For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put [him] in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife.
3. in prison ] At Machrus, in Pera, on the eastern side of the Dead Sea, near the southern frontier of the tetrarchy. Here Antipas had a palace and a prison under one roof, as was common in the East. Cp. Neh 3:25, “The tower which lieth out from the king’s high house that was by the court of the prison.” It was the ordinary arrangement in feudal castles. At Machrus, now M’khaur, remains of buildings are still visible. These are probably the ruins of the Baptist’s prison. Herod was living in this border fortress in order to prosecute the war with his offended father-in-law, Aretas. He was completely vanquished a disaster popularly ascribed to his treatment of John the Baptist.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For Herod had laid hold on John … – See Mar 6:17-20; Luk 3:19-20. This Herodias was a granddaughter of Herod the Great. She was first married to Herod Philip, by whom she had a daughter, Salome, probably the one that danced and pleased Herod. Josephus says that this marriage of Herod Antipas with Herodias took place while he was on a journey to Rome. He stopped at his brothers; fell in love with his wife; agreed to put away his own wife, the daughter of Aretas, King of Petraea; and Herodias agreed to leave her own husband and live with him. They were living, therefore, in adultery; and John, in faithfulness, though at the risk of his life, had reproved them for their crimes. Herod was guilty of two crimes in this act:
- Of adultery, since she was the wife of another man.
- Of incest, since she was a near relation, and such marriages were expressly forbidden, Lev 18:16.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 3. For Herodias’ sake] This infamous woman was the daughter of Aristobulus and Bernice, and grand-daughter of Herod the Great. Her first marriage was with Herod Philip, her uncle, by whom she had Salome: some time after, she left her husband, and lived publicly with Herod Antipas, her brother-in-law, who had been before married to the daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia Petraea. As soon as Aretas understood that Herod had determined to put away his daughter, he prepared to make war on him: the two armies met, and that of Herod was cut to pieces by the Arabians; and this, Josephus says, was supposed to be a judgment of God on him for the murder of John the Baptist. See the account in Josephus, Antiq. lib. xviii. c. 7.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Mark saith, Mar 6:17, for he had married her. Whether this Philip was Herods brother both by father and mother, is argued by some, as also whether he married her during the life of his brother: the Scripture satisfieth us not in these things, but it is most probable that Philip was his own brother, and that he at least lived in adultery with her during the life of her husband, contrary to the express law of God, Lev 18:16.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
For Herod had laid hold on John,…. By his servants, whom he sent to apprehend him:
and bound him; laid him in chains, as if he was a malefactor;
and put him in prison, in the castle of Machaerus d,
for Herodias’s sake; who was angry with him, had a bitter quarrel against him, and by whose instigation all this was done; who was
his brother Philip’s wife. This Herodias was the daughter of Aristobulus, son to Herod the Great e, and brother to Philip, and to this Herod; so that she was niece to them both; and first married the one, and then the other, whilst the former was living. Philip and this Herod were both sons of Herod the Great, but not by the same woman; Philip was born of Cleopatra of Jerusalem, and Herod Antipas of Malthace, a Samaritan f; so that Philip was his brother by his father’s side, but not by his mother’s; the Evangelist Mark adds, “for he had married her”: the case was this, Herod being sent for to Rome, called at his brother Philip’s by the way, where he fell into an amorous intrigue with his wife, and agreed, upon his return, to take her with him and marry her; as he accordingly did, and divorced his own wife, who was daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia Petraea; which occasioned a war between Herod and his wife’s father, in which the former was beaten g,
d Joseph. Antiqu. 1. 18. c. 7. e Ib. c. 6. f Joseph. Antiqu. 1. 18. c. 6. de Bello Jud. l. 1. c. 28. sect. 7. g Joseph. Antiqu. 1. 18. c. 6.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
For the sake of Herodias ( H). The death of John had taken place some time before. The Greek aorists here (, ) are not used for past perfects. The Greek aorist simply narrates the event without drawing distinctions in past time. This Herodias was the unlawful wife of Herod Antipas. She was herself a descendant of Herod the Great and had married Herod Philip of Rome, not Philip the Tetrarch. She had divorced him in order to marry Herod Antipas after he had divorced his wife, the daughter of Aretas King of Arabia. It was a nasty mess equal to any of our modern divorces. Her first husband was still alive and marriage with a sister-in-law was forbidden to Jews (Le 18:16). Because of her Herod Antipas had put John in the prison at Machaerus. The bare fact has been mentioned in Mt 4:12 without the name of the place. See 11:2 also for the discouragement of John (place of bondage), here (the guard-house). Josephus (Ant. xviii. 5.2) tells us that Machaerus is the name of the prison. On a high hill an impregnable fortress had been built. Tristram (Land of Moab) says that there are now remains of “two dungeons, one of them deep and its sides scarcely broken in” with “small holes still visible in the masonry where staples of wood and iron had once been fixed. One of these must surely have been the prison-house of John the Baptist.” “On this high ridge Herod the Great built an extensive and beautiful palace” (Broadus). “The windows commanded a wide and grand prospect, including the Dead Sea, the course of the Jordan, and Jerusalem” (Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Put him in prison [ ] . Lit., “put him away or aside” [] . This prison was the fortress of Machaerus on the east side of the Dead Sea, almost on a line with Bethlehem, above the gorge which divided the Mountains of Abarim from the range of Pisgah. Perched on an isolated cliff at the end of a narrow ridge, encompassed with deep