Solomon succeeds David, his father. David had been a genuinely charismatic leader in his time. He was a man who attracted people, who gained support by his prowess and was indeed very wise in the way he led his people. He united the tribes, he defended them well and he ruled with energy and wisdom. He was human, there were flaws in his character, but there was also humility, so he was forgiven by the Lord.
David avait une personnalité intéressante et attrayante. Il a lutté avec l'habileté d'un grand guerrier. Il était un dirigeant avec beaucoup de charisme. Salomon, lui, était autre chose.
David did not want to establish a dynasty. He hoped that someone would rise up among his people and be acclaimed king. The only potential candidates that arose were self-appointed from among his sons . Solomon won that contest with the connivance of his mother, Bathsheba, the collaboration of the prophet Nathan and the support of Zadok, the priest. Their collusion won him the kingship. He did nothing to gain the support of the people. His support came from those in the king's court who had self-interest in mind, they all would have been put to death had another seized the kingship had another son become king .The power-struggle tipped in favour of Solomon.
Le temps de Salomon était un temps pour la paix. Pas de guerre pour lui. La ruse, l'organisation et la connivence était sa façon de faire. Les négociations pacifiques était sa façon de procéder.
So Solomon is consecrated king. He is the first in the dynasty of David. He begins very well. In the passage we heard today, he prays not for the gifts of the charismatic leader and warrior-king like his father, but the gifts of a good administrator: "a wise and discerning mind". He certainly does receive that gift, at least in terms of his handling the affairs of the court and of the people with prudence.
He entered into endless political arrangements with neighbouring kings (each of his wives was the sign of a peaceful negotiation with a foreign king). He was a man of peace, not war. In the end, however, he does not measure up to his father. This is how things went: if he had a wife who worshipped a foreign deity, he built her a temple to her god, and he had many, many wives. He let his foreign policy lead him and his people into idolatry. He is wise in earthly things, but foolish in the things of God.
Salomon était plus intéressé à maintenir la paix qu'à garder sa foi pure. Ce n'était rien pour lui de construire des lieux de pèlerinage pour ses femmes étrangères. Il n'était pas non plus dérangé par le fait que son propre peuple fréquentait ces églises étrangères. Il était sage dans sa gestion des biens temporels mais insensé dans les affaires divines.
The Gospel today is very striking in its simplicity. What is at issue is the relationship of the People of God to the foreign authority that occupies their land. In those days there were Zealots in the countryside who were acting like terrorist do today - striking anywhere and at anytime putting fear into everyone. Theirs was a way of anarchy, leading to the destabilisation of public order and eventually their takeover of the whole country.
The Pharisees come to Jesus along with some Herodians, who were clearly collaborating with the Romans authority, since Herod had been set-up as king by the Romans and his son, Herodias, was ruling Galilee. Wanting to give the impression that they are disputing among themselves, they come to Jesus in order to trap him. Is he in favour of the Zealots or is he in favour of the Pharisees, who are hypocritically pretending to be against Rome and for an independent People. The questioners want Jesus to settle the question on the basis of external obedience to external forces.
La question du règlement des taxes revenait souvent. En ce temps-là, tout comme aujourd'hui, il y avait des terroristes qui prenaient tous les moyens possibles pour nuire aux Romains. On les appelaient "les hommes aux couteaux".
Jesus sees through their plot and turns the argument around. What he says, "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's." It is not an answer to their question. It is a statement which makes it clear that the relationship to public authority (that is Caesar), only covers a part of life, but the relationship to God covers all of it, especially one's heart and inner-self. What belongs to God is the whole person (Mark 12:30ff). If the public authority does not interfere with one's total dedication to God's will, there is no reason to refuse to give what it can legitimately claim (e.g. taxes); but if the public authority interferes with one's total dedication to God's will, then the public authority is not to be obeyed.
Jésus nous oblige à faire la part des choses - Rendez à César ce qui appartient à César et à Dieu ce qui appartient à Dieu. Vous devez aimer Dieu de tout votre coeur et de toute votre âme. Jésus ne veut pas encourager les zélotes à promouvoir la confusion mais il ne veut pas non plus encourager la soumission abjecte à Rome. Payer à Rome les taxes nécessaires pour maintenir l'ordre dans la société, mais ne laissez pas Rome dicter votre coeur tout entier.
Jesus does not take sides. He states the problem and the principles by which it is to be resolved, but he does not say that one must always give what public authority demands, nor does he say that one must never give what public authority asks. He leaves one with the obligation to weigh civil authority and to decide. He rules out at once the position of the Zealots and their move to the chaos of anarchy, and he rules out total, complete and abject submission to the Romans.
L'autorité publique ne peut gouverner que ce qui est extérieur - ordre visible dans la société. Elle ne peut gouverner le coeur de la personne. Si jamais elle le faisait, nous pourrions nous révolter contre elle.
Living in a democratic society we are having to evaluate our world almost every day. Often we have to have recourse to the legal profession to help us size-up the situation. In our democracy we rely heavily on public opinion and the temptation is to make of it the deciding authority. In a period of relativism, this can be disastrous, but it can also shake us loose from adherence to too rigid an interpretation of what is right and good.
One current example is "same-sex marriages". While we would support civil authority in wanting to stabilize and to assure justice in any long-lasting human relationship, we cannot support a change in the objective meaning of realities and pretend that a relationship between two people of the same sex is the same as a marriage. A marriage is between two people of the opposite sex.
Our government's position on this, so far, appears to be on the right track (e.g. the position of Roslyn Levine, published earlier this week). Its position on abortion, leaving it completely vulnerable, without even the slightest restriction, is certainly more questionable. No wonder some of our society are asking the question: is it legitimate to pay taxes to our government?
The example of Solomon, his concessions to pressure leading to idolatry is a reminder of what we could possibly be falling into - a rule of law without even the semblance of the kind of public order which respects human beings in their objective reality.
The value of human life; is it not also something our governments should support with some restrictions, if not penalties? Is abortion less of an act of violation of public order than smoking? Nous devons toujours garder devant nous la loi de Dieu, la loi de l'Évangile. Cette loi doit être pour nous le mirroir dans lequel nous regardons pour voir si ce que nous supportons est réellement pour nous, pour notre âme et pour notre peuple la loi de Dieu.
The legal profession is among the most noble and the most important of any society, especially our own. It is important that we keep before our eyes the wonderful example of Saint Thomas More who gave up his life rather than to pay homage to King Henry. He refused to give to Caesar what was God's - his total allegiance. May God bless you with his Thomas' wisdom and his loyalty.