A thousand manly salutes to Gen. J.C. Christian, Patriot and heterosexual:
WHEREAS, The Prince of Peace was always the first to yell “traitor” whenever someone questioned whether Samaria really had weapons of mass destruction;
WHEREAS, The Redeemer supported the Pharisees’ domestic spying and torture programs;
WHEREAS, the Son of God’s faith in crucifixion’s value as a deterrent never wavered;
WHEREAS, Jehovah taught that the best way to help the poor was to provide handouts to the rich;
WHEREAS, Our Savior exercised his Second Amendment rights as a lifetime member of the Judea Slingshot Association;
WHEREAS, The Lord was 110% heterosexual regardless of all of the remarks about his batchelorhood;
WHEREAS, Emmanuel patrolled the Assyrian border to keep the Mexicans out;
WHEREAS, Jesus Christ worked tirelessly for the passage of Proposition IX, the “Tax the Lepers” measure, in the election of 29 AD;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED…
[tags]jesus was a republican, jesus, republicans[/tags]
I’m not a Bible scholar, but as far as I know Jesus never called for restoration of the Roman Republic so “Republican” doesn’t seem apt for him.
He seems a pretty loyal subject of the Empire. Maybe I’m missing something. He certainly never spoke out over the harsh wars Rome waged against the Gauls and Germans which were harsh indeed. He had plenty of opportunity to do so.
Jesus’s politics in the context of the politics of his time an interesting story I suspect.
“Loyal subject of the empire”?! Oh, Bill. You should meet some historians of early Christianity. You so funny!
Crucifixion was the punishment for treason against the empire; it wasn’t punishment for violating Jewish law. The early Christians were unmistakably seen by Rome as nonloyal subjects. There are many books on this topic, so I’m not going to bore myself by laying out an argument you can quickly catch up on at a library.
But this statement is now my favorite historical anachronism: “He certainly never spoke out over the harsh wars Rome waged against the Gauls and Germans which were harsh indeed. He had plenty of opportunity to do so.”
Love the parody! Maybe Jesus hadn’t heard of DailyGaul.com, or maybe Fox wasn’t broadcasting in Judaea yet. Who knows? But you’re right: He could have made some off-hand comments about Indonesia, too, and maybe the state of the Peruvian economy. He had 33 years, after all. It’s a wonder he didn’t take up blogging.
Your last statement is true: “Jesus’s politics in the context of the politics of his time [are] an interesting story.” You should learn it sometime.
He didn’t speak out agains the wars against Gaul, or the Germans, or anyone else for that matter.
Yes, I know he was put to death for treason against Rome, bit I always thought Pilate a bit embarressed by it all. That Pilate felt in fact wasn’t all that much of a traitor and that’s what the business with offering the crowd a choice between Jesus and Barabas was all about.
Hardly the act of a Roman Governor who truely thought Jesus a traitor.
I’m glad you at least agree some thought on Jesus’s politics within the context of his time not foolish of me.
I read Peter Wells, The Battle That Stopped Rome: Emperor Augustus, Arminius, and the Slaughter of the Legions in the Teutoburg Forest Interesting because the battlefield recently been found in Germany and the book describes it.
The event was profound, brutal, and shook the Roman (and Jesus’s) world to its core. The heads of the survivors nailed to trees by the Germans. (Wells describes the recently found evidence.) Jesus would have almost certainly been aware of this battle, as was everyone else in the Empire for years and years afterwords. It was their wake up call of barbarians at the gates so to speak.
Jesus is silent on it. He didn’t speak out against the Roman Military. I’m just left to believe he was a bit thankful for the legions maybe. Perhapes that’s why the Jewish radicals of Jesus time not at all happy with him.
History, politics, (and me) can be funny at times.
Rev Scot Giles preached a few weeks back in Geneva about Inverted Thinking which some might call funny thinking but it’s helpful sometimes.
Bill Baar wrote the following:
“He seems a pretty loyal subject of the Empire. Maybe I’m missing something. He certainly never spoke out over the harsh wars Rome waged against the Gauls and Germans which were harsh indeed. He had plenty of opportunity to do so.”
Bill … an absence of any reports in the gospels or other first century CE writings on Jesus and politics is just that … an abscence. An abscence of any reports isn’t evidence that something didn’t happen.
To the best of my knowledge, there’s no written record that Jesus ever defecated either. Are we to assume that he never defecated and never spoke critically of the Roman Empire because you or I haven’t seen in the written gospel records?
A lack of recorded examples of Jesus speaking out on Roman politics suggests at least two possibilities:
(1) Jesus was apolitical in the context of the Roman Empire.
(2) The authors of the gospels ommitted, softened, or otherwise edited out the sayings of Jesus that showed a more “political” Jesus.
It may be worth checking out the books of John Dominic Crossan, a fellow Chicagian and Professor-Emeritus at DePaul.
It’s entirely possible that the post-Easter followers of Jesus presented their version of the story to curry favor with the Roman government (“Romans” are portrayed as “OK” and the Jews are portrayed as favoring releasing a criminal instead of Jesus when offered the opportunity).
However, keep in mind that we lose the “political” impact of the phrase “Kingdom” (or “Empire”) of Heaven or Kingdom of God. This phrase is a pointed political commentary contrasting the oppressive Roman Empire with the utopian vision of how Jesus imagined the world if it were “God’s Empire” and Augustus’ empire.
CORRECTION:
“contrasting the oppressive Roman Empire with the utopian vision of how Jesus imagined the world if it were ‘God’s Empire’ and NOT Augustus’ empire.”
my apologies for not proof-reading this before saving …
Steve, please spell absence correctly. The absence of records of defecation is not analogous to this topic, but nice try.
