Dr. Robert Fugate on the "Head Tax"

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 | [below]
3. A Critique of Jordan's and North's View of the Head Tax (Part 3 of 3) | [below]

Article 1:

The Head Tax: The Only God-Endorsed Civil Tax

July/August 2012

One of the key doctrines rediscovered by the Protestant Reformation was the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture (sola Scriptura).¹ This doctrine may be defined as: "Scripture contained all the words of God he intended his people to have at each stage of redemptive history, and that it now contains everything we need God to tell us for salvation, for trusting him perfectly, and for obeying him perfectly."² Now let's apply this definition to the Biblical worldview-something not typically done by theologians. Since the Scriptures are sufficient for teaching people to please and obey God perfectly, then they must be regarded as being sufficient-not only for individual persons-but also sufficient for the God-ordained institutions, i.e., the family, the church, and the state. Furthermore, since Christ's lordship is comprehensive (Matt. 28:18; Acts 10:36; Col. 1:18; Ps. 2:6-12; 110:1-3), His Word must be authoritative in every area of life, thought, and culture.

________________

1. For an explanation and a Biblical defense of the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture see Robert E. Fugate, The Bible: God's Words to You (Omaha, NE: Lord of the Nations, LLC, 2012), 334-345.

2. Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 127.

One important area of life to which Bible-believing Christians have been extremely slow to apply the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture is taxation. A miniscule number of pastors or theologians teach their congregations or students what the Bible says regarding taxation. Yet taxes affect all of us every day of our lives. In fact, some calculations suggest that the average American must toil from January 1 to August 12 (224 days) just to meet all costs imposed by federal, state, and local governments!³ Yet we are told that we live in a "free" society! Do civil governments have God-given authority to tax people with every form of tax they dream up, at any rate they deem appropriate at the time? There have been cases in America and Europe in which "rich" individuals were taxed at over 100% of their annual incomes. R. J. Rushdoony's assessment is surely correct: "The modern humanistic state sees itself, as did the ancient pagan state, as the basic and ultimate power. It holds that it has the ‘right' to tax, confiscate, or seize properties and assets at will,"⁴ and "Plato's dream of rule by philosopher-kings has always appealed to elitists who see themselves as little gods whose wisdom and abilities make them fit to rule over all others."⁵ We desperately need God's infallible revelation in the area of taxation. Humanism (which is based on man's depraved mind and depraved motives) is bankrupt and tyrannical.

________________

3. "Cost of Government Day" (http://costofgovernment.org/cost-government-report-a98). And this total cost does not include what economists call "opportunity cost." Cp. "Tax Freedom Day" (http://taxfoundation.org/article/special-report-no-198-tax-freedom-day-2012).

4. Rousas J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, Vol. 3 (Vallecito, CA: Ross House, 1999), 23. For a Biblical discussion of eminent domain see Robert E. Fugate, Key Principles of Biblical Civil Government (Omaha, NE: Thy Word Is Truth Publishers, 2007), 125-128; available
at LordoftheNations.com.

5. Rousas J. Rushdoony, Exodus (Vallecito, CA: Ross House, 2004), 446.

The primary theologian who taught the Biblical worldview, applying the Bible to the area of taxation, was Rousas Rushdoony.⁶ Rushdoony taught that God has revealed infallible truth to us regarding His will for civil taxation. It is particularly found in the Biblical law that institutes the head tax. Subsequently, some theonomists have challenged Rushdoony's view of the head tax and have led many to abandon his insights. The present essay will review the Bible's teaching regarding the head tax. A subsequent essay will build upon this foundation, critiquing the arguments and interpretations of Rushdoony's critics.

________________

6. Rousas J. Rushdoony, Exodus (Vallecito, CA: Ross House, 2004), 443-446. Idem., The Institutes of Biblical Law, vol. 1. (n.p.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1973), 281-283. Idem., The Institutes of Biblical Law, Vol. 3 (Vallecito, CA: Ross House, 1999), 23f. Idem., Law and Society (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1982), 696f. Rushdoony asserts, "Those who deny the application of Exodus 30:11-16 must then say that God gave no taxing power to the state, or else that at this point God left all taxing power to the state" (The Institutes of Biblical Law, 3:24).

The Head Tax/Poll Tax

The Old Testament records at least eleven different kinds of taxes imposed in Israel (excluding taxes imposed upon Israel by foreign nations).⁷ Of these taxes, only the head tax was instituted and endorsed by God.⁸ Let us examine the Bible's teaching regarding the head tax.

________________

7. Robert E. Fugate, Toward a Theology of Taxation (Omaha, NE: Lord of the Nations, LLC, 2009). Much of the present article is taken from this monograph. It is available at LordoftheNations.com.

8. One must be careful not to commit the naturalistic fallacy, i.e., attempting to derive ought from is. Just because certain kings of Israel and Judah did impose many different types of taxes at various times in their history does not mean that they should have imposed these taxes. Furthermore, in terms of valid hermeneutical methodology by which we interpret historical narrative genre, the text itself must indicate that God approved of a particular taxation practice before we can endorse it.

Exodus 30:11-16 records the historical account of God instituting the head tax (also called a poll tax). The head tax is also referred to in several other Biblical passages (Ex. 38:25f.; 2 Kings 12:4-16; 2 Chr. 24:4-14; Neh. 10:32f.; Matt. 17:24-27). We will begin our study with Exodus 30.

11 The LORD also spoke to Moses, saying, 12 "When you take a census of the sons of Israel to number them [Num.1], then each one of them shall give a ransom for himself to the LORD, when you number them, so that there will be no plague among them when you number them. 13 "This is what everyone who is numbered shall give: half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary (the shekel is twenty gerahs), half a shekel as a contribution to the LORD. 14 "Everyone who is numbered, from twenty years old and over, shall give the contribution to the LORD. 15 "The rich shall not pay more and the poor shall not pay less than the half shekel, when you give the contribution to the LORD to make atonement for yourselves. 16 "You shall take the atonement money [silver] from the sons of Israel and shall give it for the service of the tent of meeting,⁹ that it may be a memorial for the sons of Israel before the LORD, to make atonement for yourselves" (Ex. 30:11-16 NASB).

________________

9. "The service [work] of the tent of meeting" does not refer to the sacrificial service, but to its construction (Ex. 38:25-28; 39:32), which was to be more of a permanent "memorial" (Ex 30:16) (Umberto Cassuto Commentary on the Book of Exodus [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967], 394f.; William H.C. Propp, Exodus 19-40, AB [New York, NY: Doubleday, 2006] 479; Nahum M. Sarna, JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, 196). Subsequently, the poll tax was used for the maintenance of God's palace (2 Chr. 24:5f., 9 // 2 Kings 12:4f.).

Five Principles of the Head Tax

1. Commanded: Payment was obligatory.
2. Who: Every¹⁰ male,¹¹ age twenty and older,¹² was taxed.
3. Frequency: The poll tax was originally paid at a (military) census;¹³ subsequently, it was not connected with a war or census, but was paid annually (2 Chr. 24:5f., 9; Neh. 10:32).¹⁴
4. Amount: The poll tax was a fixed, flat fee (½ shekel¹⁵ or beka of silver¹⁶)-not a percentage-for rich and poor alike. "It had to be small, since a large amount would be oppressive for the poor, and it had to be the same for all, to avoid the oppression of the rich. Thus discriminatory taxation was specifically forbidden."¹⁷
5. Purposes: (a) to be a (civil) atonement (i.e., covering, protection¹⁸); (b) to finance the tabernacle (initially its construction and furnishing) and later the maintenance of the temple (2 Chr. 24:5f,9 // 2 Kings 12:4f.;¹⁹ Neh. 10:32). Since the head tax always supported the tabernacle/temple (rather than supporting a military census designed to muster an army), this was obviously its primary purpose.

________________

10. In one place R. J. Rushdoony asserts that the poll tax (which was first levied at a military census) was not mandatory for the priests and Levites (who were not subject to military draft, Num. 1:47-50; Ezra 7:23f.) (The Institutes of Biblical Law, 1:282). (In a subsequent article we will discuss a less likely interpretation of Matt. 17:25f., which suggests that the king's "sons" who are exempt from taxation are Jesus' disciples-and maybe all Christians.)

11. Women were not taxed separately because the family was treated as a covenantal unit, and every family was represented in the civil sphere by its male head. Furthermore, women were not part of the Israelite army (see the following endnote).

12. Twenty was the age of military service (Num. 1:3; 26:2). According to Josephus, the poll tax was levied on every male of military age, i.e., ages 20-50 (Antiquities of the Jews, 3:8:2 §194-196; 18:9:1 §312; cf. D. A. Carson, "Matthew," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. F. E. Gaebelein [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], 8:393). Of course, women in Israel were not conscripted for military service. The Old Testament does not give a maximum age for military service—only requiring every man to be able to go to war and handle weapons (Num. 1:3; 2 Chr. 25:5). Levites retired at age 50 (Num. 8:25; 4:3).

13. David's census (2 Sam. 24 // 1 Chr. 21) served two purposes: levying taxes and registering men for military service (or sometimes for forced labor) (Robert E. Fugate, Toward a Theology of Taxation, 23-25). The poll tax may have enabled Israel's leaders to obtain "an accurate census without actually counting anyone" (William H. C. Propp, Exodus 19-40, 476).

14. It is significant that subsequent Scripture designates the head tax of Exodus 30 as "the levy [tax] fixed by Moses the servant of the LORD on the congregation of Israel for the tent of the testimony ... the levy fixed by Moses the servant of God" (2 Chr. 24:6, 9 NASB) and "census money" (2 Kings 12:4). This head tax was to be collected "from year to year" (2 Chr. 24:5); cf. "yearly" (Neh. 10:32).

15. A shekel is not a coin, but a unit of weight, particularly used for gold or silver. The Old Testament shekel probably weighed between 11-13 grams (ABD 6:907); cf. 10-14 grams or 0.4 oz (New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis [NIDOTTE], ed. W.A. VanGemeren, 5 Vols. [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997] 4:237); 11.4 grams or 0.4 ounces (ISBE 4:1054); an average weight of 11.4 grams (Nahum M. Sarna, JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991], 196); 14.5 grams, i.e., 0.5 oz (Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, eds. David N. Freedman, et al. [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000], 1203). The Pentateuch refers to the standard measure known as "the shekel of the sanctuary" (Ex. 30:13, 24; 38:24-26; Lev. 5:15; 27:3, 25; Num. 3:47, 50; 7:13-86; 18:16) (see NIDOTTE, 4:237). There may also have been royal standards (2 Sam. 14:26).

16. "Money" (keseph) means silver. Thus silver was the money in which the Jewish poll tax was to be paid (Ex. 30:16; 38:25f).

17. Rousas J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, 1:282. "The Tabernacle belongs equally to every Israelite, irrespective of one's social status or wealth. As all human beings are equal before God, there is to be one standard contribution from all, to be neither exceeded nor reduced" (Nahum M. Sarna, JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, 196). Furthermore, in Biblical law all citizens are juridically equal before the law (Dt. 27:19); thus judgment must be impartial (Dt. 1:17; 16:19; 2 Chr. 19:6f.; Pr. 24:23), not favoring either the rich or the poor (Ex. 23:3, 6; Lev. 19:15).

18. "By means of this tax, the people placed themselves under God as their King, paying tribute to Him, and gained in return God's protecting care" (Rousas J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, 1:281f.), "that they suffer not defeat in battle" (J. H. Herz, ed., The Pentateuch and Haftorahs: Exodus [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1930], 357). See George Bush, Commentary on Exodus (repr.: Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993), 494f.

19. "The notice that funds were not employed to manufacture the vessels used in the temple ritual-basins, snuffers, bowls, trumpets, and so on (cf. 1 Kings 7:38-40, 45-47)-indicates that the funds were used only for [temple] repairs" (Marvin A. Sweeney, 1 & 2 Kings, OTL [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2007], 353).

