Peter Zylstra Moore

November 17, 2006

The Kingdom of God
Christianity has throughout history has both dis-empowered and empowered. Jesus and
Christian Scriptures have been referenced by very often competing voices. Certain followers of Jesus
stood amongst the most vociferous proponents of slavery and segregation or apartheid while others
stood among it's most vocal opponents. Followers of Jesus have been pivotal in arguing for womens
rights. Followers of Jesus have been equally active in suppressing it. Followers have Jesus have also
both been voices for religious dialog. Followers of Jesus have argued for the necessity and exclusivity
of the Christian worldview. Today “(f)ollowers of Jesus are among the strongest supporters of (the
U.S.) nation's invasion and continuing occupation of Iraq. Followers of Jesus are among its strongest
critics. Followers of Jesus are among the strongest opponents of gay marriage. Followers of Jesus are
among its strongest advocates. Followers of Jesus are among the strongest supporters of an economic
and tax policy that benefits especially the wealthy and powerful. Followers of Jesus are among its most
vocal critics.”1 This suggests either a split in the personality of Jesus or a gross inability to understand
and interpret the ethics of Jesus.2
This paper seeks to present a framework for understanding when Jesus both advocated and
disapproved of personal and communal actions. In other words no person is for everything or against
everything, and so the question becomes what defined proper individual and social ethics for Jesus. In
seeking to abstract principles pertaining to ethics from the life of Jesus there is a need to define what
the social world of Jesus looked like. The social world involves both the theories through which we
look at our world, and how they interact with the actual social world. This will form the first section of
the text.
In comparing and contrasting Jesus3 to his world one can begin to understand how to follow him
in ours. I will seek to establish Jesus' social world was that of a Galilean peasant Jew, and because that
world as we will soon see, was a world of oppressed and “dominated by an alien ruling class” much of
his teaching was purposed in “rais(ing) critical conciousness” for the purpose of “interpretting and
challenging a world previously thought to be immutable.”4 Jesus does this by contrasting the Kingdom

1 Borg, Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary, 5.
2 I do not suggest that the problem has always been an inability to interpret how Jesus speaks to a given situation.
Sometimes persons who claim Christianity act against their understanding of Jesus. However, in many cases equally
impassioned Christians come to different conclusions about the ethics of following Jesus.
3 The method for studying Jesus will be social-critical history.
4 Herzog, Prophet and Teacher, 19. The language he uses is borrowed from Paulo Friere. He suggests Jesus like Friere
offered a “pedagogy of the oppressed” which “led to a liberating praxis”. Though there is more to Jesus and his teaching
of God, against the Kingdom of the domination system and its retainers. Interpreting Jesus life and
teachings into this framework forms the second section of this text. By way of conclusion we will look
at the significance of following Jesus within the framework of liberation movements and of
development5.
The Jewish world during the time of Jesus was under “imperial domination system”6 currently
effected by Roman colonial occupation. Imperial occupation was backed by a “politics of violence”7
for the purpose of “subjection, pacification, and exploitation of the occupied land.”8 Premodern
domination system held several consistent features. They were “politically oppressive.” The majority
was ruled by a monarchy and aristocracy that made up from 1 to 2 percent of the total population.9
Their control was maintained by a retainer class making up about 5 percent of the population: these
include “government and religious officials, military officers and bureaucrats, managers and stewards,
scribes and servants, and urban merchants who sold to them.”10 The societies were “economically
exploitative.” A half to two-thirds of a society's production was consumed by this upper class. They
were “religiously legitimated.” Social order as well as the rulers themselves were legitimated by
divine right. Finally these societies were acquired and controlled through “armed conflict.”11
Income was generated through agriculture and labour. However, “the elites did not produce
wealth themselves” but became wealthy through “taxation on agricultural production, direct ownership
of agricultural land, sharecropping and tenant-farmer arrangements, slave labor and indentured labor,
through debt, and so forth.”12 Land was often acquired through foreclosures due to inability to make
debt payments.
The Peasant class which formed the other ninety percent of society was made up mostly of
agricultural workers, but also included many other forms of labour. “At the very bottom were the
radically marginalized: the homeless, beggars, the lame and blind and untouchable.”13 Society as a