Well, with regard to his defecating. We know he was “man” and I’ve not know one yet who doesn’t defecate.
And he’s not totally silent with regard to Rome. He tells us to render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser, and render unto God, that which is Gods.
But for the most part, he’s pretty silent on Roman politics which is a large part of my point. He does not speak out against Rome at a pretty political time. He doesn’t speak against an army which lays a pretty heavy hand accross his country and the rest of the Roman world.
He is in many respects a pretty good Tory.
I’m familiar with Crossan. But going to the root of Jesus not my total interest at the moment.
I should add here I’m not a great fan of Jesus. I am with C S Lewis here when he wrote something in Mere Christianity that Jesus makes little sense as a great Teacher (the way many Unitarians used to view him) because under close examination he seems more mad then sensible teacher. He only makes sense as God’s intervention into our world. He makes sense only as revalation. Otherwise, he’s truely an odd occurance and of interest only because his followers became conqueors in us today with our culture. And that won’t last. Ratzinger may truely be right when he sees a post Christian time upon us.
One reason I suppose Crossan and those seeking the root of Jesus don’t interest me all that much.
The point in the original post about the Wall courios too. In the after math of Vaurs defeat at Teutobourg, Rome began the long process of building a wall around the Empire including in the east. It was in many respects just like the wall some propose accross Mexico.
Sorry to ramble here. It’s hard to edit around here in this window.
Really, Bill. Go read Matthew and Luke, paying close attention to the parts that talk about the Kingdom of God/Heaven, and then come back and tell me you’re not wrong.
Since you brought up Pilate, it’s important to know that all nonbiblical sources report that Pilate was a royal asshole who relished cruelty. I hardly think he felt any hesitation about executing a man who called for a “kingdom of God” and staged what looked like a mini-revolt on the Temple grounds at Passover—no matter what the Gospel writers would have us believe.
Anybody see The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus comics?
It’s been excerpted from Al Franken’s book on Beliefnet.com:
The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/132/story_13245_1.html
If Jesus were a Republican (as currently demonostrated by modern-day GOP neo-cons currently in power), I suppose this is how he would look to us. There are some subtle differences between this Tory Jesus and the one portrayed in the Gospels.
Happy holidays!
Well give me some references Chutney. Or better yet link them in your post. That’s the power of a blog discussion.
Sure Pilate was brutal. Name a Roman Governer who wasn’t brutal. Brutality was part of the way of life.
Jesus talks love and peace, but politically he never condems slavey either.
So maybe all these quotes that would confirm Jesus a Moveon.org Deaniac are buried in the Egyptian desert somewhere by the monks fleeing Athanasius, but somehow I think he’s a good deal more complicated than that. Dig into his politics in the context of his time, and he’s no opponent of Rome. He’s quite conservative or quietist fellow if you think of him politically.
I was at a party once listening to two friends talk. One talked about a crisis of faith he felt as a kid in Chicago when an alter boy was burned to death when his gown caught fire by the candles. The other was a guy who came to Chicago from Poland as a refugee after the second world war. He had seen immense suffering as a young teenager although no one but I understood the horror he had witnessed.
My Polish friend heard my Chicago friend describe the crisis of faith and simply replied, leave God out it.
I was struck that someone who had seen hell on earth could feel that way. They he instead wouldn’t feal anger at God too, or share a lose of faith.
I’ve taken that too heart and when I see God (or Jesus) linked to politics directly like this, my first thought is, leave them out of it.
Kennedy really got it right at the end of this inaugural speech when he closed with this,
With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own. http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html
It’s our work and our politics that history will judge. I think Jesus wants us to leave him out and not hang our politics on him.
PS. I make typos all over. But you’ll get the gist of what I’m saying.
For a Jew the term render under Ceasar that which is Ceasar;s and render unto God that which is Gods was radical resistence. What is owed to God….heart, love, mind, soul, life…what owed to God…his own dirty coins.
Mark is full of critique of the Roman occupation forces….it was written for a non violent community of who were not participating in the Jewish uprising against Rome….which destroyed the Jerusalem church….to resist Rome meant death. Given the daily killing in Palestine for Jesus to worry about Germans makes Jesus into an armchair liberal. He was not. He was an engaged storytelling religious leader elaborating a vision that was different from the occupation.
owed to ceasar…his own dirty coins….
Bill, my references are the entire books of Matthew and Luke, especially the bits about the kingdom of god/heaven. I’ll beg off providng the links and just refer you to the New Testament nearest you. ;)
I wasn’t quite clear about the nonbiblical sources on Pilate. Their opinion of him was that he was especially cruel even for a local governor. Not just that he did what had to be done in a tough job ruling unruly people.
My reference on cruelty, at least the thought in my head at the moment, was one of Alister Cookes introductions to the I Claudius episodes. He was explaining the episode had been edited a bit for violence. And talked about the pervasive violence and brutality of the Roman World.
I’ll take your advice and give Matthew and Luke a read.
I have to admit my favorite image of Pilate is of him as portrayed by Telly Savalis in one of those Bilble movies quoting John,
So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?� 34 Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?� 35 Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?� 36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.� 37 Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?� Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.� 38 Pilate said to him, “What is truth?�
Telly didn’t portray Pilate as cycnical at all. Some Christians interepet this a cycnical. But I’m fully sympathic with Pilate here and find Telly’s depiction that of an honestly frustrated Politican.
I like the Romans. I like neo-Paganism. I just wish they hadn’t been so brutal.
You’ve reminded me of one of my favorite scenes from Monty Python’s ‘Life of Brian.’
Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Attendee: Brought peace?
Reg: Oh, peace – shut up!
A bit violent, that peace. ;)
Thanks Chuntey!
I thought some one was going to take a shot at me for getting Theology from TV and movies.