Triumph Of Jesus (part 4)

I saw the special gates, only used for these ‘triumphs,’ opened to reveal the ‘vir triumphalis,’ as he used to be called.  Now they refer to him as the ‘triumphator.’  I wonder why that has changed.  I’ll bet a previous Caesar used it, maybe Augustus, and didn’t want anybody else to ever have that same name.  Will Rome ever have another one like him?  Oh, we could only hope.  Either way, if I was down among the people, I would have simply referred to him as the ‘man of triumph,’ as we normally do, but since I’m being asked to write a report for the Emperor, and since it was a possibility that it was going to be sent around to a number of cities that he plans to visit soon, along with the general that is being celebrated, that calls for the use of proper terminology.  So I thought that I might as well start thinking along those lines, so ‘triumphator’ it is. 

The gates were opened and I saw him.  The triumphator was riding in a brilliant white chariot, being pulled by a team of the most beautiful white horses that I had ever seen.  The chariot had writing on the side.  I could just make out what it read: ‘A faithful son of Rome.  A true leader of men.’  I was able to have a bit more background information than usual, and I was told that he was personally chosen by Caesar to lead this campaign, and that he was hand-selected to bring and impose Rome’s glorious justice upon the peoples of the enemy against which Rome was forced to go to war.  Truly, they will benefit from the ‘pax Romana,’ and will come to understand just what it means to experience ‘pax et securitas.’ 

His face was painted red, like Jupiter.  It made his face look like it was on fire.  They had done something with his eyes.  It was almost like they were glowing.  It was very impressive.  Naturally, he was wearing the laurel wreath crown.  Not surprisingly, given the extra special nature of this parituclar ‘triumph’ and triumphator, he was wearing the ‘corona triumphalis.’  For those that may be unfamiliar with this, that doesn’t happen with every ‘triumph.’  The corona triumphalis is a gold coronet that is fashioned in the shape of a laurel wreath, with dangling gold ribbons. 

I noticed that there was another inscription on the chariot.  I asked about that and was told that the triumphator asked to be able to write another name on the chariot---the special name given to him by his father.  The writing was a bit odd.  I couldn’t make out the language in which it was written, and nobody else around me was able to read that particular language either.  I made a notation to ask about it, so perhaps I’ll be able to learn what it said at a later time.  Written above that, however, was his proper Roman name.  Everybody could read that name.  Apparently, Caesar has adopted him as his very own son and he is going to function as Caesar’s mouthpiece and royal emissary.  Truly incredible!   

As one would also expect, the triumphator was dressed splendidly.  Not only was he wearing the customary ‘tunica palmata,’ which is the tunic embroidered with palm leaves, but he also wore the ‘toga picta,’ which is the painted toga.  As is the custom, the toga was the royal purple and it had a border of embroidered gold.  The gold reflected brilliantly in the light, and it must have been catching a reflection, because the gold, from time to time, looked almost red.  Because the toga is the traditional dress of the ruler of Rome, it was an excellent reminder that this particular man has been chosen as Caesar’s royal emissary.  It’s difficult to get my mind around this.  From now on, he is going to speak for Caesar.  His words are to be taken as Caesar’s words. 

Triumph Of Jesus (part 2)

When it comes to the “triumph,” the subjected realms of the Roman Empire would be enlightened as to these happenings through the never-ending stream of Roman imperial propaganda (of which the Caesar cult was part and parcel and served to undergird), proclaiming the endless glory and power of Rome, the bringer of peace and security.  Finally, those that were defeated at the hands of Rome would be well aware of this grand event, as they would find themselves as very unwilling and unfortunate participants.

So what was this “triumph”?  The “triumph” was perhaps the greatest honor that could be bestowed upon a citizen of the empire.  The “triumph” would generally be connected to the leading of an army to victory over an enemy of Rome.  Also known as the “triumphus”, it was a both a civil ceremony and a religious ritual.  As just indicated, it was held in order to celebrate the celebrate the military achievement of an army commander who had posted significant military successes.  By origin and by tradition, the triumph would be held at the successful completion of a war on foreign soil---enemy conquered. 

