Block 6 - Resistance & the Domination System, Borg, Pages 225-260

In his Chapter 9, Borg goes into great detail to support a central thesis of his interpretation of the historical Jesus. This thesis is that much of what Jesus taught can only be properly understood in light of the prevailing domination system that the people of Palestine lived under during the time of Jesus. New Testament scholar E.P. Sanders does not accept this line of thought because, within the Roman Empire everyone lived under some sort of autocratic rule, and if it were not the Romans, there would be other rulers who would lord it over their subjects. To a degree I have to agree with Sanders, because Democracy as we know simply did not exist in the ancient world except for a few wonderful decades in Athens, Greece. But I have to disagree with Sanders in that from the time of the Maccabees (about 166 BCE), there was a distinct sub-culture within Palestinian Judaism that was willing to die for self-rule. Of course, in their minds the yearning was for a restoration of the Law of Moses as the law of the land (and the high priests still would have run the country). So then, the concept of self-rule still would have made no sense to them. They were people who were zealous for God's Law and willing to die to make it become a political reality. But the idea that the average person should have a say in the governance s/he lived under would never have occurred to anyone in Palestine in Jesus' time.

Borg makes a good point in his chapter 9 about the various ways that Jews in the time of Jesus responded to the Roman system of domination with various forms of resistance. But, I am not so sure that the teachings of Jesus can be interpreted as forms of resistance or advocating non-violent resistance. In my opinion, there are a number of times that Jesus intentionally avoids the political issue that is thrown at him and turns it into a spiritual question. For instance, in Luke 13:1-5, Jesus is specifically asked about an incident in which non-violent resistance was met with Roman violence, hoping that Jesus would condemn the Roman action. Which he refuses to do. Then Jesus also brings up an occasion in which 18 ordinary people died in the collapse of a tower in the wall of the old city (Jerusalem), but Jesus turns it around to say that not only were all the dead people guilty before God, also even his questioners needed to repent. Now to be fair, I must offer the observation that many historical critical scholars believed either the early Christians or Luke himself made this up (Luke 13:1-5) to push the theme of the need for repentance. But even in the passage about whether or not to pay taxes to Caesar, I believe Jesus is avoiding the main question, which is - will you condemn the Roman occupation? Which Jesus refuses to do. But he does not approve of it either. His questioners were attempting to trap him, but the mere fact that they had the Roman coinage in question in their possession demonstrates that they were sympathetic to Roman rule. My point is, Jesus refuses to take sides, either against the Romans or for accommodation with the Romans. Borg says that Jesus' answer is an implicit criticism of the Roman occupation, and he may well be correct in that regard. But Jesus does not clearly advocate anything that could be understood as resistance against the Roman rule in his statement about giving Caesar his own.

When Borg discusses Jesus' ride into Jerusalem on the Sunday of the last week of his earthly life, I think he pushes it a bit too far to say that this is an "anti-imperial entry" (page 232). Undoubtedly, if Jesus were received by all of Jerusalem in the manner proclaimed by his arrival, there would be serious political implications for the Roman rule. But to see Jesus' arrival as a direct challenge to Roman rule would be beyond Jesus' intentions. In a sense Jesus' entry and the passage from Zechariah that served as the inspiration for this act does imply (as Borg points out) that if Jesus were received in the manner proclaimed by his act, that all coercive rule by any human authority is rendered unacceptable (and unnecessary). I am also certain that Jesus never expected that his arrival would bring about the desired result. But (as Borg correctly points out) Jesus most certainly intended his entry to be a prophetic sign to the people of Jerusalem that God has come to rule his people. (Note: when Jesus entered the city from the east, he would have entered by the gate that opens directly into the outer courtyard of the temple. So, the ride would have terminated in the temple precincts, and the religious connotations would have been inescapable to anyone paying close attention).

Likewise with Jesus' action commonly referred to as the "cleansing of the temple." Jesus most certainly intended this as a prophetic sign, a condemnation of business as usual in the temple. Jesus obviously condemned the commercialization of the sacrificial operation, and the fact that for so many people what was originally intended (in the Law of Moses) as the means by which people get right with God, had become for many simply a job and for the leaders a means to get rich at the expense of the people who come to the temple to offer sacrifices. And considering how many thousands of lambs would be killed on the following Friday, this was a big money making week at the temple (since the animal would almost always be purchased on the temple property so that the lamb was certified already as approved for sacrifice) . To a casual observer Jesus' actions may have appeared to be no more than a trouble maker disrupting the temple business. But to the astute observer, his protest against the commercialization of temple worship might have hit a note that resonated with people.

