The Bible and Obeying the Authorities

The bible clearly teaches in Romans 13 as well as I Pet 2:13 we are to obey the authorities. Few Christians would dispute this. However, it is often assumed by many Christians that a government’s validity comes simply by virtue of its existence i.e. we are to obey them unconditionally. Those who take this view site Romans 13:1b, “…For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” They believe this passage teaches that government has unconditional authority without restrictions and that Christians in turn must obey government no matter what it does or demands of its citizens. Because of this myopic view, many consider this whole question of obeying the authorities only from the vantage point of the Christians responsibility to government. Rarely do they stop to consider much less ask whether Government has a responsibility to God or to the Christian and what that might be.

Do the above passages actually teach that obeying the authorities is absolute and stands alone in a vacuum? That anything told to us or asked of us by government is a mandate from God Himself with whom we are required to comply. Are there any passages that indicate otherwise and place conditions on the passages in Romans 13:1b and I Peter 2:13? Might there even be conditions present within Romans 13 itself that contradict this view of unconditional obedience to any and all governments? The fact is those who are quick to advocate unconditional obedience cite Romans 13:1-2 as an isolated and absolute standard must ignore not only the rest of Romans 13 itself but other clear teaching of scripture as well.

Within the rest of chapter 13 certain qualifications or restrictions are clearly indicated that are seldom considered much less discussed by the “unconditional obedience” advocates. As an example, Rom 13:7 says, “Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.” What is often overlooked is this clearly implies there are situations where something may not be owed, otherwise why use the word “owed?” Why not simply say, “pay taxes… show respect…give honor… etc.” instead of, “…Pay to all what is owed to them.” Verse 6. It should be clear when we think about it that we are not to pay those to whom taxes are not owed or to give respect or honor to those who don’t deserve it. In this, we see that the well-known common sense principle is correct, authority may be given but respect is earned.

On the tax question, a simple and obvious example would be whether we should honor a tax bill sent to us from the government of China. This might seem like a silly illustration but I use an extreme example only to point out the danger of applying any passage as if it is in a vacuum. Obviously, the only taxes that apply to us are those our law requires of us. The main point is the commands in this passage are not without conditions. We must stop and consider what we are being told and not assume a meaning outside of the context of the immediate passage or the rest of scripture.

Another condition, though maybe not apparent at first is indicated in Rom 13:1 “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.” The word “power” (or “authorities” in some translations) is exousia. Unlike dunamis which carries the idea of innate power, exousia carries the idea of “privileged” or “delegated” authority i.e. these are powers that are assigned or delegated and therefore accountable as well.

We get further clarification on this when Paul goes on to explain why obedience must only be to higher (or “excellent” in the original which is another qualification set upon government) delegated powers. It is because all power comes from God, “for there is no power but of God…” i.e. whatever power exists is only because it is granted by God or “of God.” Indeed the next phrase “and those that exist have been instituted by God…” clarifies this even further.

If the powers here are delegated, who or where must these authorities look to for instruction on how to conduct themselves? Are they merely to look to themselves?

It stands to reason these subordinate or delegated powers/authorities (exousia) must be subject to an outside higher authority and the source of their delegation i.e. God Himself, since it is God who has ordained or instituted them.

We get a further clue in Rom 13:3 which says, “For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval…”

Who ultimately decides what is good or bad conduct if not God Himself. Certainly not fallen men, regardless of their station in life. Since God is the one who determines what constitutes “good” or “bad conduct” and these authorities are instituted by Him, it only stands to reason they are required to administer justice as God defines it not as they define it. This does not necessarily address the specific laws implemented but all laws must be in the context of God’s overall moral law i.e. whatever laws are made are to be in harmony with God’s law and not contrary to it. It would go contrary to everything taught in scripture for the authorities to legitimately punish folks for good conduct and reward them for bad conduct as defined by God. How could a “minister of God” carry out actions contrary to God’s commands and remain God’s true minister? Would a righteous, God-fearing authority approve wickedness or condemn righteousness? Would God have wrath on someone practicing righteousness instead of wickedness?