ravines, was the citadel. At the other end of this ridge Herod built a great wall, with towers two hundred feet high at the corners; and within this inclosure, a magnificent palace, with colonnades, baths, cisterns, arsenals – every provision, in short, for luxury and for defence against siege. The windows commanded a wide and grand prospect, including the Dead Sea, the course of the Jordan, and Jerusalem. In the detached citadel, probably in one of the underground dungeons, remains of which may still be seen, was the prison of John. “We return through what we regard as the ruins of the magnificent castle – palace of Herod, to the highest and strongest part of the defences – the eastern keep or the citadel, on the steep slope, one hundred and fifty yards up. The foundation of the walls all around, to the height of a yard or two above the ground, are still standing. As we clamber over them to examine the interior, we notice how small this keep is : exactly one hundred yards in diameter. There are scarcely any remains of it left. A well of great depth, and a deep, cemented cistern, with the vaulting of the roof still complete, and – of most terrible interest to us – two dungeons, one of them deep down, its sides scarcely broken in, ‘with small holes still visible in the masonry where staples of wood and iron had once been fixed !’ As we look down into its hot darkness, we shudder in realizing that this terrible keep had, for nigh ten months, been the prison of that son of the free wilderness, the bold herald of the coming kingdom, the humble, earnest, self – denying John the Baptist” (Edersheim, ” Life and Times of Jesus “).
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “For Herod had laid hold of John,” (ho gar Herodes kratesas ton loannen) “For Herod had seized John,” or upon seizing John, as also recounted Mr 6:17; He and his vicious, adulterous wife held malice at his reproof, Ps 15:10.
2) “And bound him, and put him in prison,” (edesen kai en phulake apetheto) “Bound and put (him) away in prison,” believed to have been in the fortress of Machaerus in Perea, Luk 3:19-20.
3) “For Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife.” (dia Herodiada ten gunoika Philippou tou adelphou autou) “On account of Herodias, the wife of his own brother,” that Herod was living with, in an unmarried, adulterous state or condition. This is an example of fear of a bad wife, cowardice, and a desire for licentious popularity.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
This narrative is at present omitted by Luke, because he had explained it on a former occasion; and for my own part, as I am unwilling to annoy my readers by writing the same thing twice, I shall handle this passage with greater brevity (354) The Evangelists relate that John was seized, because he had openly condemned Herod for carrying off Herodias, and for his incestuous marriage with her. Josephus assigns a different reason, namely, that Herod, dreading on his own account a change of affairs, regarded John with suspicion, (Ant. 18. 5:2;) and it is possible that this may have been the pretext on which the tyrant excused his crime, or that such a report may have been in circulation; for it frequently happens that various motives are assigned for unjust violence and cruelty. The true state of the fact, however, is pointed out by the Evangelists: Herod was offended at the holy man, because he had been reproved by him.
Josephus is mistaken in supposing that Herodias was carried off, not from his brother Philip, but from Herod, King of Chalcis, his uncle, (Ant. 18:5:4.) For not only was the crime still recent when the Evangelists wrote, but it was committed before the eyes of all. What is elsewhere stated by Josephus, (Ant. 18:4:6,) that Philip was a person of amiable dispositions, emboldened Herod, I have no doubt, to expect that an outrage committed on a mild, gentle, and peaceable man, would pass with impunity. Another probable conjecture may be mentioned. There is greater reason to suppose that Herodias was married to her uncle Philip than to her grand-uncle, her grandfather’s brother, who must have been at that time in the decrepitude of old age. Now Herod Antipas (who is here mentioned) and Philip were not brothers by the same mother; for Herod was the son of Marthaca, third wife of Herod the Great, and Philip was the son of Cleopatra. (355)
To return to the Evangelists, they tell us that John was thrown into prison, because he had reproved Herod’s crime with greater freedom than the ferocity of the tyrant would endure. The atrocious character of the deed was in itself sufficiently detestable and infamous; for not only did he keep in his own house another man’s wife, whom he had torn away from lawful wedlock, but the person on whom he had committed this outrage was his own brother. When, in addition to this, he is freely reproved by John, Herod has some reason to fear that sedition will suddenly break out. His lust did not allow him to correct his fault; but having imprisoned the prophet of God, he promises to himself repose and liberty. (356)
Ignorance of history has led many persons into a fruitless debate; “Have I a right to marry the woman who was formerly married to my brother?” Though the modesty of nature recoils from such a marriage, (357) yet John condemns the rape still more than the incest; for it was by violence or by stratagem (358) that Herod had deprived his brother of his lawful wife: and otherwise it would have been less lawful for him to marry his niece than to marry his brother’s widow. There cannot be a doubt, that a crime so flagrant was universally blamed. But others loaded Herod with their curses in his absence. John alone comes into his presence, and reproves him boldly to his face, if by any means he may be brought to repentance. Hence we learn with what unshaken fortitude the servants of God ought to be armed when they have to do with princes; for in almost every court hypocrisy and servile flattery are prevalent; and the ears of princes, having been accustomed to this smooth language, do not tolerate any voice which reproves their vices with any severity. But as a prophet of God ought not to overlook so shocking a crime, John steps forward, though a disagreeable and unwelcome adviser, and, rather than fail in his duty, scruples not to incur the frown of the tyrant, even though he knew Herod to be so strongly held by the snares of the prostitute, that he could scarcely be moved from his purpose.
