1. The point here is that God intervenes (at least in the horizon of the New Testament) to bring about what is basically political change but not by exercising political power. It is through the weakness of the cross that the principalities and powers that rule the world and oppress Israel are defeated and the situation of the people of God in the world transformed. I would maintain insistently that the New Testament does not advocate a purely internalized, spiritual form of faith. We are called first, above all, to be a community - and that immediately has political implications.

2. Not so. My argument in The Coming of the Son of Man is that the New Testament envisages a community that suffers in and with Christ. These are redescribed as the saints of the Most High in Daniel’s vision against whom the pagan oppressor makes war and who are represented symbolically by the figure of the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven. It is this community, identified with the suffering Christ as the Son of man, which concretely overcomes the power of Rome through its faithful suffering. This is not a fanciful construction. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the willingness of the early church to suffer both in martyrdom and in compassion was a crucial factor in its ‘victory’ over paganism. Jesus is the ‘pioneer’ of this faithfulness; he gains the victory of faithfulness over death. But this salvation is worked out concretely in fear and trembling by the community of his disciples.