by Patrick Carroll

The Not So Triumphal Entry

It was the week leading up to Passover and preparations were already well underway. The city of Jerusalem was swarming with people. This was one of three annual feasts where Jews from across the world would come to Jerusalem to remember God’s faithfulness to his people. These feasts were a time of joy, but they were also a time of trepidation.

Many Zealots were among the crowds, violent freedom fighters who sought to overthrow the Romans. They used the feasts to stage political protests, and these would often lead to deadly riots. They reasoned that Passover in particular was supposed to celebrate the liberation of Israel from Egypt, and it was a fitting time to fight for liberation from Rome. In light of this, it is not surprising that tensions were high during Passover. Large contingents of soldiers would be sent in for these days, an ever-present reminder of the terrifying power of the Romans.

PASSOVER SPELT OUT IN SCRABBLE BLOCKS

The Sunday before Passover was particularly special because this was the day Moses appointed for choosing the lamb that would be slain for the family (Exodus 12.3).

The lamb had to be completely spotless, and so it was that thousands of Jews spent the day searching for the perfect lamb. They knew God would only bless them if they were obedient to his commands.

Just outside Jerusalem, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus and his disciples are preparing to enter the city to choose their lamb. We pick up the story in Luke 19.

When he drew near to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount that is called Olivet, he sent two of the disciples, saying, “Go into the village in front of you, where on entering you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever yet sat. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you untying it?’ you shall say this: ‘The Lord has need of it.’” So those who were sent went away and found it just as he had told them. And as they were untying the colt, its owners said to them, “Why are you untying the colt?” And they said, “The Lord has need of it.” And they brought it to Jesus, and throwing their cloaks on the colt, they set Jesus on it. And as he rode along, they spread their cloaks on the road.

Luke 19.29-36

In order to fully understand this story it’s important to have an understanding of the cultural context in which it takes place. To begin, Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi, and he spent much of his time teaching devout Jews from their Scriptures, which they called Tanakh (we call it the Old Testament). The Jewish people at this time were very religious and they knew their text very well. Many of them had large sections of it memorized and they would often recite the text to make a theological point or teaching.

Hebrew text under magnifine glass

One of the teaching techniques that was used in this time was called “Remez”, which in Hebrew means “hint” or “clue”. If a teacher wanted to make a point using a passage of Scripture they would allude (hint) to the passage either by performing an action it describes or by quoting a line from it.

The disciples, being dutiful students, would pick up on the clue and they would call to mind the rest of the passage. Often the teacher’s point would be contained in the verse just before or just after his hint. Thus, in order to fully understand the teacher’s message, you need to know the context of the passage they are referencing. Jesus uses this technique much more than we realize. Many times we simply don’t know the Bible well enough to pick up on all the subtle references. Fortunately, the disciples did.

This took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet, saying,

‘Say to the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.’

Matthew 21.4-5

Matthew points out that Jesus is giving us a clue about what he was doing. By riding into Jerusalem on a colt, Jesus was acting out the text of Zechariah 9. This is significant for a number of reasons. First, Jesus is saying that he is the king of Israel. He is the long-awaited messiah that will bring salvation to the Jewish people.

But there’s something more. Normally one would expect a king to ride into a city on a dazzling warhorse (Jeremiah 17.25). Instead, Jesus chose to enter on a donkey. At first glance, one may be tempted to think that the donkey represented his humility, but this is unlikely because only wealthy people had donkeys in the time of Jesus. However, the donkey is still significant for another reason.

donkey carying load

In the ancient near east, there was a custom that kings would ride into town on a horse if they intended to wage war but they would ride on a donkey if they came in peace.

Throughout the Bible, horses are almost exclusively used for military purposes (Exodus 15.19, Psalm 33.17, Psalm 76.6, Psalm 147.10, Proverbs 21.31, Jeremiah 8.6, Jeremiah 51.21, Zechariah 10.3, Revelation 6.4) while donkeys are often used for peaceful travel (Judges 10.4, Judges 12.14, 2 Samuel 17.23, 2 Samuel 19.26).

This practice gave rise to the idea that the donkey was an animal of peace while the horse was an animal of war. Thus, if Jesus had intended to arrive as a conquering king he most certainly would have ridden a horse.

