Why Is This Issue Different?

I know of no Christian leader or Christian community promoting theft or championing idolatry as a special blessing from God. --Kevin DeYoung http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2014/03/27/why-is-this-issue-different/

“But God Made Me This Way!”

by John M. Frame

Homosexuals today commonly claim that they cannot help being homosexual. Homosexuality, they argue, is innate: perhaps genetically determined, in any case so deeply ingrained in their very being that it is, for them, an inescapable condition. Therefore, they conclude, church and society should accept homosexuality as natural and normal. Surely, they insist, it is unfair to condemn people for what they cannot help doing.

Indeed, those homosexuals who want recognition as Christians interpret the “inescapability” of their condition theistically: “God made me this way.” How can Christians, then, condemn a condition that God himself created?

This question comes up in many areas of discussion other than homosexuality.

The rapid progress of genetic science has led to lively discussions concerning whether some behavior patterns are innate.  Some years ago, it was learned that an abnormally high proportion of boys with a double “y” chromosome engages in anti-social or criminal behavior. Does this discovery imply that criminality, in some cases, at least, is an innate and inescapable condition? What then?  Should we abort children who have this genetic combination? Should we test children early for this condition and take special pains to steer xyy boys into constructive paths? Should we seek ways to change the genetic makeup of such children?

Later came the discovery that a certain gene is associated with a relatively high percentage of alcoholics. And still more recently, Simon LeVay, a gay activist and neuroscientist, published a paper in Science(253:1034-1037) arguing that there are some minute but statistically significant differences between heterosexual and homosexual men in the size of the “INAH-3″ region of the anterior hypothalmus, part of the brain. Some have argued that this discovery tends to establish what gay activists have long been saying, namely that homosexuality is an innate condition rather than a “choice,” that it cannot be helped, and therefore it should be accepted as normal.

I am not competent to evaluate LeVay’s research. I do think that we are wise to suspend judgment until LeVay’s work is corroborated by others who are more objective on the question. However, we should note as others have that there is an unanswered “chicken and egg” problem here: how do we know that this condition (or perhaps the larger unexplored physical basis for it) is the cause, and not the result, of homosexual thought and behavior?

And of course we must also remember that these discoveries were made through studies of the brains of people who were exclusively homosexual, compared with brains of people who were presumed to be exclusively heterosexual.1 But there is a wide spectrum between these two extremes. The exclusively homosexual population seems to be between 1% and 3% of the population (the widely used Kinsey figure of 10% is now largely discredited). But many more people have bisexual inclinations, and still others are largely heterosexual but willing to enter homosexual relationships under certain circumstances (experimentation, prison, etc.) Is there a genetic basis for these rather complicated patterns of behavior? Neither LeVay nor anyone else has offered data suggesting that.

But let’s assume that there is an innate physical basis for homosexuality, and for alcoholism, and indeed for general criminality. I suspect that as genetic science develops over the years there will be more and more correlations made between genetics and behavior, and that will be scientific progress. What ethical conclusions should we draw?

For one thing, we certainly should not draw the conclusion that gay activists want to draw, namely that any “innate” condition must therefore be accepted as natural and normal. Innateness has nothing to do with normality. Many diseases, for example, are genetically determined. But we don’t consider Tay-Sachs or Sickle-Cell Anemia to be “normal” or desirable conditions, let alone to possess some ethical virtue. Nor do we consider alcoholism or “xyy” anti‑social behavior to be normal and natural. Rather, we do all we can to fight them. Genetic discoveries, indeed, open up more possible weapons for this fight. Some have suggested, indeed, that the discovery of a “gay gene” would give us the opportunity, through abortion or genetic manipulation, of eliminating homosexuality (or at least one impulse toward homosexuality) from society altogether. That is precisely what gay activists don’t want to hear.

Further, we must keep these discoveries in perspective. Not everyone who has the xyy gene becomes a criminal, and not everyone with a genetic risk factor for alcoholism actually becomes an alcoholic. Similarly, it is quite unlikely that a “gay gene,” should it exist, would actually determine people to be homosexual. Although studies of twins do show a correlation between genetics and homosexuality, half of all twin brothers of homosexuals are heterosexual. So the data suggest something less than genetic determinism. Indeed, they suggest that it is possible for someone to resist patterns of behavior to which he is genetically predisposed. Genes do determine eye color, sex, blood type and so on; but patterns of behavior, although influenced by genetic make-up, do not seem to be controlled by it. The typical behavioral differences between males and females, for example, have a genetic basis; but (as feminists are quick to point out) that genetic basis does not exhaustively determine how we will behave in every situation. Women sometimes behave in ways more typical of men, and vice versa. Genes may impel, but they don’t compel.

