John Hudghton writes: Jesus and the Rat King
I am shocked at how little knowledge there is amongst clergy and congregations of the geopolitical context of Jesus’ ministry. Maybe there is too much busy-ness and too much to read, but it does strike me that there is more awareness of subsequent theology and ecclesiastical history than there is of the essential foundational context. This short piece may fill in a lot of gaps very quickly.
We reveal: who the rat king was; how he started off; what claim he wanted to stake with Rome and how that worked out. We consider both the good and bad aspects of his rule. We examine his military: who they were; where they came from; what they might have looked like and how they performed. We also look at how the king related to the neighbouring Roman authorities.
Next, we see how Jesus related to the king of Galilee and Perea – there, if you didn’t before, you now know who the rat king is. How Jesus’ influence undermined the cultural authority of Herod Antipas. How Jesus infiltrated the structures of Antipas’ administration and its enforcement. How he addressed him. How Herod viewed Jesus.
We note Luke’s special interest in the relationship between Jesus and Antipas. Along the way we highlight the conflict of Herod with John the Baptist. We also ask the question, “has a lack of attention to detail of context, or just a plain lack of integrity, produced a particular gospel commentary on sexual ethics?”
There is a postscript and three brief reflections on the relevance of this material for Christians today.
Antipas – shaky foundations
We all know Jesus commenced his ministry in Galilee but did you know his baptism took place in the region of Perea (modern day Jordan)? Perea and Galilee were ruled by Herod Antipas, one of the sons of the late Herod the Great. The regions were not geographically contiguous but separated by the (Roman client) Decapolis city states.
Antipas was a Tetrarch, he ruled a quarter of his Father’s previous empire. Antipas harboured greater ambitions though, wanting the whole of his late father’s kingdom. In 4BC he went to Rome, petitioning Augustus to achieve a land grab. Antipas argued that an earlier will, naming him sole heir, should stand. He claimed his father was not in his right mind when he wrote his final will. (When was he?) Herod The Great wrote SIX wills, the last being only five days before his death in 4BC. However, Augustus was having none of this and assigned Galilee and Perea to Antipas and made Archelaus Ethnarch of Judea, Idumea and Samaria.
Not only did the Herods have to suffer the humiliation of asking Rome for permission to rule but they were also up against a petition from fifty ambassadors of the Jews who urged Augustus to abolish the monarchy, detailing a catalogue of scandalous Herodian misdeeds and cruelty. They appealed for the Jews to be allowed to live according to their own laws, under the suzerainty of the Roman governor of Syria
Further humiliation descended through serious revolts in Galilee and Judea which the Herodian forces could not extinguish. Rome propped up the regime, intervening brutally and decisively. Publius Quinctilius Varus deployed 2-3 first line legions from Syria, destroying the capitol Sepphoris, selling the entire population (2,000-4,300) into slavery and other settlements razed with accompanying brutality. When his forces breached the temple and concluded the operation, Varus had 2,000 of the leaders of the rebellion crucified in Jerusalem. When Jesus talked about taking up your cross, those listening, knew it was not merely a metaphor for having a difficult time.
Antipas – a builder
Eventually the refugees of war returned. There was much work to be had rebuilding the region. A “tekton” such as Joseph, would have found plenty of employment. Antipas attempted to emulate the building prowess of his father. In 6-9AD he rebuilt Sepphoris, sparing no expense, renaming it “Autokratoris” in honour of Tiberias. In 13AD Antipas developed, walled and fortified Betharamphtha in Peraea renaming it “Julias” in honour of Livia (Julia), the mother of Emperor Tiberius. His crowning glory came around 18AD on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, he constructed a new capital, Tiberias and named it honouring the emperor. It included a royal palace, a stadium and a theatre. Not only was the sycophancy nauseating to many Jews but its construction was also controversial because it was, in part, built on an ancient graveyard, causing ritual impurity issues.
To his credit, Antipas did not emulate some of the pagan friendly activities of Herod the Great. Unlike his father, he did not build pagan temples, even in his most Romanised developments.
Antipas – alliances and marriages
In 4BC Antipas married the Nabataean princess Phasaelis, securing (for a time) the political border with the neighbouring non-Roman Nabotea. This was security for both Antipas and Rome who used the kingdom as a buffer state. However, in 23AD, he visited his half-brother Herod II (known as Phillip) in Rome and fell in love with Phillip’s wife who was also niece to Antipas. Antipas divorced Phasaelis to marry Herodias. (Nothing like keeping it in the family!) This didn’t go down well at all with the spurned wife, the Nabatean court and especially King Aretas. Phasaelis quietly returned to Petra but hostilities broke out over territorial issues, previously ameliorated through the marriage, culminating in a major attack by King Aretas in 36AD.
