For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.
4. It is not lawful for thee to have her ] St Luke adds, Mar 3:19, that Herod was also reproved “for all the evil which he had done.” “Boldly to rebuke vice” is fixed upon as the leading characteristic of the Baptist in the collect for St John the Baptist’s day.
to have her ] i. e. “to marry her,” a force which the word in the original bears, cp. 1Co 5:1.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 4. For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.] Here is an instance of zeal, fidelity, and courage, highly worthy of imitation. Plainness, mildness, and modesty, are qualifications necessary to be observed when we reprove the great. The best service a subject can render his prince is to lay before him, in the plainest but most respectful manner, what the law of God requires of him, and what it forbids. How unutterable must the punishment of those be who are chaplains to princes, or great men, and who either flatter them in their vices, or wink at their sins!
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Mark telleth us, Mar 6:20, that Herod feared, that is, reverenced and respected, John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly. John was very popular, and all men counted him as a prophet; so that probably Herod sent for him to the court, and heard him there. John seeing Herod live in adultery and incest, was not able to suffer such a sin upon him, but tells him he did that which was not lawful for him to do, for Gods law had forbidden such marriages. Mark addeth, that Herodias also had a quarrel against him, and would have killed him; but she could not, because of the respect which Herod had for him. But this wore off, for Matthew tells us… (see Mat 14:5)
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
For John said unto him,…. John having heard of this incestuous marriage, went to Herod, and reproved him to his face for it; and, as Luke says, “for all the evils he had done”, Lu 3:19 for he was a very wicked man, and guilty of many flagitious crimes: John, in so doing, showed his zeal for holiness, his hatred of sin, his courage and faithfulness in reproving thus freely so great a man; and made it manifest, that he came in the spirit of Elijah: what he said to him was,
it is not lawful for thee to have her, being forbidden, Le 18:16 for though by another law it was right to marry a brother’s wife, after his decease, when he left no issue, yet this was not the case here; Philip was now living, and, had he been dead, such a marriage would have been unlawful, because there was issue; she had a daughter, who afterwards is said to dance before Herod; and besides, he himself had another wife, whom he put away; so that his sin was a very aggravated and complicated one: lying with a brother’s wife, was one of those sins which, according to the Jewish h canons, deserved cutting off, or death by the hand of God. Josephus i gives another reason of the imprisonment and death of John, that Herod feared that the people of the Jews, through his means, would be moved to sedition, and revolt from his government; which might be what Herodias suggested to him, or what he gave out himself, to cover the true cause of his proceedings: but the true reason is, what is here given, and is to be confirmed by the testimony of Jewish writers. One of their chronologers k delivers the account in these express words:
“Herod Antipater was a very wicked and pernicious man, many of the wise men of Israel he slew with the sword; and he took to wife, his brother Philip’s wife, whilst he was living; and because John the high priest (for so through mistake they call him) “reproved him for this”; (see Lu 3:19) he slew him with the sword, with many of the wise men of Israel.”
And, says their historian l,
“also he, Herod, slew John, because he said unto him, it is forbidden thee to take the wife of Philip, and he slew him; this is that John that practised baptism.”
h Misn. Ceritot, c. 1. sect. 1. i Antiqu. lsss. 18. c. 6. k Ganz. Tzemach David, par. 1. fol. 25. 2. l Joseph. Gorionides, 1. 5. c. 45.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
For John said unto him ( ). Possibly the Pharisees may have put Herod up to inveigling John to Machaerus on one of his visits there to express an opinion concerning his marriage to Herodias (Broadus) and the imperfect tense () probably means that John said it repeatedly. It was a blunt and brave thing that John said. It cost him his head, but it is better to have a head like John’s and lose it than to have an ordinary head and keep it. Herod Antipas was a politician and curbed his resentment toward John by his fear of the people who still held (, imperfect tense) him as a prophet.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “For John said unto him,” (elegen gar ho loannes auto) “Because John had said to him,” previously, based on the Word of God which reads, “And if a man shall take his brother’s wife it is an unclean thing,” morally unclean, Lev 20:21.
2) “It is not lawful for thee to have her.” (ouk eksestin soi echein auten) “It is not lawful or legal for you to have, hold, or attach yourself to her,” in the manner that they were living together, Mr 6:18; Lev 18:16. Here, as in so many instances, a woman is the occasion for inciting the tragedy.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(4) For John said unto him.The Jewish historian (Ant. xviii. 5, 2) states more generally that Antipas was afraid lest some popular outbreak should be the result of the preaching of the Baptist, working on the excitable peasantry of Galilee.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
4. It is not lawful It is well when ministers dare rebuke the crimes of politicians and rulers. The doctrine that there is no higher law than wicked rulers are pleased to enact, is essential atheism.
