Satan's Throne - Part 4

[Crossposted from St. Cuthbert's, Oakland, blog. Part 4 of 6]

The Bible’s contrast between Christ and empire is stark. For all the imagery of the ideal deliverer and ruler that derives from the propaganda machine of the Davidic dynasty, the early Christians radically redefine the notion of God’s Anointed (Messiah/Christ). Their experience of Jesus did not fulfill messianic expectations. David delivered Israel from the threat of the Philistines and expanded Israel’s borders. Jesus did not deliver the people from Rome’s grip nor did he establish a worldly kingdom. From all appearances, his kingship was a joke and it was mocked. Many of the most vivid images of the Passion involve brutal jests related to his supposed sovereignty: the crown of thorns, the robe, the title Pilate had placed on the cross (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews), and the taunts of the onlookers.

"Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews"

Rome’s rule was brutal and it is difficult to envision any empire maintaining a hold on the nations without strong and savage force. Crucifixion was a method of execution intended not merely to kill the most heinous criminals and threats to Roman rule, it was meant to humiliate and to warn. It was a form of blatant terrorism. A person was stripped, nailed to a cross, and left not only to asphyxiate slowly and painfully (or perish from dehydration or shock) but also to hang there and rot, a reminder to all passersby that this is what happens to those who oppose Rome. Crucifixion was designed to instill fear and horror, to quench any flickering dreams of opposing the empire. Rome’s message was clear to all: This is what we think of your “king.”

Indeed, the evangelists themselves take great pains to establish contrasts. What sort of king is born and laid in a feeding trough? What sort of king’s birth is announced not in palaces but to shepherds, persons involved in a semi-unclean occupation? If Augustus can order the known world to participate in a census, what can this Jesus do? What does it mean to give Caesar what is Caesar’s and give God what belongs to God? What sort of messiah gathers no army? Indeed, what sort of fool heads straight to Jerusalem, where all his enemies await, and does nothing to evade capture and execution?

As far as Rome was concerned, one more potential troublemaker has been dealt with, one more wannabe threat eliminated. But what sort of threat to Rome did Jesus pose?

Tiberius and Jesus: Crown of Laurel, Crown of Thorns

Luke draws on the Song of Hannah and gives us a hint in the Song of Mary (Magnificat).

[God] has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts. He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty. (Luke 1:51-53)

This proclamation of God’s character expressed in action speaks clearly of social reversals. Had Mary been speaking in the 20th century, she may have begun with “come the revolution….” When Jesus said “the last will be first, and the first will be last,” he was not upholding the status quo. (Matthew 20:16)

It is one thing to hear a person read a passage from Isaiah in the synagogue—"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor," and another to hear the reader then assert, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." (Luke 4:18-21)

The Coronation of Jesus from an early Christian sarcophagus

Good news for the poor almost always means bad news for those who live off the toil of the poor. Higher wages mean lower profits and those who are especially fond of high profits will resist raising a worker’s pay any more than necessary. When you are dealing with the economy of the ancient Mediterranean world where all but a few percent of the population were peasants living in or near poverty, the landowners and employers held all the cards. There was no union and no power that would uphold the lot of the poor. Except for one: God. The God of Israel had expressed a concern for the marginalized throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. The poor, the widow, the orphan, the alien—these were mentioned again and again as being dear to Yahweh. They were not to be forgotten, abused, or oppressed, and God was watching and judging. Job’s claim to innocence was based not on rules he had kept but on his care for exactly these people.

Jesus was following this tradition of promoting social justice in the name of God’s justice. One would think the religious authorities would have welcomed someone whose words and deeds were so in keeping with the Scriptures, so revealing of God’s character.

They, however, profited from the way things were and had an understanding with Rome. Jesus threatened their position and power just as he threatened the imperial power with words that, no matter how rooted in the Jewish tradition, sounded radical to their ears. He could only be a lawbreaker and a blasphemer. He needed to be dealt with.

Continued in Part 5

Earlier posts:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3