2 Kings 12:4-16 // 2 Chr. 24:4-14

During years of apostasy the temple fell into disrepair. King Jehoash/Joash ordered the priests to collect each man's "census tax"/"census money" (2 Kings 12:4 NET, NKJV, NIV, NAB, etc.²⁰) and use it to pay for the needed temple repairs. The parallel passage describes this census tax as "the tax authorized by Moses the LORD's servant ... the tax that Moses, God's servant, imposed on Israel in the wilderness" (2 Chr. 24:6, 9 NET). The census/head tax was collected "from year to year" (2 Chr. 24:5).

________________

20. Numerous commentators connect this census tax with that instituted by Moses in Exodus 30; for example: T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, WBC [Waco, TX: Word, 1985], 152; Marvin A. Sweeney, 1 & 2 Kings, 352; Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, 2 Kings, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1988), 137; August H. Konkel, 1 & 2 Kings (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 512; Iain W. Provan, 1 And 2 Kings, NIBC (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 225; Donald J. Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 236; Robert L. Hubbard, First & Second Kings, EBC (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1991), 184; John Gray, 1 & 2 Kings, OTL, 2nd rev. ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1970), 585; Carl F. Keil, 1&2 Kings, 1&2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 3 vol. (repr.: Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975), 1:366.

Interestingly, the text sharply distinguishes between this census tax (i.e., the head/poll tax), which was deposited into the temple treasury, and the money that was to be given ("belonged") to the priests, which was not brought into the temple (2 Kings 12:16).

Note also that in these passages the census tax is not connected with a military census or mustering the army for war. However, the same head tax was still in force over six hundred years after Moses instituted it.²¹

________________

21. James Ussher dates the remodeling of the temple at 857 B.C. (The Annals of the World [1658; repr.: Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2003], § 539).

Neh. 10:32f.

After Israel returned from the Babylonian Captivity, Nehemiah reinstituted the head tax.²² The head tax was paid "yearly" (Neh. 10:32). Thus the book of Nehemiah confirms that the head tax was again in force over one thousand years after Moses had instituted it.²³

________________

22. The Jews who returned from exile covenanted to pay 1/3 shekel (Neh. 10:32), rather than the 1/2 shekel (Ex. 30:13). One explanation for the discrepancy is the extreme poverty caused by famine and by oppressive Persian taxation (Ezra 4:13; 7:24; 9:9; 6:8; Neh. 5:1-5; 9:36f.; Esther 10:1). A second explanation is that this later Babylonian-Persian shekel was based on a heavier standard (21 grams); thus 1/3 of the later shekel was equal to 1/2 of the earlier Phoenician shekel (14 grams). Cf. Edwin Yamauchi, "Ezra, Nehemiah," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary (EBC), ed. F.E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988), 4:742; R.A. Bowman, "The Book of Ezra and the Book of Nehemiah," in The Interpreter's Bible, ed. G.A. Buttrick, 12 vols. (New York, NY: Abingdon, 1954), 3:764; Leslie C. Allen and Timothy S. Laniak, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, NIBC (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 143.

23. James Ussher dates Nehemiah's work at 454 B.C. (The Annals of the World, § 1243).

The Relationship Between Temples and Taxes in the Ancient Near East

"Whereas we normally associate ‘taxes' with an obligatory payment to the government and ‘tithes' with the temple, the situation was not so segregated in the ANE [ancient Near East]."²⁴ In the ancient Near East temples were collection points for state taxes.²⁵ To cite only one example, consider Persia. "As agents of the Persian Empire, temples were incorporated into the government-regulated system of land tenure and the network of tax-gathering organizations. Temple administrators, therefore, were de facto tax collectors for the state ... An obvious advantage to collecting royal taxes at the temple was the implied sanctioning by the resident deity."²⁶

________________

24. Marty E. Stevens, Temples, Tithes, and Taxes (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006), 98. Stevens pioneers new ground in this study.

25. Ibid., 98-113.

26. Ibid., 107.

Even in ancient Israel "the temple was a likely collection point for state taxes."²⁷ The list of temple officials confirms this.²⁸ Later in Israel's history, "when Israel/Judah no longer enjoyed independence, the rebuilt Second Temple probably served as a central collection site for government taxes."²⁹

________________

27. Ibid., 123 (referring to pp. 98-113).

28. The temple "gatekeeper" (Hebrew shoer) was actually a temple gate clerk or accountant, responsible for safeguarding the contents of the baskets placed at the thresholds, and perhaps assaying the items deposited, assigning value, and crediting the account of the depositor. The temple "scribe" (sopher) was the storehouse accountant, functioning as counter, recorder, ledger-keeper, and enumerator for the temple storehouses (Marty E. Stevens, Temples, Tithes, and Taxes, 172, 71-77).

29. Ibid., 113. "Because most of the money contributed to the synagogues was transported to the main sanctuary, one might even say they were ‘branches' of the central repository" (110).

For historical documentation of the incredible wealth in the second temple in Jerusalem see p. 143. We read in the Old Testament that David's golden shields were stored in Solomon's temple (2 Kings 11:10 = 2 Chr. 23:9; cf. 2 Sam. 8:7 = 1 Chr. 18:7).

Stevens even believes that in the ancient Near East the temple functioned as financial intermediary, being a collector, user, and disburser of goods and financial services (167-172).

Furthermore, "In the ancient Near East court and archives generally were located in temple complexes, and this was true of ancient Israel as well. Deuteronomy 1:16-17 states that judgment is God's prerogative, and Deuteronomy 17:8-12 ordains that the central court be located in the Temple."³⁰

________________

30. Baruch A. Levine, JPS Torah Commentary: Leviticus (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 27.

The Anchor Bible Dictionary concurs with the assessment that the Jerusalem Temple had both a "religious and political significance." It devotes three columns to the political function of this temple, noting:

These religious-political dynamics clearly functioned on an economic level as well. The Temple with its treasures and treasuries was a national bank of sorts. It was a stronghold, safely situated in the most defensible part of the Jerusalem landscape ...  The side chambers of the Temple ...  held at least some of the revenues of the state ...  It was instrumental in establishing both divine and royal power.³¹

________________

31. "Temple, Jerusalem," Anchor Bible Dictionary (ABD), ed. D.N. Freedman, 6 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 6:361.

In the light of New Testament revelation, we learn that Israel's tabernacle and temple signified both Christ's priestly/ecclesiastical ministry (administrated in the Old Testament through Levi) and His kingly/civil ministry (administrated in the Old Testament through Judah) (cf. Ps. 110). The tabernacle and the temple housed the Holy of Holies, which was God's throne room, containing only the Ark of the Covenant, which was God's throne. The Holy of Holies was God's governmental center, both civil and ecclesiastical.³² God, as King of Israel, ruled from His throne room in the tabernacle/temple. The tabernacle/temple thus represents the whole Kingdom of God.

________________

32. Rousas J. Rushdoony, Exodus (Vallecito, CA: Ross House, 2004), 444.

The New Testament also teaches that the Sanhedrin, which was the civil power in Israel (under Rome's control), met in the temple.

In light of the civil aspect of the temple, it was quite natural that the Jewish civil poll tax was brought to God's house/palace.³³
________________

33. Rousas J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, 1:283. Rushdoony asserts that the poll tax supported the civil order, i.e., "the state, its military power plus its courts," but not the social order (which was supported by tithes).

Is Matt. 17:24-27 the Mosaic Head Tax?

The key New Testament passage regarding the head tax is Matt. 17:24-27:

24 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?"³⁴ 25 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?" 26 Peter said to Him, "From strangers." Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free. 27 "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 money³⁵; take that and give it to them for Me and you" (Matt. 17:24-27 NKJV, italic added).

________________

34. The Greek word translated "temple tax" (in NKJV, NET, NIV, NAB, etc.) is didrachmon. A didrachmon is "a double drachma, two-drachma piece (two didrachmon = 1 stater) monetary unit of the Aegean, Corinthian, Persian, and Italian-Sicilian coinage system; a [silver] coin worth two Attic drachmas, but no longer in circulation in NT times; it was about equal to a half shekel (two days' wage) among the Jews, and was the sum required of each person annually as the temple tax; even though this tax was paid with other coins, the amount was termed a didrachmon" (BDAG, 241f.). This is a case of metonymy, i.e., a figure of speech in which the coin formerly used to pay the temple tax is used to represent the temple tax itself.

35. The Greek word translated "piece of money" is stater, which was "a silver coin = four drachmas (approximately equal to four days' wages)" (BDAG, 940).

Temple Tax in Matthew 17 Was Not an Innovation

Some scholars note that the various Jewish factions of Christ's day were divided with regard to paying the temple tax. They then proceed to suggest that the temple tax in Matthew 17 may have been a recent innovation, rather than based on Exodus 30. But, even if it were the case (and I'm not suggesting that it is) that there was some innovation in Matthew 17, might the innovation be something besides the temple tax itself? For instance, enforcing the temple tax by civil sanction may have been an innovation.³⁶ Also, if the amount of the tax changed, that would be an innovation.³⁷ Thus, even if there was disagreement regarding the temple tax and perhaps even some innovation, this does not prove that the temple tax itself must be viewed as an innovation. Indeed, several scholars adamantly affirm that the temple tax in Matthew 17 was mandated by Biblical law:

"The tax was rooted in the law (Ex. 30:13) and therefore was not merely traditional."³⁸

"The paying of this tax was not a merely human regulation but a divinely instituted requirement."³⁹

________________

36. Alfred Edersheim states, "It had only been about a century before, during the reign of Salome-Alexandra (about 78 B.C.), that the Pharisaical party, being then in power, had carried an enactment by which the Temple tribute was to be enforced by law. It need scarcely be said that for this there is not the slightest Scriptural warrant" (The Temple [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1969], 72f.).

37. John Nolland argues that the amount of the temple tax doubled from Exodus 30 (The Gospel of Matthew, NIGTC [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005], 723f.).

38. George Beasley-Murray, Matthew (Fort Washington, PA: Christian Literature Crusade, 1984), 75.

39. William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, NTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 679. Cf. Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Whole Bible, 3 Vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, n.d.), 3:82.

In sum, it is quite probable that Matthew 17:25-27 concerns the same head tax/temple tax that was instituted by Moses in Exodus 30.⁴⁰ Thus this passage provides further confirmation that the Jewish people recognized the continuing applicability of the head/census tax for 1,500 years.

________________

40. D.A. Carson, "Matthew," EBC, 8:393. Josephus directly connects the first century temple tax with Moses' commandment (Antiquities of the Jews, 3:8:2 §193-196; cf. 18:9:1 §312). Cf. the Mishnah (Shekalim, especially 1:1, 3, in Herbert Danby, The Mishnah [London: Oxford University Press, 1950], 152).

Who Is Exempt?

Jesus teaches that God (like human kings) does not tax His own "sons." Who are these exempt "sons" of God the King (i.e., His royal family)? There are two common answers.

1. The exempt "sons" are all Israel. However, this view suffers from several difficulties:

• It implies that non-covenantal Gentiles—not God's covenant Jews—are to be the sole financiers of the Jewish temple-a dubious notion (Ezra 4:3).⁴¹
• "A Jew, with experience of taxation under the Herods, would not think it true that Jewish kings do not tax Jews."⁴²
• If the temple tax in Matthew 17 is Biblically mandated, then Jesus would be encouraging all Jews to break the Mosaic Law.
• This view is out of harmony with an important aspect of the eschatological theme in Matthew's Gospel: the Kingdom is being taken from covenant-breaking Israel (Matt. 8:11f.; 21:43; 24:1-35⁴³; indeed, at least twenty-two chapters in Matthew's Gospel depict Israel's failures).
• "There is no example in literature of citizens being called ‘children'."⁴⁴
• Jesus made a sharp demarcation between God being His Father (John 5:17ff) and the devil being the father of the unbelieving Jews (John 8:39, 44; cf. Matt. 3:7-10).

________________

41. According to the Mishnah, no religious tax was to be received from a Gentile or a Samaritan (Shekalim 1:5; in Herbert Danby, The Mishnah, 152). This Mishnah passage cites Ezra 4:3 for Biblical support.

