CELEBRATING
BIRTHDAYS?
Part 2
by
Keith Hunt
JOB AND HIS BIRTHDAY
Some will quickly turn to the book of Job to try to prove
the word of God denounces the celebration of birthdays.
Read Job 1:1-5.
Ah, say some, there it is, Job's sons were observing their
birthdays and Job had to rise and offer sacrifices because they
had sinned in so doing. Birthday celebrations are therefore SIN
they will say.
Now, read those verses again - S L O W L Y !
Do you see what people are doing? They are READING INTO
these verses words that are NOT THERE!
First, the words "each on his day" (the word "appointed" is
not in the Hebrew) are read as "on his birthday" but it does not
say "on his birthday." We have seen in Genesis 40 the word
"birthday" used in the Hebrew - Moses knew how to use the Hebrew
when telling us it was a "birth-day" that the king of Egypt was
celebrating. God inspired him to use the Hebrew to mean what we
mean by the word birthday - simple, right, yes - simple.
Moses used TWO Hebrew words - number 3117 in Strong's Con.
(the common word for "day") and number 3205 - the word for birth,
bear, beget, conceive. In Job 1:4 God inspired ONLY ONE word -
number 3117 = day. The word for "birth" was not inspired to be
used.
The Hebrew Interlinear by J.P.Green renders this word as "on
his day."
Some may want to argue, trying to cling to a straw, that Job
was really meaning birthday, but didn't quite say it all as Moses
did. The natural, face value and logical way to understand the
reason as to why Job was inspired to use only the word "day" is
that it meant ANY SPECIAL DAY of the son's choosing to feast on.
In other words, a SET day and TIME in TURN (the son's having
turns) to revel on and have a BLAST!
Many male children of a family will do that even to this
day. They will pre-arrange what days they will gather on and in
whose house to gather for their "wild fling and party." Many of
you will have known such brothers - I have in my lifetime.
Secondly, notice what Job REALLY SAID about the SIN, in
verse 5. "It MAY BE that my sons have sinned......" J.P. Green
translates, "PERHAPS have sinned."
Job was not SURE IF THEY HAD SINNED!!
Job did not say, "my sons are celebrating their birthdays
which is against the will and law of God, and is sin."
If Job KNEW that birthday celebrations were sin, per se, he
would have had NO DOUBT that they all had sinned! But Job was
NOT SURE if they had sinned by getting together "each on his day"
whatever day that was. If "on his day" WAS a birthday
celebration, it is obvious Job did NOT THINK that was sin to do,
for then he would have had NO DOUBT that they had sinned, just by
that act alone.
Yet, Job did have doubt as to whether they had sinned, and I
want you to notice more. The doubt was not about or over
"birthday celebrations" at all, READ IT FOR YOURSELF, I did not
put it there, it has been in your Bible all along, it says, "It
MAY BE that my sons have sinned and CURSED GOD IN THEIR
HEARTS."
It was not a practice of some pagan custom or ritual that
God had revealed was sin to Job, that he was upset about his
children practicing. It had nothing to do with religious
festivals, or secular historic days, or even their birthdays as
the sin. It was their HEART'S ATTITUDE and MIND-SET that
Job was concerned about. He was worried they "MAY BE" had
sinned against God in their MINDS and HEARTS.
Nothing in these verses says birthday celebrations are
EVIL/SIN of and by themselves. The word "birthday" is NOT
THERE!
Job was not even SURE IF they had sinned. But he didn't want
to take any chances, so he offered sacrifice to cover the
POSSIBILITY they had sinned.
Job tells us the sin he was concerned about was not the
observance of WRONG DAYS but of their attitude of mind.
Here was a golden opportunity for God to make plain to us in
this section of scripture that birthday celebrations are evil and
sin, but it is just NOT THERE! And such will have to be admitted
by honest searchers of truth.
