Leftist ‘faith leaders’ twisting Bible to support wasteful gov't spending

[sanderabeer]

Lethality is an aspect of force one cannot exclude from the meaning if one wants to see taxation applied ultimately. Because in the ultimate expression you must be willing to use lethal force in order to enforce the law.

So let's apply this idea to understanding Matthew 22:21.

Does Jesus believe that Caesar would be justified in applying lethal force to collect taxes?

 

[sanderabeer]

This is backed by force, lethal or otherwise.

There's that equivocation, again.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

There's that equivocation, again.

Are you telling me that states don't ultimately rely on lethal force to back up the law?

 

[FreeinChrist]

Are you telling me that states don't ultimately rely on lethal force to back up the law?

When is the last time you know a person was killed for not paying taxes in the US?
Remember, resisting arrest with violent means carries different charges for other broken laws.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

So let's apply this idea to understanding Matthew 22:21.

Does Jesus believe that Caesar would be justified in applying lethal force to collect taxes?

The verse in question is silent on that issue. I take the view that Christ is being practical because otherwise it means that governments are fully justified in using force to back all their laws. Even unjust laws and that doesn't quite jell with the gospel.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

When is the last time you know a person was killed for not paying taxes in the US?
Remember, resisting arrest with violent means carries different charges for other broken laws.

Irrelevant. What's relevant is what ultimately backs up a law. You cannot deny that it is power, force, which does this.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Irrelevant. What's relevant is what ultimately backs up a law. You cannot deny that it is power, force, which does this.

No, it is relevant. You are creating a false situation when you suggested a person could be killed in the US for not paying their taxes.

Now if we were in a dictatorship that ignores the rule of law, a person might be disappearred.

 

[Richard T]

It's kind of weird to justify taxation based on democracy when any biblical verse you would appeal to in order to justify this view would be regarding non democratic governments. Yet the issue isn't so much the theory but the actual reality. Government and taxes ultimately rely on force regardless of their ideology and do we really want to say that Jesus is teaching us that it is moral for governments to redistribute wealth?

I don't see Christ ever doing that. Rather he talks about our responsibility as individuals. Not collective rights. Not what society ought to do to solve the problem.

The church is far better off it it were communal as the early church in Acts was. I am not saying full blown communism, unbelievers don't work under God. However, I do think though that what is good for Christians is also often good for the government. Thus, Christians should support pro-life, and support it within government. Christians should give to the poor, widows, disabled etc and also support that in government. The same ideas in regard to marriage etc. So it is not a question that income is going to be redistributed, but how much to me. Again lots of benefits exist in common: public education, parks, roads, etc. Some form of relief towards the poor is warranted. Another reason is that many rich people also receive subsidies. Tesla for instance was profiting only because of government monies for tax credits and environmental credits. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/20/business/elon-musk-wealth-government-help/index.html
Lots of subsides to corporations directly and indirectly. So who can even know the fair share of taxes that are taken and given? Here is an excerpt from an older report from Sen Coburn of Oklahoma

"On average, each year, this report (Subsidies of the Rich and Famous) found that millionaires enjoy benefits from tax giveaways and federal grant programs totaling $30 billion. As a result, almost 1,500 millionaires paid no federal
income tax in 2009."

https://www.loc.gov/item/2014500016/

Let's not forget that Warren Buffet's tax rate is lower than his secretaries. Investment income is taxed at best at middle income rates. Sometimes individuals like Trump pay zero taxes in certain years. In all fairness the USA needs to clean up the tax code first, then decide what rates and who pays to manage the government of the size that most people prefer. With so many specific tax breaks, subsidies and credits it it hard to sort through tax code to apply taxes fairly.

 

[Merrill]

Jesus certainly lived and taught in that manner.

Not that simple at all

Jesus did not simply follow the Hebrew law, He fulfilled and then supplanted the law, and ushered in the new and everlasting covenant

this is affirmed by Paul and others --it is one reason why Christians are not required to keep kosher, etc.

