Not Your House Republican’s Jesus
Growing up, two things peaked my interest; religion and politics. The more religious that politics became, the more excited I got. If I heard a politician inject Christianity in their politics, I got excited and considered that person to be an ally of my personal politics. Of course, I was an impressionable adolescent at the time… my politics involved playing video games after-school and eating pizza on the weekends.
My current politics do have a genesis. While Super Mario Brothers and pizza were important as a kid, what my parents and grandparents deemed political truths were absolutes I also ascribed to my own thinking. Black lives mattered in the 1980’s… so did quality health care, after-school care for children and everyone having the opportunity to earn a living wage. My parents and grandparents also valued having a strong work ethic, being loyal, honest and accountable. Faith, family, and fairness were tenets of my upbringing. That’s all political.
As I grew older, I became more informed by my faith; my politics became more religious. My religious politics (adolescence) shifted to political faith (adulthood). I grew weary of politicians who injected religiosity in with their politics i.e. politically conservative evangelicals — many men and women who have served in Congress, on the Supreme Court, and in the White House.
I grew fond of men and women of God who injected the politics of Christ into their faith walk and faith leadership i.e. Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and Rev. Dr. William L. Barber. These men looked to the person of Jesus, the Christ, as their example; Jesus was very much political. No, he wasn’t a politician who vied for earthly positions. He had the highest position already: the Christ. Yet he engaged with said earthly leaders when positioned before them. How was Jesus political you ask? Before we answer that specifically, we must first explore the biblical language concerning the word “justice,” followed by taking a look at Jesus’.
In a previous post, I spoke to the different translations and original written languages of holy scripture. Any good exegete of the scriptures involves exploring the meaning and context of the original language. Meaning, if you read the Old Testament (OT), you explore the Hebrew language in context and if you read the New Testament (NT), you explore the Greek language in context. Only reading the English translation can give you a limited exegete of scripture.
Using Plato’s Republic as a standard for Greek, the term “justice” in the Greek is dikaiosyne; the word “just” is dikaios. However, in the NT, we find that most dik-stem words are translated as something different. For more insight as to why this is, we should consider the problem of the Septuagint writers Basically, the writers of the Septuagint[1] had a problem.
They had to watch for uses of the Hebrew words mishpat (judgment) and tsedeqah (righteousness) at the same time, like in Genesis 18:19, and find a proper way to translate them in the Greek, as to not use the same word to describe two different concepts. The solution was to translate tsedeqah to dikaiosyne and translate mishpat to krisis (judgment). Mishpat was properly translated… tsedeqah was not. Thus, when we see the word righteousness, the translation to dikaiosyne is an improper one.
One could argue that as per the Septuagint writers, dikaiosyne actually means righteousness. However, it doesn’t square with the meaning of dikaiosyne according to the Greek. If you google translate the word justice into Greek, it comes up… you guessed it, dikaiosyne. So with that said, seeing that Republic was written before the Septuagint (and citing google translate for confirmation), I’ll side with the term dikaiosyne meaning justice over righteousness. Although, it would be disingenuous of me to fail to mention that many scholars consider both justice and righteousness as interchangeable meanings to the word dikaiosyne. The renowned scholar Obery Hendricks offers this commentary on the use of dikaiosyne: “it [dikaiosyne] should be understood as encompassing both meanings, that is personal righteousness and social justice.”
Exploring scripture a bit, let’s look two verses taken from the beatitudes; Matthew 5:6 & 10(NKJV)
“[6] Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, For they shall be filled.”
[10] Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
In both verses, both verse six and verse ten, the word righteousness in the original Greek is dikaiosyne. Again, the term dikaiosyne means justice, justness or divine approval: the regular NT term used for righteousness. Whether δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosyne), δικαιοσύνης (dikaiosynes), or δικαιοσύνην (dikaiosynen), they all mean justice. A variation of justice as either of the three words I just listed, are found in the NT 92 times. Jesus preached justice — for justice is divine approval.
When I use the term political, I do not use the term in the way I would with a politician. When one takes a stance and/or position on a topic and they give voice to that stance and/or position, that person has engaged in the political. As a Christian, if I announced that I was against the death penalty, a stance others may disagree with, I’ve taken a political stance — one that may be unpopular. It’s something Jesus did. It’s in his DNA.
