1

Was Jesus a Political Revolutionary?

Mark B. Poe, Research Fellow, Robert C. Cooley Center

Was Jesus a political revolutionary? SG.F. Brandon once argued that Jesus, though not to be

identified as a member of some sort of “official” zealot party, shared a common sympathy,

similar values, and even cooperated with those who sought to maintain the ideas of the founder

of the zealots, Judas of Galilee.i When Brandon first made this proposal almost four decades ago

now, it was by no means a novel approach to understanding Jesus‟ intentions.ii Long before

Brandon, Reimarus had interpreted Jesus‟ proclamation of the coming of the kingdom of God as

a means of inciting the Jewish people to revolt against the government of Rome. This was a

view that was then taken up by scholars such as R. Eisler, Carmichael, Brandon, and Hugh

Anderson.

Though opposed in whole or part by the likes of Martin Hengel and Oscar Cullmann, the view of

Jesus as political revolutionary has been recently revived by Obery M. Hendricks, Jr. In short,

Hendricks portrays Jesus as a liberal political activist who is not concerned with the salvation of

individuals but with transforming society and the world “into a kingdom of justice in which all of

God‟s children, regardless of color, creed, or national origin, can have life, and that in

abundance, in every sphere of living.”iii

For Hendricks, Jesus, like many activists of our time, is

all about earthly, political and social liberation and equality.

The question to be addressed is: can such a position be maintained? Obviously, a case could be

made if one were only to examine the perception of Jesus by his contemporaries (cf. Jo. 6:15;

Mt. 26:55; Lk. 24:21; Acts 5:35-39). A case might also be made with a quick examination of the

issues of Jesus‟ Davidic links, his gathering of disciples/followers, several of which have been

argued to have ties with the zealot movement, and with his popularity among the common

people. Furthermore, a case could be made if one were to focus on the second advent of the

Messiah and that event‟s obvious national/political implications regarding Israel and all the

nations. But, is there any concrete evidence from Jesus himself that his first advent should be

understood in political terms? The answer lies in several areas of Jesus‟ teaching, most

specifically his teaching on the coming of God‟s kingdom.

In short, the proclamation of the imminent coming of God‟s kingdom was central to the

aspirations and activities of Jewish revolutionaries.iv

By the early first century, in fact, the nation

of Israel had high hopes for the promised Davidic Messiah. Part of this expectation involved the

reign of God on earth, a reign which would bring freedom to Jerusalem, the Temple, the land, as

well as freedom from Gentile oppression and bondage, a freedom which would ultimately lead to

worldwide political power and dominance. This kind of political ideology is best seen in the

zealot understanding of the coming kingdom,v which is that, after generations of wars, captivity,

humiliation, and oppression, the Jewish “freedom fighters” longed for God to intervene and

bring his rule down to earth. The final straw came with the census conducted in AD 6.

Following the unrest that broke out after the death of Herod the Great, Augustus deposed

Archalaeus, turned Judea into a Roman province, and placed it under an equestrian prefect. The

result is that a census was conducted in order to assess head and land taxes. The problem that

arose is that “the Jewish population in part understood this obvious directive as meaning that the

2

Holy Land was being made the private property of the emperor and its population enslaved.”vi

It

is this notion that led to the revolt under Judas the Galilean, which led to the founding of the

zealot movement. It was also this notion and movement that, under Judas and Zadok the

Pharisee, gave rise to the religious ideology of eschatological struggle for liberation.vii

Within

this ideology and combined with a fanatical zeal for the law, there were three primary and

foundational propositions. First, God was to be their only Lord and ruler (cf. Ant 18.23). Thus,

there was a theocentric desire to be free from human rulers and kings. Second, there was the

rejection of taxation, which was argued to be equivalent to idolatry, apostasy, and self-imposed

slavery, as well as a violation of 2 Sam. 24.viii

Finally, “the coming of God‟s reign depended on

human „revolutionary activity,‟ and could not simply be awaited passively.”ix

In other words, the

Israelites had to cooperate with God in “holy and guerilla warfare,” much like the Maccabeans

had done before the outbreak of the Jewish War. The purpose of such warfare “was to stir up a

general popular rebellion against Rome, which was seen as the prerequisite for God‟s

intervention.”x

To the zealots then, the Jewish, Davidic Messiah was the one who would come as a “victorious

national commander-in-chief” and who, following upon the initiative and activity of the