God did not miss the boat here in trying to tell us that
celebrating birthdays is sin. He did not miss the boat because
there was no boat to miss in the first place. This section of
inspired scripture has nothing to do with teaching us that
birthday observances are sin, and the plain truth can be seen by
reading just what is written - adding no more and no less.
Now we must turn to Job chapter 3. Read it all. Then go
back and read it some more, then read verses 1 through 10. Read
it in a modern translation. Notice the first words of verse one -
"AFTER THIS Job opened his mouth." After WHAT? Go back
and read verses 11 to 13 of the previous chapter. Job's friends
COULD NOT RECOGNIZE him! Job was so badly deformed with
boils from the top of his head to the sole of his feet (chapter 2:4-8),
that his friends were speechless, no one spoke for 7 full days
(v.13). Job was in VERY GREAT grief!
It is not possible for me to imagine the pain and discomfort
and deformity that Job had from being covered with boils, so that
he was not recognized by his friends. Can you imagine how your
mind would craze itself if you were put through the pain and
grief that Job experienced in chapters one and two?
Under much less pressure, trials and testing, many of us
THINK and SAY emotionally wild things that we would normally,
under stable times and emotions, NOT think or say.
Job held to his righteousness and would not curse God and
die as his wife wanted him to do (chap.2:9,10), but he now, under
unimaginable great grief and physical pain, allowed his mind to
"blow him away" with wild emotional words.
Stop here and read chapter 3 again. Look at the SELFISH
desires and wishes Job wanted to see happen.
He wanted the day to PERISH in which he had been born (v.3).
What about others that could be born into God's family who might
be born on the day Job was born? He wasn't thinking of them! He
wanted one less day in the year, he wanted God to re-arrange the
heavenly bodies and calendar so the day of his birth would be
gone (look at verses 4-6). He wanted it to be barren with no
joyful shout - what selfishness towards those that could be
fruitful and sing for joy on that day (v.7).
He wanted that day out of the year - gone - one less day for
new births - new humans that could become God beings (v.6).
All he could think about was his righteous "poor me, I've done
nothing to deserve this" self, and to.......with everyone else,
especially those who might share the same birthday as he.
He wanted God to darken its stars and have no light (v. 9,10)
because he was born on that day and so came into the world of
man where pain and sorrow are often unavoidable, and things don't
always run as smooth as silk. Again, no thought about all
those who would suffer on that day if his wishes were granted.
His mind was so shredded and distraught at this point from pain
and sorrow, he asks the question that many in emotional stress
have asked and verbally proclaimed at times: WHY DIDN'T I DIE AT
BIRTH? (v.11)......then he would not have had to experience all
this undeserved hardship (v. 12-19).
He then asks God just to take his life and have it over with
once and for all, why prolong the misery (v. 20-23).
Finally, he sees what many in this life have experienced has
also come his way, and so it's "woe is me, I do not deserve it
for I am so righteous while God is not."
Job was so "out of it" mentally and emotionally, HE WISHED
HE HAD NEVER BEEN BORN!! Do you understand the PORTENT
of those words of his? If he had never been born then he could
NEVER BECOME a perfect holy sinless Spirit being of the very God
family! He was throwing away the very reason as to why God
created mankind in the first place! He was wanting to discard
SALVATION! This life may have its trials, tests, and troubles,
its pain and sorrow, but though it's not always easy in this
life, no difficulty we may face can compare to the GLORY that
awaits the children of God. The apostle Paul with all the trials,
pain, near death, persecutions etc. never lost sight of the
end result of the Christian life - eternal GLORY in the very
family called God! BUT HERE JOB did loose sight of why he
was born, AND WISHED HE NEVER HAD BEEN!
Do you see the mixed-up emotional self-righteous mind set
Job was in? Many of us for far less, would say many of the same
things and curse the day we were born also. Under mental stress
and physical pain we often allow the works of the carnal flesh to
triumph in our mind and in our works and words.
Paul said (as a converted Christian) to the Romans, "For we
know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.
For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do,
that I do not practice; but what I hate that I do......O wretched
man that I am......" (Rom.7:14-24 NKJV).
