Saturday of the 11th week after Pentecost

(De Cons. Ev. ii. 43.) Matthew says, At that time, not, On that day, or, In that same hour; for Mark relates the same circumstances, but not in the same order. He places this after the mission of the disciples to preach, though not implying that it necessarily follows there; any more than Luke, who follows the same order as Mark.

(non occ.) THE. Evangelist had above shown the Pharisees speaking falsely against Christ's miracles, and just now His fellow-citizens wondering, yet despising Him; he now relates what opinion Herod had formed concerning Christ on hearing of His miracles, and says, At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the fame of Jesus.

(Chapter 14, Verses 1, 2.) At that time Herod the Tetrarch heard about the fame of Jesus, and he said to his servants, 'This is John the Baptist; he has been raised from the dead, and that is why these miraculous powers are at work in him.' Some of the interpreters of the Church inquire about the reasons why Herod suspected this, that he believed John had risen from the dead and that is why miraculous powers were at work in him, as if an explanation of this strange error should be given to us, or it provides an opportunity for belief in transmigration of souls based on these words, even though at the time John was beheaded, the Lord was thirty years old: but transmigration of souls, on the other hand, suggests that after many years in different bodies, souls enter into various bodies.

One of the Ecclesiastical interpreters asks what caused Herod to think that John was risen from the dead; as though we had to account for the errors of an alien, or as though the heresy of metempsychosis was at all supported by this place—a heresy which teaches that souls pass through various bodies after a long period of years—for the Lord was thirty years old when John was beheaded.

"At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus." For Herod the king, this man's father, he that slew the children, was dead.

But not without a purpose doth the evangelist signify the time, but to make thee observe also the haughtiness of the tyrant, and his thoughtlessness, in that not at the beginning did he inform himself about Christ, but after a very long time. For such are they that are in places of power, and are encompassed with much pomp, they learn these things late, because they do not make much account of them.

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, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] 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 any thing 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 would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.

Perhaps some one may ask how it can be here said, At that time Herod heard, seeing that we have long before read that Herod was dead, and that on that the Lord returned out of Egypt. This question is answered, if we remember that there were two Herods. On the death of the first Herod, his son Archelaus succeeded him, and after ten years was sent into exile to Vienne in Gaul. Then Cæsar Augustus gave command that the kingdom should be divided into tetrarchies, and gave three parts to the sons of Herod. This Herod then who beheaded John is the son of that greater Herod under whom the Lord was born; and this is confirmed by the Evangelist adding the tetrarch.

Herod the king is one person, Herod the tetrarch, his son, is another. After King Herod's death the Romans divided his kingdom into a tetrarchy, and one part of the tetrarchy went to his son. This is the man who beheaded the Forerunner and who, for this reason, received his due punishment not long afterward.

This Herod was the son of him who slew the infants in Bethlehem. From this passage consider the dimness in which a ruler lives his life. See how long it takes for Herod to hear of Jesus. Those in power learn slowly about such things because they are not concerned about those who shine forth in virtue. He appears to fear the Baptist. This is why he does not dare to speak out to anyone except his servants. Since John did not work any signs when he was alive, Herod thought that by his resurrection he had also received from God the gift of working miracles.

Above, the Lord showed the power of the evangelical teaching under certain parables; here he shows it by deeds; and he does three things. First, he shows to what effects it extends by a likeness of deeds; secondly, he shows the sufficiency of the evangelical teaching; thirdly, how it should be preserved in purity. The second is in chapter 15, the third in chapter 16. Regarding the first, first a false opinion is set forth; secondly, its occasion; thirdly, the opinion is disproved. The second is at for Herod had apprehended John, etc.; the third at which when Jesus had heard, he retired from thence. He says therefore at that time Herod the tetrarch heard the fame of Jesus. And this is not to be referred to that day, but to the time in general; because Mark 6:1 and Luke 4:16 do not narrate in the same order, since they narrate this after the sending of the disciples, as is stated in Mark 6. Hence it is uncertain who preserves the order of history. Nevertheless, what is said, at that time, is said to denote the negligence of Herod, because after the miracles he then for the first time heard the fame of Jesus: for this negligence is customary among the rich, that they do not care about small things. 1 Tim 6:17: charge the rich of this world not to be high-minded, nor to trust in the uncertainty of riches, etc. Herod the tetrarch heard, to distinguish him from Herod the king, under whom Christ was born, as is stated above in chapter 2. Hence, when the latter died, Christ returned from Egypt. This Herod was his son, and he was a tetrarch. His father had been made king by the Romans, and he had six sons, two of whom he killed during his lifetime; another, the firstborn, he killed at his death, when that son had already begun to have himself proclaimed king while his father was still living. When the father died, Archelaus took the kingdom for himself, and following his father's wickedness, he could not be tolerated by the Jews. Then they appealed to the Romans, and the kingdom was divided into four parts: two parts were given to Archelaus, another to Herod, and another part to Philip. Hence this one was a tetrarch and prince over the fourth part of the kingdom. He heard the fame of Jesus. From this he was blameworthy, because for so long a time Jesus had already lived and worked miracles, and yet he then heard for the first time; hence is fulfilled Job 28:22: destruction and death have said: with our ears we have heard the fame thereof.

(ubi sup.) Luke's words are, John have I beheaded: who is he of whom I hear such things? (Luke 9:9.) As Luke has thus represented Herod as in doubt, we must understand rather that he was afterwards convinced of that which was commonly said—or we must take what he here says to his servants as expressing a doubt—for they admit of either of these acceptations.

But mark thou, I pray thee, how great a thing virtue is, that he was afraid of him even when dead, and out of his fear he speaks wisely even concerning a resurrection.

"For he said," it is mentioned, "unto his servants, This is John, whom I slew, he is risen from the dead, and therefore the mighty powers do work in him." Seest thou the intensity of his fear? for neither then did he dare to publish it abroad, but he still speaks but to his own servants.

But yet even this opinion savored of the soldier, and was absurd. For many besides had risen from the dead, and no one had wrought anything of the kind. And his words seem to me to be the language both of vanity, and of fear. For such is the nature of unreasonable souls, they admit often a mixture of opposite passions.

But Luke affirms that the multitudes said, "This is Elias, or Jeremias, or one of the old prophets," but he, as uttering forsooth something wiser than the rest, made this assertion.

But it is probable that before this, in answer to them that said He was John (for many had said this too), he had denied it, and said, "I slew him," priding himself and glorying in it. For this both Mark and Luke report that he said, "John I beheaded." But when the rumor prevailed, then he too saith the same as the people.

Then the evangelist relates to us also the history. And what might his reason be for not introducing it as a subject by itself? Because all their labor entirely was to tell what related to Christ, and they made themselves no secondary work besides this, except it were again to contribute to the same end. Therefore neither now would they have mentioned the history were it not on Christ's account, and because Herod said, "John is risen again."

But Mark saith, that Herod exceedingly honored the man, and this, when reproved. So great a thing is virtue.

The Jews had different opinions about the resurrection. Some of them were false. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead or in the existence of angels. They believed those things that were written about them were only to be interpreted figuratively but had no reality in point of fact.Other Jewish views of the resurrection were true, such as were taught by the Pharisees about the resurrection of the dead—that they rise.We must now therefore inquire about the opinion regarding the soul, which was mistakenly held by Herod and some from among the people. It ran something like this: John, who a little earlier had been slain by him, had risen from the dead after he had been beheaded. This person who had risen was the same person under a different name, one now called Jesus. Herod imagined that Jesus possessed the same powers that formerly worked in John. If the powers that worked in John had passed over to Jesus, Jesus was thus thought by some to actually be John the Baptist. The return of Elijah fueled this idea. Here is the line of argument. It was the spirit and power of Elijah that had returned in John. "This is Elijah who is to come." The spirit in Elijah possessed the power to go into John. So Herod thought that the powers John worked in baptism and teaching had a miraculous effect in Jesus, even though John did not do miracles. It may be said that something of this kind was the underlying thought of those who said that Elijah had appeared in Jesus or that one of the old prophets had risen.

