Luke 9:7 - 9
7 Now Herod the tetrarch heard about all that was happening, and he was perplexed, because it was said by some that John had been raised from the dead, 8 by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen. 9 Herod said, “John I beheaded, but who is this about whom I hear such things?” And he sought to see him.
Question:
ReplyDelete- Why did Herod want to see Jesus?
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2018/05/mar-614-29-14-king-herod-heard-about.html says:
ReplyDeleteA tetrarch was lower than a king. Herod Antipas wanted to be recognized as a king, and later asked the Emperor Caligula for this title, but Caligula refused. This humiliation was part of what later sent Herod to exile in Gaul.
Barclay cites the ancient Christian writer Origen, who said that Jesus and John the Baptist closely resembled each other in appearance. If this were true, it would give more reason for Herod Antipas to believe that Jesus was John come back from the dead.
John spoke out against Herod's marriage because he had illegally divorced his previous wife and then seduced and married his brother Philip's wife named Herodias. The father of Herod's first wife was the King of Petra, and he later made successful war against Herod Antipas because of how he had disgraced the King of Petra's daughter.
In speaking out against Herod and Herodias, there is the suggestion that John did this repeatedly. "It was, moreover, perhaps more than a passing remark: said is in the imperfect tense, which may indicate a continuing 'campaign'.
The dances which these girls danced were suggestive and immoral. For a royal princess to dance in public at all was an amazing thing.
Herod had a terrible end. In order to take his brother's wife Herodias, he put away his first wife, a princess from a neighboring kingdom to the east. Her father was offended and came against Herod with an army, defeating him in battle. Then his brother Agrippa accused him of treason against Rome, and he was banished into the distant Roman province of Gaul. In Gaul, Herod and Herodias committed suicide.
-----
The questions to me is why did John speak out against an obviously evil man at all? What good could come of it?
In this case, the obvious answer is that God told him to do it. By speaking out, John was fulfilling a plan of God's. What that plan was? I don't know. It could have been a way to keep Herod away from Jesus (since Herod seemed to have his fill of evil actions). It could have been that John's purpose has been served. Expending John in this way fulfilled some judgement against Herod.
The next question is should we follow John's example and speak out against our rulers (or any public figure) when they sin? If God commands us to, yes we should. However, Paul commanded us to live quiet lives and to not judge those outside of the church. My opinion is that we should not normally speak out (in a forum) against public figures, unless God commands us to or God has put us in a position of being a political analyst.
Another view from City Light Church:
The truth is we live in a fallen world in which we as Christians have not only been mandated to speak out against sin and evil, but also to take every opportunity available to see that morality is advanced in the world around us. Take slavery for instance, was it only the responsibility of Christians to have “personal and non-political” views on slavery or take every opportunity to see that the evil of slavery was abolished? Should Christians only have “personal and non-political” views on racism? Was Dietrich Bonheoffer right to publically oppose the policies of Hitler or should he have convenienced and comforted himself by going along with the hundreds of pastors who took a sympathetic and supportive stance toward Hitler?
However, our vote is one way in which we help to advance causes that are good and decent and slow and abolish policies that are not.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2018/05/mar-614-29-14-king-herod-heard-about.html continued:
ReplyDeleteMy 2 cents:
The question has expanded to, "should Christians make their opinions on things known in the general populous?"
Here are my concerns:
- Christians main business is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It's clear that we should be making the Gospel clear in the world. But, because we know the truth of the Gospel, we can let that knowledge puff us up. We start thinking that because we know the rock solid truth of the Gospel, all of our opinions are gospel truth. In truth, when it comes to political opinions, for example, we are as ignorant as everyone else. I feel we do a lot of damage to the Gospel when we mix our obviously ignorant opinions in with what we claim is the truth of the Gospel.
- Sometimes, we become passionate about other causes than the gospel, and then we make that other thing our business. The world is looking at us as proponents of Truth, but instead it sees us as proponents of something else that we are claiming is the truth. They get confused by our message. Is our political views, for example, the gospel we are proclaiming?
So, that's my concern. Do I think we should be active in the political process? I do. We should be running for office, volunteering in elections, voting, etc. On the other hand, when we do so, I think it would be much better to make it clear that we are representing ourselves and our own opinions - and that other Christians have opposing views to me. And we should be humble enough to acknowledge that our views are as fallible as anyone else's in this area.
It's when we mix the Gospel with our personal opinions and start making those opinions known as part of the Gospel that I get nervous. If we are unable to communicate (and recognize) the difference between what we think the truth is and what the Gospel truth is - it may be better if we keep our mouths shut for a while, learn what the Gospel is, and communicate that.
