{"id":99153,"date":"2020-05-28T14:47:27","date_gmt":"2020-05-28T21:47:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/?page_id=99153"},"modified":"2026-03-02T15:56:11","modified_gmt":"2026-03-02T23:56:11","slug":"jones-on-jesus-who-is-the-messiah","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/?page_id=99153","title":{"rendered":"Jones on Jesus: Who Is the Messiah?"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Editor’s note<\/strong>: This article was originally published in\u00a0International Journal of Cultic Studies<\/a><\/em> (Vol. 6, 2015, 34-47). Kristian Klippenstein completed a Ph.D. in Religious Studies at the University of Alberta in 2020. His area of academic interest is new religious movements, and his dissertation research explored language choice and rhetoric in new religious texts. His previous writings for this site may be found\u00a0here<\/a>. He can be reached at kdklippe@ualberta.ca<\/a>.) <\/em><\/p>\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n

This article examines the effect of Jim Jones\u2019s understanding of Jesus as a messiah figure, both on Peoples Temple and on his own self-understanding as the Temple\u2019s leader. Using audio recordings created by the Temple, I draw attention to some major themes in Jones\u2019s interpretation of Jesus during Temple sermons. After sketching a brief history of the Peoples Temple movement, I begin by explaining Jones\u2019s distinction between God\u2014whom Jones strongly criticized\u2014and Jesus. I show that Jones legitimized his own authority by showing continuities between Jesus\u2019s ministry and his own. Additionally, I show how Jones\u2019s conception of the messiah recast the Temple community as a persecuted and powerful minority. The article concludes by examining the role that two passages Jones often quoted from the Gospel of John played in his message. Used by Jones, these verses clarified that the power of Jesus\u2014and Jones\u2014came from socialism.<\/p>\n

Keywords<\/strong>: Jim Jones, Jesus, messiah, Peoples Temple, Jonestown, socialism<\/p>\n

Peoples Temple, led by Jim Jones (1931\u20131978), espoused a unique mix of Christian doctrine, biblical exegesis, and socialist teachings during its 25-year existence in the United States and Guyana. Although socialism eventually eclipsed Christian doctrine in Jones\u2019s teachings, his interaction with biblical themes had a significant impact on the character, self-understanding, and trajectory of Peoples Temple. Of particular importance in Jones\u2019s exegesis and teaching was the figure of Jesus. This article posits that the doctrine presented in Peoples Temple was a product of Jones\u2019s unique theological vision, which he grounded and defended biblically in his distinctive and apocalyptic interpretation of Jesus as a messiah figure. Such an interpretation allowed Jones to reimagine himself as a powerful embodiment of socialism, and cast the Temple and its members as a persecuted minority whose hope for salvation lay in divine socialist principle.[1]<\/a> With Jones\u2019s guidance, devout followers believed that they could obtain this salvation self-sufficiently in the face of hostile rulers and traditional religion. Jones\u2019s interpretive maneuvers caused his followers to understand criticism of the Temple\u2019s legitimacy in a dualistic light and also provided legitimization for Jones\u2019s claims of divinity and supernatural abilities. These outcomes of Jones\u2019s unique interpretation of the messiah, founded biblically, fostered paranoia and dedication amidst Temple members and laid the groundwork both for the group\u2019s final form in Jonestown and the mass murder\/suicides that eventually took place.<\/p>\n

This article also illustrates the scholarly opportunities afforded to researchers by the large body of audio recordings left behind by Peoples Temple. Scholarship concerning Jonestown continues to appear in academic journals and other publications.[2]<\/a> Although sources such as survivor accounts and textual records have appeared throughout the Jonestown scholarly canon,[3]<\/a> the audiotapes are comparatively underutilized. Likewise, although many Peoples Temple scholars have consulted the tapes to describe or explain Peoples Temple, few have engaged in close analysis of Jones\u2019s rhetoric in the tapes. This type of close analysis, when it has happened, has mostly been confined to examinations of Q 042,[4]<\/a> the tape recorded during the mass murder\/suicide in November 1978.[5]<\/a> To defend these claims about Jones\u2019s understanding of the messiah, I examined recordings of Jones\u2019s preaching in the United States dating primarily from the 1970s. Although it is important to take into consideration the fact that Temple personnel edited many of these recordings, the material they contain comprises the doctrines of Peoples Temple, either as Jones first presented them to members or as Temple representatives wanted the world to hear them. At the very least, the audiotapes are faithful embodiments of Jones\u2019s doctrines because they do not contain interpretations by secondary sources and because their very presence shows at least some interest in preserving \u201ctrue\u201d Temple teaching.<\/p>\n

It should be noted that the cohesion with which the speech excerpts used in this article fit together should not be taken as evidence of a systematic theology in Jones\u2019s work. On one hand, the sheer volume of audio material generated by Peoples Temple resists the possibility of creating a systematic or holistic theology spoken by Jones.[6]<\/a> On a second\u2014and more important\u2014hand, Jones\u2019s message evolved as the Temple moved from Indiana to California and Guyana.[7]<\/a> Initially a sort of Social Gospel ideology couched in black-worship styling and civil-rights concerns,[8]<\/a> Jones\u2019s message diverged from mainline Protestant Christianity as the Temple became ever more secretive about its practices, taking on apocalyptic overtones and incorporating Jones\u2019s interpretation of socialist rhetoric. By the time Jones took up permanent residence in Guyana, his preaching was all but devoid of Christian content and focused almost entirely on socialism and international politics. Moreover, Jones\u2019s preaching\u2014like that of many extemporaneous speakers\u2014could be highly tangential and contradictory depending on his topic and context. All of this is to say that Jones did not found Peoples Temple on a fully developed ideology that remained unchanged from the group\u2019s beginnings in the 1950s to its end in the late 1970s. It is nonetheless possible to identify key areas of concern that Jones continually returned to. In this article, rather than to defend fine doctrinal points, my use of excerpts is intended to reveal two such areas of concern: the measurement of virtuous conduct by its social outcome, and the equation of socialism with some form of divinity. Although my article addresses these concerns in the context of Jones\u2019s interactions with Christian theology in the late 1960s and 1970s, these two themes find their origins in Jones\u2019s earlier teachings concerning social outreach and harmony, and his later expositions on the superiority of socialism and the dangers of capitalism.<\/p>\n

