Status
Coming Soon
Call number
Collection
Publication
[San Francisco] : HarperSanFrancisco, c2007.
Description
The bestselling author and prominent New Testament scholar draws parallels between 1st-century Roman Empire and 21st-century United States, showing how the radical messages of Jesus and Paul can lead us to peace today Using the tools of expert biblical scholarship and a keen eye for current events, bestselling author John Dominic Crossan deftly presents the tensions exhibited in the Bible between political power and God's justice. Through the revolutionary messages of Jesus and Paul, Crossan reveals what the Bible has to say about land and economy, violence and retribution, justice and peace, and ultimately, redemption. He examines the meaning of “kingdom of God” prophesized by Jesus, and the equality recommended to Paul by his churches, contrasting these messages of peace against the misinterpreted apocalyptic vision from the book of Revelations, that has been co-opted by modern right-wing theologians and televangelists to justify the United State's military actions in the Middle East.… (more)
User reviews
LibraryThing member DubiousDisciple
It’s Jesus vs. Rome. Who will win?
If you’ve read much about the first century, you’re already well aware of the conflict between Christian and Roman claims. Both sides laid claim to the Son of God. Both claimed the inauguration of a new, wonderful age. The Caesars, especially in Asia Minor,
The Christians claimed a coming kingdom, or a hidden kingdom; the Romans proved their kingdom by force and heavy presence. The Christian kingdom was not of this world; the Roman kingdom invaded every part of life. Jesus’ kingdom was one of nonviolence; the Roman kingdom was just the opposite.
Crossan highlights the conflict between the two, and what, exactly, the Christians were claiming in their “uprising.” Of particular interest, to me, was the discussion of Paul, whom Crossan divides into three categories: The radical Paul, the liberal Paul, and the conservative Paul, representing three stages of Pauline writings.
I give it four stars instead of five, not for the lack of quality, but because little is original from his other writings. It’s just organized and directed differently to emphasize a point.
If you’ve read much about the first century, you’re already well aware of the conflict between Christian and Roman claims. Both sides laid claim to the Son of God. Both claimed the inauguration of a new, wonderful age. The Caesars, especially in Asia Minor,
Show More
were worshipped as God and often went by the title Son of God. Caesar Augustus, in particular, was hailed as the savior of the world, the bringer of peace and prosperity.The Christians claimed a coming kingdom, or a hidden kingdom; the Romans proved their kingdom by force and heavy presence. The Christian kingdom was not of this world; the Roman kingdom invaded every part of life. Jesus’ kingdom was one of nonviolence; the Roman kingdom was just the opposite.
Crossan highlights the conflict between the two, and what, exactly, the Christians were claiming in their “uprising.” Of particular interest, to me, was the discussion of Paul, whom Crossan divides into three categories: The radical Paul, the liberal Paul, and the conservative Paul, representing three stages of Pauline writings.
I give it four stars instead of five, not for the lack of quality, but because little is original from his other writings. It’s just organized and directed differently to emphasize a point.
Show Less
LibraryThing member nbmars
John Dominic Crossan's little gem, "God and Empire," is a discussion of the relation of Christianity to worldly political states, particularly empires such as Rome and the current United States. Empires exert power territorially, politically, ideologically, and militarily. Crossan observes that the
The bible is very ambiguous and ambivalent as to how it portrays God's exercise of power. In the Old Testament, God punishes man by floods and other catastrophes. However, He sometimes is more merciful, such as when He merely marks Cain instead of exerting counter violence to Cain's killing his brother.
Crossan distinguishes distributive justice from retributive justice. God exercises both kinds of justice in the Bible. The many rules set forth in Leviticus are [to Crossan] "the Torah's relentless attempt to stay the growth of inequality." Yet, the Bible sometimes portrays God as exacting retributive justice through violent acts. Crossan asks whether there is any scientific evidence that "God ever punishes anyone?" He believes not.
Crossan argues that the fundamental message of Jesus, Paul, and the early Christians is one of opposition to earthly, violent power through nonviolent persuasion. He asserts this despite many passages, particularly in the Apocalypse, that indicate that Jesus may return as a violent avenger, much as he is portrayed in the Left Behind books.
The two final divine solutions for the problem of Gentile empires [Noachic extermination or Abrahamic conversion to justice and peace] is never reconciled in the biblical tradition. Christians must choose between the violent God of human normalcy and the nonviolent God of divine radicality, between peace through violence or peace through justice. Crossan himself opts for the nonviolent approach, and argues that this is the most accurate reading of Jesus and Paul.
Crossan argues that Paul gets a bad rap from today's feminist and gay-tolerant world because several of the epistles attributed to him were clearly written by someone else with a more traditional Jewish view of gender equality and homosexuality. The real Paul recognized several women as important early apostles, the equal of any men.
