"Jesus Was Political, Not Partisan: The Dangers of an A-Political Jesus" (Pt. 3) by Rev. Jillian Hankamer

August 17, 2025

Acts 16: 35-40, 1 Corinthians 1: 18-25,

& Matthew 20: 20-28

Jesus Was Political, Not Partisan: The Dangers of an A-Political Jesus

1. Point of series is to make it clea was a political revolutionary

-Will end by shifting focus slight to dangers of making Jesus a-political

-a-political - not interested or involved in politics

-how scholars and followers have defined Jesus for centuries

-Let’s talk about why and why this is dangerous

2. Dilemma of the cross

-In 1 Corinthians reading, Paul describes “stumbling block” of the cross

-”but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.”

-What does he mean?

-Quite literal - “the crucifixion of Jesus really was an obstacle to full faith…for many in the first generation of Christians.”

-embarrassment of execution as criminal 

-powerless to resist Rome

-hard to reconcile w/concept of “exalted Savior of the world”

-If Jesus was Savior of Israel, why couldn’t he save himself?

-like soldiers at cross in Luke 23

-Remember, Paul’s letters and Gospels were still decades away

-1 Thessalonians - 49-51 CE

-Mark - 70 CE

-Question of Jesus being able to save himself “presented a profound challenge to the faith of the early believers.”

-This is where we see Jesus take first steps toward becoming a-political and meek and mild

II. Docetism

-Some followers answered questions about Jesus by “concluding that Jesus was not a being of flesh and blood at all.”

-Spirit only

-”his body was simply an illusion that seemed to have materiality, shape, and form.”

-b/c he only “seemed to have had a material body, then he could not have been crucified.” 

-no body to crucify

-Jesus used his divine power to fool executioners

-This denial of flesh and blood Jesus came to be known as Docetism

-from Greek dokein - “to seem”

-might have been comforting for those embarrassed/questioning cross had larger implications

-”if the crucifixion of Jesus was only an illusion…then…the salvation wrought by Jesus’ cross must also be an illusion.”

-For this and other reasons Docetism was vigorously rejected by church authorities at Coucil of Nicea in 325 CE.

-since then, few have felt need to deny flesh and blood Jesus

-but have other, just as serious distortions

-”...the heresy of refusing to acknowledge the importance of the political circumstances of Jesus’ early life and the influence of his person and ministry.”

-”Political Docetism”

-takes several forms

-most widespread: “Jesus was a spiritual leader w/absolutely no interest in social and political issues.”

-his concern was only to “change morality of individuals”

-therefore, Jesus’ social setting isn’t relevant to understanding him

-Jesus was executed “because his criticism of the personal behavior of members of the Jewish religious hierarchy led them to pressure Pontius Pilate.”

-second form: similar, but “does concede that Jesus might have been concerned w/evils of the world.”

-however, also holds that Jesus “identified those evils not w/oppressive social and political structures but…personal behavior of individuals.”

-Jesus most critical words about hunger, debt, and poverty should be understood as being about individual behavior

-such as Sermon on the Mount

-this view holds that if Jesus “was crucified for political reasons, it was simply because his purely non-political motives were misunderstood.”

-third form: misunderstanding of description of “Lamb of God’

-told in John’s gospel this is first given to John the Baptist who passes it along to Jesus

-often believed that term “compares the demeanor of Jesus to the gentleness and meekness of lambs going to slaughter.”

-much more likely from what we know of John the Baptist, “that he expected the Lamb of God to be radical figure, perhaps one more in line w/triumphant Lamb in the Book of Revelation.”

-doesn’t seem consistent that fiery John would consider someone greater than himself if meek and mild

-”It is simply implausible that John would defer to Jesus and ask others to do the same if he considered Jesus that much less politically assertive than himself.”

IV. A-political Jesus due to influence of Paul 

-Paul is most influential interpreter of Jesus’ message and ministry

-”But Paul’s view of the political realities of life was very different from Jesus’ perspective.”

-Big reason for difference  was Paul’s Roman citizenship

-hear in Acts readings that citizenship came w/benefits

-importantly for Paul this included, “at least a modicum of protection that was guaranteed by the Roman state.”

-Paul came from Tarsus, important trading hub and intellectual center

-”not only did inhabitants of Tarsus enjoy imperial protection, but they were exempt from the economic pressures that weighed upon the people of Israel.”

