This file is copyright of Jens Schriver (c) It originates from the Evil House of Cheat More essays can always be found at: --- http://www.CheatHouse.com --- ... and contact can always be made to: Webmaster@cheathouse.com -------------------------------------------------------------- Essay Name : 1035.txt Uploader : claudia croce Email Address : Language : english Subject : Politics Title : The Political Threat of Christ Grade : A- School System : University Country : United States Author Comments : this is a compartive study of the politics in the life of christ and the grand inquisitor by dostoyevski Teacher Comments : Date : 11/14/96 Site found at : yahoo -------------------------------------------------------------- The Political Threat of Christ The Political threat of Christ felt by the Romans and the Jewish authorities does not conflict with the accusation made by the Grand Inquisitor that Christ rejected the chance for worldly power and was interested solely in the salvation of his followers. Both the Romans and the Jewish authorities were concerned with the influence that Christ would have on his followers, and the kind of changes that his presence, if acknowledged and legitimized, would have on the Jewish society. The Grand Inquisitor accuses Christ of rejecting the chance for worldly power. The very characteristics in Christ that are rebuked by the Inquisitor are also those that are most feared by the Romans and the Jewish authorities. History has shown that an upset in the political make-up of a society does not always come from the top. Very often, as with the example of Christ, a leader emerges quietly among the people. This leadership is not always intent on upsetting the balance of hierarchy , but as a result of teachings and demonstrations that conflict with the status quo, ends up threatening the sitting leadership because of the legitimacy given to the new teachings by the people. As the new leader becomes more and more popular, the threat to the present system grows as well. There can be only one teaching, and one source of authority for any given people if they are to remain united. If more than one source of authority and teaching exists within a society, than the people must choose which to follow and hence become divided. The Threat to the Romans The Romans have been referred to as among the most political of people. I find this statement to be correct. Theirs was a very advanced political system which allowed the Romans to rule successfully over those people whose lands they conquered. At the heart of their success was a political philosophy that found necessary the acceptance, or tolerance, of cultural diversity. The Romans were acutely aware that in order to maintain order and passivity among the conquered peoples, it was necessary to acquiesce to local custom so that the people did not feel their every day life threatened by the Roman invasion. It was in this manner that the Romans ruled over Palestine. The question is asked, how were the Romans politically threatened by Christ? I contend that at the time of Christ the threat felt by the Romans with regard to a challenge to their authority was minimal, and that instead the Romans were more concerned with upsetting the influence of the Jewish authorities. In accordance with their tolerance of local custom, the Romans had not taken away the authority of the Scribes, and had instead befriended them, and counted on them to keep order in the society according to the rule of Rome. This tactic created a relationship between the Jewish authorities and the Romans that made them interdependent. However, the dependence of the Romans on the Jewish authorities was much stronger than that of the latter upon the former. In order to minimize resistance, the Romans did not significantly alter the hierarchical system of the Jewish people, and to insure the co-operation of the authorities, the Romans lavished wealth and privilege on the Scribes. What this meant is that the acceptance of Roman rule was very much based on the support for them by the Jewish authorities. The Romans were very aware of this delicate relationship and were careful to placate the Scribes. As we read about the life of Christ according to Mark, it is the Jewish authorities and not the Romans that constantly try to undermine Christ. The Romans only go against him at the time of his arrest. Prior to that moment, the Romans do not intervene with the work of Christ, which tells us that the Romans are either indifferent or not aware of the following that Christ has achieved. I hesitate in endorsing the latter assumption. I find it difficult to believe that the Romans would not have known of Christ, especially since the Jewish authorities were so acutely aware of his work as to try to halt him at every corner. This is not to say that the Romans did not recognize the potential threat of Christ to the status quo, but this was not a direct threat to Roman authority, it was instead a threat to Jewish authority. As I have already stated, the Romans were dependent upon the Scribes to keep the peace. It follows that if the authority of the scribes were brought into question, that the Romans would be less secure in their rule. However this point may be argued. Though the Romans may have taken into consideration the upset in Jewish hierarchy, this is not to say that their authority would have been severely challenged. True the Romans had a comfortable situation with the Scribes, but without them, they simply would have had to insure the co-operation of the people by other means. The Romans were given no indication by the teachings of Christ that they were the target of rebellion. Christ seemed just as indifferent to the Romans as the Romans were to him. Christ spoke against the hypocrisy of the Jewish authorities and did not speak against the Romans. In fact, when Christ was questioned as to whether taxes should be paid to Caesar, Christ said “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” Implicit in this statement is the idea that