Was Jesus "Political?"
He was "truthful," not "partisan" for it's own sake.
October, 2020
As of this writing, the U.S. is within days of another Presidential election. That inspires animated discussions, as well as questions. One such question involves Jesus and His role in politics. To hear some people tell it, Jesus was a staunch, vocal supporter of [insert modern political party here]. Others would claim that Jesus was extremely neutral, refusing to ever take sides on something that would be considered a "political" issue today.
Of course, both of those are extremes, and both are absurd. The most important thing to remember is that "politics" in the first century was very different from that of the modern west. In one sense, Jesus was not "political," as we'd define it in the modern world. A more accurate statement is that He was not partisan: He did not overtly support one government or civic group over another. At the same time, Jesus was extremely political in that the people, practices, and ideas He spoke on were deeply connected to the politics of the day. In fact, it was political concerns—both Jewish and Roman—which accomplished His death.
In Jesus' era, Jewish authority figures were tied directly to both government and to religion. When Jesus told people the correct way to interpret Old Testament law (Matthew 5:27–31), He was challenging the teachings of those leaders. In some cases, Christ even flatly contradicted Jewish authority on what was permissible or not (Matthew 12:1–8). In others, He upheld civil laws some disliked (Luke 10:22–25). Those were not "just religious" arguments, either; leaders had cultural and government power to punish those who disobeyed. Every statement on morality, truth, or behavior was "political" according to the culture of that era. Jesus even committed acts of aggressive civil disobedience, such as driving corrupt businessmen from the temple court—an act that was as much a challenge to the Jewish leaders as it was the businessmen (John 2:13–19).
Politics is ultimately what inspired Jesus' enemies to kill Him. Jewish leadership did not appreciate being contradicted (John 8:43–47). Some were worried Jesus' ministry would become a rebellion to which Rome would overreact (John 11:48). Pilate, for his part, signed Jesus' death warrant to prevent civil unrest (John 19:14–16). History further reinforces that, telling us Pilate was on thin ice with his superiors for mishandling Judea, so he prioritized political peace over truth.
Those associated with Jesus also said and did extremely political things. John the Baptist was imprisoned and eventually killed for calling out a political leader's illicit marriage (Matthew 14:1–12). Paul often leveraged his Roman citizenship to ensure better treatment (Acts 16:37–38; 22:29). In at least two cases, Paul made a politically-savvy choice to keep Christian concerns public, rather than letting them be swept under the rug (Acts 16:36–39; 26:32). The apostles defied local law to preach the gospel (Acts 5:39). Saul's authority to arrest Christians was justified by their violation of local laws (Acts 9:1–2).
Those examples make it inaccurate to say either Jesus or the early church was "nonpolitical," without careful context. At the same time, to say "Jesus was political" would also be unwise, without that same context. Jesus was diligent not to support or refute any earthly government system (John 18:36). Where government and politicians were correct, He said so (Matthew 23:1–2). He even advocated following requirements and customs for the simple sake of peacemaking (Matthew 17:24–27). But when those leaders, or those laws, were wrong, He openly condemned them (Matthew 23:23–24).
Modern people think of politics and religion as mostly separate. When someone in the USA speaks against adultery, or promiscuity, or drunkenness, or greed, none of those are literally illegal (broadly speaking). Such moralizing is normally considered apolitical. But in Jesus' day, some of those very issues came with explicit legal consequences. The same is true of attending church, saying blasphemous things, or ignoring a religious leader: optional today, but not back then.
Unfortunately, the modern world often implies law and government should be 100% divorced from any moral or religious opinions. That's where questions like this are born: the cultural assumption that Christians should not claim any definitive stance—at all—on legal, civic, or political concerns. Or, that any time a Christian criticizes or supports some political party's platform, or actions, or candidate, they're being inappropriately political instead spiritual.
Both Christ and the early church openly discussed controversial "political" issues. Where they drew the line was at giving partisan support to any group (1 Corinthians 1:10–17). In other words, they did not say, "we need to tie ourselves to group X, or oppose group Y, for the sake of control or power." That does not mean their actions were artificially balanced. For instance, Jesus opposed most of what the Pharisees taught and how they ruled (Matthew 23:13). But the motivations for that were always above politics.
So far as we apply it to modern culture, that's the difficult path we need to take. Whether something is politically charged, or not, Christians are allowed—even obligated—to take sides. However, we need to be careful to "take sides" with the truth, not necessarily with a secular political party. That which is good, and true, and biblical, is true whether it's said and done by a Democrat or a Republican. That which is unbiblical, false, and evil is false no matter who says or does it.
Where there's room to debate is on how or when we should agree to disagree with some party, or candidate, or issue, when we see imperfections. Paul made the point that if we demand perfection in order to have any relationship, at all, we'd have to leave the planet (1 Corinthians 5:9–13), but there do need to be limits.
When law and government impinged on truth and morality, Jesus was quite willing to be "political," so there's no reason Christians should be afraid to make the same choice. He avoided partisanship for its own sake, as well, presenting another example believers need to take to heart. In short, disagreements about "how" we achieve godly results are an area of politics where Christians need to be as tolerant and open-minded as possible. When the fundamental issue is something explicitly moral, neutrality, itself, becomes immoral (Proverbs 21:13).
--Editor
