to what extent was jesus merely a political liberator essay

Jesus Christ’s Authority as a Liberator

Jesus’ role as liberator of the marginalised and the poor is seen through his challenges to political and religious authority.

Jesus as a liberator

• For many Christians, Jesus’ challenge to the political and religious authorities of this time presents him as a liberator.
• He was also critical of the values and behaviours of the society in which he lived.

Healing the bleeding woman

• But, as a menstruating woman, she would have also been viewed as impure and shunned under Mosaic law.
• In healing her, Jesus liberates her from both the illness and the marginalisation she faced.
• In doing so, he is challenging Mosaic law and those in the crowd to alter their treatment of such an ‘outcast’ .

Parable of the Good Samaritan

• In the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), Jesus challenges conventional thinking in a number of ways.
• Jesus challenges this excuse for the priest and the Levite not stopping to help the man ‘left half-dead’ .

Parable of the Good Samaritan 2

• By doing this, he aims to liberate his audience from this legalistic approach.
• By praising the actions of the Samaritan, Jesus reinforces the pre-eminence of compassion in the law.
• He also challenges (and so liberates) the audience’s suspicion of the Samaritan.

Jesus & the Pharisee

• We see another example of Jesus being a liberator in the story of Jesus at the home of Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7:36-49).
• Here, Jesus liberates the woman from her sins through forgiveness.
• He does this through his critique on the Pharisee's behaviour and praising of the woman's behaviour.

Jesus' triumphant return

• Another example of Jesus as a liberator is his entry into Jerusalem and the cleansing of the temple (Matthew 21:1-13).
• This suggests that Jesus was not going to be who they expected.
• Here, he is again liberating the people from their expectation that he would free them from Roman occupation.

