1. Why is carrying the load an extra mile an example of political protest, which Jesus does not talk about, and not of loving one’s enemies, which he does talk about - in fact, which he talks about 3 verses later (Matt. 5:41-44)? This is advice not on how to protest imperialism but on how to deal with persecution.

2. I agree that there is some sort of symbolic connection between the casting out of demons and the Roman presence. But the emphasis still is on the liberation of Israel from oppression - ultimately satanic oppression - rather than an anti-imperialist polemic. Moreover, I would not wish to reduce the healing of demoniacs to allegories of political revolution.

3. You have misunderstood me. Jesus anticipated the liberation of Israel from its enemies, which is a thoroughly political programme, but I don’t see this as quite the same as the argument that we find in Borg, Crossan and now, seemingly McLaren, that Jesus had an overtly anti-imperialist agenda.

4. As I said in response to Jacob’s question, I am inclined to differentiate quite sharply between Jesus’ eschatology and the eschatology of the early church once it had moved out into confrontation with paganism. I don’t think the Jesus of the Gospels looks beyond AD 70 - he doesn’t foresee the fall of Rome. But I agree that for Paul (notably in 2 Thess.) and for John in Revelation, there is a clear expectation that Rome as the enemy of God and the emperor as rival to Christ will be overthrown.

5. The fact that the powers in Jerusalem were Roman sympathizers does not alter things. Jesus opposed the Jerusalem hierarchy not because they had bought in to imperialism but because they were not looking after the interests of the owner of the vineyard. The central issue in the Gospels is whether God is king over his people, whether the leaders of Israel are serving God’s interests or their own, and what needs to change for a ‘good shepherd’ to lead the sheep.

I see no reason whatsoever to accept the argument that the account of Jesus in the Gospels was revised in favour of a more religious understanding of his conflict with Judaism. Through the whole of the Old Testament love of God precedes love of neighbour, idolatry precedes injustice. Jesus was concerned first about the kingship of God, secondly about the moral and political life of the people. The entry into Jerusalem, as I said aove, cannot be seen in the light of Zechariah 9:8-10 as a peasant protest against empire; it is a prophetic announcement that God is coming to reign over his people in place of corrupt Jewish and pagan authorities.

I don’t have a problem with the argument that the gospel has profound political implications or that Jesus had a political agenda. But I am not persuaded that we understand this correctly by framing it simply as an anti-imperialist agenda. That doesn’t get at the heart of the issue with the kingdom of God.

Nothing can be more political and following him must mean we are involved in something very much in the realm of public policy even if our methods of changing public policy look very different today.

I think it is right for Christians to be actively involved in the pursuit of justice. But I don’t see that as the primary calling of the church, or the primary form of following Jesus. My view is that the biblical story puts the burden first on the people of God to be an alternative to the world, to model a renewed creation, to demonstrate amongst ourselves what justice and mercy and peaceful look like, to show how in Christ ingrained human contraries and conflicts can be overcome, etc.