Caleb Anderson – Reli 250: First essay

The Gospels can be seen as “nothing less than Christology in narrative form”1. Whether on first
reading or after careful exegesis, the stories found in the Gospels can illuminate much about the
theological, political and social significance of Jesus. The story of “The Request of James and
John” from Mark's gospel serves the primary purpose of demonstrating that Jesus' identity and
mission are a radical departure from the ways of the world and the expectations of his followers.

Mark 10:35-452

James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came forward to him and said to him, 'Teacher, we
want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.' And he said to them, 'What is it you want me
to do for you?' And they said to him, 'Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your
left, in your glory.' But Jesus said to them, 'You do not know what you are asking. Are you
able to drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?'
They replied, 'We are able.' Then Jesus said to them, 'The cup that I drink you will drink;
and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized; but to sit at my right
hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.'

When the ten heard this, they began to be angry with James and John. So Jesus called them
and said to them, 'You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their
rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among
you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever
wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served
but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.'

Before looking too in-depth at the story proper, it is fruitful to look at the historical context in which
it was set and written. Jesus lived and moved in 1st century Palestine, then occupied by the Roman
Empire. At the time of Mark's gospel, the area came under the puppet kingdom of Galilee, ruled by
tetrarch Herod Antipas3, and the Roman province of Iudaea (Judea), ruled by prefect Pontius Pilate4.
A minority of Jews collaborated with the Romans in exchange for privilege and power, such as the
Sadducees, the aristocratic sect who controlled the temple in Jerusalem, and the much-maligned
tax-collectors who extracted money for Rome and themselves.

The vast majority, however, held out hope that God would liberate Israel from Rome, as he had
brought them out of Egypt at the birth of their nation and liberated them from other empires
throughout their history. Amongst the religious-politically active this hope was expressed in two
main ways; violent revolt, in hope that God would come to the aid of a holy war, and pious
withdrawal, in hope that God would intervene spiritually to overthrow the political power5. Jacques

1
Burridge, R.A. (1998), 'About people, by people, for people: Gospel genre and audiences' in Bauckham, R (ed), The
Gospels for all Christians: Rethinking the Gospel audiences, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 124.
2
Scripture quotations are from New Revised Standard Version Bible (Anglicized Edition)
3
Son of 'Herod the Great' whom Matthew reports as massacring all the infants in greater Bethlehem in a failed
attempt to exterminate the boy Jesus (Matt 2). Cf. “their great ones are tyrants over them” in Matt 20:25 (Mark
10:42 in our story).
4
Stanton, Graham (2002), The Gospels and Jesus (2nd edition), New York: Oxford University Press, 140-163.
5
Stanton, 257-263, Ellul, Jacques (1991), Anarchy and Christianity (tr. Geoffrey W. Bromiley), Grand Rapids: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 55-57.
Ellul notes that both reactions “ascribed no value to the state [or] to political authority”6. In this
category we can place the dissident 'Zealots', as well as the Pharisees, the 'monastic' Essenes and
apocalyptic preachers. It is vital to remember that in Jesus' time, the modern distinction between
religion and politics simply did not apply7. The Gospels' portrayal of the Pharisees as ultra-
conservative Jews belies the extent to which they opposed the dominant Roman/Herodian/Sadducee
order; indeed, in 4 B.C.E. there was a major Pharisee rebellion in Judea soon after the death of
Herod the Great, resulting in his eldest son Herod Archelaus crucifying 3000 rebels8.

It is noteworthy that members of these disparate groups united both in support and opposition to
Jesus. His disciples included both Zealots and a tax collector9, and he attracted scribe and even
Pharisee sympathisers10. Meanwhile, Mark reports the Pharisees and Herodians conspiring to
“destroy” Jesus early on11, and after indicting Jesus of blasphemy under Jewish law, the priests must
have him convicted of insurrection against Rome in order to have him executed12. Jesus does not fit
neatly into any existing political-religious categories, and he challenges authorities across the
spectrum.

The political atmosphere was even more explosive while Mark was writing. During the mid-60s
C.E. the emperor Nero was intensely persecuting Christians, martyring Mark's probable mentor
Peter amongst many others. Meanwhile Jewish rebellion and Roman reaction was building to a
head, culminating in the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. Mark was likely written in Rome, and
probably close to this date13. Scholars disagree about how wide Mark's intended audience was, but
it is clear that he wrote for “faltering and hard-pressed Christians”14.

