Jesus was an insurgent

[realFedUp]

He opposed the Roman rulers and their
surrogates, gathered crowds around him
who were being empowered by his healings
and exorcisms and words bonding neighbor
to neighbor, husband to wife, forgiving
eachother's debts...
He was killed because he was a threat
to the Roman rulers, not because he wasn't.

[RevCheesehead]

1. I would argue that Jesus was a threat

to the religious fundamentalists of his time. His true battle was not with the Romans, but with those who used Scripture to advance their own personal/political causes.

(Please note, I did not say "the Jews." Jesus was/is Jewish, and any attempt to bring anti-semitism into the picture is pointless.)

[realFedUp]

2. good column on how Rove would have killed Jesus today

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/7/2005/1096

Columns
Harvey Wasserman

If Jesus returns, Karl Rove will kill him
March 21, 2005

As we enter another Easter Season, it's become all too obvious that if Christ returns, those who hate in Jesus's name will have him slimed, then killed. Christ was a long-haired peace activist who would have hated the war in Iraq. "Blessed are the peacemakers" Jesus said in his defining Sermon on the Mount. "Turn the other cheek...Love thy neighbor."

snip

Today's so-called Christian fundamentalists worship one of greed-driven warmongering totalitarianism. The only way to salvation, they say is THEIR way, through a spiteful God that hates all Jesus preached.

snip

If Christ came back today to resume preaching the Sermon on the Mount, Karl Rove would slime him in the media, then kill him outright, then turn his words into right wing hatespeak, then kill those who refuse to follow in his name.

If Christ came back to organize against Bush's war, Rove's pet bloviators would shriek about Mary Magdalene. Isn't that her seated next to Christ in DaVinci's "Last Supper"? Wasn't she unmarried, pregnant with Christ's bastard child, catching his blood dripping from the cross?

[realFedUp]

3. the oppression and taxation on the peasants

was what Jesus was speaking to...the
building of more temples to Roman "gods"
on the backs of the working poor. Roman
occupation was definitely what Jesus
was opposed to and a renewal of Israel
his main goal.

From Richard Horsley's book Jesus and Empire:
page 126:
"The key to the emergence of a movement from
Jesus' mission, however, was his renewal of
covenantal community, calling the people to
common cooperative action to arrest the
disintegration of their communities and
to revitalize their cooperation and mutual
support."

My main point is that Jesus would be
called an "insurgent" by this administration
and likely hunted down for opposing US
occupation.

[RevCheesehead]

7. Here's why I disagree:

While Matthew's gospel is concerned about Jesus being the fulfillment of messianic expectations, Luke's gospel is written to the poor, the outcast, the women, and all who are oppressed. But both pretty much demonstrate that "this Messiah" had a completely different agenda. His reform was not a political one, but a spiritual one (think Ghandi). Political reforms would be more of an effect, rather than the cause, of Jesus' teachings and ministry.

Over and over again, the major conflict that Jesus confronts is the hypocrisy of the religious leaders. When I hear "render unto Caesar," I hear a call of obedience, and when I hear "and render unto God," I hear a call to obeying the (religious) law. Remember that it was the Pharisees who were up to their old tricks, trying to trap Jesus in a Catch-22.

Their question, "is it lawful to pay taxes?" is a tricky one - but for reasons that are not immediately obvious. The Romans did not collect taxes. What they did was appoint a few Jewish people to collect on their behalf. A tax-collector was considered vile, because he handled money with a graven image on it. The tax collector would then convert the Jewish money to Roman currency, and would pocket whatever was left.

A "righteous Jew" would never keep money with a graven image on it. And the Roman coin in use not only had Caesar's picture on it, it also had a declaration that Caesar was God. That would be considered the height of blasphemy. The Roman government would not accept Jewish currency, so they allowed any Jew who was willing to "corrupt" himself to collect taxes on behalf of the people.

Tax collectors were despised even more than the IRS is. Remember the famous ones: Matthew (Levi), and, of course, Zaccaeus - they were greatly hated by the people, and the priests used that prejudice to their advantage. (The meme against Jesus was Rovian! He "ate with tax collectors and sinners.") Not only did they work on behalf of the dreaded occupational force: they actually collected far more than what was expected of them. They made their living by charging a service fee...and they often charged way beyond what was expected.