Now some Christians have different beliefs about all of this, and it can get into dispensationalism vs. covenants theology, etc.

 

[FireDragon76]

Not that simple at all

Jesus did not simply follow the Hebrew law, He fulfilled and then supplanted the law, and ushered in the new and everlasting covenant

I don't think "supplant" is the correct way to understand Jesus' relationship to the Law. He correctly interpreted the Law, he did not supplant it. Jesus ethics point to the heart of the Law, which is to love God and love our neighbor, with everything else being dependent on that.

this is affirmed by Paul and others --it is one reason why Christians are not required to keep kosher, etc.

Kosher would be understood in the Lutheran or Reformed theology as pertaining to the ceremonial law, so it was never binding on gentiles in the first place.

Most Jews have the same understanding of the divisions in the law, at least going back to Maimonedes in medieval Spain. Moral laws are always more important than ceremonial laws.

Paul's theology is difficult to understand at times, but the traditional Protestant understanding isn't that the Law has no place in the Christian life, but that the Law condemns us in our sins, but grace is available to both Jews and Gentiles through Jesus Christ.

There is a famous quote by the late Lutheran theologian, Jaroslav Pelikan:

The Law says "Do this" and it is never done
The Gospel says "Believe this", and everything is done already"

 

[Merrill]

I don't think "supplant" is the correct way to understand Jesus' relationship to the Law. He correctly interpreted the Law, he did not supplant it. Jesus ethics point to the heart of the Law, which is to love God and love our neighbor, with everything else being dependent on that.



Kosher would be understood in the Lutheran or Reformed theology as pertaining to the ceremonial law, so it was never binding on gentiles in the first place.

Most Jews have the same understanding of the divisions in the law, at least going back to Maimonedes in medieval Spain. Moral laws are always more important than ceremonial laws.

Paul's theology is difficult to understand at times, but the traditional Protestant understanding isn't that the Law has no place in the Christian life, but that the Law condemns us in our sins, but grace is available to both Jews and Gentiles through Jesus Christ.

There is a famous quote by the late Lutheran theologian, Jaroslav Pelikan:

I don't think Jesus merely interpreted the law --there were multiple instances in His earthly ministry where he defied the Pharisees, and those who rigidly followed the old law, or even "broke" the law (Luke 13:14, touching lepers, etc.)

yes, Jesus spoke to the "heart of the Law" which some call "Christ's Law"

as Christians were are not held to the Hebrew laws regarding funding temples, keeping kosher, etc.

Now someone can make the case that the state or people should fund the building of a grand church, but this would certainly look like Christian Nationalism or theonomy

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't think Jesus merely interpreted the law --there were multiple instances in His earthly ministry where he defied the Pharisees, and those who rigidly followed the old law, or even "broke" the law (Luke 13:14, touching lepers, etc.)

Jesus wasn't breaking the Law in that instance. Helping people is always more important as a moral commandment than a commandment that concerns ritual purity, because it's fulfilling the commandment to love your neighbor. So Jesus was in the right according to the Law by healing the lepers.

Now, some rabbis speculated around the time of Jesus that it was a sin to heal on the Sabbath (I know this through studying the work of James Dunn regarding Second Temple Judaism), but Judaism as a religion is not like Christianity and isn't monolithic: Jews differ on the interpretation of the Torah, and that perspective isn't shared by most Jews today. A few years ago some Conservative Jews actually went on the Sabbath to Haiti to help with relief efforts there after the earthquake, and they believed they weren't breaking their religious laws, due to the imperative to help people in need superceding ritual purity.

 

[sanderabeer]

This is backed by force, lethal or otherwise.

There's that equivocation, again.

Are you telling me that states don't ultimately rely on lethal force to back up the law?

There are multiple problems with your response.

1. It's a loaded question.
2. It's a straw man.
3. It fails the Gricean maxim of relevance.
4. It does nothing to allay the issue with continue equivocation.

 

[sanderabeer]

The verse in question is silent on that issue.

