In Luke 3 we are introduced to the adult ministry of John the
Baptist as he preaches in the region around Jordan.
As mentioned in other contexts the quotation from Isaiah 40
and 52 are instructive as their fulfillments defy the hyper-literalistic
hermeneutic so common in Dispensational theology. Indeed every valley was
filled and every mountain brought low with the coming of the Messiah and yet
not literally so. These poetic expressions reflect spiritual and cosmic truth
signifying the passing of the old order and the tumult resulting from the
glorious appearing of Christ's Kingdom.
Of course these things are fulfilled in an Already-Not Yet
framework in which they have been fulfilled, are being fulfilled in the testimony
of the Church and will ultimately be fulfilled when Christ comes with flaming
fire taking vengeance – an event in which the world and all its works will be
consumed in flame.
The hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders was tied to power and
wealth and indeed they were encouraged to produce fruit on their otherwise
barren trees – the fruit of repentance which would manifest itself in
sacrificial giving and altruism. Contrary to the phoney stewardship arguments
advocated by today's Evangelicals which seem to be rooted more in excuses not
to help the poor, a call to hoard money (though it is never put in such crass
terms) and a theology to justify their behaviour – the New Testament is clear.
Give to the poor.
Many have attempted to explain John's exhortations to tax
collectors and soldiers by essentially explaining away John's words. They take
it as: tax collectors are told to be honest and soldiers should be fair –
therefore these are valid professions for Christians all but affirmed by John's
declaration.
This view is mistaken on several points. First, this is still
the Old Testament era in which the attitude toward warfare and even money was
different and of a lower order – not yet subjected to the 'but I say unto you'
transformation seen under Christ. John the Baptist was the greatest prophet and
yet he was still part of the Old Covenant and thus we're told in Matthew 11 that
the one who is least in the Kingdom is in fact greater than John. This does not
mean that John wasn't (anachronistically speaking) a Christian brother. He
certainly was. But in terms of the Covenant administration he lived under – he
was a man of the Old Testament – a lower order of type and shadow.
John lived and preached Old Testament ethics which would soon
be fulfilled and superseded. That said, even his statements to the tax
collectors and soldiers don't quite say what many think.
First, let's consider the soldiers. Who were these soldiers?
Were they Romans? Some seem to think so but the context militates against it.
These were soldiers that were either connected to the Temple or more likely
soldiers attached to Herod Antipas the titular ruler of Galilee. Local client
kingdoms could have their own detachments of soldiers. Rome did not allow them
to field large armies and their foreign policies were strictly controlled.
Antipas couldn't order his army to attack Parthia for example but he was
allowed a contingent of soldiers – effectively palace guards or even something
of a police force.
Now on the one hand this takes the wind out of the sails of the
John is pro-soldier argument. That's
not really true even if such a thing were permissible under the old order.
These soldiers were not waging war but even with that said they are by
definition agents of violence – and yet John tells them to do no violence against
anyone. Now to be fair the Greek here indicates (perhaps) more of a concept of
intimidation as the New King James indicates. And yet event this is quite
problematic as soldiers by definition are meant to intimidate – their presence
and potential violence they represent is a deterrence. And certainly if someone
was to behave out of line they would be called to use intimidation and
violence. And if ordered to, they must (under threat of punishment) use said intimidation
and violence.
John's exhortation leaves them in a bit of a fix, unable to
do their job and frankly unable to make much of a living. Avoiding false
accusation might be easy enough but fidelity on this point would certainly lead
to impoverishment – which is what he seems to imply. Soldiers in the field have
since time immemorial used their position to enrich themselves – with
commanders often turning a blind eye. It was simply understood that soldiers
would augment their low wages by shaking people down. It happens even today in
overseas contexts. The idea of paying soldiers a living wage in order to
curtail such behaviour is a modern innovation and one that really only works in
a peaceful domestic setting. In a war or occupation zone the old practices
creep back in. In many police departments it's still standard practice though
granted official status. The money isn't officially pocketed by the individual
officer (though that happens often enough) but it goes to the department and
thus benefits every officer in the unit. As such there's an incentive for
police to pry, search and stir the pot as seized assets become something of a
department bonus. Has this led to corruption and scandal? It most certainly
has. It's led to literal highway robbery in some instances.
Soldiers in first century Palestine eschewing violence and
relying solely on their official wage weren't going to have much of a career
and would certainly feel the financial pinch.
Rather than merely affirm soldiering which the New Testament
later breaks with in more explicit terms – even John's cautious endorsement
includes a set of ethical imperatives that would ultimately drive a faithful
person to seek other employment or inevitably end up in a dilemma and facing
punishment.
From any angle the common lesson in today's Evangelical
circles – that John affirms the vocation of soldier is simply false and a
result of sloppy exegesis if not eisegesis.
With regard to the tax collectors, John's statement is even
more ironic. Collect no more than what is appointed for you. This was financial
suicide. Modern day tax collectors are paid a fee or salary and the revenues
they handle have nothing to do with their pay. And unlike police departments
they don't get to profit on their suspicions or people's errors.
And yet in our constant push toward privatisation American
society may be returning to the ancient norm. A lot of local taxes are
contracted out to private entities. The line between a contracted fee and
straight bidding isn't always clear and I know in some cases local tax collectors
(private for profit companies) are certainly receiving a portion of the tax
revenue I and others pay in. The state has decided this is cheaper than paying
a full time worker a government salary. The private entity can pursue it their
own way which evidently requires hiring low wage wholly inept workers who push
papers and punch data into a computer while the leaders of the firm reap the
profits.
Anyway, Jewish agents (viewed as traitors and collaborators)
would contract with the Romans to collect taxes in a certain district. They had
to turn in the amount of money listed in their contract. Their paycheck as it
were came from charging more and keeping the surplus. They would raise the
revenues and then skim them. The government knew they were doing this and
didn't care. It was how the system worked. Collecting taxes could involve a lot
of headache and work trying to squeeze the money out of people. A clever,
efficient and feared tax collector could become wealthy, paying off his
employees, his muscle and still end up with a nice profit. An inept collector
would find himself short of the funds and in huge trouble with the Roman
authorities.
For John to suggest that they collect no more than what was
appointed was a sure ticket to poverty. The risks of the job would no longer
bring forth any of the rewards. It would be like working for nothing. He might
as well have said – quit your job.
It's almost as if John (in a manner that foreshadows Christ)
doesn't want to answer them directly. The answer is contained within the words
and it's up to them (if they have eyes to see) to come up with it on their own
– or rather through the aid of the Spirit.
Regardless of the motive, one thing is clear. A careful read
of the passage reveals that the standard Evangelical interpretation – one of
John affirming these vocations is less than accurate and at worst blatantly
misleading.
The ethics posited by John are that of the pilgrim living in
the wilderness – a literal reality in John's case. They are ethics that reject
the world and its values. John does not affirm the life of the sword and the
coin. He does not say it's okay to pursue power and mammon. Rather he rejects
these things in both his life and his message. And then in light of the New
Testament, how much more are these truths and imperatives amplified?
No comments:
Post a Comment