Render unto Caesar

The following article was originally part of a larger paper on "Obeying the Authorities." Though it is related, we felt it better to break this out as a separate article. If you wish to read the full article click here. 

What does the bible have to say regarding taxes? In this paper, we will look at two key passages; 

 

1. Peter "volunteering" Christ to pay the temple tax and 
2. A quote often heard from a minister during a Sunday sermon..."Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"...

 Matt. 17:24 and following says,

24 "After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, "Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax?" 25 "Yes, he does," he replied. When Peter came into the house Jesus was the first to speak. (The idea of “first to speak” in the original suggests Christ spoke before Peter could raise the matter. Other translations and particularly "The Message" give a good sense of the original and render it,” But as soon as they were in the house, Jesus confronted him...") "What do you think, Simon?" he asked. "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes--from their own sons or from others?" 26 "From others," Peter answered. "Then the sons are exempt," Jesus said to him. 27 "But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours." (NIV)

 

• The temple tax

There are several things to note in the above passage.

1. Christ's quick querying of Peter was a mild rebuke to Peter for speaking before thinking. (A common characteristic of Peter).

2. Christ used this as an opportunity to instruct Peter.

3. Kings do not collect taxes from their own but others and therefore the sons are exempt. Most Christians simply read right over this focusing on a text and ignoring the context. What Christ is saying is both Christ and Peter, who were "sons" of Israel, are not obligated to pay but are exempt from this tax. But if they were exempt this raises the question, why did Christ instruct Peter to still pay it. We will address that shortly. (It just so happens the son's being exempt is also the case in our system when you study what our tax law REALLY says. You may not be aware of this if you have not taken the time to study what the tax law actually says. It is the foreigner, the non-resident alien, the "other" who are required to file and not the sons (sons being the offspring of the country if you will, i.e. its citizens. It makes one wonder how aware the founders were of this passage when writing the Constitution. You could make the argument that they patterned our tax system after these instructions from Jesus to Peter)

4. Christ did not use his or Peters own money or even money from the disciples "treasury" to pay this tax but Peter got it out of the mouth of a fish. (As a humorous aside could we say that it takes nothing short of a miracle to pay taxes? Just a thought.) Why didn’t Christ simply instruct Peter to pay with their own money or the disciples "treasury" fund? In addition, why didn't Christ have Peter pay for the rest of the disciples and not just for Himself and Peter? This is a clear indication it wasn't required of any of them but since Peter volunteered that Christ paid it, Christ instructed him to put money were his mouth had gone, when he didn't need to.

It is also worth noting Christ instructed Peter to "fix" the problem he created through that which he was most familiar with, fishing. 

How Christ handled this whole event, as well as his querying Peter and then accepting his reply, all indicate that paying the tax in this instance was not a requirement. Christ's reason for instructing Peter to pay the tax appears to be for other reasons listed above.

First, Christ used Peter's presumption and error in judgment as an opportunity to teach Peter an important lesson. As he often did, Peter spoke without thinking, creating a problem. Since Peter created this problem Peter needed to resolve it as well, therefore Christ's unusual instructions for Peter to find a fish and get the money out of its mouth and pay the tax he voluntarily agree (without checking with Christ first) that Christ paid.

Secondly, since Peter had already committed the Lord to pay this tax by saying, "yes he pays it…" obligating both himself and Peter, Christ had Peter pay it to avoid offending someone for the sack of the gospel. (Have you ever had someone volunteer you for something without getting your permission?)

I think it's fair to say if Peter had said, "you will have to ask my Lord", rather than speaking for Christ, Christ would have responded to the inquirers the same way he did Peter by asking them, "From who do the kings of the earth collect...taxes...?" If their response was correct, as was Peter's, their own reply would have acknowledged the tax wasn't required (the sons are exempt) and therefore neither Christ nor Peter would have needed to pay the tax. But for the reasons mentioned, Christ did instruct Peter to pay it, but not because it was required to be paid.

On a separate but related matter, it is worth noting in Luke 19:2-10 that Zacchaeus the tax collector was hated by all and referred to as a sinner. Christ's response was that he had come to save those who were lost, i.e. sinners. This suggests that Zacchaeus was a better than average example. Instead of refuting the crowds' view of Zacchaeus as a sinner, he confirmed it by his reply.

There is not anything necessarily or inherently wrong with taxes or those who collect them, but it is interesting that even in Christ's day the tax system seemed to be a receptacle for the despised and unethical. Do we see any indication this may also be the case today? Zacchaeus was said to be a wealthy man yet his sole source of earnings - supposedly - was the collecting of taxes. He later acknowledged, by his willingness to pay back to those he had collected from, that he had illegally stolen from others by extracting from them more than they owed and using tax collection as a guise. Is there a pattern here we can learn from?

• Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's… 

Those who advocate that any and all taxes should be paid without question, appear to consistently rely upon the superficial translation of the following passage rather than the context in which this story is set. The key to properly interpreting this statement "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is to understand the context which clearly shows that Jesus was responding to a trap being set for him. How he avoided this trap is actually the focus of this passage, not taxes.

