Categories
History New World Order Politics The Last Days The World

History of Iran

As the call for action against Iran reaches a crescendo, it is wise to examine the history of this conflict. Instead of reminding everyone why we should fear Iran, let’s remember that they have reason to fear us, too. We must never commit the lives of our best young men and women unless it is absolutely necessary and morally justified.

Categories
Current Events New World Order Politics The Last Days The World

7 Billion People: What Population Control Advocates Don’t Say

As the world population approaches 7 Billion, we’ll hear a crescendo of cries for population control measures including (but not limited to) easier access to abortion.  A serious analysis shows that the population is not out of control.

7 Billion People: What Population Control Advocates Don’t Say | LifeNews.com.

Categories
Discernment New World Order Politics The Christian The Last Days The World

A Letter to Chuck Baldwin

Brother Baldwin,

I write this letter to you because I am afraid you have surrounded yourself with sycophants who will not look you in the eye and expound God’s Truth (2 Timothy 4:3).  I was once in your shoes, and as such I will try to fulfill Proverbs 27:17 in my attempt to guide you to truth.  Like you, I was literally ready to head for the hills and divorce myself from the insanity that has become modern day America (Matthew 24:38).  As always, God’s will won out over my will and in attempting to leave society, I was taught some valuable lessons about God’s will for us today.  As Christians, we are preach the word (2 Timothy 4:2) and not get caught up in the affairs of this world (2 Timothy 2:4).  I believe that God will use this move to Montana to open your eyes just as he opened mine.  I pray that when the time comes, you will heed God’s will and not man’s will as this trip you are making will be a tremendous example to others who are looking for both spiritual answers and spiritual guidance.

This is in response to your 15 September 2010 post titled:  “Why We Are Moving To Montana.”

By now, readers of this column should be aware of the decision my family and I made to leave the beautiful Gulf Coast beaches, and move to the majestic Rocky Mountains: the Flathead Valley of Montana, to be specific. Mind you, Pensacola, Florida, has been my wife’s and my home for 35 years. It is the place where each of our children was born and raised, and still resides today. Rest assured, each of my family is aware of the cold weather climate to which we are headed. We are also very cognizant of the extremely difficult economic circumstances that exist. The truth is, if we were basing this move on things such as “practicality,” or “job opportunity,” or “a place to retire,” we would either 1) stay where we are, or 2) move somewhere else (someplace warmer), because this move, in many ways, is impractical, financially challenging, and could bring personal discomfort to all of us during those harsh Montana winters. The fact is, none of that has any bearing on our decision to move.

I know unbelievers and skeptics have a hard time when I say this, but, we are moving to the Flathead Valley of Montana for the same reason we moved to Pensacola, Florida, 35 years ago: we know it is God’s perfect will for our lives. Period. Why else would we do it? Why would we leave the comfort and security of home, family, and friends? Why would we attempt such a major move in such an economically depressed housing and job market? Why would I walk away from the church that my wife and I started and have poured our hearts and souls into for over 35 years, and that took such very good care of us? On a human level, this move makes absolutely no sense. But as Christians, we are not supposed to live our lives on a purely human level, are we?

I agree with you Brother.  Your moving from Pensacola aligns with God’s will for a number of reasons.  First, there are already multiple Bible-believing ministries operating in Pensacola so leaving will not live a spiritual void.  Second, there are almost zero Bible-believing ministries operating in Montana so your arrival will fill a spiritual need.  Third, you (like myself and many others) have added the Constitution to the Christian Bible which violates the specific prohibition of Revelation 22:18.  I believe that God is inspiring your move in the same way he inspired mine, to open your eyes to a truth that you have either neglected or not known regarding freedom.

So, instead of moving south (like most every preacher you ever knew over the age of 50), I feel God moving me north (about 75-miles-south-of-the-Canadian-border kind of north!). And so does every man in my family. Count them: that’s 5 households and 17 people ranging in ages from 3 months to the upper 70s (I am 58).

I promise you, we have bathed this move in intense and prolonged prayer and meditation. This was not a quick decision. But why would God move us?

For one thing, it became very plain to me that my ministry was over in Pensacola. The brook had dried up, to borrow from the life of Elijah. And I’ve known too many pastors who allowed their personal affections for a prolonged ministry to obfuscate the clear revelation and reality that their ministries had ended and it was time to move on. And in every such instance, the longer they stayed, the more the ministry declined. I had vowed many years ago to not let that happen to my wonderful church family. They deserved God’s best, even if that meant my departure.

Brother, I applaud your discernment in knowing when to exit gracefully.  One of the biggest errors of the modern local church is that we have a tendency to base our success on numbers.  The more people we see in the pews, the more we are able to congratulate ourselves.  As such, it is hard for a preacher to avoid falling into the twin traps of pride (over his attendance numbers) and greed (over his offering plate numbers).  However, is the numbers game biblical?  The Bible tells us that the local church is a place to both equip and edify the saints (1 Thessalonians 5:11, Ephesians 4:12).  It is essentially a training center from which to send fellow soldiers (Philippians 2:25, Philemon 1:2) for Christ into a fallen world.  Its success should not be based on corralling and stagnating Christians as babes in Christ (1 Corinthians 3:1), but in sending them out equipped to meet a fallen world (Matthew 9:37-38).  The same precept applies to pastors too.  When your spiritual work is done, it is time to move on (consider Philip in Acts 8).  I congratulate you for having the both the discernment and the guts to walk away from a built-up ministry as most preachers erroneously think that they (and not God) are holding the local congregation together (Ephesians 5:23).

For another thing, my family and I are ardent patriots. To us, freedom and liberty are much more valuable and desirable than wealth and riches–or even comfort and security. And we believe God has been showing us that if there is a place left in America where true freedom has an opportunity to experience a rebirth, it is in the Mountain States of America’s great Northwest. I love the fact that Montana is often referred to as “The Last Best Place.” And as far as freedom and liberty are concerned, it just might be.