From this place we may learn how great the jealousy of the Jews was; that John could have risen from the dead, Herod, an alien-born, here declares, without any witness that he had risen: concerning Christ, whom the Prophets had foretold, the Jews preferred to believe, that He had not risen, but had been carried away by stealth. This intimates that the Gentile heart is more disposed to belief than that of the Jews.

All men have well thought concerning the power of the resurrection, that the saints shall have greater power after they have risen from the dead, than they had while they were yet weighed down with the infirmity of the flesh; wherefore Herod says, Therefore mighty works are wrought in him.

Thinking that the Baptist had risen from the dead, Herod began to be afraid of him, as though John had become all the more powerful. He was alarmed lest John should employ against him even more of his caustic freedom of speech, which was a terror to him, frustrating him by revealing his crooked deeds.

And he said to his servants: this is John the Baptist. Some have said that he held the doctrine of the transmigration of souls: for Plato and Pythagoras held that the soul departing from one body enters another body. Herod holding this opinion, as they say, believed that the soul of John had passed into the soul of Christ. But this cannot be, because he had killed him a short time before; but Jesus was thirty years old; hence he did not believe this. Likewise Jesus had already worked miracles before the beheading, and before the imprisonment, as is stated in John 3. Nevertheless Herod is to be praised, because he believed in the resurrection, of which Job 14:14 says: do you think a man who is dead shall live again? Likewise he had another good trait, that he believed that the resurrection takes place in a better state; therefore he believed that John then worked miracles which before the resurrection he had not worked; therefore he says and therefore mighty works are wrought in him, because he has arrived at a higher state; hence men will rise in a better state. Hence the Apostle, 1 Cor 15:43: it is sown in weakness, it shall rise in power. But there is a question here, because Luke says that he heard and doubted; hence he said, John I have beheaded; but here he says without doubt, when he says, this is John. Augustine resolves this by saying that he did not say this of himself, but heard it from others. Hence when he first heard, he doubted, but as the report grew he assented. Hence Luke recounted the first, but Matthew the second. Or otherwise it can be said that Matthew too touches on Herod's doubt, so that it is read interrogatively: this is John?

(De Cons. Ev. ii. 44.) Luke does not give this in the same order, but where he is speaking of the Lord's baptism, so that he took beforehand an event which happened long afterwards. For after that saying of John's concerning the Lord, that His fan is in His hand, he straightway adds this, which, as we may gather from John's Gospel, did not follow immediately. For he relates that after Jesus was baptized, He went into Galilee, and thence returned into Judæa, and baptized there near to the Jordan before John was cast into prison. But neither Matthew nor Mark have placed John's imprisonment in that order in which it appears from their own writings that it took place; for they also say that when John was delivered up, the Lord went into Galilee, and after many things there done, then by occasion of the fame of Christ reaching Herod they relate what took place in the imprisonment and beheading of John. The cause for which he had been cast into prison he shows when he says, On account of Herodias his brother's wife. For John had said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.

(ord.) Having mentioned this supposition of John's resurrection, because he had never yet spoken of his death, he now returns, and narrates how it came to pass.

We have frequently advised that all diligence must be applied to the reading of the Gospels, for in the narration of the different events one may arrive at a deeper understanding. There is indeed an order to the narration of all the works, but the underlying cause behind the effects of the narrated events is preestablished, as with Herod and John.John, as we frequently noted, preferred the form of the law, because the law foretold Christ and John proceeded from the law, announcing Christ from the law. Herod, on the other hand, was the prince of the people, and the prince of the people embraces the name and interests of his subjects. John accordingly advised Herod not to take to himself his brother's wife. There were and there are two peoples: one people of the circumcision and the other of the Gentiles. But the law admonished Israel not to ally itself with the works of the Gentiles and with infidelity. Infidelity is associated with the Gentiles, as if by a bond of conjugal love. Because of the truth of this stern admonition by John, he was confined in prison like the law.

Mystically, John represents the Law; for the Law preached Christ, and John came of the Law, preaching Christ out of the Law. Herod is the Prince of the people, and the Prince of the people bears the name and the cause of the whole body put under him. John then warned Herod that he should not take to him his brother's wife. For there are and there were two people, of the circumcision, and of the Gentiles; and these are brethren, children of the same parent of the human race, but the Law warned Israel that he should not take to him the works of the Gentiles and unbelief which was united to them as by the bond of conjugal love.

(vv. 3, 4.) For Herod had arrested John, bound him, and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife. Because John had said to him, 'It is not lawful for you to have her.' The ancient history tells us that Philip, the son of Herod the Great (under whom the Lord fled to Egypt), the brother of this Herod under whom Christ suffered, had married Herodias, the daughter of King Aretas; but later, due to some disputes arising against his son-in-law, he took his daughter back and gave her in marriage to Herod, his enemy and the former husband of Herodias. However, who this Philip is, the evangelist Luke explains more fully: In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea; and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee; and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis (Luke 3:1). Therefore, John the Baptist, who came in the spirit and power of Elijah, with the same authority that Elijah had rebuked Ahab and Jezebel (1 Kings 21), accused Herod and Herodias of having entered into an unlawful marriage and of not being allowed to marry his brother's wife while his brother was still alive. John preferred to risk his life before the king rather than be forgetful of God's commandments because of flattery.

The old history tells us, that Philip the son of Herod the greater, the brother of this Herod, had taken to wife Herodias daughter of Aretas, king of the Arabs; and that he, the father-in-law, having afterwards cause of quarrel with his son-in-law, took away his daughter, and to grieve her husband gave her in marriage to his enemy Herod. John the Baptist therefore, who came in the spirit and power of Elias, with the same authority that he had exerted over Ahab and Jezebel, rebuked Herod and Herodias, because that they had entered into unlawful wedlock; it being unlawful while the own brother yet lives to take his wife. He preferred to endanger himself with the King, than to be forgetful of the commandments of God in commending himself to him.

And this relation is not set before us as a principal matter, because the Evangelist's only object was to tell us concerning Christ, and nothing beyond, unless so far as it furthered this object. He says then, For Herod had seized John, and bound him.

David is persecuted; Elias put to flight; Jeremias stoned; Esaias cut asunder; Zacharias butchered between the altar and the temple, imparting to the hard stones lasting marks of his blood. That person himself, at the close of the law and the prophets, and called not a prophet, but a messenger, is, suffering an ignominious death, beheaded to reward a dancing-girl.

In what has gone before, Matthew has not given an account of John, as it was his intent to write only about Christ. Nor would he have mentioned it now if it did not relate to Christ. John had rebuked Herod for unlawfully taking the wife of his brother. For the law decreed that a man should take the wife of his brother only when that brother had died childless. But in this case Philip had not died childless, for the dancing girl was his child. Some say that Herod had seized both wife and tetrarchy from Philip while he was still living. Whether the former or the latter is correct, what was done was a transgression of the law.

For Herod had apprehended John. These things happened before; hence he does not follow the order, but incidentally he determines the death of John. But the question is, why the Evangelists determine incidentally about John, and Chrysostom raises this question. He resolves it by saying that they principally intended the deeds of Christ, and other things only insofar as they were related to Christ. Therefore here he incidentally determines the death of John. And first he determines the imprisonment; secondly, the death, at but on the birthday, etc. Regarding the first he does three things. First he sets forth the imprisonment; secondly, the cause; thirdly, the beheading. For Herod had apprehended John, and bound him, and put him in prison. He touches on the order, because first he seized him, bound him, and imprisoned him; so also was it with Christ. He touches on the cause when he says on account of Herodias, the wife of his brother. Herod and Philip were brothers. Philip had married the daughter of Aretas, king of the Arabs. Herod had enmity with that king of the Arabs, and also with his brother Philip, so that the king of the Arabs, in hatred of Philip, took back his daughter and gave her to Herod. Concerning this John, you should understand that he was a man of great virtue; hence it is said of him: he shall come in the power of Elijah. Likewise you should note that he is also called a martyr, because he died on account of his reproving for the faith, because it was for truth; and Christ is the truth.

