Vidal v. Girard and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State Debate

Was the United States founded as a Christian nation?  This question has occupied a place in my mind for more than a decade and has motivated me to spend countless hours researching a plethora of fascinating material.  I doubt I will ever reach a fulfilling resolution to this question but if I were to give my best answer today, I would say America was NOT founded as a Christian nation.  Having said that, I would also feel compelled to add that Judeo-Christian beliefs and teachings most certainly played a role -- and not some side show role -- in bringing to pass the founding of this nation.  Put another way, I believe America was PLANTED by Christian principles, but the tree which sprouted on this continent became something different.  Something better.  The "separation of church and state" that ensued was meant to STRENGTHEN both religion and government, not make them bitter enemies of one another.

This "wall" separating church and state is not, in my opinion, some impenetrable shield forever separating God from country.  Instead, I believe the wall of separation between church and state is best understood when compared to a human cell.  The semi-permeable membrane of our cells allows for the fluid (but also controlled) movement of material between the outside and inside of the cell.  Such is the case with the separation of church and state in America.  When one looks at history, the semi-permeable nature of the church/state wall becomes self-evident.  There has simply been too much fluid movement (usually controlled movement) between the worlds of religion and government for us to call this division an actual wall.

Over the years, supporters of the "Christian Nation" thesis, along with their more secular opponents, have appealed to various forms of evidence to support their respective camp.  One of those forms of evidence has been Supreme Court cases from the past.  Today I want to take a deep dive into my favorite Supreme Court case, which regularly seems to pop up in "Christian Nation" apologetic material, and I believe best supports my view of the church/state wall actually behaving more like the human cell.  

------------------------------------------------------------

The day after Christmas of 1831, Stephen Girard, a French immigrant who resided in Philadelphia, passed away at the age of 81.  Girard was a banker and philanthropist who had amassed an incredible fortune that made him the richest man at that time in the United States (some historians have argued that Girard was the 4th wealthiest American ever, when inflation is considered, behind John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt and John Jacob Aster).  Girard was also a widower who had no children.  As a result, Girard elected to leave a large portion of his fortune to the City of Philadelphia.  In his will, Girard wished for the City of  Philadelphia to establish an orphanage/college for "poor male white orphans." In addition, Girard's will carried a clause which called for the complete ban on the Bible and Bible readings in the orphanage, along with a ban on every type of religious minister: 

I enjoin and require that no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever, shall ever hold or exercise any station or duty whatever in the said college; nor shall any such person ever be admitted for any purpose, or as a visitor, within the premises appropriated to the purposes of the said college.

On the surface Girard's request for a ban on religious ministers and the Bible itself seems incredibly judgmental and capricious.  This is an understandable conclusion, especially when we discover that Girard was somewhat hostile to religion throughout his life.  Before passing judgement, however, there is some important historical context we should consider.

The Bible Wars: Catholics v. Protestants 

The 19th century was a period of extreme growth in the United States.  The swell of European immigrants, particularly large numbers of Irish Catholics, during the 19th century, sparked a fire of anti-Catholic sentiment that consumed large segments of the American populace to include Philadelphia.   During the first decades of the 19th century, Catholic churches and clergy grew at an exponential rate. Protestants reacted by inciting discord within their ranks.  Catholics responded to this growing disapproval of their faith by mounting an attack of their own.  The strife that ensued divided American Christians on fundamental doctrinal issues.  In addition, this division caused both Protestant and Catholic adherents to double down on their faith.  All of this tension proved to be the ideal breeding ground for paranoia and conspiracy that captured the minds of even some of America's best and brightest.  For example, Samuel F. B. Morse, inventor of the telegraph and head of the American Protestant Union, argued that Catholic immigrants were part of a plot (on the part of the Pope) to convert America and lay the groundwork for the Catholic domination of the New World.

This Protestant/Catholic battle eventually found its way into America's schools.  In Philadelphia these schools were controlled by the Protestant majority, who insisted that their religious views take center stage as part of the regular school curriculum.  Catholics tried to respond to this action by establishing schools of their own, where Catholic beliefs could be taught and practiced without opposition.  This effort proved to be extremely limited in its impact, since the church could only establish a very limited number of schools.  As a consequence, most Catholic students, who wanted an education, were required to attend schools dominated by Protestant teachings.

