Having reviewed the background material collected over previous passages in which Herod has his mention, I arrive at a number of topics to consider. Some are mere curiosities, others are matters of clarification. But, the bulk of this side study will focus on factors making the man, what he was like, and what impact he had.

What’s up with John? (10/31/12)

In the curiosities department, this is my primary observation: John, alone amongst the Evangelists, takes absolutely no notice of Herod. His name doesn’t even come up, so far as I can discern. By way of contrast, Pilate is very much present in his narrative from the start of the trial right through to the burial. How is this? Is not John a Galilean? Of course he is. He was called from his fishing boats just as his brother was, just as Peter and Andrew. Yet, Mark, who is accepted as relaying Peter’s preaching to us, makes note of Herod’s involvement with John the Baptist, and also notes that comment Jesus made about the leaven of the Pharisees and of Herod (Mk 8:15).

In fact, come to think of it, John does not mention the death of the Baptist, either, only that he had been imprisoned (Jn 3:24). The nearest he comes to acknowledging John’s end is by way of a reference to him having performed no sign (Jn 10:40), which might suggest that the opportunity for him to have done so was past and done with.

So, there is now this double curiosity that he bypasses mention of John’s demise and says nothing about the man by whom his demise came about. Bear in mind that, if our understanding of events in this final week are accurate, John was present at the trial of Jesus, and present at the cross when all was said and done. It is all but impossible to suppose he was absent from anything which had transpired in between. I cannot, then, accept that he was just unaware of this little side trip over to Herod’s place. There is another explanation required.

I think it might be found in John’s general treatment of John the Baptist, and the reason for it. Of all the gospels, John’s is most thorough in making clear that John the Baptist recognized Jesus as the Messiah, that he all but denounced himself in favor of the ministry of Jesus. He hits this theme very early, and even credits the Baptist as directing Andrew and (we presume) John, who were at that point disciples of the Baptist, to consider instead this Jesus, whom he declares to be the Lamb of God (Jn 1:35-36). Later, he provides us with an even more explicit pronouncement from John, indicating that he is not the one Israel is waiting for. “You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, ‘I am not the Christ,’ but, ‘I have been sent before Him’” (Jn 3:28). This is followed by the very well known, “He must increase, but I must decrease” (Jn 3:30).

Why is John so thorough in reducing the status of the Baptist? In large part it was because many of his followers had either been absent when John was making these declamations, or had chosen to ignore them. It happened that the disciples of John the Baptist were a continuing force even at that late date. Recall the introduction we have to Apollos, who was preaching from Scripture in Ephesus. He was teaching about Jesus, and teaching accurately enough; but his knowledge stopped somehow at the baptism of John (Ac 18:24-26). It fell to Priscilla and Aquila to clarify his understanding of God’s way.

Now, from John’s perspective, the followers of the Baptist had been swayed by the very Gnosticism that he was battling in the church. They had, if I have it right, actually become a fairly persuasive strain of said Gnosticism. It is because of this that we have such a strong emphasis on reducing the stature of the Baptist in John’s gospel, as compared to other and earlier accounts. Since this is an apparent goal in John’s writing, it would hardly suit his purposes to talk about the martyrdom of the Baptist, a point which I’m sure was stressed by his remaining disciples as a proof of his holiness and worth. John the Evangelist would, I am quite sure, agree as to his holiness and worth. But, he would not find in that worth a cause for idolization. No. He was the forerunner, and as such, is worthy of respect. But, he was only the forerunner. It was the One who came after who alone was worthy of praise, and fit to be worshiped.

In fairness, those who claimed some special knowledge derived from what John the Baptist taught had to have failed to grasp even the rudiments of his message. It is somewhat ironic that so faulty a foundation could have been built up in such a fashion as would threaten the true faith. It is a sad comment on humanity in general, that so faulty a premise was so widely accepted. But, then, little has changed in human nature since that time.

Back to John, though, and his lack of reference to Herod – to any of the Herods. I am willing to suppose that, as concerns this particular Herod, he may very well have left him out of the account as part of his effort to minimize the potential misuse of his material by the followers of the Baptist. If we remove the role he played in that one’s martyrdom, the only other real impact he has on the account is this brief visit with Jesus during the course of His trial, and that, other than the mockery, had absolutely zero impact on events. I suppose that, if one has decided not to speak of John’s martyrdom, there’s really little cause to bring up Herod in a text that is focused primarily on the person of Christ. He simply doesn’t matter. And that in itself may be one of the most powerful summaries one could offer of the man, making John’s silence the most eloquent of comments upon this would-be king: He simply doesn’t matter.