Interestingly, this is the same reason why there were moneychangers in the Temple. People could not pay their temple offering with Roman currency; but Roman currency was the currency of trade. Also, many Jews travelled to Jerusalem from other countries, and did not have Jewish currency. So the moneychangers sat at the outer gate, offering to make the exchange for them - and charging a fee for doing so. THAT's why Jesus was so pissed off - not because the money was changing hands; but because the people were getting ripped off in the name of religion.

If Jesus said "yes, pay your taxes," he was advocating the support of Roman rule, as well as encouraging blasphemy - one cannot be obedient to two different "gods." But if Jesus said, "no, don't pay your taxes," he was a radical insurgent, or a revolutionary. Jesus looks sternly at the Pharisees and says, "pay what you owe to Caesar. AND: pay what you owe to God."

Therefore, I am more inclined to say that the insurgent Jesus would be more the enemy of the Religious Right, than Karl Rove or Grover Norquist. (of course, with Grover, who can tell??)

[realFedUp]

11. rendering under Caesar ...was a call for separation of church and state

It's just semantics to make an argument that the Jewish-hired Roman surrogates collected taxes, but the real occupiers and rulers were the Romans. There was a reason Jesus asked his followers to tear down the eagle from the temple.

There were many protests in Jesus' day and the real enemy were the Romans.

[RevCheesehead]

12. ???

<There was a reason Jesus asked his followers to tear down the eagle from the temple.>
Where do you get that? Can you show me a scriptural reference? :shrug:

I agree that from a political standpoint, the enemy was Rome. But from the Church's perspective, the enemy is really ourselves: "we, the people" (we = both the individual and the community of faith).

I don't find much Scriptural evidence to support the notion that Jesus was advocating political reform. In fact, I find quite the opposite: references to the Kingdom of God (not earthly), calls for social justice and care for the poor and marginalized, hypocrisy of current religious practices and certain leaders, and a call to a better understanding of Scripture (interpreted through the lens of love, not strict adherence).

The letters of the NT are probably more indicative of what the actual practices of the ancient Church were, since most of them predate the Gospel accounts by several years. Why else would Paul write to the church in Rome, asking for the church to be tolerant and understanding rather than strict adherents to Jewish law? Why else would he tell a fractured church in Corinth that the way of Christ wasn't about "doing" certain rituals, but rather, treating one another with love and respect?

I'm sorry, but from a Christian perspective, I cannot buy the notion that Jesus was a revolutionary insurgent. If you can provide biblical or theological evidence to the contrary, I would like to hear what they are.

However, if you are framing the issue to say "If Jesus were here today, this is how the current administration would see him," then I might agree. But I didn't get that impression from your original post. I'm sorry if I misunderstood.

[realFedUp]

13. Let me just recommend this book

Jesus and Empire by Richard Horsley.

[RevCheesehead]

14. well, OK, thanks for the suggestion.

But right now, I'm reading about four different books, and I wouldn't be able to get to it for quite a while. Could you provide me with a brief synopsis (just a few sentences would help me a lot).

Is the reference of Jesus "tearing down the eagle from the temple" a metaphor for something? I'm pretty sure that I would have seen that, if it were really in the text.

As to the other question I asked. Are you wanting to discuss insurgency from a political or theological standpoint? or both? I'm not arguing (and either is fine). I'm just looking for clarity.

This is an interesting discussion, and I hope you can help me understand better what you are saying. :hi:

edit/clarity

[elshiva]

4. Old joke:

"Jesus was a Democrat because he rode on a Donkey not an Elephant."

[GOPBasher]

5. He was a threat to the Pharisees' (sp?) dogma.

They took every word literally, and thought that people could be perfect by following a gigantic laundry list of laws. And they used biblical punishments for those who messed up; hence, the stoning of the women who committed adultery (it says to stone them in Dueteronomy). Jesus came and said, basically, "No one is perfect, least of all those self-rightous Pharisees. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. It's simple, yet impossible. Here are the two most important laws: love God and love your neighbor as yourself. Then realize that you're not even close to being perfect, so repent for your sins. The Pharisees think they're perfect; they're not. They're hypocrites." (Big paraphrase.) The Pharisees didn't like that.

[regnaD kciN]

6. Not really true...

The Pharisees were a highly-observant group of Judaic reformers, who believed that greater obedience to God was shown by scrupulous adherence to Torah than by Temple sacrifices.

Jesus had his differences with the Pharisees on many issues, as can be seen in some of his attacks on their positions. (One may safely assume they had similar words for him on occasion.) Nonetheless, the Pharisees and Jesus's followers were not hardened enemies. On many occasions, Jesus met and associated with Pharisees; at one point, they apparently tipped him off to an assassination attempt being planned by Herod.

