《Coke’s Commentary on the Holy Bible – Matthew (Vol. 2)》(Thomas Coke)
14 Chapter 14
Introduction
CHAP. XIV.
Herod's opinion of Christ. Wherefore John Baptist was beheaded. Jesus departeth into a desert place: where he feedeth five thousand men with five loaves and two fishes: he walketh on the sea to his disciples: and, landing at Gennesaret, healeth the sick by the touch of the hem of his garment.
Anno Domini 31.
Verse 1
Matthew 14:1. Herod the Tetrarch— Herod is called Tetrarch, because he inherited but a fourth part of his father's dominions. However, he exercised a regal authority in Galilee, and is styled a king, Matthew 14:9 and Mark 6:14. This was Herod Antipas. See ch. Matthew 2:1.
Verse 2
Matthew 14:2. This is John the Baptist— From Luke 9:7 we learn that Herod and his courtiers were strangely perplexed respecting the fame of Jesus, which occasioned manyspeculations among them. Some supposed that it wasJohn risen from the dead, others, that it was Elias, and others, one of the old prophets; but Herod declared it to be his opinion that it was John; and therefore, says he, mighty works do shew forth themselves in him, that is to say, extraordinary and miraculous powers were exerted by him. Erasmus indeed thinks, that as Herod was of the sect of the Sadducees, who denied the immortality of the soul, (compare ch. Matthew 16:6. Mark 8:15.) he might say this by way of irony to his servants, ridiculing the notions of the lower people, and those who joined in that opinion; and this solution might have passed, had not Herod been perplexed on this occasion, Luke 9:7. The image of the Baptist whom he wrongfully put to death, presented itself often to his thought, and tormented him; therefore, when it was reported that he was risen from the dead, and was working miracles, Herod, fearing some punishment would be inflicted on him for his crime, in the confusion of his thoughts said, that John was risen from the dead, notwithstanding he was a Sadducee. Nay, he might say this, although he had heard of Jesus and his miracles before, there being nothing more common than for persons in vehement perturbations to talk inconsistently. Besides, it is no easy matter to arrive at a steady belief of so great an absurdity as the annihilation of the human mind. The being of God, the immortality of the soul, the rewards and punishments of a future state,with the other great principles of natural religion; often obtrude themselves upon unbelievers, in spite of all their efforts to banish them; and leave a sting behind them in the conscience, whose pain, however it may be concealed, cannot easily be allayed. Of this, Herod is a remarkable example; for, notwithstanding he was a king, his conscience made itself heard and felt, amidst all the noise, the hurry, the flatteries, and the debaucheries of a court.
Verse 3
Matthew 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 Luke 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; Mark 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
Verse 4
Matthew 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 Mark 1:14 and Bell's Inquiry, p. 384.
Verse 6
Matthew 14:6. But when Herod's birth-day was kept— If Herod's resentment of the freedom which John the Baptist took with him was great, that of Herodias was much greater. The crime that she was guilty of was odious; she could not bear to have it named, and far less reproved. She was therefore enraged to the higher pitch, and nothing less than the Baptist's head would satisfy her. Therefore Herodias had a quarrel against him, and would have killed him, but she could not; Mark 6:19. Ever since he offended her, she had been plotting against his life, but could not yet accomplish her purpose; for (Matthew 14:20.) Herod feared, or reverenced John, &c. Great and powerful as the king was, he stood in awe of John, though in low life, and durst not attempt any thing against him; such force have piety and virtue sometimes upon the minds of the highest offenders. Herodias, therefore, finding that she could not prevail against the Baptist in the way of direct solicitation, watched an opportunity to destroy him by craft. At length one offered itself. Herod, on his birth-day, made a sumptuous entertainment for the great lords, generals, and other great persons of his kingdom; wherefore, as it was the custom in those countries, for princes to bestow favours at their feasts, sometimes of their own accord, sometimes in consequence of petitions which were then presented, Herodias thought the birth-day a fit opportunity to get the Baptist destroyed. With this view she proposed to Salome, her daughter by Philip, who was now of age, and had followed her mother's fortunes, to dance before the company at the birth-day; pretending, no doubt, that it would turn out greatly to her advantage, because the king, in the excess of his good-humour, would probably bid her name what she would please to have, as the reward of her complaisance; or if he should not, she might, consistently enough with good manners, beg him to grant her the boon she was most desirous to obtain: only, before she named any particular favour, it would be proper to come out and consult with her mother. The Evangelists, indeed, do not absolutely speak of this previous agreement: but St. Mark gives the strongest hint of it, Mark 6:21, &c.; And when a convenient day ευκαιρον, a favourable opportunity] was come, that Herod, &c.: for, as he had mentioned the attempts which Herodias had made, without success, to destroy the Baptist,—by calling this a convenient day, on account of the feast, he insinuates, that she thought the entertainment afforded favourable opportunity to take away the Baptist's life; consequently he directs us to consider all the favourable transactions of the birth-day, which have any reference to the Baptist's death, as the effect of Herodias's contrivance. Besides, a previous agreement between the mother and the daughter must be admitted, in order to account for the latter's dancing before the company on the birth-day: the reason is, 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: we need refer only to the instance of queen Vashti, who thought it so dishonourable, that rather than submit to it even when commanded by Ahasuerus, she forfeited her crown. We may likewise remark, that notwithstanding Herodias was a lady of no distinguished character for virtue, she had such a regard to decency and reputation, that she did not appear at this birth-day feast. We may therefore believe, that it was an extraordinary thing for young ladies of qualityto dance before large companies of men at public entertainments; and if so, the reader must be sensible, that this dance of Herodias's daughter could not happen by accident, but must have been brought about by some contrivance or another. See Calmet, Macknight, and Lardner's Credibility, part 1: vol. 1: p. 23.
Verse 7
Matthew 14:7. He promised with an oath— It is very probable that this oath of Herod's was repeatedly given; because, according to the manners of the East, it was disgraceful for women of rank to appear in public; and they never did appear, unless they were sent for, or had an important request to make. (See Esther 5:2-3 and the former note.) It was immediately concluded, that Salome's extraordinary condescension proceeded from her having some favour to ask of the king: besides, the honour she was doing to the day andthe company might be interpreted as a public acknowledgment of Herod's civility to her, and at the same time judged a becoming expression of her gratitude. As for the king, he considered the respect shewn to his guests as terminating upon himself; and having greatly injured the young lady by debauching her mother, he was caught with flattery, and grew vain. His fancy also being heated with wine and music, and the applause of his guests, the sight of the damsel dancing, and the idea of her mother, whom he passionately loved, he made her the promise which he imagined she was silently soliciting; apromise which, though it had the air of royal munificence, suited but ill with the gravity of wisdom or with any spark of goodness. See Mark 6:22-23 and Macknight.