christ

The Historical
Meaning of the Cross
Disarming the Powers

Session 9
Homework
 Introduction

Of most biographies that are around, few devote more than ten percent of
their pages to the subject’s death – including biographies of men like
Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Steve Biko and Oscar Romero
who died violent and politically significant deaths. e Gospels, though,
devote nearly a third of their length to the
climactic last week of Jesus’ life. Only two of
the Gospels mention the events of his birth,
but each chronicler gives a detailed account
of the events leading to Jesus’ death. It must
be that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John saw
death as the central mystery of Jesus.
Nothing remotely like it had happened
before.1

eir writings make it abundantly clear that

the Gospel story doesn’t end with an unfulfilled dream of God’s kingdom,
but that God mightily intervened in world affairs through Jesus’ death on
the cross and his subsequent resurrection. In fact, they make it clear that
Jesus’ death brought salvation to the world. It was only through God’s
death and self-sacrifice that the world’s salvation could be accomplished.
At first, God had worked universally to establish Shalom on earth (Gen.
3-11). However, he had to intervene twice to save humankind from self-
destructing. After that he chose one family to become a blessing to the
nations. Once he had formed the descendants of Abraham from a slave
people into a nation under God, he charged them to establish social
systems and live relationships characterized by Shalom. In this way they
were to become a witness to the nations of God’s true character and bring
blessing and Shalom to them. However, Israel became unfaithful to its
true calling. Even though God sent many prophets to call them back to
their original purpose, they didn’t listen. Finally, God withdrew from
Israel and allowed his people to self-destruct their nation. After a period
of 70 years in exile, God began to work anew with a remnant of the
original nation. At first, the remnant under the leadership of Nehemiah
and Ezra seemed to partially embrace God’s purpose for them as a nation.
However, as the centuries progressed they once again alienated themselves
from God’s original vision of Shalom. Instead of blessing the nations
around them, they developed an exclusivist spirit and looked down on all
other nations. So God finally sent his own son to call his nation back to
his original plan and gather the people of Israel into God’s Shalom
community. Yet, the nation’s leaders opposed Jesus’ vision and call to
repentance for fear of losing their power and status. ey preferred to
uphold the status quo and kill Jesus instead. Jesus’ death, however, was not
the end of God’s vision, but the beginning of a brighter future for the
world, its systems and its inhabitants. How?

The Integral Mission of the Church 2 Living the Story Series

 What was the meaning of the cross and Jesus’ death? I believe we need to
distinguish between the historical meaning and the theological meaning
of the cross. Christians today concentrate mostly on the latter and seem
to indicate thereby that the historical meaning of the cross is irrelevant.
is is very unfortunate, since it misses an important aspect of the
meaning of Jesus’ death on the cross. In fact, it stands in danger of
spiritualizing the meaning of Jesus’ death! What, then, is the historical
meaning of the cross, of Jesus’ execution – and what significance can this
historical meaning have for our ministries today?

e Historical Meaning of the Cross: Why Jesus Was Executed

Normally we think of someone who dies a criminal’s death as a failure.

What crucifixion meant to the Romans is expressed in Cicero’s (a Roman
statesman) words, ‘Far be the very name of the cross, not only from the
body, but even from the thought, the eyes, the ears of Roman citizens’.2
Indeed, at first glance, it may seem that Jesus’ torturous death was futile.
He finally died like so many other freedom fighters die – at the hand of
the oppressors. No doubt, his life, teachings and ministry made an impact
that can be felt until today. His vision of Shalom was life-giving. But in
the end, one remains wondering: Why did he willingly give himself over
into the hands of his opponents? Why didn’t he escape from Palestine,
when he knew for a fact that staying would lead to his death?

e historical meaning of the crucifixion of Christ can be seen as Jesus’

radical repudiation of the use of violent force, overcoming it with moral,
social and courageous force. It can be seen as the confrontation between
the Pax Christi (the Peace or Shalom of Christ) and the Pax Romana with
its dark, demonic forces standing behind those human and societal
structures; the confrontation between the Empire of God and the Empire
of Satan.

