The modern day world is almost literally the same as the first century Palestine, in societal structure and inter and intrapersonal relationships dynamics of the ruling class and the ruled. Horsley (1993:21) calls this total domination a ‘politics of violence’ or, more precisely, ‘institutional’ or ‘structural’ violence: the illegitimate or unauthorised use of power against the will or desire of others. Also, as the illegitimate use of power, violence can be physical, psychological, or spiritual, applied directly or indirectly, in an overt or covert manner. Following these distinctions, Horsley argues that first-century Palestine was in a situation of institutional or structural violence: people were dominated and pacified with extensive and widespread violence applied largely in indirect ways (e.g. indirect rule and taxation), both covertly and overtly. In short: Roman rule was institutional or structural violence (Horsley 1993:21).
Violence perpetrated by the Roman [modern day United States and the West] aristocracy [political ruling class] consisted of taking land by force, adhering to a legal system that was biased towards the elite, clamping down on any resistance with excessive force (direct and overt), controlling both land and sea (its yield and the bodies that worked the land and sea by means of taxation), cheap labour and census (direct and covert), maintaining patron-client relationships to enhance honour and status, displaying wealth and power and building dependency (indirect and overt) and controlling various forms of communication (political propaganda) in the form of coins [American dollar], buildings and temples (indirect and covert).
This imperial ideology was based on claiming the favour of the gods. Rome proclaimed that it was chosen by the gods (especially Jupiter) to manifest their rule, will and blessings, to show their presence and favour throughout the world and to rule an ‘empire without end’. As such, Rome claimed sovereignty over sea and land and all its inhabitants. This ideology, logically, included the ‘right’ to domination and power and a belief in Rome’s superiority. Jesus’ stance on this structural violence can be deducted from the Gospel of Thomas 65.38 In this parable Jesus, first of all, challenges indirect violence, that is, the first-century values of wealth and status. The owner, in using his status and power, does not succeed in getting his vineyard back. All ‘self-evident’ or ‘ordinary/normal’ expediencies such as the connection between status and social power, the privileges of ownership and the normalcy of status displays are unsuccessful and ineffective. Put differently, the ‘normal’ elite values of status, honour and power (as indirect overt violence) are questioned by Jesus (Kloppenborg 2006:352).
In the parable, Jesus also criticises the use of direct physical violence. In the Gospel of Thomas 65, the tenants’ resort to physical violence (with its climax in the killing of the owner’s son) reaps no gains. Their violence leads to nothing and in the end the owner is the one who has honour not because he tries to protect his honour by means of status and power, but because he does nothing after his son is killed. Lintott (1968:30) has indicated that in the Roman Empire possession normally was a function ‘of the ability to take, hold, and exploit land. Possession involved force’. The possession of land by using force was seen by the aristocracy as a right. Moreover, ‘possessions which were originally acquired by force will therefore in the end have to be defended by force’ (Lintott 1968:30). In the Gospel of Thomas, the owner refrains from using violence to regain his possession. In other words, honour is gained by acting in precisely the opposite way to that which was regarded as ‘normal’. Status and honour are not retained or gained by using violence; the honourable person is the one who refrains from using violence.