1 Philosophy of Religion

1.1 Ancient Philosophical Influences: Plato

1.1.1 Plato's Understanding of Reality

1.1.2 Plato's Theory of Forms

1.1.3 Plato's Analogy of the Cave

1.1.4 The Purpose of Plato's Analogy of the Cave

1.1.5 Evaluation of Plato's Theories

1.2 Ancient Philosophical Influences: Aristotle

1.2.1 Aristotle's Understanding of Reality

1.2.2 Aristotle's Four Causes

1.2.3 Aristotle's Prime Mover

1.3 Ancient Philosophical Influences: Soul, Mind, Body

1.3.1 Plato & Aristotle's Views of the Soul

1.3.2 Metaphysics of Consciousness

1.3.3 Materialism - Ryle’s Philosophical Behaviourism

1.3.4 Materialism - Identity Theory

1.4 The Existence of God - Arguments from Observation

1.4.1 The Teleological Argument - Aquinas' Fifth Way

1.4.2 The Teleological Argument - Paley & Evolution

1.4.3 The Cosmological Argument

1.4.4 Hume's Criticisms: Teleological & Cosmological

1.5 The Existence of God - Arguments from Reason

1.5.1 The Ontological Argument

1.5.2 Criticisms of the Ontological Argument

1.6 Religious Experience

1.6.1 Introduction to Religious Experience

1.6.2 Mystical Experience

1.6.3 Conversion Experience

1.6.4 Understanding Religious Experience

1.6.5 Issues Relating to Religious Experience - Validity

1.6.6 Issues Relating to Religious Experiences - People

1.7 The Problem of Evil

1.7.1 Presentations of the Problems of Evil

1.7.2 Discussion Points -

1.8 The Nature & Attributes of God

1.8.1 Omnipotence

1.8.2 Omniscience

1.8.3 Boethius - Divine Knowledge, Free Will & Eternity

1.8.4 (Omni)benevolence

1.8.5 Eternity & Free Will

1.9 Religious Language: Negative, Analogical, Symbolic

1.9.1 Apophatic & Cataphatic Way

1.9.2 Symbol

1.9.3 Discussion Points: Religious Language

1.10 Religious Language: 20th Century Perspective

1.10.1 Logical Positivism & Verification Principle

1.10.2 Wittgenstein

1.10.3 Falsification Symposium: Flew & Hare

1.10.4 Falsification Symposium: Mitchell

1.10.5 Discussion Points: Verification & Falsification

1.10.6 Discussion Points: Aquinas vs Wittgenstein

2 Religion & Ethics

2.1 Natural Law

2.1.1 St Thomas Aquinas - Telos & Four Tiers of Law

2.1.2 St Thomas Aquinas - Precepts

2.1.3 St Thomas Aquinas - Real & Apparent Goods

2.1.4 Discussion Points - Natural Law & Doing Good

2.1.5 Discussion Points - Telos & Double Effect Doctrine

2.2 Situation Ethics

2.2.1 Fletcher's Situation Ethics

2.2.2 Fletcher's Concept of Conscience

2.2.3 Discussion Points: Moral Decision-Making

2.2.4 Discussion Points - Agape

2.3 Kantian Ethics

2.3.1 Introduction to Kantian Ethics & Duty

2.3.2 Hypothetical & Categorical Imperative

2.3.3 Summum Bonum & Three Postulates

2.3.4 Discussion Points: Kantian Ethics

2.4 Utilitarianism

2.4.1 The Utility Principle

2.4.2 Act & Rule Utilitarianism

2.4.3 Discussion Points: Utilitarianism

2.5 Euthanasia

2.5.1 Key Concepts for Euthanasia Debates

2.5.2 Discussion Points: Natural Law & Situation Ethics

2.5.3 Discussion Points: Sanctity of Life

2.5.4 Discussion Points: Autonomy & Medical Intervention

2.6 Business Ethics

2.6.1 Corporate Social Responsibility & Whistle-Blowing

2.6.2 Good Ethics & Globalisation

2.6.3 Discussion Points: Utilitarianism & Kantian Ethics

2.6.4 Discussion Points: CSR, Globalisation & Capitalism

3 Developments in Christian Thought

3.1 Saint Augustine's Teachings

3.1.1 Human Nature

3.1.2 Original Sin & God's Grace

3.2 Death & the Afterlife

3.2.1 Heaven, Hell, & Purgatory

3.2.2 Different Interpretations of the Afterlife

3.2.3 Election

3.2.4 The Final Judgement

3.2.5 Discussion Points: Heaven, Hell & Purgatory

3.3 Knowledge of God's Existence

3.3.1 Natural Knowledge

3.3.2 Revealed Knowledge in Faith, Grace, & Jesus Christ

3.3.3 Revealed Knowledge in the Bible & Church

3.3.4 Discussion Points: Reason & Belief in God

3.3.5 Discussion Points: The Fall & Trust in God

3.4 The Person of Jesus Christ

3.4.1 Jesus Christ’s Authority as the Son of God

3.4.2 Jesus Christ’s Authority as a Teacher of Wisdom

3.4.3 Jesus Christ’s Authority as a Liberator

3.5 Christian Moral Principles

3.5.1 The Bible & Love

3.5.2 Bible, Church & Reason

3.5.3 Discussion Points: Christian Ethics

3.5.4 Discussion Points: Love & the Bible

3.6 Christian Moral Action

3.6.1 Dietrich Bonhoeffer & the Confessing Church

3.6.2 Bonhoeffer & Civil Disobedience

3.6.3 Bonhoeffer's Teaching on Ethics as Action

3.6.4 Discussion Points: Civil Disobedience & Bonhoeffer

3.7 Development - Pluralism & Theology

3.7.1 Pluralism & Theology: Exclusivism & Inclusivism

3.7.2 Pluralism & Theology: Pluralism

3.7.3 Discussion Points: Salvation

3.7.4 Discussion Points: Pluralism Undermining Beliefs

3.8 Development - Pluralism & Society

3.8.1 Development of Multi-Faith Societies

3.8.2 Responses to Inter-Faith Dialogue

3.8.3 The Scriptural Reasoning Movement

3.8.4 Discussion Points: Social Cohesion & Scripture

3.8.5 Discussion Points: Conversion

3.9 Gender & Society

3.9.1 Waves of Feminism

3.9.2 Traditional Christian Views on Gender Roles

3.9.3 Christian Views on Gender Roles & Family

3.9.4 Discussion Points: Secular Views of Gender

3.9.5 Discussion Points: Motherhood & Family

3.10 Gender & Theology

3.10.1 Rosemary Radford Ruether

3.10.2 Mary Daly

3.10.3 Discussion Points: Ruether & Daly

3.10.4 Discussion Points: Male Saviour & Female God

3.11 Challenges

3.11.1 Secularism - Sigmund Freud

3.11.2 Secularism - Richard Dawkins

3.11.3 Christianity & Public Life

3.11.4 Discussion Points: Spiritual Values

3.11.5 Discussion Points: Social Values & Opportunities

3.11.6 Karl Marx

3.11.7 Liberation Theology

Jump to other topics

Unlock your full potential with GoStudent tutoring

Affordable 1:1 tutoring from the comfort of your home

Tutors are matched to your specific learning needs

30+ school subjects covered

Jesus Christ’s Authority as a Teacher of Wisdom

The Bible & Love

Bible Odyssey

Search the Site

Jesus and Politics

• Marcus J. Borg

Jesus’ premeditated entry into Jerusalem on a donkey symbolized a kingdom of peace in which the weapons of war would be banished.

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter

Search the Bible

Results from new revised standard version updated edition.

Politics are at the center of the story of Jesus. His historical life ended with a political execution. Crucifixion was used by Rome for those who systematically rejected imperial authority, including chronically defiant slaves and subversives who were attracting a following. In the world of Jesus, a cross was always a Roman cross.

So also the heart of his message was political: it was about the coming of “the kingdom of God.” These are the first words of Jesus in Mark, the earliest Gospel, an advance summary of what the Gospel and the story of Jesus are about ( Mark 1:14-15 ). Of course, Jesus’ message was also religious: he was passionate about God and what God was like. That passion led him, in his teaching and actions, to proclaim the kingdom of God.

In his world, “kingdom” language was political. Jesus’ hearers knew about other kingdoms—the kingdom of Herod and the kingdom of Rome (as Rome referred to itself in eastern parts of the empire). The kingdom of God had to be something different from those kingdoms.

The kingdom of God is for the earth. The Lord’s Prayer speaks of God’s kingdom coming on earth , even as it already exists in heaven. It is about the transformation of this world—what life would be like on earth if God were ruler and the lords of the domination systems were not.

If Jesus had wanted to avoid the political meaning of kingdom language, he could have spoken of the “family” of God, or the “community” of God, or the “people” of God. But he didn’t: he spoke of the kingdom of God.

It would be a world of economic justice in which everybody had the material basics of existence. And it would be a world of peace and nonviolence. Together, economic justice and peace are “the dream of God”— God’s passion for a transformed world.

Jesus’ passion for the kingdom of God created conflict with the authorities. His public activity began after the arrest of his mentor, John the Baptizer, by the Rome-appointed ruler of Galilee ( Mark 1:14 ). Conflict dominates his story throughout the Gospels and climaxes in the last week of Jesus’ life with his challenge to the authorities in Jerusalem and his crucifixion.

Jesus also used political means, most dramatically in two public political demonstrations. First, his preplanned entry into Jerusalem on a donkey symbolized a kingdom of peace in which the weapons of war would be banished. Second, he publicly indicted the temple as “a den of robbers” because it had become the center of collaboration with Roman imperial rule and taxation ( Matt 21:13 , Mark 11:17 , Luke 19:46 ).

Jesus’ passion for the kingdom of God led to his passion in the narrower sense of the word: his arrest, suffering, and death. This is the political meaning of Good Friday. Easter also has a political meaning: it meant that God said yes to Jesus’ passion for a transformed world and no to the powers of domination that killed him. Of course, Good Friday and Easter have more than a political meaning—but not less.

Bibliography

• Crossan, John Dominic, and Jonathan Reed. Excavating Jesus . San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001.
• Wink, Walter. Jesus and Non-Violence . Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2003.
• Borg, Marcus. Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary . San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006.

Marcus J. Borg (1942-2015) was Hundere Professor of Religion and Culture Emeritus at Oregon State University, past president of the Anglican Association of Biblical Scholars, and author of twenty books.

Greco-Roman Jesus

• Warren Carter

• Mark Allan Powell

The Jewish Context of Jesus

• Amy-Jill Levine

Jesus’s Crucifixion in Luke’s Gospel

• Joel B. Green

• Jesus the Liberator

The OCR RS AS specification says that you need to know about liberation theologians' teachings about different types of sin, structural , social , personal and about their views about J esus the Liberator .

Personal sin:

Sin is an action that goes against the law of God. The traditional concept of sin is that people are responsible for their own personal actions which go against God. Christianity teaches that a person who sin should confess their sin to God, repent (be sorry) and try to avoid repeating that sin in future. Within the Roman Catholic tradition individuals are expected to go to confession regularly and confess their sins to a priest who might give them a penance to do and pronounces absolution on behalf of God.

The traditional view of sin does not allow for any idea of corporate responsibility. An individual is responsible for their own sins.

Social sin:

However, there are other ways of understanding sin. Liberation theologians tend to focus on the idea of social sin. Attitudes like racism, sexism, classism, homophobia and oppression of the poor could all be said to be examples of social sin. Social sin is the collective effect of many personal sins which cumulatively make up attitudes and behaviours that harm other people. Society as a whole has a responsibility for social sin.

