The Political Spectrum

Can you imagine being dropped in the middle of a nation in great turmoil, fighting to re-find its own identity? On the one hand, it might appear that insurmountable social and political forces are at work that would make the task of rediscovering the country’s God given roots seem impossible. At the same time, one could look at some of the resources in play and imagine renewal as a great nation possible. One of the clear challenges is the lack of agreement between factions on how to go about it.

On one side of the political spectrum you find one group who insists that faithful keeping of God’s scriptures always results in God’s blessing.  Those focuses on persuading people to understand that if the nation collectively follows God, the blessings he had promised would come to pass.  

There’s a subgroup within this group who agree with this point of view but also think that it stops short of necessary action.  In their fervor, they pursue power through courts and in places of government to make sure that those who blatantly live in opposition to scripture and Godly principles would be stopped.  In this way, the rebellion against God could be brought to an end and his river of blessing would flow over the land, soaking the nation built on the foundation of God’s word.  Better to imprison the rebellious than to let all the people suffer.

Unity is difficult even for this passionate group.  Some of them have a view of the nation’s leader, polarizing personality and all, as a gift, appointed to lead by God.  From their vantage point he is on their side.  Not only does he make leadership decisions that support the people who want to pursue God’s ways, but his agenda supports rebuilding of the institutions of faith, neglected by previous leaders.  He even promotes religious rights that reflect the traditions of those who founded the country.

While part of the group honors this person as the leader that God provided, the other part of the same group is incredulous.  To them, this person has a track record of shady dealings and more than just a questionable moral track record.  The other half of this group saw the leader as a pretender, more of a servant of Satan that does some nice things to win the favor of those who follow God.  They are certain that he does this only to pacify those on one side of the political spectrum when his real goal was to build up his political power.  They are certain he isn’t really one of them.

Within the people you find there is a distinct second group, more extreme than the first group (which was divided inside).  The next group of people are revolutionaries.  They read their scriptures, say their prayers, and prepare their weapons, readying themselves for a revolution which will require violence. This has been a reality in the past for those who followed God and this faction sees the current situation calling for action at this heightened level.  This group has a much smaller population and can be described as existing independently rather than having a formal organization to it.  Informal organization or not, this group is looking for a time when they can become more organized and launch an overthrow of the wrong sort of government that has led the people astray.  They are small in number but believe God to be on their side and because of this the mission is possible.

Next, on the complete other side of the political spectrum is the group who thinks the government needs to be given total allegiance.  They do not think God is the answer nor do they particularly have any allegiance to the idea that there is one God who deserves their allegiance.  Rather, they are confident that big government is the answer.  In fact, they do not see the need to be a sovereign independent nation.  Instead, the people could trust the government with their needs and their self-governance could be subsumed in a worldwide government that would rule over all of humanity.

So what country is this? Admittedly the above is a very “broad brush” description which would probably lead you to recognize the political tension that exists across our political spectrum in the United States - including the response to our current leader.  At the same time however, the sketch above describes the tension across the political spectrum in Israel two thousand years ago.

The first group, with its division into sub groups, is the Pharisees.  They believed God’s promise that said if they were faithful to scripture, that God would end the Gentile oppression coming via Rome (read Deuteronomy 27-32).  Within the Pharisees were the Hillites, who used influence but not force to exert pressure on their fellow Jews to be faithful to scripture.  They did have a bit more of a “live and let live and God will sort it out approach”.  This mindset is visible in Gamaliel in the book of Acts.  The apostles were arrested for what was seen as leading people astray. When the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling council, considered the matter, it is Gamaliel the Hillilite Pharisee whose moderate voice emerges.  He advises that if these people are not from God the movement will come to nothing. If it is from God and you oppose them, you will find yourself opposing God.

The other sub group within the Pharisees was the Shammaites. They were willing to go to greater lengths. They tapped into the stream of zeal, recorded at different points in Israel’s history.  Zeal lead Phineas to drive a spear through his faithless countryman and end God’s judgment.  Elijah proclaimed that he had been very zealous for Yahweh, putting to death the prophets of Baal.  In the time approaching Jesus day, Mattathias was propelled by zeal that lead him in revolt against the Seleucid oppression.  After killing a Greek official, he proclaimed “Let everyone who has zeal for the Law and who stands by the covenant follow me!” (1st Macc. 2:27)  

In the time of the early church, Saul can be recognized as a Shammite, proclaiming his solidarity with the tradition of Zeal.  “I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.”(Gal 1:14) Now the Pharisees as far as we know, had no official power.  They were a group that could apply pressure and use official channels to achieve their ends.  We see this in Saul, who went and obtained letters of permission to carry out his plans of imprisonments and executions for followers of Jesus.  The zeal of his forefathers resulted in action (violence) and Saul has tapped into this tradition. 

Another division within the Jewish people leading up to Jesus day was the split between people who supported Herod as “King of the Jews” (aka Herodians) and those who did not.  Herod was not a true Jew, but rather was of Edomite descent - cousins to the Children of Israel.  He wanted to be hailed as king of the Jews and to gain favor, he did things like remodel the Jewish Temple with much greater splendor.  This did gain him supporters, but others looked at the bodies of people he had “moved” out of his way (including his wife), and considered him an evil murderous dictator.  His children that ruled after him could be characterized as experiencing similar tension  among the populous, ranging from support to revolt.  