Neither is it incidental that Paul references and defines righteous behavior from verse 8 through the end of the chapter 13. In fact in verses 13:9 -10 he specifically mentions some of the 10 commandments in the OT and the 2^nd greatest commandment to love others as yourself. Given this is the immediate context of the role of government leaves no doubt as to what Paul means by “good” or “bad” behavior particularly considering government official would likely read this passage as well. As Paul indicates, ^3”For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad… For he is the servant of God,^(E) an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.”

Paul sums up the heart of the law by saying in both v 8 and 10 that loving one another is the fulfilling of the law. Is there any doubt this also should be the standard by which governments are to operate. Would not the guiding principle of good and bad behavior good government is called to address be to insure doing onto others as you would have them do unto you?

In fact, clear instructions on how to treat our fellow man are also at the end of chapter 12 and its connection to Romans 13 is often overlooked as well. Unfortunately, many chapter divisions made by men separate what God intends to be connected. This may seem obvious at closer inspection but the significance of this is never acknowledged among those who advocate unconditional obedience to all authorities. So the first part of Romans 13 is not only preceded but followed by clear instructions on what constitutes “good conduct.” You get the sense that Paul was deliberately making sure there is no doubt as to the basis by which governing authorities must rule.

It is clear from the rest of scripture and not just this passage, that good or bad conduct is determined by God alone, not government. How could it be any other way and how could the authorities be true “ministers of God” otherwise?

For further clarification, verse 3 begins with "For..." The word is gar in the original and means, “assigning a reason” and can be translated “because” or “therefore.” i.e. the grounds or reason for the validity of the authorities mentioned in the proceeding verses is “for” or because they are a terror to bad conduct, not good. This clearly suggests if they are not such an authority, previous commands to obey them do not apply. In other words, our obligation is to obey authorities that are terror to bad conduct and a rewarder of good as defined by God and only by Him.

Another question worth raising is who does “every” apply to in verse 1 when it says, “let every soul be subject…” Every means every, does it not? So would this not also apply to those administering the law? If “every” does not apply to the authorities themselves, then what or who would in fact be the authority they answer to? What law would the authorities themselves to be subject to if they are the law? Would they not need to be subject to someone outside themselves?

It makes no sense they would answer only to themselves, particularly as delegated authorities and ministers of God. So would they possibly answer to their fellow authorities? This would make it too easy for one authority to “look to other way” for the sack of a “brother.” In fact isn’t this what already goes on today and is often a big part of why there is so much corruption within governments. In either case, as the saying goes, no man is above the law; not man’s law and certainly not God’s.

In light of all the above we could legitimately arrange verses 1-4 to read as follows:

Rom 13:3 because (gar) rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad and... 4 because (gar) he is God's servant for your good... 1 Let every person be subject to the(se) governing authorities. For (gar) there is no (such) authority except from God, and those (such authorities) that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists (such) authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist (these authorities) will incur judgment. ...Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 ...But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For (gar) he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

Paul indicates the solution to not having a fear of government but rather being approved by it is simply by doing good. Is this not a clear indication that government is to rule according to God’s law? Should we fear our government for doing good? Not according the Paul. The government Paul is talking about is one that strikes fear in evil doers and approves those who do good.

Now we will look at other passages to see if the above is just isolated within Romans or supported elsewhere.

In considering Christ, how did Jesus handle the Jewish authorities of His day? Did he always agree with them or blindly obey them? Did he ever speak out against misuse or abuse of authority? Did he simply ignore the misapplication of Jewish law when he saw it taking place? No! He challenged these leaders on several occasions. In fact His most scathing attacks were for the religious leaders of the Jews, the Scribes and Pharisees. See Matthew chapters 15, 21 and 23. Granted, these were not civil authorities but why would civil authorities be exempt when religious authorities are not. He called these supposed leaders snakes, fools, self righteous, murderers and hypocrites; the blind leading the blind. And these are only some of the descriptions He gave them. Pretty scathing words considering these were the religious leaders of his day within Israel. (Might Christ’s scathing rebukes suggest that due to their unique role and influence leaders are actually to be held to a higher standard?) So were Christ’s actions in conflict with Romans 13? If they were not, why not?