Structural sin:

'The poor are a by-product of the system in which we live and for which we are responsible. They are marginalized by our social and cultural world. They are the oppressed, exploited proletariat, robbed of the fruit of their labor and despoiled of their humanity.'

'Hence the poverty of the poor is not a call to generous relief action, but a demand that we go and build a different social order.'

Gustavo Gutierrez A Theology of Liberation

Structural sin occurs when social sin becomes encoded into unfair laws and structures within society.

• For example, racism is a social sin but becomes a structural sin when turned into laws which created apartheid. 
• In the Latin American context disregard for the poor would be an example of social sin. This becomes structural sin when it is reflected in the policies and laws tied up with land ownership.

Liberation theologians argued that Christianity should engage with structural and social sin and try to bring about change. At Medellin the Bishops agreed that what was needed for true liberation was ' new and reformed structures ' and they said  ' faced with the need for total change of Latin American structures, we believe that change has political reform as a prerequisite .'

This relates to the idea of showing a preferential option for the poor . Gutierrez thought that God himself showed a preferential option for the poor as if he did not side with the oppressed in an unjust world then he would be implicitly siding with the oppressors.

The bishops said that the Church had a duty ' to create a just social order ' and they criticised those who did not work for change saying ' also responsible for injustice are those who remain passive for fear of the sacrifice and personal risk .'

Can sin really be social/structural?

The idea of  corporate responsibility  is one that is found in the Bible (in the Old Testament God frequently held the Israelites as a whole responsible for the sins of some of their number). This may seem unfair, but one could argue that those who do nothing to combat oppression are implicitly involved in contributing to it by allowing it to continue. In this way liberation theologians thought that the Church itself had been guilty of contributing to oppression by not using their power and influence to oppose it.

Pope John Paul II said no:

However, statements from the Vatican have expressed concern about the idea of social sin and structural sin which they think undermine the idea of personal responsibility for our action.

In 1984 Pope John Paul II wrote an apostolic letter ( Reconciliatio et Paenetentia ) in which he made clear that Church views sin in terms of personal sin. He acknowledged that certain situations are very unfair and said that these go against the will of God but he cautioned against blaming the situation rather than the individuals.

'Sin, in the proper sense, is always a personal act, since it is an act of freedom on the part of an individual person and not properly of a group or community.'

'...it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded in order to place the blame for individuals' sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people.'

'...to speak even analogically of social sins must not cause us to underestimate the responsibility of the individuals involved. '

'...Whenever the church speaks of situations of sin or when she condemns as social sins certain situations or the collective behavior of certain social groups, big or small, or even of whole nations and blocs of nations, she knows and she proclaims that such cases of social sin are the result of the accumulation and concentration of many personal sins.'

'.... The real responsibility, then lies with individuals.' 

John Paul II Reconciliatio et Paenetentia (read more of the relevant section here )

The reason why social and structural accounts of sin might undermine personal responsibility is because and individual's action is interpreted as being driven by the the sinful environment that they live. This can be illustrated as follows:

• For example, the idea of blaming apartheid and racism for the treatment of Nelson Mandela would remove the moral responsibility for the individuals involved in his trial. 
• In the Latin American context blaming the latifundia system and the general attitudes towards the poor would seem to absolve individual land-owners of their moral responsibility for their actions. To blame the deaths of Romero and the Jesuit priests in El Salvador on the attitudes of the time and the military dictatorship would seemingly 'let off' the individual soldiers involved in their deaths.

Pope John Paul II was also concerned with the ideological (i.e. Marxist) basis for the idea of structural sin. Marx' historical materialism saw individual action as a product of the economic conditions of the time and believed that structural change was needed to liberate people.

Liberation theologians say yes:

However, liberation theologians like Boff were convinced that it was correct to describe the structures of society could themselves as sinful.

'...unjust structures or oppressors are objectively an evil. For this reason, they are "sin" in the material structural sense. These unjust structures are, to society, what lust is to the individual: they carry and even drag one into evil.'

Leonardo Boff, On Social Sin

Gutierrez made it clear that structural sin needed to be addressed and society needed to be transformed.

'Charity is today a 'political charity.'. . . it means the transformation of a society structured to benefit a few who appropriate to themselves the value of the work of others. This transformation ought to be directed toward a radical change in the foundation of society'

Theories about sin relate to the role of Jesus because if Jesus came to liberate people from sin (and the bishops at Medellin reaffirmed that God ' sends his Son in the flesh, so that he might come to liberate everyone from the slavery to which sin has subjected them' ), then Jesus must liberate people from all types of sin.

Jesus the Liberator:

Given that sin has personal, social and structural elements to it it is important that 'liberation from sin' includes methods of dealing with each type of sin.

Gustavo Gutierrez said that people needed:

• Political/social liberation to free them from the laws that entrap them. This would be liberation from structural sin . This would be achieved through praxis and engagement with political/economic issues.
• Human liberation/emancipation to restore their dignity and release them from the bonds of social sin . This would be achieved through conscientisation and a preferential option for the poor.
• Liberation from selfishness and sin to restore relationships with God and others. This would include a more traditional understanding of freeing people from their own personal sins .

The traditional view:

'For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.'

Romans 6:23

The traditional view is that Jesus liberates people from personal sin by freeing people from the consequences of sin. The Bible tells us that 'the wages of sin is death ' and traditional Christian salvation theology explains that Jesus' death on the cross paid the price of human sin and enabled humans to go to heaven instead of hell. In addition, many Christians believe that the risen Jesus and the gift of the Holy Spirit as counsel (guide) helps to liberate Christians from their sinful human nature and enable them to live as new people guided by faith rather than by sinful inclinations.

Thus Jesus is liberator, but liberation is largely spiritual and occurs primarily in the afterlife . 

Liberation theologians challenge that view. Gutierrez argues that although we have come to accept the traditional view unthinkingly, this view of Jesus obscures the real person.

'We take it for granted that Jesus was not interested in political life: his mission was purely religious. Indeed we have witnessed . . . the 'iconization' of the life of Jesus: 'This is a Jesus of hieratic, stereotyped gestures, all representing theological themes. In this way, the life of Jesus is no longer a human life, submerged in history, but a theological life -- an icon.'

Gutierrez A Theology of Liberation

Jesus the social revolutionary:

Liberation theologians might also use a hermeneutic of suspicion to ask why certain aspects of Jesus' ministry have been overlooked or deliberately ignored by traditional theology. Is it perhaps that emphasising the radical nature of Jesus and the rebellious elements of his message would be unwise for a Church closely associated with those who had political power?

Liberation theologians do not reject this understanding of salvation. However, they believe that other, more political, elements of Jesus' ministry have been left out.