James (Jim) Warren Jones founded Peoples Temple in the mid-1950s in Indianapolis, Indiana (Reiterman & Jacobs, 2008 [1982], p. 47). The Temple emphasized racial equality and social outreach as practical outcomes of the Christian New Testament and, along with Revivalist-style healings, these practices attracted both black and white Christians, along with those on the peripherals of society (Reiterman & Jacobs, 2008 [1982], pp. 54\u201355). In 1965, the congregation moved across the country to Redwood Valley, California and in the early 1970s moved its headquarters to San Francisco and held regular services in Los Angeles, as well (Moore, 2009, pp. 23, 26, 28). With each move, the Temple grew in size, expanding its rhetoric to include a socialist mindset. Cathartic practices and anti-American sentiments led the Temple to shrink back from the public eye. In 1977, pressure by former members and the media to investigate the increasingly unorthodox habits of the Temple forced Jones and a contingent of his followers to relocate to Guyana, where the Temple had begun an agricultural commune named Jonestown several years earlier.[9]<\/a> Despite the relocation, the Temple remained fearful that certain Americans were working to destroy the movement.<\/p>\n

In November 1978 Congressman Leo Ryan, along with members of the media and some individuals who were worried about family members living in Guyana, visited Jonestown to assess living conditions and assist any individuals who wished to leave (Moore, 2009, pp. 88\u201394).[10]<\/a> As this delegation and a handful of defectors were leaving, Temple gunmen attacked them. Five individuals were killed, including the congressman.[11]<\/a> Back at the commune, Jones informed the community that American authorities would retaliate by invading the compound and harshly penalizing its inhabitants (Q 042). Rather than submit to such an attack, the residents instead participated in what Jones termed revolutionary suicide: dying in order to \u201cprotes[t] the conditions of an inhumane world\u201d (Q 042). Although Temple congregants in Guyana requested by shortwave radio that their counterparts in the United States do the same, no Peoples Temple members in the United States committed suicide that day.[12]<\/a> Peoples Temple, however, quickly ceased to exist, liquidating its assets to pay the huge legal fees incurred by the murder-suicides (Nugent, 1979, pp. 232, 256).<\/p>\n

Jones\u2019s leadership and teachings throughout the Temple\u2019s history linked intrinsically to his understanding of Jesus. In this article, I divide Jones\u2019s interpretation of Jesus into two sections\u2014a more literal reading of Jesus\u2019s life, message, and death in relation to socialism, and a more abstract reading of Jesus as a signifier of the power of socialism. Each section comprises three interrelated sets of observations: a description of Jones\u2019s most frequent observations on Jesus, an analysis of Jones\u2019s evaluation of Jesus as a messiah figure, and some comments on the effect of this unique interpretation of Jesus on Jones\u2019s own self-identity in his preaching and the nature of Peoples Temple. Although this article focuses on Jones\u2019s unique understanding of Jesus as an example of a messiah, a more standard and succinct definition of the term messiah may be helpful for comparison. In popular thought, a messiah is a savior figure who claims divine sanction, brings restoration or salvation, and has followers who accept the figure\u2019s claim about having divine inspiration and\/or powers.<\/p>\n

Worth noting at the outset is that Jones\u2019s thoughts concerning Jesus were not synonymous with his thoughts regarding the other members of the Christian Trinity, particularly God.[13]<\/a> Jones\u2019s view of the Christian God, or Skygod, as Jones termed it, as a creating and omniscient deity was quite low.[14]<\/a> The God that Christians prayed to as an all-powerful being, Jones maintained, was in fact incapable of being felt or seen in the world, and perhaps did not care at all about the plight of human beings. In a 1972 San Francisco sermon, for example, Jones used the language of 1 Kings 18 to challenge Christians to prove that their God could help them:<\/p>\n

Let the God that\u2019s God answer\u2026. If the Skygod is indeed your God, let him feed you\u2026 Let him house you. When you get in trouble in the courts, let him go to court for you\u2026. I\u2019ve been trying to get him recruited, [but] I haven\u2019t been able to find him. (Q 1035)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This distanced God was something that Jones could not abide \u2014\u201cdon\u2019t you compare me to no unknown god\u201d (Q 1035). By way of contrast, Jones talked about his congregation: \u201clet\u2019s look at my house [church] tonight. Nobody hungry in my house\u2026. I look after my own. Not one of mine that\u2019s hungry tonight\u2026. Not one of mine that doesn\u2019t have a place to rest tonight\u201d (Q 1035). The implications of this contrast\u2014that Jones took physical, tangible, and immediate care of his followers while the unknown Skygod hindered or ignored its creation\u2014highlight Jones\u2019s prime complaint against the Skygod: a lack of action or concern for the marginalized (Q 1035; also Q 953, Q 1019). This lack of action or concern was evidenced by the intangibility of the Skygod and was mirrored in institutional Christianity.<\/p>\n

Jones\u2019s preaching often contained incensed remarks against the Skygod\u2019s inscrutable behavior. In the same 1972 San Francisco sermon, Jones asked the audience why\u2014if the Skygod was so loving\u2014the Skygod would create them and place them \u201cin the messes that [they]\u2019ve been in\u201d (Q 1035). In another instance, Jones spoke out against those in his audience who still clung to their old Skygod rather than Jones\u2019s new divine principle of socialism, saying, \u201clet them go out [of Peoples Temple] and believe in a Skygod that\u2019ll never come\u2026. But don\u2019t let them be in here holding us back by looking back to other gods\u201d (Q 1057, part 4). Jones went on to warn that this Skygod was one and the same with the God who allowed the Jews\u2014supposedly God\u2019s chosen people\u2014to be killed in gas chambers by Nazis (Q 1057, part 4). Jones\u2019s derision of the Skygod helped to isolate the Temple from other Christian denominations and created a need\u2014which Jones promptly filled\u2014to interpret Christian texts in a new way.<\/p>\n

Despite his Trinitarian affiliations, Jesus did not suffer such harsh criticism in Jones\u2019s preaching. As mentioned, Jones\u2019s understanding of Jesus as a messiah figure divided into two categories: a more literal understanding based on Gospel accounts of Jesus\u2019s life, and a more abstract understanding wherein Jesus functioned as a signifier of the power of divine socialism. I begin with the more literal interpretation.<\/p>\n

