The question of the Sadducees

Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. (12:18)

The previous verses 13-17 deals with the question of the Pharisees and Herodians who conspired to catch a fault from Jesus’ teaching and action. From verses 18-27 the dispute about resurrection began by the Sadducees. Though it seemed totally different story, however two were same at the point of a trial to trap Jesus. The Sadducees conspires to trap Jesus through difficult question like the Pharisees.

The Sadducees were one of many sects in the ancient Israel, and mainly was opposite to the Pharisees. The Pharisees rejected the rule of Roman Empire while the Sadducees, the priest and noble class, recognized it. At the economical point of view, the Pharisees positioned the middle under class while the Sadducees were belonged to the upper. At the religious point of view, the Sadducees followed only the orthodox law which was different from the Pharisees who regarded all other traditions importantly, derived from the orthodox. It can be said the Sadducees were the conservative in politics, economics and religion. These people used to hold ‘status quo’ as the principle of their art of living.

There are different sects in Israel, Essene. They took the extreme attitude toward the secular order including Roman government, couldn’t be compared with the Sadducees and the Pharisees. They regarded secular order as an evil power. They set up a small sect movement, totally separated themselves from the world. They had a common life in Qumran, near to Dead Sea. The ascetic life style was the character of their life and so said John the Baptist also was from this sect.

Not only the Pharisees, comparably progressive and absolute legalist but also the Sadducees, the most conservative began to show their hostility to Jesus. It was the moment that Jesus’ room to maneuver was getting narrower and narrower.

What is Caesar's and what is God

What is Caesar's and what is God (1)

Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him. (12:17)

After drawing the answer from them that the image and script was Caesar’s, Jesus told them straightforwardly, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.” The people who asked Jesus didn’t expect such answer. They wanted to hear a deceive answer from Jesus whether they should follow the law of Caesar that represented Gentile’s rule. They might be conspired to accuse Jesus accordingly. However, the answer they were heard was quite different from what they expected. It was quite embarrassing thing for them.

What does this aphorism signify? When we read ‘Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's’ it seems to signify there is Caesar’s and God’s in this world. General tax might be Caesar’s and a religious tax and offering might signify God’s. Did Jesus practically say it with such idea? Let’s discuss this matter later on and now examine the response of the hearers.

In my point of view, they might not properly understand the exact meaning of Jesus’ word. They might be so surprised at Jesus not because of their deep understanding of Jesus’ word but of hearing totally unexpected answer from Jesus. It also might be their embarrassment due to the failure of their conspiracy to find out fault from Jesus’ teaching.

Conspiracy finally falls into its own pit. Momentarily it put others into a hole but finally he who digs a pit for others falls in himself. The reason is very clear. For it is not the truth. In the world leaded by the Holy Spirit, the spirit of truth, a trick that destroys the truth can endure for a while but it doesn’t go long.

What is Caesar's and what is God (2)

Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him. (12:17)

Jesus’ aphorism is often misused as dividing politics and religion in dual. This tendency strongly has been happening in Korean Christianity history. In 1970 and 1980, Korean Christianity didn’t give any response against a military dictatorship based on such dualism. Of course few of them fervently involved in anti-dictatorship but most of churches kept silence. The silence in this situation was nothing different from acting in concert with a dictatorship.

I do not explain in detail the reason of such Korean church’s silence before a military dictatorship but do it by condensing into two points.

First is internal reason, the matter of theology. A personal salvation is a major part of Korean Christianity. For this, a social changes fall into a dependant variable.

The other is a partition situation. The Christians from North who escaped from North Korean communist party gave a huge influence to the rapid external growth of Korea. They identified Christian faith with anti-communalism for they were suffered a lot under the power of North Korea communist government losing all the properties and others. For them a dictatorship government in South Korea, though it also had a problem, was a sort of necessary evil in order to protect them from the North Korea Communist government. It is the idea to bear a small evil to stop the greater evil.

It was a great regretting point of Korean Church that it didn’t give any spiritual dynamic power to Korean social reformation by accepting such dualistic theology, separating politics and religion. The dualism became a core of belief due to the combination of emphasizing a personal salvation, an internal fact and a partitioned situation, as an external fact. I feel such phenomena are spreading now even more.

What is Caesar's and what is God (3)

Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him. (12:17)

I told you yesterday the misuse of Jesus’ aphorism, ‘Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's’ as a proposition of the separation of politics and religion. I would like to explain the opposite case today. In this case, people pursue the identification of politics and religion up to extreme level. Those who are standing at this position regard the foundation of religion as political activities.

There is a liberation theology in modern theology. A liberation theology is a Roman Catholic theology which was based on the political situation of Latin countries in 1960, the time extreme gap between the rich and the poor and a military dictatorship were prevailed. It was fitting to a political theology in Europe. They approached social problem as the viewpoint that God showed favoritism (Parteilichkeit) to a poor. They insisted even to bear a military fighting in order to obey such God’s will according to circumstance. Some Catholic priests were participated in antigovernment military struggle.

As a third person, it is hard to decisively confirm whether it is right for the pastors and priests who should declare God’s word to participate in a military struggle. For we cannot neglect the situation that the public’s life unlikely is recovered. Figuratively speaking, we have to fight against an armed robber with a bat when he breaks into house.

However, we cannot push everything into politics and economics only for we cannot get a true satisfaction though we solve those political and economical problems. I don’t mean to say useless of such part but it is not enough with this only. If we make an insufficient thing into absolute one it also may cause another distortion. Diving politics and religion as dual is problem and mixing it together too.

