Pay What You Owe (38)
Our responsibility to good judges is expanded in Romans 13:7. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
The basic principle is that we should make payment to everyone whom we owe something. When judges do their work well, the whole of society benefits, not just the people who get their cases heard. If judges deal with crime effectively, society will be peaceful and the economy can grow. We all benefit from their work. We all owe something to the judges who make good decisions.
The word “taxes” is a little misleading as it implies a compulsory payment that is decided by the government receiving. A tax must be paid, regardless of whether anything has been received in return. Paul is talking here about a voluntary payment, not a compulsory levy. He is telling Christians that they should decide what they owe to the judges in their community and make sure they pay something towards their upkeep.
The Greek word translated as revenue can mean toll. Tolls are legitimate because they are payment for a service. For example, if I use a road, I owe something towards the cost of maintenance of the road. A toll is a payment for a service.
The thrust of this verse is that we must decide what we owe to whom. We only honour those who are worthy of honour. We only respect those who are worthy of respect. We are not required to respect the governing authorities, because they are usurpers of God’s authority. We do not need to honour politicians, who make human laws, because they are in rebellion against God. We should honour and respect good judges, who apply God’s law wisely.
We should only pay money to judges that we trust. Christians should never subsidise evil.
3 comments:
I haven't done a study of tax or revenue in this verse. Going by your comments, the tax may be voluntary but the toll isn't. And we may be receiving something, just poorly eg. courts.
But to the crux, I have quite a different take here. I think we are to honour civil authorities because they have authority, not whether or not we judge them to be worthy of such. I think they have a responsibility to govern well will be judged by God how well they do as much. And that we have a responsibility to be good citizens as we will be judged according to how we do thus.
We are to behave in a way that gives honour, we do not have to think they are worthy of respect. What I think of someone and how I treat them can be completely different.
There are plenty of other passages that support this, such as "honour the king." But in defence I offer Peter who states that if we are punished for evil then we deserve such, but if we are mistreated for good then this is honourable in God's sight. That is Peter knew that some rulers act righteously and some didn't. I think we can deal with civil leaders respectfully, even if we must disobey them.
An excellent example is how David treated Saul. Saul was evil and David ran from him, but he always treated Saul honourably; look how distraught David was just cutting the edge of Saul's robe. And he composed a song for him and Jonathan when they died.
House of Knowledge?
If the state takes my money using force, then I am not accountable for the way they spend it. If I give it freely to the state, then I do have some accountability for what it does.
You are right that the key issue is honouring the state. My view is that we should only honour the state that is worthy of honour. Unfortunately, most states are not worthy of honour.
Paul understood that some states are evil. That is why he began his statement to the Romans about the state by talking about overcoming evil with good.
Peter actually put the king at the bottom of the heap, lower than the brotherhood and God. “Honour the King” is a generous translation of his words. “Timao” can mean honour, but it also means “place a valuation on”. Christians should fear God, but evaluate the king. Peter was saying that they have no choice to obey the king, because he has the power, but they only need to honour him, if he is worthy.
The blind respect that most Christians have for the state is the result of twisting the words of Peter and Paul. I have written about this in more detail at Romans 13 and Submitting to Political Power.
Yes.
I have skimmed Romans 13, it is quite long. I am not certain I agree. Your example with Satan I did not find convincing as the word "authorities" is qualified with "governing". Though Satan is the "god" of this world, we are never told to submit to him directly.
I think you are incorrect that evil authorities can be used by God. Think Assyria and Babylon.
The state is answerable to how they act, we are answerable to how we act. Of course states can be evil.
Leaving Romans 13 aside, I think it helpful to consider people like David and Jesus. Saul was evil yet David submitted himself as he could. When he was unable to he still refused to lift his hand up against them. Further Jesus has authority over Rome but he still submitted to them.
Post a Comment