardless of how "unjust" Caesar may be.

Nowhere did He make the case for B. If he had, He would have fallen into the trap being laid for him.

Under God's commandments in His Word. He makes it clear that we are to be subject to government and only disobey (not launch a rebellion) those things which are against God's Law. Slavery and other societal ills can be fought while still respecting governmental authority. In some cases, where God's Law is threatened, civil disobedience is the right action to take.

That would make the American Revolution an act that violated Gods Law.

Way to distort what I said, champ. Hope you feel like you "won" some kind of point there...

I didnt distort what you said, I just made the logical connection. If we are Caesar, then I need to render unto me what is mine.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

. Scripture interprets scripture.

Exactly!
A decidedly Lutheran principle

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

That would make the American Revolution an act that violated Gods Law.

Old news in this thread. Yes. Move on, now.

I didnt distort what you said, I just made the logical connection. If we are Caesar, then I need to render unto me what is mine.

Tell you what: Why don't you go try that, and tell us how it works? If, that is, they'll allow you access to the Internet in prison.
Oh, and let us know how your romance with Bubba turns out.

Yes, I'm getting sick and tired of people trying to be clever and twist a point, instead of relating to what the ACTUAL point was.

 

[lordbt]

Old news in this thread. Yes. Move on, now.



Tell you what: Why don't you go try that, and tell us how it works? If, that is, they'll allow you access to the Internet in prison.
Oh, and let us know how your romance with Bubba turns out.

Yes, I'm getting sick and tired of people trying to be clever and twist a point, instead of relating to what the ACTUAL point was.

You made the analogy. It is not my fault it makes no sense.

 

[Mediaeval]

In a way it is a perfect moral argument for property rights.

Lordbt,

you are quite a skilled exegete, right on the money! (pun intended). Might you consider becoming a Christian? You could have a pastoral or scholarly call awaiting you in the Church!

 

[TLK Valentine]

Nowhere did He make the case for B. If he had, He would have fallen into the trap being laid for him.

Even if we accept that taxation is theft, Jesus was pretty explicit about how to react when someone steals from you.

Luke 6:29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.

That would make the American Revolution an act that violated Gods Law.

And so it was -- how fortunate that our Founding Fathers weren't quite as Biblically motivated as today's Conservatives would like us to believe.