The Anti-Empire
Commentary on Matthew 2:13-23
Matthew 2:13-23 (LIT Bible)
13 After the Zoroastrian scholars had left—surprisingly again1—the Lord’s messenger was shown to Joseph during a dream, saying, “Get up, take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt and stay there until I tell you. Herod is about to search for the child, intending to destroy him.” 14 Joseph got up, fled with the child and his mother in the night, and left for Egypt. 15 He stayed there with them for the rest of Herod’s life. Therefore, the message from the Lord spoken through the prophet Hosea was acted out:2 “I called my son to come out from Egypt.”3
16 When Herod realized he had been played by the Zoroastrian scholars,4 he was extremely enraged. He ordered the murder of all the children in Bethlehem and anywhere nearby aged two years and under, based on the timing he had learned from the Zoroastrian scholars. 17 That event acted out5 what Jeremiah the prophet said:
18 A voice was heard in Ramah
Weeping and endless wailing
Rachel wept in grief for her children
Having no desire to be comforted
Because they were gone.6
19 After Herod came to his end—another surprise7—the Lord’s messenger appeared during a dream to Joseph in Egypt, 20 saying, “Get up, take the child and his mother, and go on to the land of Israel because everyone who was trying to take the child’s life has died.” 21 Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother, and reentered the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archileus was ruling Judea in his father Herod’s place, he was frightened away from there. So, after being directed during a dream, he went away to the province of Galilee. 23 He went to a town called Nazareth and settled down there. That is how what was said in the Prophets8 was lived out,9 that the child10 would be called a Nazarene.11
Relevance of Matthew 2:13-23 for Today
Anti-Empire of Chapters 1-2
The first two chapters have not simply been about setting up Jesus versus Herod, but laying out the argument that you cannot be part of the oppressive empire and be part of the liberatory movement.
In many ways, Matthew sees Jesus more than just a man, but the beginning of something that should subvert the oppression that has come at the hands of the empire. The Hebrew prophets did not speak simply of a time in which a messiah would come, but an establishment of a new status quo. The promise of liberation is a long-term effort that creates a new way of living. So, Jesus is more than a single person, but the start of an anti-empire, anti-oppression movement (please see *footnote on how this is not a defense of Christianity, but merely the observation of the author's intent).
This is one of the reasons that the author spends nearly an entire chapter on the relationship of Herod the Great and Jesus. Herod was ruler of Judea and was the compromise between the oppressor and the oppressed. Herod was a Jew, but aligned with the empire.
The author of Matthew sees this compromise as an "illegitimate kinghood" and rejects this form of compromise. The only way to have true liberation for the oppressed is a full liberatory movement. There is no solidarity with the oppressed while benefiting from the empire, something that we, especially those of us who are white Christians, struggle with today.
*Footnote:
Often when I talk/write about the Bible this way, I feel like it sounds like a defense of Christianity. It is not. In many ways, it is a condemnation of Christianity as a religion of the very empire that Jesus stood against. Christianity quickly became a tool of the empire and Christian theology became the standards by which oppression was justified. So, this is not a means of rescuing the text from those who don't understand it, but simply a way to understand that the point of Matthew was not to create a new empire, but express wisdom about how to create a liberatory movement.
Since it is meant to be understood as wisdom, not rules, we should reflect on how this can speak to us today. This was written for a specific time and to address a specific empire from the perspective of a specific oppressed group. It is not written for us, but it was recorded to provide wisdom to future generations.
Harming Children
Although the author of Matthew quotes Hosea in reference to the killing of children, the Hosea passage is also a reference to Exodus when Pharaoh tried to kill off the Hebrew children, thus drawing a direct connection between Pharaoh and Herod. The point is to highlight the fact that the most evil villains of the stories are those who will harm children to maintain their power.
