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!