Jesus Is an Anarchist

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.pdf
(359,811
bytes) MD5 checksum: 057b60be87e6c6a069bf8d5ca81c64c6

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.html

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.txt

Jesus Is an Anarchist

A Free-Market, Libertarian Anarchist, That Is--Otherwise What Is
Called an Anarcho-Capitalist[1]

James Redford[2]

June 1, 2006

The above title may seem like strong words, for surely that can't be
correct? Jesus an anarchist? One must be joking, right?

But you read correctly, and I will demonstrate exactly that. At this
point you may be incredulous, but I assure you that I am quite
serious. If you are a Christian and find the above title at all hard
to believe then you of all people owe it to yourself to find out what
the basis of this charge is, for if the above comes as news to you
then you still have much to learn about Jesus and about the most
vitally im****tant struggle which has plagued mankind since the dawn of
history: mankind's continuing struggle between freedom and slavery,
between value producers and the violent parasitical elite, between
peace and war, between truth and deception.

This is the central struggle which defines mankind's history and,
sadly, continues to do so. As Christians and as people in general,
what we choose to believe and accept as the truth is equally as
vitally im****tant, for ultimately it is people's beliefs about the
world that will shape and determine what outcomes transpire in the
world. If the mass of people believe in political falsehoods and
deceptions then mankind will continue to repeat the same gruesome
mistakes, as it does presently, and the aforementioned struggle will
continue to be no closer to a desirable resolution. Genuine change
must first come by changing one's mind, and if what one had believed
before was in error then one cannot coherently expect good results to
proceed forth from it. And all change starts with the individual. You
can help change the world by simply changing your mind. All I ask of
you is to believe in the truth--know the truth and the truth will make
you free.[3]

It is the purpose of this do***ent to demonstrate the above claim, and
if you are a Christian then I submit that it should be your task to
honestly consider what is presented here, for if the above claim comes
as a surprise then I will show that what you thought you knew about
Jesus was not the whole story--Jesus is far more radical than many
would have you believe, and for good reason: it threatens the status
quo. For the consequence of this truth becoming understood and
accepted by even one-tenth of the population would be quite dramatic
indeed: governments would topple like so many dominoes. For as the
16th century Frenchman Étienne de La Boétie observed in The Discourse
of Voluntary Servitude,[4] all governments ultimately rest on the
consent of the governed, even totalitarian dictator****ps. Now this
"consent" does not have to be in the form of active promotion and
sup****t of the State, it could simply be in the form of hopeless
resignation, such as accepting the canard "nothing's as sure as death
and taxes." All governments can only exist because the majority--in
one form or another--accept them as at least being inevitable. They
believe in the deception that even though government may be evil that
it is nevertheless a necessary evil, and therefore cannot conceive of
a better alternative. But if such were true then Jesus Christ's whole
message is a fallacy. But such is not the truth, there is an
alternative: liberty. And I will show that Jesus has called us to
liberty, and that liberty and Christ's message are incompatible with
government.

You may wonder where I got the one-tenth figure from in the above if
all governments require the acceptance of their rule by the majority
of their population. Again, the reason is because this acceptance
doesn't have to be active sup****t but merely resigned, as it usually
is. If just one-tenth of the population strongly believed that
government was itself the greatest moral evil and that there was a
better alternative it would be enough to turn the tide. Since most
people are followers and uncritically accept the reigning political
opinions, those who do not accept the status quo and who are able to
form and articulate a critical alternative will come to be the
intellectual leaders by default when the popular regime suffers a
crisis and people begin to look for alternatives. If the history of
governments teach us anything it is that such crisis is a regular
occurrence, for governments by their nature tend toward instability.
If it be asked Why then do we still have government?, it is here
answered that it is because no viable alternative to government has
been articulated by a critical mass at such a crisis, in that most
people throughout history have accepted the deception that government
is a necessary evil and could not conceive a better alternative.

Now I will articulate that better alternative, the one that Christ
commanded us. I will show that Jesus and His message are necessarily
anarchistic. And what better place to start than in the beginning?

1. Jesus's Very Life Began in an Act of Defiance to Government--and
Would Later End in Defiance to Government

If it were not for Joseph and Mary's intentional act of defying that
which they knew to be king Herod the Great's will and escaping with
baby Jesus from out of Herod's midst as fugitives to the land of Egypt
then Jesus would have been mercilessly killed and needless to say His
ministry and the fulfillment of Scripture would have never come about.
Thus in the most fundamental of regards, there is a great antagonism
from the very start between Jesus and government (to say the least).
Jesus was born into the world as a criminal and would latter be killed
as a criminal--a criminal as so regarded by the government, that is.
And what was baby Jesus's crime? From Matthew 2:1-6 we find the
answer:

""
Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod
the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying,
"Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His
star in the East and have come to wor****p Him."

When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem
with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes
of the people together, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be
born.

So they said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by
the prophet:

"""
'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
Are not the least among the rulers of Judah;
For out of you shall come a Ruler
Who will shepherd My people Israel.'"[5]
"""
""

So here we learn that Herod became troubled at the thought that there
might be someone else that people would come to regard as their king
other than Herod. Herod regarded Jesus as a threat to his power--was
his fear unjustified? It is my judgement and this do***ent's central
thesis that Herod was correct in his *****sment of Jesus as being a
threat to his power--although not just to Herod as an individual but
to all that Herod represents, in a word: government; along with the
unholy usurpation, deception and subjugation of people that it
necessarily entails. For as I will show, Jesus's Kingdom is to be the
functional opposite of any Earthbound kingdom which has ever existed.
And for government, this is the ultimate crime of which Jesus was
guilty, and which required His extermination.

Here we read of this pivotal act of holy defiance to government,
without which there would be no Christ as we know of:

""
Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to
Joseph in a dream, saying, "Arise, take the young Child and His
mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for
Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him."

When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and
departed for Egypt, and was there until the death of Herod, that it
might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet,
saying, "Out of Egypt I called My Son."[6]
""

So enraged was Herod upon learning that the wise men had disobeyed his
order to re****t back to him on the location of baby Jesus that he
ordered the extermination of all the male children in Bethlehem and
the surrounding areas from age two and younger, all in the hopes that
baby Jesus would be among the slaughtered.[7] It was only after king
Herod the Great had perished that Joseph brought his family out of the
land of Egypt, and then only to Nazareth as Herod's son Archelaus was
then reigning over Judea.[8]

How very considerate indeed Jesus was being when He advised His
disciples the following:

""
Then He charged them, saying, "Take heed, beware of the leaven of the
Pharisees and the leaven of Herod."[9]
""

At the time Jesus offered the above advice He would have been
referring to Herod Antipas. Jesus would later be mocked and ridiculed
by Herod Antipas before finally being put to death as a common
criminal by the Roman government.[10] In handling the case of Jesus,
Herod Antipas asked Jesus many questions, but Jesus refused to answer
any of Herod's questions.[11] Thus, not only did Jesus's very life
begin in an act of holy defiance to government but it would also end
in holy defiance to government. It was also Herod Antipas who beheaded
John the Baptist.[12]

The story of Jesus's life can in part be summed up as suffering
through this unjust Satanic world system for having preached the
Truth, with government being chief among the culprits of this Satanic
world system. All one has to do is review the life story of Jesus to
plainly see that government--far from being instituted by God--is and
has been a demonic tool of Satan used to oppress the righteous. And I
will demonstrate that Jesus and the early Church leaders--as recorded
the Bible--knew this to be the case and preached the same. The
instrument which Satan used in an attempt to snuff-out that Truth in
an act of deicide was government--from the beginning of Jesus's life
to the very end, it was government which sought to exterminate this
most dangerous threat of all to its power.

2. The Golden Rule Unavoidably Results in Anarchism

Jesus commanded us that in all things we are to treat others as we
would want others to treat us. Thus, Jesus said:

""
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did
not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till
heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means
pass from the law till all is fulfilled."[13]

....

"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for
this is the Law and the Prophets."[14]
""

By saying that this commandment is "the Law and the Prophets" Jesus is
saying that by following this one commandment that one is thereby
fulfilling the Law of Moses and the principles of the Prophets--in
other words, Jesus is saying that it is the be-all and end-all when it
comes to the proper ethic of social relations. This ultimate social
ethic which Jesus commanded everyone to follow is commonly known as
the Golden Rule.[15]

But if indeed Jesus actually meant what He said when He spoke these
words--and He most certainly did--then this alone is more than enough
to prove that Jesus is of necessity an anarchist, and not just any
kind of anarchist, but a libertarian, free-market anarchist in
particular.

The reason this would necessarily have to be the case is because it is
impossible for any actual government to actually abide by the Golden
Rule even in theory, let alone in practice. All governments must of
necessity violate the Golden Rule, otherwise they would not be
governments but would be something else instead.

To understand why this is unalterably true, one must first have a
clear and precise understanding of just what a "government" is and
just what it is not, i.e., the distingui****ng characteristics of
government which differentiates it from all other things that are not
governments.

When the word is used in the sense above, government (i.e., a state)
is that organization in society which attempts to maintain, and is
generally successful at maintaining, a coercive regional monopoly over
ultimate control of the law (i.e., on the courts and police,
etc.)--this is a feature of all governments; as well, historically
speaking it has always been the case that it is the only organization
in society that legally obtains its revenue not by voluntary
contribution or payment for contracted services rendered but by
coercion.

It is here where we find why it is quite impossible for any government
to actually abide by Jesus's ultimate commandment. The reason quite
simply is because all governments do to their subjects what they
outlaw their subjects to do to them. That is, all governments, in
order to be a government, must enforce a coercive monopoly on ultimate
control of the law--this is a necessary feature of all governments.
All governments set up courts and enforce control over ultimate
judicial decision, while outlawing others from engaging in the same
practice. Thus, e.g., if a group of people become dissatisfied with
the judicial services that the government is providing and decide to
set up shop offering their own private arbitration and protection
services on the market without seeking the permission of the
government to do so then the government will attack these people and
put an end to their competitive judicial services, and would thereby
enforce its monopoly on ultimate control over the law. If the
government failed to enforce its monopoly on ultimate control over the
law then it would cease to be a government, but would instead become
just another private protection agency offering its services on a
competitive market.

