CHURCH AND POLITICS IN DIALOGUE: A VIEW OF A PROPHETIC PARADIGM
2.3 CHURCH AND POLITICS
2.3.5 Jesus and his political concern
Moltmann (1993:318) refers to political hermeneutics which is a way of recognizing social and economic influences on theological institutions and languages in order to bring their liberating content into the political sphere and make them relevant in the context of truly freeing men from the misery of deplorable living conditions. Moltmann proposes that Christians use the freedom they experience in their faith as an additional inspiration towards realizing the necessary political liberation in their environments. Talking on political involvement of Jesus, Obery (2006:5-6), studying Jesus’ political concerns, finds that Jesus did not involve himself in politics in any compromising way and motivated by partisanship nor did he want to overthrow the Roman empire by using force. Jesus’
political revolutionary position is contained in his message calling for change of individual hearts and demanding sweeping, comprehensive changes in political, social and economic institutions. His strategy inspired and empowered people to remove injustices in public structures. The changes demanded by Jesus are individual, institutional and structural, and aimed at alleviating the systemic causes of people’s suffering. In his inaugural sermon in Luke 4.18-19, Jesus announces that the reason for his anointing lies in his mission, associated with the suffering of people. The Greek word Ptochois (poor) refers to the collectively impoverished who are by a system of governance kept in that state, unjustly imprisoned and economically exploited. The year that Christ is proclaiming is the year of Jubilee. Announced in Exodus 25.8-10 as the end of the fifty-year cycle when the land that had been confiscated and unjustly taken, will be returned to its owners.
It is also the year in which people may be freed. In relation to Jesus’ liberation mission, Rodriguez (2012:2,3) speaks of an integral liberation where by salvation is understood to include spiritual and social aspects. He affirms Philip Esler’s suggestion that “Luke develops a theology of poverty influenced by social, political and economic factors”.
Poverty has never been innocent. Rodriguez (2012:4,5), following Gutiérrez’ thought, mentions as one of the most challenging aspects of Luke’s theological focus, his sensitivity concerning the less favoured social sectors and his awareness of the six
44
dimensions of salvation, namely economic, social, political, physical, psychological and spiritual. Following this line of thought one ends up with what can constitute the salvation of the entire human being. Obery lists three types of factors that characterize Jesus’
revolutionary stance.
The first type concerns politics. Jesus lived when the Emperor Augustus ruled the Roman empire where few Jews were living. Obery (2006:51) reports two thousand crucifixions executed by the Roman military around the time of Jesus’ life. The victims were mostly Galileans who had rebelled again Roman rule. Another political issue was the pulpit rule of Herod, used by the empire. In addition, there was the political challenge of the aristocratic priestly class ruling in the temple. These priests were seen as agents of the Roman empire, serving for the sake of the emperor. John 19.15 confirms that priests saw themselves in such a role. “But they cried out, ‘Away with Him, away with Him! Crucify Him!’ Pilate said to them, ‘Shall I crucify your King?’ The chief priests answered, ‘We have no king but Caesar!’".
Those who should recognize the sovereignty of God alone, did betray their priesthood by serving the God of Israel. To oppose the priests was synonymous with opposing Rome.
Similarly, the elders and the Sadducees who were socially and politically influenced, looked towards maintaining the status quo and strengthening their relationship with the Roman empire. Pharisees were ritually pure, but not politically radical. Meanwhile, it was stated in rabbinic writings that priests went through large sums of money. They were extravagant and reputedly entertained lavishly, hiring expensive cooks for festivities and drinking choice wines from crystal glasses. The aristocratic priesthood also was accused of maltreating the people they were supposed to serve. With regard to this behaviour, Obery (2006:60) argues: “Because of the priests' religious authority and the allegiance that authority elicited from their fellow Jews, it was the priests' role as agents of Roman interests that presented the major political problem for the people of Jesus”.
The second kind of factors related to Jesus’ revolutionary stance are economic in nature such as:
- Poverty. Israelite society was composed of two classes, one very rich class, consisting of only 5 per cent of the population, all of them bureaucrats and priests who were also landowners and tax collectors. The rest of the population was very
45
poor. The average piece of land available for cultivation by one family was 1.5 acres, very small for maintaining a family (Hendricks, 2006:61,62). Hence we find in the Gospel, among others, the following references to poverty: Judas who’d like to sell the perfume and give money to the poor (John 12.4, 5); the poor Lazarus (Luke 19.19- 31); the statement on the blessing of the poor (Luke 6.20), and, teaching his disciples to pray Jesus is concerned about their poverty, our daily bread (Matthew 6.11).
