Paying taxes to occupying power?

[dominikus28]

‘render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and render unto God what is God’s’

This got me thinking. Where ever I read, it says that Jesus was basically saying to pay taxes, whether you agree with the government or not. It would be wrong (so I have read) for the Jews not to pay taxes to Caesar.

Would it be wrong for Jews not to pay taxes and to revolt against Roman rule?
Was it wrong for a Pole to not pay taxes to Germany, the occupying power during WWII and to fight for independence?
Would it be wrong for the Poles to not have submitted to the Russian Tsar when Poland had been partitioned between neighbouring countries (this is a question for monarchists)?

I always thought that you should fight for your country, but this kind of shakes that belief. Can anyone enlighten me please?

 

[Nelka]

If Jesus Christ said it then it is good enough for me.

 

[ARH521]

I’m not sure on the history…but I believe the Romans were NOT cruel tyrants…based on my understanding (I could be wrong) they pretty much allowed the Jews to live their lives as long as they payed taxes and such.

I was once told that the commandment “Honor thy father and thy mother” can and should be interpreted as “Obey just authority”

Pay taxes to Caesar because he doesn’t torture and kill you in concentration camps.

I would say since Hitler was a cruel tyrant not paying taxes could be justified. However, paying taxes despite his cruel intentions to avoid being murdered would also be justified.

my two cents…

Interesting question…

 

[sw85]

‘render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and render unto God what is God’s’

This got me thinking. Where ever I read, it says that Jesus was basically saying to pay taxes, whether you agree with the government or not. It would be wrong (so I have read) for the Jews not to pay taxes to Caesar.

Would it be wrong for Jews not to pay taxes and to revolt against Roman rule?
Was it wrong for a Pole to not pay taxes to Germany, the occupying power during WWII and to fight for independence?
Would it be wrong for the Poles to not have submitted to the Russian Tsar when Poland had been partitioned between neighbouring countries (this is a question for monarchists)?

I always thought that you should fight for your country, but this kind of shakes that belief. Can anyone enlighten me please?

It is never in order to revolt against an established authority. Of course one may fight for one’s country but that privilege does not extend to the point of revolution.

One should disobey the commands of an established authority only when they conflict with natural or divine law. Paying taxes never does – hence it is never in order to refuse to pay taxes.

 

[Leegal]

‘render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and render unto God what is God’s’

This got me thinking. Where ever I read, it says that Jesus was basically saying to pay taxes, whether you agree with the government or not. It would be wrong (so I have read) for the Jews not to pay taxes to Caesar.

Would it be wrong for Jews not to pay taxes and to revolt against Roman rule?
Was it wrong for a Pole to not pay taxes to Germany, the occupying power during WWII and to fight for independence?
Would it be wrong for the Poles to not have submitted to the Russian Tsar when Poland had been partitioned between neighbouring countries (this is a question for monarchists)?

I always thought that you should fight for your country, but this kind of shakes that belief. Can anyone enlighten me please?

Render under Caesar. Jesus was asked if they should pay taxes. He asked them to show him the coin, but he did not ask for a Jewish coin (Jews had to turn their coins into Roman coins). These were hostile questioners trying to trap Jesus. It forms the basis between secular authority and religious authority.

There are circumstances when we are to submit. If Jesus had answered “yes” pay the taxes, he would have been accused of being opposed to Jewish resistance. If he said “no” do not pay the taxes, he would be subject to accusations of inciting revolt. In fact, Jesus admitted to Pilate that if His Kingdom were of this world, his followers would be fighting for Him – separating the secular from the religious domain.

Jesus answered in this way so that the people could decide for themselves.

As for the examples. It is left to the choice of the individual conscience as to whether submission is a matter of state or Church. It may be the first mention of separation of Church and state.

It can also be taken that if you run up a debt with government (Caesar), you are obligated to pay. However, that does not take away that it is permissible to not support the government’s (Caesar’s) army, and resistance is acceptible in other support. In fact, one interpretation suggests that the material (the coin) is meaningless (or worse) and since it had Ceasar’s face on it, therefore it was Caesar’s meaningless money so give Caesar his meaningless property. It may have been an anarchist statement. Jesus equated money with greed – actually Mammon (money), an ancient Summarian deity, is the god of money, property or greed.

Jesus was not to be tricked into speaking treason against an occupying force. Nor would he be tricked into conveying obediance. It means that his teachings were separate from political authority.