1

Levi Jones
Politics of Jesus

Before the mid-way point of the 20th century, most scholars attributed Jesus’

sayings and teachings to an apocalyptic, eschatological viewpoint. In other words,

everything Jesus did was aimed at some unknown future whereby the kingdom of God

would suddenly usher in the end of time. Marcus Borg, as well as many others, has

challenged this framework. Borg believes that Jesus’ life and ministry were very much

aimed at the politics of the day. In fact, Borg believes that Jesus’ conflict over politics

with the various factions of Judaism eventually led to his death by crucifixion.

The “quest for holiness” had become an all-consuming endeavor in the life of

Israel. They painfully remembered the destruction of the first Temple and their

subsequent exile into Babylon. The prophets of that day had ranted against the injustices

and unholy conduct of the covenant people. Israel had fallen to idolatry and the

syncretistic ways of the Canaanite nations. However, God had been merciful, allowing

them to return and to re-build the walls and the Temple in Jerusalem. Ezra had led the

charge to maintain the priestly code of holiness: separation and purity. In order to

maintain God’s blessing, Israel’s leaders reasoned, they must maintain the covenant

through ritual purity and separation.

However, Israel’s holiness was soon threatened again. The Greeks, led by

Alexander the Great, conquered vast tracts of land, including Palestine. Hellenism

became a real threat to the holiness of God’s people, not merely an inconvenience.

Syncretism threatened to seduce Israel once again into an unfaithful people. How could

the people of God be faithful? In what ways did a faithful Jew live in such desperate

days? The Maccabean Revolt was such a reaction against the infiltrating Greek culture.
 2

The true Israel would not sit idly by only to watch their way of life destroyed.

The revolt had been relatively successful. Israel had been able to maintain their

identity and separation from some of these cultural influences. God, it seemed, had acted

in behalf of His people and the Temple. The rise of the Temple’s indestructibility

became a popular understanding among the Jews. However, greater powers from Rome

now stood ready to take the helm of world power. The Jews had invited the Romans into

their region to preserve peace. Soon, however, Rome decided to make Palestine one of

its permanent residences. Once again, Israel faced an invading culture that might

desecrate the holiness of God’s people and land.

Several sects of Judaism became known during this time: Zealots, Pharisees,

Sadducees, and Essenes. Each sect represented a view of how to maintain holiness for

the people of God. Borg maintains that the sect known as Zealots was not necessarily a

separate sect but incorporated members from the various walks of life. In other words,

most people preferred Rome’s evacuation of Israel. Thus, Zealots were not an isolated

group within society. The Essenes believed that rigorous Law keeping and total

separation from the culture were the only ways to maintain holiness. The Qumran

community is the most well known representation. As such, they had little bearing on the

Gospels’ interactions with Jesus. The Sadducees were the rich and powerful. They

believed that you could maintain holiness but that it was necessary to tolerate the Roman

presence. In this way, Israel could survive and maintain the status quo, in some ways.

Finally, the Pharisees, although a relatively select group, believed that holiness must be

maintained through rigorous observance of the Law. For the Pharisees, three institutions

were found to be most important for maintaining holiness: table fellowship, Sabbath, and
 3

Temple. It was the Pharisees with which the Jesus movement found itself most regularly

in conflict.

Borg maintains that the Pharisees, although a very faithful and devout group,

found their downfall in their “quest for holiness.” This quest is anchored in Leviticus 19

and Exodus 19:5-6. The Pharisees adopted strict dietary laws only applied to priests,

believing it should be adhered to by all faithful Israelites. Likewise, “sinners” were those

that did not tithe to God first, did not observe Sabbath, or cooperated with the Romans.

In opposition to this viewpoint, Jesus regularly dined with “sinners and tax collectors.”

Likewise, he befriended the social outcasts, which the Pharisees condemned. Borg

believes that Jesus replaced holiness with compassion as the modus operandi for faithful

Israel.