Generally, compared to Herod the Great, Antipas was (relatively speaking) better liked by the local population. He was not as domineering towards them, he had a greater sensitivity to Jewish issues which gained him some favour but diplomatic relations were lacking and he was still a despot.
Antipas – military.
Machaerus was the foreboding fortress inherited from his father, who had rebuilt it from its Hasmonean origins. In typical Herodian fashion, it dominated the skyline, was decorated lavishly and sent a very visible threat to anyone who might consider invasion from outside or rebellion from within. It stood as a warning to Antipas’ Nabatean neighbours.
Ethnically Antipas’ military consisted of foreign mercenaries, Hellenised Jews and, until the fall out, Nabateans. His army emulated Roman organisation, structure and equipment. It sufficed to deal with the occasional low level border dispute and local policing matters but appeared to lack both the quality and numbers to make it a powerful and effective fighting force. When the Nabatean King Aretas launched his vengeful 36AD major offensive against Antipas, Antipas’ army suffered a humiliating and total defeat. “All the gear but no idea” comes to mind. Gross humiliation came when Antipas had to appeal to Emperor Tiberias for military intervention. There were no Imperial troops or garrisons in Galilee and Perea, they were deployed from Syria – again!
Antipas and Pilate
Luke 23:12 observes longstanding enmity that existed between Antipas and Pilate. What might have been the quarrel?
Initially, perhaps, the failure of Antipas to gain the whole of his Father’s Kingdom. Judea, Idumea and Samaria had gone to Archelaus but his despotism caused so much trouble with the locals that Ceasar thought it better for Rome to rule the regions directly. Pilate’s authority over these lands and the gem of Jerusalem was something Antipas coveted.
Antipas was complicated. Despite his Roman sycophancy and Hellenization, he was at least half Idumean-Jewish. He was also half Samaritan through his mother Malthace! While Judaism was a permitted and tolerated religion at this time, many Romans despised it as a religion and the Jews as a race. Romans often viewed Jewish customs as eccentric or superstitious, with intellectual elites often displaying what we might call today “Judeophobia”. The rebellions of 4BC and the failure of Herodian forces to subdue these, would not have helped endear any of them to Imperial Rome.
Issues over jurisdiction created antagonism. For security reasons, Pilate had killed some Galileans while they were offering sacrifices in Jerusalem, “mixing their blood with their sacrifices” (Luke 13:1). Because these were subjects of Antipas, this act was, at the least, undiplomatic and the cause of friction. Despite his Hellenised culture, Antipas was no fool and knew how such inflammatory events, in the most sacred and holy place of Judaism, would be viewed by the Jewish population.
It gets better though; Philo of Alexandria recalls a separate incident (around 31AD) where Pilate placed votive shields dedicated to Tiberius in Herod’s palace in Jerusalem – anathema to the Jews! Antipas and his brothers protested this action, leading to a reprimand for Pilate from Emperor Tiberius, who ordered the removal of the shields, adding to their mutual loathing. (Philo, Embassy 299–305)
The friction begins.
Like many, John the Baptist and his ilk will not have been impressed by the Herodian bloodline, its track-record of Hellenization; despotism; kleptocracy; alliance with Rome and scheming power plays. John openly criticised Herod’s dubious marital arrangement, for which Antipas arrested and imprisoned him in Machereus.
The sources differ, Josephus saying that Herod had intended to put him to death because he feared he was gathering a rebellion (Antiquities18.5.2). The Gospels, particularly Mark, give a far more nuanced view, “Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled; yet he liked to listen to him.” (Mark 6:20) Matthew gives his insight into why John was not immediately terminated, “although he wanted to put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet.” (Matthew 14:5)
What might Antipas have thought about his officials, tax collectors and soldiers taking counsel from John the Baptist, indeed being baptised by him just 16 miles from Machaerus? “12 Even tax collectors came to be baptised. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?” 13 “Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them. 14 Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?” He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.” (Luke 3:12-14) Did Antipas know that some in his employ were looking to John for spiritual life changing leadership and authority?
The tension mounts
Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist. He initially performed a similar ministry to the Baptist, inherited many disciples of John and communicated with John in prison before his execution.
Jesus also ministered to and influenced the Herodian military. Many have misunderstood Luke 7:1-10. It is often portrayed as Jesus healing a “centurion’s” servant. It is a lazy historical assumption which is often made through the Biblical translations and an ignorance of the precise geo-political context that this man was a Roman centurion. In fact, Rome had no direct jurisdiction or continuing military presence in Capernaum.
The Greek word which is (inappropriately?) translated in some versions as centurion is ἑκατοντάρχης (hekatontarche) “commander of a hundred.” It does not necessarily denote imperial connection but that this was a middle ranking officer of a rank equivalent to today’s major. As we have previously noted, Herod’s army organisationally emulated the Roman military. This was not a Roman centurion; he was one of Antipas’ middle ranking officers. As a god-fearing foreigner, not only had this generous man found faith in the God of the Jews, (both those whom he served alongside and within the community where he quartered) but had also found faith in Jesus.
