Was Jesus crucified for resisting taxes? Lk 23-1

That Jesus was crucified for opposing the payment of Caesar's tax is a minor premise in my book, JESUS OF NAZARETH, ILLEGAL-TAX PROTESTER, which is available without charge from the website, http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com. (The two major premises are 1)Jesus did not endorse taxation or the State, as most orthodox exegetes contend; and, 2) The principles Jesus espoused are diametrically opposed to taxation and the State.)

If you believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, you will not agree with my minor premise. If you are like some fundamentalists I have heard from, my audacity in questioning the canonical Gospel version of the trial of Jesus will probably induce you to condemn me to Hell's fires for all eternity. But if like a juror you can approach the issue without prejudice, you might find the evidence persuasive beyond reasonable doubt that Pilate was guilty of killing Jesus because of their conflicting views on taxation.

Briefly here is the prosecution's case against Pilate. In addition to being governor, Pilate was procurator of Judea and thereby responsible for the collection of Roman taxes within his jurisdiction. He was accountable to Rome for tax revenues. Jesus was accused of sedition for "opposing the payment of taxes to Caesar." (LK 23:1). Only a few days earlier and in the presence of witness friendly to Rome, Jesus had denounced Caesar's tax as unjust. (See my essay to understand that when he said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's," Jesus meant just what he said. In other words, if you have something that belongs to Caesar, give it to him, otherwise, you owe him nothing! And since none of his listeners possessed anything belonging to Caesas, his words, in answer to the question, Should we pay the tax? clearly was, "No do not pay it!"

Now whether Caesar believed that Jesus had been preaching tax resistance as his accusers charged, he would have convicted Jesus for two reasons: 1) He simply couldn't risk the possibility that he was, and there was no risk to Pilate in killing Jesus. 2) If he asked Jesus whether or not Jesus had said what his accusers charged, Jesus would not have denied the truth.

Pilate had Jesus flogged and crucified. At that time, these combined forms of punishment were generally reserved for individuals who posed a threat to the empire. They were designed to make others think twice before repeating the perpetrators' crimes.

So, there in a nutshell you have it. I would be grateful to hear what others among you think?

[scottinalaska]

Ned,
I have been reading through your "for free public consumption" publication(thanks) since I heard about it last month. Only last week, I shared in church about jurisdiction, but did not go into the tax end of things. Jesus was in front of Pilate and Pilate desperately wanted jurisdiction if only Jesus would give it to him. "Plead not guilty, for crying out loud!" Pilate was thinking so that he could then be the judge. Even with a threat of his worldly power, Jesus only said that Pilate's power only came from the Father who gave it.
I guess that's why we don't plea Guilty or Not guilty in court. THAT gives the jurisdiction. Sorry no fresh thoughts on your book yet. But will post as time permits. Thanks for taking the time to go against a strong current.
scottinalaska

Thanks, Scottinalaska, for your comments. As you are obviously aware, there is one lone passage in the canonical Gospel of John (19:10-11) that implies that Jesus recognized Pilate's jurisdiction. It is interesting that the Synoptic Gospels make no mention of the exchange. In the KJV, Pilate, frustrated by Jesus' refusal to dignify the proceedings by answering questions, said to Jesus, "Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, THOU COULDEST HAVE NO POWER AT ALL AGAINST ME, EXCEPT IT WERE GIVEN THEE FROM ABOVE; THEREFORE HE THAT DELIVERED ME UNTO THEE HATH THE GREATER SIN." There are, of course, several ways that this brief passage can be interpreted. One is that Jesus was pointing out that Pilate's only authority came from Caesar. Another is that he was pointing out that Pilate's authority came from God. I believe that Jesus' reference to "above" was to Caesar not to God the Father, because I believe that all of man's attempts at lawmaking are a usurpation of God's perogative, which men have been usurping always and everywhere, except among God's chosen people who recognized Him as the only Lawgiver from the time Moses received the Decalogue until the end of Samuel's reign as judge of Isreal, at which time the Jews rejected God as their lawmaker in favor of a king, who became their lawmaker. As far as I know, no other nation nor geographically extended society of people have had the wisdom to recognize God alone as their lawmaker. If Pilate's power came from God, I do not think that Jesus would have treated Pilate with such distain, refusing to even answer his questions. If Pilate's authority came from God, it would be legitmate, and that is quite simply ludicrous by my way of thinking.

The question of jurisdiction in courts of law is a "legal" question that begs the larger question: whose legality. All of the Laws that men and women need are in the Decalogue. The Decalogue provides measures that when followed guide men and women to live harmoniously with each other. Man-made laws represent a usurpation of God's jurisdiction as the one divine Lawmaker and provide measures by which some men and women can rule others.

Again, Scott, thank you for the courtesy of replying to my thread and particularly for taking your valuable time to read my humble essay. God bless you with the abundance of his love.

[scottinalaska]

Oh yeah! I love it when someone tweaks my view on something and then backs it up with reasoning! "from above" has to be from Ceaser! I am embarassed to say, I hadn't even considered that until now. I smile from ear to ear with this extra bit of light.
Ned, I realize that often when we show light at a different angle to different people, they do NOT smile because it "hurts" I guess! Keep up your bold whittling and paring with the knife of observation and insight!
scott

[idknow]

Originally Posted by scottinalaska

Oh yeah! I love it when someone tweaks my view on something and then backs it up with reasoning! "from above" has to be from Ceaser! I am embarassed to say, I hadn't even considered that until now. I smile from ear to ear with this extra bit of light.
Ned, I realize that often when we show light at a different angle to different people, they do NOT smile because it "hurts" I guess! Keep up your bold whittling and paring with the knife of observation and insight!
scott

this thread ought to and by right should be discussed among the members.

let's do that.

