The Politics of Jesus. By Bill Pierron
Guest Speaker | Monday, July 12, 2010 at 12:25PM My subject this morning is “the Politics of Jesus.” In other words, religion and politics, the two things you should never discuss in polite society -- rolled into one.
So please forgive me for that.
I was drawn to this topic because I have a longstanding interest in politics and public policy. I’ve been following politics at the federal level since I was a teenager, and for many years I worked in our nation’s capitol, both as a congressional staffer and then as a government official dealing with political appointees. I’m fascinated by the human stories behind the policymaking, and I’ve always found the stories of how public policy gets made to be compelling. So those are my personal reasons for pursuing this subject.
On to the Politics.
The New Testament accounts of Jesus’s ministry tend to focus on him recruiting followers, reaching out to the outcasts of society, and performing miracles that generally relieve human suffering, such as healing the sick or feeding the multitudes. These are all “political” acts in that they portray a man trying to remake the social order.
But by the Politics of Jesus, I don’t mean the “subversive” Jesus who challenged the social rules of his day. I refer instead the shrewd Jesus who established long-term goals and objectives, sized up his opponents, planned strategies, and anticipated setbacks along the way. When we read the Biblical texts, we generally don’t see Jesus portrayed this way. The stories tend to present Jesus’ ministry in a series of fragmentary anecdotes that, to some extent, don’t fully explain why the authorities would have wanted him dead.
I believe that to a large extent, the “elephant in the room” in the New Testament is the Roman occupation of Judea. The New Testament books touch on this from time to time, but somewhat matter-of-factly. This shouldn’t be surprising since the books were written during the Roman occupation, and their intended audience, potential converts to Christianity, would have included Roman citizens.
So, while it is never explicitly stated in the gospels, my belief is that Jesus would have been heartened to see an end to the Roman domination of his homeland. But he was constrained by the very real limitations of a local government subservient to the Romans, religious authorities that answered to the puppet regime appointed by Rome, and a social order that the Romans could exploit for their own gain.
By the time of Jesus’ birth, the Romans had controlled Judea and the surrounding territories for roughly 60 years. They had established a client regime in King Herod and his sons, including Herod Agrippa, who was the king during Jesus’ life. The Romans established a system of censuses and taxation, some of which went to build Roman infrastructure and cities in Judea, but much of which flowed back to the Roman treasury.
Under the Roman system, all subject individuals who farmed or produced goods or owned property had to pay money and provide commodities such as olive oil and wine. All had to pay, meaning that peasant farmers and tenants on the land would have been hit especially hard. At the same time, landlords would have had an incentive to increase their holdings to be able to meet their obligations. So, under Roman rule the lowest rungs of society would have become poorer and poorer, and the divisions in society more and more extreme…
It’s also clear from the history books that the Romans enforced order with an iron fist. It’s worth remembering that crucifixion was a standard form of execution used widely by the Romans. Combining excruciating pain and terror, crucifixions were public events in the Roman world in order to provide a highly visible roadside reminder of who was in charge, and what the penalty could be for getting on the wrong side of the Roman state.
While the Romans extracted wealth from their subjects, they did allow the Jews to continue to practice their religion. Apparently the Romans tolerated Judaism because it was an ancient faith, pre-dating the establishment of Rome itself. However, after Jesus’ death, and after a series of armed rebellions, the Romans tried to wipe out Judaism, but that’s another story.
So into this mix of repression and crippling taxation Jesus is born, grows up, and becomes a self-taught rabbi – a teacher, or learned man, and eventually a prophet. It is clear that he is appalled by what he sees around him and he tries to change it.
And this is, for me, where it gets interesting. Because Jesus is very clearly operating in a political way. He is not leading an overt rebellion. He is not preaching resistance to the Romans, or the overthrow of Herod. Yet he continually pushes for changes that will have a profound impact on the way people live.
If you look for overtly political stories in the New Testament, some of the most obvious are found in Luke. Specifically, in Luke Chapter 13. Here, Jesus has been preaching about the coming Kingdom of God, telling upstanding and religiously observant villagers that they must repent of their evil ways. So, to quote,
31At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, "Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you."
32He replied, "Go tell that fox, 'I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.' 33In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day—for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!
The thing I find most interesting in this passage is that Jesus refers to Herod as a “fox.” There has been some scholarly debate about the meaning of this phrase, but I think Jesus is characterizing Herod as sly and crafty. We might use a similar expression about some political leaders today. This passage is telling, I think, because it shows Jesus describing Herod as a carfty opponent. There are plenty of passages where Jesus takes on Pharisees and other religious opponents, but here he acknowledges that Herod is a foe, and a wily one at that.