Indeed, other sorts of influences are often more compelling than genetic inheritance. A unsigned editorial in National Review (Aug. 9, 1993, p. 17) points out that “the effects of childhood brutalization can restrict one’s freedom far more than does a physiological preference for sweets; and many purely biological impulses pale in strength before the smoker’s need of a cigarette.” So if we excuse homosexuality on the basis of genetic predisposition, we should equally excuse all acts resulting from environmental influence and from bad choices in the past. Whether a compulsion has a genetic basis is ethically irrelevant.

Nor do we in other cases excuse acts committed on the basis of genetic predispositions. One who has a genetic propensity to alcoholism cannot excuse his alcoholism on that basis; nor can an xyy man excuse his criminality. These conditions do not force people to do anything contrary to their desires. In that sense, they do not compromise moral freedom.  They do create moral challenges, venues for moral temptation. But that too should be seen in perspective: all of us have moral “weak spots,” areas where we are especially vulnerable to the Devil’s enticements. These areas of temptation have many sources; heredity among them. Others would be environment, experiences, and our own past decisions. Thus some have a particular problem with temptation to alcohol abuse; others, because of their early training, personal taste, or social attachments, are not often tempted to commit that particular sin. But these will certainly have other areas of temptation. This is true even for those who are most mature in the Christian faith: such maturity opens one to the temptation of spiritual pride. Thus the person whose special moral challenges have a genetic component is not in a totally unique situation. We all face such challenges; they are never entirely under our control. For all of us, this world is a spiritually dangerous place. Truly, “your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, looking for someone to devour” (I Pet. 5:8 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] ). But thanks to God’s grace, we may “resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings” (verse 9).

Would a genetic basis for homosexuality eliminate the element of “choice?” Certainly not. A person with a genetic propensity for alcoholism still makes a choice when he decides to take a drink, and then another, and then another. Same with an xyy male who decides to punch somebody in the nose. If we assume the existence of a genetic propensity for homosexuality, it is true as we said that those with that makeup face greater temptation in this area than others. But those who succumb to the temptation do choose to do so, as do all of us when we succumb to our own besetting temptations. Homosexuals certainly choose not to remain celibate, and they choose to have sexual relations. They are not forced to do this by their genes or by anything contrary to their own desires.

Is it possible for a homosexual to repent of his sin and, by God’s grace, to become heterosexual? Christian ministries to homosexuals claim that this is possible and that it has happened, though they admit that this is a particularly difficult sin to deal with. (Sexual orientation is something that goes very deeply into human personality, and we have an instinct to keep it relatively private. That instinct is a good one, but it does make counseling in this area especially difficult.) Gay activists claim that this is impossible, and they dispute alleged “ex-gay” testimonies. Indeed, some people who have professed deliverance from homosexuality have later returned to homosexual relationships. And many “ex-gays” have candidly admitted that they continue to experience homosexual attraction, attraction which they now perceive as a moral and spiritual challenge. Pro-gay advocates argue that this lingering homosexual temptation proves that homosexuality is ineradicable.

I believe on faith that God can deliver homosexuals, because Scripture teaches that His grace can deliver his people from all sin. (See especially 1 Cor. 6:9-11 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] .) I haven’t done first-hand research on the results of various ministries to homosexuals. It would certainly not surprise me to learn that many people who struggle by God’s grace to overcome their homosexuality still experience homosexual temptations. People who have been addicted to alcohol often face continuing temptations in this area long after they have stopped drinking to excess. Similarly those who have overcome the impulses of hot tempers, drugs, or heterosexual promiscuity. If that were true in regard to repentant homosexuals, it would not cast the slightest doubt on the power of God’s grace to heal such people. Recurrent temptation is a problem for all of us, and will be until glory. One may not judge the fruits of Christian ministries on a perfectionist criterion, namely the assumption that deliverance from sin must remove all temptation toward that sin in this life.

