New Thoughts (10/31/07-11/8/07)
This passage, while rooted firmly in historical narrative, provides us with a marvelous moral play as we take opportunity to contrast the ways of the court and the ways of the prophet. It is a collection of character studies painted in briefest outline and yet terribly revealing of those depicted. Before I delve into the characters so painted, though, there is something of an aside I should like to pursue.
As I was reading through the several articles on John, one thing that was noted is our misconception of the desert wastelands that are mentioned so often in the course of the Gospels. We hear ‘desert’ and our thoughts are instantly conjuring up pictures of the Sahara; arid lands with almost no signs of life. Of course, we know that even places as barren as the Sahara, or the desert lands of America’s southwest are not as devoid of life as they first appear. There are more than cacti to be found out there. Even so, they are not places conducive to the sustaining of human life by any means. The wastelands and deserts we read of in the stories of John and of Jesus, however, are not of this nature. There is indeed vegetation to be found there, and probably even some wildlife. What will not be found is anything resembling cultivated crops.
When we read about John subsisting on a diet of locusts and honey, we again come to the wrong visual, and think he’s out there eating bugs with a bit of sugar to make them palatable. The locust, though, is referring to a plant not an insect. It is a wild plant and not one necessarily common to the diet, but it is a plant. The point made in regard to John’s training is that he, like the birds of which Jesus later taught, did not put his labors into producing food for himself. He ate of what presented itself to him. He would gather from the locusts that grew without his oversight. He would avail himself of honey should he happen upon some.
The point I am coming to is that the desert was not a place of absolute fasting. It was capable of providing, if not in the manner to which a man had become accustomed. It offered none of the fineries of preparation that one might expect in the household, but it offered sustenance. This leads me to wonder if we haven’t misunderstood the nature of the fast which Jesus undertook during His initiation into ministry. We read about how He was out there for forty days in the desert and, given our picture of the desert, we’re thinking: no food, no water, humanly impossible! If He lived through that, He surely must have done so in the power of His Godhead, not in the flesh. Recognizing John’s habit, though, it seems that He was indeed acting in His capacity as a man, not as God. The fast, if I am seeing this aright, was not a matter of complete abstinence from all sustenance. It was a setting aside of the comforts of life. For those forty days, He would not taste home cooking. Indeed, He would not taste cooking of any sort. Like John, He would trust Himself to the provision of the Father, availing Himself of whatever was set before Him as He wandered. With this, and this alone, He would be satisfied.
The fast, in this light, was not so much about self-denial, although that aspect is certainly present. It was about trust. It was about recognizing God as “my Provider”. The whole experience, it seems to me, was geared to turn one’s thoughts back to Israel’s inception, to those forty years of desert wandering, wholly dependent upon God to keep them alive. Jesus fasted in this fashion for forty days, one day for each year of Israel’s wanderings. What was the purpose of those wanderings? Israel was being taught to depend on God instead of their own strength. When first they looked into the land to which God was taking them, they failed to account for His strength. They looked at it from their own capacity to wage war against its present inhabitants, and they grew fearful.
This fast that Jesus underwent seems geared to instill that same lesson of setting aside any conception of self-reliance and building in its place a total reliance upon God. If He was going to eat, it would be because God had provided, not He. If He was going to avoid dieing from thirst, it would be because God had given Him water, not because He had dug a well. What better training could there be for God’s servant than to put him in the position of utter dependence? What better way to instill confidence in God’s provision than to remove every potential for providing for oneself? This was an exercise in building faith.
Given the propensity for declaring times of fasting in the Church, I think we would do well to recognize the purpose of the fast as we see it here. We get into this mindset that our willingness to fast, even to the detriment of our own health, is somehow going to move God to action. But, doesn’t this fly in the face of the intended lesson? We have made it all about ourselves again. If we fast, God must move. So, we twist the thing around and make God dependent on us, though we would never confess such a thing! If we treat the fast as some display of our own holiness before God, how can we imagine God will be impressed by it? Instead of leaning on Him, we have been preening on us. Look what I do for You, God! Ain’t I somethin’? And all the while, God is trying to teach us about His own provision. He’s trying to return us to a place of trust and dependence upon His good and perfect gifts.
Somehow, we think we’re supposed to survive the fast by miraculous intervention. Oh, God will take away our appetite so it won’t bother us so much. Perhaps we think He will do some spiritual intravenous thing so that our body will be sustained in spite of our defiance of death. Yet, that does not seem to have been the point. The fast is not some way for us to put God to the test. It’s a way to build faith in Him to provide sufficient for our needs. While it necessarily involves setting aside some of our pleasures, it’s not so much about the denial as it is about the opportunity to prove to ourselves just how able God is to take care of us. It’s a lesson in losing our self-reliance.
In that regard, it is a marvelous tool for chiseling away at the pride of life. That, more than anything else, seems to sum up the real purpose of the fast. Anything else, I’m afraid, would lead us back to the place Israel found itself in. Think about this passage from Isaiah. “Why have we fasted and You didn’t see? Look! We have humbled ourselves, yet You take no notice of it!” And God answers: “Look, on the day you fast, still you pursue your own desire, and you drive your workers harder than usual. You fast for contention and strife. This is not a fast to make yourselves heard in My courts! Is this what you think I seek from your fasting? To see you humbled and bowed like a read? Do you think it’s a matter of putting on sackcloth and ashes? Is this what you think is an acceptable fast to the Lord? I tell you, no! This is the fast which I choose: To remove the bonds of wickedness, to loose every yoke and set the oppressed at liberty. It is to see you act as the means of My provision, dividing your bread with the hungry, giving the homeless shelter in your house and clothing them. It is that you would not cover your eyes from seeing the distress of your own kindred. Fast in this way and you will see a speedy recovery. You will shine like the breaking dawn. Fast in this way and your righteousness will light the way before you and you shall have the glory of the LORD as your rear guard” (Isa 58:3-8).
