Life of Christ 50
Think about it for a
minute. He specifically turned down a decent chance to foment a political
rebellion and lead a revolt against Rome (John 6.15). There is nothing about
His ministry that indicates He was trying to accumulate political power. In
fact, what He was clearly after was the spiritual obedience of His people from
the heart.
Of course, people always
ask the question, 'Well, if He was offering Himself to Israel as her king what
would He have done if they had accepted? Wouldn't He have then had to lead a
rebellion against Rome?' But they didn't, and so He didn't, and I think the
whole question is thus moot. We are not studying the life of Christ as an
academic question, remote from real life application, and surrounded by a lot
of what if's. We are studying the life that was actually lived in Palestine two
millennia ago, and in that life He obviously didn't seek to lead a political
movement.
He just as obviously got
this point across to His Apostles as well. In spite of Rome's corruption, human
rights abuses, and the persecution she heaped on the early Church the Apostles
quietly steered the Church away from any open confrontation with Rome. It
wasn't that the Apostles and the early Church, or Jesus for that matter, were
afraid of Rome. Men and women who march in complete faith to their own
martyrdom aren't afraid of any earthly power. So why was it then that this
revolution I speak of that Jesus lead didn't have a political component?
Simply this: because
political solutions to spiritual problems never work. For example, our American
society is rushing headlong away from God's Law and embracing a pro-homosexual
agenda. Can we solve this problem by passing a law? Well, we did. Back in 1996
the US Congress overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act which was
specifically aimed at the growing homosexual marriage movement. Fast forward 18
years and that law is in shreds, and a growing plurality of American states now
recognize homosexual marriage. Can we solve this problem by putting in a
constitutional amendment? Back in 1920 the Eighteenth Amendment to the US
Constitution was ratified, and it specifically outlawed the transportation,
sale, or use of alcoholic beverages. Fast forward 13 years and it was such a
stunning failure that the American public overwhelmingly passed the Twenty
First amendment repealing the Eighteenth, and now there are tens of thousands
of places one can go to legally purchase alcohol in America. Can we solve the
problem by leading the conservative anti-homosexual states in a radical
secession from the rest of the country? Back in 1860… nevermind, you know how
that one worked out. I say again that political solutions to spiritual problems
never work.
See, the problem in just
this one example, an embrace of homosexuality, is a spiritual one. It is
unrepentant, rebellious, sinful people by the millions rejecting God and the
truths of God's Word. The only way, in this dispensation, to solve that problem
is to win those millions of people to Christ, and to ground them in the
teachings of God's Word. This is why, in my humble opinion, the single best
thing we can do with our money and manpower is to start local churches. They
are the scripturally ordained method of reaching people with the Gospel and
lifting up the Word of God in this dispensation. In other words, they are a
spiritual solution to a spiritual problem.
Did you ever stop to ask
yourself why Jesus chose Simon the Zealot as an Apostle? After all, he literally
never says a single thing in the entire New Testament, and we have no record at
all of anything about him other than his name. I mean, he was practically
useless, at least until you look more closely at his name.
The Israel of Jesus' day
had tremendous problems, spiritually and politically. The Pharisees and
Sadducees sought to answer the first, in disastrous fashion, and the Herodians
and Zealots sought to answer the second, in a differently disastrous fashion. The
Herodians wanted a closer link with Rome, and were in favor of essentially
turning Judea into a permanent Roman province. The Zealots, on the other hand,
sought to raise a military revolt against the entire might of the Roman empire,
and so win Israel's freedom.
All we know about Simon
is that he was a Zealot, and it seems to me that Jesus chose him specifically
for that reason. It is almost like Jesus is saying, 'See, I'm putting a man
right smack dab next to me who used to think the answer to Israel's problems
was a political one. But now he knows better. Now he knows that I am the
answer, and there isn't any permanently good answer to be found in politics.'
Please do not
misunderstand me. I am not saying, nor am I advocating, that we shouldn't be
politically aware, concerned, or opinionated. We should, in a scripturally
appropriate fashion. I regular read the newspapers, and keep myself well
informed on the economic, legal, political and cultural issues of the day. I
also believe very strongly in both voting and praying for our political
leadership. But what I am saying is this: we shouldn't make political solutions
our aim or goal, nor place our dreams in a political or legal solution to
America's problems. My hope is not in politics because Jesus taught me not to
place my hope there. He taught me to place it in Himself, and in His teachings.
I gently urge you to do the same thing.
Jesus was a
revolutionary, but not a political one.
No comments:
Post a Comment