Brother, I speak to you as one who has been in your shoes.  I too erred as a Christian who was an ardent patriot.  I too put my faith in my country ahead of my faith in Jesus Christ.  You are correct to desire freedom and liberty over wealth and riches.  I pity the wretched souls in this nation who value their government handouts more than they value their freedom to think.  However, as Christians, we cannot allow this desire for freedom and liberty to derail our primary marching orders:  the Great Commission.

As I say this, I have no doubt that God has shown you that the mountain states are the last bastion of liberty in police state that is the United States of America.  But are the freedom-loving people of the mountain states free in our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 7:22)?  Or are they simply free FROM our Lord Jesus Christ (not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness… 1 Peter 2:16)?  I pray that God is moving you to Montana to both open your eyes to the biblical concept of freedom and to open up a ministry to the multitudes of sinners who inhabit the state.

Now, we are not naïve. We realize that there are many Big-Government liberals and neocons in the Mountain States who will not be pleased to see us come. When compared to the rest of the country, however (and I’ve seen most all of it), I would dare say that there are more freedom lovers in the Mountain States (per capita and per square mile) than anywhere else in the country.

Again Brother, I ask you to consider: are these freedom lovers bathing in the light of Jesus Christ (John 8:12)?  Or are they simply hiding in farthest corners of darkness (Acts 26:18)?  The untold story of every remote tribe on earth is that in their freedom, they invariably worship man or the creation, not our Lord and Creator.  Until some brave missionary brings them the Gospel (Mark 16:15), they seldom have biblical truth.

Since the release of my last two columns announcing our move to Montana, I have received more emails than over the last several months combined. And believe me, I’m talking about hundreds and even thousands of emails. I have received more than 200 emails just from people living in Montana, and 99% of them were enthusiastically supportive. I can assure you, the response that my family and I have received from Montanans has made us feel at home even before getting there.

Many Montanans are excited about the prospect of my starting a new ministry in the Flathead Valley, and once again being able to livestream my messages over the Internet. Others are excited about the prospect of us entering the freedom fight. But most seem excited about both!

Brother, I must ask: Are these people supportive of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Romans 1:16), or of your gospel of freedom at all costs (Galatians 1:7)?  Are these people born again, Bible-believing Christians?  Or are they a modern fulfillment of 2 Corinthians 4:4?  If they are merely supportive of freedom, then you need to tread carefully so that you can preach and teach the gospel (as opposed to merely becoming a false teacher for their itching ears… 2 Timothy 4:3).  Please test yourself to make sure you aren’t turning the gospel of salvation into another gospel (of freedom):  Galatians 1:8  “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”

Furthermore, it is our studied opinion that America is headed for an almost certain cataclysm. As Christians, we suspect that this cataclysm could include the judgment of God. As students of history, we believe that this cataclysm will most certainly include a fight between Big-Government globalists and freedom-loving, independent-minded patriots. I would even argue that this fight has already started. And as this battle escalates (and it will most assuredly escalate), only those states that are willing to stand and fight for their independence and freedom will survive–at least in a state of freedom. And we believe that God has already put the love of liberty deep into the hearts of the people of the Mountain States; and we further believe that God is already calling (and will continue to call) many other freedom lovers to those states. One thing is for sure: we know He called us!

Brother, you are 100% correct.  This nation is headed straight to Hell.  Instead of applying the brakes, the liberals and the conservatives have engaged the afterburners.  If there was ever a time to be concerned for physical safety, it is now!

However, as a Christian, what should your response be?  Should it be to organize a defense?  Or should it be to step up your efforts to reach the lost?  Matthew 16:25, Mark 8:35, and Luke 9:24 would be a good place to start researching this dilemma.  I have no doubt that God called you to Montana, but was it to defend a man-made Constitution or to minister to the saints?  Ephesians 6:12  “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”  Please make sure you are running the correct race (1 Corinthians 9:24) and fighting the good fight (1 Timothy 6:12).

We are not going to Montana to sunbathe (or even ski); we are not going to play games, or play politics; we are not going to “take it easy,” or “hide,” or hibernate. We are not going to “enjoy the climate.” We are going to fight! We are going to work! We are going to help the freedom-minded people of Montana make their stand for liberty! In many ways, the Mountain States just might become The Alamo of the twenty-first century, with, hopefully, much better results. But if not, I would rather die fighting for freedom with liberty-loving patriots by my side than be shuttled off to some FEMA camp after having been rejected and betrayed by soft-living, comfort-seeking, materialistic statists who simply “don’t get it” and have no desire to “get it,” which seems to be pretty much standard practice for a sizeable majority of people today–Christian and non-Christian–around most of the country.

Brother, take a step back.  Why are we going to have those FEMA camps?  Is it because we have neglected the cause of liberty in this nation?  Or is it because we have neglected our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Peter 2:19, Hebrews 2:3)?  What does the Bible say?  It is very clear that God is in charge of what is happening (Jeremiah 18:6-10).  If you truly want to defend this nation, you need to take the gospel to the highways and the hedges (Luke 14:23) instead of holing up in the Alamo. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense…

The Mountain States are also attractive due to the distance separating them from the great regions of the country in which the tables are truly stacked against any growth and extension of the principles of federalism or limited government, namely, the Northeast, Southeast, and Southwest (with my apologies to freedomists in those areas). Big-city liberalism dominates most of the states in these regions. The federal government has invested billions of dollars and thousands of personnel establishing and oiling the Orwellian machine in these areas. There are exceptions, of course, but they are few and far between, and therefore, quite isolated should any kind of serious stand be required.