Same Herod? (10/31/12)

This section deals with a need for clarification. It will be understood that there are multiple Herods who appear in the course of the New Testament history. There is that Herod who was enthroned in Jerusalem when Jesus was born. But, he is dead before Jesus takes residence in Nazareth together with His family. This is Herod the Great, although – not surprisingly – you will not see him referred to thusly in Scripture.

In the material covering John the Baptist, and here in the final week in Jerusalem, it is, then, a different Herod that is present. This is Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great. He was, at one point, marked out by Herod the Great to be his successor to the throne of king. But, at some late date, his father had instead reduced his place in the will, leaving him only this tetrarchy up in Galilee and vicinity, and setting up others of his brothers in similar vein. Why this was done is not said. I could comment, though, that his record in office gives us reason to consider his father wise in his decision.

Now, here’s where we run into problems: Herod Antipas, we know from history, went to Rome some few years after the death of Christ, seeking to be handed the title of king which had at one point been his expectation. However, there was another Herod who had already petitioned for this title, and had, in fact, already succeeded. That would be Herod Agrippa I. This happened around 37 AD. Herod Antipas, who instead of achieving his goals was denounced as an enemy of the state, sent into exile, and there died, cannot, then, be the same Herod we read of in Acts 12, an he? If he is, we’ve got a problem with the Biblical record, for that account speaks of Herod dying right there in the auditorium, when the people were praising him as some sort of god (Ac 12:19-23).

The NET is kind enough to clarify that this is, indeed, Herod Agrippa I, grandson of Herod the Great, and that Josephus covers his career in his record of Jewish history. That footnote sets the date for his execution of James in the year 42 AD. His death at Caesarea in AD 44 is also confirmed by Josephus (again, following the NET footnotes). Not surprisingly, Josephus’ account lacks the idea of God’s vengeance for his audacity, but he does describe a very similar scene; the crowd acclaiming him a god, and he seeing an owl, omen of death in Roman superstition. Josephus sets his death some five days later, due to something involving stomach pains. This need not be construed as debunking Luke’s account, though. It is sufficient to satisfy the ‘immediately’ of Luke’s coverage.

More to the point, it also serves to explain any perceived discrepancy between the Biblical record of Herod and the secular record. The one died in exile, the other in the auditorium. It would have been helpful, perhaps, had the authors of Scripture thought to indicate which of the several Herods were in view at what point, but perhaps that would have been so obvious to their readers as to require no such clarification.

Family Background (11/1/12-11/3/12)

Looking at Herod’s origins, we learn of matters which ought to concern us. They ought to concern us because they so nearly describe us as well as him. Let’s start with this: Herod was from a family of nominal Jews. What does this mean? Well, most directly, it means his father was an Idumean, or Edomite, and his mother was a Samaritan. In terms of genealogy, there was not a lot of Herod that could be traced back to Abraham. Of course, we understand that this is not the measure by which we ought to measure. So, then, there is also the factor that the Idumeans had become at least outwardly, participants in the Jewish faith. This had occurred at the time that John Hyrcanus had led Israel successfully against the Idumeans, and as part of their subjugation, they had been somewhat forcibly proselytized. So, yes, they were nominal Jews – named as members of the faith.

How often do we hear of nominal Catholics, those who were baptized at infants, perhaps made it to confirmation, but after that never set foot in the church again? Yet, they count themselves as Catholics. How often, for that matter, do we observe the nominal Christian? He goes to church perhaps twice a year – Easter and Christmas. This has somehow become the defined minimum participation rate. These we recognize clearly as false claimants to the title.

But, there are others. They may be present at every Sunday service. They may be ever so involved in the life of the church. Yet, they are either honoring a self-formed replacement for God, or worse. What could be worse? Worse is that they are doing what they do not to serve God but to serve self. I remember a Christian Yellow Pages that was out years back. Perhaps it’s still in production. But, my! What an easy in for somebody. You buy your ad in there, and the assumption is made: He’s a Christian tradesman, and I can trust him. But, an ad does not a Christian make. Nor does regular Sunday attendance, nor does the work one may do for the church.