That is a fast such as I don’t see happening. We have fallen into the same habit of valuing denial over provision. We have fallen into calling attention to ourselves rather than turning our attention on the things that God is watching. We are trying to move God rather than being moved by God. When will we learn? We are so addicted to our works that we fail to see the vanity of what we are doing. We are so determined to look and feel worthy in the sight of God that we neglect every warning that this is beyond us. It is time to stop trying to look good and start trying to express the goodness of God. “Then your light will break out like the dawn… Then your righteousness will go before you and the glory of the LORD will have your back.”
And look, it continues. Then the LORD will answer your calls. When you cry, He will say, “Here I AM.” If you feed the hungry, if you care for the afflicted, then the LORD will continually guide you and satisfy your desire, even in scorched lands (Isa 58:9-11). It seems pretty clear. It’s not about denying ourselves His provision. It’s about getting away from denying to be His provision to others. It’s about that covetous, greedy nature of ours that wants to keep what He’s given for our own use. It’s about the habit of gathering more manna than He told us to, and the result of our disobedience will be no better.
I turn now to the actors in this drama spread before us, beginning with Herodias. This episode is the sum of what the Bible has to say of her. Through the histories of that time we learn a little more about her, and it is in keeping with what this briefest of pictures displays. She is a woman frustrated by her limited role. She grew up in competition with her brother and in many ways never really grew up. The competition never ceased for her. So, she found herself in that first marriage to Philip, but Philip was going nowhere when it came to power and prestige. Herodias, seeing her brother with realms to rule, could hardly allow herself to remain stuck in Rome, powerless and all but unknown. When Antipas happened by, it would seem she found her ticket out.
Now, some of the articles indicate that it was Herod Antipas who initiated this whole series of events, but somehow I rather doubt it. Nothing else that we see of him would give us any reason to think he was bold enough to initiate much of anything. But, I will consider him in his turn. There is at least one other article which says that Herodias initiated the divorce proceedings. In fairness, I suppose both would have to be accurate so far as they go. For, Philip had no interest in divorce, nor did Antipas’ wife. So, yes, as regards their individual marriages, both were the initiators of their own divorces. But, if we look to where this started, I really don’t think we will find the source in Antipas. Herodias is the one who shows herself filled with jealous ambition. She is the one seeking the bright lights, as we would say.
So we see her willing to throw aside the laws of her own country to have her way. Every rule must bend to her will, so far as she is concerned. So, Philip is tossed aside for Antipas. It seems to me that both of these men were shown weak in comparison to her. Her choice in partners was seemingly a matter of finding a husband whom she could manage, through whom she could achieve her ends pretty much without interference. Those choices were made exclusively for her own interests and even as such were made poorly. If her goal was power and influence, then the choices she seems to have urged on Antipas utterly failed of her purpose.
She sought to marry him, in spite of both she and he being married to others. She sought this because he was a man with a kingdom and her husband Philip was not, nor did he show any signs of ever becoming such. So, she tossed him, tossed the law, toyed with Herod until certain he would do the same, and eloped with him to his kingdom. She had not, however, thought beyond the immediate gain. It did not occur to her that the father of Herod’s ex was the king of the next country over, and he was not likely to take such treatment lightly. Indeed, thanks to her toying with Antipas, he very nearly lost the kingdom she was trying to gain.
Then comes John the Baptist. As if the shambles she had made of Herod’s rule were not bad enough, now John is openly castigating these two for their behavior. The charge we hear most clearly in the account is that of their illicit marriage. It is illicit not only because both partners had living, previous partners, but also because they were closely related by blood. The pride of the elite would have it that they should get a pass on this. They are the rulers, after all, and therefore above the rules. This is evidence of such rulers as have lost sight of their delegated status. There is One who is of higher authority and no man or woman is above His rules.
Their marriage is the matter most attended to by the Scriptures, but John did not limit himself to this one issue. John was of a nature to decry any and all violations of the rule of righteous Law. He would not tolerate it in the lowest of society, and he would not tolerate it in the highest. Herod might well have put up with him. Given time, he might even have heard him to good effect. But, Herodias would have none of it. Here was somebody seeking to come between her and her goal, and he would therefore have to be destroyed.
Once more she succeeds in her short-sighted goal, but what has she lost or destroyed in the process? If I read the narrative correctly, her final assault on John came in the midst of the battle over Herod’s ex-wife. In fact, the events we read of here take place in a fortress on the boundary between the territories of the combatants. This would seem an odd place and time for a birthday celebration, but it comes about anyway. Recalling the list of those in attendance at this dinner party, the number of witnesses to Herod’s weakness are manifold. She succeeds in destroying John, but she has also taken a long step toward destroying her own husband, and with him, her own ticket to power.
Neither did her ambitions stop with this. The war was lost. The people by and large saw it as divine retribution for what she had led Herod to do to John. They may not have been far wrong in that assessment. Her husband clings to power only by begging Rome for help. And yet, her competition with her brother will not leave well enough alone. She must crush him as well, and so, she goads her husband into pursuing her brother’s kingdom before the Emperor. This, as it turns out, is the end for Antipas. Certain intrigues on his part come to light and he is sentenced to exile in the northern territories.
Now, it is considered by some a redeeming quality in Herodias that she willingly went with Antipas into his exile. “Her pride kept her faithful,” says one text. I would, however, offer a different conclusion. The whole of her sordid story is one of jealousy. She has grown up in jealous competition with her brother Agrippa. She has already cut off any line of retreat back to Philip, for why should he take her back? He alone, out of this sordid family, has avoided the poisonous pursuit of power. Having seen the snake leave his bed, what cause would he have for inviting it back? No, her only options are: remain with Antipas or place herself under the protection of her rival, Agrippa. The whole of her life has been spent in battle against this man. Can it really be supposed that she would turn to him for aid in the end?