Brother, have you heard yourself?   What is a freedomist and where is a freedomist found in your Bible?  It’s bad enough that apostates label themselves Calvinists, Lutherans, Catholics, Anglicans, etc, but freedomist?  Even Joseph Smith didn’t have the gall to add such a non-biblical word to the Book of Mormon.  The word freedom only appears twice in the Bible (Leviticus 19:20, Acts 22:28).  If we are to emulate Paul, we should relish not in freedom, but in being “free born.”  Are you pleasing men or God with your freedomist ideals?  1 Thessalonians 2:4  “But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts.”

Add to the intrinsically oppressive nature of big-city liberalism and UN-sponsored globalism the out-of-control illegal immigration problem along the Southern Border and one has a recipe for disaster! And that is exactly what is coming: a disaster!

Brother, preach this!  Preach this message until you go hoarse.  Your warning here is biblical as God has promised us a world given over to Satan (Revelations 13:7).  While we may not appreciate it now, the Lord gives us the bread of adversity and the water of affliction to open our blinded eyes (Isaiah 30:20).  Just like ancient Israel, this nation despises the word and trusts in oppression and perversity (Isaiah 30:12).  As to illegal immigration, just like Israel our inheritance has been turned over to strangers and aliens (Lamentations 5:2).  Brother, use your internet ministry to proclaim the truth to this fallen nation:  that we had better repent in sack cloth and ashes or we are going to be destroyed (Jeremiah 18:8, Matthew 11:1).  The Chaldeans are at the gate and only a miracle can save us now (Jeremiah 21:4).

If I am correct in my analysis, and Montana (and surrounding states) really is in store for a FREEDOM RUSH, then it is certain that patriotic businessmen, laborers, tradesmen, professionals, clergymen, physicians, technicians, and people from virtually every walk of life will find themselves among the “gathering of eagles.” From an economic and spiritual perspective alone, the prospect of such a rush could be not only exciting, but also historic!

I have no doubt that when this nation falls, there will be a huge migration of polar opposites.  The super-bowl watching welfare slaves and their “liberal” taskmasters will congregate in their modern Babels.  Those who value their freedom will likewise flock to the hills.  But are we flocking to build hermitages and fortresses or to regroup to reach the lost?  Psalms 9:9 reminds us that the Lord is our refuge in times of trouble.

Therefore, let no more be said of hardship! Our Pilgrim forebears crossed the Atlantic Ocean without maps and with no one to greet them in their quest to find a land of liberty. Our Patriot forebears challenged the greatest military force in history (at that time) and stood on Lexington Green, Concord Bridge, and Bunker Hill to defend this land of liberty. And our Pioneer forebears traversed thousands of miles in covered wagons with no roads or bridges in their quest to carve a land of liberty out of the wilderness. Traveling 2,500 miles in trucks and cars across mostly an Interstate highway system, sleeping in hotels, and eating at restaurants seem like mighty puny sacrifices to make to find that land where this latter-day remnant can live and stand together.

I applaud our forebears because they sought freedom to worship their Creator, not freedom to worship the god of American materialism.  Liberty in Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 3:17) cannot in any way be brought down to the man-made designations contained in the Bill of Rights (1 Corinthians 8:9).  You also miss the fact that God works in mysterious ways (Romans 16:25) when it comes to propagation of the Gospel.  One of the main reasons God put the travel bug in the Europeans was to restore the Gospel to a Christ-rejecting world that had done its best to extinguish the light of the Gospel.  The Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus all but eliminated the churches (Nestorian, church of east, etc.) in Asia.  The Animists did the same thing in Africa, Australia, and the Americas.  Ever wonder why the bloodthirsty Aztecs were looking for a European/Middle Eastern man to come riding in on horseback?  At one time, they too had the Gospel (Romans 10:18).  Revelation 19:11, “And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.”

Yes, I realize the real work will only begin once we have arrived. I completely understand that Montana is not the Garden of Eden and that the Serpent is already there, waiting for us. I expect a fight. And I know I speak for the men of my family when I say, Bring it on! Freedom and liberty, along with the Natural Law principles of federalism and independence, are worth fighting for. In fact, they are worth dying for. So, living or dying, we intend to circle the wagons around the State of Montana and fight to our dying breath for the right of that State to live free! And while we are at it, we believe God will let us help many good, freedom-loving people of Montana find true inner freedom that comes from Christ alone. After all, any true student of American history knows that revival and revolution go hand in hand.

What is this Natural Law that you speak of?  Is it the law of nature described in Romans 2:14?  Or is it the non-biblical laws of nature dreamed up by Aristotle, Cicero and Augustine?  I ask for clarification because your “freedomist” audience may not understand that the invisible things of God are understood by all and that they are without excuse (Romans 1:20).  Bring it on?  Are we commissioned to fight with human fists or wielding the word of God (Ephesians 6:17)?  I have no doubt that federalism, independence, freedom, and liberty are worthy ideals, but they should never be the prime focus of our Christian ministries (2 Timothy 2:4).  Please make sure you aren’t getting distracted by the minutia when you need to be focused on the war at hand (1 Timothy 1:18).

To borrow from the Apostle Paul, “And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto [Montana], not knowing the things that shall befall me there.” (Acts 20:22) But I also have faith in another Biblical principle: that God opens doors that no man can shut (Rev. 3:8). And for the Baldwin family, that open door is the Flathead Valley of Montana. And no recession, or ridicule, or opposition, or false accusation, or cold and snow can shut that door. Montana, here we come!

Brother, please only quote Paul if you realize that Paul was focused on winning souls (i.e. Acts 20:21) and not establishing a patriotic resistance.  Second, God opens doors that cannot be closed by man, but God is talking about doors to proclaim the Kingdom of God, not to establish the last stand of the Alamo.  Third, I have no doubt that you all are called to Montana.  I just pray you learn biblical lessons from the move and that you focus on preaching to the Montana lost.

I end this letter on the following verse and its implications for anybody who would try and fight God’s coming judgment on this fallen world (the New World Order is nothing more than a modern Babylon):

Jeremiah 38:2: “Thus saith the LORD, He that remaineth in this city shall die by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence: but he that goeth forth to the Chaldeans shall live; for he shall have his life for a prey, and shall live.”