e Pax Romana was a peace made possible by the cross: people so feared
crucifixion that they would think long and hard before rising up against
the emperor. e cross was the Roman tool of terror and execution; it was
reserved especially for leaders of rebellions. Anyone proclaiming a rival
kingdom of Caesar’s would be a prime candidate for crucifixion. is is
exactly what Jesus proclaimed, and this is exactly why he suffered death by
crucifixion.3 In the only explicit record of the charges brought against
Jesus, Luke 23:2, 5 reads: “We have found this man subverting our nation,
opposing the payment of taxes to Caesar, and saying of himself that he is
the Christ, a King. … He stirs up the people throughout all Judea
beginning in Galilee by his teaching.” In other words, Jesus posed a
genuine threat to the establishment in Jerusalem. As a charismatic leader
with a large following, Jesus had long aroused the suspicion of Herod in

The Integral Mission of the Church 3 Living the Story Series

 Galilee and the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. To a puppet Sanhedrin
government intent on keeping “peace at any cost” for their Roman
masters, such an event raised alarm. Jesus new teaching and actions
threatened the false sense of peace in Palestine. His open challenge of the
Jewish rulers, charging them as hypocrites, undermined their spiritual
authority. And so, the Jerusalem aristocratic elite said: “If we let him go
on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come
and take away both our place and our nation”. So they plotted to destroy
him: “It is better for one man to die for the people than that the whole
nation perish.” ( John 11:47-50).

Blasphemer, seditionist and messianic pretender! at, then, was the

charge! at is why the political and religious leadership conspired to kill
him. Jesus was not killed because He showed the way to Heaven to
humankind, but because he claimed to be the Messiah, the king of a new
kingdom – though a kingdom that was very different from any kingdoms
of this world. He was a serious troublemaker as far as the Jewish
leadership was concerned.4 When they forced Pilate to admit that Jesus’
messianic claims were a political threat to Rome, Pilate agreed to crucify
him.5 e inscription on the Cross (King of the Jews) shows that the
alleged crime was Jesus’ messianic claim and rebellion towards Rome.
Roman governors regularly crucified Jewish messianic pretenders in the
first century.6 In summary, then, Jesus was killed because he was a threat
to the Status Quo of both the seen and unseen worlds.

At first glance, then, the death of Christ appears to be the victory of both
the Jewish and Roman authorities. Yet, it was their demise. When the
most sophisticated religious system of its time allied with the most
powerful political empire and arrayed itself against a solitary figure, the
only perfect man who ever lived, accusing him as a blasphemer and
political insurgent, as a threat to the Status Quo, many common people
started suspecting that something was wrong. When they saw how
religion, not irreligion accused Jesus; how the law, not lawlessness, had him
executed, it showed to the world the hollowness of these leaders’
accusations. It opened the eyes of many of Jesus’ contemporaries who had
been blinded by the Establishment, illustrating to them how the Jewish
Sanhedrin colluded with the Roman authorities to uphold the status quo.
e rigged trials, the scourgings, the violent opposition to Jesus exposed
the political and religious authorities of that day for what they were:
defenders of their own power only. It made it obvious that they were not
interested in justice; they were merely interested in maintaining their
power, affluence and privilege. On that day the authorities fractured their
moral authority by condemning an innocent victim; they could no longer
claim to be moral. e Jewish Sanhedrin proved its collusion with Roman
authorities outright by naming Caesar their king and friend ( John
19:12-15). Pilate on the other hand, though at first giving the appearance

The Integral Mission of the Church 4 Living the Story Series

 to reject Jesus’ death sentence, would never have acted contrary to the
Sanhedrin’s claims against a low-status plaintiff – such as Jesus. As
aristocratic allies who controlled the system of justice as a means of
furthering their own interests, it was obvious to him that the Sanhedrin’s
interests were also his.7

