History/Culture

Jesus is a Libertarian: The Biblical Case for Anarcho-Capitalism

Introduction

John 8:32: …Know the truth, and the truth will set you free

Jesus is far more radically anti-State than many would have you believe, and for good reason–it threatens the status quo. The consequence of this truth being accepted by even a tenth of the population would be quite dramatic indeed: States would topple like dominoes. For as the 16th century Frenchman Étienne de la Boétie observed in The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude, all States ultimately rest on the consent of the governed, even totalitarian dictatorships.

This “consent” need not be in the form of active endorsement and support of the State, it could simply be in the form of hopeless resignation, such as accepting the canard “nothing is as sure as death and taxes.” States can only exist because the majority–in one form or another–accept them as necessary or inevitable. They believe in the deception that even though the State may be evil, that it is nevertheless a necessary evil and therefore cannot conceive of a superior alternative. However, such a superior alternative does indeed exist: liberty.  (For a thorough examination of the inner-workings of such a superior libertarian or “anarcho-capitalist” system, see Rachels’ A Spontaneous Order: The Capitalist Case For A Stateless Society.) Jesus has called us to liberty, and Christ’s message of liberty is incompatible with the State.

Chapter 1: The “Criminal” Birth of Jesus

Jesus’s very life began as an act of defiance against the State (and would eventually end in defiance of the State).

Were it not for Joseph and Mary’s intentional act of disobeying that which they knew to be king Herod the Great’s will by escaping Herod’s jurisdiction with baby Jesus, then Jesus would have been mercilessly killed and His ministry and the fulfillment of Scripture would have never come about. Thus in the most fundamental of regards, there is a great antagonism from the outset between Jesus and the State: Jesus was born into the world as a criminal and would latter be killed as a criminal–a criminal as so regarded by the State, that is. What was baby Jesus’s crime? From Matthew 2:1-6 we find the answer:

Matthew 2:1-6: Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.” When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. So they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet: ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, Are not the least among the rulers of Judah; For out of you shall come a Ruler Who will shepherd My people Israel.’ ” (NKJV, as elsewhere unless noted otherwise.)

Herod was troubled by the thought that there may be someone else that would be regarded as the king other than himself. Thus, Jesus’ very existence was a threat to his power: was his fear unjustified? Yes.  Jesus was a threat to Herod’s power as an individual and all that he represents: the State; along with the unholy usurpation, deception and subjugation of people that it necessarily entails.

The following Biblical passages demonstrate a pivotal act of holy defiance to the State, without which there would be no Christ:

Matthew 2:13-15: Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.” When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.”

So enraged was Herod upon learning that the wise men had disobeyed his order to report the location of baby Jesus that he ordered the extermination of all the male children in Bethlehem and the surrounding areas from age two and younger in the hopes that baby Jesus would be among the slaughtered (Matt. 2:12,16-18). It was only after king Herod the Great had perished that Joseph brought his family out of the land of Egypt, and then only to Nazareth as Herod’s son Archelaus was then reigning over Judea (Matt. 2:19-23).

How very considerate indeed Jesus was being when He advised His disciples in Mark:

Mark 8:15: Then He charged them, saying, “Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.”

At the time Jesus offered this advice, He would have been referring to Herod Antipas. Jesus would later be mocked and ridiculed by Herod Antipas before being put to death as a common criminal by the Roman government (Luke 23:8-12). In handling the case of Jesus, Herod Antipas asked Jesus many questions, but Jesus refused to answer any of his questions (Luke 23:9). Thus, not only did Jesus’s very life begin in an act of holy defiance to the State, but it would also end in the same such defiance. It was also Herod Antipas who beheaded John the Baptist (Matt. 14:1-12; Mark 6:14-29; Luke 9:7-9).

The story of Jesus’s life can in part be summarized as suffering for having preached the Truth, with the State being chief among the culprits of the Satan-influenced persecutors. When reviewing the life story of Jesus, it becomes clear that the State–far from being instituted by God–is and has been a demonic tool of Satan used to oppress the righteous.  Jesus and the early Church leaders–as recorded in the Bible–knew this to be the case and preached the same. The State was used as an instrument by Satan in an attempt to snuff-out that Truth from the beginning of Jesus’s life to its very end.

Chapter 2: The Golden Rule is Anti-State and Pro-Capitalist

The Golden Rule results in libertarianism (in the right-wing American sense).

Jesus proclaimed that in all things we are to treat others as we would have them treat us. Thus:

Matthew 5:17-18: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”

Matthew 7:12: […] “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” (See also Luke 6:31.)

Jesus is saying that if one follows this single commandment, then in doing so he will be fulfilling the Law of Moses and the principles of the Prophets.  This ultimate social ethic is commonly referred to as the “Golden Rule.”

If indeed Jesus actually meant what He said when He spoke these words–and He most certainly did–then this alone proves that Jesus is a libertarian.  This is because it is impossible for any State to actually abide by the Golden Rule.

To understand why this is necessarily true, one must first have a clear and precise understanding of just what the “State” is i.e., what its distinguishing characteristics are:

The State is that institution in a given geographical area which asserts a monopoly over the creation, interpretation, and enforcement of law. The laws it enacts supersede the rules made by any other person or organization within its jurisdiction. The State is the ultimate arbiter in all cases of interpersonal conflict, including those involving its own agents (the conflict of interest should be apparent). Lastly, the State reserves the unique legal privilege to lay taxes, i.e. to coercively demand payment for its so-called “services” and unilaterally set and alter the levels thereof. The aforementioned characteristics are inherent to all States no matter their particular type or configuration. [1]

It is here where we discover why it is quite impossible for any State to abide by Jesus’s Golden Rule: all States do to their subjects what they outlaw their subjects to do to them. That is, all States enforce a coercive monopoly on ultimate control of the law. All States set up courts and enforce control over ultimate judicial decision, while outlawing others from engaging in the same practice.

Moreover, all States obtain their revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for contracted services but by aggression (defined as the uninvited initiation of physical interference with the persons or property of others, or threats thereof). Thus all States steal and extort wealth from their subjects while euphemistically referring to this practice as “taxation,” yet at the same time the State makes it illegal for their subjects to steal from each other or from itself.

Hence, all States must of necessity perpetually violate Jesus’s ultimate social commandment simply to maintain their existence. The principle upon which all States are founded may properly be termed the “Luciferian Principle.” This logically follows, because to not follow the Golden Rule is to do the opposite of the Golden Rule: i.e., rather than doing to others what you would want others to do to you, you would instead be doing to others what you do not want others to do to you. Hence, if we may term the Golden Rule the “Christ Principle,” or otherwise the “Christian Principle,” then it follows that the opposite of this principle would properly be termed the “Luciferian Principle.”

It is for this reason that anyone that takes Jesus’s ultimate ethical commandment seriously must necessarily advocate the abolition of all Earthly States wherever they may exist, as States are inherently and diametrically opposed to Jesus’s ultimate ethical commandment.

Of course, it’s important to distinguish “Earthly States” from what is sometimes called the “Kingdom of God” or the “Kingdom of Christ.” The above discussion has served as an evaluation of States as they are operated by men on Earth–but as I will show, the “Kingdom” which Christ is to establish on Earth will in fact be perfectly consistent with the Golden Rule.