They argue that Jesus challenged the social conventions of his day. He challenged strict interpretations of the Jewish law which 'trapped' people by providing them with standards that they could not possibly live up to. He discribed the religious elite (the pharisees) as hypocrites. He told the rich to give up their wealth and give to the poor whilst at the same time upholding Samaritans and children as examples to be emulated. He preached reversal. 

At the time Jesus lived many people believed that wealth was a sign of God's blessing - thus rich people were good. Disease was viewed as a sign of God's displeasure and implied the person had sinned. Thus by criticising the rich and healing those with disease Jesus was challenging the social order of his day.

Jesus' preaching was reflected in his action. He chose followers from the lower ranks of society (fishermen), he associated with those of ill-repute and outcasts. He healed people of sickness thus 'liberating' them from the things that physically constrained them and stopped them living life to the full.

Thus Jesus was not necessarily the mild-mannered pacifist that people imagine when they think of Jesus. For liberation theologians, Jesus was someone who acted decisively on behalf of the disadvantaged (those who were the underside of history ) and he told his followers to do the same.

Specific examples:

Texts of particular importance include Jesus' what is sometimes called Jesus' ' mission statement ' found in Luke 4 in which Jesus reads from the Old Testament book of Isaiah.

He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.”

Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

Luke 4:16-21

Liberation theologians would point out that Jesus stressed today  (i.e. in this world now) this will be fulfilled. Jesus brings 'good news' to the poor and has come to free the oppressed.

Another important text which demonstrates Jesus' criticism of those with power and his opposition to structures that trap people is Matthew 23 in which Jesus cricitised the pharisees (religious leaders). He said:

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

Matthew 23:1-4 & 13 (read whole chapter here )

Later in Matthew's gospel the parable of the sheep and the goats (also called the judgement of nations) says that those who get into heaven will be those who have helped others. By helping others they have effectively done these things for Jesus so that 

'For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

Matthew 25:35-36

Of course helping others need not necessarily be revolutionary. However, liberation theologians would argue that when structural sin exists the best way to feed the hungry is to remove the things that cause people to be hungry in the first place.

The principle of reversal is also found in Jesus' teachings. In Matthew 19 Jesus told the rich young man that in order to get into heaven he had to give up all his riches and give them to the poor. At the end of the chapter Jesus said:

'But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.'

Matthew 19:30

Note: this links with other areas of LT. It could be part of the hermeneutic (judging) mediation. You could use it to demonstrate how LT use the Bible. Emphasising Jesus' liberating message could form part of conscientisation. Look for these links and use them in your essays.

Liberation theologians believe that Jesus liberated people from social and structural sin as well as personal sin. Consequently, the bible provides theological justification for engaging with structural sin. As a social reformer the historical Jesus engaged with the structures of his day. Liberation theologians would also believe that the risen Christ continues to act on behalf of the oppressed. Thus those who struggle against oppression are accompanied by Christ as they do so. For Sobrino, the resurrection is a message of hope that love will triumph in the end. He wrote:

'The Resurrection of Jesus is...a symbol of hope...I don't see how you can show love...without being in solidarity with the victims of this world. And if you are in solidarity with the victims, I don't see how you can avoid the cross. The theology of the cross is the theology of love in our real world.'

Jon Sobrino, The Principle of Mercy

Academic debates: Was Jesus actually a zealot?

Gutierrez linked Jesus with the zealots who were a Jewish political group who opposed Roman occupation. The question of to what extent Jesus was actually a revolutionary is one that has interested academics. On the one hand there is some evidence that he could even have been a zealot. 

• His disciples were carrying swords when he was arrested.
• Judas Iscariot was one of his disciples and it has been claimed that Iscariot 'knife man' was slang for zealot.
• He was crucified with the title 'King of the Jews' perhaps suggesting that he intended to overthrow the Romans and be the leader of Israel.

However, there is also counter evidence

• He advised people to pay their taxes
• He said 'my kingdom is not of this world'
• He voluntarily allowed himself to be arrested.

It is probable that we will never be able to know for sure!

Evaluation:

There are two main issues at stake here:

• Should theology concern itself with social and structural sin or should the emphasis continue to be placed on personal sin?
• Is it legitimate to regard Jesus as a social reformer/political revolutionary and does such an approach undermine more traditional salvation theology?

What type of sin should the Church be concerned with?

In response to the first issue, liberation theologians would argue that social sin and structural sin cause considerable problems in the world and contribute to the suffering of many people. Christians should be motivated by love to work for justice and in order for justice to be achieved unequal systems need to be abolished. (i.e. engaging with social sin is a necessary condition of creating a fairer society).

John Paul II's response was that although unfair situations are against God's will and should be opposed, the real problem is still individual action. Terms like structural sin are unhelpful because they undermine personal responsibility.

A related issue is the fact that if structural sin has a legal/political element then it presumably has a legal/political solution. To what extent should the Church get involved in politics? Should the Church be focusing on the afterlife (which is arguably more important than this life as it goes on for longer!)? Can Christians use violence to oppose oppression?

Who was Jesus?

The question of whether or not Jesus was a social revolutionary relates to the question of whether we can know anything about the historical Jesus. Scholars are divided both on the issue of whether we can know anything about Jesus and those that think we can know what he was like do not always agree on the details of what he said or did.

Consider whether you think a more political reading of Jesus is damaging to Christianity. Is it reductionist to talk about Jesus bringing social change on earth? Is is possible for him to be both social revolutionary and traditional saviour? 

Ultimately, are liberation theologians teachings on sin and on Jesus authentically Christian or misguided and damaging?

• ESSAY COMPETITIONS
• University Courses

Edexcel IGCSE

• Religious Community

Request Help

• Request IGCSE Help
• God and Creation
• Human Nature
• Knowledge of God
• Interpretation of the Bible
• Person of Christ
• Preferential Option for the Poor
• Land and Environment
• Hermeneutics
• Influence of LT
• Request AS Help
• What is Religion?
• Postmodernity
• Exclusivism
• Inclusivism
• Women in the Bible
• Traditional views on women
• Mulieris Dignitatem
• Secular Liberal Feminism
• Liberal feminist theology
• Reconstructionist Feminism
• Reconstructionist Theology
• Secular Radical/Naturalistic Feminism
• Radical Feminist Theology
• Request A2 Help

A2 Revision

• Essay Advice
• PAST PAPERS (DCT)
• SAMPLE QUESTIONS
• PAST PAPERS (Ethics)

AQA Philosophy AS (new A level)

• Philosophy of religion primary texts

AQA Philosophy A2 (new A level)

• Concept of God

Edexcel website

OCR website

AQA website

A Level Philosophy & Religious Studies

Liberation theology & Marx

OCR Christianity

This page: full notes      A* summary notes       C/B summary notes

Introduction.

Liberation theology is a relatively recent movement in Christianity. This topic is about assessing how valid it is as an expression of Christianity.

