At the end of 1971, the Mennonites reported that their membership had provided since 1965 at least $111,575,000 for the Vietnam War alone. Since this war accounted at that time for less than one sixth of U.S. military expenditures, one would need to multiply sixfold to arrive at the total Mennonite contribution to warmaking. Studies of my own Brethren Church would probably reveal that many of our congregations likewise pay from three to four times as much for military purposes through the federal income tax alone as for all church activities.
The Vietnam experience highlighted a possible change in our situation. As long as huge armies are necessary to wage wars, conscientious objection to the use of our personal services is the right witness. If it becomes possible through automated warfare to kill and destroy with unmanned aircraft and minimal personnel, then the witness of withholding economic support may become an issue of even greater importance for the conscientious Christian peacemaker.
From my perspective, we would do well to avoid two extremes, neither of which I believe is substantiated in the scriptures. The one extreme would claim that the Bible commands us to pay our taxes under any circumstances. I agree with Donald Kaufman, who laments that, "One of the biggest hurdles for Christians to overcome in considering the war tax issue is the almost universal assumption that the Bible speaks with one voice regarding the necessity of tax payment to governments by its citizens." I do not find biblical support for such an absolutist position. In no place does the Bible command us to pay all of our taxes all of the time.
We need to likewise avoid the other extreme, the nonpayment of all taxes. It is difficult to marshall biblical support for the anarchist position that we should avoid the payment of taxes whenever possible. There are too many biblical guidelines which point to God's creation of powers and principalities and the necessity for Christians to be subjects for the common good. There is biblical support for the payment of taxes. The question is war taxes. It is important not only to keep in mind the context in reference to the total biblical message but also the context in reference to the tax situation of that day. Under Herod the Great (37-4 B.C.), the tax burden had become unbearable. Though first approving the rebuilding of the temple, the Jewish people reached the point of resistance to a luxurious court and a building program out of proportion to the national wealth. There was a land tax, a poll tax, personal property taxes, export and import customs on salt and numerous items. The burden was intensified by the fact that there were two complete systems of taxation. In addition to the tribute due to foreign rulers, there was an annual half-shekel payment to the temple. It is estimated that the total taxation at the time of Jesus, civil and religious, totaled from thirty to forty percent of the total income.
It is not surprising then that the scribes and Pharisees spoke of tax collectors and sinners in the same breath (Luke 5:30). The Jews of Palestine felt free from obligations to pay the tribute. Payment was often regarded as an acknowledgment of Caesar as Lord. Since the form of idolatry most repugnant to the Jews was emperor worship, his image was detested. As Daniel Kaufman says in What Belongs to Caesar, "The extremists bluntly asserted that any act of submission to Caesar--such as paying a tax--was treason to God."
How do the gospel writers place Jesus in this context? In answer to the query about his eating and drinking with tax collectors, Jesus neither approved what they were doing nor rejected them as persons. Instead he affirmed that he had come to call "sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:32). Since some biblical scholars find evidence that as many as half of the special 12 chosen by Jesus were from the extremist or Zealot party, it is maintained that Jesus identified with many of their sentiments concerning the righteousness and justice of the coming kingdom. At the same time he could not identify with their deep hatred and violent plans.
This struggle might shed some light on an important passage, one in which Jesus is accused by a whole company of people of advocating tax resistance: "We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king" (Luke 23:2).
Though many commentators name the second charge a lie, the scriptural evidence is not that conclusive. In reference to the last charge about kingship, a common consensus has been both a no and a yes. He was not the political messiah which many, even his own disciples, had anticipated: one who would lead an army to overthrow Roman rule and restore the Jewish state. Nevertheless, it is right to acclaim him a suffering servant Messiah, one who in his way of opposing evil, in his cross and resurrection, is worthy to be called king. This may be helpful in thinking about the other charges.
We do not possess certain evidence that he was or was not an active teacher of tax resistance. If he was, it is fairly certain that he was a different kind of tax resister than his Zealot associates. This broader context should be kept in mind as we examine the specific passages which are appropriated as proof texts for this issue.
• Matthew 17:24-27. The "half-shekel tax" in this passage is definitely the temple tax, which dates from the Exodus and represented an annual tax for every Jew over twenty for the service of the sanctuary. It was later appropriated for the use of the temple. The passage reports that Jesus in his analogy about the kings of the earth, who collect taxes from others and not their own sons, declares the sons of Israel to be free from the temple tax. At the same time he devised a way to pay it in order not to give offense. Hugh Montefiore observes that in this action Jesus sided neither with the Pharisees, who believed all were legally required to pay the tax, or with the Sadducees, who felt that free-will offerings were the prerogative of the rich. Jesus opposed the compulsory nature of the tax. At the same time he wanted to support the temple.
