CELEBRATING
BIRTHDAYS? Part 3
by
Keith HuntHEROD 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 CELEBRATING 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