42. Alfred Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1956), 245.

43. For exegesis of the Olivet Discourse that conclusively demonstrates Matthew 24:1-35 applies to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 and not to the second coming of Christ (which is discussed in Matt. 24:36-25:46), see R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007); cf. France, The Gospel of Mark (NIGTC) (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002). France surpasses all commentaries I have seen in demonstrating that every passage in Matthew's Gospel using the language of Psalm 110 or Daniel 7:13f. refers to the rule of Jesus Christ from the Father's right hand (i.e., while He remains in heaven, not a rule commencing with the second coming of Christ).

44. Grant R. Osborne, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 663.

2. A second common interpretation of the exempt "sons" suggests that they are Jesus and His disciples (and, by implication, all Christians). This view also has its difficulties:

________________

45. If one should ask why Jesus paid Peter's tax, we offer a two-fold answer. First, "the didrachma, worth one-half a stater or shekel, was seldom minted at this time; and probably two people joined to pay a tetradrachma (‘a four-drachma coin,' v. 27) or shekel" (D.A. Carson, "Matthew," EBC, 8:393; cf. didrachmon, BDAG, 241). Second, since Peter had to go catch the fish and use the found coin to pay Jesus' tax, Jesus, in essence, used the excess amount to pay Peter for his labor. This is in keeping with Jesus' practice of not wasting leftovers after performing a miracle (John 6:12f.).

46. Jesus is ontologically the Son of God (i.e., in His being or eternal existence); whereas believers are adopted children of God. "These two kinds of relationships, viz., that of Jesus and that of the believers, to the Father, must not be identified ...  Jesus never speaks of ‘our Father,' so as to identify himself with his disciples, but distinguishes between ‘my Father' and ‘your Father'" [John 20:17] (Herman Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom [Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1962], 237). Only Jesus is the unique, Divine Son of God (Matt. 17:5). The temple was His "Father's house" (Luke 2:49), and He is greater than the temple (Matt. 12:6). Indeed, Jesus' physical body was the new "temple" (i.e., the dwelling place of God), in contradistinction to Herod's Temple (John 2:19-22; 1:14; Col. 2:9; cf. Rev. 21:22). In John's writings Jesus' unique Sonship is also emphasized by the Biblical Greek term μονογενής (monogenes)-the only one of its kind (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9).

In light of the weaknesses of these two views, we should look for a better interpretation.

3. Although Jesus uses the plural "sons," He is referring only to Himself.

• The plural is simply derived from the analogy to earthly kings (which occurs in the plural) and their sons.
• Matthew 17 has just recorded God the Father declaring on the Mount of Transfiguration that Jesus—in contrast to the disciples and Moses and Elijah—is "My beloved Son" (Matt.17:5). Thus this view (unlike view #2) properly distinguishes between Jesus' unique Sonship and the sonship of believers.
• The very question of paying the temple tax was asked regarding Jesus alone (Matt. 17:24-25a).
• After Jesus asserted His immunity from His Father's temple tax, He performed a miraculous sign that confirmed His immunity (Matt. 17:27).⁴⁷

________________

47. The miracle of the coin in the fish's mouth should be seen in its historical context. "The [Roman] Emperor's sovereignty extended to what was in the sea. Hence the fishing industry on bodies of water such as the Sea of Galilee was tightly regulated through the sale of contracts to fishermen and taxes on what was caught, processed, and transported" (Warren Carter, "Matthew Negotiates the Roman Empire," In the Shadow of Empire, ed. Richard A. Horsley [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2008], 131). Thus the Lord Jesus was demonstrating that He, not Caesar, is the real sovereign over creation, including the sea and the fish (cf. Jesus' miracles of multiplying fish, Matt. 14-15).

Thus in Matthew 17:25-27 Jesus is teaching that, "just as royal sons are exempt from the taxes imposed by their fathers, so too Jesus is exempt from the ‘tax' imposed by his Father [i.e., the poll or temple tax] ... since he is uniquely God's Son [v. 5], therefore he is exempt (v. 26). The focus of the pericope is thus supremely christological."⁴⁸

________________

48. D. A. Carson, "Matthew," EBC, 8:394 (Carson emphasizes the Christological application, but he holds view #2 above). For representatives of view #3 see: Herman N. Ridderbos, "His appeal to His sonship was rather a messianic claim ... Jesus therefore regarded Himself as exempt from the duty to pay the temple tax" (cf. Matt. 12:1-8) (Matthew, BSC [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987], 329; cf. idem., The Coming of the Kingdom, 237, 304); Matthew Poole, "This tribute is gathered for my heavenly Father. I am his Son, I am not bound to pay it. ... [Jesus] first asserted his immunity ...  and by this miracle he also confirmed his immunity" (A Commentary on the Whole Bible, 3:82; cf. Matthew Henry); Alfred Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew, 246.

Summary

God has given us an infallible revelation of His will regarding civil taxation. That revelation is found only in God's written Word, the Bible, which is sufficient to instruct us how to please God in all areas of life ("thoroughly equipped for every good work," 2 Tim. 3:17).

The head tax is: (a) a mandatory civil tax;⁴⁹ (b) levied upon every male (age twenty and older); (c) paid annually; (d) a fixed, flat fee (not a percentage) that is a low enough amount that every man can afford to pay it.
________________

49. Interestingly, "The head or poll tax was once the basic civil tax in some American colonies" (Rousas J. Rushdoony, Law and Society, 696).

By cutting off additional sources of funding, the Bible's system of limited taxation prevents civil governments from transgressing their God-ordained jurisdictions and usurping the jurisdictions of family and church. Such limited tax revenues foster liberty by preventing the state from becoming a welfare-warfare, "big brother" state. It also precludes nations from having the financial resources to fund a world government. Truly, God's wisdom far exceeds man's folly (1 Cor. 1:19-21f.; 3:19; Rom. 8:5; 12:2; 2 Cor. 10:5; cf. wisdom and folly in Proverbs)! May Christ's church proclaim His all-encompassing, absolute truth, His law-Word, at such a time as this-for His glory and for the extension of His conquering Kingdom!

Dr. Robert Fugate (Ph.D., M.Div.) is the pastor of Word and Spirit Covenant Church in Omaha, Nebraska. In addition to his job as pastor, Dr. Fugate mentors young adults, missionary candidates, and other pastors in Biblical worldview, presuppositional apologetics, and theology.

Article 2:

A Critique of Jordan's & North's View of the Head Tax, Part 2 of 3

September/October 2012

[Editor's note: The only way a nation can have big government is through big taxation. But the only kind of taxation authorized by God, in the Bible, is small taxation: the head tax. In the second and third parts of this series, Dr. Fugate defends R. J. Rushdoony's position on the head tax and answers the arguments of two of its prominent critics. By turning away from the only model of taxation laid down for us in God's Word, we have made big, intrusive, imperious government both possible and prevalent.]

In the previous issue we learned that God has given us an infallible revelation of His will regarding civil taxation. That revelation is found only in God's written Word, the Bible, which is sufficient to instruct us how to please God in all areas of life ("thoroughly equipped for every good work," 2 Tim. 3:17).¹

________________

1. For an explanation and a Biblical defense of the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture see Robert E. Fugate, The Bible: God's Words to You (Omaha, NE: Lord of the Nations, LLC, 2012), 341-352.

The only God-instituted and God-endorsed form of civil tax in Scripture is the head tax (also known as a poll tax or census tax) (Ex. 30:11-16; 38:25f.; 2 Kings 12:4-16 // 2 Chr. 24:4-14; Neh. 10:32f.; Matt. 17:24-27). The Biblical head tax is: (a) a mandatory civil tax; (b) levied upon every male (age twenty and older); (c) paid annually; (d) a fixed, flat fee (not a percentage) that is a low enough amount that every man can afford to pay it. Such limited tax revenue restricts the state to its God-ordained functions. This view of the head tax is based upon R. J. Rushdoony's teaching.²

________________

2. Rousas J. Rushdoony, Exodus (Vallecito, CA: Ross House, 2004), 443-446. Idem., The Institutes of Biblical Law, Vol. 1. (n.p.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1973), 50, 277, 281-283, 492, 510, 719. Idem., The Institutes of Biblical Law, Vol. 3 (Vallecito, CA: Ross House, 1999), 23f. Idem., Law and Society (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1982), 696f.

Rushdoony summarized his understanding of the head/poll tax as follows: "The basic tax was the poll or head tax (Ex 30:11-16), which had to be the same for all men. It was paid by men only, all men of age twenty and over. This tax was collected by the civil authority for the maintenance of the civil order, to provide all men with a covering or atonement of civil justice" (The Institutes of Biblical Law, 1:492).

However, James Jordan³ and Christian Reconstructionist leader Gary North⁴ disagree with R. J. Rushdoony's understanding of the head tax as a civil tax. In the following critique of their position I will focus on Jordan's essay, since North adheres to all the key points of Jordan's arguments and cites them as proof.

________________

3. James B. Jordan, The Law of the Covenant (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1984), 225-239. When Jordan wrote this book he held to theonomy, a school of thought he has since rejected. The questions Jordan raises are legitimate and deserve an answer. (My rebuttal of Jordan's view of the head tax in no way demeans the many insights contained in The Law of the Covenant.)

4. Gary North, Tools of Dominion (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), 903-912. (My disagreement with Dr. North's view of the head tax in no way detracts from my appreciation for his voluminous writings or for his funding the publication of many important books.)

Objections made by Jordan and North

James Jordan objected to R. J. Rushdoony's understanding of the head tax on four main grounds. Gary North concurs with Jordan and then adds a fifth argument. Before considering their specific objections, I would like to begin with an excerpt from Jordan's summary:

One might argue that the house of God (Tabernacle, Temple) is a microcosmic representation and concentration point for the whole kingdom of God, inclusive of the civil function as well as the ecclesiastical.⁵

I have so argued in the previous article. Jordan then attempts to dismiss this possibility:

In Christianity, however, the focal point of civilization is not the state, as it is in paganism, but worship in the presence of God, organized by the Church. Thus, the house of God is preeminently a house of prayer, not a political center (Is 56:7; Jer 7:11; Mt 21:13).⁶

________________

5. James B. Jordan, The Law of the Covenant, 232.

6. Ibid.    

I do not find this argumentation cogent or convincing.

First, on the previous page Jordan himself asserted, "The Tabernacle was the ultimate political as well as ecclesiastical center of Israel."⁷ How does this admission not refute the above quotation?

________________

7. Ibid., 231.

Second, note that Jordan is assuming discontinuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament ("In Christianity, however ..."). He neither tells us the nature of this unstated discontinuity, nor does he support it Biblically. Furthermore, the very verses he cites (Isa. 56:7; Jer. 7:11; Matt. 21:1) demonstrate the unity and continuity of both Testaments, not discontinuity.

________________

Isaiah 56:7
7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

Jeremiah 7:11
11 Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, saith the Lord.

Matthew 21:1
21 And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,

Third, these two sentences are a complete non-sequitur with the preceding. Jordan is supposed to be refuting the view that the tabernacle/temple represents the Kingdom of God (including both civil and ecclesiastical spheres). Instead, he switches to contrasting Christianity with paganism, which does not relate to the argument at all.

Fourth, notice that Jordan is laying the groundwork for an unbiblical, new covenant age ecclesiocracy (i.e., rule by the church):

The focal point of civilization is not the state, as it is in paganism, but worship of God, organized by the Church ... The sword of the state executes according to the judgments rendered by the priests ... The Church must say whether the war is just and holy.⁸

________________

8. Ibid., 232. It should be noted that in the Old Testament even the high priest had no authority to call for holy war; only God had such authority and His direction only came through His prophets, not through either church priests or heads of state (Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, NAC [Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2006], 396). (Of course, after the death of Christ's Apostles, we have no more sources of extra-Biblical, infallible, normative revelations.)

However, the church is not the focal point of the Kingdom of God, the organizer of worship in all spheres of life, and the infallible interpreter of the Scriptures (contra Roman Catholic theology). The God-ordained institutions, i.e., the family, the church, and the state, are all distinct jurisdictional spheres in the Kingdom of God. All are directly ruled by God's written law-word. The family and the state are not to be ruled by the church. (Of course, the church does have a responsibility to teach God's Word, applying it to all areas of life-including church and state.)