Though there are records indicating the celebration of hundreds of “triumphs,” in line with the elevation of the Caesar to the status of “son of god” in connection with Augustus Caesar (the reason that Augustus began to be referred to in this way, with this epithet falling to the emperors to follow him, is that Julius Caesar, who was essentially deified at his death, was also said to have adopted Augustus as his son via his last will and testament, thus he could be referred to as the “son of god”.  Augustus is not the given name of the emperor, but rather, it means “revered one”), the number of “triumphs” dropped dramatically.  Between 27 B.C. and 166 A.D., there were only five recorded “triumphs.”  Therefore, in the time of John the Revelator, though few such events had taken place, these few events were accorded a place within the civil and religious liturgy of the Roman Empire.  As one would expect when power and prestige and authority moves from the many to the few (or the singular), the number of “triumphs” dropped dramatically upon Rome’s transition from a republic to an empire.   

On the day that the “triumph” would take place, the one being so honored, if not the emperor---in the vast majority of cases, a general, would wear clothing that would readily identify him as semi-divine or kingly.  Essentially, the one that would be referred to as the “man of triumph” was being trumpeted as something close to “king for a day.”  The clothing that he wore would be that which was traditionally associated with the statue of “Jupiter Capitolinus,” the supreme deity of Rome.  This would include a pure white and gold toga, a laurel crown, and red boots.  He might even have his face reddened in honor of the god whose garments he was presumed to be wearing, albeit briefly.  Obviously, if it was the emperor himself, then his divinity, along with his kingly status, would be a given and implied. 

The one being celebrated, the man of triumph, would ride through the streets of Rome in a chariot.  He would do so at the head of a procession with his army and the spoils of his victorious campaign of warfare trailing behind him.  His army would be unarmed.  The only weapon (or weapons, as there would often be more than one) to be found within the procession would be something known as the “fasces,” carried by the bodyguard of the honoree.  Though carried by his guard, it would be understood that this weapon is one that had been truly wielded, and would be well handled, by the celebrant.  The “fasces” is a bundle of sticks, tied together, with the blade of an axe emerging from the center of the bundle.  Traditionally, this symbolized power and jurisdiction, and the power of life over death.  It often served as a symbol of Rome itself. 

Love On John's Terms (part 16)

Continuing to observe the potential connection that the author is making with the event with the woman at the well, it is worth re-considering that the Samaritan woman had replied to Jesus by saying “How can you---a Jew---ask me, a Samaritan woman, for water to drink?” (John 4:9a)  How did Jesus respond to that questions?  He said “If you had known the gift of God and who it is who said to you, ‘Give me some water to drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water” (4:10).  The response of the woman at the well was “Sir…you have no bucket and the well is deep; where then do you get this living water?  Surely, you’re not greater than our ancestor Jacob, are you?  For he gave us this well and drank from it himself, along with his sons and his livestock” (4:11-12) 

Is this talk of Jacob and his “giving us this well” and its water not echoed by the people’s mentioning of Moses in the sixth chapter?  What was Jesus’ reply?  He said, “Everyone who drinks some of this water will be thirsty again.  But whoever drinks some of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again, but the water that I will give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up to eternal life” (4:13-14).  What is it that Jesus says in the sixth chapter, after the bread-seeking response of the people to Jesus’ talk of bread from heaven and the connection to Moses (similar to Jacob and the well) implied by such words?  Jesus said, “I am the bread of life.  The one who comes to Me will never go hungry, and the one who believes in Me will never go thirsty” (6:35).  The connection practically jumps off the page. 

The Samaritan woman’s response was “Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water” (4:15).  With this, the comparison with the record of the sixth chapter does indeed become rather obvious.  A short while later, after Jesus is said to have told the woman something about herself that He could not possibly have known, the woman said “Sir, I see that you are a prophet” (4:19).  This again calls attention to the talk of Jesus as the Prophet like Moses that was to come, which seems to be an ongoing theme in this Gospel.  Jesus alluded to this in the encounter with the woman, as it closes with Him saying “I, the one speaking to you, am He” (4:26). 

In chapter six, Jesus speaks words that take much the same form, when He says “Everyone whom the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never send away” (6:37).  What happened in the fourth chapter?  The woman went and told people about Jesus, many came to see Him, and many believed in Him (4:39).  Continuing in the sixth chapter, Jesus said “For I have come down from heaven not to do My own will but the will of the One who sent Me…  For this is the will of My Father---for everyone who looks on the Son and believes in Him to have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (6:38,40). 