Moltmann (1999:99) understands poverty as a collective term entailing the hungry, sick, discouraged, sad, suffering and needy. They are humiliated, oppressed, and as a result dehumanised. They have lost their rights, are non-persons, sub-humans and human fodder.
- Then there is the taxation system. Taxation was collected as multiple payments, levied in kind and in personal services, and taxes served to maintain the Roman officials and soldiers. People had to pay religious and secular taxes. The estimated total of charged secular and religious taxes consumed up to 40 percent of the peasants' subsistence. E.P. Sanders observes in his study that "every year farmers had officials of their religion knocking on the door and asking for tithes" (Hendricks, 2006:64). This system of taxation could only deepen the poverty of the Israelites.
Moltmann (1999:99-100) uses in this context the term ‘man of violence’ as the opposite of the poor man. The man of violence is the one who enriches himself by making other people poor. Thus, the tax collector becomes rich by exploiting his power which the poor are unable to resist. The tax collector cheats the poor out of the little they have and, being poor, they have no choice but to pay up.
- Another huge economic challenge was posed by the debt system. Many peasants had to borrow to pay tax. Once they failed paying, they were seized, either to become slaves or to give up their eldest children for slavery. Matthew 18.25-35 highlights this fact. It could also happen that a moneylender enslaved a debtor’s wife, children, and even members of the extended family and their possessions as payment for debts.
Obery (2006:65) notes that “debt slavery was such a bitter issue in Israel that one of the first acts of the rebels in the Jewish War was to seize and burn the records of debts that were stored in the Temple”. When teaching to pray, Jesus uses this context: “Forgive us our ‘opheleimata’, our debts or legal obligations (Matthew 6.12).
The Greek verb ‘ophiemi’ translated as ‘forgive’, has the primary meaning of ‘release’.
46
The prayer also gives an indication of Jesus’ concern for the financial issues of people.
Among problems of a social nature are crime and the schism between the inhabitants of rural and urban areas. Crime was a major concern in the social reality of Israel. It was a consequence of the social alienation of poor and landless people. There is an understanding, supported by scholarly evidence, that in the case of political and economic breakdown, banditry takes place. Typically this occurs in rural areas where a large proportion of the populace is economically exploited and dispossessed (Hendricks, 2006:66). Roman law countered banditry as if it were a common natural disease and cause of death. Many rebellions took place in Israel in protest against exploitation by Rome and by wealthy Jewish landowners who often also were priests. Those perceived as exploiters are targeted by Jesus in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10.25- 37). A sign of the times can also be cleaned from the scene of the crucifixion where two men are crucified alongside Jesus. Another social problem was posed by a schism between urbanites and rural dwellers who formed an ‘inferior’ class in society. The priests who dwelled in the temple thought that, being privileged, they also enjoyed a superior status in society. Hence, the priest in John 7.15 assumes that Jesus is illiterate because he comes from a rural area. One of the social ills in the region is the marginalization of the Galileans who were synonymous with poverty and shame and, therefore, by society side-lined. Ninety percent of Galileans were poor. Rodriguez (2012:27, 36) emphasizes that God’s special love for the poor and marginalized is the central theme of the liberating message of the bible. Jesus spent his life in Galilee where Hebrew was spoken with a local accent. Because of their pronunciation Galileans were not allowed to lead prayer outside their own region. Peter’s origin is in Matthew 26.73 identified by his Hebrew pronunciation. Galileans were also pejoratively known as “those who earn their life from agriculture”. In Luke 2.16, Jesus is presented as wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.
What does this statement convey about the new born king? The Lucan version represents the identification of the Messiah as an entire human being. Lying in a manger expresses Jesus’ identification with the destitute and defenceless in the world. Jesus is shown in his solidarity with the needy and the outcasts who exist in the periphery of society (Rodriguez, 2012:9). In first century Palestine, the marginalized included lepers, tax collectors, publicans, women, children, Samaritans and the sick. They could be divided into four
47
groups: those marginalized because of their economic status, the socially marginalized, those side-lined for cultural reasons and, finally, people marginalized on religious grounds. It implies that not exclusively poor people were marginalized. The same fate affected some moneyed persons who belonged to societal categories that were deemed unacceptable. For example, Zacchaeus and Matthew are marginalized in their communities although they are rich (Rodriguez, 2012:18). In spite of the impact of Jesus’
ministry on present-day social relations, excusing oneself from political participation is still a common occurrence at which we take a closer look in the following section.