A Theonomic Anarchist Weighs In On
The Fugate vs. North Debate
Over the "Head Tax" in Exodus 30

James B. Jordan, in Appendix D of his book The Law of the Covenant, asked questions about how the State can be financed in a Christian Theocracy. R.J. Rushdoony had suggested that Exodus 30 provided a taxing mechanism for the State and its civil functions. Jordan argues that Exodus 30 is part of what Theonomists call "the ceremonial law" and cannot be imposed by civil magistrates in the New Covenant. Gary North agreed, and incorporated Jordan's arguments in his book Tools of Dominion. Robert Fugate has written a three-part series for Chalcedon in an attempt to refute the Jordan-North position. This is an anarchist response to Fugate.

The only people who have ever heard of Rushdoony, Jordan, North, and Fugate are "Christian Reconstructionists." They would have two questions about this article:

  1. How can a Christian Reconstructionist be an "anarchist?"
  2. Why would an anarchist care about a debate over how the State is financed?

These are appropriate questions. Let me tackle the second question first.

Since I believe the State is not a Biblically legitimate institution, I obviously don't believe that Exodus 30 is a valid mechanism for funding the State. To that extent, I am on the side of Jordan/North, who argue that under the New Covenant, Exodus 30 should not be implemented by people calling themselves "the State." So for me, this debate is somewhat academic. But there's nothing wrong with that. We should all take an interest in public reasoning about the Scriptures.

Christian Anarchism: An Oxymoron?

But some people might justly dispense with reading a self-proclaimed "anarchist's" analysis of someone else's exegesis. So let me briefly set forth a prima facie case for my brand of "Theonomic Anarchism."

Normatively, Jesus told His disciples that "the kings of the gentiles" love to be "archists" (Mark 10:42-45). He went on to say that His followers are not to be like these "archists," but are to be "servants." Logically (etymologically), that means followers of Christ are to be anarchists. "Archists" believe they have a right to impose their will on other people by force or threats of violence. Such initiation of force is contrary to Biblical Law, which prohibits theft, murder, and vengeance (which we are to leave to God). Here is a short survey of these points.

Tax-funded vengeance might be OK if God had expressly provided an exemption for people who call themselves "the State" from His commands not to kill and steal.  But He didn't. Some people claim Romans 13 is such an exemption. It isn't, and I'm working on a website to prove that:

www.Romans13.com

Seeing Romans 13 in its immediate context (Romans 12) and in its larger Biblical context shows that God never commanded human beings to create "the State." It is a violation of Biblical Law.

Historically, according to the Bible, "the State" was invented by rebels, like Nimrod, who rejected God's Law. These rebels wanted to take vengeance against their enemies and fund their conquest and revenge by theft ("taxation"). Israel imported the State from the pagan nations around her, in clear rejection of God's government (1 Samuel 8).

God created man in the Garden of Eden in a state of  "Patriarchy," a family-centered society without any "State." Also without any "Church." "Civil" and "ecclesiastical" duties were discharged by heads of households.

After the fall, God set up what Greg Bahnsen called "The Restorative Law," or "Pedagogical Law," which teaches sinners how to restore broken fellowship with God. Most others have labeled this the "ceremonial law," and it is the basis for most of what is called "ecclesiastical" or church-related functions today. Interestingly, church rulers today are called "elders," even though "elders" in the Old Covenant were more of a "civil" position than "ecclesiastical." The Roman Catholic Church is a quasi-state, drawing also from the ceremonial law for its justification. The Roman Catholic Church does not reflect the ekklesia which we see in the pages of the  New Testament. The Protestant churches have not completely "reformed" from the Roman Church, especially the "magisterial reformers." Too archist and too priestly. The Anabaptists come closer to my way of thinking.

www.TheonomicAnabaptists.com 

So the ideal is "Patriarchy," a family-centered society without the institutions of "church" or "State." I am toying with the idea of re-branding this as "Patriagora." That term is explained here:

www.Patriagora.com

I have also referred to the “Vine & Fig Tree” society, following the prophet Micah (4:1-7), who spoke of a day when we beat our "swords into plowshares" and everyone dwells securely under his own “Vine & Fig Tree.” The previous website has an overview of this vision.  “Vine & Fig Tree” is my own non-profit ministry. Home page.