We look to the OT for the DNA of Jesus’ political consciousness. There are a wealth of scriptures in the OT that I could point to in an effort to prove my point, but I’ll only focus on one book in particular: the book of Isaiah. The prophet is very political. He comes for the proverbial neck of Jerusalem, calling for them to care for the poor, the oppressed, widows and orphans:
Isaiah warns Jerusalem in 1:17 (NIV) to: Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow. Isaiah cautions Jerusalem in 10:1–2 (NIV): Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless.
Isaiah was talking that talk and he does it throughout his prophetic ministry. In fact, Isaiah announced that the Lord (YHWH) was a lover of justice. Side note, Isaiah’s ministry is a shining example of a prophetic ministry, but I digress. Isaiah often connected the political with the prophetic — particularly when it came to the coming Messiah:
“The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me, because the Lord has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn” (Isa 61:1–2).
Jesus and Isaiah have a connection. Isaiah was commissioned by the pre-incarnate Christ in Isaiah 6 to go before the people and say these things. John confirms this in his gospel (John 12:41). Jesus’ ministry took the baton from Isaiah’s ministry.
There are countless examples throughout the gospels where Jesus was political. A friend on Facebook said it best (I will paraphrase):
“Overall, the kingdom of God is a radical body politic whereby sinful (earthly) systems and institutions are in fundamental and constant opposition of God’s Kingdom. The Kingdom of God is holistically disruptive to the system of this world and the nature of the Koinonia (Christian community) is unapologetically political.” - Stanley D. Williams
I will provide a few examples in the NT where we see Jesus being political. This will not be an exhaustive list. But it will offer a sense of Christ being political. I am sure that politically conservative Christians may not recognize this Christ. However, I hope that they get familiar with him — for the Christ is consistent throughout scripture as a force for justice.
Jesus Inaugural Message
We pick up with the Gospel of Luke. Imagine you’re a late twenty-something Jewish man during the 1st century. Another young man walks in your synagogue. You know this dude. You played with him growing up. Your parents know his parents. He’s a carpenter. He actually built you something just two months ago. You’re minding your own business; just there to hear the Tanakh read. The carpenter dude steps to the lectern to casually read a passage from Isaiah… and he picks the following to read:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:18–19).
After reading it, he gives the scroll back to a rabbi and sits down in his seat, only to offer the proverbial mic drop saying that on this day, that scripture is fulfilled… You’re looking at him like who in the world does this dude think he is? You say to yourself, “isn’t this just Joseph’s son?” meanwhile, some in the audience were in awe.
Imagine if you’re a Pharisee or Sadducee… a member of the Jewish religious and/or ruling class: you’re probably pissed about now. That’s Jesus making a political statement. But Jesus went on to quote more of the OT to let the people know that folk will see one thing and miss the real thing simply because they knew Jesus as Joseph’s son. The people in the synagogue got so pissed that they tried to throw him off a cliff. Saying political stuff will do that.
Engaging With Roman Rule: The Lord’s Prayer
I went to Catholic School growing up and saying the Lord’s prayer was a big deal. However, it was when I got older that I understood that when Jesus was asked how men ought to pray, Jesus provided a template rather than a specific prayer. We took the template and made it a prayer — which is cool, however, Jesus was more concerned that when you prayed, you included particular components. Much of this was political because the prayer took a stance.
At the time of Jesus life, the Romans were in power. The name “Caesar” was turned into an imperial title that was revered throughout the empire as a symbol and expression of power, rule, and authority. However, Jesus said, “Our Father who is in heaven… hallowed be your name.” Right there, a smack in the face to Roman authority. Roman state religion required that “Caesar” name alone be hallowed. Also not lost here is that the name of God is holy. The call to hallow the name of Elohim is a recognition of His holiness in the face of the unholy.
Jesus continues with the template saying, “Your kingdom come and your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” Jesus now calls for God to execute judgment (mishpat) and offer divine approval (dikaiosyne) on earth as it already is in heaven. Jesus rejects earthly rule in favor of Kingdom rule. This is a direct threat to the current system — that the people of God would pray in allegiance to, and be in expectation of God’s Kingdom to rule humanity over man’s ruling over his own kind.