then concientization, this remains the focus of the body of the text simply because of it's practicality in studying
participatory development, and it's significance in liberation movements.
5 Because it is impossible for me to speak responsibly to these topics from the perspective of someone seeking to follow
Christ without fairly thoroughly flushing out who Jesus was in his context, within the parameters of this paper these
topics will only come out in conclusion.
6 Borg, Jesus:Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary 85.
7 Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence, 20-58.
8 Herzog, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence, 43.
9 Borg, Jesus:Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary, 82.
10 Borg, Jesus:Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary, 83.
11 Borg, Jesus:Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary, 82.
12 Borg, Jesus:Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary, 83.
13 Borg, Jesus:Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary, 83.
whole was predominately rural.14 Life was short and harsh for peasants. Life expectancy for peasants
who survived childhood was around thirty years.15
In order to understand the face of political domination during the time of Jesus one must
understand the greater history of political domination in the Jewish world and in Galilee in particular.
For Jews in general their defining moment as a nation was the Exodus. During the time
surrounding the Exodus God named himself, revealed the ten commandments, and re-initiated his
covenant with his people. It is the leader of the exodus, Moses that is said to have written the
Pentateuch. The Exodus primarily accounts God's stand against the imperial domination system of
Egypt, God's liberation of Israel.
The history of the judges accounts a free Jewish people who generally only organize themselves
in military crises16, but otherwise remain relatively politically and religiously autonomous.17 Early
Israelites “resisted having any king of their own on the principle that their God Yahweh was literally
their king.”18 In turning toward monarchic rule Israel was warned of how the king will oppress them.19
Israel choses to subject itself to monarchy, but still resists more exploitive forms of monarchic
societies. The beginning of Davidic kingship is a popular uprising among peasant against the official
king Saul. When he establishes himself as king it is through a 'messiahing' or anointing by elders in all
Israel.20 Then the Davidic kingship tries to impose itself dynastically,21 to establish an imperial kingship
in Jerusalem, and to construct a temple and palace through imposing labour on all Israel.22 Israel asks
for relief to no avail and so ten of twelve tribes rebel and Israel is split into the southern and northern
kingdom. The northern tribes especially recognized that kingship was conditional and popular, not
lineal.
The prophets reflect a variety of perspectives on their kings and the temple. Temple prophets
such as Ezra and Nehemiah sought renewal of Israel through temple renewal. However most of the
prophetic material offers a heavy indictment of the kingship, the temple and its functionaries, both in

14 Herzog, Jesus, Justice, and the Reign of God. 98.

15 Borg, Jesus:Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary, 84.
16 They also seemed to organize themselves around their own ambitions for expansion, but they were still collective
interests of the Israelite nation, not interests of a native ruling class.
17 Horsley, Archaelogy, History, and Society in Galilee. 15-19.
Their was no political and religious centre that formed the centre of Israel, not that their wasn't religious and
political similarities.
18 Horsley, Archaelogy, History, and Society in Galilee, 15.
19 1 Samuel 8:11-18.
20 Horsley, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs, 94.
21 Although scriptures seek to substantiate divine ordinance of the Davidic line, history suggests that most Jews (10 of 12
tribes) were not interested in the dynasty, the temple and it's functionaries, and Jerusalem as a centre of their nation.
22 Horsley, Jesus and Empire, 83. The scriptures it is referencing 1 King 5:13-18.
the southern and northern kingdom of Israel. This indictment falls against their own domination
system, but also against the empires that both nations fell too. It speaks against their colonial rulers, but
also their native elites that prop them up.
The Northern and Southern Kingdom of Israel were brought back together after the Maccabean
revolt against their conquering empire, local and foreign23. After a hundred years of Maccabean rule,
seen by many as simply native domination, the Romans took over in 63 BCE. Initially taxes were
expropriated and control was kept through the already established Hasmonean native elites. However
when they could not control the populace, Rome began imposing client kings: the first and most
infamous being Herod the Great.
Herod lived extravagantly building palaces in Jerusalem and Jericho, fortress palaces in
Masada, Herodium, and Machaerus, alongside many other building projects. To win favour with
Caesar he built a new city and named it Caesarea Maritima, and rebuilt another calling it Sebaste,
which is Greek for Augustus. He constructed many temples to the emperor, and more directly offered
gifts of money to the emperor. To win favour with the Jewish elites he sought religious legitimation
through rebuilding the Jerusalem temple extravagantly. To justify his kingship he married Mariamne,
of Maccabean descent.24 To solidify his authority he disposed of the remaining Hasmonean family
members, and set up high priests of his own choosing. The obvious economic exploitation of his
appointees, projects and policies were financed through heavy taxation that came through the temple.
Rumours of or actual Jewish resistance was reacted to with paranoia spilling out in overwhelming
violence.25

23 Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 170.