Liberation theologians think that the teachings of Jesus included addressing poverty. They also think that Karl Marx’s economic analysis of society showed that addressing poverty requires addressing the structural causes of economic inequality. So, they conclude that Christians ought to address the structural causes of economic inequality.

This challenged traditional Christianity in two ways:

1: Being influenced by atheistic ideologies like Marxism. 2: Claiming that charity was insufficient for living up to Jesus’ teachings and example in helping the poor.

Liberation theology

Liberation theology began in the 1950s and became very popular in the 1960s, especially in Brazil. Young catholic south American theologians claimed that the teachings and example of Jesus show that Christians should work towards addressing poverty in a more systemic way. The traditional approach of the Church to poverty had been charity. Liberation theologians are influenced by Karl Marx, whose economic theory claimed that poverty was caused by exploitation of the working class. Workers are exploited because they do not own the means of production. They are alienated by working on machines/property belonging to someone else for which a minority of the profits actually go to that worker. This causes a lack of investment and identity with their work for the worker which Marx called alienation. Radical change to the structure of the economy was needed, to address the root causes of poverty. Inequality and alienation are caused by the private ownership of the means of production, so people should overthrow that system by political revolution. Marx even thought it was inevitable that this kind of revolution happen.

Liberation theologians think that truly living up to Jesus’ call to address poverty can only be requires taking into account the economic reality of poverty today. If Marx’s analysis of our economic situation is accurate, then a Christian should accept that helping the poor requires not merely easing the symptoms of poverty through charity but addressing its actual causes through structural change to our economy and society. Liberation theologians do not typically accept solutions as radical or revolutionary as Marx proposed, but they do accept that Marx was correct that the solution had to address the structural root causes of economic inequality.

Orthodoxy and Orthopraxis

Traditional theology starts with theological beliefs (orthodoxy) and then prescribes action (Orthopraxis). Liberation theology begins with orthopraxis; prescribing action, and then figures out the orthodoxy. Whatever addresses the structural causes of economic injustice is the right practice and the fitting orthodoxy should then be figured out after that.

The problem with the traditional way of beginning with orthodoxy was that it was out of touch with and disconnected from the practical reality of what actually works to fulfil Jesus’ message to help the poor.

For Libertation theologians the Kingdom of God is about fixing this world, not about the afterlife. Christians should work for justice by fighting exploitation and oppression. Latin America was undeveloped and was facing a choice between continued capitalism or socialism.

Liberation theologian Gutierrez thought there were two kinds of liberation. Firstly, social and economic – fixing the poverty and oppression caused by human action, secondly, liberation from sin by reconciliation with God. Gutierrez thought social and economic liberation should come first and then liberation from sin however Segundo thought it was the other way around since fixing the social and economic injustices of the world might actually be impossible.

Marxism and Christianity

The influence of Marxism on Christianity is controversial because Marx was so against religion. This is a difficulty for liberation theology which is Christian yet influenced by an anti-religious theory.

  Marx’s critique of religion. Marx thought the natural progression of History was that the workers/peasants would one day rise up against their oppressors and claim an equal share of the wealth of society. However, religion stands in the way of this progress since it persuaded the peasants to accept their low place in society because of the lie that they would eventually go to heaven if they just accepted their unequal position. Their belief that they would go to heaven then overrides their desire to change things in this world, delaying the communist revolution. Marx called religion an ‘opiate’. An opiate does two things: dulls pain and also prevents action. Those are the two things Marx thought religion did to control people. Dulling the pain of their life with the promise of heaven and dulling their desire to act to remedy the injustice with the lie that it’s all going to work out in the end in heaven. Religion is therefore about perpetuating the status of those with power. Marx would also point to things like the divine right of kings, the sale of indulgences (having to pay money to be forgiven for sin), the priests would read the bible in Latin to people while it was illegal to own a translation, and the Pope got involved in wars and overthrowing kings and so on.

Arguably liberation theology is actually a valid way for a Christian to respond to Marx’s critique of religion. If Christianity was reformed along liberation theology’s doctrines, it would no longer simply be a tool of capitalist exploitation. So, there is no problem with a Christian movement like liberation theology being influenced by Marx despite his anti-religious arguments since his anti-religious arguments do not apply to liberation theology. It shows that Marx’s critique of religion was of a particular negative form of religion and is thus not a critique of religion in general.

However, liberation theology is controversial within Christianity and isn’t accepted by the catholic Church. Marx’s critique could therefore still be correct about Christianity for the most part.

Guitierrez & Boff on the influence of Marxism

Liberation theologians argue that there is no incoherence for Christians in being influenced by Marx. Their basis for this argument is typically that one can accept Marx’s economic views without accepting his anti-religious views. Gutierrez only accepted Marx’s critique of capitalism, not Marx’s anti-religious views. Liberation theologian L. Boff also agreed with this stance, arguing that liberation theology can draw on Marx’s ‘methodological pointers’ to help understand ‘the role of the oppressed’.

The foundation of Liberation theology is an attempt to faithfully follow Jesus’ teaching to help the poor and the influence of Marx is merely in detailing the method for efficiently achieving that goal. There is nothing antithetical to Christianity about that kind of influence. In fact, it is helping Christians be true to the teachings of Jesus.

A. F. McGovern claims that liberation theologians are not Marxist because they are not atheists nor even materialists. They avoid starting their analysis with class struggle, which is where Marx starts.

Cardinal Ratzinger argued against the influence of liberation theology in Catholicism because of its Marxist influences. He said it should be remembered that atheism and the denial of human rights and freedoms is at the core of Marxism. Marxism is intrinsically unchristian and so Christianity should not use it as a lens to view society. The lessons we should learn from the totalitarian regimes of the 20 th century are that they come to power by violent and revolutionary means “precisely in the name of the liberation of the people”. The result is that those who employ revolutionary politics “betray the poor they mean to help”. Ratzinger said the Catholic Church should help the poor, but in its own way, not in a Marxist way.

Dom Helder Camara, in reaction to the Catholic Church labelling liberation theologians as communists and Marxists:

“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist”.

Camara doesn’t regard himself as a communist and questions the logical consistency of the Church’s view that it’s saintly to give food to the poor but somehow communist to ask why they have no food. Camara is arguing that liberation theology is not connected to the atheistic anti-religious core of Marxist theory. Camara’s point here could even be taken to show that the traditional Church is fulfilling Marx’s critique of religion as serving the interests of the powerful, by refusing to deal with the economic structural causes of poverty.

The preferential option for the poor

The preferential option for the poor refers to the way the Bible and Jesus showed a preference for helping poor people. Jesus said the poor and less fortunate were blessed, especially in the Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount. This suggests that addressing poverty is part of the example for us set by Jesus.

