Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

A seasoned ministry colleague wrote to me last week asking for assistance. “I need some help with exegesis of Luke 13:31-32,” he said.

“I spoke at a conference last week with many pastors who used that passage where Jesus calls Herod a fox as their rationale for using coarse language about Harris/Walz and the other political side. I was quite disturbed by the name-calling and mocking from the pulpit, and I reproved them all when it was my turn to speak.”

He continued,

“I was shocked that the pastors used that passage to justify their mocking and name-calling from the pulpit, citing Jesus as our example. Do you, as a Messianic Jew, have any insight into the historical/contextual usage of ‘fox’ in AD 33? I need to be able to answer the pastors’ defence of their name-calling using that passage.”

He then sent me an excellent response compiled by our mutual friend and colleague, Dr Joseph Mattera.

Historical Context

Dr Mattera explained,

“The term ‘fox’ here carries connotations of craftiness, cunning, and deceit, but also weakness and insignificance compared to a lion or other more powerful animals. In ancient Jewish culture, calling someone a fox could imply that they are untrustworthy, deceptive, and sly, but it was not necessarily the most severe insult. It might also suggest that Herod, despite his political power, is insignificant in God’s larger plan.

Jesus does not use the term in a gratuitously insulting or hateful manner, but as a descriptive judgment of Herod’s character and actions. Herod is portrayed as someone trying to be cunning and obstructive, yet ultimately powerless to stop God’s will. 

Jesus speaks confidently of continuing His work of healing and casting out demons, emphasising His obedience to the divine timeline (‘today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course’). His response to Herod’s threat is one of sovereign authority and calm determination, not personal animosity or unnecessary name-calling.”

He added,

“Notice — Jesus doesn’t use vulgarity or aim to shame Herod publicly. His response remains focused on fulfilling His mission, not attacking Herod’s personal dignity.

His words are measured, reflecting confidence in God’s purposes rather than descending into personal attacks.”

Dr. Mattera also noted that,

“In 1 Peter 2:17, Peter instructs Christians to ‘honour everyone’ and ‘honour the emperor,’ even though the emperor in his time was hostile to Christians.

In Titus 3:1-2, Paul encourages believers to ‘be subject to rulers and authorities,’ and to ‘speak evil of no one,’ underscoring a posture of humility and peace.”

He closed with this:

“In summary, in Luke 13:31-32, Jesus calls Herod a ‘fox’, but His intent is not to indulge in demeaning or hateful rhetoric. Rather, it reflects Herod’s political behaviour in opposition to God’s plan, expressed with a calm, authoritative stance. Christians should take this as a model for measured speech, not license for name-calling.

Jesus’ ultimate focus is always on fulfilling God’s mission, and He consistently teaches His followers to love, respect, and honour others, including political leaders — even when those leaders oppose God’s purposes. Therefore, using this passage to justify name-calling towards leaders misinterprets the intent and spirit of Jesus’ words.”

Higher Ground

I added some further confirming data, making the following points.

1) We are not Jesus! He would likely speak Matt 7:1-5 to us the moment we opened our mouths. (In that passage, Jesus tells us that before we judge others, we need to judge ourselves.)

2) Joe [Mattera] is entirely right in quoting the verses from 1 Peter and Titus. The Word clearly tells us how to speak about leaders, and claiming that Jesus used coarse or even vulgar language when speaking about Herod is just an excuse for our own carnality.

3) The most authoritative NT lexicons explain the word fox in Luke 13:32 to mean “a crafty person” or “a sly, crafty person”; at worst, Jewish background could suggest “an insignificant, lowly human being, while a big, important individual is compared with the lion” but even here, the meaning of “shrewd, crafty” is more likely.

4) According to some of the top commentaries on Luke, “‘Fox’ is best taken as an image of craftiness or slyness” (John Nolland). According to I. Howard Marshall, the ideas of both cunning and insignificant are present. Darrell Bock explained, “By calling Herod a fox, Jesus may be saying either how clever Herod is, as in the English idiom, or how destructive he is, more consonant with ancient expression (Neh 4:3; Lam 5:17–18; Ezek 13:4…). Contextually an allusion to destructiveness is slightly more likely.”

A. T. Robertson (Word Pictures) noted,

“This epithet for the cunning and cowardice of Herod shows clearly that Jesus understood the real attitude and character of the man who had put John the Baptist to death and evidently wanted to get Jesus into his power in spite of his superstitious fears that he might be John the Baptist redivivus. The message of Jesus means that he is independent of the plots and schemes of both Herod and the Pharisees.”

Craig Keener wrote in his New Testament Bible Background Commentary,

“Calling someone a ‘fox’ in antiquity would not necessarily imply that the person is sly; instead, it could portray the person as worthless, slanderous, treacherous, or (often) cunning in an unprincipled manner. Thus, Jesus here does not offer Herod a backhanded compliment (cf. Ezek 13:4). Perhaps more to the point, foxes also would prey on hens (v. 34) when they got the chance.”

So, without question, the word “fox” was not some vulgar or coarse word, be it in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. This is just another popular myth concocted to give cover to our own carnality. (I heard someone in the mid-1980s claim Jesus was calling Herod gay when He referred to him as a fox. That is utterly bogus as well.)

As Christian leaders, we can call out evil in no uncertain terms and we can bring words of reproof to politicians and judges and people in authority when they do wrong. But let us not resort to name-calling and coarse rhetoric. It may get the crowds going and may make us feel good, but it is fleshly, unproductive, and contrary to the Spirit.

Instead, the higher we step, the more clearly we can be God’s prophetic spokesmen.

Then, our words will really carry weight, as the Lord’s piercing and convicting truths will not be diluted and polluted by our own carnality.