Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, was martyred by Roman authorities around AD 156, aged 86. When Polycarp was brought into the stadium at Smyrna to meet his fate the Roman proconsul tried to persuade him to deny Christ, saying, "Swear by the fortune of Caesar; repent, and say, Away with the Atheists." Instead, Polycarp declared, "Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?"
Polycarp was martyred because he refused to deny Christ and swear by the fortune of Caesar. The two went together because the claim of the Caesar’s from the time of Jesus through to the time of Polycarp was a claim to divinity. In the Roman Empire, at that time, “Caesar was the king, the saviour, and demanded an oath by his ‘genius’.” “Polycarp declared that to call Caesar these things would be to commit blasphemy against [Christ], the true, divine king and saviour.” The message of Christianity, in its early phase, was in conflict with the political forces of its day because Christ’s divinity and rule was seen as central by the Church, not Caesar’s.
We see the same kind of conflict occurring in today's Gospel reading about Jesus and the payment of taxes (Matthew 22.15-22). Jesus is asked whether it is against the Law of Moses to pay taxes to the Romans. Before he answers, he asks his questioners to bring him one of the coins used to pay the tax. This coin would have had on it an image of the Emperor Tiberius and a superscription which would have said that Tiberius was the son of the divine Augustus. As all images were prohibited by the Law of Moses and as the superscription proclaimed Tiberius to be a son of a god, these coins were hot property as far as the Jews were concerned. From a strict Jewish perspective, the coins themselves were blasphemous and to have one was compromising.
Polycarp was martyred because he refused to deny Christ and swear by the fortune of Caesar. The two went together because the claim of the Caesar’s from the time of Jesus through to the time of Polycarp was a claim to divinity. In the Roman Empire, at that time, “Caesar was the king, the saviour, and demanded an oath by his ‘genius’.” “Polycarp declared that to call Caesar these things would be to commit blasphemy against [Christ], the true, divine king and saviour.” The message of Christianity, in its early phase, was in conflict with the political forces of its day because Christ’s divinity and rule was seen as central by the Church, not Caesar’s.
We see the same kind of conflict occurring in today's Gospel reading about Jesus and the payment of taxes (Matthew 22.15-22). Jesus is asked whether it is against the Law of Moses to pay taxes to the Romans. Before he answers, he asks his questioners to bring him one of the coins used to pay the tax. This coin would have had on it an image of the Emperor Tiberius and a superscription which would have said that Tiberius was the son of the divine Augustus. As all images were prohibited by the Law of Moses and as the superscription proclaimed Tiberius to be a son of a god, these coins were hot property as far as the Jews were concerned. From a strict Jewish perspective, the coins themselves were blasphemous and to have one was compromising.
The trap that had been set for Jesus was a neat one. If he takes the orthodox Jewish position he can be denounced to the Roman authorities as a revolutionary encouraging the Jews not to pay the tax. But if he says that the Jews should pay the tax, then the religious leaders can denounce him as someone who encourages blasphemy.
So how does he respond? Cleverly is the answer. And more cleverly than we have tended to realise in interpreting this story within the Church.
Firstly, he asks for the coin used to pay the tax. This means that those questioning him have to produce the coin. In other words, they have to reveal that they have with them, handle and use these blasphemous coins. By this simple action Jesus makes it much harder for them to then denounce him if he should recommend paying the tax.
Then he says, “pay back to the Emperor what belongs to the Emperor, and pay God what belongs to God.” Now, this is an amazing statement because it is one statement that can be understood in two different ways.
The Church has traditionally understood Jesus to be talking about a difference between loyalty to a state and to God. In other words, that the state can make legitimate demands on its citizens like the payment of taxes and that it is right for Christians to meet those obligations. Always recognising, of course, that we have a greater and wider commitment to God that encompasses the whole of our lives and not just those parts to which a state can make a claim. That is one way of understanding what Jesus said and, on that basis, his hearers could have understood him to be that the tax should be paid.
But, with their knowledge of recent Jewish history, Jesus’ hearers would also have realised that his words could be understood in another much more revolutionary sense. “Pay back to the Emperor what belongs to the Emperor” could also mean pay the Romans back for all that they have done in oppressing our people. While the second half, “pay God what belongs to God”, could be understood as meaning give to God alone the divine honour that has been blasphemously claimed by Caesar. So, Jesus’ words could be heard as a revolutionary call to arms.
But is that what they were? Well, his hearers couldn’t tell because the phrase he chose to use could be understood in either way. They were amazed, the story tells us, and well they might be because they couldn’t be sure which way his words were to be taken and, therefore, he had eluded their trap. Jesus told his followers to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves and he certainly modelled that approach here.
What can we learn from this? One thing we can see is that Jesus wasn’t trapped in the two camps of revolution or compromise that characterised the politics of his day. He was able to articulate a third way, an alternative kingdom, that countered oppression and that called for justice but which worked for these things through peaceful means. He calls us to do the same. To be people who challenge the oppressions and injustices of our day but with the tools of peace and not the weapons of war.
As a result of his approach, Jesus was a threat to all around him - to the Jewish zealots advocating violent uprising he was a threat because he called for peace; to the religious leaders working with the Roman oppressors, he was a threat because he challenged the hypocrisy of their position; and to the Roman authorities enforcing allegiance to Caesar, he was a threat because he called the Jewish people back to what should have been their sole allegiance, to God.
Because it is in the final part of Jesus’ phrase that we find the most radical of statements whichever way we interpret what he said. We are to pay God what belongs to God and, if God is the creator of all that we have including our lives themselves, then he is calling us to give everything to God. If God is God, then that means not just individual giving but corporate giving too, because everything that the state has has also been given to it by God. There is nothing that cannot be given back to God because everything that exists is ultimately a gift to us from God.
Everything that we have is a gift from God to be given back to him by being used, not for ourselves, but for others. What we have - our money, our time, our talents, our community, our environment - is entrusted to us by God to use wisely in countering injustice and caring for others and for our world. This principle applies to every aspect of stewardship - our time, our talents, our community involvement and our care of the environment. When we do so, like Jesus, we are wanting to see God honoured in thankful recognition of all that he has done in creating life and in countering injustice.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rev Simpkins - Sing Your Life.
No comments:
Post a Comment