In terms of origins, Jones aligned Jesus with the lower class. Jesus was \u201cborn without a father, as far as the world knew anything about it\u201d (Q 1035). Without an earthly father to provide prestige or a noble genealogy, Jesus \u201cwas born on the wrong side of the tracks\u201d (Q 1035). In terms of socioeconomic status, Jones\u2014and the Gospel writers before him\u2014presented Jesus unattractively as a servant or a slave (Q 1057, part 5). Often Jones lauded both this lowly beginning and the numerous interactions between Jesus and the needy or oppressed found in the gospels. In another 1972 sermon, Jones listed the forms that some of these interactions took: \u201che loved without respect of race or creed, he fed the hungry and clothed the naked, he took in the stranger, and he went into the prison when someone was standing up for their rights\u201d (Q 1054, part 3). In addition to those who were poor or hungry, Jones understood Jesus as seeking out those who were otherwise untouchable or politically incorrect. According to Jones, Jesus was \u201cout with the drunks, out with the harlots, out in the red light district in the back alleys,\u201d locales that caused his opponents to label him with demeaning titles, such as a drunkard (Q 1058, part 2). In another recording, Jones set the drunks and harlots against established government, claiming he would rather \u201cbe an outright harlot and drunk\u201d than be part of a government that tried to substitute itself for the socialistic message surrounding Jesus and the principle of socialism (Q 1058, part 4). With this interpretation, Jones drew or implied parallels between Jesus\u2019s origins and key demographics and his own life. Jones often portrayed his father as a negative or absent figure in his childhood, and the fringe of society was in large part the target audience of Jones\u2019s message.[15]<\/a><\/p>\n

Jones understood these forays by Jesus onto the \u201cwrong side of the tracks\u201d as building the Kingdom of God on earth. The Kingdom was not something to be realized fully after death or in some future scenario, but rather something that could be present within everybody and embodied upon the earth in the present. This placement of the Kingdom\u2014on earth, in this life \u2014is crucial to understanding much of Jones\u2019s other teachings on Jesus and his apparent conception of the Temple\u2019s purpose.[16]<\/a> Jones once stated that Christians told people, \u201cyou\u2019ve gotta go to heaven to be perfect\u2026. And that\u2019s the biggest cop-out in the world\u201d (Q 932). Jesus himself chastised those who looked to another world or life for the Kingdom: \u201c[Jesus said,] \u2018I\u2019ve had enough of your praying.\u2019 He said, \u2018I\u2019ve had enough of looking up.\u2019 He said, \u2018Look within.\u2019 The Kingdom of revolution, the Kingdom of your hope is within\u201d (Q 1057, part 5). Temple members could realize the perfection of the Kingdom of God fully in the present, and Jesus\u2019s acts pointed to this immanence. To prove this point, Jones quoted the Lord\u2019s Prayer, explaining that Jesus prayed, \u201cThy kingdom come, Thy will be done [o]n earth\u201d (Q 932; also Q 1057, part 5). In another sermon, Jones asked his congregation, \u201cWhen are we gonna wake up and get our mind off of\u2026 heavenly slippers or the pearly white city\u2014when are we gonna get our mind off that stuff and start building our heaven down here?\u201d (Q 1057, part 4). A sharp dichotomy between true believers (Temple members who worked hard to build heaven on earth) and capitalists, Christians, defectors, or racists (who hampered the Temple\u2019s efforts or saw divine intervention as the only catalyst to cause change) sprang up with this notion of the Kingdom of God. Eventually these defectors and other opponents would threaten the existence of Jonestown itself, signaling that not even in the present\u2014much less in life after death\u2014could Temple members find respite from racism and political oppression. Jones had long before abandoned the Christian concept of a Kingdom of God; however, in Jonestown, he nonetheless painted the impending dismantling of the compound in biblical terms by quoting from Matthew 11: \u201cthe Kingdom suffereth violence and the violent shall take it by force\u201d (Q 042).<\/p>\n

According to Jones\u2019s interpretation, Jesus\u2019s ministry built the Kingdom of God in a countercultural, revolutionary manner that went against the political order of the first-century world. Such opposition was not sneaky or implicit, but overt. To say that Jesus overcame the sources of marginalization or suffering was to say that Jesus literally stood up against those sources (Q 1054, part 3). Jones saw Jesus as revealing to the sinful their sins and boldly calling out for change, not only to anyone who would listen, but also to \u201cthe kings of [his] day\u201d (Q 1054, part 3). The urgent and noticeable manner of Kingdom-building work that Jesus did was especially underscored in Jones\u2019s understanding of Jesus as a savior to be called upon: \u201cWhen you know Jesus, you won\u2019t have much time to get on your knees [to pray]\u2014 you\u2019ll have to pray on the run\u201d (Q 1054, part 3). In fact, Jones interpreted the action of revolutionary Kingdom-building as being bound up in Jesus\u2019s title and identity, explaining, \u201cChrist in the Hebrew means revolution,\u201d and on another occasion, \u201cJesus is a revolution\u201d (Q 965; Q 1057, part 5). In both these statements, Jones emphasized action and immanence. Truly understanding the Kingdom-building process in this model led to zeal and dedication amongst members. Because the Temple was touted as the only group interested in or capable of creating heaven out of America\u2019s hell, members were in essence forced to throw their resources and support behind Jones\u2019s antagonistic stance toward capitalist society or abandon hope for social change. Even during the Temple\u2019s final murder-suicide ritual, Jones retained the language of revolution: \u201cThis is a revolutionary suicide\u201d (Q 042).<\/p>\n

According to Jones, this mission of radically altering the political and economic order of the day made Jesus\u2019s preaching unattractive and unpopular. The termination of Jesus\u2019s mission by crucifixion did nothing to improve the status of his message. By dying in this manner, Jesus \u201cseemed to be a loser,\u201d for he was killed by the very system that he opposed (Q 1059, part 1). Moreover, Jesus got in trouble with audiences and authorities because his message brought moral accountability down upon people. Jones taught that<\/p>\n

when somebody becomes God in the earth, then they have a moral effect on people\u2026. They can tell people right and wrong\u2026. Everybody likes to keep God out there in the unknown and then everybody can interpret him\u2026. You got a different story when God takes himself a body, when principle becomes flesh. (Q 1035)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Jesus did not intend his message\u2014which many perceived as that of a loser, drunkard, and self-styled slave\u2014to comfort an audience or to endear him to authorities, but to challenge customs and norms. Similarly, in Jones\u2019s message, the work of Peoples Temple destabilized long-held racial or religious beliefs in American society and caused society to respond in harmful or persecuting ways.<\/p>\n

Jones understood Jesus\u2019s message to be one of socialism, and he frequently made Jesus and Jesus\u2019s message synonymous with socialism itself. Several times in one recording, Jones made such a connection explicit, relating socialism to the death and resurrection of Jesus and the birth of the early church. Talking about himself, Jones said, \u201cThe life that I now live I live through this great principle, the Christ, the socialistic principle that was on the day of Pentecost when it said God is love, and love means they have everything in common\u201d (Q 1059, part 1). In the same discussion, Jones linked Jesus and the socialist revolution together in Jesus\u2019s death: \u201cI\u2019m crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live. I\u2019ve been crucified with the revolution\u201d (Q 1059, part 1). Continuing to play on the death and resurrection language of the Gospels, Jones stated, \u201cYou can\u2019t keep the Christ idea, the revolutionary idea of socialism, you can\u2019t keep it in a tomb\u201d (Q 1059, part 1). These three statements suggest that Jones understood believing in and practicing Jesus\u2019s message of a new order as somehow synonymous with taking part in the death and resurrection of Jesus. This interpretation intimately linked the believer to socialism. Jesus completely embodied and was identical to his message of revolutionary socialism. In one sermon, Jones referred to the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of socialism as one and the same, thereby calling both these kingdom messages \u201cthis that turned the world upside-down\u201d (Q 1059, part 2).<\/p>\n

