Subscription Lists

An old adage: Politics make strange bedfellows. I don’t know who first coined this phrase (and probably don’t want to know). However, history has proven the accuracy of the observation. The history of which I speak is not all recent history either. The tendency to such behaviors is as old as government itself. Today’s message will examine one such biblical event from the middle of the first century AD and then draw some lessons from it.

“Now Herod had been very angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon; but they came to him with one accord, and having made Blastus the king’s personal aide their friend, they asked for peace, because their country was supplied with food by the king’s country. So on a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat on his throne and gave an oration to them. And the people kept shouting, ‘The voice of a god and not of a man!’” (Acts 12.20-22). We don’t know why Agrippa was so angry with the folks from the north, but from the events we read about in biblical as well as secular sources, he wasn’t the kind of a man that you would want angry with you!

However, some behind the scenes brokering put an end to the extreme anger that existed and turned it into quite the opposite. On a particular day, Agrippa appeared in all his royal regalia and addressed his former enemies. His purpose was to give an oration before them. This was probably not the first time he had given such speeches and the evidence would indicate that he had hired the very best speechwriters that money could buy! Notice that the people that he was addressing had asked for peace “because their country was supplied with food by the king’s country.” That circumstance seems to have influenced the tempers of the people involved. At any rate, you definitely need to pay attention to the response to his speech.

“And the people kept shouting, ‘The voice of a god and not of a man!’” The applause was thundering and kept on thundering. They “…kept on shouting!” We do not know how many times their chant echoed across the arena, but it must have been much like some scenes that we have witnessed in modern politics where grown men act like children as they are swept away with emotion and all reason goes out the window! The “voice of a god” indeed! He had beheaded James and fully intended to dispatch Peter in the same way merely because his numbers went up in the polls as a result of his murderous act!

However, the focus here needs to be on the people and not on Herod. The will of the people was entirely and diametrically opposed to right and fully supportive of evil. Such can be and frequently is the case where noses are counted rather than consulting an infallible source of good and evil. The pragmatic approach by the people and the willingness of Herod to go along with them was a sure recipe for moral suicide on all sides. The people in today’s text cheapened themselves by their irrational conclusion and Herod showed his true colors by allowing them to express such. However, when one abandons an absolute standard of right and wrong, anything – and I do mean anything – goes!

Now for a lesson or two. What we have witnessed in politics has not changed over the centuries. The “good old boy” system goes back in time as long as time itself. However, it certainly cannot be relied upon to uphold the banner of moral truth; it is and always has been a servant to moral relativism. On the other hand, right and wrong – good and evil – does not depend on any man or party for definition; God set these boundaries long, long ago and it is but our lot to recognize and apply what He has written!

Questions:

1. What event seems to have taken away Herod's anger for the people of Tyre and Sidon?

2. In stating that Herod was a god and not a man, what did the people reveal about themselves? In allowing the people to reach such a conclusion, what did Herod reveal about himself?

3. Of what value is oratory? When a skilled orator speaks, what safeguards should well intended people put in place so that they are not swept up in the moment?

4. Why does a democracy need a foundation (e.g. constitution) upon which and from which its laws and governing structures are derived? To ask this another way, are there principles of truth that transcend the popular vote?

"Refreshment in Refuge" from Gina Burgess

Talents and gifts