Jesus’s commandment of the Golden Rule proves that He is specifically a right wing libertarian (a.k.a anarcho-capitalist or libertarian capitalist). A libertarian (without qualifications) is simply someone who desires no State to exist: only this and nothing more.  Yet someone who follows the Golden Rule must not do to others what they do not want others to do to them–this necessarily means that one must respect the autonomy of other people’s bodies and their justly acquired property. This leads to not just anarchism, as was demonstrated above, but also to a free-market libertarian order. Everyone objects to others aggressing against their property. All just property titles can be traced back by way of voluntary transactions (which would thus be consistent with the Golden Rule) to the homesteading of unowned resources (or resources which may have been expropriated from a just owner in the past yet the just owner or his heirs-in-title cannot be identified or are deceased). Thus, for anyone to take possession of property which either was not homesteaded by themselves or which was not obtained via voluntary transaction would thereby be violating the Golden Rule, for to do so would mean that they are obtaining said good(s) by means of theft.

Hence, if Jesus was serious about the Golden Rule–and He most certainly was–then it necessarily means that He is a consistent libertarian, since the Golden Rule as a political ethic is completely congruent with the libertarian Non-Aggression Principle, i.e., that the initiation of uninvited physical interference with the persons or property of others (or threats thereof) is unjustified and criminal.

Chapter 3: Jesus does not Respect the “Person of Men”

According to the Bible, every person is equally subject to the commands of God, and one does not become exempt from God’s law because he has managed to receive some title of nobility. We are instructed to treat everyone by the same law. This rules out the possibility that the State could ever be legitimate, for reasons mentioned in prior chapters. (i.e. the exclusive legal privileges it exercises which would be deemed crimes if exercised by private citizens).

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

Matthew 22:16: And they sent to Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are true, and teach the way of God in truth; nor do You care about anyone, for You do not regard the person of men.” (See also Mark 12:14.)

Also:

Galatians 2:6: But from those who seemed to be something–whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man–for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.

And:

James 2:8,9: If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: ; But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. (See also 1 Peter 1:16.)

Yet consider what James’s above admonition means as it concerns Jesus’s ultimate ethical command of the Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12; Luke 6:31). If we as Christians were to take Jesus’s command seriously and apply it to everyone without partiality, then it would necessarily require that we demand the abolition of all States wherever they may exist, as they can only exist by a continuous violation of the Golden Rule (see above).

Chapter 4: Jesus on Taxes: Nothing is (Rightly) Caesar’s!

The story of Jesus commanding us to give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s (Matt. 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26) is commonly misrepresented as His commanding us to give to Caesar the denari which he asks for (i.e., to pay taxes to government) as–it is assumed–the denari are Caesar’s, being that they have Caesar’s image and name on them. But Jesus never said that this was so! What Jesus did say was an ingenious case of rhetorical misdirection to avoid being immediately arrested, which would have interfered with the Old Testament prophecy of His betrayal as well as His own previous predictions of betrayal. (more on this later)

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

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

Thus, Jesus was not free to answer in just any casual manner. Had He answered that it was fine to decline paying taxes and been arrested, then the Biblical prophecy because of the betrayal by Judas (Psalm 41:9; Zech. 11:12,13), and His betrayer replaced (Psalm 109:8–see Acts 1:20) would have gone unfulfilled; see also Acts 1:15-26 and Psalm 69:25.

Here is a quote from Peter on this matter from Acts 1:16:

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

In Matt. 26:54,56 and Mark 14:49 Jesus also testifies to this after He was betrayed by Judas. As well, Jesus Himself twice foretold of His betrayal before He was asked the question on taxes–see Matt. 17:22; 20:18; Mark 9:31; 10:33; and Luke 9:44; 19:31. See also John 13:18-30, which testifies to the necessity of the fulfillment of Psalm 41:9, as Jesus here foretells of His betrayal by Judas.

In addition, the only reason Jesus paid the temple tax (and by supernatural means) in Matt. 17:24-27 was to avoid proving conflict which would have interfered with the fulfillment of Old Testament Scripture and Jesus’s previous prediction of His betrayal as told in Matt. 17:22–neither of which would have been fulfilled had Jesus not paid the tax and been arrested because of it. Jesus Himself supports this view when He said of it “Nevertheless, lest we offend them . . .” (NKJV), which can also be translated “But we don’t want to cause trouble” (CEV). He said this after, in effect, saying that those who pay customs and taxes are not free (Matt. 17:25,26)–yet one reason Jesus came was to call us to liberty (Luke 4:18; Gal. 4:7; 5:1,13,14; 1 Cor. 7:23; 2 Cor. 3:17; James 1:25; 2:12).

It should be remembered in all of this that it was Jesus Himself who told us:

Matt. 10:16: Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.

Jesus was being wise as a serpent as He never told us to pay taxes to Caesar, which He could have done and still fulfilled Scripture and His previous predictions of betrayal. However, the one thing He could not have said with impunity was that it was okay not to pay taxes as He would have been arrested on the spot and thus preclude Scripture and His predictions of betrayal from becoming fulfilled.

The most important point to consider is what Jesus did not say. Jesus never said that all or any of the denari were Caesar’s! Jesus simply said “Give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s.” But this just begs the question, What is Caesar’s? Simply because the denari have Caesar’s name and image on them no more make them Caesar’s than one carving his name into the back of a stolen TV set makes it his.

Chapter 5: Tax Collectors are Sinners!

A further demonstration that Jesus considered the institution of taxation to be unjust can be found in the following Biblical passages:

Matthew 9:9-13: As Jesus passed on from there, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax office. And He said to him, “Follow Me.” So he arose and followed Him. Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, “Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” When Jesus heard that, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” (See also Mark 2:14-17; Luke 5:27-32.)

It is important to note that Jesus made a stronger case against the unrighteousness of tax collectors than the Pharisees: the Pharisees separated the tax collectors from the sinners when they asked “Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” Yet when Jesus heard this He answered the Pharisees by lumping the two groups together under the same category of sinners–thus: “For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

Yet since this is the story of Matthew the tax collector being called to repentance by Jesus, it would behoove us to ask how it was that Matthew obtained repentance. The answer: By first giving up tax collecting! From this beginning, Matthew would eventually become one of Jesus’s twelve disciples.

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

It is often claimed that Christians are required to submit to the State, as this is allegedly what Paul commanded in Romans 13:

Romans 13:1-7: Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

Paul never explicitly commands submission to the State in the above excerpt from Romans 13! In fact, Paul would be an outright, boldfaced hypocrite were he to command anyone to do such a thing: for Paul himself did not submit to the State, and if he had then he would not have been alive to write Romans 13. For Paul himself disobeyed the State, and it is a good thing that he did as we would not even know of a Paul in the Bible had he not disobeyed. When Paul was still only known as Saul he escaped from the city of Damascus because he knew that the governor of that city, acting under the authority of Aretas the king, was coming with a garrison to arrest and eventually execute him. This occurred soon  after Saul’s conversion to Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus. The Jews in Damascus, hearing of Saul’s conversion, plotted to kill him as a traitor to their cause in persecuting the Christians. Saul was let out of a window in the wall of Damascus under cover of night by some fellow disciples in Christ (see Acts 9:23-25). In none of Paul’s later writings does he repent for these actions that he took in knowingly and purposefully disobeying the State: in fact, this very event is one which he later cites in demonstration of his unwavering commitment to Christ (see 2 Cor. 11:22-33)!