Jesus, it follows, was crucified not because the common people called for
it. Jesus was crucified because the elite engineered it.8 While some
members of the populace allowed themselves to be manipulated and hired
by the ruling elite to accuse Jesus, most likely for some small personal
benefits, many people who physically saw the crucifixion, whether or not
they were Christ’s followers, saw that it was not the justice but the
injustice of humankind that was being carried out that day.9 In the arrest,
trial and crucifixion of Christ, humankind’s sin was more than visible:
human’s disobedience to God, human’s rejection of truth, human’s cruelty,
human’s lies, human’s vested interest, human’s greed, human’s hate, human’s
oppression, human’s exploitation, human’s abuse of power, human’s
deliberate choice of evil were all there on the cross for everyone to see,
hear and feel.10 Every one could see that it was the sin of the world that
was hanging on that cross. It was not the justice of humankind that was
displayed on the cross. Both his judges, Pilate and Herod, admitted that
Jesus had committed no offense that called for his execution. Every one
knew that Jesus was being crucified because of the envy, jealousy, fears and
hypocrisy of the socio-religious and political leaders of his day. Everyone
could see that what was hanging on the cross was the greed of his betrayer,
the lies of false witnesses, and the moral cowardice of some hired crowds,
the disciples and the Governor that could not resist injustice and
oppression but instead condoned the status quo. What hung upon the
cross was not the nobility of the human heart but our sin – the brutality,
oppression and terror upon which the kingdoms of this world, the
kingdom of Satan, have been founded. When Jesus died, even a gruff
Roman soldier was moved to exclaim, “Surely this man was the Son of
God!” He saw the contrast all too clearly between his brutish colleagues
and their victim, who forgave them in his dying gasp. e pale figure
nailed to a crossbeam exposed the ruling powers of the world as false gods
who broke their own lofty promises of piety and justice. Each assault on
Jesus laid bare their illegitimacy.11

So when Peter spoke to crowds in Jerusalem just a few weeks later and
publicly exhorted them that “God has made this Jesus whom YOU
crucified, both Lord and Christ… the people, when they heard this, were
cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what
shall we do?” (Acts 2:36-37). Within days of Peter’s public denunciation
and call to repentance thousands more had joined the fledgling
movement. e Jewish leaders were not able to curtail its growth by
pointing to Jesus’ criminal record and smearing Jesus’ name. Why? ey

The Integral Mission of the Church 5 Living the Story Series

 had lost their moral authority by breaking their own lofty promises of
piety and justice. eir subjects’ trust in them markedly waned.

e consequences were grave: When the Jewish leadership rejected Jesus’

message of Jubilee, chose ongoing collaboration with Rome and self-
preservation by upholding the status quo, discontent among the general
populace increased. Jerusalem had rejected the appeal of God’s last and
greatest messenger, and now judgment fell.12 Just three to four decades
later, the pot boiled over. Large numbers of common people rebelled
against the Jewish elite and the Roman occupiers, following the Zealots
on a path of violent revolution. e result: Rome brutally crushed the
rebellion in 70 AD, massacring tens of thousands of people, completely
destroying Jerusalem and its temple, and bringing the Jewish nation to an
end. Life as the Jewish people knew it, life centered in Jerusalem, temple,
priesthood, and homeland was over. e ‘end of the age’ had come.13 e
same had happened 600 years earlier: the destruction of Jerusalem and its
temple by the Babylonians in 587 BC. is is the consequence when a
people and its social systems renounce the purpose for which they were
created and instead uphold a religion of control, a politics of oppression
and an economics of exploitation. God withdraws and leaves them
vulnerable to the consequences of their own evil ways. Had they only
listened to Jesus’ alternative vision!

e Significance of the Cross for the Growth of Christianity and the Demise
of the Roman Empire

