Obedience to the Government

[backNforth]

.

 

[backNforth]

.

 

[backNforth]

.

 

[Jesus_is_LORD]

Much thanks for the reply, you made many points, I'll just touch on a few that seem to not align with the scriptures that I have in mind.

To support my example of obeying the government I spoke of Jesus encouraging the people to pay taxes to an oppressive government, you replied

No, he did not; in fact, forbidding to give tribute to Caesar was one of the accusations against Jesus:
And they began to accuse [Jesus], saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King. Luke 23:2).
Rather, they were captives.

Yes, that is what they accused Jesus of, but it doesn't mean their accusations were true.
They had many false accusations against Jesus, as the scriptures tell us

Let us look at Mark 14 verses 55 - 56: “Now the chief priests and all the council sought
testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, but found none. For many bore false
witness against Him, but their testimonies did not agree.”


Jesus paid taxes. We turn to Matthew (who, by the way, was a tax collector before being called to
become one of Jesus' disciples) again. Matthew 17: 24-27 relates the story of a group of tax collectors
asking St. Peter, "Does your teacher pay the … tax?" Peter's answer, "Of course," is followed by
Jesus instructing Peter as follows: " … go to the lake and drop in a line. Pull up the first fish you hook,
and in its mouth you will find a coin worth enough for my tax and yours. Take it and pay them our taxes."



You also stated, in response to
"(1)My understanding is submit to the government as unto the Lord.
(2)When the government clearly goes against God, disobey the government.
"

No, because it's an all-or-none thing. While Satan does much good in his overall plan of evil, such will never justify our allegiance to him - ANY allegiance.

I'm not speaking of partial allegiance to the devil. I think the all or nothing applies to our commitment to Christ. I agree with you,
our commitment to Christ should be all or nothing, such as in the parable of the pearl of great price. However in
terms of living that out, it takes wisdom and the leading of the spirit; as brother @Dave M wonderfully said,
"it is not that simple", Black or White.

Yes it is simple that we give God our all, however how that looks like, the manifestation or the presentation, or the practical aspect
differs. I believe you and I agree that we give Jesus our all and have no fellowship with darkness, I agree. What I'm speaking of
is the fact that because God's ways are higher than ours, sometimes God calls us to sit under evil leadership but if we are
not tuned into the spirit we will miss that.

For example, it is without question that Sarai, the wife of Abram, treated the maid servant Hagar bad.
Hagar fled, however do you remember what the angel to her? The angel told her to return and submit herself.

Genesis 16:7-11 reads
" The angel of the LORD found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur.
And he said, "Hagar, slave of Sarai, where have you come from, and where are you going?" "I'm running away from
my mistress Sarai," she answered. Then the angel of the LORD told her, "Go back to your mistress and
submit to her. The angel added, "I will increase your descendants so much that they will be too numerous to count."
The angel of the LORD also said to her: "You are now pregnant and you will give birth to a son.
You shall name him Ishmael, for the LORD has heard of your misery. "

My caution is to be mindful that the black and White, all or nothing thinking applies to one's commitment to following
the Lord, however in turns of the expression, manifestation, and pragmatic application; let us be reminded that
wisdom is needed and a gentle humbly(teachable) heart that can receive the WORD of God which may seem different
or unusual to our earthly minds.

 

[backNforth]

Yes, that is what they accused Jesus of, but it doesn't mean their accusations were true.
They had many false accusations against Jesus, as the scriptures tell us

Let us look at Mark 14 verses 55 - 56: “Now the chief priests and all the council sought
testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, but found none. For many bore false
witness against Him, but their testimonies did not agree.”

Jesus himself was accused of forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar at his trial: "And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King." (Luke 23:1-2). Notice, these were not false witnesses, because every time a false witness accused Jesus, the Scripture tells us it was a false witness (Mark 14:57-59).

Time is in short supply, so I will reply to the following most commonly held false belief.

Jesus paid taxes. We turn to Matthew (who, by the way, was a tax collector before being called to
become one of Jesus' disciples) again. Matthew 17: 24-27 relates the story of a group of tax collectors
asking St. Peter, "Does your teacher pay the … tax?" Peter's answer, "Of course," is followed by
Jesus instructing Peter as follows: " … go to the lake and drop in a line. Pull up the first fish you hook,
and in its mouth you will find a coin worth enough for my tax and yours. Take it and pay them our taxes."

