Who’s in charge?
Thursday, Dec. 5
Mark Chapter 11 – 12:17 Click here to read
After an intense election season, Advent and Christmas can seem like a welcome break before we start to experience the consequences of the election with a new Congress and a new president in January.
But if we were following the traditional Advent readings, this would be the most political season of the Christian year, for the whole purpose of Advent is looking forward to Christ being ruler of the world, overturning the existing governments and power structures—definitely political stuff!
Through Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers we read of the rule of law for the Israelites as administered by Moses, Aaron and their deputies. For many of the people who eagerly awaited the coming Messiah, their hope was in a return to living under that law, shaking off the control of Rome.
That expectation caused problems for Jesus in several ways.
For one, it was that expectation that made him a potential threat to the Romans. In our own day we hear concerns about various teachings and beliefs inciting violence. Rome had every reason to be concerned if one of their subject nations thought it has a new king on the horizon.
The second way it caused trouble for Jesus was that, like the Romans, some of the Jewish leaders feared that Jesus had come to incite rebellion.
Compared to most conquered nations, the Jews were allowed significant autonomy to live their own lives within their traditional territory. This meant that the Jewish leaders could keep their positions of power. But they understood that if civil unrest broke out, the Romans would respond violently and decisively and try to crush the Jewish faith itself. For them, silencing Jesus was a way of keeping the peace and protecting the faith.
The third way that a political messianic expectation hurt Jesus was that it meant his message, which was not about overthrowing the government, disappointed some of the people, losing him potential support.
One of his most explicit denials of political pursuit is in 12:13-17 when he is asked about paying the occupation tax to the Roman government. His response is, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”
Here he established a dividing line that was new, suggesting that the realms of government and faith were separate. This is the beginning of the concept we know as the separation of church and state: that as citizen we owe some obligations to the government and different obligations to God.
As with many of Jesus’s teachings, this idea is harder to apply in real life than the more black-and-white question of “which king do we follow?” If there are competing claims of our allegiance, there will always be a balancing act.
The preceding story of the tenants raised something of the same question but made very clear that not submitting to God’s authority when we should has serious consequences.
In the months ahead, a lot of the political questions we face as a country will hinge on exactly the question considered here: what allegiances to we owe to Caesar and what allegiances do we owe only to God.
That’s not an easy question, and it’s a serious responsibility to make sure that our answers to it are based on the teaching of scripture as understood through serious thought and prayer and not on the last persuasive podcast or post we came across.