Did Jesus Have a Political Message?

[emmab00]

Do you see any trace of anarchism in the law of God? Remember that Jesus kept every jot and tittle of that law.

Yes. The system we live in IS anarchy. The fact that you CAN choose to break the laws man creates shows us that our laws are just a facade to hide the chaos.

I have always interpreted the law in the way you are referring to as the flesh or material. What is law, like the laws of physics. What ACTUALLY happens, what is actually truth. All things that happen in the material world are law (they happened in an absolute way) and will be recorded. This way if we ever misinterpret reality, the law shall not pass away through our unrighteousness and the truth can always be there for us to see.

 

[emmab00]

Free will does not = Anarchy. Love does not = Anarchy. Faith does not = Anarchy. Hope does not = Anarchy. Submitting to the will of God does not = Anarchy. The Kingdom of Heaven does not = Anarchy. I don't see how your making that connection.

I can see you have a lot of negative associations with the idea of anarchy. Read up on the concepts behind Christian anarchy and you might better understand what I'm talking about.

 

[tribesman]

Yes. The system we live in IS anarchy. The fact that you CAN choose to break the laws man creates shows us that our laws are just a facade to hide the chaos.

I have always interpreted the law in the way you are referring to as the flesh or material. What is law, like the laws of physics. What ACTUALLY happens, what is actually truth. All things that happen in the material world are law (they happened in an absolute way) and will be recorded. This way if we ever misinterpret reality, the law shall not pass away through our unrighteousness and the truth can always be there for us to see.

I have never interpreted God's law as the flesh or material. With Paul I say it is "holy, and just, and good" and "spiritual" (Rom.7:12,14). The whole problem is about us, our sin. Anarchism, any kind, will not take us out of that problem for sure.

 

[emmab00]

I have never interpreted God's law as the flesh or material. With Paul I say it is "holy, and just, and good" and "spiritual" (Rom.7:12,14). The whole problem is about us, our sin. Anarchism, any kind, will not take us out of that problem for sure.

God's law is his words, which are fulfilled in the flesh. I am not saying that anarchism is what we need to actively strive for, but is the consequence of a world purified in christ. To suggest that we enforce anarchy is against the very principles im talking about. I'm merely saying that God create us with free will and when we use that free will to glorify him through loving and serving others, we become free and any institutions we might have created become redundant.

 

[tribesman]

God's law is his words, which are fulfilled in the flesh. I am not saying that anarchism is what we need to actively strive for, but is the consequence of a world purified in christ. To suggest that we enforce anarchy is against the very principles im talking about. I'm merely saying that God create us with free will and when we use that free will to glorify him through loving and serving others, we become free and any institutions we might have created become redundant.

Your ideas of the law being "fulfilled in the flesh" and that man has a "free will" are unscriptural.

 

[Donkeyfish07]

I can see you have a lot of negative associations with the idea of anarchy. Read up on the concepts behind Christian anarchy and you might better understand what I'm talking about.

Actually I think Anarchy is preferable to our current governmental system.I'm not fond of man's government at all honestly. To go as far to say Jesus promoted Anarchy is a different story. He said exactly what he meant. I don't see the need to try to force a connection there. If you do what Jesus says you can't go wrong. I do know a little about Christian Anarchy, what little I have read doesn't conflict with the gospel at all but trying to say Jesus promoted it is too big of a stretch to be taken seriously. You could also make the case that Jesus supported communism with that kind of logic (which of course he never promoted communism either). Obviously Anarchism and Communism aren't the same thing....Why try to force connections when there are none?

 

[emmab00]

Your ideas of the law being "fulfilled in the flesh" and that man has a "free will" are unscriptural.

Don't assume that just because I'm not quoting scripture it isn't scriptural. Matthew 5:17
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
~Jesus came in the flesh to fulfill the law. It must be fulfilled in the material realm, because God's law permeates through heaven an earth.