They regained their independence in 164 BCE and quickly extended to include both Samaria and Galilee as well as
Judea (these are the areas that are of primary concern to understanding Jesus). This Hasmonean (Maccabean regime)
quickly became simply a native domination system, and their entire period of rule was filled with infighting amongts
Jewish groups including the Essenes and Pharisees who saw themselves as having right to rule Israel. The extent of
involvement in Judea, suggests that their ability to win over the recently re-united tribes of the northern kingdom, is
marginal at best.
24 Borg, Jesus:Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary, 87.
25 Borg, Jesus:Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary, 87. This violent paranoia led
Herod to execute three of his sons and his wife Mariamne. So persons would mourn at his death, he ordered the death of
many Jewish notables.
“Augustus once quipped cleverly that he would rather be Herod's pig (hus) than his son (huios).” Horsley, Jesus and
Empire, 33.
“(H)e had introduced in their practices of the dissolution of their religion, and the disuse of their customs... nor did he
permit the citizens either to meet together, or to walk, or eat together, but watched everything they did, and when they
were caught they were severely punished; and many there were who were brought to the citadel Hyrcania, both openly
and secretly, and were there put to death; and there were spies set everywhere, both in the city and in the roads, who
watched those that met together; nay, it is reported that he did not himself neglect this part of caution, but that he would
oftentimes himself take the habit of a private man, and mix among the multitude, in the nighttime, and make trial what
opinion they had of his government” Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews. 365b-367.
For a fairly thorough discussion but concise discussion of Herod see Horsley, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs, 30-34.
 At his death his kingdom was divided amongst his sons, Herod Archaelus in Judea, and Herod
Antipas in Galilee, but continued rebellion in Judea brought into Judea direct Roman Imperial Rule.
During the period of Jesus ministry “Caiphas as high priest and Pilate as governor” were both enjoying
a “long tenure” of rule suggesting that they favoured the empire over the Judean populace26.
Archaeological excavation's are newly revealing the opulent and lavish lifestyle of the the Herodian
and high-priestly families again suggesting heavy collaboration with the empire.27
It is important also to look quickly at the temple system and its retainers. As was mentioned
earlier high priests from the time of Herod were appointed by Rome, and were primarily puppets for
Rome. Persons of predominant lineage made up the other priestly positions, especially in and around
Jerusalem. The retainers were made up of Roman colonizers, and local elites and were responsible for
“government and religious officials, military officers and bureaucrats, managers and stewards, scribes
and servants, and urban merchants who sold to them.”28 Local eliters were predominantly made up of
two groups with competing interests, the Sadducees and Pharisees. Sadducees were especially
conservative and held up the law of Moses itself as the only way of ordering Jewish society, where as
Pharisees were a purity group especially interested in promoting ritual Judaism and the Jerusalem
temple cult and tithes that supported it.29 Both groups and in fact all elites religio-political success
depended on pacifying the Jewish populace and pleasing Rome. Because of Romes willingness to
remove problem leadership this led to a seriously compromised priestly and scribal class.30
In Galilee competency and a fairly peaceable rule, as well as following his father by giving
generously to the emperor, kept Herod Antipas' its ruler. “For the first time in their history the
Galileans suddenly had a ruler and his administration located in Galilee itself.”31 Within 20 years,
Antipas builds two Roman-style cities on the backs of peasant taxes and labour. For peasant Galilee
this meant more than carrying the initial load of the project. These cities moved the imperial rulers into

