The Political Nature of Jesus

Jump to Comments

Lately, the topic of Jesus and his interaction with the political leaders of his time has been a major research aspect for me. For some, I’ve crossed the true third rail of things you just don’t talk about and combined them into one conversation - faith and politics.

The interest in this topic came after one of the initial discussions in my Introduction to New Testament classes where we discussed how many of the terms in the New Testament had political connotations, such as “gospel,” which was used to spread the news of the conquests of the Roman emperor. So that led to an interest surrounding the question of what additional understanding of the New Testament, and thus the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, do we gain by understanding the political nature of the language and the story itself.

What follows is my first major term paper here at the school that examines this topic.

    In today’s culture, politics are seemingly at the forefront of the American landscape. Presidential hopefuls campaign for years to be considered as a potential nominee from their respective party. Elected leaders often debate issues on television shows and other appearances in an attempt to gain more power for themselves and their political allies. The political nature in Jesus’ time was similar. Roman authorities attempted to protect Pax Romana, or Roman peace, to preserve the status quo and the stability of the Roman Empire. At the same time, Jewish leaders wanted more authority for themselves while at the same time anticipating a messiah that would restore Jerusalem to the Jews.

It’s possible that Jesus understood this political situation during his ministry. If Jesus did understand the political nature of this time, what does this mean for his ministry? Also, what does this mean for our understanding of his teachings today? In this paper, it is my intent to examine the political nature of the New Testament, specifically the teachings of Jesus Christ and what impact this understanding may have on our knowledge of Jesus.

            Two books will best be used to help undercover the answers to these questions. The first is The Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder, which was originally written in 1972 and revised in 1994. The second is The State in the New Testament, a 1956 book written by Oscar Cullman. Each book focuses on the political nature of this period while examining its influences on Jesus and his teachings.

            In The Politics of Jesus, Yoder focuses on the social ethical dynamic of Christ and how many fail to understand how Christ ushered in a new social structure by confronting the establishment. The book was written in a way that it prominently stands against arguments that Christ says nothing about politics, or modern ethics, other than his statement in Matthew 22:21 (NIV) to “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” But Yoder argues there is more to the nature of Jesus’ political understanding. Jesus, Yoder writes, actively rejects the Messianic hopes of many in the Jewish community who wanted someone to assert political kingship and restore the kingdom through military efforts. This was at the heart of Jesus’ temptations where he had to fight the urge to give the people what they wanted in a Messiah. (Yoder p. 24-27) Also, Jesus ultimately provides a new social element wrapped around the idea of servant leadership and loving all, including the segregated Gentiles, as he ushers in the Kingdom of God. Yoder says that it was because of Jesus’ opposition to the Romans and Jewish leaders that led to his crucifixion. (Yoder, p. 125)

            The State in the New Testament examines the teaching of Jesus in a way that looks at his interactions with Jewish and Roman political leaders of the day. Cullman writes that Jesus did not approve of the Roman Empire; however he refused to use the tactics of Zealots to overturn the empire to bring about the Kingdom of God. (Cullman, p. 4 Even though Jesus disagreed with the tactics of Zealots, Cullman writes that Jesus took them seriously when they were concerned about the coming of the Kingdom of God and that the Roman Empire was not the ultimate aspect of God’s plan. Jesus separated himself from the Zealots when they advocated the use of violence to institute the Kingdom of God. (Cullman, p. 51-52)

            Yoder’s work has much to offer to understanding the political nature of the New Testament and ministry of Jesus Christ. His point that Christ offered a new social element through the image of a suffering servant Messiah is worth examination. To Yoder, this social ethic includes imitating the life and teaching of Jesus Christ through becoming true disciples. (Yoder, p. 114) A Christian would be a disciple by following Christ’s teachings of sharing in the love of God and Christ, suffering with Christ in his death, and, ultimately, becoming a suffering servant for others. (Yoder, p.115-123) This becomes a political alternative as Yoder rightly points out throughout the book. The life and ethic Jesus offers is radically different than what was being promoted by Jewish leaders and the Roman authorities. He offers hope to Gentiles and other believers and inaugurates the Kingdom of God without the use of force.