Indeed, ever since Paul’s conversion to Jesus Christ, he spent the rest of his entire life in rebellion against mortal governments, and would at last–just as with Jesus before him–be executed by government, in this case by having his head severed from his body. Paul was continuously in and out of prisons throughout his entire ministry for preaching the gospel of Christ; he was lashed with stripes 39 times by the “authorities” for preaching Christ; he was beaten with rods by the “authorities” for preaching Christ; and none of these rebellions of his did he ever disavow: indeed he cited them all as evidence of his commitment to Jesus (again, see 2 Cor. 11:22-33)!

More importantly, if Paul is saying in Romans 13 what many people have said he meant, i.e., that people should obey mortal, Earthly States, then it is questionable whether Paul could even be a genuine Christian. For as was pointed out above, Jesus would not have survived had it not been for Joseph and Mary intentionally disobeying king Herod the Great and escaping from his reach when they knew that Herod desired to destroy baby Jesus (see Matt. 2:13,14). Thus, if Paul truly meant in Romans 13 that we are to obey Earthly States, then this would mean that Paul would have preferred Joseph and Mary to obey king Herod the Great and turn baby Jesus over to be killed.

So what is Paul attempting to say in Romans 13? Is Paul a hypocrite? Is Paul being contradictory? Actually, no to both. Once again, as with Jesus’s answer to the question on taxes, this is another ingenious case of rhetorical misdirection. Paul was counting on the fact that most people who would be hostile to the Christian church–the Roman “authorities” in particular–would, upon reading Romans 13, naturally interpret it from the point of view of legal positivism: i.e., that such people would take for granted that the “governing authorities” and “rulers” spoken of must refer to the men who operate the States on Earth. But never does Paul say this is so!

What would the motive be for Paul to include such rhetorical misdirection in his letter to the people at the church of Rome? In answering this it must be remembered that, just as with Jesus, Paul was not free to say whatever he wanted. The early Christians were a persecuted minority under the close surveillance of the Roman government as a possible threat to its power. Paul demonstrates this himself in the following scripture:

Galatians 2:4,5: And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

Paul never intended that his letter to the Roman church be kept secret, and he knew that it would be copied and distributed among the populace, and would thus inevitably fall into the hands of the Roman government, especially considering that this letter was going directly into the belly of the beast itself: the city of Rome. By including Chapter 13 in the letter to the church at Rome, Paul would help allay the Roman government’s fears which would in turn alleviate the persecution of the Christians.  This allowed the Church to more easily carry out its primary task of saving people’s souls. However, Paul wrote Chapter 13 in such a way that a truly knowledgeable Christian at the time would have no doubt as to what was actually meant.

The Church leaders would have known that Paul obviously could not have meant the people who control the mortal States, as they exist on Earth, when he referred to the “governing authorities” and “rulers” in Romans 13, for that would have made Paul a shameless hypocrite.  Taken to its logical conclusion, it would also entail that he would have preferred baby Jesus to have been killed (for surely the histories of Paul and Jesus’s lives would have been fresh on their minds). The only answer that can make any sense of this seeming riddle is that one does not actually become a true “governing authority” or “ruler” simply because he has managed (by way of deception, terror, murder and might) to subjugate a certain population and proceeded proclaim himself the “King,” “Authority,” or “Ruler.” Instead, Paul is claiming that the only true and genuine authorities are those that God appoints. Thus, Paul was actually rebuking the illegitimate authority of mortal States as they exist on Earth!

“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” (Rom. 13:1.) implies that those who control the mortal governments on Earth may not be true authorities as appointed by God. The error most people make when encountering this passage is to unthinkingly and automatically assume that Paul must be referring to the people in control of the mortal States that exist on Earth–for after all, don’t the people who run these Earthly States call themselves the “governing authorities”? Do they not teach their subjects from birth that they are the “rulers” and the “authorities”? However, when one factors in the life history of both Jesus and Paul then this should erase any doubt: In Romans 13, Paul most certainly could not have been referring to the people who control the mortal States as they exist on Earth–otherwise he would be an outright hypocrite as well as an advocate of deicide against baby Jesus. Indeed, God Himself directly confirms this very thing:

Hosea 8:4: They set up kings, but not by Me; They made princes, but I did not acknowledge them.

Some may inquire “What about Paul telling us to pay taxes in Romans 13:6-7?” Thus:

Romans 13:6,7: For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

However, does Paul really tell us to pay taxes in the above scripture? Again, just as with Jesus, nowhere does Paul actually tell anyone to pay any taxes! Paul continues with the rhetorical misdirection that he started in the beginning of Romans 13, knowing–just as Jesus knew before him–that those who would be hostile to the Christian church would assume what they are predisposed to assume: i.e., that the taxes and customs “due” are due to those in control of the States which levy them. Paul was being wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove, as he never expressly claimed any such thing. For when Paul says “Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs” this begs the question: to whom are taxes and customs due? The answer to which may very well be “No one.” This is precisely how Paul proceeds to answer his own question-begging statement in Romans 13:8-10:

Romans 13:8-10: Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

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

What of Paul’s writing in Titus 3:1?

Titus 3:1 “Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work” 

As was clearly demonstrated above, Paul was referring to the true higher authorities as recognized by God, not to the diabolical, Satanic, mortal States as they have existed on Earth.  Paul spent his entire ministry in defiance of the Earth-bound, mortal “authorities,” and was at last put to death by them. (For other cases of righteous disobedience to government in the Bible, see Exo. 1:15-2:3; 1 Sam. 19:10-18; Esther 4:16; Dan. 3:12-18; 6:10; Matt. 2:12-13; Acts 5:29; 9:25; 17:6-8; 2 Cor. 11:32,33.)

To further demonstrate this, consider Paul’s advice to Christians regarding their being judged by what the State considers the “authority”:

1 Corinthians 6:1-8: Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers! Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!

Paul said that the government judges “are least esteemed by the church to judge”! It is clear that he considered them to be an illegitimate authority!

Even Jesus did not consider the Earthly, mortal “rulers” to be true rulers and authorities! Thus:

Mark 10:42-45: But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

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

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

Another Bible passage that is sometimes cited by statists is:

1 Peter 2:13-18: Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men–as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bond-servants of God. Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king. Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh.

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

Acts 5:27-32: And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, saying, “Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man’s blood on us!” But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.”

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

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

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

The NIV Bible translates verse 16 as “Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God.” Most other modern English Bible versions translate the beginning of this passage as either “Live as free” or “Act as free.” When this is combined with what Peter said in Acts 5:29, we can take the entire passage of 1 Peter 2:13-18 to mean that we ought to obey all the ordinances of men: except for all such ordinances that happen to conflict with our God-given liberty and Jesus’s ultimate commandment (i.e. the Golden Rule). Thus, do indeed obey every other ordinance of man, for in so doing one will merely be obeying Jesus’s commandment–in which case the ordinances of man which one ought to obey are redundant!

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

2 Peter 2:9,10: […] then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, […]

As has already been pointed out, the statist fallacy when encountering such statements is to automatically deem the “authorities” and “dignitaries” referred to in these cases as necessarily being the “authorities” and “dignitaries” that the State so regards.  However, this cannot be the actual case, as it is written:

Hosea 8:4: “They set up kings, but not by Me; They made princes, but I did not acknowledge them.”