As for free will being unscriptural, God gave free will to Adam and even and told them to choose. That is free will. Had there been no free will the fall could never have happened. Before they fell, they were perfect, so we have obviously have free will when we are perfect or imperfect.

 

[Donkeyfish07]

I did a little more research just to understand your point of view a little better. I checked out a bit of Leo Toltsoy's book and it does have an interesting point there I could agree with you on.

"And therefore the Christian, who is subject only to the inner divine law, not only cannot carry out the enactments of the external law, when they are not in agreement with the divine law of love which he acknowledges (as is usually the case with state obligations), he cannot even recognize the duty of obedience to anyone or anything whatever, he cannot recognize the duty of what is called allegiance.” " - Leo Toltsoy, The Kingom Of God Is Within You

I thought that was an interesting quote. There are definitely going to be people who are faced with the choice of obeying or disobeying the government if commanded to do something sinful. Would disobeying the government in a case like that make the person an Anarchist? I don't think so. Do you? I look at it more as the person being a faithful Christian.There was also a part in the book of acts where disciples were commanded not to preach in Jesus's name. One of them replied "Whether it be right for us to obey God or Man, Judge ye" (just paraphrasing), and they continued preaching. I don't think that makes them Anarchists either. We might actually agree on how to deal with a lot of situations and it could just be a semantic issue we are having.

 

[emmab00]

Actually I think Anarchy is preferable to our current governmental system.I'm not fond of man's government at all honestly. To go as far to say Jesus promoted Anarchy is a different story. He said exactly what he meant. I don't see the need to try to force a connection there. If you do what Jesus says you can't go wrong. I do know a little about Christian Anarchy, what little I have read doesn't conflict with the gospel at all but trying to say Jesus promoted it is too big of a stretch to be taken seriously. You could also make the case that Jesus supported communism with that kind of logic (which of course he never promoted communism either). Obviously Anarchism and Communism aren't the same thing....Why try to force connections when there are none?

I'm not trying to force a connection, I'm trying to have an open discussion.

Allow me to quote from an article I've read recently to explain why I believe there was politics in Jesus' message:
"One may argue that a religion, and religious organization, must be politically neutral. Religion, on this view, has only to do with personal salvation and morality. Religious organizations should encourage its members to be politically active but should not take stances on issues that don’t directly affect individual morality. However, when a political decision begins to affect an issue of “personal morality,” then the organization may take a stand. This happened in the case of the Knight Amendment in California.
The view that the political can be separated from issues of personal morality is flawed. Politics deals with the way we should organize ourselves in our community. We cannot completely separate individual action from societal implications. What we do affects our community. But then, anything that would have implications for individual morality would also have implications for social morality. Religion has implications for individual morality (at least). So, religion has implications for social morality, and this involves political decisions about how to organize society.
Another argument against the separation of the social and the individual is based on the principle that failure to act is action itself. A Church that fails to denounce slavery or the holocaust tacitly enables it. There is no space to be neutral about grave societal injustices. Failure to act/prevent can be just as bad as causing something."
There is no apolitical action, let alone apolitical religion.

I am not saying Jesus actively promoted anarchy, but that it is a consequence of being purified in him, because all insitutions would be rendered unneccessary. Jesus DID promote a socialistic point of view however. He told us to divest our wealth and follow him. The idea was that you give freely to those in need. That is a socialist/communist perspective.

 

[tribesman]

Don't assume that just because I'm not quoting scripture it isn't scriptural. Jesus came in the flesh to fulfill the law. It must be fulfilled in the material realm, because God's law permeates through heaven an earth.

Your remark seems rather confusing, sorry to say. Unless you are saying that we need to fulfill the law exactly the same way as Jesus did so (meaning we are to be as sinless as He was in that regard) then you collide with Romans 8:

Rom.8

[4] That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
[5] For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
[6] For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
[7] Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
[8] So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
[9] But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
[10] And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
[11] But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
[12] Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
[13] For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
[14] For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

As for free will being unscriptural, God gave free will to Adam and even and told them to choose. That is free will. Had there been no free will the fall could never have happened. Before they fell, they were perfect, so we have obviously have free will when we are perfect or imperfect.