Fortunately, Jesus’ alternative vision and plan of action to bring Shalom to

the nations had not been destroyed. In fact, through the cross, Christ
conquered the Jewish and Roman leaders and with them all principalities
and powers opposing God’s reign. He conquered them not through their
humiliation and death, but through his. Jesus willingly subordinated
himself to the powers by accepting crucifixion. In doing so, he reminded
the powers that they were powerless, even in victory, to make their will
sovereign. ey couldn’t forcibly crucify him. He chose to let himself be
crucified. eir instrument of control – fear of death – didn’t work on
him. e cross, then, was Jesus’ radical refusal to compromise with the
evils of the social status quo. It was a costly confrontation with
corruption. e cross, for Jesus, was not a passive acceptance of evil, but a
fearless opposition to evil – and of accepting the consequences of that
opposition.

In fact, Jesus not only carried his cross, but he asked his disciples to carry
their own crosses too. One cannot be a disciple of Christ unless one takes
up one’s cross and follows him. To ‘take up your cross’ means to become a
rebel! It means to fight a corrupt establishment with moral and social
weapons, to be a troublemaker and accept the consequences of one’s

The Integral Mission of the Church 6 Living the Story Series

 actions! Such actions, though costly, eventually disarm the powers and
prove their illegitimacy. It is stunning indeed that the church chose the
cross as one of its primary symbols.14 e spectacle of crucifixion, which
long functioned for Rome to beat down courage and resistance and uphold
the Pax Romana, now became the center of another narrative of power, a
story that displaced Rome from center stage. e cross still remained a
spectacular symbol, but to the growing Christian movement it was no
longer a symbol of defeat, but a symbol of victory, celebrating triumph
over the Roman Empire’s crucifying power and relegating it into a mere
interim power.15 For the early church, embracing the cross meant that the
kingdom of God would triumph not by inflicting violence but by enduring
it – not by making others suffer but by willingly enduring suffering for the
sake of justice – not by coercing or humiliating others but by enduring
their humiliation with gentle dignity. (is theme of enduring suffering is
far more common in the teaching of Jesus and the apostles than most of us
realize). Jesus, they felt, took the empire’s instrument of torture and
transformed it into God’s symbol of the repudiation of violence –
encoding a creed that love, not violence, is the most powerful force in the
universe.16 e fledgling Jesus movement thereby stole the show from
Rome, by wielding the spectacle of one of Rome’s most terrifying weapons
– the cross – against terrorizing Rome.17

It’s no surprise in this light that the heroes of the early church were not
Crusaders, not warriors, not men of the sword, but rather martyrs, men
and women with the faith and courage to face lion, ax, cross, chain, whip,
and fire as testimony to their allegiance – not to the standards of this
world but to the standards of the kingdom of God. Like Jesus, they would
rather suffer violence than inflict it. Like Jesus, they showed that threats
of violence could not buy their silence, that instruments of fear could not
make them cower.18

As a result, Jesus’ movement to change society swept across the Roman

Empire. Rome was deeply threatened by these Christian alternative
communities. is is the only explanation that truly makes sense out of
Rome’s episodic persecution of the church for over two centuries. ose
emperors who scorned and attacked the Christians rightly perceived that
the greatest enemy Rome faced was not the Huns or Visigoths, but the
Christians. Yet, even in trying to extinguish the Christian movement,
many Romans remained impressed at its power. Roman governor Plinius
Secundus, for instance, wrote in his Epistles X96 that Christians were
people who loved the truth at any cost. Although he was ordered to
torture and execute them for refusing to curse Jesus, he was continually
amazed and impressed with their firm commitments "not to do any
wicked deeds, never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify
their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver
it up."

