Mark 12:13-17; Matthew 11:2-6

Life within structures

We all have to live our life within the context of institutions. There is compulsory education. We pay taxes - even to finance things with which we disagree. There is compulsory voting. We may be married and have children and even grand children. So we take on roles like father or mother, grand father or grand mother, husband or wife, aunty and uncle, labourer, church member, union official, club member - all at the same time.

The question therefore cannot be avoided. How can we relate to institutions? How can we fulfil these roles? How can we do so and still remain ourselves? Ho can we participate in institutions without denying who we are?

As Christians in the Baptist tradition we are especially sensitive at that point. In our history in different parts of the world, we have often wondered, whether the main churches, the established churches, have not been too close to government. We have wondered whether self-survival, the taste of power and influence have not compromised the clear and credible witness to the gospel of Christ.

Traditionally Baptists have therefore insisted on the clear separation of church and state. Not to flee from engagement, not to escape responsibility, but to make absolutely clear and transparent to whom we belong, and from where we get our cues.

Jesus also had to fulfil roles, and he to live his life within the context of institutions. He was "son" and "brother" and "friend" and "leader". He lived as a Jew within the tradition of the Jewish law, and with it he recognised the importance of Sabbath and Temple and circumcision. In addition, he lived in occupied territory and therefore also his relation to the Roman occupation forces was a challenge.

Today we want to ask how Jesus handled that challenge. His example may help us to affirm our own identity in the roles that we have to assume, and to shape our relation to structures and institutions.

Illustrations from Jesus' time

Allow me to share with you a couple of illustrations from Jesus' day.

God's will

In the Sermon on the Mount we hear this:

(Jesus said): "You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, 'You shall not murder'; and 'whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.'

But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, 'You fool,' you will be liable to the hell of fire. So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift. (Matthew 5:21-24)

How do we discern and how do we practice God's will in our lives? What does the command "do not murder" imply when it is God's command?

It is different to a traffic rule. A traffic rule says that you can drive 60 km an hour. So anything up to 60 is OK.

God's commands go deeper. They are holistic. They include intention and manifestation, motivation and consequences. So, "not to murder" as God's command means more than not taking a gun or a knife and not killing some one. It includes the motivation of anger and hatred and hurt and it aims at the restoration of relationships. So before God, not only your visible action, but also your attitude, your relationship to others matter.

The Sabbath

As a Jew, Jesus knew and accepted the command: "Remember the Sabbath day, and keep it holy." (Exodus 20:8)

Keeping the Sabbath was important in Jewish society during Jesus' day. It had become an important identity mark of the Jewish people and their faith in God. The Sabbath was guarded by hundreds of laws. It was the sign of God's election and it was designated to manifest that Israel is the people of God. To be an Israelite was synonymous with obeying the Sabbath rules. Offenders were punished heavily (including the death penalty, Jub 2:25, 50:8).

Jesus showed no disrespect for the Sabbath as such. But he wanted to reclaim it as the day when the ways of God are celebrated. And the "kingdom of God" is celebrated when love becomes an event. Jesus therefore relativized the then current Sabbath laws in order to "do good" and to "save life" (Mk 3:4). He healed people on the Sabbath even when there was no medical emergency. This was an intentional provocation. Where love longs to become an event, there religious laws and practices must be suspended. How can the God who liberated his people from slavery and whose commandments are structures of liberation be confined to religious rules when human life needs to be healed?

Temple

This went hand in hand with Jesus' critical attitude towards the temple. He questioned the paying of temple tax (Mt 17:24-27) and in a prophetic protest, Jesus interfered with the proceedings of the temple to demonstrate that the temple establishment had led the people in wrong directions (Mk 11:15-19). Not ritual and sacrifice, but repentance, prayer and commitment to justice were elements that would restore the temple to become again the house of God.

Paying Taxes to Caesar

Jesus was confronted with the question whether "it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?" (Mk 12:13-17)

This was a highly sensitive and potentially inflammable topic. Palestine was under Roman occupation. Some groups, like the Sadducees and the tax and toll collectors, aligned themselves with the occupation forces, while others, like the Zealots, were refusing to co-operate and were engaged in a struggle for liberation from the Romans.

Where did Jesus stand? Would he be drawn into this highly political issue? Some of his contemporaries must have associated him with the Zealots since he had Zealots among his disciples. But Jesus' emphasis on non-violence and his encouragement to love one's enemy would suggest that he rejected the Zealot option. That does not mean, however, that Jesus was politically neutral.

When confronted with the question of paying tribute to Caesar, Jesus asked his investigators to hand him a coin. The coin had on one side the picture of the emperor with the inscription "Tiberius Caesar Divi Augusti Filius Augustus" (Tiberius Caesar, Augustus, son of the divine Augustus). On the other side was the image of the emperor's mother as the incarnation of the heavenly peace. The coin was a symbol of the Roman deity. It signified Rome's power over the Jews. Zealots would therefore not handle such a coin.

Jesus takes it into his hands, but at the same time he transfigures its significance by reminding his listeners that while they may give "to the emperor the things that are the emperor's", they must give "to God the things that are God's" (Mk 12:17). The coin belongs to the emperor, but the human being belongs to God. Jesus therefore adopts a middle position between violent opposition on the one hand and passive accommodation on the other. The human conscience finds its ultimate concern in God, and therefore the claim of political authorities can only be of secondary significance. The amazement of the people (Mk 12:17) can only be interpreted as the recognition that with Jesus a transfiguration of politics had encountered them.

Application

What have we learned from opening these few windows into Jesus' life? Let me suggest a few points for your consideration.

1. Jesus takes the situation in which he finds himself seriously. He accepts the fact that you have to live your life in structures and institutions. He accepts the Sabbath and the Temple and he even does not resist paying taxes to the enemy.
2. Yet there is "more". There is another dimension. Jesus recognises an authority that transcends Temple and Sabbath, and that goes deeper than knowing not to murder. This higher authority allows Jesus a freedom that amazed people, and at the same time it angered the keepers of law and tradition. He would break the Sabbath laws in order to heal human life. He would criticise the temple when it was no longer about worshipping a living God. The "more" for us is faith in Jesus as Saviour and Example.
3. So it was not an arbitrary freedom. It was a responsible freedom. The measuring stick for what is responsible or not, is clear and transparent. Responsible freedom is bound to God and therefore to the dignity of human life. Where the dignity of human life is at stake, there the God question arises. God created human life in God's image and therefore in every human being we are confronted with the imago dei.
4. That implies a certain leaning. Love seeks what is lost; it wants to liberate what is oppressed, and it wants to reconcile what is separated. Love includes passion, and the passion is for God's ways to become visible. The early church sought the presence of Christ not only in Word and Sacrament, but also in those people who were pressed to the margins of life.
5. So, my friends, faith in Jesus Christ brings freedom into our life. It is responsible freedom because it follows Jesus' example and is therefore concerned with making human life whole and human. All other commitments are secondary.