Belief in the preferential option for the poor is a mainstream Christian belief, the controversial question is what obligations it actually places on Christians and Christian Churches & institutions.

Liberation theologians think that Marx’s economic analysis of society shows that addressing poverty requires addressing the structural causes of economic inequality. Segundo, for example, argued that the preferential option for the poor meant that Christians should not be neutral when it comes to injustice and its political causes. The church should fight for the rights of all people but especially the poor, he thought.

Pope John Paul II thought that the preferential option for the poor was an important part of ‘Christian charity’. However, he added that dealing with spiritual poverty was an important focus not just economic poverty. Paul II talks about charity, implying the solution is charity not political action. Spiritual poverty Paul II defined as anything which results from overattachment to superficial material things such as drugs, pornography and ‘other forms of consumerism which exploit the frailty of the weak, tend to fill their resulting spiritual void’. He claimed that the cry for justice and preferential solidarity with the poor was “indispensable”, but that it need not be “mortgaged to ideologies foreign to the faith”.

Criticism of JP II: Charity is not sufficient to address the causes of poverty and it ignores Guitierez’s argument that economic poverty needs to be addressed before spiritual poverty since economic poverty is an impediment to spiritual liberation. Liberation theologians claimed that capitalism has failed the basic needs of people in Latin America, even though the government and business leaders are all Christian. The implication therefore is that Christianity plus capitalism are insufficient and so true Christianity should advocate for something other than mere capitalism.

The Biblical basis for Liberation Theology

Liberation theology is a Christian movement in theology and as such it is founded on the teachings and example of Jesus. It’s validity is thus dependent on its being Biblically supported, which is debated. Jesus certainly said many things that seem anti-wealth, but the question is whether they go as far as justifying liberation theology’s view that Christians should do more than charity by taking a structural approach to dealing with the causes of economic inequality.

Jesus said “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God’ – Matthew 19:24.

“Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where you treasure is, there your heart will be also”. Matthew 6:25-34.

If Jesus is saying give up all your possessions and that there shouldn’t be rich people – that sounds quite anti-capitalist.

Counter interpretation: arguably this at most shows that Jesus thought rich people should give to charity, it doesn’t suggest he wanted to overturn or address the causes of economic oppression/inequality. Kloppenburg , a Catholic Brazilian bishop, makes this point. He first argued that fusing theology and political action diminishes the spiritual message of Christianity. Liberation theology focuses on the injustice and sin in the structure of society, but Jesus spoke about the sin and forgiveness of individual people, he didn’t speak about society in general. There is too much focus on the ability of people to achieve liberation when in fact it comes from God, Kloppenburg argued. Jesus does seem to be pointing out that living for money is bad, but he doesn’t seem to be saying that we should actively try to overthrow the unjust social structures that result from living for money. In fact, when questioned whether Jews should pay an unjust tax, Jesus said yes: ‘give unto Caesar what is Caesers’. That quotes seems to suggest Jesus saw a fundamental disconnect between the human political society and living for God.

Exodus story shows Kloppenberg is wrong: Exodus involved the liberation of Jews from the oppression of the Pharaoh and arguably shows that God is not only concerned about liberation at the individual level. This could be taken to counter Kloppenberg’s argument. God clearly cares about freeing people from social oppression which seems to back up liberation theology. Christianity sees itself as an expansion of the Jewish covenant to all humanity, which would make this quote relevant to all oppressed people.

Biblical evidence against Liberation theology

At his trial, Jesus claimed ‘My kingdom is not of this world’, which seems to suggest that the kingdom of God is unrelated to the politics of kingdoms in this world.

Pope John Paul II draws on this verse, arguing that overly focusing on earthly socio-economic progress is “anthropocentric”, meaning human-focused. This leads to secularization and a lack of genuine spirituality. Focusing on our earthly socio-economic needs seems to inspire a tendency to focus less on our more transcendent spiritual needs and purpose.

This argument also resonates with Jesus’ injunction to build up spiritual treasure in heaven, not treasure on earth, since where our treasure is that is where our heart will be also. Some might interpret that quote as justifying liberation theology, since it is a warning about gaining wealth. However, JP2’s argument also suggesting that a doctrine which focuses on our socio-economic needs, like liberation theology, can also failing to have its heart focused in the right place: the higher spiritual dimension of human life.

“ Nowadays the kingdom is much spoken of, but not always in a way consonant with the thinking of the Church. In fact, there are ideas about salvation and mission which can be called “anthropocentric” in the reductive sense of the word, inasmuch as they are focused on man’s earthly needs. In this view, the kingdom tends to become something completely human and secularized; what counts are programs and struggles for a liberation which is socio-economic, political and even cultural, but within a horizon that is closed to the transcendent. Without denying that on this level too there are values to be promoted, such a notion nevertheless remains within the confines of a kingdom of man, deprived of its authentic and profound dimensions. Such a view easily translates into one more ideology of purely earthly progress. The kingdom of God, however, “is not of this world…is not from the world” – Pope John Paul II.

Reza Azlan argues that this quote is from the gospel of John written 90 years after Jesus’s death, after Christianity had divorced itself from Judaism and became a roman religion. The earlier Gospels present Jesus’s Kingdom as something he was bringing about on earth. Azlan is suggesting this verse was added to de-politicise Jesus so Christianity could better fit into Roman society. The verse thus does not represent who Jesus actually was.

Evaluation of Azlan’s argument. However, Azlan’s conclusion fails. Even if we were to accept Azlan’s argument, there are still so many quotes from Jesus in the earlier written gospels that are just as suggestive of an apolitical attitude.

Luke 12:22-31. Jesus said not to worry about your life, even what you will eat because life is “more than food”. Birds do not farm yet God provides and we are more valuable than them. It shows a lack of faith to worry about these things God provides. “seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.” In Matthew this quote finishes with this statement: “Therefore do not worry about tomorrow”.

Jesus here seems to be against us caring about where someone gets their food, drink or clothes from. In fact, he seems to be saying it is actually a lack of faith to care about those things. Taking no thought for tomorrow  nor asking where food, drink or clothes will come from, which is the state of poverty, seems incompatible with the focus of liberation theology on addressing structural social injustice and oppression. This arguably justifies Marx’s critique of religion as it shows how faith in God is used to distract people from their economic oppression.

Jesus here also seems to contradict Guitierrez’ view that liberation from economic injustice should precede spiritual injustice. Jesus is clear that before dealing with economic concerns you should ‘first’ seek the kingdom of God.

Give unto Caesar. Pharisees attempted to trap Jesus by asking him whether Jews should pay an unjust tax which had been forced onto them by their Roman occupiers. If Jesus had said yes he would have seemed like a sell-out, but if he had said no he could have been arrested. Jesus’ answer was to point out that the coins used to pay the tax have Caesar’s face on them, saying “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is Gods’. This is found in all three synoptic gospels, which were written before the Gospel of John.