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

Mark 10:42-45: But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Chapter 8: The Ruler and God of This World and Age is Satan 

The Bible is quite explicit as to who it is that really controls all the mortal States on Earth, and which “god” the mortal rulers worship:

Luke 4:4-8: Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, “All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours.” And Jesus answered and said to him, “Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’ ” (See also Matt. 4:1-11; Mark 1:12,13; Luke 4:1-13.)

This is one of the offers Satan made to Christ during the forty days in which Satan tempted Jesus, an event now sometimes referred to as the Temptation of Christ. Satan was not lying when he made the above offer to Jesus: it was an offer that Satan could and would have delivered. This is necessarily the case, as Luke writes in verse 2 of the above chapter that here Jesus was “tempted for forty days by the devil”–thus, this had to be a legitimate offer that Satan was able and willing to deliver, otherwise it would hardly qualify as a genuine temptation.

Satan was being honest when he claimed all the kingdoms of the world have been delivered to him, and that he gives them to whomever he wishes: which are those who worship him as their God!  As God spoke in

Hosea 8:4: “They set up kings, but not by Me; They made princes, but I did not acknowledge them.”

And Jesus later said on two separate occasions that Satan is the ruler of this world–thus in

John 12:31: “Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.”

And in

John 14:30: “I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me.”

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

2 Corinthians 4:3,4: But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

And in

Ephesians 6:11,12: Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

The wars and mass murders mortal States routinely engage in are tantamount to mass human-sacrifice offered up to appease their God: Satan!

The State, throughout all of recorded history, has been the most methodical and efficient human-meat grinder to ever exist. It is a purely Satanical machination masquerading as humanity’s salvation, but has always been the scourge of mankind.

Chapter 9: Jesus Defended the Freedom of Contract and Private Property Rights

In addition to the Golden Rule, another Biblical account of Jesus’s teachings which clearly demonstrates His attitude toward the institution of private property and voluntary exchange is given in His below Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard:

Matthew 20:1-16: “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.’ So they went. Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle, and said to them, ‘Why have you been standing here idle all day?’ They said to him, ‘Because no one hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right you will receive.’ So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, ‘Call the laborers and give them their wages, beginning with the last to the first.’ And when those came who were hired about the eleventh hour, they each received a denarius. But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius. And when they had received it, they complained against the landowner, saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.’ But he answered one of them and said, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good? So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen.”

Anyone who is the least bit familiar with the Socialists’ attitude toward such matters would know that the typical Socialist response to such a landowner’s actions towards his workers would be to scream bloody murder! Of course, a Socialist government’s response to such a land owner would be to exterminate him. Yet here Jesus reinforces the correctness of the libertarian creed on the absoluteness of lawfully being able to do what one wishes with his own possessions, as well as being able to freely and voluntarily contract said possessions as he sees fit–even if doing so greatly upsets others! So long as one has kept his word in the contracts he has entered–and so long as his actions pertain to his own property–then his right to have full discretion over his property remains absolute!

Chapter 10: Greatness is in Serving

When the apostles James and John came to Jesus asking if they may have the favor of being able to sit on either side of Jesus’s throne, one to the right and the other to His left, Jesus’s response illustrates the distinctiveness of His coming Kingdom with respect to current Earthly/mortal States:

Mark 10:42-45: But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (See also Matt. 18:4; 20:25-28 Mark 9:35; Luke 22:26.)

How diametrically opposed the Kingdom of Christ is indeed from that of the mortal, Earthly States! Thus, when it is claimed herein that Jesus is a “libertarian” it needs to be understood that this is in relation to how mortal States on Earth have operated. If one wishes to refer to the “Government of Christ” or the “Kingdom of Christ” this is fine so long as he recognizes that the Government of Christ will be categorically different from  mortal controlled Earthly States.

It should also be noted that in Mark 10:42 above, Jesus rebukes the supposed “authority” of the Earthly “rulers”! He says of them “You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them”–here is clear proof that God does not necessarily consider those who mortals deem “rulers” or “authorities” to be legitimate!

Chapter 11: Slaves Obey Your Masters?

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

Ephesians 6:5-9: Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, with goodwill doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.

Colossians 3:22-4:1: Bondservants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in sincerity of heart, fearing God. And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ. But he who does wrong will be repaid for what he has done, and there is no partiality. Masters, give your bondservants what is just and fair, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.

1 Timothy 6:1,2: Let as many bondservants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and His doctrine may not be blasphemed. And those who have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren, but rather serve them because those who are benefited are believers and beloved. Teach and exhort these things.

Titus 2:9,10: Exhort bondservants to be obedient to their own masters, to be well pleasing in all things, not answering back, not pilfering, but showing all good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things.

1 Peter 2:18-25: Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully. For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:

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

who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return;

when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously;

who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness–by whose stripes you were healed.

For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

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

What of the actual ethical status of the institution of slavery as it concerns Jesus’s own teachings? On this question there can be no doubt, as one of the main reasons Jesus came was to call us to liberty! Jesus said this Himself as recorded in

Luke 4:16-21: So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:

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

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

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

The word “liberty” in Luke 4:18 is a translation of the Greek word “aphesis,” and means: release from bondage or imprisonment; forgiveness or pardon, i.e., remission of the penalty.

Thus, it is a complete and absolute negation of the condition of being a slave. Since there exists no recorded instance of Jesus qualifying the above statement, then one may conclude that Jesus is very much against the institution of slavery.

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

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

1 Corinthians 9:19-23: For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.

It is here where the seeming contradiction of certain passages in the Bible whereby Paul and Peter admonish slaves to “obey their masters” (see Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22; 1 Tim. 6:1; Tit. 2:9; 1 Peter 2:18) is cleared up. Such an admonition is a pragmatic one as opposed to a moral one–as Paul himself declared his absolute rightful freedom from all men (and also called for people to “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ,” 1 Cor. 11:1)!

Rather than laying hands on one’s Earthly “master,” or attempting to run away–which in the end would probably only affect one’s freedom in a negative way–a more practical solution would be to convert one’s Earthly “master” to Jesus, and if he has truly succeeded in doing so–i.e., whereby one’s Earthly “master” becomes infilled with the Holy Spirit–then he will have at once gained his God-given absolute liberty. The reason that this is necessarily the case is because Jesus commanded the absolute law as treating others as you would want others to treat you (Matt. 7:12; Luke 6:31), yet the institution of slavery is founded upon the exact opposite principle.

In the above discussion on Jesus’ Golden Rule, it was noted that to not follow the Golden Rule is to treat others as you would not want others to treat you.  This inverse of the Golden Rule is termed the “Luciferian Principle.” Yet this is the very principle on which the institution of slavery necessarily rests.

To further support the claim that the conversion of a slave’s Earthly “master” to Jesus would be the most effective and practical solution in obtaining his God-given absolute liberty, consider Paul’s own words on this matter:

2 Corinthians 3:17: Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

The word “liberty” in 2 Corinthians 3:17 is a translation of the Greek noun eleutheria and is completely congruent in meaning with the English word “liberty,” i.e., as in “freedom from slavery,” “independence,” “absence of external restraint,” “a negation of control or domination,” “freedom of access,” etc.

Thus, it is the complete negation of a state of slavery. In fact, Paul goes further in the passages above which some claim endorse the institution of slavery. Thus in Ephesians 6:9 Paul writes:

Ephesians 6:9: And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.

