Rebel With A Cause: Shattering the Myth of Jesus as Non-Conformist, Part 1

I had read the status of a facebook friend describing Jesus thus:

I do know that in His time Jesus was an outcast, a deviant, a misfit, a rebel. He defied institutions and challenged the status quo all the time.

It is perfectly understandable where these ideas come from.  Jesus Christ was seen as one who challenged the Jewish and Roman institutions.  (The parallels to liberation theology are not just coincidental.)  This imagery is reinforced by Jesus' frequent use of the formula "you have heard... but I say unto you..." during the sermon on the mount.

The problem however, is the corollary to this idea that Jesus was a rebel. These days, when certain dissident Catholics are criticised rightfully for their rebellion against the teaching authority of the Church, their excuse is to cite the popular image that Jesus "defied institutions" and "challenged" things.  Thus, these modern day pretended reformers (oh sorry, that is insulting to the pretended reformers; at least Luther and his ilk had the balls to actually leave the Church and the hard teachings they could not accept), use that image of Jesus as rebel and challenger and questioner to justify their oen rebellion and dissent.

They are in effect comparing our priests and bishops to the Pharisees and Sadducees. Of course, the way our clergy act, they sometimes ARE worse than the Pharisees and Sadducees.  But a simple examination of the facts will show that such a comparison is totally unapt and inappropriate.

At this point we must define the questions that we seek to answer:

Firstly, is it appropriate to call Jesus an outcast, a deviant, a misfit and a rebel?

Secondly, did He indeed defy institutions and challenged the status quo all the time?

Thirdly, is it correct to compare the Pharisees and Sadducees to our modern day Catholic Hierarchy?

And Lastly, is it therefore justifiable to disobey Catholic teaching as defined by the authority of the Church Hierarchy, as the major religious institution of our time on the basis of Jesus apparently disobeying the institutions of the time?

Bear with me as I share my thoughts.

Is it appropriate to call Jesus an outcast, a deviant, a misfit and a rebel?

For the non-Christian, Jesus definitely did and said things that challenged the status quo.  At the time, the status quo was the Mosaic Law.  The notion that Jesus challenged the status quo was his frequent exhortations apparently changing certain precepts of the law of Moses.  Matthew chapter 5 gives the most important examples of these.

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. (Matthew 5:21-22)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.(Matthew 5:27-28)

“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."(Matthew 5:31-32)

“Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all:  (Matthew 5:33-34)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." (Matthew 5:38-19)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..." (Matthew 5:43-44)

Another example that serves to reinforce this image of Jesus as rebel is his words about the Sabbath.

" One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?” He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.” Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:23-38)

Based partly on these examples, it would thus seem that Jesus indeed was rebellious and defiant of the Mosaic Law.  He apparently did not care for "official doctrine".  He apparently didn't care about "following the rules".

Note that I used the words "seem" and "apparently."  Again the words of Scripture themselves will illuminate the confusion about the Truth.

Jesus' Intention Was Not To Rebel Against The Mosaic Law


Christ's own words on the topic are as such:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 17:20)

Hence, to say that Jesus was a non-conformist to the Mosaic Law is an error.  Rather, Jesus was saying that the Mosaic Law needed to be fulfilled and perfected.

Of course, that mere act of updating or fulfilling may be seen as some as equivalent to the acts of today's dissenters.  For example, how often do we hear that "The Catholic Church must update it's doctrines on contraception and homosexuality".  Granted, it IS possible that an analogy may be drawn with regards to Jesus fulfilling the law and these dissenters seeking to "update" Catholic doctrine.

The major difference is that for dissenters to do that would be to equate themselves with Christ.

Now, we are Christians are called to be LIKE Christ, but not to EQUATE ourselves to Christ.

So why could Jesus have the authority to make changes and not us "common folk" ?
To understand this in the Christian context, we must go back to the basics: Who was Jesus?  We Christians do not believe He is merely a prophet, a pathway to truth.  We take his word for it when He himself says:

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

Hence we believe that Jesus is not just some conduit to the truth.  He IS Truth itself.

Matthew also quotes Jesus as saying:

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." (Matthew 28:18)

St. Paul writes,

For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. (Colossians 1:16)

For the Christian then, Jesus IS the ultimate authority.  All authority comes from him.

Can it not therefore be argued then, that for the Christian who believes in the divine authority of Jesus Christ, that He is not the one going against the standards of the world, but that it is the world's standards that are rebelling against His authority?

Again this is in perfect harmony with Christ's earlier comments about fulfilling the Law.

For the sake of argument, can we say that Jesus teachings, however, upset the higher ups?

The Pharisees themselves elaborate their reason the best:

"We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." (John 10:33)

So that was Jesus' rebellion, blasphemy, claiming to be God.

We have to face it.  As Christians, we either have to accept Jesus' authority as God (and the authority of those to whom he passes that authority to) or we have to admit that Jesus was some A-1 insane efftard.  It can't go either way.

Since as a Christian I believe He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, I cannot in good conscience label Christ as a "deviant" or a "rebel". Rather, it is the world that deviates from and rebels from Him.

More to come in Part II.