What is Caesar's and what is God (4)

Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him. (12:17)

Paul mentioned the relationship between Christians and a secular government in Roman 13:1-7. He advised that the public should obey the authority and those who have power should clearly distinguish good and evil.

Based on these verses, in past military dictator’s time there were quite number of preachers who preached to obey the government though it was governed by a military dictatorship. Such insistence was a misunderstanding about Paul. Paul didn’t want to say about whether the evil government was legal or not. There were two reasons. First, Paul emphasized the fact through his word that even a secular authority also belonged to God’s authority. God is the creator and leads history by his Divine Providence.

Second, the authority that Paul said to obey was the power to maintain a regional security not the ideological Roman authority. Maintenance of public order was an essential fact for Christian mission. If the regional government didn’t maintain the social order by law there was no place to stand for Christians. According to Acts, the regional officer of the Roman Empire protected Paul from a risk.

In this, there is a political philosophy at a more fundamental level that an evil order can protect the public more than chaos. We can find out this fact from the war between Iraq and America. Husain of Iraq was an evil leader. America thought that the life of the public of Iraq could be improved if he was gotten rid of. However, the practical situation was totally different. Iraq without Husain became a lawless world and many were murdered more. It is related to the North Korea governing by a dictator government too. In real world anarchy destroy the helpless public’s life.

What is Caesar's and what is God (5)

Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him. (12:17)

Related to our topic, the matter of Caesar, there is a famous theological proposition of Martin Luther. It is two kingdom theory (Zweireichlehre). It is related to the content of Roman chapter 13, Paul’s letter to the Christians in Rome, the theme of yesterday’s meditation and points out ‘The City of God’ of Augustine, if we trace back.

In ‘Two Kingdom theory’ Luther told the order of church and secular, and the order of sprit and flesh. If you understand the order of secular and flesh rashly conflicting with the order of God, then it would be embarrassing. Everything is under God’s rule. The only different point between church and secular world is the way of its ruling. It is the same way as the religious world and scientific world moves in different way. Politics cannot be operated by a spiritual order. In the religious world a murderer should be accepted if he repents but in politics he should be punished accordingly.

In the past Luther’s two kingdom theory has been criticized as a reactionary theology. The criticism was rooted in his objection to the German Peasants' War by confronting his former follower Thomas Müntzer. Though he could be called as a political conservative at the point of receiving an Elector Fredric’s help and his continues relationship with the feudal lords, theology however cannot be measured with such political yardstick. Luther couldn’t support the German Peasants’ War knowing an obvious defeat of the peasants.

Jesus said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." We cannot but accept a certain political mechanism in this real world unless and until beginning of Gods’ direct rule. The secular power can be called Caesar’s as a necessary evil in order to stop the greater evil.

The Kingdom of God (8)

“‘The time has come,’ he said. ‘The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news’” (1:15)

The kingdom of God where it is near to us should be differentiated from the world or the earthly countries we are living in. If there exists only the kingdom of God, or if the kingdom of God is the same as the worldly ones, it is meaningless to say that the kingdom of God is near.

Yes. Definitely the kingdom of God is different from the worldly ones and it should be differentiated. It would be inappropriate to say that the world in which we experience today could be the same as the kingdom of God in various fields. According to Christian doctrines this world is “reality” in which the descendents from Adam and Eve being kicked out of Eden are supposed to live. In Eden, there must be a way of living, so different from ours in this world. It is not that important to suppose what it could be in details, but we could sketch outlines according to the Old Testament. It is a life burdened without existential pain after Adam and Eve’s Falling. After Falling, they should have taken some destiny. Man should work so hard for a living, and woman should take pain of labor. And to both of them the final destiny was death. So we could imagine life before Falling did not include labors and death.

The Bible explains that human beings losing life in Eden should have lived reality. It is the kingdom in this world. In here we should sweat for a living. We should take a pain of labor for descendant. And then we should progress for death. That is reality for the people who are living in this world. I do not want to mention if it is God’s punishment or not, because it is much serious theological argument. But according to the Bible, life in this world is basically different from the foundation of creation. And we are living in a much more different way of living from perfect life of creation.

Of course the earth is beautiful. With the rivers, mountains, flowers, clouds, winds, and also children, young lovers etc., the earth we are living in is beautiful and so are lives of human beings. Sins are not so much serious problems, comparing with this beauty. Life in this world is existentially beautiful because it is only one time reality for us. Even though it is not that much beautiful, we should try to make it more beautiful together.

Even though we try hard, there must be some limit. The form of life in this world is not everlasting. Of course we could accept immortality itself positively, but nevertheless we cannot regard every phenomena of life in the world as absolute. Youth and health pass away like an arrow. Every living creatures including human being dies. Through death, another life begins, but we cannot think this circulation of life as absolute.

The Bible makes promise for new heaven and new earth to us. It means the kingdom of God comes to us. Christian faith is based upon the fact that the kingdom has come by a hidden way, but it would be achieved at the end of the world. That means the faith of Jesus’ Second Coming. By the way can we anticipate the perfect time full of life? Do we really hope for it now?

Lord, we like to live as a person who regards this land so precious, but who longs for the kingdom of God eventually. Amen.