earthly power and divine power can co-exist. Christ is not so concerned with who rules on earth, but instead speaks for who rules beyond it. It may also be said that Christ gave the respect to Rome that Rome gave to the Jewish people. The gesture by Rome to allow the religion of the Jews, meant that they were in turn allowed their power. Also, Christ found the Jewish authorities to be much more oppressive than the Romans, for it was the Jewish hierarchy that had remained in place. Therefore, it is not to be discounted that the Romans might have believed that they and Christ would have been able to co-exist peacefully; with the Jewish people following Christ’s authority of the divine, and Rome’s authority of government. At the time of Christ the Romans were very confident in their empire. I do not believe that they felt that any one person could muster enough strength to do away with Roman rule in Palestine. Hence, when Pontius Pilate is faced with the decision of whether to free Barabbas or Christ, he is indifferent. Pilate does not view Christ as an enemy of Rome, and does not think that Barabbas is any real threat. Pilate does acknowledge, however, that Christ is a threat to the present Jewish authority, and that Barabbas is not. Pilate’s understanding of Christ is revealed when we read that Pilate clearly knows that the only reason why Christ is arrested is because the Jewish authorities are jealous of his influence. Here Pilate makes a calculated political decision. Taking into consideration that the leadership of Christ had not reached the point where he outranked the Jewish authorities, and that the people were confused as to whom they should listen, Pilate opts to placate the authorities, possibly with the assumption that the more senior authority of the Scribes would outweigh that of Christ. Well knowing that the authorities would succeed in convincing the people to order the release of Barabbas, Pilate chose to let the people decide and therefore assure the Jewish authorities. It may be argued that if Christ had had more time, and would have achieved dominance over the Jewish authorities, that Pilate might have opted to side with Christ and form a new alliance. The Threat to the Jewish Authorities The Jewish authorities lived well under Roman rule. They had retained their authority over the people and in return gave support to the Roman establishment. The Scribes were the privileged of the society, and it is against this privilege that Christ spoke out. The true political threat of Christ was to the Scribes. Christ did not challenge the Roman religion, he challenged the interpretation of the Jewish religion by the authorities. This was a dangerous proposal. If Christ succeeded in challenging some of the customs of the religion, then the last word on doctrine would no longer lie with the Jewish authorities but instead with Christ. The authority of the Scribes was not one of government, for that belonged to the Romans, instead it was one of religion. The appearance of Christ meant that if successful, his leadership in matters of doctrine would replace theirs. The Jewish authorities saw the possibility that there may no longer have been a place for them in the hierarchy. The entire Jewish establishment was in danger of being overthrown by one man. Consistently throughout Mark’s account of the life of Christ, the Jewish authorities try to trick Christ into saying something unlawful, so that they may then arrest him. However, since they are unsuccessful in their attempts they constantly gather together to find other means to do away with him. The authorities are well aware of the reverence given to Christ by the people. So much so that they dare not kill him for fear of a revolt. The Scribes know that they can not defeat Christ by themselves, and are delighted when Judas comes to them and offers to deliver Jesus to them. The Jewish authorities are also aware of their relationship with the Romans. So long as the authorities have power over the people and keep the peace, they are allowed privileges. If the authority is taken from them and replaced with Christ’s, what is to stop the Romans from revoking the authority of the Scribes and instead befriend Christ. The Jewish authorities know of the political maneuverings by the Romans, and recognize that the Romans will side with whomever has the most influence over the people. The Grand Inquisitor’s Accusation The Grand Inquisitor accuses Christ of rejecting worldly power by giving the people freedom from the oppressed. The Inquisitor contends that by empowering the weak and giving them freedom to follow him unconditionally, that Christ gave up the assurance of following. The Inquisitor informs Christ that the people will always follow those who give them bread, and that if that bread comes with the condition that they give up their freedom, so be it. The Political Threat of Christ The Political threat of Christ felt by the Romans and the Jewish authorities does not conflict with the accusation made by the Grand Inquisitor that Christ rejected the chance for worldly power and was interested solely in the salvation of his followers. Both the Romans and the Jewish authorities were concerned with the influence that Christ would have on his followers, and the kind of changes that his presence, if acknowledged and legitimized, would have on the Jewish society. The Grand Inquisitor accuses Christ of rejecting the chance for worldly power. The very characteristics in Christ that are rebuked by the Inquisitor are also those that are most feared by the Romans and the Jewish authorities. History has shown that an upset in the political make-up of a society does not always come from the top. Very often, as with the example of Christ, a leader emerges quietly among the people. This leadership is not always intent on upsetting the balance of hierarchy , but as a result of teachings and demonstrations that conflict with the status quo, ends up threatening the sitting leadership because of the legitimacy given to the new