Fifth, Jordan's argument, "the house of God is preeminently a house of prayer, not a political center," is fallacious, being a false dilemma. Both choices are true. The house of God is to be a house of prayer (the same was true for the Old Testament house of God), and the Kingdom of God has a political dimension (in both Testaments). With regard to political aspects of the Kingdom of God after Jesus' resurrection and ascension, permit me to quote from my book, Key Principles of Biblical Civil Government:

God the Father gave "all authority ...  in heaven and in earth" to the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ (Mt 28:18). "He is Lord of all" (Ac 10:36). As absolute monarch, the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ has commissioned his church to disciple all nations⁹ (Mt 28:18-20). Furthermore, God the Father is commanding all kings, rulers, and judges to bow in submissive obedience to his Son (Ps 2:10-12; Ph 2:9-11).¹⁰ The nations are the Son's inheritance from his Father (Ps 2:8; cf. Rv 11:15). Jesus Christ is "King of kings and Lord of lords" (Rv 19:16; cf. 17:14; Ac 17:6f; Ps 89:27), "the ruler of the kings of the earth" (Rv 1:5), and the "head over all things for the church" (Eph 1:20-23). During Christ's reign at the Father's right hand, all enemies and all things will be put under His feet-in history (Ps 110:1-3 note "until"; 1 Cor 15:23-28; Ac 2:33-36; Eph 1:20-23; Heb 10:12f; Dn 7:13f). Jesus Christ is to have the preeminence in all things (Col 1:18). Every thought is to be made prisoner of Christ (2 Cor 10:5). To restrict "all authority" or "all things" or "every thought" to religious matters (in contrast to secular matters) is a total perversion of the message of Scripture and a repudiation of the comprehensive Lordship of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is Lord over all; God's Word is authoritative in all areas; every person and every thing is to glorify God (1 Cor 10:31). In sum, God the Father has instituted a Christocracy with Christ ruling the created order from his heavenly, Davidic throne at the Father's right hand (Ac 2:30-36).¹¹

________________

9. Every nation is comprised of various domains or spheres: religion; civil governments and law; family and social welfare; education; economics and business (including science and technology); media; the arts and sports. Cf. Douglas Layton, Our Father's Kingdom (Nashville, TN: World Impact, 2000), 42.

10. This command came into force as of "today" (Psa. 2:7); "today" refers to the day Jesus Christ was raised from the dead (Acts 13:33; cf. vv. 30-37). Note that the earlier portion of this Psalm also prophesied first century events, i.e., civil magistrates' violent and irrational opposition to Yahweh and to his Messiah, culminating in their murdering Christ (Psa. 2:1f.; Acts 4:25-28).

11. Robert E. Fugate, Key Principles of Biblical Civil Government (Omaha, NE: Thy Word Is Truth Publishers, 2007), 34-36; available at http://www.lordofthenations.com.

To deny the political aspects of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ (which began with His resurrection and enthronement) is to truncate the absolute lordship of Christ-the heart of the New Testament message. It severs one aspect of Christ's Kingdom from the realm of history. This error is often introduced by accepting some form of pietism (which is rooted in pagan Greek dualism).¹²

________________

12. Robert E. Fugate, "A Summary of Crucial Errors of Pietism." The article can be downloaded free at http://www.lordofthenations.com/free-downloads.

We might also note that in the Old Testament princes (as well as priests) had chambers in the temple (Ezk. 44:3; Jer. 35:4 NKJV "the chamber of the princes").¹³ And as we noted in the previous article, "The side chambers of the Temple ... held at least some of the revenues of the state."¹⁴

________________

13. In times of apostasy, civil government officials having chambers in the temple were ungodly men (2 Kings 23:11; Neh. 13:4-9).

14. "Temple, Jerusalem," Anchor Bible Dictionary (ABD), ed. D.N. Freedman, 6 Vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 6:361.

Having seen the unbiblical conclusion to which Jordan has arrived, let us now examine the arguments that led him into this dead end.

Jordan-North Argumentation

1. Jordan begins his deconstruction of Rushdoony's view of the head tax by arguing that the ransom (Ex. 30:12) and atonement (Ex. 30:15f.) of the Exodus 30 head tax passage were not a political covering, but a type of our redemption in Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 1:18-19).¹⁵

________________

15. James B. Jordan, The Law of the Covenant, 226. North entitles his discussion of Exodus 30 "Blood Money, Not Head Tax," and adds, "It is not a tax at all" (Gary North, Tools of Dominion, 906). Contrast North's statement with that of Old Testament scholar Baruch A. Levine, who describes the census of Exodus 30 as a "poll taken for purposes of taxation" (Numbers 1-20, AB [New York, NY: Doubleday, 1993], 133). Jewish exegete Nahum M. Sarna entitles this section of Exodus "The Census and the Poll Tax" (The JPS Commentary: Exodus [Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 1991], 195).

Rebuttal #1

Typology. One of the principles of historical-grammatical hermeneutics is that for something in the Old Testament clearly to be a type, the New Testament must affirm the type and its New Testament antitype. 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. Is Jordan's interpretation of the word "ransom" in Exodus 30:12 in terms of 1 Peter 1:18 an application of his (in)famous hermeneutic of interpretive maximalism (i.e., allegoricalism), rather than sound historical-grammatical exegesis?

Furthermore, the terms "ransom" and "atonement" occur in Scripture in various contexts with various shades of meaning. The cardinal rule in lexicography is context determines definition. The scholarly Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament understands the Hebrew word translated "atonement" in Exodus 30:15f. (kaphar) to denote a "registration fee"¹⁶-not priestly atonement. Neither Jordan nor North even considers such a definition. The Hebrew term translated "ransom" in Exodus 30:12 (kōpher) is a legal term; it has nothing to do with ecclesiastical worship or religious rituals.¹⁷ Yet, Dr. North has built almost all his argumentation against Rushdoony's view of the head tax¹⁸ on the assumption that the terms "ransom" and "atonement" can only have ecclesiastical (not civil) definitions.

________________

16. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (TLOT), eds. Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, 3 Vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 2:634. The Hebrew term translated "atonement" in Ex. 30:15b, 16b (kaphar) often occurs in ecclesiastical contexts. However, in Deuteronomy 21:8 the usage clearly applies to the civil sphere, since it involves the procedure municipal civil magistrates are to follow in cases of unsolved homicides (vv. 1-9). Thus the term kaphar is used in both ecclesiastical and civil contexts.

17. Besides Exodus 30:12, the only other occurrence of kōpher in Exodus is 21:30, regarding monetary compensation for one's life in a civil court case (in which the accuser agreed to accept a legal payment of money in lieu of the death penalty for one guilty of accidental homicide [but not murder]). Kōpher occurs only two other times in the Pentateuch (Num. 35:31f.), having the same basic meaning. "The noun kōper is a legal term. It denotes the material gift that establishes an amicable settlement between an injured party and the offending party ... For the recipient, it represents compensation, reparation, indemnification; from the perspective of the offender, it represents a ransom" (Ex. 21:30) (Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, eds., G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, et al., Vol. 7 [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995], 301). "Kōper has nothing to do with the cultic [i.e., religious worship or ritual] realm ... It is at home in civil law and signifies ‘reparation, ransom' (Ex 21:30; 30:12; Nu 35:31f; Is 43:3; Ps 49:8; Job 33:24; 36:18; Pr 6:35; 13:8; 21:18) or ‘bribe' (1 Sm 12:3; Am 5:12)" (TLOT, 2:625f). "A ransom avails only when God initiates it ... Certain court cases allowed the payment of money in place of the death penalty (Ex 21:28-32)" (NIDOTTE 2:712).

Numbers 35:31ff
31 Moreover, you shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death, but he shall be put to death. 32 And you shall accept no ransom for him who has fled to his city of refuge, that he may return to dwell in the land before the death of the high priest. 33 You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land, and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it. 34 You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell, for I the Lord dwell in the midst of the people of Israel.”

18. Gary North, Tools of Dominion, 906f. North is so preoccupied with the notion of priestly atonement that he uses the word "atonement" twenty-eight times and "atoning" once in his ten-page article.

Dr. North also assumes that, if the head tax was associated with a military census taken immediately prior to war in Exodus 30, then it must always be associated with that and with nothing else. But, in subsequent Scriptural references to the head tax (i.e., Ex. 38:25f.; 2 Kings 12:4-16 // 2 Chr. 24:4-14; Matt. 17:24-27; Neh. 10:32f.), the head tax was not to muster an army, and there is no mention of it being a "ransom" that makes "atonement" in Exodus 38:25f., 2 Kings 12:4-16 // 2 Chronicles 24:4-14, or Matthew 17:24-27.¹⁹ However, the head tax did always support the tabernacle/temple. Since the terms "ransom" and "atonement" are never used with regard to the head tax-except when mustering an army for war (Ex. 30)-atonement for bloodshed in war is clearly not central to the primary meaning and purpose of the head tax. Thus Jordan's redemptive-historical typology fails.

________________

19. Neh. 10:33 does state that sin offerings make atonement for Israel. However, Jordan does not believe that Nehemiah's tax is the Mosaic head tax (James B. Jordan, The Law of the Covenant, 237f.). I will discuss Nehemiah's tax and the unusual circumstances surrounding it below.

Neither does Jordan's typology of redemption in Christ comport with the fact that the atonement in Exodus 30 was not made for women, children, or Levites²⁰-none of whom went to war. Yet, many of them were undoubtedly included in Christ's redemption (1 Pet. 1:18-19).

________________

20. William H.C. Propp, Exodus 19-40, 536f. At a later date certain Levites did go to war (1 Chr. 12:26-28; 27:17, 5f.).

Thus Jordan's first argument against the head tax being a civil tax is neither cogent nor persuasive.

2. Jordan's second argument concerns the circumstances of the collection of the head tax. He argues that the numbering in Exodus 30 (vv. 12-14) was for an occasional mustering of Israel's army for battle, not an annual head tax:

The mustering was not an annual census ... There is no evidence that this mustering with taxation was annually repeated. Exodus 30 does not say that there is to be an annual census, nor does any other passage of Scripture ... There simply is no evidence of an annual head tax.²¹

________________

21. James B. Jordan, The Law of the Covenant, 227, 229f. Jordan probably reads too much into Exodus 30 when he describes the head tax as "a visitation or judgment designed to see who is on the Lord's side" (227). Were the women, children, Levites, and various other men (Dt. 20:5-8) who did not go to war thereby in "the army of Satan" (to use Jordan's term)? (If it be objected that Dt. 20 was written after the Exodus 30 mustering for battle/census and therefore is not applicable, I would respond that Jordan states that "the mustering was ... an occasional mustering for battle whenever needed" [227].)

Rebuttal #2

Jordan's claim that the head tax was not annual may apply to Exodus 30.²² However, it is clearly contradicted by other passages asserting that the head tax or census tax was paid annually. When King Joash restored the practice of collecting the head tax of Exodus 30, it was explicitly denoted as "the levy [tax] fixed by Moses the servant of the LORD on the congregation of Israel for the tent of the testimony ... the levy fixed by Moses the servant of God" (2 Chr. 24:6, 9 NASB) and "census tax"/"census money" (2 Kings 12:4 NET, NKJV, NIV, NAB, etc.²³). The text specifically states that this head tax was to be collected "annually" (2 Chr. 24:5 NASB, NIV; NJB, NET, JPS TANAKH) (cf. "yearly" in Neh. 10:32). Thus there clearly is Biblical evidence of an annual head tax. Jordan recognizes that 2 Kings 12:4 // 2 Chronicles 24:6, 9 refers to the head tax,²⁴ but he ignores the fact that this head tax/"levy fixed by Moses" was annual. Thus Jordan's assertion that "there simply is no evidence of an annual head tax" is untrue. This annual collection also answers North's question as to how the ongoing day-to-day expenses of the state could be financed by a tax that could only be levied prior to an occasional war.²⁵
________________

22. However, "Exodus 30:13f. was understood by the Pharisees as instituting an annual due (Mishna Shekalim 1:1 [in Herbert Danby, The Mishnah, p. 152])" (William Horbury, "The Temple Tax," Jesus and the Politics of His Day, eds. Ernst Bammel and C.F.D. Moule, 277).