Categories
History New World Order Prophecy The Last Days The World

Eye of the Phoenix

Eye of the Phoenix documents the bizarre history of the design of the dollar bill, exposing the occult activity surrounding the FDR administration. There is perhaps no other period in U.S. history when so many people were so deeply involved in the occult and held positions of power that reached all the way to the White House.

Categories
New Age New World Order Prophecy The Last Days

Megiddo

Some men have taken dark oaths that are leading the world into self-destruction. In this technological era we’re living in, what will happen to human spirituality? What will become of us? Will we be able to find the answers before it is too late? Find some answers here.

Categories
New World Order Politics The Last Days The World

Render Unto Caesar: A Most Misunderstood New Testament Passage

The following article is by Jeff Barr, republished in its entirety from lewrockwell.com with permission according to the copyright statement at the bottom. While we believe the author is in error by appealing to the authority of the Catechism, it nonetheless provides a useful historical analysis for the reader.

I. INTRODUCTION

Christians have traditionally interpreted the famous passage “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s,” to mean that Jesus endorsed paying taxes. This view was first expounded by St. Justin Martyr in Chapter XVII of his First Apology, who wrote,

And everywhere we, more readily than all men, endeavor to pay to those appointed by you the taxes both ordinary and extraordinary, as we have been taught by Him; for at that time some came to Him and asked Him, if one ought to pay tribute to Caesar; and He answered, ‘Tell Me, whose image does the coin bear?’ And they said, ‘Caesar’s.’

The passage appears to be important and well-known to the early Christian community. The Gospels of St. MatthewSt. Mark, and St. Luke recount this “Tribute Episode” nearly verbatim. Even Saying 100 of non-canonical Gospel of Thomas and Fragment 2 Recto of the Egerton Gospel record the scene, albeit with some variations from the Canon.

But by His enigmatic response, did Jesus really mean for His followers to provide financial support (willingly or unwillingly) to Tiberius Caesar – a man, who, in his personal life, was a pedophile, a sexual deviant, and a murderer and who, as emperor, claimed to be a god and oppressed andenslaved millions of people, including Jesus’ own? The answer, of course, is: the traditional, pro-tax interpretation of the Tribute Episode is simply wrong. Jesus never meant for His answer to be interpreted as an endorsement of Caesar’s tribute or any taxes.

This essay examines four dimensions of the Tribute Episode: the historical setting of the Episode; the rhetorical structure of the Episode itself; the context of the scene within the Gospels; and finally, how the Catholic Church, Herself, has understood the Tribute Episode. These dimensions point to one conclusion: the Tribute Episode does not stand for the proposition that it is morally obligatory to pay taxes.

The objective of this piece is not to provide a complete exegesis on the Tribute Episode. Rather, it is simply to show that the traditional, pro-tax interpretation of the Tribute Episode is utterly untenable. The passage unequivocally does not stand for the proposition that Jesus thought it was morally obligatory to pay taxes.

II. THE HISTORICAL SETTING: THE UNDERCURRENT OF TAX REVOLT

In 6 A.D., Roman occupiers of Palestine imposed a census tax on the Jewish people. The tribute was not well-received, and by 17 A.D., Tacitus reports in Book II.42 of the Annals, “The provinces, too, of Syria and Judaea, exhausted by their burdens, implored a reduction of tribute.” A tax-revolt, led byJudas the Galileansoon ensued. Judas the Galilean taught that “taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery,” and he and his followers had “an inviolable attachment to liberty,” recognizing God, alone, as king and ruler of Israel. The Romans brutally combated the uprising for decades. Two of Judas’ sons were crucified in 46 A.D., and a third was an early leader of the 66 A.D. Jewish revolt. Thus, payment of the tribute conveniently encapsulated the deeper philosophical, political, and theological issue: Either God and His divine laws were supreme, or the Roman emperor and his pagan laws were supreme.

This undercurrent of tax-revolt flowed throughout Judaea during Jesus’ ministry. All three synoptic Gospels place the episode immediately after Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem in which throngs of people proclaimed Him king, as St. Matthew states, “And when he entered Jerusalem the whole city was shaken and asked, ‘Who is this?’ And the crowds replied, ‘This is Jesus the prophet, from Nazareth in Galilee.” All three agree that this scene takes place near the celebration of the Passover, one of the holiest of Jewish feast days. Passover commemorates God’s deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian slavery and also celebrates the divine restoration of the Israelites to the land of Israel, land then-occupied by the Romans. Jewish pilgrims from throughout Judaea would have been streaming into Jerusalem to fulfill their periodic religious duties at the temple.

Because of the mass of pilgrims, the Roman procurator of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, had also temporarily taken up residence in Jerusalem along with a multitude of troops so as to suppress any religious violence. In her work, Pontius Pilate: The Biography of an Invented Man, Ann Wroe described Pilate as the emperor’s chief soldier, chief magistrate, head of the judicial system, and above all, the chief tax collector. In Book XXXVIII of On the Embassy to Gaius, Philo has depicted Pilate as “cruel,” “exceedingly angry,” and “a man of most ferocious passions,” who had a “habit of insulting people” and murdering them “untried and uncondemned” with the “most grievous inhumanity.” Just a few years prior to Jesus’ ministry, the image of Caesar nearly precipitated an insurrection in Jerusalem when Pilate, by cover of night, surreptitiously erected effigies of the emperor on the fortress Antonia, adjoining the Jewish Temple; Jewish law forbade both the creation of graven images and their introduction into holy city of Jerusalem. Pilate averted a bloodbath only by removing the images.

In short, Jerusalem would have been a hot-bed of political and religious fervor, and it is against this background that the Tribute Episode unfolded.