The Integral Mission of the Church 7 Living the Story Series

 By the end of the second century, an envoy to Roman Emperor Hadrian,
wrote about the Christians of that time: “ey love one another and they
never fail to help widows; they save orphans from those who would hurt
them. If they have something they give freely to the man who has
nothing; if they see a stranger they take him home and are happy as
though he were a real brother; they don't consider themselves brothers in
the usual sense, but brothers instead through the Spirit in God.”

e result eventually was the transformation of Roman society into a

Christianized society within the course of 300 years. God used the
message carried by this tiny, persecuted, oppressed, rejected, reviled group
of disciples to change the Roman Empire.19 By the time Constantine was
crowned Emperor in 312, between 10-25 percent of the Roman Empire
was Christian. And Christianity had brought about significant social
justice and social reform. It is an exciting study to see the impact of the
second and third century churches on changing the social culture of
Rome, particularly in terms of justice and social welfare.20

Historically, then, the cross was the strategy of Christ in the battle against
not only the heavenly, but also the secular powers, principalities and rulers
of this dark age; a strategy that would in its finality expose the illegitimacy,
corruptness and self-serving attitude of the current leadership and
authorities.21 Historian Philip Schaff described the overwhelming
influence which Jesus had on subsequent history and culture of the world.
"is Jesus of Nazareth, without money and arms, conquered more
millions than Alexander, Caesar, Mohammed, and Napoleon." How
ironic that the cross, the icon of the dominating Roman framing story,
became the icon for the liberating framing story of Jesus. 22

e Significance of Jesus’ Strategy of the Cross Today

Interestingly, Jesus’ example and moral power influenced multitudes of

social actors in centuries to come, including some of the best known social
movement leaders of the 20th century:

Mahatma Gandhi well understood and imitated Christ in his embrace of

the cross. Many Indians wanted to fight British colonialism with guns
and bombs. But Gandhi asked his followers to fill the British jails and
accept the British stick-blows and bullets. When the British threw
Gandhi in jail, it was not Gandhi who was judged and condemned but the
British themselves. When they beat and killed the peaceful protesters,
they in fact destroyed their own kingdom. at was what Jesus had
invited his disciples to do. To ‘take up your cross’ means to become an
opponent of those powers that oppose God’s rule, to fight a corrupt

The Integral Mission of the Church 8 Living the Story Series

 establishment with moral and social weapons, to be a troublemaker and
take the consequences of that.23

Years later, Martin Luther King Jr. decided to put Gandhi’s tactics into
practice in the United States. Many blacks abandoned King over the issue
of nonviolence and drifted toward “black power”. After you’ve been hit on
the head with a policeman’s nightstick for the dozenth time and received
yet another jolt from a jailer’s cattle prod you begin to question the
effectiveness of nonviolence. But King himself never wavered. As riots
broke out in places like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Harlem, King traveled
from city to city trying to cool tempers, forcefully reminding
demonstrators that moral change is not accomplished through immoral
means. Almost all his speeches reiterated the message: “Christianity has
always insisted that the cross we bear precedes the crown we wear.” To be
a Christian one must take up his cross, with all its difficulties and
agonizing and tension-packed content and carry it until that very cross
leaves its mark upon us and redeems us to that more excellent way which
comes only through suffering. King had a number of weaknesses, but one
thing he got right. Against all odds, against all instincts of self-
preservation, he stayed true to the principle of peacemaking. He did not
strike back. Where others called for revenge, he called for love. e civil
rights marchers put their bodies on the line before sheriffs with nightsticks
and fire hoses and snarling German shepherds. at, in fact, was what
brought them the victory they had been seeking so long. Historians point
to one event as the single moment in which the Civil Rights movement
attained a critical mass of public support for its cause. It occurred on a
bridge outside Selma, Alabama, when Sheriff Jim Clark turned his
policemen loose on unarmed black demonstrators. e American public,
horrified by the scene of violent injustice, at last gave assent to passage of a
civil rights bill. e real goal, King used to say, was not to defeat the white
man, but “to awaken a sense of shame within the oppressor and challenge
his false sense of superiority… e end is reconciliation; the end is
redemption; the end is the creation of the beloved community.”