Although these observations do not exhaust Jones\u2019s speaking on the topic of his more literal understanding of Jesus, they represent some of his most frequent and consistent comments. Through these presentations of Jesus\u2019s life and ministry, one can sketch some of the contours of Jones\u2019s understanding of Jesus as a messiah in an apocalyptic setting. Jesus was predominantly concerned with the poor and untouchable people in society, and through his actions he visibly sided with those who were caught in injustice and oppression. Without fear of retribution, he criticized brazenly those who perpetuated such injustice\u2014the rulers of society. For these reasons, Jesus was unpopular with some portions of his contemporary audience and made other portions uncomfortable. And as previously noted, Jones understood Jesus\u2019s process of Kingdom-building, through his radical countercultural message and actions, as promoting the concept of socialism; thus Jones discussed in socialistic terms elements of Jesus\u2019s story (such as his death and resurrection).<\/p>\n

Jones\u2019s evaluation of Jesus as a messiah in these more literal observations was not entirely positive. On one occasion, Jones criticized Jesus for his potentially selective saving deeds. While Jones had the power and the will to save his followers from prison or hell, Jesus<\/p>\n

supposedly went down to hell, according to the epistles, and preached to who? The spirit[s] of the disobedient ones in the days of Noah\u2026. He took them outta hell! Well, if he took some bunch of disobedient folk outta hell [but] wouldn\u2019t take you out then he\u2019s a dirty rascal. (Q 1059, part 1)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Moreover, Jones did not always see the biblical Jesus as strong. In fact, he took the success of Peoples Temple\u2014which worshipped divine socialism, not the Skygod of the Bible\u2014to indicate Jesus\u2019s weakness. Jones sometimes set himself up as the Antichrist because he preached against Christians (Q 1057, part 5). In one sermon, he argued, \u201cwhen the Antichrist can be better than the followers of Christ, you\u2019ve got a weak Jesus\u201d (Q 1016). On the one hand, the \u201cfollowers of Christ\u201d were the traditional Christians whose religion\u2014according to Jones\u2014had no effect on alleviating negative social conditions. Jones and Peoples Temple, on the other hand, received the label of Antichrist because he and its members accomplished greater things even though they did not belong to the traditional Christian church. Thus, \u201cwhen the anti-Jesus people are more loving and sharing and kind and good than the Jesus people, you better look at your Jesus! He is indeed weak\u201d (Q 1016). Since the Jesus of the Bible and his followers worshipped the Skygod, their religious convictions were flawed and therefore weak.<\/p>\n

Often, however, Jones reversed this criticism and approved of Jesus\u2019s strength and forceful message. Regarding this forcefulness, Jones once said, \u201cif you don\u2019t like hard sayings, then you didn\u2019t even like Jesus\u2026. He said a lot of hard things. He cussed out the money changers, whipped their ass, [threw] them out, threw\u2026 the tables upside down\u201d (Q 1059, part 4). Jesus\u2019s message was strong and even harsh, and Jones commended it. Attributing opposite characteristics to Jesus\u2019s character\u2014here, simultaneous weakness and strength\u2014will emerge again later when we consider Jones\u2019s Christology. Moreover, Jones seemed to gauge the effectiveness or correctness of Jesus\u2019s message by persecution. Because Jesus\u2019s annunciation of the Kingdom of God was a threat to the wealthy and powerful, and a critique of society, it followed that persecution was evidence of Jesus preaching the \u201cright\u201d message in an apocalyptic context. In a sermon already quoted, Jones\u2019s ridicule of the biblical text had one affirmation in it: \u201cthe scriptures tells [sic] you\u2026 if you try to live godly in Christ Jesus, you\u2019re gonna get persecution\u201d (Q 1035). The theme of persecution for one\u2019s beliefs permeated Jones\u2019s American preaching and followed the Temple to Guyana. There Jones claimed that enemies of the Temple\u2014particularly the CIA\u2014waited in the jungle to attack the commune and cast the visit of Congressman Ryan in terms of animosity and persecution.[17]<\/a><\/p>\n

Jones\u2019s interpretations of Jesus in a messianic and apocalyptic context were based largely on stories of Jesus in the Gospels. Such stories would have been familiar to at least a portion of Jones\u2019s audience. In this way, Jones used his interpretation of Jesus as a messiah to connect with those people in Peoples Temple who joined the movement as Christians. By interpreting Jesus through his own socialistic goals, and by backing his socialist agenda with biblical preaching, Jones sought to acclimate his audience. Jones referred to certain events facing the Temple, such as newspaper smear campaigns, in the context of Jesus\u2019s own suffering for his annunciation of the Kingdom of God.[18]<\/a> Thus, Jones said, \u201cthe next time newspapers [reporters] come, I\u2019m going to make such a stir\u2014I\u2019ll be selling newspapers for three months\u2026. Naturally, naturally they\u2019re gonna try to get us\u201d (Q 1035). Here he connected the stir his own message caused with the stir that Jesus\u2019s Kingdom-building message caused. The persecuting newspaper reporters were \u201cnaturally\u201d attacking the Temple because Jones\u2019s message was really the message that Jesus had preached in the New Testament. Just like in the New Testament, persecution followed revolutionary socialist teachings. This interpretation cast the world in a dualistic light and called for determination\u2014even to the point of causing anguish or suffering harm\u2014to follow the Temple\u2019s socialist principle.<\/p>\n

Jones also understood Jesus in a much more abstract way. In this abstract interpretation of Jesus as a messiah, Jones described Jesus to be either a representation of divine socialism or the divine principle itself that people in the present could attain. To understand how Jones interpreted the Jesus of the New Testament, it is necessary to look at how Jesus pointed to or embodied divine socialism, and divine socialism as a source of messianic power. In particular, Jones repeatedly cited two verses from the Gospel of John that served to highlight the fact that Jesus\u2019s power was not necessarily due to any of his own innate characteristics or qualities. Specifically, Jones cited John 14:12, \u201cVerily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father\u201d; and John 10:34, \u201cJesus answered them, \u201cIs it not written in your law, I said, \u2018Ye are gods?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