Consider the next thing we might say of the Herods in general: They had made religion a tool of the state. They were assuredly not the last to do so, nor were they likely to have been the first. Consider that at our own nation’s founding, effort was put in place to insure against any similar outcome. After all, many had come here in order to escape the state-run church back home. Never mind how this clause has been twisted in recent decades, this is the purpose. Religion must be left to the conscience, not made a political tool.

It’s all well and good to consider this on the national level. But, get personal with it. For we each have a tendency towards our own politics when it comes to our own little state. That state may have a population of one, but over it we shall certainly exert our right to rule! Well, then, what is our personal condition? Have we, too, made religion a tool of our state? What might that look like?

Well, perhaps we use the church as a means to get under-priced help. After all, we can almost certainly count on our fellow members to offer us their professional services at steep discount. And there’s nothing, really, requires us to reciprocate in kind, is there? Honestly, how many folks are looking for an electrical engineer around the house? Or, for the somewhat younger set, perhaps church attendance is viewed as a sort of dating service. Or just a good opportunity to get out of the house, and out from under the parents’ watchful eyes. Don’t you go thinking that youth group is some guarantee of safety for your kids, or that their desire to attend is altogether pure. Pray that it be so, but don’t be blind.

I dare say, there are a myriad ways, big and small, by which we seek to bend our religious practice to our earthly benefit. I suppose we were all taught as children that our prayers ought not to be selfish. ‘Dear Lord, please give me a bike,’ was not considered good form. Yet, many of our prayers as adults are of the same nature, if not quite so blatant. Perhaps I am just a particularly poor practitioner, but I find that it takes a fair amount of effort and discipline to keep my prayers focused on God’s priorities rather than my own. So, let us consider ourselves, whether we, too, have slipped into using religion as a prop for our petty states, rather than submitting our states to the God of Creation.

Turning more directly to this particular Herod, we learn that he was raised in Rome, and having been so raised, he had become particularly well versed in Roman tastes – and vices. We, too, have been raised in the world, most of us. Some, praise God, have been blessed with parents committed to Christ, who have sought to raise up their children in a truly Christian household in a truly Christian manner. Even so, the world has a way of making its presence felt. Try as one might, it would seem pretty much impossible to keep that world influence out. Seems to me this is part of what Jesus was talking about when He spoke to the disciples of the need to wash their feet. We cannot live this life without the dust of worldliness settling upon us. Monastics have, across the centuries, supposed they could perhaps escape this problem by withdrawing. Well, let alone that Jesus prayed not that we would be taken out of the world, only that we would be protected from the evil one. It just doesn’t work. Humans gathered together in isolation, be they ever so devoted to pursuing God in that isolation, remain humans. The world has entered the monastery right along with them.

We cannot escape the effects of the world. The question is to what degree our tastes are being informed by the world, and to what degree by God? Some would argue that when it comes to aesthetics, religion really shouldn’t enter into it. But, others would point out that God has the right to determine the true measure of beauty just as He is the true definition of Truth. So, then, we could touch upon the seemingly perennial issue of what constitutes proper worship music. Is the organ intrinsically holier than, say, bass, drums and guitar? That music has its place in worship cannot be doubted. The Scriptures are replete with examples. Those who would restrict proper worship to voice only, with no instrumental support would seem to be in denial as concerns the Scriptural record. Perhaps one could arrive at a restriction on the instrumentation, only allowing such instruments as are specifically mentioned, or as are the nearest representation we still have of said instruments. But, then, it’s difficult to find a good shofar player these days. They can blow the alarms and such, but I’ve only met one could carry a tune on that horn! And, how many lutists have you come across in recent years?

But, I don’t honestly think it’s the instrumentation that defines what befits the house of the Lord. I’m not even certain we can restrict it based on the style, although there may be something to that. It seems that over the years just about every form of worldly music has been attempted as a vehicle for worship. We are, of course, familiar with the influence of at least seventies and eighties style rock upon what is commonly found in God’s house today. We will defend it to the death, pointing out how many of the hymns of the church were based on drinking songs from the local tavern. But, what about punk rock? I’ve heard it done, though not often. What about rap? That’s popular with the kids these days, and many churches are seeking to accommodate, to make themselves relevant or presentable or something. What about jazz? Jazz, after all, finds much of its ancestry in the church, why not bring it back home?