King, like Gandhi before him, died a martyr. After his death, more and
more people began adopting the principle of nonviolent protest as a way
to demand justice. In the Philippines, after Benigno Aquino’s martyrdom,
ordinary people brought down the dictatorship of Marcos by gathering in
the streets to pray; army tanks rolled to a stop before the kneeling
Filipinos as if blocked by an invisible force. Later, in the remarkable year
of 1989, in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Bulgaria,
Yugoslavia, Romania, Mongolia, Albania, the Soviet Union, Nepal, and
Chile, more than half a billion people threw off the yoke of oppression
through nonviolent means. In many of these places, especially the nations
of Eastern Europe and South Africa, the Christian church led the way.

The Integral Mission of the Church 9 Living the Story Series

 Protesters marched through the streets carrying candles, singing hymns,
and praying. As in Joshua’s day, the walls came tumbling down.24

In 1989 alone, thirteen nations comprising 1.7 billion people – over thirty-
two percent of humanity – experienced nonviolent revolutions. ey
succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest expectations in every case but China.
And they were completely peaceful (on the part of the protesters) in every
case but Romania and parts of the southern U.S.S.R. e latest successful
non-violent revolution happened in East Timor, which obtained political
independence from Indonesia in 2002. If we add all the countries touched
by major nonviolent actions during the past one hundred years, the figure
reaches almost 3 billion.25

e British commanders, then, who authorized massacres against

Mahatma Ghandi’s followers, the racist sheriffs who locked Martin
Luther King Jr. in jail cells and unleashed guard dogs on unarmed
African-American protesters, the Soviets who deported Solzhenitsyn, the
Czechs who imprisoned Václav Havel, the Filipinos who murdered
Benigno Aquino, the South African authorities who imprisoned Nelson
Mandela, the El Salvadorian authorities who had archbishop Oscar
Romero murdered, the Mexican authorities who massacred non-violent
student protesters in Tlatelolco, Mexico City – all these thought they were
solving a problem. Instead, they all ended up exposing the hollowness of
their claims to seek the justice and wellbeing for their people and helped
open the eyes of many citizens to their lies. ey unmasked their own
violence and injustice and paved the way for their own demise, triggering
movements that brought about change in their respective countries.
Moral, social and courageous power can have a disarming effect as already
Jesus and his disciples proved.

Today, in many countries of the world where evil, corruption and tyranny
reign, heaping untold miseries on the weak and the poor, Christ continues
to call his disciples to a practical compassion for the sheep. He calls his
followers to take up their cross and follow him in the path of service,
protest and non-violent confrontation.26

reflection questions: your reactions to the historical

meaning of the cross
In what follows, reflect on the following questions and write your answers into
your Application Journal

• What are your reactions to this article?

The Integral Mission of the Church 10 Living the Story Series

 • Describe the meaning of crosses in the Roman Empire. Was this a
new insight for you? How does it compare with associations most
people have with the cross today?
• How do you react to this article’s claim, that Jesus’ death had not only
spiritual meaning?
• Have you personally seen the effectiveness of Jesus’ strategy in
disarming the powers work?

Now, take some time to pray as you reflect on the next questions, and allow
God’s Spirit to work in your heart to encourage, reveal, exhort, challenge and
inspire.

• How does this article affect you in terms of your own personal faith
and your spiritual journey?
• What would it imply for you to ‘take up your cross’ in your
community/city? Would you be ready?
• What would it imply for people in your church to ‘take up their cross’
your community/city?
• What are ways that you and your church are called to take up your
cross? What issues and injustices in your community and city can
only be overcome by a movement of ‘cross-bearing’ disciples?
• What would happen in your community/city if a growing number of
churches took up their cross the way Jesus commanded his disciples to
do?