(ord.) And perhaps he observed the Jewish Law, according to which John forbade him this adultery.

Ancient history tells us that Philip the son of Herod the Great (under whom the Lord fled into Egypt), the brother of that Herod under whom Christ suffered, took as his wife Herodias the daughter of King Phetrai. Later his father-in-law, after a rivalry between him and his son-in-law, took his daughter and, to the great chagrin of the first husband, Herod his enemy united with her in marriage. As to just who this Philip was, Luke the Evangelist notes clearly, "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias Caesar, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis."Therefore John the Baptist, who had come in the spirit and power of Elijah, with the same authority whereby the latter had rebuked Ahab and Jezebel, upbraided Herod and Herodias because they had entered into an unlawful marriage. He did so because it is not lawful to take the wife of one's own living brother. John preferred to incur the king's anger rather than, through fawning, be unmindful of God's commandments.

Then his narrative proceeds thus: "For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison, for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife. For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her. And when he would have put him to death, he feared the people, because they counted him as a prophet."

And wherefore doth he not address his discourse at all to her, but to the man? Because it depended more on him.

But see how inoffensive he makes his accusation, as relating a history rather than bringing a charge.

John aroused Herod by his moral admonitions, not by any formal accusation. He wanted to correct, not to suppress. Herod, however, preferred to suppress rather than be reconciled. To those who are held captive, the freedom of the one innocent of wrongdoing becomes hateful. Virtue is undesirable to those who are immoral; holiness is abhorrent to those who are impious; chastity is an enemy to those who are impure; integrity is a hardship for those who are corrupt; frugality runs counter to those who are self-indulgent; mercy is intolerable to those who are cruel, as is loving-kindness to those who are pitiless and justice to those who are unjust. The Evangelist indicates this when he says, "John said to him, 'It is not lawful for you to have the wife of your brother Philip.' " This is where John runs into trouble. He who admonishes those who are evil gives offense. He who repudiates wrongdoers runs into trouble. John was saying what was proper of the law, what was proper of justice, what was proper of salvation and what was proper certainly not of hatred but of love. And look at the reward he received from the ungodly for his loving concern!

For he said to Herod: it is not lawful for you to have her. It should be known that Antipater, the father of Herod the king, was a foreigner, but he was a proselyte, hence his sons were Jews. But it was commanded in the law that while a brother was living, another should not have his brother's wife; therefore John, as a zealot for the law, said it is not lawful for you to have her.

(ord.) And desiring to kill him, he feared the people.

(ord.) The fear of God amends us, the fear of man torments us, but alters not our will; it rather renders us more impatient to sin as it has held us back for a time from our indulgence.

(Verse 5.) And wanting to kill him, he feared the people: for they held him as a prophet. Indeed, he feared the sedition of the people because of John, from whom he knew that many crowds had been baptized in the Jordan; but he was overcome by the love of his wife, because of whose ardor he had even neglected the commandments of God (Genesis 40).

He feared a disturbance among the people for John's sake, for he knew that multitudes had been baptized by him in Jordan; but he was overcome by love of his wife, which had already made him neglect the commands of. God.

"And though he wanted to put him to death, he feared the people." That person readily turns away from justice who, in matters at issue, fears not God but people. Such fear can restrain the power to sin but is unable to remove the will to sin. Hence, those whom it has restrained from crime, it makes all the more eager to return to crime. It is only the fear of God that can set minds straight, repel criminal actions, preserve innocence and give steadfast power. But let us focus on the passionate intensity of blessed John.

He postponed the murder because he feared the multitude, not because he feared God; yet the devil found the opportune moment for him.

And having a mind to put him to death, he feared the people. Sometimes it happens that when a man does not wish to avoid one sin, he falls into a greater. Hosea 4:2: murder, and theft, and adultery have overflowed, and blood has touched blood. Hence since he did not wish to avoid adultery, he incurred murder. And when he wished to, he feared the people. The commotion of the people is greatly to be feared; Sir 26:5: my heart feared three things: the slander of a city, and the gathering of a mob, and a false accusation. Likewise the fear of the Lord takes away an evil will; but the fear of man does not, although it causes delay. Therefore because he could not on account of the fear of the people, he delayed.

(non occ.) The Evangelist having related John's imprisonment, proceeds to his putting to death, saying, But on Herod's birthday, the daughter of Herodias danced in the midst.

On Herod's birthday—that is, amid the delights of corporeal things—the daughter of Herodias danced. With every enticing movement she made, she exuded sensual pleasure as though from the infidelity that arose through all the joys of Israel. The people gave themselves over to this. All were corrupted by an oath. Through sin and the pleasures of the world, the Israelites sold the gifts of eternal life. The girl requested of her mother—who herself had a knack for infidelity—that the head of John, symbolizing the glory of the law, be brought to her. For the law had exposed incestuous Israel with the authority of the divine commandments.

On the birthday, that is amidst the enjoyments of the things of the body, the daughter of Herodias danced; for pleasure, as it were springing from unbelief, was carried in its alluring course throughout the whole of Israel, and the nation bound itself thereto as by an oath, for for sin and worldly pleasures the Israelites sold the gifts of eternal life.

(Verse 6.) But on Herod's birthday, Herodias' daughter danced in the midst, and it pleased Herod. We have found no other to have observed their own birthday except Herod and Pharaoh, as their impiety was on equal terms, so too was their festivity.

We find no others keeping their birthday besides Herod and Pharaoh, that they who were alike in their wickedness might be alike in their festivities.

"But when Herod's birth-day was kept," saith he, "the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod." O diabolical revel! O satanic spectacle! O lawless dancing! and more lawless reward for the dancing. For a murder more impious than all murders was perpetrated, and he that was worthy to be crowned and publicly honored, was slain in the midst, and the trophy of the devils was set on the table.

And the means too of the victory were worthy of the deeds done. For, "The daughter of Herodias," it is said, "danced in the midst, and pleased Herod. Whereupon he swore with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask. And she being before instructed of her mother, said, Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger."

Her reproach is twofold; first, that she danced, then that she pleased him, and so pleased him, as to obtain even murder for her reward.

Seest thou how savage he was? how senseless? how foolish? in putting himself under the obligation of an oath, while to her he gives full power over her request. But when he saw the evil actually ensuing, "he was sorry," it is said; and yet in the first instance he had put him in bonds. Wherefore then is he sorry? Such is the nature of virtue, even amongst the wicked admiration and praises are its due. But alas for her madness! When she too ought to admire, yea, to bow down to him, for trying to redress her wrong, she on the contrary even helps to arrange the plot, and lays a snare, and asks a diabolical favor.

But he was afraid "for the oath's sake," it is said, "and them that sat at meat with him." And how didst thou not fear that which is more grievous? Surely if thou wast afraid to have witnesses of thy perjury, much more oughtest thou to fear having so many witnesses of a murder so lawless.

But as I think many are ignorant of the grievance itself, whence the murder had its origin, I must declare this too, that ye may learn the wisdom of the lawgiver. What then was the ancient law, which Herod indeed trampled on, but John vindicated? The wife of him that died childless was to be given to his brother. For since death was an incurable ill, and all was contrived for life's sake; He makes a law that the living brother should marry her, and should call the child that is born by the name of the dead, so that his house should not utterly perish. For if the dead were not so much as to leave children, which is the greatest mitigation of death, the sorrow would be without remedy. Therefore you see, the lawgiver devised this refreshment for those who were by nature deprived of children, and commanded the issue to be reckoned as belonging to the other.

But when there was a child, this marriage was no longer permitted. "And wherefore?" one may say, "for if it was lawful for another, much more for the brother." By no means. For He will have men's consanguinity extended, and the sources multiplied of our interest in each other.

Why then, in the case also of death without offspring, did not another marry her? Because it would not so be accounted the child of the departed; but now his brother begetting it, the fiction became probable. And besides, any other man had no constraining call to build up the house of the dead, but this had incurred the claim by relationship.

Forasmuch then as Herod had married his brother's wife, when she had a child, therefore John blames him, and blames him with moderation, showing together with his boldness, his consideration also.

