King of the Jews
That Easter was political can’t really be in doubt. Titles define politics – President, Shah, Prime Minister, Chancellor, Minister, Czar, Ayatollah. The terms in Jesus, time were different, but served the same purpose. King was obvious. At his birth the Three Wise Men came seeking the King of the Jews; at his death it was pinned on the cross. It was deeply contentious to Herod Antipas, Pilate, the Zealots and the Jerusalem people. As we shall see, the term was applied to Jesus and accepted by him.

The Son of David.
The Jewish royal family was the Davidic line. David had brought Israel together. He was Plantagenets, Tudors and Stuarts rolled into one. The title Son of David conferred kingly legitimacy. Matthew begins with a genealogy which describes Jesus as son of David and son of Abraham. It traces the line though recognizible Jewish history down until it rests on Jesus. Bethlehem is understood as the City of David and everything points to the royal line coming down to this man. Of course vast numbers would be in the Davidic line over a thousand years of breeding, but Matthew and common knowledge at the time made it significant. It may not be significant to us, and it does not seem to have been to Jesus either, because he sends up the idea shortly before Easter, but being Son of David does put you in the Prince of Wales position, the heir apparent, and it is part of the narrative of the times.

Son of Man.
The title, the Son of Man, is different. It appears in the book of Daniel in a vision. Daniel had been prophesying around the Babylonian, Median, Persian and Greek empires; so this was not local, but geopolitical, world significant prophecy in intent. Daniel launches into a vision rooted into the Ancient of Days, the God of all Time. “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and those of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.” (Dan. 7:13-14) Another less awesome use of the term is in Ezekiel. It is used repeatedly as God addresses the prophet who will then speak truth to the people. The Son of Man will prophesy in the name of God. So this title was not without clout from the Jewish scriptures, and when Jesus entitles himself with it, he is not being a shrinking violet. Often the term is used by Jesus to indicate a time of judgement or reckoning. We will see more of its use in the final week.

The Messiah/the Christ.
Messiah is a Jewish term woven into Jewish national life and hopes. Christ is the same word transliterated to Greek, when its meaning also changes because the Jewish focus goes. The Jews had been slaves in Egypt and subjugated and divided for much of their history up to the time of Christ. In fact something like 90% of the two thousand years of history between Abraham and Christ found the kingdom divided and controlled. That was another reason why David, the Kingdom Unifier, was so important; he was like William the Conqueror, 1066 and all that. The Messiah was the one who under God would bring the nation together again. The idea had grown especially after the exile to Babylon and under the Maccabees who fought off the powers threatening Jewish independence. But with omnipotent Roman control, the Jews were waiting. The Messiah was the one who would bring the nation together under God’s laws and free them from oppressors. It involved enormous expectations of a single heroic political leader. John Chapter One conveys the mood. John the Baptist is asked but denies that he is Messiah. But he will point to the one who is. Jesus new disciples buzz with the possibility that Jesus is Messiah, the Christ. Jesus accepts that is the case and closes down the subject until further developments take place.

The idea is problematic, a conquering hero model, and throughout the Gospels Jesus modifies it to his own purposes – no conquest, no hostility towards the imperial power and no bloodshed. We will see this drama unfold in the last week. But Messiah is as political as Garibaldi, Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, Churchill, Stalin and King Alfred. When “Christians” came later to call Jesus the Christ, it was in acknowledgement that he was Messiah of the whole world, not just Israel. Now the word is used like a surname, instead of Jesus Smith or something else, but we will restore it to its proper significance. As Jesus stood before Caiaphas in the secret trial at night, Caiaphas asked, “In the name of the living God I now put you on oath..” (At this point Jesus probably thought, ‘Oh, there’s a contradiction there I’ve been pointing out for ages.) “tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.?” The priestly party did not want a Messiah messing up their system. Jesus answered and the death sentence was announced. Messiah was political alright.

Son of God.
Jesus primary task in the Gospels is to teach people about God. Part of this was to deconstruct the religious attitudes of his day. God was not reached through ritual, through observing the law, through codes of righteousness or through special places like temples. Rather God is with us, as Creator and potentially as Father, hidden by sin but shown by Jesus. He is the Son of God, God with us. The title Son of God is therefore much more than political. It is: if you want some idea of God, look at and listen to the Son of God. Let him teach you. But it is also political, and at a deep level. In the last week Jesus tells a parable. It contains the line, “The tenants said to themselves, ‘This is the owner’s son. Come on, let’s kill him and we will get the property.!’” ( Matt. 21:38) God is the owner. Jesus is the Son of God. Kill Jesus and get the property. Rulers rule as if they own the nation. They grasp, and they kill to grasp. But what they do to the Son is a central witness to their corruption and the falseness of their claims, because every ruler is accountable to God and the Son of God. So the Son of God challenges everything in the political systems. 1. Rulers do not own. Politicians are tenants, looking after things for a bit, and they must first know their place before God and the Son of God.

The Lord Jesus Christ.
Lords are a bit anachronistic. They sit in the House of Lords. They wear garters. They are aristocracy. The word is a bit confusing and it is easy to get the word wrong in the Bible. In the Jewish Scriptures “Yahweh” is the Name given to God, though they require us to note that no name is adequate for the Creator of the whole universe. That is transliterated as “Lord” in many English Bibles. But the Gospel word Lord is different – Adonai, Master, Boss. The disciples use it as a normal address to Jesus, like “Teacher/Rabbi” It could be a bit like “Sir” or “Ma’am” used to be at school, and so it is not conferring the status of God upon Jesus, but is merely a respect word. But even here there is a twist, because Jesus says, “ Many will come to me saying Lord, Lord, but do not do what I say… the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.” So, if you say, “Lord” you must mean it. 2. Words and actions must match, otherwise what is constructed will not stand up. Jesus is here nailing the hypocrisy where words are not met by policy; the title must do what it says on the box. When Jesus claims titles like Son of Man or King of the Jews, he knows they have to be true. As we see shortly, wearing these titles will kill him. So though we and he wear them lightly, these will be cashed and they are, inescapably political.
These titles nail a reality, but of all people, Jesus did not rely on them. Indeed, the opposite. He lambasted the lording people, those who constructed superiority and their own power bases, and insisted on not so doing. No palaces, houses, servants, soldiers, taxes, fighting, opulent clothing, except when the Roman soldiers dressed him in royal purple to mock him before killing him. Jesus did not pull the political status that others sought. He quietly informed his disciples that he was the Messiah, the Christ, but then damped the information so that it did not muddy the scene. Rather than seeking popularity, he talked and walked away from mass support. When he attracted crowds because of his miracles, John notes Jesus “did not trust himself to them, because he knew them all. There was no need for anyone to tell him about them, because he himself knew what was in their hearts.” (John 2:24) We note that even there, in a clumsy way, John fingers several principles – 3. Do not trust adulation; it is often built on shallow reactions. 4. Never give up your judgment to crowds, especially when they are acting under group pressures. 5. Being believed in is a false position because it involves a simplistic, often group response, and nobody who is a sinner and fallible should be believed in unconditionally and often people give support from superficial motives. 6. Political office confers no status or superiority. So, we need to go on a journey with this man and see where it leads.