Research
Paper:
Was Jesus’
Mission and Message Political?
Exegesis of Luke
20:19-26
Darrell
Wolfe
Literature,
The King’s University
Life
of Jesus (BIBL-2302)
Professor
Jason Moraff
December
6, 2020
Introduction
This
paper seeks to examine the question: Was Jesus’ mission and message political?
The answer requires a definition of the word: Political. For this paper,
“political” will be used to mean those activities and policies which together affect
the governing of a country or kingdom. The paper will examine how Jesus’ mission and
message had political ramifications. The paper will establish that God is
directly involved in the affairs of his people and sees himself as a literal
King. The paper will examine the text of Luke 20:19-26 where a group is sent to
Jesus to trap him and hand him over to the government because the political
leadership of Israel were threatened by him. The paper will position Jesus as king
over a literal kingdom, and what that might mean for us today. The history, culture,
and conflict into which King Jesus was born are relevant to examine this
question of Jesus’ mission and message.
God’s Kingdom Reign, Israel, and the Roman Empire
Israel’s Rightful King
Up
to the time of Samuel, God himself reigned as king over Israel. Israel rejected
God as their King and requested a natural king so they could be like everyone
else (Samuel 8:6-9). Samuel warned Israel that the king they requested would
take everything that belonged to them including taxes (Samuel 8:20-22). Then
after God replaced the first king (Saul) with the second king (David), God
promised David that a king would come from his own line that would build a
house (family) for God and that this new king’s throne would last forever (1 Chronicles
17:1-27).
The Ages of Kings
In
587 BCE, Babylon conquered Israel and destroyed the Temple, seemingly ending
the line of Israeli Kings. In
Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar’s statue showed Israel their new kings beginning from
King Nebuchadnezzar the Babylonian leading up to the arrival of the Messiah-King.
Daniel describes the final kingdom as the “rock not cut from human hands” that
will crush every previous kingdom, which would grow until it filled the earth
(Daniel 2). History shows that this came to pass in the form of the golden
Babylonian empire, the silver Medo-Persian empire, the bronze Grecian-Macedonian
empire, the iron Roman empire, and the final Rock Kingdom; which was
established when Jesus arrived preaching and teaching the Kingdom of God.
Israel’s
national identity was preserved in part due to the fall of Babylon to Persia
who then held a policy toward Jews that “oscillated between toleration and
benign neglect”.
When the Persian Empire took over, Kings Cyrus and Darius were more friendly to
the people of Israel and allowed for them to return to their homeland and
rebuild the Temple (circa 520-519 BCE). When
the new Grecian-Macedonian Empire attempted to Hellenize Judea (175-168 BCE),
it created such resistance that it led to a massive revolt under the
Maccabeans.
This led to a spirit of independence among the Jewish people. Several smaller
revolts and rebellions rose from time to time. In the final stages of Roman
rule, Daniel predicted a kingdom whose people did not mix well, this was
largely referring to the conflicts between Israel and Rome.
Israel’s Conflicts with Rome
Caesar
Augustus (27 BCE to 14 AD) divided Rome into ten provinces (just as Daniel
predicted with the ten toes), and Jesus (The Rock) was born in the middle of
his reign. In
63 BCE, Rome expanded to include Israel. “Rome ruled her empire with tolerance
for local customs and cultures…” and the issue that impacted ordinary people
most was taxation because it forced peasant farmers into hardship. The
society was village-based and agrarian; therefore, the increasing pressure to
pay taxes monetized the society breaking down cultural norms. The people generally believed that the
“benefits of peace and prosperity that Rome claimed to give its subjects could
not obscure the fact that the empire served primarily the prosperity of the
Romans and local elites who supported them”. The
Jews assimilated aspects of Roman culture (such as speaking Greek) while
denouncing other aspects (such as Roman sacrifices). The religious leaders
governed the people on behalf of Rome and the local Governor (Pilate). The average
people held attitudes that “ranged from mercenary accommodation to violent
protest”.
Horsley describes the condition of Israel during the times of Jesus as follows:
"Domestic
affairs were left to the priestly aristocracy again. From 6 to 66 C.E. four
principal families dominated the society, with the office of high priest, in
effect, alternating among them. The priestly aristocracy also dominated the
Sanhedrin or high counsel throughout this period. Partially because of the
awkward combination of Roman governor and Jewish priestly aristocracy, Roman
control of Jewish Palestine was not as tight as it had been under Herod. But
with all matters of importance in the hands of the high priests and the Roman
governor, there was no legitimate channel for political participation by the people."
The Political Class
Since
Rome ruled in conjunction with local leaders, in this case, priestly
aristocracy, there was no clear separation between religion, morals, law, and
politics.