Mark 12: 13-16

¹³Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in  his words. ¹⁴They came to him and said, "Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth (when your antagonists seek to flatter you, beware). Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? ¹⁵Should we pay or shouldn't we?" ¹⁶But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. (i.e. their question wasn't sincere and the real reason thy were raising it) "Why are you trying to trap me?" he asked. "Bring me a denarius and let me look at it." They brought the coin, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied. ¹⁷Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him.

To be a trap, the intent was that any answer would result in the desired outcome by the trappers. If Christ’s answer was to not pay Caesar the tax (As probably anticipated by the questioners. It is very possible that Jesus was suspected of leading a group of tax rebels who would have disapproved of their leader paying taxes to Rome), Jesus would have convicted himself of a capital crime under Roman law and the questioners would now have an excuse to bring him before Pilot for sentencing. To protest the tax in that day was punishable by crucifixion. The fact that Caiaphas raised this issue later before Pilot to persuade him to crucify Christ supports this. (Lk 23:2 "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king.”)

If, on the other hand, Christ had said it was right to pay Caesar, they would likely have tried to accuse him of being unfaithful to God and therefore not truly the Son of God as he claimed but an impostor, worthy of death.

The Pharisees thought they had set a clever, inescapable trap for Christ. No matter how he answered, they "had" him, or so they thought.

However, the response by Jesus amazed them. Christ saw through their guise i.e. ¹⁶… Jesus knew their hypocrisy… and did not give them either response they were hoping for but completely eluded their question and therefore their trap. Christ, instead turned the table and simply put the problem back on them. "Whose portrait is this...?" Christ asked. In essence, he was saying to them, you figure out what belongs to whom and if a tax is due, pay it to the appropriate party.

His answer was not at all an admission of a requirement much less a command to pay taxes to the government of his day - as some often suggest when quoting this particular phrase. To just take the isolated statement, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" without looking at the context is to miss entirely why he made that statement, to begin with. He wasn’t giving a command, He was giving them an answer to their question in a way that avoided the trap they were trying to set.

Because we all tend to approach a passage with preset ideas, we have to always be on guard not to read into the passages what we have predetermined (or wrongfully told) but instead prayerfully seek to see what any given passage is actually saying. Our goal should be extracting from passage within the context as well as the text the meaning, not read a predetermined interpretation into it. As my Hermeneutics professor was fond of telling us, "a text without a context is a pretext."

Tied to this is that we are all prone to interpret the bible according to our fears and emotions. By that I mean if we are afraid of the responsibility a passage places on us (such as taking responsibility for our choices) we will interpret a passage in such a way as to avoid facing those responsibilities or subsequent fears. Instead of changing our thinking, we “change scripture” to fit what is comfortable. Interpretation of certain passages often has far more to do with our emotions than our correct understanding of a passage, i.e. our fears and emotions often color our view/understanding of things, including God's very words.

In addition, there is still the matter of WHO is Caesar and WHAT belongs to "him?" As Christians, we are not opposed to Government (when it operates according to God's word) or the necessity of raising revenue under the specific conditions clearly spelled out in the Constitution. Local authorities do maintain "law and order" by preventing evildoers from wreaking havoc on their fellow citizens (though things have often gone upside down of late when addressing the police). However, we are opposed to those in Government violating the law and raising revenues outside of what the law allows. When they do, this is theft, not unlike what Zacchaeus committed. When this occurs we are not obligated to participate in such thievery but in fact, as stewards, we are entrusted to manage the resources God gives us and to resist attempts at interfering with that responsibility. As Jefferson once said, resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. Though Jefferson was just a man, and possibly not even a Christian, I trust you agree his wisdom was sound and scripturally based.

Walk by the Spirit, not under the law

What does it mean to be free in Christ and operate by or walk in the Spirit? 

Are these connected? If so how?

Also, how are the works of the flesh and being under the law tied together? Does this connection give us a clue as to how grace and walking in the Spirit go together, i.e. are these opposite parallels?

To understand the conflict between the law and grace is to understand the conflict between the flesh (human nature's inclination to try to earn love - God's and others - instead of receiving it as a gift) and the Spirit, i.e. experiencing God's love by grace not by works i.e. not causes bondage - it enslaves us. We are enslaved because when our desire for love and acceptance is based on our efforts (vs Christ's) we must always seek approval from others because we never fully obtain it (we only experience it fleeting moments) because we never live righteous enough to gain it. 

Even in our fleeting moments of living well, it ²never truly satisfies our deep longing and need for acceptance (love). As a result, we are on a treadmill of continually seeking love yet never fully obtaining it. This is a spiritual striving that never succeeds but results in burnout. 

You never get perfectly approved or feel perfectly accepted-loved because: 

1. You are never good enough - never perfect enough. 

2.  Our need for love is infinite because we're designed for perfect infinite love - i.e. for God, and His acceptance and approval. 

Like an addict enslaved to their addiction, we must go back, again and again, to constantly replenish our need for love, acceptance, and approval so we might be declared righteous-right by God and others i.e. we are always seeking approval to be told "good job!" We are in bondage to this constant need for acceptance, approval, and praise because we are disconnected from the only true and lasting source of love i.e. God.

