Jesus' Sermon on the Mount/Plain - The Biblical Setting

Matthew preceded the Sermon on the Mount with a description of Jesus' followers, both the inner and outer circles.

He began with the inner circle of 12 disciples who give up everything to follow Jesus. These were the ones who were called by Jesus to follow him. The rest in the chapter followed him without being called.

The larger group of those who came to Jesus were described as needy people. They came to be healed from a wide range of diseases, torments and possessions.

Before the Sermon on the Plain, Luke likewise described 2 types of people, the inner circle and the outer circle. But whereas Matthew was very brief in describing the outer circle, Luke spent a great amount of detail in painting a picture, not so much in describing the people, but rather, of people who are used as props to describe Jesus' authority.

Matthew used the same stories about the same people to tell us about Jesus' authority, but Matthew waited until immediately after the Sermon rather than immediately before (which Luke did).

Both Matthew and Luke place Jesus' sermon in the context of Jesus' authority over sin, the unclean, the demonic and over the Sabbath.

POWER OVER SIN

In Jesus' day sickness was usually related to sin. In John 9 Jesus' disciples asked Jesus, "Who sinned?" when they saw a man born blind. The assumption was...this blindness was a direct result of somebody's sin, either this man's or his parents'. James also concludes that sickness was the result of sin..."If anyone is sick...confess your faults to one another and pray for one another that you may be healed."

When people brought a man who had palsy (various forms of paralysis), Jesus' first words were, "Your sins are forgiven you." What Jesus said offended the scribes because theologically only God can forgive sins. The fact that Jesus then healed the man showed to everybody that Jesus had power to forgive sins, thus implying that Jesus was God, because only God can forgive sins, and this man could only have been healed if his sins were forgiven, and as everybody witnessing that event believed, his palsy was the result of sin.

POWER OVER THE DEMONIC

Jesus' authority was emphasized not only over sin, but over the demonic as well. Once again, the emphasis was not on the people in these stories, but the emphasis is the power of Jesus' word. After casting out a demon in Luke 4 the people were amazed, saying, "What authority and power this man's words possess! Even evil spirits obey him and flee at his command!"

POWER OVER THE UNCLEAN

The whole concept of clean vs. unclean is foreign to most of us, but to the people of Jesus' day, everybody thought in terms of things clean and things unclean. There were certain things in life that people avoided touching and there were certain things one did not do for fear of becoming unclean... and once one was unclean there were certain ritual baths and offerings that needed to be made after a designated amount of days.

Jesus' power over the unclean was demonstrated not only in casting out unclean demons, but also by touching those who were unclean. Haggai 2 established that something clean (according to the Law) cannot transfer the state of clean into the unclean. However, unclean does affect the clean so that anything clean by the Law would be unclean if it touched that which was unclean.

When a leper came to Jesus, he told Jesus he wanted to be cleansed of his leprosy. Contrary to all common practice and wisdom Jesus touched him, which according to Haggai and according to Moses' Law should have made Jesus unclean, but instead the impossible happened...when Jesus touched the leper, the leper was cleansed and Jesus remained clean. People who saw Jesus knew the transfer had taken place because the leper was healed in front of them.

By touching and healing a leper, Jesus did more than a simple healing, he demonstrated before all that he had power on earth over the unclean...he had power greater than the Law of Moses.

POWER OVER THE SABBATH

Two events dealing with Sabbath stand out. Jesus plucked corn from the fields on the Sabbath and when he was questioned about breaking the Sabbath, he reminded those who were offended that David himself broke certain Laws of Moses for the sake of meeting human needs for hunger. But anybody can argue a good case. In another episode Scribes and Pharisees questioned Jesus' healing on the Sabbath. Jesus pointed out that they took care of animals on the Sabbath and we are more imortant than animals...then he healed a man with a withered hand, thus proving that he had power over the Sabbath to do good.

In these four ways (power over sin, the demonic, the unclean, and over the Sabbath) Jesus demonstrated to his audience through healings and miracles that he was more than a normal human being and that he had authority. This builds the context for his two sermons - one on a mount and one on a plain.

Missing in this sermon context is Jesus' power over Rome - politically, socially or economically. Could it be that Jesus did not come to change secular politics? Or is he saving that for later? Or perhaps the early church kept Roman politicians and politics out in order to win Romans or to avoid persecution or for any other reason?

The Sermon on the Mount as a Covenant Renewal

According to Richard Horsley and others, the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain are both a renewal of the Mosaic Covenant. The Sermons in Luke 6 and Matthew 5-8 are framed like an ancient covenant which is broken down into three sections.

1. This covenant begins with a recounting of something God has done or is doing for his people - In the beatitudes, God has broken into the world with a kingdom for the poor, the powerless, the merciful, the persecuted and those who mourn. Excluded from the kingdom are the rich, the well fed, the popular, and the powerful (Luke 6:24-26). In Jesus' day the vast majority of the population was included in that definition.

2. The second part of this covenant establishes the guidlelines - Jesus gives his listeners the laws of the kingdom, IE: the responsibilities of God's Covenant partners are stated, encouraging and challenging his kingdom people to go beyond the expected in loving God and neighbor, beyond what they have learned and beyond what they see in the pious ones of their day.

3. Finally, this covenant ends with consequences of following or not following the agreement. The blessings and the curses in Matthew and Luke are illustrated in parables of 2 houses; one built on sand and one built on a rock. The one built on sand is easy prey to the elements of life, but the one built on a rock is firm.

The Sermon on the Mount - Part One

The Sermon on the Mount focuses on the proper interpretation of the Law and some of the dynamics of the Kingdom of God. As mentioned before, Jesus' audience was in expectation of a kingdom breaking into human history at any moment overthrowing the the powerful and subduing the foreigners. For the people and for John the Baptist, the kingdom was political, economic and social. Furthermore, there was no division between polictics, economy and sociology. For Jesus however, there is no indication that he thought the kingdom was anything politiical. In this context Jesus gave a message of the kingdom emphasizing the proper understanding of the Law of Moses.

DIGNITY

The first words of the Sermon on the Mount were, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of God." These words sunk deep down into the hearts of people who had very little dignity in life, people who suffered from constant poverty and oppression. In this promise they were given hope of a future they could not find in their present lives.

Jesus gave the masses dignity, comfort and hope in the Sermon on the Mount. He offered to common people a new life in a new kingdom with a new way of living under the Law. The common people were considered by Caiaphas and his friends to be ignorant and unable to understand the Law. Jesus not only challenged that way of thinking, he gave the common people the dignity and respect of knowing that they could live under the Law, and live under the Law in such a way that exceeded the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees.

It is typical for a group to think of itself as better than all other groups. A group of people who are oppressed or who face obvious inequities are no exception to the rule. They find things to be proud of, areas of life in which they tell themselves that they are better than those who have and those who oppress.

Jesus gave a new dignity to the masses in the Sermon on the Mount. Their righteousness could be better than the religious leaders and the Kingdom of God belonged to them, not to the religiously powerful and rich.


THE LAW

Jesus did not seek to replace the Law with Grace and Faith, in fact, he sought to bring renewal to Israel in its understanding of and following after the Law. Jesus taught a different way of reading the Law and a more intense following of the Law than was being established from the religious authorities of his day.

First Century religious leaders debated small details of the Law struggling to unearth what the Law said about things clean and unclean, how to best keep the Sabbath holy, and how to tithe. In contrast, Jesus spoke boldly of the Kingdom of God and of a new way of following the Law. Interestingly, his take on the Law was on the one hand far more intense than the established leaders taught, but on the other hand Jesus' teachings focused on different matters of the Law than his contemporaries.

Jesus taught that not all Law was equal. In other words there were some laws that were more important than the others and there were certain matters of the Law that outweighed everything else in the Law (justice, mercy and faithfulness, for example).

The religious leaders of Jesus day helped to set the tone for the Sermon on the Mount. When Jesus set up his expectations for the kingdom, a lot of it was set in the context of... "Don't be like them," or "Be better than them."

PERSONAL AND SOCIAL LIVING IN THE KINGDOM

The rest of the Sermon on the Mount can be summed up under this title. To an audience that lived in poverty and little or no hope for the future, Jesus told them to trust God and ask Him for what they needed. Jesus told them that in the kingdom, God would take care of their needs.

As his followers began to discover and learn the Law through Jesus' teachings, Jesus told them not to judge each other, but to be merciful to each other. Becoming a learner or an expert in the Law carried with it the temptation of objectifying people and holding them in contempt for not living up to the standards of the Law. At the same time the new learner could see how much others broke the Law while excusing or overlooking his/her own faults. Jesus warned his followers that if they judged, they would be judged by the same measure. He also warned people against judging others for the same sins they committed.

WHAT YOU GIVE WILL BE GIVEN TO YOU

If you judge, you will be judged.
If you forgive, you will be forgiven.
If you show mercy, you will receive mercy.
If you do not forgive, you will not be forgiven.
If you give, you will receive (not in the Sermon on the Mount, but follows the same rule).

POLITICS AND THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT

What can I say about politics in the Sermon on the Mount? His listeners no doubt assumed there would be politics involved for the establishment of a new kingdom. When they heard the Sermon on the Mount, they believed wholeheartedly that there would be some sort of political overthrow of the present system and establishment of God's Kingdom.