Reading the Douay-Rheims translation this morning, I find this: “Now Herodias laid snares for him:” (Mk 6:19). This woman had been laying snares for others all her life in one way or another. In the end, though, the God of Justice saw to it that she was caught in her own snare. How fitting. How like our God to administer His justice in such a talionic fashion. “Those who live by the sword die by the sword.” In like fashion, those who live by trickery and wiles will die by trickery and wiles. Enough, for now, of Herodias, whom I shall consider again as a brief side-study.
Let me turn next to Philip. Again, he appears in the briefest of mentions. Indeed, all we learn of him from Scripture is that he had the misfortune of being Herodias’ first husband. Looking at the story of the Herodian line, I find him something of a miracle. It seems out of all that ambitious brood, only Philip escaped the machinations. His lack of a kingdom can be laid to the cause of his mother’s own machinations. She, too, had tried for power, but Herod the Great, her husband, learned of her plots and was not satisfied with destroying her. He also cut off her remaining son Philip from his will. So, Philip had gone to Rome.
He was living comfortably and, it would appear, with little or no responsibility. He had a wife and a home, and if he was not satisfied with this, he was not apparently inclined to do much about it. As we have seen, his wife did not share these inclinations, and before long, neither did she share his home. Yet, in spite of this and maybe even because of this, Philip seems to have faired about the best out of his generation.
One wonders how he reacted to news from out of Galilee as things progressed. After all, it was not only his ex-wife who was involved, but also his daughter. To what degree had the poison of the Herods infiltrated his soul? Was he so callous as to care not how his daughter had been used in the proceedings of that household? Was she as much a pawn to him as she was to Herodias? It is difficult to say, for we have so little to go on.
And what are we to say of his daughter? How we interpret her actions must depend rather heavily on many other factors. That she was moving at the direction of her mother is absolutely clear. Whether she did so out of innocent familial allegiance or out of an innate wickedness of her own is not so clear. Right up until that request she makes at her mother’s goading, I would be inclined to lean toward innocence.
If I were to lay out the case, I would begin by noting that what was deemed a marriageable age in that era was much younger than we would accept today. Mary was barely a teen when she wed Joseph and bore Jesus by most accounts. One could, then, suppose that Salome was even younger than that. It would be difficult to invest one so young with such a developed taste for violence. Not impossible, but difficult. We know, after all, that children can be as vicious as any adult in dealing with their peers, but it is a rare child indeed who would take that viciousness to the level this child did.
Perhaps, it might be argued, she never expected Herod to accede to her request. Perhaps, but a child of such an age, we are told, has not developed sufficiently to think ahead to what may come of an action. They are creatures of the moment. If she were going to react to her mother’s suggestion, it would have come when the suggestion was made. That she did not react speaks loudly as to her state of mind.
Some translations have insisted that the dance she performed was of an erotic nature. Wuest’s translation, for instance writes of it as “a rapid-motion, leaping, lewd dance.” I cannot, though, see anything in the term used for her dancing that would require it to be seen in that light. The dancing of youth for the entertainment of the adults was certainly nothing new. There is that passage from Jeremiah that speaks of such things, “Then the virgin shall rejoice in the dance, and young men and old together” (Jer 31:13). Granted, Jewish custom would keep the girls and the boys segregated in that dancing, but nothing in what Salome is doing has violated that.
Now, to counter a more innocent view of that dance, it must be noted that the Herods were terribly attracted to the ways of Rome. It was from Rome that they brought the idea of having a birthday celebration in the first place, and they took to it with such gusto that their celebrations were a byword even in Rome itself. Well, Rome had its own issues of moral decay, and more than its share of intra-familial intrigue. It is clear that much of that had entered into the Herodian halls. Whether the near total abandon to sensual pleasures had fully infiltrated is not absolutely certain, but the signs are there. So, yes, there is the distinct possibility that this child, young though she was, was indeed looking to arouse the men before whom she danced. In either case, the text is clear in saying that she was intentionally seeking to please the ones she entertained.
As I said before, though, the telling part of her story, as I see it, is that she goes along with Herodias’ plot to the end. What shall we say of a child who can hear such an abhorrent suggestion from her mother and respond in anything other than shock and disbelief? Indeed, I think we must recognize the fullness of her complicity in this as we read how she brought her mother’s request before Herod. She came running to deliver her request, surely at her mother’s prompting, less this wind-blown husband of hers change his mind. Her words to this man reflect that same urgency. “I want you to give me right away John’s head on a platter.” In other words, I want this done before those who have witnessed your promise have departed, giving you a chance to wiggle out of this.
She is as adept at laying out the snares as is her mother. Isn’t this what we hear about children of divorce, though, that they quickly develop this ability to play that conflict for all its worth? Oh, they will have their real father giving gifts left and right to assuage his sense of failure. They will have this new ‘father’ being just as lavish in a desperate hope of buying their affection. Oh, and that child will be ever so good at giving each just enough hope to keep trying, but never enough to leave them feeling secure. The psychologists will doubtless tell us that this is just her own insecurity playing out. But, insecurity doesn’t ask for such butchery as this. This is no gift that she can use. The most we can say for her is she was enjoying this chance to show her step-father’s weakness to one and all.
It was her mother’s request, and nobody in that room could have mistaken it for anything else. Yet, Salome is, in her way, showing these leaders of men that she is a power in her own right. They are there to honor Herod, at least on paper. But, Salome is letting them know that he is not the real power, her mother is. She is also making it plain that she, too, can do with and through this man what she will. Her complicity and enthusiasm is right there in that demand that this be done “here and now.” And, she doubtless is standing there arms crossed and toes tapping until the deed is done.
Now, the impact of this on those in attendance is equally evident. Notice that the king issues the orders, but what we read of his order is that he sent to have John beheaded, and the head brought back to him. Yet, when the executioner returns, we do not read that he presented John’s head to his king, which would seem the only appropriate action to take. No, he takes it directly to Salome. Granted, we are given this scene in brief, but there is no mention of Herod directing this action. For all intents and purposes, as soon as Herod gave the command, he was as good as gone from the scene.