Jones understood Jesus\u2019s words in John 14:12 to be a promise that those who believed in Jesus\u2019s message would be able to do the same revolutionary sort of miracles that the New Testament portrayed Jesus as enacting. Immediately noticeable is the fact that this passage attributed miraculous power to the Skygod\u2014in John 14:12 the Father\u2014that Jones derided. In some sermons, however, where Jones dealt with this passage he seems to have conveniently avoided the final \u201cbecause I go unto my Father\u201d clause. With an interest in the divine principle of socialism and a dislike for the Skygod, Jones worked to reinterpret the source of Jesus\u2019s works and explain his own miraculous claims.<\/p>\n

In Jones\u2019s exposition of John 14:12, Jesus the messiah functioned more as a paradigm than a supreme being. In a way, Jesus represented the beginning rather than the ultimate end of pursuing the knowledge and practice of divine socialism. In this sense, Jesus\u2019s words and actions pointed toward the principle of socialism that would enable its followers to do greater things than Jesus did in the New Testament. Jones explained that those who believed in Jesus\u2019s message of divine socialism were promised \u201cnot only the same things shall you do, but the same things and greater\u201d (Q 987). Such goals were attainable because socialist principle revealed itself not on some lofty plane beyond human comprehension, but in human history. Jones preached that<\/p>\n

principle speaks on a lower plane\u2026. Jesus said, \u201cthese things shall you do and greater\u201d \u2026 so we\u2019re living in a greater time of compassion, a greater time of love, a greater time of miracles\u2014and there are no such things as miracles, only supernormal, supernatural, [only] above what we consider to be natural events. (Q 1023)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Thus the mighty deeds done by Jesus were not supernatural in the sense that human beings could not replicate them. Rather, anyone could achieve them who believed in the principle that Jesus\u2019s words and deeds pointed to. This idea that belief and acceptance fostered ability led to a justification of Jones\u2019s own (alleged) miracle-working abilities.[19]<\/a> One recording begins with Temple members giving testimonies of how Jones had worked miraculous deeds in their lives. The first speaker stated the connection between Jesus\u2019s power and Jones\u2019s abilities:<\/p>\n

That same Christ that\u2019s working through pastor Jim Jones have [sic] saved me of many heart attacks, many, many strokes, saved my daughter from being raped, and I am very grateful for the Christ that\u2019s working through pastor Jim Jones. (Q 987)<\/p>\n

Such an understanding does not necessarily resonate with Jones\u2019s interpretation of John 14:12. Although the above statement does affirm that Jones\u2019s followers linked his alleged abilities as a healer to the Jesus of the Bible, it holds up Jesus as a source of power rather than one who, like Jones, tapped into divine socialism as a source of power. In the same sermon, Jones explained that<\/p>\n

if people will get their mind and their hearts, their love and their devotion, in the right place, then the same power\u2014I don\u2019t mean some power, but the same power\u2014that was in the early church can be in our church, but in a greater day, in a greater degree! (Q 987)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Jesus was not physically present as a human being in the early church or in Peoples Temple, but the power his message pointed to persisted. Jones offered examples of this power present in his own life by asking the congregation to remember miracles they had witnessed: \u201cI have walked right across the waves when we went to Mexico\u2026. We\u2019ve stopped the rain all across the [cross-country] trip\u2014we would just lift our hand\u2014we\u2019ve stopped the snow when we were snowbound in Chicago\u201d (Q 987). Moreover, Jones asked,<\/p>\n

How many, through the anointing, have I raised from the dead in this room? How many have been healed of blindness? \u2026 How many have I healed of rheumatoid or arthritic crippling conditions? How many have I healed of cancer, the incurable disease? (Q 987)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

These amazing feats and wondrous signs, Jones stated, were possible because of the Christ principle of socialism that was found within him. The power that allowed such miracles to occur, however, was conditional. In electrical terms, Jones explained,<\/p>\n

If you want the power to work through you, you\u2019d better get the right kind of circuit\u2026. We\u2019ve got flimsy little toy switches\u2026. But if you want the power, you\u2019d better get the dynamo, and the dynamo is God, is love, and love is socialism and that will give you power. (Q 987)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In this explanation of miraculous power, Jones moves quickly from God through love to socialism. As mentioned previously, John 14:12 indicates Jesus\u2019s Father as the source of miraculous power. Here, Jones clarifies to some extent his rightful claim to power despite his ridicule of the Skygod. For Jones, God the Father was not the ultimate truth of Jesus\u2019s message. Rather, the God being spoken of here is not the Father from John 14:12, but a symbolization of love and socialism. Thus in the sermon just quoted, Jones held out the opportunity to participate in miraculous power to his audience, provided they embrace his socialistic goals. Embracing such goals was necessary because it was the understanding and practice of divine socialism\u2014not chasing after Jesus\u2019s father the Skygod\u2014that (Jones claimed) allowed his miracles to take place. During a different exposition in which Jones drew from John 14:12, Jones asked, \u201cWhy are you so superstitious that you worship an unknown God? Jesus said, \u2018Worship what you see.\u2019\u201d (Q 1053, part 1). In this sermon, Jones went to great lengths to differentiate his character as God from the Christians\u2019 Skygod, explaining that \u201cthe most conscious love, that is God. God means good\u201d (Q 1053, part 1). In this sermon, Jones symbolized the concrete and visible acts of love and socialism using the biblical language of God and did not confuse them with the Skygod of the Bible whose presence in the world was unseen or unwanted.<\/p>\n

The second passage from the gospel of John that Jones interpreted as proving that Jesus pointed to the divine principle of socialism that empowered him was John 10:34. Specifically, Jones focused on Jesus\u2019s response to his Jewish interlocutors upon being accused of blasphemy: \u201cIs it not written in your law, I said, \u2018Ye are gods?\u2019\u201d When used in Jones\u2019s preaching, this verse has an emphasis on vocation or ability. In his interpretation, this statement by Jesus was not just a reference to Psalm 82:6 from the Hebrew Bible; rather, it was an invitation for people to partake in the same power and role that Jesus embodied in the New Testament.<\/p>\n

In this verse, Jones interpreted Jesus as equating other human beings with himself. Just as Jesus was God, so too were his everyday audiences and adversaries, at least potentially. In the context of Peoples Temple, this interpretation meant that everyone who came to this realization had the opportunity to become a god\u2014that is, one who practiced love and socialism. Thus, in his preaching, Jones equated Jesus, in all his (presumed) miraculous and radical power, with the Temple\u2019s members. The goal of Jones\u2019s interpretation of John 10:34, however, was not solely to tell his followers that they were conceivably equivalent to Jesus. In fact, such an understanding was largely useless without the knowledge of what gave Jesus his power.<\/p>\n