The above scenario leaves out something extremely vital though, as it
merely assumes that this government in question somehow obtains its
revenue by voluntary contribution and not by coercion. Yet all actual
governments throughout history have obtained their revenue not by
voluntary contribution or payment for contracted services but by
coercion. Thus all governments throughout history steal and extort
wealth from their subjects which they call "taxes," yet at the same
time governments make it illegal for their subjects to steal from each
other or from the government. Thus here again in taxes we see that
historically all governments do to their subjects what they outlaw
their subjects to do to them. I say "historically" because while
although all governments throughout history have found it necessary to
fund their operations through theft and extortion, it is not
necessarily the case that all governments in theory must be sup****ted
by taxes: one could imagine that most people in a certain society
simply voluntarily donate their money to fund a government, as
unlikely as that possibility is in practice. So while although a
monopoly on ultimate control of the law is a logical necessity of all
governments, taxes are not--taxes have simply been a practical
necessity throughout all of history in order for governments to
function.

And so we find that all governments must of necessity continuously
violate Jesus's ultimate social commandment even to simply exist. The
principle which all governments are founded upon and follow may
properly be termed the Luciferian Principle. This logically follows,
because to not follow the Golden Rule is to do the opposite of the
Golden Rule: i.e., rather than doing to others what you would want
others to do to you, you would instead be doing to others what you do
not want others to do to you. Hence, if we may term the Golden Rule
the Christ Principle, or otherwise the Christian Principle, then it
certainly follows that the opposite of this principle would properly
be termed the Luciferian Principle: which is none other than doing to
others what you do not want others to do to you.

It is for this reason that anyone that takes Jesus's ultimate ethical
commandment seriously must of necessity advocate the abolition of all
Earthly governments wherever and whenever they may exist, as
governments are necessarily incompatible with Jesus's ultimate ethical
commandment and diametrically opposed to it. In passing, it's
im****tant for me to distinguish "Earthly governments" from what is
sometimes called the "Kingdom of God" or the "Kingdom of Christ." In
the above discussion I have been analyzing governments as they are
operated by men here on Earth--but as I will show, the "Kingdom" which
Christ is to establish on Earth will be the functional and operational
opposite of any kingdom which has ever existed on Earth before, i.e.,
it won't actually be a government in the sense in which I defined
above and will in fact be perfectly consistent with the Golden Rule.

Above I also stated that Jesus's commandment of the Golden Rule not
only proves that He is an anarchist, but also necessarily a
libertarian, or free market, anarchist to be specific. The reason that
this is so is because an anarchist is simply someone who desires no
government to exist: only this and nothing more. Thus, one could
desire no government to exist and yet still feel that it is alright
to, say, slap people upside the head for no reason. Yet someone who
follows the Golden Rule must not do to others what they do not want
others to do to them--this necessarily means that one must respect the
autonomy of other people's person and their just property: which
unavoidably leads to not just anarchism, as was demonstrated above,
but also to the free-market, voluntarist, libertarian order.

The rigorous proof of this is that everyone, by definition, objects to
others aggressing against what they regard as their own property. If
such were not the case then, by definition, such action would not be
an aggression but a voluntary action. But ultimately all just property
titles can (1) be traced back by way of voluntary transactions (which
would thus be consistent with the Golden Rule) to the homesteading of
unused resources; or (2) in the case in which such resources were
expropriated from a just owner and the just owner or his heir(s) can
no longer be identified or are deceased, where the first nonaggressor
possesses the resource (which can then be considered another form of
homesteading). Thus, for anyone to come into possession of property
which either was not homesteaded by themselves or which was not
obtained by a voluntary transaction would thereby be violating the
Golden Rule, for to do so would mean that they are obtaining a good by
involuntary means from another who can trace their possession of the
resource either to direct homesteading or through voluntary
transactions leading back to homesteading (i.e., of either of the two
types given above). Yet, by definition, this aggressor would not want
others to take his property against his will which he had come into
possession of by voluntary means--and surely everyone possesses such
property, even if it is just their own body.

Hence, if Jesus was serious about the Golden Rule--and He certainly
was--then it necessarily means that He is a consistent libertarian, as
the Golden Rule as a political ethic is completely congruent with the
libertarian Nonaggression Principle, i.e., that no person or group of
people may initiate the use of force against another, or threaten to
initiate force against another.

3. Jesus Does Not Respect the Person of Men

According to the Bible, every person is equally subject to the
commands of God, and one does not become exempt from God's law simply
because one has managed to receive some sort of title of nobility. We
are instructed to treat everyone by the same law. Yet this
automatically rules out the possibility that governments could ever be
legitimate, as they can only exist do to a privilege of monopoly on
the ultimate control over the law which they enforce while excluding
all competitors. As well, they collect taxes, which they call "theft"
and "extortion" if anyone else engages in the same behavior against
them or others. 

As it is recorded in the Gospels, it seems that the people that knew
of Jesus in His day were aware that He did not regard the person of
men (i.e., titles of nobility, etc.):

""
And they sent to Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying,
"Teacher, we know that You are true, and teach the way of God in
truth; nor do You care about anyone, for You do not regard the person
of men."[16]
""

Yet this would have been merely conforming to people's expectation
that Jesus would have been following the Old Testament commands not to
regard the person of men.[17] But that this is indeed the case was
confirmed in the apostles' writings:

""
But from those who seemed to be something--whatever they were, it
makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no
man--for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.[18]
""

And as James writes:

""
If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You
shall love your neighbor as yourself," you do well; but if you show
partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as
transgressors.[19]
""

Yet consider what James's above admonition means as it concerns
Jesus's ultimate ethical command of the Golden Rule.[20] If we as
Christians were to take Jesus's command seriously and apply it to
everyone without partiality, then it would necessarily require that we
demand the abolition of all governments wherever they may exist, as
they can only exist by a continuous violation of the Golden Rule.[21]

4. Jesus on Taxes: Nothing Is (Rightly) Caesar's!

The story of Jesus commanding us to give unto Caesar that which is
Caesar's[22] is commonly misrepresented as His commanding us to give
to Caesar the denari which he asks for (i.e., to pay taxes to
government), as--it is assumed--the denari are Caesar's, being that
they have Caesar's image and name on them. But Jesus never said that
this was so! What Jesus did say though was an ingenious case of
rhetorical misdirection to avoid being immediately arrested, which
would have interfered with Old Testament prophecy of His betrayal as
well as His own previous predictions of betrayal.

When the Pharisees asked Jesus whether or not it is lawful to pay
taxes to Caesar they did so as a ruse in the hopes of being able to
either have Him arrested as a rebel by the Roman authorities or to
have Him discredited in the eyes of His followers. At this time in
Israel's history it was an occupied territory of the Roman Empire, and
taxes--which were being used to sup****t this occupation--were much
hated by the mass of the common Jews. Thus, this question was a clever
Catch-22 posed to Jesus by the Pharisees: if Jesus answered that it is
not lawful then the Pharisees would have Him put away, but if He
answered that it is lawful then He would appear to be sup****ting the
subjection of the Jewish people by a foreign power. Luke 20:20 makes
the Pharisees' intent in asking this question quite clear:

""
So they watched Him, and sent spies who pretended to be righteous,
that they might seize on His words, in order to deliver Him to the
power and the authority of the governor.
""

Thus, Jesus was not free to answer in just any casual manner. Of the
Scripture prophecies which would have gone unfulfilled had He answered
that it was fine to decline paying taxes and been arrested because of
it are the betrayal by Judas[23] and Jesus's betrayer replaced.[24]
Here is a quote from Peter on this matter from Acts 1:16:

""
"Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy
Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became
a guide to those who arrested Jesus."
""

As recorded in Matthew 26:54,56 and Mark 14:49, Jesus testifies to
this exact same thing after He was betrayed by Judas. As well, Jesus
Himself twice foretold of His betrayal before He was asked the
question on taxes.[25] See also John 13:18-30, which testifies to the
necessity of the fulfillment of Psalm 41:9, as Jesus here foretells of
His betrayal by Judas.

In addition, it appears that the only reason Jesus paid the temple tax
(and by supernatural means at that) as told in Matthew 17:24-27 was so
as not to stir up trouble which would have interfered with the
fulfillment of Old Testament Scripture and Jesus's previous prediction
of His betrayal as told in Matthew 17:22--neither of which would have
been fulfilled had Jesus not paid the tax and been arrested because of
it. Jesus Himself sup****ts this view when He said of it "Nevertheless,
lest we offend them ...," which can also be translated "But we don't
want to cause trouble."[26] He said this after in effect saying that
those who pay customs and taxes are not free[27]--yet one reason Jesus
came was to call us to liberty.[28]

It should be remembered in all of this that it was Jesus Himself who
told us "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves.
Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves."[29] Jesus was
being wise as a serpent as He never told us to pay taxes to Caesar, of
which He could have done and still fulfilled Scripture and His
previous predictions of betrayal. But the one thing He couldn't have
told people was that it was okay not to pay taxes as He would have
been arrested on the spot, and Scripture and His predictions of
betrayal would have gone unfulfilled. Yet the most im****tant thing in
all this is what Jesus did not say. Jesus never said that all or any
of the denari were Caesar's! Jesus simply said "Give to Caesar that
which is Caesar's." But this just begs the question, What is Caesar's?
Simply because the denari have Caesar's name and image on them no more
make them his than one carving their name into the back of a stolen TV
set makes it theirs. Yet everything Caesar has has been taken by theft
and extortion, therefore nothing is rightly his.

5. Tax Collection Is a Sin!

A further demonstration that Jesus considered the institution of
taxation to be unjust is given in the below story:

""
As Jesus passed on from there, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at
the tax office. And He said to him, "Follow Me." So he arose and
followed Him.

Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold,
many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His
disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples,
"Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?"

When Jesus heard that, He said to them, "Those who are well have no
need of a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what
this means: 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice.' For I did not come to
call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."[30]
""

It's im****tant to point out here that Jesus actually made a stronger
case against the unrighteousness of tax collectors than the Pharisees
originally had in questioning Jesus's disciples about it: the
Pharisees actually separated the tax collectors from the sinners when
they asked "Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and
sinners?" Yet when Jesus heard this He answered the Pharisees by
lumping the two groups together under the category of sinners--thus:
"For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to
repentance."

Yet since this is the story of Matthew the tax collector being called
to repentance by Jesus we will do well to ask how it was that Matthew
obtained repentance. The answer: By first giving up tax collecting!
And from this beginning Matthew would thus go on to become one of
Jesus's twelve disciples.