The reaction of this executioner is, I suspect, representative of the thoughts going through the minds of every guest there. I would be surprised if this were not in perfect keeping with Herodias’ plans, at least on some level. Her immediate goal may have been the destruction of her adversary, but the overall goal was power. In this act, through her willingness to all but destroy both husband and daughter in her pursuits, she has made it clear to these attendees that she is ultimately the power in that place. Herod Antipas is too weak to counter her, too easily manipulated for them to be concerned with him. It is with her that they shall have to deal.
Herod it seems was more interested in other things. Certainly, he enjoyed the power he had, and when pushed to it, he was willing to pursue more. But, by and large he seems more interested in pursuing his entertainments than with running his region. Consider what we see in this man. He has at least played the role of a Sanhedrin, putting forward some limited acceptance of Jewish faith. As a Sanhedrin, though, this idea of spirits coming and going should have been anathema to him. Yet, when he hears of Jesus, his conscience so plays upon him that he sets aside these supposed beliefs without so much as noticing what he has done. He slips right out of that belief set, slides right by the Pharisees and plunges head-first into base superstition. Even with that, though, he cannot help his curiosity.
He was curious to hear John while John remained alive. Was he touched by the message John spoke? Perhaps. Yet, never to the point of change. He was perplexed. He ‘did many things’ as some texts translate it. Yet, repenting was apparently not on the list. He enjoyed listening, then went back to his other amusements. Now comes news of Jesus, and his conscience, as we have said, is playing him hard. But he’s had practice now, dealing with this conscience thing, and he beats it back down eventually. What remains is that rabid curiosity. Oh, he’d like to see this Jesus. He wouldn’t go out of his way to arrange it, mind you, but he’d like to see. He needs something new to tickle his senses. Perhaps a miracle or two might be just the trick. Nothing in there, though, to suggest any awakening of faith. Nothing but the need to be amused.
As we see, those who have found in him ‘an idle curiosity’ and ‘a seeking after entertainment’ have a solid foundation for their views. Judaism and faith were nothing but a tool to Herod, a tool that he could use in pursuit of his own ends. Here, I think, we must pause for a moment of reflection.
We are looking at this most dysfunctional of families, and our tendency is to fall into a form of ‘thank God we’re not like that!’ We see this terrible example and almost immediately start justifying ourselves by comparison. The truth is, though, that there are certainly those in the church today who could be described in very similar terms; and we may well be one of them. It’s certainly worth investigating for our own well-being.
How many, do you suppose, come out of idle curiosity? How many are seeking entertainment? You know, there are entire movements right now thriving on that urge! They cater to it. You want entertainment? We got it! Big sound, bright lights, dancers, jugglers, whatever you want. We’re bringing back the big-budget musicals right here in the church, and it’s all for you. Just come on in. The problem is that those who come in have no awareness of any need for Jesus, and they won’t have any greater awareness of that need when the leave. No, they are just seeking entertainment, feeding the need to be amused.
Do you realize how much of the world is geared towards creating that need? All of advertisement is about building a sense of need in you so that you will go forth and feed the need. All of television, radio, filmdom, any of the performing arts; these are quite obviously hoping to entertain you. That much is pretty basic, and entertainments have always been around in some form. Even Moses, telling his stories about the history of Israel, could be counted an entertainer at some level. Jesus was certainly entertaining in the way He taught. But, with modern media, they’ve scraped all the meat from their offerings. All that they’re giving out now is the bones. There is no sustenance to be drawn from that, only a never ending hunger for more entertainment. And you are quite surrounded with outlets offering just that. The problem, as I say, is that none of it can satisfy the need. It’s all empty calories, and the poor mind is left starving for something filling. The soul shrivels for lack of nutrition.
Again, this is not just their problem. It’s ours. It’s mine. I may not frequent the theatres and I may not care for television. But, there’s the web. There’s games to be played. There’s this urge to fill every idle moment in the day with some form of distraction. Anything, it seems, to avoid thinking about things that matter. Anything to fill the time, lest I find time to talk with God! Now, I’m obviously not talking about the time I spend in study, for that’s clearly there, or there would be nothing to read here. But, what about prayer time? What about time to just rest in His presence? What about times of just singing His praises? Why, my schedule’s just too full to allow for that, God! I’ve so much to do. I mean, there’s news to catch up on, blogs to review, and I just heard about this new clip out on youtube. Sorry, I’ll try and catch up with you later.
We are all of us turning into little Herods. We are so concerned with our amusements that we will cheerfully give in to any least bit of pressure just to get folks off our back. Sure, sure. Just do whatever seems right to you, just stop pestering me. I’m trying to do something here. Truth is, what we’re really trying is to do nothing. We are trying to jam the broadcast frequencies over which we might hear our own conscience. We are afraid to hear what we know it must have to say to us.
You know, in some ways, I’m seeing myself playing that same game even as I work on this study. It, too, can become nothing but chaff, nothing but a way of avoiding the central question. I have to force myself back. God is clearly asking something here, and he’s asking it of me. The question is simple enough: am I here to seek God or to be entertained? When I hear Him, whether it be through a message, through dreams and visions, or whatever method He may choose, do I settle for being perplexed? Do I feel that twinge of repentance and fight it back down? I know there are times when I do this. I think what I really need to discern is whether there are ever times when I don’t.
After all, if I have allowed this to become no more than a mental exercise then I, like Herod, have made my faith no more than a tool useful toward achieving my own ends. God did not give faith to me for that. He gave it to me for His own ends, to draw me back to Him. As such, to the degree that I make something else of it, I do Him a great disservice.