teachings by the people. As the new leader becomes more and more popular, the threat to the present system grows as well. There can be only one teaching, and one source of authority for any given people if they are to remain united. If more than one source of authority and teaching exists within a society, than the people must choose which to follow and hence become divided. The Threat to the Romans The Romans have been referred to as among the most political of people. I find this statement to be correct. Theirs was a very advanced political system which allowed the Romans to rule successfully over those people whose lands they conquered. At the heart of their success was a political philosophy that found necessary the acceptance, or tolerance, of cultural diversity. The Romans were acutely aware that in order to maintain order and passivity among the conquered peoples, it was necessary to acquiesce to local custom so that the people did not feel their every day life threatened by the Roman invasion. It was in this manner that the Romans ruled over Palestine. The question is asked, how were the Romans politically threatened by Christ? I contend that at the time of Christ the threat felt by the Romans with regard to a challenge to their authority was minimal, and that instead the Romans were more concerned with upsetting the influence of the Jewish authorities. In accordance with their tolerance of local custom, the Romans had not taken away the authority of the Scribes, and had instead befriended them, and counted on them to keep order in the society according to the rule of Rome. This tactic created a relationship between the Jewish authorities and the Romans that made them interdependent. However, the dependence of the Romans on the Jewish authorities was much stronger than that of the latter upon the former. In order to minimize resistance, the Romans did not significantly alter the hierarchical system of the Jewish people, and to insure the co-operation of the authorities, the Romans lavished wealth and privilege on the Scribes. What this meant is that the acceptance of Roman rule was very much based on the support for them by the Jewish authorities. The Romans were very aware of this delicate relationship and were careful to placate the Scribes. As we read about the life of Christ according to Mark, it is the Jewish authorities and not the Romans that constantly try to undermine Christ. The Romans only go against him at the time of his arrest. Prior to that moment, the Romans do not intervene with the work of Christ, which tells us that the Romans are either indifferent or not aware of the following that Christ has achieved. I hesitate in endorsing the latter assumption. I find it difficult to believe that the Romans would not have known of Christ, especially since the Jewish authorities were so acutely aware of his work as to try to halt him at every corner. This is not to say that the Romans did not recognize the potential threat of Christ to the status quo, but this was not a direct threat to Roman authority, it was instead a threat to Jewish authority. As I have already stated, the Romans were dependent upon the Scribes to keep the peace. It follows that if the authority of the scribes were brought into question, that the Romans would be less secure in their rule. However this point may be argued. Though the Romans may have taken into consideration the upset in Jewish hierarchy, this is not to say that their authority would have been severely challenged. True the Romans had a comfortable situation with the Scribes, but without them, they simply would have had to insure the co-operation of the people by other means. The Romans were given no indication by the teachings of Christ that they were the target of rebellion. Christ seemed just as indifferent to the Romans as the Romans were to him. Christ spoke against the hypocrisy of the Jewish authorities and did not speak against the Romans. In fact, when Christ was questioned as to whether taxes should be paid to Caesar, Christ said “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” Implicit in this statement is the idea that earthly power and divine power can co-exist. Christ is not so concerned with who rules on earth, but instead speaks for who rules beyond it. It may also be said that Christ gave the respect to Rome that Rome gave to the Jewish people. The gesture by Rome to allow the religion of the Jews, meant that they were in turn allowed their power. Also, Christ found the Jewish authorities to be much more oppressive than the Romans, for it was the Jewish hierarchy that had remained in place. Therefore, it is not to be discounted that the Romans might have believed that they and Christ would have been able to co-exist peacefully; with the Jewish people following Christ’s authority of the divine, and Rome’s authority of government. At the time of Christ the Romans were very confident in their empire. I do not believe that they felt that any one person could muster enough strength to do away with Roman rule in Palestine. Hence, when Pontius Pilate is faced with the decision of whether to free Barabbas or Christ, he is indifferent. Pilate does not view Christ as an enemy of Rome, and does not think that Barabbas is any real threat. Pilate does acknowledge, however, that Christ is a threat to the present Jewish authority, and that Barabbas is not. Pilate’s understanding of Christ is revealed when we read that Pilate clearly knows that the only reason why Christ is arrested is because the Jewish authorities are jealous of his influence. Here Pilate makes a calculated political decision. Taking into consideration that the leadership of Christ had not reached the point where he outranked the Jewish authorities, and that the people were confused as to whom they should listen, Pilate opts to placate the authorities, possibly with the assumption that the more senior authority of the Scribes would outweigh that of Christ. Well knowing that the authorities would succeed in convincing the people to