This week we have references in two of our readings to major historical figures outside of the bible. The first is Cyrus the Great, King of Persia, and ruler of the largest empire in the world up to that time (600-530 BC). The other is Caesar – specifically Tiberius Caesar Augustus, the second Roman emperor.
Such links between the bible and other recorded figures and events in history are uncommon, which is a great frustration for those attempting to put dates on biblical events, even those in the life of Jesus. But these references also point to a deeper question – what is the relationship between the people of God, both Israelites and Christians, and the world around them?
The Israelites were obviously affected by what went on around them, as seen in the many wars and invasions they were involved in. But for the most part they had an image of themselves as in the center of things, and their God was in control. In the time of Isaiah they could see the Babylonian captivity as a result of God’s action and a punishment on the people. But when it came to the end of that captivity, that perspective was impossible to maintain. The end of their captivity was clearly brought about by a man, and a man who had absolutely nothing to do with their world, their God, and who didn’t fit in their world picture at all. That man was Cyrus. Among many notable innovations he introduced was the idea that people within an empire could continue with their own customs and religion, and he would even support them in building religious monuments and suchlike. We can also note that Alexander the Great who eventually took over this empire and extended it still further took essentially the same approach, as did the Romans – which was very much to the benefit of the Jews of Jesus’ time.
Before Cyrus it was taken for granted that when a people were conquered they were expected to worship the gods of their conquerors – and whatever force might be necessary would be applied to ensure this. We see a clear example in the story of Daniel’s companions who were Israelite captives in Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar, and were tortured to make them conform. But when Cyrus captured Babylon (in 539 BC) and overthrew its king Nabonidus, a successor to Nebuchadnezzar, he instituted a new policy of restoring the old gods of Babylon rather than imposing his own.
It is unlikely he did this because he was just an all round nice guy… The Persian empire had become so large that a number of innovations in governance were required to make it manageable, and the government was much more decentralized than earlier empires. So the policy of religious toleration was clearly good politics and reduced the cost of imposing “foreign” beliefs on conquered peoples.
Regardless of the reasons, the Israelites were clear beneficiaries of this new style of government – they were allowed to return to Jerusalem and supporting in rebuilding the Temple (which then lasted until Herod rebuilt it again, just before the time of Jesus).
So far, so great – but this raised a huge theological issue – how did Cyrus fit into the Israelite worldview – when he most obviously didn’t! The answer Isaiah gives is simple – just have God adopt him: “I have called you by your name, giving you a title, though you knew me not.”
The sneaky Pharisees presented Jesus with basically the same problem. What is our relationship to the Romans? And notice they were accompanied by the “Herodians” – the enforcers for the Roman occupation.
Let’s be clear. This was not some academic, philosophical discussion. There was a strong movement within Judaism that argued that any compromise with the occupying Romans was unacceptable, including paying taxes. These were the rebels that just a little later took over the country for a short time, leading to the reconquest by the Romans, the destruction of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem, the death of hundreds of thousands, and the disappearance of 1000 years of Jewish tradition in Israel. So the stakes were high. Jesus, if you like, gives a diplomatic answer, but he does accept there is a legitimate authority outside the framework of Jewish law and tradition, to which the Jews are subject.
Jesus does not elaborate on what the relationship is between God’s authority and that of the secular powers. It is tempting to think that he is supporting the idea that these are two parallel realities and they do not or should not interact. That has been a common, though not universal, perspective in recent times – keep faith and politics separate. For the early church coexistence with the wider society while maintaining as much independence as possible was pretty much the only available option. That was turned on end when Christianity became the established religion of the Roman empire, and for much of the history of the church it has been totally entwined with the political system – in countries like Spain and Italy until the mid-twentieth century.
We are expecting too much if we expect to find clear directions for the relationship between church and state in the gospels. This is a question that has to be worked out for each generation in each society and political system. What we can take from the bible is a recognition that there is such a question and the answer requires us to think deeply about both the role of the state and the role of our faith. This is a process which has become increasingly explicit in the teaching of the Church since the Industrial Revolution, often grouped under the heading of “Social Justice”. The very latest iteration is in the encyclical just produced by Pope Francis (on October 3) – which he entitles “Fratelli Tutti” (All Brothers), quoting from his namesake St Francis. The foundation of this teaching is “a love that transcends the barriers of geography and distance”. The Pope immediately illustrates what this means by linking the visit of St Francis to the sultan of Egypt and his own meeting with the Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyeb. Many might think today that the divide between Christians and Muslims is one of the greatest problems we face – the Pope denies this by his words and actions. “In the name of God; Al-Azhar al-Sharif and the Muslims of the East and West, together with the Catholic Church and the Catholics of the East and West, declare the adoption of a culture of dialogue as the path; mutual cooperation as the code of conduct; reciprocal understanding as the method and standard.”
The Pope covers the full range of “modern” political concerns in his letter (more of a book really!) and I’m not going to make any attempt to summarize. But I will leave you with his answer, also drawing on the words of Pope Benedict, to the question answered by Isaiah and Jesus in their times: …the Church, while respecting the autonomy of political life, does not restrict her mission to the private sphere. On the contrary, “she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines” in the building of a better world, or fail to “reawaken the spiritual energy” that can contribute to the betterment of society (FT 276).
Our relationship with God does not put us in a bubble separate from the world around – it actually calls us to engage with that world. No it’s not easy – Jesus didn’t promise us a quiet life – but he did promise to be with us always, even when we are trying to figure out the right way to vote on tax policy.