But, the question is not what pleases us. The question is not what’s relevant. The question is what is beautiful, and that question ought rightly be referred to God Himself for adjudication. Is it a pleasing aroma to Him? Because, if it’s not, then it really matters not at all whether it pleases us. As has wisely been said at many a time, worship is not about us. It’s about Him. It’s for Him. If He is not pleased, if He does not find the form beautiful, it is empty. It is the world creeping in. I am not going to claim I know where that boundary lies. I am not going to suggest that worship music, to suit God’s standards, must comply with Western conceptions of proper harmony and composition. I am going to suggest that we must – and I confess I’m not sure how to do so – submit our discernment of beauty to His.

We have no business telling Him what is beautiful. Think about that bit with the disciples walking past Herod’s temple and admiring its beautiful construction and the decorative touches people had left on it. It was this led to Jesus’ comment about how the temple would be destroyed and He would rebuild it in three days. No, He was not discussing a demolition of Herod’s temple, although that would come. But, He was, after a fashion, commenting on what catches the eye of man versus what catches the eye of God.

More concerning for us than our habit of picking up the world’s ways is the issue of picking up the world’s vices. One side effect of being constantly subjected to the dust of the world is that we become inured to it. That which should offend us has offended us so often, so constantly, that it no longer really registers. It’s just the way things are. Beware! It is a very short step from that disregard to taking it up for oneself!

One final point on Herod’s background: I have seen this point many times, but never really considered the implications. Herod was born to a Samaritan mother. An Idumean, an Edomite; descended from a people long at enmity with Israel, he also has the Samaritan cause in his blood. Considering how Samaria was viewed by the Jews, it would hardly shock to discover that one of theirs would view the Jews in similar light. The thing I am attempting to draw forth from this is that it would seem entirely explicable that Herod felt a fair amount of resentment and disdain towards those he ruled. At the same time, it must be recognized that Galilee was a land of many peoples. It was not called the circle of the Gentiles for nothing. But, consider his background, then consider the rebuke he had from John the Baptist. It provides no excuse for his many failings, but it might at least provide a portion of the explanation. Add the native resentments to his Rome-influenced childhood, and one can see how you arrive at a man who seems in many ways to relish antagonizing his nation.

Character (11/3/12)

On one thing all seem to agree: Herod had few, if any redeeming qualities. Scripture paints a thoroughly negative picture of the man, and the secular historians do little to improve it. He was recognized as being a thoroughly immoral man with a cunning mind, a man who was “intensely selfish and utterly destitute of principle” says Unger’s. Even Jesus is recorded as referring to him as that sly fox. The only issue I can take with this assessment is that I would expect a cunning mind to show more evidence of having conceived of some plans that actually worked to the thinker’s advantage.

What I see instead is a man with no backbone. That he had no morals is plain. The whole business with his taking Herodias as his wife, in spite of both of them being already married to others, in spite of her being his niece, sets that point out very clearly. I also find it interesting to notice that where others of the Roman aristocracy had seen fit to curtail certain of their habits in the interest of keeping the peace in Israel, Herod seems to have flaunted his Romanesque ways. The very fact that he was having this grand birthday celebration for himself on that occasion that led to John’s demise, is a flaunting of those ways in a fashion all but guaranteed to offend the sensibilities of his Jewish constituents. What was it but self-idolization?

But, consider that supposedly cunning mind of his. What have we seen come from it? He cunningly decided to steal his brother’s wife, and as a result very nearly lost his own kingdom to the father of his legitimate bride. We are told that the emperor himself had to intervene in the case, lest Herod be completely overrun. Pretty clever, that scheme, wasn’t it? Then we have that birthday celebration, and the cunning way he seeks to demonstrate his grandeur. Look! She pleases me, watch the magnificence of my promise! But, that led to him having to do something he was loathe to do for one purpose, and one purpose only: to save face. Another very clever plan that seems to have gone all screwy.

Then, we read of his later efforts to get himself elevated from tetrarch to king. Never mind that this once again comes at the instigation of Herodias (whose advice seems to be particularly suspect.) His is a cunning mind, yes? He should be able to sift through the possibilities like a fine chess player. He should be assessing possible outcomes, arriving at schemes which will shift the possibilities in his favor. Yet, he fails to take account of his own relatives vying for the same berth. He fails to consider the nature of the emperor to whom he would appeal. He fails to take his own suspect reputation into account. And so, another scheme takes him to exactly the opposite conclusion from that which he sought. He wanted to be king. Instead he is made an exile.

