Inversion of Power

A reflection on Luke 23:1-25, focusing on Jesus’ response to evil in life and death, by Eleanor Clitheroe-Bell

esus is charged with three political charges: perverting the nation, forbidding the payment of taxes and claiming himself as the prophesied liberator from oppression. In a sense, these accusations are true. Jesus has been teaching an inversion of power. However, the essence of the charges were that he was fomenting a violent revolution, which was not true. Instead, Jesus was actually advocating a response to the systematic and structural violent oppression of people, rooted in loving others as self, and grounded in compassion. It is true that Jesus’ revolution would change social, economic and political structures, but not in the way his accusers thought and not for the reasons he was accused of.

It is true that Jesus’ revolution would change social, economic and political structures, but not in the way his accusers thought and not for the reasons he was accused of.

Jesus, the advocate of servant leadership, engages head-on with the representatives of leadership by dominance. While the Romans (both Herod and Pilate) appear to understand that there is no basis for the charge that Jesus is attempting to politically overthrow the government, they are at a loss to respond to the language of the charges which, on the surface, spark with sedition. Barabbas, he was legitimately arrested and sentenced to death for physical and violent revolutionary action against Roman law. Jesus was charged with the same thing, but with none of he supporting evidence. The night time arrests, the hurried questioning and early dawn meeting, all characterize Jesus’ presence as the fomenter of an imminent revolutionary crisis, that needed to be dealt with immediately. Yet Jesus’ social, economic and political revolution of human relationships and transformation is in stark contrast with Barabbas’ path of violent revolution and political overthrow, in order to achieve social and economic change. These two diametrically opposed approaches to overcoming oppression summarize the two alternatives to resisting evil perpetrated on others that have been presented throughout Jesus’ ministry.

…Jesus’ social, economic and political revolution of human relationships and transformation is in stark contrast with Barabbas’ path of violent revolution and political overthrow, in order to achieve social and economic change.

These two alternatives were offered to Jesus at the outset of his ministry as he was tempted in the wilderness. Three temptations were presented to Jesus and he resisted and refuted each in turn. In Luke 25, the same evils are presented again, however this time Jesus is charged with actually having carried out these evils, rather than resisting them. The Romans - the dominating force - and the Sanhedrin - the privileged class (as a result of their collaboration in the dominance of their own people) - do not see or understand this contrast of good and evil. They see only the threat to their own dominance and privilege.

The Romans conclude that there is no threat to their power in the inversion of power of Jesus’ teachings, and are prepared to let him go. The Sanhedrin, the controllers of the Jewish people from their center of power in the Temple in Jerusalem, had already concluded that there was a threat to their position in this inversion of power, and are not prepared to let him go. They understood how powerful the revolution of inversion that Jesus preached was. The collaboration between the Sanhedrin and the Roman authorities results in the Herod and Pilate becoming friends over the placation of the Sanhedrin during a potentially volatile Passover season in Pilate’s Jerusalem and continuing unrest in Herod’s Galilee. The Sanhedrin are willing to have Barabbas released, who they consider harmless to their own power, rather than Jesus, who challenges their style of leadership, privilege, and dominance over their own people. By showing the people what it is to live in God’s image, Jesus contradicts the power structure by which the privileged say that God has granted them authority.

Response to evil

Jesus’ struggle with evil began with the three temptations in the wilderness (Luke 4:1-13). The temptation to use power to dominate for self-interest, to force change through violence, to force good outcomes by using inappropriate methods and Jesus’ response to evil repeats itself in Luke 23. It is the time of Passover - of exodus and liberation. Jesus is imprisoned. Jesus’ takes a stand of non-violent confrontation and he is beaten and tortured for it. Jesus’ resistance of evil with good is acknowledged by the two criminals being crucified along with him. One mocks it and one surrenders to it. Jesus is given a crown of thorns mocking revolutionary leadership, but which symbolizes the inverted dominance, the suffering, self-giving leadership intended in God’s creation. Simon of Cyrene, a black foreigner, lower on the social hierarchy than everyone else present, is forced into the manual labour of dragging Jesus’ cross, showing a hierarchy of dominance in the midst of executing someone who spoke against such dominance. The women weep, Jesus comforts. Jesus is crucified, yet over his head is the sign “King of the Jews” in acknowledgement that such suffering is what brings kingship and transformation into full, true privileged potential as God intended. The soldiers taunt, and as in the wilderness, say “Save yourself,” Jesus forgives.

The universality of Jesus’ message

Simon of Cyrene symbolizes the extension of Jesus’ message beyond the religious implications for the subjugated people of Israel in the 1st century and even beyond the implications for the Jewish faith. Simon of Cyrene is a black man from a foreign country, yet he is asked to carry the cross for Jesus. His presence symbolizes the idea that Jesus’ message spreads beyond the immediate context, extending to all people, of all colour, faith and origin. All people live in subjugation, and meeting evil with good is a message that not only can the world be changed by this inversion of power, but that all people will can inherit through this transformation. Simon of Cyrene’s presence invokes the goodness and the vastness of creation in Genesis and the covenantal promise to Abraham to be a blessing to all nations.

All people live in subjugation, and meeting evil with good is a message that not only can the world be changed by this inversion of power, but that all people will can inherit through this transformation.

Hope for the world

While this passage clearly establishes the struggle between good and evil, human participation in the evil is unfortunately not complete. While Rome executes Jesus, Herod and Pilate are not sure there is cause for such execution. The Sanhedrin destroys Jesus, yet there are dissenting voices in the Sanhedrin (Joseph of Arimathea). The crowd rages, yet they beat their breasts at the outcome. Bystanders mock, yet the women are subdued and mourn. The soldiers’ abuse, yet the Centurion acknowledges the Son of God, invoking recognition that Jesus’ existence is the way of salvation for humankind. With Jesus in the middle, one criminal mocks, while the other is transformed.

Conclusion

Evil, even at its very worst, cannot dominate. Evil cannot be crushed by violence and self fulfilment, but only by transformation. Evil is exhausted when met with the good described first in Jesus’ responses to the temptations in the wilderness and finally in his response of forgiveness for the violence of his own crucifixion.

Evil, even at its very worst, cannot dominate.

Eleanor (Ellie) Clitheroe-Bell is President and CEO of Prison Fellowship Canada and acts as counsel with the law firm of Gauthier and Associates. She is currently a candidate for Doctor of Philosophy in Theology, Wycliffe College, Toronto School of Theology, University of Toronto. Ordained on December 11, 2005 in the Anglican Church of Canada, she attends St. Cuthbert’s Anglican Church in Oakville, Ontario as Assistant Curate. Ellie speaks and writes on matters of sailing, ethics, business, and her faith and resides at Wycliffe Seminary in Toronto with her husband and two children.