From The Desk Of Pastor Paul Viggiano
There are still Herods aplenty
By Paul Viggiano
Ambrose Bierce, in his Devil's Dictionary, defines politics as "A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles." This was as true 2,000 years ago as it is today.
Jesus was greeted at birth with a political conspiracy. Herod and his advisers wanted the baby terminated. Just why would Herod, a puppet of the Roman Empire, want to kill a little baby? Jesus met this type of hostility all his life. When he re-entered the public arena as a 30-year-old man, the political and religious conspiracy to kill him continued until its success.
Why does everybody want to kill Jesus? Why would Herod have been so determined to succeed that he would kill a whole region of males under 2 years old just to make sure the baby didn't live?
Jesus labeled his generation faithless and perverted. It would appear that a twisted political and religious agenda has no room for a genuine Jesus. But why?
Let's be clear. The Romans and the Pharisees (the perverted clergy of the era) didn't care if a bunch of Jews decided to believe in a man named Jesus, have prayer meetings, quiet times, sing hymns and embrace his instructions on loving their enemies. Those who heed the instructions of Jesus would make model citizens.
Except for one thing:
Apparently Jesus was a king -- even more, the king of kings. The magi came to worship a king. When the followers of the Pharisees realized Pilate (a Roman governor) was contemplating releasing Jesus, they engaged in first-century spin: "We have no king but Caesar," they cried. Would Pilate release a prisoner who threatened the authority of Caesar? Not if he wanted to continue living.
Jesus was born to die. The Bible says a body was prepared for Jesus to do the will of the Father, which was to die on the cross to save sinners. But it would appear that the mechanics behind ensuring that Jesus would die at the hands of sinful men was to assert his authority over the kings of the Earth.
Why did Herod, Pilate, the Israelites and the gentiles want Jesus dead? Because of his assertion of authority over all things. If Jesus is who he claims to be, then he is the rightful master of all things -- great and small -- the hearts and thoughts of men and the kingdoms of the Earth.
It is little wonder that the modern-day Herods are still seeking to terminate the babe. As long as Jesus lives as savior, he reigns as king. In order for today's Herods to advance their political agenda, it is necessary to remove the vestiges of this king from our progressive and enlightened culture. There is nothing more annoying than being confronted with a supreme and holy king who teaches with absolute authority -- especially if I'm trying to legitimize and sanction an ungodly and unethical moral and political schema. This king must be killed!
This begs the question: If Jesus isn't king, who is? If the Pontius progressives want Jesus out, who is his replacement? If we're not one nation under the Triune God, who are we under? We're certainly not going to draw the nightmarish conclusion that the ultimate authority is wafting through the halls of Capital Hill.
Perhaps we're one nation under the people. But what if the people decide they want to be one nation under God? Is that the one instance where the will of the people must be overturned? And if so, by whom? On the other hand, what if the people decide that it's perfectly moral to lie, steal, cheat and extort? Is it ethical by consensus? Alternatives to being under God appear lacking.
There are plenty of Herods today. They continue to seek to kill the baby Jesus. They think they'll succeed by removing Christmas trees, nativity scenes or getting corporate America to reject the "Merry Christmas" greeting at the local mall. Like Herod, they consult their scribes to find the baby Jesus and remove his crosses, his laws and anything that brings our thoughts to him. One day, no doubt, they will they seek to rename all the cities? Instead of Santa (saint) Barbara will it be Secular Barbara and Secular Diego and Los Angeres?
Herod failed in his attempts to kill Jesus, but not until he caused heartache and destruction. Today's Herods will fail as well. But they, like their predecessor, will wreak as much devastation as they possible can. May God grant us the eyes to see the blessings attached to serving a holy, righteous and benevolent king. May God grant us wisdom to still seek him.
The Rev. Paul Viggiano is pastor of the Branch of Hope Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Torrance. His e-mail address is pastorpaul@integrity.com.
posted by Soli Deo Gloria | 12/31/2006 10:57:00 PM
9 Comments:
Two things:
1/doesn't the church have the authority to declare a new festival and if the church is going to do it, isn't the birth of Christ a good thing to declare a celebration for?
2/isn't this a grotesque overstatement:
"There are plenty of Herds today. They continue to seek to kill the baby Jesus."
Are people who are opposed to the government financing of the display of religious sentiments really morally equivalent to the perpetrator of the massacre of innocents?
are merchants who prefer to say 'season's greetings' as a courtesy to non-Christmas celebrators performing an act that can be compared to murdering babies?