III. THE RHETORICAL STRUCTURE OF THE TRIBUTE EPISODE

[15] Then the Pharisees going, consulted among themselves how to insnare him in his speech. [16] And they sent to him their disciples with the Herodians, saying: Master, we know that thou art a true speaker and teachest the way of God in truth. Neither carest thou for any man: for thou dost not regard the person of men. [17] Tell us therefore what dost thou think? Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? [18] But Jesus knowing their wickedness, said: Why do you tempt me, ye hypocrites? [19] Show me the coin of the tribute. And they offered him a penny [literally, in Latin, “denarium,” a denarius]. [20] And Jesus saith to them: Whose image and inscription is this? [21] They say to him: Caesar’s. Then he saith to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s. [22] And hearing this, they wondered and, leaving him, went their ways. Matt 22:15–22 (Douay-Rheims translation).

A. THE QUESTION

All three synoptic Gospels open the scene with a plot to trap Jesus. The questioners begin with, what is in their minds, false flattery – “Master [or Teacher or Rabbi] we know that you are a true speaker and teach the way of God in truth.” As David Owen-Ball forcefully argues in his 1993 article, “Rabbinic Rhetoric and the Tribute Passage,” this opening statement is also a challenge to Jesus’ rabbinic authority; it is a halakhic question – a question on a point of religious law. The Pharisees believed that they, alone, were the authoritative interpreters of Jewish law. By appealing to Jesus’ authority to interpret God’s law, the questioners accomplish two goals: (1) they force Jesus to answer the question; if Jesus refuses, He will lose credibility as a Rabbi with the very people who just proclaimed Him a King; and (2) they force Jesus to base this answer in Scripture. Thus, they are testing His scriptural knowledge and hoping to discredit Him if He cannot escape a prima facieintractable interrogatory. As Owen-Ball states, “The gospel writers thus describe a scene in which Jesus’ questioners have boxed him in. He is tempted to assume, illegitimately, the authority of a Rabbi, while at the same time he is constrained to answer according to the dictates of the Torah.”

The questioners then pose their malevolently brilliant question: “Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?” That is, is it licit under the Torah to pay taxes to the Romans? At some point, Jesus must have led His questioners to believe that He opposed the tribute; otherwise His questioners would not have posed the question in the first instance. As John Howard Yoder argues in his book, The Politics of Jesus: vicit Agnus noster, “It is hard to see how the denarius question could have been thought by those who put it to be a serious trap, unless Jesus’ repudiation of the Roman occupation were taken for granted, so that he could be expected to give an answer which would enable them to denounce him.”

If Jesus says that it is lawful to pay the tribute, He would have been seen as a collaborator with the Roman occupiers and would alienate the people who had just proclaimed Him a king. If Jesus says that the tribute is illegitimate, He risked being branded a political criminal and incurring the wrath of Rome. With either answer, someone would have been likely to kill Him.

Jesus immediately recognizes the trap. He exposes the hostility and the hypocrisy of His interrogators and recognizes that His questioners are daring Him to enter the temporal fray of Judeo-Roman politics.

B. THE COIN

Instead of jumping into the political discussion, though, Jesus curiously requests to see the coin of the tribute. It is not necessary that Jesus possess the coin to answer their question. He could certainly respond without seeing the coin. That He requests to see the coin suggests that there is something meaningful about the coin itself.

In the Tribute Episode, the questioners produce a denarius. The denarius was approximately 1/10 of a troy ounce (at that time about 3.9 grams) of silver and roughly worth a day’s wages for a common laborer. The denarius was a remarkably stable currency; Roman emperors did not begin debasing it with any vigor until Nero. The denarius in question would have been issued by the Emperor Tiberius, whose reign coincided with Jesus’ ministry. Where Augustus issued hundreds of denarii, Ethelbert Stauffer, in his masterful, Christ and the Caesars, reports that Tiberius issued only three, and of those three, two are relatively rare, and the third is quite common. Tiberius preferred this third and issued it from his personal mint for twenty years. The denarius was truly the emperor’s property: he used it to pay his soldiers, officials, and suppliers; it bore the imperial seal; it differed from the copper coins issued by the Roman Senate, and it was also the coin with which subjected peoples, in theory, were required to pay the tribute. Tiberius even made it a capital crime to carry any coin stamped with his image into a bathroom or a brothel. In short, the denarius was a tangible representation of the emperor’s power, wealth, deification, and subjugation.

Tiberius’ denarii were minted at Lugdunum, modern-day Lyons, in Gaul. Thus, J. Spencer Kennard, in a well-crafted, but out-of-print book entitled Render to God, argues that the denarius’ circulation in Judaea was likely scarce. The only people to transact routinely with the denarius in Judaea would have been soldiers, Roman officials, and Jewish leaders in collaboration with Rome. Thus, it is noteworthy that Jesus, Himself, does not possess the coin. The questioners’ quickness to produce the coin at Jesus’ request implies that they routinely used it, taking advantage of Roman financial largess, whereas Jesus did not. Moreover, the Tribute Episode takes place in the Temple, and by producing the coin, the questioners reveal their religious hypocrisy – they bring a potentially profane item, the coin of a pagan, into the sacred space of the Temple.

Finally, both Stauffer and Kennard make the magnificent point that coins of the ancient world were the major instrument of imperial propaganda, promoting agendas and promulgating the deeds of their issuers, in particular the apotheosis of the emperor. As Kennard puts it, “For indoctrinating the peoples of the empire with the deity of the emperor, coins excelled all other media. They went everywhere and were handled by everyone. Their subtle symbolism pervaded every home.” While Tiberius’ propaganda engine was not as prolific as Augustus’ machine, all of Tiberius’ denarii pronounced his divinity or his debt to the deified Augustus.

C. THE COUNTER-QUESTION AND ITS ANSWER

After seeing the coin, Jesus then poses a counter-question, “Whose image and inscription is this?” It is again noteworthy that this counter-question and its answer are not necessary to answer the original question of whether it is licit to pay tribute to Caesar. That Jesus asks the counter-question suggests that it and its answer are significant.