(354) The allusion is to his exposition of Luk 3:19, which will be found in Harmony, vol. 1. p. 222. — Ed.
(355) “The apparent discrepancy between Josephus and the sacred historians is removed, as was formerly suggested, (Harmony, vol. 1. p. 223, n. 1,) by a hypothesis which appears to be generally admitted, that the name of the person in question was Herod-Philip. — Ed.
(356) “ Il se fait accroire qu’il sera en repos, et qu’il pourra continuer sa meschancete sans aucune crainte;” — “he makes himself believe that he will be at ease, and that he will have it in his power to continue his wickedness without any dread.”
(357) “ Combien que l’honneste naturelle condamne un tel marriage;” — “though natural decency condemns such a marriage.”
(358) “ Ou par force et violence, ou par quelque ruse et moyen subtil;” — “either by force and violence, or by some trick and cunning method.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(3) Put him in prison.Josephus (Ant. xviii. 5, 2) gives Machrus, in Pera, as the scene of the imprisonment and death of the Baptist.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
3. For Herod had The evangelist proceeds to explain the remark of Herod by recapitulating the history of John’s martyrdom. Herodias’ sake She had in vain endeavoured to induce Herod to perpetrate the deed; and so finally availed herself of the opportunity here afforded. The oath fairly entrapped Herod into an obligation to do what she required; and eager for revenge, as well as to put an end to John’s dangerous influence over the king’s conscience against her, she perseveringly refused to let the monarch free from her snare.
Herodias was daughter of the young Aristobulus, one of the accomplished but unfortunate sons of Herod by the beautiful Mariamne; and she belonged therefore to the noble line of Asmonean princes. She seems to have possessed the beauty and accomplishments of that princess, without many of her virtues. Her brother Agrippa, a prince of singular talent and fascinating address, passed through a variety of fortunes, in which he was befriended by her, and he ultimately succeeded Herod Philip in the eastern tetrarchy, under the title, from the Emperor Caius Caligula, of king. Compare note on Mat 2:1. Herodias became the wife (not of Herod Philip the tetrarch, but) of her uncle, Herod Philip, another son of Herod the Great, whose mother was Mariamne, the daughter of Simon the High Priest. See Herod’s family tree, p. 33.
The account of John’s death given by Josephus varies from that of Matthew by making Herod’s fear of John the motive for his execution.
This was doubtless true, though the evangelist’s minuter narrative furnishes the actual occasion. Josephus confirms the Gospel narrative in many points, He says:
“Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, although he was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue both as to righteousness one toward another, and piety toward God, and so to come to baptism. Now when others came in crowds about him for they were greatly moved by hearing his words Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicions, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife.’
We are now told why Herod was upset at the idea of John coming back from the grave. It was because of the way that he himself had treated him. Herod had gone on a visit to see his brother Philip (not the tetrarch Herod Philip) and had fallen in love with Philip’s wife, Herodias, who spotting the opportunity of greater prestige and influence had yielded to Herod’s entreaties and had divorced her husband and married him. But such behaviour was forbidden by Jewish Law. A man could not marry the wife of his brother while his brother was still alive.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Forerunner Is Rejected By The Civil Authorities And Put To Death (14:3-12).
A warning of what lies ahead for Jesus in the future is now introduced. For John, His forerunner has been put to death by Herod the Tetrarch in a most shameful way, and suspicion is now falling on Jesus because, as a result of His ‘mighty works’, He is being seen as John risen from the dead and thus manifesting heavenly powers. Herod’s view was probably that he had come back to haunt him. For he was superstitiously afraid. There is an irony here in that Herod believes in ‘the resurrection’ but from a totally false viewpoint. Instead of it being man’s friend it is seen as his enemy, as God’s way of getting back at man. Such is the blindness of man.
So what Jesus stands for is now being opposed by the powers that be. These words of Herod are an indication of how far he was from really knowing what was going on in the country that he ruled. His ruling was all done by hearsay and speculation and ‘report’, as so often with such monarchs. And the sense of his opposition is such that Jesus will withdraw from the vicinity (Mat 14:13), recognising the dangers inherent in the situation, for His hour had not yet come. (Among Jesus’ disciples were those from Herod’s household (Luk 8:2) who probably received news of what was happening at court).
