I’ve recently returned from a week-long Bible conference. Interestingly, during the conference one of the speakers spoke on War from a Biblical perspective. His points were of great interest to me, his application not so much.

The point was made that during the Old Covenant, the enemies of God were identified by sight. Evil spirits were present, but on a limited basis—mostly troubling kings. With the advent of the New Covenant, evil spirits are much more prevalent and trouble everyone from princes to paupers. 

During the Old Covenant, prophets would tell the people of God to go to war with sight-enemies, like the Amalekites. During the New Covenant, apostles (like Paul) tell the people of God to go to war with faith-enemies (that is, enemies who are identified by faith) that he calls principalities and powers in Ephesians 6. 

The esteemed speaker rightly pointed out that since we battle ideologies that are backed by these principalities and powers, we fight them with spiritual warfare tactics, not physical, human warfare tactics. He then caved, and decided that sometimes, however, we might be forced to use human tactics if the holders of the spirit-backed ideology use them. Better to fight them with the weaker human weapons, than the more powerful Spirit-backed weapons of warfare apparently…

As I said, I greatly enjoyed his points until he allowed for unnecessary war.

There are several terms that are used to describe the rule of God on earth: Theocracy, Theonomy, and Christian Reconstructionism. What is the difference between these three?

Theocracy. Theocracy is made up of the two Greek parts theos, meaning God, and kratia, meaning government. It describes a place that exists under the governance of God (or, historically, it has been used to describe a place that exists under the governance of those who are believed to be divine leaders.) Thus, a democracy is under the governance of the people: demos meaning people and kratia meaning government.

Theonomy. Theonomy is made up of the two Greek parts theos, meaning God, and nomos, meaning law. It describes people who exist under the law of God. Thus, autonomy is a person under his own law.

Christian Reconstructionism. Christian Reconstructionism describes the concept of reconstructing (or reforming) society and believes the only way this will truly happen is under the governance and law of God. 

Theocracy is the traditional term used to describe a people under God’s governance and law, like Old Testament Israel was. Theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism are terms that have been adopted by those who hold to this position because they didn’t carry the baggage that theocracy did. The word theocracy has been used pejoratively to describe those in the Christian Right who want to legislate morality. True theocrats and theonomists do not believe this is how the reconstruction of society will occur, and so essentially synonymous terms began being used to avoid the emotional baggage the word theocracy carries.

In the end, the terms are essentially synonymous. And more importantly, are used to reject the straw man argument that we believe the State should pass laws forcing people to be Christians, to be baptized, and to attend Church. 

Don’t be afraid to embrace a term that is true, just be prepared to defend its true meaning.

From the Quotation of the Day at The Ohio Republic:

“Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic.”

— Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) on liberation theology, in Truth and Tolerance (2004), p.168.

Where does politics try to be redemptive? Prisons, Schools, Welfare, Unemployment, etc…

Where does politics try to do the work of God? Controlling every aspect of our life, Judging so-called evildoers (like non-democratic nations around the globe), Knowing every aspect of our lives (warrant-less wiretapping of American citizens), Killing indiscriminately (by authorizing the assassination of U.S. citizens without a trial, even if done so in their sleep), etc…

The government that does these things is not divine, which it desires to be, but is demonic.

Well said, Pope Benedict XVI, well said.

After our previous introduction of this question and the promise to review taxes as they are seen throughout the entirety of the Bible, we move from looking at the use of taxes to the collection of taxes.

By way of review, we ought to remember that taxes for the Israelites living under God’s Law always followed two principles: they were non-progressive (flat taxes) and they were always designated to a specific purpose. And just so this point doesn’t go missed, taxes in America meet neither of these principles.

Taxes, or the tithe, were voluntary. This is not to say they weren’t expected, they most certainly were. God commanded the Israelites to make this payment. However, from man’s perspective of one another, it was voluntary. Consider on example of another of God’s Law: private property. God protected private property and it was not a voluntary command to keep. If you violated this Law and stole your neighbor’s ox, your neighbor was authorized to use force to exact justice for this crime. Not so with the tithe, nowhere does God authorize any other person or group of persons to use force to punish someone for failing to tithe or pay their taxes. You may not get very far with your reputation in a society where you refuse to participate, but there was no authorization for use of force to ‘make’ you pay up. From this perspective, it was voluntary. Now, from God’s perspective it may not have been, and after reading Malachi 3 you may want to reconsider treating it as voluntary, but that was between you and God, never you and your neighbor.

A significant example of this is found in 2Kings 12. Here, the priests were collecting the tithe for the repair of the Temple. However, because the people knew the priests were squandering the money, they stopped paying it. Jehoiada, chief priest, responded by placing a lock box in position where the people could pay their tax and Jehoiada could ensure the money was put to its proper use. 

Note two important points about this story. First, the tax was being collected for a specific purpose. Once the people realized it wasn’t being put to that purpose, they stopped paying the tax. Second, Jehoiada’s response was not to send soldiers into the villages and collect those taxes by force, but to correct the failures at the collection end by ensuring the people they would be used properly. Thus, those people who trusted Jehoiada’s methods and desired the rebuilding of the Temple could begin freely paying the tax again.

