In his book, Jesus and Empire, Richard Horsley seeks to re-examine the social and political context of first century Israel in search for the true message of Jesus. Why is this necessary? Horsley insists that the modern assumption of western culture is to separate religion from politics and economy, resulting in a “depoliticized Jesus.” However, the danger in depoliticizing Jesus is that it reduces him down to just a religious teacher who uttered isolated sayings relevant only to individuals.

Individualism is not the reality of Jesus’ political and social context. Instead, it is a western ideology that has damaged the search for the historical Jesus. Jesus’ ministry was in the midst of a massive political-economic struggle under Roman Imperialism. This oppressive reality significantly shaped Jesus’ mission and message.

Horsley provides a thorough background of the political, economic and social context of first century Israel starting with the dominant Roman Empire. The Rise of Roman rule in Israel-Judea brought about what Horsley calls “the new world disorder.” This significantly altered the way of life for the people of Galilee and Judea who were the recipients of Jesus’ ministry. Horsley further highlights differences among the people of Galilee and those of Judea, as well as between people in positions of power and privilege, with the peasant majority. The Jewish high priesthood was a part of the Roman rule, but the vast majority of the Jewish people were peasants, being oppressively ruled over. In this system, Rome was portrayed as the powerful protector, offering peace and salvation to those who would “believe” in the empire. It is this religious, political-economic, and social context that Jesus presents his message.

With Jesus’ context illuminated, Horsley argues that a “relational approach” to Jesus’ ministry is drastically needed. If the words of Jesus are taken as isolated sayings and are heard not as communicating something significant to a particular people in a concrete historical situation, then Jesus has been limited to a dehistoricized “talking head” (56). To illustrate this, Horsley uses the example of taking statements made by Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address out of its literary and social context. Yet another example would be taking Martin Luther King Jr.’s statements and sermons out of the context of the civil rights movement. Horsley argues that doing this would cause one to completely misunderstand their actual message. Thus, it is important not to do that with Jesus’ message. When a relational approach is taken with Jesus’ message, Horsley contends that it is clearly about the “Kingdom of God.” That is, it’s about the renewal of Israel in the midst of their earthly oppressive from empire. With the authority of judgment, Jesus (as prophet) proclaims condemnation on Rome, the political-economic oppressor, and announces the end of the Roman rule, displayed through exorcisms, healings and miraculous signs.

To demonstrate the significance of Jesus’ ministry and message in its correct political and socio-historical context, Horsley analyzes both the Gospel of Mark and the Jesus-speeches in Q. Taking the whole reading/story of Mark, he reiterates that the dominant theme running throughout is clearly the presence of the kingdom of God. This overarching theme encompasses Jesus’ prophetic condemnation of oppressive rulers as well as his prophetic renewal of Israel. Thus Jesus preaches the “kingdom of God” in opposition to the existing unjust social, economic and political structures and presents a direct challenge to the representatives of the Roman imperial order. Jesus is both embedded in the native Israelite tradition, as well as the distinct socio-political context. Therefore, his teachings cannot be isolated from this if they are to be truly understood. Jesus challenged the system by preaching a message of hope, deliverance, empowerment and renewal to the Jewish people. In bringing the kingdom of God, no earthly empire will stand, but all will be condemned.

Horsley concludes the book by making a bold and somewhat controversial claim that America represents an empire much like Rome did in Jesus’ time. Though many like to think of America as the “new Israel,” it is more characterized as the “new Rome.” There is no denying that America is powerful and holds a significant amount of control over the world’s resources. Horsley points out that the proportion of goods consumed by ancient Rome never even came close to the 75 percent of the world’s resources currently being consumed by Americans (143). Given the current realities, it would be difficult for an American to claim that they are representative of the biblical people of Israel, who were constantly the “little guys” fighting the oppression of superpower after superpower. This doesn’t present a pretty image of America, but one cannot deny the realistic picture Horsley so vividly paints of empire.

Overall, Horsley is thorough in his historical research and strong in his critique about how New Testament scholars have missed the point of Jesus’ mission and message. He is articulate in his writing, handles scripture with care, and is not afraid to draw his own conclusions from the data available. At times, this leads him to present ideas that are a stretch at best, like his interpretation of the “legion-ary” reference in the story of the demon possessed man (Mark 5:1-20). While Horsley overemphasizes particular ideas often, his main idea of the importance of reading and understanding Jesus in the political, economic, and social context of Roman imperialism is solid and commendable. If Jesus’ message is read as isolated religious sayings out of his original context then his message has been all but lost.