Come prepared to share your answers in the following class session!

application journal:

The Integral Mission of the Church 11 Living the Story Series

The Integral Mission of the Church 12 Living the Story Series
 endnotes
1 ?
2 Carson, D. A. 1994. New Bible Commentary: 21st century edition. Rev. ed. of: e new
Bible commentary. 3rd ed. / edited by D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer. 1970. (4th ed.) . Inter-
Varsity Press: Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA
3 Jesus died between two others who had also proclaimed opposition to Caesar, yet whose

violent methods radically differed from Jesus’. e two men who were crucified with
Jesus, commonly thought of as thieves, were more likely leaders or agents of failed
political rebellions.
4 Based on class notes of Bob Linthicum’s course “Building a People of Power”

He claimed to be the legitimate king of the Jews with a large following backing him,
which meant that the Sanhedrin’s rule was illegitimate.
5 In asking Jesus if his title is “King of the Jews”, Pilate asks Jesus, “Are you the head of

the resistance?” e title charged Jesus with sedition against the empire and Caesar. Pilate
wondered greatly. is was not because he thought Jesus not guilty or not threatening, as
some commentators assert. Indeed, the fact that Jesus’ doings rendered him liable to a
political charge, says something subversive about this evasive kingdom which Jesus insists
is not of this world. Central to the meaning of not being ‘of this world’ is the refusal to
use the strength of worldly power. Jesus said that if his kingdom were of this world his
servants would fight to prevent his arrest. In other words, they would not hesitate to
resort to violence. Note that Jesus at this juncture is past the temptations of the
wilderness – past inner cravings for the compelling yet doubtful potential of reformist
ambitions, of power and authority and the lure of the spectacular. Now there is only the
quiet resolves to drink the cup of suffering before him. So Pilate wondered because Jesus
had brazenly not denied that he was a threat to Rome. He had not been able to
intimidate Jesus into lying, begging or recanting in order to save his life, enough to make
any true imperial officer wonder. Jesus denied Pilate and his imperial system the power to
intimidate him into conformity and submission, but maintained the challenge of his
commission. (Warren Carter, Matthew and Empire, 161-162; Melba Padilla Maggay,
Transforming Society, 49)
6 Ronald Sider, One-Sided Christianity, 71
7 Warren Carter, Matthew and Empire, 151
8 Warren Carter, Matthew and Empire, 167
9 Many commentators suppose that masses of people turned their backs on Jesus because

he didn’t fulfill widely-held expectations that he would lead an armed revolution and sack
the Romans. ey were disappointed with Jesus’ vision and strategy for change: ey had
wanted a local hero, a Messiah just for Israel, one who would follow their customs and
confirm their prejudices. So, when Jesus turned out to challenge their parochial attitudes
and self-serving desires, and didn’t fulfill their expectations of Messiah, these
commentators maintain, multitudes were fine with the Jewish authorities’ desire to get rid
of him and readily offered their support. While this traditional interpretation may have
some merit, it is still hard to believe that the majority of common people turned their
backs on Jesus when they had welcomed him as King just a few days earlier. e
following interpretation seems more plausible: In Mark 15:11 we’re told that the chief
priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas and crucify Jesus instead. e
leaders preferred Barabbas, a sicarii (‘dagger man’ were connected to the Zealots) who
assassinated Roman officials in the vain hope of driving them out of Palestine, to be
released instead of Jesus. From their choice, it was clear that the Jewish elite conceived
Jesus a bigger threat to their power than Barabbas. It is important to note that the crowd
present in Pilate’s court yard did not comprise all of Israel. ey wouldn’t have fit in
Pilate’s palace court anyway, where the trial was held. More likely, then, this crowd was
hired or mobilized by the Jewish authorities’ to demand Jesus’ crucifixion. e authorities

