He cites one of my posts:
“Loren Rosson has a post on what must be one of the longest footnotes in John Meier’s Marginal Jew series: a 1500-word critique of Richard Rohrbaugh’s interpretation of Jesus’ parable of The Talents. So Loren’s basically written an even longer footnote on a long footnote. At issue is whether Jesus’ version of the parable, before its retelling in Matthew and Luke, presents the Master as oppressive or good in the way he treats the third slave. Rohrbaugh, a prominent member of the Context Group, interprets Jesus as opposing the elite systems of exploitation. Maybe. But I wonder whether Jesus, whose proclaimed Kingdom of God did not so much oppose as mimic the prevailing systems of power, was really so opposed to the elite in his society. Or did he, albeit with a slight apocalyptic flavor, desire a bit of that elite power for himself?”
I agree that Jesus wanted his own dominion (in the new age) to supplant the old powers. People who protest injustices often have their own power agendas, and Jesus was hardly exempt from this. When he thought about the end times, he promised his disciples authority and dominion: “In the new world, when the Son of Man shall sit on his glorious throne, and you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Mt 19:28/Lk 22:29-30). This wasn’t a vision to eradicate power, but rather (as James Crossley calls it) a changing of the guard to at least (hopefully) keep that power under some discipline and divine steering.
The point, however, is that the desire for one’s own dominion doesn’t change the fact that people like Jesus are fervently opposed to the elites they want to supplant. So I can’t see Rohrbaugh’s reading of the Talents falling on this particular criticism.
Be sure to read through the whole carnival. Our fisting friend linked to a lot of good posts.