Did Jesus believe there would be a political overthrow of the present system? There is nothing in the Sermon on the Mount that suggests it. The Sermon on the Mount focuses on life in the kingdom, that is, how one is to live and act once the kingdom has been established.

To the modern reader, we understand that the kingdom was established not by political or by military resistance, but by living out the Sermon on the Mount, becoming peacemakers, humble people, merciful toward others rather than judgmental, letting go of debts, letting go of sins done against you, trusting God for sustenance, and going beyond the letter of the Law. This is how we build God's kingdom. And we build it slowly like a mustard seed growing.

But to Jesus' audience, even to his own disciples, they understood the kingdom to be established by an overthrow of the present kingdom, not slowly, but quickly in their lifetime.

What Healing Meant to First Century Jews

There were several types of healings in the Gospels and they all meant a whole lot more to the Jews than the typical Benny Hinn healings mean to us today.

When Jesus forgave a man's sins and healed him, He demonstrated that He had power over sin, which in turn demonstrated that he was either God or equal to God. From several biblical accounts, we learn that sickness was believed to be the result of somebody's sin. I have already shown this in a past blog. Suffice it to say that even biblical writers believed that sickness could be the result of sin. So if Jesus forgave a man's sin he demonstrated it by healing him as well. The logic was simple - sin caused the sickness, so if the sickness goes away it is because the source (sin) was gone. Jesus forgave a man's sin in Mark 2 which caused a stir; "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" was the response from those who knew the scripture when they heard Jesus forgive a man of his sins. Jesus healed the man to show to those who were there that he had the ability to forgive sins and if he could forgive sins, then He was more than mere human.

When the unclean touched Jesus (such as the woman with an issue of blood) or when Jesus touched the unclean (such as a dead body), Jesus did not become unclean but rather, the unclean were cleansed - the issue of blood stopped and the dead rose from the dead. Such healings from unclean diseases revealed that Jesus had power over the clean and unclean. In a discussion between God and Haggai, God asked Haggai (in chapter 2) if it was possible for someone or something clean to cleanse the unclean by touch. The answer was no; the unclean will automatically corrupt the clean. There were no exceptions. When people who were unclean touched Jesus they were cleansed and when Jesus touched them they were cleansed. This left a huge impression with the Jews of Jesus' day. He had power no other person on earth had over the clean, reversing a law of God and nature.

Raising the dead not only showed us that Jesus had power over the unclean, raising the dead also demonstrated that he had power over death. In John 11 Jesus said he was the Resurrection and the Life and then he raised up Lazarus. The book of John connects Jesus' healings to certain of Jesus' attributes. When Jesus healed the blind he showed that he had the power to make people see spiritually as well as physically. In John 9 Jesus healed a man born blind and then said, "I am the Light of the world." He also said, "For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind (Jn 9:39)."

When Jesus cast out demons he demonstrated to all that he had power over the demonic. Jesus told us that casting out demons was a demonstration that the kingdom of God had come. When Jesus cast out demons people were to understand that it would not have been possible unless Satan had been bound and that his possessions were being taken away from him (Matt 12:25-30).

Every kind of healing revealed that the kingdom of God had come for sinners and that God was accepting them. In the ancient world view, possession, poverty and sickness was caused by sin. Here is how the system worked:

1. God blessed the righteous with prosperity and that means wealth as well as health and long life. Those who ruled or who were fortuneate enough to be wealthy were those who had the best of this life and who easily bought into this belief because it justified their advantages and not only justified the imbalance of wealth, but made their lion's share of the wealth look like a gift from God himself.

2. God may discipline his beloved, but it was temporary and the promise of prosperity would return to the disciplined.

3. The wicked may prosper, but their prosperity was temporary.

4. Sickness was a sign that someone sinned. In most cases it was the sick person's sin, but in some cases it could be a parent who had sinned (Jn 9:2).

5. Poverty was seen as a sign of sinfulness, because God prospered the godly.

The priveledged class was not the only group that believed this hierarchy of faith, I believe the people themselves bought into the same ideas, so that even the poor and the sick believed they had somehow come under the displeasure of God.

The People of Jesus' Day - Different Groups of Poverty

Why Peasants Respnded to Jesus
by William R. Herzog II found in "Christian Origins" edited by Richard A. Horsley

Herzog argues that there were different levels among the poor of Israel. First of all, there were landowners who had property and the dignity that property brought. But because of taxes from Rome, Jerusalem, and the temple, people eventually fell into debt losing their land and becoming tenants working under contracts to land owners who were members of the ruling class. And if they lost their positions as tenants or could not find a job as a tenant, they ended up as day laborers working for day wages when work was available. Finally, when all else failed people resorted to begging.

Herzog also claims that people who had land or had adjusted to their particular work life would not be prone to rebel or desire any major change, but people who were in danger of losing whatever position they had were more apt to riot. Furthermore, landowners were not prone to give up all to follow anybody. In other words, people who were settled adjusted to their way of life and accepted it even though it wasn't all that good. However, take away what little one had and the protesting began.

Jesus' Mission Statement - Isaiah 61

The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord (Luke 4:18-19).

This passage from Isaiah 61:1-2a is the scripture Jesus used to define his ministry in the book of Luke. Throughout his ministry Jesus returned to it, declaring that he did not come for the healthy but for the sick (Matthew 9:12) and that he didn't come for those who could see, but for those who were blind (John 9:39).

Jesus' ministry was directed to needy people - the poor, those who sorrow, the blind and the slaves. We have already seen these were the people who went to Jesus for healing and deliverance - they were the types of people that Isaiah spoke about and they were the types of people Jesus believed he was called to.

ISAIAH 61 IN CONTEXT

Isaiah 61:1-2 was a celebration of bringing health, rebuilding, and prosperity to the poor and powerless (Israel). Isaiah 60 and 61 promised that the Gentiles and their rulers would give their honor, servitude and finances to Israel. It was the world of politics, economy, power and dominion brought under Israel's feet; and as I have already pointed out, this was the dream of the people that heard Jesus preach - a dream of being free from the dominion of foreigners and money hungry rulers - a dream they hoped to see through Jesus. It was a dream that served the interests and popular beliefs of those who followed Jesus.

According to the book of Mark, Jesus tried to direct the disciples away from the view that the messiah was a political ruler who was to fulfill their dreams of political and economic freedom, but rather Jesus told his disciples that his job was to serve and suffer for others (Matthew 8:33ff). Jesus gave the same job position to his disciples.

During his time in the desert Jesus rejected the tempter's offer for the world and all its glory, yet after his resurrection, the early church believed that Jesus was going to return very quickly to receive the kingdom, the world and all its glory and that he was going to rule the earth much as Isaiah 60 and 61 stated.

So here is the long and short of it all. Jesus quoted a scripture passage about his ministry that ignored the political surroundings of that same passage. This was not unusual for NT writers, who oftentimes quoted scripture with little or no concern for the original context of the OT scripture ("he will be called a Nazarene; out of Egypt I will call my son, a virgin will conceive," and so on), so it is very possible that Jesus' quoted from Isaiah 61, not thinking of the context of the passage.

OT scripture passages that were fulfilled by Jesus according the the NT, were oftentimes fulfilled first of all in their own day, hundreds of years before Jesus was born. The NT church saw in those same scripture passages another fulfillment in Christ.

Let me give an example. During Isaiah's day 2 armies stood outside of Jerusalem waiting to take the city. King Ahaz worried about the future of Jerusalem, but Isaiah told him not to fear because God would deliver Jerusalem from their enemies. Isaiah then told the king to ask the Lord for a sign, which the king refused to do... so Isaiah told him that God would give a sign. A virgin (Hebrew = virgin or young woman) would give birth to a son named Immanuel (meaning "God with us") and before the child would be old enough to know right from wrong, the kings would be gone (Isaiah 7:14). As Isaiah predicted, before the child was old enough to know better, the armies had left.

Taken by itself, without any context, Isaiah 7:14 looks like its only a random prophecy about Jesus and nothing else. But the context clearly reveals that Isaiah was talking about the situation in his own day, 700 years before Jesus was born. His young wife and their child were signs to King Ahaz, that God was the one delivering Jerusalem, because He had not abandoned them... He was still with them. Hundreds of years later the NT Church saw something else in Isaiah 7. They saw a new fulfillment, in their day, that Jesus was born from a virgin, which was a sign that God was with them. But in order for the verse to fit best to Jesus' situation Isaiah's context was left out.

Getting back to the scripture that Jesus used to define his ministry in Luke 4 - Jesus quoted a passage in Isaiah that was loaded with political meaning when it was written by Isaiah, but without its context it was emptied of politics and economics.

Jesus and the Soldiers

The soldiers that were hired by Rome came from different lands and even from Israel itself. They were people who had families and helped support them as well as they could. They were also people who had the difficult responsibility of keeping law and order in Rome's empire during a time when riots were common place.

In all likelihood, most soldiers had little or no respect for the people they protected. The people of Israel didn't like the soldiers as they represented a foreign rule and foreign taxes. Furthermore, many of religious people in Israel despised the lifestyle of the soldiers.

The soldiers responded by forcing Israeites to carry there baggage up to the limits the law allowed. When there was corporate punishment, it was the soldiers who carried out the dirty deeds of torturing and killing the supposed criminal.