These things do not strike me as evidence of cunning, but rather of a self-involved, easily swayed man of minimal talent. Oh, we recognize that he followed his father’s example when it came to construction projects. But, that leaves most of the vision to the architect. His involvement, I should think, had more to do with funding, and those funds were not the result of any great talent on his part.

As to his actions in killing John, and in seeking the greater title, both of these events demonstrate at best a total lack of reasoning power. That he would make so foolish a promise to begin with suggests a man ruled primarily by his loins. That he would, when the cost of that promise became clear, decide that he must go ahead with the deal rather than to be seen as having been played by this child demonstrates that he had no power of assessment whatsoever. What, after all, did this wind up proving except the very thing he was trying to avoid proving? By acceding to her request, even though it went against his own wishes (and he the purported ruler!) what else would observers note except that he had been thus played by a child? And, they would doubtless be completely aware that the real cunning lay with Herodias, who knew how to maneuver this man according to her every whim. Oh, yes. There was a reputation any ruler should be proud of!

And what of the closing scene? Here he is with his soldiers, at some level presumably fulfilling the duties of office. Herodias is not around, so far as we know. It’s just himself and those he commands. And Jesus is brought before him for judgment. Never mind that he never appears to do the least little thing as concerns hearing the case, in spite of those shouting accusations throughout the encounter. No, no. This is but an amusement. Perhaps this one will do more than talk, as John had done. Perhaps this one will actually demonstrate some of these powers we keep hearing about. And when he doesn’t? Herod loses interest in the Man. But, his soldiers suggest to him another divertissement. If He will not show us His stuff, we can at least have our fun at His expense. Notice once again, though, that it is not Herod’s idea, but rather, that he is swiftly moved from what propriety might have demanded, by the commoners who serve beneath him.

Fausset’s holds out Luke 13:31-35 as further evidence of Herod’s ineffectual character, seeing in this that Herod was to superstitious, too fearful, to attack Jesus directly, and had therefore left His destruction to the Pharisees. I cannot draw that conclusion from the passage in question. That the Pharisees were using Herod’s reputation in an attempt to scare Jesus is plain enough, and given John’s end, it might be supposed that there would be a pretty good chance of success. But, this did not require Herod’s participation. Indeed, the thing we hear about Herod is that he wanted to see Jesus, to meet Him, see some signs performed. That’s certainly in keeping with the final event in Jerusalem. One hardly seeks the destruction of a man from whom he hopes to derive some entertainment value.

This is not to say that Herod wasn’t superstitious, wasn’t fearful. Those things seem to be eminently true of the man. These are the sorts of things that will lead to the spinelessness we see in him. Superstition was one thing, but I think it was really the fearfulness that lays at the base of it. And that fearfulness was, I suspect, at least in part a recognition of his own limitations, of the precariousness of his office. Oh, he would hit those moments where the idea that fixed his attention would overcome the fear for a moment, but inevitably those moments of bravado wound up leading to years of greater fears. A momentary bravado had caused him to steal his brother’s wife. The years that followed left him at least a bit fearful of the wife he had stolen. A momentary bravado had caused him to join his men in abusing and mocking Jesus. One wonders what followed from that in the remaining years of his life. One feels a degree of certainty when it comes to what follows from that moment for eternity. But, then, it is in God’s hands whether he somehow came to repentance during those final years. It’s not the sort of thing the histories are likely to record, although you would think that, had this been the case, Christian literature would mark the event.

Influence (11/03/12)

Of greater concern than the character of this ruler is the influence a man of such poor character has on his constituency. While we tend to hold to the axiom that suggests we get the leadership we deserve, that was not quite the case under the governing principles of that time. People had almost no say in who led. But, there was another axiom one might apply then, and could as easily apply now: Bad rulers tend to corrupt those they rule. Whether the ruled deserve such leadership or not, there is a tendency to follow the leader.