            While it’s hard to disagree with Yoder, one general weakness in his book is the lack of discussion on how this understanding impacts our involvement with current political structures. Yoder seems more interested in debunking the claims of modern ethicists that claim Jesus can’t speak in modern society’s vast problems than offering real examples of how to put this understanding into practice. Given the fact that Yoder’s first edition was published at the height of the Vietnam War and Civil Rights Movement, a discussion on how understanding the political nature of Christ could be applied to modern situations would have been beneficial.

            Cullman’s book effectively looks at the government relationships with Jesus and Christian teachings. Cullman argues that Christ had to fight this battle with political leaders on two fronts – the political Sadducees and the authoritative Roman Empire. (Cullman, p. 9). He says that Christ never wavered in inaugurating the Kingdom of God through nonviolent means. In the face of pressure from Zealots and his disciples, Christ never gave into the temptation to be a political king and maintained the image of a suffering servant.  

However, Cullman offers perhaps too much trust in the ability of individual Christians to monitor the role of government to prevent it from becoming totalitarian. Cullman argues that Christians should become a “watchdog” on the actions of government. (Cullman, 91) This may be well-intended, however many Christians fail to grasp the political nature of the New Testament and teachings of Christ, so how can they be asked to determine if government remains a sound body? Even then, with the amount of political apathy today there would seem to be little interest among Christians to perform this task.

            The intent of this paper, thus far, has to been to address the work done by others to understand the political nature of Jesus and New Testament. This becomes the opportune time to discuss our position on the political nature of Jesus. Often the image of Christ that we hear in church and in Sunday School is that of the loving and servant nature of his ministry. That’s an accurate portrayal. However, it fails to tell the entire story. To fully understand Christ’s teachings, we have to consider that he entered a volatile political situation that required his attention. This understanding adds to Christ’s teachings and ministry and how we can follow him today.

Like any effective leader, Jesus had to take a stance regarding the political and government climate of his day. That ultimately affected his ministry and provided, perhaps, the biggest test to his ministry and in establishing the Kingdom of God. Christ had to stand against the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Zealots who were more concerned about the Kingdom of God being a political realization instead of a new spiritual and social order. He had to resist the urge to become the leader they wanted to be the leader God wanted. This is clear in his temptations in Matthew 4:8 when Satan tempted Christ with this type of kingdom, in Matthew 16:23 when Jesus rebukes Peter for advocating a different view of the Messiah that did not include death, and in Matthew 26:36-45 where Jesus prays that he not falls into temptation. Understanding that Christ was tempted to adhere to the Zealots vision, and thus political nature, of the Kingdom of God gives more meaning to the human nature of Christ, the depth of the temptations he faced, and his ability to maneuver through the political climate while not wavering on his beliefs and convictions.  If we ignore that Christ faced a hostile political climate that required attention then we run the risk of not understanding Christ’s teachings or his impact on the culture, both then and now.

This includes my life as well. Understanding that Christ faced a difficult political situation makes him more approachable not only as my Lord and Savior, but also as a fellow man who overcame obstacles from several corners and never compromised the key elements to his ministry of bringing the Kingdom of God. His call to discipleship becomes clearer. His leadership becomes real in that he faced the same struggles we face today. In researching this paper, my spiritual life was affected by the fact that I gained a better understanding of the temptations that Christ faced and how he must have wrestled with this more than what we are told about in the Scriptures.

As for my ministry, coming to seminary from a career in public policy I can appreciate the value and importance politics plays in the Christian ethic situation. In my desire to serve God through the pulpit, my hope is to be Christ-like in standing against what I see is wrong in the government realm, but by doing so through advocating a position by using effective discourse and nonviolent measures. A strong example, in modern times, of this kind of ministry was Martin Luther King, Jr., who advocated nonviolent resistance to a political structure that advocated discrimination and segregation. Though I doubt I would ever be at the center of a movement like King, fighting for the rights of the least among us means sometimes advocating for change in government and doing so that requires us to stand against what the leaders of the day advocate. This is something that I need to spend more time considering as I further examine God’s call on my life.

4 Comments

Filed under Faith, Seminary