While the prime purpose of the narrative here is to explain why Jesus is wary of Herod, the detailed account that follows indicates that Matthew has also another further message to get over, which is why he describes it in some detail. When Matthew goes into detail we can be sure that he always has a purpose for it, and here he is bringing out that this is an ‘evil and adulterous generation’ (Mat 12:39; Mat 16:4). For he brings out here that at all levels of Palestinian society there is disobedience, spiritual blindness, adultery, lasciviousness, rebellion against God’s known will and a hatred of the prophets, and that Israel’s society was controlled, not by men who read and loved God’s word (Deu 17:19-20), but by those who were swayed only by a love of the world and its pleasures. If the Scribes and Pharisees revealed the spiritual destitution of Israel, Herod and his court revealed its total corruption The story sums up Israel. Easy divorce (contrast Mat 5:27-32; Mat 19:3-12), murder (contrast Mat 5:21-26), ‘lawlessness’ (it is not lawful) and retribution on the godly (contrast Mat 5:10-12; and see Mat 22:33-41; Mat 23:34-36), casual oaths (contrast Mat 5:33-37), an eye for an eye (see Mat 5:38-42); and pure heartlessness (contrast Mat 5:43-48). Here was an example of ‘the kingly rule of earth’ set over against what we have seen of the Kingly Rule of Heaven.
Josephus tells us that Herod’s fear of John had partly arisen from his fear that John would start an insurrection against men whom he saw as evil, (Herod’s views of John may well have been influenced by what he knew from his spies about the teachings of the community at Qumran with its expectations of one day rising up and crushing the ungodly). And he may have seen as central to this purpose John’s continual public accusation of him as doing ‘what was not lawful’. Such a charge of ‘lawlessness’ was usually a preliminary to retributive action. Thus the picture of John’s attitude against Herod here ties in with Josephus’ view of him that Herod (who would tend to think politically) saw him as a possible reactionary and revolutionary.
Note On Herod The Tetrarch.
Herod the Tetrarch was a son of Herod the Great, and after his father’s death was made tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, and was popularly though inaccurately termed ‘king’. Herod was previously married and his first wife was the daughter of Aretas, king of the Nabateans, and he divorced her in order to marry Herodias who was his half-brother Philip’s wife. This in itself was politically explosive causing a deep rift and warfare with the Nabateans, which resulted in his defeat, from which he was only saved by the intervention of Rome. Philip (not the tetrarch) was a son of Herod the Great and Mariamne II and thus his half-brother. Thus to marry his divorced wife was to break Jewish Law (Lev 18:16; Lev 20:21). But Herodias was an adventuress, and happily divorced her husband in order to gain the great prize of being married to a tetrarch. She was in fact the daughter of Herod’s half brother Aristobulus, and was totally unscrupulous. It was in the end her ever increasing desire for status that led to Herod losing his tetrarchy and being banished to Gaul. But it was then that she revealed that even she was not all bad. When the emperor was prepared to exempt her from the banishment, she chose rather to endure it with her husband.
End of note.
Analysis.
a For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him (Mat 14:3 a).
b And put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, for John said to him, “It is not lawful for you to have her” (Mat 14:3-4).
c And when he would have put him to death, he feared the populace, because they counted him as a prophet (Mat 14:5).
d But when Herod’s birthday came, the daughter of Herodias danced among the people gathered (‘in the midst’), and pleased Herod (Mat 14:6).
e Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatever she should ask (Mat 14:7).
d And she, being put forward by her mother, says, “Give me here on a large dish the head of John the Baptist” (Mat 14:8).
c And the king was grieved, but for the sake of his oaths, and of those who sat at meat with him, (he was afraid of them) he commanded it to be given, and he sent and beheaded John in the prison (Mat 14:9-10).
b And his head was brought on a large dish, and given to the damsel, and she brought it to her mother,
a And his disciples came, and took up the corpse, and buried him, and they went and told Jesus (Mat 14:11-12).
Note that in ‘a’ Herod lays hold of John and binds him, and in the parallel John’s disciples lay hold of his body and bury him. In ‘b’ Herod puts John in prison for Herodias’ sake, and in the parallel John’s head, cut off for her sake, is given to Herodias. In ‘c’ Herod wanted to put John to death but feared the people, and in the parallel he puts him to death because he fears his contemporaries. In ‘d’ Herod is seduced by Salome’s dancing, and in the parallel she asks for the head of John on a dish (continuing the party atmosphere) in response. In ‘e’ is the foolish oath made by a drunken Herod, a proof of his unworthiness.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The story of John’s imprisonment:
v. 3. For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison, for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife.
v. 4. For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.
