by Paul Barnett
There has been much opposition to the sedition clause in the Howard Government's new counter-terror legislation.
But sedition was also in the air in Jesus' day. Indeed, he was charged with being guilty of that crime, that is, of "agitation against the authority of a state" (Concise Oxford Dictionary).
The issue of sedition lay behind the nasty question to Jesus about the payment of taxes. Was it lawful for a member of the covenant people to pay tax to Caesar, the pagan king of the world?
Once a region became a province of Rome two things generally followed. One was that no local person must claim to be a king. The other was people had to pay their taxes direct to the emperor. Jesus was charged with both of these crimes.
The payment of direct tax to the Caesar was a major issue for the People of God when their Land was annexed to Rome in AD 6. For almost half a century the people had paid their taxes to Rome's puppets, the Herods. But in AD 6 the Romans conducted a census with a view to the people being levied to pay tax direct to the emperor.
Devout Jews took exception to this since the book of Numbers said that only the LORD was entitled to "number the people'. In that year a man named Judas, from the Galilee region led an uprising against Rome, under the slogan "No master except God'. The Romans ruthlessly put down the rebellion and executed Judas the Galilean.
Can we see, then, how electric was the question to Jesus about the lawfulness of paying tax to Caesar? If he said "No' he would have been seen immediately as a new Judas the Galilean and if he said "Yes' he would have been seen as betraying the covenant LORD.
We all know Jesus' reply. This was not merely an ingenious escape from a trap but rather fundamental to a true view of the true kingdom of God. When Jesus replied "render to Caesar the things of Caesar and to God the things of God' he made the state and the Kingdom of God separate entities.
In a word, Jesus repudiated the notion of theocracy (God ruling through political/religious leaders) that had been advocated by Judas the Galilean.
Jesus was anything but seditious, but in urging the payment of tax to Caesar he was actually upholding the rule of law of the day.
Nonetheless, Jesus' enemies remained determined to remove him. Earlier they had failed to have him killed on the religious grounds of blasphemy. Now they were seeking the way of politics to get the better of him.
This trick question was part of that strategy, but it failed. So they attempted to put him in the same "frame' as Judas the Galilean, notwithstanding his advice to pay Caesar. They managed to accuse Jesus of two cardinal crimes against Rome, of claiming to be a king and of subverting the payment of tax to Rome.
Accordingly Jesus was accused of sedition and treason. For these he was crucified, though he was guilty of neither crime. Jesus was innocent of political engagement, as his "render to Caesar' indicates.
Today we must preserve a distinction between criticising the state and subverting it. The test is of intent.
The Rev Dr Paul Barnett is an author and historian. He was Bishop of North Sydney from 1990 to 2001.
Comment on this article for the next issue of Southern Cross