There is one event in Jesus' life that may reflect the feelings of many in Israel. There was a man who came to Jesus who was demon possessed. When Jesus asked what the demon's name was, the demon answered, "My name is Legion, for we are many." To us this means a group of up to 4,800 soldiers. We focus on the number of demons. But to the people that heard this in Jesus day it said something about the soldiers. The soldiers of Rome were like demons, powerful but evil and unclean.

Any contact that Jesus had with soldiers is left silent until his trial. They did however, play an important part at John's baptism, asking him what they should do in order to be ready for bapism. John told them to stop using violence with the people and to be content with the salary they were given.

Although Jesus said and heard little or nothing about or from the soldiers, Jesus did on occasion meet with Centurions who were in charge of up to 480 soldiers. Centurions were usually "good guys" in the Bible. In Matthew 8 and Luke 7 Jesus commended a Centurion for having more faith than anybody in Israel. And at the cross it is a Centurion who confessed that Jesus was the son of God.

In Acts a Centurion had a vision that caused him to send for Peter in order to be the beginning of a Christian revival among the Gentiles, and it was a Centurion who watched over Paul and helped him stay alive when Paul was a prisoner on a ship.

The People of Jesus' Day - A People on Edge, Looking for a Better Life

The people of Jesus' day were heavily taxed by and ruled over by Romans (who were considered unclean) and corrupt leaders (High Priests, Saducees and Pharisees) in Jerusalem who relied on Rome for their support and legitimacy. The peoples' disatisfaction was seen in:
1. The constant riots that are reported by Josephus and the New Testament.
2. The popularity of the many messiahs and prophets that promised change through some great act of God.

During Jesus' day there were constant riots. Most of them were small, but some could be large, in fact, at least 4 were massive causing many deaths. Riots were caused by:
1. The perceived attack on Jewish religious practices or identity.
2. The lack of power and control in matters political, economic and religious.

Other factors that encouraged rioting were poverty, lack of economic oportunity and the racism of Romans who looked down on Barbarians (the Jews and other people who were occupied by Roman armies).

During Jesus' day there were false messiahs or prophets that led many astray by promising great works of God on the horizon. They led their followers into the desert, toward Jerusalem or up mountains only to find that they had walked into Roman massacres.

From the constant rioting and from the popluarity leaders with charisma who were filled with false hopes and promises. Desperate for a better life, people rebelled against the way things were and chose these leaders to guide them to a promised better life. Faced with deepening poverty people turned to dreams. They fell easy prey to those who could give them the illusion that something great was about to take place.

I believe that until his closest disciples had been properly trained, they were no more special or noble than the bunches of other people who followed other prophets making bold claims in God's name. Jesus knew this about all of his followers and for that reason found ways to pare them down from time to time. In John 6 Jesus spoke so harshly to his followers that they were offended and all but 12 left him. Jesus was not looking for people to place their own personal or national dreams on him and that is exactly what they were doing.

In the book of Mark, Jesus healed many people and told them afterward not to tell others about their healings (something that is called the Messianic Secret). I believe Jesus did this because of problems caused by people who followed Him for all the wrong reasons, reasons related to their personal hopes and dreams that were self-centered or national centered. Only the crucifixion and resurrection could fix the misunderstandings created by personal and national self-interest. Only the crucifixion and resurrection could help people see that the real Christian life involves suffering as much as it involves glory. The kingdom of God was not an escape from this world of politics and poverty, it was a committment to God's mission that says go, make disciples, love God and love neighbor.

After months of following Jesus, Peter finally understood that Jesus was the messiah - it was a revelation of God. After acknowledging his revelation, Jesus commended him for realizing that Jesus was the messiah. But when Jesus began to define the messiah's work in ways that displeased Peter, he tried to correct Jesus who then rebuked Peter saying, “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.” God gave Peter a revelation that Jesus was the Christ, but Peter's own self-interest and his national self-interest reshaped God's revelation so that it became demonic. It became demonic in that it no longer served God's interests but served human interests.

Jesus was faced with a crowd of followers, including his own disciples, that hoped to find their human dreams made real in Him. They may have believed that he was the messiah or some great prophet, but their dreams were nothing more than personal and national hopes for a better life, and the better life they wanted was nothing like the life God was promising through Jesus.

Jesus and Rulers

What Jesus had to say about the political rulers of his day:

1. Being told by some Pharisees that Herod was seeking to kill him, Jesus answered, "Go, tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.' Nevertheless I must journey today, tomorrow, and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem."

The fox was a metaphor for meanness, cunning and craftiness. From this passage one could assume that Jesus had no respect for Herod and in fact, viewed him as a crafty and cruel leader. Even though Jesus called Herod a fox (which was a capital offence) he wanted to move on to avoid being caught and taken prisoner outside of Jerusalem.

2. Jesus avoided Jerusalem and Judea preaching mostly in Galilee where it was safer for him. In John 7 his brothers mock him by challenging him to go into Jerusalem to get more attention, knowing that the Jewish leaders sought to kill him there. Galilee was a safer place even though Herod Antipas was there and he had John the Baptist killed.

3. Although Jesus rarely spoke directly to or about the Roman rulers, he regularly spoke out against the religious rulers of Jerusalem. This is surprising, because John the Baptist (his own cousin) was beheaded by Herod Antipas and Jesus grew up under Herod's cruel rule. It is also surprising because John was so vocal about Herod Antipas.

4. Jesus believed that Rome's representatives were given their power by God Himself (John 19:11).

5. Although rulers were sometimes major players in his parables (such as the ruler in Luke 19 who goes to a far country (Rome) to receive a kingdom), the rulers in these parables were given neither positive nor negative attributes. The foci of these parables wers not on the rulers, but rather on the servants.

The Gospel of Q

I am not going to get into the debate whether or not Q existed, I just want to explain what it is, because it is important in modern studies of the Gospels. I also would like to address it because Richard Horsley places so much stock in it being a political document.

So I would like to explain what it is and then see if the verses in question are as political as Horsley believes.

What is the Gospel of Q?

It is a hypothetical document or oral tradition that passed down many of the sayings of Jesus. Although there were few signs or miracles in Q, it was mostly sayings that Jesus spoke. According to many modern scholars, Q was a document that existed before all of the other gospels that we have in the Bible. Furthermore, Matthew and Luke copied much of Q and the book of Mark to write their own gospels.

Better explanations as well as cases both for and against the existence of Q is found throughout the internet. For this blog I am not going to commit to either side of the argument, I have already stated my belief that no matter how the Gospels were formed, God had his hand on the texts from start to finish.

Was the Historical Jesus a Political Figure?

As I mentioned in an earlier blog, I do not believe it is possible to discover any historical Jesus beyond what we have in the Bible. Every attempt to discover the Historical Jesus who is seperated from the Jesus of Faith is founded on and built thoroughly on conjecture.

Let me explain in further detail. As I mentioned in past blogs, many of today's scholars separate the Historical Jesus (the man who lived and died on the cross) from the Jesus of Faith (using the bare details of Jesus' life the early church added stories and sayings about Jesus in order to serve the interests of the early church- this version is what we have in the Bible).

Various methods are used to discover who the real Jesus was, arriving at any number of different possibilities, one of which is this: Jesus was a political figure of his day, but for different reasons, the early church decided to take out most of the political side of Jesus to make Jesus a less politically offensive person. Supposedly, when Jesus faced the certain death, his hopes and dreams were destroyed. This would be embarrassing for the church to deal with, so the church instead recreated a less embarrassing Jesus who promised a spiritual kingdom.

Another view is that the church would have wanted to down play any part of Jesus that was offensive to the political powers for fear of persecution or for the sake of winning over the political players of that day.

I suppose there are other reasons why some assume that the Historical Jesus was far more political than the Bible tells us, but... short of some fantastic discovery in the Middle East, we will never know anything more about Jesus than what the early church passed down to us in what we call the Bible.

What about the Historical Jesus vs. the Jesus of Faith?

1. Is there a difference between the historical Jesus and the Jesus of Faith designed in part by the early church to meet their needs and fantasies?
2. If there is, can we ever peel away the layers of church editing both oral and written to discover a better portrait of the historical Jesus?

Here are some options:

1. The most popularly held conservative position is that the historical Jesus is exactly the Jesus we get in the gospels. God is concerned with accuracy and therefore the Holy Spirit helped the authors keep and write an accurate account of Jesus' ministry. In this view one of the apostles wrote from memory or one of their friends wrote what they were told by the apostle.

On the plus side - it is simple and it is and has been believed by most conservative Christians from the 3rd Century on.

On the minus side - it does not always address the issue of how the texts met the needs of the early church...the audience to which the gospels were sent. And it assumes that the early church had little or nothing to do with the formation of the gospel episodes, it was only 4 individuals who authored the texts.

2. The opposite of that would be: There is a difference between the Jesus of Faith and the Historical Jesus. The early church added to and subtracted from the real event as they needed.

On the plus side - it fits the templates of social passing down of tradition. Even in Christianity one only needs to look at the stories of Jesus that circulated 300 years after his life to know that the church developed stories of their own that were quite wild and fanciful.