[scottinalaska]

Idknow,
It's because of the notification feature on this forum that I am drawn back here again. As time has passed since my posting back in February, I am more convinced than ever that Jesus was crucified by Rome because of his view on taxes. It makes the most sense.
Jesus may have been an interesting figure to the Pilate(surely he had heard of some miracles being done some Jew recently), but not a threat yet. When the Jewish leaders brought him before Pilate announcing and accusing Jesus of telling them to NOT pay taxes, THEN Pilate had to make a choice. If indeed Jesus was preaching that kind of sedition and Pilate ignored it, his ruling of the Jews would be questioned by not only the Jews, but also Rome.
He couldn't have that.
Even in the "Render unto Ceaser" story, starts with, "And the Pharasees brought with them some Herodians(loyal to Herod the King) in order to entrap Jesus in his words." or something like that. Hello? They KNEW what he was going to say(dont pay taxes). That is why they brought some statist witnesses. Duh. How do we miss that?
I see Ned's essay as a welcome addition to our understanding of the(I hate to say it)typical statist interpretations of the Bible!
Scottinalaska

[David Merrill]

My opinion is that Jesus got into terrible trouble for disrupting the franchise on the drachma and shekel. The Herodians were hoarding the coinage and using other currencies in circulation for the Temple expenses. However, when it came time to pay up the half-shekel Temple Tax, suddenly domestic currency was the only acceptable currency.

So a pilgrim had to purchase drachmas and shekels at an inflated price, being as how they had been contracted out of circulation.

This brings forth the essence of Jesus using the testimony of a Herodian priest against him. The priest pulled a Tiberias denarion from his purse, clearly making the Temple Tax and Temple matters a dominion of Caesar's.

This also explains why Jesus would have become so irate as to overturn the moneychangers' franchise tables.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[scottinalaska]

David,
You also are ever ready with some insight. Thanks. I didn't think it all the way through on the economics of the coinage in those days. Kind of an ancient FedReserveGreenspan technique there! Just contract the supply enough to make them really want some more of the precious ONLY acceptable money and you're in business!
Ned clarified something for me offline on Pilate caring little about Jesus until he was accused of advocating not paying taxes. I may have been off there.
Indeed, Jesus had some tax converts, Matthew(Levi) and Zacheus being famous converts. I am sure others abandoned the trade often grouped with adulterers and thieves.
Zacheus collected taxes in Jericho, which was Pilate's district.
"It must have been a significant blow to Pilate's tax-collecting administration when Zaccheaus quit. We know that there were many other tax collectors who consorted with Jesus, at Levi's house following his coversion, at Zaccheaus' house following his reform. It is not unreasonable to conclude that other (if not many other) tax collectors quit to follow Jesus, which would have given both Herod and Pilate good cause to crucify him." Ned Netterville

Just some other thoughts, that's all.
scottinalaska

[idknow]

Originally Posted by scottinalaska

Idknow,
It's because of the notification feature on this forum that I am drawn back here again. As time has passed since my posting back in February, I am more convinced than ever that Jesus was crucified by Rome because of his view on taxes. It makes the most sense.
Jesus may have been an interesting figure to the Pilate(surely he had heard of some miracles being done some Jew recently), but not a threat yet. When the Jewish leaders brought him before Pilate announcing and accusing Jesus of telling them to NOT pay taxes, THEN Pilate had to make a choice. If indeed Jesus was preaching that kind of sedition and Pilate ignored it, his ruling of the Jews would be questioned by not only the Jews, but also Rome.
He couldn't have that.
Even in the "Render unto Ceaser" story, starts with, "And the Pharasees brought with them some Herodians(loyal to Herod the King) in order to entrap Jesus in his words." or something like that. Hello? They KNEW what he was going to say(dont pay taxes). That is why they brought some statist witnesses. Duh. How do we miss that?
I see Ned's essay as a welcome addition to our understanding of the(I hate to say it)typical statist interpretations of the Bible!
Scottinalaska

butbutbut, he paid!

he sent peter to fish out coins!

i dont get this thread. but that's me.

what am I missing here that hasnt been written plainly?

[idknow]

Originally Posted by scottinalaska

David,
You also are ever ready with some insight. Thanks. I didn't think it all the way through on the economics of the coinage in those days. Kind of an ancient FedReserveGreenspan technique there! Just contract the supply enough to make them really want some more of the precious ONLY acceptable money and you're in business!
Ned clarified something for me offline on Pilate caring little about Jesus until he was accused of advocating not paying taxes. I may have been off there.
Indeed, Jesus had some tax converts, Matthew(Levi) and Zacheus being famous converts. I am sure others abandoned the trade often grouped with adulterers and thieves.
Zacheus collected taxes in Jericho, which was Pilate's district.
"It must have been a significant blow to Pilate's tax-collecting administration when Zaccheaus quit. We know that there were many other tax collectors who consorted with Jesus, at Levi's house following his coversion, at Zaccheaus' house following his reform. It is not unreasonable to conclude that other (if not many other) tax collectors quit to follow Jesus, which would have given both Herod and Pilate good cause to crucify him." Ned Netterville

Just some other thoughts, that's all.
scottinalaska

if you want to say that he died for messing with the "money" as Lincoln and Kennedy did

then you have to point to the event when Jesus evicted the merchants from the public goyim area of the Temple.