There were three religious-political parties with influence in Israel during
the days of Jesus. The Essenes are never mentioned in the Gospels; however, their
works are retained in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
They were a monastic-style secret club who were preparing to fight a physical
holy war with Rome to free Israel from their oppression. The Essenes would
certainly have had a role to play in the mindset of average townsfolk,
especially since the mini-revolt under Herod (circa 4 AD) would be still fresh
in their minds from just a few decades before.
The
Pharisees were known for being detail-oriented interpreters of the Torah. They
held the most influence over the average first-century Jewish mind. While
Mark 12:13 and Matthew 22:15 lay the tax question at the feet of the Pharisees,
Luke 20:19-20 only refers to the test givers as spies sent by the chief priests
and scribes (lawyers). Most Pharisees were local Rabbis in the villages, but
there were some Pharisees represented in Temple leadership.
This means the ones interacting with Jesus in Galilee are likely different than
the ones posing the tax question in the temple.
The
Sadducees were the dominant ruling class of high priests and other high-ranking
officials within the Temple. The Sadducees held almost all political power, but
their religious views were not influential. These
were the most threatened by Jesus because any revolt of the people would bring
down quick and harsh reaction from Pilate (just as Herod had done before him),
which threatened their own rule by association.
Literary Setting
It
is into this climate that we find Jesus entering Jerusalem for a showdown with
the elite leadership of Israel, which led to his death on the cross. Some
estimate that this took place on Tuesday of Passion Week (a few days later, on
Friday, Jesus would be killed).
Luke
brings us the most complete account of Jesus’ life of all four gospels. Luke’s
writing shows a passion for details that could be compared to a fine artist. Though
they did not understand his meaning, Jesus prepared his disciples for the
Passion Week letting them know they would be heading to Jerusalem and that he
would be killed (Luke 18:31). Jesus rides into Jerusalem on a donkey to praises
reserved for the coming of Messiah. They even call him a king (Luke 19:38). Upon
arrival, Jesus drove out the money changers and traders and taught in the temple.
The chief priests and lawyers wanted to kick him out but were afraid of the
people starting a riot (Luke 19:47-48).
It
is while Jesus was teaching in the temple that the leaders came to challenge
him. In one such challenge, he told the story of the vineyard owner whose son
was killed by the hired staff, who were then killed by the owner himself. The
leadership of the temple recognized this parable was spoken against them and
they began to look for ways to hand Jesus over to the governor (who had the
authority to kill him). Within days of these events, Jesus would be arrested at
night, turned over to Pilate’s guards, and executed as a rebellion leader. It
is in this context that we find our way into the key text.
Exegesis of Luke 20:19-26 (NEB)
The lawyers and chief priests wanted to lay hand on him
[Jesus] there and then, for they saw that this parable was aimed at them; but
they were afraid of the people. So they watched their opportunity and sent
secret agents in the guise of honest men, to seize upon some word of his as a
pretext for handing him over to the authority and jurisdiction of the Governor.
They put a question to him: “Master”, they said, “we know that what you speak
and teach is sound; you pay deference to no one, but teach in all honesty the
way of life that God requires. Are we or are we not permitted to pay taxes to
the Roman Emperor?”
He saw through their trick and said, “Show me a silver piece.
Whose head does it bear, and whose inscription?”
“Caesar’s”, they replied.
“Very well then,” he said, “pay Caesar what is due to Caesar
and pay God what is due to God”.
Thus, their attempt to catch him out in public failed, and
astonished by his reply, they fell silent.
The Politics of the Question
Jesus
could have ridden the wave of the crowd’s emotional response to consolidate
power and take over as King of Israel.
The opportunity mirrors that of the temptation in the wilderness (Luke 4). The
various challenges to Jesus’ authority were all clashes between two regimes or worldviews.
The question of the tax was the most obviously political question, not the only
politically motivated question.
They
challenge Jesus: Is it legal to pay taxes? If he answers yes, he is going to
upset the people who resent taxation, losing favor with them. If he answers no,
he is guilty of rebellion and they can hand him over to the Roman Governor to
be treated as a rebel. They believe they have him trapped. Jesus sees through
their trap and gives his now-famous response: “Render to Caesar what is
Caesar’s and God what is God’s” (Luke 20:24-26). Taxation was a flashpoint for
the average citizens, and Jesus’ answer “might be interpreted to question
whether Caesar deserved any or all that he asked for”.
However, Jesus avoids giving a clear yes or no and turns the hearer into the
interpreter, wrestling with what is Caesar’s and what is God’s?
The Coin
At
face value (pun intended), the Denarius bears Caesar’s image and inscription.