And what adds to the force of John’s example in reproving the wickedness of rulers, is the fact that John, it seems, faced Herod Antipas himself with this rebuke. He “said unto him, It is not lawful for thee.” At what interview between the tyrant and the prophet this rebuke took place is not recorded. Very possibly Herod, knowing John’s great influence over the conscience of the people, had endeavoured by personal consultation to obtain the Baptist’s sanction of his adultery; or he may have heard of John’s inveighing against his profligacy, and have arrested him and brought the Baptist into his presence, where of course he would have found reproof not recanted, but reaffirmed.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘For John said to him, “It is not lawful for you to have her.” ’
Thus John had boldly approached Herod and told him that what he was doing was against the Law of God. Herod’s immediate response had been to imprison him. ‘John said to him continually’ (imperfect tense) that what he was doing was ‘unlawful’ (against the Law of God). The continual charge of doing what ‘was not lawful’ would have aroused fears in Herod that John was planning an insurrection against him, especially in view of John’s increasing popularity and his fierce declarations of judgment. Like his father he was no doubt somewhat paranoid.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 14:4. For John said unto him, &c. Possessed of great credit with Herod, and with the people, it is not possible to suppose that the Baptist would have incurred Herod’s jealousy and displeasure, had he been an impostor, and an associate of a pretended Messiah,for fear of blasting at once all his preconcerted designs. Certainly, he would now, more than ever, have employed all his art to keep the influence that he had acquired with the king and the people. But how opposite to all this was his conduct: at this critical point of time, in this peculiar situation, when both his own and his confederate’s interest absolutely required him to act in the manner just mentioned, he even proceeded to reprove Herod himself for the wickedness of his life.An impostor, in John’s particular situation, could not but have reflected, at the first thought of so dangerous a step as that which occasioned his death, that it was not his own immediate assistance only of which his associate would be deprived by his destruction,though this alone would have been sufficient to prevent him from adopting it; but he would besides have considered, that his own imprisonment and death would probably strike such a panic into the people, however zealous they had before been in his favour, aswould refrain them from listening afterwards to Jesus, or payingthe same regard which they might otherwise have done to his pretensions: nay, nothing was more probable, than that John’s public ministry, being put to so ignominious an end, would evendestroy that good opinion of John himself, which they had hitherto entertained, and induce them to believe, that, notwithstanding his fair outside, he could be no better than an impostor. For by what arguments could John think it possible, that the Jews would persuade themselves hewas really sent to be the divine forerunner of this triumphant Messiah, when they should have seen him seized by Herod’s order, imprisoned, and put to death? Besides, therefore, John’s regard to his own success, his liberty, andeven his life itself, which no impostor can be thought desirous of exposing to certain destruction for no reason; his connection with Jesus, if they were deceivers, and the necessary dependence of both upon the mutual success and assistance of each other, must unquestionably have restrained John from provoking at this time the inveterate hatred of Herodias, and drawing on himself Herod’s violent suspicion and displeasure. So that the remarkable behaviour of John, in this important particular, and at so critical a conjuncture, affords us one of the strongest presumptive proofs imaginable, that neither he nor Jesus could possibly be deceivers. See on Mar 1:14 and Bell’s Inquiry, p. 384.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 14:4 f. ] Because Philip was still living, and had a daughter. Lev 18:16 ; Lev 20:21 ; Joseph. Antt. xviii. 5. 1, 2; Lightfoot on this passage. For , as expressing matrimonial possession, see note on 1Co 5:1 . It is probable that Herod only made John’s bold rebuke a pretext for putting him in prison; the real cause, according to Josephus, 18:5. 2 f., was fear lest he should be the means of creating an insurrection.
] not: aestumabant (a common but ungrammatical rendering), but: they held him as a prophet, i.e. they stood to him as to a prophet. This is in conformity with classical usage, according to which , with a predicate, expresses the relation in which a person stands to some other person; for example, (Xen. Symp. iv. 49): thou standest related to them as to friends; Eur. Herc. fur. 1405: , I stand to thee as to a child; Herodian, i. 13. 16; and see likewise the note on Luk 14:18 ; Phm 1:17 . The appended means: not otherwise than as . Krger, 57. 3. 1 and 2; Khner, II. 2, p. 995. Similarly also in Mat 21:26 . Otherwise in Mar 11:32 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
4 For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.
Ver. 4. For John had said unto him, It is not lawful ] Others knew it to be so, but none dared tell him so but John. In like sort Elijah told Ahab that he had troubled israel (those times and these did very much suit; John was another Elias, Herod and Herodias answered to Ahab and Jezebel). So Latimer presented for a new year’s gift to King Henry VIII a New Testament, with a napkin, having this posy about it, Whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. He also wrote a letter to the king, after the proclamation for abolishing English books; where we may see and marvel at his great boldness and stoutness, who as being yet no bishop, so freely and plainly dared to so mighty a prince, in such a dangerous case, against the king’s proclamation, set out in such a terrible time, take upon him to write and to admonish that which no counsellor dared once speak unto him, in defence of Christ’s gospel. King Asa, though a godly prince, imprisoned the prophet for dealing plainly with him. Archbishop Grindal lost Queen Elizabeth’s favour, and was confined, for favouring prophecies, &c., as it was pretended; but in truth, for condemning an unlawful marriage of Julio an Italian physician with another man’s wife, while Leicester in vain opposed against his proceedings therein. (Camd. Elizab.) God’s truth must be told, however it be taken, and not be betrayed (as it is too often) by a cowardly silence.