With the story of the Samaritan woman, it is a chorus of Samaritans (again, telling an observer something about the community for which this is written and the issue of Gentile inclusion in the church) that says “for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this one really is the Savior of the world” (4:42b).  Here, it is more than worth noting that this use of “Savior of the world” would not have been heard or even intended as a reference to people getting “saved” so that they might have the opportunity to go to heaven when they die, but is instead a subversive poke at Rome and its emperor, who carried the title, beginning with Augustus, of “savior of the world”.  Thus, the language here in use is intensely messianic/kingly.     

Visiting Bethany (part 4)

If a compare and contrast is underway, one glaring contrast between Jesus and the Caesar can be found in verses previously quoted from the third chapter of John.  There it is said that the covenant God of Israel “gave His one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.  For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through Him” (3:16b-17).  Caesar, the man entitled with “son of god,” was looked to as the one who dragged the world from darkness to light.  With this, the parallel between John and the Augustus inscription becomes increasingly obvious. 

Yes, it was Caesar Augustus who was said to have brought order out of the chaos.  It was Caesar Augustus that was said to be responsible for the life and vitality of the world, with this spread throughout the world via the pax Romana (Roman peace).  It is Caesar Augustus who is referred to as the “Savior” of the world.  Ironically, though war would be almost endless, Augustus is credited with putting an end to war.  It is worth nothing that, though death continues, Jesus is credited with putting an end to death. 

For Ceasar of course, the end of war was accomplished by crushing his enemies through massive warfare.  Furthermore, it is said that Caesar Augustus is the fulfillment of all hopes and in him the world has “good news.”  How did this son of god “save” the world?  How did he bring the world into new life?  It could be argued that he did so through the instrument of death. 

He, his predecessors, and those that would follows and take up his mantle, slaughtered millions so as to usher in an era of “peace” and to give their version of life to the world.  Effectively, in order to give the world life and vitality through the establishment of the Roman empire, the world experienced an almost unprecedented level of condemnation.  The other Son of God, however, is said to bring eternal life and peace and light, which will be accomplished and effected through His worldwide kingdom. 

As the Gospel of John informs its readers, through Jesus the world will be saved, but this salvation will not come about through the world-condemning instrument of war and its power of death.  Ultimately, this salvation will come about through the laying down of His own life and going willfully into death in an act of self-sacrificial love---making Himself subject to that which was (and still is) the Caesar’s only true power. 

Returning to the issue at hand then, Martha can be heard speaking to Jesus and saying, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.  But even now I know that whatever You ask from God, God will grant you” (John 11:21-22).  In calling Jesus “Lord,” and doing so in the context of what is increasingly looking to be a “parousia” of Jesus, Martha has conferred upon Him one of the titles that was then accorded to and reserved for the Caesar.  Much like that which would have been experienced by the emperor when he would visit subjects within his realm, the one that has come out to greet Jesus makes it a point to honor the world’s ruler and to make comment upon His power. 

Visiting Bethany (part 3)

To this point, it seems that the author of the Gospel has been building a case for Jesus as a royal personage---the ruler of the world in fact---with this especially noticeable when viewed in the light of that which was thought of and said about the Caesar---the one who was then looked upon as the ruler of the world. 

To the end of presenting Jesus as royalty, this particular Gospel narrative begins with Jesus (personifying “the Word”) being heralded as the Creator God (John 1:1).  It is said that “in Him was life, and the life was the light of mankind.  And the light shines on in the darkness…  We saw His glory---the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth… For we have all received from His fullness one gracious gift after another” (1:4-5a,14b,16). 

A bit further on, Jesus is referred to as the “one and only Son” of the God of Israel (an epithet that had also been applied to Israel itself) and that “everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.  For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through Him” (3:16b-17).  Shortly thereafter, one again reads “that the light has come into the world” (3:19b), and later on also finds Jesus speaking of Himself as “the light of the world” (8:12).  These things are said about Jesus in a world that is provided context by the presence and rule and worship of the Caesar. 