Yes but what of:
Romans 14:5
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
This seems to allow some latitude as to the days set aside for certain celebrations. I know both Westminster and Calvin overcompensated in their interpretations of scripture to combat Catholicism and to avoid the abundance of Saints Days that were celebrated, so they ruled out the celebration of any special days all together.
I am not sure there are complete and identical parallels to Old Testament temple worship and New Testament worship.
I guess the key phrase you use is "insistence" upon the observance of certain days. Again, Romans 14:5 seems to indicate a freedom to observe certain days not a compulsion to observe certain days.
There are two guiding views in regulating worship:
1/ we must not do anything that isn't directly commanded in scripture.
or
2/ we must not do anything that is expressly forbidden in scripture.
Romans 14:5 seems to be allowing the latter.
The church has the right to create a mid-week service but they don't have the right to compel attendance.
I would prefer it if you would contain your answer within the points you actually made in the article which you wrote and would ask again:
Are people who are opposed to the government financing of the display of religious sentiments really morally equivalent to the perpetrator of the massacre of innocents?
are merchants who prefer to say 'season's greetings' as a courtesy to non-Christmas celebrators performing an act that can be compared to murdering babies?
i understand it was just a "very small group of children" that were murdered. i understand all the evil done in history by the godless. in your article you said:
"There are plenty of Herods today. They continue to seek to kill the baby Jesus. They think they'll succeed by removing Christmas trees, nativity scenes or getting corporate America to reject the "Merry Christmas" greeting at the local mall."
I fail to see the moral equivalency that you are drawing here.
I really appreciate you entertaining me on this. I know you must be a busy person. I just feel it's important how we label people and what catagories we place them in, if we must. But please:
Your article does not mention the 1.5 million babies each year. It mentioned -- (the people) removing Christmas trees, nativity scenes or getting corporate America to reject the "Merry Christmas" greeting at the local mall --comparing them to Herod.
So, you think the abortionists are Herods or businesses that say 'happy holidays' instead of 'merry christmas' are Herods?
or are they all Herods?
Thank you, but if you would indulge me further--
for my own clarities sake -- do you believe Herod actually had the children killed or is the Biblical story simply a metaphor for the purpose of making a point at a later time in the future about commercial signage and public christmas displays?
I am a Christian, I am very uncomfortable with publicly funded displays of religious symbols and I feel private businesses are fully within their rights and can even be quite well-intentioned in saying 'happy holidays' instead of 'merry christmas'. Am I a Herod?
I am concerned that this article trades in a slight, if unintentioned, devaluation of language? Herods actions where sadistically monstrous and don't know if we can say that about the people you quite specifically single out in your article.
To eliminate the authoritative kingship of Christ is not only unthinkable, it is impossible. It simply is, not based upon our actions. Christ establishes and runs all governments. That is why St. Paul taught us to be favorably disposed to them, even though he was living under one of the cruelest tyrannies in history.
Your casual trading in the term 'Herodian' is unfortunate. Herod was someone who tried to murder our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. That makes him, to me, one of the most evil people in history.
If I heard a few people making jokes suggesting that Jewish people might be tight with a dollar, than I wrote an article in my local paper (on the first day of Hanukah) called "There are Many Hitlers Among Us", I wouldn't be defining up the evil done by bigoted joke tellers, I would be defining down the evil done by Hitler.
The fact that you turn the term back on me, a Christian brother, is a little surprising. I work very hard to honor Christ and his Law, and try to pray and act consistently for his will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. To be lumped in, by you, with that murderer Herod is, unfortunately, not totally surprising but quite disappointing and a little ugly.
No. no history. I just thought to myself when this started -- 'I wonder if he thinks I'm a Herod'. I am sorry I was not trying to be caustic. Simply reacting to being referred to by a term I consider very ugly.
If I understood you, I'd agree with you? I guess that sort ends any discussion doesn't it?
Please, don't make the mistake of believing that because I oppose one extreme that i am advocating the opposite extreme.
Men are not changed fundamentally by politics, but by the power of God. Men's hearts are changed by regeneration (Jn. 3:3). They are translated from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of God's dear Son (Col. 1:13).
The great problem with modern politics is that it is used as an instrument of social change. The role of the state is in essence to defend and protect, in the words of the early American Republic, life, liberty, and property. It is to reward the externally obedient by protecting them from the externally disobedient (Rom. 13:1-7).
Does any of this sound familiar?
Post a Comment
<< Home