We may forgive an unschooled lay person for making such a mistake. Clergy should know their scriptures better but those who profess a level of scholarship are really without excuse. Yet some choose to do this, some perhaps with an ulterior motive? The “queer” school of theology like to present this as an occasion of a typical Roman relationship of pederasty between the centurion and the “pais” – child or servant.
There are many who have written in support of this, yet ignoring the actual geo-political context. They take huge assumptive leaps to try to establish a sexual relationship in their forced reading of the text, yet miss out important facts. The first being that, while homosexuality was accepted in Roman society, romantic relationships between Imperial troops and their subordinates were severely punishable disciplinary offences. The second being this officer was NOT a Roman centurion and was a benefactor of the Jewish synagogue, no doubt venerating its culture and moral standards which would NOT have included homosexual practice. The Pederasty interpretation of the text is not even tenuous, it is wrong.
Furthermore this would have been an impossible scenario even if the community were Hellenised Jews – which in Capernaum they were not. Even Hellenised Jews maintained a strict Torah based sexual ethic which forbade homosexual practice. This whole scenario proposed by the “queer” school of theology is an outright lie.
What we do have though is evidence in Luke’s Gospel of how Jesus’ ministry is demonstrated as penetrating Herod’s military, very much like we saw John the Baptist’s ministry drawing soldiers under his influence. It goes further, as we move through the previous event in Luke 7, now to Luke 8. Jesus’ influence is in touching distance of Herod’s administration, even reaching his very court. This, evidenced in Luke 8:2-3, where Johanna, wife of Chuza, is cited as one healed of disease or demonisation and is attested as being one who gave financial support to Jesus and his mission.
Wow! Chuza, is “the manager of Herod’s household.” This is deep covert penetration and serves as a subtle undermining of Antipas’ authority. In Luke 24:1-12 The same Johanna is a primary witness of the resurrected Lord. There is something of a theme here, which Luke particularly, continues to develop in his Gospel. Placing a random Roman centurion in Herodian territory in Luke 7 makes no sense at all.
All three of the synoptics record the growing awareness of Herod to the ministry of Jesus. In Luke he is curious and anxious: “Herod said, “I beheaded John. Who, then, is this I hear such things about?” And he tried to see him.” (Luke 9:9) In Matthew he suspects it is John the Baptist: “1At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the reports about Jesus, 2 and he said to his attendants, “This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead! That is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”( Matthew 14:1-2) In Mark Herod believes Jesus could be a resurrected John: “14 King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.” 15 Others said, “He is Elijah.” And still others claimed, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of long ago.” 16 But when Herod heard this, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!” (Mark 6:14-16)
The rat and Jesus clash
Jesus is no ally or fan of Herod. Mark 8:15 makes this perfectly clear, “beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod”. Two very different yeasts, each to be avoided. Specifically, that of Herod, was the worst of Romano-Hellenistic culture with which he surrounded himself. Yes, the lax observance of the Torah, the dropping of standards, in contrast to the radicalisation of such standards, which was the yeast of the Pharisees. Even normal Hellenised Jews maintained the sexual morality of the Torah – some scholars say they codified it! The yeast metaphor was extremely familiar to Jews, who were used to re-enacting the Passover events of cleansing themselves and their houses of the yeast pollutant of Egypt.
Luke records the Pharisees warning to Jesus as he was making his way to Jerusalem: “31 At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, “Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you” (Luke 13:31). Jesus’ attitude towards Antipas is uncompromising as he issues this powerful cutting insult in response: “32 He replied, “Go tell that fox, ‘I will keep on driving out demons and healing people today and tomorrow and on the third day I will reach my goal.” (Luke 13:32).
Using the word “fox” was not a term of endearment. It was not used like many called General Irwin Rommel “The Desert Fox” because he was cunning, creative, wily. No, the term “fox” was a brazen insult – a huge term of abuse. It contrasted with what great military rulers of the day were titled, “lions”. The use of the term “fox” was more akin to a scavenger who cleaned up after the kill of the lions. They were most definitely second rate, living off the spoils of others, opportunist, tin pot leaders lacking integrity. In the West today, we might even call such people a “rat”. Moreover, Jesus used the word ἀλώπηξ (alopex) – the female form – vixen we would say today. A further insult (sorry ladies) and maybe a suggestion that the power behind the throne was Herodias, rather than Antipas? It was a fair description of Antipas who had no substantial military power of his own and who was totally dependant on Roman military prowess for his very existence as a King.