(1) Why Is The Counter-Question Important?

The counter-question is significant for two reasons.

First, Owen-Ball argues that the counter-question follows a pattern of formal rhetoric common in first century rabbinic literature in which (1) an outsider poses a hostile question to a rabbi; (2) the rabbi responds with a counter-question; (3) by answering the counter-question, the outsider’s position becomes vulnerable to attack; and (4) the rabbi then uses the answer to the counter-question to refute the hostile question. Jesus’ use of this rhetorical form is one way to establish His authority as a rabbi, not unlike a modern lawyer who uses a formal, legal rhetoric in the courtroom. Moreover, the point of the rhetorical exchange is ultimately to refute the hostile question.

Second, because the hostile question was a direct challenge to Jesus’ authority as a rabbi on a point of law, His interrogators would have expected a counter-question grounded in scripture, in particular, based upon the Torah. Two words, “image” and “inscription,” in the counter-question harkens to two central provisions in the Torah, the First (Second) Commandment and the Shema. These provide the scriptural basis for this question of law.

God Prohibits False Images. The First (Second) Commandment prohibits worship of anyone or anything but God, and it also forbids crafting any image of a false god for adoration, “I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness [image] of any thing… ” God demands the exclusive allegiance of His people. Jesus’ use of the word, “image,” in the counter-question reminds His questioners of the First (Second) Commandment’s requirement to venerate God first and its concomitant prohibition against creating images of false gods.

The Shema Demands The Worship Of God Alone. Jesus’ use of the word “inscription” alludes to theShema. The Shema is a Jewish prayer based upon Deuteronomy 6:4–911:13–21 and Numbers 15:37–41 and is the most important prayer a pious Jew can say. It commences with the words, “Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad,” which can be translated, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God – the Lord alone.” This opening line stresses Israel’s worship of God to the exclusion of all other gods. The Shema then commands a person to love God with his whole heart, whole soul, and whole strength. The Shema further requires worshipers to keep the words of the Shema in their hearts, to instruct their children in them, to bind them on their hands and foreheads, and to inscribe them conspicuously on their doorposts and on the gates to their cities. Observant Jews take literally the command to bind the words upon their arms and foreheads and wear tefillin, little leather cases which contain parchment on which are inscribed certain passages from the Torah. Words of theShema were to be metaphorically inscribed in the hearts, minds, and souls of pious Jews and physically inscribed on parchment in tefillin, on doorposts, and on city gates. St. Matthew and St. Mark both recount Jesus quoting the Shema in the same chapter just a few verses after the Tribute Episode. This proximity further reinforces the reference to the Shema in the Tribute Episode. Finally, it is noteworthy that when Satan tempts Jesus by offering Him all the kingdoms of the [Roman] world in exchange for His worship, Jesus rebukes Satan by quoting the Shema. In short, Jesus means to call attention to the Shema by using the word “inscription” in the counter-question as His appeal to scriptural authority for His response.

(2) Why Is The Answer To The Counter-Question Important?

The answer to the counter-question is significant for two reasons.

First, while the verbal answer to the counter-question of whose image and inscription the coin bears is a feeble, “Caesar’s,” the actual image and inscription is much more revealing. The front of the denarius shows a profiled bust of Tiberius crowned with the laurels of victory and divinity. Even a modern viewer would immediately recognize that the person depicted on the coin is a Roman emperor. Circumscribed around Tiberius is an abbreviation, “TI CAESAR DIVI AUG F AUGUSTUS,” which stands for “Tiberius Caesar Divi August Fili Augustus,” which, in turn, translates, “Tiberius Caesar, Worshipful Son of the God, Augustus.”

On the obverse sits the Roman goddess of peace, Pax, and circumscribed around her is the abbreviation, “Pontif Maxim,” which stands for “Pontifex Maximus,” which, in turn, means, “High Priest.”

The coin of the Tribute Episode is a fine specimen of Roman propaganda. It imposes the cult of emperor worship and asserts Caesar’s sovereignty upon all who transact with it.

In the most richly ironic passage in the entire Bible, all three synoptic Gospels depict the Son of God and the High Priest of Peace, newly-proclaimed by His people to be a King, holding the tiny silver coin of a king who claims to be the son of a god and the high priest of Roman peace.

The second reason the answer is significant is that in following the pattern of rabbinic rhetoric, the answer exposes the hostile questioners’ position to attack. It is again noteworthy that the interrogators’ answer to Jesus’ counter-question about the coin’s image and inscription bears little relevance to their original question as to whether it is licit to pay the tribute. Jesus could certainly answer their original question without their answer to His counter-question. But the rhetorical function of the answer to the counter-question is to demonstrate the vulnerability of the opponent’s position and use that answer to refute the opponent’s original, hostile question.

D. REFUTING BY RENDERING UNTO GOD

In the Tribute Episode, it is only after Jesus’ counter-question is asked and answered does He respond to the original question. Jesus tells His interrogators, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s.” This response begs the question of what is licitly God’s and what is licitly Caesar’s.

In the Hebrew tradition, everything rightfully belonged to God. By using the words, “image and inscription,” Jesus has already reminded His interrogators that God was owed exclusive allegiance and total love and worship. Similarly, everything economically belonged to God as well. For example, the physical land of Israel was God’s, as He instructed in Leviticus 25:23, “The land [of Israel] shall not be sold in perpetuity; for the land is mine, and you [the Israelites] are but aliens who have become my tenants.” In addition, the Jewish people were to dedicate the firstfruits, that first portion of anyharvest and the first-born of any animal, to God. By giving God the firstfruits, the Jewish people acknowledged that all good things came from God and that all things, in turn, belonged to God. God even declares, “Mine is the silver and mine the gold.”