A denarius

They brought the coin, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied. (12:16)

The Pharisees and Herodians’ demand of Jesus’ answer for the question, “Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” could become a disputing matter whichever answer was given. If Jesus say ‘yes’ then he violate the law and say ‘no’ then the law of Rome. The question was really dirty one to trap other. The people who ask such question are dirty.

Jesus didn’t dispute with them with such matter. When Jesus regarded their hypocrisy he would stop his conversation with them but he didn’t avoid the answer. They tried to make Jesus uncomfortable with a cunning word but Jesus responded straightforwardly. Jesus asked them to bring a denarius. (15)

A denarius equivalent to a day wage of laborer prescribed as the tax currency of Roman Empire. For your reference, Emperor Tiberius (A.D. 14-37) instructed to make three types of denarius in conservative angle. Some of them are found today and a bust of an Emperor crowned with a laurel is carved at a side of the third type silver coin. The word “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, son of the Divine Augustus” depicted on it. The reverse of the coin depicts a queen Libya, the symbol of Pax, a goddess of peace, seated holding a scepter and olive branch. Peace as depicted on this coin symbolizes Tiberius as the preserver of peace in the empire. Denarius was a symbol of power.

In ancient times, money exercises the absolute power and even today. If I’m not wrong all dollar currency contains a phrase, “In God We trust.” Jesus said, “You cannot serve both God and Money.“ But American seems to think it is possible.

Hypocrisy

Should we pay or shouldn't we?" But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. "Why are you trying to trap me?" he asked. "Bring me a denarius and let me look at it." (12:15)

Jesus penetrated the Pharisees and Herodians’ hypocrisy. Hypocrisy means to decorate the exterior. People decorate the exterior in order to deceive others. In this point, hypocrisy is the technique of camouflage.

There is much hypocrisy in a religious life. It might be stronger than the worldly life. It is because worldly people live without hiding their selfish value system as they have while the people in the religious world try to hide it. They camouflage themselves pretending love others though they hate them inwardly. They disguise themselves as not having any problem in their life though they are struggling inwardly. If such life style is repeated then they will be captured by the doctrine of good and evil or a moral purity.

It doesn’t mean let Christian live whatever they want. The ascetics of moderation are necessary. However, hypocrisy and moderation are different. Hypocrisy has a high possibility to be a dual personality for it decorates the exterior in order to hide inner part. But moderation induces sublimation of life by recognizing inner part as it is but control it.

The core finally here is the inner part of man. Unless and until our inner part becomes new it is useless no matter how we decorate the exterior. As we change it as theological term, it means ontological change is prior to the exterior change. Some insist we already have being justified by faith (justification) we have to try to live like Christian. (Satisfaction) This insistence is not wrong but precisely incorrect. Sanctification cannot be achieved by our effort. It may improve our life style a little bit but we cannot say such improvement as a real change. The life attitude attached to ontological change may be faith. Freedom from hypocrisy!

The trap of word

They came to him and said, "Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?( Mark 12:14)

The people who came to Jesus to find fault with Jesus began a question with a flattery word hiding their real intention behind. “Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.” There is nothing wrong in their word if we see this word only. However, the problem is who said and with what reason did it. The word from evil is nothing but a honeyed word and it cannot be truth.

One of the most famous Bible verse that is chosen for hanging on the wall of Christian’s home or their shop might be “Your beginnings will seem humble, so prosperous will your future be.” (Job 8:7) If we read this word only there is nothing wrong. Rather it sounds as of imbuing with religious faith. But we have to see who said it and what for. This word was spoken by Job’s friend in order to criticize him.

Christians also say a likely story well. The pastors might be the top of them. It is not easy to distinguish whether the word is truth or not for the word has a religious form. Distinguishing man whether good or evil also is of course not easy matter. However, it also can be possible for the moment to reveal self should come regardless of ornamenting one’s word.

Those who speak a likely story or flattery people are mostly have gone through a special training course. The Pharisees and Herodians also the leaders group of those days. They rationalize themselves by word, catch a chance and furthermore do evil by word. The more such knowledge has the more destroys self and society. Be aware of the trap of word.

The Kingdom of God (7)

“‘The time has come,’ he said. ‘The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news’” (1:15)

Has the kingdom of God come? The Gospel of Mark is saying that it is “near”, not “has come”. But you could ignore such a difference. For this kind of description is telling imminence of the kingdom of God, not literal difference of time. According to Jesus’ teaching in Mark’s Gospel, you should think the kingdom of God has come already. But there is no any trace of the fact that the kingdom of God has come through our personal lives or human history. There is no big change between before and after Jesus’ proclamation that the kingdom of God has come. And even though Jesus who is the same as the kingdom of God has been living in this world, there is no change much as before. So to speak, we still fight each other, hate each other, and we are lonely and isolated, sick and finally we die. If the kingdom of God does not affect any in our lives, what is of use for the kingdom of God to be near? It seems very contradictory between the fact that the kingdom of God is very near and that there is no change at all in the world. How could we overcome this contradiction?

First of all, the kingdom of God, where Jesus said it was near, did not come on that moment when he proclaimed, but might already have come. If we regard God as power for life, the creation event should be considered as the kingdom of God. Only God is a creator, and God could exist only in the moment of creating activity, and then that creating moment could be the same as the kingdom of God. From this point of view, the kingdom of God could mean creation itself.