The simple explanation of this apparent contradiction is we are to obey the authorities unless

1. They ask us to directly violate God's clear law taught elsewhere or

2. They are acting in clear violation of God’s law and truth themselves.

The point is Romans 13 must be interpreted in the context of ALL of scripture. How Christ handled the authorities is something most who take a position of unconditional obedience rarely address. It doesn’t even occur to them that Christ do not always and blindly obey these authorities but in fact rebuked and chastised them when they were in violation of God’s word on many occasions.

Yes, Christ acknowledged that Pilot, a civil authority, had no power over Him but that which was granted to him by God but that was not an endorsement of Pilot’s actions nor did this relieve Pilot of the responsibility to administer justice. Within the providence of God both wickedness and righteousness occur. As Peter pointed out at Pentecost, the death of Christ may have been foreordained but it was still a lawless act carried out by wicked hands.

Act 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

God's word outside of Romans 13 also gives many other commands and examples that qualify and even supersede the notion of unconditional obedience taught by many. That is because God is the ultimate authority of all men and to whom all must give an account, especially those in authority. Because of their unique role and calling as God’s special servants/ministers of justice, they have an even greater accountability to God then the average citizen. Rom 13:4 “…he is God's servant…” and Rom 13:4 “…the authorities are ministers of God…” We must ask ourselves when those in authority are disobeying God or asking us to do the same, are they still serving God or have they abdicated God’s calling?

It should be apparent that obeying the authorities does not stand alone in a vacuum. The simple but oft overlooked fact is their authority is delegated and not absolute. The basis for their authority does not come from within themselves, it comes only from God and therefore they are especially responsible to act according to God’s law as His representatives. If they do not they are acting outside the sphere of their God delegated authority; hence the admonition of Paul to give honor to whom honor is due i.e. honor and respect are earned, not given.

So now we come to the practical application. If we are commanded by someone in authority to violate God’s law are we to obey them? No, we are not. As Peter said, I must obey God rather then men. This passage is clear indication if someone in a position of authority asks us to disobey God they are acting as mere men and no longer as God’s representatives and delegates. Therefore, their role of authority is not absolute but conditional. No man is above the law, especially those who are called to administer it.

In fact I suggest this concept of unconditional obedience is rooted in a fallacious notion that comes from the Roman Church and was picked up by the Anglican Church and not from scripture. The Anglican Church called this “the divine right of Kings” which in essence held that when the King spoke He was speaking “ex cathedra” or the very words of God Himself, not unlike the view the Roman Church held of the Pope. Before England merged church and state into one authority figure this was believed only to be true of the Pope. The Anglican Church just took it a step further and vested this notion of “ex cathedra” in the King as well since he was both head of the church and state. However, absolute and unconditional rule and authority by the King (or anyone in authority) is not rooted in scripture but from this notion of the Roman Church which saw men as mediators between God and men. However absolute and unconditional authority lays only in God Himself, not fallible man. All men must be measured by God’s infallible standard and are not that standard themselves. This whole notion of man needing an earthly mediator between himself and God is an idea that is in direct contradiction of scripture.

Delegated authorities are not nor ever were intended to be our mediators standing between us and God but rather are administrators; God’s servants to administer justice and punish those who violate His law.

So again, the problem of using Romans 13 to support unconditional obedience, like all other misapplications is if you take a particular passage out of its immediate and extended context and make it an absolute and isolated standard; you often must violate the rest of scripture to do so.

A different but related question is if and when you have an apparent contradiction within the bible, what do you do? How do you determine which is the correct interpretation? You simply determine what is clearly taught within the context of the rest of scripture and interpret the passages that are unclear or appear to contradict that teaching accordingly.

For example if the government ordered you to commit murder, should you? No one would dispute the Bible clearly teaches we are not to murder. The Hebrew midwives certainly understood this when the King of Egypt instructed them to kill the first born males of the Hebrew women. Not only did they disobey this command given by of their civil authority, God blessed and honored this act of “disobedience.”