Job was acting with his carnal human nature in chapter 3. He
had taken his eyes off the reason for his birth, his potential.
Job cursed the day he was born, and in so doing he had cursed God
as his wife wanted him to do. He wished he were dead, that God
would kill him, But he did it all, said it all, thought it all,
under a weak emotional stressed out mind, together with great
physical pain. God was merciful to him in his self-righteousness.
God knew the weakness of the flesh and was able to show mercy to
Job as He led him to REAL repentance, and seeing himself for what
he really was when compared to the Eternal creator God.
When Job really came to see God with true spiritual eyes, he
was able to say: "therefore I have UTTERED WHAT I DID NOT
UNDERSTAND, things too wonderful for me, WHICH I DID NOT
KNOW" (Job 42: 3 NKJV).
What Job said in chapter 3 was OUT OF LINE - WAY OFF THE
WALL - THINGS HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND!
He did not understand that God thinks no birth - no birthday
of anyone - is a CURSE. He did not understand that the Lord
REJOICES with every birth, even Job's, because each child born
is a potential member of the family of God. He did not understand
that often trials and testing are given to humble us and bring us
closer to the Lord, so He can work in us to bring us to His
character and glory.
Read Job 42 - all of it. After Job found the REAL God and
REAL repentance, after he was again blessed more than at first,
can you imagine him CURSING his birthday and teaching it was
SIN?
No, Job's birth was a BLESSING to many during his life, and
to you and me today. And his life will be a blessing for all eternity
when he rises in the resurrection.
Birth - days are WONDERFUL, and so was Job's!
THE TECHNICAL SIDE OF JOB CHAPTER THREE
For those who want to get technical with chapter three, I
will answer. Notice, the word "sin" - "evil" - "abomination" -
"thou shalt not" DO NOT APPEAR IN THIS CHAPTER!
To connect such words with Job cursing the day he was born,
and so claiming that celebrating any and all birthdays is EVIL,
takes not only a large liberty with the text but also, a reading
into the text of things that are just not there.
Many false ideas start out upon a false premise, based upon
a false interpretation or misguided understanding of a text, and
then we busily look for and grasp at other verses which we
misread or misinterpret, in order to further add weight and
justification to our idea that was founded upon sand from the
beginning.
There is nothing in this entire chapter that says
"celebrating birthdays is sin."
Please note that Job got very personal about HIS birthday
(v.1-3). He said NOTHING about ANY OTHER PERSON'S
birthday - not his wife's, not his parent's, not his son's or his
daughter's, not his friend's. He cursed the day he was born ONLY.
I have already covered in detail WHY he would do so.
There is nothing here about anyone other than Job cursing
his birthday. His wife did not curse his birthday, his friends
did not, and certainly GOD DID NOT!
No such words from the lips of Job can be found as: "All
birthdays are a curse" - "It is sin to celebrate a birthday" -
"Birthday observance is pagan" - "All who celebrate the day
of their birth are cursed" - "Everyone who celebrates another
person's birthday is an abomination to the Lord."
Job, under very severe grief and pain, did not want to
remember the day of his birth, he wished he had never been born,
he wished he were dead. That was Job at that time of his life,
under his ordeal. But what about the MILLIONS who have lived
who have never cursed the day of their birth, but THANKED
the Lord for it?
Is remembering their birthday or that of their loved one,
and thanking God for it, now EVIL or SIN just because one man
did not want to remember his, and wished he had never been born?
I thank God I was born. I thank my parents for bringing me
into this world. I have NEVER cursed the day I was born, but I
have also never been in the mental grief and physical pain as Job
found himself in.
To be continued
......................................
Written November 1995
CELEBRATING
BIRTHDAYS ?
Part 3
by
Keith Hunt
HEROD AND HIS BIRTHDAY
This account is found in Mark 6:21-29 and elsewhere in the
other gospels. It is often given as a proof-text that birthday
celebrations are evil/sin, because evil was done by Herod - he
had John the Baptist beheaded!