But this world, in which we experience, is not always creative or life-oriented. What is worse, because of emergence of mankind, more precisely, the fallen mankind caused more violence and destruction in this world. We cannot include these kinds of characteristics of sin in the kingdom of God. And then, is it right to say that this world could be divided between the kingdom of God and of Satan. Since the Bible is telling us that possibility of existence comes only through God, we cannot say the kingdom of Satan could be independent enough to resist against the kingdom of God. We don’t know yet how to differentiate between them.

In this point, we should understand that the kingdom of God is operated in a hidden way. Karl Barth’s statement that God is “Hidden God”(Deus absconditus), and also “Revealed God”(Deus revelatus) is correct. By creation God reveals himself and also He exists by the hidden way of being, so that we can not explain in full through the corridor of our recognition. In this viewpoint we should understand the kingdom of God by dialectic relationship between hiddenness and revelation. In God’s hiddenness the question why the kingdom of God does not leave any clear trace could be answered.

What the kingdom of God is hidden means that the kingdom is eschatological. The kingdom of God is open to the end, and also we could understand it perfectly at the end of time. So many theologians explain that character of the kingdom of God through tension between “already” and “not yet”. The kingdom of God has begun already through creation and Jesus Christ, but in history not to reach yet to the end time, in which the substantial beings of life expose themselves, it is still not yet come. The kingdom of God “already, but not yet” is God’s existential mystery. When we could see such a world, we might be very close to that kingdom.

Lord, help us not to lose eschatological hope for the kingdom of God. Amen!

The Pharisees and Herodians

Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. (Mark 12:13)

The parable of the tenants and the matter to pay tax to Caesar which is about to mention soon doesn’t connected each other directly. Though it was the independent transmission it was bound into one place by the author of Mark’s gospel. So the author might explain that the people who were criticized by the parable of the tenants sent the Pharisees and Herodians to provoke Jesus’ word.

The people who were criticized by Jesus through the parable of the tenants were the high priests, the scribes and the elders were the key member of Sanhedrin. The Pharisees and the Herodians sent them to Jesus to spy out him. Normally these five power groups were not in collusion. However, now they were of a mind to plot an evil.

Why people are of a mind of plot an evil? It might be two reasons. One is to get a mutual benefit through evil. Though some may get more while some less with combining each other at the point to get benefit through evil, it works mightily even the benefit is small.

The other is the nature of man. Man has originally a strong curiosity for evil. Sadism is a psychological interest in destroying other. Not only psychological patient but all people have a symptom of sadism. Mostly it doesn’t give any harm to normal life but if it goes in serious status it occurs troubles. We are only to live by controlling such psychology though a consciousness by moral education or through legal force.

At this point, the complete salvation of man cannot be established in the earth. We have to wait the time of changing into resurrection life, the totally different life. The time hasn’t come yet. So we have to pray today that evil may not rule over our life.

The Parable of the Tenants

The parable of the tenants (1)
He then began to speak to them in parables: "A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. (Mark 12:1)

The parable of the tenants is written in the gospel of Matthew and Luke. It is written Tomas’ gospel too, and according to the Bible Scholars, the story in Thomas’ gospel (65) is ahead of other gospels in transmission. There is a little differentiation in the story of three gospels but these are similar on the whole. The fact that it was written in all the synoptic gospel means it was well-known story to the entire early Christian community. It also was peculiar that all the three gospels set this story up at the last part of Jesus’ official life. It might be the reason that this parable intimates the theological meaning of Jesus’ cross. It says that Jesus also was killed innocently as the son of the landlord of vineyard in this parable was killed by the tenants.
This parable begins with an explanation about how to make a vineyard. Such work follows the contents written in Isaiah 5:1, 2. The landlord of vineyard didn’t directly cultivate his vineyard but tenanted it. The meaning of ‘went away on a journey’ is ‘an absentee landlord’. In modern terms, he is a multination industrialist. There is high possibility of disputation between such absentee landlord and the tenants according to reckoning the profits and losses. This is the following stories.
Before entering the story let’s think of the form of ‘parable’ for your reference. Jesus told the parables only not to his disciples but others. The reason of teaching in parable was that they neither understood the fact that Jesus was Messiah nor accepted it. However, Jesus couldn’t but deliver the fact the rule of God presently dwelt in him. The best way to pass through such barrier was to teach them by parable.

The parable of the tenants (2)
At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. (Mark 12:2)

Yesterday I told you the similarity between the landlord in his parable and multinational industrialist but today I would like to give you an additional explanation in order to escape from misunderstanding about the concept of the landlord of vineyard. Though the image of multinational industrialist in today is negative but we shouldn’t regard the landlord of vineyard with such negative image. We have to read a parable as parable. The core point of the parable is the wrongdoing of the tenants.
There is a theological disputation whether this parable is rooted in the fact or fiction. We cannot confirm it decisively. There might be both possibilities. In those days there were many absentee landlords. They entrusted a farming work to the tenants and collected a harvest at a certain ratio. The tenants might feel mortified at the season of harvest. If this sentiment grew up they raised a riot. In those days, the nation couldn’t solve this problem by intervening in such disputation. However, it doesn’t important whether it is grounded in fact or fiction. The center theme of gospel, the author of gospel would like to deliver, is important.
This parable back grounded the unbelief of Israel people. They rejected the man of God. They killed the prophets. Such cases appears not only in this parable but often even in the books of prophets in the Old Testament. It is indeed strange that the people particularly beloved by God rejected God’s love more severely. God’s love for Israel was similar case to one-sided love. Despite God’s burning love Israel’s history was filled with idol worship. Probably people may not be changed by love. This is not other’s story but ours.