The Integral Mission of the Church 13 Living the Story Series

 might have promised them some material reward in return, since – apart from the ruling
elite – not many common Jews would have readily acknowledged Caesar as their king
and friend ( John 19:12-15). In fact, isn’t it a common practice in many countries for
politicians to manipulate the poor to achieve their goals? How often have you seen
political parties buy votes by giving people some kind of material rewards? How often
have you seen politicians use poor people to march for a cause, even though these poor
don’t even know the underlying reasons for their protests? It seems, then, that the number
of common people who actively demanded Jesus’ crucifixion was small. e great
majority, didn’t approve, yet unfortunately remained silent – most likely for fear of
repercussions.
10 Vishal Mangalwadi, Truth and Social Reform, 23
11 ? Mangalwadi, ?
12 By calling the nation to repentance and challenging them to accept his teachings of the

Kingdom, Jesus hoped to avert the nation from self-destruction. If they didn’t, he foresaw
a scenario something like this: “Tensions will continue to rise, and eventually the Zealots
will lead the people into a violent rebellion. When they rebel, God will not intervene as
they hope, because God does not want to continue to bless violence. Instead, they will be
crushed brutally by the Romans. e temple will be destroyed. Jerusalem will fall. Jewish
life as we know it will end.” As anyone who knows history will realize, the scenario Jesus
describes did in fact occur. His countrymen did not trust him or follow him. ey rejected
both his promises and his warnings. ey did not accept his radical alternative to
violence, accommodation, or isolation. Jesus himself realized this would be the case as he
descended to Jerusalem on what we call Palm Sunday, and he began to weep and say,
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem! If only you knew what makes for peace!” (Brian McLaren, e
Secret Message of Jesus, 179)
13 Brian McLaren, e Secret Message of Jesus, 186
14 Mark Lewis Taylor, e Executed God, 104
15 Mark Lewis Taylor, e Executed God, 104
16 Brian McLaren, e Secret Message of Jesus, 152-153
17 Mark Lewis Taylor, e Executed God, 104
18 Brian McLaren, e Secret Message of Jesus, 153
19 Bob Moffit, If Jesus Were Mayor, 36
20 Bob Moffit, If Jesus Were Mayor, 40

In 313 AD Emperor Constantine declared Christianity legal and gave the church
freedom from persecution and social contempt. He and his successors continued to
broaden policies that favored the church. By 381, Christianity was declared the state
religion. Pagan Rome was no officially “Christian Rome”. e Roman Empire gave state
support to Christianity in 392. And there something very unfortunate happened. Instead
of continuing to play a prophetic role, the church entered into growing cooperation with
the state – with the desire to transform the world under the banner of the Roman
Empire. is introduced radical changes to Jesus’ vision and stood in stark difference
from the humble and simple service of the early church. Many of the resulting changes
were not in line with God’s vision of Shalom. Nonetheless, God continued to use parts of
the church during the subsequent centuries. He always does! (Bob Moffit, If Jesus Were
Mayor, 40-41)
21 Vishal Mangalwadi, Truth and Social Reform, 25

Someone, whose perception of Christianity is conditioned by the contemporary image of

the Church is very likely to dismiss this interpretation of the historical meaning of the
cross as a heresy. But Gamaliel, a respected Jewish rabbi, who watched Jesus and His
cross-bearing community closely and sympathetically, saw them as well-intentioned
political rebels. He naturally classed the apostles with eudas and Judas the Galilean
who ‘also’ led revolts against Rome. e entire Jewish Sanhedrin–both critics and
sympathisers of the apostles–agreed with Gamaliel’s perception of the Church as a band
of rebels (Acts 5:33-40) (Vishal Mangalwadi, Truth and Social Reform, 25-26)

The Integral Mission of the Church 14 Living the Story Series

 22 Brian McLaren, Everything Must Change, 86
23 Vishal Mangalwadi, Truth and Social Reform, 24-25
24 Vishal Mangalwadi, Truth and Social Reform, 25-26
25 Walter Wink, e Powers at Be, 117
26 Vishal Mangalwadi, Truth and Social Reform, 25-26

The Integral Mission of the Church 15 Living the Story Series