The "Jesus paid taxes" lie has been pushed for so long by mainstream evangelical Christianity that most have come to believe it, and thereby expressing their ignorance of scripture.

The topic has been explained elsewhere in these forums, but it goes something like this:

There's only one instance where Jesus "paid" a tax. Matthew 17:24-27. Let's break this passage down.

Verse 24: The tax collector asked Simon Peter if Jesus paid taxes.
Verse 25: Peter said, "yes". But "Jesus prevented" Peter from paying the tax. Why did Jesus prevent Peter from paying taxes?
Verse 26: Jesus said "Then are the children free" from paying taxes. This is why, because we (the children of God) are now free. But we must not use our liberty as a cloak of maliciousness.
Verse 27: However, to avoid "offending" this tax collector (since, as was the habit of Peter, he opened his mouth too soon without really thinking and obligated Jesus by his statement that Jesus did pay taxes), Jesus told Peter to cast a hook into the sea, and catch a fish, and take out money from its mouth and pay it.

Even though Jesus paid this tax, it was to avoid "offending" him, and because Peter rashly agreed to pay it, not because we are bound to pay taxes by Law. Jesus made the point to stress that the children are free from taxes. But notice, Simon Peter and Jesus did not give him any of their own money, but that which came from the fish! It is interesting to note that Peter was a commercial fisherman (a fisher of fish) before being called to be an apostle of Christ (a fisher of men), and when Peter opened his mouth before thinking (as he often did), Christ basically chastised him by having Peter return to his old life to pay his debt! He had to be a fisher of fish to catch that fish with the coin in its mouth. When you join yourself to the world, and make obligations to the world, you must become part of the world again to meet those obligations.

Additionally, Jesus could not have fulfilled prophesy if he was to go to prison, which might have happened if he didn't pay that tax after Peter "volunteered" for him. It was not his time to go to prison yet. Likewise, Jesus could have called twelve legions of angels to his rescue, but because the Scriptures would not have been fulfilled if he did, he refrained from doing that act (Matthew 26:53-54). Jesus taught that we are free from paying taxes if we are children of the king (Matthew 17:24-26), meaning the children of King Jesus (Acts 17:7, 1 Timothy 1:17).

 

[Jesus_is_LORD]

Jesus himself was accused of forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar at his trial: "And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King." (Luke 23:1-2). Notice, these were not false witnesses, because every time a false witness accused Jesus, the Scripture tells us it was a false witness (Mark 14:57-59).

Time is in short supply, so I will reply to the following most commonly held false belief.


The "Jesus paid taxes" lie has been pushed for so long by mainstream evangelical Christianity that most have come to believe it, and thereby expressing their ignorance of scripture.

The topic has been explained elsewhere in these forums, but it goes something like this:

There's only one instance where Jesus "paid" a tax. Matthew 17:24-27. Let's break this passage down.

Verse 24: The tax collector asked Simon Peter if Jesus paid taxes.
Verse 25: Peter said, "yes". But "Jesus prevented" Peter from paying the tax. Why did Jesus prevent Peter from paying taxes?
Verse 26: Jesus said "Then are the children free" from paying taxes. This is why, because we (the children of God) are now free. But we must not use our liberty as a cloak of maliciousness.
Verse 27: However, to avoid "offending" this tax collector (since, as was the habit of Peter, he opened his mouth too soon without really thinking and obligated Jesus by his statement that Jesus did pay taxes), Jesus told Peter to cast a hook into the sea, and catch a fish, and take out money from its mouth and pay it.

Even though Jesus paid this tax, it was to avoid "offending" him, and because Peter rashly agreed to pay it, not because we are bound to pay taxes by Law. Jesus made the point to stress that the children are free from taxes. But notice, Simon Peter and Jesus did not give him any of their own money, but that which came from the fish! It is interesting to note that Peter was a commercial fisherman (a fisher of fish) before being called to be an apostle of Christ (a fisher of men), and when Peter opened his mouth before thinking (as he often did), Christ basically chastised him by having Peter return to his old life to pay his debt! He had to be a fisher of fish to catch that fish with the coin in its mouth. When you join yourself to the world, and make obligations to the world, you must become part of the world again to meet those obligations.