Exo 1:15 Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah, Exo 1:16 "When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him, but if it is a daughter, she shall live." Exo 1:17 But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live. Exo 1:18 So the king of Egypt called the midwives and said to them, "Why have you done this, and let the male children live?"

The bible even goes on to tell us in Heb 11:23 that, “By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents..." Why did his parents hide him? To avoid the same decree given by Pharaoh to have the all first born male children killed. The hiding of Moses was in direct disobedience to the instructions of Pharaoh, the leading authority of Egypt, yet God called it an act of faith and not an act of disobedience.

We have another example in the case of Daniel.

Dan 6:7 All the presidents of the kingdom, the prefects and the satraps, the counselors and the governors are agreed that the king should establish an ordinance and enforce an injunction, that whoever makes petition to any god or man for thirty days, except to you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions. 8 Now, O king, establish the injunction and sign the document, so that it cannot be changed, according to the law of the Medes and the Persians, which cannot be revoked." 9 Therefore King Darius signed the document and injunction. 10 When Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he went to his house where he had windows in his upper chamber open toward Jerusalem. He got down on his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he had done previously. 11 Then these men came by agreement and found Daniel making petition and plea before his God. 12 Then they came near and said before the king, concerning the injunction, "O king! Did you not sign an injunction, that anyone who makes petition to any god or man within thirty days except to you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions?" The king answered and said, "The thing stands fast, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be revoked." 13 Then they answered and said before the king, "Daniel, who is one of the exiles from Judah, pays no attention to you, O king, or the injunction you have signed, but makes his petition three times a day."

Not only did Daniel not comply with the Kings ordinance, he was very open, almost “in your face” with his “disobedience.” Of course, we know the rest of the story. Daniel was thrown in the lion’s den yet God delivered him.

Dan 6:22 My God sent his angel and shut the lions' mouths, and they have not harmed me, because I was found blameless before him; and also before you, O king, I have done no harm."

It is interesting that Daniel did not say he was blameless before Darius as he did regarding God but that he had not harmed by Darius suggesting he clearly understand he acted in disobedience to this civil ruler.

We see a similar act of resistance to the governing authorities in Daniel when Daniel’s three friends refuse to bow down to image the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar had set up.

Dan 3:15 Now if you are ready when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, to fall down and worship the image that I have made, well and good. But if you do not worship, you shall immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace. And who is the god who will deliver you out of my hands?" 16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the king, "O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. 17 If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. 18 But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up."

Again we know the outcome. God not only delivered them from this ordeal but was actually present with them in the fire.

The last example we will mention is Esther. Mordecai, the father of Esther refused to bow and pay homage to Haman, the King’s right hand man. Haman, finding out that Mordecai was a Jew and filled with fury, went to the king to request all Jews to be destroyed.

Est 3:8 Then Haman said to King Ahasuerus, "There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom. Their laws are different from those of every other people, and they do not keep the king's laws, so that it is not to the king's profit to tolerate them. 9 If it please the king, let it be decreed that they be destroyed, and I will pay 10,000 talents of silver into the hands of those who have charge of the king's business, that they may put it into the king's treasuries." (as a side note, what kind of money deals are being cut behind the doors of government today?) 10 So the king took his signet ring from his hand and gave it to Haman the Agagite, the son of Hammedatha, the enemy of the Jews. 11 And the king said to Haman, "The money is given to you, the people also, to do with them as it seems good to you."

Mordecai being the father of Esther who was also the wife of King Ahasuerus, approached Esther and commanded her to illegally approach the king to address this.

Est 4:8 Mordecai also gave him a copy of the written decree issued in Susa for their destruction, that he might show it to Esther and explain it to her and command her to go to the king to beg his favor and plead with him on behalf of her people.