The parable of the tenants (3)
But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed. (Mark 12:3)

Most of Jesus’ parable is written on the theme of the kingdom of God. The parable of mustard (Mark 4:30-32), the parable of the wedding banquet (Matt. 22:1-10), the parable of the lost sheep (Luke 15:1-7), the parable of the lost son (Luke 15:11-32) and etc are in such category.
The reason Jesus teaches us the kingdom of heaven through parable is that we cannot realize the kingdom of heaven directly. The kingdom of heaven indicates God. God exists as the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of heaven indicates the rule of God. God, the kingdom of heaven and the rule of God all are the same concept. As we cannot look up the sun directly we cannot realize the kingdom of God directly.
The word we cannot recognize God or the kingdom heaven and his rule has two meanings at the same time. First, God is not a decisive certain existence. It means God is opened in eschatological. Second, God is a perfect being as such method. It means God includes the entire history including the end when the universal history will decide. How can we describe such God with a demonstrative language?
The parable of the tenants now we are reading explains about not the kingdom of heaven but indicates the disobedience of the high priest, the scribes and the elders, representative of Israel. So there is a detailed description and whoever could understand the content of the parable. It may be compared with people’s unawareness of the parable of the kingdom of God.
However, verse 3 says that the tenants seize him, beat him and send him away empty-handed. It is violence for an innocent. No need to give a long explanation for how often such things happened in human history. How long the period of revolution is required for human to give up violence?

The parable of the tenants (4)
Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. (Mark 12:4)

The atmosphere of the parable is getting up. The first servant sent by the landlords was bitten and driven out (3) The landlord again sent another servant. He might be sent him at the level of confirming whether the first servant was bitten because of his rudeness or any mishap. However, the result was against his expectation. The tenants resorted more violence to the second servant. They struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. (4) The landlord sent another servant again. The landlord also was an unyielding person. However, the tenants were superior to the landlord. They killed the servant. The landlord sent many others. But some of them they beat others they killed. (5)
We know well what this parable says. As I mentioned earlier, it is Israel’s disobedience. The author of Mark’s gospel would like to say that Israel’s disobedience had a direct responsibility for Jesus’ crucifixion. Is man’s disobedience toward God was not the matter of those days only but the matter till the end of the world?
Disobedience is destiny for man. Adam, Eve and Cain are the representative of such disobedience. Why man’s disobedience acts like an original sin? We can find out the answer from selfishness, the instinct of survival, an evil culture and etc but the entire problem cannot be solved with these.
The one of the answer we can find out from the Bible is idol worship. The disobedience of Israel was caused by idol worship. Idol worship is the attitude of life to absolutize man-made things. If man gives his heart to such side then man may reject the sound of life, which man cannot make, and the calling of God, the owner of life.

The parable of the tenants (5)
"He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, 'They will respect my son.'(Mark 12:6)

In yesterday’s meditation, I told you the cause of disobedience toward God was idol worship. I would like to give an additional explanation how it worked in Israel’s history. Because there will be a possibility to misunderstand about the concept of idol worship.
Let’s begin with this question. Why Israel again and again fell into idol worship by rejecting the prophets’ teaching to stop idol worship? It is not strange thing. Idol worship is a natural phenomenon which comes from man’s apprehension for survival. The natives of Canaanite, the neighbor of Israel, cultivated an affluent civilization through worshiping Baal and Asherah, god and goddess of agriculture. For Israel people who lived nomadic life in the desert this Canaanite civilization was so attractive. The character of this civilization is present, the secure device for the survival here and now.
Compare to this civilization the covenant of the Lord God was different in two points. One point was that it didn’t absolutize material affluence. The other was the promise of salvation was future thing. Such God’s promise was difficult for Israel to accept. They felt uncomfortable for these teaching of the prophets. They killed the true prophets and followed the false prophets who delivered the sugar coated message only. The tenants in this parable represent such Israel.
The landlord finally decided to send his son with expecting they would at least respect his son. Of course this parable indicates the event of sending Jesus into this world. God sent Jesus into this world with expectation that everything would be solved properly by doing this. What had happened?

The parable of the tenants (6)
"But the tenants said to one another, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.'(Mark 12:7)

The tension in this story is growing more and more. The tenants beat and killed the servants who came to collect certain about of money or grape according to a contract bases. Now the son of landlord was sent. The tenants conspired to kill the son, an heir of the landlord thinking that if the son died the entire inheritance would be theirs if the son died. How was the expression of their eyes when they shared such word? Was it similar to the expression of Judah who sold Jesus? This was the naked truth of man.
Of course this story asks Israel people’s responsibility for Jesus’ crucifixion. It delivers this fact with a dramatic parable. However, we who read this story feel uncomfortable. We are not in the position to call Israel people who should account for Jesus’ crucifixion. No human is immune before the fact of crucifying the son of God on the cross.
I would like to approach this matter not a theological level but a daily life level. Think again the idea of the tenants. They said if the heir died then they would be the owner of the vineyard. Such things repeat in our daily life. We often think other’s misfortune can be my fortune. Going a step further we conspire of such things. It happens in politics, business and even in religion.
Such thought and activity also somewhat may be a destiny of man. It can be reduced such stubborn thinking with our effort but we may not completely escape from it. Though we escape from it in consciousness but we may be still ruled by such desire in our unconsciousness. Lord! Have mercy on us.