Additionally, Jesus could not have fulfilled prophesy if he was to go to prison, which might have happened if he didn't pay that tax after Peter "volunteered" for him. It was not his time to go to prison yet. Likewise, Jesus could have called twelve legions of angels to his rescue, but because the Scriptures would not have been fulfilled if he did, he refrained from doing that act (Matthew 26:53-54). Jesus taught that we are free from paying taxes if we are children of the king (Matthew 17:24-26), meaning the children of King Jesus (Acts 17:7, 1 Timothy 1:17).

Thanks for the reply.

I'm trying to follow you. For the first point you stated that every time someone lies in the Bible about Jesus it is expliciately pointed out they were false witnesses.
I disagree, and I think heading to the next point is easier to prove that. Remember that the beauty of the Gospels is we get to see the same stories
over and over from different perspectives. You are trying to make an argument from silence ( Argument from silence - Wikipedia ) , that is a logical fallacy.

(1)You stated in your initial statement that Jesus never paid taxes

(2) Then you admit that he did paid taxes

(3) But then you seem to present the fact that because the coin was found in the fishes mouth, it wasn't his money, therefore he didn't really pay taxes
(Does it matter where the money comes from? If you owe the bank money, they don't care where you get it as long as you pay it. If I give a terrorist group
a donation, does it matter if I found the money on the ground or got it from my bank account?)

(4) Then after trying to argue that it didn't really count as paying taxes because it was found in the fish, you switch to a point about Jesus talking about
the reason for paying taxes and not to offend.
( Once again, this proves my point in the first post about Black or White. What did I say? I said the commitment is 100% but the application takes wisdom.
You stated it was all or nothing, that line of thinking makes one say, you either do or don't pay taxes. All or nothing. I was trying to help you understand that
sometimes we are called to do certain things that seem questionable, but it does not undermine our commitment to Christ if Jesus is leading us. So your point
supports what I was saying. The point about the example with Jesus speaking of not paying taxes my brother, is so Peter knew that by paying taxes he
was not submitting to the authority of the King, and was still maintaining His authority to God. But Jesus didn't want to cause trouble (offend them), so Jesus
had them pay.

(5) Then you proceed to His time not coming and going to jail and if he was in jail for not paying taxes his mission would not have gotten accomplished.
You seem to be dancing very hard around this topic brother and throwing many explanations at a question and losing focus. Remember your
statement was Jesus did not paid taxes, but now you admit Jesus did pay taxes (which is all I was saying) but in your efforts you constructed
a straw man argument about his motives for paying the taxes and how God's WILL fits into it. With love I say, you're going off topic.

I'm not speaking of the motives, the motives add to gray area which is my point (you stated ALL Black or White). I'm simply stating Jesus
paid taxes which you have admitted, I'm not going into the motives and reasons, etc, that is a different topic. And your explanations are
relatively sound for the reasons, though I won't further analyze at this point.

Respectfully speaking, my father calls that verbal gymnastics, you are flipping all over the place. Did Jesus pay taxes, you said no, I said yes. You now agree he did. Thanks.
Which means that support remains as a valid point for my previous point that I was making in my discussion.

 

[Jesus_is_LORD]

Saying this in love, instead of the gymnastics an alternate statement from you @backNforth could have been,

"I was wrong, Jesus did paid taxes however, for this reason........"

But when individuals find it difficult to admit that they were wrong, but stick to their point regardless, and struggle to twist
things to hold on to their worldview or their debate points; there is also a tendency for it to be hard for them to learn or come to the knowledge of truth,
because finding truth requires humility.

Humility requires admitting when you are wrong so you can learn and be teachable. I've been there before so just sharing since
I've erred in that way in the past as well.

-With Love
WNL

 

[Bill]

Bill, you quoted my post above, which is not a vid. It was a link to my relevant Romans 13 post, which was found here --> Is God in control of the government?