Yet it is plainly clear that if a slave’s “master” were to actually and truly give up threatening–of all things–then there can hardly exist a state of slavery, as the very institution of slavery is enforced by the threat of physical harm for non-compliance or recapture in the case of escape. Thus, this passage is actually a case of advocating the de facto abolition of slavery even while a state of de jure slavery may still be in place!

Thus, the cited passages above can only make sense within the Christian point of view as pragmatic advice on how best to handle a bad and unjust situation. They certainly cannot be regarded as an endorsement of the institution of slavery; nor for that matter as a categorical moral imperative as to how one is always to conduct oneself–as Paul and Peter were often in rebellion to what State law considered their “masters.” Unavoidable problems arise for those who claim otherwise–consider the following statement by Paul:

1 Timothy 5:23: No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities.

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

Here is what Jesus Himself had to say about the serving of masters:

Matthew 6:24: “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” (See also Luke 16:13.)

Yet what in the world is the institution of slavery if not mammon? If the institution of slavery does not qualify as mammon then there is nothing that possibly could! For it is a method of obtaining wealth that is a complete and utter violation of Jesus’s ultimate ethical commandment:

Matthew 7:12: “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” (See also Luke 6:31.)

Chapter 12: Jesus Supported the Collecting of Interest 

One of the Socialists’ great bugbears is the collecting of interest. Yet, the only instance in which Jesus commented on this He was clearly in favor of the concept. In His Parable of the Talents, a man traveling to a far-away country leaves his three servants with some talents to make use of in the best way they see fit while he is away.  The first two servants invest the talents and receive more talents from their initial investment, and this pleases the lord of the estate upon his return; but here is what Jesus says of the third servant:

Matthew 25:24-27: “Then he who had received the one talent came and said, ‘Lord, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed. And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the ground. Look, there you have what is yours.’ But his lord answered and said to him, ‘You wicked and lazy servant, you knew that I reap where I have not sown, and gather where I have not scattered seed. So you ought to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I would have received back my own with interest.” (See also Luke 19:21-23.)

Obviously this parable is a lesson on how Christians should be ever vigilant in converting people to salvation in Christ, in that we should not keep the Gospel of Christ to ourselves but always seek to increase the number of Christians in the world. But even so, it nevertheless demonstrates that Jesus was not hostile to the concept of the collecting of interest, considering that this was his only commentary given on the subject. Moreover, it ties in quite appropriately with Jesus’s attitude toward the absolute lawfulness of an individual doing what he wishes with his own property–including freely contracting thereof–as told by Jesus in his Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard recorded in Matthew 20:1-16.

Chapter 13: The Cleansing of the Temple: Righteous Libertarian Vigilantism

The only recorded act of violence by Jesus is known as “the cleansing of the temple”:

Matthew 21:12,13: Then Jesus went into the temple of God and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. And He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a ‘den of thieves.’ ” (See also Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45,46; John 2:14-17.)

This event is often misinterpreted as being a revolt against the bad aesthetics of commerce being conducted inside of God’s temple, and so is mistaken as anti-libertarian and anti-capitalist commentary. However, if that were truly what this episode was about, then there would have been no cause for Jesus to accuse the priests of turning the temple into a “den of thieves.”

Jesus was being literal when he said that. To understand what Jesus meant, one must understand the nature of what was being bought and sold in the temple as well as the function of the “money changers.” Sacrificial animals were the products being sold as a sin offering, and the function of the money changers was to convert the Gentile Roman money into the Jewish money which would then be suitable to present inside the temple for purchase of said animals. The people who bought them did not do so for consumption, if they had then Jesus would have no legitimate grounds to accuse the priests of thievery. Rather, the animals remained in the temple to be sacrificed by the Levitical priests, which by so doing would (as it was supposed) atone for the sins of the purchaser of the sacrificed animal.

When Jesus accused the priests who conducted this practice of being thieves, he meant that the people who bought these animals to be sacrificed to atone for their sins were being ripped-off–i.e., that the animal sacrifices were not doing anything for their sins. In other words, the priests were selling religious snake-oil–misrepresenting their product as curing something it could not cure; hence they were committing fraud (per libertarian rights theory).

It is important to realize what was at stake here: Jesus came to save souls, and here people are being deceived and defrauded into believing that sacrificing animals is setting their souls right with God. As it is written in

Hebrews 10:4-7: For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure.  Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come–In the volume of the book it is written of Me–To do Your will, O God.’ ”

If we assume that Jesus is God’s Messiah, then it follows that he was in a particularly unique position to accurately determine whether animal sacrifices were atoning sins, and having determined that the priests were defrauding their patrons, He took appropriate libertarian action by using retaliatory force against these thieves. It is only a genuine Messiah from God which could have rightly taken such action, for any normal man would not have possessed the requisite information in order to make that determination honestly. Thus, not only was Jesus’s only use of force compliant with libertarian legal theory, but it was employed in a situation which would have been inappropriate for anyone else.

Chapter 14: Jesus on Prohibition

What does Jesus have to say about legally prohibiting the use of certain drugs, or inebriants?

On this question Jesus is quite clear–although the answer may come as a surprise to some: absolutely no law ought to prohibit the consumption of any substance whatsoever! Jesus said there is no substance a man can consume that could possibly defile him–thus we read in

Mark 7:15-23: “There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!” When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?” And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man.” (See also Matt. 15:11, 17-20.)

This is the only directive Jesus provides regarding what substances should or should not be prohibited. Some may claim that Jesus was only referring to food in the above, and not psychotropic drugs. Yet if this were truly the case then Jesus’s above claim is a false one: Jesus saying “There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him” would be wrong, for then there would indeed be something which could defile a man–namely: psychotropic drugs! Yet Jesus is absolutely clear on this issue: there is no substance a person can consume which could possibly defile him!

Some may be quick to point out that the angel sent by Jesus to John the Reveler said in Revelation 9:21 “And they did not repent of their murders or their sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts” (see also Rev. 18:23; 22:15) and that the word that is here translated as “sorceries” is in the original Greek pharmakeia, i.e., as in “pharmaceutical” or “drugs.” But the original sense of the Greek word pharmakeia meant the mixing of various ingredients for magical purposes, regardless of whether they were intended to be consumed by anyone, or whether they contained “pharmacological” properties.

Thus, the most accurate translation of this word into modern English is indeed “sorceries,” not “drugs”–and this is indeed how nearly all English Bible translations have handled this word: whether it be the King James Version or nearly all modern translations.

More sophisticated critics may object: “Wait a minute! The Mark of the Beast is an obvious exception to something which enters a man from the outside and defiles him!” (The King James Version translates the Mark of the Beast as being “in” the hand or forehead, while most modern versions translate it as being “on,” although the original Greek can be accurately translated either way. I suspect the reason most modern versions have preferred to translate the Mark as being “on” the hand or forehead is because this then, in almost all cases, covers both possibilities: as in almost all cases, in order to put some identifying mark “in” the skin would require that one also leave a mark “on” the skin.) This would ignore Jesus’s point about all such substances eventually being “eliminated” from the body by its natural excretion processes, but the Mark of the Beast is meant to be a life-long identifier, and thus is not excreted by the body’s natural processes, as all foods and drugs eventually are.

If one persists in this line of reasoning, he may counter that indeed not all drugs are eliminated by the body’s natural excretion processes: of those who die of drug over-doses, the drugs which thereby caused their deaths are not then excreted by the body’s natural processes. While this is true, it does not follow that there ought to be laws against certain drugs, as all drugs are capable of causing death from over-dose; indeed, most lethal drug over-doses are not caused by illegal psychotropic drugs, but by legally used medicines.