26 Horsley, Jesus and Empire, 33.

27 Horsley, Jesus and Empire, 33.
28 Borg, Jesus:Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary, 83.
29 Horsley, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs, 23-29.
30 Horsley, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs, 23-29 and Horsley, The Message and the Kingdom, 102. Some religious
leaders unwilling to compromised expression of leadership formed the strict Essene community, that prophesied the
destruction of Jerusalem it's temple and it's current leadership, held everything in common, and adhered to strict ritual
law.
Herzog, Jesus, Justice and the Reign of God, 147-149.
31 Horsley, Jesus and Empire, 33.
Horsley, Archaelogy, History, and Society in Galilee, 27. Galilee before falling to empire after empire had never
developed a system of indigenous elite. Thus empires the indigenous could not be used in pacifying and taxing the larger
population. This would have made Galilee more hostile to the obviously opulent Jerusalem aristocracy, and especially
upset to the tighter controls affected through cities being built for the purposes of expropriating excesses.
Galilee and therefore offered more direct and excessive taxation.32 The political separation of Galilee
from Judea also meant that the Jerusalem temple and it's religious retainers had no official jurisdiction
to collect tithes in Galilee. Thus Pharisees and other retainers would have to work overtime in
religiously legitimating their rights to collect tithes from impoverished peasant in Galilee.33
Popular protests against this system of domination expressed themselves through the rise of
prophetic figures, bandits who were largely protected by peasant, and messianic movements. All these
movements were aimed very carefully not only against Roman imperialism, but the imperial system in
the temple itself. A few decades after Jesus' death a intra-Jewish war broke out. Peasants overtook the
temple, shortly after which they anointed a peasant high priest and burnt the debt record. During the
course of the way, Messianic (popular or anointed) kings proclaimed freedom for slaves in proclaiming
a sort of Year of Jubilee.34 Peasants both understood how the system oppressed them and looked for
meaningful opportunity to upset that very system.
With that as a background we can now look at how Jesus ministry both made peasants
conscious of imperial domination and local collaboration, and how it parodied, mocked and
undermined it35. In so doing we will start where Jesus started, with the message of the Kingdom of
God. Then we will at how Jesus criticizes that system of domination. Finally we will look at what
motivated his ethics.
The message of the Kingdom of God was absolutely central to Jesus. It was the subject of his
first sermon,36 the key to understanding his teaching,37 the first thing we should look for,38 and the first
petition in Jesus' prayer;39 in fact it was his very gospel.40 The “'Kingdom of God' is a political as well
32 Horsley, Jesus and Empire, 34.
33 This explains the presence of the scribes and Pharisee in Galilee in the gospels. It also explains the degree of persecution
of early Christianity by especially the Pharisees, and why the Pharisees would follow the new movement through the
diaspora. The scribes (literate Pharisees) and Pharisees, and all the temple retainers that survived and prospered via the
inflow of tithes as well money generated through temple functions and festivals. The precedence for supporting the
temple was no longer official jurisdiction but the effectiveness of their religious legitimation of the temple and their
function in it. If Christianity undermined the precedence of Jerusalem and it's temple, and of the need for ritual law for
spiritual health, they would have every motivation to put an end to it.
Herzog, Jesus, Justice, and the Reign of God, 150-151.
34 Horsley, Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs, 118-127 and Jesus and Empire, 49-52. Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs
provides a thorough overview of popular (which basically means peasant movements) in and around the time of Jesus.
It's fascinating in both it's parallels and differences from Jesus' prophetic/messianic movement. The reaction by Rome to
most of these movements was also comparable to Rome's response to Jesus, crucifixion, sometimes on mass.
35 Although Jesus' social ethics, his praxis was motivated by more than a reality of oppression his spiritual belief systems
because of the limits of this assignment will only be discussed to the extent it parodies, mocks and undermines the
domination systems.
36 Mark 1:14.
37 Luke 8:10.
38 Matthew 6:33.
39 Matthew 6:10.
40 Matthew 4:23. This collection of texts is found in Meyers, Walking with the Poor, 47-48.
as religious metaphor.”41 The term 'kingdom' of God would have struck a chord in peasant communities
whose kingdom they knew was felt in the political and ideological domination of Herod and his sons,
his puppet functionaries in the temple, and the kingdom of Rome.42 The anticipation is intensified in the
present reality of the kingdom in Jesus power and ministry,43 and intensified further in its promised
imminent completion.44
The Kingdom of Jesus was about serving rather oppressing, it was about powerlessness, rather
than overpowering. For early Christianity the cross was not essentially about substitution but it was the
way of Jesus. The cross was example. Jesus prophecy's his death four times in Mark and each time he
calls us to follow after him. The first prophecy is followed by the recognition that we too need take up
our cross; the second is followed with the recognition that in the kingdom the first will be last and that
it's leaders will will be servants; the last recognizes greatness as measured by servanthood, and that the
greatest will become slaves for the sake of others.45
One of the best ways to look at how Jesus kingdom confronted the kingdom of the dominating
class in Jerusalem is a closer look at the passion week.46 The passion week is when Jesus steps out of
the villages in Galilee and Judea,47 and confronts the domination system in Jerusalem. Importantly it is
during Passover Week and so Jesus presenting his confrontation with the domination system in
Jerusalem as a new exodus. He shares a passover supper with his disciples encouraging them to see his
life and death as bringing a new exodus and a new age of forgiveness.48 Jews again are under imperial
domination and Jesus as a new Moses will lead the peasants in their liberation.
Jesus enters Jerusalem as a humble and peaceful messiah49 parodying the imperial procession of
real-life client kings that wore their arrogance and violence through their majestic war horses and full