But, could Herod have done ANYTHING against John if God did
not allow it? Why the Lord could have sent ten thousand angels to
protect John if He had chosen. Not one of God's servants can be
harmed unless He first allows it.
God had chosen that John would not live out his life in
retirement somewhere or become a disciple of Christ's. The Lord
was to let John be a MARTYR in death for the TRUTH of the word,
just as many others have been throughout the ages. So Herod's
evil must be held within the light of the totality of the purpose
and will of God. Even Herod was exceedingly sorry, BUT HE HAD
UTTERED WORDS OF PROMISE THAT COULD NOT BE
TAKEN BACK (THE WORD OF A KING COULD NOT BE
BROKEN). God did not intervene in the death of John - it was his
time to go as they say, and the Lord allowed it to happen around
the birthday of Herod.
Mark gives us the historical time setting of this event. He
even tells us that Herod gave his promise to the daughter of
Herodias because she pleased him by her DANCING! Now,
is dancing a SIN per se? Welllll....some will tell you it is (some
of those fundamentalists of North America), yet like birthday
celebrations, there is not ONE VERSE in the Bible that says
"dancing is a sin and an abomination to the Lord." But like
those who tell us birthday celebrations are evil, they also will
have a few verses (maybe this one right here in Mark) that to
them are proof-texts that dancing is a sin. You try to show some
of these funny-mental people they are wrong and it is like talking
to the wall. They know the pagans danced to their gods, so it
just has to be sin.
Is dancing a sin because it was done on a birthday
celebration? Probably someone somewhere will say that is so,
two sins were being committed which led to a third sin - the killing
of John. I often wonder why those who preach against birthday
celebrations, don't at the same time preach against dancing,
because some will dance the night away but run from a birthday
celebration as fast as their dancing legs will take them.
Again, there is not a word in this passage that states Herod
was sinning by holding a birthday celebration. Mark could have
easily inserted such a comment about it being evil or sin or
pagan idolatry, after using the word birthday, i.e., "Herod on
his birthday (which celebrations are unrighteous and abhorrent
to God..." If Mark was wanting us to learn from this history that
celebrating birthdays was sin in the sight of Go, he could also
have said, being inspired of the Lord, something like: "Herod on
his birthday (which celebrations the children of God do not
observe and should not observe as such are evil in the sight of
God)..." But he did not!
Once more, the words sin, evil, paganism, abomination,
unrighteous, and the like are not used or connected with the
words "on his birthday." Those words are not connected
with the word "dance" either!
Mark was not here entering the DOCTRINAL THEOLOGICAL
issue of birthday celebrations and/or dancing! That was not the point -
that was not why he recorded this for us.
The MAIN point of this section of Mark's writing is to tell
us that John had spoken TRUTH to Herod and Herodias (v.16-19),
that Herodias held it against him (John) and WANTED HIM KILLED -
DEAD, but couldn't UNTIL an opportune time came to TRICK Herod,
get him backed into a corner with no way out. That opportune time
came on Herod's birthday by the means of dancing and human lust!
That is the MAIN THOUGHT of Mark, to tell us HOW, under
what literal circumstances, the Lord allowed John the Baptist to die,
be killed as a martyr for the truth of God.
This account, mark(pun intended) it well, HAS NOTHING TO DO
WITH THE RIGHT OR WRONG OF DANCING OR OF CELEB-
RATING BIRTHDAYS!
But it does have everything to do with WHY John died, HOW
John died, and under WHAT circumstances he died. In relating all
this to us Mark chose to ADD the HISTORICAL details and setting.
Mark could have just told us Herodias did not like John's
preaching and finally got Herod to take off his head. Only a few
lines needed - right - yes, but writers do not write that way,
they like to give some details and story to their main topic, add
a few facts of historic events, quote some words from some of the
characters involved. That is good journalism. I am a writer, I
know. Yet many facts or historical events are not given to
PROVE ANYTHING either way - that was not the purpose at
all in adding them.
