Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 2.pdf

<strong>Commentary</strong> on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 2
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
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.”
153
John Calvin