The bottom line is that the genetic element in sin does not excuse it. To see that, it is important to put the issue into an even wider perspective.  Christianity forces us again and again to widen our angle of vision, for it calls us to see everything from the perspective of a transcendent God and from the standpoint of eternity. Such perspective helps us to see our trials as “light and momentary” (II Cor. 4:17 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] ) and our sins as greater than we normally admit. From a biblical perspective, the difficult fact is that in one sense all sin is inherited. From Adam comes both our sin and our misery. We are guilty of Adam’s transgression, and through Adam we ourselves inherit sinful natures. If a genetic predisposition excuses sodomy, then our inheritance from Adam excuses all sin! But that is clearly not the case. Of course, Reformed theology construes our relationship to Adam as representative, rather than merely genetic, and that is important.  But Adam represents all who are descended from him “by natural generation;” so there is also an inevitable genetic element in human sin.

Is that fair?  Consider that Adam contained all the (genetic!) potentialities of all of us, and lived in a perfect environment save one source of temptation. None of us could or would have done any better. And, American individualism to the contrary notwithstanding, the human race is one in important senses, and God is right to judge it as a single entity. The bottom line, of course, is that we are His creations. He defines what is “fair,” and he has the right to do as he pleases with the work of his hands.

In this broad context, however, the argument that one sin should be declared normal on the basis of its genetic component or because of some other kind of “inevitability” is entirely self-serving.

1 I am not sure that this presumption was adequately verified in the experimentation.

History of Herod, King of the Jews

--by Rev G. F. Maclear, D.D.

Antipater appointed his eldest son, Phasael, Governor of Judea, and conferred the tetrarchy of Galilee on his youngst son, Herod.  Herod, soon began to display uncommon abilities and the most unbounded ambition.  Though only twenty-five years of age, the new governor of Galilee turned his energies at once to the efficient management of his province.  Numerous robber-bands, which infested the confines of Syria, were resolutely attacked; their chief, Hezekias, was put to death, and security was restored.  Such decision won the praises of multitudes in the towns and cities of Syria.

Two years later, B.C.44, Caesar was assassinated at Rome, and Antipater addressed himself to the task of meeting the new situation, unexpected even by his sagacity.  Cassius, the chief conspirator in the murder of Caesar, became pro-consul of Syria, and arriving in Judea, enforced upon the country the enormous tribute of seven hundred talents of silver.  Antipater commissioned Herod to collect the quota from Galilee, while Malichus, a powerful Jew, and an adherent of Hyrcanus, was directed to obtain the rest.  Herod, with characteristic energy, employed himself in raising two hundred talents for Galilee, and so gained the favour of Cassius, while the people of Lydda, Gophna, and Emmaus, being backward in their contributions, were sold into slavery; but so incensed was the pro-consul at Malichus for his dilatoriness, that he would have put him to death, had it not been for the intervention of Antipater, who advanced one hundred talents on his account.  Herod was now confirmed in the government of Coele-Syria, and Cassius even promised him the kingdom of Judea, if the arms of the Republic proved triumphant.

An unexpected power appeared in the country, and Judea became the victim of the strife for empire between Rome and Parthia.  While Antonius was wasting his time in the society of Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt, the Parthians, under Pacorus, having been bribed by Antigonus, advanced through Syria, and made themselves masters of Sidon, Ptolemais, and all the coast except Tyre.  Hence, a division of the Parthian forces marched against Jerusalem, and their leader, admitted within the walls, proposed to act as umpire between the rival claimants for the throne of Judea.

Meanwhile the Parthians had obtained possession of Jerusalem.  Antigonus was made king, and Hyrcanus and Phasael were delivered into his power.  The latter, knowing his death was certain, beat out his brains against the walls of his prison.  Thus Jerusalem was left in the hands of a foreign army, who committed the greatest excesses.

Herod in the meantime had not been idle.  On arriving at Rome he found Antonius at the summit of power.  The triumvir received him with the utmost distinction, and introduced him to Octavius, who at once recalled the services which the Idumean had rendered to the great Julius.  A Parthian campaign was at this time being diligently planned by Antonius, and he found in Herod a useful ally.  Within seven days, therefore, he procured a decree of the senate, nominating him king of Judea, and Herod, successful beyond his most sanguine hopes, walked in procession between Octavius and Antonius, preceded by the consuls and other magistrates, to the Capitol, where the usual sacrifices were offered, and the decree investing him with royal power was enrolled.