order the release of Barabbas, Pilate chose to let the people decide and therefore assure the Jewish authorities. It may be argued that if Christ had had more time, and would have achieved dominance over the Jewish authorities, that Pilate might have opted to side with Christ and form a new alliance. The Threat to the Jewish Authorities The Jewish authorities lived well under Roman rule. They had retained their authority over the people and in return gave support to the Roman establishment. The Scribes were the privileged of the society, and it is against this privilege that Christ spoke out. The true political threat of Christ was to the Scribes. Christ did not challenge the Roman religion, he challenged the interpretation of the Jewish religion by the authorities. This was a dangerous proposal. If Christ succeeded in challenging some of the customs of the religion, then the last word on doctrine would no longer lie with the Jewish authorities but instead with Christ. The authority of the Scribes was not one of government, for that belonged to the Romans, instead it was one of religion. The appearance of Christ meant that if successful, his leadership in matters of doctrine would replace theirs. The Jewish authorities saw the possibility that there may no longer have been a place for them in the hierarchy. The entire Jewish establishment was in danger of being overthrown by one man. Consistently throughout Mark’s account of the life of Christ, the Jewish authorities try to trick Christ into saying something unlawful, so that they may then arrest him. However, since they are unsuccessful in their attempts they constantly gather together to find other means to do away with him. The authorities are well aware of the reverence given to Christ by the people. So much so that they dare not kill him for fear of a revolt. The Scribes know that they can not defeat Christ by themselves, and are delighted when Judas comes to them and offers to deliver Jesus to them. The Jewish authorities are also aware of their relationship with the Romans. So long as the authorities have power over the people and keep the peace, they are allowed privileges. If the authority is taken from them and replaced with Christ’s, what is to stop the Romans from revoking the authority of the Scribes and instead befriend Christ. The Jewish authorities know of the political maneuverings by the Romans, and recognize that the Romans will side with whomever has the most influence over the people. The Grand Inquisitor’s Accusation The Grand Inquisitor accuses Christ of rejecting worldly power by giving the people freedom from the oppressed. The Inquisitor contends that by empowering the weak and giving them freedom to follow him unconditionally, that Christ gave up the assurance of following. The Inquisitor informs Christ that the people will always follow those who give them bread, and that if that bread comes with the condition that they give up their freedom, so be it. The Inquisitor believes that Christ should not have freed the people from their oppressors, but should have instead replaced the oppressor with himself. The characteristics in Christ that the Inquisitor disagrees with are the same ones that are feared by the Jewish authorities, and by the Romans. The authorities in Palestine are afraid that if Christ succeeds in empowering the weak, that the people will be more difficult to control. The Inquisitor agrees with them on this issue. He too believes that Christ created a society of rebels, and that it is only after fifteen hundred years that the Church has been able to correct that mistake. The question of worldly power is also an interesting one. The Inquisitor believes that Christ rejected worldly power. However, the authorities of Palestine see Christ as political threat. How can it be that by Christ rejecting worldly power, he is still a political threat? I contend that both are plausible. The fear of the Jewish and perhaps even the Roman authorities, is that if Christ succeeds in convincing the people to reject worldly power, then they will no longer follow any form of earthly authority and the political system will become null and void. The Inquisitor’s accusation is that since the Church operates on earth, that earthly authority is required, and that Christ’s encouragement of freedom is in fact what ultimately undermines his own authority in the eyes of the Palestinians. The Political Threat of Christ The Political threat of Christ felt by the Romans and the Jewish authorities does not conflict with the accusation made by the Grand Inquisitor that Christ rejected the chance for worldly power and was interested solely in the salvation of his followers. Both the Romans and the Jewish authorities were concerned with the influence that Christ would have on his followers, and the kind of changes that his presence, if acknowledged and legitimized, would have on the Jewish society. The Grand Inquisitor accuses Christ of rejecting the chance for worldly power. The very characteristics in Christ that are rebuked by the Inquisitor are also those that are most feared by the Romans and the Jewish authorities. History has shown that an upset in the political make-up of a society does not always come from the top. Very often, as with the example of Christ, a leader emerges quietly among the people. This leadership is not always intent on upsetting the balance of hierarchy , but as a result of teachings and demonstrations that conflict with the status quo, ends up threatening the sitting leadership because of the legitimacy given to the new teachings by the people. As the new leader becomes more and more popular, the threat to the present system grows as well. There can be only one teaching, and one source of authority for any given people if they are to remain united. If more than one source of authority and teaching exists within a society, than the people must choose which to follow and hence become divided. The Threat to the Romans The Romans have been referred to as among the most political