Only in Christ are you freed from this bondage because you are fully approved and accepted by God through Christ's efforts on your behalf (vs our own which never work long-term). In Christ, your acceptance is now by grace not works.

2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be (i.e. attempt to be) justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

“Justified by the law…” What does this mean? It is attempting to use superficial "obedience" to a prescribed behavior (spelled out in God's law) to ⁴gain acceptance and approval (that sense of feeling right and approved i.e. righteous) from God first, but also from others. To be acknowledged as right or righteous makes us feel just and justified. But it doesn't mean we actually are. Trying to live "according to the law" is our feeble attempt to be good, righteous - right in the eyes of others - to feel accepted, and approved by God or men.

7 You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion is not from him who calls you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. 10 I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is. 11 But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. 12 I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!

“Obeying the truth…” And what truth is that? To live according to or by genuine approval and acceptance from God Himself i.e. the only true justification comes by faith in the righteousness God provides in and through Christ, not what you and I attempt to earn through our efforts i.e. good behavior.

13 For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.

Once we are in Christ we are free from trying to earn God's approval because we already fully have it in and through Christ. Once we have it, the love of God becomes the driving force behind true obedience, not our impotent attempts to be lovable and therefore acceptable through right conduct. 

 Obedience matters but not superficial obedience that gives the appearance of righteousness but true submission and allegiance that springs forth from the heart out of love for God i.e. a heart already captured by his love and submitted to God.

True faithfulness and obedience are evidence (fruit) of knowing you are perfectly loved i.e. accepted and approved by God in and through Christ. To know this is to be freed in Christ, which is also to operate in the Spirit. We are free because we are moved to action from within - by love i.e. the Spirit - and not pressured from without to gain approval. 

In Christ, we have God's perfect acceptance and approval, i.e. His love. We are freed from trying to earn these by our efforts. 

The love and Spirit of God are directly tied together if not one and the same. The more we understand that God’s love is based on Christ’s performance (not ours) the freer we become, and the more we are driven-moved by that love - i.e. by the Spirit - to love God and others - to fulfill "the law of love."

Keep in Step with the Spirit 

16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

"...walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh..."

Walking in the flesh is the opposite of walking by the Spirit. It is seeking to gain the approval of God and man through our good deeds. Walking in the Spirit (to be in and under God's perfect and infinite love-acceptance-approval) moves us to love others – and do good deeds - because we already know we are fully loved in and by Christ. When our conduct is driven by God's acceptance and approval - i.e. His love/Spirit - we will not pursue (or desire) acceptance-seeking behavior i.e. the "desire of the flesh." These two approaches - Spirit vs flesh or grace vs law - are truly opposite and opposed to each other.

Also, note in v 18 that the opposite of walking in the Spirit is being under the law. You would think Paul instead would say this was living by the flesh. And this would also be correct according to v 17. How is this so? Being under the law i.e. seeking approval through obedience to the law is walking in flesh i.e. it is approval-love-seeking behavior. 

Living by the flesh and being under the law are the same thing. Again, this is an attempt to live by the law in order to gain God's acceptance and approval. 

So when Paul says walk by the Spirit and not by the flesh or not under the law, he is saying the same thing.

The desire to serve God because you know you are fully loved by Him already (the essence of the gospel of grace), eliminates the need to gain the approval of others through "right" i.e. righteous living. When you are moved by love i.e. the Spirit, you will fulfill the “law of love.” You are not under a requirement to win God's approval through obedience to the law i.e. you are not driven by the need to gain love-acceptance-approval through your own good-righteous deeds. You already fully have this in Christ as a gift (earned by Christ's good deeds and credited i.e. given to you). 

Along with that acceptance and approval, you have God's infinite love. It is already fully and perfectly yours and not something to be striven for (earned or worked for).

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

“sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies...” are all the result of seeking to feel loved and gaining a sense of acceptance, approval, significance, value, etc. through our efforts i.e. operating in the flesh. This is a list of what we either do to feel loved or what we experience when we fail to gain it e.g anger, strife, etc. All of these are "works of the flesh" i.e. actions we take to earn anothers approval and acceptance in order to feel good about ourselves.

Spiritual fruit is a byproduct of proper sun(Son) light, rain, and soil. When given these proper ingredients, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control, are the outcome. 

Not some of these, but all of them. It is not fruits of the Spirit but fruit (singular) of the Spirit, the byproduct of operating under the umbrella of God’s perfect acceptance - love i.e. grace.

This is also not a checklist of things to do, it is who we are when operating in and by the love-Spirit of God. There is no pressure to perform. This is why it brings freedom. This is our organic, supernatural state of being when we understand we already have the perfect love, approval, acceptance, and care - Son light - of God. No law - i.e. our attempts to obey it for approval - can or will create these characteristics ("...against such conduct, there is no law"). When we are "in Christ" we are the objects of God's perfect and infinite love. This love fills up, overpowers, and eliminates the need to seek love, acceptance, and approval through feeble attempts to live righteously i.e. through the law. We will not be hungry for love horizontally (from our fellow creatures) when we are full of perfect love vertically...i.e. God’s love.