It is also notable that Jesus chose not to wear any royal robes or armor. Surely if he wanted to “look the part” this would have been a good time to show off his magnificence. Instead, Jesus wore his normal clothes and rode on a very normal donkey. Rather than coming to wage war, Jesus alludes to Zechariah to emphasize that his kingdom will be a kingdom of peace. The next verse underscores this idea.

I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the war horse from Jerusalem; and the battle bow shall be cut off, and he shall speak peace to the nations; his rule shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.

Zechariah 9.10

Interestingly, Zechariah 9 is itself an allusion to 1 Kings 1. In that chapter, we read of Solomon, the son of David, ridding into Gihon on a donkey to be anointed as king (1 Kings 1.38). Solomon (whose name means peace) would go on to establish the most peaceful and prosperous reign Israel had ever experienced, a reign that came to characterize people’s expectations of the messiah.

From these texts, we can get an understanding of Jesus’ message. He enters Jerusalem as the “son of David” who has come to bring peace, not with a warhorse, but with a simple donkey. While he does not shy away from proclaiming himself as their king, he is showing them that his kingdom will not establish peace through violence. It will not be built with horses and bloodshed.

Let’s follow the story a little further.

As he was drawing near – already on the way down the Mount of Olives – the whole multitude of his disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen,

Luke 19.37

The crowd followed because of the works they had seen, as John tells us.

The crowd that had been with him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead continued to bear witness. The reason why the crowd went to meet him was that they heard he had done this sign.

John 12.17-18

The crowd heard that Jesus had just raised Lazarus from the dead. They figured that this must mean he was the promised messiah. Thus they exclaimed:

Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!

Luke 19.38

The spreading of cloaks was also an acknowledgment of royalty (2 Kings 9.13). This leads us to an important point. The crowd recognized that Jesus was their king, but only because of his miracles. They completely missed the allusion to Zechariah and the significance of the donkey (John 12.16).

The story continues:

And the crowds that went before him and that followed him were shouting, “Hosanna to the Son of David”

Matthew 21.9)

The people are shouting the words of Psalm 118.

Save us, we pray, O Lord! O Lord, we pray, give us success! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!

Psalm 118.25

“Save us, please” is the English rendering of the Hebrew phrase “Hosanna”. In Christian circles, it is often assumed that they wanted to be saved from their sin, but that is simply an unfortunate example of us reading our theology into the story. In the context of that day, “Hosanna” very clearly meant “save us from the Romans”.

This gives us an important insight into understanding this story. These people were not simply praising Jesus. They were asking him to save them. Specifically, they were quoting a messianic Psalm that promised God would deliver them from their enemies (Psalm 118.5).

We have to keep in mind that the Jews, and especially the Zealots, had a completely different idea about what the coming messiah would be like. To them, the messiah was to be a conquering king who would use military might to overthrow the Romans.

They imagined a person who would not only endorse the rebellion but would become its leader. “Salvation” for them is to be saved from Rome. “Messiah” for them is a king who would use violence to defeat their oppressors and thus bring liberty and peace.

There’s an important detail in this story that helps to reinforce this understanding.

So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him.

John 12.13

In the days of Jesus, palm branches had a certain religious symbolism because they were connected to some of the Jewish feasts (Leviticus 23.40). More importantly, however, the Zealots used palm branches as their symbol of Jewish nationalism. Waving the palm branch was the equivalent to waving their country’s national flag.

The palm branch was regularly used on Jewish coins, like a maple leaf on Canadian coins or an eagle on American coins. Palms had also been used during the Maccabean revolt to celebrate their victory over the Syrians (1 Maccabees 13.51, 2 Maccabees 10.7), and that story undoubtedly encouraged their nationalistic fervor.

Thus, palm branches came to represent the patriotism that fueled the fight against the Romans, and it was this patriotism that was on full display that Sunday. The crowds were not interested in welcoming a suffering servant. They went out to welcome a patriot.

With this in mind, we can see why they were so thrilled at Jesus’ miracles. If their king could raise the dead, he could surely deliver them from the Romans.

Further, when we understand the mindset of the Jews we should no longer be surprised that those who hailed him as their king on Sunday would ask for his crucifixion on Friday. The motives of the Jews did not change, only their impression of Jesus. Once they discovered he was not aligned with their cause they had little reason to choose him over Barabbas.