But mark thou, I pray thee, how the whole theatre was devilish. For first, it was made up of drunkenness and luxury, whence nothing healthful could come. Secondly, the spectators in it were depraved, and he that gave the banquet the worst transgressor of all. Thirdly, there was the irrational pleasure. Fourthly, the damsel, because of whom the marriage was illegal, who ought even to have hid herself, as though her mother were dishonored by her, comes making a show, and throwing into the shade all harlots, virgin as she was.

And the time again contributes no little to the reproof of this enormity. For when he ought to be thanking God, that on that day He had brought him to light, then he ventures upon those lawless acts. When one in chains ought to have been freed by him, then he adds slaughter to bonds.

Hearken, ye virgins, or rather ye wives also, as many as consent to such unseemliness at other person's weddings, leaping, and bounding, and disgracing our common nature. Hearken, ye men too, as many as follow after those banquets, full of expense and drunkenness, and fear ye the gulf of the evil one. For indeed so mightily did he seize upon that wretched person just then, that he sware even to give the half of his kingdom: this being Mark's statement, "He sware unto her, Whatsoever thou shalt ask of me, I will give it thee, unto the half of my kingdom."

Such was the value he set upon his royal power; so was he once for all made captive by his passion, as to give up his kingdom for a dance.

And why marvel at these things so happening then, since even now, after the coming in of so high a wisdom, for a dance' sake many of these effeminate young men give up their very souls, and that without constraint of any oath? For being made captive by the pleasure, they are led like sheep, wheresoever the wolf may drag them; which was then the case with that frenzied man, who was guilty of two extreme acts of madness; first, in making it depend on her that was so maddened, and intoxicated with her passion, and shrinking from nothing; next, in making the deed fast with the constraint of an oath.

But albeit he was so wicked, that base woman was more wicked than all of them, both the damsel and the tyrant. For she was the very first contriver of all the mischiefs, and the framer of the whole plot (she who most of all ought to have been thankful to the prophet); since it was in obedience to her that her daughter both disgraced herself, and danced, and sought the murder; and Herod was entrapped by her.

Seest thou how justly Christ said, "He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me." For had she kept this law, she would not have transgressed so many laws, she would not have perpetrated this foul murder.

For what could be worse than this brutal fierceness? to ask a murder by way of a favor, a lawless murder, a murder in the midst of a banquet, a murder publicly, and without shame? Since she went not unto him privately to speak of these things, but publicly, and with her mask thrown off, barefaced, and having got the devil to plead with her, in this guise she saith whatever she saith. Yea, and he it was that caused her at all to get credit by her dancing, and to catch Herod at that moment. For where dancing is, there is the evil one. For neither did God give us feet for this end, but that we may walk orderly: not that we may behave ourselves unseemly, not that we may jump like camels (for even they too are disagreeable when dancing, much more women), but that we may join the choirs of angels.

For if the body is base, thus making itself unseemly, much more the soul. Like this is the dancing of the demons, like this, the jesting of such as are servants of the demons.

And mark too the very mode of asking. "Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger." Dost thou see her lost to all shame, become altogether the devil's? She mentions his very office, and not even so does she hide her face, but as if it were some viand she is speaking of, just so doth she ask for that sacred and blessed head to be brought in in a charger.

And she doth not so much as assign a cause, for neither had she one to mention, but she claims simply to be complimented by the calamities of others. And she said not, "Bring him in here, and slay him," for she could not have endured his bold language even when he was about to die. Yea, and she dreaded to hear his awful voice, even when enduring slaughter; for not on the very point of being beheaded would he have kept silence. Therefore she saith, "Give me here in a charger," for "I long to see that tongue silent:" her object being, not simply to be rid of his reproofs, but also to trample upon him, and deride him when fallen.

Yet God endured it, and neither discharged His thunderbolt from above to scorch her shameless countenance, nor commanded the earth to open, and receive that wicked revel; at once both crowning the righteous man more signally, and leaving much consolation to them that hereafter suffer anything unjustly.

Let us hearken therefore, as many as suffer ill, living in virtue, at the hands of wicked men. For then too God endured that even he in the wilderness, he in the leathern girdle, in the garment of hair, the prophet, the man greater than all prophets, who had no superior among those born of women, should actually be murdered, and that by an immodest damsel, and a corrupt harlot, and all in vindicating the laws of God. These things then let us consider, and bear all nobly, whatever we may suffer.

For then too this bloodthirsty and lawless woman, as far as she desired to take vengeance on him that had grieved her, so far did she prevail, and satiated all her anger, and God permitted it. And yet to her he had said nothing, nor had he accused her, but he found fault with the man only. But her conscience was a bitter accuser. Wherefore also she was led on in frenzy to greater evils, being grieved, and stung, and she disgraced all at once, herself, her daughter, her departed husband, her living paramour, and tried to surpass her former acts. For "if thou art vexed," saith she, "at his committing adultery, I make him a murderer also, and cause him to be the slayer of his reprover."

But see the evangelist, how he relates all without invidiousness, and as far as he can, absolutely makes out an excuse. Thus first in behalf of Herod he saith, "For the oath's sake, and them which sat with him at meat," and that "he was sorry;" then of the damsel, "Being before instructed of her mother," and that "she brought the head to her mother;" as though he had said, it was her command that she was fulfilling. Since not for the sufferers but for the wrongdoers do all righteous men grieve, since in fact these are they who properly speaking suffer ill.

Them let us also imitate, and not trample upon our neighbors' sins, but so far as is right, shadow them over. Let us take to ourselves a soul severe in goodness. For so the very evangelist, speaking of a harlot and a blood-stained woman, avoided harshness, as far as might be. For neither did he say, "by the blood-stained and accursed woman," but "being before instructed of her mother," using such names as have rather an innocent sound.

But thou dost even insult and revile thy neighbor, and couldest never endure to make mention of a brother that had grieved thee in such terms, as he hath done of the harlot, but with much brutal fierceness, and reproaches, calling him the wicked one, the malefactor, the crafty, the fool, and many other names more grievous than these. For so we make ourselves more and more like wild beasts, and talk of him as of a man of monstrous origin, vilifying, reviling, insulting. But not so the saints; they on the contrary mourn for such as sin, rather than curse them.

You have heard, brothers, that sensual pleasure may give birth to great cruelty. "And his head was brought on a platter."The house is converted into an arena, the table changes into a stall at the amphitheater, the birthday guests turn into spectators, the feast grows into a furor, the food ripens into carnage, the wine transforms into blood, the birthday changes into a funeral, sunrise evolves into sunset, the banquet is altered into a bloody killing, and musical instruments perform the tragedy of the ages. A creature enters the room, not a girl; a lynx, not a maiden, moves to the music. She has the mane of an animal, not hair, sprouting up from the crown of her head. She spreads out her limbs with twists and turns; she steadily grows in ferocity. She becomes cunning in cruelty, not in body. And this extraordinarily wild animal lets out a growl. She gnashes her teeth. She does not take up a sword but produces one. "Prompted by her mother," the Evangelist says, and taking an arrow from her mother's heart, this uncanny creature, with contempt for the prize of John's body, slithers through the hall to have his head cut off.

It should be known that it is customary not for rich only but for poor mothers also, to educate their daughters so chastely, that they are scarce so much as seen by strangers. But this unchaste woman had so brought up her daughter after the same manner, that she had taught her not chastity but dancing. Nor is Herod to be less blamed who forgot that his was a royal palace, but this woman made it a theatre; And it pleased Herod, so that he swore with an oath that he would give her whatsoever she should ask of him.

Behold, the wantonness! The princess dances, and the better she dances, the more evil it is. For it is shameful for a princess to be skilled at doing something unbefitting.

But on the birthday, etc. Here regarding the killing he does three things, because he could not on account of the fear of the people. First the antecedents are set forth; secondly, the killing; thirdly, the consequences. Regarding the first, three antecedents are set forth: the dancing; the promise; the request. He says therefore but on the birthday, etc. It was the custom among the ancients to celebrate their birthday, contrary to Eccl 7:2: better is the day of death than the day of birth. We do not read that any celebrated their birthday except this man and Pharaoh, king of Egypt. Hence on his birthday the daughter of Herodias, as she was called, danced in the midst, i.e., in the banquet hall, and in this he is made culpable, because in his revelry he forgot the royal court, in which such things should not have taken place, and it pleased Herod, contrary to Sir 9:4: do not be constant with a dancing girl.