One of the most divisive aspects of this conflict came in the form of the Bible.  Since Protestants dominated Philadelphia, they naturally wanted their children to grow up reading the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible.  As a result, the KJV was the standard religious text of the overwhelming majority of schools in the region.  Naturally, Catholics opposed the KJV and demanded that their children be allowed to read from the Douay Bible.  Bishop Francis Patrick Kenrick, who served as the third Bishop of Philadelphia, wrote to Philadelphia school authorities on this problem, stating:

Teachers shall read and cause to be read, The Bible; by which is understood the version published by command of King James. To this regulation we are forced to object, inasmuch as Catholic children are led to view as authoritative [the King James Version] which is rejected by the Church....We do not ask you to adopt the Catholic version for general use; but we feel warranted in claiming that our conscientious scruples to recognize or use the other, be respected....The consciences of Catholics are also embarrassed by the mode of opening and closing the School exercises which... is by the singing of some hymn, or by prayer. It is not consistent with the laws and discipline of the Catholic Church for her members to unite in religious exercises with those who are not of their communion.   

Catholics were quick to point out that their taxes were being used to support Protestant schools that taught Protestant beliefs from Protestant scripture; an injustice they simply couldn't stomach.  Eventually these Catholic protests found their way to the sympathetic ear of William Henry Seward (the same W.H. Seward who would one day serve as Secretary of State to Abraham Lincoln) who stated:

The children of foreigners, found in great numbers in our populous cities and towns, and in the vicinity of our public works, are too often deprived of the advantages of our system of public education, in consequence of prejudices arising from differences of language or religion...I do not hesitate, therefore, to recommend the establishment of schools in which they may be instructed by teachers speaking the same language with themselves and professing the same faith.

To make a long story short, this division between Catholics and Protestants eventually led to violence.  In what is known as the Philadelphia Bible Riots, citizens of Philadelphia (overwhelmingly Protestant) took up arms and attacked predominantly Irish Catholic neighborhoods, resulting in bloodshed.  Eventually military force was required to quell the rioters.  Ultimately these riots were the culmination of a decade-long feud between Protestants and Catholics over a number of social issues.  The battle over the Bible was the final tipping point that sparked violence.

Now let us return to the story of Stephen Girard and his fortune.  Keeping in mind the fierce division between Catholics and Protestants at the time of his death one can understand why Girard felt that a Bible/minister free orphanage might be advantageous.  It wasn't that Girard disapproved of a particular creed or denomination.  Instead Girard likely felt disdain for the violence and hostility he saw in his community because of religious intolerance.  From Girard's will:

I enjoin and require that no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever, shall ever hold or exercise any station or duty whatever in the said college; nor shall any such person ever be admitted for any purpose, or as a visitor, within the premises appropriated to the purposes of the said college.

[...]

In making this restriction, I do not mean to cast any reflection upon any sect or person whatsoever; but, as there is such a multitude of sects, and such a diversity of opinion amongst them, I desire to keep the tender minds of the orphans, who are to derive advantage from this bequest, free from the excitement which clashing doctrines and sectarian controversy are so apt to produce; my desire is, that all the instructors and teachers in the college shall take pains to instil into the minds of the scholars the purest principles of morality, so that, on their entrance into active life, they may, from inclination and habit, evince benevolence towards their fellow-creatures, and a love of truth, sobriety, and industry, adopting at the same time such religious tenets as their matured reason may enable them to prefer.

Enter the Supreme Court

As is the case with most who leave a large fortune, the extended relatives of Girard, some still residing in France, wanted a piece of the pie.  The argument became intense enough that eventually the Supreme Court chose to deal with the matter.  The Girard family hired attorney Daniel Webster, former Senator and Secretary of State to Presidents Harrison and Tyler, while Horace Binney represented the City of Philadelphia.

The case essentially centered on two key issues: first, could the Corporation of the City of Philadelphia take real property and act as trust in the same manner as a private individual?  The second issue dealt with whether or not Girard's will violated the laws of Pennsylvania, particularly as it related to the issue of ministers being banned from the college.  In other words, did Girard's will create an institution (the orphanage) that was specifically hostile to the Christian faith?

Daniel Webster focused most of his energies on this second issue.  In his mind, Girard's will did violate Pennsylvania law and common law because it suggested that sectarian differences within Christianity meant the entire Christian institution was a waste.  Webster stated:

[T]his objection to the multitude and differences of sects is but the old story—the old infidel argument. It is notorious that there are certain great religious truths which are admitted and believed by all Christians. All believe in the existence of a God. All believe in the immortality of the soul. All believe in the responsibility, in another world, for our conduct in this. All believe in the divine authority of the New Testament...And cannot all these great truths be taught to children without their minds being perplexed with clashing doctrines and sectarian controversies?  Most certainly they can.