The coin belongs to Caesar; therefore, he has a right to request some of his
own coin back. By that reasoning, it is appropriate to pay taxes because you
have already agreed to abide by the terms of the government by carrying the
coin in the first place. The
coin itself brings an interesting dynamic to the interpretation. The silver
Denarius became the backbone of the Roman economy. Many versions of the coin
were in circulation throughout the empire at the time. A common theme on the
coins was the image, reverse image, and inscription combining to create a claim
at the divinity of Caesar. The
image on the front of a Denarius bore the image of Caesar and became a way of
propagandizing him as a god.
Jesus’
observation about the coin itself is fascinating. “Whose image does the coin
bear? Whose inscription?” Torah refers to mankind as being created in the image
of God (literally, bearing God’s image) (Genesis 1:27). The people are told to
meditate on God’s Torah and bind it to their foreheads and arms (Deuteronomy
11:18-21). Today, Orthodox Jews wrap the tefillin around their arm, binding a
small box with a portion of scripture locked inside. The
Rabbis who were to bear the image and inscription of God were rejecting God’s
Messiah by even asking this question. In this sense, “Render unto God” could be
read as render unto God the respect and honor due to his Messiah (the rock, the
final King).
Theological Implications
One cannot separate religion and
politics in the Gospels. The following points are presented for consideration. God established
Israel as a nation and himself as their literal king. When they rejected him, God
promised future kings would exact taxes; then promised each of the nations that
arose to rule Israel. God fulfilled his promise to Israel by never letting her
live without a king, he never promised that every king would be of Israel.
Therefore, he fulfilled his promise through Samuel in the Israeli kings, but
also in Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman kings. In first-century Israel,
aristocrats ruled the temple and the people on behalf of Rome. Therefore, every
interaction with a religious ruler was an interaction with a political ruler
(akin to a mayor, senator, or governor today). These leaders were threatened by
Jesus’ mission and message. Therefore, his mission and message threatened the
politics of the day.
The coin confirms God’s role in the
tax. Render unto
Caesar what is Caesar’s goes beyond giving him back the coin his kingdom
produced. Samuel 8 and Daniel 2 confirm that God himself established Caesar
over Israel and the taxes he would exact from them.
The coin confirmed the political
leaders should have been God’s image-bearers. Render unto God the honor and obedience due to him as
his image and inscription bearers. To bear his image and inscription but show
loyalty to Caesar at the expense of loyalty to God’s final King is the ultimate
rejection of God as King. This brings their rejection full circle from Samuel
to Jesus. Those who would bear God’s image and inscription should submit each
decision, especially political decisions, to God.
Jesus’ “Kingdom of God” is a real
kingdom. God
predicts the four empires and a final rock kingdom that would replace them.
That kingdom of God is the kingdom of the rock. Jesus tells Peter that “on this
Rock (confession of Jesus as Messiah and God) I will build my Church” (Matthew
16:13-20; Luke 9:18-20). Jesus’ kingdom replaces every other kingdom,
eventually conquering Rome just as predicted. The final conquering of Rome was
not accomplished through swords but through the power of God in his people.
Today, the only remnant of the Roman Empire is the “Roman Catholic Church”.
Conclusion
It
could be said that the Kingdom of God has filled the entire earth. It filled
the known world at the time. The Judeo-Christian ethic has influenced (if not dominated)
world policies and governments since its foundation in the first century.
Whether one could say that Jesus’ mission and message were political depends on
how politics is defined. However, it has been established that his mission and
message had radical political ramifications. God himself has always been the king
of his people and expects their loyalty over any kingdom or government in which
they reside, and over any party affiliation. Given this relationship, it brings
new thoughts to scriptures like “you cannot serve God and money” (Luke 16:13).The
Denarius would have been in Jesus’ money bag with Judas’ when he said this.
Although Jesus often cited the Kingdom of God is not like other kingdoms, it
was predicted as one which would displace the natural kingdoms of Babylon,
Persia, Greece, and Rome. Therefore, it is hard to say that it is only a
“spiritual kingdom”. The first-century people disagreed about who
Messiah (The Anointed One) ought to be. Some believed that there might be three
Anointed Ones, a King, a Priest, and a Prophet.
In hindsight, we can see that Jesus was all three, and yet something entirely
different than each title would have suggested to that first-century audience.
Finally, to be in the
kingdom of God is to use God’s power to affect the world. It does not
necessarily mean taking positions of power; however, it does mean that the
effectual use of his power will change the culture and affect (or even
displace) governments. Based on these findings, at least in many meaningful
aspects, Jesus’ mission and message were political.
Shalom: Live Long and Prosper!
Darrell Wolfe (DG Wolfe)