25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

"If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit..." To live under the blanket of God's love is to operate in and by God's love i.e. it is to operate in and by the Spirit - of love - resulting in right-righteous living i.e. the fruit of the Spirit-love. If we are in Christ, we are in the Spirit - in and under the status of being perfectly loved and approved by God - let us align or keep in step with this status i.e. walk and live according to it. Let us live in and by the Spirit-grace-love of God, not under the law. Let us live in the understanding (by faith) that we are already fully loved, accepted, and approved in Christ, not try to gain theses from God or men through so-called "righteous" deeds.

In summary, walking by the flesh is living to gain the approval (love) of God and others. Walking in or by the Spirit is knowing we already fully have God's love and approval in Christ and being empowered to live righteously by it i.e. by love, by the Spirit (of love). 

Inward motivation and outward behavior.

The outcome of "right living" can look exactly the same with both approaches on the outside, but under the hood what drives our conduct is completely different. In fact, they are the opposite of each other.

For a further discussion on what righteousness is click here. 

For a further discussion on the gospel vs. religion, click here. 

For a further discussion on the definition of flesh, Spirit, law, etc. click here. 

For a further discussion on legalism, click here. 

For a further discussion on cultural Christians and followers of Jesus, click here. 

For a further discussion on how and why were are wired for love, click here and here.  

For a further discussion on how God's Spirit stirs our spirit-love click here.

_________________________________

¹As God's image-bearer you and I are the closest to being like God (we have the greatest capacity for a relationship with God) more than anyone or anything else in creation and therefore other God-like beings are sought hardest by us for acceptance and approval. Praise from God is most desired, but since most reject God they look for praise, approval, and love from the next best thing - those who are like God i.e. our fellow image bearers of God.

²Only perfect acceptance by God through Christ satisfies our need for perfect love.

³We may experience tiny snippets of approval on occasion, but never permanently. The love we are able to scratch out by our feeble efforts is never great enough to satisfy our infinite need for love nor is it lasting. Which is why we're constantly seeking it. We are a spiritual bottomless pit with an emotional black hole at the core of our being. 

So we have two problems.  

The quantity of love i.e. its permanence and the quality of love i.e. its depth or greatness. 

We are looking to others who can not love us with perfect love - love that is deep enough (quality) or permanent (quantity) - because of their limitations. We are all in the same boat - lacking, wanting, needing, and seeking infinite love. 

Infinite love can only come from an infinite Source. We or others are not that Source (though we can be the conduit through which infinite love can flow...and that is because we were designed that way by the Creator-Source of infinite love).

Infinite love can not and will never be met by a finite source i.e. other image-bearers, including ourselves and our own self-love. 

We were created to be filled with infinite love, not limited, temporary, fleeting love. Only God's love is infinite; man's is not. 

Infinite love can only come from an Infinite Source because only an Infinite Source addresses the depth or greatness of love and the extent or permanence of it, that we need and must have. And we must have it because God created us to have it i.e. To have Him, the only Source of infinite love.

Also, even though God is the only Source of Infinite love, we can never do enough or be good enough to gain it by our efforts. 

Thank God we don't need to because Christ secured this for us by His righteous efforts and will assign them to us if we will receive it.

In summary

1. Other fellow image-bearers are finite and can never give us infinite love; in depth (quality) or extent (quantity). 

2. Even if their love were infinite - which it isn't - we can never perform well enough to gain it.

3. We can never perform well enough to gain the Infinite love that is from the only Infinite Source - God. 

⁴To earn infinite love was never the intent or purpose of the law. The law is the owner's manual on how to live to our maximum capacity (how to best flourish) by and out of love for God. This is why Christ told us "If you love me you will obey my commandments" and that all the commands hang on loving God and our neighbor i.e. are about love and loving others not seeking to gain love. The heart's reason (motivation) for living the right way - i.e. as we are designed to - is love, not seeking to win the love of others - i.e. living by the Spirit, not under the law.

⁵Something that apparently, we are all easily inclined to do, hence an entire letter by Paul to the Galatians is included in the Bible for everyone's instruction and benefit throughout the ages.

⁶Desiring love (and approval) is legitimate. We are designed for love (for God who is love). Trying to gain it through our performance is our problem, not our desire for it. 

Loving our neighbor isn't hard, it's impossible.

We must have a sense of meaning, purpose, and value to function as we were designed to. Without this, life is pointless. 

We normally obtain this through our achievements. This isn't bad or wrong, but part of how we are wired. However, it is insufficient if we draw our sense of value primarily and only from what we do. Why?

Our primary source of meaning, purpose, and value is God himself. We were created to love God and be loved by God 1st and then to love our neighbors 2nd. To gain a sense of meaning, purpose, and value exclusively or primarily through being valued-loved-admired by other finite creatures is contrary to who we are and how we are wired. Operating in this way does not address our core need for infinite love. Other finite beings cannot give infinite love. By design and definition, a creature is a finite being.