I have presented an anarchist analysis of John M. Frame's Theory of the State, in which I open with a concise survey of my “Vine & Fig Tree” brand of anarchism.

James Jordan would probably say I'm not a real Christian, but he is one of my favorite Bible expositors. I generally agree with his thinking on Exodus 30. Based on the kind of thinking he employs in looking at Exodus 30, I have concluded that what we call "capital punishment" was also part of "the ceremonial law." An overview of my reasoning is here. That page is essential for understanding my anarchism and my position on Exodus 30.

An overview of my Theonomic case for Anarchism is found here:

www.Anarcho-Theonomy.com

Here are Fugate's original articles:

  1. The Head Tax: The Only God-Endorsed Civil Tax
  2. A Critique of Jordan's & North's View of the Head Tax, Part 2 of 3
  3. A Critique of Jordan's and North's View of the Head Tax (Part 3 of 3)

My response to Fugate begins here, with Jordan's essay and Fugate's response. That will then link to Gary North's essay and Fugate's response, and that will in turn link to my response to Fugate.

Outline of Fugate

 Summary of Anarchist Response
Article 1

The Head Tax/Poll Tax

  1. Ex 30 - the text
  2. Five Principles of the Head Tax
  3. 2 Kings 12:4-16 // 2 Chr. 24:4-14
  4. Neh. 10:32f.
  5. The Relationship Between Temples and Taxes in the Ancient Near East
  6. Is Matt. 17:24-27 the Mosaic Head Tax?
  7. Temple Tax in Matthew 17 Was Not an Innovation
  8. Who Is Exempt?
  9. Summary
It strikes me as fairly obvious that the text itself (Exodus 30) is "ceremonial" in character.
• an "offering" (terumah) is taken
• for "atonement" (kapporah)
• and maintenance of the temple/tabernacle
It's hard to get more "ceremonial."
• Rushdoony says the temple performed quasi-civil functions.
• Fugate adds that this was common among gentile empires.
• No surprise, as the entire "civil" structure was imported into Israel from the Gentiles
• Jordan argues that the "atonement" was for the troops, which were "priestly,"
2 Kings 12: Joash claims to be obeying Exodus 30.
• It's still for temple work.
• He wrongly used the money for civil purposes
Nehemiah 10: still very priestly
Matthew 17: it's a "temple tax," and the temple has been destroyed

Article 2:

Prelude: temple as state (civil)

  1. Jordan agrees
  2. continuity or discontinuity?
  3. contrast with paganism
  4. Jordan advocates ecclesiocracy
  5. "The house of God is to be a house of prayer
    and the Kingdom of God has a political dimension (in both Testaments). "
 See the sidebar here.

This is the real issue that needs to be resolved, not the exegesis of Exodus 30.

Either:
• Nothing that was done in or through the temple needs to be done today, because of Christ ("ceremonial"), or
• Anything and everything that was done in or through the temple that still needs to be done in a Biblical society ("civil"), despite the work of Christ, can be done through the "household of faith" in a market freed of the institutions of "church" and "state."
Therefore no tax or "offering" is justifiably levied on the Household of Faith by any institution claiming to succeed the temple. (At least Exodus 30 does not justify the levy.)

I see a dangerous equation of "the house of God" (temple) and "the Kingdom of God." The Exodus 30 "offering" went to maintain "the house of God," but that temple no longer exists. Why are taxes needed to maintain "the Kingdom of God?"