After all, there is something of an assumption that one who leads is at least in some way superior. Certainly they’re living better than we who are led, right? The general gets a nicer tent, even on the campaign. The governor gets to dwell in the governor’s mansion. They have wealth, or at least the appearances and accoutrements of wealth. They certainly have power. Their word is law. Who among the governed can make that claim? So, their example, seeing as it apparently leads to this power and privilege, will tend to be taken as an example to follow by those over whom they hold sway.

I think it is this recognition that lies behind Jesus’ admonition to beware the leaven of Herod (Mk 8:15). Some translations indicate that He was speaking of the Herodians rather than of Herod directly. At any rate, they would seem to be implied. They were the evidence of his corrupting influence. They were, rather like the Sadducees, willing to compromise religion as necessary to the pursuit of political power. The only real difference was which political power they pursued. The Sadducees were currying favor with Rome and Rome’s representatives. The Herodians subscribed to the dream Herod the Great had, of a Herodian dynasty. Sure, that dynasty was taking help from Rome for the present, but the goal remained to throw them off and thrive on their own. That dream did not die with the elder Herod, but continued in the hearts of his progeny, and apparently, in the hearts of at least some of their subjects.

But, to follow Herod was to take on, or at least accept, those same Roman habits and vices that he had adopted. How could it be otherwise? If this man is your guiding star, then his ways are going to become your ways. Beware the leaven! Here, once again, we arrive at a point worthy to be brought forward to our own day. Beware the leaven of the Democrats and the Republicans! Beware the leaven of politics in general. It is not that the Church has no place in politics. The concern is that the nature of politics begins to become accepted as the nature of the church body.

It remains true that corrupt leaders corrupt the society they lead. We see it around us. It may not even be intentional, for politicians have much in common with Herod, and particularly that inability to foresee the consequences of their decisions. It doesn’t help that so many appear to only be concerned as to how those decisions impact their own, personal fortunes. So, when we have leadership that decides to condone immoral behavior in the electorate for fear of losing the immoral vote, what is to be expected except that we find immorality on the rise? Who’s being pandered to, the upright or the reprobate? Well, then, is it that shocking that the ambivalent trend towards the more negative example? That’s where the money is! That’s where the power is. What incentive is being given towards joining the upright? Aren’t they the ones constantly seeing their rights trampled, their influence waning? Aren’t they the ones being held up for ridicule all the time? Why would I want to become one of them?

Corrupt leaders corrupt. A little leaven spoils the whole lump. Beware. Oh, it’s easy to wander into politics with such a thought, but it’s more than politics. It’s the house of God. How carefully are we considering our leadership? When we set men in the pulpits who deem the Word of God to be largely myth, is it any wonder that we find churches full of unbelief? When the preacher preaches that all ways are equally right, that there’s no intrinsic difference between Christian and Jew and Muslim and Hindu and whatever else may be the up and coming religion, is it any wonder that the church to which they preach is a weak and ineffectual social club?

We have a responsibility to ourselves to consider carefully those whom we would accept in positions of leadership over us. I really don’t care what the polity of a particular church body is. The responsibility of the individual in the pew remains. We cannot be uncritical hearers. We cannot afford to take our understanding of Scripture solely on the basis of what is heard from the pulpit. There are too many who would abuse that pulpit for their own goals rather than to submit to God’s goals. And there are far too many sitting in the seats who give it no more thought than they would give to the commentators on TV for the afternoon’s football game. Beware the leaven!

Herod and Jesus (11/04/12)

The last aspect of Herod’s life I would like to consider is that which is revealed by his attitude toward Jesus. Consider: Here was a man who had most likely been raised with at least an awareness of Jewish religion. He must surely have been aware of Messianic thinking common to that religion at that time, albeit not subscribing to it. His interest in John the Baptist could be taken to suggest some latent spirituality in the man. But, the overall picture puts the lie to any such suggestion.

Consider, also, that Herod was hearing quite a bit about this Jesus, enough so that his superstitious nature was suggesting why this might be particularly bad news for him. Indeed, we know of at least one follower of Christ who was in his household, Joanna, the wife of his steward. Quite likely, he was learning something of what Jesus was about from her. So, there was a curiosity to be found in him. It showed in the case of John, and it shows again in his dealings with Jesus. But, what sort of curiosity?