Est 4:10 Then Esther spoke to Hathach and commanded him to go to Mordecai and say, 4:11 "All the king's servants and the people of the king's provinces know that if any man or woman goes to the king inside the inner court without being called, there is but one law--to be put to death, except the one to whom the king holds out the golden scepter so that he may live. But as for me, I have not been called to come in to the king these thirty days."12 And they told Mordecai what Esther had said. 13 Then Mordecai told them to reply to Esther, "Do not think to yourself that in the king's palace you will escape any more than all the other Jews. 14 For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father's house will perish. And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?" 15 Then Esther told them to reply to Mordecai, 16 "Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa, and hold a fast on my behalf, and do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my young women will also fast as you do. Then I will go to the king, though it is against the law, and if I perish, I perish."

Esther was willing to suffer the consequences of her illegal action. But again, God delivered her and her fellow Jews and Haman was executed.

Now let’s turn to a more current historical example outside of the Bible. It is apparent God has blessed the founding of America. So how do we handle the American Revolution? In declaring their independence the founders disobeyed the King of England. Benjamin Franklin clearly understood the implications of their “rebellion” when he said "We must all hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately." So was the manner of America's founding a violation of Romans 13? You might consider reading the "Declaration of Independence" again as a lesson in understanding how to address tyranny against unrighteous rule.

Addressing tyrannical government was not just a problem for the founders of this great country but is also increasingly becoming a problem in today’s political/legal climate. More then ever we must search and study the scriptures and think long and hard about these things as we may find ourselves more and more unable to avoid these very same challenges faced by Daniel, his friends, Esther and Peter.

Now let’s take a closer look at the related and specific issue of taxes.

The following are two examples are often cited as proof we are to pay any and all taxes without question.

Matt. 17:24 and following says,

24 "After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, "Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax?" 25 "Yes, he does," he replied. When Peter came into the house Jesus was the first to speak. (The idea of “first to speak” in the original suggests Christ spoke in anticipation of Peter raising the matter. Other translations and particularly "The Message" give a good sense of the original and render it,”But as soon as they were in the house, Jesus confronted him...") "What do you think, Simon?" he asked. "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes--from their own sons or from others?" 26 "From others," Peter answered. "Then the sons are exempt," Jesus said to him. 27 "But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours." (NIV)

There are several things to note in this passage.

1. Christ's quick querying of Peter was a mild rebuke to Peter for speaking before thinking. (A common characteristic of Peter).  Christ used this as an opportunity to instruct Peter.

2. Kings do not collect taxes from their own but others and therefore the sons are exempt. Most Christians simply read right over this and only focus in on “rendering to Caesar.” Again focusing on a text and ignoring the context. What Christ is saying is both Christ and Peter, who were "sons" of Israel, are not obligated to pay but are exempt from this tax. But if they were exempt this raises the question, why did Christ instruct Peter to pay it. We will address that shortly.

(It just so happens the son's being exempt is also the case in our system when you study what the law REALLY says. It is the foreigner, the non-resident alien, the "other" who are required to file and not the sons (sons being the offspring of the country if you will, i.e. its citizens. It makes one wonder how aware the founders were of this passage when writing the Constitution. You could make the argument that they patterned our tax system after it)

3. Christ did not use his or Peters own money or even money from the disciples "treasury" to pay this tax but Peter got it out of the mouth of a fish. (As a humorous aside could we say that it takes nothing short of a miracle to pay taxes? Just a thought.) Why didn’t Christ simply instruct Peter to pay with their own money? In addition why didn't Christ have Peter pay for the rest of the disciples and not just for Himself and Peter? How Christ handled this whole event as well as his querying Peter and then accepting his reply all indicate that paying the tax in this instance was not a requirement. Christ's reason for instructing Peter to pay the tax appears to be for other reasons.

First, Christ used Peter's presumption and error in judgment as an opportunity to teach Peter an important lesson. As he often did, Peter spoke without thinking, creating a problem. Since Peter created this problem Peter needed to resolve it as well, therefore Christ's unusual instructions for Peter to find a fish and get the money out of its mouth and pay it.