23. Numerous commentators connect this census tax with that instituted by Moses in Exodus 30; for example: T.R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, WBC [Waco, TX: Word, 1985], 152; Marvin A. Sweeney, 1 & 2 Kings, 352; Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, 2 Kings, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1988),137; August H. Konkel, 1 & 2 Kings (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 512; Iain W. Provan, 1 And 2 Kings, NIBC (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 225; Donald J. Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 236; Robert L. Hubbard, First & Second Kings, EBC (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1991), 184; John Gray, 1 & 2 Kings, OTL, 2nd rev. ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1970), 585; Carl F. Keil, 1&2 Kings, 1&2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 3 Vol. (repr.: Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975), 1:366.

24. James B. Jordan, The Law of the Covenant, 230.

25. Gary North, Tools of Dominion, 907 (despite his statement that this difficulty "obviously cannot be explained-not without concluding that Israel was a permanent warfare State").

3. Use of the tax

Rebuttal #3

Most of Jordan's arguments in this section attempt to prove that the head tax in Exodus 30 was not used to fund the army, but helped furnish the tabernacle (Ex. 38:25-28)-a point with which I agree.²⁶ However, Jordan's notions that the military was not a state function and that Israel's wars were holy wars and therefore a "priestly function" are unconvincing.

________________

26. Israel had no standing army. Her citizens' army or militia was generally funded by booty. A plethora of Biblical examples of soldiers collecting booty are cited by Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Social Institutions (NY: McGraw-Hill, 1965), 255f.

In one place Rushdoony did write, "The head tax supports the state and its military power plus its courts" (Rousas J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, 1:283). In Rushdoony's view this was the case after the construction and furnishing of the tabernacle was completed (1:50).

First, it is not accurate to classify all Israel's wars as holy wars.²⁷ Holy wars were primarily fought against those nations that God had devoted to utter destruction (herem), i.e., the seven Canaanite nations (Dt. 7:1-2; 20:17)²⁸ and the nomadic Amalekites (Ex. 17:14, 16; Dt. 25:17-19; 1 Sam. 15:2-3). Under the monarchy, Israel fought many wars against non-Canaanite nations that God had not devoted to utter destruction (herem), e.g., Moab, Ammon, Syria, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, etc.²⁹ Not even all the Canaanite cities (which God had devoted to utter destruction) were to be burned (Dt. 6:10-11; Josh. 11:13, 24:13). Thus Jordan's depiction of the cities of Israel's defeated enemies as "torched," "whole burnt sacrifices"³⁰ is painted with too broad a brush.

________________

27. A definite distinction is made in the Old Testament between Israel's so-called "holy wars" or "Yahweh wars" (Num. 21:14; 1 Sam. 18:17; 25:28; cf. Ex. 17:16) and Israel's normal wars (Gerhard von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy, Studies in Biblical Theology #9 [Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery Co., 1953], 46f.). For a description of Israel's holy wars or Yahweh wars see Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Social Institutions, 258-260ff.

Numbers 21:14
14 Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, What he did in the Red sea, and in the brooks of Arnon,

1 Samuel 18:17
17 And Saul said to David, Behold my elder daughter Merab, her will I give thee to wife: only be thou valiant for me, and fight the Lord's battles. For Saul said, Let not mine hand be upon him, but let the hand of the Philistines be upon him.

1 Samuel 25:28
28 I pray thee, forgive the trespass of thine handmaid: for the Lord will certainly make my lord a sure house; because my lord fighteth the battles of the Lord, and evil hath not been found in thee all thy days.

Exodus 17:16
16 For he said, Because the Lord hath sworn that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.

28. The seven Canaanite nations were the: Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Dt. 7:1).

29. The rules of warfare were different in Yahweh's wars that demanded herem (i.e., the utter destruction of His enemies) from normal warfare. In Yahweh's war against the Canaanite nations He gave specific revelatory direction that devoted these specific nations to utter destruction (herem), meaning that God ordered the complete annihilation of this enemy, his army, his women, children and livestock, and the destruction of his cities and towns (Dt. 20:16-18; Josh. 8:24-29; 1 Sam. 15:3). Thus herem involved genocide and the complete destruction of the enemies' culture ("Herem," Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch, eds. T. D. Alexander and D. W. Baker [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003], 385f.). By contrast, standing law or normal rules for warfare against enemies living outside Canaan involved the killing of all adult males only, while sparing the women, children, and livestock and taking spoils (Dt. 20:10-15; 21:10-13). "When a foreign town was captured, only the male population was put to death (Dt. 20:14, but here the word herem is not found and the text does not refer to a holy war, in contrast with the reference to towns in the Holy Land,  Dt. 20:16f)" (Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Social Institutions, 260).

Why is a priest (instead of a military/civil official) required to do anything with regard to this war? This refutes Fugate's argument here.

Deuteronomy 20:1-2,10-15
“When you go out to battle against your enemies, and see horses and chariots and people more numerous than you, do not be afraid of them; for the Lord your God is with you, who brought you up from the land of Egypt. 2 So it shall be, when you are on the verge of battle, that the priest shall approach and speak to the people. 3 And he shall say to them, ‘Hear, O Israel: Today you are on the verge of battle with your enemies. Do not let your heart faint, do not be afraid, and do not tremble or be terrified because of them; 4 for the Lord your God is He who goes with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you.’
10 “When you go near a city to fight against it, then proclaim an offer of peace to it. 11 And it shall be that if they accept your offer of peace, and open to you, then all the people who are found in it shall be placed under tribute to you, and serve you. 12 Now if the city will not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. 13 And when the Lord your God delivers it into your hands, you shall strike every male in it with the edge of the sword. 14 But the women, the little ones, the livestock, and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall plunder for yourself; and you shall eat the enemies’ plunder which the Lord your God gives you. 15 Thus you shall do to all the cities which are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations.

Over the years, many U.S. soldiers have married Japanese or Vietnamese women. Were they required to shave their heads? Why not? Then is this accurately labeled "civil?"

Deuteronomy 21:10-13
10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your hand, and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her and would take her for your wife, 12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. 13 She shall put off the clothes of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.

"This strictly sacred character of war disappeared with the advent of the monarchy and the establishment of a professional army. It is no longer Yahweh who marches ahead of his people to fight the Wars of Yahweh, but the king who leads his people out and fights its wars (1 Sm 8:20). The combatants are no longer warriors who volunteer to fight, but professionals in the pay of the king, or conscripts recruited by his officials" (Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Social Institutions, 263).

30. James B. Jordan, The Law of the Covenant, 231. "One cannot prove that the herem was a permanent element of the holy war" (TLOT, 2:476). Furthermore, of the three examples Jordan cites, two refer to apostate Jewish cities (Dt. 13:16; Judges 20:40), not Canaanite cities. His third example (Judges 1:17) uses the normal Hebrew term for utter destruction (herem), but does not specify whether the city was actually burned.

Second, if "atonement" and "ransom" were required prior to shedding man's blood in war, why was this payment not required before every war, instead of at a rare census? Or, if taking a census itself was the danger (cp. 2 Sam. 24), then surely God would have said, "Do not take a census, for it is wrong to do so."³¹

________________

31. Peter Enns, Exodus, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 538. For a discussion of David's sin in taking the census (2 Sam. 24) see Robert E. Fugate, Toward a Theology of Taxation (Omaha, NE: Lord of the Nations, LLC, 2009), 23-25.

Third, Jordan omits the job description of military commander from the role of the king. This is historical revisionism. King Saul was little more than a military commander (and that is why Israel chose him to be her king in the first place, 1 Sam. 8:19f.). Also, the Bible goes to great lengths to describe King David's military exploits. In addition, the Bible frequently describes God and Christ's kingly rule in military terms.³² Clearly, military leadership is central to the role of the king (2 Sam. 11:1).

________________

32. Tremper Longman III and Daniel G. Reid, God Is a Warrior (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995). James E. Adams, War Psalms of the Prince of Peace (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1991). See especially Psalms 2:6-12; 110:1-3, 5-7; Rev. 19:11-21.

Fourth, priests and Levites (who were the leaders of the Old Testament church) were exempt from fighting in holy wars (Num. 1:47-49; cf. Ezra 7:23f.).³³ If mustering the army to battle was not a civil function but an ecclesiastical function (as Jordan asserts), and if Israel's wars were holy wars fought by temporary Nazirite priests (as Jordan also asserts), why are the ecclesiastical leaders exempt from fighting in such holy wars? If Israel's wars actually were ecclesiastical wars rather than civil wars, then the church leaders should have been leading the troops (especially a Nazirite like Samuel). Thus Jordan's statement that "holy war was a specifically priestly function"³⁴ is highly questionable at best. The New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible states, "Priests have no sacral or oracular duties in warfare, but merely deliver a reassuring oration before battle" (Dt. 20:2-4).³⁵

________________

33. "Exodus 30:14 [with its specification of age twenty] supports the argument that this [military] census excludes the Levites, who will be counted from the age of twenty-five (Nu 8:4) or thirty (Nu 4:3), when they begin their service" (William H.C. Propp, Exodus 19-40, AB, 479).

34. James B. Jordan, The Law of the Covenant, 231.

35. Richard D. Nelson, "Holy War," The New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 5 Vols. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2007), 2:880. Nelson makes this statement with particular reference to Deuteronomy. On one occasion the prophet-priest-judge Samuel offered sacrifices prior to Israel engaging in battle (1 Sam. 7:9). He was planning on doing so again, but King Saul usurped Samuel's role and was judged by God (10:8-10 with 13:9, 12).

"According to Chronicles, after Jehoiada dies, Joash begins to worship the gods of his mother (2 Chronicles 24;18). When Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, rebukes him for this, Joash puts Zechariah to death. Shortly after, a small army of Arameans defeats a much larger force from Judah (2 Chronicles 24:34). In the reign of Joash, we see a picture of the whole history of Judah: After attention to the house of Yahweh, Judah falls into idolatry, persecutes the prophets, and is attacked by other nations. Peter Leithart, A House for My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament, p. 178 [Joash] gave orders that Zechariah should be stoned with stones in the temple-court (2 Chronicles 24:21). This was done, and the act of sacrilege, murder, and ingratitude was perpetrated to which Jesus seems to refer in Matthew 23:35; Luke 11:51 Jehoash; Joash - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia The actions of Joash are not to be presumed to be normative for today. "Reasserted": who previously asserted civil control over the Exodus 30 "offering" for "atonement?" Civil "control over the sanctuary" is normative for today?

Fifth, Jordan's statement that the head tax of 2 Kings 12 and 2 Chronicles 24 "was collected by the Levites and administered by the priests"³⁶ was not always the case (if it ever was). Instead, King Jehoash reasserted royal Davidic control over the sanctuary, taking the funds out of the hands of the priests.³⁷ Furthermore, the text sharply distinguishes between the census tax (i.e., the head/poll tax), which was deposited into the temple treasury, and the money that was to be given ("belonged") to the priests, which was not brought into the temple (2 Kings 12:16). (See "Additional issues with the Jordan-North view" below for further discussion.)

________________

36. James B. Jordan, The Law of the Covenant, 232. Similarly, North writes that the ransom of Exodus 30 was "paid to God through the priesthood" (Tools of Dominion, 906).

37. "Jehoash takes charge much like Solomon to see that the work of temple repair is properly financed and accomplished ... By taking the funds out of the hands of the priests, Jehoash reasserts royal Davidic control over the sanctuary" (Marvin A. Sweeney, 1 & 2 Kings, 351f.). In Joash's new arrangement the priests "will be absolved of responsibility to repair the temple, but they will no longer be in charge of the offerings brought to the temple" (August H. Konkel, 1 & 2 Kings [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006], 513; cf. T.R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 153).