41 Borg, The Last Week, 25.

42 Borg, The Last Week, 25.
43 Matthew 12:28 par (parallel) Luke 11:20 (it is present in Jesus power over Satan), Luke 17:21 (it is amidst them), Mark
4:26-29 (it is growing secretly), Mark 10:15, 23, Matt 21:31, Mark 12:34, Matthew 23:13 par Luke 11:52 (you must
actively enter it): summarized from Borg, Jesus, 256-257.
44 Mark 13:30, 9:1 (it will be realized in full before Jesus' generation passes away).
45 Compare 8:31 to 8:34, 9:31 to 9:33-35, 10:32-34 to 10:38, 42-44. In each case Jesus prophecy's his death, and then calls
us to give ourselves.
Borrowed from Borg, The Last Week.
46 We will essentially stick to the narrative in Mark for a number of reasons. It provides the longest and most thorough
account of the passion week. It is the earliest account and so is used by both Matthew, Luke and John. Finally it captures
the political nature of the account better then the later gospels that have grown further displaced from the social situation
of the events described.
47 Not to suggest that the domination system did not come out to him in Galilee and Judea as his movement gained
momentum, but here Jesus actively faces off against it.
48 Mark 14:17-25. See also Borg, The Last Week, 112-120.
49 Zechariah 9:9-10 prophecy's Israel's King riding in on a humble ass, and ushering the end to war and a new age of peace.
royal attire.50 The kingdom of God is coming to Jerusalem, to unseat the imperial kingdom. “Blessed is
he who comes in the name of the Lord; Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David; Hosanna in
the highest!”51
Thus Christology must also be looked at within the kingdom of God. Christology must be seen
in the contacts of competing messianic visions. As Jesus' humble procession parodying the kingdom of
power of the empire. The conflict was over who's rule was authorized by God: was it's Jesus' or the
temple?52
It also offered a challenge against the christology of the emperor.53 According to Roman
Imperial theology “the emperor was not simply the ruler of Rome, but the Son of God” conceived by
“the god Apollo.” The emperor was “'son of God', 'lord' and 'savior', one who had brought 'peace on
earth.' After his death, he was seen ascending into heaven to take his permanent place among the
gods.”54 For Christians this was true of Jesus and not the emperor. It was he that was vindicated by
God, and his kingdom would soon come.
The next day Jesus enters the temple but the temple incident itself is sandwiched by the oft-
misunderstood passage of Jesus cursing of the fig tree. Jesus is hungry and wishes to find fruit on the
fig tree, but because it is not in season there is none to be found. So he says to the fig tree “May no one
ever eat fruit from you again!”55 The next morning Peter notices the fig tree is withered and Jesus says,
“Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' and does not
doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it will be granted him.”56 The
mountain is “Mount Zion, on which the temple stood” and it is going to be “'thrown into the sea.'”57
So why was the temple withered and going to be “cast into the sea.” In the temple Jesus has