No, because it's an all-or-none thing. While Satan does much good in his overall plan of evil, such will never justify our allegiance to him - ANY allegiance.


No, he did not; in fact, forbidding to give tribute to Caesar was one of the accusations against Jesus:

And they began to accuse [Jesus], saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King. Luke 23:2).


Rather, they were captives.


Daniel was another captive.



Acts 5:29, "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men."

The reason the apostles were arrested and most eventually executed was because they "all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus" (Acts 17:7). Our brother Paul said,

1 Corinthians 2:5, "That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."

The apostles disobeyed their governing authorities because, "No man can serve two masters" (Matthew 6:24), and we are not to be "the servants of men" (1 Corinthians 7:23). We can only serve one lord, one Messiah, and no other lord. As Jesus asked in Luke 6:46, "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" We are to do the things Jesus says to do, not the things Caesar says to do.

Do you remember when people used to call their government officials, like the police, our "public servants"? Why? Because they were supposed to serve people (Matthew 20:27, Mark 10:42, Luke 22:26). Now, those servants have become the masters, and they are feared more than they fear God (Matthew 10:28, Proverbs 29:25). However, true servants of God do not fear the king’s commandments (Hebrews 11:23). We are not to fear man (Psalm 56:4; 118:6, Isaiah 51:7, Matthew 10:28, Hebrews 13:6).

The earthly government is to sit on Christ’s shoulder (Isaiah 9:6), and there is no end to His government (Isaiah 9:7, Psalms 145:13). Those in government are instructed to follow God's Law and serve Him (Psalm 2:10-12). And we are to obey the ordinances of man as long as they do God’s Will; through punishing evildoers and praising them that do well (Romans 13:3, 1 Peter 2:13-17).

What did Jesus teach about the governments of men? Let us examine three parallel Gospel accounts. He himself explained:

Matthew 20:25, "...Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. "

Mark 10:42, "...they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them."

Luke 22:25, "...The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors."

By comparing these three parallel verses, Jesus stated the fact that the governing authorities (princes, rulers, kings) exercise authority over the Gentiles (those who do not believe in God). Note that the term "Gentiles" here cannot mean "Gentile Christians", because Jesus had not yet died to confirm the New Testament, and "Christianity" was not yet in existence. All the apostles were Jews, and Jesus commanded them not to preach to the Gentiles (Matthew 10:5-6). The Gentiles were the enemy of Christ at this point (Matthew 20:19; Mark 10:33, Luke 18:32). The Gospel was not preached to the Gentiles until at least 10 years after the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 9:15; 10:45; 11:1,18; 13:42,46-48).

Notice what Jesus says next. Does he say that His people will have other men rule over them? Most definitely not!

Matthew 20:26, "But it shall not be so among you:"

Mark 10:43, "But so shall it not be among you:"

Luke 22:26, "But ye shall not be so:"

Jesus said we shall not have leaders exercise authority over us like they do over the gentiles. We shall not be subject to governing authorities unless those in "power" are servants of God and His people. Read what Jesus said after he told his disciples that earthly princes, rulers, and kings will not have authority over His chosen:

Matthew 20:26-27, "…but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:"

Mark 10:43-44, "…but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all."

Luke 22:26, "...but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve."

As we see, Jesus does not want man to have authority over man! He commanded that whoever is the chiefest and greatest among men, will be the servant of all. Unlike human governments which make their chief ruler the dictator of all. Man was not created to rule other men, but was given dominion over the creatures of the earth. This is confirmed in the very first chapter of the Bible, when God created the earth. When our Father created the earth. When he first created man, He commanded, "...let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth" (Genesis 1:26,28). Only God has dominion over man. Man is not subject to any other man. Man is ruled by Law, not by the will of man.

Now, Jesus was not condemning all authority, as is clear from the fact that Jesus himself exercised authority over his disciples and others (Matthew 11:27; 23:10; 28:18, John 13:13), and expected his disciples to exercise authority as leaders of his congregation (Matthew 16:19; 18:17; 24:45-47; 25: 21,23, Luke 19:17,19). What sort of authority then was Jesus condemning in this passage? What difference was there between the authority of the gentile ruler and that of himself and his apostles? Surely this, that the latter rested on spiritual ascendancy and was exercised only over those who willingly submitted to it, whereas the former was exercised over all men indiscriminately whether they liked it or not, and for this reason involved the use of the sanctions of physical force and penalties. There can be no doubt that it was this fact that caused Jesus to tell his disciples: "It is not so among you."