Including ourselves. We can not meet a need for infinite love using finite resources.

Now consider this; if everyone committed to loving, appreciating, and valuing their neighbor as themselves, we would all be loved by our neighbors? Problem solved, right?

"Hey neighbor, start loving me as yourself! That’s what the commandment says. What are you waiting for?" 

The focus of this commandment however is for us to love them, not demand they love us. 

There is one significant problem, however,

we don't love our neighbor the way we love ourselves!  On occasion, we might but in pockets or bits and pieces. By and large, this doesn’t happen and hasn't happened on a global scale. The world is still a mess. War, starvation, fear, distrust, etc. continue unabated.

We've all heard of calls for unity, peace, and love, especially in times of greatest discord and division. There have even been songs written about it. You may recall John Lennon's song "Give Peace a Chance" with the regular refrain, "all we are saying..." as if it is no big deal to achieve. The Beatles also sang "All You Need is Love." The lyrics even said, "it's easy." Or you may recall the song "We Are the World" by several high-profile artists. 

These are all lovely sentiments and worthy goals. The desire expressed by each is noble and right, in fact, it is what we are created for. This is not only what we need but part of who we are and what we are designed for.

Yet, the world is still a mess. So why don’t we all simply do this? If it were easy, I think we would.

The problem is, if we think we can all merely start loving each other without being connected to the Source of love, we do not understand the human condition. This is like being told to give our neighbor a drink of water when our own water is shut off. 

Dr. Larry Crabb once said that most people go into a relationship like ticks looking for a dog. However, there is only one problem... we are all ticks. We cannot give something we don't have i.e. infinite, selfless (sacrificial) love. The only way we can love our neighbor as we were designed to and in the way our neighbor needs us to, is to be fully engaged in loving God with our heart, soul, mind, and strength. 

And this will not, and can not, happen unless we experience God’s love first. Loving God first is the greatest commandment for good reason.  We cannot love God in this way until we see that he has loved us in ¹this way. This fills our cup (or turns our water back on to continue the above analogy). In short, absent God's sacrificial love, we are not able to love our neighbor as ourselves. We are too busy tending to our own emptiness and need for love.  

When "push comes to shove," if God's love is not filling our hearts we take care of number one i.e. ourselves. We only love sacrificially when we see we have been loved sacrificially.  And we have been. Love has a name. It's ¹Jesus!

For a further discussion on how God empowers us, click here

For a further discussion on how God's Spirit works within ours, click here. 

______________________

*Has God loved us with all His heart, soul, mind, and strength?  Yes!! When!? Over 2000 years ago in and through Christ. And after Christ rose He sent his love by His Spirit (that issues forth and flows out of the love the Father and Son have for each other).

The "last days" - two world views

The following is part 5 of a 5 part paper at 

https://thotsaboutgod.blogspot.com/2010/02/doom-and-gloom-of-dispensationalism.html 

I am posting this article separately for those who may not be interested in the weakness of the biblical claims behind the "last days" or "end times" teaching. I cover these claims in parts 1-3, particularly part 3 at the above link. If you wish to look at the rest of the paper after reading the below, click here or the link above. I have also put the link to the entire paper at the end.

5. Two World Views - two opposite approaches to our world

In parts 1-3, I addressed the more technical aspects of our understanding of key passages and the history of Dispensationalism in part 4. But are there any practical implications regarding this issue? Do these ¹two systems affect how we as the Church universal address our world today? I have already alluded to this in part 4 but wish to review this more closely in the following part (part 5).

______________________________________________________

Let’s look at how each position deals with the moral decay in our society, the courts, and culture. Why do you think the Evangelical church, to a great degree, is resigned to let things continue to deteriorate morally, politically, and economically, virtually unchallenged? Whenever I have sent info or articles to my Dispensationalist friends regarding the current decline, their response is always, "It's a sign of the times and the imminent return of Christ." Then they go about their business as if there is nothing they can or should do. "Why try to fight it?" they reason. "It is all part of God’s plan and has already been predicted and predetermined," they might say. 

But how does a "Preterist" respond? (Preterist means references to the "last days" are about past events, not future ones. This is covered more in the full paper linked above). When things grow more oppressive, they pray even more earnestly and work even more diligently that God would reverse the trend to aid the advancement of His kingdom on earth. Reversal of moral corruption and the advancement of God’s kingdom is believed to not only be possible but is, in fact, God's desire, design, and will. The "preterist" sees current events as an opportunity to advance the Kingdom of God instead of a reason to "throw up our hands" in defeat and "hunker down" while we hold on and endure the decay until the Lord returns to rescue (aka "rapture") us out of this current mess. The Preterist view is the complete opposite of the all-too-common passive approach by a large number of dispensationalists.

The dispensationalists say it's all planned out, and to fight against the "signs of the times" is futile. These are the "last days." It’s all inevitable. Fighting this is the equivalent of "polishing the brass on a sinking ship" as one author suggested. Why bother?! The ship is sinking.

