Here are some more of my background thoughts for preaching on Sunday’s Gospel text for the Second Sunday in Lent: Luke 13:31-35.
I have been wondering why Jesus told the Pharisees “Go and tell that fox for me . . .” after they had warned him to leave town because of Herod. Why call Herod a “fox”?
Herod was the tetrarch (meaning “ruler of a fourth,” for the kingdom was divided) of Galilee, in whose territory Jesus was active. We all know about Herod the Great, the one who was in power when Jesus was born and who slaughtered the innocent children after the Magi told him about the Christ child, but this is his son, Herod Antipas.
What do we know about him? Well, when Jesus calls him “that fox,” he is not saying that he is as sly as a fox, although he might well have been. No, Jesus is actually insulting him, for a fox is an unclean animal in the Israelite holiness codes. We need a little history lesson to know why Jesus thought Herod fit to be insulted in such a way.
Though Herod often tried to appear the pious Jewish leader, he had more than a few problems maintaining the loyalty of his Jewish subjects. His first problem was his very authority. He had been put in power by Caesar Augustus, the Roman Emperor, in 4 BC. And then in 17 AD, to honor his Roman overlords, he build a grand new capital city named Tiberius, after the current emperer, only to discover that it was built on top of an old Jewish cemetery. No pious Jew ever entered it, and it was inhabited almost exclusively by Greeks and Romans.
Then he also had serious women problems. He divorced his first wife, which had been a political union, as she was the daughter of an Arab ruler, in order to marry Herodius. She had been the wife of his half brother, also called Herod just to confuse us. It was not unheard of in those days to marry the ex-wife of one’s brother, but she was also the daughter of another half-brother, Aristobulus. Marriage to one’s niece was also permitted, but marriage to a woman who was both one’s sister-in-law and ones’ niece was irregular, or as my kids might say, “sketchy.”
It was this Herod who had John the Baptist killed. John had been a persistent critic of Herod for his dubious marriage and his general immorality. The Gospels say he had John killed because he had promised his daughter Salome anything she wanted if she danced for him, and John’s head on a platter is what she wanted. The historian Josephus wrote that Herod’s subjects believed that the war that broke out in 36 AD with the Arabs (recall the first divorced wife), and the subsequent Arab military successes, were divine punishment for Herod’s many transgressions.
So for these reasons, and for the fact that he let his daughter dance in public, which was considered a shameful act, the readers of this story would have understood that Herod Antipas was an unrighteous man and an unfit ruler. No pious Jew would ever have let his daughter dance in front of strangers.
In short, Herod Antipas was an unsavory and unscrupulous puppet ruler of the Romans, and certainly not one to be trifled with. Jesus would have had every reason to have been afraid of him. This is the gist, I think, of the Pharisee’s warning to Jesus to stay away from him. They were no friend to Jesus, but most likely were even less enamored of Herod Antipas. Jesus was in danger from Herod, and so he left for the countryside, not because he was afraid of Herod, but because “his time had not yet come.”
Jerusalem, which figures prominently in this passage and in the larger story, was part of the Roman province of Judea, which is why Jesus, as the creed says, “suffered under Pontius Pilate‚” the Roman procurator. Herod’s role in turning Jesus over for trial to the Romans, as described in Luke, is much debated by historians. Most likely the reason was that Jesus was active in his district. But it was smart for someone who was attracting crowds as Jesus was to keep clear of Herod. An unpopular puppet ruler with a tenuous grip on power was then, as now, someone to be afraid of.
(Picture: Salome Dancing before Herod by Jacob Hogers (1630-55). Rijksmuseum.
Thank you for this very informative post! (I note however that some of the ads on your blog are for liquor (bourbon today) and I wonder if that’s intentional–or inevitable?
Hi James. Not intentional, but inevitable: my apologies for the liquor ads. My site is non-commercial, but WordPress puts ads in when you hit a certain threshold. I have no control over it.
When we think of a fox, the western mindset conjures up someone who is crafty of cunning. However, Jesus was not brought up on Grimm’s fairy tales! To understand the Scriptures fully we need to have a revelation of the Jewish roots of our faith. In the culture of the time, to refer to somebody as a fox was to be calling them a coward.
Wonderful post, crucial to all the questions I had in my mind
It is also recorded that He rod was idumean, another name for Edomites, the descendants of Esau, so he wasn’t really a Jew. Remember the rivalry between Jacob and Esau? No wonder he didn’t have the interest of the Jews at heart.
Interesting article. But if calling him a fox was only meant to degrade Herod, couldn’t Jesus have just as easily said “snake” as He had called some others?
I, too, have wondered why a fox. Jesus out-foxed Herod. A fox is mainly nocturnal, stalks his prey with stealth and patience, has a keen sense of sight, smell, and hearing, is very fast and catches his prey by outrunning it, he loves the chase, it often plays with his catch before killing it, and will crouch at the feet of a dominant animal. Before Jesus – every knee shall bow – even the outfoxed Herod.
P.S. Oops, should have said Herod was out-foxed by a Lamb.
Thank you for the post and I appreciate your response. In addition I think spiritually , Heaven knew Herod as Fox, our Saviour Jesus Christ can only give name according to what the person is regarded in Heaven. The same Luke he called a ruler of synagogue, An hypocrite ( Luke 13:15) Another example changing the name of Apostle Simon to Peter or Cephas.
Hence I urge us as Christians to strive to know your secret name in Heaven. Revelations 2 : 17.
God bless you all as we continue to run this race.
I love the message! Apt study in these times we live in, where up in down, and unrighteous men are lifted up as holy vessels of God!
I totally love the way you have analysed these verses..I would like to hear more of your ministry. You have blessed me..God bless you richly.
Pingback: My Top Ten Posts of 2022 | When I Survey . . .
Just a thought:
It is curious that if Jesus’ point was that Herod was unclean that he chose the fox to describe him, when there were many other creatures he would more naturally have chosen. Unclean designations were more for eating purposes and foxes were not menu-type creatures.
Perhaps consider that Jesus was not seeking to insult Herod, since we are told in Scripture not to curse or speak evil of our rulers; instead, that Jesus was perhaps referring to the ability for foxes to bring sudden, unexpected destruction. Additionally, though related to the dog, they do not rove in packs and are solitary creatures. In essence, they are not one to make friends, being destructive loners. [The idea of “sly” seems to be more modern and cultural than anything else.]
Seeing that the intention of the Pharisees is not friendly but rather desiring Jesus to leave the area and not be a “nuisance” to them, Jesus is respectfully saying that neither Herod nor the Pharisees will keep Him from His appointed goal: Jerusalem, specifically, to die there. But He has much to do in the mean time and will most certainly accomplish it. Additionally, we learn later that Herod actually wanted to see Jesus and did so not too long after this conversation. So, to what degree are the Pharisees actually telling the truth?
This explanation seems to fit the context better and is also supported by the Scriptures we know of foxes, Pharisees, and Herod. However, this is a difficult passage, and it’s meaning may still be alluding us.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.