Jesus offered Caesar’s throne

The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendour; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. If you worship me, it will all be yours” (Lk. 4:5-7).

Quick acknowledgement: I picked up the consistent use of the Greek word ‘oikoumene’ as being a reference to the inhabited world of Rome in Andrew Perriman’s writings, then began to look at Luke’s use.

Skip the next part if you wish… it is simply the background as to why this word ‘oikoumene’ is not simply a synonym for ‘world’ (kosomos), but is more concrete… and in the Lukan context is referring to the Roman Empire.

All the kingdoms of the world (πάσας τὰς βασιλείας τῆς οἰκουμένης): the kingdoms of the oikoumene. This last word can be used (at times) interchangeably with the term ‘world’ (kosmos) and Matthew uses this term (kosmos) in his account of the temptations (Matthew 4:8), where Luke uses the term oikoumene.

The two terms can be used interchangeably, the kosmos term is certainly global and the term oikoumene is rooted in the verb oikeo (to dwell), and although it can carry a global sense, being simply synonymous to the word kosmos, many authors choose to use it in a more restrictive way, to refer to where people dwell, the inhabited world, the civilised world. This then opened it to something even more specific: the boundary of a specific political entity.

Luke is one of those authors, and given that he is writing his two volumes for the world of the Roman Empire it makes sense that he uses this word oikoumene in the restrictive sense of the ‘Roman world’, the ‘Roman Empire’. Before coming to Luke’s use a few other examples.

Josephus (Jewish aristocratic Jewish historian, 37AD-100AD (approx datre of death)) uses the term oikoumene to refer to the geographical extent of the Roman Empire, recording that Agrippa had said to Caius that he hoped one day Caius would be appointed ruler of the world (oikoumene), in other words that he would become Caesar over the Roman Empire.

Likewise the Old Testament uses it to describe territory within a political boundary.

  • Babylon, for her sins, will experience an armed nation coming and destroying the whole oikoumene (Is. 13:4,5,9,17,18,19). The Medes come and destroy the Babylonian empire, they destroy the whole oikoumene, not the whole world.
  • In Daniel we have Nebuchadnezzar ruling the whole oikoumene (Dan. 3:2), he is the ruler of the Babylonian Empire.

Luke seems to consistently use oikoumene to carry this meaning of territory ruled by a political entity, and that entity being Rome.

  • The whole oikoumene was to be registered (Lk. 2:1), the whole ‘world’ being the world that Caesar ruled over.
  • Agabus warns of a famine that would come on the whole oikoumene (Acts 11:8), this famine came during the reign of Claudius (Roman Emperor).
  • The Gospel proclamation turned the whole oikoumene upside down, the order of Rome (Acts 17:6-7).
  • Artemis was ‘worshiped throughout the province of Asia and the oikoumene‘ (Acts 19:27). The claim was that she was worshiped throughout the Roman province of Asia and beyond throughout the whole Roman Empire.

Luke is therefore using the term for the Graeco-Roman world, using it very concretely.

Back then to the temptations of Jesus. It is not too far a stretch to push Luke’s account of the temptations to being a concrete offer of the Roman Empire to Jesus. That fits with his consistent use. The offer of being the new Caesar: Jesus appointed as anti-Christ!

Luke 3 begins with the setting, not simply historically, but concretely and ‘spiritually’ in terms of the dominating powers:

In the fifteenth year of the reign Tiberius Caesar.

Replace Tiberius… bring about the change you want!

In Mark’s Gospel we have the intriguing extra that Jesus was in the wilderness with the ‘wild animals’. A truly eschatological scene fulfilling ‘the wolf will lie with the lamb’ (Is. 11:6 and Mk. 1:13), but perhaps given that Israel was the counterpart to Adam who is given responsibility for creation, for the animals, it was not surprising to have Israel as ‘son of man’ and all opposing kingdoms to be presented as beasts (wild animals, hence the description of political powers opposing heaven’s agenda as ‘beasts’). In Mark then there is probably also a hint of true shalom to the nations, even to the nations that opposed the direction of heaven.

He does not rule over the nations as per Rome; the Rome that brought peace through war! Jesus brought peace, but not peace as the world gives (woe to you who say ‘peace, peace’ fits this context). There is a shalom, true peace, the wild animals were with him.

Peace on earth, being the announcement from heaven (Lk. 2:14) then takes on a strong anti-imperial sense.

Kenarchy, love, politics, practicalities

We covered the four interviews in just an hour. Not sure about you but I could have extended each one to an hour or more, and then we would have opened up other areas… and if we had taken a breather I could have put Sue on for a few follow ups! All goes to say a deep appreciation for the resource they both have been to so many; not simply a resource – knowledge and perspective wise – but as people who come alongside.

I hope you have all found the interviews as stimulating and as encouraging as I did. One final one to come, but hold on just a minute!

If you would like to connect more with the writings and communications from Roger there are a number of ways you can do this.

His blog with a place to interact through the comments:

There is a Kenarchy Journal that Roger is the main editor for. Click on the image or the link to be taken there:

His academic papers and articles can be found here:


His books can be sourced through normal stockists.

The Church Gospel and Empire: How the Politics of Sovereignty impregnated the West

This is an adaptation of his PhD for publication as a book, and if you wish to engage with his original research this is what to read.

The Fall of the Church: I found this book ever so helpful. I profess to be deeply influenced by an AnaBaptist approach to Scripture and the Gospel (though go research the Dirk Willems story and see if I am genuine!) and expected that I would read something along the lines of ‘pre-Constantine pretty good; post-Constantine all goes wrong’. Much more profound. If ‘The Church, Gospel and Empire‘ is a read too-far, this one I would love to see everyone access and read.