On the minus side - There is little or no connection between the writings and the historical Jesus, and every modern writer can pretty much create or discover billions of possible historical Jesus's. Take your pick!

3. There are other possiblities as well. The Jesus of Faith could be somewhat different than the Historical Jesus in that the early church needed several decades to look at who Jesus was and to discover and rediscover, refine and then develop what we now have as the gospels. They are not the entire account of Jesus ministry (John 21:25), neither are they bare-boned chronological accounts of his biography. They are stories that survived the early church's verbal chatrooms that met the needs of the early church. Among those needs were as follows:
a. Identity - who are we? who do we follow? why do we follow Jesus?
b. Survival - why do we believe what we do? and how can we answer those who refute us? how can we continue and grow?
In this view, even though there may be one writer per gospel, the writer recorded what the early church had developed and what became popular in the early decades of Christianity: The writer did not simply write down his own memories, he shared the memories of the entire church.

It may be that Mark wrote Mark even though the Bible does not tell us that he did, but if he did write the book, he did not write only what Peter shared with him, he wrote down what the early church had developed in its own chatrooms. Peter may have helped guide Mark and let him know the truth of each episode and helped him keep certain stories out that were fabrications, but the Bible does not tell us even this.

On the other hand it may be that all of the apostles and other disciples were directly or indirectly involved in the process of developing the gospels by being an important part of the community developing the stories about Jesus.

Whatever happened and however the gospels came into existence, the Holy Spirit was intimately involved in guiding and helping the early church so that what we do have today is the Word of God.

So let's go back to the questions:

Q. Is there a difference between the historical Jesus and the Jesus of Faith designed in part by the early church to meet their needs and fantasies?

A. Even though I believe the early church kept the stories that served their needs the most, I believe that what they kept remained:
a. true to what God wanted them to keep.
b. true to the Jesus of Faith / Jesus of history.

Q. If there is a difference between the Jesus of Faith and the Jesus of Histroy, can we ever peel away the layers of church editing (both oral and written) to discover a better portrait of the historical Jesus?

A. Even if there were some separation or even a big one, there is no way anybody could possibly peel back the layers of church ideology to discover the original Jesus. We will always only know the Jesus that has been delivered to us by the early church, by those who walked with him and saw him. Any and every search for the historical Jesus is futile.

Scholars who are trying to discover the historical Jesus discover an infinate number of Jesus's.

All we know about Jesus is what is given to us in the Bible, so that is what I will deal with...no more, no less. The only Jesus we will ever know is viewed through the eyes of the early church.

The Historical Jesus

Many bible scholars today separate the real Jesus from the one who is recorded in the Gospels. Let me explain their thinking.

1. Jesus lived, built a following and then for whatever reason was crucified and buried. Most scholars of all types (even unbelievers) would agree with this.

2. From Jesus' ministry the early Christians created stories by word of mouth about Jesus. The early church passed down these sayings from group to group and person to person, adding to and taking from the original stories. Every time it was passed on to another, it took slightly different form. Additions were made to address immediate issues and some things were left out because they were not important to the early believers. The stories that fared best were those stories that met the needs of a young growing church. These stories were eventually tied together and put into writing - not necessarily by an apostle or the friend of the apostle, but by a scribe who simply pieced together different stories written or oral. Decades later Church leaders claimed the writings were written by certain apostles or friends of apostles.

3. There were also those who held on to sayings that Jesus said and repeated those to others until Gospels were written with only the sayings of Jesus - such as the Gospel of Thomas (found among the Nag Hammadi texts) and the yet unproven gospel called "Q."

4. Eventually Mark used Q and other stories to build his Gospel.

5. Matthew and then Luke borrowed from Mark and from the other sources to create what is now their gospels. There is disagreement as to how each gospel was built, but this idea remains the same -- the real Jesus was lost to the stories that were created about him after he died.

6. The real Jesus is called "The Jesus of History," and the Jesus that has been handed down to us from the early church stories is "The Jesus of Faith."

7. Many modern scholars believe that with the proper tools we can strip away the layers of legend and discover a closer look at the Jesus of History. In fact, the "Jesus Seminar" was created to do just that.

There have been several periods in history when scholars have returned to what is called the "Search for the Historical Jesus." The 19th Century, Mid 20th and now the past few decades have witnessed the attempt to find the real Jesus.

In their attempts to discover So there are some who claim that Jesus was homosexual and held homosexual rituals, some who believe Jesus was a dilusioned messiah wannabe who thought he that God would come to his rescue, some believed that Jesus practiced certain magic and some believe that Jesus was trying to create a political revolution fighting against the wealthy and the powerful, ie. the Roman government and their supporters - the Sadducees and the Pharisees.

Politics and John's Preaching

Enough has already been said about John's preaching against Herod and how it got him beheaded. I have also dealt somewhat with Israel's own religious authorities and I have written somewhat about the crowds and their power. So what remains?

Both John the Baptist and Jesus added two dimensions to the political environment of their day. First of all, by saying that the kingdom of God was coming, all who heard understood that a political and social change of the political system was about to take place. With such a change it was assumed that a new king would replace Herod and perhaps even Caesar. Such a change would also mean that a new system throughout the land would be established that would remove the powers that were in existence. In John's day several people made claims to be the messiah and promised to bring in a new political kingdom, so anybody hearing about John or Jesus without carefully listening to them could assume the same for them.

A new social and political system would be certainly welcomed by the religious leaders, but only as it benefited their own self interests. They wanted God to intervene and to establish Israel as the head of the nations, but they assumed such an intervention would continue and augment their own leadership roles. A kingdom established among the poor and powerless and for the poor and powerless was not what they were looking for, nor was it welcome. The poor and powerless then as always are a people who were deemed untrained, uneducated, unsophisticated and unfit for the world of politics.

In their eyes John was just another wanna be... just another egotistical dreamer who led away the ignorant and the unlearned. When John was arrested and beheaded, they did not lose any sleep over it, it was one less problem to deal with... with his death the crowds were less out from under their control.

Politically speaking, John's ministry was a threat to the authorities because he was creating a following that was not sanctioned by Rome or by Jerusalem. John created a group outside the established channels, so therefore, he was a threat to them.

Established powers rarely get along (unless they have common enemies or common goals) but they have learned to recognize each other's power and have learned to accept the other's legitimacy if they have to. New powers (groups such as John's) however are accepted only insofar as they don't encroach on or speak against the power structures, become a threat, become numerous, or become influencial. As John's ministry grew and as he spoke out against the sins of the authorities he posed a bigger and bigger threat to Herod and to the religious leaders.

CONCLUSION - JOHN AND POLITICS

Although John did not run for office or seek political power, he did speak out against Herod and he gave no respect to the religious leaders of his day. He refused to baptise them unless they followed his interpretation of the Law. This would have offended them terribly for they spent their lives studying and following the Law and were deemed the legitimate interpreters of the Law.

Put yourself in their position. You have a degree in Theology from a trusted Seminary and you have prided yourself in knowing and following the Bible well. Now imagine that somebody else comes along and tells you that you have missed the mark and need to change your behavior and how you interpret scripture. This same person has a strong following of common people who know very little of the Bible and follow just about every and any new thing that comes along.

John was that kind of leader who upset the powers around him, not by running for office but by creating a following that disrespected the authorities around them. I say they disrespected them because John spoke about them in not so glowing light by pointing out their lack of morality and need for right living. On the surface it looks like John held these views and introduced these views to his followers, but it is very likely that John openly preached what was quietly talked about among the people.

Comparing Jesus with Israel

Matthew clearly compared the journey of Jesus to that of Israel.

1. Herod killed the children of Bethlehem just like Pharoah killed many of the children of Irael.

2. The family of Jesus moved into and then departed from Egypt in fulfilment of the scripture "From Egypt I called my son." This was a quote from Hosea 11:1: "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." Hosea spelled it out for us - God called Israel out of Egypt; yet Matthew used this verse to tell his readers that ultimately Jesus was the one called out of Egypt.

3. Baptism and Israel's crossing the Nile River were related to each other in 1 Cor 10:2 where Paul spoke of Israel: "They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Jesus then was baptised by John the Baptist to fulfill his mission as the representative of Israel before God. Jesus like Israel, was baptised in the river.

4. After Moses led Israel throught their baptism, they went into the desert where they were faced with several temptations - in all of them they failed. Jesus faced the same temptations in the same desert, but did not fail.

The Political Temptation of Jesus

Satan offered Jesus the power and the glory of the world itself, because these were his to give to whomever he chose. At least this was the claim Satan made. In "Christian Origins" (ed. by Richard Horsley) Warren Carter concludes from this temptation that Rome itself was thus "under Satan's direction and power (p. 147)."

Here are some issues that rise with the temptation:
1. Much of tht bible states that all the kingdoms are under God. Romans 13:1 tells us that all power is from God and therefore we should be subject to them.
2. There are several ways we can look at Satan's claim.
a. Satan was lieing to Jesus and in fact has no authority as claimed. But if that were so, then Jesus would not be tempted for he would know that all power belonged to God.
b. Satan has control under God's authority.
c. The Gospel writers believed that Satan had control, but Paul and others in the bible believed the world belonged to God.

