Commemoration of the Holy Innocents

[JVAC]

On December 28th the Lutheran Church commemorates the slain children of Bethlehem and the miracle of the angel warning Joseph to go to Egypt to save our Lord Jesus. Many scholars suggest that this event never happened, and that the Author of St. Matthew's Gospel, a Jew, was trying to draw similarities between Jesus and Moses. They cite Josephus remaining silent on the matter, one who delites in showing the nasty side of King Herod the Great.

So on this day of solemn commemoration, what is the popular opinion? Was the slaughter of the holy innocents historical fact or not?

(I am going to try and build a poll, but I am not sure if I will be succesful.)

Peace of the Lord be with y'all,
-James

[zjl56]

I would say it is most certainly a fact. For I see no reason why it wouldn't be since it is in the Bible.

I think that we as Christians should trust the Bible more than historians.

[AngelusSax]

Fact: The slaughter of the Holy Innocents.
Opinion that can be drawn: The similarities drawn between Jesus and Moses are there, but not at the writer's imagination. They are there as historical reality with spiritual/theological implications. Kinda like Jesus calming the storm... a literal event that also has spiritual meaning though metaphor.

Fact: Historians don't get everything right... but God sure does.

[ByzantineDixie]

Fact: The slaughter of the Holy Innocents.
Opinion that can be drawn: The similarities drawn between Jesus and Moses are there, but not at the writer's imagination. They are there as historical reality with spiritual/theological implications. Kinda like Jesus calming the storm... a literal event that also has spiritual meaning though metaphor.

Fact: Historians don't get everything right... but God sure does.
:amen: Excellently stated. God sure does, indeed. I like the tie in between the literal event and the spiritual / theological implications as well.

Peace

Rose

[SPALATIN]

I concur with the rest of them. I believe it is fact. In Moses time, it was the Egyptian Pharaoh who ordered all male infants under the age of 2 to be slaughtered because the Israelites were becoming too great in number and the Pharaoh seemed to be a paranoid Schizo who believed that the Israelites would join his enemies and fight against him.

In the time around Christ's birth, Matthew 2 explains that Herod, king of Judea, was angry that the Magi had outwitted him ordered that all males under the age of 2 would be killed. This supposedly fulfilled what was said in Jeremiah 31:15 A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping. Rachel weeping for her children because they are no more..

It would appear that Herod, being a Megalomaniac was similar to Pharaoh in that they were both afraid of losing something. Pharaoh of his kingdom and Herod of his as well.

[CrossWiseMag]

What a great question! (Not to mention the answers.)

Angelus, I love your point here: a metaphorical or spiritual application of an event does not preclude the possibility that it was a historical occurrence. So often, liberal theologians hang their hat on the idea that a certain Biblical account need not be true, because it still has "meaning" for us today, even if it didn't happen. Well, I believe Rose's new favorite term of mine applies here: horse hockey! God certainly is smart enough and powerful enough to use His creation to carry actual historical events to His people--and to attach spiritual and metaphorical meanings to them, as well.

[JVAC]

Isn't there also a scripture that says, "and they were all of one mind" ;)

Thanks for the many replies!

XAIPETE
-James

[Jim47]

I certainly have no doubts of it being true, if we can't trust God's Word, what cae we trust?

Mt 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

[BronxBriar]

Fact. Not much to add to the well thought out posts already here.

[StarSapphire]

Just as the census taken at the time of the birth of Christ was a historical fact.

[ChiRho]

Fact, with this qualification...I think that perhaps it is improperly named. Were they truly innocent?

[Jim47]

It was foretold in the OT.

Jer 31:15 This is what the LORD says:

"A voice is heard in Ramah,

mourning and great weeping,

Rachel weeping for her children

and refusing to be comforted,

because her children are no more."

Jer 31:16 This is what the LORD says:

"Restrain your voice from weeping

and your eyes from tears,

for your work will be rewarded,"

declares the LORD.

"They will return from the land of the enemy.

Jer 31:17 So there is hope for your future,"

declares the LORD.

"Your children will return to their own land.

And again in Matthew

during the night and left for Egypt,

Mt 2:15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."

Mt 2:16 When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.

Mt 2:17 Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:

Mt 2:18 "A voice is heard in Ramah,

weeping and great mourning,

Rachel weeping for her children

and refusing to be comforted,

because they are no more."