This was a clever answer from Jesus. He avoided seeming like a sell-out or traitor to the Jews with his justification that the money is Caesar’s. Ultimately though, he was saying to pay the tax. His reasoning seems to suggest that Jesus saw a fundamental disconnect between religion and political concerns. Even in cases of economic injustice like this tax, Jesus seems to be saying it is not God’s concern. It’s hard to see how Jesus could be considered a political figure aimed at liberating people by changing society. It looks more like the traditional view of Jesus is correct, that he is only the son of God recommending to individual people that they act morally for their salvation.

Defence of liberation theology & the liberator view of Jesus. If enough individuals followed Jesus’ teachings, the economic consequences would be structural. If all rich people gave up their wealth, it would liberate the poor by destroying the structural causes of economic injustice and inequality. It’s true that Jesus never aimed his teachings at socio-economic structures. He did exclusively focus on individuals and their choices. Yet, the outcome of individuals following his teachings is structural change. So, Jesus’ teachings should be seen as aiming at structural socio-economic change and therefore it is valid to see him as a political liberator.

The validity of Marxism

Liberation theology claims that Marx’s analysis of capitalism is useful. Arguments against the validity or usefulness of Marx are therefore be arguments against liberation theology.

The 1968 Medellin document was a manifesto of a new church committed to social and economic transformation. It blamed Latin America’s poverty on its economy of exporting of raw materials and resulting dependency on the richer countries who bought them. This had a Marxist reading of inter-state struggle being a new form of class struggle. However, this economic theory fell out of favour when rich countries like the USA also became a big exporter of raw materials, and furthermore when east Asian countries like Japan and South Korea overcame their extreme poverty by embracing capitalism.

The economy of Latin America in the 1960s was arguably not really capitalist, but precapitalist, because the government still controlled 50-60% of the economy and directly or indirectly was involved in a similar amount of the jobs.

Capitalism in Jesus’ time was much more exploitative, in fact it wasn’t really capitalism but precapitalism. These days, for someone to get rich like Bill Gates, they have to create something that makes peoples lives better so they will pay for it. So because Bill Gates is rich, we all have computers. So perhaps Jesus’ criticism of rich people was meant to be valid only for his time.

Adam Smith was the philosopher most involved in the founding of capitalism. He regarded poverty as unacceptable and unnecessary. Smith’s claim was that human nature involves selfishness, so a capitalist system is the best way to harness that selfishness because to satisfy your selfishness in a capitalist system you have to provide others with products or services which they are willing to pay you for.

The Liberation Theologians arguably view the sins of selfishness and greed as part of a capitalist free market economy and therefore as something which can be overcome. However, capitalists would point out that it is in countries which have the freest markets that you find the freest communities where human rights are upheld and violated less.

In 1960, 70% of the world lived in extreme poverty. In 2012 it dropped to 17%. Capitalists would argue that this shows that capitalism is working after all and that Marxist analysis is based on faulty economics.

On the basis of these arguments, capitalists argue that it is capitalism which is the truly liberating approach. Although it’s not perfect, the desire for perfection is utopian and simply has not worked out well throughout history when you consider the historical consequences of Marxism.

However, income inequality has not improved, in fact it is getting worse, and there is evidence from sociology that economic inequality is destabilizing of society. Therefore, Jesus’ critique of wealth still applies to this day, and liberation theology is justified in drawing on it. Furthermore, new economic issues like globalisation have shown how capitalism actually leads to corporations ruling the world and manipulating the market for their own profits. Smith claimed that market competition will create innovation and economic growth. Yet capitalism has led to globalisation which ironically actually destroys the benefits Adam Smith claimed free-market capitalism would bring by creating monopolies. So, there is still lots of room for anti-capitalist economic theories, despite the success of capitalism during the mid 20 th century.

Possible exam questions for Liberation Theology and Marx

Easy Should Christian theology engage with atheist secular ideologies? Is it right for Christians to prioritise one group over another? ‘Christians have nothing to learn from Marx’ – How far do you agree? Should Christians have a preferential option for the poor?

Medium Does Christianity tackle social issues more effectively than Marxism? How appropriate is liberation theology’s use of Marx to analyse social sin? Should the Church concern itself with ‘structural’ causes of social sin? ‘The Gospel demands that Christians must give priority to the poor’ – Discuss. ‘Christianity has nothing to say about capitalism’ – Discuss. “Marx’s teaching on alienation and exploitation has no relevance for Christianity” – Discuss. How important in Christianity is solidarity with the poor? Should Christians criticise capitalism? What do Christians have to learn from Marx’s concepts of alienation and exploitation?

Hard Has liberation theology engaged with Marxism fully enough? Should orthopraxis occur before orthodoxy? “Capitalism and institutions are the cause of social sin” – Discuss.

Quick links

Year 12 Christianity topics: Augustine. Death & afterlife. Knowledge of God’s existence. Person of Jesus. Christian moral principles. Christian moral action.

Year 13 Christianity topics: Pluralism & theology. Pluralism & society. Gender & society. Gender & theology. Secularism. Liberation theology. 

OCR Ethics OCR Philosophy OCR essay structure OCR list of possible exam questions

Skip to content

Get Revising

Join get revising, already a member, jesus as a political liberator.

• Religious Studies
• Christianity
• Created by: hollylouisee.x
• Created on: 09-05-19 10:57
• a Messiah is the person the Jews believe would come and save the Jews and lead them to victory over the Romans
• many parts of the Bible demonstrate Jesus as a confrontational figure, e.g. when he cast out the money changers from the temple
• it has been suggested Jesus was a criminal as he was crucified next to other criminals. this is because he broke the Roman law
• he healed a blind man with a mixture of mud and saliva which represents him breaking the Jewish law in an unclean way
• Jesus challenged religious authority - his teachings of the Sabbath day went against that of contemporary times, such as the Pharisees criticisms of the temples which led to conflict
• "Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace and be healed of your affliction"
• Gustavo Guiterrez: religion should be used to help the poor in order to make their lives better and give them a chance to get into heaven
• he did not accept or use the political title himself
• he emphasised peace
• he spoke of a spiritual kingdom of god rather than a wordly one
• "give to Caesar what is Caesar's. Give to God what is God's"
• Judas may have betrayed Jesus because he was not radical enough to be a Zealot
• the church might only emphasise Jesus as the Son of God rather than a political leader for their own benefit
• shows Jesus believe in social unrest with benefits rather than social stability where people still struggled
• "Blessed are the peacemakers"
• "Jesus Christ is the liberator who seeks to be committed to the economical, social and political liberation of those groups that are oppressed and dominated"
• "love thy neighbour as yourself"
• Jesus as a political liberator engages him in the world
• liberation and salvation become the same thing because they both involve struggle and conflict which, although may be fear, is not ignored
• Jesus was more politically driven than later writers like to portray
• Zealots are Jews who called for violent revolution
• However Jesus told them to put the daggers down which suggests he was not a Zealot
• reason 2: his arrival to Jerusalem may have been deliberately organised to show him as the new Messiah
• reason 3: the Romans put him on a cross and put a crown of thorns on his head suggesting he was the leader of a political group against the Romans in power. they may have done this to ridicule him or as a warning
• links to Immanuel Kant