The "Preterist" however, says the current deterioration we are facing now is contrary to God's will (the advancement of His Kingdom on earth), and we must pray and work all the more earnestly for its reversal. The worse it gets, the greater the opportunities to do so because we are, in fact, called by Christ himself to this end. 

It is also during hard events that people are more open to hearing the good news that God has provided the way to return to Him. If the economy continues to deteriorate, what a significant opportunity to minister to people in need and point them to Christ as their comfort in a time of trouble! A very different mindset than shaking our heads at the downturn while we sit around gazing in the sky, looking and hoping for our Lord’s return to physically remove us from the world - wouldn’t you agree? Not unlike Israel, which expected the Messiah to rescue them from the hard circumstances of Roman occupation instead of their spiritual bankruptcy. 

Now consider how much greater an impact the church could have on our culture if they all held a historical/ preterist view of God's Word compared to a futurist view. Christians would be far more actively engaged in challenging and seeking to infuse God's influence into society today. And when we share Christ, it would not be as a fire insurance policy to "rapture" them out of this doomed world and save their "skin," but because they need Him to change their lives and deliver them from the MORAL decay of this present existence, not remove them physically from the earth. This would help advance His rule and reign on earth. Are you starting to see the difference? These are two VERY different views with two opposite approaches to our current world.

So there is no confusion, I am not suggesting that we change our understanding of scripture to be more effective in the world today. What I am saying is by aligning our worldview with scripture we will be more effective.

There is another very significant area that these two views influence. Would not the church be far more aggressive in seeking to point men and women of Jewish ancestry to Christ than we are today? Whenever Paul addressed the "Jew/Gentile" question regarding the gospel did he not say "to the Jew first, then the Gentile?" Yet this is not the attitude of much of the "Gentile" church today. (Actually, there should be no such distinction within the church. I am speaking only of our priority in advancing God's kingdom here on earth). How many converted Jews attend evangelical churches that you are aware of? How many converted Jews do you know personally? We know converted Hispanics, Asians, even Arabic/Moslems, etc. etc. don't we? Where are our fellow Jewish believers? Why are they not more incorporated into our evangelical churches? Why are there churches made up solely or primarily of "messianic Jews?" According to Paul, there is no longer a distinction between Jew and Gentile in Christ. Rom 10:12, Gal 3:28, Col 3:11.  Yet many evangelical churches and "Messianic Jews" today encourage and promote this distinction and have separate churches.

If we held a "Preterist" view, our focus, instead of seeking to support national Israel financially and politically, would be to reach them spiritually first. Yet we "Gentile" believers somehow (actually, it is clearly tied to a futurist view of the nation of Israel) ignore their needs spiritually and seek to advance them materially and politically instead. Was it not the focus of Christ while on earth to reach His fellow countrymen spiritually, and was this also not the same reason they missed the message of the Messiah? Wasn't it because they assumed His message of deliverance was earthly (i.e. political) instead of spiritual? Their desire for "political/earthly salvation" caused them to miss the actual message of Christ - and the Old Testament - altogether. 

Are we as evangelicals making the same mistake in seeking the political, earthly salvation of the state of Israel first, instead of their spiritual salvation? What is the greatest need of all men, the Jew first and then the Gentile? Is it not to find and recognize him as the Christ, the anointed one i.e. the Messiah and Savior first and foremost? Again, these are two unique approaches to this matter regarding the nation of Israel.

With this understanding, how differently might we handle events in the Middle East? Instead of sending billions in cash over the years to Israel, to aid them in defending themselves militarily, wouldn't they be better served if this money were used to send missionaries (of course, this is the church's role, not governments). 

And what best sustains "freedom and democracy" if not the gospel itself. No culture has ever advanced because "democracy" was the focus. The solution to man’s problems is not political but spiritual. When Christ is the focus i.e. the advancement of his Kingdom on earth through the conversion of individual men and women, it has always resulted in a dramatic change for good in society. In every culture where God's kingdom was advanced through the conversion of people to Christ; liberty, order, truth, and morality followed soon after and often for years to follow. 

There is a definite distinction between conversion to Christ and the “Americanization” of a country. I am not opposed to America. I love America for the freedom it historically has stood for and the creativity and generosity it still promotes. I love all aspects of America that recognize God's promises and grew out of a desire to honor Him. But what made America great was the humble submission of men and women to Christ and his rule/kingdom individually, which led to our submission to His rule collectively. Somehow, many in the church have confused conversion to Christ and “being American” as one and the same thing. That which is still good about America is only that which springs forth from a desire to honor God. 

America historically has been one of the best displays of this but is not the only example. Our loyalty should be to Christ first, and our country only to the extent it seeks and promotes Him and His rule over us. Everything wrong with America is exactly that which is the opposite of this. We should not be saying “America, love it or leave it” or “might makes right” but be considering how America as a whole has strayed from its original commitment to God and His truth. Understanding this is important, so we might pray with our eyes open and seek God to restore her original honor. When we, as a nation, honor Him again, not with lip service but with our resources, loyalties, and actions, He will honor us again as a nation. As long as we flippantly disregard honoring God, He will disregard us and continue to remove His hand of provision and protection.