Herod did not remain long at Rome.  Everything depended on the celerity of his movements.  The close of the week, therefore, saw him appointed king, and hurrying to Brundusium.  Thence he took ship for Ptolemais, and arrived there after an absence of barely three months.  Collecting a body of troops, he speedily won over all Galilee, where the recollection of his energy as governor was still fresh.  Then he set out to attack Antigonus, who had unsuccessfully laid siege to Masada, in the hope of obtaining possession of Mariamne.  Joppa next fell into his hands; and having raised the siege of Masada, and liberated his relatives, he proceeded, in conjunction with the Roman general Silo, to lay siege to Jerusalem, B.C. 37, and recommenced the siege, aided by Sosius, at the head of 50,000 troops.

But his progress was still slow.  Forty days were spent in taking the first wall, fifteen in taking the second.  Then the outer court of the Temple and the lower city were reduced.  At last the signal for the assault was given, and an indiscriminate massacre ensued.  Multitudes were cut down in the narrow streets, many more while crowded together in their houses.  The fury of the legions was roused, and the massacre was only stayed by the repeated solicitations of Herod, who stood with a drawn sword before the entrance of the Holy of Holies, and threatened to cut down any one of the Roman soldiers who attempted to enter.

Herod had now attained the highest object of his ambition.  By Roman aid, and under the influence of Roman supremacy, he had become sole ruler of Palestine, and he maintained his power unchallenged until his death.  The eventful year, B.C. 31, was drawing on. The rival potentates of Judaea and Egypt had long been watching and fencing with each other, when the battle of Actium ended all their intrigues, and both found themselves obliged to petition for existence from the conqueror.  Herod had raised a body of troops to assist Antonius, but the designs of Cleopatra had involved him in a war with Malchus, an Arabian prince.  In the first campaign he had been signally defeated, owing to the unwillingness of the Jews to undertake a war against a nation with whom they had no quarrel.  But in the spring of B.C. 31, a sudden earthquake convulsed the cities of southern Palestine, and the Arabs, taking advantage of the consternation slew the Jewish ambassadors who had come to treat for peace.  The news of their barbarity roused the whole people, and enabled Herod to win a decisive victory over his foes at Philadelphia, and to gain something like popular favour from his subjects.  Thus, successful beyond all his expectations, Herod returned to Jerusalem with greater power secured to him than he had ever enjoyed before.

Herod’s return to his capital was the signal for fresh cruelties.  The secret orders entrusted to the guardian of Mariamne had been a second time divulged; she persisted in refusing the monarch’s affection, and reproached him bitterly with his cruelty towards her family.  At length, carried away by rage and jealousy, Herod executed not only Mariamne’s guardian, Soemus, but his queen herself.  Mariamne submitted to the axe of the executioner with calmness and intrepidity, B.C. 29, and showed herself in death worthy of the noble race of which she came.  The horrible reality of the deed, and a sense of his own loss, wrung his spirit to madness.  It was long before he recovered fully from the mental derangement which came on.

By the tribute he paid to Rome year by year he acknowledged the tenure on which he held his power.  He filled Jerusalem with edifices built in the Greek taste.  He inaugurated public exhibitions, and spectacles of all kinds.  A theatre rose within, an amphitheatre without, the walls of Jerusalem.  Quinquennial games were celebrated on a scale of the utmost magnificence.  Shows of gladiators and combats of wild beasts were exhibited within the City of David itself.

He had already built two castles in the southern part of Jerusalem, erected a palace on the impregnable hill of Sion, restored and enlarged the Baris, and called it Antonia, in memory of his former patron.  He now converted other places into strong fortresses.  South-western Galilee needed a defence against Phoenicia, and his kingdom required a naval harbor and a maritime city.  Thirty miles south of Mount Carmel a convenient point offered itself for the latter purpose, at a spot called Strato’s Tower.  This he converted into a magnificent city, called Caesarea, with a harbor equal in size to the Piraeus at Athens.  West of Mount Tabor he built Gabatha; east of the Jordan he fortified the ancient Heshbon; while Samaria, which had been destroyed by John Hyrcanus, rose once more from its ruins, not only considerably increased, but also adorned with a new and magnificent temple, and called Sebaste or Augusta, in honour of the Roman Emperor.