One writer may be giving you a detailed account of how a man
was up a tree with a rifle shooting and killing people as they
walked by. In describing one death he may say that the person was
sitting on the park bench DRINKING WINE when he was shot in
the head and killed. The journalist gives you a little historic fact
about the park bench and wine, but he is not trying to prove to
you that sitting on a park bench or drinking wine per se was
RIGHT or WRONG! The right or wrong of those two facts must
be taken up elsewhere under a different court of law where other
rules and laws apply.
The journalist was not entering the right or wrong of WINE
drinking, he was just enlarging his MAIN THEME to make that
theme more interesting and human. No journalist wants to merely
say, "A man with a rifle killed five people today, this is…….
reporting for ........back to you at the studio." Such reporting
would soon be dry and uninteresting to listen to or read.
Mark gave HISTORICAL facts to his story of John's death -
a BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION - DANCING - PROMISE -
REQUEST. He was not entering any theological study or trying
to teach the right or wrong of those facts.
Now where THEOLOGICAL views can really mess things up is
when someone who believes DRINKING WINE per se is SIN. From
where he comes from the man on the park bench that was shot in
the head and killed, was SINNING because he was drinking wine!
"Ah," he may say, "that fellow was a sinner for drinking wine, if
he had not been sinning he may not have been there to be killed."
On the other hand, the person who sees that the word of God
does not say it is a sin to drink wine, will approach the story
from an entirely different perspective. He may comment with,
"I guess he was in the wrong place at the wrong time."
Those who approach the account of Herod's birthday
celebration with the theological view of "celebrating birthdays
is wrong/sin" will immediately acquaint the word "on his
birthday" with SIN! They will do this even when no such words
as sin, or evil are found with the word "birthday." Then their mind
now jumps into second gear. As Herod was already sinning by
celebrating his birthday, it is not surprising he sinned even
more by killing John, so they reason.
To them birthday celebrations are truly evil because another
evil act was performed on top of an evil act, so the wheel turns
on itself, and the reasoning keep going in circles. The man who
sees that God's word says nothing about birthday celebrations
being sin per se, sees that Mark just added some historical facts
to his main thought, that Herodias used cunning devices on Herod,
knew his human weaknesses, waited for the right time - his
birthday celebration, and Herod fell for it hook-line-and-sinker,
and had John beheaded.
But it was all allowed of God to fulfil His purpose He had
for John the Baptist and His Son - Christ Jesus.
If we are not to celebrate birthdays because EVIL was done
by Herod on his birthday towards a man of God, if that is the
logic we are to use, then the same logic should apply and be used
elsewhere in similar circumstances. What is good for the goose
should also be good for the gander. If evil towards a person of
God does away with the celebration of that day for all
Christians, then we should, using that logic, be at least
CONSISTENT!
Turn to Acts 12 and read verses 1-4. The context shows that
James was killed during the days of Unleavened Bread. And Peter
was cast into prison during the same feast. Evil was done by
Herod towards a servant of God. It was celebration time - the
days of celebration - the feast of the Passover (all eight days).
Using the same logic about Herod's birthday and evil being
done, God's people should cast away, "do away with" the eight
days of the Passover feast.
Of course that is nonsense!
Turn to Matthew 26, read from verse 17 through to the end of
chapter 27. All this evil towards a man of God - the Son of God -
Christ Jesus, took place on ONE particular feast day of celebration -
the Passover day - the 14th of Nisan.
Jesus was killed as was John on a feast celebration day.
John on Herod's birthday, Jesus on the feast of the Passover day.
Both were celebration days. The gospel writers simply mentions
the days - nothing is commented about the right or the wrong of
them, or the right or wrong of the celebrations done on those days.
If we use the logic that EVIL was done on Herod's birthday
and that alone means Christians should not celebrate anyone's
birthday, then to be consistent, the same logic should apply to
the EVIL done to Christ on the 14th of Nisan. The "evil alone"
logic should then also abolish the celebration of the Passover
day for all Christians, if that is all we are going to use and
forget about the totality of the word of God.