I have to accept that He would not be turning my eyes in this direction were it not something I need to look at. Indeed, there have been those times before when I have noticed a lack of prayerful moments in these study times. Lately, this has been the case as well, and yet, I have not even stopped long enough to take note of it. What has happened? I remember many years ago, when I first began to put these studies up on the web, I asked God to ensure that the flavor of them, that intimate flow between He and I, the constant turning to prayer in the midst of study, did not change. I asked Him to put an end to anything that brought in such a change of attitude.
Honestly, I don’t think the presence of these studies on the web has changed matters. After all, they’ve been there for years and I doubt there are many who read them. What has changed? Well, I’ve been teaching this home group. This is a much more immediate thing. These are people I’m sharing with, as a teacher, face to face. Oh my, how pride has welled up! I can’t be sharing my weaknesses with people who would appear to be much stronger than I. How, then, could I continue as the teacher?
There is also the factor that I have been drawing from these studies for what I present in that forum. That suddenly introduces a sense of schedule on this time, which it has never suffered from in the past. I have considered that a key thing to impart to those who ask me how to study. There is no schedule to be kept. There are no deadlines for getting this bit done or that part done. It’s a self-paced (or Spirit-paced) effort. That concept is harder to maintain when I know that “I’ve got to have something” to present come Monday.
So, what has happened? I’ve allowed myself to pressure myself. I really can’t blame it on anybody else, can I? I could try and shift it off on the devil, and there’s doubtless be a grain of truth to that. But, the real issue is that I’ve allowed it. Like Herod facing the enormous power of Salome, I have not stood for what should be, but have simply acquiesced with what’s happening to save face.
Well, God, let it stop here! Yes, You have been dealing with me on this pride thing for years. There was a time when I thought it was dealt with, but let a call for repentance arise, and it becomes clear that no, the pride is still there. What must be done, my Lord, to break this once and for all? Honestly, even as I ask You that, there is that edge of fear in me. After all, it would seem bound to require of me something I’d as soon not do. How can pride go without embarrassment? Dare I still ask You to do what You must? I must dare. I must, as I so often advise others, get over myself. So, let me begin here.
Father, forgive me, that I have been not only tuning You out, but doing my best to keep You tuned out, even in these times that are here primarily to tune You in. I do indeed ask that You would do what You must, and that You would keep me mindful of that request when You answer (for I know that You will indeed answer). Oh, I lay myself upon Your mercy, Lord! And, I cry to You for the strength to accept Your call to action whenever and however it may come. I pray that You would so will and work in me that I would respond to You with no further sense of self at all. Oh, God! You must increase, I must decrease.
Forgive me, Lord, that I have, in my own way, made this whole matter all about me. No, it’s not all about me. It’s all about You, Lord! It’s about what You have done to call me out of the life I had chosen for myself. It’s all about You keeping me on this path toward home when I know myself well enough to recognize how quickly I’d head back for Egypt apart from You.
Lord, if I am going to continue teaching in this home group, grant me the grace to be transparent. Grant me the grace to confess my own weaknesses whether or not they are shared by those who hear me, whether or not they are admitted to by those who share them. Begin in me, my Father, a restorative work. Let us return, You and I, to those times of fellowship that used to come in these morning studies. Let that intimacy be healed and strengthened, that I may return to times of rejoicing in You.
Yes, Lord, and I also beg of You to keep me mindful of those for whom I have committed to pray. Not that I would look at those commitments as a chore or a labor, for my prayers are nothing except You inhabit them. But, Lord, those commitments came at Your prompting. Of that I am certain. So, I ask You to stoke the fire in me, that I would indeed take the time, when I’m awake and alert, not when I’m drifting off in sleep, to bring these folks before Your throne in earnest.
You know them, Lord, and You know them well. They are amongst Your chosen, some of them old and some young. They are each, in their way, leaders at the forefront of this present work of Yours, and they are all of them put in harm’s way by their willingness to sell out to You. So, Lord, guard them! Let the armies of heaven be their vanguard, and let Your own glory be their rear guard. They go into hostile environs, my King, as You well know, for You send them on their mission. As You send them, Lord, I know You can be trusted to care for them. So, for the pastors, Lord, a strong guard, and particularly over their minds. For the Untouchables, my Lord, those who are taking the street in Your name, oh my God! They are in the midst of the enemy’s camp. Keep them safe. Keep them steady. Let the damage they wreak on the devil’s turf be great. Yes, and let the lives of those they are rescuing be restored unto You. As for my brother, whom You have laid upon me as a burden, Lord, show me how to connect. Yes, I pray that You uplift him, that You cause his soul to know the forgiveness that is his. But, God, there is more You are seeking there, I am sure of it. Guide me, then, that I may not fail to do as You are asking.
Well, Father, that’s going to have to do for now. I’ll see You at Your house shortly. Bless You, and may we have many more conversations in the ensuing days. I love You, Father.
We often hear people asked what they would have their epitaph be, if they could choose it. Sometimes, this is even given as an incentive to live well. After all, however much we may wish for a particular opinion to be left behind us, it is those who are left behind who will determine the opinion. In the case of Herod, the epitaph chosen for him by history is truly terrible. He is declared a coward, afraid of ridicule. He is declared “Intensely selfish and utterly destitute of principle.” The closest we get to a complimentary statement is that he was cunning in pursuit of power. That, I suspect, may be more accurate of Herodias than of Herod. The worst of it, though, is captured in this quote. “John was eventually killed by a functionary of a puppet king who allowed himself to be swayed by a scheming wife, a loose daughter-in-law, and the people around him.”
Can anybody suppose this was what Herod thought of himself? Can anybody think that this was what he intended to leave as his reputation? I can’t. That the Herodian clan had some serious issues is quite evident, but that provides no excuse for him. We do read of a few in that line who actually managed to either govern well or avoid governing altogether. Herod failed on both counts. He insisted on being the official ruler, and did so with such poor ability that to claim he ruled at all must be overstating the case.
