For Israel “politics and religion were inseparable” but this doesn’t render Jesus a politician, to be engaged in politics, or political. You reason that, assuming Jesus was concerned only with religious aspects, those aspects were also political since for “Israel” there’s no distinction between religion and politics. But that’s the case for Israel, and while that may be the case for Israel, that’s not necessarily true for Jesus, what he said or how he behaved.
The question is in regards to a characteristic of Jesus, not Israel. The characteristic is being political, a politician, or engaged in politics.
I cannot find or recall any of Jesus’ teachings, sayings, or behaviors satisfying the meaning of “activities involved in acquiring,
using, power in an institution that influence or are able to influence decisions that affect a country or a society.”
The question is "Was Jesus a politician?"
To be clear, nothing I've said agrees that Jesus was a politician (undefined so far).
With that said, Jesus dealt extensively with the interpretation of Law and, as the Prophets of old, with the condition of Israel's leadership and people. There's no way to separate what He did and said and remove it from politics - government - even per the definition of politics you have chosen, which is not the only definition and from a source you do not cite. To deal with religion in Israel was to deal with its politics as well.
Jesus didn’t advocate for removal of any Sanhedrin. Jesus didn’t advocate any of his followers or believers should be members of the Sanhedrin. Jesus didn’t advocate for the anything he specifically said to be codified into law. Jesus didn’t advocate for any change of Jewish leadership. Jesus didn’t advocate a revolution of the Jewish government.
Jesus’ ministry was concerned, heavily concerned, with transformation of the individual, not transformation of Jewish government.
As I said, Jesus’ teaching may have implications within the governmental/political realm, but this doesn’t render him political, a politician, or engaged in politics.
Jesus advocated for a correct interpretation of Law and godly leadership according to Torah - previously codified. This is engaging government and politics. The Prophets before Him did the same in a form that was effectively bringing legal charges against Israel on behalf of God.
Had Israel accepted Jesus is Messiah, do you not think He would have transformed Israel to be in line with God in every way, including government? Would this not have had implications for the world beyond Israel? What does the Messianic concept of Eternal King & Great High Priest not include? Since this is who He is now, what is He not Lord over? Since He is God, what is He not God over?
A transformation of people will end up transforming a government made up of people. This is more than just implication. To believe in and obey God has a direct effect on all of life - thoughts and actions - including how we view powers and politics.
Jesus was sent to “deal with” people, human beings, Homo Sapiens, entities with a spirit, to save them. He was not sent to artificial edifices, such as government, or its laws, that can’t be saved.
Government is an artificial edifice? So, God did not implement the concept of authority structures? You see no hierarchy in Heaven among God and the angelic realm? Scripture is wrong about referring to Him as having all authority and referring to Jesus as King of kings with all authority in Heaven and on earth? The Scripture is wrong about congregational authorities and judiciaries?
I don't think you understand the full scope of salvation as God is bringing all of His creation back in line with His intention and structures and ridding it of adversarial authorities and sin/lawlessness.
This is a more modern Christian invention which didn’t exist at the time of Jesus, the apostles, or Paul. The apostles, and Paul, along with Jesus, when persecuted by governmental authority, jailed by governmental authority, killed by governmental authority or under the authority of government, did not advocate or seek the government change its laws to accommodate Christianity or their religion, and ameliorate the prosecution.
Neither did Jesus, Paul, or the apostles petition any government to pass laws reflective of Christian beliefs or Jesus’ teachings. Neither did they advocate for any government to codify their religious beliefs or teachings.
Jesus, the apostles, and Paul did quite well to “separate” their faith from politics.
Our Faith with its morality and ethics and godliness, and comparing this to what goes on in politics is "more modern"? Christians were advocating for the Messiahship of Jesus. This is hardly apolitical and was even the alegation the Jews used to send Jesus to Rome for prosecution.
It was not God's will for Jesus to change Rome at the time, but to use it along with the religious and political structures for an execution.
I've addressed Jesus and the Law of Israel. Why would Jesus seek to change God's Law? I think He rather spoke a message of conforming to it accurately.
What makes you think Paul had the ability to petition Rome for a change of its laws? His mandate from God in his Apostleship was to to bring the nations to faith-obedience, which would be to bring them to Christ and all He commands, including the morality and ethics of God's Law.