On the surface the last option looks very promising, but Paul is able to bring the two opposing ideas together. He claims that we fight against principalities and powers, and that at one time we were all under the domination of the "Prince of the power of the air." At the same time in Romans 13 he states that all power is under God. I would conclude that Paul's theology is best summarized under the second option...Satan who has power over the world is under God's control.

Finally, notice that Jesus' ministry begins with spiritual battle with Satan and not a fight with political or religious leaders. It tells me that the early church writers believed Jesus ministry was spirtual in nature and not political.

The Temptations of Jesus

MARK 1

Mark's mention of the temptation is incredibly brief. He was led into the wilderness, he was tempted, he lived with wild beasts and angels ministered to him. That's all. Several things are missing... Fasting is not mentioned and any detail about temptaion is gone.

MATTHEW 4

Matthew built from Mark's summary. Like Mark, Matthew mentioned that Jesus was led into the wilderness by the Holy Spirit, was tempted by the devil and was ministered to by angels. Unlike Mark, Matthew was not concerned about wild beasts living with Jesus and unlike Mark, Matthew told us that Jesus fasted and after 40 days, and Matthew explained in detail 3 temptations Jesus faced. These temptations were the same temptations that Israel faced in the desert. And although Israel failed in these temptaions, Jesus faced them and conquered.

TEMPTATION #1 - HUNGER IN THE DESERT

Jesus fasted 40 days and was hungry afterwards. When Israel faced hunger in the desert they sinned by complaining before God and talking about going back to Egypt. When Jesus was faced with hunger, he was tempted to sin by usng God's power to turn a rock into bread, but instead he fought the temptation with the scripture, "One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."

TEMPTATION #2 - TESTING THE LORD

1 Corinthians 10 tells us that Israel tested the Lord in the wilderness - Exodus 17 tells us that they tested the Lord when they grumbled and complained to Moses about their lack of water - rather than trusting God to provide for them what they needed, they concluded that God had abandoned them to die in the wilderness. They wanted to kill Moses. To this Moses asked, "Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you put the Lord to the test?"

Although Jesus' temptation was different, the purpose of the temptation was the same, he was tempted to put a test before the Lord. The test was to have God prove to him that he was indeed the messiah, the Son of God.

Remember that James 1 tells us that temptation is always the result of our own desires and Hebrews tells us that Jesus was tempted in every way like us yet without sin. His identity as the Son of God did not exempt him from being truely tempted and from desiring the things in which he was tempted. Jesus truely faced the temptation to put God to the test, to jump off the top of the temple to prove to himself and perhaps to the rest of those watching that he was the messiah they were looking for. But Jesus successfully fought the temptation, by quoting Deuteronomy 6:16 which were the words Moses told Israel many years after they had tested the Lord over the lack of water, "Do not put the Lord to the test."

TEMPTAION #3 - IDOLATRY

In its primal form idolatry is about controlling the gods and nature for the benefit of survival and a prosperous life. Power is no different. It is the ability to have others do what you would like them to do for the purpose of personal or social survival and / or prosperity.

In the desert, when Israel lost trust in God, they turned to idolatry in order to find guidance, delivery and protection as they set out to go back to Egypt.

Satan promised Jesus the glory and wealth of the world if he would worship him, and Jesus replied with a passage of scripture from Deuteronomy that was about idolatry, "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only."

John the Baptist - the Rest of the Story

PRISON

John was put into prison because he said too much about Herod. We know that he spoke boldly about the marriage Herod got into and about how it contradicted the Law. We are also told that John said other things about Herod which were not written down for us. Whatever John did say was noticed by Herod who took him prisoner for his wife's sake but did not want to kill him because he feared the people who believed John was a prophet (14:5).

THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE

In Matthew we learn that there was power in the mob. Rulers feared the people getting out of control and for the sake of keeping peace gave in from time to time to their whims and their demands. Rulers feared because if the people got out of control, the rulers may be called to Rome and lose their positions.

Not only did the secular rulers fear mobs, the religious leaders likewise waited to take Jesus or John the Baptist because they feared the people.

But the mobs did not hold all the power. It was very risky to become involved in a mob. A ruler may send his soldiers into a mob to stab and kill people, or a ruler could make an example to the people by crucifying hundreds if not thousands. Therefore starting a riot was not something done lightly. If a man became a part of a riot, oftentimes he was willingly sacrificing his life for something he believed very strongly.

JOHN THE BAPTIST LAST DAYS (LK 7:20)

Unexpectedly John gave into doubts about Jesus. We are told that he sent some of his men to ask Jesus if he was the one to come or was there somebody else coming along. Why would he doubt?

Jesus did not come into this world in any way that was expected. Many knew the prophecies, but prophecy can easily be misunderstood and interpreted to benefit one's own fantasies and hopes. Theological constructs were built supporting not God's plan, but rather supporting the hopes and dreams of a nation (MK 8:33)

JOHN'S DEATH

Herod's wife got her revenge. She set up her husband so that he had to behead John or else back out on his word in front of a small crowd of party goers.

HEROD'S GUILT

John's death plagued Herod to some degree. When he began hearing about Jesus, he was convinced that John the Baptist had risen from the dead and working miracles (MT 14:2).

John the Baptist

MARK 1

As was stated at John's baptism, John's purpose was to prepare Israel for the coming of the promised kingdom that would be brought about through Jesus. To prepare Israel for the new kingdom which was expected to be political and military in nature, John was to help the people to confess their sins by baptizing them. Mark focused on 3 aspects of John's ministry.
1 - His baptism was marked by the confession of sins
2 - He dressed and ate strangely
3 - He pointed the way to Jesus who in contrast with John would baptize not in water but in the Holy Spirit

Mark's focus is on Jesus who came to John to be baptized and when he was baptized the Holy Spirit came on him and a voice from heaven declared that he was the Son of God (see above where it is used for Caesar and other ancient kings).

All that can be said about politics has been discussed already. In the prophecy of John's father Zaharias, we saw that although John was to prepare Israel to receive their king, Jesus was to be far more political in the thoughts and the hearts of the people.

MATTHEW

Matthew built on Marks' outline adding information otherwise unknown. After saying pretty much what Mark did with a bit more detail he added the fact that Pharisees and Sadducees came to be baptized. This should not be too surprising to us because John's father was a respected priest in Jerusalem. What was surprising is that John turned the religious leaders away telling them to bring fruits showing they had repented before they could come to be baptized.

The Pharisees and Sadducees were the wealthy and powerful of John's day, so it seems that there may have been some class division here. The upper class no doubt deemed themselves to be above the need of repentance and changed life. In their minds they were already good enough in God's eyes. John points out that this certainty lay in the fact that these religious leaders had Abraham as their biological and spiritual father. It was not enough for John's baptism.

Matthew's John the Baptist also lays down a very strong warning about the day of judgment about to come. In all likelihood, he believed that with the coming of the new kingdom there would be not only be redemption from Israel's enemies, there would be judgment as well -- judgment not only for the nations, but for Israel as well. This judgment was the baptism of the Holy Spirit that Jesus was to bring. John defines this Baptism of the Holy Spirit as a baptism of fire because it would purge the nation.

Lastly, to be ready for the coming kingdom John expected to see fruit -- the result of repentance from everybody.

LUKE

Luke adds even more to what has already been said. In the book of Luke John the Baptist explained what the "fruit of repentance" actually was. Upon hearing that they needed to bring fruit, the people asked for clarification, "What should we do?"

John tells the people to share their possessions with people who lacked. He told the tax collectors to be ethical in their business and he told the soldiers to be content with their pay, not to take advantage of their power by bullying others, and to be honest.

JOHN

The book of John adds nothing to the political leanings of the people nor of Jesus. It does suggest that the people were looking for different people to begin or to establish God's coming kingdom. A prophet like Moses (perhaps the Samaritan hope), Elijah who was to prepare the coming of the messiah, and the messiah himself. Being asked if he were any of the above, John denied all three.

In the book of John, John the Baptist also gave some of his disciples to Jesus. With the Gospels and with Acts, one gets the impression that the early church faced issues with the disciples of John, issues that the church sought to reconcile by acknowledging John's ministry and by emphasizing that Jesus was more important than John even to John the Baptist himself.

Political Background During John and Jesus' Ministry

LUKE 3:1-2

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar–when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene–during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert.

TIBERIUS CAESAR (Emperor A.D. 14 - 37)

Tiberius was a depressed man who did not want to be a leader. Even though he helped secure the German boarders, his rule was marked with immorality and terror. He had sex with children and adults, men and women, boys and girls. He killed those who spoke against him and may have thrown little children off cliffs for sexual satisfaction. He was a very cruel man and when he died, the people danced in the streets.

PONTIUS PILATE

There were over 40 provinces in the Roman Empire, each of which was typically ruled over by one governor who ruled for one to three years. Pontius Pilate lasted 10 years as a governor.

Pilate was also known to be cruel. His reign was marked with corruption, violence, robbery, ill treatment of people, and continuous executions without formal trials (Philo). He angered those in Jerusalem on at least three major occasions. Once by allowing Roman soldiers to carry by night standards with images on them, and once by taking money from the temple in order to build an aqueduct for Jerusalem. He was met both times with enraged people who forced him to retreat on the first occasion, but he quieted the mob on the second occasion by sending his men into the crowd with daggers, stabbing and killing people at will.

