A key pillar of New Testament empire studies is the inseparability of religion and politics in the Roman Empire. Yet, most scholars within this sub-discipline fail to integrate John’s theological claims with the gospel’s capacity to subvert Roman political rule. Instead, the traditional presumptions of a “high Christology” are thought to blind the reader from the social and political dynamics at work in the text. For these scholars–such as Tom Thatcher, Richard Horsley, and Warren Carter–John’s Jesus overturns tables and outwits the powers that be, but rarely is his divinity cited as a challenge to imperial power. This perspective fails to recognize that theology can be subversive in a historical context where imperial rule was theologically justified.
My paper, in contrast, will demonstrate that John’s Gospel effectively subverted Rome Christologically, by presenting an alternative to the Caesars’ divine power in the person of Jesus Christ. I will accomplish this by comparing the divine right of Roman imperial power as depicted in Jupiter’s prophecy in Virgil’s Aeneid (1.257-296) with the scriptural fulfillment language in the Johannine crucifixion (John 19:24, 28, 36-37). In this comparison, I will demonstrate that both the imperial reign of Caesar Augustus and the cruciform kingship of Jesus were characterized as the fulfillment of a divine prerogative. While Jupiter’s prophecy of the eternal kingdom of Rome was fulfilled through violence and conquest, Jesus fulfills the Scriptures in his non-violent, self-sacrifice on the cross as an expression of his divine power. In the face of imperial rule upheld by violence and propaganda, John’s theology of the cross betrays where authentic divine authority lies.