Webster's defense of Christianity favored Protestant, Catholic and everyone in between, and his defense of all ministers took on an almost patriotic feel:

Sir, I take it upon myself to say, that in no country in the world, upon either continent, can there be found a body of ministers of the gospel who perform so much service to man, in such a full spirit of self-denial, under so little encouragement from government of any kind, and under circumstances, always much straitened and often distressed, as the ministers of the gospel in the United States, of all denominations!

Webster then took his attack to Girard himself:

No fault can be found with Girard for wishing a marble college to bear his name, but it is not valuable unless it has a fragrance of Christianity about it. The reasons which the testator gives are objectionable and derogatory to Christianity; they assume that a difference of opinion upon some religious tenets is of more importance than a Christian education. 

Binney's rebuttal was to predictably point out that the differences between denominations were there for a reason.  It would be utter foolishness to assume that representatives of these different sects would not favor their own beliefs:

If any clergyman was to be admitted, he would of course teach the doctrines of his own church. No two sects would agree. Some would adopt one part of the Bible, some another. If they agreed as to what was to be left out as apocryphal, they would differ about the translation of the rest. The Protestant would not receive the Douay Bible. See the difficulties that exist in New York about the introduction of the Bible as a school-book.

In the end, the court ruled in favor of Girard (or better put, the City of Philadelphia).  The Supreme Court stated that a corporation could in fact receive real property willed to its trust and effectively execute the terms of a will as easily as a private individual.  On the issue of Girard's will violating Pennsylvania and common law, Justice Joseph Story, writing for the court, stated:

It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania. But this proposition is to be received with its appropriate qualifications, and in connection with the bill of rights of that state, as found in its constitution of government. The constitution of 1790, (and the like provision will, in substance, be found in the constitution of 1776, and in the existing constitution of 1838,) expressly declares, "That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship." Language more comprehensive for the complete protection of every variety of religious opinion could scarcely be used; and it must have been intended to extend equally to all sects, whether they believed in Christianity or not, and whether they were Jews or infidels. 

[...]

Is an omission to provide for instruction in Christianity in any scheme of school or college education a fatal defect, which avoids it according to the law of Pennsylvania? If the instruction provided for is incomplete and imperfect, is it equally fatal? These questions are propounded, because we are not aware that any thing exists in the constitution or laws of Pennsylvania, or the judicial decisions of its tribunals, which would justify us in pronouncing that such defects would be so fatal. Let us take the case of a charitable donation to teach poor orphans reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, and navigation, and excluding all other studies and instruction; would the donation be void, as a charity in Pennsylvania, as being deemed derogatory to Christianity?...It has hitherto been thought sufficient, if he does not require any thing to be taught inconsistent with Christianity.

Looking to the objection therefore in a mere juridical view, which is the only one in which we are at liberty to consider it, we are satisfied that there is nothing in the devise establishing the college, or in the regulations and restrictions contained therein, which are inconsistent with the Christian religion, or are opposed to any known policy of the state of Pennsylvania. (my emphasis).

In short, the court ruled that though Girard's will specifically forbade ministers of all denominations from teaching or even visiting the orphanage/college, it did not attack or persecute the Christian religion.  In other words, the court recognized that the wall of separation between church and state was not some absolute, impenetrable barrier but instead the semi-permeable membrane I mentioned above.  The court was quick to point out that Christianity was not only a part of American heritage but was also a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.  At the same time, the court was just as quick to defend Girard's will on the grounds that no Christian discrimination had been made by his ban on Christian ministers.  The Church/State cell membrane allowed the stream of Christian belief to seep into the American cell but prevented favoring specific sectarian parasites, thus protecting the delicate American cell from becoming cancerous.   

It should come as no surprise to those familiar with the arguments of both the Christian Nation apologists and their secularist opponents why this case would resonate with their respective opinions. Christian Nation advocates like David Barton and Robert Jeffress are quick to site the words of Justice Story, who in his ruling called America a "Christian country" and proclaimed Christianity to be a part of common law.  On the flip side, skeptics love to remind everyone that the court ultimately ruled in favor of Girard, upholding the orphanage's planned ban on Christian ministers.  But in their quest to out-quote the opposition both sides reveal the fundamental flaws of their respective positions.

The truth of the matter is Supreme Court decisions don't happen in a vacuum.  There are many influences that determine the outcome of a case.  Even though the court ultimately upheld Girard, they did not establish a precedent that outlawed religion entirely.  Instead the court discriminated on what it allowed to cross the semi-permeable church/state cell membrane.  As one historian put it, "Vidal was the Supreme Court's very first case dealing with the role of religion in the public schools, and it laid the foundation for an accommodationist view of the religion clauses." 