While thus rebuilding the ruined cities of his kingdom, Herod repeatedly endeavoured, by acts of munificence and liberality, to conciliate the good-will of his subjects.  Thus, when in B.C. 24, the crops in Palestine failed for the second time, he not only opened his own private stores, but sent to Petronius, the Roman governor of Egypt, a personal friend, and obtained permission to export corn from that country, with which he not only supplied the wants of his own people, but was even able to send seed into Syria.  In this way, and by remitting more than once a great part of the heavy taxation, he earned for himself general gratitude, both from his heathen and Jewish subjects.

At length he resolved to take a step which should ingratiate himself with all classes.  He determined to rival Solomon, and rebuild the Temple.  Since the restoration of the second Temple by Zorobabel, that structure had fallen in many places into ruin, and had suffered much during the recent wars.  He announced his intention, about the year B.C. 20, on the occasion of the Feast of the Passover.  But his proposition roused the greatest mistrust, and he found himself obliged to proceed with the utmost caution, and to use every means to allay suspicion.  Two years were spent in bringing together the materials, and vast preparations were made before a single stone of the old building was touched.  At last, in the year B.C. 18, the foundations of the Temple of Zorobabel were removed, and on those laid centuries before by Solomon, the new pile arose, built of hard white stones of enormous size.  Eighteen months were spent in building the Porch, the Holy Place, and the Holy of Holies.  Eight years more elapsed before the courts and cloisters and other extensive and splendid buildings around the sacred structure were completed.

On the highest level of the rocky platform of Moriah rose the Naos, or Temple proper, erected solely by priestly hands, divided, as in the days of Solomon, into a Holy Place and a Holy of Holies by a veil or curtain of the finest work.  “No figures, no sculpture, as in Persian and Egyptian temples, adorned the front.  Golden vines and clusters of grapes, the typical plant and fruit of Israel, ran along the wall; and the greater and lesser lights of heaven were wrought into the texture of the veil.  The whole façade was covered with plates of gold, which; when the sun shone upon them in the early day, sent back his rays with an added glory so great that gazers standing on Olivet had to shade their eyes when turning towards the Temple mount.”

The pavement was inlaid with marble of many colours.  The most beautiful gateways led into this court, of great height, and ornamented with the utmost skill.  One of these, on the eastern side, looking towards the Mount of Olives, was known as “Solomon’s Porch;” close by it was another, the pride of the Temple area, as one writer says, “more like the gopura of an Indian temple than anything we are acquainted with in architecture.”  This in all probability, was the one called the “Beautiful Gate” in the New Testament.

The Sanctuary was completed in the year B.C 16, the anniversary of Herod’s inauguration, and was celebrated with a magnificent feast and the most lavish sacrifices.  Immediately afterwards Herod undertook a journey to Rome to fetch home his two sons, Alexander and Aristobulus.  He was received with every mark of attention by Augustus, and returned to his capital about the spring of B.C 15.  Agrippa was now on a visit to Asia, to inspect these provinces of the empire for his master.  Herod thereupon invited him to visit Judaea.  Agrippa consented, and escorted by Herod, passed through his new cities of Sebaste and Caesarea.

Returning from Asia Minor, B.C. 14, Herod landed at his new port of Caesarea, and proceeding to Jerusalem, recounted the privileges he had secured for the nation, and remitted a fourth of the year’s tribute.  It might have been hoped that the close of his reign would make some atonement for the atrocities of earlier years; but a scene of bloodshed was now to be enacted far more awful than any which had darkened his reign, as if to show that the “spirit of the injured Mariamne hovered over Herod’s devoted house, and, involving the innocent as well as the guilty in the common ruin, designated the dwelling of her murderous husband as the perpetual scene of misery and bloodshed.”

On the return of the young princes, Alexander and Aristobulus, they were received by the populace with the utmost enthusiasm, in spite of their education in a foreign land.  Their grace and beauty, their engaging manners, above all their descent from the ancient Asmonean line, made them objects of hope and joy on the part of the nation.  But the keenest hatred of Pheroras and Salome was now aroused, and they began to whisper into Herod’s ear that the young men were bent on avenging their mother’s death.  The king had given them in marriage, Alexander to Galphyra, the daughter of Archelaus, king of Cappadocia; Aristobulus to Mariamne, a daughter of Salome.  Proud of the popularity his sons had acquired, Herod for some time refused to attach any credence to these vile insinuations.  At length he adopted an expedient which led to the most disastrous results.  By an earlier wife, named Doris, he had a son Antipater.  After his alliance with the Asmonean princess he had put Doris away.  Now he recalled her and her son, and made the young man a sort of spy over his two step-brothers.  Cunning, ambitious, and unscrupulous, Antipater threw himself heart and soul into all the plots of Pheroras and Salome, and continued to make the two princes objects of more and more suspicion to their father.