Secondly, since Peter had already committed the Lord to paying this tax by saying, "yes he pays it…" obligating both himself and Peter, Christ had Peter pay it to avoid offending someone for the sack of the gospel. (We can relate if we have ever had someone volunteer us for something without getting our permission?) This makes even more sense when you consider Jesus said earlier in Matt 5:37 "… let your "yes" be "yes" and your "no" be "no". 

I think it's fair to say, if Peter had said, "you will have to ask my Lord", rather then speaking for Christ, Christ would have responded to the inquirers the same way he did Peter by asking them, "From who do the kings of the earth collect..." If their response was correct, as was Peter's, their own reply would have acknowledged the tax wasn't required (the sons are exempt) and therefore neither Christ nor Peter would have needed to pay the tax.  But for the reasons mentioned Christ did instruct Peter to pay it, but not because it was required to be paid.

On a separate but related matter it is worth noting in Luke 19:2-10 that Zacchaeus the tax collector was hated by all and referred to as a sinner. Christ's response was that he had come to save those who were lost, i.e. sinners. This suggests that Zacchaeus was a better then average example. Instead of refuting the crowds view of Zacchaeus as a sinner he confirmed it by his reply.

There is not anything necessarily or inherently wrong with taxes or those who collect them, but it is interesting that even in Christ's day the tax system seemed to be a receptacle for the despised and unethical. Zacchaeus was said to be a wealthy man yet his sole source of earnings was the collecting of taxes. He later acknowledged, by his willingness to pay back to those he had collected from, that he had illegally stolen from others, using tax collection as a guise. Is there a pattern we can learn from here?

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's… 

Those who advocate that any and all taxes should be paid without question, appear to consistently rely upon the superficial words of the following passage rather than the context in which this story is set. The key to properly interpreting this statement "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is to understand the context which clearly shows that Jesus was responding to a trap they were trying to set for him. This is actually the focus of this passage, not taxes.  

Mark 12: 13-16

¹³Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. ¹⁴They came to him and said, "Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? ¹⁵Should we pay or shouldn't we?" ¹⁶But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. (i.e. their question wasn’t sincere and the real reason thy were raising it) "Why are you trying to trap me?" he asked. "Bring me a denarius and let me look at it." They brought the coin, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied. ¹⁷Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him.

To be a trap, the intent was that any answer would result in a desired outcome by the trappers. If Christ’s answer was to not pay Caesar the tax (As probably anticipated by the questioners. It is very possible that Jesus was suspected of leading a group of tax rebels who would have disapproved of their leader paying taxes to Rome), Jesus would have convicted himself of a capital crime under Roman law and the questioners would now have reason to bring him before Pilot for sentencing. To protest the tax in that day was punishable by crucifixion. The fact that Caiaphas raised this issue later before Pilot to persuade him to crucify Christ supports this. (Lk 23:2 "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king.”) 

If on the other hand, Christ had said it was right to pay Caesar, they would likely have tried to accuse him of being unfaithful to God and therefore not truly the Son of God as he claimed but an imposter, worthy of death.

However the response by Jesus amazed them. Why? Because they were sure they "had" him no matter which way he answered. But Christ saw through their guise i.e. ¹⁶But Jesus knew their hypocrisy… and did not give them either response but completely eluded their question and the trap. Christ instead turned the table and simply put the problem back on them. "Whose portrait is this...?" In essence, he was saying to them, you figure out what belongs to whom and if a tax is due, then pay it.

His answer was not at all an admission of a requirement much less a command to pay taxes to the government of his day as some often suggest by this passage. To just take the isolated statement, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" without looking at the context is to completely miss why he made that statement to begin with and therefore the primary point being made.  

Now to be clear, I am not saying we are never to pay any taxes. Paul clearly says as civil servants of God they are to be supported by those they serve just like ministers of God within the church. Rom 13:6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.” However passages often used to support payment of taxes are misapplied. As a result, God’s people are misled. As citizens, we must be sure the laws regarding taxes are just as well as not misapplied. And that those we give our taxes to are functioning as ministers of God, administering His justice. This is our responsibility as stewards of God. It is apparent by the form of government our founders set up, that this was their intent and understanding as they viewed the government as their servants and not their lords. If these things are not the case then we have to prayerfully ask God if we should continue to support authorities that step outside the designated boundaries set by God to rule justly as they are called and according to His law.