It may be pointed out in response that "all have sinned and fall short
of the glory of God."[31] But the below passages make clear just how
unrighteous and iniquitous an occupation Jesus considers tax
collection to be:

""
"For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even
the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only,
what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do
so?"[32]

....

"And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he
refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and
a tax collector."[33]
""

6. On Paul, Romans 13 and Titus 3:1

It is often claimed that Christians are required to submit to
government, as this is supposedly what Paul commanded that we are
supposed to do in Romans 13. Thus, Paul writes:

""
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is
no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are
appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the
ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on
themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do
you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you
will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for
good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in
vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who
practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of
wrath but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay
taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very
thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due,
customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.[34]
""

But in actual fact Paul never does tell us in the above excerpt from
Romans 13 to submit to government!--at least certainly not as they
have existed on Earth and are operated by men. In fact, Paul would be
an outright, barefaced hypocrite were he to command anyone to do such
a thing: for Paul himself did not submit to government, and if he had
then he would not even have been alive to be able to write Romans 13.
It is quite a good thing that Paul did disobey government, as we would
not even know of a Paul in the Bible had he not disobeyed government.
As when Paul was still only known as Saul he escaped from the city of
Damascus as he knew that the governor of that city, acting under the
authority of Aretas the king, was coming with a garrison to arrest him
in order that he be executed. This was right after Saul's conversion
to Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus. The Jews in Damascus, hearing
of Saul's conversion, plotted to kill him as a traitor to their cause
in persecuting the Christians. Saul was let out of a window in the
wall of Damascus under cover of night by some fellow disciples in
Christ.[35] In none of Paul's later writings does he dispraise, or
disassociate himself from, these actions that he took in knowingly and
purposely disobeying government: in fact, this very event is one of
the things that he later cites in demonstration of his unwavering
commitment to Christ![36]

Indeed, ever since Paul's conversion to Jesus Christ, he spent the
rest of his entire life in rebellion against mortal governments, and
would at last--just as with Jesus before him--be executed by
government, in this case by having his head chopped off. Paul was
continuously in and out of prisons throughout his entire ministry for
preaching the gospel of Christ; he was lashed with stripes 39 times by
the "authorities" for preaching Christ; he was beaten with rods by the
"authorities" for preaching Christ; and none of these rebellions of
his did he ever reprehend: indeed he cited them all as evidence of his
commitment to Jesus![37]

But even more im****tantly, if Paul is saying in Romans 13 what many
people have said he meant, i.e., that people should obey mortal,
Earthly governments, then it is questionable whether Paul could even
be a genuine Christian. For as was pointed out above, Jesus would not
even have existed as we know of today had it not been for Joseph and
Mary intentionally disobeying king Herod the Great and escaping from
his reach when they knew that Herod desired to destroy baby Jesus.[38]
Thus, if indeed Paul meant in Romans 13 that we are to obey Earthly
governments then this would mean that Paul would rather have Joseph
and Mary obey king Herod the Great and turn baby Jesus over to be
killed.

So what in the world is going on here with Paul and Romans 13? Is Paul
a hypocrite? Is Paul being contradictory? Actually, No to both. Once
again, as with Jesus's answer to the question on taxes, this is
another ingenious case of rhetorical misdirection. Paul was counting
on the fact that most people who would be hostile to the Christian
church--the Roman "authorities" in particular--would, upon reading
Romans 13, naturally interpret it from the point of view of legal
positivism: i.e., that such people would take for granted that the
"governing authorities" and "rulers" spoken of must refer to the men
who operate the governments on Earth. But never does Paul anywhere say
that this is so! (Legal positivism is the doctrine that whichever gang
is best able to overpower others with arms and might and thereby
subjugate the populace and who then proceed to proclaim themselves the
"authority" are on that account the rightful "Authority.")

But before proceeding with the above analysis, what would the motive
be for Paul to include such rhetorical misdirection in his letter to
the people at the church of Rome? In answering this, it must be
remembered that just as with Jesus, Paul was not free to say just
anything that he wanted. The early Christians were a persecuted
minority under the close surveillance of the Roman government as a
possible threat to its power. Here is Biblical proof of this assertion
written by Paul himself:

""
And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who
came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ
Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), to whom we did not
yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might
continue with you.[39]
""

Paul never intended that his letter to the Roman church be kept
secret, and he knew that it would be copied and distributed amongst
the populace, and thus inevitably it would fall into the hands of the
Roman government, especially considering that this letter was going
directly into the belly of the beast itself: the city of Rome. Thus by
including this in the letter to the church at Rome he would help put
at ease the fears of the Roman government so that the persecution of
the Christians would not be as severe and so that the more im****tant
task of the Church, that of saving people's souls, could more easily
continue unimpeded. But Paul wrote it in such a way that a truly
knowledgeable Christian at the time would have no doubt as to what was
actually meant.

The Church leaders at the time would have known that Paul obviously
couldn't have meant the people who control the mortal governments as
they exist on Earth when he referred to the "governing authorities"
and "rulers" in Romans 13, for that would have made Paul a shameless
hypocrite and also meant that he would desire that baby Jesus had been
killed (for surely the histories of Paul and Jesus's lives would have
been fresh on their minds). The only answer that can make any sense of
this seeming riddle is that one doesn't actually become a true
"governing authority" or "ruler" simply because one has managed by way
of deception, terror, murder and might to subjugate a certain
population and then proceed to thereby proclaim oneself the "King" or
the "Authority" or the "Ruler." Instead, what Paul is saying is that
the only true and real authorities are only those that God appoints,
i.e., one cannot become a real authority or ruler in the eyes of God
simply because through force of arms one has managed to subjugate a
population and then proclaim oneself the potentate. Thus, by saying
this Paul was actually rebuking the supposed authority of the mortal
governments as they exist on Earth and are operated by men!

"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is
no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are
appointed by God"[40] leaves wide open the possibility that those who
control the mortal governments on Earth are not true authorities as
appointed by God. The fallacy most people make when encountering a
statement such as this is to unthinkingly and automatically assume
that Paul must be referring to the people in control of the mortal
governments that exist on Earth--for after all, don't these people who
run these Earthly governments call themselves the "governing
authorities"? Do they not teach their subjects from birth that they
are the "rulers" and the "authorities"? But when we factor in the life
history of both Jesus and Paul, then it can leave no room for doubt:
Paul most certainly could not have been referring in Romans 13 to the
people who control the mortal governments as they exist on
Earth--otherwise Paul would be an outright hypocrite as well as an
advocate of deicide against baby Jesus. Indeed, God Himself directly
confirms this very thing as He spoke to Hosea: "They set up kings, but
not by Me; They made princes, but I did not acknowledge them."[41]

Let us continue with this analysis as it specifically concerns Romans
13:3,4:

""
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to
be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have
praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if
you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he
is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices
evil.
""

Here Paul uses deep Christian references to logically code his
necessarily actual message, for Jesus Christ said that all who bear
the sword do indeed bear it in vain.[42] So why is Paul seemingly here
contradicting Jesus Christ's own teachings on this matter? In order to
reconcile the apparent contradiction and hence to comprehend what Paul
is in actuality saying here requires a firm understanding of early
Christian terminology, such as used by Jesus and the original Church
fathers. Paul is not talking about a literal sword, i.e., actual
physical force, such as used by all the Earthly, mortal governments.
Paul is talking about the Word of God,[43] which is the sword that
Jesus Christ bears,[44] and which figurative sword is none other than
simply the truth. This is the only "sword" not borne in vain. This is
also the figurative "fire" that Jesus came to send to the
Earth[45]--that figurative "fire" being the Word of God, i.e., the
truth.

As Paul wrote in his letters concerning the pretended "authorities" of
the mortal, Earthly governments:

""
However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the
wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to
nothing. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden
wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of
the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have
crucified the Lord of glory.[46]
""

And further

""
Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the
dead according to my gospel, for which I suffer trouble as an
evildoer, even to the point of chains; but the word of God is not
chained.[47]

....

Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer
persecution.[48]
""

What the above passages clearly demonstrate is that Paul certainly did
indeed think that the mortal, Earthly rulers were a terror to good
works. Paul even wrote that "the rulers of this age ...are coming to
nothing"!

Paul elsewhere wrote that the only genuine potentate is Jesus Christ,
saying that Jesus "is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of
kings and Lord of lords."[49] But as true Christians, being members in
the body of Christ,[50] we are co-potentates along with Jesus[51]--but
only insofar as we remain within the Spirit of Christ. If were were to
pick up and use a literal sword, i.e., if we were to use actual
aggressive physical force such as the mortal, Earthly governments do,
then we would be doing so in vain,[52] and would no longer be acting
under the authority of Jesus as the only true potentate. In other
words, we are to speak the hard, hated, and dangerous truth, such as
regarding the inherently diabolical nature of government. This is our
sword, and it is the only sword which is not borne in vain.

But, some may inquire, what about Paul telling us to pay taxes in
Romans 13:6-7? Thus, Paul wrote:

""
For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers
attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all
their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear
to whom fear, honor to whom honor.[53]
""

But does Paul really tell us to pay taxes here? Again, just as with
Jesus, nowhere does Paul actually tell anyone to pay any taxes! Paul
continues with the rhetorical misdirection that he started in the
beginning of Romans 13, knowing--just as Jesus knew before him--that
those who would be hostile to the Christian church would automatically
assume what they are predisposed to assume: i.e., that the taxes and
customs "due" are due to those in control of the governments who levy
them. But here Paul was being wise as a serpent and harmless as a
dove, as Paul never said any such thing. For when Paul says "Render
therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to
whom customs" this just begs the question: To whom are taxes and
customs due? The answer to which could quite possibly be "No one." And
this is precisely how Paul proceeds to answer his own question-begging
statement, in Romans 13:8-10:

""
Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves
another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not
commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You
shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is
any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You
shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to a
neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
""

So there we have it in no uncertain terms: Owe no one anything except
to love one another! Yet since when have taxes ever had the slightest
thing to do with love? As was explained above, all mortal governments
throughout history steal and extort wealth from their subjects which
they call "taxes," yet at the same time governments make it illegal
for their subjects to steal from each other or from the government.
Thus in taxes we see that historically all governments do to their
subjects what they outlaw their subjects to do to them. Thus, all
Earthly, mortal governments, by levying taxes, break the Golden Rule
which Jesus commanded everyone as the supreme law.