Simply put, Vidal v. Girard illustrates just how complex the issue of religion and government, church and state can become. For me personally, it underscores the importance that both religion and government have in our fine American republic.  The semi-permeable church/state barrier is one that we need to protect, for it is very delicate.  Allowing ourselves to stray too far into the "Christian Nation" or secularist camps could yield terrible consequences and destroy this beautiful barrier that has protected both religion and government for almost three centuries.  

Jeff Sessions and the Interpretation of Romans 13

Last week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions made news when he referenced the Bible to defend the immigration policy of the Trump Administration.  Sessions stated:

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order...Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves and protect the weak and lawful.”

First off, I have no desire to debate immigration policy so you can rest easy in knowing that this post will not be political in nature.  Instead I am more interested in addressing Sessions' reference to the Book of Romans (chapter 13 to be specific) and the unique role this particular chapter of the Bible has played over the years.

Paul and Romans in Brief Historical Context

If we want to understand why Romans 13 has been such a controversial piece of Christian scripture we must first understand why Paul wrote it to begin with.  Most scholars agree that Paul authored Romans sometime between the years 55 and 58.  As its title suggests, Paul wrote this epistle to the "Christians" who were living in the city of Rome.  (I hesitate to use the word "Christian" because it is anachronistic to this time period.  It would be better to say "Jesus followers" or something similar.  In the interest of simplicity, however, I will continue to use the word Christian).

So what was happening in Rome that inspired Paul to write to the Roman Christians in the first place?  In the year 49, just a few short years before Paul wrote his letter, Emperor Claudius expelled all Jews from the city of Rome, due to what the Roman officials called "instigation of disturbances" among the people.  Shortly thereafter, Claudius was killed by Agrippina, his wife, in the year 54.  Long story short, Nero, the son of Agrippina, rose to power.  At first, Nero's reign was one of peace and prosperity.  Nero allowed the Jews to return to Rome and inaugurated a short era of peace and prosperity that permeated the Roman Capital.

As we all know, this period of prosperity didn't last, and Nero eventually became a degenerate who persecuted Christians to the point of death.  For Paul and his fellow Christians, this was a dark time, and Paul was certainly no fan of Nero. So why would Paul write to the Romans and tell them to submit to Nero's leadership or potentially face the wrath of God?

What we must recognize is that Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans BEFORE the persecutions of Nero had begun.  This is significant because when we read the words of chapter 13 we must keep in mind that Paul was writing during the brief period of peace and prosperity at the beginning of Nero's reign.  When we are mindful of this fact, the verses that Jeff Sessions (and many others) quote from scripture have a very different interpretation.

1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. (Romans 13: 1-7)

Paul was not writing to a group of persecuted Christians living under the yoke of a dictatorial psychopath.  He was writing to Christians who were being given (albeit temporarily) an opportunity to thrive.  The last thing Paul wanted these new Christians to do was to create waves or even appear to oppose the new regime.  By all accounts it seemed that a new era of tolerance was upon all of Rome, and the Christians stood to benefit from it in a big way.  Why would anyone dare resist it?  Paul, like any leader, would have wanted his people to submit to such a leader.  Why wouldn't this be the will of God?

Romans 13 Over the Years

Jeff Sessions is far from the first person to reference Romans 13 as support for a political agenda.  Over the years Romans 13 has been used to oppose everything from the American Revolution to the Civil Rights movement.  Jeff Sessions referencing this chapter of the Bible is simply par for the course when it comes to politicians wielding scripture like a weapon.  As Historian John Fea put it:

America was built and born on rebellion and a sort of radical resistance to authority.  Whenever Romans 13 was used in the 18th and the 19th century — and Sessions seems to be doing the same thing, so in this sense there is some continuity — it’s a way of manipulating the scriptures to justify your own political agenda.

Romans 13 was used by Loyalist colonists to oppose the cause of American Independence.  Romans 13 was used by slave-holding Confederates as doctrinal justification to own slaves (interestingly enough, these were the same Confederates who ended up breaking with the Union.  Funny how Romans 13 could be used to justify slavery but not to oppose a break with the Union).  Romans 13 was even used in Hitler's Germany by pro-Nazi Christians to inspire support of the German Furor.  Heck, some have argued (convincingly so) that Romans 13 was Adolf Hitler's favorite chapter of the Bible.  Over at my other blog, American Creation, the topic of how Romans 13 has been interpreted by a plethora of different people with different agendas is so long that I quit counting at 36 posts.

Romans 13 is, like so many other parts of scripture, a unique tool that can be used to add credence to almost any agenda.  Paul's words can be twisted to fit just about any issue, from opposing American independence in the 18th century to justifying immigration policy in the 21st century.  The fact that these words come from the Bible is why so many are both pleased and pissed with Sessions today.  Having said that, Sessions' tactic is neither unique nor particularly convincing from a purely historical perspective.  Simply put, Romans 13 has been used to justify/oppose everything under the sun.  To call something the "will of God" by appealing to this particular chapter of the Bible is like trying to kick water uphill.

