message. Rather, the God being spoken of here
is not the Father from John 14:12, but a
symbolization of love and socialism. Thus in the
sermon just quoted, Jones held out the
opportunity to participate in miraculous power
to his audience, provided they embrace his
socialistic goals. Embracing such goals was
necessary because it was the understanding and
practice of divine socialism—not chasing after
Jesus’s father the Skygod—that (Jones claimed)
allowed his miracles to take place. During a
different exposition in which Jones drew from
John 14:12, Jones asked, “Why are you so
superstitious that you worship an unknown God?
Jesus said, ‘Worship what you see.’” (Q 1053,
part 1). In this sermon, Jones went to great
lengths to differentiate his character as God from
the Christians’ Skygod, explaining that “the
most conscious love, that is God. God means
good” (Q 1053, part 1). In this sermon, Jones
symbolized the concrete and visible acts of love
and socialism using the biblical language of God
and did not confuse them with the Skygod of the
Bible whose presence in the world was unseen
or unwanted.
The second passage from the gospel of John that
Jones interpreted as proving that Jesus pointed to
the divine principle of socialism that empowered
him was John 10:34. Specifically, Jones focused
on Jesus’s response to his Jewish interlocutors
upon being accused of blasphemy: “Is it not
written in your law, I said, ‘Ye are gods?’”
When used in Jones’s preaching, this verse has
an emphasis on vocation or ability. In his
interpretation, this statement by Jesus was not
just a reference to Psalm 82:6 from the Hebrew
Bible rather, it was an invitation for people to
partake in the same power and role that Jesus
embodied in the New Testament.
In this verse, Jones interpreted Jesus as equating
other human beings with himself. Just as Jesus
was God, so too were his everyday audiences
and adversaries, at least potentially. In the
context of Peoples Temple, this interpretation
meant that everyone who came to this realization
had the opportunity to become a god—that is,
one who practiced love and socialism. Thus, in
his preaching, Jones equated Jesus, in all his
(presumed) miraculous and radical power, with
the Temple’s members. The goal of Jones’s
interpretation of John 10:34, however, was not
solely to tell his followers that they were
conceivably equivalent to Jesus. In fact, such an
understanding was largely useless without the
knowledge of what gave Jesus his power.
As already mentioned, in Jones’s preaching,
Jesus’s power derived from his embracing
divine socialism. Therefore, Jones was able to
use this verse, like he did John 14:12, to defend
his own godly claims. Jesus’s words in John
10:34 enabled Jones to say, “…you can call me
an egomaniac, megalomania, or whatever you
wish, with a messianic complex. I don’t have
any complex, honey, I happen to know I’m the
messiah” (Q 1059, part 1). Such a claim was
valid because Jones, as the being with the
greatest attunement to the divine socialist
principle, was the embodiment of divine
socialism. Just as Jesus showed the way to
attaining such power, so too did Jones (Q 953).
In one sermon, he explained that his
embodiment of socialist principle functioned
according to necessity, like Jesus’s:
I’m a god and you’re a god. And I’m a
god and I’m going to stay a god until
you recognize that you’re God and when
you recognize you’re God I shall go
back into principle and will not appear
as a personality. (Q 1035)
Thus, both Jesus and Jones’s alleged miraculous
abilities and radical messages were meant to
empower their hearers and reveal to them their
true potential, which could be achieved through
embracing divine socialism. Through his
preaching, Jones promised his audience that
“I’m going to cause you to know that you are
what Jesus was” (Q 1035). Two implications of
this goal worth considering in the context of
Jones’s evaluation and appropriation of Jesus’s
words in John 10 relate to responsibility and
Christology.