Thus, any which way one slices it, it is impossible to justify any form of drug-prohibition from a Biblical perspective. If there should be the slightest shred of doubt left in one’s mind as to the veracity of this, then perhaps Paul will can put the matter at rest:

Colossians 2:20-23: Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations–“Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” which all concern things which perish with the using–according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh. (See also Rom. 14:14.)

Thus, if such drug-laws are extra-Biblical, how is it that many self-professed Christians came to be on the forefront of all the various forms of drug-prohibition within recent history? Quite amazingly, this very question was already answered nearly 2000 years ago by Paul:

1 Timothy 4:1-5: Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

To grasp the extent that these self-professed Christians have been deceived by demons in order to prohibit alcoholic beverages (as was the case during the prohibition era in the 1920’s), consider that the first miracle recorded in the Bible by Jesus was to turn water into wine during the wedding at Cana (see John 2:9-11)! What absolute blasphemy for them to prohibit the resultant product of the first miracle of their self-proclaimed God! Deceived by demons indeed! Truer words could not have been written by Paul to describe such a perverted situation.

Indeed, it was Paul himself that counseled to “No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities” (1 Tim. 5:23). And Psalms 104:14,15 says of God: “He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, And vegetation for the service of man, That he may bring forth food from the earth, And wine that makes glad the heart of man, Oil to make his face shine, And bread which strengthens man’s heart.” (See also Judges 9:13.)

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

Matthew 9:16,17: “No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and the tear is made worse. Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.” (See also Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37.)

In ancient times goatskins were used to hold wine. As the fresh grape juice fermented, carbon dioxide would be generated by the living yeast’s metabolism, increasing the volume of gas contained in the wineskin thus causing the new wineskin to stretch. However, a used wineskin, already stretched, would break. Moreover, before 1869 it was impossible to store grape juice in temperate to hot climates (which are the climates grapes grow in) without it either quickly going bad or becoming wine. If grape juice is left exposed to the open air then it will quickly go bad due to mold and bacteria–sealing grape juice from the open air protects it from these aerobic microorganisms because the yeast which is present naturally in the grapes creates an atmosphere of carbon dioxide while at simultaneously producing alcohol.

Consequently, storing non-alcoholic grape juice was an impossibility until 1869, when Dr. Thomas Bramwell Welch succeeded in applying the process of pasteurization to freshly squeezed must. It is for this reason that the suggestion that the fruit of the vine that Jesus and the twelve disciples drank during the Last Supper on Passover (Mark 14:23-25) was grape juice is absurd, as the growing season for grapes in Palestine is from April to October (the dry season), yet Passover starts on the 14th of the Jewish month Nisan (the actual Last Supper occurred either on the 14th or 15th of Nisan, it’s debatable which day it actually was), which is a lunar month that roughly corresponds with the latter part of March and the first part of April.  Simply put, there would have existed no unfermented grape juice at this time, as no grapes would have existed since the growing season for them had just begun.

Chapter 15: Woe to Lawyers!

Throughout history, the very people responsible for creating and interpreting the laws of the State have a perverse incentive to ensure they are as arcane, unintelligible, Byzantine and numerous as possible.  Doing so artificially inflates the demand for legal services.

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

Matthew 23:13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.” (NIV)

Luke 11:46,52: And He said, “Woe to you also, lawyers! For you load men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers. […] [verse 52:] “Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered.”

This is not to say that all lawyers are unrighteous. There exist a few principled lawyers who entered their profession in order to defend righteous people from the unjust laws that their colleagues are responsible for crafting–but they are the exception. Thus, a “Christian lawyer” is not a contradiction in terms, it’s just exceedingly rare–and to the extent that such individuals do exist God has undoubtedly blessed them for their work in protecting His children against this Satanic Statist world system.

Chapter 16: Jesus on Statist Courts: Avoid Them!

Jesus advised the faithful to avoid State courts if at all possible:

Matthew 5:25,26: “Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.”

And:

Luke 12:57-59: “Yes, and why, even of yourselves, do you not judge what is right? When you go with your adversary to the magistrate, make every effort along the way to settle with him, lest he drag you to the judge, the judge deliver you to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison. I tell you, you shall not depart from there till you have paid the very last mite.”

Needless to say, State judges are also lawyers, so Jesus’s advice comports with His warning to lawyers. It also refutes the notion that Jesus considers what State law regards as “authorities” to be legitimate authorities, otherwise Jesus would have no problem with such State judges resolving disputes among the faithful. Paul reinforces Jesus’ advice in

1 Corinthians 6:1-8:  Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers! Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!

This conclusively demonstrates that the “authorities” Paul spoke of in Romans 13 could not possibly have been the “authorities” as so regarded by the State–as Paul said that State judges “are least esteemed by the church to judge”! Thus it is clear that he considered them to be no authority at all!

So also James writes in James 2:6:

But you have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts?

Important point of clarification: most of the rich in the era in which the above passage was written obtained their wealth via grants of privilege by the State–particularly the privilege to collect taxes. Thus James is referring to the rich oppressing the faithful by dragging them into the courts for tax evasion and the like, as opposed to bringing them to court for reneging on their voluntary contracts.

Chapter 17: Jesus on the Rich

Jesus had this to say about the rich:

Luke 18:18-30: Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. You know the commandments: “Do not commit adultery,’ “Do not murder,’ “Do not steal,’ “Do not bear false witness,’ “Honor your father and your mother.”‘ And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.” So when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” But when he heard this, he became very sorrowful, for he was very rich.

And when Jesus saw that he became very sorrowful, He said, “How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” And those who heard it said, “Who then can be saved?” But He said, “The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.” Then Peter said, “See, we have left all and followed You.” So He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or parents or brothers or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life.” (See also Matt. 19:16-30; Mark 10:17-31.)

Some have interpreted this as anti-libertarian commentary. In analyzing this statement, it needs to be pointed out that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for any person whatsoever to enter the Kingdom of God. Jesus also said that “The things which are impossible with men are possible with God” (verse 27). It is standard Christian doctrine that it is impossible for anyone to enter the Kingdom of God on their own–that the only way in which anyone enters the Kingdom of God is through the saving grace of Jesus Christ alone (see John 14:6). Thus, the rich are by no means unique in this particular aspect. So also, from this alone it cannot be concluded that Jesus had it in for rich people more than any other group.

When Jesus counseled this particular rich person to sell all that he had and distribute the proceeds to the poor, this was in fact an exceedingly libertarian thing for Jesus to advise. For this was not just any rich person–this was a rich person of a particular type: a ruler, i.e., one who has some variety of command over an Earthly, mortal State. Thus, the riches that this particular rich person was in possession of had been obtained through extortion and theft, i.e., through taxes–this particular ruler’s opinion to the contrary (verse 21) notwithstanding: virtually no State ruler throughout history regards his wealth as having been obtained through theft:

Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, “What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor.” (St. Augustine, Book 4, Chapter 4 of The City of God.)

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

Chapter 18: Did Jesus Prescribe Asceticism?