Report Tue 11th May, 2021 @ 11:07

how do u see the full overview of all she has written 

Related discussions on The Student Room

• Could Someone Mark My Essay Please? - Constructive Criticism OCR RS Alevel »
• OCR A-Level Religious Studies Paper 3 (H573/03) 26th June 2023 [Exam Chat] »
• OCR Religious Studies A Level Predictions »
• Political Quiz: Are you a fascist? »
• Gcse aqa rs »
• RS A level OCR Past questions DCT »
• OCR RS Alevel 2022 »
• Geert Wilders's far-right PVV wins most seats in Dutch election »
• GCSE AQA RS 2023 Question »
• how does it influence christians/buddhists »

Similar Religious Studies resources:

The Person of Jesus Christ 4.0 / 5 based on 1 rating

Jesus teacher and liberator 0.0 / 5

DCT 0.0 / 5

Jesus - theology OCR Religious studies A2 4.5 / 5 based on 3 ratings

The Person of Jesus Christ 0.0 / 5

Jesus Christ 5.0 / 5 based on 1 rating

The Person of Jesus 4.5 / 5 based on 2 ratings

Jesus the Liberator 0.0 / 5

Quest for the Historical jesus 2.0 / 5 based on 2 ratings

The person of Jesus Christ 5.0 / 5 based on 1 rating

• Find Flashcards
• Why It Works
• Tutors & resellers
• Content partnerships
• Teachers & professors
• Employee training

Brainscape's Knowledge Genome TM

Entrance exams, professional certifications.

• Foreign Languages
• Medical & Nursing

Humanities & Social Studies

Mathematics, health & fitness, business & finance, technology & engineering, food & beverage, random knowledge, see full index, 2.to what extent was jesus merely a political liberator flashcards preview, dct > 2.to what extent was jesus merely a political liberator > flashcards.

• Jesus can be seen as liberator, wisdom teacher or the son of God
• Liberator – someone who frees a person or group of people
• He was more than a liberator to a great extent

paragraph 1

• Zealots – freedom fighters used violence to attempt to rid Palestine of the romans – Simon was a Zealot
• Jesus link to Zealots can be argued to link to him a political liberator
• SUCCESSFUL – he challenged the political authority
• Jesus teaching of the Kingdom of God and being in a future when God will rule can be seen as political – suggests that the power would be taken away from those with authority – God would be the central focus of society and not laws but would be based on love

paragraph 2

• NOT SUCCESSFUL
• He was not merely a political liberator – at the very least he can also be seen as a religious liberator – his main focus was on the interpretation of religion that had been made by politics – for example sermon on the mount, focusing on what you should do and follow in the bible (what the pharisees had got wrong – praying loudly on street corners to be heard)
• This can be seen to make him more of a wisdom teacher than a liberator – through his teachings of wisdom he enabled the liberation of people whether it was on a religious or political level
• His teaching where much more spiritual than political – the teachings of the kingdom of God ‘My Kingdom is not from this world’ – more spiritual in his authority

paragraph 3

• ON THE OTHER HAND
• Jesus came to free people from themselves which can be seen as a move that would be made by a liberator – he wanted to make society better for people as politics made life worse
• His work was around being a political liberator
• Helped to liberate the outcasts in society as one of his main things – looking out for people and helping them – not a violent/ zealot behaviour
• IN ADDITION
• In regards to Jesus and his disciples being a zealot – Jesus said ‘live by the sword die by the sword’ – a very pacifist statement
• As well his disciples where not arrested alongside Jesus – they would have been seen as more of a threat if they were part of a revolution and zealots hoping for power and political liberation
• Jesus was not a political liberator
• He can be seen as more of a wisdom teacher talking of the bible which lead to religious liberation – helping people follow religion correctly and teaching of God – not creating a revolution and uprising against politicians of the time

Decks in DCT Class (19):

• Essay There Is No Other Means Of Salvation Than Christ
• Essay An All Loving God Would Not Deny Anyone The Chance Of Salvation
• Essay All Good People Should Be Saved Regardless Of Faith
• Chapter 11 Pluralsim And Theology Notes
• Exclusivism
• Inclusivism
• Cmp Essay Plan
• Knowledge Of God’s Existence
• The Person Of Jesus
• Moral Principles
• Moral Actions
• Pluralism And Society
• Gender And Theology
• Gender Key Terms
• 1. ‘Bonhoeffer’s Theology Is Still Relevant Today.’ Discuss
• 2.To What Extent Was Jesus Merely A Political Liberator?
• 3. Assess The View That A Christian Can Be A Theological Pluralist
• Corporate Training
• Teachers & Schools
• Android App
• Help Center
• Law Education
• All Subjects A-Z
• All Certified Classes
• Earn Money!

• International
• Schools directory
• Resources Jobs Schools directory News Search

To what extent was Jesus merely a political liberator? [40]

Subject: Religious education

Age range: 16+

Resource type: Assessment and revision

Last updated

23 March 2022

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

OCR A LEVEL RELIGIOUS STUDIES THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST FULL MARKED ESSAY

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

Exam Questions – Person of Christ

July 27, 2018.

Here is my list of possible future exam questions on this area of the specification. Notice how Q3 overlaps with LiberationTheology and Q6 with Christian Moral Principles. You should plan answers to these questions carefully and practise writing one or two. It’s highly likely that a question on this area of the specification will be close to one of these. If you need further help, or require regular tuition, please contact me – I have online tutors ready and able to help now at a fair hourly rate. I will be posting at least one fully marked answer on the website during the autumn. The question set in June 2018 (which cannot appear again) was: ‘To what extent was Jesus merely a political liberator?

• “There is no evidence to suggest that Jesus thought of himself as divine.” Discuss.
• To what extent can Jesus be regarded as no more than a teacher of wisdom?
• “Jesus’ role was just to liberate the poor and weak against oppression.” Discuss.
• Assess the view that the miracles prove Jesus was the Son of God.
• “Jesus Christ is not unique.” Discuss.
• To what extent was Jesus just a teacher of morality?

Study with us

Practise Questions 2020

Religious Studies Guides – 2020

Check out our great books in the Shop

Leave a Reply Cancel

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .