Jesus and Empire

[Furrowed Brow]

The NT tells us Jesus was born in an occupied land towards the outer edge of an empire. The empire eventually puts Jesus on trial, tortures then executes him. Given Jesus' treatment we might conclude the NT narrative is inherently anti empire. But there appears to be little in the way of direct criticism of empire and Rome.

What is the correct Christian attitude towards empire?

Today empire is often seen as a dirty word, and instead of the overt trappings of empire neo-colonialism is the modern form. If Jesus were to return today and duplicate the circumstances of his first coming where would he return today. Palestine? South Korea? Africa? Latin America?

[puddleglum]

The existence of the Roman Empire also helped the spread of Christianity. The existence of laws covering a wide area and the extensive road system made safe travel over large distances possible.

The empire eventually puts Jesus on trial, tortures then executes him.

The primary responsibility for the death of Jesus falls on the Jewish leaders. Pilate thought he was innocent and wanted to release him but he gave in to pressure. Empires in themselves are not inherently good or evil. It all depends on the people who are in charge of them.

[tam]

Well, the 'empire' wanted to let [Jesus] go free.


Christ taught that His Kingdom is no part of this world. Those who belong to Him look forward to His Kingdom, and are ambassadors in this world to that Kingdom and its King.

If you are an ambassador in someone else's kingdom, you a) do your best to represent your own kingdom, and b) respect the laws of the kingdom/country you are in.


When you ask if Christ were to return today in a duplication of the first time, do you mean as a reset? So that He never came the first time yet? If so, then He would go wherever Israel happens to be, since it was to the lost sheep of Israel that He was sent. Since Israel was scattered and the temple destroyed shortly after His death and resurrection, that would help explain why He came at that time and to that place, where the temple and Israel was then (Israel being not just Jews but also the Samaritans, though of course not all of Israel).


There are still Jews (and Samaritans - both of which are Israel) in Jerusalem/Israel/Palestine... so in a hypothetical, perhaps He would go to the same place. But there is no temple.



Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Furrowed Brow]

Pilate thought he was innocent and wanted to release him but he gave in to pressure.

Well, the 'empire' wanted to let [Jesus] go free.

And yet it was the empire not the Jewish leaders that executed him. The most powerful force on the planet at that time - I suggest - does not do as it is bid or pressured, it does what is convenient and meets its objectives. The empire failed to provide justice because it was disinterested about personal justice, and concerned about ruling a province of its empire and placating the Jewish leadership was a means of stabilising control over the region.

Seems to me the trial, torture and execution of an innocent man is not simply an indictment of the Jewish leadership it is an indictment of a political system. The Jewish leadership may have been bad actors, and maybe if Rome were not present they would have had Jesus executed anyway, but it was Rome who was keeping this particular Jewish leadership in power. Put it this way. Any Jewish leader not subservient to Rome would not have remained a Jewish leader for very long. The Jewish leadership could lobby all they want but their protestation only mean something to an empire if attached to their appeals is the implicit promise we are in other respects good for the empire - we make sure folk pay their taxes, people stay in line - be good to us.

Maybe more subtle psychological and social analysis is needed. Frantz Fanon in Wretched of the Earth gives an account of the French empire, and how empire is damaging to the mental health of the colonised and how empire positions the colonised and coloniser as slave and master. In the movie Django Samuel Jackson plays Stephen the house slave empowered by the system of slavery. He runs the estate for his master, sits in his chair and drinks his whiskey. Stephen is more hateful in protecting the system than anyone else. He hates the free black man Django with a passion. It is a colourful example of the psychology of those colonised in the mind - and it is the kind of thing Fanon is pointing to. He points out there are the colonised civil servants and bureaucrats that form a middle class and whose comfortable existence is dependent on the empire. A Jewish leadership left in power by the hegemonic empire would have felt the pressure to protect their authority within the political system that preserved their own authority and standard of living.

Just throwing ideas out there.

Empires in themselves are not inherently good or evil. It all depends on the people who are in charge of them

The British historian Nial Ferguson has tried to rehabilitate the British Empire. We gave India a civil service, education, the British legal system etcetera. But I'm not persuaded and still strongly believe empire is inherently bad. Too many genocides, wars, suppressed populations, assets stripped, and executed dissidents. Can't think of an empire that has ever operated differently.