In the earlier discussion on Jesus and taxes we learned that when
Jesus said "Give on to Caesar that which is Caesar's and give unto the
Lord that which is the Lord's" he was, in effect, actually saying that
one need not give anything to Caesar: as nothing is rightly his,
considering that everything that Caesar has has been taken by theft
and extortion.

And what of Paul writing in Titus 3:1: "Remind them to be subject to
rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work"? As
was clearly demonstrated above, Paul was referring to the true higher
authorities as recognized by God, not to the diabolical, Satanic,
mortal governments as they have existed on Earth--as Paul spent his
entire ministry in rebellion against the Earthbound, mortal
"authorities," and was at last put to death by them.[54]

And as further proof of this, consider Paul's advice to Christians as
regarding being judged by what the government considers the
"authority":

""
Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the
unrighteous, and not before the saints? Do you not know that the
saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you,
are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that
we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this
life? If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this
life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to
judge? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise
man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his
brethren? But brother goes to law against brother, and that before
unbelievers!

Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to
law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do
you not rather let yourselves be cheated? No, you yourselves do wrong
and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren![55]
""
 
Paul said that the government judges "are least esteemed by the church
to judge"! It is clear that he considered them to be no authority at
all!

But moreover, even Jesus didn't consider the Earthly, mortal "rulers"
to be true rulers and authorities! Thus, as Mark records:

""
But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, "You know that
those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them,
and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be
so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be
your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of
all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve,
and to give His life a ransom for many."[56]
""

By saying this Jesus was in fact rebuking the supposed "authority" of
the Earthly "rulers"! Just because mortals on Earth may consider
someone to be an "authority" and "ruler" does not mean that God
considers them to be so!

7. On Peter and 1 Peter 2:13-18

Another Bible passage that is sometimes cited by statists in an
attempt to demonstrate that people ought to submit to mortal
government is 1 Peter 2:13-18:

""
Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's
sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who
are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of
those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you
may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men--as free, yet not
using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. Honor
all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.

Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the
good and gentle, but also to the harsh.
""

But Peter himself did not so submit! Peter and the apostles were
arrested in Jerusalem by the Sadducees for preaching the gospel of
Jesus and brought before the Sanhedrin court for questioning:

""
And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And
the high priest asked them, saying, "Did we not strictly command you
not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with
your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us!"

But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey
God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you
murdered by hanging on a tree. Him God has exalted to His right hand
to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness
of sins. And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the
Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him."[57]
""

So here we have it from Peter himself: We ought to obey God rather
than men! Yet Jesus already commanded that the ultimate Law is for
everyone to treat others as they themselves would want to be
treated--therefore, according to Peter, any commands by men that are
contrary to this ultimate Law are automatically null and void.

Once again one must consider that the Christians at this time were a
persecuted minority under the surveillance of the mortal "authorities"
as possible insurrectionists, and so statements like what is written
in 1 Peter 2:13-18 were included to pacify such "authorities" so that
the most im****tant task of saving people's souls could continue--yet,
just as Paul included an "escape clause" in Romans 13 ("Owe no one
anything except to love one another"), Peter also includes an escape
clause contained in 1 Peter 2:13-18, which is the 16th verse therein:

""
For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence
the ignorance of foolish men--[verse 16:] as free, yet not using
liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God.
""

The New International Version Bible translates verse 16 as "Live as
free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as
servants of God." Most other modern English Bible versions translate
the beginning of this passage as either "Live as free" or "Act as
free." So in other words, when this is combined with what Peter said
in Acts 5:29, we can take the entire passage of 1 Peter 2:13-18 to
mean that we ought to obey all the ordinances of men: except for all
such ordinances that happen to conflict with our God-given liberty and
Jesus's ultimate commandment--which is virtually every single one of
them! But other than that, do indeed obey every other ordinance of
man, for in so doing one will merely be obeying Jesus's
commandment--in which case the ordinances of man which one ought to
obey are merely redundant!

Also, consider the following statement by Peter which some statists
might try to construe in their favor:

""
....then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and
to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, and
especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of
uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed.
They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries ...[58]
""

As has already been pointed out, the statist fallacy when encountering
such statements is to automatically deem the "authorities" and
"dignitaries" spoken of in these cases as necessarily being the
"authorities" and "dignitaries" that the positive law (i.e., the
government's law) so regards--but such cannot be the actual case, as
it is written by Hosea, as spoken to him by God: "They set up kings,
but not by Me; They made princes, but I did not acknowledge them."[59]

As well, Jesus Himself rebuked the supposed "authority" of the Earthly
"rulers":

""
But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, "You know that
those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them,
and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be
so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be
your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of
all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve,
and to give His life a ransom for many."[60]
""

8. The Ruler and God of This World and Age Which All Mortal
Governments Wor****p is Satan (a.k.a. Lucifer)

The Bible is quite explicit as to who it is that really controls all
the mortal governments on Earth, and which god is the god that the
mortal rulers wor****p:

""
Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the
kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him,
"All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has
been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore, if
You will wor****p before me, all will be Yours."

And Jesus answered and said to him, "Get behind Me, Satan! For it is
written, 'You shall wor****p the Lord your God, and Him only you shall
serve.'"[61]
""

This is one of the offers Satan made to Christ during the forty days
in which Satan tempted Jesus, an event now sometimes referred to as
the Temptation of Christ. Satan wasn't lying when he made the above
offer to Jesus: it was an absolutely real offer that Satan would have
delivered on. This is necessarily the case, as Luke even writes in
verse 2 of the above chapter that here Jesus was "tempted for forty
days by the devil"--thus, this had to be a real offer or else it could
hardly qualify as a real temptation, as certainly Jesus would have
known whether or not what Satan said here was true: if what Satan was
saying here were false then Jesus would have already known that, and
hence Satan's offer could not have been the least bit tempting to
Jesus.

How true indeed Satan was being when he said that all the kingdoms of
the world have been delivered to him, and that he gives them to
whomever he wishes: which are those who wor****p him as their God! All
Earthly, mortal potentates have quite literally made a pact with
Satan! Every last one of them has literally sold their soul to Satan
in return for Earthly power! As God spoke as recorded in Hosea 8:4:
"They set up kings, but not by Me; They made princes, but I did not
acknowledge them."

And Jesus later said on three separate occasions that Satan is the
ruler of this world. Thus in John 12:31: "Now is the judgment of this
world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out." In John 14:30:
"I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is
coming, and he has nothing in Me." And in John 16:8-11: "And when He
has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and
of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of
righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of
judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged."

Additionally, Paul in two separate letters writes that Satan is the
god and ruler of this age:

""
But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are
peri****ng, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not
believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is
the image of God, should ****ne on them.[62]
""

And

""
Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against
the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood,
but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the
darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the
heavenly places.[63]
""

All one has to do to realize just how literal and true Satan, Jesus
and Paul were being when they made the above statements[64] is to
consider that more than four times the amount of non-combatants have
been systematically murdered for purely ideological reasons by their
own governments within the past century than were killed in that same
time-span from wars. From 1900 to 1923, various Turkish regimes killed
from 3,500,000 to over 4,300,000 of its own Armenians, Greeks,
Nestorians, and other Christians. Communist governments have murdered
over 110 million of their own subjects since 1917. And Germany
committed genocide against some 16 million people--6 million of them
Jews.[65] Over 800,000 Christian Tutsis in Rwanda were hacked to death
with machetes between April and July of 1994 by the Hutu-led military
force after the Tutsis had been disarmed by governmental decree in the
early 1990s, of which disarmament decree the United Nations helped to
enforce. On several occasions, United Nations soldiers stationed in
Rwanda actually handed over helpless Tutsi Christians under their
protection to members of the Hutu military. They then stood by as
their screaming charges were unceremoniously hacked to pieces. This
massacre happened one year after the United Nations helped to put in a
national ID card in Rwanda, and it was that very national ID card
system which the Hutus used to track-down and identify the Christian
Tutsis. Needless to say, all of the subject populations of the above
mass murders had been disarmed beforehand.

The wars and mass murders which the mortal governments routinely
engage in are literal human-sacrifice orgies that the Earthly rulers
of those governments offer up to appease their God Satan, a.k.a.
Lucifer!

Government, throughout all of recorded history, has been the most
methodical and efficient human-meat grinder to ever exist. It is a
purely Satanical machination masquerading as humanity's salvation, but
has always been--and forever will be so long as it exists--the scourge
of mankind and our decline.

9. Jesus Defended the Right to Freely Contract and Private Property
Rights

Besides the Golden Rule which Jesus commanded as the ultimate social
ethic, another Biblical account of Jesus's teachings which clearly
demonstrates His attitude toward the institution of private property
and the free and voluntary trade thereof is given in His below Parable
of the Workers in the Vineyard:

""
"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in
the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. Now when he had agreed
with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his
vineyard. And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing
idle in the marketplace, and said to them, 'You also go into the
vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.' So they went. Again
he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. And
about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle,
and said to them, 'Why have you been standing here idle all day?' They
said to him, 'Because no one hired us.' He said to them, 'You also go
into the vineyard, and whatever is right you will receive.'

"So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his
steward, 'Call the laborers and give them their wages, beginning with
the last to the first.' And when those came who were hired about the
eleventh hour, they each received a denarius. But when the first came,
they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received
each a denarius. And when they had received it, they complained
against the landowner, saying, 'These last men have worked only one
hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the
heat of the day.' But he answered one of them and said, 'Friend, I am
doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take
what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the
same as to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own
things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?' So the last will be
first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen."[66]
""

It never ceases to amaze me when socialists sometimes try to claim
that Jesus was some sort of proto-socialist or Communist. Anyone who
is the least bit familiar with the socialists' attitude toward such
matters would know that the typical socialist response to such a
landowner's actions towards his workers would be to scream bloody
murder! Of course, a socialist government's response to such a land
owner would be to exterminate him. Yet here Jesus reinforces the
correctness of the libertarian creed on the absoluteness of lawfully
being able to do what one wishes with their own possessions, as well
as being able to freely and voluntarily contract said possessions as
one sees fit--even if doing so greatly upsets others! So long as one
has kept one's word in the contracts in which one has agreed to--and
so long as one's actions pertain to their own property--then the right
of the individual to make decisions concerning their property remains
absolute!

