How should we respond to the politics that invade our daily lives in the news, workplace, school and from so many social media platforms? According to Wikipedia which often conveys modern thought regarding a subject: “Politics (from the Greek word, politiká, meaning ‘affairs of the cities’) is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources.”
This is a well-thought-out academic definition. However, since politics is about power and distribution of resources or wealth, politics can get very personal, affecting every one of us to the point that our lives and livelihood are at stake. Hence, it is so easy to express our opinions on political issues. It’s something we do naturally.
The following are more concise definitions postulated by political scientists. Sir Bernard Crick, British political theorist summarizes politics as “ethics done in public”. It’s what politicians say and do openly to resolve differences as opposed to what they say and do behind closed doors. The true agenda is hidden from public view.
Vladimir Lenin, a Russian revolutionary, politician, and political theorist, summarized politics as “the most concentrated expression of economics.” Politics is more about power and wealth than about ethics. Today governments are more concerned with their country’s Gross National Product (GNP) than justice and fairness for their people.
David Easton, American political scientist, summarizes politics as “the authoritative allocation of values for a society.” This means that politicians decide what values are important. Politicians define what is good and what is evil, moral or immoral.
Lastly, Harold Lasswell, an American political scientist and communication theorist, realistically summarizes politics as “who gets what, when, and how”. Political legislatures decide what each man deserves and merits. Who eats, who starves, who lives, who dies.
All these definitions define politics as the political authority ruling humanity.
However, all of man’s political systems are in opposition to God and His laws which were given to humanity as the way of life that would produce peaceful relationships in families, within a nation, and between nations. God gave His law through Moses in written form called the Torah – the first five books of the Bible. Israel added oral laws to the written Torah which was known as the Oral Torah. The Oral Torah included various interpretations of selective legal traditions that started at least at the time of Ezra (c. BC 450). Jesus was subjected to this man-made system of law called the Oral Law.
This Oral Law grew over time and became the basis for all statutes and interpretation of Jewish law. By Jesus’ time, the Oral Law was viewed as more authoritative than the written Law. When we read “lawyer” in the Gospels, he was a person who knew the Oral Law well and judged and argued law based on the Oral Law more than the actual Torah – the law of God.
The Oral Law compares to modern law in the sense of precedence, which are the previous judgments regarding the application of law. Today in the free world, constitutions tend to create the basis of law, and precedence is the bedrock of law in judgment. Precedence has become more important than the original intent of the law.
By the time Jesus began His ministry, the Oral Law was intrenched in the Jewish legal system. It was the source of interpreting the application of God’s law for over 550 years. So, how did Jesus view this Oral Law? “Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, ‘Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.’ (The ritual washings were traditions of the elders defined in the Oral Law.) He answered and said to them, ‘Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God’ — then he need not honor his father or mother. Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition'” (Matthew 15:1-6)
God looked at the Oral Law, this precedence for 550 years, as completely against His law. And centered around the Oral Law were three primary theo-political groups, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes.
The Pharisees were a small group, made up of about 6,000 “elite” people in all of Judea. The Pharisees considered themselves to be set apart from the rest of the population and were deeply focused on their “righteousness”. They first appeared around BC 130, shortly after the Maccabean revolt against the Greeks.
The Pharisees developed some of the political environment that Jesus was up against. The movement was about 150 years old and was divided into two basic branches by the time Jesus came on the scene. The first, the liberal branch, was the school of Hillel. One of the most notable teachers at this school was the High Priest Gamaliel and the most notable student of his was Paul. The other more conservative branch was the school of Shammai. Hence, the Pharisees had political adversity within their own ranks.
The Pharisees rejected Jesus primarily because of His lack of adherence to their strict interpretation of the application of rabbinical law and Jesus’ proclivity to socialize with the “wrong” people – the sinners: “Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, ‘Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?’ When Jesus heard that, He said to them, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick’” (Matthew 9:10-12). The Pharisees were so mindful of their own elitism that they treated Jesus badly and put Him right in their crosshairs.
The primary political opponents of the Pharisees were the Sadducees. They were the priestly aristocracy. Their origins were about the same time as the Pharisees, approximately BC 130. At the time of Jesus they were closely allied with Roman administrators to maintain their political power. Despite their priestly background, they had little time for spiritual matters. They denied the existence of the resurrection, angels, spirits, life after death and of the entire concept of a Messiah. The Sadducees were the ones who went before Pontius Pilate and accused Jesus of usurping Roman rule. Hence, they supported Roman authority against Jesus.
In modern political terms, the Sadducees were the status quo conservatives because they wanted to keep things the way they were and steer far away from change. The Pharisees were the liberals of their day because they felt the Torah and Oral Law ought to be living documents which change with the times. The Sadducees were staunchly against changing them. Both the Pharisees and Sadducees glaringly parallel the national and local political bodies we see today. Both vied for power and wealth and considered themselves the elite and worthy of deciding what was best for others. Jesus said to the Pharisees and scribes that they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers (Matthew 23:1-4).
In stark contrast to the Sadducees and Pharisees were the Essenes. They stayed out of Jerusalem, but their influence was felt there. They were a small reclusive group who are most famous today for being the scribes and the preservers of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Their theology was very Messiah-oriented, and their constant expectation was of the Messiah’s imminent arrival to free the Jews from Roman tyranny. It is thought that they were the main people who cheered during Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem days before His crucifixion. They were the ones who wanted to crown Jesus king.