The parable of the tenants (7)
So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. (Mark 12:8)

Finally the tenants killed the son of landlord. There might be not even a single man with sound mind. Though they had a mind to steal the vineyard in a moment if they were people of counting the sequence of the things they wouldn’t do such cruel thing. If people put into practice what they think in this way there will be nothing remains in this world.
This incident is similar to the incident of Joseph in the Old Testament. Joseph’s brother conspired of killing their brother Joseph thinking that their father Jacob was partial to Joseph. Fortunately Reuben persuaded other brothers and put him into a dungeon instead of killing so that he would save him later on. Reuben’s tactic seemed to succeed but got failed due to Judah’s idea to sell Joseph to the merchants. However, Joseph was saved in debt of Reuben.
Likewise human history is continued with dynamical crush between conspiracy and its activation and the reversing power. Though we cannot remove the evil from this word completely we have to resist against the evil in many ways. We have to give our best effort for invalidation of evil power or reduce it.
If we change this matter into a modern concept we call it as ‘whistle blower’. Such whistle blower is indeed necessary for no one knows the evil that happens inside of a certain community except the member of that community. Through this we have to struggle to protect the activation evil conspiracy.
There was not even single tenant with sound mind. According their plan they killed the son and threw him out of vineyard. The meaning they didn’t bury the dead body means a sort of insulting behavior for the dead. How was the feeling of the landlord, the dead son of father?

The parable of the tenants (8)
[9] "What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. (Mark 12:9)

Till previous verse it was past tense but now it changes into future tense. It is a prediction of the future plan of the landlord of vineyard. He will kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.
While the tenants’ evil is past or present tense punishment of landlord is future. The tenant might be happy mood when they thought their conspiracy would be fulfilled. They never imagined judgment for their evil in the future. Was it fortune or misfortune? If they were able to predict the future things they would have a heart-melt experience.
God is the owner of ‘future’. Man is the owner of ‘present’. No. Precisely speaking, man is nothing but pretend as an owner of present. They eagerly expect the achievement of their conspiracy by thinking that God cannot intervene in their present life. How foolish they are. We have to accept this fact seriously.
You should not misunderstand about this word. It doesn’t mean that you have to think importantly the matter to go to the kingdom of heaven after death because of meaningless and nothingness of present life. Such idea is nothing but a religious projection of the desire for present life.
God is the owner of our life means our life will be completed in the future. In the future the Lord will come as the Lord of judgment. The judgment is the event to select what is not life. It is the incident to pick out untruth, weeds from wheat. God is the only one can do it. According to Pannenberg, it is “the reality to define everything”(die alles bestimmende Wirklichkeit). This God only changes every tentative thing of today in this world into a perfect reality someday. Yes. All our future only depends on his hand.

The parable of the tenants (9)
"What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. (Mark 12:9)

The plan of the landlord of vineyard was two; to destroy the tenants and to give his vineyard to other. The author of Mark delivers the fact that God judges Israel’s disobedience and give the position of the chosen people to others. The others are, that is, Christian community.
In the Bible the idea of changing position is revealed strongly. It frequently happens in the other quotations from Jesus. The words of “So the last will be first, and the first will be last” (Matt. 20:16), Tax collectors and sinners enter into the kingdom of heaven ahead and the invited cannot participate the banquet but the people who were called from street belong to this category. The prophets of the Old Testament also often declared such prophesy.
Our fundamental limitation is not to recognize the possibility of changing position. We think a rich always should live as a rich and a poor always has to live as a poor. Though we know such thought is wrong but we don’t want its change. We struggle a lot not to be an object of change despite our helpless for such matter. We are not the owner of history. The future of history transcends our expectation.
The reason that the tenants didn’t anticipate the landlord’s thought was that they didn’t accept the fact they were not the landlord of a vineyard but the tenants. Or they might have a strong desire to be a landlord. The result reached till to kill the son of landlord.
It might sound as giving a sermon, but we cannot claim the ownership of a vineyard. We just are entrusted tenants for the time being. Our life itself is like that. Tentatively entrusted life!

The parable of the tenants (10)
Haven't you read this scripture: "'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes'?" (Mark 12:10, 11)

Continued to preach the parable of the tenants Jesus quoted Psalm 118:22, 23. This parable and the word of Psalm don’t connect directly. The landlord’s judgment is the theme of the parable of tenants while Psalm’s quotation is the teaching that God uses preciously what man had rejected.
It seems right that the above Psalm is not a direct Jesus’ quotation but added by the latter Christian community. It is because the connection of the parable and Psalm set the confession of faith for Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection forth as a premise.
The tenants’ activity to kill the landlord’s son is compared to the builders’ action of rejecting the stone. The word that the stone the builders rejected has become the capstone intimates Jesus’ resurrection after crucifixion. The one who has done is the Lord. It cannot be done by man’s idea. God only can raise Jesus from the dead.
When we read the gospels we have to keep two things in our mind. One fact is that the content of the gospels are not written at the very spot immediately but later on. The other fact is that it is the memory of Jesus’ followers. People remembers their experience not by chronically and demonstratively but by meaning centered. The above verse also was written in such way.
Despite these facts, it doesn’t mean that the contents of the gospels don’t have reliability. The gospels contain of the ultimate truth beyond a certain objective fact. It doesn’t confine to outer fact but explore the things in depth. At this point it is a revelation.