10. Greatness Is in Serving

One of the things which most clearly demonstrates just how different
Jesus's Kingdom is to be from the mortal, Earthly kingdoms and
governments--and also why we should be very careful to never confuse
the two together--is given in the story of when the apostles James and
John came to Jesus asking if they may have the favor granted to them
of being able to sit on either side of Jesus's throne, one to the
right and the other to His left, and this is how Jesus answered them:

""
But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, "You know that
those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them,
and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be
so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be
your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of
all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve,
and to give His life a ransom for many."[67]
""

How diametrically opposite the Kingdom of Christ is indeed from that
of the mortal, Earthly governments! Thus, when it is claimed herein
that Jesus is an "anarchist" it needs to be borne in mind that this is
in relation to how all mortal governments on Earth have operated. If
one wishes to refer to the "Government of Christ" or the "Kingdom of
Christ" this is fine so long is one realizes that the Government of
Christ will in no sense be an actual government as they exist on Earth
and are controlled by mortals.

It needs to also be pointed out here that above in Mark 10:42 Jesus
rebukes the supposed "authority" of the Earthly "rulers"! Thus He says
of them "You know that those who are considered rulers over the
Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority
over them"--here is clear proof that just because mortals on Earth may
consider someone to be a "ruler" does not mean that God considers them
to be genuine rulers! In the eyes of God, those who are the greatest
among men are those who seek to serve their fellow men, not those who
seek to be served by their fellow men!

11. Slaves Obey Your Masters?

While although not directly related to the issue of the ethical status
of government per se, some individuals have asserted that certain
statements in the New Testament by Paul and Peter condone the
institution of slavery, and for this reason it is im****tant as it
concerns social relations in general. Thus, Paul writes:

""
Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to
the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to
Christ; not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of
Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, with goodwill doing
service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good
anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a
slave or free.

And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening,
knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no
partiality with Him.[68]

....

Bondservants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh,
not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in sincerity of heart,
fearing God. And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and
not to men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of
the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ. But he who does wrong
will be repaid for what he has done, and there is no partiality.

Masters, give your bondservants what is just and fair, knowing that
you also have a Master in heaven.[69]

....

Let as many bondservants as are under the yoke count their own masters
worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and His doctrine may not
be blasphemed. And those who have believing masters, let them not
despise them because they are brethren, but rather serve them because
those who are benefited are believers and beloved. Teach and exhort
these things.[70]

....

Exhort bondservants to be obedient to their own masters, to be well
pleasing in all things, not answering back, not pilfering, but showing
all good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior
in all things.[71]
""

And Peter writes:

""
Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the
good and gentle, but also to the harsh. For this is commendable, if
because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering
wrongfully. For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your
faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you
take it patiently, this is commendable before God. For to this you
were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an
example, that you should follow His steps:

"""
"Who committed no sin,
Nor was deceit found in His mouth";
"""

who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered,
He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges
righteously; who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree,
that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness--by whose
stripes you were healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but
have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.[72]
""

But to quote the above passages as condoning the institution of
slavery, one would thereby be confusing the offering of pragmatic
advice on how to best handle a bad situation as granting the rightness
of that situation. Yet obviously Peter and Paul didn't so regard the
institution of slavery as being at all just, for then there would have
been no cause for Peter compare the slave's suffering to that of Jesus
in 1 Peter 2:21-25--as certainly any true Christian regards the
scourging and execution of Jesus to have been unjust, to say the very
least. Thus the fact that Peter did compare the slave's suffering to
that of Jesus is by itself enough to demonstrate that he considered it
to be unjust.

So what of the actual ethical status of the institution of slavery as
it concerns Jesus's own teachings? On this question there can be no
doubt, as one of the main reasons Jesus came was to call us to
liberty! Jesus said this Himself as recorded in Luke 4:16-21:

""
So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His
custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood
up to read. And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when
He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:

"""
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."
"""

Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat
down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him.
And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in
your hearing."
""

So here we have it: Jesus Himself said that He came to proclaim
liberty to the captives and to set at liberty the oppressed!

The word "liberty" in Luke 4:18 is a translation of the Greek word
aphesis, and means: release from bondage or imprisonment; forgiveness
or pardon, i.e., remission of the penalty. Thus, it is a complete and
absolute negation of the condition of being a slave. And since there
exists no recorded instance of Jesus qualifying the above statement,
it then becomes quite clear that Jesus is very much against the
institution of slavery--besides of course slavery being totally
incompatible with the Golden Rule.

So how are we to make better sense of Paul and Peter's above
statements, since it is clear that the institution of slavery is very
anti-Christian in the most literal sense of the word (i.e., as it
concerns the actual doctrine as preached by Jesus Christ)?

One must bear in mind that Paul and Peter knew better than most of the
injustices contained within this Satanic world system--Paul himself
was continuously in and out of prisons during his ministry, and would
at last be beheaded by government for preaching the gospel of Christ,
just as John the Baptist was beheaded by government before him for
preaching the same. In 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 Paul clarifies his above
statements while at the same time declaring the absoluteness of his
God-given rightful liberty:

""
For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to
all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew,
that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the
law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are
without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but
under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law;
to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become
all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I
do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.
""

It is here where the seeming contradiction of certain passages in the
Bible whereby Paul and Peter admonish slaves to "obey their
masters"[73] is cleared up. Such an admonition is a pragmatic one, not
an categorical moral one--as Paul himself declared his absolute
rightful freedom from all men (and also called for people to "Imitate
me, just as I also imitate Christ"[74])! So rather than using
defensive force to repel one's Earthly "master," or trying to run
away--which in the end would probably only affect one's freedom in a
negative way--a much better and effective solution would be to convert
one's Earthly "master" to Jesus, and if one has truly succeeded in
doing so, whereby one's Earthly "master" becomes indwelt by the Holy
Spirit, then one will have at once gained one's God-given absolute
liberty, at least in relation to what the positive law considers one's
"master." The reason that this is necessarily the case is because
Jesus commanded the absolute law as treating others as you would want
others to treat you,[75] yet the very institution of slavery is
founded upon the exact opposite principle, as Abraham Lincoln pointed
out (if only it had been that Lincoln himself had bothered to follow
the logic of his below argument!):

""
If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave
B.--why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that
he may enslave A?--

You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter,
having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you
are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than
your own.

You do not mean color exactly? You mean the whites are intellectually
the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave
them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first
man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.

But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it
your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And
if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you.[76]
""

In the above discussion on the Golden Rule as commanded by Jesus it
was pointed out that to not follow the Golden Rule is to do the
opposite of the Golden Rule: i.e., to treat others as you would not
want others to treat you--of which ethic was termed the Luciferian
Principle.[77] Yet this is the very principle on which the institution
of slavery necessarily rests.

And in further sup****t of my contention that the conversion of a
slave's Earthly "master" to Jesus would be the most effective and
practical solution in obtaining one's God-given absolute liberty--at
least in connection to what the positive law considers one's
"master"--consider Paul's own words on this matter from 2 Corinthians
3:17: "Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord
is, there is liberty."

The word "liberty" in 2 Corinthians 3:17 is a translation of the Greek
noun eleutheria and is completely congruent in meaning with the
English word "liberty," i.e., as in freedom from slavery,
independence, absence of external restraint, a negation of control or
domination, freedom of access, etc. Thus, it is the complete negation
of a state of slavery. But in fact, Paul even goes further than this
in the very passages above which some have contended condone the
institution of slavery. Thus, in Ephesians 6:9 Paul writes:

""
And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening,
knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no
partiality with Him.
""

Yet it is plainly clear that if a slave's "master" were to actually
and truly give up threatening--of all things--then there can hardly
even be said to exist a state of slavery any more in relation to what
the positive law considers the "master" and the "slave," as the very
institution of slavery is enforced by the threat of either physical
harm for noncompliance or recapture in the case of escape. Thus, this
passage is actually a case of advocating the de facto abolition of
slavery even while a state of de jure slavery--as considered by the
positive law--may still be in place!

It is for the above reasons why the above cited passages which some
have contended condone the institution of slavery can only make any
sense within the Christian point of view as pragmatic advice on how
best to handle a bad and unjust situation, and certainly cannot be
regarded as commentary on the ethical rightfulness of the institution
of slavery; nor for that matter as a categorical moral imperative as
to how one is always to conduct oneself--as Paul and Peter were often
in rebellion against what the positive law considered their "masters."
Extreme problems arise for those who would try and contend
otherwise--for just one example of the problems presented to those who
would thus contend, consider Paul writing in 1 Timothy 5:23 to "No
longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach's sake
and your frequent infirmities."

Yet this statement by Paul is completely unqualified, and far more
direct than his above advice to slaves. Thus, for those who would
contend that Paul was giving a categorical moral imperative as to how
a slave is always to conduct himself in relation to his "master"--as
opposed to merely offering advice as to the best and most practical
way in which a slave could go about obtaining his God-given liberty in
relation to his "master"--such individuals, if they are to be
consistent, would also have to contend that according to Paul it is a
sin not to drink wine for one's stomach's sake! In fact the case for
this contention would actually be much stronger than in that of Paul's
advice to slaves, for unlike in his advice to slaves nowhere does Paul
qualify the above statement! Yet obviously to make such a contention
would be absurd, as in both cases it would be confusing pragmatic
advice with a categorical moral imperative.

But moreover, here is what Jesus Himself had to say about the serving
of masters:

""
"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and
love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the
other. You cannot serve God and mammon."[78]
""

Yet what in the world is the institution of slavery if not mammon? If
the institution of slavery does not qualify as mammon then there is
nothing that possibly could! For it is a method of obtaining wealth
that is a complete and utter violation of Jesus's ultimate ethical
commandment: "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also
to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."[79]

Thus it becomes clear that the institution of slavery is just another
product of this sick Satanic world system--of which system Jesus is to
ultimately overthrow in the time of His Judgement. Mammon indeed!

12. Jesus on the Collection of Interest (i.e., Usury)

One of the socialists' great bugbears has been the institution of
usury, or otherwise the collecting of interest. Yet in the only
instance in which Jesus commented upon this He was clearly in favor of
the concept, as is given in His Parable of the Talents, in which a man
traveling to a far-away country leaves his three servants with some
talents to make use of in the best way they see fit while he is
away--the first two servants invest the talents and receive more
talents from their initial investment, and this makes the lord of the
estate happy to hear this upon his return; but here is what Jesus says
of the third servant:

""
"Then he who had received the one talent came and said, 'Lord, I knew
you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering
where you have not scattered seed. And I was afraid, and went and hid
your talent in the ground. Look, there you have what is yours.'