It is not lawful for thee to have her ] And yet the pope frequently dispenseth with such incestuous marriages, King Philip III of Spain, were he now alive, might call the Archduke Albert both brother, cousin, nephew, and son: for all this were he unto him, either by blood or affinity: being uncle to himself, first cousin to his father, husband to his sister, and father to his wife, and all by papal dispensation. Abhorred filth!
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
4. ] The marriage was unlawful for these three reasons: (1) The former husband of Herodias , Philip, was still living . This is expressly asserted by Josephus, Antt. xviii. 5. 4, , , , . (A reply to the attempt made by some to interpret these last words, ‘ having previously been divorced from him while living ,’ is hardly needed, in the presence of the two unqualified synchronous participles, and . Besides, the part. is not , as erroneously quoted by the Bp. of Exeter [Philpotts]: see his published speech of Feb. 25, 1851, note.) The same is surely implied by the whole narrative, and the word , Antt. xviii. 5. 1. (2) The former wife of Antipas was still living , and fled to her father Aretas on hearing of his intention to marry Herodias: Jos. ibid. (3) Antipas and Herodias were already related to one another within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity . For , (of Antipas and Philip), Jos. ib. See the Bp.’s note, and a reply to it in substance the same as the foregoing, in the Quarterly Journal of Sacred Lit. for Oct. 1852 and Jan. 1853. I may add that the remark of Josephus (Antt. xviii. 5. 4), that Salome’s birth had taken place previously to the infidelity of Herodias, is not given, as understood by the Bp. (after Tertullian, adv. Marcion. iv. 34, vol. ii. p. 443), as the technical reason why her conduct was , but as a moral aggravation of her unnatural crime. It was unlawful by Lev 18:16 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 14:4 . . The progressive imperfect, with force of a pluperfect. John had been saying just before he was apprehended (Burton, Moods and Tenses, 29). : doubly unlawful; as adultery, and as marriage within prohibited degrees (Lev 18:16 ; Lev 20:21 ).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
said = used to say.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
4.] The marriage was unlawful for these three reasons: (1) The former husband of Herodias, Philip, was still living. This is expressly asserted by Josephus, Antt. xviii. 5. 4, , , , . (A reply to the attempt made by some to interpret these last words, having previously been divorced from him while living, is hardly needed, in the presence of the two unqualified synchronous participles, and . Besides, the part. is not , as erroneously quoted by the Bp. of Exeter [Philpotts]: see his published speech of Feb. 25, 1851, note.) The same is surely implied by the whole narrative, and the word , Antt. xviii. 5. 1. (2) The former wife of Antipas was still living, and fled to her father Aretas on hearing of his intention to marry Herodias: Jos. ibid. (3) Antipas and Herodias were already related to one another within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity. For , (of Antipas and Philip), Jos. ib. See the Bp.s note, and a reply to it in substance the same as the foregoing, in the Quarterly Journal of Sacred Lit. for Oct. 1852 and Jan. 1853. I may add that the remark of Josephus (Antt. xviii. 5. 4), that Salomes birth had taken place previously to the infidelity of Herodias, is not given, as understood by the Bp. (after Tertullian, adv. Marcion. iv. 34, vol. ii. p. 443), as the technical reason why her conduct was , but as a moral aggravation of her unnatural crime. It was unlawful by Lev 18:16.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 14:4. , it is not lawful) John did not break the force of bitter truth by arguments of a too conciliatory nature; neither his words were soft, nor his dress. John did not come into Galilee, but yet he was able to reprove Herod.-, to thee) Sins even of kings should be rebuked in the second person.-, to have) Theologians must not give up questions concerning marriage (see ch. Mat 19:3-4), since it is their duty to examine everything which is lawful or unlawful; cf. ch. Mat 22:17.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Lev 18:16, Lev 20:21, Deu 25:5, Deu 25:6, 2Sa 12:7, 1Ki 21:19, 2Ch 26:18, 2Ch 26:19, Pro 28:1, Isa 8:20, Mar 6:18, Act 24:24, Act 24:25
Reciprocal: 1Sa 13:13 – Thou hast done 1Ki 18:18 – I have not 2Ch 16:10 – put him Pro 24:25 – them Pro 28:4 – but Jer 34:6 – General Dan 4:22 – thou Dan 5:22 – thou Mat 18:8 – if Luk 1:17 – power Luk 3:19 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
14:4. John the Baptist told Herod that it was unlawful for him to have her. That would have been a true accusation for more than one reason, but the most outstanding one was the fact that his brother Philip was still living.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her. [Herod has taken his brother’s wife.]
[It is not lawful for thee to have her.] “There are thirty-six cuttings off in the law”: that is, sinners who deserve cutting off. And among the rest, he that lies with his brother’s wife. Philip was now alive, and lived to the twentieth year of Tiberius.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 14:4. For John said; not once but habitually, as the original hints. John was a bold preacher of righteousness and repentance, not a reed shaken by the wind (chap. Mat 11:7). His fidelity led to his imprisonment.
It is not lawful. The act of Herod was a crime against his brother, against his wife, and in itself incestuous, since Herodias was his niece (comp. Lev 18:16; Lev 20:21 ).