The next group that was described were the violent revolutionaries who were willing to kill to bring change. Perhaps Jesus had two of his own disciples that had been associated with this type of group.  The first was Judas Iscariot.  The Iscariot title in his name is thought to be an association with the Sicari.  The Sicari was a group named for their long skinny daggers. Members would carry these daggers concealed in a crowd.  They would slip into a crowd and pull these out in order to assassinate prominent figures they found in public gatherings.  They would then conceal the weapon and disappear.  

The second potential revolutionary among the disciples is Simon the Zealot.  Little is known about this and more comes from conjecture that fits the historical moment than direct knowledge. Regardless of the specifics on these two men, this was a time in history where there were many willing to use force to bring restoration of their nation.

On the complete other side of the political spectrum were those who saw Caesar and his big government as the answer.  Josephus was a Jew who even claims that for a period of time he had lived as a Pharisee. When the Roman army was approaching to destroy Jerusalem (70 AD), he switched sides and gave his allegiance to Caesar.  He urged other Jews to do the same.  In one place he is imploring a young revolutionary to “repent and have faith [pistis] in me”.  He thought those in Jerusalem should submit to the all-powerful armies of Rome.  Across the world many did.  Some voluntarily and some out of coercion.  Emperor worship cults would eventually emerge with veneration of the world leader as divine.  Many celebrated the Pax Romana, the peace of Rome, delivered by the vicious armies of Rome (ironic at best).

As we look at the ancient history we can see that although much was different, there were a lot of tensions spread across a political spectrum that have a similar feeling to the pressures of today.  In the world where the beginning of the Gospel (euangelion) of Caesar Augustus was proclaimed and he was celebrated as a divine savior of the world, is the world where Jesus entered.  Mark the evangelist begins his work with a claim that counters what was said about Caesar. He begins his writing with the claim of “The beginning of the Gospel (euangelion) of Jesus Christ, son of God” (Mark 1:1). He and the other evangelists tell us how Jesus announced that the arrival of God’s kingdom was upon them.

In this world we see Jesus not only interacting with, but bringing a new order to the forces.  Regarding the Pharisees, he said that those who followed him need a covenant faithfulness (righteousness) that surpassed theirs. To the Pharisees, he pointed out that they strained out a gnat when it came to fastidiousness law keeping, but somehow, they had missed the great depth of concern the law was soaked with; namely love, justice and mercy. When Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan he showed what proper law keeping looked like.  The ones who passed by the one beaten and left for dead did so perhaps for purity concerns within the law and could feign covenant faithfulness.  But, the deeper concern of the law, loving your neighbor, is embodied by the Samaritan who shows what faithful covenant behavior looks like.  To any of us who might want the right laws in place and the right kind of legislation, but have no desire to lift a finger to unload burdens that are weighing down our neighbors, Jesus might invite us to follow the Good Samaritan telling us “Go and do likewise”.

In terms of the revolutionary mood within Judea, Jesus had something to say.  Like Josephus, Jesus knew the coming Jewish military revolt against Rome would be futile.  I noted above how Josephus told a would-be insurrectionist “repent and trust me”. Jesus was similar and yet very different.  When Jesus was on his final journey into Jerusalem, people came to him and discussed recent events, asking about when Pilate killed some worshippers.  One could argue that implicit in the act of telling Jesus about the event is the question, “What are you going to do or say about it?”  Jesus responds letting them know that these Galileans were not worse sinners, but unless they (those talking with Jesus) “repent” than they too will perish. (Luke 13:3) It appears that Jesus is speaking to the mood and mode of revolution in the hearts of the people.  The mood of revolution against the status quo is appropriate, but if the mode is not repented of, it will result in dead worshippers and falling buildings. Later, Luke reports Jesus telling his disciples that Jerusalem is going to be destroyed and indeed, within a few decades Roman armies did come and they left falling buildings and dead worshipers in their wake.

Like Josephus, Jesus is saying repent and trust him.  Unlike Josephus, Jesus was launching a revolution unlike any other - not conceding. Faith in him does not lead one into destructive compromise, rather it joins you to a kingdom that even death cannot stop.

To those who were loyal to Caesar, Jesus might surprise some by the fact that he says give back to Caesar what is his.  However, the next statement provides the umbrella to understand it and constrain the place of Caesar’s rule.  Giving to God "what is God's" make Caesar’s dominion relative; specifically, his rule must be in submission to the greater authority.  The divine intention from the beginning was that humans would rule over the world he made.  The goal is not to get rid of governments.  That would be a return to the chaos, the “formless void” that God brought order to in the beginning.  He made humans as his image bearers to reflect his wise and kind rule into the world. This purpose for humans has never changed and we are heading towards the day when the great voice will be heard proclaiming that “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign for ever and ever.” (Rev 11:15) The kingdoms that exist will one day be fully transformed and subsumed into the umbrella of God’s kingdom and his one world rule will never come to an end.  In this kingdom those who have proclaimed their allegiance to him will at the same time be servant and ruler in the age to come.

The above is not intended to be a detailed analysis of different political position across the spectrum.  It is also not intended to classify someone in a specific group.  We as people are much more complex than a label of a group on a political spectrum.  It is likely that we all experience tension that might pull us towards a different place in any given moment.  Instead, the aim is to show that the political reality Jesus spoke into has some surprising parallels to our own.  Jesus encountered people all along a political spectrum.  His words were not just spiritual truths, but had impact on the politics of his day.  If we can learn to hear how the words he spoke had impact across political landscape of his day, hopefully we can learn how those same words have similar significance in our political environment today.