Pro 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.

Jas 4:10 Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you.

Spiritual awakening… a history.

Knowing the history of our past spiritual awakenings may be a clue to future ones. 

"The First Great Awakening" occurred in the North American Colonies in the early 1730s. Do you think this played any role in the formation of our country in 1776? Look at every spiritual awakening in history. History is full of examples of this very truth. Do you think it was because we were set up as a "Republic" that we prospered as a nation, or was it rather that we recognized God was the ultimate lawgiver to whom we must give an account and sought to design a government that best reflected this? Yet in today’s US of A, we wish to transport "democracy" around the world. Democracy, however, is not the solution to man's needs, Christ is and Him alone!!! "Advancing democracy" is like hanging plastic apples on a bush and saying, "See, it's now an apple tree" and then patting ourselves on the back for how good a job WE did!! 

Yet, the hearts of men must change first before any real and lasting change in culture can occur. And that is only through the work of Christ. We know this to not only true from scripture but from history.

As one pastor of my church pointed out, the difference between the Dispensational and Preterist camps is like the contrast between two armies - one planning to endure a siege, the other planning for an extended campaign of conquest. 

But we are speaking of spiritual conquest, not military conquest. Not only are the attitudes different, but their activities also reflect the needs they anticipate. In the army expecting siege (i.e. Dispensationalism), there would be little need for leadership development or generational transfer. With Dispensationalism they gear everything toward the immediate future, not for the long-term planning of building something that will help advance God’s kingdom for years to come for our kids and theirs.

This same pastor pointed out a quote he once saw on a futurist website: “Actually, it's always darkest...just before it goes completely black!” Not a very optimistic approach to the world. 

However, a historical understanding of scripture gives you a totally different attitude with huge implications for how we approach everything. With this understanding, you seek the advancement of the kingdom and see the importance of sharing this with all who will hear it. As our world becomes increasingly bankrupt, spiritually, morally, and financially, the appeal of Christ and the need for His solutions only become more apparent, and the opportunities only increase, not decrease.

The sad truth is in much of the American evangelical church, we have a pessimistic mindset about the advancement of God’s kingdom, and it shows. The reality, however, is that God is about advancing His kingdom. It’s just not happening to a great extent in America today due to the "doom and gloom" mindset of dispensational teaching.

·      According to the author Jim Rutz’s book Megashift, until 1960, Western evangelicals outnumbered non-Western evangelicals – mostly Latinos, blacks, and Asians – by two to one. As of 2000, non-Western evangelicals outnumbered Westerners by four to one. He says in 2010, that ratio should be seven to one.

·        "There are now more missionaries sent from non-Western nations than Western nations," according to the author.

·       Church growth outside of America is now breathtaking. Every morning, there are 175,000 more Christians in the world. And if current growth rates (8% a year) continue, there will be more Christians than the present world population by the autumn of 2032... about 8.2 billion.

Does the bible say anything about this?

Yes, through King Nebuchadnezzar'a dream.

31 “You saw, O king, and behold, a great image. This image, mighty and of exceeding brightness, stood before you, and its appearance was frightening. 32 The head of this image was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its middle and thighs of bronze, 33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. 34 As you looked, a stone cut out by no human hand, struck the image on its feet of iron and clay and broke them in pieces. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But …the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. 

Further down, Daniel interprets the meaning.

Who is the stone? Christ! What is the mountain that filled the whole earth? The church universal. This is believed by both Preterists and Dispensationalists alike. 

The decline in the numbers above is no surprise because America is the strongest promoter of Dispensational theology.

When Christ said "the gates of hell will not prevail" against the church, our English translations don't do justice to the full meaning of the original Greek language. The verb tense in the original is the gates of hell will not withstand or stand up to the advancement of the church. (That was originally pointed out to me by a Dispensationalist interestingly, Dr. Ed Hindson who used to teach at Jerry Farwell's Liberty University). 

Talk about an optimistic mindset!!!! We are on the winning team, not just in eternity but here and now, and we need to act like it if we will have any chance of significantly impacting our world for Christ! How desperately the church needs to get a hold of this (myself included). How sad and unfortunate it is that because of the futurist pessimism (“It’s a sign of the times. The end is near. Hold on! Jesus is coming soon!” etc., etc.) permeating much of the church. We - the church - have disengaged to a large extent in speaking into our world. As a result, we look to the government to turn things around instead of Christ. 

Where in the bible does it tell us to look to government as our Savior? Nowhere!!! If we understood God has called us, - you and me - to be salt and light wherever there is darkness, and that the decay of our culture and society falls on us to address - by the power of His Spirit driving us and not our government - we would be on our knees day and night until His Spirit got a hold of us first. And then through us, He would get a hold of our fellow man and ultimately our culture and government. 

Government plays a role but as an instrument of God for change, not the cause of it. Desperate times call for desperate measures and desperate dependence on God and Spirit-driven action for God. Instead of enduring all the garbage and deception in the world as we look to the sky, hoping and waiting for Christ to come and rescue us from it all, we should speak out on the bankruptcy of this world and unapologetically offer the hope and power of Christ in this life and the one to come. How exciting, positive, and refreshing is that!?! May God give us the grace and understanding to see His heart regarding these things!