v. 5. And when he would have put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet. A laconic account of sordid baseness! Herod had been legally married to the daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia. And Herodias, his niece, daughter of Aristobulus and Berenice, had been married to Philip, the brother of Herod Antipas. But Herod rejected his lawful wife and persuaded Herodias to leave her husband and live with him in an adulterous union, to which the ambitious libertine readily assented. She brought with her a daughter by legal marriage, Salome, who equaled her mother in shamelessness. John had not hesitated about taking Herod to task on account of his heinous sin. The adulterous ruler may have felt the justice of the rebuke, and might have been willing to overlook the frankness of the intrepid preacher. But Herodias resented the reflection upon her, all the more since she must admit the implication. For her sake Herod caused John to be seized, bound, and cast into prison. In the meantime, he was forced to meet the army of Aretas, who took bloody revenge upon Herod for the insult inflicted upon his daughter. If the Romans had not interfered, Herod might have paid dearly for his immoral indulgence. As it was, he was in a quandary, undecided whether he should put John to death, as Herodias urged, or set him free, because the people believed him to be a prophet, and Herod himself was rather deeply affected by John’s preaching, Mar 6:20. Whenever he came to Machaerus, the case came up anew to trouble him.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mat 14:3. For Herod had laid hold on John Here is a digression in the history, from this to the 13th verse, in which the Evangelist gives us an account of the Baptist’s death, though he does not tell us precisely when it happened. St. Mark indeed seems to assign it as the cause of the Apostles’ return from their circuit; and St. Matthew and St. Luke mention it as the reason why Jesus retired with them to the desert of Bethsaida. It is therefore probable that John was put to death while the Apostles were first abroad, perhaps not long before Jesus became the subject of conversation at court: hence, because he was but lately dead, the people in general, the courtiers, and even Herod himself, believed that he was risen, when they heard the fame of Christ’s miracles. In some of his private conferences with the king, the Baptist had been so bold as to reprove him for his adultery with Herodias. This princess was grand-daughter to Herod the Great, by his son Aristobulus, and had formerly been married to her uncle, Herod-Philip, the son of her grandfather by Mariamne. Some time after that marriage, this Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee, and son of Herod the Great by Malthace, happening, in his way to Rome, to lodge at his brother’s house, fell passionately in love with Herodias, and on his return made offers to her: she accepted his addresses, deserting her husband, who was only a private person, (Philip tetrarch of Iturea, mentioned Luk 3:1 being a different person from this Philip,) that she might share with the tetrarch in the honours of a crown. On the other hand, to make way for her, he divorced his wife, the daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia. As Antipas was Herod the Great’s son, he was brother to Herod-Philip, the husband of Herodias, and uncle to Herodias herself; wherefore both parties being guilty of incest as well as adultery, they deserved the rebuke, which the Baptist gave them with a courage highly becoming the messenger of God: for though he had experienced the advantage of the tetrarch’s friendship, he was not afraid to displease him when his duty required it. Herod had with great pleasure heard John’s discourses, and by his persuasion had done many good actions; Mar 6:20 but now that he was touched to the quick, he resented it to such a degree, that he laid his monitor in irons. Thus it happens sometimes, that they who do not fear God sincerely, will go certain lengths in the obedience of his commandments, provided something is remitted to them by way of indulgence; but when they are more straitly pressed, throwing off the yoke, they not only become obstinate but furious; which shews that no man has any reason of self-complacency because he obeys many of the divine laws, unless he has learned through the power of Divine grace to subject himself to God in every respect, and without exception. Josephus asserts another reason for the apprehending of John; namely, his excessive popularity. See his Antiq. lib. xviii. c. 5. Macknight, and Jortin
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 14:3 . Herodias was the daughter of Aristobulus, son of Herod the Great, and of Berenice. She married Herod Antipas, who had become so enamoured of her that he put away his wife, the daughter of the Arabian king Aretas. Joseph. Antt. xviii. 5. 1, 4. The brother of this Herod , Herod Philip (Mar 6:17 ), called by Josephus simply Herod, a son of Herod the Great and Mariamne, the high priest’s daughter, and not to be confounded [451] with Philip the tetrarch , who was Cleopatra’s son, had been disinherited by his father, and was living privately at Jerusalem in circumstances of considerable wealth. Joseph. Antt. xvii. 1. 2, 8. 2. The aorists are not to be taken in the sense of the pluperfect , but as purely historical . They relate , however (Chrysostom: ), a statement that has been already made in a previous passage (Mat 4:12 ), namely, that Herod , in order to give a more minute account of the last (and now completed, see on Mat 14:13 ) destiny of the Baptist, seized John, bound him , and so on. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 173 [E. T. 200].
] Comp. Mat 11:2 ; for the pregnant use of the , see Khner, II. 1, p. 385 f.; Buttmann, p. 283 [E. T. 329]. What Josephus, Antt. xviii. 5. 2, says about Machaerus being the place of imprisonment, is not to be regarded as incorrect (Glckler and Hug, Gutachten , p. 32 f.); but see Wieseler, p. 244 f., to be compared, however, with Gerlach as above, p. 49 f. On the date of John’s arrest (782 U.C., or 29 Aer. Dion.), see Anger, rat. temp. p. 195; Wieseler, p. 238 ff.; and in Herzog’s Encycl. XXI. p. 548 f., also in his Beitr. p. 3 ff. Otherwise, Keim, I. p. 621 ff. (Aer. Dion. 34 35), with whom Hausrath substantially agrees. For (see critical notes), comp. 2Ch 18:26 ; Polyb. xxiv. 8. 8 ( ).