In a modern setting, he would be the politician who is himself ruled by the polls. So often as opinion shifted, so too would his rules. He is a leaf blown by every shifting wind. In short, he is to the ruling class what James warns us not to be as sons of the King of kings, for we are declared a royal priesthood. If royal, we have a certain authority which must be exercised and exercised well. We must not be blown by every wind of doctrinal opinion, but must stand fast on the foundation of righteousness. We must not settle for a faith of emotions, but must live such that our emotions are subject to the Spirit of the Living God.
Herod was a man ruled by emotions. Let me say that anyone who allows pride to drive their decisions is ruled by emotions, for pride is no more than an emotion. Obviously, I am not talking about that form of pride which we ought rightfully to take in our workmanship. I am talking about that pride that needs to have others see us as something impressive. This is what drove Herod. He had the power and authority, so far as his regions were concerned, but he wanted something more. He wanted respect. However, as so often happens, he misunderstood the roots of respect, and wound up inspiring something utterly different in his subjects. Never was there respect for this ruler, only fear. Some among his subjects learned to rise past their fears and play him like an instrument, but still, he was incapable of drawing forth the respect he craved, for there was nothing in him worthy of respect.
Thus, in later years, we find Herod chasing down the members of the fledgling Church. He has John’s brother James put to the sword (Ac 12:1-3). Why? Was James a threat to Roman rule, or even to Herodian rule? Of course not. He already served the kingdom of heaven and these petty realms of man had no draw for him. No, Herod put him to death to appease his subjects. What? Who was in charge again? Oh, yes, the Roman authorities in these far regions lived in a certain fear of their subjects. After all, their own lords in Rome cared deeply that the Pax Romana should be preserved at all costs. Woe to the tetrarch who allowed riots to break out under his watch! Oh, and how the locals understood this! Look at the games played by the Sanhedrin once they had Jesus in their grip. Threaten Pilate with riots and he will quickly forget all about rules and order. Just so he can be seen to have preserved the peace. Here, we see it again in Herod. He sees that killing James has somehow pleased the Jews of his region, so he goes for Peter as a follow up. Perhaps now they will like him. Perhaps now they will respect him. After all, he’s done what they wanted, right?
Now, look at that in light of this present episode in his life. We read all about how he was so impressed with what John had to say, in spite of John’s willingness to accuse him of his sins. “He heard him gladly.” He was perplexed, or he did many things, upon hearing what John would say, although we are never told what sort of things. Perhaps, hearing the authority of the Truth in John’s words, he tended to avoid his illicit wife for a time. Perhaps he truly repented of his decisions, but had no idea how to make matters right once more. No, I cannot believe that. This may have been his thinking, but it was not his reality. He had ample advice from the pages of Torah to tell him what he ought to do. He need look no further than Nehemiah, if he wanted to know. Further, the evidence we have just seen from Acts makes it clear that he learned absolutely nothing from these events.
It is that emotion-driven, entertainment mode religion. He enjoyed the sermons, but he wasn’t going to change anything based on them. He would be perplexed by the demands they made, might even make a start on them, but he would quickly revert to pattern. So it is when Salome makes her request. Herod is saddened by this. Oh, the grief strikes deep in him. He can see the minefield he has just stepped into with his foolish promise. I have no doubt he is clear about who laid those mines, too. Now he is caught. He knows this John is a righteous man, not that this matters over much to him. However, the people see John as a prophet, and this matters greatly. If he does anything to John, it is at risk of causing an uproar among the people, with all the risk to his position that such an uproar would entail. Yet, here are his leaders sitting around him. If he goes back on his word, what will they think of him? Oh dear, they will see him as weak and indecisive, and that would be simply intolerable. So, though he is concerned with the consequences, he willingly shuts his eyes to them long enough to submit his will to a child. And this, he thinks, will show himself strong before his leaders. Such is the delusion of emotion.
It is evident, however, that John found some last shred of conscience in this man, however deeply it had been buried. It is that conscience, I suppose, that keeps emerging as fear. We see it in the way Herod reacts to news of Jesus. At first, as Luke records it, he is dismissive of the rumors running through the land. Of course, it can’t be John resurrected, resurrection is stuff and nonsense. Neither could it be Elijah returned in the flesh, for again, as a well-healed Sadducee, he knows well enough that once in the grave always in the grave. But over time, conscience begins playing with his imagination and his emotions, and lo and behold, he’s suddenly a convert! No, of course, this must be John returned. Like the finest of Shakespearean tragedies, we see Herod played by his guilt for having done as he did. Of course, he had doubtless heard the public opinion regarding the war he had lost, as well, so the idea was planted. But it took the conscience to run with that suggestion.
Herod, then, stands as the model of a man led by emotions, and as such, he stands as proof that a man so lead becomes a fool. A wise man, one of the articles pointed out, would recognize that the oath he had given, when it was used to force him into a breach of God’s Law, had lost its binding power. Instead, he follows the course of an earlier fool, who took his own daughter’s life in a grotesque determination to keep an equally foolish vow. A wise man, even if unwilling to revoke the offer having heard the request, would have found a means to turn the event to a proper ending. Salome, or Herodias really, requested John’s head on a platter. Nothing was said of the rest of that man, though. Neither was there anything in that demand that indicated that John must be dead upon presentation. Herod could have arranged any number of responses to this request that would have satisfied the terms of the request and maintained his own word without violating the rule of righteousness. That he could not find a way out of the dilemma he created for himself just demonstrates the depth of his foolishness.
Looking at these events, it is easy enough to find parallels to them in Israel’s history. Many will point to Ahab, Jezebel and Elijah. That is certainly an apt place to look, given John’s mission. Herodias certainly plays a fine Jezebel in her treatment of John. However, I am not so certain we can point to her as a source of spiritual corruption in this case. That role seems to have fallen more to Herod. There is also the distinguishing factor that Herod was not a Jew whereas Ahab was. So, while we can find parallels in these events, it is not an out and out recapitulation.
