Support the Café
Search our site

Speaking to the Soul: Holy Innocents

Speaking to the Soul: Holy Innocents

Two Jews, three opinions… that’s the old saying. Over the years it has been adapted to be two Anglicans…, two lawyers…, or two of just about anything else. One of the core features of being human is having an opinion.

Many Christians remember the slaughter of the Holy Innocents on December 27th, others on December 28th, still others on December 29th, and others still on January 10th. It is likely that none of these dates is correct, but everybody has an opinion.

The story is that Herod, the king of the Jews, was so insecure in his position that when he heard about Jesus — a newborn king — he tried to kill him. Kings and Caesars were short-lived in those days, so it is not surprising that Herod was sensitive about his position. According to the story, it was the magi, the wise men, who alerted Herod to the presence of a new king. Herod was smart, though. He didn’t reveal his plans to the magi. He told them that he wanted to worship the new king too, and he asked them to tell him when they found him. The magi were also pretty smart and they pretended to go along with Herod’s plan, but they went back to their homes by a different route and ignored Herod. This made Herod mad. He was the king, after all. So, instead of continuing to look for this one child. he killed all of them.

It is a horrible story which really is hard to believe, and some people don’t believe that it happened at all. It’s their opinion.There is the canonical account in Matthew 2, that is sufficient historical verification for some. Though, there is also this from the Protevangelium of James:

“And when Herod knew that he had been mocked by the Magi, in a rage he sent murderers, saying to them: Slay the children from two years old and under…”

And this from the secular writer Macrobius in the early 5th century:

“When he [emperor Augustus] heard that among the boys in Syria under two years old whom Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered killed, his own son was also killed, he said: it is better to be Herod’s pig, than his son.”

There is, however, nothing from Josephus or others, leading some to doubt whether or not 14,000 children really were killed on that day, as the Greeks say. Or, was it  64,000, according to the Syrians? Everyone has an opinion. Since Bethlehem was a small town of about 1000 it is likely that far fewer would have been killed, maybe 15 or 20, assuming it happened at all.

What we do know is that Herod killed his sons, and a wife, and… well, a lot of people. Given our human predisposition to form opinions, and apparently to exaggerate, it seems to me like two or more stories sort of gelled into this tale of horror which we remember today, or tomorrow, or the next day, or… Opinions.

There is hardly a word in the Bible that is not surrounded by questions. Over the centuries, scholars have clarified a lot of things; Discoveries have been made, texts deciphered. We have our opinions about the rest, but a lot of questions remain unanswered.

Here is the question I’d like to put to us for Holy Innocents Day:  How much longer will we be killing the innocent for the sake of our empires? How many more little boys like Aylan Kurdi have to wash up on the shore before we stop sacrificing children to the false God that says there is room for me, but not for you? How many more times must Trayvon Martin be gunned down in cold blood? How many more classrooms will become a killing field?

Look, Herod wasn’t that different from those who went before him or those who would come after. We have been sacrificing, and scapegoating, others since Cain was expelled from his community, a sacrifice for the peace of the others. History is littered with children being buried in the foundations of buildings, sacrificed on altars, and generally given over to the spirit of Molech.

Molech (Moloch) is the name of an ancient God which demanded the lives of first-born children. Where did we get this idea that children should be sacrificed? Again, there are opinions, but a lot of people blame God. It’s right there in Micah:

“Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?”

After all, other people worshiped other gods by sacrificing their children. It must have seemed reasonable to the Children of Israel that they could get back in good with Yahweh if they sacrificed their first-born children too.

It is easy to think that ancient people were more primitive than we are today. We blame them for their sacrifices, their brutish ways. We would never do that. We are more sophisticated. It’s the 21st century, after all, we have a space station and The Kardashians. Yet we have to close out another year in which it is more dangerous to be a preschooler than a police officer. That says something about what we worship and who our king really is.