"But his lord answered and said to him, 'You wicked and lazy servant,
you knew that I reap where I have not sown, and gather where I have
not scattered seed. So you ought to have deposited my money with the
bankers, and at my coming I would have received back my own with
interest.'"[80]
""

Now obviously this parable is a lesson on how Christians should be
ever vigilant in converting people to salvation in Christ, in that we
should not keep the Gospel of Christ to ourselves but always seek to
increase the number of Christians in the world. But even so, it
nevertheless demonstrates that Jesus was hardly hostile to the concept
of the collecting of interest, considering that this was his only
commentary given on the institution of interest.

It might be pointed out that in Luke 6:34,35, Jesus tells us to lend
without even expecting to receive anything back! Jesus spoke this in
the wider context recorded in Luke 6:27-38, which has to do with the
forgiveness of wrongs committed against us, including debts owed to
us.[81] This forgiveness is something that we as Christians should
want to do out of our own voluntary free-will, and hence should not be
conflated with the use of force involved in government laws against
people making mutual agreements.

Moreover, the above view ties in quite appropriately with Jesus's
attitude toward the absolute lawfulness of an individual doing what
they wish with their own property--including freely contracting
thereof--as told by Jesus in his Parable of the Workers in the
Vineyard as recorded in Matthew 20:1-16.[82]

13. The Cleansing of the Temple: Righteous Libertarian Vigilantism

The only recorded act of violence by Jesus was what is now known as
the Cleansing of the Temple:

""
Then Jesus went into the temple of God and drove out all those who
bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money
changers and the seats of those who sold doves. And He said to them,
"It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer,' but you
have made it a 'den of thieves.'"[83]
""

Now this event is often misinterpreted as being some sort of revolt by
Jesus on the bad aesthetics of commerce being conducted inside of
God's temple, and so is sometimes given as anti-libertarian and
anti-free-market commentary. But if that were really what this episode
was about then there would have been no cause for Jesus to accuse the
priests of turning the temple into a "den of thieves."

Jesus was being literal when He said that. To understand what Jesus
was talking about one has to understand the nature of what was being
bought and sold in the temple as well as the function of the "money
changers." What was being bought and sold in the temple were animals
which were to be sacrificed as a sin offering, and the function of the
money changers was to convert the Gentile Roman money into the Jewish
money which would then be suitable to present inside the temple for
purchase of the sacrificial animals. The people who bought these
animals did not get to take them home to eat--if they had then Jesus
would have had no good reason to object to the commerce being
conducted at the temple, and certainly would have no grounds to accuse
the priests of thievery. Rather, the animals stayed in the temple to
be sacrificed by the Levitical priests, which by so doing would (as it
was supposed) atone for the sins of the purchaser of the sacrificed
animal. So when Jesus accused the priests who conducted this practice
of being thieves what He was saying was that the people who bought
these animals to be sacrificed to atone for their sins were being
ripped-off--i.e., that the animal sacrifices weren't doing anything
for their sins. In other words, the priests were selling religious
s****-oil--misrepresenting their product as curing something it
couldn't cure; hence they were committing fraud (per libertarian
rights theory).

Now realize what is at stake here: Jesus came to save people's very
souls, and here people are being deceived and defrauded into believing
that sacrificing these animals is setting their souls right with God.
As it is written in Hebrews 10:4-7:

""
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take
away sins. Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:

"""
"Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me.
In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure.
Then I said, 'Behold, I have come--
In the volume of the book it is written of Me--
To do Your will, O God.'"
"""

Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and
offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which
are offered according to the law) ...[84]
""

If we consider that Jesus is God's Messiah then He was in a
particularly unique position to accurately determine whether or not
these animal sacrifices were achieving what was being claimed for
them, and having determined that the priests were defrauding their
patrons He took appropriate libertarian action (per Rothbardian theory
in particular) by using retaliatory force against these thieves. It is
im****tant to point out that it is only a true Messiah from God who
could have rightly taken such action, for any normal man would not
have possessed the requisite information in order to make that
determination honestly. Thus, not only was Jesus's only use of force
quite libertarian, but it was also in a situation which would have
been inappropriate for most anyone else.

14. Jesus on the War on Drugs (and All Forms of Prohibition)

In the modern era one of the most virulent scourges which has plagued
the Western societies in particular is the so-called "drug problem,"
i.e., the use of, and combating the use of, illegal drugs. Yet, why
has the "drug problem" only become such a problem within,
predominately, the last century? What is the cause of this? But first,
before we answer this question, the more im****tant issue from the
Christian's viewpoint is: what is Jesus's position on the so-called
"drug problem," i.e., whether it is called the "War on Drugs" or
"Prohibition"? More directly, what does Jesus have to say about
prohibiting by law the use of certain drugs, or inebriants?

Most people at this point will probably be thinking that the issue
only concerns which drugs or inebriants ought to be prohibited and how
severe the penalty for their use should be--as those calling
themselves Christians have traditionally been at the forefront of not
only the Prohibition of alcohol during the '20s in the U.S., but so
also with the continuing War on Drugs. So, first of all, what does
Jesus have to say about which substances ought to be outlawed?

On this question Jesus is quite clear about it in no uncertain
terms--although the answer may come as a surprise to some: absolutely
no law ought to exist prohibiting the consumption of any substance
whatsoever! Jesus says quite clearly in the strongest of terms that
there is no substance a man can consume that could possibly defile
him--thus we read in Mark 7:15-23: 
"There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him;
but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile
a man. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!"

When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked
Him concerning the parable. So He said to them, "Are you thus without
understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man
from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart
but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?" And He
said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within,
out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries,
fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit,
lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil
things come from within and defile a man."[85]

This is the only directive that Jesus gives in the entire Bible as to
what substances should be, or should not be, prohibited. Some may
claim that Jesus was only talking about food in the above, and not
psychotropic drugs. Yet if this were truly the case then Jesus's above
claim is a false one: Jesus saying "There is nothing that enters a man
from outside which can defile him" would be wrong, for then there
would indeed be something which could thereby defile a man--namely:
psychotropic drugs! Yet Jesus is absolutely clear on this issue: there
is no substance a person can consume which could possibly defile them!
Also, there is not even any clear distinction between "drugs" and
"food" in the first place: just about any drug, in principle, can also
be made into a food--and traditionally often have been and continue to
be: thus, the drug ethanol is almost always consumed not by itself,
but in combination with non-inebriants as a drink; the drug caffeine
is almost always consumed as the beverage known as coffee; marijuana
has often been consumed as an edible baked into brownies; cocaine was
once an ingredient in the original formulation of the name-brand
soft-drink Coca-Cola; etc. If the modern-day Prohibitionists desire to
maintain that Jesus did not mean to include substances such as
psychotropic drugs when He gave this clear directive then the burden
is on them to show where in the Bible Jesus qualifies His above
statement to include the possibility that psychotropic drugs are an
exception to His above all-inclusive directive. But search the Bible
high and low and no such alternate, qualifying directive is anywhere
to be found.

Some may be quick to point out that John writes in Revelation 9:21,
"And they did not repent of their murders or their sorceries or their
***ual immorality or their thefts"[86] and that the word that is here
translated as "sorceries" is in the original Greek pharmakeia, i.e.,
as in "pharmaceutical" or "drugs." But the original sense of this
Greek word pharmakeia meant the mixing of various ingredients for
magical purposes, whether or not they were actually ever intended to
be consumed by anyone, or whether or not they had what we would call
today "pharmacological" properties: in other words, it was for the
most part pure spell-casting--often black-magic in nature, such as
casting hexes on people. Thus, the most accurate translation of this
word into modern English is indeed "sorceries," and not "drugs"--and
this is indeed how almost all English Bible translations have handled
this word: whether it be the King James Version or almost all modern
translations. But even if such were not the case and one were to
maintain that pharmakeia here really did mean "drugs" then this would
present such a person with quite a serious problem: which drugs? If
indeed one were to maintain that pharmakeia here should be translated
as "drugs" then one would logically have to so also maintain that all
drugs are thereby meant by it, regardless of whatever psychotropic
properties they may or may not have--the reason being is because no
type of drug in particular would then be specified in the above Bible
passages. Thus, there would then be no grounds for singling out
psychotropic drugs such as ethanol over, say, penicillin, or any other
life-preserving medicine for that matter. To be consistent, some may
get around this problem by saying: very well, all drugs, including
medicine, are thereby meant by it. But to so maintain this would just
create an even bigger problem than the one it just solved: for the
Bible teaches that "A merry heart does good, like medicine, but a
broken spirit dries the bones"[87]; and the angel sent to Ezekiel, in
the description of the Heaven on Earth that Jesus is to establish
after the Judgement, said of it, in part:

""
"Along the bank of the river, on this side and that, will grow all
kinds of trees used for food; their leaves will not wither, and their
fruit will not fail. They will bear fruit every month, because their
water flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and
their leaves for medicine."[88]
""

So quite simply put, if one were to so maintain that all drugs must be
meant by the above passages in Revelation then one would be going
against Biblical doctrine, as what little the Bible does have to say
about medicinal drugs it is nevertheless clear about: that curative
drugs are a good thing. Thus, if these passages in Revelation actually
meant "drugs" instead of "sorceries" then the Bible would be
contradicting itself here, as the passages in Revelation would thereby
be inclusive of all drugs, not just any kind in particular. But even
if we were to here grant for argument's sake that one could somehow
narrow it down to some sort of drug types in particular, one still
would not be able to derive that such drugs should therefore be
outlawed, as nowhere would these passages in Revelation then so much
as even suggest that mortal governments make any laws against such
drugs.

Thus, even under the most favorable interpretation of the Bible--from
the viewpoint of modern-day Prohibitionists--Jesus's declaration that
"There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him"
would still stand--at least as it concerned all mortal, Earthly forms
of judgement.