Some have maintained that Jesus was an ascetic who was opposed to individuals having material riches, especially when those material goods could otherwise be used to provide for the poor. Yet Jesus Himself engaged in conspicuous consumption:

Matthew 26:6-13: And when Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, a woman came to Him having an alabaster flask of very costly fragrant oil, and she poured it on His head as He sat at the table. But when His disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? For this fragrant oil might have been sold for much and given to the poor.” But when Jesus was aware of it, He said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a good work for Me. For you have the poor with you always, but Me you do not have always. For in pouring this fragrant oil on My body, she did it for My burial. Assuredly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her.” (See also Mark 14:3-9; Luke 7:37,38; John 12:1-8.)

This case of Jesus’ luxurious consumption was of a purely ornamental value, i.e., of a purely aesthetic value–and a fleeting one at that! When Jesus’s disciples complained about this “waste” Jesus told His disciples to stop bothering the woman about it! At the very least, this reveals the notion of Jesus as an austere, principled ascetic to be an untenable one.

Moreover, Paul had this to say regarding one’s responsibility to provide for others:

2 Thessalonians 3:10: For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.

Chapter 19: Jesus Has Called us to Liberty–Yet Those Who Pay Taxes are not Free!

Another Bible passage that is sometimes cited by statists to supposedly demonstrate that Jesus supported the paying of taxes–but which in actuality demonstrates the exact opposite–is in:

Matthew 17:24-27: When they had come to Capernaum, those who received the temple tax came to Peter and said, “Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?”; he said, “Yes.” And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?” Peter said to Him, “From strangers.” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free. Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for Me and you.”

It appears that the only reason Jesus paid the temple tax (and by supernatural means at that) was to avoid conflict which would have interfered with the necessary fulfillment of Old Testament Scripture (see Psalm 41:9; 69:25; 109:8; Zech. 11:12,13–see also Matt. 26:54,56; Mark 14:49; John 13:18-30; Acts 1:15-26) and Jesus’s previous prediction of His betrayal as told in Matt. 17:22. Jesus Himself supports this view when He said “Nevertheless, lest we offend them . . .,” which can also be translated “But we don’t want to cause trouble” (CEV)–at any rate, this comment by itself demonstrates that Jesus was hardly enthusiastic about the prospect of paying taxes.

Moreover, Jesus said this after essentially saying that those who pay customs and taxes are not free (v. 25,26). This is the necessary implication of this passage, for if the sons of the kings on Earth are free because they are exempt from paying taxes then this implies that those who are required to pay taxes are therefore not free. The fact that Jesus considers those who are required to pay taxes as being unfree is sufficient to demonstrate that He is opposed to taxes.  Recall, one of the primary reasons Jesus came was to call us to liberty! Jesus said this Himself as recorded in:

Luke 4:16-21: So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:

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

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

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

Some may attempt to circumvent this fact by pointing out the word “free” in Matthew 17:26 is a translation of the Greek word eleutheros, whereas the word “liberty” in Luke 4:18 is a translation of the Greek word aphesis. But eleutheros is the adjective form of the noun eleutheria, and means: freeborn, i.e., in a civil sense, one who is not a slave, or of one who ceases to be a slave, freed, manumitted; or at liberty, free, exempt, unrestrained, not bound by an obligation–and aphesis means: release from bondage or imprisonment; forgiveness or pardon, i.e., remission of the penalty. Thus, when used in the context above these two words are completely congruent in meaning with each other.

If one desires to go back further to the original Hebrew of Isaiah 61:1 which Luke 4:18 is quoting from, the word aphesis is a translation of the Hebrew word rwrd (which roughly transliterates as “darowr”) which is a noun that means: a flowing (as of myrrh), free run, or liberty. And so this word, too, is completely congruent in meaning with eleutheros when used in the above context. Indeed, the Greek Septuagint translates this Hebrew word in the above passage as aphesis. Thus it cannot be honestly maintained that Jesus had in mind two separate meanings when he spoke the above words, as the only sensible meanings of these separate words are completely congruent with one another when used in the above context.

It might be pointed out by some that the New International Version translates the Greek word eleutheros in Matthew 17:26 as “exempt.” However, this is a damning example of how some modern Bible translations have been bowdlerized in order to avoid inconvenient facts–particularly political ones–that are often found in the Bible.  The only meaning in which this comment by Jesus can be taken which actually makes any point whatsoever and avoids meaningless, inane and idle talk on His part is for the Greek word eleutheros in Matthew 17:26 to be translated as “free” (or otherwise “at liberty,” etc.)–which is precisely how the King James Version and most other English Bible translations have handled this passage.

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

1 Corinthians 7:23: You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

1 Corinthians 9:19-23: For though I am free [eleutheros] from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.

2 Corinthians 3:17: Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty [eleutheria].

Galatians 4:6,7: And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Galatians 5:1: Stand fast therefore in the liberty [eleutheria] by which Christ has made us free [eleutheros], and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.

Galatians 5:13,14: For you, brethren, have been called to liberty [eleutheria]; only do not use liberty [eleutheria] as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

James 1:25: But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty [eleutheria] and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.

James 2:12: So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty [eleutheria].

1 Peter 2:16: Live as free [eleutheros] men, yet without using your freedom [eleutheria] as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God. (RSV.)

The Greek noun eleutheria is completely congruent in meaning with the English word “liberty,” i.e., as in “freedom from slavery,” “independence,” “absence of external restraint,” “a negation of control or domination,” “freedom of access,” etc. Some have contended that any demarcation of property “restricts liberty,” i.e., the liberty of others to use certain resources, and so have maintained that the very concept of “total liberty” for everyone is an untenable one. But as Prof. Murray N. Rothbard has pointed out in Power and Market (pg. 242):

This criticism misuses the term “liberty.” Obviously, any property right infringes on others’ “freedom to steal.” But we do not even need property rights to establish this “limitation”; the existence of another person, under a regime of liberty, restricts the “liberty” of others to assault him. Yet, by definition, liberty cannot be restricted thereby, because liberty is defined as freedom to control what one owns without molestation by others. “Freedom to steal or assault” would permit someone–the victim of stealth or assault–to be forcibly or fraudulently deprived of his person or property and would therefore violate the clause of total liberty: that every man be free to do what he wills with his own. Doing what one wills with someone else’s own impairs the other person’s liberty.

Chapter 20: Jesus Will Overthrow The State in the Time of His Judgement (i.e., His Second Coming)

In the above it was clearly demonstrated that the Earthly, mortal States are firmly under the control of Satan–that it is Satan who is the true god and ruler over this perverted Statist world system wherein sociopaths and megalomaniacs rule over our existence and exempt themselves from every standard of decency which people would otherwise expect from any common stranger. Yet this diabolical, demonically-controlled Statist system is not to last forever. The Bible is quite clear and explicit in many passages as to what God’s Judgement–i.e., the Second Coming of Christ–is to be about.

Lucifer’s false Christ–i.e., the Anti-Christ–will come to strengthen and empower the State during the last days: cementing together for the first time in human history a one world government–of which God will allow to continue for a short time (Rev. 17:9-18). This one world government will be the ultimate culmination of the very essence of everything the State represents: in short, it will be the most diabolical State which has ever existed, with mass murder of the righteous on a massive scale (Rev. 20:4). All the rulers of the Earth will whore themselves out to this super State and be aligned against Jesus Christ during the final battle of Armageddon (Rev. 16:14; 17:2; 18:3,9; 19:19).

Fortunately, the second coming of God’s true Christ–Jesus Christ–is to be the exact opposite of Satan’s Christ! Instead of strengthening the State, Jesus Christ will come to abolish and utterly annihilate it along with its ruling agents!