Molech is a play on the Hebrew word for king, Melek. Thus, Molech… sacrificing to Molech… is to sacrifice to whatever is your own king, the thing you worship. We have been giving our children over to the violence of the world, to Molech,  at such a rate that most of us have grown into the kinds of adults who willingly sacrifice ourselves. Molech and Herod are no longer needed. We sacrifice ourselves to the Gods of success, wealth, and the American Dream… all of which only demand more, and never give us the love we actually crave. And then, when there’s nothing left of us, we sacrifice the next generation.

Here’s the good news:  We don’t have to live like that. One sacrifice has been made, once for all. The word became flesh, it dwelt among us, and in solidarity with humanity, Jesus took on the cosmic violence that had been our inheritance.  The Christmas miracle is that the Gods of Molech — the kingdoms and empires that gave us sacrifice to false Gods, the powers and principles which once ruled over us with hot iron fists — are not in power anymore. There is a new king in town, and his reign is a reign of love, and it will never end.

While he was here Jesus showed us what his new kingdom should look like. What will it take for us to step back from Molech, and into the light of God?


Linda McMillan lives in China

Image: Moloch By Charles Foster [Public domain],via Wikimedia Commons

Dislike (0)
0 0 vote
Article Rating
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

7 Comments
Newest
Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rod Gillis

There is a very interesting book titled, Herod: King of The Jews and Friend of The Romans by Dr. Peter Richardson.
(University of South Carolina Press, 1996). At the time of publication the author was a professor at the Centre for the Study of Religion and past principle of University College at U.T. (I believe he is now emeritus at U.T.) According to the dust jacket he is also editor of, From Jesus to Paul; Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, Vol. 1.

From the article here above, "It is a horrible story which really is hard to believe, and some people don’t believe that it happened at all. It’s their opinion." I'm of the same opinion; but it does have verisimilitude given what we know of Herod from other sources. Raymond Brown also treats the question in detail in his masterful The Birth of the Messiah ( there is a second edition).

The story does have an anti-Semitic legacy so Christian preachers must be take care when contending wrestling with it. One application is the terrible plight of children on the planet, refugees, poverty, child labor, child soldiers and so on. One can develop a justice theology around the issue but looking at things through the frame of the Kingdom of God as anti-kingdom to the kingdom of Herod. It has a particular relevance here given the complicity of Anglicans in the abuse committed against indigenous children physical, spiritual, emotional, sexual, cultural at church operated residential schools.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Murdoch Matthew

I know, don't read the comments, but I guess I will never stop being surprised by the number of people in this country who truly believe that anything bad that happens is the victim's fault.

--Duncan Black (Atrios, at Eschaton blog

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
JC Fisher

It works both as Escapism ("I'm good, so nothing bad will happen to me"), and (worse) self-CONFIRMATION of one's goodness ("Nothing bad happened to me, but bad things happened to people I don't like: therefore, I'm good, they're bad"). Kyrie eleison!

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Lexiann Granr

Linda, Trayvon had just comitted a crime, using violence, then attacked the policeman who tried to stop him. He was not an innocent.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Ann Fontaine

And in the case of Trayvon Martin - George Zimmerman was not a policeman and he's had subsequent problems with violence against others. It's true that Trayvon maybe had some problems at school, but to get shot over it!? Maybe you believe George Zimmerman's story about Trayvon attacking him. Or, maybe you have Travyon mixed up with that person near St. Louis who stole a candy bar before he was gunned down. Even so, I'd call that one an innocent too. A life for a candy bar? Cops dispensing justice? Where did that come from?

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
David Allen

I think she has confused Trayvon Martin with Michael Brown, who reportedly had committed a crime at a small store and then later is said to have attacked the cop who told him to stop walking in the street.

Lexianne, it's important to get names and facts correct before weighing in on hot button topics.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Ann Fontaine

Policemen are not judges or juries-- when they kill people we are all in danger. Your view of this case has not been proven and now never will.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Facebooktwitterrss
Support the Café
Past Posts
2020_001

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café