[Masamune]

Christianity is about a personal relationship with God. Nations cannot be Christian, so Christianity would have nothing to say on the subject of Empire, except that those who are violent (a necessity when creating an Empire) might have a bit of a problem following the tenets of Christ.

[KRBondar]

[Replying to post 2 by puddleglum]
In the absence of court documents or eye witness accounts of Jesus' trial and execution, all we have is anecdotal reconstitutions of what might have happened.
I worked out a reasonably reliable method of telepathy and dream interpretation. By telepathy you can actually communicate with the person of your interest (or animal) as it is the universal means of communication. Telepathy is an automatic language translator removing linguistic barriers.
With this method of telepathic communication I am (or you are) able to talk directly to Jesus, as I did. Accordingly, his mother Mary and father Joseph had six children, Jesus, Jacob, James the Younger, Hanna, Veronica and Miriam. They were employed and lived at the court of Herod Antipas and his wife Herodias.
Before I proceed, I must point out that the name of Herodias is practically missing from the scriptures, and for such a main player in the drama it suggests a conscious effort to distance her.
The Bible mentions the murder of the innocents, in a different context. Remember, the Bible was reconstructed centuries after the events. Herod Antipas and Herodias were the rulers of Nazareth, Mary was her housemaid and Joseph his carpenter. When Herod the Great in Jerusalem divorced his wife she moved in with Antipas in Nazareth together with her younger children. Antipas and his wife Herodias viewed these younger siblings as potential contenders to his throne and one by one they killed them and fed the meat to the dogs. When Mary discovered the atrocities she tried to help by smuggling out the surviving children. A new round of killings began: Jesus crucified, Mary poisoned, Joseph died by falling, the other children scattered.
When Rome reacted to the restlessness in the colony, Antipas and Herodias were permitted to leave the country. One may ask, what sources were used to reconstruct the story of Jesus' execution?

[bluethread]

Today empire is often seen as a dirty word, and instead of the overt trappings of empire neo-colonialism is the modern form. If Jesus were to return today and duplicate the circumstances of his first coming where would he return today. Palestine? South Korea? Africa? Latin America?

Israel.

[KRBondar]

[[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?
Since the late 1970s when I began recording my dreams and work out the principles of reincarnation, Jesus and I communicate with each-other telepathically.
This is a man with the propensity to wade into the thickest where his participation will make a lasting impression and difference to those behind.
Perhaps you will recall the child abuse scandals in the Church in the 1980s and 1990s. Several priest, even a bishop has been convicted of this crime inflicted upon the most vulnerable, children entrusted in the care of clergymen.
In the reincarnation cycle, in 1990 Jesus was born to a Catholic priest and a young girl in predominantly Catholic Croatia. If you recall Croatia was at war with Serbia at the time and Jesus was born in Vukovar where the fighting was fiercest, and the population took to the road to escape the atrocities. Jesus as a 2 year old was among them. Lucky for his parents to have so easily escaped detection. The child was placed in a Zagreb orphanage and I travelled to Zagreb, hoping to adopt him. I was not successful
At age 9 Jesus was stabbed to death by a Catholic priest who sexually abused him and word got out.
I realize this is Christian website, and perhaps I will not be banned as I have from other Christian sites.

[Furrowed Brow]

Israel.

Bethlehem in the West Bank? If so that would be a politically charged return..no?

[Furrowed Brow]

Christianity is about a personal relationship with God. Nations cannot be Christian, so Christianity would have nothing to say on the subject of Empire, except that those who are violent (a necessity when creating an Empire) might have a bit of a problem following the tenets of Christ.

And yet the central Christian text sets the narrative of Jesus' life in the presence of empire. He is born in Bethlehem because his parents are trying to register for the empire's census, and it is the Roman Empire that tortures then executes him. The empire ushers Jesus in then out. The entire Christian narrative is predicated on the fact Jesus is born into an empire and his life and death were at the whim of that empire. The Jews were a dominated people of which Rome was one of a long line of empires that had dominated or enslaved the Jewish people. A point which motivates the hope of a messiah.

I appreciate the point that a large chunk of Christianity is seeking a personal relationship with God, but there is still the scripture to guide that relationship...yes? How can a Christian not be angry at empire...it tortured their beloved prophet and suppressed his people.