In conclusion, the Apostle Paul was not attempting in Romans 13 to write out a manifesto for Church-State relations that would stand for the next two or three millennia.  Instead, Paul's concern was pastoral and local. Paul was worried about his little band of Christians in a foreign land.  Paul was advising his followers to be loyal to a regime that was, at the very least, happy to stay our of the way of the Christians. Jeff Sessions is simply wrong when he assumes that this part of the Bible supports his argument on immigration.  It does not.  Like so many before him, who have also used this Bible chapter to support their respective cause, Sessions is simply acting like a politician, not a historian or theologian.  My guess is the Apostle Paul would want Sessions to leave him out of this whole mess because he had bigger fish to fry.

Jewish Zealots of the First Century

In last week's blog post I referenced how the origin of Judas' epithet (Iscariot) has been debated by scholars, and its possible correlation to first-century Jewish Zealotry.  In response, a good friend of mine posed an excellent question on my Facebook wall:

You mention that Judas was an extremist zealot.  I wonder why Jesus would have included such a figure to his party of  Twelve disciples if this were the case.  Could you explain?

My friend expounded upon this question in a follow up message:

 I guess it just seems weird to think of a character like Jesus associating with individuals who could be considered religious extremists.

Excellent question. The main issue at play here isn't that Jesus potentially added religious extremists to his group of twelve disciples.  The issue is that the ancient and modern worlds are dramatically different from one another.  I simply did not explain this fact very well in my post on Judas.  I hope to remedy that mistake today.

From the perspective of the modern world a religious zealot (small "z") is akin to a terrorist bomber, or at the very least somebody who accepts the word of scripture to the studies of science.  For Jews of Late Antiquity, to be a Zealot (large "Z") was something different entirely.  To better explain this important distinction let's take a ride into the past.

Imagine if you will that we have arrived at Twin Pines Mall at 1:00 a.m. to meet the great Dr. Emmett Brown. There we see Michael J. Fox (Marty McFly), sitting in the driver's seat of a DeLorean that will catapult us into the past.  Marty inputs the year "30" into the time computer with a destination that reads "Judea."  We sit back as the car rockets to a speed of 88 miles per hour.  The Flux Capacitor works its magic and...PRESTO!  We find ourselves magically teleported to a random Jewish community of the first-century.  One of our companions on this trip is a modern day Evangelical Christian (he just happens to be fluent in Aramaic so we can communicate with the locals) who insists that our first order of business is to track down some fellow Christians, in the hopes that they might be able to direct us to Jesus and his traveling band of twelve disciples.

Suddenly we discover a massive problem.  No, the problem isn't that the DeLorean couldn't have gone 88 MPH to begin with (though that would be an issue).  The real dilemma comes when our Evangelical friend begins asking locals, "Where can I find fellow Christians?"

"Christians?" Reply the locals.  "What is that?"

From behind us we hear Dr. Brown mumble under his voice, "Great Scott! Christianity is anachronistic in the first century."

"Anachronistic?"  Replies our Evangelical friend.  "I don't understand.  Tell me more?"

I'm glad you asked.

The word "anachronism" means something or someone that is outside of its correct historical or chronological timeline.  For instance, the following picture would be considered anachronistic for obvious reasons:

Abe Lincoln holding an iPhone is akin to Jews of the first century knowing what a "Christian" was.  It's a foreign concept for that particular time.  This is significant when we discuss the Zealot movement of the first century because we must seek to understand historical people and events on THEIR terms, without injecting modern concepts into the past.  So when we read of ancient zealots/zeal, we must seek to understand how they (of the past) defined that term.  To inject a modern definition of religious zealotry/zeal onto the past would be as anachronistic as Lincoln with an iPhone.  Perhaps it isn't as obvious but the anachronism is the same.  This must be our starting point, long before the DeLorean has arrived in ancient Judea.

Two things stand out to us as we continue our quest to find "Christians" in ancient Judea.  First is the ever-present reminder that Rome, the empire of all ancient empires, is very much in charge.  Second is the fact that local Jews, though accepting of their Roman occupation, are anything but pleased with the current state of affairs.  And though the Jews were anything but thrilled with their Roman overlords, living under the rule of Caesar wasn't all bad.  For example, Roman society admired and even approved of the Jewish faith.  Jews received a special exemption from having to pay homage to Caesar on account of their very old (even by this time) religious traditions.  This is another surprising difference from our world today.  In the modern world we typically give greater credibility to the newest innovation or technology, whereas the exact opposite was true of the ancient world.  This played into the hands of the Jews because the ancient nature of their faith made it more credible to their Roman overseers.  As a result, they were given more freedom of religion than many of their neighbors.

