with all its death and suffering, to forestall
loneliness in its otherwise empty universe (Q
1054, part 3). This was an obvious abuse of
power—wherever that power came from—
because the Skygod achieved happiness at the
expense of all created life that would be
subjugated or oppressed throughout the
centuries. In other circumstances, the Skygod
ignored its power, thus allowing violence and
injustice to be perpetuated—even violence and
injustice to God’s own chosen people, the Jews
(Q 1054, part 3). Jones deemed his use of power
as more fitting of a loving being—most of his
apparent miracles were displays of healing.
Through these critiques, Jones instructed his
audience that godly power—the power derived
from divine socialism evident in Jesus—had to
be managed and channeled appropriately.
Moreover, Jones’s followers had to understand
that the power derived from divine socialism
was necessary to save oneself. The Christians
who worshipped Jesus as a supernatural savior,
Jones explained, prayed that Jesus would save
them through his power, regardless of their own
actions (Q 1023). Such a presumption, however,
broke down in light of Jones’s understanding. If
every Peoples Temple member had both the
capacity to be a god and to do miracles greater
than Jesus had done, then every Temple member
was as adept at saving him- or herself as Jesus
was. Thus, Jones taught that “Jesus said, ‘If any
man would come after me, take up your own
cross.’ He didn’t say anything about taking his
cross … You can’t take Jesus’[s] cross, and
Jesus can’t work out your own salvation” (Q
1023). Jesus’s ability to be a savior or messiah
figure was connected to his power, and that
power was available to all humans. Those who
heard Jones’s message and embraced divine
socialism had the responsibility of using this
power to work out their own salvation.
Second, it is possible to offer some comments on
Jones’s Christology—that is, his interpretation
of Jesus’s nature as the messiah. On the one
hand, one could argue that Jones had a rather
“high” Christology because his interpretation of
John 14:12 and 10:34 deemphasized the
decidedly human aspects of Jesus in favor of
Jesus’s embodiment of divine socialism. The
human Jesus, that is, was essentially a vessel or
signpost that was filled with or pointed to the
divine principle of socialism. On the other hand,
the fact that Jones, a physical human being who
interacted in concrete ways with his
congregation, likened himself to Jesus suggests a
“low” Christology. By emphasizing his physical
presence—among the poor and racially
marginalized, no less—in the physical world,
Jones showed a preference for a human
understanding of Jesus.
This low Christology is also evident in Jones’s
statements explaining that the entire Temple
congregation had the potential to perform
miracles and be gods. Although Jones referred to
himself in divine terms as “not a mortal… [but]
the very spirit and the actual conscious presence
of a living god,” he also highlighted the
similarities between himself and his audience:
“Shit, I’m no different than you. Everybody’s a
god. So Jesus is God. I am God! You are God!”
(Q 987 Q 953). Although Jones preached that
he had mastered divine socialism to the point at
which he could raise people from the dead while
his audience merely occupied the role of the
healed or revived, a powerful similarity
nevertheless existed between the Temple
members and their leader. Such a similarity
bolsters the suggestion that Jones had a low
Christology, since frequently he berated his
listeners for not understanding his message.20 In
one sermon, Jones lamented, “I don’t know how
some of you people get in this door anyway you
act like you must be lost” (Q 1059, part 2). To
interpret Jesus’s words as suggesting that such
lost and uncomprehending people could be gods
as Jesus was a god necessarily emphasized
Jesus’s lowly and human characteristics.
This vacillation between high and low
Christology suggests either that Jones struggled
with the divine-yet-human portrayal of Jesus in
the Gospels, or that Jones was an inconsistent
preacher. Likely both of these interpretations are
true. Regardless, it is apparent that Jones
understood Jesus’s words in these two verses as
20 For example, in Q 955 Jones lamented the fact that he could not
empower his congregation and send them out to proclaim the good
news of divine socialism because they did not understand his
message. Likewise, Jones spent much of Q 965 chastising his
audience for their lack of appropriate action based on his message.