In fairness, all of us come to passages with preset ideas and have to always be on guard not to read into the passages what we have predetermined but instead prayerfully seek to see what any given passage is actually saying.  Our goal should be extracting from the context as well as the text the meaning, not reading a predetermined interpretation into it.  As my Hermeneutics professor was fond of telling us, "a text without a context is a pretext."

Tied to this is that we are all prone to interpret the bible according to our fears and emotions. By that I mean if we are afraid of the responsibility certain passages place on us (such as taking responsibility for our choices) we will interpret a passage in such a way as to avoid confronting those fears. Instead of changing our thinking we “change scripture.” Interpretation of certain passages often has far more to do with our emotions then our understanding i.e. our fears and emotions usually color our view/understanding of things.

In addition, there is still the matter of WHO is Caesar and WHAT belongs to "him?"  As Christians we are not opposed to Government or the necessity of raising revenue under the specific conditions clearly spelled out in the Constitution. However we are opposed to those in Government violating the law and raising revenues outside of what the law allows. When they do, this is theft, not unlike what Zacchaeus committed. When this occurs we are not obligated to participate in such thievery but in fact as stewards, entrusted to manage the resources God gives us, we are responsible to resist it. As Jefferson once said, “resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.” Though Jefferson was just a man, I would agree.

When those in government overstep the law, whether the law of the very government they are appointed to uphold or more importantly the law of God, are we to comply? As mentioned, Peter did not think so. He was instructed not to preach in the name of Jesus and his reply was "I must obey God rather then man".

In closing it should be pointed out that if we are civilly disobedient out of obedience to God, we are not necessarily protected from persecution. Peter was flogged for his civil disobedience, Act 5:40. But we should also remember at another time (Act 12) when Peter was imprisoned for his stand an angel sent from God delivered Peter from prison i.e. God honored Peters stand to honor Christ and His good news. On the other hand God may very well protect us and even bless us for obeying him rather then men, as he did in Daniel and Esther as well as the Hebrew midwives in Egypt.

Exo 1:17 But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them… 20 So God dealt well with the midwives… 21 And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families.

Because of a wide spread misunderstanding by the church of government’s responsibility, first to God and then to its citizens, many Christians have become passive in their attitude and role towards government. We have bought into the lie of “separation of church and state” thinking this means the church is not to speak into the affairs of the state when in fact it means the exact opposite; the state is forbidden to speak into the affairs of the church. The founders assumed government as well as the church was answerable to God. Only in recent history are there open opponents within and without government seeking to muzzle the church, but this was certainly not the intention of the founders of this country. The church is ultimately ruled only by Christ the King, and accountable to Him first, not the state. To the extent the state is obedient to the laws of God we must obey it. This is what Romans 13 clearly teaches. But what is often not considered is equally true; the extent to which government is in violation of God’s law we must resist it.

In truth isn’t it the responsibility of all Christians to speak out about unrighteousness wherever it exists, whether within or without government. To do so is not in violation of God’s command to submit to righteous government i.e. “obey the authorities.” In fact, isn’t this rather upholding God’s commands and advancing God’s kingdom on earth?

Because of a misunderstanding of what is taught in Romans 13 Christians often submit to illegitimate government or unjust laws (such as funding abortions through taxes) believing we are commanded to when in fact we should not only hold unrighteous government accountable we should also resist it. In light of these things, Jefferson was right in pointing out, “resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.” The reason government goes unchecked today is because Christians have misapplied “obeying the authorities” and misunderstood their proper relationship to it and their responsibility to not obey governments when they do not operate as God intends i.e. according to His commands.

May God grant us the grace and strength to fear and obey Him instead of man as the world around us becomes more lawless.

If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further feel free to message me at bigdeal@taxtruth4u.com Ask for Jim.