But not everything was well in Zion.  As we make our way though the various small towns/communities of Judea we quickly take note of the many subgroups of devout Jews, each providing its own interpretation on how the One True God expects His commandments to be interpreted and followed.  Groups like the Essenes (fathers of the Dead Sea Scrolls), Pharisees and yes, our Zealot friends, are seen passionately advocating for their respective interpretation of the law. Each of these groups is well versed in the Torah, spending virtually every day since childhood in remembrance of their all-important Jewish heritage.  Despite this shared emphasis on Jewish heritage, each group is at odds with one another in many respects.  Essenes are furious with the Jewish aristocracy and eventually separate themselves from society, while the Zealots are quick to remind everyone that Jewish freedom is a matter of both spiritual purity and absolute fidelity to the Law.  Historian N.T. Wright expounds upon this point when he writes:

The tradition of "zeal" is part of the freedom story...There were brief flashes of glorious history: David beating the Philistines, Solomon teaching wisdom to the whole world.  That's how it was supposed to be.  But clinging to this story meant struggling to retain hope in the face of experience.  Long ages of disappointment and disaster seemed to be the norm: ten tribes lost, and the remaining two dragged off into captivity, weeping by the waters of Babylon.  

Why did this happen?  The prophets made it clear.  It was because Israel sinned.  That was the deal God established in the first place: "Now that I've rescued you, stay loyal to me and you'll live in the land.  Turn away from me, worship other gods, and I'll kick you out" (Pp. 30).

In other words, absolute obedience and fidelity were the only surefire way to safeguard Israel's continued prosperity and protection.  For the Jewish Zealot, ensuring that fellow Jews understood this mantra and fell in line was akin to David slaying Goliath.  Complacency had no place among God's chosen people.  The scriptures were full of examples of the kind of "zeal" that was to be emulated by all Jews who sincerely sought to defend God's one true path.  Whether it be the tale of Phinehas, grandson of Aaron, who slew with a javelin a man caught a-whoring with a Moabite woman in a tent (Numbers 25: 1-9), or the Prophet Elijah, who successfully lured the worshipers of Baal into a showdown with Israel's God (1 Kings: 18 and 19), the message was the same: those who stand to defend the One True God, with zeal, can be counted with the ranks of Israel's greatest heroes.

But our Evangelical friend doesn't care about "Zealots."  As he quickly reminds us, we aren't on this voyage to hang out with Jews.  We are here to track down the followers of Jesus.  Surely they would have nothing to do with these Jewish radicals!

This is where the story gets messy.  What our Evangelical friend fails to recognize is that the earliest followers of Jesus saw themselves NOT as Christians (as explained above, this is anachronistic to the time), but rather as devout Jews who saw in Jesus fulfillment of the prophecy regarding the coming of the Messiah.  Jewish Zealots were not exempt from this belief.  They too longed for the coming of the Messiah who would save God's people from the bondage that seemed to surround them.  Men like Simon (the Zealot) and (as mentioned in my post from last week) Judas, found in Jesus the fulfillment of the Messianic prophesy.

The best example of Jewish Zealotry is found in Saul of Tarsus.  The man who would eventually become one of the most zealous defenders of the risen Christ was originally a Zealot who saw in the earliest followers of Jesus the same perversion that Phinheas had seen in his day.  This helps us to understand why Saul was more than happy to persecute (in his mind it was no persecution but righteous zeal) men like St Stephen, who was stoned to death for his "blasphemy."  After his conversion experience, Saul (Paul) reminds us that he was a successful Jew precisely because he was "more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers" than others (Galatians 1: 14)  Paul's devotion to Zealotry was the motivation for both his hatred of, and later conversion to, the Jesus movement.  The same can be said of Judas but in reverse.     

In conclusion, Zealotry was not some word meant to simply emphasize a person's devotion to Jesus or Judaism.  It was a movement that invoked a religious, political and social passion for change.  Those Zealots who found in Jesus the fulfillment of the Jewish Messianic prophecy used that passion to vehemently defend the cause of Christ (Paul) or oppose it (Judas), even to the death.  Thanks to Dr. Brown and Marty McFly, our journey back in time has helped us to better understand the truth.

Now if we could only get a hold of that sports almanac and make some money!

Next blog post: Was Jesus a Zealot?

Why Did Judas Betray Jesus?