Discovering Kenarchy

Discovering Kenarchy:

Written by a number of contributors pushing into the practicalities of an outworking in different areas of kenarchy.

And finally the video:

The cross

I talked with Roger on Good Friday, so thought what a day to ask about the cross. Given that his push toward his research was the encountering of the cross (video #1) at the very practical level of addressing the issue of corporate sin that had been expressed through the action of western colonialism… OK what I am saying is what a great few minutes this video is.

Kenarchy? Why that term, Roger

I did four zoom interviews with Roger Mitchell a couple of days back. Short, to the point, clear and… fun. I have known Roger and Sue for some decades and have loved their pioneering spirits, attitudes and actions. Roger pursued a path that took him into the world of academia (to producing a well-acclaimed PhD from Lancaster University), so my first question was related to what took him in that direction. Suffice to say not academia for academia’s sake! I will post one a day for the next days and will give various links after the last one to where you can follow through on his material.

The four videos will also become available for those who join me for Zoom groups. I now have some pre-work (work? mainly watch a video or two!) and some optional post-work,

My favourite easter story

What an event! The birth of new creation marked by the raising from the dead of the ‘firstborn of all creation’, closely followed by a whole group of saints in Jerusalem also being resurrected (only Matthew records this, but it indicates a major time warp). Then the first appearance and being identified as the ‘Gardener’ highlights the connection back to the former garden… and then.

The road to Emmaus.

If not a married couple, Luke records it in such a way that we are to think it is a married couple… but a married couple I strongly consider it is: Cleopas and his wife Mary. The man is revealed as Cleopas (Lk. 24:18), and we have his wife identified in John’s Gospel (variant of name Cleopas is used Clopas, variants not being unusual also where Aramaic and Hebrew languages being similar are quoted):

but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene (Jn. 19:25).

The parallels (explicit and implicit) are incredible. Imagine the two leaving Eden. The discussion, the heavy hearts, the disappointment. The road to Emmaus and also the heavy discussion, perhaps even the ‘he let us down in the end’ discussion.

  • Then the day is closing, the evening is drawing in, as they walk with a ‘stranger’. Just like that other Garden when God came to visit at the ‘cool of the day’, certainly a stranger to them.
  • Their action in Eden caused their eyes to be opened (to shame); he breaks the bread and their eyes were opened.
  • They leave Eden with the ‘death’ consequence ringing in their ears; they talk to the stranger informing him that the one who carried the hope for the future had been ‘condemned to death’.
  • Behind them was a cherubim with a flaming sword that stood guard so that access to the tree of life was banned to them; but the flame no longer external but burning now within them (Lk. 24:32).

I am sure there are more parallels, but here on resurrection morning, with the birth of ‘new creation’ that changes sight (2 Cor. 5:16,17 – kaine ktisis -‘new creation’, not new creature… see up to date translations) there is so much to see.

Sight all the way back to the beginning. The original commission is re-established; the future placed in the hands of humanity again. Placed in the hands of humanity for when they were expelled from Eden a stranger walked every step with them. Unrecognised, unrecognised even by the righteous who could (as did Jesus) quote Psalm 22 ‘My God, My God why have you forsaken me’. They might have left with the sound of ‘death’ in their ears but the Living God left Eden also carrying the consequence of death in his heart, trudging through the dust with them.

(And as we continue to read in Psalm 22

For he has not despised or scorned
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help (Ps. 22:24).

We realise that God did not turn away from Jesus on the cross. Far from it, he was ‘in Christ reconciling the world to himself’. Even the final words of Jesus on the cross ‘it is finished’ are likely to be a response to the last words of Psalm 22 – ‘he has done it’. The idea that God turned away from Jesus on the cross does not bear up – there is no split in the Trinity, not even a ‘creative dispute’!)

The path from Eden for God was the path to the cross; the path for humanity was to the tree of Life. The cross was indeed the final door closed to the tree of knowledge of good and evil that religion in particular has always sought to cultivate. Right / wrong are such sub-criteria in Scripture, the overriding criteria being that of life and death.

I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live (Deut. 30:19).

The resurrection.

  • Tells us God was with us and never left humanity. He walked from the Garden, determined that he would restore not a Garden but the whole of creation for and with us, where we could invite his permanent presence to be with us (no going to heaven then).
  • It tells us that we cannot flee from his presence; that he does not hide his face from us.
  • It tells us that the restoration of gender equality is essential for the way forward (and also what lies beyond gender, for there is not ‘male and female’).
  • It gives us sight back – to Eden and original purpose, and forward – to new creation; a creation that appears in contrast to this one as feminised, incomplete but to be explored (with the eschaton as both and end and a beginning).
  • It gives us new lenses to see others. Not through the lenses of categorisation but the lens of ‘image’, the ultimate lens being the Jesus’ lens.

Little wonder the couple did not sleep that night but made their way back to Jerusalem to tell the others. We live in that flow. The flow of resurrection.

Interview with Michael Graham

A while back I wrote a post and Michael commented on it. I realised there was much more knowledge and first-hand experience behind the comment so I worte and asked if he would like to write a few posts. Eventually we got round to connecting and ran through 3 video interviews.

Michael is a social worker and speaks to the issues of social care. His context is the UK so the content is shaped into there. He outlines where we are today in this video – how we moved from the monasteries as the centre of care to our current scenario.

Use the comment system to communicate directly to Michael and if there is more traction he is willing to engage deeper. I, coming at this with a lack of knowledge, found the historical development intersesting.