The parable of the tenants (11)
Then they looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away. (Mark 12:12)
The people who received Jesus’ parable and advice were the high priests, the scribes and the elders. They were the people who argued with Jesus who was walked along the temple court saying, “With what authority you are doing this?” (Mark 11:28) They thought the parable pointed out them. If I say it a little in objective manner, the early Christians judges like that. If the important members of Sanhedrin had a direct responsibility Jesus’ death on the cross then they should become the evil tenants.
The atmosphere of story builds up toward Jesus’ execution. The necessary atmosphere was making. The high priests’ party wanted to catch Jesus immediately. They were not able to allow Jesus as it was who touched them on a sore spot. However, they couldn’t do it because they were afraid of the crowd.
We can imagine this scene as follows. Here are the high priests and other party and Jesus is standing beside and other crowds position behind. The disciples are watching this situation. Because of crowds supporting for Jesus, the high priests’ party were not taking an action. However such situation doesn’t continue. After some time whether the crowds are conciliated by the high priests or any other reason they finally reject Jesus. The crowds, that is, the public seem easily follow others blindly.
The author of gospel describes the crowds in dual. Getting extremely excited in Jesus’ teaching and action is the one and disappoint very simple and easily is the other. If the crowds supported Jesus continually then Jesus wouldn’t be killed on the cross. And also the fervent response of the crowds might drive Jesus into the more risky situation.

The parable of the tenants (12)
Then they looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away. (Mark 12:12)

The high priests, the scribes and the elders wanted to arrest Jesus but couldn’t. They didn’t give up their conspiracy. They just a little postponed the enforcement of evil. Evil is very clever and if we even a little bit are careless then makes us their slave. However, we don’t need to be afraid of them. They cannot instinctively demonstrate fear.
As we confirm from the above verse, the high priests’ party were afraid of the crowds. In my point of view they were afraid of the crowds because of two reasons. First, they didn’t belong to the truth. They didn’t know what truth was. They were expert in their religious duty but never understood Jesus the truth. Such people cannot but fall into fear unconsciously.
Such fear and an awe that comes from religious experience should be distinguished. The awe that is experienced before creation, life and wonder of salvation is not fear or dread but the fruit of truth. Such awe read us not fear but peace and joy. Remember Jesus’ saying, “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:32)
Second, they were only in mind to extend their territory. In the case of not extending their territory they lose their meaning of existence. They indulge in the various way of extending their territory. Once the moment to be threatened comes then they are frozen in fear.
It is no exaggeration that the psychological character of the modern who enjoy fully its civilization is fear. What is different point of Christians? We are fearless for Jesus has shifted us from death to life.

The Kingdom of God (6)

“‘The time has come,’ he said. ‘The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news’” (Mark 01:15)

It is a tragedy or a disaster that modern churches do not regard the kingdom of God as the foundation of their existence. Preaching at the pulpit does not show any special interest in it either. Of course they often mention the kingdom of God superficially, but they do not have deep concern about the kingdom of God (Basileia tou Deu). Are there any preachers who are talking about the imminent kingdom of God, its meaning with deeper analysis and retrospect? Are there any preachers who are thinking seriously about relationship between the kingdom of God and life? For idea about the kingdom of God does not take place in church as a major topic, or agenda, most of laypeople cannot understand what it is, and what is worse, they do not even think about to understand. Inside of it, the church itself grows as more important organization than the kingdom of God. What is worse, the kingdom of God seems to be subordinated to the church. Church and the kingdom of God, is it even possible to compare between them? The kingdom of God is much beyond the church. Church could survive only when it depends on the kingdom of God, but on the other hand the kingdom of God could go its own way without church. Nevertheless, if church might think it is possible to replace the kingdom of God or exclude, it could mean that church does not understand what it is.

Then does it mean there is no any connection between church and the kingdom of God? That’s not it. Even if church cannot be the kingdom of God, it could be a sign for the kingdom of God as an eschatological messianic community. In this sense, church is a community with a big honor and responsibility. Honor has a meaning that church could be the closest community to the kingdom of God among all the organizations in the world, and responsibility means that church has lots of jobs to do as a community in front of the kingdom of God. But in here honor does not have much importance. Honor being related with the kingdom of God does not mean worldly honor getting respect from others, but it means an existential insight. For example, as an existential insight for salt, it has salty taste. Salt does not ask for honor, but only for being salty.

These day churchgoers seem to regard attending church as marvelous prestige. Sometimes people are saying that they could achieve the earthly heaven in the church. If you think the good thing means good, you could say that, but we should not take a close introspection diligently like a sword with two sharp blades. Church never can replace the kingdom of God. Sometimes we used to talk about evangelizing our nation or world mission, but if you say a little more strictly, those ideas could be only expansion of church, not of the kingdom of God. Originally mission is God’s job (Missio Dei), not of church. God is doing his work on his way.

Why do we say God’s mission? For church does not have any ability for mission. Basically mission means expansion of God’s reigning, and church does not have power to make it come true. Only God could accomplish His job. Maybe this kind of saying could be understood just as a word play. But look. Yet we do not know exactly what true life could mean. We don’t understand exactly what salvation of human beings could stand for. Salvation as well as life does belong to only God’s power. What we can do is just to tell people about it. Lord, let the church obey to the kingdom of God. Not boastful the church could be. Amen.