The arrival at Jerusalem of Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, and father-in-law of Alexander, caused a temporary lull.  This monarch succeeded in reinstating the young prince in his father’s favour; but the reconciliation was only on the surface.  His brother Pheroras, Salome, and, worst of all, Antipater, again filled Herod’s mind with apprehensions and suspicions, and he determined once more to seek the advice of Augustus.  Accordingly he set out for Rome in B.C. 8, and preferred his complaints against his sons before the emperor.  Augustus advised that he should hold a court of arbitration, and recommended Berytus, in Phoenicia, as the place of meeting.  There one hundred and fifty princes therefore assembled together, with Saturninus and Volumnius, the prefects of Syria.  Before this tribunal Herod laid his complaints, pleaded his cause, and publicly accused his sons.  After hearing the charge Saturninus advised that mercy should be extended towards the young men; Volumnius and the majority urged their condemnation, and eventually they were strangled at Samaria, at the very same place where their father had celebrated his marriage with their mother.

But the execution of those unfortunate princes did but little towards removing the elements of discord in Herod’s household.  Repeated dissensions had arisen between him and his brother Pheroras, who was at length ordered to retire to his own tetrarchy of Peraea.  There he sickened and died, and his widow was accused of having poisoned him.  The investigation that ensued revealed a new and still more formidable conspiracy, which Antipater and Pheroras had formed against Herod’s life.  Antipater was absent at Rome, but he was allowed to return to Caesarea, and on reaching Jerusalem was instantly seized, and brought to trial before the Roman governor of Syria, Quintilius Varus.  The charge was proved, and he was condemned to death, but his execution was respited till the will of the emperor could be ascertained.

Herod was now upwards of seventy years of age, and already felt the approach of his last mortal malady.  Removing for change of air to Jericho, he resolved to make the final alterations in his will.  Passing over Archelaus and Philip, whom Antipater had accused of treachery, he nominated Antipas, a son by Malthace, a Samaritan, his successor in the kingdom; and left magnificent bequests to Caesar, to Caesar’s wife Julia, to her sons, and to the members of his own family.

Before Herod left for Jericho, and while he was still residing in the magnificent palace he had built on Zion, his fears and suspicions were still further increased by the visit to his capital of certain magi from the East, bearing the strange intelligence that they had seen in the East the star of a new-born King of the Jews, and had come to worship Him. 

The inquiry respecting an hereditary King of the Jews roused the alarm of the Idumean tyrant, and, hastily convening an assembly of the chief priests and scribes, he inquired where, according to their prophetical books, the long-expected Messiah was to be born.  Without any hesitation they pointed to the words of the prophet Micah, which declared that Bethlehem, in Judaea, was the favoured spot.  Concealing his wicked intentions, the monarch therefore bade the magi repair to Bethlehem bidding them let him know as soon as they had found the young child, that he, too, might come and do Him reverence.

Thus advised, the magi set out, and at Bethlehem they found “the young Child, and Mary his Mother, and they fell down and worshipped Him.”  For true it was that while Herod’s blood-stained reign was drawing near its close, and when, after a life of tyranny and usurpation, he was sinking “into the jealous decrepitude of his savage old age,” a lowly Virgin had at Bethlehem brought “forth her first-born Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a manger.”  The advent of this true King of kings, “in great humility,” had moved all heaven to its centre; and while Herod’s palaces were the scenes of jealousies, suspicion, and murders, and his subjects were groaning under the yoke of his iron rule, the heavenly song had floated over the hills of Bethlehem, and shepherds keeping watch over their flocks had heard the words, breaking the stillness of the night, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men.”

After they had offered their homage and their gifts to the heavenly Child, the magi would naturally have returned to Herod; but warned of God in a dream of peril awaiting them if they did so, they returned to their own land another way.  Thus foiled, the jealousy of Herod assumed a more malignant aspect, and, unable to identify the royal Infant of the seed of David, he issued an edict that all the children of Bethlehem and its neighbourhood, from two years old and under, should be slain.