It is also important to note this story's context and placement within Mark's carefully crafted gospel.
The first half of Mark focuses largely on the identity of Jesus, revealed to the reader in the opening
statement of the gospel, but a matter of some mystery to its characters. Jesus' preaching, healing
and exorcism tour through and around the Galilean countryside provokes the astonishment of the
people15 and raises the ire of various authorities16. Finally, the question of 4:41: “Who is this?” is
answered by Peter in 8:29: “You are the Messiah.” This is the turning point of the story; once
Jesus' identity is revealed, the second half of Mark's story focuses on Jesus' mission – the Way of
the Cross17.

Our story sits near the end of an extended section (8:22-10:46) which Ched Myers calls Mark's

6
Ellul, 55. Cf. Jesus' ambivalent description of “those whom they recognize as their rulers” (10:42)
7
Wright, N. T. (2000), 'Paul's Gospel and Caesar's Empire' in Horsley, Richard A. (ed), Paul and politics: ekklēsia,
imperium, interpretation, Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 162.
8
Ivry, Abraham, 'Pharisees and Sadducees', http://www.karaism.org/page3.html (accessed March 30, 2011). This
knowledge that Herod's heir was no more averse to mass killing than his father may have provoked Joseph and
Mary's fear to return to Judea under Archelaus (Matt 2:22). Instead, they opted for Galilee and Antipas, whose
“completely insane life of crime and debauchery” (Ellul, 55) was presumably still an improvement on his father's
and older brother's regimes.
9
Ellul, 56-57.
10
Eg. Mark 12:32, Luke 7:36-50, Luke 13:31, John 3:1-21, John 9:16
11
3:6. Outside of the account of John the Baptist's beheading in chapter 6, Herod and the Herodians are always
mentioned in Mark in association with the Pharisees against Jesus (8:15, 12:13).
12
14:53-15:15
13
Stanton, 54-56.
14
Stanton, 56-57, quote from 57.
15
Eg. 1:27, 2:12, 5:20, 5:42, 7:37.
16
Eg. 2:6-7, 2:23-3:6, 3:22, 7:1-23, 8:11.
17
Myers, Ched (1988), Binding the strong man : a political reading of Mark's story of Jesus, Maryknoll, Orbis Books,
235.
“discipleship catechism”18 . Framed by stories of blind men receiving sight19, the section consists of
a three-stage journey to Jerusalem and to the cross20. “On the way” (8:27, 9:33, 10:32) Jesus
presents a “school on the road”21 about what his “way” means. Each stage of the journey repeats
the pattern of Jesus predicting his inevitable execution and miraculous resurrection, his disciples
demonstrating their 'blindness' to the nature of the Way, and Jesus attempting to explain his mission
of servanthood and non-violence using a paradox (respectively; save life/lose life, first/last,
great/least)22.

The radical nature of Jesus' mission is demonstrated in the thrice-repeated revelation that the Son of
Man, the rightful king of Israel and the world, will be executed by a “political coalition of Jewish
and Roman authority”23. The very idea of a crucified Messiah represents a profound attack on the
authorities' claims to justice and wisdom24, as their response to the embodiment of true justice and
wisdom is to exterminate him in a way reserved for slaves and rebels25. Despite full knowledge of
the inevitable result of his revolutionary mission26, in the second cycle of his 'catechism' Jesus does
not hold back from attacking the fundamental bases of power in his world; personal (9:33-37),
theological (9:38-41), familial (9:42-10:16) and economic (10:17-31)27. In our story he will add
'political' to this list, denouncing the very authorities who will kill him.

The disciples' constant failure to understand Jesus' mission is another major theme throughout the
section28. Given that the disciples held prominent positions in the incipient churches while Mark
was writing, it is remarkable that he portrays them as – in the words of Holden Caulfield – “about
as much use to Him as a hole in the head”29. Indeed, Matthew and Luke often tone down Mark's
emphasis on the “weakness, failures, and even the stupidity” of the disciples30. This “discipular
ignorance”31 serves as a foil against which Jesus articulates his unprecedented message. Their
failure to understand or accept the Way of the Cross demonstrates that his message is also a radical
departure from Jewish expectations of what the Messiah would look like.