The dispute about authority (7)

So they answered Jesus, "We don't know." Jesus said, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things." (Mark 11:33)

The high priest group answered Jesus, “We don’t know.” So Jesus answered for their first question. ”Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.” By this the story was over. We expected something serious dispute about authority between them but ended dully. The wrong idea about authority of the religious leaders, centered on the high priests from the beginning was the reason for such dull dispute. For them the authority lied on their position, a high priest, a scribe and an elder.

Dr. Pannenberg explained Jesus’ authority at the level of reality (Sachlichkeit). Authority does not reveal the title Messiah but the incidents in Messiah. The following is a part of his sermon.

Let’s think again by returning to the matter of church. A church also is judged by how it contributes to consider humanity. It means the authority of church depends on how the church testifies and actualizes the kingdom of God, justice and peace.

It is not by any religious author, organization or a traditional life but by the fact mentioned above the sincerity of church for the Lord is decided. So a church activity cannot be limited in the personal life of the believers in a church. A church should recognize the things about humanity in a social life and its structure as its essential duty, the duty to save a face of human who still is biased and bound to self. If a church doesn’t carry out such duties the church whether it wants or not simply degrades into an instrument to confirm self, the safe devices to rationalize a social system ideally. (Joy of faith, p. 71)

The dispute about authority (6)

But if we say, 'From men' . . . ." (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.) (Mark 11:32)

The priest group who were asked from Jesus should answer that John’s baptism had come not from God but man for they didn’t believe John the Baptist. However, they weren’t able to say even like this for everyone held that John really was a prophet.

Their situation seems very pitiful for they were in two minds. It might not necessary for us to feel pity on their situation. They were putting into such situation not by force but by their own responsibility. They were keen in their own immediate benefit rather than following the truth. If they thought their idea was right then they should act according to their own conviction ignoring the public’s response. However, they didn’t do like that and everything became their responsibility. In vulgar words, they didn’t respond to the sound of truth but calculating gain or loss. We can not found any authority from such people.

In our daily life, often such calculating situation happens. They think sensibly whether the situation works for his advantage or disadvantage. A prudential act to consider other is a compulsory virtue. Not this, the problem of the people like the high priests in the above is that they do not do a responsible word or act as they are calculating gain or loss.

Jesus thought his disciples to say ‘yes’ for yes and ‘no’ for no. This teaching is not easy for us who hesitate as always calculating this and that. This is not merely an art of living but belongs to spirituality. Such spirituality rather reveals well from children. They see the things in the world with simple and clear view and they get an answer also in such a way. We fall into fear due to too much thought.

The dispute about authority (5)

They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' (Mark 11:31)

The religious leaders might be perplexed for Jesus’ question, “John's baptism--was it from heaven, or from men?” They couldn’t say it from heaven for they didn’t believe him. They couldn’t say a transparent lie.

Why did they not believe John the Baptist? The Bible doesn’t give any explanation for this. Originally John was from a noble family background like them. According to Luke’s gospel, his father Zachariah was a priest. When he was serving his duty according to his turn, serving God as a pastor or an elder in modern terms, he was heard the news of giving birth to a son from an angel in the temple. There was no reason at all for their rejection to John if they premised such background.

The important point was that John’s theology wasn’t match with them. John was a man to pursue a drastic revolution. He demanded a personal and the society to live a complete new life. Such progressive was uncomfortable for the conservatives like the priests and the scribes. In a broad point of view, John was standing at the position of prophet’s tradition while the religious leaders, picking up a quarrel with Jesus, standing at the priest’s position.

The prophet group and the priest group took a different role in Israel’s history. It is said that the prophet tried to embody God’s justice and peace in history while the priest led the religious formality of Israel people. If the former tried the revolution of history then the latter tried to keep the maintenance of reality. Judging from today’s view, the former’s function was sermon while the latter worship service. When these two, tradition and function operate properly then it can establish a healthy church and if not then it results otherwise.

The dispute about authority (4)

John's baptism--was it from heaven, or from men? Tell me!"(Mark 11:30)

Jesus’ question in return was about the baptism of John the Baptist. “John's baptism--was it from heaven, or from men?” This question sounds a little awkward. For what relationship between John’s baptism and Jesus’ authority had, and asked like this? Somewhat it looks like a sort of trick to escape from such difficult question for he didn’t find out the answer.

It is not so. There was a friction between them. John the Baptist was a prophet in the desert. He had lived as a thoroughgoing rustic life. Not only a pattern of life but his spirituality also was the same. He was standing against the religious leaders, the main stream of Israel, gathered around the temple and synagogue. At this point, John was a forerunner of Jesus. The gospel described John as a prophet to prepare the way for Messiah.

However, John didn’t identify himself with Jesus unconditionally. Among Jesus’ official life, John or at least his disciples were in the competitive relationship with Jesus’ community at a certain part. The early Christianity after Jesus, especially in Gentile Christianity, the group to follow John the Baptist exercised their power considerably. The baptism of John and it of Jesus, the baptism of the Holy Spirit confronted each other. As time went by, John’s followers lost their power in early Christianity.

Jesus mentioned about John the Baptist in his official life several times. The content the gospels describe was not from a certain practical history but the memories that came out from at the level of their religious confession. So it is not easy to judge what was the idea of Jesus? At least Jesus was baptized by John and received a certain religious motivation from him to proclaim the kingdom of God. Jesus pressed the religious leaders to give him an answer for how did they think about the author of John the Baptist.