The final chapter of the book impugns the interpretations of the Apocalypse currently prevalent among evangelicals. He believes in no second coming of Christ as an avenger. Rather, he shows that many of the tribulations described in the Apocalypse were coded allusions to events [the Roman destruction of the Jewish temple and the dispersing of the Jews] that already had taken place when the book was written. A careful reading of the book shows the second coming to take place AFTER those events, not during them. Crosson, a modern sensible man, envisions the second coming not as a physical return of Jesus, but rather as a time when most men will be converted to a more benign, nonviolent way of living. He admits this a radical vision, not the normal [but not inevitable] state of human affairs.
(JAB)
Show More
normal way power is exercised is through force or coercion, but that is not the only way it can be exercised. Nonviolent persuasion is also a way to exert power.The bible is very ambiguous and ambivalent as to how it portrays God's exercise of power. In the Old Testament, God punishes man by floods and other catastrophes. However, He sometimes is more merciful, such as when He merely marks Cain instead of exerting counter violence to Cain's killing his brother.
Crossan distinguishes distributive justice from retributive justice. God exercises both kinds of justice in the Bible. The many rules set forth in Leviticus are [to Crossan] "the Torah's relentless attempt to stay the growth of inequality." Yet, the Bible sometimes portrays God as exacting retributive justice through violent acts. Crossan asks whether there is any scientific evidence that "God ever punishes anyone?" He believes not.
Crossan argues that the fundamental message of Jesus, Paul, and the early Christians is one of opposition to earthly, violent power through nonviolent persuasion. He asserts this despite many passages, particularly in the Apocalypse, that indicate that Jesus may return as a violent avenger, much as he is portrayed in the Left Behind books.
The two final divine solutions for the problem of Gentile empires [Noachic extermination or Abrahamic conversion to justice and peace] is never reconciled in the biblical tradition. Christians must choose between the violent God of human normalcy and the nonviolent God of divine radicality, between peace through violence or peace through justice. Crossan himself opts for the nonviolent approach, and argues that this is the most accurate reading of Jesus and Paul.
Crossan argues that Paul gets a bad rap from today's feminist and gay-tolerant world because several of the epistles attributed to him were clearly written by someone else with a more traditional Jewish view of gender equality and homosexuality. The real Paul recognized several women as important early apostles, the equal of any men.
The final chapter of the book impugns the interpretations of the Apocalypse currently prevalent among evangelicals. He believes in no second coming of Christ as an avenger. Rather, he shows that many of the tribulations described in the Apocalypse were coded allusions to events [the Roman destruction of the Jewish temple and the dispersing of the Jews] that already had taken place when the book was written. A careful reading of the book shows the second coming to take place AFTER those events, not during them. Crosson, a modern sensible man, envisions the second coming not as a physical return of Jesus, but rather as a time when most men will be converted to a more benign, nonviolent way of living. He admits this a radical vision, not the normal [but not inevitable] state of human affairs.
(JAB)
Show Less
LibraryThing member the_awesome_opossum
The first chapter in this book is entitled "God and the Ambiguity of Power" - and the ambiguity of power, or the ethics of power specifically, is exactly the struggle that Christianity has had in determining its relationship to Empire and domination systems. The title alludes to Rome specifically,
It might seem obvious that Jesus would have stood against the oppression of Rome, but does that mean that Christians should be "drop-outs" who refuse to go along with these oppressive social evils like capitalism and organized religion? Clearly to revolutionize the system and cure its evils, one must work within the system - thus "violent oppression and nonviolent resistance are both modes of social power."
Crossan argues that Christians who seize Revelation especially and make Christianity into a religion of both violence and glory have misinterpreted the message of the historical Jesus - or worse, disregarded it entirely. Jesus was preaching a very present Kingdom of God, and Christians are therefore called to live as though they're living in it. This should be an egalitarian movement, and would be destructive against the empire insofar as its foundation of the social masses would have refused to worship it any longer, but ultimately it would be a revolution that achieves effectiveness through nonviolence.
Show More
but really Crossan's "empire" is any powerful and oppressive system.It might seem obvious that Jesus would have stood against the oppression of Rome, but does that mean that Christians should be "drop-outs" who refuse to go along with these oppressive social evils like capitalism and organized religion? Clearly to revolutionize the system and cure its evils, one must work within the system - thus "violent oppression and nonviolent resistance are both modes of social power."
Crossan argues that Christians who seize Revelation especially and make Christianity into a religion of both violence and glory have misinterpreted the message of the historical Jesus - or worse, disregarded it entirely. Jesus was preaching a very present Kingdom of God, and Christians are therefore called to live as though they're living in it. This should be an egalitarian movement, and would be destructive against the empire insofar as its foundation of the social masses would have refused to worship it any longer, but ultimately it would be a revolution that achieves effectiveness through nonviolence.