I imagine an objection to this going something like this: "Everybody is a fool out there. We shouldn't have to worry about adding our voice to the pile. An understanding of the Bible probably makes us slightly less foolish than the average person."
I would respond that we are held to a higher standard - both by God and by the populace. If we claim to have the Gospel truth straight from God that the world has to know, the world will hold us to a higher standard. We better not mix that Gospel truth with our general ignorance. Furthermore, God has a message for us to deliver. He is not going to be pleased if we mix that message with our own nonsense.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-9-commentary says:
ReplyDeleteHerod the tetrarch (see Lk 3:1+) refers to Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, who ruled over Galilee from 4 BC to AD 39, overlapping with Jesus’ entire ministry. When Herod died in 4 b.c., the kingdom was divided among three of his sons, Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip, and a man named Lysanias (Luke 3:1). Herod Antipas was made ruler over the region of Galilee and nearby Perea and is the Herod referred to in the Gospels’ accounts of Jesus’ ministry. It was Herod Antipas who imprisoned (Luke 3:20) and executed (Lk 9:9) John the Baptist.
Tetrarch - Properly governor of the fourth part of a larger province and kingdom, i.e. a tetrarchy A political position in the early Roman Empire. It designated the size of the territory ruled (literally the “fourth part”) and the amount of dependence on Roman authority. Lk 3:1-note names one of the tetrarchs (Herod Antipas) who served in the year of Jesus' birth. As Archelaus was "ethnarch" over half of Herod the Great's whole kingdom, so Philip and Antipus had divided between them the remaining half, and were each "tetrarch" over the fourth; Herod over Galilee; Philip over Ituraea and Trachonitis; Lysanias over Abilene.
Stein on Elijah had appeared - For the popular view that Elijah would return in the last days, compare Luke 1:17; Mal 4:5; Mark 9:11–13. Whether an actual reappearance of the historical Elijah was meant or the assumption of Elijah’s role in fulfillment of Mal 4:5 is uncertain. In Mark 9:11–13 Jesus interpreted Elijah’s coming in the latter way.
Question - Why must Elijah return before the end times (Malachi 4:5-6)?
Answer: Malachi 4:5-6 offers an intriguing prophecy: “See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse.” To this day, Jewish Seders include an empty chair at the table in anticipation that Elijah will return to herald the Messiah in fulfillment of Malachi’s word.
According to Malachi 4:6, the reason for Elijah’s return will be to “turn the hearts” of fathers and their children to each other. In other words, the goal would be reconciliation. In the New Testament, Jesus reveals that John the Baptist was the fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy: “All the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come” (Matthew 11:13-14). This fulfillment is also mentioned in Mark 1:2-4 and Luke 1:17; 7:27.
Specifically related to Malachi 4:5-6 is Matthew 17:10-13: “His disciples asked Him, saying, ‘Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?’ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. . . .’ Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist.”
Some argue that John the Baptist was not the Elijah to come because John himself said that he was not Elijah. “And they asked him, ‘What then? Are you Elijah?’ He said, ‘I am not’” (John 1:21). There are two explanations for this apparent contradiction. First, because Elijah had never died (2 Kings 2:11), many first-century rabbis taught that Elijah was still alive and would reappear before the Messiah’s arrival. When John denied being Elijah, he could have been countering the idea that he was the actual Elijah who had been taken to heaven.
Second, John’s words could indicate a difference between John’s view of himself and Jesus’ view of him. John may not have seen himself as the fulfillment of Malachi 4:5-6. However, Jesus did. There is no contradiction, then, simply a humble prophet giving an honest opinion of himself. John rejected the honor (cf. John 3:30), yet Jesus credited John as the fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy regarding the return of Elijah.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-9-commentary continued:
ReplyDeleteHerod Antipas’ motivation was not out of an honest desire to know Jesus but was either curiosity or evil to see Jesus perform a miracle or his desire to kill him:
Luke 23:8+ Now Herod was very glad when he saw Jesus; for he had wanted to see Him for a long time, because he had been hearing about Him and was hoping to see some sign performed by Him.
Luke 13:31+ Just at that time some Pharisees approached, saying to Him, “Go away, leave here, for Herod wants to kill You.”
Questions and findings:
ReplyDeleteWhy did Herod want to see Jesus?
Herod thought Jesus was John. He was curious about John so wanted to see Jesus. He probably also wanted to finish the job by killing Jesus.