Why should we doubt it?

[ByzantineDixie]

Fact, with this qualification...I think that perhaps it is improperly named. Were they truly innocent?
If the crime was being "the Christ", the newborn King, then yes, they were truly innocent of this crime, they were punished for said crime even though they were innocent of it and the feast day is not misnamed.

But, of course, I know what you mean...I am just hesitant to reconsider naming a feast brought to us by church tradition on the basis your insight! :P

Peace

Rose

[Organist]

Fact, with this qualification...I think that perhaps it is improperly named. Were they truly innocent?

There are two ways of looking at the word "innocence" in a spiritual sense. They were innocent as far as Herod was concerned, and certainly innocent of being a danger to Herod in anyway. Born into sin means a propensity to sin. They were not yet of age to be responsible. My opinion.

[SPALATIN]

There are two ways of looking at the word "innocence" in a spiritual sense. They were innocent as far as Herod was concerned, and certainly innocent of being a danger to Herod in anyway. Born into sin means a propensity to sin. They were not yet of age to be responsible. My opinion.We are all born with that propensity to sin so when do we become responsible for our actions? Is it at 3, or 4 or even 5 before we can be held responsible. Now I would agree that until they can move around on their own it is pretty difficult for any child to commit a known sin, but nevertheless they have the propensity.

You present the same argument that the Baptists give for believer's baptism. They claim that a child can not be held accountable until a certain age, but they don't clarify what age that is or should be.

The children spoke of in this passage were innocent only because they were part of a murderous plot by Herod and Satan to get rid of the Christ child before he could take on the sins of the world. Satan just played on Herod's megalomania to get the act carried forward and God thwarted it before it could even get off the ground.

[CrossWiseMag]

I agree, Scott. Babies aren't just burping sin bombs, waiting to go off. They're sinners, and they're responsible for that sin. In Psalm 51, David laments the fact that he was sinful from the moment of conception. Elsewhere, Scripture tells us there is no one who does not sin. We're not told that all are born with the propensity to sin. Rather, we are told that all do sin.

I've always had the same question about the name "Feast of the Innocents." I don't think we need to change it or anything, but given the woeful lack of understanding about original sin in modern Christianity, I think we should be ready to explain ourselves every time we utter the phrase!

[KagomeShuko]

If the crime was being "the Christ", the newborn King, then yes, they were truly innocent of this crime, they were punished for said crime even though they were innocent of it and the feast day is not misnamed.

But, of course, I know what you mean...I am just hesitant to reconsider naming a feast brought to us by church tradition on the basis your insight! :P

Peace

Rose
They were definitely innocent of being The Christ child! They were innocent of the harm Herod thought was coming his way.

So, I agree, that in that way, they were innocent, and Herod is the one who killed them, so the feast is properly named.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[Organist]

We are all born with that propensity to sin so when do we become responsible for our actions? Is it at 3, or 4 or even 5 before we can be held responsible. Now I would agree that until they can move around on their own it is pretty difficult for any child to commit a known sin, but nevertheless they have the propensity.

You present the same argument that the Baptists give for believer's baptism. They claim that a child can not be held accountable until a certain age, but they don't clarify what age that is or should be.

The children spoke of in this passage were innocent only because they were part of a murderous plot by Herod and Satan to get rid of the Christ child before he could take on the sins of the world. Satan just played on Herod's megalomania to get the act carried forward and God thwarted it before it could even get off the ground.

The age of accountability is a Jewish custom:

"Under Jewish Law, children are not obligated to observe the commandments, although they are encouraged to do so as much as possible to learn the obligations they will have as adults. At the age of 13 (12 for girls), children become obligated to observe the commandments. The Bar Mitzvah ceremony formally marks the assumption of that obligation, along with the corresponding right to take part in leading religious services, to count in a minyan (the minimum number of people needed to perform certain parts of religious services), to form binding contracts, to testify before religious courts and to marry. "

[SPALATIN]

The problem with referring to the Jews here is that the Baptists don't when referring to the age of accountability. The only time they refer to the Jewish rites is in "dedication" they refer then to the time when boys were circumcised on the eighth day.

In Baptism, the Baptists go with the "Believer's Baptism" because they feel that they must come to an acceptance of Christ to be saved. And that an infant can't answer for itself so therefore must be older to be able to understand and voice their desire to have Jesus come into their life and become their savior.