When an earthly government believes it is "god walking on the earth," it has no true dominion (authority) but only force, and has fallen from the Grace of Almighty God. Dominion and force are opposed to one another. Force is false power.

Matthew 23:10, "Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ."

Remember, the reason Jesus Christ was crucified was because the governing "authorities" at that time were afraid that they were going to lose their "place and nation," their political power, if the people believed on Jesus (John 11:47-48).


Rather, "The law of God and the law of the land are all one; and both preserve and favor the common good of the land." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2142.

A conversation I had on my way to the Iron Bar Hotel:

Officer: We all must obey the laws of the land.
Bondservant: Yes, that is true. But the law of the land is not man's law, it is God's Law.

Officer: There is such a thing as separation of Church and State.
Bondservant: Well, anybody that believes that the Law of God and the law of the land are separate, they've deluded themselves. That's not living in the truth, that's living in an image of someone else's idea. Is there any law that man can create which sets the bounds of God's Law?

Officer: I'm afraid that I must arrest you now.
Bondservant: There is no law that compels an officer to violate God’s Law, which is the Supreme Law of the land, and the basis of all law in America.

The purpose of government is clearly defined in our Father's Word. That is, to punish evil and to praise those that do well. From this, the protection of life, liberty, and property (being gifts from God) follows in accordance with His Order.

But when a government falls into idolatry, it collects information from you because it must know where everyone and everything is, in order to tax or seize it.

Why is government prone to idolatry? Because governments only exist through law, and law is inherently religious. Behind every law is a judgment, and ones values are based upon their theology or religion. It’s the nature of government to perpetuate itself. Have you ever seen a politician who didn’t want to be re-elected, or a political party that did not want to stay in power? Every one of them are willing to do anything to keep themselves in power (John 11:47-48).

Government is power. Government is authority. And corrupt, depraved men, instead of exercising dominion over God’s creation for His sake, desire dominion over men for their own sake. What did the crafty serpent say to Adam and Eve? "Ye shall be as gods" (Genesis 3:5). Who is it that has control over men? God does! If man believes he is his own god, or if he believes he is some kind of god, then he will exercise control over men in order to prove it.

A king rules by his law. Likewise, God rules by His Law, and His Law is the Word of God. Jews obeyed their king, Caesar, and killed those who did not obey their king (John 19:15). True servants of Christ honor Him by obeying Him (Luke 6:46, John 14:15), not by substituting man-made requirements in place of his.

Thus, in law, the human lawmaker becomes a god by determining for himself which of the many theories at his disposal he will apply to his next act on behalf of "the people." Of course, this means that every other law-maker has an equal "right" to apply his theories to the acts he does, and the only answer to the resulting chaos that comes out of the compromise between theories is that one man must impose his will on all others so that one "coherent" view will control the end result. This means, clearly, a dictatorship and nothing less will do.

I think it's going to be like in in any group of people. Look at China for instance there are many Christians there yet you don't see them rising up against the government. And then you have the United States you don't see these people Christians rising up against the government. In a way we've all become soft.
It was the same thing for the Jews during the time of Egypt they too did not rise up against the government. In all cases we and they have all become complacent in our situations.
But there is something coming that's going to change all that the mark of the beast and this will challenge everyone because we know what happens if we take it and we know what happens if we do not

 

[backNforth]

For the first point you stated that every time someone lies in the Bible about Jesus it is expliciately pointed out they were false witnesses.
I disagree

You have added to my words with your "expliciately pointed out" phrase. Rather, my exact words were:

every time a false witness accused Jesus, the Scripture tells us it was a false witness

...and I followed that with a scriptural example i.e. Mark 14:57-59.

(1)You stated in your initial statement that Jesus never paid taxes

That's correct; He didn't.

(2) Then you admit that he did paid taxes

That's incorrect. You are obviously unaware of a common literary technique.

