An Insecure King

Matthew 14:1-12

Matthew uses a flashback to inform his readers of what happened to John the Baptist. It is actually a very smooth transition: Herod hears what Jesus has been doing and thinks that John has risen from the dead. This, of course, begs the question, how did John die? Matthew takes us back to John's death.
This story contrasts the confidence and influence of Jesus Christ with the insecurity of Herod. Herod feels threatened because Jesus reminds him of John. Herod was first threatened by John because he was so adamant that Herod should not have married Herod's brother's wife while Herod's brother was still alive (which is pretty sick when you think of it). Herod wanted to kill John but was threatened by John's popularity with the common people. Herod was threatened by his guests' opinion of him and so he gave into his step-daughter's demand to bring John's head to her on a silver platter (which is another pretty sick story - unless my mind is just too depraved it would seem like Herod was so turned on by his step-daughter's dancing that he made a rash promise).
This story proves the parables of the kingdom that Jesus was sharing in the previous chapter. What started out as a mustard seed - a country preacher and his small group of unpolished disciples - has started to have influence in the throne rooms of the region. The leavened dough is starting to have an affect on society and those who currently have the power are threatened by it. The story also sets up Jesus' show down with the authourities in the region - the have been threatened by his influence.
There are a few lessons I take away from this. First, that I should have the boldness of John to speak up for what I know is right even if it means that I take on the powers of the land. Second, that the kingdom is not about seizing and holding on to power. It is about a quiet influence that shakes the very foundations of the power structures and the pyramid charts that our commerce and governments are built on. The Church has to stop trying to be a power broker and act more like a mustard seed and leavened bread.

apparently miracles are not the best evidence after all

Matthew 11:20-24

In response to the people's response to him (v. 19), Jesus warns the towns in which he performed his miracles of the coming judgement. He compares the evil of Chorazin and Bethsaida to the evil of Tyre and Sidon and the evil of Capernaum to that of Sodom. In both cases, the OT towns would be seen as more evil. Then he compares the coming judgement on Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum to the coming judgement on Tyre and Sidon and the judgement already poured out on Sodom. His conclusion is that it will be more bearable for the apparently more evil cities than for the cities/towns in which he performed miracles but saw no response to the message of the kingdom.
I sometimes think it would be much easier to convince people of the truth of our faith if miracles were still being performed like in Jesus' day. However, we see that the miracles that Jesus himself performed did not convince the people. They were attracted to the spectacle but the spectacle did not result in many life changes or many citizens of the kingdom of God. What's the point? I think we should look for the kingdom more in the quiet and subtle than in the spectacular and I think we should stop trying to convince people through spectacle and begin to influence people more like yeast in dough than like sledgehammers.