[451] Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 51, thinks that Mark has fallen into this error, and that the omission of the name Philip in Matthew and Luke (Luk 3:19 ) should be regarded as intended to correct it. Comp. also Hase, Bleek, Volkmar, Keim. No doubt it is strange that the two sons of Herod the Great should have borne the name Philip . But then this was only a surname, while it is to be remembered that Herod had also two sons, both of whom were called Antipater . Besides, the two Philips were only half-brothers. See Gerlach also in the Luther. Zeitschr . 1869, p. 32 f.; Wieseler, Beitr . p. 7.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
3 For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife.
Ver. 3. For Herod had laid hold on John ] If John touch Herod’s white sin (and who will stand still to have his eyes picked out?) John must to prison, without bail or mainprize; a and there not only be confined, but bound as a malefactor, as a stirrer up of sedition ( Unicum crimen eorum qui crimine vacabant, as Lipsius noteth upon Tacitus). Neither bound only, but beheaded without any law, right, or reason, as though God had known nothing at all of him, as that martyr expresseth it. All this befell the good Baptist, for telling the truth, Veritas odium parit. If conscience might but judge, how many of our hearers would be found to have a Herod’s heart towards their faithful ministers? Were there but a sword (of authority) in their hand, as he said to his ass, they would surely slay them, Num 22:29 . They would deal by them no better than Saul did by David, 1Sa 18:10 , while he was playing upon his harp to ease Saul’s distracted mind, he cast a spear at him. The most savoury salt (if they can do withal) must be cast out, and trodden underfoot; as Calvin and other faithful ministers were driven out of Geneva at the first; whereupon he uttered these gracious words: Truly, if I had served men, I had been ill rewarded, b but it is well for me that I have served him who never faileth his, but will approve himself a liberal paymaster, a rich rewarder.
And put him in prison ] Having first laid hold upon all the principles in his own head that might any way disturb his course in sin, and locked them up in restraint, according to that, Rom 1:18 , wicked men detain the truth, that is, the light of their own consciences (which is as another John Baptist, a prophet from God), this they imprison in unrighteousness, and become fugitives from their own hearts, as Austin hath it. c
For Herodias’ sake, his brother ] Quam vulpinando fratri eripuerat, as one phraseth it. d And he had her not only for his wife, but for his mistress; for she ruled him at her pleasure, as Jezebel did Ahab, of which wretched couple it is said, that Regina erat Rex, Rex vero Regina. The Queen was the king, and the king was truly the queen. But it never goes well when the hen crows. How many have we known, whose heads have been broken with their own rib? Satan hath found this bait to take so well, that he never changed it since he crept into Paradise. And it is remarkable, that in that first sentence against man, this cause is expressed, Because thou obeyedst the voice of thy wife,Gen 3:17Gen 3:17 .
a The action of procuring the release of a prisoner by becoming surety (‘mainpernor’) for his appearance in court at a specified time. D
b Certe si hominibus servivissem, male mihi merces persolveretur, &c. Beza in Vita Salv.
c Facti sunt a corde suo fugitivi.
d Pareus Eccles. Hist.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Mat 14:3 . implies that the following story is introduced to make the king’s theory intelligible. “Risen” implies previous death, and how that came about must be told to show the psychological genesis of the theory. It is the superstitious idea of a man who has murder on his conscience. , etc.: fact referred to already in Mat 4:12 , Mat 11:2 ; here the reason given. Of course Herod seized, bound, and imprisoned John through his agents. : a woman here, as so often, the cause of the tragedy. .: vide on Mk.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Herod. One of eleven rulers offended with God’s reprovers. See note on Exo 10:28.
put: i.e. had him put.
for . . . sake = on account of. Greek. dia.
Philip’s = Philip I, son of Herod the Great and Mariamne II. See App-109.
wife: i.e. widow.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Mat 14:3. , Herodias) This princess was hostile to the latter Elias, as Jezebel to the former.- , his brother) Most authorities[662] prefix from St Mark, who is known not to have taken all things from St Matthew by his being the only one who names this brother of Herod. The shorter reading of St Matthew has been preserved intact by the Vulgate, fratris, of his brother, alive, and not childless, as we learn from Josephus, 18. 7; but it was sufficient for the Evangelist to say that he was his brother. Herodias[663] was also the niece of both, being the daughter of their brother Aristobulus.
[662] Such is the reading of E. M. In his App. Crit. Bengel writes,-() Lat. plerique, et inde Cant. Angl. Mag. Augustin. sed habet Sax. , prmittunt plerique ex Marco. Brevior, etc., as in Gnomon.-(I. B.)
[663] See Genealogical Table, p. 120.-(I. B.)
Lachm. with BZ Orig. 3, 470b. reads -. b has . Tischend. omits with Da (?) c Vulg. looks like a gloss of the harmonies from Mar 6:17. However, the omission might also come similarly from Luk 3:19.-ED.
The marg. of both Editions agree with the Gnomon. But Vers. Germ. retains in this passage.-E. B.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Herod: Mat 4:12, Mar 6:17, Luk 3:19, Luk 3:20, Joh 3:23, Joh 3:24
Herodias’: This infamous woman was the daughter of Aristobulus and Bernice, and granddaughter of Herod the Great.
his: Luk 13:1
Philip’s: Herod Philip, son of Herod the Great and Mariamne.