Lastly, Jesus does add to the template mention of seeking God as the source of our physical needs, spiritual reconciliation, and protection from evil — all of these things are political also. Yet all of those things come after (1) recognizing who God (YHWH) is and (2) calling for his rule over men. To conclude the template, Jesus offers a final declaration that the rule, power, and glory belong to God (YHWH) and God alone. This is really a radical concept.
Engaging With Roman Rule: One Verse Antidotes
I had a conversation on Facebook with some folks once and a guy said to me that Jesus never engaged with the Roman government. That statement is not exactly true. Jesus did engage with the Roman Government. As we saw above, Jesus prayer template was an indirect engagement with the Roman Government.
When approached by the Pharisees concerning paying taxes to Caesar, Jesus said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar and unto God what is God’s (Matt 22:21). However, the earth is the Lord’s (YHWH) and the fullness thereof (Psalm 24:1). Jesus makes an incredible statement by essentially saying that man has a responsibility to follow the authority of the earthly realm and the spiritual realm. Therefore, one can go further to infer that the authority of the earth is accountable to heaven for ruling on earth properly.
In Matthew 5, Jesus says a lot. However, in the latter part of the chapter, Jesus gives two instructions in direct confrontation to Roman protocol. He first says to turn the other cheek (v39) and to go the extra mile (v41). The significance of verse 39 is that a slap to the right cheek required a backhanded slap (using the right hand). People tried to not use the left hand because the left hand was seen as unclean — thus slaps were usually backhanded. So, to turn the other cheek is for one to turn an insult into a power play: willingly choosing to defile themselves by submitting to another slap. Such a move renders the insult powerless for the offender. Turning the other cheek was an act of self-determination.
The significance of verse 41 is that it refers to angareia; a law and practice in Rome whereby one could be made to complete a service or render a service. Using my sanctified imagination, a Roman could compel a Jew to complete a service — such as carry items [for up to one mile, which is according to the etymology of the word]. As with turning the other cheek, Jesus says that to go the extra mile is to strip away the humiliation of the act by transforming it into an act of self-determination. In these two verses, Jesus gives instruction as to how to confront Roman rule with power and conviction.
Then there is John 19 where we see Jesus engage with Pontius Pilate. Pilate found no reason to crucify Jesus, however, he grew increasingly frustrated that (according to Pilate) Jesus didn’t seem to take in the gravity of the moment that the Jews were looking to kill him. When Pilate thought to remind Jesus that he had the power to crucify him or release him, Jesus reminded the Roman governor that any power he has comes from God; that he (Jesus) has the power to lay down his life and to take it up again.
Overthrowing the Temple
Overthrowing the Temple was no temper tantrum. This was not simply a religious act. Attacking the money changers in the Temple wasn’t simply religious because the Temple wasn’t simply a religious institution. The Temple was the center of Jewish life; religious life and political life. The Sanhedrin served in the Temple and the ruling class represented the interests of Rome. The Temple was also the economic center of Jewish life. Taxes were collected here. But also, the central bank was located in the Temple. The Temple was indeed the center of Jewish life.
Not only did Jesus overthrow tables, but Mark’s gospel tells us that Jesus halted all commercial transactions in the Temple. Jesus announced to the people, but specifically, the chief priests and teachers (because they were mad with Jesus when he said the following) that they’ve turned the Temple into a den of robbers. Maybe that is because the priestly/aristocratic class got rich off charging the people temple dues for sacrifices and services.
Folks love pointing the finger at pastors for living large off tithes and offerings and call that Christianity — yet they fail to make the connection to the gospel accounts of Jesus rejecting such activity by the priests. One could argue that this action is more uncivil than political. But then those in charge could have just thrown Jesus out the Temple. Yet scripture speaks to Jesus running folks off out the Temple and halting all commercial activity. This man (and the disciples in his service) disrupted the normal political and economic order of the day. I am not sure Paul Ryan would approve of this sort of activity.