The final piece in this jigsaw is during Jesus’ arrest in Luke 23:1-12. Again, a part of Luke’s exclusive narrative of the relationship between Jesus and Antipas, Jesus is handed over to Pilate by the religious leadership in Jerusalem, seeking his execution. Pilate in his enquiries gathers that Jesus is a Galilean, so on this occasion, follows diplomatic protocol and sends him to Herod Antipas who he knows is in Jerusalem for the feast of Passover. Herod is delighted in the extreme to meet Jesus for the first time in person. He asks questions, hopes to see a miracle but Jesus refuses to answer even a single question Antipas puts to him.
When no answers or signs are forthcoming, the inquisition turns to abuse: “Herod and his soldiers ridiculed and mocked him.” While Luke 23:11 doesn’t detail specific blows, the term empaizō (mock) frequently carries the connotation of “maltreatment” that often-included physical sport in a first-century military context. No doubt Herod made sure the insult Jesus had previously issued was repaid in full. Dressing him in an elegant robe they sent him back to Pilate facing his scourging and crucifixion.
Postscript
We all should know that Publius Quinctilius Varus, who led the brutal punitive invasion of Galilee and Judea in 4BC, died in September AD 9. As a Roman general and politician, he committed suicide during the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest to avoid capture after his three legions were ambushed and defeated by Germanic tribes.
Did you also know that neither Pilate nor Herod survived in office much beyond the crucifixion of Jesus. Pilate was removed in 36 or 37AD after his cackhanded treatment of Samaritans. Recalled to Rome by Trajan to stand trial but fortunately for him Trajan died before he arrived. Pilate’s history ends most probably in obscurity despite attempts to portray him as either committing suicide or finding faith. Antipas is exiled by Caligula in 39AD, victim of the scheming Herodian trait that finds him (most probably falsely) accused by his spendthrift nephew, Agrippa, of treason, aiming to inherit his uncle’s empire and wealth.
Meanwhile the early church worshipping the resurrected Jesus was established in the lands of Galilee and Perea and despite persecution still exists today. Jesus’ influence spread, infiltrated and permeated not just the local fiefdoms but the entire Roman empire and culture.
Reflections
I am fascinated how Pilate and Antipas became friends following this incident. Yes, Pilate had respected Antipas and Antipas had respected Pilate on a small matter but not much had substantially changed. They had found common cause in dealing with a complex and difficult situation, problematical to both, in different ways of course.
Sometimes those with very different interests can find common cause: Rival Greek city states against Persia; Western allies and the Soviets against the Nazis; or in more current thought, Left wing “progressives” and conservative Islamists against western democracy and the remains of Christendom. Political scientists describe this as having “Superordinate goals” or “Negative Solidarity”. Something of this nature occurred between Pilate and Antipas.
Politeness and “correct” language trumps the prophetic
Interesting how Jesus used such powerful insults in comparison to the politeness of so much of English Christianity. A full strength, no holds barred, thoroughly disrespectful public insult was the prophetic message Jesus sent to Antipas. Some would say “Not very Christian of him, was it?” It wasn’t the only time he would use devastating insults against those he opposed. Yet a cleric in the C of E might face disciplinary action for perhaps calling a man who claims to have transitioned their sex to being a woman, “a bloke” or for referring to those crossing the channel without prior permission or documentation in small boats, “illegals”, shorthand of course for illegal migrants.
There is a far greater likelihood of a cleric being disciplined, for using “unclerical” language on the grounds of “conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders” than there is of one being prosecuted for heresy or substantial heteropraxis. Oh yes, you can preach nonsense, you can live in sexually immoral ways (as long as you are not heterosexual) but you must not use bad language or insult anyone. I’m not sure how long Jesus would have lasted in a church that had its priorities so topsy turvey, plenty of Bishops would have slapped him with a CDM. Perhaps they would have breathed a sigh of relief as he was led away to Pilate?
Finally, this leads me on to the leaven of Herod. Analogously it has not just been “Hellenisation” that has occurred in many of the established churches of the West. Even the Hellenised Jews maintained conventional sexual ethics and had strict rules of affinity regarding who could marry whom. The leaven of Herod sounds very much like what has infiltrated the “progressive” church of the West, much of which has abandoned Christian orthodox moral standards in favour of those of cultural Marxism or liberalism. It has ingested the leaven of Herod, going beyond adopting the trappings of contemporary culture – to surrendering core values.
The leaven of Herod: its immorality; the conniving manoeuvres of its leaders; its silencing of the prophets who dare raise their voices; the cowardly surrender of its values to the dominant spirits of the age and the comfort of living off the remains of Christendom under the suzerainty of the establishment. This is the leaven motivating many senior ecclesiastical leaders and shaping church policy. However, it has gone much further, embodying far worse than that of Antipas – but instead the leaven of Herod the Great himself through its accommodation of multi or inter faith practices.
Perhaps if the fundamentals of the context in which Jesus ministered and how he related to that context, had been properly taught during the theological education of our current leaders, we would not be in the mess we are in today?
Buy me a Coffee