Reciprocal: Lev 18:16 – General Lev 20:21 – his brother’s 1Sa 13:13 – Thou hast done 2Sa 12:13 – David 2Ki 1:9 – sent unto 2Ch 16:10 – put him Mat 11:2 – in Mat 17:12 – but Mat 18:8 – if Mar 6:18 – It is Mar 9:13 – and they 2Co 6:5 – imprisonments
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
14:3
The imprisonment and slaying of John the Baptist had taken place several months before this but nothing was stated on the subject at the time. Now the remark of Herod being recorded by Matthew brought up the subject which might leave the reader in confusion, hence he interrupts his story and goes back to tell that incident, beginning with this verse and running through verse 12. The cause of the trouble was the marriage of Herod with the wife of his brother Philip I.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 14:3. For Herod had laid hold on John, etc. This imprisonment took place not long after our Lord began His ministry (comp. chap. Mat 4:12; Mar 1:14; Joh 3:24).
For the sake of Herodias, his brother Philips wife. Herodias, the daughter of Aristobulus (the half-brother of Herod Antipas), the wife of Herod Philip (not to be confounded with Philip the Tetrarch, Luk 3:1), who was disinherited by his father, Herod the Great, and lived as a private citizen. Herod Antipas was first married to a daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia (mentioned 2Co 11:32). Becoming enamored of Herodias, his niece and sister-in-law, he married her secretly, while her husband was still living, repudiating his own legal wife. Aretas made war against him in consequence, and having defeated him was prevented by the Romans from dethroning him (A. D. 37). At the instigation of Herodias he went to Rome to compete for the kingly power bestowed on Agrippa, but was banished by the Emperor Caligula to Cyprus.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Observe here, 1. The person that put the holy baptist to death: It was Herod, it was Herod the king, it was Herod that invited John to preach at court, and heard him gladly.
1. It was Herod Antipas, son to that Herod, who sought Christ’s life, chap. 11. cruelty runs in the blood, Herod the murderer of John, who was the forerunner of Christ, descended from that Herod who would have murdered Christ himself.
2. It was Herod the king. Sad! that princes who should always be nursing fathers to, should at any time be the bloody butchers of, the prophets of God.
3. It was Herod that heard John gladly; John took the ear and the heart of Herod, and Herod binds the hands and feet of John. O how inconstant is a carnal heart to good resolutions; the word has oft-time an awakening influence, where it doth not leave an abiding impression upon the minds of men.
Observe, 2. The cause of the baptist’s death; it was for telling a king of his crime. Herod cut off that head whose tongue was so bold as to tell him of his faults. The persecutions which the prophets of God fall under, is usually for telling great men of their sins: men in power are impatient of reproof, and imagine their authority gives them a license to transgress.
Observe, 3. The plain-dealing of the baptist, in reproving Herod for his crime, which, in one act, was adultery, incest, and violence.
Adultery, that he took another’s wife; incest, that he took his brother’s wife; violence, that he took her in spite of her husband.
Therefore John does not mince the matter, and say, it is not the crown and sceptre of Herod that could daunt the faithful messenger of God. There ought to meet in God’s ministers, both courage and impartiality.
Courage, in fearing no faces; impartiality in sparing no sins. For none are so great, but they are under the authority and command of the law of God.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Mat 14:3-7. For Herod had laid hold on John Had formerly seized him; and put him in prison for Herodiass sake On account of the reproof which John gave him for marrying Herodias, his brother Philips wife Who was still living. For John said to him Probably in some private conference he had with him, It is not lawful for thee to have her Indeed it was not lawful for either of them to have her. For her father, Aristobulus, was their own brother. Johns words were rough, like his raiment. He would not break the force of truth by using soft words even to a king. And when he would have put him to death In a fit of passion; he feared the multitude He knew his abuse of his power had already rendered him odious to the people, and as their resentments were much excited already, he was afraid if he should proceed to put a prophet to death, they would break out into a flame which he could not quench. He was then restrained by fear of the multitude; and afterward by the reverence he had for John, Mar 6:19, &c. But when Herods birthday was kept Some think, that by , here rendered birthday, the day of Herods accession to his tetrarchy is meant: and the word may perhaps be sometimes used with this latitude; but, unless where there is positive evidence that it has that meaning, the safer way is to prefer the customary interpretation. The daughter of Herodias Whose name was Salome, and who was afterward infamous for a life suitable to this beginning, danced before them Doubtless in consequence of a previous plan laid by her mother. For in ancient times, it was so far from being the custom for ladies of distinction to dance in public, that it was reckoned indecent if they were so much as present at public entertainments. Queen Vashti thought it so dishonourable, that, rather than submit to it, even when commanded by King Ahasuerus, she forfeited her crown. Est 1:12. It may, therefore, be believed, that this dancing of Herodiass daughter in such a large company of men, at a public entertainment, was a very extraordinary circumstance, and must have been brought about by some contrivance of her mother. And pleased Herod And also his guests, Mar 6:22, whereupon, being delighted with her dancing and heated with wine, he promised with an oath Profanely and foolishly sware unto her, and that, it seems, more than once, both the evangelists using the plural, , oaths, (see Mat 14:9, and Mar 6:26;) to give her whatsoever she would ask, even to the half of his kingdom, Mar 6:23. Thus profusely would he reward a worthless dance; while a prison and death were the recompense of the man of God who honestly sought the salvation of his soul? Scott.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