Likewise, we can find some minimal parallels to the story told of Esther and her king. Here, too, the ways of a woman proved sufficient to the task of turning a king’s thoughts. The echo of that older story is clearest in the promise that falls from Herod’s lips. “Ask whatever you will and I shall surely do it.” Indeed, it would not surprise me over much to learn that he had been thinking of that former ruler of the Persians as he framed his oath. It would fit with the grandiose self-image. It would fit with the sense he seems to have had of what a ruler ought to live like, and how he ought to appear. In short, it played well to his sense of pride as well as his sense of amusement.
Obviously, Herodias was quite familiar with what drove her husband, and her hands upon these events cannot be missed. This demarks a clear boundary between her manipulation of Herod and what Esther accomplished. If nothing else, the motivations of these two women makes the difference clear. One sought to save her kinsmen, the other seeks merely to eliminate an annoyance. One took upon herself the full risk of her endeavors. Esther knew that to fail in her purpose was to suffer the brunt of the king’s wrath. Herodias, on the other hand, hides from the danger, sending her daughter to do her bidding. She is a child, and surely Herod cannot strike out at her, however he might receive her response to his oath. That said, then, I think we must see the limited parallels as intentional and pride driven. Beyond that, the whole reeks of the poison of a Madison Avenue advertising campaign. It’s all about playing the sap on the throne.
What we must seek to recognize is why this family is given even so brief an appearance in the Scriptures. Is it simply their involvement in John’s story that causes them to be noted? In Luke’s case, we might suppose that they were setting out Herod’s nature as a precursor for understanding the things recorded of him in Acts. But, even that would have to presuppose that Luke already intended that second text as he composed his first. That is nothing we can rule out, but neither is it anything we could strongly support on the evidence.
Further, if we keep the Author of the Scriptures in sight, I think we must acknowledge a greater purpose to this mention than simply to establish the historicity of the event. He could simply have caused it to be noted that John died in prison and still Josephus’ record of events would confirm them well enough. No, there is something of a moral nature that we need to extract from this and I think we shall find it in the stark contrast between what we see of Herod and what Herod shows us of John.
Now, the Weymouth translation, in treating Matthew 14:4, reads “John had persistently said”. The tense and mood of the verb in this case will allow for that translation, even though in the active voice. That said, most translations do not take this view, leaving it as simply something John had done. That he had done it even once already speaks volumes about him. It is equally believable, given his character, that he continued those denouncements of Herod’s morals right up to their last conversation.
Here then is the primary contrast. On the one hand we have Herod, who is swayed by every wind. Where his pride or his self-image feels threatened, he can be guaranteed to act, and his actions will be predictable. On the other hand we have John, a man determined to speak the Truth of God even if it be to his own detriment. Perhaps the saddest commentary we might make on this comparison is that we see men like John as so exceptional. Surely every son of God ought to be just as devoted to His Truth! Surely, all those who call upon the Name of the Lord ought to be willing to suffer even as the Lord suffered if need be, just so as the kingdom is advanced and the glory of God made manifest!
There is one simple fact we need to know about John to understand him. It is quite simply that he has determined to be righteous. Now, here is something we must understand about righteousness. Righteousness cannot be coerced. Much like a gift ceases to be a gift when it is demanded or required of us, even so righteousness ceases to be righteousness if it is done out of a sense of demanded duty. No, the righteous conform their actions and their character to God’s template by their own will. It is a choice made in the heart to live righteously, to think righteously, to fashion ourselves – insomuch as it is in our power to do so – after the character of the God Who claims us as His own.
Salvation may have come to us, as it were, by force (for He saved us while we were yet enemies), but free will has its place in the pursuit of righteousness. It is in this sense that we read Paul’s advice to the Philippians. “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure” (Php 2:12-13). There, Paul has captured both cause and effect. Until God begins to work in us, it is impossible that we should be willing to be truly righteous. Once He has begun the work, though, our own desire must surely spur us along the course He sets.
This is in keeping with what we hear of the kingdom of heaven when Jesus teaches. Everywhere He taught, and everywhere John the Forerunner taught, the kingdom of heaven broke through. That is the whole point of miracle, that the kingdom of heaven breaks through the ordinary course of life. Follow Israel in her desert wanderings and you will find the kingdom of heaven constantly breaking through to provide for them in spite of their unbelief. Follow Jesus as He walks the land ministering and you will find the kingdom of heaven breaking through the unbelief of His people to touch this one and that. Follow the history of any of the great revivals that have revitalized the Church and you will find the kingdom of heaven breaking through to rip men from their complacency and sin and set them on the paths of righteousness.
That forceful breaking in of heaven on our lives is always at the start. But, Jesus teaches with clarity that there is something which follows on our own part. “From the time John the Baptist came to the scene until this very day the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force” (Mt 11:12). That passage seems obscure as we read it. What does He mean, that the kingdom suffers violence? Well, certainly, inasmuch as its citizens suffer abuse in foreign lands, and are persecuted by the prisoners of sin that surround them, we could think that the kingdom suffers violence. I wonder, though, if we should not be hearing that a bit differently. It cannot be much differently understood, for the text requires that we understand the kingdom as receiving the violence, not in some way inflicting it. What we might understand, though, is that the kingdom, at the King’s command, tolerates this forceful entry.
That is certainly fitting with the message of both the King and His forerunner. The kingdom is near. Behold, the King cometh. There has never been a time like the present to be reconciled to your Creator, but it will not come free of charge. It will not profit the idle. It is open to those who are hungering after righteousness with a hunger that gladly sets aside decorum. The King has ordered the gates opened to those who have been banging on them for entry. But, we must ask who is it that has been banging? It is those in whom the Spirit of the Living God has already been speaking, already been lighting the spark of violence. That violence is not, in this case, the destructive power that sin makes of it. No, this is the violence of zeal, the insistent power of the soul set free to seek its home. This is the violence of the heart set on home, willing to exert whatever effort it must to make its way back. This is the power of the saved working out their salvation in fear and trembling.