Following the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70, this tax was appropriated by Roman officials for Jupiter Capitolinus. This passage probably became important for the early Christians, especially for the Jewish Christians who had to struggle with this issue. We do know that there were early Christians who refused to pay taxes for Caesar's pagan temple in Rome. For this reason, we can see how erroneous it is to deduce from this story about the temple tax a command for the payment of all taxes.
Jesus and the Denarius
• Mark 12:13-17 (see also Matthew 22:15-22 and Luke 20:20-26). If there is any passage which might give a clear directive, it should be one in which Jesus is asked directly: "Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?" As has been often reiterated, the context for this question is important for proper understanding. The questioners constituted two groups, the Herodians and the Pharisees, who shared little except a common desire to entrap Jesus. If he answered no, they knew he would be in trouble with the governing authorities. If he answered yes, they hoped to subvert his popularity with the people.
There is universal agreement that the answer was clever. Even the Herodians and Pharisees "were amazed." It is difficult for me to believe, however, that the primary basis for a more ambiguous answer can be explained by the fact that Jesus wanted to save either his own skin or his popularity. If he had wanted to give sanction for all time for the payment of all taxes, his yes would have been yes. And if he desired to advocate unqualified tax refusal, his no would have been no. His answer, which was neither yes or no, provides strong evidence for the thesis that the New Testament teaches neither the payment or refusal of all taxes.
As I have sought new light by reading many commentaries and prayerfully considering this passage, it has been helpful for me to list some possible interpretations.
(1) Traditional interpretations have assumed that since Jesus asked for a coin, this was a coin of taxation which he advised should be given to Caesar. Taxes are among the things which belong to Caesar. There are other things such as charity and worship which belong to God.
(2) An intriguing possibility is that Jesus had in mind two categories of people. This had never occurred to me until I examined the texts of the story more carefully. From the Greek we learn that the coin requested was the Roman denarius instead of the more common Tyrian shekel in the fish story about the temple tax. The denarius was minted at the opposite end of the Mediterranean, and the few who possessed it were usually closely associated with the Roman government. This fact adds to Jesus' cleverness. For he asked for a coin he did not possess, one which may not have been seen before by many in the group, and one which bore the hated image of Caesar. Therefore, it has been concluded that Jesus was saying to those whose loyalty was with Caesar, as demonstrated by their possession of his coin, that it was logical for them to give it back. But for those whose lives were oriented to God, they would not owe Caesar anything.
(3) There are those who hold a more open interpretation. Their exegesis may be the most literalistic, as they claim that it is not spelled out neatly either what belongs to Caesar or what belongs to God. Many variations can be found among those who express this view. Many emphasize that whenever there is a conflict in priority, this teaching would imply that our prior loyalty always belongs to God. This is consistent with the double attitude held by many which maintains on the one hand that Jesus did not regard the state as in any sense a final, divine institution, while on the other hand he accepted the principle of the state and renounced every attempt to overthrow it.
(4) Another group renders this passage in such a way as to support the assumption that Jesus was a tax resister. If he had reservations about the temple tax, it is argued, he certainly had greater hesitancy over the matter of paying taxes to Rome. Jesus may have been saying of the idolatrous coin, "Give this idol back to Caesar where it came from. Have nothing more to do with it. Rather, give to God what belongs to him."
Whatever interpretation one takes, I do not believe that this passage by itself supports any absolute assertions about exactly what does or does not belong to Caesar. Nor does it imply an unqualified obedience to whatever government requires.
• Romans 13:1-7. I agree with Oscar Cullman and others who believe that there are few passages in the New Testament which have been abused as much as this one. We often fail to interpret this passage properly because we isolate it from its setting between a verse which tells us that a Christian must "overcome evil with good" and one which advises that we must "owe no one anything except to love." Any interpretation which does not consider suffering and serving love is out of context.
Thus we are only to be subject to the state inasmuch as the state helps us to love our neighbor. To be subject is to take a nonresistance attitude even toward a tyrannical government, but to be subject is not necessarily the same as to obey. In his work on this passage John Howard Yoder has been helpful in pointing out that the Greek text does not say the powers are ordained by God. Rather, they are ordered by God. There is a biblical case to be made for the creation of the powers and principalities by God (see also Colossians 1:15-17). But the powers are fallen. In spite of their fall, however, God is often able to use them for his purposes. He still orders them.