Sorry, but to bring people to Christ is all encompassing in its scope. If you stand in the legislature to voice an opinion of some legislation, and you decide to evangelize, then you're effectively telling legislators - people - to come to Christ and legislate as He would have it - according to God's Law.
This is descriptive, not a mandate, and not a suggestion, for Christians to mix their faith with human government. In addition, Paul doesn’t assert such governments are righteous governments or are to be righteous governments. Paul is describing, nothing more.
Descriptive? Describing what governments of the time? Saying that authorities are God's servants to reward good and punish bad has no implications for us to consider? It's a truth we in our current form of government in the US should be using to guide our vote.
I know voting itself is debated for a Christian. I also know the secular would like nothing better than to have Christianity stay within its 4 walls and leave the secular to legislate and do whatever it desires. I see the opposite now in the Great Commission to, as Paul states, bring the nations to faith-obedience, as Jesus commanded, after having been given all authority in Heaven and on earth, to teach the nations all He commands.
Our Faith is to keep all His commandments. This has implications for all of life, including politics, especially, in the context of this discussion and what you've stated, for a Christian politician.
The early Christian church was successful in such a separation and at a time when the Church coexisted with the early Roman Empire.
What was its choice and how did that coexistence end up for the Church overall? It was stuck for some time between Jerusalem and Rome. And, noting your chosen identity, once the Roman Catholic Church came into existence, was "Christianity" not strongly political? What is it you're advocating for?
You’ve conflated creation, and apparently everything that exists within this “creation” with theological. They aren’t the same. Plato’s “Republic” is not theological. Robert Bork’s book, “The Tempting of America” is not theological. Robert Nozick’s “Anarchy, State, and Utopia,” is not theological. A hockey game is not inherently theological. A basketball game, chess, motor vehicles, stop lights, restaurants, paved streets, are not per se theological.
Attempting to take this into absurdity is not helpful. But, since God covered just about everything in legislating and teaching Israel, including food, hygiene, guidelines for sex, where to relieve oneself, materials for clothing, etc...., what doesn't have theological implications?
When Paul says something like the following, you can separate what you say, do, and produce in your God-given existence, if you'd like, but many I know and have heard are thankful for what they know, have, and can do:
NKJ Colossians 3:17 And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him. I'm not against those who thank God for what non-evil they can say, do, and accomplish.
Since I see our Text identifying human government as a divine institution meant to function pursuant to God's standards, I would see anything addressing government as theological. You seem to desire to separate God from His creation.
You attach too much to “based in Scripture.” Yes, human government is mentioned in Scripture, but the mere mentioning of government doesn’t establish any mandate, suggestion, or principle of government and religion to be intertwined or for Christians to seek of governmental authorities codification of their religious beliefs.
What is dispositive isn’t government “based in Scripture” but rather what the verses specifically say when “government” is referenced. Based on your logic, you’d attach religious and theological significance to Nike shoes and their laces because John the Baptist mentioned sandals and straps.
For instance, Paul mentions government, your “based in Scripture” mantra, but the substance of what he says about government doesn’t support your view.
I've addressed your absurdity and ridicule already. If you feel the need to continue the course, please find another target. BTW, I think "nike" is an interesting name for a company, but that doesn't mean my logic goes to where you want to take it.
Human Government is more than just mentioned in Scripture. It is "based in Scripture" and a part of God's creation. I'm good with the teachings re: it being a divine institution identified from Genesis. God was essentially seen as the King of Israel. Jesus - YHWH's Anointed - is the King of Kings and has all authority in Heaven and on earth. He's the only absolute ruler. God's Law is supreme over His creation. He defines morality and ethics, righteousness and justice, good and bad, right and wrong, etc.
You seem a better proponent for the secular. Do you find it appropriate to sit idly and watch evil be legislated and spread? Are morality and ethics just religious beliefs? How about justice - also just a religious belief? Because such things are from God and, yes, from there based in Scripture, are they just religious beliefs we're supposed to leave within the 4 walls of our buildings? Do you advocate for evil, or when you advocate, do you bring out your "religious beliefs" of what is right and wrong?