Another highly influential element of Jewish society were the Zealots, a violent subsection of Judaism that sought to advance the will of God by any means necessary, including assassination. They would be comparable to groups like Antifa, anti-Semitic groups and other radical anarchist movements in the United States. During Jesus’ time, they may not have been a distinct political group, however, He was very aware of this group because one of His twelve was a Zealot (Luke 6:13-16). However, after His death, the group developed into a unified nationalistic party of Zealots which led to the Jewish revolts between 67 and 70 AD. The Roman response was to kill and destroy most of Galilee in 67 AD. They destroyed Jerusalem, the temple and the entire Jewish political system in 70 AD.
Another group was the Samaritans. They were primarily composed of captive people that the Assyrian sent into the land that the 10 northern tribes of ancient Israel occupied. Samaritans believed they had preserved the original religion and that Mount Gerizim was the holy place and not Jerusalem. Both Jews and Samaritans despised one another. Another political conflict in the land.
Yet another small “elite” group were the Herodians who were supporters of King Herod the Great and later of Herod Antipas, the supported tetrarch under the Roman rule. Herod the Great was given the title “King of Judea” by Mark Antony and ruled until his death in BC 4. He ruled with an iron fist and taxed the people to build temples to Roman Emperors. However, he also rebuilt the Temple from which Jesus had taught. But he used the tax dollars of the Judean people. The Herodians were the ones who put John the Baptist in prison and beheaded him.
The death of Herod the Great in BC 4 created a political vacuum that Herod’s sons never fully filled. This created a volatile political environment of competing interests between Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, Samaritans, Herodians and, above all that, Rome. And Jesus lived in this politically charged environment when He began His ministry.
The question for us is how are we to live within our political environment today? The answer is found in Jesus’ example of how He lived and acted in the political world that surrounded Him. This system sought to end His life. While Jesus’ ministry was public and controversial, it was not political. The works He did and the things He said placed Him directly in the crosshairs of all the political groups.
However, Jesus never spoke out against any political issues of the day. He never took sides, He never identified with a political group, and He never debated publicly about political issues. If he answered a question or performed an act, it was from the point of view of His Father’s will and not His or others. One example is in the book of John when Jesus is conversing with the Pharisees. He eventually tells them that they are of the devil. Volatile, yes. Political, no (John 8:28-29).
Jesus spoke out about justice, mercy, faithfulness to God. He spoke about obedience to the Law, both physically and spiritually, not about adherence to some law or ethic policies defined by man. He never argued about the jot and tittles, but about absolute, undeniable, godly truth. He wasn’t bantering about little points. He came to reveal God the Father. The Sadducees accused Jesus of stirring up a movement against Rome to become king, though Jesus never attempted to gain power or control. Rather, He removed Himself from those who desired to make Him king (John 6:13-15).
Though Jesus truly was the Messiah, He knew it was all about the will and plan of His Father. He warned His disciples to not publicly declare it (Luke 9:18-22). Also, when, Peter, James, and John saw the transfiguration, Jesus said to them not to tell anyone until after His resurrection (Mark 2:6,9).
So, we see Jesus avoiding being put in the limelight. If they had grabbed Him by force and tried to make Him a king, He would have been in direct opposition to all those political groups who would have opposed Him. The Father did not want Jesus to be involved in the political system of His time. Jesus was not confrontational. It wasn’t His job to stand up and beat the drum for Himself, let alone to promote any political group (Matthew 12:14-21).
However, Jesus did strongly challenge concepts and practices when it served God’s will, but not because of personal feelings and emotions. He refused to get into political debate. Matthew 22:15-21 contains one of the best responses, from God’s point of view, of Jesus’ refusing to be part of a political argument.
As a man, Jesus realized it was not His duty to fight to establish God’s Kingdom then. His duty was to wholly fulfill the will of God at His first coming: “Then Pilate entered the Praetorium again, called Jesus, and said to Him, ‘Are You the King of the Jews?’ Jesus answered him, ‘Are you speaking for yourself about this, or did others tell you this concerning Me?’ Pilate answered, ‘Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered You to me. What have You done?’ Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here’” (John 18:33-36).
As we defined at the beginning, politics is about power and control. What did Jesus teach His disciples? He came to serve, not to lord it over the people (Luke 22:24-27). The political systems of this world, though they may call themselves public servants, are not. There may be some sincere people who strive to serve, but overall, it is not so. Jesus was totally the opposite of the politicians of His day
Jesus withdrew from those who tried to make Him king. He also withdrew from those who wanted to involve Him in religious arguments. He did not incite the people against Rome. His Father’s will for Him as a man was to become the Savior of all humanity, to live a sinless life, to suffer death by crucifixion and then be resurrected to eternal life as the model of God’s reconciling mankind to Himself. Not to set up His government then.
The nature of His Kingdom is not of any of this world’s political systems. He did not seek power, rather, He taught service, outgoing concern for others. He left that example for all of us to follow. Our primary goal is to keep ourselves unspotted and unaffected by the world systems. Jesus came to save the world, not condemn it. We are not to be usurping God’s rule. And like Jesus, we should not want to be defined by or identify with any political system.
Bill Hutchison