Interestingly enough, in an inscription from 9BC, Caesar Augustus is hailed as  “The most divine… we should consider co-equal to the beginning of all things… for when everything was falling [into disorder] and tending toward dissolution, he restored it once more and gave to the whole world a new aura; …the common good fortune of all…The beginning of life and vitality. …All the cities unanimously adopt the birthday of the divine as the new beginning of the year…  Whereas Providence, which has regulated our whole existence…has brought our life to the climax of perfection in giving to us (this man), whom it [Providence] filled with strength…the welfare of men, and who being to us and our descendants as Savior, has put an end to war and has set all things in Order; and [whereas] having become [god] manifest, has fulfilled all the hopes of earlier times… in surpassing all the benefactors who proceeded him… and whereas, finally, the birthday of the god has been for the whole world the beginning of the good news concerning him [therefore let a new era begin from his birth].” 

Though this was written of Augustus, who was the first of the Caesars to be hailed as the son of god, all subsequent Caesars were accorded the same title, which provides information about the way in which the emperor was viewed, with this being so even at the time of the writing of the Gospel of John (presumably late first century).  The parallels between the things that are here said about the Caesar in the Augustus inscription, and the things that are said about Jesus in the Gospel of John, are quite interesting and inescapable.  Similar claims are being made for both, while a stark and clear contrast is being drawn.  A person could be forgiven for believing that the author of John had the Ceasar cult and such inscriptions in mind (along with Genesis naturally) when penning the opening of his work.  

Visiting Bethany (part 1)

Now Jesus had not yet entered the village, but was still in the place where Martha had come out to meet Him. – John 11:30  (NET)

In the time of Jesus, when the emperor (the Caesar) came to pay a visit to a town or a city within a colony or province under his dominion, his visit was generally referred to as a “parousia.”  When this visit would be made, as one would expect, the great emperor, for whom notoriety and honor (especially in an honor and shame culture) would be of paramount concern, would not simply enter into the town or city un-announced. 

Such a thing would be unthinkable, especially in light of the Caesar-cult (worship of Caesar as a divine being---the son of god) that was so prevalent in the first century world so dominated by Rome.  Quite the opposite would occur, in fact, as the Caesar would be lauded in grand fashion by the people of the places that he deigned to visit.  After all, the man making this visit was rightly viewed as the most powerful man in the world, and would be afforded as much honor as possible. 

Not only would this honoring of the god-man be expected, but it would also demanded.  To effect this, quite apart from Caesar simply entering into the city by himself, or with nothing more than his imperial entourage, a large group from the city would be expected to go out to meet him while he was still outside of or at some distance from their city.  This would occur while all (or at least most) inside the city would be preparing themselves, in a conformity (for some) that was most likely under the threat of physical pain or even death (or shame), to receive the exalted emperor with the appropriate acclamation and with reverence. 

Upon greeting the Caesar outside the city boundaries, the selected and special group from the city, quite naturally, would return to the city with Caesar  and his royal entourage in tow, celebrating his entrance into yet another place in which he was acknowledged to both reign and have complete and unrivaled dominion.  This would seem to be an entirely appropriate reception for the one who, beginning with that which would come to be said of the emperor Augustus, is referred to as “lord” (the lord of the world who claimed allegiance and loyalty from his subjects throughout the whole of his empire), whose birthday was referred to as “evangelion” or “good news,” is referred to as the “son of god” and “savior,” and who was thought of as the one who had finally brought light and peace and order into a  dark and often chaotic world.

Having provided that basic bit of information, the scope of this study move to the eleventh chapter of the Gospel of John, and the story of raising of Lazarus from the dead at the hands and word of Jesus.  In the story, one is able to observe some rather interesting elements, making His visit to Bethany something of a “parousia” by Jesus.  The first thing to notice, though it is not revealed immediately, is that after Jesus had remained in the place where He was for two days after hearing that Lazarus (the one He is said to have loved) was sick (John 11:6), and upon His finally reaching the town of Bethany after what can be thought of as an unexpected delay, Jesus did not immediately go into the village. 