Rebuttal #1

  1. The New Testament never teaches that a man ransoming his own life with a payment of silver in Exodus 30 is a type of redemption in Christ.
  2.  the terms "ransom" and "atonement" are civil, not liturgical (ceremonial)
 Response
  1. The NT does not have to expressly name every type found in the OT. It is enough to see that a given OT verse is part of the broad complex of ceremonial infrastructure.
  2. I find Fugate to be as dangerously statist as Fugate finds Jordan's "interpretive maximalism" to be dangerous. I think there's a sense in which some Christians (cited by Fugate) want to paint Old Testament laws as "civil" because in our day the State is more "respectable" and "sophisticated" than tribal "religion" and "ceremonies." By downplaying the "religious" and casting it as "civil," the Christian can say, "See, the Bible is "relevant" and "practical." Today the secular is more sacred than the religious.
  3. See our analysis of Exodus 30

Rebuttal #2 - Jordan: The head tax was not annual

  1. may apply to Exodus 30. However, it is clearly contradicted by other passages asserting that the head tax or census tax was paid annually.
 Response
  1. Exodus 30 does not prescribe an annual payment
  2. That requirement was added to the law later.
  3. We can debate whether that addition was Biblically justified, but it is not a part of the text in Exodus 30.

Rebuttal #3 - Jordan says War is ceremonial

  1. First, it is not accurate to classify all Israel's wars as holy wars. Holy wars were primarily fought against those nations that God had devoted to utter destruction (herem),
  2. why was this payment not required before every war, instead of at a rare census?
 Response
  1. Jordan has curated evidence showing that at least some wars are described by Scripture in "ceremonial" terms. Jordan's argument is at least worthy of attention.
    Fugate does not refute Jordan, he simply says But Not All.
    This is a fallacious argument from silence, as Fugate does not affirmatively prove that the others were not "ceremonial" in the same way.
  2. Fugate has a habit of asking questions based on the fact that all the information we would like to see is not always recorded in the pages of Scripture. But a question is not an argument, and not all arguments are dispositive.

Article 3

Rebuttal #4 - Jordan's fourth argument is that the temple tax mentioned in Matthew 17:24-27 was innovative, unbiblical oral tradition that was not directly founded on Exodus 30

  1. This view was refuted in our previous article where we analyzed this passage.
  2. we believe Jordan's statement, "Jesus goes on to say that taxes are a form of tribute levied on conquered foreigners, so that citizens of the kingdom itself are not subject to them," is inaccurate, and his subsequent discussion is confused.
  

Response
 

  1. No it wasn't. Given what Jesus said about the Pharisees, we should presume that they are distorting God's Law. The burden of proof rests on anyone who claims that the Pharisees were accurately and faithfully applying Exodus 30.
  2. It is true that there is continuity between the Covenants. But there is also discontinuity. Fugate's arguments from continuity are not conclusive.

Rebuttal #5 - North: To allow temple workers to collect civil tax must result in "either an ecclesiocracy or a political tyranny," in which either church or state will rule the other. It could not be otherwise.

  1. Fugate provides evidence that there were "separate accounts" in the temple.
 Response
  1. Exodus 30 is about "offerings" collected for "atonement" and maintenance of the temple/tabernacle. It is not a pass for the IRS. Who are the collectors in Exodus 30? Who are they today? What is the modern parallel to the tabernacle as beneficiary of the collected revenue? These unanswerable questions were not intended to be asked.

Jordan's View of Nehemiah 10:32f.

Rebuttals

  1. They appeared to be wanting to obey rather than make things up
  2. explanations for lesser shekel.
  3. civil vs. ceremonial
  4. linguistic and contextual reasons
    1. goal was covenantal obedience
    2. "for the service of the house of our God" + atonement
    3. not for sacrificial rituals

Conclusion

 Response

Fugate marshals lots of footnotes, but misses the big picture in Nehemiah 10:

32 And we have appointed for ourselves commands, to put on ourselves the third of a shekel in a year, for the service of the house of our God,
33 for bread of the arrangement, and the continual present, and the continual burnt-offering of the sabbaths, of the new moons, for appointed seasons, and for holy things, and for sin-offerings, to make atonement for Israel, even all the work of the house of our God.

This is not "civil." This is not for the New Covenant. Any civil government that says "we have the right to confiscate your wealth based on these verses" is not Theonomic. Not one red cent.

I conclude that a "temple tax" is not for the New Covenant.

My response to Fugate begins here, with Jordan's essay and Fugate's response. That will then link to Gary North's essay and Fugate's response, and that will in turn link to my response to Fugate.