Jesus’ actions and teachings, Borg affirms, were not devoid of historical, political

motivations. The Jesus movement was very much engaged in the politics of the day. The

historical, political realities of the first century give context to Israel’s, and thus Jesus’,

pursuit of holiness. Merely relegating Jesus’ ministry to apocalyptic eschatology

spiritualizes Jesus’ teaching. As such, this focus discounts Jesus’ ministry as pertinent

and applicable to historical and present circumstances. Rather, it points toward a future

kingdom while ignoring the present shaping of God’s kingdom. Viewing Jesus as a

political, historical figure grants weight in seeking to add value to our world through

socio-political venues. In other words, God is concerned with socio-political

circumstances. As God’s people, we too must be concerned with those systems in

society.

Yet, Borg seeks to affirm that the quest for holiness, in Jesus’ eyes, was an
 4

illegitimate endeavor. Rather, Jesus, says Borg, replaces the quest for holiness with the

“quest for compassion.” This value can be seen throughout Jesus’ ministry, especially in

regards to the social outcasts found in Jewish society. Jesus’ table fellowship most often

was shared with publicans, sinners, and tax collectors. The Pharisees saw these people as

a threat to holiness. Borg believes the Pharisees saw holiness potentially being defiled

and overcome by society’s wickedness. Yet, Jesus saw holiness as a force that would

overcome evil, much like light overcomes darkness. Compassion, undoubtedly, played a

vital role in the life of Jesus.

However, Jesus shared one common thread with the Pharisees: concern for

holiness. Borg does not hold to a consistent definition of holiness. Contradictorily, Borg

says the Jesus movement rejects the quest for holiness by replacing it with the quest for

compassion. Yet, at other times, Borg seems to say Jesus was trying to re-define

holiness. However, Borg fails to understand that Jesus was not negating the quest for

holiness. Actually, Jesus was a part of the quest for holiness, trying to define what the

faithful community should look like. Jesus’ movement was concerned primarily with

holiness, not merely compassion.

By relegating Jesus as a “Spirit Being” concerned only with compassion leaves

Jesus as a philanthropic teacher. Moreover, this viewpoint minimizes Jesus’ claims to be

the Son of God. Jesus was more than a good, moral teacher. As Jesus himself claimed,

he had not come to abolish the Law and prophets but to fulfill them. As such, the

concern for holiness had not been overridden but re-defined. Jesus’ concern for holiness

can be seen in that he did not depart from the institutions of Judaism. Temple, Sabbath,

and table fellowship were vital aspects of Jesus’ ministry. Yet, Jesus did re-orient the
 5

function and import of these practices. Furthermore, Borg’s view of Jesus’ mission as the

quest for compassion is wholly inadequate. Rather, Jesus’ mission must be seen through

the framework of Love which motivated compassion and was fueled through holiness.

Love and holiness enables unselfish compassion. Jesus not only extended this to the

social outcast, but to anyone who should come.

Gammie’s explanation of priestly and prophetic traditions best explains the

conflict that erupted between Jesus and the Pharisees. Namely, the Pharisees viewed

holiness as purity and separation found in ritual observance of the Law. Jesus, like the

prophets before him, rejected this paradigm. Jesus was concerned with the concepts of

justice and compassion lived out in the lives of the community. That is not to say that

Jesus rejected the ritual observances of Judaism. Jesus did reject ritual observance that

did not manifest itself in transformation of heart.

Holiness in the Jesus movement was defined as the Two Greatest commands.

Relationship with God was primary, followed closely by love for our neighbors whereby

we exercise social justice (these two, in fact, cannot be separated from one another).

Ritual observance was secondary when it was not life-giving, life-blessing, and life-

preserving. Holiness gave and preserved life when practiced under the proper

stipulations. John 3:16 states how holiness was embodied in Jesus’ ministry: “For God

so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall

not perish but have eternal life.”