Our story proper represents a condensed version of the entire 'catechism', which deals not only with
18
Myers (1988), 236ff. The name is Myers' innovation, but the continuity of this section has been noted by many
others. Stanton says that while there is “little doubt that a major section runs from 8:27 to 10:52” there is some
disagreement about whether it begins with the healing of the blind man in 8:22-26, or just after it with Peter's
important confession at 8:27ff (Stanton, 41). Myers opts for the former, connecting the 'two-step' healing with the
later healing of Bartimaeus, while still calling Peter's confession the turning point of the gospel.
19
8:22-26, 10:46-52.
20
Stanton, 48.
21
Myers, Ched; Dennis, Marie; Nangle, Joseph; Moe-Lobeda, Cynthia; Taylor, Stuart (1996), Say to this mountain :
Mark's story of discipleship, Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 99. “On the way” is synonymous with “on the road” (Stanton
48-49). Cf. Athol Gill's description of a “messianic lifestyle” as “Life on the Road”. Gill, Athol (1989), Life on the
Road : The Gospel Basis for a Messianic Lifestyle. Homebush West: ANZEA Publishers.
22
Myers (1988), 236-7.
23
Myers (1988): 238.
24
Cf. the apostle Paul's statement in 1 Cor 2:8; “None of the rulers of this age understood [God's wisdom]; for if they
had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory”.
25
A typical example the six thousand crucified for participating in Spartacus' slave revolt in 71 B.C.E. Elliott, Neil,
'The Anti-Imperial Message of the Cross' in Horsley, Richard A. (ed), Paul and empire : Religion and power in
Roman imperial society, Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 167-169.
26
Wright, N.T. (1996), Jesus and the victory of God : Christian origins and the question of God, vol. 2, Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 466.
27
Adapted from Myers et al, 133.
28
8:32, 9:6,10-11,28,32,34,38, 10:13,24,26,28.
29
Salinger, J.D. (1994), The Catcher in the Rye, London: Penguin Books, 89.
30
Stanton, 44-47, quote from 44. It has been suggested that this represents a specific polemic against these later
church leaders or their structure, see eg. Horsley, Richard A. (2003), Jesus and empire : the kingdom of God and the
new world disorder, Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 73; though this is doubted by Myers (1988), 280 and Stanton,
46.
31
Gundry, Robert Horton (1993), Mark : a commentary on his apology for the cross, Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 576.
discipleship but with its exemplar; Jesus' messianic identity and mission. For a third time, Jesus
asserts that his role of Messiah signifies a mission of death and resurrection; in his most detailed
prediction yet32. Yet again the disciples misunderstand and oppose The Way; this time James joins
Peter (8:32-33) and John (9:38-40) to single out the entire “inner circle”33. The phrase “Whoever
wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all” (9:35) is repeated, and expanded. The
contrast with the Gentile world, and the comparison to Jesus' own mission, are added.

This time the disciples' misinterpretation of the Way is at its most overt since Peter's rebuke of
Jesus. They sense that the Kingdom is near34, but instead of soberly preparing themselves to share
Jesus' “cup” and “baptism”, they ask to be seated either side of him in his glory. It is unclear
whether they are referring to post-resurrection, eschatological glory or top positions in a new Israeli
government after “some kind of Messianic coup”35 in Jerusalem, but either way, “the notion that the
suffering of the Messiah renders obsolete all striving for … status … has completely eluded
them”36. He predicts that they will indeed share his cup and baptism37, but refuses to grant them the
positions they seek. Jesus' left and right in the glory of his crucifixion will instead be graced by two
bandits (15:27)38. This does not represent an 'alternative route to greatness' through service; Jesus
opposes the corrupting force of greatness, and directs those who seek it to take the exact opposite
path and adopt the role that Mark only reports women performing (1:31, 15:41)39.