So the stage is set. The city is packed with people and Jesus is riding in on a donkey. Everyone is in an uproar because they think he is the long-awaited messianic king. After all, he had just raised Lazarus from the dead. A revolt is brewing. The Zealots are stirring up the crowd. Finally, the day of deliverance has come. Now is the time to make some noise. The revolution is beginning!

But this is really dangerous. Roman soldiers are everywhere. If this thing turns into a riot it will be a very bloody night. The Pharisees in particular were worried about how the Romans would react (John 11.48).

And some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples.”

Luke 19.39

In other words, get them to be quiet. Settle them down. This is getting out of hand.

And then we read this.

He answered, “I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out.”

Luke 19.40

The stones would cry out? What a peculiar little phrase. Does he really think the stones would praise him, or is there something we’ve missed? As it turns out, this phrase is taken directly from the Jewish Scriptures, and anyone who was well studied in the text would quickly pick up on the Remez.

“Woe to him who gets evil gain for his house, to set his nest on high, to be safe from the reach of harm! You have devised shame for you house. By cutting off many peoples you have forfeited your life. For the stone will cry out from the wall, and the beam from the woodwork respond: “Woe to him who builds a town with blood and founds a city on iniquity!”

Habakkuk 2.9-12

The Pharisees had asked Jesus to rebuke his followers for being too loud. But instead of telling them to be quiet, Jesus rebukes them with the words of Habakkuk. Rather than condemn their vigor, Jesus alludes to the message of the stones to condemn their intentions.

Woe to him who builds a town with blood and founds a city on iniquity!

Woe to you, oh Jerusalem, people of God, if you seek to establish the kingdom with violence. Woe to you, oh Zealots, freedom fighters, if you seek to gain your freedom through bloodshed. Woe to you, oh Christian, if you think you can establish God’s kingdom with human strength (Jeremiah 17.5, Zechariah 4.6). Woe to you if you think you can use force and coercion to make people good. Woe to you if you seek to justify war and violence.

If there remains any doubt in your mind as to Jesus’ thoughts about their fervor, take a look at the very next lines of the story.

And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.”

Luke 19.41-42

The Greek word translated as “wept” is “klaio”, and it refers to a tearful mourning caused by deep sorrow and grief. This is not the climax of a triumphal entry. This is a painful recognition that his people simply didn’t get it. They did not know the way of peace (Isaiah 59.8).

Jesus continued to meditate on the words of Habakkuk, and they likely called to mind a parallel passage in Micah.

Hear this, you heads of the house of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel, who detest justice and make crooked all that is straight, who build Zion with blood and Jerusalem with iniquity. Its heads give judgment for a bribe; its priests teach for a price; its prophets practice divination for money; yet they lean on the Lord and say, “Is not the Lord in the midst of us? No disaster shall come upon us.” Therefore because of you Zion shall be plowed as a field; Jerusalem shall become a heap of ruins, and the mount of the house a wooded height.

Micah 3.9-12

Like Habakkuk, Micah condemned the leaders of Israel who sought to establish Jerusalem with bloodshed and violence. Because of them, Micah prophesied that Jerusalem would become “a heap of ruins”, and that the temple would be reduced to a hill in a forest. Having just made the same indictment as Micah, Jesus now alludes to these verses by making the same prophecy.

For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.

Luke 19.43-44

As we know, this prophecy was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.

The historical context of this story is what makes it so shocking. The Romans were crucifying Jews by the thousands. They imprisoned them and taxed them and enslaved them. The Jews had every reason, every right, to overthrow the Romans. The Zealots would today be praised for their willingness to “protect” their people. This was not a fringe group of radicals trying to cause mayhem. These were God-fearing, freedom-loving patriots living under foreign occupation who were fighting to defend themselves and their families.

The Zealot uprising was a just war if there ever was one.

Some would go so far as to say that Jews were morally obligated to fight the injustice of the Romans. But if that is the case then Jesus was a sinner because he refused to join the Zealots. In the eyes of his friends, he had not only betrayed the Jewish cause, but he had actually sinned by failing to fight the Romans. According to them, Jesus simply made the wrong choice. He should have ridden into Jerusalem on a warhorse. I dare say many Christians today would have preferred that.

