By Leigh Johnsen
A Commentary on the Sabbath School Lesson for August 7–13, 2004, "Respect for Authorities"
Then he said to them, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s." (Matt. 22:21 KJV) Jesus’ exchange with his would-be entrappers in Matthew 22 must be one of the best-known passages in the Bible. Certain Pharisees and Herodians had approached him with a Roman coin that bore the emperor’s image and asked him about the rightfulness of paying the emperor’s taxes. A "yes" would have alienated the Jews; a "no" would have aligned him with Rome’s enemies. Jesus was in a bind. His response must have amazed onlookers. Jesus deftly turned the tables. No orthodox Jew at that time would have touched a graven image, let alone that of a civil authority who claimed to be God. But he also pointed out a division all too often forgotten among Christians. Jesus told his listeners that some things belong to God, and some things belong to Caesar. In short, there is a difference. Therein lies one of the plainest statements in Scripture of separation between church and state.
But Jesus’ answer leaves some questions hanging: What, precisely, belongs to God and what belongs to Caesar? Where should Christians draw the line? What principles should modern Christians follow if they want to live in accordance with God’s will? Over the years Adventists have answered such questions in a variety of ways. Our most consistent theme—befitting orientation toward end-time events—has been concern over our right to worship on the seventh day. In this context, Caesar is mistrusted as a potential persecutor. Traditionally, we have kept him at arm’s length, eyeing him with suspicion as an eventual player on the other side of the prophetic divide. Meanwhile, in other contexts we have viewed him differently.
One response has been resistance, grounded in a tradition of pacificism. During the U.S. Civil War, for instance, church policy disapproved the bearing of arms and many Adventist youths refused military service. In this case, Caesar could not be obeyed lest members be forced to violate the Fourth and Sixth Commandments.1
Nor could Caesar always be trusted to guard civil freedom. To Adventists in the 1850s, the U.S. government deserved condemnation for protecting slavery, punishing resistors, and permitting its expansion into the western territories. Although the New Testament sanctions slavery (Col. 3:22–24; Eph. 6:5; Titus 2:9–10), they refused to cooperate with the Fugitive Slave Act, legislation that outlawed assistance for runaway slaves. 2
Caesar has also been useful as an ally, even with initiatives not entirely supported by Scripture. Thus efforts among late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Adventists—including Ellen White—to enforce total abstinence of alcohol through civil legislation. Far from being distrusted, Caesar could be viewed as a friend, relied upon to enforce moral initiatives of one’s choosing. 3
Finally, the history of Adventism has also included willingness to embrace Caesar. To do so is to lose sight of the distinction that Jesus offered in Matthew 22. For example, in Nazi Germany many Adventists expressed enthusiastic loyalty to the state, fought for it, and celebrated its victories. Meanwhile, church leaders allowed denominational publications to become mouthpieces for government propaganda.4
In short, Adventism has responded in different ways to issues raised in Matthew 22. Over the years, we have worked for, with, and against Caesar. We have justified ourselves with reasoning based wholly or partly in Scripture, alien to the Bible, and directly counter to the Word. We have asked Caesar to enforce total abstinence of alcohol, a moral issue, yet we have criticized efforts among other Christians to have him enforce the sanctity of Sunday as the Sabbath, which they see as a moral issue.
Historically, we have lacked consistency, leaving a vacuum that invites creation of ad hoc justifications cherry picked from Scripture and the writings of Ellen White.
What follows is a suggested beginning toward a consistent set of guiding principles. It is offered not as the final word, but as a suggestion to be discussed, amended, and elaborated with the goal of helping Adventists and other Christians clarify their roles as citizens of earthly and heavenly kingdoms.
God is love, and love stands at the base of his rule (1 John 4:16; Luke 15). As God incarnate, Jesus has offered the fullest and clearest expression of divine love accessible to humans (John 1:1–5, 18; 14:8, 9). Humans are expected to reciprocate in love (1 John 4:7, 19). Christians who have experienced God’s love are challenged to reflect it in all they do (Eph. 5:1–2; John 15:1–17; 17:20–23; 1 John 4:11, 21).
Scripture shows that God values the ability of humans to make free moral choices (Gen. 3; 1 Kings 18:21; John 3:16). Without such freedom, life is a cruel game. Love cannot be forced, nor can conversion and moral regeneration. Force exerted in matters of religion assumes a prerogative that Christ himself refused; thus it is blasphemous.
In contrast to God’s rule, the ultimate appeal of earthly governments is based on either the threat or exercise of force. "Do this," Caesar says in effect, "or I will imprison, torture, or kill you." The New Testament grants civil governments authority to punish and contain "wrongdoers," though their authority is limited (Rom. 13:1–7 NRSV; Acts 5:29). The nature of God’s kingdom should not be confused with earthly powers. "My kingdom is not of this world," Jesus told Pontius Pilate (John 18:36).
What belongs to God? Our primary devotion as created beings transformed by Christ and the continuing power of his love. How should we view Caesar? As a subordinate power with limited authority. Where should we draw the line? Wherever Caesar uses his tools within the context of God’s kingdom, or threatens to interfere with the freedom of humans to make decisions that could bring them into or turn them away from the kingdom. The ways of God are not those of Caesar. Wrestling with these issues offers the Church and its members an opportunity to highlight the differences and develop consistent lives that draw others to the God we worship.
1. Richard W. Schwartz, Light Bearers to the Remnant (Boise, Idaho: Pacific Press, 1979), 98–101.
2. Douglas Morgan, Adventism and the American Republic: The Public Involvement of a Major Apocalyptic Movement (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2001), 26.
3. Ibid., 36–38.
4. Roland Blaich, "Divided Loyalties: American and German Seventh-day Adventists and the Second World War," Spectrum 30.1 (winter 2002): 37–51.
EMAIL THIS ARTICLE
|
