Comments on: Jesus – Good Citizen or Collaborator

By: Mark Gomez

Mark Gomez — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:43:26 +0000

So, TL, your argument here is that Jesus should have had some backbone and stood up to the oppressive Roman rule? That Jesus should have been some sort of social liberator, a la MLK? I think that fails to understand what Christ’s purpose was here. And it was a misconception common to most of the Jews of Christ’s day.
The Jews viewed the Messiah as a King who would liberate them from oppression and set up the throne of David from which to rule forever. Christ is that messiah, although his ruling on the throne of David was something future that was not a part of His original advent. The Jews had focused so much on the kingly aspect of the messianic prophecies that they had overlooked the passages that taught of the suffering servant (Isaiah 53). So when Christ came as a servant, born in a lowly stable, to a lowly carpenter, from Nazareth, He did not seem to be the great and mighty king who would rule from David’s throne. But Christ came the first time to suffer as a servant for the sins of His elect. His purposes were not political or social, but spiritual (read John 4). So when He claimed to be the messiah, or claimed to be God Himself, the pharisees grew upset. You seem to think that Christ should have sided with the Sanhedrin against Roman rule. But Christ is not joining with His fellow Jews in their religion. He is revolutionizing it by becoming what the Messiah was meant to be, even though they didn’t understand that. They misunderstood so badly that they rejected Him and crucified Him (according to prophecy, again Isaiah 53).
So Christ’s original purpose was not to overthrow Rome or establish His kingdom. It was to suffer and die to establish His spiritual rule in the lives of believers. He will come again one day to set up the throne of David from which He will rule forever, but that was not why He came 2000 years ago.
Now, all that relates to the story at hand because the Jews themselves came to Christ, not seeking to gain an ally against Rome, but to trick Him into incriminating Himself and in so doing, incur the wrath of Rome. But Christ’s time had not yet come (read the book of John for more on that phrase). The pharisees brought with them the Herodians. So you have a group of people who are faithful to God (supposedly, even though they had twisted His teachings into an unrecognizable mess of rules and regulations) and people who were faithful to Rome. It seemed like a no-win situation. If He pays the tax, the Jews get offended and revolt against Him. If He doesn’t pay the tax, the Herodians get upset and report Him to Rome. But Christ makes clear that He is not here to overthrow the Romans or establish a Jewish state. He is not concerned with sociopolitical struggles, per se. He is there to suffer and die. Give to Caesar what belongs to him. Submit to your government insofar as it doesn’t constitute sin in your life. Live peaceably among all men. Political revolt is not as important as spiritual revolution. We “pray for the peace of the city” and work towards that, but ultimately we understand our citizenship is in Heaven. Christ did not pursue political revolution because that was not His purpose for coming.

By: EnnisP

EnnisP — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 04:58:17 +0000

Actually, I think sanitizing the text, if it happened, would have the opposite effect. Reading the Roman government from our historical vantage point makes me wonder how the government actually survived (their leaders did the unthinkable on more than one occasion) and it was done very much in the open (no watergate here).

So when you read Jesus’ response to the question about taxation it naturally makes us wonder about the validity of the text.

It is quite right to question His response and I believe that was the intent. We can’t get to the answer if we don’t first ask the question.

Although believers tend to reduce the Bible to a neat set of do’s and don’ts it wasn’t intended to be an answer sheet. I think it is giving us the impetus to find the answer.

Our discussion is helpful because we both look at Jesus very differently. I tend to side with Him, believing He is ultimately all wise, which means I might not address the hard questions. I woiuldn’t suggest you think He is a bad guy but you do come from the other direction.

By: Transplanted Lawyer

Transplanted Lawyer — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:37:16 +0000

I have no objection to your take on the question of how deeply religious people should deal with civil government. And as I wrote before, I think that the better political choice for the Israelites would have been collaboration with the Romans, distasteful as that might have been.

It makes me wonder whether the text we read today was sanitized (either by its original author or by a subsequent editor or translator) to make the worship of Jesus more appealing to a Gentile audience in the Roman empire beyond Palestine.

By: EnnisP

EnnisP — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:04:42 +0000

We come from different schools of thought on the timeline but we both agree that the writers of the Gospels assumed the evil nature of Rome and it woiuld be difficult for any of them to positively endorse Rome, particularly in public documents like Matthew or Mark. Anti-Roman sentment prevailed in Israel much like pick up trucks and gun racks do in the deep south. I would say, however, that they were much more generous on the topic than would normally be the case.

We also agree that there was reason for political grievance. The Romans, though better than all their predecessors and definitely ahead of their times, could be very unpredictable and menacing to their constituents as well as to each other.

But, as much as I respect the mental capacity of Israelite stock, generally speaking, I doubt their non-compliance with Rome was due to superior political philosopies. Their grievances were motivated by religion. They refused to be led politically by those they considered spiritually inferior.

And the real question is how do deeply religious people get along with faulty governments? Do we find ways to constructively interact or do we revolt. Palestine had a long history of revolt which only led to their eventual destruction. It would have been culturally agreeable but practially irresponsible for Jesus to endorse that.

There are better ways to change the law. A good case in point are the Amish. They neither pay taxes nor participate in the military. I wouldn’t say they “engage” in the traditional sense of the word but they never resorted to hate speech or violence either. For them, revolt was never an option. They don’t even demonstrate.

Disclaimer: I’m not suggesting there is never a time when revolt is necessary. It should, however, be a last resort and very thoroughly considered first. That doesnt describe the situation in Palestine.

By: Transplanted Lawyer

Transplanted Lawyer — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 01:40:03 +0000

This is the most subtle of the three responses to my post you’ve made, and the most seductive. It is premised on the idea that “as bad as the Romans were, they were probably the best available governmental option.” Fundamentally, I agree with this concept — and if Jesus had said as much, I’d have found little to object to.

The trick is to read the story in context. The author assumes that the Romans are bad and evil and that home rule, by Jews in some form or another, would be better for God’s Chosen People. If it were the case that Roman rule was understood as morally ambiguous, then the Pharisees would not have tried to have set a rhetorical trap for Jesus, nor would the audience have been amazed when Jesus evaded the trap.

Further, the Gospels were written by men who were children when Titus sacked Jerusalem and began the diaspora. The sting of the Temple’s destruction and the disbandment of the Hebrews as a nation, even a subject nation within the Roman Empire, was with them as strongly as ethnic and nationalistic tensions exist today in many war-torn parts of the world. The authors of the Gospels were (probably) not Gentiles. To suggest that they would have looked upon Roman occupation of the Promised Land with equanimity as a necessary evil strains credulity.

So when you argue “Well, the Romans weren’t really all that bad,” that is probably objectively true, but within the context of the story, the Romans are bad guys. Thus, to say that “Jesus’ remark encourages interaction rather than disengagement. He was encouraging reasonable discussion and participation before adopting violent revolution.” does indeed hit the mark on the head — Jesus is encouraging interaction, engagement, dialogue and ultimately collaboration with an evil government. Thus, my comparison of Jesus with Quisling or Petain.