“Herod’s whole career was red with the blood of murder.  He had massacred priests and nobles; he had decimated the Sanhedrin; he had caused the high priest, his brother-in-law, the young noble Aristobulus, to be drowned in pretended sport before his eyes; he had ordered the strangulation of his favourite wife, the beautiful Asmonean princess Mariamne, though she seems to have been the only human being whom he passionately loved.  His sons Alexander, Aristobulus, and Antipater; his uncle Joseph; Antigonus and Alexander, the uncle and father of his wife; his mother-in-law Alexandra; his kinsman Cortobanus; his friends Dositheus and Gadias were but a few of the multitudes who fell victims to his sanguinary, suspicious, and guilty terrors.  His reign which was so cruel that, in the energetic language of the Jewish ambassadors to the Emperor Augustus, ‘the survivors during his lifetime were even more miserable than the sufferers.’”

Herod’s disorder increased with the utmost violence.  He lay in the magnificent palace which he had built for himself under the palm-trees of Jericho, racked with pain, and tormented with thirst.  Still cherishing hopes of recovery, he now caused himself to be conveyed across the Jordan to Callirrhoe, not far from the Dead Sea, hoping to obtain relief from its warm bituminous springs.  But the use of the waters produced no effect.  He was conveyed back to Jericho, where he ordered the chiefs of the nation, under pain of death, to assemble.  As they arrived they were shut up in the Hippodrome, and Herod charged Salome and Alexas, immediately upon his decease, to put them to death.  Scarcely had he given these orders when a dispatch arrived from Rome, announcing the ratification by the emperor of the sentence pronounced upon Antipater.  Thereupon the tyrant’s desire for life instantly returned, but a paroxysm of racking pain coming on, he called for an apple and a knife, and in an unguarded moment tried to stab himself. His cousin Achiab stayed his hand, and Antipater, hearing the clamour from a neighbouring apartment, and thinking his father was dead, made a determined effort to escape by bribing his guards.  No sooner did Herod hear of this, than, though almost insensible, he raised himself on his elbow, and ordered one of the spearmen to dispatch his son on the spot.  Thus Antipater paid the penalty of his life of treachery and hypocrisy.  Herod now once more amended his will, nominating his eldest son Archelaus as his successor on the throne, and appointing Herod Antipas tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea; Herod Philip, tetrarch of Auranitis, Trachonitis and Batanaea; and Salome mistress of Jamnia, Azotus, and some other towns.

Five days more of excruciating agony remained for the miserable monarch, and then, “choking as it were with blood, devising massacres in its very delirium, the soul of Herod passed forth into the night.”  Archelaus at once assumed the direction of affairs at Jerusalem, and proceeded to give his father a magnificent funeral.  First, clad in armour, advanced a numerous force of troops with their generals and officers; then followed five hundred of Herod’s domestics and freedmen, bearing aromatic spices.  Next came the body, covered with purple, with a diadem on the head, and a scepter in the right hand, and lying on a bier of gold studded with precious stones.  After the bier, which was surrounded by Herod’s son and relatives, came his body-guard; then his foreign mercenaries, men from Thrace, Germany, and Gaul, “whose stalwart and ruddy persons were at this time familiar in Jerusalem.”  In this order the procession advanced slowly from Jericho to Herodium, not far from Tekoa, a distance of about twenty-five miles, where the late monarch had erected a fortress.  Here, in the tower-crowned citadel to which he had given his name, and not far from the spot where He was born whom the Idumean king had sought to cut off with the innocents of Bethlehem, Herod was buried.

How Ephesians Killed My Radical Christianity

–by Peter Jones

Note: This has nothing to do with David Platt’s book Radical. I have never read it or to my knowledge read anything else he has written.

What is a Radical?

Definitions matter. So before proceeding I wanted to define the term “radical.”  By “radical,” I mean that strain of Christian thinking that says living a normal Christian life, getting married, having children, raising them in Christ, loving your spouse, being faithful at your job, attending worship, reading your Bible, praying, loving the saints, and then dying is not enough.  It is that strain of Christianity that says, “There must be something more that I must do to be a good Christian.”  The radical thinks and preaches that, “Good Christians do amazing things for Jesus.” This type of thinking is found in all branches of Christianity. There are mission weeks, revival meetings, monks who abandon all, elusive second blessings, pilgrimages to Rome, women who leave marriage and children far behind, men who leave jobs to enter the ministry, young men who believe that memorizing the Westminster Shorter Catechism is a means of grace, preachers who imply that Word and Sacraments are not enough, and conference speakers who demand that we pray more and more. The halls of faith echo with phrases like: Be radical. Give it all up for Jesus. Sacrifice everything.