But Jesus had a different way. Jesus came to Jerusalem on lamb selection day to be the lamb of God (John 1.29), though the Jews wanted to turn him into a ferocious lion. They sought to establish God’s kingdom with violence and bloodshed but this was an approach Jesus consistently rejected. Rather than lead a military conquest, Jesus subjected himself to the Romans (John 18.36).

He did not resist being crucified, even though he had every right to. He taught his followers to pay taxes and turn the other cheek (Matthew 22.21, Matthew 5.39). He instructed us to submit to unjust rulers and go the extra mile (Matthew 5.41). Let them imprison you, let them kill you, and rebuke those who would start a very justified rebellion against them (Matthew 26.52). If that isn’t a radical commitment to non-violence, I don’t know what is.

So how does the story continue? Well, 2000 years go by, and it becomes a tradition in the church to wave palm branches and sing “Hosanna” in remembrance of Palm Sunday. Every year, we sing songs about Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, we wave the sign of the Zealot and we sing the words of the Zealot.

Fortunately, the ideas these symbols once represented are no longer in the minds of Christians celebrating this occasion. And yet, one has to wonder how it is that many of us are still eager to use violence and state power to conquer our enemies. I sometimes wonder if we have learned anything from Jesus’ radical message of peace. I wonder if Jesus is still weeping over his people.


About the Author

Patrick Carroll has a degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Waterloo and is an Editorial Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education.

You can follow him on Twitter @PatrickC1995 or on his Facebook page The Prudent Navigator.

Taxation is Slavery: A Biblical Case

Over the past centuries, many have looked to the Bible in an attempt to provide justification for the so-called divine right of kings. As far back as Constantine, theologians have tried earnestly to mount a biblical defense for the existence of human empires and rulers. Unfortunately for them these efforts have often been in vain. It turns out that the Bible has very few good things to say about empires, and its authors spend considerable time condemning the actions of kings. One of the most potent indictments of human kingship is recorded in 1 Samuel 8:

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah and said to him, “Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.”… And the Lord said to Samuel, “Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them….Now then, obey their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.” So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking for a king from him. He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots…He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants….He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

1 Samuel 8:1

Christians who advocate for human rulers today tend to assume that God is only opposed to unjust rulers. But notably, the possibility of injustice is not the reason God gives for rejecting the Israelite’s request. Rather, God warns them about actions that are common to all kings, such as taxation. Most strikingly, God says they will become the king’s slaves. God is not saying that they might become his slaves if he is unjust. God is saying that slavery is inherent whenever there is a king. To be ruled and taxed is to be a slave.

This idea seems shocking to us in our modern context, but it is generally taken for granted by the biblical authors. To understand this, we need to keep in mind that kings in those days used taxes primarily to enrich themselves and the nobility, rather than as a means of redistributing wealth. Over the centuries, rulers began to distribute some of their riches to the peasantry as a way of legitimizing the practice, until eventually, we arrived at the systems we have today. Yet while it’s true that God instructed his people to take care of the poor, he never intended to use socialized services and governments to that end. It was man’s initiative in 1 Samuel 8 to set up a ruling class, “to be like the other nations”, even though they were called to be set apart. Like every other empire throughout history, the Israelites established a system of coercion used to fund wars and exalt humans. Thus, despite its modern structure, our system now is not so different from theirs. While we may have good intentions for helping the poor, the fact is that a significant amount of our taxes are used in opposition to God’s will. The words of Samuel apply to all empires and rulers no matter their policies.

Some examples from the Bible will help to illustrate this paradigm regarding slavery and government.

To begin, foreign nations would often become slaves when they were conquered, and this was demonstrated by the fact that they would send tribute to the conquering king (2 Samuel 8.2, 2 Samuel 8.6, 2 Kings 17.3). Being forced to send tribute was an act of enslavement because they were no longer working for themselves.

Even within the nation of Israel, it was understood that taxpayers were under a form of slavery. In the story of David and Goliath, the men of Israel speak of the rewards that will be given to the one who slays Goliath.

And the king will enrich the man who kills him with great riches and will give him his daughter and make his father’s house free in Israel.