The third occasion was when he set up in Herod's palace shields dedicated to Tiberius Caesar. Caesar himself told him to remove the shields.

HEROD TETRARCH OF GALILEE (ANTIPAS)

I have already written about Herod Antipas and will only remind the reader that Antipas was known for building cities and divorcing his wife in order to marry his brother's wife who was a widow. He is best known for imprisoning and killing John the Baptist because John publicly denounced Herod's divorce and marriage to his brother's wife. The Bible also tells us that John had other things to say about Herod, but the Bible does not let us know what else John said.

PHILLIP TETRARCH OF ITUREA AND TRACONITUS

Little is known about Phillip. He is the half brother of Antipas and married his neice Salome, who together with her mother had John the Baptist killed.

LYSANIAS TETRARCH OF ABILENE

He was the ruler of a small area of whom little is known. There is some discussion about who he was and when he ruled, but because it is all so speculative, I will not deal with it.

ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS

Annas was High Priest from AD 6 until AD 15 when the Roman Governor Valerius Gratus deposed him. After 2 short termed High Priests, his son Antipas was made High Priest. Because both names are mentioned as High Priests, it has been assumed that Israel never really accepted the forced resignation of Annas.

The Talmud described Annas as being cruel and filled with greed. He was a wealthy and arrogant man. Annas had a monopoly on the sale of sacrificial animals as well as the exchanging of money in the temple courts.

It seems that the Caiaphas had a powerful father who may have pulled his strings.

CONCLUSION

Living in Galilee, I would not feel connected to the state or to the capital city (Jerusalem) as I do in the modern world. Secular rulers were foreigners, immoral and vicious to the extreme. It was dangerous to talk to loud about their immoralities or their cruelties.

I would also feel a vast distance from the religious leaders because they were arrogant, very wealthy while I lived in poverty. They lived down South and I lived in the North.

There was a lot more that separated the rich from the masses of poor people that is often overlooked - clothing, behavior, morals, values, dignity, possessions, houses, and even the food that was bought separated the few who were rich such as the Saducees and the High Priests from the masses.

Some in Israel left society in discust and started communities in the desert, but most remained in society and put up with the corruption and inequalities. They endured the arrogance and disdain the wealthy showed them.

In time many in Israel would try but fail to overthrow the Roman government. During Jesus's day however there were a handful of people who tried, but most bided their time waiting for God's intervention.

The Shepherds, Simeon, Anna and the Widow

LUKE 2

Luke 2 does not give us much in the area of politics. The shepherds were told by the angel that Jesus was born in the City of David, implying that a king in the line of King David was born. But as much as his birth city and the excitement of the angels implied that a great king was born the shepherds were told that they could find the child in a manger, and a manger was not the expected birthplace of a king. Be that as it may, being born into poverty did offer the commmon and poorer clases an audience and an intimate connection with the messiah. These Shepherds were invited to share in the celbration of the messiah.

Shepherding, by the way, was not considered a noble profession by Jesus' day, so the fact that angels chose to share their joy with shepherds and not with priests or those who devoted themselves to full time ministry is very telling.

Days after Jesus' birth, in the temple, Simeon reflected on the Covenant that God made with Abraham in Genesis 12 when he prophesied that Jesus would be a light to the Gentiles and the glory of Israel. He also predicted that Jesus would be the cause for the fall and rising of many in Israel. He ended his prophecy with a cryptic message about the suffering Mary would go through so that the hearts of people would be opened up. Politically speaking this passage does not offer us much. However, we do see that Simeon may have seen more than a political and warrior messiah... but this is not clear.

Anna was an old lady who happened to be in the temple when Simeon prophesied about Jesus. Luke tells us that after hearing Simeon and seeing Jesus she spread the news to people who were looking for the redemption of Israel.

The word "redemption" originally meant buying slaves out of slavery, but by the end of the NT it meant deliverence from sin or captivity. Before Jesus' death and resurrection I would guess that dominant opinion focused more on captivity and less on sin, more on deliverance from Rome and less about deliverance from sin.

Herod and the Wise Men

MATTHEW CHAPTER 2

Chapter one established that Jesus was the king of the Jews through his geneology and through his virgin birth. It established that Jesus was a king who was going to save people from their own sin. Chapter 2 confirms again the fact that Jesus was a king with enough fame to threaten Israel's own King Herod. Men from the East called Magi came to Herod looking for the child who was born to be a king. Magi were the scientists of Jesus' day who studied dreams and stars to understand the times. In all likelihood they came from Persia bringing gifts fit for a king. They came to Herod telling him that they had seen a star indicating that a king was recently or about to be born for Israel.

Herod had reason to be troubled about this event that played out before him. These magi who were before him were reveared in their country - a country that did not welcome Rome's authority. These men were no doubt bringing gifts in hopes of future alliance with Israel and possibly against Rome.

First Summary

2 Questions to summarize:
1. First of all, how would I summarize everything written so far?
2. Second, what does this have to do with politics today?

I would conclude that with the prophecies; with Israel's immediate political concerns of that day; and with the world views and stories of their own past events, Israel expected a political/ military messiah who would usher in the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God was expected to be worldwide in that it forced all other rulers and nations to obedience, and it was expected to last forever through the reestablished bloodline of King David.

The kingdom however was more than political and military. Through military might and with God's help a new system of justice and righteousness would be established throughout the world in the wake of the takeover. Whether this takeover was the result of a revolution, military overthrow, or a complete act of God is uncertain. Perhaps there were opinions on different sides of this issue.

Before the new kingdom could be established, however, John the Baptist was expected to prepare for the kingdom by renewing hearts and right behavior among the people of Israel. It was his job to prepare Israel for the messiah king who would establish the new kingdom.

Some modern and not so modern theologians claim that Jesus himself held on to the same visions of political and military might. These writers believe that the disciples knew Jesus had political dreams, but because he died unexpectedly the disciples changed Jesus' teachings in order to delete those subjects that were obviously mistaken and embarrassing. The New Testament writers may have also taken politicly offensive material out of Jesus' teachings in order to avoid Roman backlash.

As I move through the Gospels it will be interesting to see if this can be found in the scriptures at all or if these writers are only projecting their own political views into the life of Jesus.

Before Jesus' birth we can see that people definately believed that his mission would be politically and militarily defined, and that's as far as we can take it at this point.

Joseph and Mary were probably not too happy about making a journey during the late months of pregnancy for the purpose of fulfilling some foreign ruler's obsession with counting and taxing his people. No doubt there was a lot of complaining among the people, but through this political act, God was bringing about the fulfilment of scripture that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Of this we are confident - God used the self interest of Caesar Augustus to further His kingdom.

God was in control politically then as he is now. We may not see good reasons for what modern rulers do, in fact, at times it is obvious that they serve their own interests. But these scripture passages show us that even though earthly rulers make decisions that negatively affect us all, God can and does use them for his own purposes.

Thus I conclude - God was in control, He is in control and He always will be in control.

Modern political pundits act and talk like God is not control and things are getting worse. They use fear, hatred and anger as tools to win and to keep followers. These three - fear, hatred and anger - I call the unholy triad. They are tools that are used by every side of political debate to convince followers and the undecided to join a particular opinion or a particular group.

I call these three the unholy triad because they contradict the holy triad - faith, hope and love - and they corrupt faith and trust in God. I will address more of this later as I study other books such as Romans, 2 Peter and Jude. For now suffice it to say that even though things look bad on the surface, we can learn from Caesar's self centered political action and how it affected Israel -GOD IS IN CONTROL!

The Praise and Prophecy of Zacharias

LUKE CHAPTER 2

When the Zacharias' son John was born, he praised God for everybody around him to hear. During that praise he acknowledged that his son was going to be the forerunner of the one who would deliver Israel from their enemies so that Israel could serve God without fear. To the original audience that meant that Israel was about to find freedom from foreign oppression and it meant that the kingdom of David was about to be renewed with the rightful heir to the throne. With King David's throne established once again Israel could and would serve God without outside persecution or influence.

Zacharias also saw that his son John would prepare the way for this king through the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of sins.

If this prophecy was all we knew about John and Jesus we would say that Jesus' work was political insofar as he was to reestablish the monarchy of David, yet his work was also spiritual insofar as with David's throne once again inhabited, Israel could enter into a golden age where God could be served properly and fearlessly. In other words, at Jesus' birth, the way to spiritual salvation was deemed to be through the path of politics.

If this prophesy were all we had we would know that John's work was spiritual insofar as he would bring people to God for the forgiveness of sins. This forgiveness was not just for personal salvation, but so that Israel would be ready for the golden age where godliness reigned. John's work was to get people ready for the day when they could serve God in a kingdom established by God's political power - the earthly kingdom of God.

Just because people of the Bible were saints / holy / godly or whatever did not mean that they saw clearly all that God was about to do. They were bound to their world views, to their culture and their limited understanding in all things relating to the prophecies and to the Word of God. We see more clearly because of the events that took place at Golgotha - events that shocked even Jesus' closest friends, disciples and his mother - events they did not expect - events they would need the Holy Spirit to help them understand years later.