It could not be clearer from this story, especially given the repetition of these themes throughout
Mark's short, 'no filler' gospel. Jesus' Way of being Messiah is the “diametric opposite of …
imperial rule”40. Meanwhile, his juxtaposition of the disciples not knowing what they ask (10:38),
but knowing how the Gentile ruling class operates (10:42), betrays the would-be radicalism of those
who would replace a Roman kingdom with a Jewish one that merely emulates their Gentile
oppressors41. Jesus is tapping into the ancient “radical tradition of the sole sovereignty of
Yahweh”42, whereby Israel was called to be distinct from the Egyptian empire from which God had
set them free43. The Jews may have craved liberation from Rome, but insofar as they desired a
political-military ruler in the mold of David, their aspirations ultimately amounted to being “like

32
10:32-34, directly before our story begins.
33
Myers et al, 132.
34
Cole, R. Alan (1961), The Gospel according to Mark : an introduction and commentary, Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 168.
35
Myers (1988), 278.
36
Hare, Douglas R.A. (1996), Mark, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 129.
37
James and John's glib assurance that they are able to drink and receive Jesus' cup and baptism throws into sharp
relief their later abandonment of Jesus (14:50); this is their version of Peter's insistence that he will not deny Jesus
(14:29). However, the Acts of the Apostles informs us that after Jesus comes back from the grave bearing second
chances and the empowerment of the Spirit, James and John will indeed suffer persecution along the Way; and at
least in the case of James, martyrdom. Hare, 130.
38
Gundry, 577. Gundry (578) points out that the phrase Jesus switches to for “the left”, which is a euphemism for
“the unlucky side”, reappears in the description of the unlucky bandit on Jesus' left at 15:27.
39
Gundry, 581; Myers (1988), 280-281; against Dunn, James D. G. (1992), Jesus' call to discipleship, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 87. Ellul (62) notes that this wariness of power is “prophetic... when we consider what
became of the church when it … began to play politics”.
40
Horsley, 125. Bruce Malina describes Jesus' authority (referred to in eg. Mark 1:22, 2:10, 3:15, 11:33) as
“reputational authority” rather than Weberian charismatic authority. Reputational leaders do not claim positions of
authority, but criticise and dislodge the prevailing authority in a society. They “show their virtue by avoidance and
relinquishment and/or sharing of power” (Herzog, William R. II (2000), Jesus, justice and the reign of God : a
ministry of liberation, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 59-61).
41
Myers (1988), 279.
42
Myers, Ched (1994), Who will roll away the stone? : discipleship queries for First World Christians, Maryknoll:
Orbis Books, 357. The term “radical” derives from the Latin word for “root”. Thus it can mean returning “to the
root or origin” as well as extreme change “from the roots”. Dictionary.com, 'radical',
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/radical (accessed April 1, 2011). Cf. references to roots at eg. Mark 4:6,17,
11:20, Matt 3:10.
43
Eg. Lev 18.3, 19.34, Deut 11:10-15, 17:14-20, 24:21-22
other nations” (1 Sam 8:5,20). Jesus refuses to fall victim to the Babylonian “myth of redemptive
violence”; he follows an alternate myth fomented in bitter reaction by the exiled prophets44. His
Way is “not the expected path of triumph and glory; for Jesus Messiahship involves the way to
Jerusalem”45.

On top of all this, verse 45 adds that Jesus' life will be given as “a ransom for many”, a short phrase
pregnant with potential interpretation. This is a rare example of Jesus interpreting his death,
indicating that it can be seen as a sacrifice for the salvation of others. A connection between this
concept and Isaiah 53 (“his life an offering for sin” – Is 53:10) is often drawn, and Ben
Witherington suggests that this supports penal-substitution atonement theories46. Against this,
Robert Gundry states that the connection to Isaiah 53 is by no means certain, identifying several
important conceptual differences. Importantly, sin goes “entirely unmentioned”47. Jesus refers to a
“ransom”, which is very different from Isaiah's guilt offering; it is a payment for the release of a
slave48. Myers points out the connection between this and the exhortation to be a “slave” in the
previous verse, as well as the paradox about losing life to save it (8:35). Myers' resolution of this
newest paradox is that “the way of “servanthood” has been transformed by the Human One into the
way of liberation”49.

Contrasting the idea of a substitutionary death is the overarching invitation to take up one's cross
and follow Jesus (8:34). Jesus' connection between his own mission and that of his disciples
indicates the intimate relationship between Christology and discipleship. Jürgen Moltmann says
that “there is no christology without christopraxis” because “Christ isn't merely a person, he is a
road too”50. So too the significance of Jesus' identity as a crucified Messiah is intimately connected
to discipleship; which is a “messianic lifestyle”, entering into Jesus' paradoxical role of
“participat[ing] in suffering and pray[ing] that suffering will be no more”51. To apprehend that not
even Jesus came to be served is the same as discerning with Dietrich Bonhoeffer that “the world
exercises dominion, the Christian serves”52. Bonhoeffer's martyrdom is testament to his
understanding that the place of Christians is not in the halls of power but with the victims of
power... with Christ.

