Answering An Atheist
Original arguments are found in the post “Top Ten Worst Bible Stories”
On the web site “Not A Potted Plant” (NAPP)
I recently came across a blog post entitled “Top Ten Worst Bible Stories.” The blog goes by the name “Not A Potted Plant” (NAPP) which obviously says nothing about the author or the content but he does explain the reason for the title in the FAQ’s and a little additional perusing helps to fill in other gaps. He goes by the pen name of “Transplanted Lawyer” and I refer to him by the acronym LT.
From the profile you learn the author is a normal sort of guy and the content clearly indicates he is coherent, observant and thoughtful. He is an atheist and a bit glib on occasions but always fair. The fair part is what got my attention.
Any person can pick a side and be belligerent about it and there are many who do exactly that. They are completely intolerant toward and offer no fair discussion on points of difference. Fortunately, that description doesn’t fit LT. Unfortunately, that is particularly true of the “religious right” (RR1).
Actually, RR are my roots but honestly speaking, I have to admit that the most dominant characteristic of this political sector is the inability to carry on a fair discussion regarding any issue. They don’t talk nicely to each other and they don’t discuss issues with an open mind.
- Taking the “half loaf” approach to negotiation doesn’t figure into their political or religious strategies.
- The capacity to “agree to disagree” is dwarfed.
- Building relationships around common issues in the hope of influencing change on others is not a skill they own.
- If ideologies don’t match up to the letter, the differing parties are shunned or worse, run out of town, the modern day equivalent of burning at the stake. Thank God better minds have changed that trend.
It would be nice if the RR folks would just “take their ball and go home” but unfortunately that isn’t an option. Humanized religious chivalry requires a fight to the death, although they wouldn’t admit to the humanized part.
Anyway, back to the “Top Ten Worst Bible Stories” by LT.2 I’ve decided to answer a few of his observations. I chose him not because Bible critics are few but because he is articulate (unlike some atheists, he actually knows and uses words longer than “four” letters) and he spars the issue rather than the opponent.
I doubt I will change his mind on the issues or anyone else’s for that matter but debate, when healthy, fair and respectful, is always useful.
I’ll answer only one (or a few) issues at a time, not in his order and not necessarily in consecutive posts. Here goes. Hope you enjoy.
Jesus and Roman taxation
Criticism number 8 on the list involves the Pharisees and Herodians who, in an attempt to diminish the popularity of Jesus queried Him on a very sore political issue, taxation.
The Romans, having conquered most communities of the world, also had the right to tax everyone and for a well understood reason. The maintenance of law, order and public services is expensive. Everyone benefits and everyone should pay.
Accordingly, Jesus’ answer was “to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.”
LT argues that Jesus was being cowardly and encouraging the Israelites to collaborate with the enemy. His summary of Jesus’ response is…
Quisling-like collaboration with the enemy is fine as long as you pay the temple tax.
There are several reasons why we should think otherwise:
- The superior nature of Roman governance
- The biblical philosophy of government
- The practical nature of community
The superior nature of Roman governance
Was the Roman government abusive? Could we question the morality of Roman rule? Absolutely, without question! But, their approach to government was an improvement on all previous world powers (Greek, Babylonian, Syrian, Egyptian, etc.) and that should factor into the argument.
The Pharisees weren’t complaining because Roman rule was harsh compared to Magna Carta or the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States of America. The Romans, as gruesome as we think they were today, were far superior to any that preceded them and they modeled principles that still influence modern democratic societies. Magna Carta was written in Latin for heaven’s sake. Roman Dutch law still holds sway in many parts of the world.
The land of Israel was under occupation not because Rome was oppressive but because religious bigotry made it difficult to govern the area. In fact, Rome was very tolerant of other cultures even to point of absorbing some of their religious beliefs, a practice made possible by the fact that their Romish religion had a very limited set of core values. This was the soil in which Roman Catholicism was established.
The RR of Jesus’ day was very similar to the RR of our day who threaten to withhold taxes because the money is used to fund disagreeable things like abortions. Both prefer a religious state to a democratic one not realizing that democracy is biblical even when the state is not. For a read on that go here.
And I think implying a correspondence between Rome and Nazi Germany is a bit out of sync with the facts. Rome had patiently worked with Israel for approximately a hundred years before razing Jerusalem3 to the ground and they tolerated continuous insurrections during that time. Hitler intended the annihilation of every Jew, along with several other “undesirables,” from day one.
For many more reasons there is little correspondence between Jesus and Philippe Pétain. Maybe Ghandi or Nelson Mandela, but never Phillippe.
We wouldn’t recommend the Israelites of Jesus’ day withhold taxes any more than we would encourage the many different political interest groups of our day to do so every time the government is in discord with their philosophical agendas.