“freedom fighters,” would come and conquer all enemies and pagan peoples, set up his kingdom,

and rule over the world.xi

In this sense, it is quite evident that, while the emphasis was on a

coming eschatological kingdom, the zealots were, in all actuality, “looking for a political

government with all of the usual trappings of geography, army, and laws.”xii

But how did Jesus view the kingdom and its coming? Simply stated, he had a distinctively

different view. To begin with, Jesus proclaimed that the kingdom of God was not simply a

future hope but was a fact already at hand (cf. Mt. 4:17; Lk. 10:11; 16:16; 17:20-21).xiii

He even

gave the ethics by which “kingdom people” should presently live (cf. Mt. 5-7). In addition, Jesus

claimed proof for the presence of the kingdom, which was not the military and political defeat of

Israel‟s enemies, but in his power to cast out demons (cf. Mt. 12:28; Lk. 11:20), as well as in his

power to heal and that the “good news” is being proclaimed (cf. Mt. 11:2-6; Lk. 7:18-23).

Essentially, the kingdom that Jesus proclaimed was not an earthly, political kingdom to be

gained through violence, class warfare, or national warfare. His kingdom was simply not of this

world. Five points serve to illustrate this.

First and foremost are the words of Jesus before Pilate. In John 18:36, Jesus says, “My kingdom

is not of this world.” Here, Jesus is not denying his kingship, rather he is claiming that his

sovereign rule or activity is not “from here.” That is to say, the kingdom of Jesus does not have

its origin in the world. The implication is, if the sovereignty of Jesus does not originate in this

world, then the kingdom itself is not like the kingdoms of this world. This is affirmed by what

Jesus goes on to say: “If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would be fighting in

order to keep me from being handed over to the Jews.” Jesus has no army because that isn‟t the

way his kingdom and sovereignty function. Thus, Jesus was indicating that Pilate, the Jews, the

zealots, and even his own followers had to recognize that his kingdom and rule are entirely

different from that of the political powers of the world. Simply stated, Jesus did not come in

order to rule through armed resistance and revolt.

3

Second, in Jesus‟ proclamation of the coming kingdom, the message was not a call to arms but to

repentance and faith (cf. Mt. 4:17; 11:20; Mk. 6:12; Lk. 5:32; 13:3, 5; 15:7; 24:47).

Third, Jesus presented God‟s kingdom as a spiritual kingdom in opposition to Satan‟s kingdom

(cf. Lk. 10:18-19).xiv

Paul certainly understood this contrast as seen in Ephesians 6:10-13.

Writing around the time in which the Zealots were leading Israel into its fateful battle with

Rome, Paul indicates that the real battle is spiritual not earthly, political, or with literal arms and

weapons. It is against the spiritual, demonic forces and power of Satan.

A fourth point in relationship to Jesus‟ kingdom teaching relates to the trial of Jesus before the

Jewish high priest and religious officials. In answering the questioning of the high priest

concerning his identity, Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man (cf. Mt. 26:64; Mk. 14:62;

Lk. 22:69).xv

Here, the basic idea is that, yes, Jesus is the Son of God, the David descendant, but

he is more than that; he is also the Danielic Son of Man who one day will reign as he comes from

heaven, carries out judgment, consummates the kingdom already at hand, and thus establishes his

eternal kingdom, a kingdom which is not of this world.xvi

So, again, it is not zealot military

action that will establish God‟s kingdom. It is not Jesus and the zealots who will establish the

future eschatological kingdom. It is Jesus, the risen Son of Man, alone who, at some future

point, will bring about God‟s rule and reign, both over Israel and the world.