Sixth, since the tabernacle/temple had a civil dimension (see above; see especially "The relationship between temples and taxes in the ancient Near East" in my previous article), and since the head tax was used to fund the tabernacle/temple (Ex. 38:25-28; 2 Kings 12:4-16 // 2 Chr. 24:4-14), the head tax must have supported the civil order.³⁸

________________

38. I have argued my position from Scripture, not history. Nevertheless, at the time of Christ, temple funds were, in fact, used "to pay for the repairs of the city-walls, the roads, and public buildings, etc., about Jerusalem" (as well as for ecclesiastical purposes) (Alfred Edersheim, The Temple: Its Ministry and Services as They Were at the Time of Jesus Christ [reprint: Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1969], 75).

Therefore, we conclude that the mustering of the army for a census in Exodus 30 was not an ecclesiastical function, in contrast to a civil function. Jordan's third argument does not stand.

... TO BE CONTINUED IN PART 3

Dr. Robert Fugate (Ph.D., M.Div.) is the pastor of Word and Spirit Covenant Church in Omaha, Nebraska. In addition to his job as pastor, Dr. Fugate mentors young adults, missionary candidates, and other pastors in Biblical worldview, presuppositional apologetics, and theology.

Article 3:

A Critique of Jordan's and North's View of the Head Tax (Part 3 of 3)

November/December 2012

In Part 1 of this 3-part series (July-August 2012 FFAOL), we learned that God has given us an infallible revelation of His will regarding civil taxation. That revelation is found only in God's written Word, the Bible, which is sufficient to instruct us how to please God in all areas of life ("thoroughly equipped for every good work," 2 Tim. 3:17).¹

The only God-instituted and God-endorsed form of civil tax in Scripture is the head tax (also known as a poll tax or census tax) (Ex. 30:11-16; 38:25f.; 2 Kings 12:4-16 // 2 Chr. 24:4-14; Neh. 10:32f.; Matt. 17:24-27). The Biblical head tax is: (a) a mandatory civil tax; (b) levied upon every male (age twenty and older); (c) paid annually; (d) a fixed, flat fee (not a percentage) that is a low enough amount that every man can afford to pay it. Such limited tax revenue restricts the state to its God-ordained functions. This view of the head tax is based upon R. J. Rushdoony's teaching.²

________________

1. For an explanation and a Biblical defense of the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture see Robert E. Fugate, The Bible: God's Words to You (Omaha, NE: Lord of the Nations, LLC, 2012), 341-352.

2. Rousas J. Rushdoony, Exodus (Vallecito, CA: Ross House, 2004), 443-446. Idem., The Institutes of Biblical Law, vol. 1. (n.p.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1973), 50, 277, 281-283, 492, 510, 719. Idem., The Institutes of Biblical Law, vol. 3 (Vallecito, CA: Ross House, 1999), 23f., Idem., Law and Society (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1982), 696f.

Rushdoony summarized his understanding of the head/poll tax as follows: "The basic tax was the poll or head tax (Ex. 30:11-16), which had to be the same for all men. It was paid by men only, all men of age twenty and over. This tax was collected by the civil authority for the maintenance of the civil order, to provide all men with a covering or atonement of civil justice" (The Institutes of Biblical Law, 1:492).

However, James Jordan³ and Christian Reconstructionist leader Gary North⁴  disagree with R. J. Rushdoony's understanding of the head tax as a civil tax. In Part 2 of this three-part series published in the last issue of FFAOL, I laid out my initial critique of their position. I resume a Biblical assessment of their rejection of the Biblical civil tax in this final article, with a view to firmly anchoring this crucial concept against well-intended but misguided assaults so that we might finally apply the Word of God rather than continuing to neglect it to our own hurt.

________________

3. James B. Jordan, The Law of the Covenant (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1984), 225-239. When Jordan wrote this book he held to theonomy, a school of thought he has since rejected. The questions Jordan raises are legitimate and deserve an answer. (My rebuttal of Jordan's view of the head tax in no way demeans the many insights contained in The Law of the Covenant.)

4. Gary North, Tools of Dominion (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), 903-912. (My disagreement with Dr. North's view of the head tax in no way detracts from my appreciation for his voluminous writings or for his funding the publication of many important books.)

Further Objections Made by Jordan and North

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 30.⁵

________________

5. Jordan suggests that the temple tax in Matthew 17 was an oral tradition based on a synthesis of "the Mosaic head tax and on the self-imposed levy of Nehemiah 10:32-33, which was designed to pay for the sacrifices" (James B. Jordan, The Law of the Covenant, 233).

Rebuttal #4

This view was refuted in our previous article where we analyzed this passage. We concluded that Matthew 17:24-27 teaches that Jesus the Messiah is immune from His Father's temple tax because He is God's unique, divine Son (Matt. 17:5). The passage must be understood messianically. In paying the tax He did not owe, Jesus perfectly confirmed and obeyed God's law on behalf of the elect. Consequently, His perfect righteousness could be credited to His people.⁶ In light of our previous argumentation, 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,"⁷ is inaccurate, and his subsequent discussion is confused.

________________

6. Cf. the Westminster Confession of Faith, 8:4-5; 11:3.

7. James B. Jordan, The Law of the Covenant, 234.

Jordan's next sentence extends this "principle" of God not taxing His people to "the Old Covenant Tabernacle and Temple." But then, in the following sentence, Jordan backtracks from his "principle," acknowledging that "the Mosaic head tax was, however, a tax levied occasionally on God's own people." This leads Jordan to call members of the old covenant "strangers" and "afar off" from "the kingdom," presumably meaning⁸ that they were not citizens of God's Kingdom-a questionable description of those Israelites who were true believers.⁹ If these Old Covenant "strangers" were "afar off" from God's Kingdom, then they must have been "strangers" and "afar off" from the church in the Old Testament (contra orthodox Reformed theology). Is the church in the Old Testament a different church from the one in the New Testament? Since Jordan is not a dispensationalist, he surely would answer, "No."¹⁰

________________

8. Ibid. I find Jordan's wording to be confusing: "The members of the Old Testament were still ‘strangers' to the kingdom; they were ‘afar off' and had not yet been ‘brought nigh' in the full New Covenant sense." (Jordan then cites several New Testament verses teaching the inadequacies of the Old Testament ceremonial law.) First, Reformed covenant theology certainly teaches that Old Testament believers were part of the same covenant of grace as New Testament believers: there is one "everlasting covenant" of grace (Heb. 13:20). Second, what does Jordan mean by the term, "the kingdom?" It is most natural to understand "the kingdom" to mean the Kingdom of God. In this case we ask, "were Old Testament believers members of God's Kingdom or were they not members of God's Kingdom?" Most scholars would agree that the Kingdom of God certainly was present in the Old Testament. Could Jordan's term, "the kingdom," mean the messianic or mediatorial Kingdom of Christ, which had not yet been inaugurated prior to the first coming of Christ? Obviously, Old Testament believers could not be part of the not-yet-come messianic kingdom. However, two paragraphs later Jordan describes "true sons of the kingdom" as those redeemed by the blood of Christ. That description must include all Old and New Testament believers. Thus I understand Jordan's term, "the kingdom," to denote the Kingdom of God.

9. Paul applies the terms "strangers" and "afar off" to Gentiles, not to Old Testament saints (Eph. 2:11-13, 17, 19; cf. Acts 2:38).

10. God is not a polygamist. He has only one wife/church throughout both Old and New Testaments (Rom. 11:16-24, 26, 28; cp. 1 John 2:28-32 with Acts 2:17-21; cp. Amos 9:11f. with Acts 15:16f.; cp. Jer. 31:31-34 with Heb. 8:8-10).

Furthermore, Matthew 17:25f. does not refer at all to "citizens of the kingdom" (Jordan's term), but to God's "sons" (i.e., the royal family).¹¹ Consequently, applying Jordan's interpretation of Christ's teaching leads to the position that Old Testament believers could not be God's "sons." For simplicity and clarity, let us state this argument syllogistically:

________________

11. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:744.

God does not tax His sons;

God taxed all adult male Israelites
with the head tax (Ex. 30);

Therefore, no adult male Israelites were God's sons.

But if no adult male Israelites were God's sons, this implies that Old Testament believers were unregenerate-another unbiblical notion.¹²

________________

12. Old Testament believers were regenerated; this is depicted as: circumcision of the heart (Dt. 30:6; 10:16; Jer. 4:4; 6:10; 9:25f.; cf. Rom. 2:28f); having a new heart (Ezk. 18:31; 36:26; cf. Jer. 32:39f; 24:7); a heart of flesh (instead of a heart of stone) (Ezk. 11:19f.; 36:26); a new spirit within (Ezk. 11:19f.; 36:26; 18:31); God writing His law on the heart (Jer. 31:33f.); and being changed into another man (1 Sam. 10:6, 9). That is why Jesus expected Rabbi Nicodemus to understand the new birth (John 3:10).

Another difficulty with Jordan's line of reasoning is that Jesus is asserting His already-existing immunity from paying the temple tax during the Old Covenant era. Jordan extends this immunity to Christ's disciples and to all believers-but the new covenant had not yet been inaugurated. (It was inaugurated in Matt. 26:28.) Christ's statement cannot be viewed as merely proleptic (i.e., prophesying future New Covenant realities), since it concerned Peter paying tax at that time.

This leads us to conclude that Jordan's fourth and final line of argumentation also fails. Thus Jordan's conclusion, "The Mosaic head tax cannot be said to have had any explicitly or even implicitly civil function in the Old Covenant,"¹³ is manifestly false. If Jordan's analysis of the Mosaic head tax (i.e., that it is not a civil tax, and that it is irrelevant in the New Covenant age¹⁴) is mistaken, then his conclusion (i.e., "The Bible gives no explicit instruction regarding how the state is to be financed"¹⁵) is erroneous. Jordan has not cogently refuted R. J. Rushdoony's position that the Exodus 30 head tax was a civil tax.

________________

13. James B. Jordan, The Law of the Covenant, 232.

14. "In conclusion, the Mosaic head tax was never a civil tax. It was a religious tax and has been fulfilled definitively in Christ" (James B. Jordan, The Law of the Covenant, 234). Juxtaposing "civil" vs. "religious" is quite misleading. There is no religious neutrality; everything is religious. The correct terminology for Jordan's view is that the Mosaic head tax was not a civil tax; rather, it was an ecclesiastical or church tax. Both a civil tax and an ecclesiastical tax are religious. Cf. Rousas J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, 1:281f.; 3:23.

Interestingly, Jordan adds, "This is not to say that a Christian state may not levy a head tax for civil purposes. It is just to say that a church may not levy a head tax."

15. James B. Jordan, The Law of the Covenant, 238. North concurs with Jordan: "The Old Testament never specifically says anything about what is proper for civil taxation except Samuel's warning" (1 Sam. 8) (Gary North, Tools of Dominion, 908). Does this comport with the Biblical doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture?

5. Gary North adds a fifth objection: 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.¹⁶ It could not be otherwise.

________________

16. Gary North, Tools of Dominion, 908-910.

In light of the eleven different kinds of taxes in the Old Testament (excluding tithes and sacrifices), it is a mystery to me how Dr. North can write, "Apart from Samuel's critique of the king's collecting a tithe, the only references to compulsory payments in ancient Israel are the various tithes and sacrifices-clearly ecclesiastical-and the census atonement money of Exodus 30" (908f.). See Robert E. Fugate, Toward a Theology of Taxation, 1-9.

Rebuttal #5

First, if God ordained the separation of church and state in the Old Testament,¹⁷ and since God required the regular workers in the temple precincts to be priests or Levites, then following God's instructions does not necessarily result in the blending of church and state.

________________

17. I demonstrate the Old Testament separation of church and state in my book, Key Principles of Biblical Civil Government, 110; cf. 22-26, 33.

Second, Scripture indicates the presence of accountants who maintained a carefully-functioning accounting system in the temple.¹⁸ Separate accounts were probably maintained for church and state.¹⁹

________________

18. The temple "gatekeeper" (Hebrew shoer) was actually a temple gate clerk or accountant, responsible for safeguarding the contents of the baskets placed at the thresholds, and perhaps assaying the items deposited, assigning value, and crediting the account of the depositor. The temple "scribe" (sopher) was the storehouse accountant, functioning as counter, recorder, ledger-keeper, and enumerator for the temple storehouses. See Marty E. Stevens, Temples, Tithes, and Taxes, 172, 71-77.