As already mentioned, in Jones\u2019s preaching, Jesus\u2019s power derived from his embracing divine socialism. Therefore, Jones was able to use this verse, like he did John 14:12, to defend his own godly claims. Jesus\u2019s words in John 10:34 enabled Jones to say, \u201c\u2026you can call me an egomaniac, megalomania, or whatever you wish, with a messianic complex. I don\u2019t have any complex, honey, I happen to know I\u2019m the messiah\u201d (Q 1059, part 1). Such a claim was valid because Jones, as the being with the greatest attunement to the divine socialist principle, was the embodiment of divine socialism. Just as Jesus showed the way to attaining such power, so too did Jones (Q 953). In one sermon, he explained that his embodiment of socialist principle functioned according to necessity, like Jesus\u2019s:<\/p>\n

I\u2019m a god and you\u2019re a god. And I\u2019m a god and I\u2019m going to stay a god until you recognize that you\u2019re God and when you recognize you\u2019re God I shall go back into principle and will not appear as a personality. (Q 1035)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Thus, both Jesus and Jones\u2019s alleged miraculous abilities and radical messages were meant to empower their hearers and reveal to them their true potential, which could be achieved through embracing divine socialism. Through his preaching, Jones promised his audience that \u201cI\u2019m going to cause you to know that you are what Jesus was\u201d (Q 1035). Two implications of this goal worth considering in the context of Jones\u2019s evaluation and appropriation of Jesus\u2019s words in John 10 relate to responsibility and Christology.<\/p>\n

First, the power that one attained as a god\u2014a loving, socialistic being\u2014had to be responsibly managed and appropriately channeled. On this point, Jones frequently derided the Skygod. In some circumstances the Skygod abused its power, seen in the creation of the world for selfish motives. In one sermon, Jones explained that the Skygod created the world and humanity, 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\u2014wherever that power came from\u2014because 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\u2014even violence and injustice to God\u2019s own chosen people, the Jews (Q 1054, part 3). Jones deemed his use of power as more fitting of a loving being\u2014most of his apparent miracles were displays of healing. Through these critiques, Jones instructed his audience that godly power\u2014the power derived from divine socialism evident in Jesus\u2014had to be managed and channeled appropriately.<\/p>\n

Moreover, Jones\u2019s 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\u2019s 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 \u201cJesus said, \u2018If any man would come after me, take up your own cross.\u2019 He didn\u2019t say anything about taking his cross \u2026 You can\u2019t take Jesus\u2019[s] cross, and Jesus can\u2019t work out your own salvation\u201d (Q 1023). Jesus\u2019s 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\u2019s message and embraced divine socialism had the responsibility of using this power to work out their own salvation.<\/p>\n

Second, it is possible to offer some comments on Jones\u2019s Christology\u2014that is, his interpretation of Jesus\u2019s nature as the messiah. On the one hand, one could argue that Jones had a rather \u201chigh\u201d Christology because his interpretation of John 14:12 and 10:34 deemphasized the decidedly human aspects of Jesus in favor of Jesus\u2019s 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 \u201clow\u201d Christology. By emphasizing his physical presence\u2014among the poor and racially marginalized, no less\u2014in the physical world, Jones showed a preference for a human understanding of Jesus.<\/p>\n

This low Christology is also evident in Jones\u2019s 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 \u201cnot a mortal\u2026 [but] the very spirit and the actual conscious presence of a living god,\u201d he also highlighted the similarities between himself and his audience: \u201cShit, I\u2019m no different than you. Everybody\u2019s a god. So Jesus is God. I am God! You are God!\u201d (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]<\/a> In one sermon, Jones lamented, \u201cI don\u2019t know how some of you people get in this door anyway; you act like you must be lost\u201d (Q 1059, part 2). To interpret Jesus\u2019s words as suggesting that such lost and uncomprehending people could be gods as Jesus was a god necessarily emphasized Jesus\u2019s lowly and human characteristics.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s words in these two verses as 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.<\/p>\n

This collection and analysis of excerpts from Jones\u2019s 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\u2019s preaching. Jones\u2019s 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\u2019s willingness to suffer and even die for his cause, implying that suffering was a way of measuring the success of Jesus\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s message.<\/p>\n

Jones\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2014that 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\u2014the divine principle of socialism\u2014gave purpose to Jones\u2019s message. This goal of attaining complete understanding of divine socialism had economic, political, and religious consequences in Temple members\u2019 lives.<\/p>\n

It is important to note that Jones\u2019s understanding, evaluation, and use of Jesus as a messiah in his preaching was an appropriation rather than a wholesale acceptance. Sometimes Jones\u2019s teachings about the Bible were contradictory, and what I described here represents just a fraction of Jones\u2019s 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\u2019s refusal to accept the entire Bible.[21]<\/a> The Bible was useful as a tool to point toward the truth of Jones\u2019s message rather than a document that contained truth: \u201cI [Jones] only use the Bible to substantiate truth. I don\u2019t need the Bible\u201d (Q 953).[22]<\/a> Jones\u2019s feelings toward the Bible are perhaps best summed up by a statement he made during a Los Angeles sermon concerning his claim to be the reincarnation of various Judeo-Christian or political figures. Jones said,<\/p>\n

Yes, I\u2019ll become Jesus Christ. Yes, I\u2019ll become Moses. Yes, I\u2019ll become Vladimir [Lenin]\u2026. But I don\u2019t have to be those that I mentioned. I\u2019ve done enough in the name of Jim Jones to write the best Bible you\u2019ve ever seen. (Q 1057, part 5)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Although Jones perceived himself to be capable of being\u2014and doing the work of\u2014Jesus, his ultimate accomplishments lay outside the narrative of the Bible and outside the name and reputation of Jesus.<\/p>\n

The fact that Jones appropriated the biblical witness of Jesus more so than he accepted it entirely need not, and does not, render as a useless endeavor one\u2019s understanding his interpretation of Jesus as a messiah. On the contrary, by observing how Jones interpreted Jesus as an apocalyptic messiah and evaluated him based on this interpretation, one is better able to understand Jones\u2019s own preaching and vocation as the messianic leader of Peoples Temple. The ramifications of this preaching are evident in the later history of Peoples Temple and the community of Jonestown. Jones encouraged members to work out their salvation through participating in Jones\u2019s directives and apart from established religion. Persecution became a rubric by which Jones and members of the Temple measured their commitment to and embodiment of divine socialism, which led them to adopt a dualistic understanding of the world. Jones bred members\u2019 dedication to the Temple\u2019s cause and paranoia through his understanding of Jesus as a messiah, thus contributing to the Temple\u2019s tragic end. This article does not claim that Jones had any robust systematic theology; but it shows\u2014through analysis of the Temple\u2019s audio recordings\u2014that Jones\u2019s biblical interpretations fostered a worldview characterized by fear, hope, loyalty, and suspicion.<\/p>\n