-Paul was city person

-spent much of early life in Tarsus then moved to Jerusalem

-means he didn’t use the same sort of agrarian metaphors as Jesus

-”obviously much more comfortable w/rhetorical cliches from Greek philosophy”

-Romans 7:15 - “I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate” is paraphrase of Stoic philosopher Epictetus

-also uses “Greek athletic conventions” Jesus never would have

-1 Cor 9:24 “In a race, the runners all compete, but only one receives the prize.”

-when Paul does use plant imagery, it’s “clearly…more academic than experiential.”

-What all this means is that “Paul did not grow up w/the insecurities and fear that permeated the rural peasant culture in which Jesus spent his life.”

-”Although Paul’s letters tell of numerous floggings and jailings, those same letters confirm that none of the punishments he suffered were because of his political status as a colonized Jew.”

-Gospels tell us Jesus took pains to keep ministry secret

-Paul obviously didn’t feel this need

-operated in the open

-Adds up to is that “...whether he chose to use them or not, on some level Paul always knew that he had access to the rights that Roman citizenship afforded him.”

-And problematically, “despite the brutality visited upon his people by Roman rule, Paul never seems to acknowledge their suffering.”

-must be understood in context of Paul’s belief that Jesus would return at any moment

”...led Paul to preach that believers shouldn’t worry about changing their present circumstances.”

-only needed to wait on the Lord

-Doesn’t mean he didn’t believe in justice or think people should be mistreated

-But for Paul, “...it was not a question of whether social change should occur, but how.”

-He believed change could only happen through God’s intervention, not human action

-Paul focused on “sinners” rather than the poor as Jesus did so consistently

-”Paul transformed Jesus’ concern for the collective social, economic, and political deliverance for his entire people into an obsession w/the personal piety of individuals. Paul seems to have no room in his faith for thoughts of freedom; it is heaven that holds his complete attention.”

IV.  Why is this dangerous? Why does it matter at all? 

-Because if we move a bit further forward in history we find Roman Emperor Constantine 

-made Christianity religion of the Empire

-this connected Christianity and politics fully in ways that continue today

-difficult to count how many politicians speak in religious terms on political matters

-they call on God and God’s will for an assortment of obviously human motivations 

-Wouldn’t it be good to have an a-political Jesus? Wouldn’t it be less dangerous not to think or talk about Jesus as a political revolutionary?

-reminder: difference between being political and being partisan

-this is what most politicians forget - most of them have motivation other than Gospel

-Motivation is partisan politics w/a shiny veneer of Christianity because it looks good

-but if we take New Testament seriously, we see that Jesus is clearly portrayed as political 

-what’s more, “...Jesus, his family, and w/few exceptions, everyone he encountered throughout his life” were “impoverished and oppressed, exploited” by the religious establishment brutalized by their Roman colonizers.”

-undeniable that this setting was Jesus’ life, and yet main mainstream churches, theologians, churches see Jesus as being untouched “by realities around; that the direction of his life and ministry was not influenced by the deplorable conditions in which his people lived.”

-same folks argue Jesus’ message “was only…narrowly spiritual [and] exclusively focused on citizenship in heaven.”

-believe Jesus “had no interest in the economic and political issues of his day.”

-in other words, Jesus was empathetic but didn’t want to get involved

-The Good News: this picture of Jesus is a fabrication

-it’s inaccurate, cold in a way Jesus wasn’t, antithetical to who Jesus was and how he lived

-Yes, it would easier if Jesus wasn’t a political revolutionary

-if we he was just a teacher or moral model 

-But as Obrey Hendricks says so well, “...the believer that Jesus could live for three decades in a social, economic, and political environment yet be untouched by and unconcerned w/the realities of that environment is a fantastic assumption.”

-But what I hope is clear, is that Jesus was the ultimate activist

-”he dedicated his entire being to struggling to bring the world in line with the vision of love, liberation, and justice give to him by God.”

-What this means for us who follow Jesus is that it’s out “duty to struggle for liberation and deliverance of our suffering neighbors in the same way that we would struggle for our own.”

-Because the true evidence of one’s love for God through Jesus is to struggle for others. This is what Jesus did. And this is “the radical political legacy he left us.”