Probably the most famous political quotation in Luke concerns taxation, and there are parallel passages in Mathew and Mark. Since the Romans were willing to tolerate Jewish religious practice, it seems that if Jesus were merely a religious reformer the Romans would have viewed His ministry as an internal matter for the Jewish authorities to handle. But if Jesus were in fact preaching that people shouldn’t pay taxes, the Roman authorities would have taken a keen interest.
So here is the passage from Luke, Chapter 20, verse 20:
20Keeping a close watch on him (Jesus), they (the Pharisees) sent spies, who pretended to be honest. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor. 21So the spies questioned him: "Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.
22Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
23He saw through their duplicity and said to them, 24"Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?"
25"Caesar's," they replied.
He said to them, "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
26They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent.
This is a fascinating exchange, because it is the type of response that a seasoned political pro would give in a hearing, or on a Sunday morning interview show. It’s masterful because Jesus leaves open the possibility that taxation is just – yet one could also read his response as limiting Caesar’s right to tax. Or condemning it. After all, the olive farmer’s olives are really part of Gods kingdom, a bounty that could feed the people rather than make Caesar rich. The ambiguity of Jesus’ remark lives on with us today, as it is cited with some frequency in political debates over tax reform.
Regarding taxation, Jesus goes out of his way to break bread with tax collectors, who, understandably, were reviled persons in Judea. As agents of Caesar, it was their job to collect from the citizenry, and it seems likely that most would have been unwelcome at anyone’s table. But Jesus sought them out. Beyond this, he convinced Mathew, a tax collector, to follow him and become on of His twelve disciples. There’s a subtext of the story here, in that once Mathew became a disciple, he could no longer collect taxes. Similarly, as others gave up their trades and followed Jesus, they ceased to be producers of wealth the Romans could tax. This would have been viewed with displeasure by the authorities.
So Jesus encourages those who earn income and produce goods to quit their jobs and follow him – and they cease to be sources of revenue for Rome. Jesus, in preaching about the Kingdom of God, advocates sharing resources to feed the people (I think this is partly what the parable of the loaves and fishes is about.) And all of this is what eventually got Jesus into trouble with the authorities.
Going back to the Gospel of Luke, at his trial before Pontius Pilate, Jesus was accused of promoting resistance to Caesar's tax:
“Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ/Messiah, a king.” (Luke 23:1-4)
Some writers have suggested that the principal reason why Pilate had Jesus crucified was his opposition to Rome's taxes. Evidence of Jesus' guilt certainly could have been presented showing he had interfered with Rome’s collection of taxes by calling Matthew away from his tax booth in the midst of his duties (Matthew 9:9). Pilate could also have been told that Jesus had induced one of his chief tax collectors, Zacchaeus, to repent and resign his leading position in a Roman territory where Pilate was personally responsible for tax collections (Luke 19:1-10). Indeed, given that Jesus had dinners in the homes of Matthew and Zacchaeus, he could have influenced others to quit their jobs to follow him.
While Jesus-as-tax protester (perhaps an early Tea Partyer?) makes for an interesting theory, it also trivializes his overall ministry. We can’t forget that he had larger goals in mind than simply resistance to taxation.
So what can we take away from all of this?
Underlying the New Testament gospels is the fact that Jesus was desperately looking for ways to make life better and more just for ordinary people. As history tells us, after Jesus’ death, the Jewish people rose up militarily against the Romans three times and were brutally crushed, resulting in the destruction of the temple, the siege of Jerusalem, and, finally, the attempt by Rome to wipe out Jewish religious practice completely. Tens of thousands of people lost their lives.
I think Jesus knew that something like this would happen, if he advocated direct resistance to Roman rule. He did not want blood shed for his cause. So how could He make things better? Undermine the system of class and social division that the Romans relied on to make themselves richer. Be peaceful and don’t violently confront the authorities who would willingly kill you. Share the wealth you have in order to ensure that others get the necessities of life.
I believe that there is Good News in this. Jesus’ methods – his politically savvy strategies and nonviolent tactics – ultimately triumphed over the brute power of a repressive state. Can we be politically savvy and committed to real, meaningful change? We can. But we have to think in terms of the long run. In the words of the old Civil Rights Movement folk song, keep your eyes on the prize. I believe that if we do that, we can move our world a little closer to the Kingdom of God.