Some diligent readers may now say at this point, to the effect of:
"Wait a minute! The Mark of the Beast is an obvious exception, as this
is something which possibly enters a man from the outside which
defiles him!"[89] But this would ignore Jesus's follow-up elaboration
about all such substances under discussion eventually being
"eliminated" from the body by its natural excretion processes, as the
Mark of the Beast is meant to be a lifelong identifier, and thus is
not excreted by the body's natural processes, as are eventually all
foods and drugs. But if one still wants to persist in this line of
reasoning they may counter that indeed not all drugs are eliminated by
the body's natural excretion processes: of those who die of drug
overdoses, the drugs which thereby caused their deaths are not then
excreted by the body's natural processes. While although this is quite
true, one would still not be able to derive therefore from it that
there ought to be laws against certain drugs, as all drugs are capable
of causing death from overdose; indeed, most lethal drug overdoses are
not caused by illegal psychotropic drugs, but legally used
medicines--and hence, one would be presented with the original problem
discussed above on this. And, it should be stated in passing, it would
also be completely nonsensical to make a law against taking a lethal
overdose of a drug, as the penalty for taking a lethal dose of drugs
would be, by definition, an automatic death-penalty: therefore any
such lawbreaker would automatically be out of the reach of any
Earthbound, mortal law-enforcer.

Thus, any which way one slices it, it is simply quite impossible to
justify any form of drug-prohibition whatsoever from a Biblical
perspective. But even far stronger than such drug-laws being merely
unjustifiable from a Biblical perspective, all such laws go directly
against Jesus's clear directive that all things which a person may
consume cannot possibly defile them! And thus, not only are all
drug-laws extra-Biblical in origin, they are all also extremely
anti-Christian in the most literal sense of the word! If there should
be the slightest shred of doubt left in one's mind as to the veracity
of this, then hereby, once and for all, let Paul slay that misplaced
sense of doubt:

""
Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the
world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves
to regulations--"Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," which all
concern things which perish with the using--according to the
commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an
appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and
neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the
flesh.[90]
""

So we see in no uncertain terms that all forms of drug-prohibition are
completely unjustifiable from a Biblical viewpoint, and indeed
anti-Christian. If then such drug-laws are extra-Biblical and
anti-Christian, how is it that many self-professed Christians came to
be on the forefront of all the various forms of drug-prohibition
within recent history? Quite amazingly, this very question was already
answered almost 2000 years ago by Paul, and in shocking but no
uncertain terms:

""
Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart
from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of
demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared
with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from
foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who
believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and
nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it
is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.[91]
""

As was already pointed out above, there is no clear distinction, in
principle, between "drugs" and "food": just about any drug, in
principle, can also be made into a food--and traditionally often have
been and continue to be. Indeed, the first truly large-scale form of
drug-prohibition in a Western society in the modern era was what was
known as simply "Prohibition" in the U.S., which was the outlawing of
consuming the drug ethanol, i.e., "alcohol." Yet alcohol is consumed
almost exclusively as a food-stuff in mixture with non-inebriating
potables! Indeed, straight laboratory-grade ethanol is virtually
inedible, if not actually quite painful to so consume. So how very
true and accurate Paul was when he wrote the above words, as it was
predominately self-professed Christians who lead the movement to
outlaw the food of alcoholic beverages! And to grasp the awful extent
that these self-professed Christians must have been truly deceived by
demons in order to prohibit the food of alcoholic beverages, just
consider that the first miracle recorded in the Bible by Jesus was to
turn water into wine during the wedding at Cana![92] What absolute
blasphemy for them to prohibit the resultant product of the first
miracle of their proclaimed God! Deceived by demons indeed! Truer
words could not have been written by Paul to describe such a perverted
situation.

Indeed, it was Paul himself that counseled to "No longer drink only
water, but use a little wine for your stomach's sake and your frequent
infirmities."[93] And Psalms 104:14,15 says of God that

""
He causes the grass to grow for the cattle,
And vegetation for the service of man,
That he may bring forth food from the earth,
And wine that makes glad the heart of man,
Oil to make his face ****ne,
And bread which strengthens man's heart.[94]
""

Many in the Temperance movement responsible for Prohibition had
falsely claimed that these Biblical references to "wine" were in
reality grape juice. But the Greek word for wine in the New Testament,
oinos, is a fermented drink, whereas the Greek word for fruit juice is
khymos. And besides that, this claim demonstrates either an appalling
ignorance of Jesus's own parables or outright deceit, as Jesus even
referred to the fermenting of wine in one of his parables:

""
"No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the
patch pulls away from the garment, and the tear is made worse. Nor do
they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the
wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine
into new wineskins, and both are preserved."[95]
""

In ancient times goatskins were used to hold wine. As the fresh grape
juice fermented, carbon dioxide would be generated by the living
yeast's metabolism, increasing the volume of gas contained in the
wineskin, and so the new wineskin would stretch. But a used wineskin,
already stretched, would break. Not only that, but before 1869 it was
impossible to store grape juice in temperate to hot climates (which
are the climates grapes grow in) without it either quickly going bad
or becoming wine. If grape juice is left exposed to the open air then
it will quickly go bad due to mold and bacteria--sealing grape juice
from the open air protects it from these aerobic microorganisms
because the yeast which is present naturally on the grapes creates an
atmosphere of carbon dioxide while at the same time making alcohol.
Consequently, storing non-alcoholic grape juice was an impossibility
until 1869, when Dr. Thomas Bramwell Welch succeeded in applying the
process of pasteurization to freshly squeezed must. About the only
people who may have been drinking grape juice before 1869 were those
who pressed the freshly picked grapes themselves (without
refrigeration grapes will quickly go bad, unless they are dried into
raisins). It is for this reason that the suggestion that the fruit of
the vine that Jesus and the twelve disciples drank during the Last
Supper on Passover was grape juice is absurd,[96] as the growing
season for grapes in Palestine is from April to October (the dry
season), yet Passover starts on the 14th of the Jewish month Nisan
(the actual Last Supper occurred on the 14th of Nisan), which is a
lunar month that roughly corresponds with the latter part of March and
the first part of April--so quite simply, there would have existed no
unfermented grape juice at this time, as no grapes would have existed,
since the growing season for them had just started.

In the beginning of this discussion on drugs, it was first inquired as
to why the "drug problem" has only become such a problem within,
predominately, the last century. To answer this: the reason is
precisely because of the very laws against drugs! The government's War
on Drugs has turned what once was an individual problem into a social
problem by inventing new make-believe "crimes" that aggress against no
one, while spawning a whole true crime industry associated with it
(just like during Prohibition). The effect of libertarian legalization
would be to make drugs an individual problem again instead of the
grave social problem that it is today. As they say, we don't have a
drug problem, we have a drug-problem problem. Were it not for the
government's War on Drugs, the gang turf-wars, theft, and other
various true crimes that are associated with the distribution of drugs
and the procurement of money in which to sup****t habituations to
drugs--of which the price has been artificially inflated--would not
exist.

How many liquor stores have shootouts between each other? Yet when
alcohol was illegal the black-market distributors of alcohol found it
necessary to have shootouts and murders between each other on a
regular basis. This was because, being that their business was
illegal, they did not have access to the courts in which to settle
their disputes; as well, because their business was illegal, this
raised the stakes of doing business, for if they got caught then they
would go to prison--thus it became profitable to resort to murder in
order to solve problems which would otherwise lead to prison. And how
many tobacco smokers resort to theft and prostitution in order to
sup****t their habit? Yet studies have shown that tobacco is more habit
forming than heroin. The reason you don't see tobacco smokers doing
such things is because tobacco addicts can afford to sup****t their
habit. When Russia experienced an artificial shortage of cigarettes
over a decade ago due to its socialist economy, tobacco smokers took
to the streets en masse rioting--requiring emergency ****pments of
Marlboros and other cigarette brands from the U.S. in order for it to
cease. If heroin or crack were legal it would cost no more (and
probably less) than a tobacco habit, and so heroin and crack addicts
would be able to sup****t their habit by working at a regular job
instead of resorting to theft and prostitution. If one should doubt
this last statement, it should be borne in mind that the original laws
in the U.S. against the use of opium were to punish the Chinese
opium-smoking immigrants in the early 1900s, who were so productive
that they were taking railway construction jobs away from white
Americans.

As a parting note on this subject, I will leave you with what Peter
counseled us: "But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an
evildoer, or as a busybody in other people's matters."[97] How very
much this last admonition applies to all forms of drug-prohibition!

15. Woe to Lawyers!

In Jesus's day, as well as in modern times, lawyers have had quite a
system worked out for themselves. Not only are lawyers the ones that
write the laws, but they are also the ones who become rich in
prosecuting and defending people from those very laws that they or
their colleagues have written in the first place. As well, most
politicians, especially in modern times, are also lawyers. Thus,
throughout history there has existed a grotesque system whereby the
very people responsible for the laws have a perverse incentive in
making sure that they are as arcane, unintelligible, Byzantine and
numerous as possible--hence, always insuring a healthy demand for
their services.

This fact was certainly not lost on Jesus, and He made a point to warn
lawyers that they are putting their very souls at stake in their
chosen profession. Thus, Jesus said:

""
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You
shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not
enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to."[98]
""

Furthermore

""
And He said, "Woe to you also, lawyers! For you load men with burdens
hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of
your fingers....

"Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You
did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you
hindered."[99]
""

This is not to say that all lawyers throughout history are
unrighteous. There has existed and does exist a few principled lawyers
who entered their profession in order to defend righteous people from
the unjust laws that their colleagues are responsible for--but they
are and have been quite a minority indeed. The simple fact of the
matter is that most lawyers are simply in it for the money, and
generally have shown little to no interest in rolling back or
defending against unjust laws if doing so negatively affects their
bottom line. Even the ones that sometimes appear on the surface to be
fighting against bad laws are often being paid quite handsomely in
doing so, or are loyal opposition and have already been bought and
paid for to purposely lose the case in order to, e.g., generate bad
legal precedent in the case law, etc.

So a "Christian lawyer" is not an absolute contradiction in terms,
it's just rather rare--and to the extent that such rare individuals do
exist God has undoubtedly blessed them for their work in protecting
His children against this Satanic world system. But in the main, how
true indeed Jesus was being when He warned lawyers that they were
jeopardizing their very souls in practicing the profession that they
have chosen! Woe to lawyers indeed!