I was raised to think like this and my guess is that many of you were as well. Our Christian life was driven by questions like , “Am I doing enough?”  But over time I found that this pressure to do great things for God was not just burdensome, but it was unbiblical. The epiphany came as I studied Ephesians a few years back.

Radical Indeed

The first chapters of Ephesians are some of the most glorious chapters in all the New Testament. All Scripture is inspired by God, but maybe Ephesians is blessed with a double portion. Here are a few of the verses about our great salvation.

We are blessed with every spiritual blessing (1:3).

We are chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world (1:4).

We have redemption through his blood (1:7).

We have been sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise (1:13).

We were dead. Now we are alive (2:1).

We have been raise up with Christ and seated with Him (2:6).

We were once strangers to the covenant, but now have been brought near (2:12-13).

We have access through Christ by the Spirit to the Father (2:18).

And on and on and on it goes. (See especially 3:17-21.) Paul gives us a grand picture of the great redemption we have in Christ and the great work our Lord did for us. Chapters 1-3 of Ephesians are Paul’s unfolding of this mystery (3:9) to the saints at Ephesus.  In chapter 4, Paul begins to explain to the saints what this mean for their daily lives.  Ephesians is neatly divided between what God has done for us in Christ (1-3) and how we are to respond (4-6).  Or to use other terms it is divided between the indicative and imperative.

Not So Much

The first three chapters are radical. Coming back from the dead is radical. Being made clean is radical. Being united to the covenant, as a Gentile, is radical.  But when we get to chapters 4-6 the radicalness disappears. After reading chapters 1-3 we would expect Paul to turn on the jets. We are Spirit-filled, covenant included, blood bought, once dead-now alive, Christians. We were made to do great things. If Paul were a modern preacher he would follow this up with a call to evangelize or do missions or go give all you have to the poor or change the world (or at least your community) or start a neighborhood Bible study. He would close Ephesians with a call to be radical.

But the real Paul disappoints us. There is nothing in these chapters about doing amazing things for Christ. There is nothing about missions or evangelism. There is nothing about changing the world or your community. There is no call to give away all you have. Paul does not encourage the men to examine themselves to see if they are called to the ministry. Women are not encouraged to leave all behind and be “fully devoted to Jesus.” There is no call to parents to make sure they raise “radical” children.  So what does Paul tell us to do?

Live with one another in lowliness and patience (4:2).

Reject false doctrine and grow into maturity (4:13-15).

Put off the old man. (4:22)

Don’t lie. (4:25)

Get rid of sinful anger. (4:26-27)

Stop stealing and work hard so you can give to those who have need (4:28).

Watch your speech (4:29, 31, 5:4).

Be kind to one another (4:28).

Don’t be sexually immoral (5:3-7).

Avoid fellowship with darkness (5:11).

Speak to one another in songs (5:19).

Give thanks (5:20).

Wives submit to husbands (5:22, 24).

Husbands love wives (5:250).

Children obey parents (6:1-3).

Fathers raise godly children (6:4).

Work hard for those over you (6:5-9).

Fight against the Devil and his minions (6:10-20)

Not very radical is it?

 A Bad Kind of Radical

Paul is radical, but not in a way we like. He is radical about killing sin. He wants us to stop having fits of anger. He wants us to cut out our gossiping tongue. He wants us to be thankful in all circumstances. He wants us to pray. He wants us to get rid of greed. He wants us to make sure we keep our speech clean. All of this sounds pretty boring and hard. What sounds more exciting a speaker talking about reaching your community for Christ or one talking about taming your wayward tongue?

We don’t like Paul’s call to be radical because it is a lot easier to love the lost whom we haven’t seen than our wife who we see every day. We don’t like it because forgiveness is hard (4:32) and fornication is easy (5:3). We don’t like it because we would rather be known for doing something amazing than be obscure and keep the peace (4:3).  We don’t like it because he says a lot about submission and nothing about evangelizing the ladies at Starbucks. In the end, those calls to be radical aren’t radical at all. They are just a distraction.   The Christian life is not about going some place for Jesus or doing great things for him. It is being holy right where we are. It is loving our brothers and sisters in our churches. It is being faithful to our family obligations.  It is working hard at our vocations. In a fallen world, if we do this, we are being radical enough.