The Angel's Message to Mary

LUKE 1

You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.” (Luke 1:31-33)

For us 2000 years later, we see all kinds of spiritual language in this passage. Jesus is eternal and his reign is spiritual and eternal. But the 1st Century people had very little of that in their thoughts. Their world view was filled with earthly kings and kingdoms; their stories of the past were filled with earthly kings and kingdoms; so when Mary was told about her son taking the throne of David, it was the highest earthly honor anyone could receive.

We understand that Jesus is eternal, but for Mary and those who first heard this, Jesus eternal rule would be thought of as one that passed on to his descendants from generation to generation. Why? Because there was nothing in their experience, their world views, their stories of old that could lead them to fathom or understand the real work of Jesus.

Jesus and Prophecy

MATTHEW CHAPTER ONE

Most of the people of Israel did not read or write. They told stories and repeated what they heard from each other and from those who read the scriptures, the scribes and religious leaders. Its hard to imagine how the people reveared prophecies about the future, holding on dearly to portions of their writings knowing that in those writings were hints of a coming era when a new king would rise.

Scribes poured over their writings looking for such passages that could be lifted from their original context and time and give a clue about the kingdom and time that was expected. When Jesus came, a lot of these passages fit so well to him.

“The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”–which means, “God with us.” (Isaiah 7:14)

In Isaiah's day there were 2 nations / kings battling outside of Jerusalem's walls in hopes of bringing Jerusalem to its knees. King Ahaz protected himself and his city within the walls of the city, but he was very worried that the two kings would take the city and force him into servitude.

In that context Isaiah told King Ahaz that there would be a sign of a young woman / virgin (same word in the Hebrew) who would give birth to a son and before the son was old enough to know right from wrong the 2 armies would be gone. The prophet then went into the prophetess (his wife) and they had a child to fulfill that prophecy (Is 8:1-4) and before the child could say momma or dadda, the armies were gone.

It is one of many prophecies about Jesus that had double fulfillment. The first was in the day shortly after it was written, the second in Christ himself.

The fact that Isaiah's prophecy refered first of all so much to the polical and military situation of Israel brings a cloud of the same over the birth of Jesus... but whereas Isaiah's prophecy was originally about deliverance from a military siege, the angel let Joseph know that Jesus would bring about the deliverence of peoples' sins.

Jesus and His Mother's Virginity

MATTHEW CHAPTER ONE

Chapter one established that Jesus was King David's descendant and rightful heir to his throne. Chapter one also told us that Jesus was born from God, born of a virgin.

To us in the 20th Century we have had 2,000 years of priests, scholars and students tear apart the scripture in order to discover the nature and the person of Jesus. For us Son of God born of a virgin is something purely religious and spiritual. But for those who first read the gospel something else stood out above all else.

Caesar and Pharoah were considered and called son of God, son of Zeus, king of kings, etc. You get the picture. The point is, when the Bible established that Jesus was the Son of God or born of a virgin, people were not necessarily thinking religiously or only spiritually like we would. They were seeing Jesus as a true earthly king, chosen by God, born of God and born from David for the purpose of bringing the nations under the feet of Israel.

But in the midst of all this political expectation, Matthew began to redefine the Son of David, the king of Israel by giving us the purpose of Jesus. His job was to save his people not from their political enemies but from their own personal shortcomings, from their own sins.

Political Expectations

In Jesus' day there was a lot of expectation / hope for the coming of the Messiah. Most religious people had some sort of belief that there would be somebody coming who would rule God's people and bring about some type of revival of the Law of Moses. The expected ruler would help promote Israel to unparalleled success, power and prestige.

The expected Messiah would deliver the nation from the Roman oppression and bring freedom to Israel. He would rule as King David and King Solomon did in their days. He would conquer the nations like David and build like Solomon. He would rule a kingdom that would never fall. As a ruler he would bring justice to the nations through a renewed commitment to God's Law. Indeed, how could one rule justly without the Law of God that was so admired by the religious.

This is only a snapshot of the expectations people had about the Messiah. And this snapshot helps us to understand that when Jesus spoke of a kingdom, people heard him speak to their idea of a kingdom mentioned above. It was political, spiritual and judicial - all at the same time.

Even the apostles held onto this type of world view. James and John sought to sit at the right and left of Jesus in his kingdom - a kingdom they expected here and now in this world. When Jesus first mentioned that he had to suffer, Peter rebuked him because in his mind there was nothing of the sort for a world ruler. And when Jesus rose from the dead, the apostles still believed that Jesus was going to set up a worldly kingdom... "Lord are you going to restore Israel's kingdom now?" If the apostles who lived with Jesus for so long believed that Jesus was bringing an earthly kingdom, how much more the common people. And how much more still those who were in authority believed Jesus to be a political threat.

As we listen to Jesus' message about the kingdom throughout the Gospels it is imperative to keep this in mind. People did not expect a "spiritual kingdom," they expected a worldly kingdom that would serve their social, spiritual and political needs... needs that were human centered and not God centered, and for that reason Satan's playground (Mark 8:33).

Mary's Pregnancy and Joseph's Response

MATTHEW 1

In our day the Bible is considered spiritual and the law of the land is political. We differentiate between the two. Judah did not make such a division; the Law of Moses was both spiritual and political. Roman law was not inherent to Judah, it came out of another culture and was forced upon Judah. Some from Judah no doubt prefered Roman law, but many such as Joseph still held on to Moses' Law for spiritual and political direction in life.

Mary was very young when she and Joseph were engaged...probably around 13 years old. Shortly afterward she became pregnant from somebody other than Joseph. At least that's what it looked like to Joseph for he had no clue that the child was the Holy Spirit's.

Before Joseph was told by God in a dream that the child was from the Holy Spirit he was faced with a dilemma. The Law stated that she and whoever got her pregnant should be put to death, but Matthew stated that Joseph did not want to do this because he was a righteous man.

Joseph was very liberal with the Law. He did not contemplate how to put Mary to death, but how to put her away quietly, thus removing her from the consequences that breaking the Law demanded. For this action, the Bible called Joseph a righteous man.

So, Joseph sought ways to disobey the Law in order to protect Mary who had supposedly betrayed him, and for this disobedience he was called righteous. So how did that work?

Throughout the Old Testament God sought mercy over judgment, but how much mercy should be given and how much was Judah to follow the Law without mercy? Although the Bible does not seem to give us clear rules when mercy should be used over judgment, we have a few examples in the gospels such as breaking the Sabbath and letting a woman caught in adultry go with a message of forgiveness. These will be addressed in future blogs.

Matthew's Genealogy and Politics - pt. 2 - Rahab and Bathsheba

MATTHEW 1

RAHAB

Rahab was a prostitute who lived in the city of Jericho. During her years the city of Jericho was filled with the rumors of slaves who escaped Egypt, wandered in the desert for 40 years and were moving Northward toward their city. They had heard about how those same slaves had taken down powerful cities and how that group was coming closer and closer to their own city.

During this fearful time 2 strangers walked into the city. How the 2 men ended up at her house is a mystery, but what happened afterward is recorded. The 2 men were spies from the slaves - from the people of Israel. Rahab knew that her people would know who the 2 strangers were, so she hid them and protected them in exchange for her life and the lives of her family.

In order to save her life, Rahab betrayed her people delivering them over to their certain death. But in Israel she became a hero.

BATHSHEBA

Bathsheba's husband was at war as she took a bath on the roof of her house, purifying herself from her monthly period. When she finished king's messengers were at her door to bring her to the king himself. Although we don't know if she gave herself willingly or out of fear, we do know that she had sex with King David, she got pregnant and in order to protect her and the King's reputation, King David gave orders to have her husband killed.

After her mourning she moved into the palace with the king and gave birth to a child who died shortly after birth. The second child however survived and later became the next king in Israel and the next in line to be the ancestor in the genealogy of Jesus.

POLITICS

-Tamar nobly and diligently followed cultural and political duty even to the endangerment of her life.
-Ruth did the same, and although her life was never in danger, her reputation was. Ruth also left her people, nation and family in order to stay with Naomi and secure her survival and safety.
-Rahab turned her back on her people and government in order to protect her life and her family's lives.
-Bathsheba was King David's Monica Lewinsky, but much worse.

CONCLUSION

The 4 women in Jesus' ancestry were all tied to sexual scandals to one degree or another. One can only surmise that these scandals introduce us to the story of Mary the mother of Jesus who likewise faced sexual scandal. Out of the four women who precede her, Mary is closest to Tamar and Ruth who, although faced the appearance of scandal were in fact blameless and godly in their intentions and their actions.

Matthew's Geneology and Politics - Tamar and Ruth (pt 1)

MATTHEW 1

The first chapter of Matthew records the genealogy of Jesus beginning with Abraham and ending with Jesus. In this genealogy four women are mentioned, all of which were tied one way or another with a sexual scandal and all of them broke the laws or customs of their people. They are Tamar, Ruth, Rahab and Bathsheba.

TAMAR

There were no written laws for Abraham's family that we know of during the time of Tamar, neither was there much of a system of government established. In a way, “everybody did what seemed right in their own eyes.” This comment about "doing whatever was right in their own eyes" was made 2 times in the book of Judges reflecting on the situation during the time when there was no king to establish the Law. If everybody did their own thing when there was already a law set up, but no king to help enforce it, then how much more when there was no law yet set up?

Even though the Law was not yet given, in many ways the early Fathers of Israel followed what seemed right and what would become Law in due time. According to the custom that would later become written law, a widow should marry her dead husband’s nearest kin (brother if there was one).