Constantly Checking The Pharisees (Scribes) and Sadducees
In order to understand how rebuke of the Pharisees and Sadducees was political, you must know the social order of the day. There were multiple groups but here, we’ll focus on two.
The Pharisees were in strict observance of Jewish law. For example, these folks believed that on the Sabbath, all work must cease. That applied to even the poorest of people who could not afford to not work. For the Pharisees, religious piety (not holiness) was the priority — even over human need. They had no political power, but they aligned themselves politically with the aristocratic class: the Sadducees. The Scribes were a specific group of Pharisees who held religious offices; these were the cats trying to be seen with their long robes.
The Sadducees were a bit different. The Sadducees were more of the aristocrats of the time; the heads of wealthy families. They not only saw over the administration of the Jewish Temple but many also wielded for themselves positions of political power on the Sanhedrin council (Jewish Supreme Court of sorts). These folks were elitists, politically conservative, materialistic and kept close relations with Roman overlords to protect their wealth and status. Not to mention, these folks, unlike the Pharisees, did not believe in the resurrection.
These groups constantly tried Jesus — they attempted to catch him slippin… they couldn’t. Had they respected his name, they wouldn’t have tried. Jesus didn’t go looking for these folks to be political. They always came to him. The gospel accounts have a host of examples. I won’t mention all of them here, but I’ll provide a few of my favorites… where you can really see these folks get mad because they thought they got Jesus, but they didn’t.
- Matthew 3:7–10: the Pharisees and Sadducees looked to get baptized. Jesus calls them a brood of vipers, ask them how they found out of the wrath to come and warned them what matters is how you live your life (the fruit you bear) — for if you fail to bear good fruit, you will get cut down.
- Matthew 22:23–32: The Sadducees tried to get Jesus on a technicality about the role of marriage in the resurrection to disprove it. Jesus not only tells them that there is no marriage in the resurrection but refocuses them to the words of the Lord (YHWH) spoken to Abraham to say that the Lord (YHWH) is the God of the living.
- Mark 2:15–17: When the Pharisees and scribes saw Jesus eat with regular folks and sinners, they questioned how he could do so. Jesus answered, “They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
- Mark 2:23–28: Jesus and the disciples picked corn to eat on the Sabbath. The Pharisees ask, isn’t it unlawful to work on the Sabbath? Jesus reminded them of David on the run from Saul, when hungry ate of the priestly bread (so did his men). Jesus got them good in verses 27 and 28. Go check those out.
- Mark 11:27–33: A day after Jesus shut the Temple down, he and the disciples went back. They were met by the Scribes and Pharisees; they asked by what authority did he have to come and shut the Temple down. Jesus said, if you answer my question, I’ll answer yours. Jesus turned their attempted trap of him into his own trapping of them. They couldn’t answer for fear of rebuke by either Jesus or the people. So Jesus did not answer them.
- Luke 11:37–53: When invited to eat with the Pharisees and scribes, Jesus rebuked them for being fake; mistreating and oppressing the poor, for being more concerned with social status over the status of people’s lives.
- John 8:1–11: When the Pharisees delivered to Jesus a woman caught in the act of adultery, they asked if they should follow the law of Moses and stone her to death. Jesus commanded that the sinless throw first. None did and the woman was freed. What was so dope was that the whole time, Jesus just wrote on the floor as though nothing was going on.
With all of what I said being said, the Jesus that is real is unlike the Jesus peddled by folks who crafted an idol designed to see forth their agenda. The real Jesus was concerned with preaching the gospel message. However, that message was political and it contained a true concern for executing God’s justice on earth. Doing such a thing required calling out injustice which was unholy. God commands that we be holy for he is holy (Lev 11:44; 1 Pet 1:16).
And what is it to be holy? It is to be absent of the profane; different from the world and like unto the Lord (YHWH). That would mean refraining from unjust acts that oppress, enslave and imprison God’s imagers. Holiness is political. This is who Jesus is; as opposed to the idol peddled to us via unjust public policies and around election time.
[1] The Septuagint (written by 70 scholars) is the earliest Greek translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew during the 3rd century B.C.E., made for the Jewish community in Egypt where Greek was the common language.