50 Horsley, The Message and the Kingdom, 71, 71-73.

“Herod the Great was famous for his ostentatious entrances into cities he visited... (I)n 38 CE, Herod's grandson Agrippa
passed through Alexandria in a grand procession 'accompanied by bodyguards in gleaming armor of silver and gold,'
according to the account in Philo.”
See also Borg, The Last Week, 3-5.
51 Mark 11:9-10.
52 The writer of Mark continually posits the authority of Jesus against the authority of the scribes and Pharisees. Mark
1:21-23, 1:26-28, 2:9-11, 3:14-16, 6:6-8, 10:41-43, 11:26-33.
53 For the purposes of this paper I do not want to delve to far into the arguments about the actual Christology of Jesus,
though sometimes commenting on it. The point will be rather to recognize how that Christology confronts similar claims
from the Jewish and Roman domination systems.
54 Borg, The Last Week, 3. It is obvious that those same terms and stories paralleled in the gospels of Jesus would of
challenged the kingdom of domination of the Roman empire.
55 Mark 11:14.
56 Mark 11:23.
57 Borg, The Last Week, 56. Later coming out of the temple he says of the massive stone structure “Not one stone here will
be left on another; every one will be thrown down” (Mark 13:4), and then he again prophecy's the cataclysmic
destruction of the temple in Mark's little apocalypse (this is often misinterpreted as a description of the end times but it
refers to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE) (Mark 13:5-37). For an excellent commentary on this see The Last Week, 78-83.
overturned tables belonging to money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves and said
“'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you make it a robbers den.”58
The retainers; the priests, Sadducees, scribes, Pharisees, guards, money changers, those who
sold sacrificial animals were all supported through tithes and taxation that filtered through the temple.
The ability to legitimate a temple cult is the ability for these people to maintain their livelihoods. This
was done through sabbath and through festivals that drew people to the temple. This was done through
clean and unclean processes that tied the temple into a persons purity before God. Purity is especially
connected to meals and so Jesus is accused for “eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners”59.
Elsewhere Jesus is accused of not washing his hands before a meal. Jesus responds “whatever goes into
the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and
is eliminated?”60 Over accusations of working on the sabbath Jesus responds “the Sabbath was made
for man, and not man for the Sabbath.”61 The temple also held out forgiveness. Jesus, like his mentor
John the Baptist, also subverted the temple and its official monopoly on forgiveness by offering
forgiveness outside of the temple cult. By healing freely. Ironically given how Christ’s life would later
be theologized by the strict Pharisee Paul, Jesus quotes Hosea in suggesting that God “desires mercy
and not sacrifice. 62 In all of this Jesus was undermining the temples hold on these religious rites, and
suggesting real piety was about living mercy and compassion. As much as his protest against the
temple brought his message to the temple, it was his making it obsolete that brought the scribes and
Pharisees to him back in rural Judea and Galilee.
Power in the temple was also connected to lineage.63 In the same way the Davidic line
legitimated it's rule dynastically, it wasn't the only dynasty known to the time of Christ. The aristocracy
was firmly established along familial lineages, and persons in places of predominance jockeyed
amongst themselves for predominance in the temple system. Jesus is asked how he can be the messiah
since he is not a son of David. Jesus then uses scriptures to suggest that because David calls the
Messiah his Lord “How then can he be his son?”64 His own leadership is not made up of persons of
proper descent but is chosen from lowly Galileans, fisherman, and tax collectors. It wasn't lineage that
was important but faithfulness. His parables hold the faith of Gentiles, Women, and Samaritans in
contrast to the impiety of the religious leaders. What matters is not Abrahamic descent but that they
58 Mark 11:17.
59 Mark 2:16, See also Matthew 11:19, Luke 19:7; Luke 15:1-2.
60 Mark 7:18-19.
61 Mark 2:27.
62 Mark 2:5-7, quote is from Matthew 9:1, and is quoting Hosea 6:6
63 Herzog, Jesus, Justice and the Reign of God, 120. Here Herzog sites a list that stratifies persons within Jewish society.
64 Mark 12:37.
“produce fruit in keeping with repentance.”65
Jesus piety also undermined the temple system. Though he took part in teaching and discussing
in local synagogues, Jesus piety is first private and second local political, and is largely confrontational
towards national religious superstructures.66 He often sought solitude in prayer.67 In the face of a temple
piety that didn't even use certain names for God, Jesus prayed to God as 'Abba' or daddy.68 For his
disciples fasting is a private manner.69 He protested long public displays of prayer.70 Tithing was a
private not temple affair.71 In even his piety Jesus criticized and obsoleticized official piety. For Jesus
piety is essentially private not public, intimate not transcendent.
The temple was not only supported economically indirectly through ritual, festival and purity
but also through taxation. However, ability to legitimate its other functions made collecting tithes
possible outside it's jurisdiction. This is probably what is going on with Jesus confrontation with the
over the pharisees over the issue corban. This seems to allow a person the right to give to God (ie.
donate to the temple) instead of responding to familial obligations. Jesus accuses the Pharisees of “no
longer permit(ting) (peasants) to do anything for his father or his mother” because the little they have to
spare no longer supports the larger family but is usurped by the temple.72
In the temple Jesus accuses the scribes who live in luxury and in so doing “devour widows'
houses”73 and then immediately watches that situation unfold where a widow literally “out of her
poverty, put in all she owned, all she had to live on.”74 When asked if he supports taxes to the temple he