In a Libertarian Theocracy, then, one should expect people to be able to give of their money freely for a specific and desired cause to a trustworthy organization that will use their money only for the stated purpose. Neither of these things are true for us today.

The two concepts making up the term Libertarian Theocracy seem to be antithetical. Most people view a theocracy as a right-wing, Christian fundamentalist concept, while Libertarianism is often viewed as a socially liberal view incompatible with Christianity and conservative ideologies.

Allow me to first defer to other voices that have had an internet presence longer than mine to offer their reconciliations of Christianity and Libertarianism:

LibertarianChristians.com

The Bound Dragon

The Humble Libertarian

Our Holy Cause

Having shared those voices, allow me now to offer a brief explanation for what is meant by Libertarian Theocracy.

By Libertarian, it is to be understood that the author believes God intended man to live his life in liberty, with the freedom to exercise his God-given rights.

By Theocracy, it is meant that the author believes true liberty comes through the protection of his God-given rights, a protection that is ultimately provided for by the Law of God.

To help us make sense of this, an explanation of God’s Law needs to be made. The Law is divided up into two categories. Some Christians will explain this as the ceremonial law and the moral law, or some other variation. They do this to attempt to prove that some laws no longer apply, while others do. This is a stretch that I am unwilling to accept. 

However, distinctions are most certainly made in the Law. When Christ was asked what is the greatest law, He responded, “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one God, you shall love the Lord your God with all of your heart, mind, soul, and strength. The second is like unto it, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no greater commandment than these.”

The Law, then, is divided into two categories: laws which regulate our relationship with God, and laws which regulate our relationship with our fellow human being.

Laws which regulate our relationship with God (faith, baptism, communion, tithes and offerings, alcohol consumption, etc.) are laws enforced only by God Himself. Among these laws, you will find no description of a societal penalty on the lawbreaker, only God’s judgment of it.

Laws which regulate our relationship with others (stealing, murder, adultery, etc.) are laws enforced by the victim and society. Among these laws, you will find penalties in the Bible (restitution, lashings, excommunication, exile, death, etc.)

In a Libertarian Theocracy, Law would be enforced as it was under God’s Law. People would punished only when they broke laws that were essentially the unlawful initiation of force against another human being (theft, murder, etc.) Everything else would be left to liberty and would ultimately be judged between God and that person. 

Welcome to Libertarian Theocracy.

It is often assumed that the Bible teaches Christians to pay taxes. This may be the case, we shall see, but the arguments used to defend such a view are often over-simplified. For example, Christ taught that we should give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. Are taxes, or rather it should be asked, is a portion of the fruit of our labors automatically due to Caesar simply because he is Caesar?

A full consideration of what the Bible has to say about taxes, Old and New Testament, will give us a better understanding of what Jesus actually meant by those words, and will help us to move towards a Libertarian (a world of liberty) Theocracy (a world of justice, which comes because of the righteous Law of God.)

In this opening salvo, we will consider what taxes looked like for the nation of Israel. 

Three key passages describe what would be considered taxes the Israelites were required to pay: Exodus 30, Numbers 3, and Deuteronomy 14. These would have been considered much like the tithe, and in some cases is actually describing the tithe. The tithe, for all intents and purposes, was a ten percent tax on one’s first fruits paid to God. Theologically, it can be argued that it isn’t a tax because it actually belongs to God since he provided you with the fruits to begin with (something the government/Caesar does not EVER do), but will consider it apart from that for now.

In Exodus 30 is a description of the atonement money (half of a shekel) paid during a census. Numbers 3 contains a description of the redemption price paid (five shekels) for the redemption of the firstborn of Israel following their deliverance from judgment on Egypt and her firstborn. And Deuteronomy 14 describes what to do with the tithe when it is brought to God’s chosen place of worship, the temple in Jerusalem.

Two key elements are common to these passages.

One. The tax ALWAYS had a specific purpose. In these passages it was given to the Levites (Ex 30, Nu 3) or used by one’s self (Deu 14) in the presence of the Lord to worship Him. It was not to be used for anything else but the worship of God. In a later post, we will consider what happens when this is violated.

Two. It was ALWAYS a flat payment without regard to one’s wealth, status, or position. The atonement money was half of a shekel for everyone. In fact, Exodus 30.15 explicitly forbids charging the rich more or the poor less. The redemption price was five shekels due each person redeemed. And, the tithe was ten percent of each person’s first fruits.

Thus, it is seen, that the tax an Israelite paid bore the same burden on him as it did any other Israelite, without punishing him for prospering. And, the Israelite always knew to what purpose the tax would go. This effectively makes it possible for him to refuse payment should he suspect his taxes would be squandered on some other unlawful or undesired purpose. In a later post we will see if such a refusal was lawful or not.

Whether these are requirements or not for lawful and righteous collection of taxes remains to be seen. But it is definitely a far cry from the taxation seen in the United States. In the United States, we are subject to a heavy progressive taxation at both the state and federal levels. Progressive meaning that the more you make, the more you pay, in direct contradiction to the principles set forth in Exodus 30.15, for example.

In the United States, we frequently pay taxes for only God knows what. In many cases we make payment into one program (Social Security) only to have those funds squandered on some other purpose. Already two of the Biblical principles we have offered up for just and righteous taxation (of a sort) have been violated by the American Caesars.

I suspect this trend will continue.