First, the power that one attained as a god—a
loving, socialistic being—had to be responsibly
managed and appropriately channeled. On this
point, Jones frequently derided the Skygod. In
some circumstances the Skygod abused its
power, seen in the creation of the world for
selfish motives. In one sermon, Jones explained
that the Skygod created the world and humanity,
International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015 43
is not the Father from John 14:12, but a
symbolization of love and socialism. Thus in the
sermon just quoted, Jones held out the
opportunity to participate in miraculous power
to his audience, provided they embrace his
socialistic goals. Embracing such goals was
necessary because it was the understanding and
practice of divine socialism—not chasing after
Jesus’s father the Skygod—that (Jones claimed)
allowed his miracles to take place. During a
different exposition in which Jones drew from
John 14:12, Jones asked, “Why are you so
superstitious that you worship an unknown God?
Jesus said, ‘Worship what you see.’” (Q 1053,
part 1). In this sermon, Jones went to great
lengths to differentiate his character as God from
the Christians’ Skygod, explaining that “the
most conscious love, that is God. God means
good” (Q 1053, part 1). In this sermon, Jones
symbolized the concrete and visible acts of love
and socialism using the biblical language of God
and did not confuse them with the Skygod of the
Bible whose presence in the world was unseen
or unwanted.
The second passage from the gospel of John that
Jones interpreted as proving that Jesus pointed to
the divine principle of socialism that empowered
him was John 10:34. Specifically, Jones focused
on Jesus’s response to his Jewish interlocutors
upon being accused of blasphemy: “Is it not
written in your law, I said, ‘Ye are gods?’”
When used in Jones’s preaching, this verse has
an emphasis on vocation or ability. In his
interpretation, this statement by Jesus was not
just a reference to Psalm 82:6 from the Hebrew
Bible rather, it was an invitation for people to
partake in the same power and role that Jesus
embodied in the New Testament.
In this verse, Jones interpreted Jesus as equating
other human beings with himself. Just as Jesus
was God, so too were his everyday audiences
and adversaries, at least potentially. In the
context of Peoples Temple, this interpretation
meant that everyone who came to this realization
had the opportunity to become a god—that is,
one who practiced love and socialism. Thus, in
his preaching, Jones equated Jesus, in all his
(presumed) miraculous and radical power, with
the Temple’s members. The goal of Jones’s
interpretation of John 10:34, however, was not
solely to tell his followers that they were
conceivably equivalent to Jesus. In fact, such an
understanding was largely useless without the
knowledge of what gave Jesus his power.
As already mentioned, in Jones’s preaching,
Jesus’s power derived from his embracing
divine socialism. Therefore, Jones was able to
use this verse, like he did John 14:12, to defend
his own godly claims. Jesus’s words in John
10:34 enabled Jones to say, “…you can call me
an egomaniac, megalomania, or whatever you
wish, with a messianic complex. I don’t have
any complex, honey, I happen to know I’m the
messiah” (Q 1059, part 1). Such a claim was
valid because Jones, as the being with the
greatest attunement to the divine socialist
principle, was the embodiment of divine
socialism. Just as Jesus showed the way to
attaining such power, so too did Jones (Q 953).
In one sermon, he explained that his
embodiment of socialist principle functioned
according to necessity, like Jesus’s:
I’m a god and you’re a god. And I’m a
god and I’m going to stay a god until
you recognize that you’re God and when
you recognize you’re God I shall go
back into principle and will not appear
as a personality. (Q 1035)
Thus, both Jesus and Jones’s alleged miraculous
abilities and radical messages were meant to
empower their hearers and reveal to them their
true potential, which could be achieved through
embracing divine socialism. Through his
preaching, Jones promised his audience that
“I’m going to cause you to know that you are
what Jesus was” (Q 1035). Two implications of
this goal worth considering in the context of
Jones’s evaluation and appropriation of Jesus’s
words in John 10 relate to responsibility and
Christology.
First, the power that one attained as a god—a
loving, socialistic being—had to be responsibly
managed and appropriately channeled. On this
point, Jones frequently derided the Skygod. In
some circumstances the Skygod abused its
power, seen in the creation of the world for
selfish motives. In one sermon, Jones explained
that the Skygod created the world and humanity,
International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015 43