65 Luke 3:8 par Matthew 3:8-9.

66 Borg, Jesus, 96-97. Though Jesus probably attended a synagogue (literally means assembly during the time of Jesus) on
the sabbath, it was not likely an official building but a town square or meeting place, though sometimes this would have
happened in a larger home. These gatherings would have in many case included a service, prayer, reading from the Old
Testament if population and finances allowed (scriptures were probably not predominant in small and mostly illiterate
Nazareth), teaching, community interaction, and discussion around community affairs. Local synagogues would have
probably also celebrated the major festivals.
Where scriptures were not available, connection to Israel and it's traditions would have expressed themselves in retelling
of Israels formative stories. A simpler understanding of what it meant to be a part of Israel, and also a simpler and less
ritualistic understanding of what it meant to follow God.
67 Mark 1:35, 6:46, 14:32-42, Luke 6:12, but also 3:21. 5:16. 9:18. 9:28-29. 11:1. Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 44-45.
68 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 549-555, Mark 14:36. See also Matthew 6:9 par Luke 11:2. Disciples are to see themselves
as sons of God: Matthew 5:9, 45, 13:38, 17:25,27, Luke 6:35.
69 Matthew 6:16-18.
It is unclear whether Jesus advocated fasting at all. Mark 2:18-20 (parred in Matthew 9:14-20 and Luke 5:33-35)
suggests that because the kingdom of God is upon it is time for feasting and not fasting. The temptation scene in the
desert is not necessarily a fast in Mark as well (1-10-13) though it was in its parallels in Matthew 4:1-11and Luke 4:1-
13.
70 Mark 12:38-40 par Luke 20:46-57, Matthew 23:5-7 and also Matthew 6:7.
71 Matthew 6:3-4.
72 Mark 7:12.
73 Mark 12:40.
74 Mark 12:44. Unbelievably this passage is most often used to support tithing.
suggests the “sons are exempt” but also suggests payment “so that we do not offend them.”75 Romes
offense against non-payment and subsequent response against such resistance was severe. It
substantiated the charge of treason, which calls for crucifixion. The religious leaders ask if they should
pay the poll-tax to Caesar. Jesus asks for a denarius, and is handed one with Caesar image ingraven on
it. It is unlawful for a strict Jew to have any images on anything, cause that amounts to setting up an
idol before God. “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's” Thus the Pharisees are first indicted for
having unethical coinage. The second part is equally clear: and render “to God the things that are
God's.”76 Everything is to be rendered to God “since according to Israelite tradition everything belongs
to God and nothing to Caesar.”77 Their might be some truth to the scribes indictment of Jesus: “We
found this man misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar.”78
It seems that Jesus could see past the divine legitimation of the Jerusalem temple and could see
how in its Jerusalem centred cult, how in it's dynasties, how in it's elaborateness, and how in its
taxation it continually impoverished and oppressed peasant Judea. In response he represents a little
tradition, a popular peasant tradition.79 He does not interpret Israelite history and it's scriptures in a
legalistic manner but instead emphasizes his Jewishness, in joining in the the Jewish story of the
exodus. He saw God in intimate and accepting terms rather than forming barriers. He re-interpreted
ethics around mercy80 and forgiveness,81 around treating others as you yourself want to be treated,82
around loving your neighbour as yourself.83 Around simple ethical “commandments of God” rather