Another issue to consider is…
The biblical philosophy of government
Human government wasn’t instituted in the Bible until Genesis chapter 9 suggesting that the best form of government is self-government, which obviously fails in the hands of fallen human nature. Human government is a necessary evil but unfortunately will never be perfect. We must learn to live with the imperfections.
For that reason, God has never endorsed any particular form of government and the Bible features examples of extreme forms which were quite humanitarian.
Joseph, for example, presided over a form of communism during the great famine in Egypt and it worked. He was a powerful man who honored God and respected human rights. He kept the best interest of the individual and the community in mind at all stages.
It was his foresight, along with state taxation, that enabled them to be prepared for the famine. It was his fair handling of the resources that enabled the people to maintain self-determination.
Had the people followed his example, communism wouldn’t have been needed. Unfortunately, communism in this case was necessary because the people were self consuming rather than cautiously frugal. But communism did work and God did honor it. Interestingly enough, the people asked for it, Joseph never suggested it.
Briefly stated, the biblical philosophy of government would be, “bad government is better than no government at all.” Abuse is the by-product of human involvement, is never endorsed and biblical history shows that any form of government can choose to be abusive or useful.
Therefore, Jesus wasn’t endorsing the Roman government. He was endorsing the principle of human government and suggesting that it is right to pay the fiddler even when they miss the occasional note.
The disenchantment people express toward governments, both good and bad, is universal. Jesus’ remark encourages interaction rather than disengagement. He was encouraging reasonable discussion and participation before adopting violent revolution. Reasonable people agree.
And there is a long list of Bible greats who did just that: Abraham, Joseph (as mentioned), David, Jeremiah and especially Daniel. Even Moses tried to talk sense to Pharaoh before everything fell apart.
Later, Paul restated this same principle in Romans.
You might disagree with the Bible on this issue but you can’t accuse Jesus of breaking with tradition or the common understanding. As was His practice He was giving further insight to what the Bible previously taught.
The last issue we must consider is…
The practical nature of community
As I said before, law, order and public services are not cheap to maintain and the Romans did a good job providing these things. Roman roads connected the whole world in Bible times and many of those roads still stand today.
Even the coins used to pay taxes were minted in the Roman monetary system. Before that, commerce was conducted and money exchanged by weighing precious metals on scales maintained by unscrupulous dealers. The Roman mint changed all that. People now saved more money in fair dealing than they spent in taxes.
There was no cowardice or collaboration here. Jesus’ remarks actually suggest that being a good Jew or Christian requires rather than precludes being a good citizen.
What do you THINK!AboutIt? All comments will be entertained.
1 RR = Religious Right
2 The author’s name is not given and the closest thing to a pen name is Burt Likko, I think. For simplicity’s sake and with no disrespect intended I refer to him as LT. He does this himself so there should be no insult assumed.
3 The razing of Jerusalem was instigated by Jewish revolt not Roman thirst for blood.
Romans 13:1-7
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
So, TL, your argument here is that Jesus should have had some backbone and stood up to the oppressive Roman rule? That Jesus should have been some sort of social liberator, a la MLK? I think that fails to understand what Christ’s purpose was here. And it was a misconception common to most of the Jews of Christ’s day.
The Jews viewed the Messiah as a King who would liberate them from oppression and set up the throne of David from which to rule forever. Christ is that messiah, although his ruling on the throne of David was something future that was not a part of His original advent. The Jews had focused so much on the kingly aspect of the messianic prophecies that they had overlooked the passages that taught of the suffering servant (Isaiah 53). So when Christ came as a servant, born in a lowly stable, to a lowly carpenter, from Nazareth, He did not seem to be the great and mighty king who would rule from David’s throne. But Christ came the first time to suffer as a servant for the sins of His elect. His purposes were not political or social, but spiritual (read John 4). So when He claimed to be the messiah, or claimed to be God Himself, the pharisees grew upset. You seem to think that Christ should have sided with the Sanhedrin against Roman rule. But Christ is not joining with His fellow Jews in their religion. He is revolutionizing it by becoming what the Messiah was meant to be, even though they didn’t understand that. They misunderstood so badly that they rejected Him and crucified Him (according to prophecy, again Isaiah 53).
So Christ’s original purpose was not to overthrow Rome or establish His kingdom. It was to suffer and die to establish His spiritual rule in the lives of believers. He will come again one day to set up the throne of David from which He will rule forever, but that was not why He came 2000 years ago.