This argument aside, do you see any free will of man (in spiritual matters especially) after the fall? These scriptures below implies the direct opposite.

John.6

[37] All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
[38] For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
[39] And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
[40] And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
[41] The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
[42] And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
[43] Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
[44] No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

[63] It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
[64] But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
[65] And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

1Cor.2

[12] Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
[13] Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
[14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Eph.2

[1] And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
[2] Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
[3] Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

 

[tribesman]

...I am not saying Jesus actively promoted anarchy, but that it is a consequence of being purified in him, because all insitutions would be rendered unneccessary. Jesus DID promote a socialistic point of view however. He told us to divest our wealth and follow him. The idea was that you give freely to those in need. That is a socialist/communist perspective.

OK...getting clear what you're shooting at now. Seems you have but picked an ideology of your like and put the word "christian" in front of it (making Jesus "king" in some socialist/communist/anarchist...fill in the choice of your fancy here:________) political "christian" utopia kingdom. Not sure if such a discussion is very interesting ... or serious.

 

[emmab00]

I did a little more research just to understand your point of view a little better. I checked out a bit of Leo Toltsoy's book and it does have an interesting point there I could agree with you on.

"And therefore the Christian, who is subject only to the inner divine law, not only cannot carry out the enactments of the external law, when they are not in agreement with the divine law of love which he acknowledges (as is usually the case with state obligations), he cannot even recognize the duty of obedience to anyone or anything whatever, he cannot recognize the duty of what is called allegiance.” " - Leo Toltsoy, The Kingom Of God Is Within You

I thought that was an interesting quote. There are definitely going to be people who are faced with the choice of obeying or disobeying the government if commanded to do something sinful. Would disobeying the government in a case like that make the person an Anarchist? I don't think so. Do you? I look at it more as the person being a faithful Christian.There was also a part in the book of acts where disciples were commanded not to preach in Jesus's name. One of them replied "Whether it be right for us to obey God or Man, Judge ye" (just paraphrasing), and they continued preaching. I don't think that makes them Anarchists either. We might actually agree on how to deal with a lot of situations and it could just be a semantic issue we are having.

You are right. My friends have been telling me that just by using the word anarchy I create a semantics issue, because people often interpret anarchy as "Do what thou wilt" which, if that were the basis of the idea of how to act, we could suffer dearly if what we want to do is not in line for what God wants us to do.

I can agree that disobeying the government through civil disobedience or any other action does not necessarily make one an anarchist. Are you an anarchist if you pledge allegiance to no political system, but to God? That is a bit more of what I mean. I'm not saying that we should promote anarchy as the system, but that we shoul submit to Go and no other system. Many governments could rise and fall. No governmental ideal system is inherently evil. It becomes corruppted when we use it for evil. If we do not pledge our allegiances to these systems, but to God, we can know more easily when it is time for the "body" of the government to perish and perhaps for us to create a new one if we are still not able to fulfill God's will through every indivual human being.

 

[emmab00]

Your remark seems rather confusing, sorry to say. Unless you are saying that we need to fulfill the law exactly the same way as Jesus did so (meaning we are to be as sinless as He was in that regard) then you collide with Romans 8:

I feel that Romans 8 is still a perfect example of the law being fulfilled in the flesh. We cannot fulfill God's laws when we SEEK after the flesh, but when we SEEK after the Spirit. However, this is relevant to mankind, those who have flesh. The spirit is in them and through their bodies the law is fulfilled in the material realm.


This argument aside, do you see any free will of man (in spiritual matters especially) after the fall? These scriptures below implies the direct opposite.