With this in mind, the healing of blind beggar Bartimaeus beside the “way” (10:46-52), just after
our story and just shy of Jerusalem, provides sharp contrast to the ambitious disciples. His
desperate plea for Jesus to “have mercy on me” (10:47,48), despite the silencing of the crowd, is
already far from the disciples' using their intimacy with Jesus to demand that he do “whatever we
ask” (10:35). After Jesus replies to both “What do you want me to do for you?” (10:36,51), the
difference is even starker. Bartimaeus asks to see again, a request Jesus is happy to grant (10:51-
52); James and John's question demonstrates that they do not see their blindness; their eyes are still
44
Wink, Walter (1992), Engaging the powers : discernment and resisance in a world of domination, Minneapolis:
Augsburg Fortress, 13-37.
45
Stanton, 49-50. The story of the ironically titled “triumphal entry” directly after the story of Bartimaeus is another
clear example of this thwarting of Jewish expectations (11:1-11).
46
Witherington, Ben III (2001), The Gospel of Mark : a socio-rhetorical commentary, Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 286-291.
47
Gundry, 591.
48
Gundry, 588-593. Witherington also presumes the “cup” mentioned by Jesus to be a cup of God's wrath
(Witherington, 287), while Gundry (584) asserts that in the context it is more likely to signify “suffering at human
hands”.
49
Myers (1988), 279. This service-liberation dialectic mirrors the cross-resurrection dialectic of suffering and hope,
which Moltmann identifies as “the central problem in most Christological controversies” (Chopp, Rebecca S.
(1986), The praxis of suffering : an interpretation of liberation and political theologies, Maryknoll: Orbis Books,
107).
50
Moltmann, Jürgen (1994), Jesus Christ for today's world (tr. Margaret Kohl), Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 47.
51
Chopp, 114.
52
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich (1995), The Cost of Discipleship (tr. R.H. Fuller & Irmgard Booth), New York: Touchstone,
260.
shut despite Jesus' repeated teaching. Afterwards, Bartimaeus leaves everything and follows Jesus
“on the way” to the cross (10:52); a way which the rich man in 10:17-31 was unable to follow and
which the disciples seem intent on blocking53. Exactly reversing Peter in 8:27-38, Bartimaeus calls
Jesus by a “wrong” name54, but his intuitive Christology of Christ as 'road' is exemplary55. Jesus
commends Bartimaeus' faith (10:52); he is not concerned with “theological orthodoxy but ... the
Way of the cross”56.

This radical vision of Jesus' messiahship and Way seems to have been lost on many Christian
interpreters. Luke's version57 of Jesus' 10:42-45 statement (Luke 22:25-30) removes all reference to
the violence of Gentile rulers, and accepts the existence of “'great' and 'leading' figures”, even
offering the disciples thrones; merely requesting that those who occupy them be like servants58.
Contrast this with our Marcan version where “rule of one over another is in fact transcended”59.
Later interpretation has often gone even further than “neutrali[sing] the saying”60; where Mark
advocates service instead of authority, and like asks that authorities be like servants, the statement
can even be turned completely inside out, and used to claim that authority is in fact a form of
service. Could this be at the root of modern political euphemisms such as 'public servant' and
parliamentary 'ministers'?

While it falls largely outside of the scope of the current essay to speculate on modern meanings, if
Mark is written “for all Christians”, as Richard Bauckham asserts61, its author would not want it to
be studied merely as a historical curiosity but as a living message whose comfort and/or challenge is
still relevant today. Thus, in the face of the nagging temptation, as strong for modern Christians as
it was for James and John, to accommodate Jesus' inconvenient message to our own expectations, it
is vital to remember that Mark's story does not counsel the same conduct as the Gentiles, merely
cloaked in euphemisms such as 'servant leadership'. Mark's major purpose with this story is to
reiterate that Jesus' identity and mission are a radical departure from both the way the Gentile world
operated and the expectations of the Jews; in short, “the values of normal society have been turned
completely upside down”62. We are in danger of repeating the blindness of the disciples if we allow
ourselves to neutralise this text by assuming that Jesus and his Way are any less profound a
challenge to today's world, which maintains dramatic disparity between the powerful and the
powerless and gives states ultimate authority over life and death, while attempting to relegate
religion to a private, depoliticised sphere where the seditious voice of Jesus and his Way cannot
speak.