As it is written in the Old Testament concerning the End-Times Judgement of God, i.e., Jesus’s Second Coming:

Psalms 110:5,6: The Lord is at Your right hand; He shall execute kings in the day of His wrath. He shall judge among the nations, He shall fill the places with dead bodies, He shall execute the heads of many countries.

The above prophecy is also mirrored by the prophet Isaiah:

Isaiah 24:21,22: It shall come to pass in that day That the Lord will punish on high the host of exalted ones, And on the earth the kings of the earth. They will be gathered together, As prisoners are gathered in the pit, And will be shut up in the prison; After many days they will be punished.

The prophet Ezekiel foresaw this exact scenario concerning God’s End-Time Judgement of the rulers over Israel:

Ezekiel 34:1-10: And the word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD to the shepherds: “Woe to the shepherds of Israel who feed themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flocks? You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool; you slaughter the fatlings, but you do not feed the flock. The weak you have not strengthened, nor have you healed those who were sick, nor bound up the broken, nor brought back what was driven away, nor sought what was lost; but with force and cruelty you have ruled them. So they were scattered because there was no shepherd; and they became food for all the beasts of the field when they were scattered. My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and on every high hill; yes, My flock was scattered over the whole face of the earth, and no one was seeking or searching for them.” ‘Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: “As I live,” says the Lord GOD, “surely because My flock became a prey, and My flock became food for every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, nor did My shepherds search for My flock, but the shepherds fed themselves and did not feed My flock”–therefore, O shepherds, hear the word of the LORD! Thus says the Lord GOD: “Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require My flock at their hand; I will cause them to cease feeding the sheep, and the shepherds shall feed themselves no more; for I will deliver My flock from their mouths, that they may no longer be food for them.”

Now obviously when God, speaking here to Ezekiel, refers to “shepherds,” He is using this as a metaphor for rulers, just as “flock” is a metaphor for the people. Consider also the following passage by the prophet Zechariah concerning God’s End-Times Judgement:

Zechariah 10:3: “My anger is kindled against the shepherds, And I will punish the goatherds. […]”

Once again, God, speaking here to Zechariah–just as Ezekiel before him–is not talking about literal shepherds and goatherds, but is using these expressions as metaphors for rulers–indeed, this is how the NRSV translates it: “My anger is hot against the shepherds, and I will punish the leaders. […]”

Thus, there is an amazing continuity within the Old Testament prophecies as to what God’s End-Times Judgement, at least in part, is to consist of: the punishment of all the Earthly rulers and the abolition of all mortal rulerships! Can there be any doubt left in an honest, true Christian’s mind as to just how much Jesus absolutely abhors and detests the State? If there should be the slightest shred of doubt left in your mind, then please, choose to walk in the clear light of Liberty and let Paul slay–once and for all–that final misplaced sense of doubt!:

1Corinthians 15:23,24: But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.

How could it possibly be stated any clearer?! The States of the Earth are not of God, they are of Satan, and Jesus will come to utterly destroy them ALL during His Judgement!

As it is written:

Revelation 19:19-21: And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.

In the above passage from Revelation, the “rest” referred to being “killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth” of Jesus in verse 21 are “the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army,” which was previously referred to in verse 19.

From the Old Testament through to the New Testament there is a remarkable continuity and agreement as to what the fate of the Earthly States shall be during God’s Judgement. This fate unmistakably demonstrates the extent to which God is opposed to the ghastly, Satanical machination called the State!

There can be no honest doubt: Jesus is a libertarian!

Chapter 21: God’s People are to be Self-Rulers in the Kingdom of Christ

Some may object to the designation of Jesus as a libertarian by asking “What about the Kingdom of Christ that is to be established after the Judgement?” The answer is that the “Kingdom of Christ” will in no sense be a State. The Kingdom of Christ is to be the diametrically functional opposite of any State.

Unlike the State, the only thing which anyone can give to God which He does not already have is their voluntary love. God gives to all their very life, and God sustains all (Job 34:14,15; Acts 17:25). The seeking of material possessions means nothing to God as He is what makes their very existence possible. Therefore taxes and the like will have no place in God’s Kingdom, as God has no need for such material support States.

God is always seeking our love: but true love cannot be forced from someone, it can only be voluntarily provided. Therefore there will be no compulsion on the part of God. As it is written in Psalm 110:3 concerning the establishment of Jesus’s Kingdom:

Psalm 110: 3: Your people shall be volunteers
In the day of Your power;
In the beauties of holiness, from the womb of the morning,
You have the dew of Your youth.

Thus the people of God’s Kingdom shall be volunteers! How different indeed from all the mortal States which compel their subjects to support them through theft and extortion!

Let us also consider the following passage from Revelation:

Revelation 5:8-10: Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying:

“You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
[verse 10:] And have made us kings and priests to our God;
And we shall reign on the earth.” (See also Rev. 1:6.)

Yet what exactly is verse 10 in the above passage referring to? If we righteous shall all be volunteers and all the workers of iniquity have been cast into Hell, then who exactly is left for us to be king over and what exactly shall we be reigning over? Each other? Does that make any sense?

The only “who” for us to be kings over is our own persons and the only what for us to reign over shall be our own domain (a.k.a private property). For the first time in history mankind will truly be free from the yolk of bondage–that Satanic world system of servitude in all of its many guises. For the first time ever we will be self-rulers and our homes truly will be our castles! We shall be complete and absolute sovereigns over our own lives!

1 Corinthians 15:23,24: But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.

Amen.

Chapter 22: Conclusion

“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult, and left untried.”–Gilbert Keith Chesterton, Part I, Chapter 5, “The Unfinished Temple,” in What’s Wrong with the World.

In all of my  studies I have discovered that Jesus is a perfectly consistent libertarian. There is no single instance of Him contradicting this position, either in word or in action. When Jesus gave the Golden Rule as the ultimate social ethic (Matt. 7:12; Luke 6:31), He actually meant it. Yet, as was demonstrated above, this ethic is just a different formulation of the libertarian Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), at least as a political ethic. Both the Golden Rule and the NAP prohibit the same activity: i.e., aggression against people’s just property (whether that be their physical bodies or owned external goods).

Jesus has called us to liberty, and that liberty and Christ’s message are incompatible with the State. Indeed, the State is the most demonic force to have ever exist on Earth.

 

According to the Bible, it makes a difference as to when Jesus’s Second Coming will occur depending on our actions in being able to raise the awareness of the world’s population. Thus Peter wrote about Christians being able to hasten the coming of Christ:

2 Peter 3:11,12: Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?

The Bible tells of a massive End-Times deception perpetrated by Lucifer upon the masses in the form of the Anti-Christ.  If one understands what the coming of God’s real Christ is to be about–as Paul puts it:

1 Cor. 15:24: Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power

then it will be impossible for him to be deceived by the Anti-Christ.  The Anti-Christ will come to strengthen the State, not abolish it.

It is absolutely crucial for Christians to understand the true nature of Jesus. As far as politics are concerned, Jesus is unequivocally pro-liberty and anti-State.

References:

[1] Rachels, Chase. “What Anarcho-Capitalism Is.” Radical Capitalist, 11 Feb. 2018, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/07/06/what-anarcho-capitalism-is/?wref=pil.

2 thoughts on “Jesus is a Libertarian: The Biblical Case for Anarcho-Capitalism”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s