It has been over a year since I last wrote on this silly little blog.  To be honest, I simply grew bored with it.  In recent weeks, however, I have felt a desire to rekindle the hobby.  Only time will tell if this new flame lasts or burns out as quickly as it sparked. 

For those who know me, you know that I have a deep love of history.  Ever since my childhood I have maintained an interest in the past.  My dad, who was himself a history buff, was the first person to inspire my interest in the study of history.  Since then I have made the study of history an important part of my life (it even became my chosen area of study in college).

And though there are a myriad of fascinating eras/events/people worthy of study, two particular historical periods have served to capture my interest more than any other: early colonial American history and first-century Christianity.  Today I hope to discuss an important event from the latter.

All of us who attended Sunday School are familiar with the story of Judas Iscariot, the apostle of Jesus who eventually betrayed him to Jewish officials.  In a nutshell (depending on which Gospel account you read), Judas betrayed Jesus because he was inspired of the devil (John 6:70-71) and/or because he caved to the monetary temptation that was thirty pieces of silver (Matthew 26:14-16).  Interestingly enough, Jewish law mandated that thirty pieces of silver be the compensation for a slave's life (see Exodus 21:32).  In addition to these Bible accounts, we can and should consider what the Gospel of Judas (a late 2nd-century Gnostic account discovered in the 1970s) has to say on the matter.

Keeping these accounts in mind, can we reasonably reconstruct a motive for Judas' infamous betrayal of Jesus?  Are there other motivating factors we need to consider?  Is it even possible for us to reconstruct (from conflicting accounts) Judas' ultimate motivations?  I believe the answer is: yes...kinda...sorta...possibly.

I recently posed this question to Bart Ehrman, one of the foremost professors of New Testament studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  Dr. Ehrman is a rock star in the world of New Testament studies and his work has proven invaluable to our understanding of this important and complicated era of the past.  In a nutshell, Dr. Ehrman believes that Judas' betrayal of Jesus was ultimately motivated by a belief that Jesus had crossed a line and had taken things too far, particularly while preparing for the Passover in Jerusalem.  Dr. Ehrman writes:

Throughout Mark’s account Jesus has been preaching about the coming Kingdom of God, speaking about the coming of the Son of Man in judgment, indicating to his disciples that it would happen soon. Then he comes to Judea from Galilee, cleanses the Temple, and is anointed by an unknown woman in the town of Bethany. Apocalyptic fervor among his disciples must have been at its peak. Jesus has just given his lengthiest apocalyptic discourse in Mark 13, describing what will happen soon, at the end of the age. When he is anointed in Bethany, what does it mean? The act, of course, could be interpreted in a number of ways. If Jesus is about to become king, could it not be a symbolic statement that he is about to assume the throne as the Lord’s “anointed”? Possibly that’s what the disciples think. But Jesus does not interpret it this way. Instead he indicates that this unnamed woman has anointed his body “for its burial” (Mark 14:8). 

Every time Jesus speaks about his coming death in Mark, the disciples misunderstand him: isn’t he to be the future king who will rule, and aren’t we to rule with him? So too here. As soon as Jesus speaks of his impending death, Judas goes out to betray him.

Is it possible that we have a historical recollection of the real situation here? For Judas, Jesus’ interpretation of his anointing may have been the last straw.

I should point out that though Dr. Ehrman suggests this as a likely possibility, he maintains that the historical record is simply too inconclusive for us to know for certain why Judas would betray Jesus.

In addition to Dr. Ehrman's hypothesis, other valuable suggestions have been given over the years.  A few of them include:

-That Judas, though selected as one of the Twelve, never actually recognized Jesus as the Son of God but instead only recognized Jesus as a great teacher or rabbi (Matthew 26:25).

-That Judas had an unquenchable lust for money that could not be cured (John 12: 4-6 and Matthew 26: 14-16).  Some have suggested that since Judas was essentially in charge of the finances for all the apostles (John 13:29) that he had always maintained a love of worldly wealth.

-That Judas was actually COMMANDED by Jesus to betray him.  As I mentioned above, the newly discovered Gospel of Judas makes this very claim.  The record tells us that Jesus knew his time had come and he needed Judas to set his plan into motion.  This meant betraying Jesus to the High Priests.

 And though I appreciate many aspects to these (and other) theories regarding Judas' betrayal, I ultimately believe they fall somewhat short, primarily because they are too simplistic.  In my opinion, Judas' betrayal of Jesus is a little more complicated that we would like to admit.  It may be easier (and more pleasing) to simply say "Judas did it for the money" or "Judas was inspired of the devil" but such explanations lack in giving Judas credit where credit is due.