However, the wisdom of this narrative is not simply contained within the pages of the Bible. Oppressive powers have often used violence against children to maintain their power over marginalized communities. We saw this throughout American history in the ways that the US created residential schools to eradicate native traditions. We saw this in the way that the US used redlining and school funding to underfund schools with predominantly Black children (even post-segregation). Although these are not killings per se, they are state violence toward children that was used to maintain oppression.
Even today, we are seeing the majority of anti-2SLGBTQIA+ bills target children first. This is through the guise of protection, but the fact of the matter is, the majority of quality research indicates that children benefit from affirming education and society. The reason that many reject this is because they feel it threatens the power they have in society that is upheld by Eurocentric views that enforces cis-heteronormativity.
Also, as this is being written, we are witnessing a genocide in Gaza that intentionally targets resources for children. And this is after years of apartheid that intentionally under-resourced Palestinian children. At the same time, there ICE has intentionally targeted children and used children as a mean of targeting parents, thus causing intentional harm and violence against children. If we want to know who the "villain" is, it is always those with power who can create harm against children, choose to harm children, and still have those actions be justifiable because of their place of power.
The reason violence against children is allowed is generally because people benefit from the systems that enable the powerful to harm children. In the first centuries (BCE and CE) many people of Judea benefited from Herod's rule as it meant trade and protection through their connection with the Romans. Common people were inclined to maintain the status quo because disruption could harm them personally and financially. That is not to say that everyone in Judea supported Herod, many did not. However, his actions in the story are allowed because of his position of power and the ability to maintain the status quo for Rome and the people in Judea.
In the same way, many of us have difficulty acknowledging the harm our ancestors did because we benefit from those actions. The violence against children of the past has created the systems of power that upholds our society today. It is scary to challenge those and face the unknown of what might come next.
Thus, the story of Jesus, and one of the reasons that I believe Matthew is a book about overcoming/overthrowing an empire, is about embracing the unknown and working for liberation regardless of the fear of losing our social constructs. As long as we uphold violence, especially that against children, we will remain the villain.
Jesus was an immigrant that sought asylum
One thing that comes up, especially in social media, is the idea that Jesus was an immigrant, which can cause a lot of internet engagement. However, there tends to be quite a bit of disagreement on whether Jesus could be seen as an immigrant.
In the first century, both Judea and Egypt were under Roman rule and technically were part of the same empire. In this way, Jesus did not leave one empire for another. However, it is not completely accurate to say that what their family did wasn't a form of immigration.
The two locations were still distinct in their cultures and were still independent of each other, even though they had the same empire over them. However, we should not see their family as citizens of the empire, since Rome did not see them as citizens. This is what makes it complicated. Jesus' family did not technically move from one nation to another in our sense of statehood, but they were still non-citizens (even though they were not technically foreigners either) moving from one conquered nation to the other. English does not have a word that adequately expresses this nuance.
So, yes, it is incorrect to call Jesus an immigrant, but there is no other word that expresses what he was in English. Thus, "immigrant" ends up being the closest we have.
However, Jesus was more than simply an immigrant, his family were asylum seekers. They fled their homeland because of the violence their child was facing and sought refuge in another land. Even upon their return, they sought asylum in Galilee because that was outside the jurisdiction of Archelaus.
As I said before, "immigrant" is technically not the correct word for Jesus and his family. However, having moved to a different region to avoid persecution and being unable to return because of violence is something that many immigrants and asylum seekers do face today. And this is the real importance of comparing Jesus to an immigrant, because he experienced many of the real things that immigrants face in the world today.
Calling Jesus an immigrant is more about highlighting the hypocrisy of Christians in America (and elsewhere) when it comes to our treatment of those who travel from other countries. Jesus, according to the narrative, most likely faced similar hardships and, by calling him an immigrant, it is pointing out that Christians today would inevitably make life more difficult for Jesus.
We can get hung up on technicalities, but those hang ups are more about ignoring the ways that our culture rejects those who experience the same hardships as Jesus.