Jesus, Judas and Ham Sok Hon (1901-1989)

Jesus, Judas and Ham Sok Hon (1901-1989)

By Sungsoo (Steven) Kim

             It can be argued that Ham's non-separation of socio-political and religious matters can be seen as more truly Biblical than the evangelical thinking of the Korean church as in the life of Jesus, too, socio-political and religious matters were not totally separated. Ham imbued the fight against socio-political evil with as much importance as his experiencing the holy spirit.[1]  Ham did not want Korea to be overcome by socio-political evil, and tried to defeat socio-political evil with goodness. From the view of conservative Christians and autocratic rulers, Ham was seen as `too political' and `too interventionist in political matters' to be a Christian. on the other hand, from the point of view of radical-dissidents, Ham was seen as `too religious' and `too passive' to be a civil rights activist.

             Jesus despite his humble background as a carpenter, was a `self-taught' man within a subjugated area of the Roman Empire, with a clear awareness and knowledge of religious and socio-political issues. It is notable that even the prominent intellectuals, such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, high priests, legal experts, elders and even spies were not able to win against the lowly carpenter Jesus, not only in theological debate but also in various political, social, historical, legal and moral debates.[2] An intellectual politician, Nicodemus, secretly asked a sincere question of an `eccentric' Jesus.[3]  Furthermore such prominent leaders feared Jesus and were eager to kill him but held back only because they also feared "a riot among the people".[4]

             One may conjecture that, whatever Jesus' own inclination to detach himself from political claim, he was increasingly identified as the hoped-for national Messiah who would free Israel from Roman rule. This would unquestionably help to explain the authorities' concern to suppress him.[5]  Therefore, the conduct of Jesus can also be seen as `too political' to be religious, and yet `too religious' to be political. This ambiguity between political activist and religious thinker could be more clearly elucidated by considering the relationship between Jesus Christ and Judas Iscariot.

             Generally speaking, Biblical historians suppose that Judas had a deep connection with the Zealots or was himself an active partisan Zealot.[6]  Zealots were a fanatical and political nationalist group of Jews, who regarded themselves as the vehicles of God in saving their nation from the alien oppressors.

             Unlike Jesus, Judas was a radical activist prepared to deliver his nation by any means from an unjust regime. Although Judas would have been the only non-Galilean among the twelve disciples, Jesus, surprisingly, chose Judas as the treasurer of the fellowship. As Brownrigg argued Jesus would not have given Judas the post if it was to be a cause of temptation to him, nor is Judas likely to have joined a band of wandering and destitute preachers if he was an avaricious and trivial pilferer.[7] 

It seems that Judas joined with Jesus because of socio-political and nationalistic motives rather than religious ones. Judas, as an active social-revolutionary for the colonised Israel, even criticised Jesus, when Mary of Bethany sprinkled Jesus with costly ointment: "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages."[8]   The main concern of Judas was bringing about `socio-political justice' for his nation Israel, if possible with the help of Jesus. Judas and Jesus travelled together, discussed together, ate together and lived together for a considerable length of time. Three years' experience beside Jesus may well have assured Judas of Jesus' Messiah-ship.[9] 

In this regard, it seems that Judas noticed in Jesus the potential achievement of a socio-political Messianic prophecy. Judas was the most enthusiastic nationalist of the disciples, more shrewd than the other disciples who were unsophisticated Galileans, and quick to identify the `potential' of Jesus.[10]  It is likely that Judas, being an active socio-revolutionary, would not have stayed with the `religious-evangelical' Jesus if he had not seen the `political potentiality' of Jesus. Judas perhaps thought that Jesus would be the new political king in a real sense, and that he would align himself with Zealots in a physical battle to free the nation of Israel from the oppressed regime.[11]

             The common people also accepted Jesus as the expected Messiah who would lead them out of constraint and servitude. Even the Roman authorities perceived that this man Jesus could be the one to agitate the ordinary people into riots.[12]  It is indicative of the view of the Romans that Jesus was crucified, a form of death reserved for political prisoners[13], rather than stoned to death, which was the normal punishment for religious prisoners.[14]

             Jesus, on the other hand, was sharply aware of his own Messianic vocation, which was distinct either from the apocalyptic or nationalistic thought of Messiah-ship among the Jews and other religious groups. Unquestionably Jesus was not a politician and his goal was not gaining political hegemony. But at the same time, Jesus was never apathetic on socio-political issues, rather he was sincerely concerned about the socio-political problems of Israel. Eventually Jesus was put to death for threatening to destroy long-accepted political and religious rules.[15]  If Jesus was purely `evangelical' or `non-political' why did he become the main subject of fear to the political authorities and established religious leaders, causing "riots among the people"?

             Taking into account the relationship between Judas and Jesus, it is not difficult to imagine the relationship between politically radical (undong-gwon) students and Ham and his followers. Radical students thought or expected that Ham and his followers would be the new leaders in the socio-political sense, and that he would side with them in a real battle to free the nation from the unjust regime, the military dictatorship. on the other hand, the radical students did not think at all that a conservative or an evangelical Christian leader, such as Rev.Cho Yongki (David Cho) of the Full-Gospel Church, would be the new leader in the socio-political sense, nor that evangelists would side with the undong-gwon in a real battle to free the Korean nation from political oppression.

             In other words, the radical students did not accept one of the evangelical or conservative Christian leaders as the long-expected socio-political leader. But they thought that Ham and his followers would lead them from the constraint and servitude imposed by the military regime whether Ham personally considered this option or not. Like the Roman authorities in the time of Jesus, the South Korean military authorities perceived that Ham and his followers could be the ones to agitate the ordinary people into political demonstration. In my view, that is why Ham was repeatedly arrested and imprisoned during the military regimes.

Under the military regimes active political dissent came from only a small section of the Korean church, predominantly consisting of liberal-democratic laymen, such as Ham, Chang Chunha, Ahn Byungmu, Kim Donggill and others.[16]  That is the reason the military regime at times treated these liberal-Christian dissidents as mediators during negotiation. For example, under the military regime of Park Chunghee, the military authority met liberal-Christian dissidents to disclose the blueprint of their  regime regarding the release of political prisoners jailed under Presidential Emergency Measure. The military regime tried to use the co-operation of these liberal-Christian dissidents in drawing written promises from the prisoners in exchange for their freedom.[17]

             On the other hand, the military authorities did not consider at all that the more evangelical or conservative Christian leaders might agitate the ordinary people into socio-political riot. It is worth noting that the most important political statements always involved the participation of the liberal-Christian dissidents.[18]

             Meanwhile, regardless of the chaos all around him, Ham was acutely aware of his own view, which was far removed from both the fundamental evangelists and from the radical activists. In this respect Ham was `neutral'. Also in this sense, Ham's various activities for democracy in Korea were very `Biblical', not only in terms of their perception but also in their basic nature. As Ham put it, "Surely the aim of Jesus was not being a politician in this world, but was he indifferent towards this world? Rather he was enthusiastically concerned about this world!"[19]

             Democracy was not first declared in Korea when Korea actually became a democracy. Ham and his followers first declared democracy in Korea under the military regime, thus opening the way for democracy. In my view, for Ham, belief and having faith meant working for democracy in Korea.        

             Although maybe not a radical activist, Ham was certainly active. one key element of a democracy is freedom of speech and Ham was clearly a force for democracy in Korea in establishing free, forward-looking journals, with liberal and thought-inspiring articles. Ham criticised the suppression of basic rights, called for the release of prisoners of conscience, and advocated that the effective means of fighting Communism was the promotion of freedom. That is why, during the 1970s and throughout the 1980s, Ham rose as a symbolic figure for the democratic movement in Korea. When, in the minds of countless Koreans democracy was but a dream, not a reality, Ham was the symbol of the free man and the personification of democratic ideals.

 

---

[1]. Ham, Sokhon. Works 12, p.164.

[2]. See, Matthew 12:38-45, 15:1-20, 16:1-12, 19:1-11, 21:12-17; 23-27, 22:15-22; 34-40; 41-46, Mark 2:18-22, 7:1-23, 10:1-10, 11:27-33, 12:13-17; 28-34. Luke 5:29-39, 14:1-14, 15:1-7, 17:20-21, 19:45-48, 20:1-8; 20-40. John 2:12-25.

[3]. John 3:1-21.

[4]. Matthew 26:5, Mark 11:12-19

[5]. See, Carpenter, Humphrey. Jesus, P.86.

[6]. As regard Zealots, See, "Zealots" in Brownrigg, Ronald. Who's Who in the New Testament, pp.443-444.

[7]. See, Brownrigg, Ronald. "Judas Iscariot", Who's Who in the New Testament, p.247.

[8]. Ibid.  See, John 12:5. NIV.

[9]. Brownrigg, Ronald. "Judas Iscariot", op cit., p.248.

[10]. Ibid., p.247.

[11]. Ibid., p.250.

[12]. Matthew 26:5. NIV.

[13]. Green, Joel B. et al. editor. in his writng, "Crucifixion: A Military and Political Punishment" Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, p.148.

[14]. Brown, Colin, editor. "Punishment",  The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, p.94.

[15]. Green, Joel B. et al. editor. in his writing, "Why was Jesus Crucified?" Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, p.153.

[16]. See, Sohn, Hakkyu. Authoritarianism and Opposition in South Korea, p.20, p.197.

[17]. Ibid., p.126.

[18]. Ibid., p.197.

[19]. See, Ham, Sokhon (January 1972). Works 14, p.99.