Shortly before, Herod indicated that he wanted to kill John. He hesitated for fear of the people, because they considered him to be a prophet. But now, upon the request for John's death, since Herod was bound formally by the ritual of an oath, how is it that he suddenly becomes sorry? His former willingness is incompatible with his present unwillingness, and the annoyance he now feels is contrary to what he felt before. Previously there was an orderly sequence to what transpired, but now the situation has gotten out of hand. Sensual pleasure springing up from infidelity has seized the glory of the law. But the people, aware of the good things in the law, wink at the pleasurable circumstances not without misgivings as to their own peril. They know it is inappropriate for them to turn away from the glory of the commandments. Yet four factors cause them to give in to sin: an oath, fear of the leaders, the allurements of pleasure and a bad example.

(Lib. Syn. ii. 10.) In evil promises then break faith. That promise is impious which must be kept by crime; that oath is not to be observed by which we have unwittingly pledged ourselves to evil. It follows, And she being before instructed of her mother said, Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger.

(Verse 7.) So when he had promised with an oath to give her whatever she might ask from him. But she being forewarned by her mother. I do not excuse Herod, that unwillingly and against his will he committed murder because of the oath, who perhaps swore to do this in order to prepare the machinery for a future killing. Otherwise, if he had said that he did it because of an oath, if he had asked for the death of his father or mother, would he not have done it? Therefore, since he was going to reject it in himself, he ought to have despised it and the prophet.

I do not excuse Herod that he committed this murder against his will by reason of his oath, for perhaps he took the oath for the very purpose of bringing about the murder. But if he says that he did it for his oath's sake, had she asked the death of her mother, or her father, would he have granted it or not? What then he would have refused in his own person, he ought to have rejected in that of the Prophet.

And consider this additional foolishness of Herod's, that he promised to give whatever she asked. If she had asked for your own head, would you have given it to her?

And there follows whereupon he promised with an oath, etc. Behold the rash promise and the reckless oath. Sir 23:9: let not your mouth be accustomed to swearing, for in it there are many falls.

She (Pleasure), at the suggestion of her mother Unbelief, begged that there should be given her the head of John, that is, the glory of the Law; but the people knowing the good that was in the Law, yielded these terms to pleasure, not without sorrow for its own danger, conscious that it ought not to have given up so great glory of its teachers. But forced by its sins, as by the force of an oath, as well as overcome by the fear, and corrupted by the example of the neighbouring princes, it sorrowfully yields to the blandishments of pleasure.

(Verse 8.) 'Give me,' she says, 'here on a platter, the head of John the Baptist.' Herodias, fearing that Herod might someday come to his senses and become a friend to his brother Philip, and that their unlawful marriage would be dissolved, instructs her daughter to immediately request the head of John at the very banquet itself: a worthy reward for the dance, a worthy prize for the blood.

And the king was saddened. It is the custom of the Scriptures that the historian narrates the opinion of many, just as it was believed by all at that time. Just as Joseph was also called the father of Jesus by Mary herself, so now Herod is said to be saddened, because those reclining at the table thought so (Luke 2). For he was a deceiver of his own mind and a skilled murderer, showing sadness on his face when he had joy in his mind.

For Herodias, fearing that Herod might some time recover his senses, and be reconciled to his brother, and dissolve their unlawful union by a divorce, instructs her daughter to ask at once at the banquet the head of John, a reward of blood worthy of the deed of the dancing.

She says, "Give me here John Baptist's head." Why did she add the word "here"? She feared that Herod might later come to his senses and change his mind, so she urges him on by saying, "Give me it here and now."

And being instructed before by her mother, give me, she said, here in a dish the head of John the Baptist. Here the woman's request is set forth. Women are sometimes pious, and they have tender affections; hence when they are pious, they are exceedingly pious, but when they are cruel, they are exceedingly cruel; Sir 25:22: there is no head worse than the head of a serpent; and there is no anger above the anger of a woman. And ibid. it says: all malice is short compared to the malice of a woman. For a man would scarcely think what a wicked woman thinks. The mother therefore asked in order to satisfy her wrath. Likewise she feared lest Herod might sometime be converted by the words of John, and dismiss her.

(ord.) The fear of God amends us, the fear of man torments us, but alters not our will; it rather renders us more impatient to sin as it has held us back for a time from our indulgence.

It is customary in the Scriptures for the historian to narrate the opinion of many, as it was held by them at the time. Even as Joseph is called the father of Jesus by Mary herself, Herod now is said to be exceedingly sad because his guests thought that he was. An artful deceiver and a skilled assassin, he preferred to show a sad face when his mind registered joy.

(Verse 9, 10) However, because of the oath and because of those who were reclining at the table with him, he commanded it to be given. And he sent and beheaded John in prison. The wickedness excuses the oath, so that under the pretext of piety he might become impious. But what he added: 'And because of those who were reclining at the table with him,' he wants them all to be partakers of his wickedness, so that they might be carried away in a luxurious and impure banquet of bloody feasts.

Otherwise; It is the manner of Scripture to speak of events as they were commonly viewed at the time by all. So Joseph is called by Mary herself the father of Jesus; so here Herod is said to be sorry, because the guests believed that he was so. This dissembler of his own inclinations, this contriver of a murder displayed sorrow in his face, when he had joy in his mind. For his oath's sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given. He excuses his crime by his oath, that his wickedness might be done under a pretence of piety. That he adds, and them that sat at meat with him, he would have them all sharers in his crime, that a bloody dish might be brought in in a luxurious feast.

He was sorry because of John's virtue, for even the enemy in war marvels at valor displayed by his adversary. But because of his oaths, he gives the inhuman gift. Let us learn from this that it is sometimes better to perjure oneself than to do something ungodly because of an oath.

And the king was struck sad on account of his oath. Here it is determined how he was killed. Chrysostom says: here an example is given that decency is honored even by the wicked, as is stated in Wis 5:1ff. Jerome says that now he was saddened, who before wished to kill him but feared the people. Why then does it say that he was saddened? He resolves it. It is the custom of men to recount what appears to men: just as they called Christ the son of Joseph, because they so supposed, as is stated in Luke 3. Hence he says struck sad, because so it appeared to men. There follows the execution. And first the command is set forth; secondly, the execution. On account of his oath, and on account of those who sat with him at table. In this he was foolish, because regarding a dishonorable matter, the oath is not to be feared, because in the very fact that I swear, I am perjured; Jer 4:2: you shall swear with judgment (namely, with discretion), in justice and in truth. Likewise, if he had sworn to do something in his own power, it should be understood as applying to honorable matters. Hence what he should not do to himself, neither should he command another; Zech 8:17: love not a lying oath. And on account of those who sat with him at table, so as to make them all participants in the murder, for they all pleaded for the girl. He commanded it to be given.

(Mor. iii. 7.) But not without most deep wonder do I consider, that he who in his mother's womb was filled with the spirit of prophecy, than whom there arose not a greater among them that are born of women, is cast into prison by wicked men, and is beheaded because of the dancing of a girl, and that a man of such severe life dies for the sport of shameful men. Are we to think that there was any thing in his life which this so shameful death should wipe away? God thus oppresses His people in the least things, because He sees how He may reward them in the highest things. And hence may be gathered what they will suffer whom He casts away, if He thus tortures those He loves.

So among the other gratifications of a debauched people the head of John is brought in in a dish, that is by the loss of the Law, the pleasures of the body, and worldly luxury is increased. It is carried by the damsel to her mother; thus depraved Israel offered up the glory of the Law to pleasure and unbelief.

(Antiq. xviii. 5 Machaerus.) Josephus relates, that John was sent bound to the castle of Mecheron, and there beheaded.

Otherwise; Even at this day we see that in the head of the Prophet John the Jews have lost Christ, who is the head of the Prophets.