Show Less
LibraryThing member trishrobertsmiller
It covers some ground covered in other books. I understand why he did that (otherwise parts of his argument wouldn't make sense to people who hadn't read his other books). I just wish he'd clearly bracketed off the review material. That's the only flaw with what is otherwise an elegant, eloquent,
Show More
and persuasive book. Show Less
LibraryThing member Othemts
This is a complex but fascinating book that I muddled through over the course of Lent this year. The basic thesis of this book is that Jesus Christ taught a radical message contrary to the idea of empire, whether the Roman empire of Christ's time or the American empire today. Pax Romana created
Favorite Passages:
As the greatest pre-industrial and territorial empire—just as we are the greatest post-industrial and commercial empire—Rome was the expression, no more and no less, of the normalcy of civilization’s violence, first-century style. Usually we use the term “civilization” for everything that is good about our humanity—for example, poetry and drama, music and dance, art and architecture, image and narrative. Correspondingly, to call individuals or groups, places or actions, “uncivilized” is normally a calculated insult. So I need to explain very clearly what I mean in this book by the “brutal normalcy of civilization.” The point I wish to emphasize is that imperialism is not just a here-and-there, now-and-then, sporadic event in human history, but that civilization itself, as I am using that term, has always been imperial—that is, empire is the normalcy of civilization’s violence. It is, of course, always possible to oppose this empire in favor of that one, to oppose yours in favor of ours. But if you oppose empire-as-such, you are taking on what has been the normalcy of civilization’s brutality for at least the last six thousand years.
As everyone knows, civilization began immediately with fratricide: the murder of one brother by another. But the story is more detailed than that. “Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a tiller of the ground” (4:2), and “when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him” (4:8). That inaugural fratricide was the murder of a shepherd by a farmer on his own farm. That is the first act in the invention of human civilization—the farmer displacing the shepherd—and God does not punish the farmer but only marks him forever as the future of a lost past. There is no counterviolence from God—not even the appropriate divine vengeance when, as God says, “your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground!” (4:10).
I think that Jesus started by accepting John’s theology of God’s imminence but, precisely because of what happened to John, changed from that to a theology of God’s presence. John expected God’s advent, but Antipas’s cavalry came instead. John was executed, and God still did not come as an avenging presence. Maybe, thought Jesus, that was not how God acted because that is not how God is. Jesus’s own proclamation therefore insisted that the Kingdom of God was not imminent but present; it was already here below upon this earth, and however it was to be consummated in the future, it was a present-already and not just an imminent-future reality. Jesus could hardly have made such a spectacular claim without immediately appending another one to it. You can speak forever about the future-imminence of the Kingdom, but unless you are foolish enough to give a precise date, you can hardly be proved right or wrong. We are but waiting for God to act; apart from preparatory faith, hope, and prayer, there is no more we can do. When God acts, it will be, presumably, like a flash of divine lightning beyond all categories of time and place. But to claim an already-present Kingdom demands some evidence, and the only such that Jesus could have offered is this: it is not that we are waiting for God, but that God is waiting for us. The present Kingdom is a collaborative eschaton between the human and divine worlds. The Great Divine Cleanup is an interactive process with a present beginning in time and a future (short or long?) consummation. Would it happen without God? No. Would it happen without believers? No. To see the presence of the Kingdom of God, said Jesus, come, see how we live, and then live likewise.
It is certainly correct, therefore, to call Jesus’s death—or in fact the death of any martyr—a sacrifice, but substitution and suffering are not the point of sacrifice. Substitutionary atonement is bad as theoretical Christian theology just as suicidal terrorism is bad as practical Islamic theology. Jesus died because of our sins, or from our sins, but that should never be misread as for our sins. In Jesus, the radicality of God became incarnate, and the normalcy of civilization’s brutal violence (our sins, or better, Our Sin) executed him. Jesus’s execution asks us to face the truth that, across human evolution, injustice has been created and maintained by violence while justice has been opposed and avoided by violence. That warning, if heeded, can be salvation.
It is the age-old normalcy of civilization’s violent injustice that is weakness and foolishness with God, and it is God’s nonviolent justice that is weakness and foolishness for civilization’s violent normalcy.
To turn the nonviolent resistance of the slaughtered Jesus into the violent warfare of the slaughtering Jesus is, for me as a Christian, to libel the body of Jesus and to blaspheme the soul of Christ.