It probably sounds weird for me to say that Judas "deserves credit" so let me explain.  I am NOT suggesting that Judas deserves praise for having betrayed Jesus, nor am I suggesting that Judas was a good guy.  Far from it.  What I AM suggesting, however, is that Judas is too often portrayed as a devilish punk who was too stupid to see the error of his ways, while the other apostles were pure as the driven snow.  This narrative (which has essentially permeated New Testament historiography for centuries) is simply infantile and fails to recognize just how important and intelligent Judas ultimately was.

Like so many villains before and after him, Judas' legacy has been subjected to ad hominem attacks that serve to pacify the believing Christian's emotional need for a "bad guy" but ultimately do little in terms of reconstructing the actual man.  It may FEEL better for us to think of Judas as a Hitleresque scoundrel who lurked in the shadows (interestingly, most artistic depictions of Judas portray him as a dark and loathsome figure) but feelings don't depict historical reality.

Judas' epithet (Iscariot) has been debated by scholars for generations.  Some believe the name is a Greek rendering of a Hebrew phrase, meaning "Man of Kerioth."  Other scholars maintain that "Iscariot" is a Latin corruption of the Aramaic word which means "dagger man."  This could prove significant because the phrase "dagger man" could suggest that Judas was a member of the Sicarii, a branch of Jewish Zealots who used aggression and violence to oppose Roman occupation.

In order to understand Judas better we need to better understand what Jewish Zealotry (capital Z) was, and why it likely influenced Judas' view of the world.  The term "Zealot" refers to a political/religious movement in Judea that sought the overthrow of Roman domination.  Jewish Zealots were an extremist branch of Judaism, distinct from rival Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, who had taken their training in the Torah to the extreme.  As New Testament historian N.T. Wright has pointed out, these Zealots relied on the stories of "righteous vengeance" like that of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, who smashed the golden idols of the wicked to protect God's true temple rituals (Numbers 16:35-40), or the tale of Judas Maccabeus, who led the triumphant march against Seleucid intruders (the story of Hanukkah), to inspire them to a zealous defense of the One True God of Israel.  These Zealots saw it as their divine commission to defend even to the death the commandments of God in a way that we today might call terrorism (but they would call the CORRECT devotion to God).

In essence, the Sicarri were a subgroup of Zealots who took this doctrine even further.  In other words, they were the extremists of the extremists.  As such they were uncompromising in their devotion to the Torah and in their allegiance to the ONE TRUE GOD of ISRAEL!!!

If we see Judas in this light, we can better understand why we would be mad enough at Jesus to betray him.  Jews like Judas had long been awaiting their heroic Messiah, who would deliver Israel from bondage.  This Messiah was seen as a political (and possibly military?) figure who was endowed by God to lead God's people to their long-awaited victory.  Initially Judas found that figure in Jesus.  When he heard Jesus' declaration that he and his Twelve would rule over the Kingdom of God Judas took it as gospel...

...until he realized he had made a mistake.

It wasn't until his arrival in Jerusalem that Judas finally saw Jesus for who he was.  Instead of being the promised Messiah of political and military might, Jesus became (in the mind of Judas) an impostor.  It was (for Judas) a betrayal of the largest sort.  Jesus was just a man, like so many other fraudulent messiahs before him.  For Judas, who had devoted so many years of his life to this cause, his sense of loss must have been immeasurable.

This sense of loss could only be matched by Judas' need for "righteous vindication" (again, think of his training and experience as a Zealous Sicarri).  The only natural course of action was to turn Jesus over to the authorities as the common criminal he was (receiving the payment for the life of a common slave: 30 pieces of silver).  It was the final act of betrayal, but for Judas the betrayal had not been of his doing.  It was Jesus who had betrayed all of Judea.  It was Jesus who had concocted the devious scheme.  It was Jesus who was the Hitleresque villain.  In Judas' mind, his act of turning Jesus over to authorities was the "patriotic" thing to do.

Perhaps this also helps us better understand Judas; death.  Did Judas commit suicide (assuming we accept Matthew's take on Judas' death) because of felt remorse for betraying Jesus?  Or was it because he felt he had been betrayed those many years into believing in a false messiah?  Was Judas racked with guilt for having condemned God's "only begotten Son?" Or was he mad at himself for having so easily fallen victim to the clever tactics of yet another con artist?

Perspective is ultimately the determining factor in all of this.  For the believing Christian it is simply easier to accept Judas as the scheming, plotting, evil man he was, and since Christianity has come to dominate modern Western culture this is the narrative that most appeals to our senses.  If, however, one is able to take a step outside of his/her world view and try to understand Judas as HE saw the world, then another potential narrative exists.  Which perspective is correct?  You be the judge.