16. Jesus on Government Courts: Avoid Them!

Another thing which is quite congruent with Jesus's above warning to
lawyers is Jesus's advice for the faithful to avoid the government's
courts if at all possible:

""
"Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him,
lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over
to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to
you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last
penny."[100]
""

And

""
"Yes, and why, even of yourselves, do you not judge what is right?
When you go with your adversary to the magistrate, make every effort
along the way to settle with him, lest he drag you to the judge, the
judge deliver you to the officer, and the officer throw you into
prison. I tell you, you shall not depart from there till you have paid
the very last mite."[101]
""

Needless to say, government judges are also lawyers, so Jesus's advice
here fits in with His warning to lawyers. It also completely
demolishes the notion that Jesus considers what the government's
positive law regards as "authorities" to be true authorities--or
otherwise Jesus would have no problem with such government judges
resolving disputes among the faithful. In fact, Paul absolutely
confirms this notion in 1 Corinthians 6:1-8:

""
Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the
unrighteous, and not before the saints? Do you not know that the
saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you,
are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that
we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this
life? If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this
life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to
judge? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise
man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his
brethren? But brother goes to law against brother, and that before
unbelievers!

Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to
law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do
you not rather let yourselves be cheated? No, you yourselves do wrong
and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!
""

And this also conclusively demonstrates that the "authorities" that
Paul spoke of in Romans 13 could not possibly have been the
"authorities" as so regarded by the government--as Paul said that the
government judges "are least esteemed by the church to judge"! Thus it
is clear that he considered them to be no authority at all!

And so also James writes in James 2:6, "But you have dishonored the
poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts?"

It needs to be pointed out that most of the rich in the days in which
the above passage was written were rich due to grants of privilege by
the government--particularly that of collecting taxes. Thus when James
writes in the above of the rich oppressing the faithful and dragging
them into the courts he is speaking of actual violations of
individuals' just property rights, and not of individuals reneging on
voluntary contracts in which they had entered into. And this brings us
naturally to the next point which needs to be made.

17. Jesus on the Rich

Jesus had this to say about the rich:

""
Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do
to inherit eternal life?"

So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but
One, that is, God. You know the commandments: 'Do not commit
adultery,' 'Do not murder,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not bear false
witness,' 'Honor your father and your mother.'"

And he said, "All these things I have kept from my youth."

So when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, "You still lack one
thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will
have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

But when he heard this, he became very sorrowful, for he was very
rich.

And when Jesus saw that he became very sorrowful, He said, "How hard
it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God! For it is
easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich
man to enter the kingdom of God."

And those who heard it said, "Who then can be saved?"

But He said, "The things which are impossible with men are possible
with God."

Then Peter said, "See, we have left all and followed You."

So He said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has
left house or parents or brothers or wife or children, for the sake of
the kingdom of God, who shall not receive many times more in this
present time, and in the age to come eternal life."[102]
""

Some have given this as anti-libertarian commentary. But first of all,
in analyzing this statement by Jesus it needs to be pointed out that
it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for
any person whatsoever to enter the Kingdom of God. But Jesus also said
that "The things which are impossible with men are possible with
God."[103] It is standard Christian doctrine that it is impossible for
anyone to enter the Kingdom of God on their own--that the only way in
which anyone enters the Kingdom of God is through the saving grace of
Jesus Christ alone.[104] Thus, the rich are by no means unique in this
particular aspect. And so also, from this alone it cannot be claimed
that Jesus had it in for rich people per se more than any other group.

Second, when Jesus counseled this particular rich person to sell all
that he had and distribute the proceeds to the poor, this was in fact
an exceedingly libertarian thing for Jesus to advise this person. For
this was not just any kind of rich person--this was a rich person of a
particular type: a "ruler," i.e., one who has some variety of command
over an Earthly, mortal government. And thus, the riches that this
particular rich person was in possession of had been obtained through
extortion and theft, i.e., by the threat and force of arms and
might--this particular ruler's opinion to the contrary[105] not
withstanding scrutiny: almost no rulers throughout history have ever
regarded their wealth as having been obtained through stealing. As
Saint Augustine wrote:

""
Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies?
For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band
itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it
is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided
by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this
evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes,
takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more
plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly
conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the
addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was
given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when
that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile
possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What thou meanest
by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ****p, I
am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art
styled emperor."[106]
""

Thus, when Jesus offered this counsel to this particular rich person,
He was merely telling this person what any good libertarian would have
said in the same situation--particularly a natural-rights libertarian
such as a Rothbardian.

18. Jesus Engaged in Conspicuous Consumption when He Could have
Provided for the Poor Instead

Some have maintained--usually in an effort to make some larger
political point--that Jesus was some sort of ascetic who was against
individuals having material riches, especially when those material
goods could be used to provide for the poor instead. Yet Jesus Himself
engaged in conspicuous consumption when He could have provided for the
poor instead:

""
And when Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, a woman
came to Him having an alabaster flask of very costly fragrant oil, and
she poured it on His head as He sat at the table. But when His
disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, "Why this waste? For
this fragrant oil might have been sold for much and given to the
poor."

But when Jesus was aware of it, He said to them, "Why do you trouble
the woman? For she has done a good work for Me. For you have the poor
with you always, but Me you do not have always. For in pouring this
fragrant oil on My body, she did it for My burial. Assuredly, I say to
you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this
woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her."[107]
""

Yet here in this case of luxurious consumption on the part of Jesus is
purely of ornamental value, i.e., of a purely aesthetic value--and a
fleeting one at that! When Jesus's disciples complained about this
"waste" Jesus told His disciples to stop bothering the woman about it!
At the very least, this demonstrates the notion that Jesus was some
sort of austere, principled ascetic to be an untenable one--and thus
also, any attempt to make some larger political point out of such a
notion is automatically moot.

As well, Paul had this to say as to one's ultimate responsibility in
providing for others: "For even when we were with you, we commanded
you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat."[108]

19. Jesus Has Called Us to Liberty--yet Those Who Pay Taxes Are Not
Free!

Another Bible passage that is sometimes cited by statists to
supposedly demonstrate that Jesus sup****ted the paying of taxes--but
which in actuality demonstrates the exact opposite--is in Matthew
17:24-27:

""
When they had come to Capernaum, those who received the temple tax
came to Peter and said, "Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?"

He said, "Yes."

And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying,
"What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take
customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?"

Peter said to Him, "From strangers."

Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free. Nevertheless, lest we
offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that
comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a
piece of money; take that and give it to them for Me and you."
""

As previously stated,[109] it appears that the only reason Jesus paid
the temple tax (and by supernatural means at that) as told above in
Matthew 17:24-27 was so as not to stir up trouble which would have
interfered with the necessary fulfillment of Old Testament
Scripture[110] and Jesus's previous prediction of His betrayal as told
in Matthew 17:22--neither of which would have been fulfilled had Jesus
not paid the tax and been arrested because of it. Jesus Himself
sup****ts this view when He said of it "Nevertheless, lest we offend
them ...," which can also be translated "But we don't want to cause
trouble"[111]--at any rate, this comment by itself clearly
demonstrates that Jesus was hardly enthusiastic about the prospect of
paying taxes.

But moreover, Jesus said this after in effect saying that those who
pay customs and taxes are not free.[112] This is the necessary
implication of this passage, for if the sons of the kings on Earth are
free because they are exempt from paying taxes then this certainly
implies that those who are required to pay taxes are therefore not
free on that account--either that or Jesus was merely being insipid
when He said this (which at least from the Christian's viewpoint is
certainly not something Jesus was ever known for). Yet the fact that
Jesus considers those who are required to pay taxes as being unfree is
enough to conclusively demonstrate that Jesus is necessarily against
taxes, as one of the main reasons Jesus came was to call us to
liberty! Jesus said this Himself as recorded in Luke 4:16-21:

""
So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His
custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood
up to read. And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when
He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:

"""
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."
"""

Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat
down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him.
And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in
your hearing."
""

So here we have it: Jesus Himself said that He came to proclaim
liberty to the captives and to set at liberty the oppressed--and yet
Jesus also said that those who are required to pay taxes are not free!

Some may attempt to get around this glaring fact by pointing out that
the word "free" in Matthew 17:26 is a translation of the Greek word
eleutheros, whereas the word "liberty" in Luke 4:18 is a translation
of the Greek word aphesis. But eleutheros is the adjective form of the
noun eleutheria, and means: freeborn, i.e., in a civil sense, one who
is not a slave, or of one who ceases to be a slave, freed, manumitted;
or at liberty, free, exempt, unrestrained, not bound by an
obligation--and aphesis means: release from bondage or imprisonment;
forgiveness or pardon, i.e., remission of the penalty. Thus, when used
in the context above these two words are completely congruent in
meaning with each other. As well, if one desires to go back further to
the original Hebrew of Isaiah 61:1 which Luke 4:18 is quoting from,
the word aphesis is a translation of the Hebrew word rwrd (which
roughly transliterates as "darowr") which is a noun that means: a
flowing (as of myrrh), free run, or liberty. And so this word, too, is
completely congruent in meaning with eleutheros when used in the above
context. Indeed, the Greek Septuagint translates this Hebrew word in
the above passage as aphesis. Thus it cannot be honestly maintained
that Jesus had in mind two separate meanings when he spoke the above
words, as the only sensible meaning of these separate words are
completely congruent with one another when used in their above
context.

It might be pointed out by some that the New International Version
translates the Greek word eleutheros in Matthew 17:26 as "exempt." But
this is a damning example of how some modern Bible translations have
been bowdlerized in order to avoid inconvenient facts--particularly
political ones--that are often found in the Bible. As was mentioned
before, if indeed this were assumed to be the correct translation of
this word, then for Jesus to make such an utterly pointless and vapid
comment would have been totally insipid on His part--again, not
something Jesus was ever known for, at least from the true Christian's
perspective. The only meaning in which this comment by Jesus can be
taken which actually makes any point whatsoever and avoids frivolous,
inane and idle talk on His part is for the Greek word eleutheros in
Matthew 17:26 to be translated as "free" (or otherwise "at liberty,"
etc.)--which is precisely how the King James Version and most other
English Bible translations have handled this passage. Again, trying to
avoid this most obvious and direct translation renders Jesus's comment
here absolutely superfluous and inane.

As well, Paul and the original apostles understood that one of the
main reasons Jesus came was to call us to liberty. Thus, Paul writes:

""
You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.[113]

....

For though I am free [eleutheros] from all men, I have mad