Here is a less sin done for the sake of another greater; he would not extinguish his lustful desires, and therefore he betakes him to luxurious living; he would not put any restraint on his luxury, and thus he passes to the guilt of murder; for, He sent and beheaded John in prison, and his head was brought in a charger.

Otherwise; The beheading of John marks the increase of that fame which Christ has among the people, as the exaltation of the Lord upon the cross marks the progress of the faith; whence John had said, He must increase, but I must decrease. (John 3:30.)

And he sent and beheaded John. Here the execution is set forth. Here is fulfilled what he had said: he must increase, but I must decrease, because Christ was extended on the cross, while John was beheaded. Likewise, the beheading of John was a sign that by the authority of the law they were destined to lose both Christ and the law.

(Verse 11.) And his head was brought on a platter and given to the girl, and she brought it to her mother. We read in Roman history that Flamininus, a Roman general, agreed to have a certain accused of a capital crime be beheaded at a banquet because he was lying next to a prostitute who claimed to have never seen a decapitated man before. He was expelled from the Senate by the censors because he mixed food with blood during the feast, and he preferred the death of a guilty man to the enjoyment of another person, so that lust and murder were mixed together. How wicked Herod and Herodias and the girl who danced demand the prophet's head as the price of blood, so that she may have power over the tongue that condemned unlawful marriages. This happened exactly as written; but we still see to this day, the Jews having lost Christ, who is the head of the prophets, in the person of John the Baptist.

And his disciples came and took his body and buried it. Josephus reports in a certain town of Arabia that John was beheaded. And what follows: His disciples came and took the body, both of him (John) and of the Savior, we can understand.

(Liv. xxxix. 43.) We read in Roman history, that Flaminius, a Roman general, sitting at supper with his mistress, on her saying that she had never seen a man beheaded, gave permission that a man under sentence for a capital crime should be brought in and beheaded during the entertainment. For this he was expelled the senate by the censors, because he had mingled feasting with blood, and had employed death, though of a criminal, for the amusement of another, causing murder and enjoyment to be joined together. How much more wicked Herod, and Herodias, and the damsel who danced; she asked as her bloody reward the head of a Prophet, that she might have in her power the tongue that reproved the unlawful nuptials.

Then the consequences of the beheading are set forth. And first the fulfillment of the promise is set forth; secondly, the burial. He says therefore and his head was brought in a dish. And in this Herod was blameworthy, because he exercised cruelty amid his pleasures: hence it is said that a certain governor loved a certain courtesan, and when she was in his lap, she said that she had never seen a man killed. And when he was at dinner, he had a man deserving of death brought forth, and had him beheaded before her: which the Romans learned, and he was banished from Rome. So this man too was sent into exile.

(Mor. xxix. 7.) And John is not sought out to suffer concerning the confession of Christ, but for the truth of righteousness. But because Christ is truth, he goes to death for Christ in going for truth. It follows, And his disciples came, and took up his body, and buried it.

Amid the other enjoyments of the profligate company, the head of John is brought on a platter. Thus the pleasures of the body and worldly extravagance reach the point where the girl carries the head to her mother. And so shameful Israel surrenders the glory of the law to the pleasure and infidelity of its Herodian household, who were formerly Gentiles. Now that the time of the law is over and buried with John, his disciples announce to the Lord the events that transpired, as they leave the law and come to the Gospels.

The times of the Law being expired, and buried with John, his disciples declare what is done to the Lord, coming, that is, to the Gospels from the Law.

Josephus relates that in a certain town of Arabia John's head had been cut off.As to the words that follow, "and his disciples came and took the body," we presume these people are the disciples of both John and the Savior.

By which we may understand both the disciples of John himself, and of the Saviour.

And the Prophet has lost among them both tongue and voice.

(Hom. xlix.) Observe how John's disciples are henceforth more attached to Jesus; they it is who told Him what was done concerning John; And they came and told Jesus. For leaving all they take refuge with Him, and so by degrees after their calamity, and the answer given by Christ, they are set right.

Ecclesiastical history relates that he was buried in Sebastia, a town of Palestine, which was formerly called Samaria.

The body of the Baptist was buried in Sebaste Caesarea. But his precious head was buried the first time in Emesa. "And they went and told Jesus." What did they tell Jesus? Not that John had died, for the account of John's death was given parenthetically. But rather, they told Jesus what Herod was saying about Him, that Jesus was John.

And his disciples came and took his body and buried it. Here the burial of John is treated, and it is counted among the works of mercy; and yet it seems that mercy does not pertain to the dead, because if it pertains to him, it seems that what the Lord says is not true: fear not those who kill the body. Why then is it counted among the works of mercy? It must be said that even if one does not serve the dead according to the effect which he now has, yet one serves him according to the affection which one now has toward the dead. Hence they took his body and buried it; it is said that near Sebaste, since it is nearby. Later, Julian the Apostate, seeing many coming to his relics, had him burned, except for the head. And coming, they told Jesus. Hence the disciples of John, who at first made accusations against Jesus, after John's death returned to Jesus and became familiar with him: so some in a time of tribulation are converted to Christ; Hosea 6:1: in their tribulation they will rise early to me.

(De Cons. Ev. ii. 45.) This the Evangelist relates to have been done immediately after the passion of John, therefore after this were those things done that were spoken of above, and moved Herod to say, This is John. For we must suppose those things to have been after his death which report carried to Herod, and which moved him to doubt who he could be concerning whom he heard such things; for himself had put John to death.

There is an activity of God displayed throughout creation, a wholesale activity let us say which men refuse to recognize. The miracles done by God incarnate, living as a man in Palestine, perform the very same things as this wholesale activity, but at a different speed and on a smaller scale. One of their chief purposes is that men, having seen a thing done by personal power on the small scale, may recognize, when they see the same thing done on the large scale, that the power behind it is also personal – is indeed the very same person who lived among us two thousand years ago. The miracles in fact are a retelling in small letters of the very same story which is written across the whole world in letters too large for some of us to see...

Every year God makes a little corn into much corn: the seed is sown and there is an increase, and men, according to the fashion of their age, say "It is Ceres, it is Adonis, it is the Corn-King," or else "It is the laws of Nature." The close-up, the translation, of this annual wonder is the feeding of the five thousand. Bread is not made there of nothing. Bread is not made of stones, as the Devil once suggested to Our Lord in vain. A little bread is made into much bread. The Son will do nothing but what He sees the Father do. There is, so to speak, a family style...

When He fed the thousands He multiplied fish as well as bread. Look in every bay and almost every river. This swarming, pulsating fecundity shows He is still at work. The ancients had a god called Genius – the god of animal and human fertility, the presiding spirit of gynecology, embryology, or the marriage bed – the "genial bed" as they called it after its god Genius. As the miracles of wine and bread and healing showed who Bacchus really was, who Ceres, who Apollo, and that all were one, so this miraculous multiplication of fish reveals the real Genius.

Dr Pittenger contrasts my view with that which makes miracles a sign of God's action and presence in creation. Yet in chapter 15 I say that the miracle at Cana manifests "the God of Israel who has through all these centuries given us wine" and that in the miraculous feedings God "does close and small... what He has always been doing in the seas, the lakes and the little brooks". Surely this is just what Dr Pittenger wanted me to say, and what Athanasius says (De Incarnatione xiv. 8, edited by F. L. Cross, 1939)?

(ap. Anselm.) The Saviour having heard the death of His Baptist, retired into the desert; as it follows, which when Jesus had heard, he departed thence by ship into a desert place.

Mystically; The Word of God, on the close of the Law, entered the ship, that is, the Church; and departed into the desert, that is, leaving to walk with Israel, He passes into breasts void of Divine knowledge. The multitude learning this, follows the Lord out of the city into the desert, going, that is, from the Synagogue to the Church. The Lord sees them, and has compassion upon them, and heals all sickness and infirmity, that is, He cleanses their obstructed minds, and unbelieving hearts for the understanding of the new preaching.