I don't think the scriptures you chose necessarily refutes free will. Jesus came down to do the will of the Father, but he still chose to do so, just as we can choose to follow God's will or not. As for the other scriptures, he is referring to people who cannot hear the spirit because they have already chosen to submit to their fallen state and remain the "natural" man who go along with the way things are and believe because things are the way they are, thats the way it should be.

 

[tribesman]

I feel that Romans 8 is still a perfect example of the law being fulfilled in the flesh. We cannot fulfill God's laws when we SEEK after the flesh, but when we SEEK after the Spirit. However, this is relevant to mankind, those who have flesh. The spirit is in them and through their bodies the law is fulfilled in the material realm.

You confuse what you call flesh with what you call the material realm...they don't necessarily have anything to do with each other (gnostic influence?). Of course christian living will have consequences in this world.

Paul is very clear though on how we are fulfilling what God requires: it is only because of our position in Christ Jesus:

Rom.8

[1] There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
[2] For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
[3] For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
[4] That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

I don't think the scriptures you chose necessarily refutes free will. Jesus came down to do the will of the Father, but he still chose to do so, just as we can choose to follow God's will or not. As for the other scriptures, he is referring to people who cannot hear the spirit because they have already chosen to submit to their fallen state and remain the "natural" man who go along with the way things are and believe because things are the way they are, thats the way it should be.

Maybe you don't think so, but that is the only conclusion to draw from these and many other scriptures who speak about the nature of fallen man. Natural man, who is at enmity with God, a child of wrath and bearing fruit unto death, can not (Jesus said: can not) "choose" to follow God unless he is regenerated by God first. He has not the desire, nor the will, to follow God while in his lost state.

Rom.3

[10] As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
[11] There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
[12] They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
[13] Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
[14] Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
[15] Their feet are swift to shed blood:
[16] Destruction and misery are in their ways:
[17] And the way of peace have they not known:
[18] There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Eph.2

[4] But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
[5] Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, ( by grace ye are saved; )
[6] And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
[7] That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
[8] For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
[9] Not of works, lest any man should boast.
[10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

 

[Donkeyfish07]

I'm not trying to force a connection, I'm trying to have an open discussion.

Allow me to quote from an article I've read recently to explain why I believe there was politics in Jesus' message:
"One may argue that a religion, and religious organization, must be politically neutral. Religion, on this view, has only to do with personal salvation and morality. Religious organizations should encourage its members to be politically active but should not take stances on issues that don’t directly affect individual morality. However, when a political decision begins to affect an issue of “personal morality,” then the organization may take a stand. This happened in the case of the Knight Amendment in California.
The view that the political can be separated from issues of personal morality is flawed. Politics deals with the way we should organize ourselves in our community. We cannot completely separate individual action from societal implications. What we do affects our community. But then, anything that would have implications for individual morality would also have implications for social morality. Religion has implications for individual morality (at least). So, religion has implications for social morality, and this involves political decisions about how to organize society.
Another argument against the separation of the social and the individual is based on the principle that failure to act is action itself. A Church that fails to denounce slavery or the holocaust tacitly enables it. There is no space to be neutral about grave societal injustices. Failure to act/prevent can be just as bad as causing something."
There is no apolitical action, let alone apolitical religion.

I am not saying Jesus actively promoted anarchy, but that it is a consequence of being purified in him, because all insitutions would be rendered unneccessary. Jesus DID promote a socialistic point of view however. He told us to divest our wealth and follow him. The idea was that you give freely to those in need. That is a socialist/communist perspective.

I'm still not getting how anarchy is a consequence of purification but I'm trying to understand how your perceiving that.

