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
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