As the evidence shows, his curiosity was really nothing more than a desire to be entertained. He loved the novelty of these men. He would listen to John, but clearly nothing John said was really getting through to him. No, if anything it confused him, gave him pause for a moment. But, then there was always something else to catch his attention, perhaps another party to keep the dark thoughts at bay for another night. So, too, with Jesus. He hears how this Man is doing amazing things and that has the ingredient he needs: Novelty. Here is something new, something that might yet surprise his jaded heart.

One wonders, as a bit of an aside, just what it was about that girl’s dancing that so impressed him. It’s easy enough to imagine a certain lasciviousness to that dance, but for a man so hungry for novelty, I wonder if that would have been enough. Would mere lewdness have really moved him to promise half his kingdom as reward? Maybe he was that small, but the need for novelty suggests to me that it was something different, that her dance was in some way unique, something apart from what he had seen before, and he had seen quite a bit.

But, as concerns Jesus, what he may have heard about the message Jesus bore was a bore. Another preacher with words of repentance. He’d already had that from John. Didn’t phase him then, wasn’t of any interest now. But, this business of miracles? Well, if He’s going to cast out demons and heal folks in such amazing fashion, that would certainly be a new experience, wouldn’t it? Perhaps we’ll have Him in, have Him do one or two of these marvels for our dinner guests. But, it just couldn’t be arranged.

So, now we are in Jerusalem, and he’s finally got Jesus in audience, captive audience. This thought doubtless crossed his mind and left him amused. But, he’s still looking to be entertained. He’s still looking for novelty. He’s not interested in anything spiritual, just entertainment. And, Jesus, not surprisingly, refuses to entertain. This is consistent with the character He has displayed throughout. He is not interested in making a scene when it comes to dismissing the demons. By and large, they are required to go, and to go quietly. He is not keen to become famous for healing, instructing those He has healed to keep silent as to the means. Of course, they weren’t, and who could be? But, it wasn’t His plan brought the fame, it was their disobedience.

Jesus having refused to be amusing, Herod’s idle curiosity swiftly changes to scorn. It is taken as evidence that the whole thing was a scam. If He won’t perform, reasons Herod, it can only mean that He can’t perform. He is nothing, and all this expectation has been a waste.

Listen up! Jesus hasn’t changed. He’s still not in the business of providing entertainment. He’s still not of a mind to satisfy idle curiosity. Unfortunately, we have a fair number of Herods yet in the pews, and we have a fair number of churches playing to Herod. I’ve discussed this a bit already, but it seems to be a point that keeps coming back. Why are we in God’s house? And, why are we doing things the particular way we do? Are we indeed seeking to please Him, or are we seeking to attract crowds? Are we a church or an event center?

Now, here’s the thing: as concerns those involved, and having been involved, I expect that the majority believe their motives to be acceptably pure. Yet, there is something casual in that motivation. Oh, we’re doing this to please God, certainly! But, has anybody been checking with God to see if He’s pleased? Does He really find it pleasing that we have cranked up the volume, thrown in theater lighting, made the whole service such a spectacle? I’m not so certain. Honestly, I can enjoy the modern music and the volume as well as anybody, but that’s not really the point of being in God’s house. The point of being in God’s house is to be drawn to Him, not to performance.

This is not to say that we ought not to do all that we do for God with excellence. Being as we ought to do all that we do for God, we ought to do all that we do with excellence, whether specifically ministerial in nature, or more vocational in nature. But, church is not a place where the show must go on. It is, more properly, a place where the show must go off, and the reality break through, once for all. It needs to be about making Christ known first to ourselves, then to others. It needs to become the training camp not the rec room.

Likewise, our entire Christian life. We must be careful that we do not become curiosity seekers, looking for the kingdom of God to wow us. Oh! God must do this miracle for me, or I’m out of here. Do you know, I’ve actually heard this sort of sentiment expressed! If He won’t do this, I might just as well be a Muslim, or a Hindu. But, that completely misses the point. He’s already done! The petty, self-centered requests we are inclined to make as to health and wealth, if we would but think about it, must be absolutely insulting to One Who has already given His very life! Oh, yes. We can turn to Paul, and nod. Yes, what won’t He do for those He has already granted so much? But, that hardly puts us in a place where we can afford to become presumptuous. Certainly, it does not grant us a right to demand, to tell God how He’s going to act or else. No, and we probably don’t think about what we’re saying enough to recognize that this is what we’re doing. Let us, then, begin to pray with understanding, thoughtful as to what we are doing and with Whom we have to do.