The purpose of this custom was more for the dead husband than for the woman and her social and economic needs. The need for the husband’s name to continue in Israel even after his death was of primary importance. I have always believed that having a son insured the economic and social well being of a widow. We see this in Paul’s letter to Timothy (1 Timothy 5:16) when he tells the church to have family members take care of widows so that the church is not encumbered with too many widows. But in the Law the needs of the widows don’t seem to carry the weight given to the needs of the dead husband passing on his name to future generations.

As is mentioned, passing on the name of a dead husband was very important. In fact, it was so important that it superseded most if not all other moral boundaries. So we find Tamar posing as a prostitute in order to sleep with her father-in-law and we find Ruth slipping away at night to the bed of Boaz uncovering his feet (a term possibly used to say she was uncovering his private areas - see Dt 28:57 & Ezek 16:25).

Both were highly commended for following duty over personal passion. Even though both of these ladies did what would be unacceptable in our day as well as their own, their devotion was to unwritten custom (Tamar) and written law (Ruth) in their own day. Their devotion shows us that there was a hierarchy of ethics / morality, that is, some morals were more important than others. In fact, some morals could be sacrificed to serve other more important moral duties.

Tamar pretended to be a prostitute in order to get pregnant by her father-in-law - an act that almost caused her the death penalty. Ruth went to Boaz by night which almost caused them both scandalous reputations. But in the end both were commended for their devotion to duty.

Genealogy and Politics

Jesus' genealogy is loaded with politics. Matthew emphasizes that Jesus was descended from both David and Abraham. He tells us that there were 14 generations from Abraham to David and then 14 from David to Jesus. The second part of Jesus' genealogy follows a long line of kings that descended from the greatest of all of Israel's, King David who conquered kingdoms and established Israel as the leading country of it's day.

God promised David a dynasty that would never end, but by 586 B.C. it did just that, his dynasty ended, no more kings ruled over Israel. David's descendants were still counted, they just didn't rule anymore. So by Jesus' day, people were expecting a new king from David's blood line that would renew the political and judicial dynasty of King David.

The genealogy in Matthew introduces us to that king.

Jesus and Herod Archelaus

Joseph and Mary moved to Egypt in order to avoid King Herod's cruelty in seeking to kill Jesus. Herod died shortly thereafter which gave Jesus' parents the opportunity they needed to return to their home country. But... when they heard rumors that Herod's son Archelaus had taken the throne, Joseph was afraid to go back to Bethlehem. God confirmed his fears and in a dream and sent the young family to Galilee instead, where the Herods' other son Antipas was just made ruler.

Why did Joseph fear Archelaus and not Antipas?

Before Herod died he had a large golden eagle placed on top of the temple that he was having rebuilt. Two very eloquent Jews who won the hearts of the people, named Judas and Mattbias, taught how the Law forbade the making of such images. As Herod was dieing these two convinced their young followers to tear down the idol even if it meant death, which it did.

The two men and fellow insurrectionists were burned alive by orders of Herod. In response, many of the Jews rioted, so the new ruler Archelaus killed almost 3,000 people during the Passover Festival. Upon further insurrections while he was in Rome, 2,000 more people were crucified.

He was a bad ruler and only lasted 10 years in his position, nevertheless, his short reign was marked with extreme violence. No doubt Jesus' parents wanted to stay away from this.

Jesus and King Herod

Both Matthew and Luke set Jesus' birth in the context of King Herod's reign. I have already written about Herod and some of his power issues.

Late in his reign several Eastern Star Gazers came before him asking him where the new King of the Jews was born. They had noticed that the stars were lining up in such a way that they concluded there was a very important Jewish king coming into the world. Without a doubt Herod was shocked at this new information (the Bible also says that all of Jerusalem had caught wind of the new birth). In order to protect his position Herod craftily asked the chief preists and scribes where this new child might be born so that he too could pay reverence. In reality, he only wanted only to kill the child. The chief priests and scribes willingly offer Herod the information that the Jewish scriptures say that a new king would be born in Bethlehem.

The fact that the chief priests and scribes willingly gave up this information implies that they were in some kind of political arrangement with Herod. Whether this arrangement was one based in fear, or based in political advantage, or both the scribes and chief priests did offer the king crucial information that endangered the political future of their own people.

The star gazers did find the child and on their return to the East, they went another way, thus avoiding Herod entirely, which elevated Herod's cruel ire. Herod killed all the children in Bethlehem 2 years old and younger. Fortuneately for Jesus, his parents were already on their way to Egypt because Jesus' dad (Joseph) had a dream telling him to go.

King Herod, the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the High Priest

Politics were important to the writers and readers of the Bible. Both Matthew and Luke mention in their opening scenes that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod who gained the official title "King of the Jews" by the Roman Senate in 40 B.C. In gaining the throne over Israel, he replaced Israel's High Priest as the ruler over the Jews. It was also Herod who represented the the beginning of Rome's rule over Israel.

Herod was brutal in his attempts to gain and to keep his position secure. Suffering from depression and paranoia, he killed two sons and one of his wives and the Bible tells us that he killed dozens of Bethlehem's children because of a rumor that the king of the Jews was born there.

Even though we know next to nothing about common talk in the time of Jesus, I believe that politics permeated the discussions of the people in Judea and Galilee. The people lived under a cruel ruler who established by and represented the foreign city of Rome. Under him were Sadducees who controlled the temple and were all too happy to aid the foreign leaders in support. The Pharisees also had a history of political involvement battling the Sadducees for control under the watchful eye of Rome, but by Jesus' day the Sadducees had the upper hand both fiscally and politically even though they both worked together through the Sanhedrin and in their daily politics.

The High Priest descended from a line of priests that were considered illigitimate by many in Israel. In fact, the Qumram community left the cities to live in the desert because they were so discusted by the politics of Jerusalem. The Pharisees were wealthy and pretty much controlled the temple requiring taxes to the temple on top of the taxes paid to Rome.

Jesus and Herod Antipas

In 4 B.C. King Herod died and his kingdom was split between 3 of his sons. None of his sons would ever be called "King of the Jews" like Herod was, but they would rule over different parts of the Jewish territory. Herod Antipas ruled over Perea and over Galilee. After living a short time in Egypt, after King Herod died, Joseph and Mary decided to avoid living in Judea because Herod Archelaus was the ruler of that territory. Instead they moved to Galilee which was their original home under the rulership of Herod Antipas.

During Herod's reign he built a capital city in Galilee called Sepphoris which was only 3 miles away from Jesus' hometown Nazareth. It is extremely possible that as carpenters, Jesus and his father were simply two of the many people who were employed in building that city. Being so close to the capital city, Jesus no doubt heard and possibly discussed a lot of politics. However, this part of his live is unknown to all of us so we can only guess what Jesus did and what he said.

John the Baptist and Herod Antipas

Herod Antipas fell in love with his dead brother's wife Herodias while they were in Rome. Antipas divorced his wife to marry Herodias sometime in A.D. 34.

John the Baptist spoke boldly against Antipas' divorce, saying that it was contrary to the Law. For that and for speaking against other undefined evils done by Herod Antipas, John was put into prison. Josephus, however, tells us that Herod Antipas was afraid of John's popularity that it would lead to political rebellion.

Although we don't have any other information about what else John said about Herod Antipas, we can say this: The Bible only records John speaking against Herod breaking God's Law. In the Bible, John did not speak against the foolishness of Herod's political decision in divorcing another king's daughter and thus endangering Galilee in order to marry his brother's wife. In other words the Bible (as it addresses John's preaching) is only concerned with God's Law, not political savvy. Secondly, John did not verbally attack Herod as a leader, neither did he suggest that somebody else should be placed in his position... he only spoke out against an immoral act accomplished by Herod.

It is possible that the Galileans of Jesus' day compared Herodias to the wicked queen Jezebel because she was so wicked and Herod Antipas was compared to Jezebel's husband king Ahab by the populace. Whatever the truth about that may be we do know that Herod Antipas was very unpopular among the Jews. He converted to Judaism and obeyed many of their customs, but offended the Jews with many of his Roman ways and his marriage to Herodias.

John the Baptist simply reflected and stated publicly what the people were talking about with each other. For that he was imprisoned by Herod Antipas. Rulers in Jesus' day tried to protect their positions by imprisoning or killing people they believed posed a threat to them. Victims could be family members, mothers and people among their population who posed any threat to them. In Herod's case, he was threatened by a wilderness preacher named John the Baptist because John publicly announced that Herod was wrong in divorcing his wife in order to marry his brother's wife Herodius.

Once in jail Herod was amused by John and liked listening to him. It may be that Herod really wanted to do what was right but was coerced by his position and his wife to do terrible things. His behavior several years later with Jesus shows that he did indeed have a fascination with the spiritual, because when Jesus stood before him he was delighted with the hopes that Jesus would perform some miracle for him.

Unfortunately for John, Herodias finally maneuvered to have her husband behead John. Her daughter danced for Antipas thus pleasing him tremendously. Antipas promised her up to half the kingdom (probably given after his death), but she only wanted John the Baptist's head. That request was previously set up by her mother Herodias. Evidently, Herodias did not find John as interesting as her husband.