Bibliography<\/strong><\/p>\n

Index of FBI tape summaries. 1979. Audiotapes retrieved from Jonestown by Federal Bureau of Investigation: Q 042; Q 134; Q 175; Q 932; Q 953; Q 955; Q 965; Q 974; Q 987; Q 1016; Q 1019; Q 1023; Q 1035; Q 1053, part 1; Q 1054, part 3; Q 1057, part 2; Q 1057, part 4; Q 1057, part 5; Q 1058, part 2; Q 1058, part 4; Q 1059, part 1; Q 1059, part 2; Q 1059. part 4. Available online through the SDSU website at https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/?page_id=28703<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Secondary Resources<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Chidester, David. 2003 (1988). Salvation and Suicide: Jim Jones, the Peoples Temple and Jonestown<\/a>. (Rev. ed.). Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana Press.<\/p>\n

Fondakowski, Leigh. 2013. Stories from Jonestown. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.<\/p>\n

Griffin, Horace L. 2013. Dishonor: Race, sex and power in Jim Jones\u2019 Peoples Temple, Journal of Pastoral Theology, 23(2), 3.1\u20133.15.<\/p>\n

Hall, John R. 2001. Gone from the promised land: Jonestown in American cultural history. (2nd ed.; originally published in 1987.) New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.<\/p>\n

Kent, Stephen. 2010. House of Judah, the Northeast Kingdom Community, and \u201cthe Jonestown problem\u201d: Downplaying child physical abuse and ignoring serious evidence, International Journal of Cultic Studies, 1(1), 27\u201348.<\/p>\n

Kilduff, Marshall, & Tracy, Phil. 1977 (August 1). Inside Peoples Temple. New West, pp. 30\u201338.<\/p>\n

Maaga, Mary McCormick. 1998. Hearing the Voices of Jonestown<\/a>. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.<\/p>\n

Migliore, Daniel L. 2004 (1991). Faith seeking understanding: An introduction to Christian theology (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing.<\/p>\n

Mills, Jeannie. 1979. Six years with God: Life inside Rev. Jim Jones\u2019s Peoples Temple. New York, NY: A&W Publishers.<\/p>\n

Moore, Rebecca. 2009. Understanding Jonestown and Peoples Temple. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.<\/p>\n

Moore, Rebecca. 2011. Narratives of persecution, suffering, and martyrdom: Violence in Peoples Temple and Jonestown. In James R. Lewis (Ed.), Violence and new religious movements (pp. 95\u2013112). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n

Nugent, John Peer. 1979. White night: The untold story of what happened before\u2014and beyond\u2014Jonestown. New York, NY: Rawson Wade Publishers.<\/p>\n

Reiterman, Tim, & Jacobs, John. 2008 (1982). Raven: The untold story of the Rev. Jim Jones and his people. (Reprint.). New York, NY: Jeremy P. Tarcher\/Penguin.<\/p>\n

Smith, J. Alfred. 2004. Breaking the silence: Reflections of a black pastor. In Rebecca Moore, Anthony B. Pinn, and Mary R. Sawyer (Eds.), Peoples Temple and Black Religion in America<\/a> (pp. 139\u2013157). Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana Press.<\/p>\n

Taylor, James Lance. 2013. Black churches, Peoples Temple, and civil rights politics in San Francisco. In R. Drew Smith (Ed.), From every mountainside: Black churches and the broad terrain of civil rights (pp. 85\u2013110). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.<\/p>\n

Twemlow, Stuart W., & Hough, George. 2008 (Winter). The cult leader as agent of a psychotic fantasy of masochistic group death: The revolutionary suicide in Jonestown, Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy, 24(2), 222\u2013239.<\/p>\n

Willey, Robin. 2013. Religion, revisionists, and revolutionary suicide: A Marxist framework for the rise and fall of communal religious groups, International Journal of Cultic Studies, 4, 44\u201359.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Acknowledgment<\/strong><\/p>\n

Thanks to Dr. Stephen A. Kent for editorial comments, and for facilitating access to some secondary sources through the Stephen A. Kent Collection on Alternative Religions, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.<\/p>\n