75 Matthew 17:26-27. It should be noted that taxation during the time of Jesus was payed by the peasant and expended for
the good of the elites and wasn't for the tax payers good.
76 Mark 12:17, 13-17 for larger context.
77 Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 43.
78 Luke 23:2. Jesus understanding of the rich was the same in or outside of the temple. See the parable of the rich man and
Lazarus: Luke 16:19-31. See also Mark 10:25; “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich
man to enter the kingdom of God.” For an interesting case that Jesus parables in their earliest were simply stories to
concienticize peasants of the exploiters see Herzogs book Parables as Subversive speech.
79 In what has become the Old Testament scriptures the little tradition of liberation and the great tradition centred temple,
priesthood, and kinship are woven together. Because of illiteracy, peasant traditions would be propogated through story
telling, connecting yourself to the stories that became popular and defining. Because of the difficulty of life their ethics
would revolve around practical community and family relationships, and caring for social concerns. Jesus represented
this tradition, a tradition that undermined the Great Tradition as represented by both the leaders and even the Old
Testament scriptures (though it is hard to say whether he consciously opposed it or simply thought that his tradition
reflected scriptures).
The concepts of the 'Great' and 'Little' tradition is drawn originally from James C. Scott, but is used widely, though see
especially, Herzog, Jesus, Justice, and the Reign of God, 149-167.
80 Matthew 5:7, 18:33, 23:23, Mark 5:19, Luke 10:37, Luke 16:24.
81 Matthew 6:12-15, 18:21,35,26:28, Mark 1:4, 2:7, 11:25,26, Luke 1:77, 3:3, 5:21.
82 Matthew 7:12 par Luke 6:31.
83 Mark 12, 28-31 pars Matt 22:35-40 and Luke 10:25-28. This extends to even loving enemies: Matthew 5:43-48, 6:27-28,
32-36.
than holding the pharisaic “tradition(s) of men.”84 He was convinced of God's coming judgment against
both the temple and Rome, and called all to repent and enter into his 'upside down kingdom'85 of God.
Jesus church need shy away from wooden interpretations of scriptures but defines ethics around
compassion, mercy, forgiveness, and love. It must define sin around domination and dis-empowerment.
Jesus church must concienticize the oppressed of their oppressors, and affirm their right to acceptance
and equal place in the larger community. The church need re-interpret the cross into the social-history
of Jesus, and in so doing allow the way of the cross to confront domination and marginalization rather
than marginalize. Christology must continue to confront the political Christologies in religious/political
systems rather than become a dominant system of its own. Its message is not that Jesus is to become
our Christ, but rather that power of God is in and with those who lead through serving, and who
interpret ethics around concepts of justice, love, mercy and compassion rather than in domination.
The western world needs to realize the ways in which it has become what Jesus condemned. It's
time we realize that the churches condemnation needs not cry out against homosexuals, women, or any
other apparent differences we can find between one another, but instead needs to condemns the
oppression, greed, and selfishness in each one of us and in our world systems. It needs to remember
that taking Jesus serious is not about believing in an exclusive, perfect, supernatural or ritualized
interpretation of his life but about naming, condemning, and making obsolete systems that oppress and
exclude, and replacing them with systems that offer real acceptance, mercy, and justice.
Bibliography

Borg, Marcus J., Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teaching of Jesus. Trinity Press, New York,
1998.
Borg, Marcus J., Jesus: A New Vision. Harper Collins, New York, 1987.
Borg, Marcus J., Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary,
Harper Collins, New York, 2006.
Borg, Marcus J. and John Dominic Crossan, The Last Week. Harper Collins, New York, 2006.
Dunn, James D. G., Jesus and the Spirit. William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., Grand Rapids, 1975.
Dunn, James D. G., Jesus Remembered. William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., Grand Rapids, 2003.
Herzog II, William R., Jesus, Justice and the Reign of God. Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville,
2000.
Herzog II, William R. Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed.
Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, 1994.
Herzog II, William R., Prophet and Teacher. Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, 2005.
Horsley, Richard A., Archaelogy, History and Society in Galilee. Trinity Press Int., Harrisburg, 1996.
Horsley, Richard A., Hearing the Whole Story. Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, 2001.
Horsley, Richard A., Jesus and Empire, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 2003.
Horsley, Richard A., Jesus and the Spiral of Violence. Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1993.

84 Mark 7:8. See also Matthew 15:2-7, Mark 7:1,3,5,8,9,13.

85 Phrase from Kraybill, The Upside Down Kingdom.
Horsley, Richard A., Sociology and the Jesus Movement. Continuum Pub. Co., New York, 1994.
Horsley, Richard A. and John S. Hanson. Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs. Harper and Row Pub., New
York, 1985.
Horsley, Richard A. and Neil Asher Silberman, The Message and the Kingdom. Penguin Putnam Inc.,
New York, 1997.
Josephus translated by William Whiston, The Works of Josephus. Hendrickson Pub Inc., Peabody,
1987.
Kraybill, Donald B. The Upside-Down Kingdom. Herald Press, Waterloo, 1990.
Loader, William. Jesus' Attitude towards the Law. William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1997.
Myers, Bryant L. Walking with the Poor. World Vision Int., Maryknoll, 1999.
The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. Oxford University Press, London, 1955.
Vermes, Geza. The Authentic Gospel of Jesus. Penguin Books, London, 2003.
Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1992.