This is debatable.

I take the view that Christ is being practical because otherwise it means that governments are fully justified in using force to back all their laws. Even unjust laws and that doesn't quite jell with the gospel.

I think your reasoning is more a victim of your own absolutes than those of Scripture.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

As you've basically laid out, to come and save that which was lost.

And I didn't say His teachings were apolitical. Instead, I am saying that pushing modern labels onto Him is a reflection more of us than Him. We're trying utilize His authority to our own political benefits.

Instead of saying "Jesus is an X" we should reason "Jesus taught Y which aligns with what X believe." This properly places the discussion on what Jesus taught and our understanding of it rather than abusing Jesus as being for us and against them.

I agree. His mission and teaching were not simplistic nor easily labelled. Our goal, where Jesus is concerned, should be to invite him into our hearts. Then, the Holy Spirit will lead us in every decision we need to make. And sometimes, if we are really listening and obeying, we will discover that voice calling us to actions, positions and thoughts that challenge us no matter what side of the political divide we choose.

 

[Yarddog]

We’re seeing a society become unhinged … again. Trump has quite a way with the radical Left. They absolutely hate him and DOGE, and they lose it by the hour. Now they’re burning Teslas (so much for climate care), raging in hotel lobbies and on college campuses to defend Hamas supporters, and cursing up a storm at rallies.

It's not just paid activists and politicians jumping into the resistance ring; it’s leftist “faith leaders” too. Recently, nearly 100 “progressive” religious folks signed a letter demanding an unbiblical “Return to Jesus.” The Lent letter demanded that hundreds of millions of dollars of wasted taxpayer dollars continue to flow to (leftist) NGOs.

Funny. I don’t recall the Bible ever advocating that government fund the Church. I don’t recall Jesus demanding the government take care of the poor and the needy and ensure justice for those being crushed. Oh, wait, that’s because that’s the Church’s job. But a social justice worldview sees forced taxpayer funding of (leftist) faith-based organizations (despite massive taxpayer fraud and little to no accountability) as good stewardship.

Continued below.

Leftist ‘faith leaders’ twisting Bible to support wasteful gov't spending

It s not just paid activists and politicians jumping into the resistance ring; it s leftist faith leaders too

www.christianpost.com

Sad that these guys embrace right wing lies.

 

[BryanJohnMaloney]

We’re seeing a society become unhinged … again. Trump has quite a way with the radical Left. They absolutely hate him and DOGE, and they lose it by the hour. Now they’re burning Teslas (so much for climate care), raging in hotel lobbies and on college campuses to defend Hamas supporters, and cursing up a storm at rallies.

It's not just paid activists and politicians jumping into the resistance ring; it’s leftist “faith leaders” too. Recently, nearly 100 “progressive” religious folks signed a letter demanding an unbiblical “Return to Jesus.” The Lent letter demanded that hundreds of millions of dollars of wasted taxpayer dollars continue to flow to (leftist) NGOs.

Funny. I don’t recall the Bible ever advocating that government fund the Church. I don’t recall Jesus demanding the government take care of the poor and the needy and ensure justice for those being crushed. Oh, wait, that’s because that’s the Church’s job. But a social justice worldview sees forced taxpayer funding of (leftist) faith-based organizations (despite massive taxpayer fraud and little to no accountability) as good stewardship.

Continued below.

Leftist ‘faith leaders’ twisting Bible to support wasteful gov't spending

It s not just paid activists and politicians jumping into the resistance ring; it s leftist faith leaders too

www.christianpost.com

You have no clue what "radical left" is, do you? According to you, someone who said things like: "Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, 'Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?" is a radical leftist.

 

[expos4ever]

Do you believe the government should take from the producers of society to give to those who are poor and needy?

This is a profoundly misleading framing of the situation. We see this often - the misleading claim that the government is stealing from people when they collect tax money. The reality, of course, is that you vote to be taxed.

So the government isn't "taking" anything, they are merely following up on a societal level commitment that was made at the ballot box.