According to Yoder the text implies that we are to be discriminating in paying what is due. If the authorities fulfill the scriptural requirements to protect the good and execute wrath on wrongdoers, then taxes, revenue, respect, and honor will be due. If the powers, however, fail in this divine mandate, there is a definite implication in this passage and verse eight ("owe no one anything, except to love one another") that taxes, revenue, respect, and honor may not always be due. " 'Render to each his due' cannot normally be assumed to mean 'render everything to government.'"
It is often asserted that Romans 13 must be balanced by Revelations 13, in which the state is personified as the beast. For Paul, it might be as helpful to take it with Ephesians 6:12, a passage which proclaims that we wrestle "against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Tradition has it that both Paul and the author of the next passage were executed at the hands of governing authorities.
• 1 Peter 2:13-17. This segment about subjection to human institutions and honoring the emperor bears resemblance to Romans 13. It is similarly embedded in a section concerning the disciples' duties of wider ethical responsibilities. The New Testament churches, which were living under persecution for not always obeying the rulers and which were tempted to hate the persecutors, were in a different situation than Christians today, most of whom are tempted to imbibe Americans' civil religion. For this reason these passages are to be understood as a part of the Christian stance toward enemies--nonviolent love, the willingness to suffer rather than inflict suffering. They probably are more applicable as advice to angry anarchists than as support for an easy conscience about the payment of war taxes.
It is interesting that in his admonition to "fear God" and "honor the emperor" the author departed from Proverbs 24:21, which commanded: "My son, fear thou the Lord and the king." The author avoided using the same verb to denote what is owed to the emperor and what is due to God. In fact, nowhere in the New Testament is there a general exhortation to fear any civil official. The basic message was that even though Christians are persecuted for refusing to obey the law and worship the emperor, they should nevertheless honor all men, even the emperor.
From my arguments it is obvious that the New Testament position leads me to a stance which can be labeled contextualist. This does not mean that I am equally contextual on other issues, such as whether Christians should join totalitarian organizations whose purpose and design is to prepare for and conduct wars. On the issue of objectionable taxes, we need to continue to struggle, as it is not spelled out neatly what things exactly do belong to Caesar.
This is not a pat, easy solution. But I ask those who assume that we are commanded to pay all taxes whether their way is all that clear. Do they, for example, believe that the early Anabaptists who refused to pay taxes for the hangman's noose or the early Brethren who refused to pay taxes to support the government spawned by violent revolutionaries were entirely wrong? Would they pay all taxes levied specifically for a brothel in their own community? Are there any conceivable instances which they can imagine which might lead them to refuse taxes in the name of Christ?
My struggle with war taxes was partially resolved for many years by a limited income. I still feel close to and admire the witness of those who voluntarily limit income as a way to not only make a witness in this area but to give a testimony against consumerism. It has only been in these last several years that I have been forced to face the issue of war taxes in relation to income taxes and the special excise assessment on the telephone.
It seemed to me that it was wrong to voluntarily give government funds which would be used for purposes contrary to what the government itself is supposed to be serving. The New Testament directives for government are for protecting the good, punishing evil, and keeping the peace (1 Timothy 2:1 f.). When governing structures run counter to these and even do the opposite of what they say they should do, it is a valid witness to point to what they should be doing.
John Howard Yoder wrote, "When government claims it is acting in my name, I need more seriously to disavow what it does wrong than if it admitted that it was a tyrannical or a monarchial system. Thus my withholding voluntary payment of one portion of my tax obligation is not a denial of submission, but it is a symbol to disavow the claim of the government that it is acting on my behalf."
Many critics have correctly pointed out that it is impossible to be completely free from paying for war. Most war tax resisters recognize that, along with other Americans, our hands are bloody. It is impossible to be an American and not be deeply a part of the sins we commit together. In fact, the primary point of my witness has not been to keep the government from getting the money. Small sums withheld from telephone bills and symbolic amounts deducted from my income tax payments have been collected, though not totally, through garnisheeing my salary and direct assessments on my bank account. Primarily, the witness has been to refuse to pay such money voluntarily. For me such witness has been meaningful through many conversations and opportunities to share my faith with telephone and IRS officials.
It would be good to learn from others more appropriate ways to witness against our false priorities, our use of weapons and troops to enforce our will on others around the world, and our collective violation of what we believe as Christians to be God's will through Jesus Christ. Here the primary purpose has been to attempt to open up some biblical possibilities for the refusal of war taxes and to share why some brothers and sisters have believed such witness to be the consistent expression of their faith.
Dale Brown, author of The Christian Revolutionary, was a Sojourners correspondent and professor of Christian Theology at Bethany Theological Seminary when this article appeared.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!