There is no place for passivity in the kingdom. There is no place for the ‘once saved, always saved’ mentality. That is a message of laziness, and God is clear enough in stating his intolerance for the lazy. No, salvation is assured to those who are the called, but that assurance only inspires the believer to greater effort. He strives that much harder to show himself worthy of that which God has already done. He strives because by striving he displays gratitude for the gift of faith. In gratitude we acknowledge the kingdom which has forced itself into our hearts, and in gratitude we express our relief that God was willing to work in us that we might work in Him.
So John the Forerunner came announcing this kingdom, but words were not enough. The people heard about a kingdom and all that they could envision was of an earthly nature. They imagined Israel restored to her glory and Rome thrown off, and in all their imagining every thought of God and of the theocracy which was Israel’s greatest heritage was lost on them. God no longer had anything to do with their concerns. They just wanted self-rule. Self-rule and theocracy cannot cohabit, though, so the kingdom that was announced couldn’t help but come as a disappointment.
John, though, spoke the Truth he had been given, and he would not change his message for any man. Like Elijah, in whose power he ministered, he was utterly committed to the Truth of God and he would not suffer any falsehood of idolatry to stand. So it is that he confronts Herod. Herod was not even a Jew, but rather an Idumean. Yet, that nation had converted, albeit by force. Even had they not, still John would have decried the activities that were taking place in Herod’s house. It mattered not who ruled the Jews, so far as he was concerned, for whoever ruled the Jews was still ruled by the God of Israel, whether they accepted that as fact or not. Therefore, the ruler of Israel, whatever his nationality, must abide by the Law of God, and that Law, John proclaimed.
For all the nonsensical protest-addicts who rail against whatever happens to offend their senses today, and claim they are speaking truth to power, here is the reality of that concept. John was speaking Truth to power, but what he spoke was nothing to do with opinion, nor was there a place in him for protecting himself from the consequences. These modern speakers fail to qualify on both counts. Oh, they’re happy enough to be dragged off to prison for an hour or three, especially if there are cameras about to record the event. It’s just free publicity. More to the point, though, what they speak to power has little to do with Truth and everything to do with opinion. They are as much led by emotions and misinformation as anything. As such, they are like Herod, made fools by their own misleading of themselves.
John knew no such misleading, because he was not leading himself. He was led by the God of Truth and he knew it. He had no fear for himself because he knew that his life on this earth did not matter as much as his life in heaven. Like so many before him, he understood the God he served, and he, too, could say, “Though He slay me, yet I will trust Him.” It is this attitude, and his determination to restore real and earnest faith in God among the people that marked him as one come in the power of Elijah.
Can we even imagine such a one arising in our own day? Is there still a place for one whose mission is to “destroy at whatever cost” every form of false worship? If there is not, then I fear we shall never see the revival we claim to be seeking. How can we expect God to come in powerful visitation amongst a people that no longer honor Him and no longer seek to know Him? What cause has He to grace the meetings of those who worship not Him, but some imagined parody of Him? Before God can come to such a blinded people with anything but destruction in His eyes, there must first come an Elijah, a John, to prepare the way, to clear out every false infiltration of idolatry. First, we must be restored to true worship of the true God from a heart of true devotion. We must restore a true faith in the true Messiah, and a true dependence upon His proffered salvation. We are in as desperate a need for reformation as ever the Church has been, and by and large we are too blind to see it.
We have reformed the church, it is true, but we have reformed it in the image of the society around us. We have accepted every modern failed philosophy into the midst, and neglected God’s own instructions in favor of relevance. Then, we wonder why we see no impact on the people around us! No, we must reach that place of destroying every false form of worship from our own midst, whatever the cost may seem to be. We must, like David bringing the ark to Jerusalem, stop and consider what it is God commands. Then, we can look at our own behaviors, habits and rituals and see if they have anything to do wit His commands. When we have learned to honor Him aright, perhaps we will have reason to hope that He might move in our midst and in our region.
Lord, I hear it said so often that this reform must begin with us. I know this is true, although I doubt we hear it as strongly as we should. Ro, it is usually followed by , “It must begin in the home.” No, my God, but it must begin in me. Until I have reformed my own relationship with You, my own understanding of You, and my own devotion to You, what cause have I to look further for change?
God, I know that I am not yet in that place of proper devotion. I need only look at how I react to things, how I respond to things to recognize that. I have so far to go to make the transition from Herod to John. Yes, and You know full well how far. Oh, that You would make that change in so swift a fashion that I might not recognize the moment of its happening! No, but this is not Your way.
Holy One, I have been feeling distant of late, as You well know. Yet, I would draw close once more. I have been resisting Your pull in some areas, and I have been frozen from pursuing others that You have set before me. God! My heart is in such turmoil. Those things in which I feel certain I have heard You clearly, and yet, nothing seems to happen; how shall I reconcile them? What is it I should be doing that I am failing at? Where is it that I lost sight of Your direction?
So much has happened, my Lord, that seems designed to overwhelm. Perhaps that truly is Your design, to overwhelm me until I can truly come to depend on You. Perhaps it really is the case that I need to be brought to my wit’s end so that I can stop looking to myself for solutions. Well, Lord, if that be the case, I pray I become a quick study. If it is otherwise, pray, show me. Bring me understanding that I may be at peace on the path You set me. Until then, fill me with grace to remember that You are a good Father, and a giver of perfect gifts. You have not done as You have done thus far only to throw away the results. No, what You have begun You will complete. It is true in me and it is true in those things to which You call me. Let trust abide, and let my own faith be reformed such that I honor You as You truly are, seek You as You truly are, and serve You as You truly desire.