The emperor, on the other hand, also claimed that all people and things in the empire rightfully belonged to Rome. The denarius notified everyone who transacted with it that the emperor demanded exclusive allegiance and, at least, the pretense of worship – Tiberius claimed to be the worshipful son of a god. Roman occupiers served as a constant reminder that the land of Israel belonged to Rome. Roman tribute, paid with Roman currency, impressed upon the populace that the economic life depended on the emperor. The emperor’s bread and circuses maintained political order. The propaganda on the coin even attributed peace and tranquility to the emperor.

With one straightforward counter-question, Jesus skillfully points out that the claims of God and Caesar are mutually exclusive. If one’s faith is in God, then God is owed everything; Caesar’s claims are necessarily illegitimate, and he is therefore owed nothing. 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.

Jesus’ counter-question simply invites His listeners to choose allegiances. Remarkably, He has escaped the trap through a clever rhetorical gambit; He has authoritatively refuted His opponents’ hostile question by basing His answer in scripture, and yet, He never overtly answers the question originally posed to Him. No wonder that St. Matthew ends the Tribute Episode this way: “When they heard this they were amazed, and leaving him they went away.”

IV. THE CONTEXT IN THE GOSPELS: A TRADITION OF SUBTLE SEDITION

Subtle sedition refers to scenes throughout the Gospels which were not overtly treasonous and would not have directly threatened Roman authorities, but which delivered political messages that first century Jewish audiences would have immediately recognized. The Gospels are replete with instances of subtle sedition. Pointing these out is not to argue that Jesus saw Himself as a political king. Jesus makes it explicit in John 18:36 that He is not a political Messiah. Rather, in the context of subtle sedition, no one can interpret the Tribute Episode as Jesus’ support of taxation. To the contrary, one can only understand the Tribute Episode as Jesus’ opposition to the illicit Roman taxes.

In addition to the Tribute Episode, three other scenes from the Gospels serve as examples of subtle sedition: (1) Jesus’ temptation in the desert; (2) Jesus walking on water; and (3) Jesus curing the Gerasene demoniac.

A. EMPERORS OF BREAD AND CIRCUSES

Around 200 A.D., the Roman satirist Juvenal lamented that the Roman emperors, masters of the known world, tenuously maintained political power by way of “panem et circenses,” or “bread and circuses,” a reference to the ancient practice of pandering to Roman citizens by providing free wheat and costly circus spectacles. Caesar Augustus, for example, boasted of feeding more than 100,000 men from his personal granary. He also bragged of putting on tremendous exhibitions:

Three times I gave shows of gladiators under my name and five times under the name of my sons and grandsons; in these shows about 10,000 men fought. * * * Twenty-six times, under my name or that of my sons and grandsons, I gave the people hunts of African beasts in the circus, in the open, or in the amphitheater; in them about 3,500 beasts were killed. I gave the people a spectacle of a naval battle, in the place across the Tiber where the grove of the Caesars is now, with the ground excavated in length 1,800 feet, in width 1,200, in which thirty beaked ships, biremes or triremes, but many smaller, fought among themselves; in these ships about 3,000 men fought in addition to the rowers.

By the time of Jesus and the reign of Tiberius Caesar, the Roman grain dole routinely fed 200,000 people.

At the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, the Spirit led Him into the desert “to be tempted by the devil.” The devil challenged Him with three tests. First, he dared Jesus to turn stones into bread. Second, the devil took Jesus to the highest point on the temple in Jerusalem and tempted Him to cast Himself down to force the angels into a spectacular, miraculous rescue. Finally, for the last temptation, “the devil took him up to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence, and he said to him, ‘All these I shall give to you, if you will prostrate yourself and worship me.'”

The devil dared Jesus to be a king of bread and circuses and offered Him dominion over the whole earthly world. These temptations are an instantly recognizable reference to the power of the Roman emperors. Jesus forcefully rejects this power. Jesus’ rejection illustrates that the things of God and the things of Rome/the world/the devil are mutually exclusive. Jesus’ allegiance was to the things of God, and His rebuff of the metaphorical power of Rome is an example of subtle sedition.

B. TREADING UPON THE EMPEROR’S SEAS

At the beginning of Chapter 6 in St. John’s Gospel, Jesus performs a miracle and feeds 5,000 people from five loaves of bread; He then refuses to be crowned a king of bread and circuses. Immediately thereafter, St. John recounts the episode of Jesus walking on a body of water in the middle of a storm. That body of water was the Sea of Galilee, which, St. John reminds his readers, was also known as the Sea of Tiberias. Around 25 A.D., Herod Antipas built a pagan city on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee and named it in honor of the Roman emperor, Tiberius. By Jesus’ time, the city had become so important that the Sea of Galilee came to be called the “Sea of Tiberias.” Thus, not only does Jesus refuse to be coronated a Roman king of bread and circuses, but He literally treads upon the emperor’s seas, showing that even the emperor’s waters have no dominion over Him. Treading on the emperor’s seas is an additional instance of subtle sedition.

C. A LEGION OF DEMONS

St. Mark details Jesus’ encounter with the Gerasene demoniac in another example of subtle sedition. The territory of the Gerasenes was pagan territory, and this particular demoniac was exceptionally strong and frightening. In attempting to exorcise the demon, Jesus asked its name. The demon replied, “Legion is my name. There are many of us.” Jesus then expels the demons and casts them into a herd of swine. The herd immediately drive themselves into the sea. First century readers would have been well-acquainted with the name, “Legion.” At that time, an imperial legion was roughly 6,000 soldiers. Thus, the demon “Legion,” an agent of the devil, was a thinly-veiled reference to the Roman occupiers of Judaea. Swine were considered unclean animals under Jewish law. The symbol of the Roman Legion which occupied Jerusalem was a boar. The first century audience would have easily grasped the symbolism of Jesus’ casting the demon Legion into the herd of unclean swine, and the herd driving itself into the sea. Thus, the healing of the Gerasene demoniac is another example of subtle sedition.