Now, all that relates to the story at hand because the Jews themselves came to Christ, not seeking to gain an ally against Rome, but to trick Him into incriminating Himself and in so doing, incur the wrath of Rome. But Christ’s time had not yet come (read the book of John for more on that phrase). The pharisees brought with them the Herodians. So you have a group of people who are faithful to God (supposedly, even though they had twisted His teachings into an unrecognizable mess of rules and regulations) and people who were faithful to Rome. It seemed like a no-win situation. If He pays the tax, the Jews get offended and revolt against Him. If He doesn’t pay the tax, the Herodians get upset and report Him to Rome. But Christ makes clear that He is not here to overthrow the Romans or establish a Jewish state. He is not concerned with sociopolitical struggles, per se. He is there to suffer and die. Give to Caesar what belongs to him. Submit to your government insofar as it doesn’t constitute sin in your life. Live peaceably among all men. Political revolt is not as important as spiritual revolution. We “pray for the peace of the city” and work towards that, but ultimately we understand our citizenship is in Heaven. Christ did not pursue political revolution because that was not His purpose for coming.
Actually, I think sanitizing the text, if it happened, would have the opposite effect. Reading the Roman government from our historical vantage point makes me wonder how the government actually survived (their leaders did the unthinkable on more than one occasion) and it was done very much in the open (no watergate here).
So when you read Jesus’ response to the question about taxation it naturally makes us wonder about the validity of the text.
It is quite right to question His response and I believe that was the intent. We can’t get to the answer if we don’t first ask the question.
Although believers tend to reduce the Bible to a neat set of do’s and don’ts it wasn’t intended to be an answer sheet. I think it is giving us the impetus to find the answer.
Our discussion is helpful because we both look at Jesus very differently. I tend to side with Him, believing He is ultimately all wise, which means I might not address the hard questions. I woiuldn’t suggest you think He is a bad guy but you do come from the other direction.
I have no objection to your take on the question of how deeply religious people should deal with civil government. And as I wrote before, I think that the better political choice for the Israelites would have been collaboration with the Romans, distasteful as that might have been.
It makes me wonder whether the text we read today was sanitized (either by its original author or by a subsequent editor or translator) to make the worship of Jesus more appealing to a Gentile audience in the Roman empire beyond Palestine.
We come from different schools of thought on the timeline but we both agree that the writers of the Gospels assumed the evil nature of Rome and it woiuld be difficult for any of them to positively endorse Rome, particularly in public documents like Matthew or Mark. Anti-Roman sentment prevailed in Israel much like pick up trucks and gun racks do in the deep south. I would say, however, that they were much more generous on the topic than would normally be the case.
We also agree that there was reason for political grievance. The Romans, though better than all their predecessors and definitely ahead of their times, could be very unpredictable and menacing to their constituents as well as to each other.
But, as much as I respect the mental capacity of Israelite stock, generally speaking, I doubt their non-compliance with Rome was due to superior political philosopies. Their grievances were motivated by religion. They refused to be led politically by those they considered spiritually inferior.
And the real question is how do deeply religious people get along with faulty governments? Do we find ways to constructively interact or do we revolt. Palestine had a long history of revolt which only led to their eventual destruction. It would have been culturally agreeable but practially irresponsible for Jesus to endorse that.
There are better ways to change the law. A good case in point are the Amish. They neither pay taxes nor participate in the military. I wouldn’t say they “engage” in the traditional sense of the word but they never resorted to hate speech or violence either. For them, revolt was never an option. They don’t even demonstrate.
Disclaimer: I’m not suggesting there is never a time when revolt is necessary. It should, however, be a last resort and very thoroughly considered first. That doesnt describe the situation in Palestine.
This is the most subtle of the three responses to my post you’ve made, and the most seductive. It is premised on the idea that “as bad as the Romans were, they were probably the best available governmental option.” Fundamentally, I agree with this concept — and if Jesus had said as much, I’d have found little to object to.
The trick is to read the story in context. The author assumes that the Romans are bad and evil and that home rule, by Jews in some form or another, would be better for God’s Chosen People. If it were the case that Roman rule was understood as morally ambiguous, then the Pharisees would not have tried to have set a rhetorical trap for Jesus, nor would the audience have been amazed when Jesus evaded the trap.
Further, the Gospels were written by men who were children when Titus sacked Jerusalem and began the diaspora. The sting of the Temple’s destruction and the disbandment of the Hebrews as a nation, even a subject nation within the Roman Empire, was with them as strongly as ethnic and nationalistic tensions exist today in many war-torn parts of the world. The authors of the Gospels were (probably) not Gentiles. To suggest that they would have looked upon Roman occupation of the Promised Land with equanimity as a necessary evil strains credulity.
So when you argue “Well, the Romans weren’t really all that bad,” that is probably objectively true, but within the context of the story, the Romans are bad guys. Thus, to say that “Jesus’ remark encourages interaction rather than disengagement. He was encouraging reasonable discussion and participation before adopting violent revolution.” does indeed hit the mark on the head — Jesus is encouraging interaction, engagement, dialogue and ultimately collaboration with an evil government. Thus, my comparison of Jesus with Quisling or Petain.