1 Samuel 17.25

The “father’s house” is a cultural reference to their extended family unit. What is intriguing about this verse is the Hebrew word translated as “free”, which is “chophshiy”. In most of its other occurrences, this word is used to denote being freed from slavery (Exodus 21.2, Jeremiah 34.9). In this verse, however, many translators rightly render it as “exempt from taxes”. Thus, the usage of this word in this context shows us that there is an understood equivalence between being set free from slavery and being exempt from taxes. And if we were paying attention in 1 Samuel 8, this understanding should not come as a surprise. The king will take your possessions by force, and thus you will be his slaves.

This paradigm is further revealed in 1 Kings 12, where we read about the tax revolt that divided the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. After the death of King Solomon, Rehoboam his son was made king, and he was immediately presented with a request from the people.

Your father made our yoke heavy. Now therefore lighten the hard service of your father and his heavy yoke on us, and we will serve you.

1 Kings 12.4

The image of a yoke is a common biblical picture for slavery (Lev.26.13, Ez.34.27), but it is also used to refer to tribute exacted by kings (1 Kings 12.4, Jer.30.8). In this case, it was completely natural for the people to talk about high taxes as a heavy yoke, because the idea of taxes being a burden was common knowledge. In light of this observation, we should carefully consider the implications of these words from Isaiah.

Is not this the fast that I choose. To loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke?

Isaiah 58.6

It’s easy for us to assume that this exhortation is only related to slavery. But is it possible that “every yoke” includes the yoke related to taxes? And what do we mean by “slavery” anyways?

Here a brief discussion of the text Hebrew is necessary. In English, we have the words “servant” and “slave”, and these have vastly different connotations. In Hebrew, however, there is only one word for this concept, which is the word “avad”. The best English translation I can think of is “subservience”. As a result of this difficulty in translation, it is easy to accidentally equivocate on the terms. The important thing to understand is that in the Hebrew mind there is no distinction between a servant and a slave. In that culture there were not two categories of subservience, one being voluntary employment and the other being involuntary servitude. The word “avad” is used to discuss slavery in Egypt (Ex.1.14), vassal empires paying tribute to conquer other empires (1 Kings 4.21), and voluntary arrangements (Gen.29.18). Notably, this same word is used in 1 Kings 12, when the people say to the king “we will serve you”. This is analogous to the verse in 1 Samuel 8, “you will be his slaves”.

Thus, although it is impossible to conclude with certainty whether the word “avad” by itself denotes voluntary or involuntary subservience, the context often provides a reasonable basis for establishing the correct interpretation. Suffice it to say, there are many clear biblical examples of involuntary subservience to governments by means of taxation or forced labor (which is referred to as a yoke) such as the slavery in Egypt (Lev.26.13) and exile to Babylon (Jer.27.12). Thus, to the extent that taxation is involuntary (space does not allow a full discussion of social contract theory), there is a strong biblical precedent for calling it an act of enslavement.

The New Testament also discusses the issue of taxation in the context of slavery. For example, consider the words of Jesus in Matthew 17.

When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax went up to Peter and said, “Does your teacher not pay the tax?” He said, “Yes.” And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take toll or tax? From their sons or from others?” And when he said, “From others,” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free.”

Matthew 17.24

The Greek word translated as “free” is “eleutheros”. This word is almost exclusively used in contrast with being enslaved (John 8.33, Galatians 3.28). In fact, the most straightforward definition of this word is literally “not a slave”. However, unlike all the other contexts where this word is used to mean freedom from slavery, here Jesus uses it to mean being free from taxation. The implication is unmistakable. According to Jesus, those who don’t pay taxes are not slaves, and those who do pay taxes are not free.

Nehemiah also commented on the oppressive taxation of Israel under the rule of foreign kings.

And there were those who said, “We have borrowed money for the king’s tax on our fields and our vineyards. Now our flesh is as the flesh of our brothers, our children are as their children. Yet we are forcing our sons and our daughters to be slaves, and some of our daughters have already been enslaved, but it is not in our power to help it, for other men have our fields and our vineyards.”

Nehemiah 5.4

The former governors who were before me laid heavy burdens on the people and took from them for their daily ration forty shekels of silver. Even their servants lorded it over the people. But I did not do so, because of the fear of God.

Nehemiah 5.15

Yet for all this I did not demand the food allowance of the governor, because the service was too heavy on this people.

Nehemiah 5.18

The people of Israel had been stripped of their independence and forced to pay heavy taxes, so much so that Nehemiah refused to receive his benefits as a governor. In his mind, it was not right to receive a share of what was taken from his people. A few chapters later, the connection between taxation and slavery is made explicitly.