ARREST & IMPRISONMENT OF JOHN THE BAPTIST
Mat 14:3-5; Mar 6:17-20; Luk 3:19-21. Mark: For Herod himself, having sent, arrested John, and bound him in prison, on account of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, because he married her. For John said to Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have the wife of thy brother. And Herodias hated him, and wished to kill him; and was not able. For Herod revered John, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man; and he continued to hold him in prison, and hearing him, continued to do many things, and he was hearing him delightfully. Matthew: And wishing to kill him, he feared the multitude, because they had him as a prophet. Luke: And Herod the tetrarch, being convicted by him concerning Herodias, the wife of Philip, his brother, and concerning all those wicked things which Herod did, added also this to all, he also shut up John in prison. We see from the concurrent histories of this dark tragedy, as given by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, that John the Baptist extended no royal courtesy whatever to the king and queen; but, looking them in the face, thus boldly and fearlessly exposed them in the presence of all the people, pronouncing his withering condemnation against their unlawful matrimony, Herodias, being the legal wife of his brother Philip not the Philip who was at that time tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis (Luk 3:1), but of another Philip, who was his half-brother. Here we see a notable case of an honest preacher going into prison and to the executioners block, losing all his liberties, and even his life, rather than withhold a solitary item of the truth. If the preachers nowadays were to expose and condemn all of the unlawful marriages in their congregations, thousands of them would lose their pastoral heads, especially in the wealthy city churches. O how the present age needs preachers having the backbone of John the Baptist! This illustrates the absolute necessity of entire sanctification on the part of the clergy, as nothing but this grace can qualify the preacher to tell the truth under all circumstances, regardless of his reputation, financial interest, and his ecclesiastical head. In this whole transaction, Herod shows up a better spirit than Herodias. You see plainly from Mark that Herod imprisoned John, and kept him in prison nearly two years, to keep Herodias from killing him. If he had not been protected by those impregnable prison-walls, and kept night and day under lock and key, the queen would have hired an assassin to go and murder him. Machaerus, a city and strong fortification, which our dragoman pointed out to us, on the east bank of the Dead Sea, where Herod also had a palace and spent a portion of his time, was the place of Johns imprisonment. During these twenty months, which wound up with his decapitation through the stratagem of Herodias, Herod frequently heard John preach. Mark says: Knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. We become righteous in regeneration, and holy in sanctification. Hence you see that King Herod, an intelligent, unconverted Church-member, had gumption enough to believe in the two works of grace i.e., regeneration and sanctification and see them both in John the Baptist. Mark here informs us that Johns preaching had a powerful effect on Herod, who, like multiplied thousands of unsaved Church-members, wanted to be good. And hearing him, he continued to do many things, and he continued to hear him delightfully. All this took place during those twenty months of his imprisonment at Machaerus, where Herod had a palace, and spent much of his time, meanwhile holding John in prison to keep his haughty wife from having him killed, she, of course, being too mad at him to ever hear him any more, though her royal husband heard him very frequently, ever and anon, and was delighted with the wonderful truth so ably and faithfully dispensed by his prisoner. He continued to do many things; i.e., he was very religious, and obeyed John in many things, being literally carried away by the red-hot truth which he preached; yet he never made the final surrender and got saved; finally permitting his diabolical wife to constrain him to imbue his hands in the innocent blood of the preacher under whose ministry he had been delighted these two years, shed many a tear, and made many a holy vow.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
The Synoptic writers ascribed moral and religious motives to Herod for executing John (cf. Mar 6:16-29; Luk 3:19-20). Josephus wrote that Herod beheaded John for political reasons. [Note: Josephus, Antiquities of . . ., 18:5:2.] Probably both reasons led Herod to act as he did. [Note: Hoehner, Herod Antipas, pp. 124-49.]
Herod Antipas had two brothers named Philip. The one Matthew referred to here was Herod Philip I. The other brother named Philip was Herod Philip II, tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis. Philip I was Herod Antipas’ half-brother. Therefore Antipas’ marriage to Philip’s wife Herodias was incestuous (cf. Lev 18:16; Lev 20:21). Evidently John had repeatedly rebuked Antipas since the verb in Mat 14:4 can read, "he used to say [repeatedly]." Herodias was also Antipas’ niece, but this would have been no problem for John since the law did not forbid uncles marrying their nieces. Combining the Synoptic accounts, Antipas appears to have been a weak man controlled by a wicked and ruthless wife, Herodias. Interestingly John, the latter day Elijah, faced the modern counterparts of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel in Antipas and Herodias. Unfortunately Herodias succeeded where Jezebel had failed.