- Caleb Anderson, 01/04/2011

53
Witherington, 291-293.
54
Jesus will later problematise the term 'son of David' in relation to the expectation that he will restore the Davidic
monarchy. Myers et al, 134,164-165. See also n.44 above.
55
Myers (1988), 281.
56
Myers et al, 99.
57
The Gospel of Luke cannot exactly be called a conservative document, but Luke and Acts are often accused of a
pro-Roman bias or tempering earlier writers' radical edge. Wengst, Klaus (1987), Pax Romana and the peace of
Jesus Christ (tr. John Bowden), London: SCM, 97-103; Yoder, John H. (1994), The Politics of Jesus : vicit Agnus
noster (Revised edition), Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
58
Wengst, 103.
59
Wengst, 64; see also Gundry, 586.
60
Wengst, 97.
61
Stanton, 56.
62
Dunn, 107.
References

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich (1995), The Cost of Discipleship (tr. R.H. Fuller & Irmgard Booth), New
York: Touchstone.

Burridge, R.A. (1998), 'About people, by people, for people: Gospel genre and audiences' in
Bauckham, R (ed), The Gospels for all Christians : Rethinking the Gospel audiences, Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Chopp, Rebecca S. (1986), The praxis of suffering : an interpretation of liberation and political
theologies, Maryknoll: Orbis Books.

Cole, R. Alan (1961), The Gospel according to Mark : an introduction and commentary, Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Dictionary.com, 'radical', http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/radical (accessed April 1, 2011).

Dunn, James D. G. (1992), Jesus' call to discipleship, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Elliott, Neil, 'The Anti-Imperial Message of the Cross' in Horsley, Richard A. (ed), Paul and
empire : Religion and power in Roman imperial society, Harrisburg: Trinity Press International.

Ellul, Jacques (1991), Anarchy and Christianity (tr. Geoffrey W. Bromiley), Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Gill, Athol (1989), Life on the Road : The Gospel Basis for a Messianic Lifestyle. Homebush West:
ANZEA Publishers.

Gundry, Robert Horton (1993), Mark : a commentary on his apology for the cross, Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Hare, Douglas R.A. (1996), Mark, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.

Herzog, William R. II (2000), Jesus, justice and the reign of God : a ministry of liberation,
Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.

Horsley, Richard A. (2003), Jesus and empire : the kingdom of God and the new world disorder,
Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress.

Ivry, Abraham, 'Pharisees and Sadducees', http://www.karaism.org/page3.html (accessed March 30,

2011).

Moltmann, Jürgen (1994), Jesus Christ for today's world (tr. Margaret Kohl), Minneapolis: Fortress
Press.

Myers, Ched (1988), Binding the strong man : a political reading of Mark's story of Jesus,
Maryknoll, Orbis Books.

Myers, Ched (1994), Who will roll away the stone? : discipleship queries for First World
Christians, Maryknoll: Orbis Books.

Myers, Ched; Dennis, Marie; Nangle, Joseph; Moe-Lobeda, Cynthia; Taylor, Stuart (1996), Say to
this mountain : Mark's story of discipleship, Maryknoll: Orbis Books.

Salinger, J.D. (1994), The Catcher in the Rye, London: Penguin Books.

Stanton, Graham (2002), The Gospels and Jesus (2nd edition), New York: Oxford University Press.

Wengst, Klaus (1987), Pax Romana and the peace of Jesus Christ (tr. John Bowden), London:
SCM Press.

Wink, Walter (1992), Engaging the powers : discernment and resisance in a world of domination,
Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress.

Witherington, Ben III (2001), The Gospel of Mark : a socio-rhetorical commentary, Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Wright, N.T. (1996), Jesus and the victory of God : Christian origins and the question of God, vol.
2, Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Wright, N. T. (2000), 'Paul's Gospel and Caesar's Empire' in Horsley, Richard A. (ed), Paul and
politics : ekklēsia, imperium, interpretation, Harrisburg: Trinity Press International.

Yoder, John H. (1994), The Politics of Jesus : vicit Agnus noster (Revised edition), Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.