I could not help but notice a title that recently caught my attention, suggesting that there was a Historical Jesus different from the Christ as Christians have confessed for over two thousand years. The essayist and journalist affirmed that the Historical Jesus was a political Revolutionary whose aims were not far from challenging Roman status, oppressive rules, orders, and doctrines, as well as systemic circuits, to dislocate and dislodge them and introduce a new political agenda. The realities positionings and given verdicts prompted my interest in considering what others have said about the Historical Jesus. The writer of the title that sold me to read the article was not the only writer to customize Jesus as a political revolutionary and Christ as a different perspective of a group of people, commonly Christians, as a source of hope.
Reza Aslan, John Dominic Crossan, and S. G. F. Brandon have written on the political revolutions of the Historical Jesus. His behavioral approaches to challenging the status quo. Some writers have been said to have offered a helpful balance. Yet, from the angle that the Historical Jesus was politically significant but not a zealot or associated with a pursuit of hijacking the powers from Rome, like N. T. Wright, whose writings have been seen as persuasive by many evangelical scholars. It is not whether these writers were wrong or right, but, how do we strike a balance to avoid being held in the house of perspectives of the Historical Jesus, who was a political revolutionary whose identity is not of Christ as claimed.
For many Christians, Jesus is a gentle teacher who preached love, forgiveness, and turning of cheeks to those who humiliated. An absolute form of humility and preservation of self from warring against those who have chosen to pick up a challenge. The same Historical Jesus challenged authorities, confronted orders, and he was on the streets of Jerusalem on a riding horse with a chant and worship, the cheers of multitudes as though he was about to assassinate existing political powers. Remembered, he was said to be executed on the charges, “King of the Jews”.
As a Christian, how do you react to the thorough classifying of the Historical Jesus as a political revolutionary? Then, we need to go back to reason out of the scriptures, the literal context of the whole matter. This would not have slipped away without being properly addressed. We’ve seen a case that the Historical Jesus was likened to a first-century activist seeking to overthrow oppressive systems, and or have had some modern conversations centered on projecting their own political hopes and fears onto him.
This question is beyond the surface of academic debate. In an age, where, practically, Jesus is invoked by every side of the political gamut, such as the landlords in progressives, conservatives, nationalists, and social reformers. Understanding and reshaping our minds to the Historical Jesus matters more now than ever. If we fail to decipher his mission, we may end up entangled by secular literary works, or end up reshaping him in the image of our own.
So, what does history actually reveal? Was Jesus a Zealot with revolutionary ambitions, or did He proclaim a Kingdom that transcended earthly politics? By examining the historical context, the Gospel accounts, and the prophets. We will come out with a clearer picture.
John 1:29, “The next day, John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and said, behold the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” The expression of the forerunner was simple. It was from the frequency of divinity that humanity might not comprehend. Even John, the Baptist himself attested that he did not know of him. “And I knew him not.” He was able to detect the Who is Jesus from the information the Holy Spirit had confided in him.
The first time John the Baptist declared he knew not Jesus Christ, he plainly claimed, “But that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.” Of what importance was baptizing the people with water to proclaim a Political Revolutionist? How do you challenge the Roman Empire’s authority in the Palestine enclave where the Israelites and the Jewish people were inhabiting at the time? In the Gospel of Matthew, John the Baptist said, and this same Jesus would baptize the people with Holy Ghost and with fire. From a political perspective. To what end?
As the people, his own, misunderstood him, they rejected Him. John 1:29. Those who received him. He gave them the power to function. He was like the unction. Because they believed in his name. No for a fact that he led a revolution. The power he gave to those who believed in him was not at any time an instrument to create disorder in the imbalanced political structure of the vulnerable Jewish people. How do we reckon that the Historical Jesus was a political revolutionary on the account of Luke 10? Mark 6:7.
What The Political Situation Was Before Historical Jesus came
Jewish people were under strict Roman systems; laws, leaders, structures, etc. Part of which were responsible for the census upon the arrival of the Historical Jesus on earth. Cyrenius was governor, a legate under Roman rule. The Census was to tax the masses.
The Jewish people longed for liberation. It could be that the liberation mentality necessitated John the Baptist to send his disciples to Jesus, saying, “Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?” Jesus only showed the works he did, in fact, these are in contrast to the job of a political revolutionist, whose aim is to attack, bring down, and defeat the existing power structure at that critical time, when the people are suffering.
During the time of Jesus, there was a rise in revolutionary groups. Such as the Zealots. Many of which were somewhat rebellious.
Why Some Scholars Think Historical Jesus Was a Political Revolutionary
Several times, Jesus Christ rebuked the authorities as seen in Matthew 23.
In the same vein, Jesus drove out people from the Temple. The heart of which some scholars said, was captured by the Roman Empire. A direct challenge by him, motivated by his political motivation and calculation. Matt 21:11-15. At this, some of the authorities; the chief priests were sore displeased.
The crucification of him were on the charges of blasphemy, trying to change systemic patterns. Revolution. Of which was a case to die for.
The Position Against Historical Jesus Being A Political Revolutionist
Jesus was written to be humbled to the point of death. Isaiah 53.
He came as a savior, Christ. In the volume of light as God. Then judgment must be revealed. That was enough to be a challenge to the political status quo. A kind of misconfusion to be later misconstrued as a political revolutionary. John 1:2-4.
Jesus said, “Render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar.” Maybe, he was viewed as a passive revolutionary.
Jesus pushed a kingdom of God, preached it, had no conflict, no fight, no establishment, and was even killed at 33 years of age. Is that a Revolutionist?
Jesus rebuked Peter’s use of a sword, he said, whoever uses a sword to kill shall perish with it. Matt 26:51.
As a Son of God, there was nothing close to a revolution by challenging political powers. Even the power of darkness acknowledged Him as a threat to their kingdom. The Historical Jesus was never a Political Revolutionist. If he were to be one, then, the Jewish people would have not only supported but also had their freedom.
Historically, Jesus was not a political revolutionary in the way the Zealots envisioned. Yet His message was profoundly disruptive. He confronted hypocrisy, exposed unjust power structures, and proclaimed the reign of God over all human authorities. The cross not the sword became His instrument of victory. He was not an innocent being claiming originality. He was God. God has the reserved and exclusive right to denounce, reject, and announce what He meant for humanity.