One final and crucial point to note is the statement made by Jesus in Mt. 11:12: “From the days

of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence and the violent seize

it” (cf. also Lk. 16:16). Given its context, there is debate over whether this phrase should be

understood positively as praise or negatively as censure. It actually may be a combination of

both. That is to say, Jesus recognized in individual zealots, such as Judas of Galilee, a genuine

concern for the kingdom of God. Nevertheless, he renounced their violent action because, as has

just been shown, his own teachings and ministry indicate that the kingdom is not brought in by

human power, nor is it set up as a political kingdom. It comes through suffering. One example,

given the context of the passage, is John the Baptist himself and his treatment at the hands of

Herod. Other examples would include the increasing and intensifying attacks of the religious

leaders upon Jesus, as well as the zealotic craving for a military/political Messiah which, through

violence and armed revolt, would bring prosperity rather than righteousness (cf. Mt. 11:20-24).

To this, Jesus said that God‟s kingdom brings persecution and suffering (cf. Mt. 10:17-39), not

prosperity. But in the midst of this persecution, it‟s the persecuted, not the armed zealots, who

will receive future reward (Mt. 10:42).

The “kingdom of God” or the “kingdom of heaven” was obviously a central theme of Jesus‟

teaching ministry. As such, it was a kingdom that was radically different from the one

envisioned by the zealots or even by today‟s political activists. Jesus‟ kingdom was both present

and future, a fact confirmed by his miracles and his power over demons. In addition, Jesus‟

kingdom message was not one of war and armed resistance; rather he invited his listeners to

become citizens of God‟s kingdom through repentance and belief, a belief that had faith in God‟s

sovereignty and salvation and hope for a future, eternal kingdom. And finally, when he preached

his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus summarized his teaching about the ethics of the kingdom by

illustrating how to live as a loyal subject of God in the present, which was not in “holy war” but

by loving one‟s enemies.

4

Given such a message, it is likely that the more people listened to Jesus, the more they began to

understand that he had a different notion of the kingdom of God from what most of them

expected.

___________________________ i Cf. S.G.F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots (New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sons, 1967).

ii Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede,

(Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1998), 19-20. iii

Obery M. Hendricks, Jr. The Politics of Jesus: Rediscovering the True Revolutionary Nature f Jesus’ Teachings

and How They Have Been Corrupted (New York: Doubleday, 2006), 10. iv Oscar Cullmann, Jesus and the Revolutionaries, trans. Gareth Putnam (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), 8.

v For a fuller treatment of

Jewish nationalism and the rise of the zealots, cf.

William R. Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots,

and Josephus: An Inquiry into Jewish Nationalism in the Greco-Roman Period (New York: Columbia University

Press, 1956). vi Martin Hengel, Victory Over Violence & Was Jesus a Revolutionist?, trans. David E. Green (Eugene: Wipf &

Stock, 2003), 30. vii

Ibid. viii

Ibid., 31. ix

Ibid. According to Josephus (cf. Ant 6.20; 13.172; 18.13), the rabbis condemned this desire to hasten the end and

thus the coming of the kingdom. x Ibid., 32.

xi Oscar Cullmann, The State in the New Testament (London: SCM Press LTD, 157), 25.

xii Leith Anderson, Jesus: An Intimate Portrait of the Man, His Land, and His People (Minneapolis: Bethany House,

2005), 77. xiii

This is the very message that Jesus commissioned his disciples to proclaim (cf. Mt. 11:1; Lk. 9:60; 10:9). Cf.

George Eldon Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom: Scriptural Studies in the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: William

B. Eerdmans, 1959), for a good theological discussion of the “already” and “not yet” aspects of God‟s kingdom. xiv

Many of Jesus‟ parables deal with a kingdom that is “already” but “not yet” and thus place a great emphasis on

the spiritual nature/aspect of the kingdom. xv

Cf. also Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four

Gospels, vol. 1 (New York: Double Day, 1994), 484-515, for an excellent discussion of Jesus‟ response. xvi

Cf. Dan. 7:13; Cullmann, The State in the New Testament, 25; Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20, vol. 34B, Word

Biblical Commentary, by Bruce M. Metzger (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001), 451 and 459.