Behold, we are slaves this day; in the land that you gave to our fathers to enjoy its fruit and its good gifts, behold, we are slaves. And its rich yield goes to the kings whom you have set over us because of our sins. They rule over our bodies and over our livestock as they please, and we are in great distress

Nehemiah 9.36

Presumably, one could make the argument that this was only slavery because they were being ruled by foreign kings and that it would not be slavery if they could rule themselves. However, this argument has a few difficulties. First, the line between neighbors and foreigners is quite arbitrary. Many empires are so large that almost all of their subjects are ruled by people living far away. More importantly, as Christians, we are supposed to view ourselves as being foreigners and exiles of all worldly nations (1 Peter 2.11). We are “citizens” (Phil.3.20) of the kingdom of heaven and “ambassadors” (2 Cor.5.20) for Christ because we have a foreign allegiance (Rom 10.9, Acts 17.7). Thus, we understand that we always live under alien powers that are opposed to the kingdom of God (Luke 4.6, Psalm 2.2, 1 Corinthians 15.24). When they tax us we have every reason to identify with the Israelites in Nehemiah.

After reminding us of the reality that we are living in exile, Peter goes on to talk about what that should look like. Let’s look at this passage in more depth.

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

1 Peter 2.13

Peter begins by admonishing us to be subject to human institutions. Immediately, he is pointing out that these institutions were established by man and not by God. The examples he gives are government and slavery, which are purposefully mentioned sequentially to highlight how we have the same response of submission for both.

Some may be eager to point out that the governors are “sent by God”. But that does not mean God approves of their actions. Remember, the emperors at the time this was written were actively persecuting Christians, as referenced in other parts of the same letter (1 Peter 4.16). So it would be improper to read this as an endorsement of government action. Rather, God is using fallible humans to carry out his purposes and enforce justice. This is drawing on a significant theme from the prophets where God often uses wicked empires to punish those who do evil (Romans 13.4, Isaiah 10.5, Jeremiah 25.9, Isaiah 45.1)

In the context of submitting to human governments, Peter now encourages us to “live as people who are free”. That word “free” is the same Greek word that Jesus used in Matthew 17, which means “not a slave”. But here, like Jesus, Peter uses the word in the context of obedience to governments and rulers. He understands that kings seek to make slaves of their subjects. But as Christians, we know that we are actually “slaves” (similar to the Hebrew “avad”, the Greek word here can mean slaves or servants) of God, who is our only rightful ruler. Thus, we submit to human rulers, we pay taxes, out of obedience to God, because that is what he commands.

Peter continues,

Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.

1 Peter 2.18:

Peter now addresses slaves with the same command he issued regarding government: be subject to the human institution. He even uses the example of Christ to show how slaves should suffer under unjust masters. But was Christ a slave? No, and yes. Though he had no direct master, Christ was subject to the governing authorities, and Peter saw this as being a close enough equivalent to slavery that he could use Christ’s submission as an example for slaves to emulate.

The point is, our response to human institutions is always to submit to unjust authority, whether that is by serving a master, walking an extra mile, turning the other cheek, or paying taxes. None of these commands is an endorsement of the authority’s actions. Rather, they are a profound acknowledgment that all man-made authorities belong in the same category, whether they are masters, rulers, or governments. All such institutions are illegitimate in God’s eyes (Judges 8.23, 1 Samuel 8.7).

The rulers of this age use taxes to fund wars, imprison the innocent and oppress the poor. They make slaves of their people. But Christ has come to set us free (Isaiah 58.6, Isaiah 61.1). Free from slavery, free from oppression, free from government. He did not come to be served, but to serve (Matthew 20.25). He did not come to coercively exact tribute, but to give.

So if Christ is our model and our king, why do we continue to make slaves of our neighbors? Why do we advocate for a foreign ruler to take a fraction of their income? Why do we continue to support a human institution that God consistently condemns? Maybe it’s time to rethink our unquestioned approval of the “divine right” of politicians.


Patrick Carroll 5.png

About the Author

Patrick Carroll has a degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Waterloo and is an Editorial Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education.

You can follow him on Twitter @PatrickC1995 or on his Facebook page The Prudent Navigator.