Troubling Passages of Scripture - Part 3 - Herod's Slaughter of Infants.

I know you were expecting: "Are Parts of the Bible not the Word of God?", but as I was studying to preach this passage this week, I realized it fits this series so well. Therefore, the interruption is a good one.

Matthew 2:16-17 records one of the most disturbing events of Scripture, Herod the Great slaughters all boys two years old and under in the vicinity of Bethlehem. The goal is to destroy what he perceives is a threat to the throne. Now what makes this passage troubling is not that Herod the Great is a butcher; that is a well documented fact of history. What makes the passage troubling is that God seems to direct it happening:

1) He tells the Magi to not return to Herod - had they done so, the innocents in the story would have been spared probably at the cost of the Magi (Herod was a butcher), but the exact target would have been known and Mary and Joseph could have escaped anyway through God's warning. The only problem would have been Herod would have known exactly who he was looking for and assassins could have been sent -- even into Egypt. In the final analysis, to protect His Son, the warning of the Magi seems the best. The problem is the cost is tremendous.

2) This is the most disturbing problem -- Jeremiah prophesies about this event. This means for God's Word to be fulfilled, the innocents HAD to die. Or did they? My views of how prophecy works have greatly changed since becoming an open theist. Here is the point -- Jeremiah the prophet sees Rachel weeping for her children in Ramah. Is he seeing this event or getting a feeling that something is bad is going to happen in involving Rachel and her city -- Bethlehem.

One thing I have learned about the gospel writers is that they play far more fast and loose with OT Scriptures (particularly prophecy) when they say they are fulfilled. In short, is this a direct correlation or is it Matthew seeing a connection after the fact. The thing with prophecy, I now believe, is that God leaves His options open in HOW he can fulfill them or simply that the prophecy fulfills itself with no action on God's part at all, but an observer sees the connection. In this case, the slaughter occurs through Herod, but the connection is seen with Jeremiah and Matthew, who is using prophecy to prove Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, uses that connection to further his point.

The other point that could be made here is that the ultimate fate of the innocents is generally believed to be Paradise. Is there really any harm done from an eternal perspective? Baby killed; it goes to heaven. For critics this is unsatisfying because the concept of heaven, or that innocent children go directly to heaven if killed, is something that is not directly provable and suffering here is caused because God is involved regardless. May not be His direct hand, but He is involved. Could He not have prevented it?

One thing to consider, though it does not really help resolve it completely, is the fact that infant mortality was high in the ancient world. Meant people were 'used to' infants and children dying; but that does not really help the main question because just because a culture may get used to something, still does not remove the evil of it.

For reasons that still baffle me, God has a great deal of respect for the freewill of man. It may be because of this, that events play out the way they do. God directs those who listen to him, but does nothing to directly stop Herod because the slaughter is ultimately in Herod's court and thus his responsibility. Herod is not listening to God but following his own desires. God ultimately will pass judgment on Herod's evil, but for the time being lets the rogue king have his way. Perhaps God could have changed Herod's heart like he did Pharaoh's in Exodus, but have you ever noticed God only seems to reinforce what is already in a person's heart, not completely change it in reverse. For that to happen requires repentance and Herod never will do so.

We may never have a really good answer to this one and it still remains a troubling passage. Between my open theist beliefs and my understanding of God's respect for freewill, I have come to terms with the fact that the slaughter is ultimately Herod's action that God, respecting the freewill of everyone involved, guides those who can escape it to escape it. Matthew when writing his gospel sees the connection between the event and the passage in Jeremiah but the fulfillment of that passage could have happen other ways as well. Perhaps this is not the answer, but it is the best one I can see for this troubling passage.

Next: Are Parts of the Bible, Not the Word of God?
Previous: God Goes to War! 

The Real Nativity

I suppose I am being technical but most nativity scenes are about as realistic as a cartoon. The basic image may be right but a lot of details get left out or are plain distorted.

The big first thing is where is this stable? I ask was there really as stable? Luke only reports that Mary laid Jesus in a manger. A manger is a place to put straw for animals to feed, but that still leaves us some options. A stable could have been used, but there is also the common marketplace square where the caravans would stop as well. It would have been covered along the edges but with open air in the middle and the mangers for the animals were along the sides.

Another thing is Mary and Joseph always seem to be in isolation with no one around. Odd for a town that was packed because of the census. Truth be told even if it was a stable, it is quite possible that they were not the only ones in the place. It does not fit our idea that Mary had Jesus in seclusion but it could have been a very public event. I think our modern sensibilities just can't accept Mary giving birth in a public place with onlookers but it is a very reasonable possibility. For ancient women, this was simply a practical reality that could happen during any pregnancy.

Other things that surround the nativity that bug me are the constant reference to Mary and Joseph as poor peasants. I do not think Luke would have referenced the inn if they didn't have the means to pay for it should it have had a vacancy. Yeah, they buy two turtle doves to circumcise Jesus indicating low means but not abject poverty. I really look at Mary and Joseph along with Jesus as really the 'everymen' of life in the ancient world. Not poverty stricken, but getting by.

Recently there has been a phenomena where Mary is looked on as a unwed mother and perhaps that is why she was denied in the inn. Unfortunately for this theory, there is the simple fact that Joseph took her as his wife before they left for Bethlehem so the perception of any innkeeper would have been a young married couple looking for a room. The other one I love is depicting them as homeless. Not really, they had a home in Nazareth, it is just they are in Bethlehem because Caesar has decided to make some money and needs a census to set the taxes. They might have been travellers without a place to stay, but they were not homeless. In addition by the time the Magi arrive, they are staying in a a house.

That of course brings us to the most common gaff in many of the nativity scenes out there. Including the Wisemen with the shepherds and all that is not accurate at all. The Wisemen arrive after both Jesus is presented at the temple and circumcised. In Matthew, the word even changes from the Greek word for 'infant' to 'child' indicating possibly a small child. Considering that Herod slaughters babies two and under based on what the Wisemen say Jesus may have been a walking around toddler by then. As mentioned before, the scene has also shifted from manger-side to a home. There is also the fact the Bible does not actually record how many Wisemen there were but I think there we a lot: a) they disturb the whole city with their arrival and b) they have enough clout to get an audience with Herod. Not a small group of three, but a caravan more likely.

Why does this matter? In one small way it illustrates how what is said in the Bible can be supplanted by traditional understanding and changing cultural standards. How we need to be careful never to accept traditional interpretations or cultural understandings to cloud a genuine interpretation of what the text of Scripture says.

It also matters because it is about rightly dividing the Word of truth. The facts of Scripture must come before our wants and desires of what we would like the text to say so we can push a certain social agenda.

Merry Christmas to all and remember Jesus was an 'everyman' who died for everyman and rose again for everyman. That God became Flesh is the most astounding miracle of Christmas. Lets just tell the story right.