Endnotes<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Divine socialism, or what Jones sometimes termed divine principle, refers to the religion-framed form of socialism that Jones advocated. Many of Jones\u2019s sermon recordings contain variations on these phrases, although he did not officially or exclusively use this phrase to define his message. Jones\u2019s use of the term was in no way connected to the doctrine of Divine Principle found in Sun Myung Moon\u2019s Unification Church.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Four recent publications can serve as examples of contemporary Temple scholarship. Taylor (2013) explores the Temple\u2019s place in the civil-rights movement and as an expression of black religiosity. Kent (2010) and Griffin (2013) deal with physical abuse in relation to Peoples Temple as a religious organization. Willey (2013) examines Peoples Temple using a Marxist framework, connecting Jonestown to a lineage of apocalyptic communities.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Some of the earliest survivor or eyewitness accounts suffer from sensationalist leanings. Although firsthand accounts, such as Fondakowski\u2019s (2013) compilation of recollections and ruminations by survivors, family members, and scholars, continue to be published, the function of firsthand testimony has shifted. In recent years, a trend toward paying attention to those who died, former members, eyewitnesses, and survivors has occurred in an attempt to reclaim Peoples Temple and Jonestown as a multifaceted community rather than allowing Jones to stand as its lone figurehead.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> For ease of reference, I refer to tape recordings according to the letter-number designations given them by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Information pertaining to the location and date of each recording is retrievable from the Index of Tape Transcripts and Summaries found on the Alternative Considerations of Jonestown and Peoples Temple website (Fielding McGehee III, research director, http:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/<\/a>). All locating information\u2014date and place\u2014has been extrapolated from the recordings by individuals who have transcribed the tapes for the website, and thus should be viewed as provisional. All transcriptions in this article are my own.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> See Twemlow and Hough (2008, pp. 226\u2013230) as one example. David Chidester\u2019s Salvation and Suicide<\/i><\/a> (2003 [1988]) stands as perhaps the best example of a published scholarly monograph that explicitly relies on the audiotapes to reconstruct the worldview of the Temple. Moore (2011) provides a recent example of scholarship that interweaves excerpts from the tapes with an examination of violence in Peoples Temple.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Hall (2001 [1987]) noted a similar methodological problem in his analysis of the Temple: \u201cI do not claim \u2026 that there is only one correct history [that is, the history Hall presents]\u2026 The available information is so voluminous that some practices of selection must be involved in the construction of the narrative\u201d (p. 313). In this article, my \u201cpractices of selection\u201d involved identifying those biblical, political, or theological themes that Jones most often returned to and that varied least during his American preaching period.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Maaga (1998) describes the changing nature of the Temple and its concerns throughout its existence in Indiana, California, and Guyana. Her argument that Peoples Temple was essentially three groups in one\u2014a Protestant sect, a new religious movement, and a black church\u2014helps contextualize Jones\u2019s message and the Temple\u2019s activities in light of mid-twentieth century American religious trends (Maaga, 1998, pp. 74\u201386). It is appropriate to add a fourth category\u2014Peoples Temple as a socialist group\u2014to Maaga\u2019s schema since her model does not situate the Temple particularly well within its Cold War political climate.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Both Taylor (2013) and Smith (2004) attribute the growth of the Temple in California to the Temple\u2019s Social Gospel-style outreach. As I show in this article, Jones himself was well aware of the relative lack of social assistance offered by Christian churches in late-1960s and early-1970s San Francisco.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> The article \u201cInside Peoples Temple\u201d by Marshall Kilduff and Phil Tracy appeared in the August 1, 1977, issue of New West magazine. The article ended with a list of reasons explaining \u201cwhy Jim Jones should be investigated\u201d and highlighting the sending of youths to Guyana, tithing requirements in the Temple, and the use of physical punishment as causes of concern (Kilduff and Tracy, 1977, p. 38). For an explanation of Guyana\u2019s suitable linguistic and political climate for the Temple\u2019s communal project, see Nugent (1979, pp. 71\u201382).<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> For a longer personal account of Congressman Ryan\u2019s trip to Jonestown, see Reiterman and Jacobs (2008 [1982], pp. 457\u2013466, 476\u2013521).<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> For a firsthand account of the shootings at the Port Kaituma airstrip and its immediate aftermath, see Reiterman and Jacobs (2008 [1982], pp. 526\u2013538).<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> The relay of news of the murder-suicide event to the Temple\u2019s Georgetown, Guyana house and on to the United States is mentioned in Reiterman and Jacobs (2008 [1982], p. 542). Although one adult in Georgetown killed herself\u2014along with three children\u2014no coinciding murder-suicides at the Temple\u2019s San Francisco headquarters are mentioned.<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> The Christian doctrine of the Trinity claims that, although there is only one God, there are \u201cthree distinct personal expressions\u201d of that one God present in the world\u2014traditionally God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. See Migliore (2004 [1991], 68\u201370) for a standard Christian explanation of Trinitarian belief.<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> The term Skygod was a derisive synonym for God that Jones used. The name highlighted the distance or irrelevance of such a deity. Many sermon recordings contain the term.<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> Moore (2009, p. 10) gives a succinct and standard definition of Jones\u2019s father. Descriptions of James Thurman Jones usually touch on his disability as the result of being wounded in World War I, his inability to hold down a job, and his emotional distance from his wife and son. Jones referred to his father as \u201ca Ku Klux Klan bandit\u201d in Q 1057, part 2, and describes the illness and cynicism of his father in Q 134.<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> Note that Willey (2013) attributes the Jonestown mass murder\/suicides partially to the Temple\u2019s \u201creligious belief in the afterlife\u201d (p. 56). As I go on to show, Jones was far more interested in criticizing the myth of a heaven or an afterlife than in promising his followers otherworldly rewards or respite from persecution. A good summary of Jones\u2019s dismissal of an otherworldly solution to the problems of humans occurs in Q 953. After asking a series of rhetorical questions about heaven (\u201cYou been there lately? … Anybody seen heaven? … Anybody seen Gabriel? … Anybody seen mother Mary?\u201d), he explains that \u201cheaven is within you,\u201d and later states that \u201cheaven is on earth. That\u2019s the only heaven you\u2019ll find.\u201d During the mass murder\/suicides, Jones does refer to another, or a next \u201cplane\u201d of existence beyond the present one; but these references occur in the context of his trying to placate hysterical members (Q 042). Rather than an exposition of doctrine, Jones invokes the concept of planes to show the Temple members that \u201cdeath is not a fearful thing\u201d and \u201cthere\u2019s nothing to death\u201d (Q 042). The most interesting comment by Jones regarding life after death during the mass murder\/suicides is a comment he makes about reincarnation\u2014answering Christine Miller with \u201cmaybe the next time [in a subsequent life] you\u2019ll get to go to Russia. The next time \u2018round\u201d (Q 042). Jones touched on the topic of reincarnation with some frequency in his preaching; although space prohibits dealing with it in this article, a discussion of reincarnation would be important to further attempts to piece together Jones\u2019s (religiously oriented) teachings.<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> Q 175, for instance, casts Ryan\u2019s visit as an \u201cinvasion\u201d and labels the Ryan delegation as the \u201cenemy.\u201d On one occasion, Jones placed the entire community on alert for 6 days to defend against an impending invasion. One description of this \u201csix-day siege\u201d can be found in Reiterman and Jacobs, (2008 [1982], pp. 360\u2013372).<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a> In 1972, editors at the San Francisco Examiner assigned reporter Lester Kinsolving to investigate Peoples Temple for the newspaper\u2019s religion section. The 8-part series he wrote represents the first major media attempt to explore\u2014and expose\u2014the inner workings of the Temple. Kinsolving\u2019s articles (some of which were originally unpublished) are available on the Jonestown Apologists Alert blog<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a> Jones\u2019s best-known \u201cmiracles\u201d were staged faith healings (involving clandestine observation and sleight of hand), modeled after Pentecostal and African-American worship patterns. See Reiterman and Jacobs (2008 [1982], pp. 44\u201346) for an account of Jones\u2019s first forays into faith healing. See Mills (1979, pp. 123\u2013124) for a participant\u2019s description of one of Jones\u2019s healings. See Chidester (2003 [1988], pp. 72\u201378) for a reflection on \u201chealing theatre\u201d in Peoples Temple.<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

[21]<\/a> Pertaining to slavery, Jones frequently referred to the \u201cgood ship Jesus\u201d 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).<\/p>\n

[22]<\/a> Jones follows this quote shortly by explaining that he could use \u201cthe western magazine to \u2026 produce the truth. I can see between the lines in the Los Angeles Times and show you what is the truth. I use the Bible because people are addicted on the Bible\u201d (Q 953).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(Editor’s note: This article was originally published in\u00a0International Journal of Cultic Studies (Vol. 6, 2015, 34-47). Kristian Klippenstein completed a Ph.D. in Religious Studies at the University of Alberta in 2020. His area of academic interest is new religious movements, and his dissertation research explored language choice and rhetoric in new religious texts. His previous […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":16533,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-99153","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/99153","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=99153"}],"version-history":[{"count":21,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/99153\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":134588,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/99153\/revisions\/134588"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/16533"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=99153"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}