God has chosen the poor in this world “to be rich in faith” and heirs to
the Kingdom of God ( James 2:5). James’ promises take on an increasingly
otherworldly dimension.
While being concerned with the poor and having hostility against the rich,
Paul’s rejection of inequality had its limitations; he advocated a subordinate
position for women, subjects and slaves. Paul’s position toward women stands
in contrast to Jesus who is lenient upon a woman who was an adulterer ( John
8:7; 8:41). Like the Jewish tradition to which he belongs, Paul is “savagely
antifeminist” (DeBeauvoir 1989:97). The husband is the head of the house-
hold and wives are to be subordinate to them (1 Corinthians 11:3). Wives
should be submissive and subject to their husbands (Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1;
Ephesians 5:23): “Let a women learn in silence with all submissiveness. I per-
mit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent”
(1 Timothy 2:11–12). Like women being subordinate to their husbands, slaves
were to be subordinate to their masters (Titus 2:9; Colossians 3:22): “Let all
who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor”
(1 Timothy 6:1). Because of this, Kautsky (1919:439; 413–414) argues that Early
Christianity was more appealing to the plebeians (urban proletariat) than it
was to the slaves. Along these same lines, subjects should “be submissive to
rulers and authorities (Titus 3:1): “Obey your leaders and submit to them”
(Hebrews 13:17). This is a complete inversion of the original rebellious spirit
found in the prophets Moses and Jesus.
When examined closely, the teachings of both Jesus and Paul are contra-
dictory. Jesus preached to be the Son of God and the Son of Man. He was a
militant yet pacifist, rebellious yet acquiescent. He was more concerned with
the Pharisees and the rich than with the Romans. Paul’s egalitarianism only
went so far. While condemning the rich and appealing to the poor, Paul sup-
ported a subordinate position for women, slaves and subjects. This leads to
the suspicion of adulteration and watering down of the original text for those
who later used it as the basis for their own power.
In 70 AD, Judea fought a war led by General Josephus Flavius against the
Roman occupation. The Zealots were the most fervent in their resistance to
the occupation. The war ended in 73 AD with the destruction of the Temple
(and the beginning of the second exile). With this defeat, the revolutionary
hope disappeared (Kautsky 1919:437; 1925:412). Nietzsche (1967:52) asks,
“Rome against Judea, Judea against Rome.” Who really won? Although Judea
had been defeated, Christianity, which originated as a religion of opposition,
220 • Warren S. Goldstein