19. Consider 2 Kings 12:16: "The money from the trespass offerings and the money from the sin offerings was not brought into the house of the LORD. It belonged to the priests." If that money belonged to the priests, but the census money was not allowed to be used by the priests (see the following endnote), there had to be separate accounting.

When there was a problem with priests not following through or perhaps misallocating funds, the king took over the responsibility (2 Kings 12:4-16 // 2 Chr. 24:4-14).²⁰ Even then "joint oversight of the funds deposited in the chest is provided by a royal and priestly official (2 Kings 12:10; 2 Chr. 24:11)."²¹

________________

20. "Jehoash takes charge much like Solomon to see that the work of temple repair is properly financed and accomplished ... By taking the funds out of the hands of the priests, Jehoash reasserts royal Davidic control over the sanctuary" (Marvin A. Sweeney, 1 & 2 Kings, 351f.). "Joash simply decides to introduce a different method of collection and he himself implements it" (Sara Japhet, 1 & 2 Chronicles, 845). "The notice that funds were not employed to manufacture the vessels used in the temple ritual-basins, snuffers, bowls, trumpets, and so on (cf. 1 Kings 7:38-40, 45-47)-indicates that the funds were used only for [temple] repairs" (Marvin A. Sweeney, 353). Sweeney suggests that "the priest had not properly allocated the funds in the past." In Joash's new arrangement the priests "will be absolved of responsibility to repair the temple, but they will no longer be in charge of the offerings brought to the temple" (August H. Konkel, 1 & 2 Kings [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006], 513; cf. T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 153).

21. Andrew E. Hill, 1 & 2 Chronicles (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 540.

Third, viewing the Exodus 30 payment as an ecclesiastical atonement rather than a civil tax (North's position) does not necessarily produce a clearly-defined and harmonious working relationship between the separate jurisdictions of church and state, as 2 Kings 12:4-16 // 2 Chronicles 24:4-14 clearly demonstrates.

Additional Issues with the Jordan-North view

The Jordan-North hypothesis that the males paying the ransom in Exodus 30 are the ecclesiastical Israelite army comprised of temporary Nazirite priests is highly questionable. Consider the prima facie evidence against their hypothesis. Neither the word "priest" nor the word "Nazirite" is found in Exodus 30. The word "vow" never occurs in Exodus (which is relevant since people temporally became Nazirites through taking a vow). They cite no scholarly documentation to support their view. I have checked numerous reference sources that are the highest-rated scholarly works in their category (e.g., Bible commentaries, Bible encyclopedias/dictionaries, Old Testament theologies, etc.). None of them draws any connection between Nazirites and Exodus 30; neither do any of them refer to the army of Exodus 30 as priests. If this is so obviously the one-and-only possible interpretation of the passage, why do the best academic commentaries²² not even list it as a view to consider (or even mention it so as to refute it)? Furthermore, to call Nazirites "temporary priests"²³ ignores the many differences between Nazirites and priests (i.e., the logical fallacy of hasty generalization).²⁴ Yet, North describes their view of an army of temporary Nazirite priests as "central to Jordan's argument and mine."²⁵ Since they base their entire position on this hypothesis, surely the burden of proof is on them to produce much more scholarly documentation before we adopt their hypothesis.²⁶

________________

22. Exodus commentators include: Propp, Stuart, Hamilton, Durham, Enns, Sarna, Cassuto, Childs, Jacob, Fretheim, Motyer, Kaiser, Bruckner, Murphy, Bush, Driver, Hyatt, Noth, Keil.

23. "During the holy war, the men became temporary priests by taking the Nazirite vow" (James B. Jordan, The Law of the Covenant, 231).

24. Jordan lists Num. 6; 2 Sam. 11:11 + Ex. 19:15; Dt. 23:9-14; Jdg. 5:2, ‘That long locks of hair hung loose in Israel ... ') as his proof that the army of Ex. 30 were temporary Nazirite priests (The Law of the Covenant, 231). But a couple of similarities between Nazirites and priests do not prove identity. For example, Israelites and Philistines both fought with swords and spears, but they are not identical people groups. There are at least eight significant differences between Nazirites and priests that must not be ignored.

25. Gary North, Tools of Dominion, 911.

26. It is the case that a few older liberal scholars (e.g., Walther Eichrodt and Roland de Vaux)-who were committed to some form of the evolutionary Documentary Hypothesis, in which Mosaic authorship is rejected for most of the Pentateuch (contrary to the teaching of both the Old Testament and to the teaching of Christ and the Apostles), and the so-called priestly portions of the Pentateuch (such as Num. 6) are dated after the Babylonian exile-hypothesize two radically different types of Nazirites. In their view the earlier type of Nazirite was a sacred, charismatic, lone-wolf warrior, who was subject to ecstatic-behavior. Yet, neither Eichrodt nor de Vaux includes Exodus 30 in their discussion of Nazirites.

North describes the payment in Exodus 30 as made to the priests-although the word "priest" never occurs in Exodus 30:11-16.²⁷ Indeed, one well-known Old Testament scholar suggests that "Moses may have been the person to receive the collected payments prior to the conquest" (of the land of Canaan) (cf. Ex. 30:11, 16).²⁸ That would be quite significant, since Moses represented God's authority exercised in the civil sphere, while Aaron represented God's authority exercised in the church.²⁹ In any case, the payment (unlike tithes) did not support the priests; rather, it was an offering to the Lord for the tabernacle (vv. 13, 16; cf. 2 Kings 12:7-16), which (as we noted above) represents the Kingdom of God, including both its civil and ecclesiastical aspects.

________________

27. North is so committed to Jordan's and his interpretation of the army being a "temporary priesthood" (Tools of Dominion, 911) and the ransom being "paid to God through the priesthood" (906) that he uses some form of the word "priest" twenty-two times in his ten-page article. However, as the old adage goes, "saying it's so doesn't make it so."

28. Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, NAC, 639. "You" in Ex. 30:16 refers back to Moses (v. 11) (Benno Jacob, The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus [Hoboken, NJ: KTAV, 1992], 831).

29. Robert E. Fugate, Key Principles of Biblical Civil Government, 110.

Dr. North asserts that "taking the national census was strictly limited to wartime."³⁰ This certainly was not the case throughout the ancient Near East. A census served two primary, distinct purposes: levying taxes and registering men for military service in time of war (but not necessarily both in a given instance). Sometimes it was used to conscript forced labor for various state projects.³¹

________________

30. Gary North, Tools of Dominion, 905. North's citation of Luke 14:31f. is hardly applicable to Yahweh's wars, since God repeatedly emphasized that He would fight Israel's enemies, enabling them to defeat enemies who were far more powerful than they (Dt. 4:38; 7:1; 9:1, 14; 11:23).

31. See sources cited in Robert E. Fugate, Toward a Theology of Taxation, 23-25.

Dr. North lists two main "problem[s]" in Rushdoony's view of the head tax: (a) "On what basis did the State become the recipient of this atonement payment?" and (b) "When did the State become the recipient of these atonement payments?"³² However, these only become serious problems when one assumes the Jordan-North interpretation of the payment in Exodus 30 as a priestly atonement and ransom paid by a temporary, priestly, Nazirite, ecclesiastical army and that this payment was paid to priests. Furthermore, North assumes that the tabernacle and the temple always represent the church; that is, the tabernacle and the temple have no role whatsoever in state functions. (In our previous article we provided scholarly documentation demonstrating that this is totally untrue throughout the ancient Near East and in the Biblical record regarding the nation Israel.) From this position North latches on to one word in this statement by Rushdoony: "It [the head tax] was used originally for the construction of the tabernacle (Ex. 38:25-38)."³³ North interprets Rushdoony to say that the head tax was "originally" church money; later it became state money. This is not what Rushdoony was saying. Rushdoony believed that: (a) the tabernacle and later the temple represented the Kingdom of God, including both church and state; and (b) the head tax was revenue for the state (which was headquartered in the tabernacle/temple). Thus the head tax was always used to fund the state; there was no change in the sense that North asserts. When Rushdoony used the term "originally" he is merely saying that the head tax (which was always a civil tax) originally helped fund the building and furnishing of the tabernacle (the state headquarters) and subsequently paid for all state expenses. Obviously, during the construction of the tabernacle, which occurred during Israel's wanderings in the wilderness, there were minimal additional state expenses.

________________

32. Gary North, Tools of Dominion, 907.

33. Ibid.; citing Rousas J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, 1:50.

Jordan's View of Nehemiah 10:32f.

After 50,000 exiled Jews returned from the Babylonian captivity to repatriate Israel, they rebuilt Jerusalem and its temple. Subsequently, under their Governor, Nehemiah, they instituted a head tax. This head tax was paid "yearly" (Neh. 10:32), as the Mosaic head tax of 2 Chronicles 24:5 had been.

Jordan does not believe that Nehemiah's tax could be a civil head tax based on Exodus 30:11-16. He offers three arguments for this view:

1. The text in Nehemiah does not specifically refer to the Mosaic head tax. Jordan argues that the phrase "we made ordinances" (Neh. 10:32) is a deliberate contrast to what the Mosaic Law commanded (vv. 29, 34).
2. The amount of the tax is different, i.e., 1/3 shekel (Neh. 10:32) rather than 1/2 shekel (Ex. 30:13).
3. Nehemiah's head tax supported the worship of the temple rather than the civil sphere.³⁴

________________

34. James B. Jordan, The Law of the Covenant, 237f.

Rebuttals

1.   The entire context of verses 28-39 is renewing covenant with God "to walk in God's law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the LORD our Lord, and His ordinances and His statutes" (v. 29 NKJV). "All the commandments" / "ordinances" / "statutes" would include the commands regarding the head tax in Exodus 30:11-16. Furthermore, vv. 35-39 continue the thought of "we made ordinances/we accept responsibility" (so translated in NKJV, ESV, NIV, NET, etc.), yet they certainly refer to various Mosaic laws concerning firstfruits, firstborn, tithes, offerings, etc.-even though the term "God's law" is not repeated in any of these verses (neither is "God's law" repeated in vv. 30-33). Thus "we made ordinances" is probably a stylistic variation, not an indication that this action was not based on God's law.

Indeed, verses 31-40 are written "in the first person and represents the people's point of view, as the priests and Levites are spoken of in the third person ... The plain inference [of ‘we made ordinances for ourselves' (v. 32)] is rather startling that the people themselves made ordinances to do the things prescribed in the [Mosaic] law."³⁵ Furthermore, arguing from the absence of another reference to God's law in v. 32 may be viewed as the logical fallacy of an argument from silence. Interestingly, the term "wood offering" does not occur in the Mosaic Law or in the Pentateuch; yet, Nehemiah describes it under the rubric "as it is written in the Law" (v. 34). (It is there by implication, since wood was required for burnt offerings, Lev. 1:7f., 12, 17; 3:5; 4:12; 6:9, 12f.; Num. 19:6.)

________________

35. L.W. Batton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, ICC [New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913], 376f.

We conclude that Jordan's assertion that "we made ordinances" (Neh. 10:32) means manmade laws that are not part of the Mosaic Law is very unlikely.