Become A Christian? (part 3 of 3)

In attempting to understand the wider implications of this package, Christians, or “kristianos” in the Greek, were being identified as such, in contrast to those that were identified as “kaisarianos,” or “Caesar-people.”  In that day, “Christian” was every bit as much a religious title as it was a political identification.  Naturally, there were no delineations between “church” and “state,” and one’s religion was not a private matter of personal conviction.  A Christian was somebody that looked to Jesus of Nazareth, the One that had been crucified on a Roman cross, as Messiah and Lord and King and Son of God. 

Not only was this contrary to all reason (crucified Jews are most assuredly NOT the messiah), but even more importantly, especially as it relates to Paul’s query and Herod’s response, “Lord” and “King” and “Son of God”  were all titles of Caesar, as the Caesar-cult held him up and worshiped him as the son of god (among other things, including master, savior, the one who brought light into a dark world, and order into chaos).  In this situation, it is highly probable that Agrippa’s statement to Paul should be understood along these lines.    

It is quite likely that Agrippa would have been more than aware that proclamations concerning Jesus, by His followers, included the claim that He was the true King and Ruler of the world, and that even Caesar was subject to Him.  It was counter-imperial and subversive statements such as these that would and did get people crucified or thrown to the lions.  At the same time, this also causes the reader to reflect on Paul’s statement about the Messiah being a light to both Israel and the Gentiles, as Caesar Augustus was hailed as the man who had brought the world out of darkness, while the darkness was kept at bay by the “pax Romana” (Roman peace) that was presumed to continue to suffuse light through the world under the dominion of the Caesar’s that followed. 

This created dangerous territory for Agrippa, as he sits here next to the Rome-appointed governor as the Rome-appointed, Rome-supported client-king (one of three in the land of Palestine).  A confession by Agrippa of anything that remotely resembled a belief that what Paul was saying about Jesus was true, was going to be very bad for him, as it could be looked upon as treasonous.  Agrippa could certainly not afford to be identified as a Jesus-person, in contrast to a Caesar-person.  Paul, in what appears to be an understanding of Agrippa’s situation, responds by saying, “I pray to God that whether in a short or a long time not only you but also all those who are listening to me today could become such as I am, except for these chains” (26:29).  “Yes,” Paul says, “I believe everybody should submit to this message of the Gospel, recognizing Jesus as Lord and King.” 

As this story comes to an end, “the king got up, and with him the governor and Bernice and those sitting with them” (26:30).  Understandably, this engagement has given them much to ponder, so “as they were leaving they said to one another, ‘This man is not doing anything deserving death or even imprisonment’.” (26:31)  In this, and in what follows, as “Agrippa said to Festus, ‘This man could have been released if he had not appealed to Caesar’” (26:32), one can almost hear a tacit agreement, from the mouth of Agrippa, with the claims that Paul has made.           

Preparing For The King (part 4 of 5)

Moving along from Zechariah’s declarations concerning his son and the King, we meet up with the “shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night” (Luke 2:8b).  Here, Theophilus is presented with what, for him, is going to be a familiar refrain.  However, that refrain is going to be directed at a different person than the one to whom it generally directed.  Ultimately, this is less about the shepherds themselves, and more about what it is that the shepherds are going to hear, when “An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them, and they were filled with fear” (2:9).  In the midst of this amazing sight, what did the shepherds hear?  They heard the angel say “Fear not, for behold I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people” (2:10). 

There are those words “good news” again.  By now, we are able to quickly make the connection and draw the analogy related to that connection.  Theophilus will understand that the “good news” is another reference to a King, and there is little reason to doubt that even a group of simple shepherds would have understood what it was that being said.  Going further, the angel says that this good news, this Gospel (the birth of the King!), is going to serve as the source of joy for all the people.  All the people?  Is this meant to convey the idea that even though Caesar ruled an extraordinarily large empire, that it is nothing compared to the coming kingdom, and that the new-born King of which they are about to hear, is going to be a King over the entire world?  Is this a king to whom every knee will bow?

Continuing on, we find that familiar refrain used when we read  “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, Who is Christ the Lord” (2:11).  Following quickly on the heels of the “good news,” the shepherds hear this amazing statement.  More importantly, Theophilus and all who would read this “narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us” (1:1b), have stumbled upon an incredible proclamation.  Once again, and this would not be lost on anybody, we have a challenge to Caesar.  Once again, we have testimony being presented about a King.  How so?  Well, as we have already discussed and expounded upon, the word “Lord,” or “Kurios” here in the Greek, was a title held by Caesar.  Not only that, but in that day, it was not uncommon to hear Caesar also referred to as “savior,” with the Greek word “soter,” serving this purpose.  This first announcement concerning the birth of Jesus had all of the elements of a royal proclamation. 