Show More
peace through the enforcement of Roman military strength but the Kingdom of God is a true peace built on justice and equality. Thus the violence of "civilized" humanity if challenged by Christ's non-violence. This is a book worthy of a contemplative reread.Favorite Passages:
As the greatest pre-industrial and territorial empire—just as we are the greatest post-industrial and commercial empire—Rome was the expression, no more and no less, of the normalcy of civilization’s violence, first-century style. Usually we use the term “civilization” for everything that is good about our humanity—for example, poetry and drama, music and dance, art and architecture, image and narrative. Correspondingly, to call individuals or groups, places or actions, “uncivilized” is normally a calculated insult. So I need to explain very clearly what I mean in this book by the “brutal normalcy of civilization.” The point I wish to emphasize is that imperialism is not just a here-and-there, now-and-then, sporadic event in human history, but that civilization itself, as I am using that term, has always been imperial—that is, empire is the normalcy of civilization’s violence. It is, of course, always possible to oppose this empire in favor of that one, to oppose yours in favor of ours. But if you oppose empire-as-such, you are taking on what has been the normalcy of civilization’s brutality for at least the last six thousand years.
As everyone knows, civilization began immediately with fratricide: the murder of one brother by another. But the story is more detailed than that. “Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a tiller of the ground” (4:2), and “when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him” (4:8). That inaugural fratricide was the murder of a shepherd by a farmer on his own farm. That is the first act in the invention of human civilization—the farmer displacing the shepherd—and God does not punish the farmer but only marks him forever as the future of a lost past. There is no counterviolence from God—not even the appropriate divine vengeance when, as God says, “your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground!” (4:10).
I think that Jesus started by accepting John’s theology of God’s imminence but, precisely because of what happened to John, changed from that to a theology of God’s presence. John expected God’s advent, but Antipas’s cavalry came instead. John was executed, and God still did not come as an avenging presence. Maybe, thought Jesus, that was not how God acted because that is not how God is. Jesus’s own proclamation therefore insisted that the Kingdom of God was not imminent but present; it was already here below upon this earth, and however it was to be consummated in the future, it was a present-already and not just an imminent-future reality. Jesus could hardly have made such a spectacular claim without immediately appending another one to it. You can speak forever about the future-imminence of the Kingdom, but unless you are foolish enough to give a precise date, you can hardly be proved right or wrong. We are but waiting for God to act; apart from preparatory faith, hope, and prayer, there is no more we can do. When God acts, it will be, presumably, like a flash of divine lightning beyond all categories of time and place. But to claim an already-present Kingdom demands some evidence, and the only such that Jesus could have offered is this: it is not that we are waiting for God, but that God is waiting for us. The present Kingdom is a collaborative eschaton between the human and divine worlds. The Great Divine Cleanup is an interactive process with a present beginning in time and a future (short or long?) consummation. Would it happen without God? No. Would it happen without believers? No. To see the presence of the Kingdom of God, said Jesus, come, see how we live, and then live likewise.
It is certainly correct, therefore, to call Jesus’s death—or in fact the death of any martyr—a sacrifice, but substitution and suffering are not the point of sacrifice. Substitutionary atonement is bad as theoretical Christian theology just as suicidal terrorism is bad as practical Islamic theology. Jesus died because of our sins, or from our sins, but that should never be misread as for our sins. In Jesus, the radicality of God became incarnate, and the normalcy of civilization’s brutal violence (our sins, or better, Our Sin) executed him. Jesus’s execution asks us to face the truth that, across human evolution, injustice has been created and maintained by violence while justice has been opposed and avoided by violence. That warning, if heeded, can be salvation.
It is the age-old normalcy of civilization’s violent injustice that is weakness and foolishness with God, and it is God’s nonviolent justice that is weakness and foolishness for civilization’s violent normalcy.
To turn the nonviolent resistance of the slaughtered Jesus into the violent warfare of the slaughtering Jesus is, for me as a Christian, to libel the body of Jesus and to blaspheme the soul of Christ.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Mitchell_Bergeson_Jr
Excellent read. Timely and hopeful.
Subjects
Language
Physical description
257 p.; 24 cm
ISBN
9780060843236
Similar in this library
Jesus : uncovering the life, teachings, and relevance of a religious revolutionary by Marcus J. Borg
The Last Week: What the Gospels Really Teach About Jesus's Final Days in Jerusalem by Marcus J. Borg
The first Paul : reclaiming the radical visionary behind the Church's conservative icon by Marcus J. Borg
In search of Paul : how Jesus's Apostle opposed Rome's empire with God's kingdom : a new vision of Paul's words & world by John Dominic Crossan
The birth of Christianity : discovering what happened in the years immediately after the execution of Jesus by John Dominic Crossan
Speaking Christian : why Christian words have lost their meaning and power-- and how they can be restored by Marcus J. Borg
The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love by John Shelby Spong