of people. I find this statement to be correct. Theirs was a very advanced political system which allowed the Romans to rule successfully over those people whose lands they conquered. At the heart of their success was a political philosophy that found necessary the acceptance, or tolerance, of cultural diversity. The Romans were acutely aware that in order to maintain order and passivity among the conquered peoples, it was necessary to acquiesce to local custom so that the people did not feel their every day life threatened by the Roman invasion. It was in this manner that the Romans ruled over Palestine. The question is asked, how were the Romans politically threatened by Christ? I contend that at the time of Christ the threat felt by the Romans with regard to a challenge to their authority was minimal, and that instead the Romans were more concerned with upsetting the influence of the Jewish authorities. In accordance with their tolerance of local custom, the Romans had not taken away the authority of the Scribes, and had instead befriended them, and counted on them to keep order in the society according to the rule of Rome. This tactic created a relationship between the Jewish authorities and the Romans that made them interdependent. However, the dependence of the Romans on the Jewish authorities was much stronger than that of the latter upon the former. In order to minimize resistance, the Romans did not significantly alter the hierarchical system of the Jewish people, and to insure the co-operation of the authorities, the Romans lavished wealth and privilege on the Scribes. What this meant is that the acceptance of Roman rule was very much based on the support for them by the Jewish authorities. The Romans were very aware of this delicate relationship and were careful to placate the Scribes. As we read about the life of Christ according to Mark, it is the Jewish authorities and not the Romans that constantly try to undermine Christ. The Romans only go against him at the time of his arrest. Prior to that moment, the Romans do not intervene with the work of Christ, which tells us that the Romans are either indifferent or not aware of the following that Christ has achieved. I hesitate in endorsing the latter assumption. I find it difficult to believe that the Romans would not have known of Christ, especially since the Jewish authorities were so acutely aware of his work as to try to halt him at every corner. This is not to say that the Romans did not recognize the potential threat of Christ to the status quo, but this was not a direct threat to Roman authority, it was instead a threat to Jewish authority. As I have already stated, the Romans were dependent upon the Scribes to keep the peace. It follows that if the authority of the scribes were brought into question, that the Romans would be less secure in their rule. However this point may be argued. Though the Romans may have taken into consideration the upset in Jewish hierarchy, this is not to say that their authority would have been severely challenged. True the Romans had a comfortable situation with the Scribes, but without them, they simply would have had to insure the co-operation of the people by other means. The Romans were given no indication by the teachings of Christ that they were the target of rebellion. Christ seemed just as indifferent to the Romans as the Romans were to him. Christ spoke against the hypocrisy of the Jewish authorities and did not speak against the Romans. In fact, when Christ was questioned as to whether taxes should be paid to Caesar, Christ said “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” Implicit in this statement is the idea that earthly power and divine power can co-exist. Christ is not so concerned with who rules on earth, but instead speaks for who rules beyond it. It may also be said that Christ gave the respect to Rome that Rome gave to the Jewish people. The gesture by Rome to allow the religion of the Jews, meant that they were in turn allowed their power. Also, Christ found the Jewish authorities to be much more oppressive than the Romans, for it was the Jewish hierarchy that had remained in place. Therefore, it is not to be discounted that the Romans might have believed that they and Christ would have been able to co-exist peacefully; with the Jewish people following Christ’s authority of the divine, and Rome’s authority of government. At the time of Christ the Romans were very confident in their empire. I do not believe that they felt that any one person could muster enough strength to do away with Roman rule in Palestine. Hence, when Pontius Pilate is faced with the decision of whether to free Barabbas or Christ, he is indifferent. Pilate does not view Christ as an enemy of Rome, and does not think that Barabbas is any real threat. Pilate does acknowledge, however, that Christ is a threat to the present Jewish authority, and that Barabbas is not. Pilate’s understanding of Christ is revealed when we read that Pilate clearly knows that the only reason why Christ is arrested is because the Jewish authorities are jealous of his influence. Here Pilate makes a calculated political decision. Taking into consideration that the leadership of Christ had not reached the point where he outranked the Jewish authorities, and that the people were confused as to whoThe Inquisitor believes that Christ should not have freed the people from their oppressors, but should have instead replaced the oppressor with himself. The characteristics in Christ that the Inquisitor disagrees with are the same ones that are feared by the Jewish authorities, and by the Romans. The authorities in Palestine are afraid that if Christ succeeds in empowering the weak, that the people will be more difficult to control. The Inquisitor agrees with them on this issue. He too believes that Christ created a society of rebels, and that it is only after fifteen hundred years that the Church has been able to correct that mistake. --------------------------------------------------------------