When seeking to understand the story of Jesus, and particularly the birth narrative, it cannot be repeated enough that these honorific titles, reserved for the Caesar when used in the context of “good news” (evangelion), are being foisted upon another that, by all appearances, had no legitimate claim to them.  The Caesar (specifically Augustus) is the one hailed as the “savior of the world”.  For the world under the heel of Rome in that day, it is Augustus that is the lord of all.  It is he, truly, that is the anointed one (a christ, a messiah) for the whole world and all the peoples of the world, as well as the one responsible for bringing joy to all peoples, with peace and good will towards men. 

These words being penned by Luke and heard by Theophilus (and eventually all peoples) were not then new in the least.  They were quite familiar, but were (and because of the Resurrection, are) being co-opted and applied, quite unexpectedly and retroactively (as Luke writes his narrative well after the events of the life of the Christ, though he undoubtedly shares the oral traditions concerning Jesus that had sprung up and taken shape quite early), to a man that had been crucified by the order of Rome.  We can never lose sight of the fact that the things that are now being said about Jesus, first to shepherds (according to Luke) but now to a member of the Roman aristocracy, along with the titles that are on offer, were routinely declared about and applied to the one then recognized and widely worshiped as the king of the world and the son of god.  

Kingdom Of Peace (part 1 of 3)

Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. – Romans 5:1  (NET)

Though this is an obvious understatement, Paul has said much.  Having done so, he begins to reach some immediate conclusions and logical deductions that are forced by the things that he has presented in what must be understood to be the building argument of the first four chapters of the letter to the church at Rome.  Those deductions begin with “Therefore.”  He writes “Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (5:1).  Having been brought into the covenant people (declared righteous) through the instrumentality of faith (belief in God and its concurrent unswerving loyalty to the claims made by that God, per the example of Abraham), a state of peace between humanity and God is engendered.  This peace is attached to the Lord, who is Jesus, who is the Christ (the Anointed One/Messiah/King). 

“Peace” operates on a number of levels.  One of those levels will be overtly addressed by Paul in relatively short order.  A second level of the operation of “peace,” which is more subtle and subversive, is surely also implied, and we can see through it the juxtaposition and choice of particular words used at this particular place in the letter.  What’s subtle and subversive in the use of peace?  Doesn’t everybody desire peace?  Answering that question and addressing that issue requires us to ask another question and to see where that might lead us. 

About what might a citizen of Rome think when they hear the word “peace”?  It would be much more than an inward state of bliss or mellow contentment, or a cessation of against-ness, or of a lack of spiritual conflict.  The fact that Paul will go on to describe peace with God, the need for peace with God, and the way that such peace is generated, might inform us that these particular dimensions of peace (with which Paul deals in verses six through eleven of this chapter) would not necessarily spring to mind when Paul speaks of peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 

It may very well be the case that Paul expects his Roman audience, as they are fully ensconced within the city of Rome and therefore live at the seat of Roman imperial ideology and its associated imperial theology and attendant propaganda, to think of the “pax Romana,” or “Roman peace” when he writes to them concerning peace.  This was an exalted ideal for Rome, as they imagined themselves to be the bringers of peace and justice to the world, with this having begun under the revered and exalted Emperor Caesar Augustus.  This peace, of course, was brought about primarily through military conquest.  Following military conquest when Rome deemed it necessary (some would simply acquiesce to the power of Rome without raising arms against them), the Roman peace would be secured by the ongoing threat of the exercise of military power. 

Together with that, any thoughts of rebellion were quelled and quenched by the reminder of Rome’s power of life over death, with this best (and most horribly) embodied by the Roman cross, as it was the means of execution reserved for recalcitrant slaves and rebels against Rome.  Crucifixion was employed to send a political message.  Even the crucifixion of a recalcitrant slave would convey Rome’s political might, as it reminded those that would witness the event, because of its also being used as a means of execution for those that challenged the power of Caesar, that all were slaves of Rome.