Exitus Acta Probat

I find it odd that it has seemingly become fashionable for professors and theologians to promote the so-called “Empire-critical” method of reading the New Testament Scriptures. What I find most perplexing about it is that there is simply no legitimate basis for this approach. The only way to come to this conclusion is to make broad sweeping eisegetical assumptions about the Scriptures i.e. “the Gospel writers had an anti-Semitic agenda so they painted the Romans in a neutral, if not slightly positive light in order to place the blame squarely on the Jews.” I refuse to acknowledge this as valid because it is a clear attempt to promote one’s own postmodern agenda as literal gospel and it is precisely the opposite of what was actually written. Jesus never missed an opportunity to chastise Jewish religious or civic authorities like Herod, yet whenever he came face to face with Roman centurions—or even Pontius Pilate himself—he was polite, civil and even validating; he spoke of the centurion’s faith in Matthew 8:10: “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.” In John 19:11 he acknowledges that Pilate’s authority is from God: “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above.” He goes on to say, “Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin." Jesus is in no way criticizing the Roman Empire; he is, however, issuing a rather blatant condemnation of the Jewish Pharisees. 

In Luke 13, Jesus is confronted by the Pharisees who seem to be offering him a bizarre warning about Herod’s desire to kill Jesus. It is strange that they would seem to be tipping him off to Herod’s scheme; more likely, they are antagonizing him and giving him a foretaste of their own desire to do him in. Jesus’ response is brilliant in its cavalier dismissiveness: “Go tell that fox that I will keep on driving out demons and healing people today, tomorrow and on the third day I will reach my goal.” There is an air of defiance in Jesus’ tone and this defiance is twofold. 

On the surface, Jesus is telling the Pharisees to report back to Herod that Jesus’ work is too important for him to be deterred by threats of death. Doing God’s will, even if it leads to certain death, is far more important than cowering in fear of the threats of crazed earthly rulers. 

Herod’s threats of killing Jesus don’t faze Jesus because he already knows that death is nothing. It is an absolute certainty for all of us but so is resurrection because Jesus rose and promised that we would too. As Paul writes in Philippians, we are citizens of heaven; our minds should not be set on earthly things, but instead, we should be focused on the victory that Christ won for us—and there is work to do. There is work that we all have to do and we should not be afraid to do it. We must not be swayed by the threats of this world because there is no threat that can ever prove too daunting or intimidating.

As a history major, I often look to figures from the past for wisdom and Jesus’ fearlessness reminds me of a quote that I have long taken to heart by the brilliant military tactician, Confederate General Stonewall Jackson; when asked why he was so comfortable in battle, Jackson replied “my religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death so I do not concern myself about that.” The point I’m trying to convey is that all of us who call ourselves Christians should not allow our fears and our worries to get in the way of living out our respective Christian vocations. We have work to do!

Now, the deeper message that Jesus is putting forth here is when he calls Herod a fox. By Western standards, foxes have traditionally been viewed as sly or clever. If this was Jesus’ intention, it would make no sense. But Jesus is not looking to complement or patronize Herod; on the contrary, Jesus is using this term in a very condescending—even incendiary—manner.

In Jewish tradition, foxes have historically been viewed as inferior animals. They are typically juxtaposed with lions; great men are compared to lions while common or average men are viewed as foxes. What Jesus was alluding to was Herod’s status as a puppet-king. In other words, Herod was not the lion that he thought himself to be; he was the Romans’ useful idiot and nothing more; he was a fox, not a lion.

If Jesus’ message was Empire-critical, why would he refrain from advocating for the overthrow of the Roman power-structure? He certainly understood his own Jewish history and given his advocacy on behalf of the poor and marginalized, he would have had a real understanding of their suffering under oppressive rule. I firmly believe that the message that Jesus was trying to convey was that change of heart starts from within; that freedom and liberation are spiritual concepts, not necessarily material ones. Jesus understood that this world, regardless of who was ruling it or how they were ruling it, would soon be swept away. Power structures exist for the sake of maintaining order and yes, they typically resort to any tactics necessary to maintain power. Yet that does not mean that there are not societal benefits that come with those power structures. In any society, we should avoid judging the potential flaws of the power structure without taking into consideration the benefits and advancements. Much like the scene from Monty Python’s Life of Brian, it is easy to dismiss an empire and sarcastically ask “what have the Romans ever done for us,” but when the Roman Empire and it’s descendants (Holy Roman/British/American) have given the world some of the most revolutionary advancements in technology, literature, philosophy and art—not to mention military ingenuities—it is perhaps shortsighted to write off the entire concept of empire. Appeals to dismantle empire in pursuit of some kind of idealistic egalitarian society are simply laughably naive and not worth the time or effort to dissect. We live in an imperfect world and as such, no system of government will ever be perfect. But if the result is overwhelmingly positive for the greatest amount of people, then I would submit that the ends justify the means.