Those who truly opposed Jesus were not the Pharisees but the Sadducees, the Temple priesthood who constituted the "established religious authorities" in Jerusalem, enjoyed a cozy relationship with the Roman rulers, and apparently disliked both Jesus and the Pharisees. There is good reason to suppose that the proximate cause of Jesus's arrest was his demonstration/takeover of the Temple grounds, an act that likely alarmed Sadducees and Romans alike; the former because he was proclaiming the eventual destruction of the Temple (and, hence, the end of their dominance of Judaism), the latter, because the opening sign of a would-be Messiah's war of rebellion would be to seize the Temple grounds as a base of operations. It's more-than-likely that each of the two forces decided that they'd be better off without this troublemaker, and worked together "under the table" to be rid of him.

The animus of Christianity against the Pharisees only came with Matthew's gospel, after the Temple had, indeed, been destroyed (and the Sadducees brought to an ignominious end) in the abortive uprising of the late first century. At that time, the Pharisees, now the dominant Jewish group, began the process of reconstituting Judaism into the rabbinic model that exists to this day. Therefore, Pharisaic Judaism and Christianity were no longer small reform groups in the shadow of the Temple and its leadership, but rival religious bodies battling for the future of Judaism (and, later, rival religions battling...well, over everything). When it came time for Matthew to compile his gospel, he brought Jesus's disputes with the Pharisees to the forefront, and, since Matthew is just about the only gospel most people know (mainly because of its '70s pop-culture uses in "Jesus Christ Superstar" and "Godspell"), it is conventional wisdom to assume that Jesus's main enemies were Pharisees when a fuller look at the gospels demonstrates otherwise.

[RevCheesehead]

8. picky, picky, picky

:P Redachtor!

[regnaD kciN]

9. Not so picky...

...for those of the Jewish faith.

Since Pharisaism is the basis of the rabbinic Judaism that has been the almost exclusive form of the Jewish faith from the second century C.E. to the current day, those who portray the Pharisees as Jesus's mortal enemies and the ones "responsible" for his crucifixion help contribute to the notion that Jews are basically "enemies of Christ" and even "Christ-killers."

[RevCheesehead]

10. You aren't telling me,

that we've treated Pharisees unfairly, are you? Should we have referred to some pharisees instead? :crazy:

(I hope you know I am kidding with you!)

That's why whenever I read from John, I replace the language to something less offensive: "Then the Jews..." to "some of the Jews..." It's an imperfect substitute, but every little bit helps.

What's your background, Nick (I can't spell backwards)? Pastor? Religion student? A really cool, informed guy?

[regnaD kciN]

15. One of the problems with English Biblical translation tradition...

...is that it insists on, whenever possible, always using the same English word for the same Greek word. This causes problems, such as what you note below:

That's why whenever I read from John, I replace the language to something less offensive: "Then the Jews..." to "some of the Jews..." It's an imperfect substitute, but every little bit helps.

In the original, the term used was Iudaioi (unfortunately, this software doesn't allow a Greek character set), which can be translated either as "Jews" or "Judeans" -- i.e. residents of the Southern Kingdom, the area around Jerusalem. From the context in which the term is used in the gospels, it seems obvious to me that "Judeans" is the appropriate meaning for much of the time, including the accounts of Jesus's last days. Moreover, I would maintain that "Judeans" in this case had a connotation similar to "inside-the-beltway" today -- in other words, not so much all the residents of Judea in that case or the District of Columbia in my example, but the entrenched leadership, the "power elite," etc. Unfortunately, using the "one English term for a given Greek word" rule, once you translate "Iudaioi" as "Jews" (and, frankly, there are some passages where it has that inclusive meaning), you are stuck with using it everywhere, even when it leads to palpable absurdities like the disciples hiding "in fear of the Jews" (what were they, Indonesian?), or mentions of "the Jews" as contrasted to "the people" of Jerusalem (what were they, Mayans?).

What's your background, Nick (I can't spell backwards)? Pastor? Religion student? A really cool, informed guy?

Thanks for the compliment. I'm a Deacon in a small "Independent Catholic" denomination (the Apostolic Catholic Church in America), while at the same time also continuing my participation in my local Episcopal Church. (I'm "bi"...-denominational, that is!) While I never attended seminary in a postgraduate program, I did complete the four-year "Education for Ministry" extension program from ECUSA's Sewanee School of Theology.