For a look at what the bible says about the promise to Abram (later named Abraham) regarding the nation of Israel, click here. 

For a discussion on how "last days" teaching aids the advancement of one-world government, click here. 

If you wish to read the rest of the paper this article is taken from click here.

If you wish to discuss any of the points addressed in this article or have questions, please message me at  

thoughtsaboutGod@pm.me Ask for Jim. God Speed

__________________________________________________________________________

*When referring to two systems I have Dispensationalism specifically in mind and not the broader category of Futurists. I do so because that was the camp I was in for years and am most familiar with. I have also been told by non-dispensational futurists that their view of the world is more optimistic than how I characterize Dispensationalists in this section. If so that is good. I never had an extended conversation with any while still in the Dispensational camp.

Conspiracy Theory, good or bad?

Most don't know, but "conspiracy theory" was a label created by the CIA to discredit facts exposing an "official" story. It was 1st used back in the 60s to debunk questions around the Kennedy assassination. Now that some of those documents are public, some of those theories have turned out to be facts.

Conspiracies are real, theories are just conjectures yet to be proven or disproven. A conspiracy theory is not necessarily bad or wrong, it is just unproven. A theory is a supposition (best guess) made based on the facts at hand. A good theorist doesn't stop there, however, but uses a hunch to see if it can be backed up with solid proof. If it can't, it is set aside. Once it can be proven, it is no longer a theory but a confirmed conspiracy.  Regardless, it is a necessary part of determining the truth. And this is important. Labeling something (or someone) as a conspiracy theory (or theorist) is an attempt to shut down investigation so the truth cannot be discovered.

Investigation, however, is the normal and required procedure for any investigator, whether a detective or a journalist. It is so common, several popular shows were based on it. You'll likely remember popular detective shows offered over the years, such as "Law and Order", "NCIS" or "CSI." There's even a game based on investigation called "Clue." 

Most of us like mysteries and solving puzzles. They are always engaging.  Yet we never hear of these being labeled "conspiracy theory" shows or games, do we?

Conspiracies are very real and have been around for a long time. Judas Iscariot - who betrayed Christ - would be a conspirator you might be familiar with.

Whenever someone is quick to use the conspiracy theory label, it should raise a red flag. It is often used to shut down discourse and exploration of the facts.  Instead of shutting down investigation, it should make us ask what exactly are *they hiding and why? 

We have seen a ton of this of late with social media, such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Google, and the like by censoring information and even shutting down entire accounts in an attempt to stymie investigation and questions regarding "official" narratives. Not a good thing. All sides of a debate need to be considered so folks can think for themselves and make their own choice. If you stymie one voice, you can stymie another, and that other could be yours. Without the free exchange of different views, we have "group think" aka "1984."

The strategy of deceivers is to discredit their opposition (truth-seekers) by labeling them as something other than what they really are. This is the classic ad hominem attack, i.e. an attempt at character assassination. It is only necessary to use when facts and truth are not on ¹their side.  If you can draw attention away from the facts by assassinating someone's character, the facts no longer matter, regardless of how significant they may be.

We should never be afraid of discussing facts. This is how we collectively come to the truth. Rarely does one person have all the facts. Others will often have a piece of the puzzle we don't. Without discussion, you may never discover the full picture. 

But isn't that the point? Those who try to defame someone by labeling them as conspiracy theorists don't want you to know the truth. How do those hiding the truth address this? Never discuss the facts. That is dangerous and could result in the discovery of truth. Facts must be avoided at all costs...even if it means lying about someone or something. Their only concern is to discredit the truth by smearing the character of those who share the truth i.e. ad hominin attack

If someone ever tries to label you a conspiracy theorist, thank them. This likely means you are a truth-seeker and "over the target." Nothing bad ever comes from discovering the truth... unless you are the one lying.

For those worn out by the back and forth between truth-seekers and deceivers, this is part of the strategy. If garbage (aka lies) is thrown out often, and long enough, some start believing the lies or worse - many grow weary, shut down, and quit seeking the truth. This is the goal, and it has significant consequences. When this happens, deceivers win by default. 

Truth matters and lies matter. We often make life-changing decisions based on what we are told, good or bad.  As an example, the Patriot Act was the fruit of the 9/11 event. If what occurred is something other than the "official" narrative, it was unnecessary to give up the freedoms - significant, life-altering actions - imposed on us by the Patriot Act, most of which is still in force 25 years later. 

For further discussion, I recommend the following thought-provoking article on the nature of a "conspiracy theory" http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=14945

Be prepared for a deep dive. 

______________________________________________

Footnotes:

¹To make the truth seeker look silly and discredit them (and make themselves look wise and superior), someone will sometimes self-righteously ask who exactly are "they" or "them" i.e. the conspirers? The simple answer is anyone who seeks to deceive and keep you from discovering who "they" are or what "they" are trying to hide.