D. TRIBUTE AS SUBTLE SEDITION

In the Tribute Episode, Jesus’ response is subtly seditious. The first-century audience would have immediately apprehended what it meant to render unto God the things that are God’s. They would have known that the things of God and Caesar were mutually exclusive. No Jewish listener would have mistaken Jesus’ response as an endorsement of paying Caesar’s taxes. To the contrary, His audience would have understood that Jesus thought the tribute was illicit. Indeed, opposition to the tribute was one of the charges the authorities levied at His trial, “They brought charges against him, saying, ‘We found this man misleading our people; he opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar and maintains that he is the Messiah, a king.'” To the Roman audience, however, the pronouncement of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s sounds benign, almost supportive. It is, however, one of many vignettes of covert political protest contained in the Gospels. In short, the Tribute Episode is a subtle form of sedition. When viewed in this context, no one can say that the Episode supports the payment of taxes.

V. WHAT DOES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SAY?

The Catholic Church considers Herself the authoritative interpreter of Sacred Scripture. The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church “is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium.”

The 1994 Catechism instructs the faithful that it is morally obligatory to pay one’s taxes for the common good. (What the definition of the “common good” is may be left for a different debate.) The 1994 Catechism also quotes and cites the Tribute Episode. But the 1994 Catechism does NOT use the Tribute Episode to support the proposition that it is morally obligatory to pay taxes. Instead, the 1994 Catechism refers the Tribute Episode only to justify acts of civil disobedience. It quotes St. Matthew’s version to teach that a Christian must refuse to obey political authority when that political authority makes a demand contrary to the demands of the moral order, the fundamental rights of persons, or the teachings of the Gospel. Similarly, the 1994 Catechism also cites to St. Mark’s version to instruct that a person “should not submit his personal freedom in an absolute manner to any earthly power, but only to God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Caesar is not ‘the Lord.‘” Thus, according to the 1994 Catechism, the Tribute Episode stands for the proposition that a Christian owes his allegiance to God and to the things of God alone. If the Tribute Episode unequivocally supported the proposition that it is morally obligatory to pay taxes, the 1994 Catechism would not hesitate to cite to it for that position. That the 1994 Catechism does not interpret the Tribute Episode as a justification for the payment of taxes suggests that such an interpretation is not an authoritative reading of the passage. In short, even the Catholic Church does not understand the Tribute Episode to mean that Jesus endorsed paying Caesar’s taxes.

V. CONCLUSION

St. John’s Gospel recounts the scene of a woman caught in adultery, brought before Jesus by the Pharisees so that they might “test” Him “so that they could have some charge to bring against Him.” When asked, “‘Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say,'” Jesus appears trapped by only two answers: the strict, legally-correct answer of the Pharisees, or the mercifully-right, morally-correct, but technically-illegal answer undermining Jesus’ authority as a Rabbi. Notably, Jesus never does overtly respond to the question posed to Him; instead of answering, “Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger.” When pressed by His inquisitors, He finally answers, “‘Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her,'” and, of course, the shamed Pharisees all leave one by one. Jesus then refuses to condemn the woman.

The scene of the woman caught in adultery and the Tribute Episode are similar. In both, Jesus is faced with a hostile question challenging His credibility as a Rabbi. In each, the hostile question has two answers: one answer which the audience knows is morally correct, but politically incorrect, and the other answer which the audience knows is wrong, but politically correct. In the scene of the woman caught in adultery, no one roots for Jesus to say, “Stone her!” Everyone wants to see Jesus extend the woman mercy. Likewise, in the Tribute Episode, no one hopes Jesus answers, “Pay tribute to the pagan, Roman oppressors!” The Tribute Episode, like the scene of the woman caught in adultery, has a “right” answer – it is not licit to pay the tribute. But Jesus cannot give this “right” answer without running afoul of the Roman government. Instead, in both Gospel accounts, Jesus gives a quick-witted, but ultimately ambiguous, response which exposes the hypocrisy of His interrogators rather than overtly answers the underlying question posed by them. Nevertheless, in each instance, the audience can infer the right answer embedded in Jesus’ response.

Over the centuries, theologians, scholars, laymen, and potentates have interpreted the Tribute Episode incorrectly as Jesus’ support for the payment of taxes. First, this interpretation does not square with the political climate of the times. The Tribute Episode is set in the middle of a decades-old tax-revolt against Caesar’s tribute. Second, the rhetorical structure of the Tribute Episode, itself, contradicts any interpretation that Jesus supported paying taxes. Third, the Gospels contain episode after episode of subtle sedition. The Tribute Episode is just another of these subtly seditious scenes. When seen in the context of subtle sedition, the phrase “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” means that the emperor is owed nothing. Finally, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the authoritative interpreter of Sacred Scripture, does not construe the Tribute Episode to support the proposition that it is morally obligatory to pay one’s taxes. Indeed, it interprets the Tribute Episode to mean the exact opposite – that Christians are obliged to disobey Caesar when Caesar’s dictates violate God’s law. In sum, the pro-tax position of the Tribute Episode is not supportable historically, rhetorically, contextually, or within the confines of the Catholic Church’s own understanding. As Dorothy Day is reputed to have said, “If we rendered unto God all the things that belong to God, there would be nothing left for Caesar.”

March 17, 2010

Jeff Barr [send him mail] practices law in Las Vegas, Nevada. He received a Master’s Degree in Business Administration from UNLV where he took classes from Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Murray Rothbard.

Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Categories
Church Issues New World Order Politics Spiritual Warfare The Christian The Last Days

Indianapolis Comeback

At least one church has stood up to the IRS and refused to become entangled with the government through 501(c)(3) nonprofit restrictions on speech. After a great deal of struggle, the Indianapolis Baptist Temple is now stronger than ever before. (original article appeared the Baptist Tribune).

Indianapolis Comeback