But I hesitate to agree with Borg that people would have resented the temple leaders because the temple system was "the center of an oppressive system that did not practice justice" (page 235). It seems just as likely that the popular resentment was due to the disproportionate wealth held by the high priestly families, in the same way there is resentment toward Wall Street bankers who make multi-million dollar salaries for little work when many people are just scraping by.

In the section on Jesus as Prophet, Borg focuses on Jesus' condemnation of Jerusalem. But to give the cause of Jesus' statements against the city as arising from an indictment of the domination system misses Jesus' point in my opinion. I think that rather than being overly concerned about peace and justice, Jesus is distraught at Jerusalem's history of rejecting God's messengers and for refusing to heed calls to return to God. So I think Borg is greatly overstating his case when he says that Jesus calls the temple a den of robbers because Jerusalem "had become the center of an oppressive domination system" (page 243 bottom). I suspect Jesus' critique was generated more by observing people not treating the temple as a holy place and knowing most people had no desire to receive the words of the prophets (Jesus and John included) as the Word of the Lord.

Borg's section on Nonviolent Resistance (pages 247-251) I found to be far-fetched. Walter Wink's interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount is quite ingenious, but not at all convincing. The reason is, that Jesus' statements on non-retaliation most certainly do fit within the larger framework of Jesus' teaching on "love your enemies." But to say that in acting out the "love your enemies" command by turning the other cheek and going the extra mile a person is engaging in non-violent resistance makes no sense. The very idea that loving one's enemies implies the expectation of nonviolent resistance at the same time (as Borg says on page 250 middle) makes no sense. In my mind, if you truly love someone, why would you underhandedly attempt to subvert their efforts? Resistance of any kind (in my mind) is motivated by dislike for someone not love. So, Wink's idea that doing something nice for someone can be a form of resistance against their role as a representative of an oppressive system seems nonsensical to me. And Borg's idea that when Jesus uttered these statements about being helpful to people who are oppressive he was promoting nonviolent resistance is not at all convincing. And the idea that Jesus was motivated by a desire to promote nonviolent resistance against Roman rule seems very unlikely. If Jesus was truly focused on resisting Roman rule, it would seem probable that he would have said so directly, some where, at some time, but I find it no where. And even if Wink is right that Jesus uttered the 5 statements listed at the top of page 248 as a means to promote nonviolent resistance, I am sure most Jewish people would have completely misunderstood Jesus, as apparently Wink believes every Christian interpreter has before Wink. So either Wink has uncovered a long lost subtlety in Jesus' teaching or else Wink is wrong. I suspect Wink is wrong.

On Borg and The Kingdom of God and Eschatology (pages 251-260), I suspect you have read enough on this topic by now that you can figure most of it out for yourself. Borg sets up the eschatology scenario to his benefit when he juxtaposes the imminent eschatology sayings of Jesus with the kingdom-is-present sayings. It has to be one or the other implies Borg. You can't have both, says Borg (in which I believe Borg sets up a false dichotomy). Of course Borg makes it easier for himself when he states that Jesus never uttered an "end is near" statement. Saying that the early church created the imminent eschatology theme so prominent in the New Testament makes it easy for Borg (and Crossan and others) to create a Jesus they can believe in. It makes more sense to me to attempt to devise an understanding of Jesus' views on eschatology that takes into account both the "end is near" statements and the "kingdom is present" statements. However, just like Ehrman discounts the importance of the "kingdom is present" statements, so Borg jettisons the "end is near" statements.

When Borg speaks of Participatory Eschatology (pages 259), he constructs a nice neat package that is not only palatable to modern people who are not expecting the end of the world any time soon, but he also creates a view of eschatology that works for modern Americans who want to be involved in God's work. But this seems to me to fall short of what we actually find in the Gospels. To "proclaim the kingdom" and "follow Jesus" do not necessarily mean people are bringing in the kingdom or even participating in it. To me it seems such actions that Jesus places upon his disciples are more oriented toward helping people prepare for the arrival of the kingdom. It seems to me, contrary to what Borg says, that in most passages that speak of the kingdom it is about what God is doing without human assistance. Just because Jesus might have been participating in the arrival of the kingdom by many of his actions, I doubt the Gospel writers expected the disciples to continue the same program. Contrary to what Borg believes, most early Christians believed Jesus was more than just a human, and that there was something special and unrepeatable in his earthly existence. Another sign that Borg's interpretation of Jesus' eschatology is on shaky ground is when Borg has to have recourse to the Gospel of Thomas to support his focus on the "kingdom is present" (page 256 middle-bottom). He is grasping at straws to float a brick. Very few scholars I know of would take Thomas over the Synoptic Gospels as the basis for reconstructing Jesus' views on the kingdom of God.