(Verse 13) And they came and told Jesus. When Jesus heard this, he withdrew from there in a boat to a deserted place by himself. They announced to the Savior the death of John the Baptist, and when he heard this, he withdrew to a deserted place. Not, as some think, out of fear of death, but sparing his enemies, lest they join one murder with another. Or deferring his own death to the day of his Passover, on which he was to be sacrificed as the Lamb (Exodus 12), and the doorposts of believers to be sprinkled with blood. Or perhaps He withdrew to give us an example of avoiding unnecessary danger, because not all have the same perseverance in enduring torments as they do in offering themselves to be tortured. For this reason, He also gives the command in another place: 'When they persecute you in this city, flee to another' (Mt. X, 23). The evangelist also elegantly does not say, 'He fled to a deserted place,' but 'He withdrew,' in order to avoid the persecutors rather than fearing them. Another interpretation: After the Jews and the king of the Jews cut off the head of the prophets and silenced the voice and speech of prophecy among them, Jesus moves to the desert, a place that the Church had not had before.

And when the crowds heard this, they followed him on foot from the cities. It is possible that, for another reason, upon hearing of the death of John, they withdrew to a deserted place to confirm the faith of the believer. Finally, the crowds followed him on foot, not on pack animals, not in various vehicles, but by their own physical effort, to show their fervor of the mind. If we were to explain the reasons behind each word, we would exceed the brevity of the stated task. However, it must be said in passing that after the Lord came into the desert, many crowds followed him. For before he came into the solitude of the nations, he was worshiped by only one people.

They announced the death of the Baptist to the Savior. When Jesus heard this, he withdrew to a lonely place apart, but not, as some people think, for fear of death. He withdrew to spare his enemies from compounding one murder with another or to defer his death to the day of Passover on which a lamb is ritually offered up and doorposts are sprinkled with the blood of the faithful. Or else he withdrew in order to give us an example of avoiding the foolhardiness of those who betrayed him, because not everyone perseveres amid torments with the same constancy they had when they offered themselves to be tortured. For this reason in another place he gave this admonition: "When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. It was also fitting that the Evangelist did not say "he fled to a lonely place" but "he withdrew," so that he avoided his persecutors rather than feared them.

He did not retire into the desert through fear of death, as some suppose, but in mercy to His enemies, that they might not add murder to murder; putting off His death till the day of His passion; on which day the lamb is to be slain as the sacrament, and the posts of them that believe to be sprinkled with the blood. Or, He retired to leave us an example to shun that rashness which leads men to surrender themselves voluntarily, because not all persevere with like constancy under torture with the which they offered themselves to it. For this reason He says in another place, When they shall persecute you in one city, flee ye to another. Whence the Evangelist says not 'fled,' but elegantly, departed thence, (or, 'withdrew,') showing that He shunned rather than feared persecution. Or for another reason He might have withdrawn into a desert place on hearing of John's death, namely, to prove the faith of the believers.

They followed on foot, not riding, or in carriages, but with the toil of their own legs, to show the ardour of their mind.

It is to be observed moreover, that when the Lord came into the desert, great crowds followed Him; for before He went into the wilderness of the Gentiles, He was worshipped by only one people. They leave their cities, that is, their former conversation, and various dogmas. That Jesus went out, shows that the multitudes had the will to go, but not the strength to attain, therefore the Saviour departs out of His place and goes to meet them.

See Him on every occasion "departing," both when John was delivered up, and when he was slain, and when the Jews heard that He was making more disciples. For it is His will ordinarily to conduct things after the manner of a man, the time not yet calling Him to reveal His Godhead plainly. Wherefore also He bade His disciples "tell no man that He is the Christ;" for His will was that this should be better known after His resurrection. Wherefore upon those of the Jews that were for a time obstinate in their unbelief He was not very severe, but even disposed to be indulgent to them.

And on retiring, He departs not into a city, but into a wilderness, and in a vessel, so that no man should follow.

But do thou mark, I pray thee, how the disciples of John had now come to be more attached to Jesus. For it was they that told Him of the event; for indeed they have left all, and take refuge henceforth in Him. Thus, besides their calamity, His provision before made in that answer did no small good.

But wherefore did He not retire before they brought Him the tidings, when yet He knew the fact before they reported it? To signify all means the reality of His economy. For not by His appearance only, but by His actions He would have this confirmed, because He knew the devil's craft, and that he would leave nothing undone to destroy this doctrine.

He then for this end retires; but the multitudes not even so withdraw themselves from Him, but they follow, riveted to Him, and not even John's tragical end alarmed them. So great a thing is earnest desire, so great a thing is love; in such wise doth it overcome and dispel all dangers.

Therefore they straightway also received their reward. For "Jesus," it is said, "went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and He healed their sick."

For great as their assiduity was, yet nevertheless His doings exceeded what any diligence could earn. Wherefore He sets forth also His motive for so healing them, His mercy, intense mercy: and He healeth all.

And He requires not faith here. For both by coming to Him, and by leaving their cities, and by diligently seeking Him, and by abiding with Him even when hunger was pressing, they display their own faith.

Otherwise; The beheading of John marks the increase of that fame which Christ has among the people, as the exaltation of the Lord upon the cross marks the progress of the faith; whence John had said, He must increase, but I must decrease. (John 3:30.)

Jesus departed on account of Herod's bloodthirstiness, teaching us also not to cast ourselves openly into danger. He also departed so that He would not seem to have been incarnate only in appearance. For if Herod had seized Jesus, he would have attempted to kill Him, and if Jesus had snatched Himself from such danger because it was not yet time for His death, then He would have seemed to be only an apparition. He departed "to a desert place apart" so that He might perform the miracle with the loaves.

The multitude show their faith by running to Jesus even as He is departing, for which they receive healing as the reward of faith. Their following on foot and without any provisions are also signs of faith.

And when Jesus had heard this, he retired from thence by boat into a desert place apart. Above, the opinion of Herod about Christ was set forth, and on its occasion the narrative about John was introduced; now it is shown that the opinion of Herod was false. He had said two things: that Christ was John whom he had killed, and that John, having risen, was working mighty deeds. He says therefore that when Jesus had heard, he retired from thence by boat, etc. Why did he retire? Jerome assigns four reasons. The first, to spare his enemies, lest from murder they rush into murder; Hosea 4:2: blood has touched blood. Likewise, to defer his passion; hence he himself says in John 7:6: my time has not yet come. Likewise, to give us an example not to thrust ourselves into sufferings: for it is not virtue to thrust oneself into sufferings, but presumption. Hence above 10:33: when they shall persecute you in one city, flee into another. Likewise, to show with what devotion the crowds heard the word of God, because even in danger they followed him; Deut 13:3: the Lord your God tries you, that it may appear whether you love him. Likewise it should be noted that he sets down four things which should draw the crowd back from following Christ. The first is that he retired by boat; likewise, that it was to a desert place; likewise, that there were no groves there, because it was a desert; likewise, not near a road, to which men willingly turn aside; but he retired apart. This he did so that the devotion of the crowd might be more commended. Likewise Chrysostom says that he retired to approve man; therefore he did not wish to retire until the death of John was reported. There follows and the multitudes having heard of it, followed him on foot out of the cities; where the devotion of the crowds and of the poor people is touched upon, who followed the Lord out of devotion. Hosea 6:1: in their tribulation they will rise early to me.

(Chapter XIX. — Verse 1 and following) And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee and came into the borders of Judea, beyond the Jordan; and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them there. And the Pharisees came to him, tempting him and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause? He had come from Galilee to Judea; therefore, the faction of the Pharisees and Scribes questioned him, whether it is lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause, so that they may hold him in a trap as if he were caught in a syllogism, and whatever he answers, may be used against him. If he says that wives should be dismissed for any reason whatsoever, and other wives should be taken, he will appear to preach against chastity. But if he responds that not every reason warrants dismissal, he will be held guilty of sacrilege as if he were a transgressor of the law given through Moses and by Moses from God. Therefore, the Lord tempers his response so that their disciple may understand, citing sacred Scripture as evidence and opposing the natural law and the first intention of God with the second intention, which was granted not by the will of God but by the necessity of sinners.