No, the "evil done on a day" logic, whether it's the
celebration of the Sabbath, a Feast day, Mother's Day, Father's
Day, Secretary's Day, or the birthday of our loved one, does not
"do away" with the day. Evil is being done in this world
every hour of every day of every year, and that evil does not
abolish the calendar.
Writers of the Bible books often added HISTORICAL data
without any comments about them as to "theological" correctness.
We must use our minds to search the Scriptures for truth and
correctness on theological DOCTRINE.
A recent example is how of late some in the Church of God
understand Matthew 26:17.
Jesus kept the Passover (His last on earth) at the beginning
of the 14th (He died in the late afternoon). So some see this
verse of Mat.26:17 and seeing the Greek reads, "Now on the first
of unleavens" and realizing this was the beginning of the 14th,
they claim the 14th was kept by Jesus and His disciples as a
COMPLETE day of unleavened bread. But Matthew DOES NOT
SAY Jesus and His disciples kept the 14th as a day of NO LEAVEN
in their homes or in their eating.
Matthew stated an HISTORICAL JEWISH PRACTICE of the
day (many Jews did, and still do, unleaven their homes on the 14th -
history shows this fact) WITHOUT going into the THEOLOGICAL
correctness of this practice. It was not his purpose to dwell on
the historical fact or statement he gave. The theological issue
of that historical fact must be taken up elsewhere by a study of
God's word. But if we do not, and by using our mind to interpret
this ONE comment of Matthew's, we can find ourselves ADDING
to the words of Matthew, drawing wrong conclusions, and ending
up teaching false unfounded ideas.
The theological issue on this is explained a number of times
in the OT. God said the Passover was to be eaten with unleavened
bread(see Exodus 12), the Passover meal itself, but NOT ONE
WORD is said that the whole day of the 14th is to be a day of
unleavened bread in your homes or in your eating. All leaven was
to be put away by the time the 15th day arrived, and then for 7
days, only unleavened bread was to be eaten and in the home.
By the time of Christ, the Jews had got into the tradition
of putting out leaven on the 14th day. They had quite the
ceremonies on the night of the 14th, and in the morning of the
same day. The Jewish books explain it all. Matthew uses this
Jewish historical fact as he related when the disciples came to
Jesus to ask Him where they should prepare the Passover.
He was not trying to teach that the 14th day was now in the NT
age to be observed as a complete day of unleavened bread. Such
a change in the old law would have been given very plain and clear
language and instruction somewhere in the NT. Such a revision of
the law of Moses cannot be found in the writings of the NT
Scriptures.
The book of the law makes it very clear that God only ever
instructed a 7 day period of unleavened bread, starting with the
15th day and finishing at the end of the 21st day. Those books
make it plain that the Lord never commanded the 14th day of
the first month to be a total day of unleavened bread. With that
truth clearly set in mind, with the knowledge that God's word
never changed this law, we can understand that the comment
by Matthew was only an "historical Jewish practice of the day"
REMARK! He never said Jesus practiced this tradition. He never
said the Church of God was to practice it. Matthew surely would
have said more if God was instituting a NEW DIVINE LAW.
The change of the law of circumcision is made very plain in the NT.
When all the evidence is in, Matthew is only giving us an
historical fact comment of a custom and tradition of the time,
with no theological teaching implied.
Likewise Mark, gave us only the historical fact that it was
Herod's birthday when he was tricked into having to execute John
the Baptist. He gave us the historical fact that it was through a
young lady dancing for him that he promised anything to her up to
half his kingdom. He gave us the historical fact that her mother
told her to ask for the head of John the Baptist. No theological
doctrinal truth about celebrating birthdays was in his mind when
he included that fact of Herod's birthday, just as it was not
when he included the historical fact of dancing by the young
lady.
To be continued
...................................................
Written November 1995
No comments:
Post a Comment