2.   There are several plausible explanations for the apparent discrepancy between a tax amount of 1/3 shekel rather than 1/2 shekel:

• One explanation for the discrepancy is the extreme poverty of many of the repatriating Israelites. This extreme poverty had three main physical causes: (a) famine (Neh. 5:3; Mal. 3:9-12); (b) oppressive Persian taxation (Ezra 4:13; 7:24; 6:8; Esther 10:1)-oppressive to the point of bringing them and their children into slavery (Neh. 5:1-5; 9:36f.; Ezra 9:9); and (c) nearly two months (Neh. 6:15) of continuous work rebuilding the city walls (Neh. 3-7), which provided no income to families who owned no land (5:2), and left landowners little time to cultivate their fields. One of the characteristics of the Mosaic head tax was that it was cheap enough that the poor man could afford to pay it. Perhaps the extreme conditions in Nehemiah's day necessitated a lowering of the amount of the Mosaic head tax to comply with the intent of its legislation.
• A second plausible explanation is that the Persian Empire was providing many of the civil functions (for which it was exacting tax), so Israel reduced its own civil tax rate to avoid double taxation.³⁶
• A third possible explanation suggested by several scholars is that this later Babylonian-Persian shekel used to pay the head tax was based on a heavier standard (21 grams); thus 1/3 of the later shekel was equal to 1/2 of the earlier Phoenician shekel (14 grams).³⁷
• A fourth possibility is that the small tax reduction may have provided temporary compensation for nearly two month's free labor in rebuilding the city walls.

________________

36. Rousas J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, 1:591.

37. For discussion of the third view see: R. A. Bowman, "The Book of Ezra and the Book of Nehemiah," in The Interpreter's Bible, ed. G. A. Buttrick, 12 vols. (New York, NY: Abingdon, 1954), 3:764; R. B. Y. Scott, "Weights, Measures, Money and Time," in Peake's Commentary on the Bible, eds. Matthew Black and H. H. Rowley (Hong Kong: Thomas Nelson, 1962), 38 § 35a; D. J. A. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 207; Jacob M. Myers, Ezra, Nehemiah, AB (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965), 178f.; F. Charles Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 240; Leslie C. Allen and Timothy S. Laniak, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, NIBC (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 143; cf. Edwin Yamauchi, "Ezra, Nehemiah," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary (EBC), ed. F. E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988), 4:742.

These plausible explanations demonstrate that this objection is not nearly as substantial as it might first seem to be.

3.   With regard to the objection that Nehemiah's head tax supported the worship of the temple rather than the civil sphere, we ask, Could the inclusion of some items used for temple worship (v. 33) be merely a temporary accommodation until the new second temple could be fully furnished and stocked with supplies and proper worship fully restored (Neh. 10; 12; Mal. 3:9-12)?³⁸ Nehemiah's head tax was clearly instituted during an abnormal time, i.e., during the reestablishing of the rebuilt temple and its worship in Jerusalem and while the newly repatriated Israelites were paying excessive tribute to the Persian Empire (which provided some civil functions). This tribute was so oppressive and caused such enslaving poverty that Israel's Governor, Nehemiah, was sacrificially foregoing reimbursement for legitimate government expenses (Neh. 5:14, 17f.), so as not to further enslave the impoverished Israelites. Obviously, such deep poverty hindered the ongoing giving of abundant offerings for the temple and its services. To rebuild his devastated nation, Nehemiah may have prioritized the worship of God over his own salary. A second possibility is that, since the Israelites were already paying high taxes to Persia (which provided them with some civil functions), the Israelites may have diverted a portion of the head tax revenue to the expenses of temple worship. Scripture does not give us enough detail to answer all our questions in this matter. In any case, the objections to Nehemiah's head tax being the reinstitution of Moses' civil head tax are not insurmountable.

________________

38. This argument is somewhat similar to Jordan's reasoning, "People were not in a position to reinstitute the entire Levitical order overnight, so again Nehemiah's provision was a needed accommodation to the situation" (James B. Jordan, The Law of the Covenant, 237).

4.   Jordan's conclusion, "This [Nehemiah's tax] was not a civil tax at all. Its purpose was wholly cultic [i.e., regarding ecclesiastical worship rituals]," presupposes that the tabernacle/temple was wholly ecclesiastical, having no civil function. As we have seen in both this article and in the previous article, this was not the case.³⁹

________________

39. Jordan himself admitted, "The Tabernacle was the ultimate political as well as ecclesiastical center of Israel" (The Law of the Covenant, 231).

Furthermore, there are positive, contextual and linguistic arguments to substantiate the view that Nehemiah's tax was, in fact, a reinstitution of the Mosaic head tax (Ex. 30:11-16).

First, the institution of Nehemiah's head tax (Neh. 10:32f.) occurs in the context of the renewal of God's covenant (8:1-10:39) and obedience to God's covenant (11:1-13:31), which were recorded in "the Book of the Law of Moses" (8:1; cf. 8:3, 8, 18; 9:3; 13:1; Ezra 6:18). The entire emphasis of Ezra-Nehemiah is obeying God's covenantal law-word in its entirety, in all areas of life-which would include God's directives for the head tax in Exodus 30:1-16.

Second, regarding similarity of language, Nehemiah's phrase describing the purpose of the head tax being "for the service of the house of our God" (Neh. 10:32) is strikingly reminiscent of Moses' phrase regarding the purpose of the head tax, "for the service of the tabernacle of meeting" (Ex. 30:16).⁴⁰ One commentator suggests that this similarity of wording "purposely linked" the two passages.⁴¹ Of course, both taxes were paid in shekels.
________________

40. There are other language similarities, such as both passages mentioning shekel and atonement.

41. H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, WBC (Waco, TX: Word, 1985), 335. L. W. Batton (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, ICC,  377) and Joseph Blenkinsopp (Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary, OTL [Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1988], 316) believe that Nehemiah's tax is the same tax as that found in 2 Chronicles 24:4, 9. If we reject their critical reconstruction of the Pentateuch (based on the Documentary Hypothesis), then this is the same tax as the Mosaic head tax (Ex. 30:11-16).

Third, Nehemiah also describes the purpose of the head tax being for "all the work of the house of our God" (Neh. 10:33), a phrase which denotes the maintenance of the temple building, rather than maintaining its sacrificial rituals.⁴² This second purpose of Nehemiah's head tax is identical to the purpose of the Mosaic head tax (Ex. 38:25-28; 2 Kings 12:4-16 // 2 Chr. 24:4-14).

________________

42. F. Charles Fensham asserts that the phrase "all the work of the house of our God" (Neh. 10:33) "refers to the maintenance of the building of the temple" (The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, NICOT, 240; cf. H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, WBC, 336). With reference to the phrase "all the work of the house of our God" (Neh. 10:33), L. W. Batten observed that in Ezra and Nehemiah the term "work" (mela'kah) "usually refers to the building" itself, not to rituals conducted in the temple (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, ICC, 377).

In Ex. 30:16 "The service [`abodah] of the tent of meeting" does not refer to the sacrificial service, but to its construction (Ex. 38:25-28; 39:32), which was to be more of a permanent "memorial" (Ex. 30:16) (Umberto Cassuto Commentary on the Book of Exodus, 394f.). "‘Work' must connote not worship ... but construction ... The silver does not purchase offerings; it is built directly into the Tabernacle (38:27f.)" (William H. C. Propp, Exodus 19-40, AB, 479; cf. Nahum M. Sarna, JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, 196).

We thus concur with Old Testament scholar and commentator Carl F. Keil: "This appointed payment is evidently only a revival of the Mosaic precept, Ex. 30:13."⁴³ If Nehemiah's head tax is a reinstitution of the Mosaic head tax-and we believe that it is-then the book of Nehemiah confirms that the head tax was again in force over one thousand years after Moses had instituted it.⁴⁴ We argued in the previous article that the Mosaic head tax was still present in New Testament times (Matt. 17:24-27).

________________

43. Carl F. Keil, 1&2 Kings, 1&2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 3:253.

44. James Ussher dates Nehemiah's work at 454 B.C. (The Annals of the World, § 1243).

Conclusion

The arguments marshaled by Jordan and North against Rushdoony's view of the head tax (i.e., that it is the only God-authorized civil tax) are unconvincing and at times are not cogent. We concur with Rushdoony's assessment:

The head tax is thus the support of the civil order, and the tithe is the support of the social order. In Biblical law, there is no land tax or property tax. Such a tax destroys the independence of every sphere of life and government-the family, school, church, vocation, and all else-and makes every sphere dependent on and subordinate to the state, or civil government ... A land tax is not lawful ... Ungodly taxation is theft ... A lawless tax structure [i.e., one rejecting God's sovereign law] spells death to men and society ... The power to tax is in the modern world the power to destroy. It is no longer the support of law and order.⁴⁵

________________

45. Rousas J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, 1:283f. North's observation, that this Rushdoony quote does not distinguish covenantal, God-ordained institutions (i.e., family, church, and state) from non-covenantal (i.e., school, vocation, and all else), has merit (Tools of Dominion, 909).

Although we have disagreed with Dr. Gary North's view of the head tax,⁴⁶ we heartily agree with much of his plan for reconstructing civil government spending and taxation:

We call for a vast purging of present-day national power, both political and economic. We call for the dismantling of the welfare-warfare State, most notably every aspect of taxpayer-financing for education (except for the national military academies ... maybe). I have called for a reduction of aggregate taxes to the level required by 1 Samuel 8: where all levels of civil government combined are allowed to collect less than 10 percent of people's annual income.⁴⁷ I support the abolition of the local property tax, as well as all state and national direct taxation of individuals and corporations, which includes the graduated income tax, the Social Security tax, the corporate income tax, the capital gains tax, and all sales taxes. I recommend the abolition of all direct taxation by any agency of civil government above the local township or county; every other level of civil government would be forced to seek its revenues by taxing the level of civil government immediately below it. Civil governments above the most local would have to live off the revenues collected from other civil governments. This would decentralize power with a vengeance. The Reconstructionists' version of theocracy is a decentralized system of multiple competing governments in which the modern messianic State and its economic subsidies would be dismantled.⁴⁸

________________

46. North describes the payment in Exodus 30 as "a blood covering for warriors-become-Nazarite [KJV spelling] priests who were about to go into battle" (Tools of Dominion, 912). Of course, this definition completely ignores the other occurrences of the head tax in Scripture.

47. "The combined tax burden of all levels of civil government should not equal the tithe of 10 percent of net income. The largest share must be taken by local civil government. Taxes by higher levels should be imposed on the lower governments, but not on citizens directly. By violating this principle of local sovereignty, civil government is centralized, as it was in Samuel's day (1 Sam. 8). He described this process as a curse, but the Israelites did not believe him. Neither does modern man" (Gary North, Healer of the Nations: Biblical Blueprint for International Relations [Ft. Worth, Texas: Dominion Press, 1987], 61).

48. Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), 584f; cf. 294. Dr. North does not believe that an income tax less than 10% is explicitly approved by God in Scripture; he infers it from 1 Samuel 8. He does not elaborate on the steps involved in making this logical inference.

Any income tax inherently causes government intrusion into one's privacy. I critique many different kinds of taxes (including income taxes) in my monograph, Toward a Theology of Taxation, available at LordoftheNations.com.

In closing, let us remember that both Drs. North and Rushdoony believe/d in the absolute truthfulness, authority, inerrancy, and sufficiency of God's written Word. Both are/were committed to applying God's law to all of society. Thus their debate over the exact nature of the head tax was an in-house debate among Christian brothers committed to Christian Reconstruction. Our biggest need of the hour is for more Christians to truly be committed to God's infallible and sufficient Word (including His law) and to apply it to our own lives, our families, our churches, and the state-in the power of the Holy Spirit. May Dr. North's and Dr. Rushdoony's spiritual and biological descendants maintain an attitude of brotherly love toward one another. We are on the same team. May we follow the Apostle Paul's admonition to Timothy: "Consider what I say, and may the Lord give you understanding in all things" (2 Tim. 2:7 NJKV). As we study God's Word, may the Holy Spirit give us the illumination to correctly understand it and the wisdom to apply it in our culture-to the glory of the triune God. Amen.

Dr. Robert Fugate (Ph.D., M.Div.) is the pastor of Word and Spirit Covenant Church in Omaha, Nebraska. In addition to his job as pastor, Dr. Fugate mentors young adults, missionary candidates, and other pastors in Biblical worldview, presuppositional apologetics, and theology.

Dr. Robert Fugate (Ph.D., M.Div.) is the pastor of Word and Spirit Covenant Church in Omaha, Nebraska. In addition to his job as pastor, Dr. Fugate mentors young adults, missionary candidates, and other pastors in Biblical worldview, presuppositional apologetics, and theology.