My exact quote was:

There's only one instance where Jesus "paid" a tax. Matthew 17:24-27. Let's break this passage down.

Notice the quotation marks around the word paid. Do you understand the common grammatical tool employed here? IOW, my statement is not a confirmation that Jesus did pay taxes.

3) But then you seem to present the fact that because the coin was found in the fishes mouth, it wasn't his money, therefore he didn't really pay taxes

You've sold yourself short here. It only "seems" that way to you because you have not grasped the reason why we are given this scenario by God.

A better question for us to consider might be something like this: Why in the world did Jesus have Simon Peter (and the tax men) go through such a convoluted action to what would normally be a simple task of paying a tax? Why not simply reach into a pocket and pay the tax??? Why the fish???

Recall that All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16). So what is the purpose behind this particular scriptural episode? Why was it given to us in this format? What lesson is in it for us?

(Does it matter where the money comes from? If you owe the bank money,

Question #1 - Why was the money owed, particularly when Jesus said the children of God are free???

Answer: Simon Peter spoke presumptuously, as he often did, throughout scripture. That is why Jesus prevented him from paying, took him aside, and gave him a loving rebuke, telling him that the children of God are not obligated to pay the tax.

Simon Peter (the one who spoke presumptuously) was REBUKED and thus was the one tasked with paying the money – not Jesus – because Simon Peter is the one who obliged himself to pay. Jesus sent Simon Peter to do it PRECISELY because it was Simon Peter who, with his presumptuous mouth, erroneously obligated himself (and Jesus) to the tax in the first instance. Because a contract was entered into when Simon Peter answered in the affirmative, Jesus and Simon Peter would now risk an OFFENSE if they did not follow through with what Simon Peter had agreed to do. So off to Simon Peter’s former commercial world he was sent, as a fisherman, to do his commercial fisher thing and fulfill his foolishly incurred obligation to the taxmen of the world. Simon Peter had a big mouth, and it literally cost him this time.

Here’s a fun scenario. Imagine for a moment, that after Jesus PREVENTED Simon Peter from paying, because THE CHILDREN OF GOD ARE FREE from taxation, Simon Peter returns to the tax collectors and says, “Hey, guys, sorry, but I goofed! Jesus and I don’t really pay taxes after all.” Recall that Jesus and Simon Peter were strangers sojourning through that city, preaching the truth. What do you think the people there would have thought of ANY thing that Jesus or Simon Peter would have done or preached after Simon Peter had previously agreed to pay but then refused? Some might think, “They did not keep their word then to pay the tax after Simon Peter said he would, so why should we trust them now about any other thing?” Obviously, with their credibility thus compromised, any subsequent witness that Jesus and/or Simon Peter would give in that city would be a major fail! BTW, did you know that the Greek word for “offend” is skandalizo, from which we get the English word scandal? ala ‘...lest we should scandalize them...’ Obviously, Jesus thought that keeping one's word was more important than being right.

So now we know that Jesus did not ‘pay taxes.’ Rather, Jesus cleverly provided a coin to Simon Peter with which to satisfy Simon’s foolishly incurred obligation and thus teach him (and us) a valuable lesson.

Now, for clarification, if a government is acting strictly as a minister of God, then it is lawful to pay taxes to that government (Romans 13:6), because that "silver coin" which belongs to God also belongs to God's ministers, as they are acting in his name and doing his will. However, if a government is not a minister of God, then there is no duty to give taxes to it.

Even though Jesus paid this tax, it was to avoid "offending" him, and because Peter rashly agreed to pay it, not because we are bound to pay taxes by Law. Jesus made the point to stress that the children are free from taxes. But notice, Simon Peter and Jesus did not give him any of their own money, but that which came from the fish! It is interesting to note that Peter was a commercial fisherman (a fisher of fish) before being called to be an apostle of Christ (a fisher of men), and when Peter opened his mouth before thinking (as he often did), Christ basically chastised him by having Peter return to his old life to pay his debt! He had to be a fisher of fish to catch that fish with the coin in its mouth. When you join yourself to the world, and make obligations to the world, you must become part of the world again to meet those obligations.