44 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015

affirming that divine socialism, rather than any
innate characteristics or otherworldly origin,
allowed Jesus to perform his wondrous signs
and spurred him on to preach his revolutionary
message. Thus Jesus pointed beyond himself,
refocusing worship not on Jesus the messiah
whose supernatural origins saved people, but on
Jesus the messiah who would help people
become saved and raised up through their own
understanding of divine socialism.
This collection and analysis of excerpts from
Jones’s sermons indicate how Jones interpreted
Jesus, what commendation or condemnation of
Jesus came from such an interpretation, and how
such interpretation and evaluation affected
Jones’s preaching. Jones’s interpretations
followed two main veins, one literal and one
more abstract. In the more literal analysis, Jones
understood Jesus the messiah to be a fellow
revolutionary. This revolutionary Jesus was
apocalyptic insofar as his message and presence
predicted and incited a radical change in society
as it was known at the time. Jesus was a savior
figure in the sense that his ministry showed
concern and preference for the untouchable and
oppressed individuals in society, and sought to
better their situation. Jones often focused on
Jesus’s willingness to suffer and even die for his
cause, implying that suffering was a way of
measuring the success of Jesus’s countercultural
message. Jones used this understanding and
evaluation of Jesus to justify his own reputed
messianic powers and self-appointed role,
sometimes to the extent that he called himself a
reincarnation of Jesus. More importantly, in his
message of socialism Jones incorporated his
understanding of Jesus the messiah into his
preaching by using language, actions, and
concepts associated with Jesus. Thus Jones was
able to put a Christian frame around his political
and economic teachings. Finally, Jones
incorporated Jesus’s suffering into his teachings
concerning opposition to Peoples Temple. That
is, rather than bemoaning being persecuted in
the media or by defectors, Jones could explain
that such persecution was a mark of solidarity
with Jesus and therefore a testament to the
correctness of Jones’s message.
Jones’s preaching also contained a more abstract
understanding of Jesus namely, the
understanding that Jesus pointed to or embodied
divine socialism. This interpretation focused
more on the source of Jesus’s power than on
Jesus himself. In this understanding of Jesus the
messiah, Jesus saved people by showing them
that they could in fact participate in his
miraculous power by embracing and
understanding the divine socialism he pointed to.
Two passages that Jones used to bolster this
abstract understanding of Jesus were John 14:12
and John 10:34, both of which he used to
explain the potential for all people to perform
the miracles Jesus did, since all people could
embody God—that is, love and divine socialism.
Jones embraced this abstract understanding and
used it, like his more literal interpretation, to
explain his own alleged healing and miracle-
working abilities. Moreover, the interpretation
that Jesus the messiah pointed beyond himself to
true knowledge and true power—the divine
principle of socialism—gave purpose to Jones’s
message. This goal of attaining complete
understanding of divine socialism had economic,
political, and religious consequences in Temple
members’ lives.
It is important to note that Jones’s
understanding, evaluation, and use of Jesus as a
messiah in his preaching was an appropriation
rather than a wholesale acceptance. Sometimes
Jones’s teachings about the Bible were
contradictory, and what I described here
represents just a fraction of Jones’s overall
rhetoric. Jones did not accept many elements of
the Bible. Both his teachings that the Bible
perpetuated slavery and classism, and his
observation that textual inaccuracies and
incompatibilities rendered the Bible unreliable
are the most obvious examples of Jones’s refusal
to accept the entire Bible.21 The Bible was
useful as a tool to point toward the truth of
Jones’s message rather than a document that
contained truth: “I [Jones] only use the Bible to
substantiate truth. I don’t need the Bible” (Q
21 Pertaining to slavery, Jones frequently referred to the “good ship
Jesus” as the vehicle that was both literally and metaphorically
responsible for initiating the slave trade (see, for example, Q 1035,
Q 1057, part 5, or Q 1059, part 2). Regarding biblical errors, Jones
believed that the King James Bible reflected the desires and served
the purposes of King James more than it contained truth (see, for
example, Q 974, Q 1019, Q 1059, part 2, and especially Q 955).
International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015 45