Now regarding the socialistic point of view from your comment, this is exactly why it is never a good idea to try to force political implications on the gospel where there are none. Paraphrasing again "If thou wilt be perfect, sell all your goods and distribute to the poor and come and follow me". Yes, he is instructing the person to sell and distribute their goods if they want to be perfect. Nothing to do with communism. Jesus never tried to take anyone's choice away, however both Socialist and Communist political systems HAVE to make participation involuntary in order to function at all. Communism, as a political system requires the "Abolishment of personal property"...that basically translates to: Take everyone's resources whether they agree or not (Robbery). He didn't say about a classless, stateless society either. Jesus never promoted anything like that. Never promoted communism. He never promoted a social ownership of the means of production either, so he wasn't promoting socialism.

This is why it's never a good idea to try to insert or extract political meaning out of the gospel. Jesus didn't come to earth to teach us politics.....he came to call sinners to repentance and give his life as a ransom for many. He said everything he had to say out in the open and what he teaches is a spiritual path...not a political system.

 

[weakness]

I think it says in Acts that the Christians were turning the world up side down or something. But this was done by resisting not evil and not by earthly anarchistic behavior. If you simply follow Jesus the kingdom of this world will go crazy all by its self.

 

[JaumeJ]

I did a little more research just to understand your point of view a little better. I checked out a bit of Leo Toltsoy's book and it does have an interesting point there I could agree with you on.

"And therefore the Christian, who is subject only to the inner divine law, not only cannot carry out the enactments of the external law, when they are not in agreement with the divine law of love which he acknowledges (as is usually the case with state obligations), he cannot even recognize the duty of obedience to anyone or anything whatever, he cannot recognize the duty of what is called allegiance.” " - Leo Toltsoy, The Kingom Of God Is Within You

I thought that was an interesting quote. There are definitely going to be people who are faced with the choice of obeying or disobeying the government if commanded to do something sinful. Would disobeying the government in a case like that make the person an Anarchist? I don't think so. Do you? I look at it more as the person being a faithful Christian.There was also a part in the book of acts where disciples were commanded not to preach in Jesus's name. One of them replied "Whether it be right for us to obey God or Man, Judge ye" (just paraphrasing), and they continued preaching. I don't think that makes them Anarchists either. We might actually agree on how to deal with a lot of situations and it could just be a semantic issue we are having.

Any attempt at interpolating the gospel of Yeshua, Jesus, with any latter day political theorist (Tolstoy) is revisionist at best and totally unacceptable as an argument supporting the op.
If anyone believes Yeshua, Jesus, has political motivation, I am afraid that person is not yet fit to understand the Word at any level. The dispute here is just that, a dispute and not appropriate for discussion.

 

[weakness]

By nature the gospel is political because it deals with people.If we live for our lord it will automatically have political results. Remember what Jesus was saying when ask whether he pays taxes? Of who do the kings of this world exact tribute of their son or of others. the answer was of others. Jesus answered then are the children free. Since God is the true King we as his children are free, but Jesus said so we don't offend them, pay the tax. Interesting how this was accomplished ,by cast a hook ,catching a fish with money in its mouth. I wish we could walk in this kind of understanding now ,but I think the falling away has begun.

 

[JaumeJ]

The definition of political would include monarchies, even absolute, however when the Kingdom is the goal there is no longer a political theatre of competition, at least not for anyone who believes the Word.

 

[iamsoandso]

Romans 13;1-2,,,that is the politics sitting before our face "are of god',,,but what end? The rain has a purpose,to water the whole earth. But then what is the purpose of these ruling powers? ,,,,"The prince of the kingdom Persia withstood me one and twenty days:but lo Michael one of the chief princes,,ect." Danial 10;13,,,

That is when Belshazzar( Danial 5;4-5) drank and gave praise to the gods of Babylon the kingdom was then given over to the kings of the prince of the kingdom of Persia. These dignities set forth by god to watch and to let and to hold as shown by the scripture that no kingdom can rise nor fall without the authority of god.

The same satin himself confessed to god Job;1;10,,"hast not thou made an hedge about him,ect."there is no man whom can rule leviathan,he has no fear in his heart" Job;ch.41,,nor behemoth job 40;15-19,,,look close who god told job made behemoth.