That they might have Him as it were between the horns of a syllogism, so that, whatever answer He should make, it would lie open to cavil. Should He allow a wife to be put away for any cause, and the marriage of another, he would seem to contradict Himself as a preacher of chastity. Should He answer that she may not be put away for any cause whatsoever, He will be judged to have spoken impiously, and to make against the teaching of Moses and of God.

But not so to the Pharisees, but even for this self-same thing they become more fierce, and come unto Him tempting Him. For because they could not lay hold of the works that were doing, they propose to Him questions.

O folly! They thought to silence Him by their questions, although they had already received certain proof of this power in Him. When at least they argued much about the Sabbath, when they said, "He blasphemeth," when they said, "He hath a devil," when they found fault with His disciples as they were walking in the corn fields, when they argued about unwashen hands, on every occasion having sewed fast their mouths, and shut up their shameless tongue, He thus sent them away. Nevertheless, not even so do they keep off from Him. For such is wickedness, such is envy, shameless and bold; though it be put to silence ten thousand times, ten thousand times doth it assault again.

But mark thou, I pray thee, their craft also from the form of their question. For neither did they say unto Him, Thou didst command not to put away a wife, for indeed He had already discoursed about this law; but nevertheless they made no mention of those words; but took occasion from hence, and thinking to make their snare the greater, and being minded to drive Him to a necessity of contradicting the law, they say not, why didst Thou enact this or that? but as though nothing had been said, they ask, "Is it lawful?" expecting that He had forgotten having said it; and being ready if on the one hand He said, "It is lawful to put away," to bring against Him the things He Himself had spoken, and to say, How then didst Thou affirm the contrary? but if the same things now again as before, to bring against Him the words of Moses.

What then said He? He said not, "tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?" although afterwards He saith this, but here He speaks not thus. Why can this be? In order that together with His power He might show forth His gentleness also. For He doth neither always keep silence, lest they should suppose they are hidden; nor doth He always reprove, in order that He may instruct us to bear all things with gentleness.

Seeing the Lord thus tempted, let none of His disciples who is set to teach think it hard if he also be by some tempted. Howbeit, He replies to His tempters with the doctrines of piety.

But, as when you see one much pursuing the acquaintance of physicians, you know that he is sick, so, when you see either man or woman enquiring concerning divorce, know that that man is lustful and that woman unchaste. For chastity has pleasure in wedlock, but desire is tormented as though under a slavish bondage therein. And knowing that they had no sufficient cause to allege for their putting away their wives, save their own lewdness, they feigned many divers causes. They feared to ask Him for what cause, lest they should be tied down within the limits of fixed and certain causes; and therefore they asked if it were lawful for every cause; for they knew that appetite knows no limits, and cannot hold itself within the bounds of one marriage, but the more it is indulged the more it is kindled.

But grant that these argumentations may be thought to be forced and founded on conjectures, if no dogmatic teachings have stood parallel with them which the Lord uttered in treating of divorce, which, permitted formerly, He now prohibits, first because "from the beginning it was not so," like plurality of marriage; secondly, because "What God hath conjoined, man shall not separate," -for fear, namely, that he contravene the Lord: for He alone shall "separate" who has "conjoined" (separate, moreover, not through the harshness of divorce, which (harshness) He censures and restrains, but through the debt of death) if, indeed, "one of two sparrows falleth not on the ground without the Father's will.

And concerning chastity, the holy word teaches us not only not to sin in act, but not even in thought, not even in the heart to think of any evil, nor look on another man's wife with our eyes to lust after her. Solomon, accordingly, who was a king and a prophet, said: "Let thine eyes look right on, and let thine eyelids look straight before thee: make straight paths for your feet." [Proverbs 4:25-26] And the voice of the Gospel teaches still more urgently concerning chastity, saying: "Whosoever looketh on a woman who is not his own wife, to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." [Matthew 5:28] "And he that marrieth," says [the Gospel], "her that is divorced from her husband, committeth adultery; and whosoever putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery." [Matthew 5:32] Because Solomon says: "Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Or can one walk upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? So he that goeth in to a married woman shall not be innocent." [Proverbs 6:27-29]

O what mindlessness! They thought they would confound Christ by their questions, for if He said it was lawful to divorce one's wife for any reason, they would say to Him, "Why then did you say, Let not a man divorce his wife unless only she be an adulteress?" (Mt. 5:32). But if He said it was not lawful for a man to divorce his wife they would slander Him as a lawgiver at variance with Moses. For Moses had decreed that if a man hated his wife he should divorce her even without reasonable cause (Deut. 24:3).

And the Pharisees came to him tempting him. And in this they are reproved: because while the crowds followed, the Pharisees were plotting. Jeremiah 5:5: I will go to the great men, and will speak to them. Hence they approached saying, is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? In them there appears first a malicious cunning, because they came to Christ to bring a charge against Christ; for either he would say that a wife should be put away, or not. If he said yes, he would seem to contradict himself, because he was a preacher of chastity. If he said no, we will accuse him, because this is against Moses the lawgiver. As Chrysostom says, they are convicted of incontinence, because if one gladly hears talk of separation from a wife, he is incontinent. Hence because they were speaking about divorce, they showed themselves to be incontinent. The Lord had given a cause for which a wife might be dismissed, namely on account of uncleanness; but they were asking not only about this cause, but whether for any cause whatsoever. Hence they wanted to have the free power of dismissing a wife.

(ubi sup.) For how great was that hardness! When not even the intervention of a bill of divorce, which gave room for just and prudent men to endeavour to dissuade, could move them to renew the conjugal affection. And with what wit do the Manichæans blame Moses, as severing wedlock by a bill of divorce, and commend Christ as, on the contrary, confirming its force? Whereas according to their impious science they should have praised Moses for putting asunder what the devil had joined, and found fault with Christ who riveted the bonds of the devil.

(Verse 7) They said to him, 'So why did Moses command us to give a bill of divorce and dismiss?' They open the trap they had prepared. And certainly the Lord had not given his own opinion, but had remembered the old history and commandments of God.

Here they reveal the cavil which they had prepared; albeit the Lord had not given sentence of Himself, but had recalled to their minds ancient history, and the commands of God.

What then ought they to have done after this? Ought they not to have held their peace, and to have commended the saying? ought they not to have marvelled at His wisdom? ought they not to have stood amazed at His accordance with the Father? But none of these things do they, but as though they were contending for the law, they say, "How then did Moses command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?" And yet they ought not now to have brought this forward, but rather He to them; but nevertheless He doth not take advantage of them, nor doth He say to them, "I am not now bound by this," but He solves this too.

And indeed if He had been an alien from the old covenant, He would not have striven for Moses, neither would He have argued positively from the things done once for all at the beginning; He would not have studied to show that His own precepts agreed with those of old.

And indeed Moses had given many other commandments besides, both those about meats, and those about the Sabbath; wherefore then do they nowhere bring him forward, as here? From a wish to enlist the multitude of the husbands against him. For this was considered a thing indifferent with the Jews, and all used to do so much as this. Accordingly it was for this reason that when so many things had been said on the mount, they remembered this commandment only now.

Now, keeping in mind what we said above in regard to the passage from Isaiah about the bill of divorce, we will say that the mother of the people separated herself from Christ, her husband, without having received the bill of divorce.Afterward, however, when an unseemly thing was found in her, she did not find favor in his sight, and the bill of divorce was written out for her. When the new covenant called those of the Gentiles to the house of him who had cast away his former wife, it virtually gave the bill of divorce to her who formerly separated from her husband—the law and the Word. Therefore, he also having separated from her, married, so to speak, another, having given into the hands of the former wife the bill of divorce. So they can no longer do what was ordered to them under the law because of the certificate of divorce. And a sign that she has received the bill of divorce is that Jerusalem was destroyed along with what they called the sanctuary of the things in it which were believed to be holy, the altar of burnt offerings and all the rites contained in it. And a further sign of the bill of divorce is this, that they cannot keep their feasts, even though the letter of the law specifically commanded them [to be celebrated] in the place that the Lord God appointed for keeping feasts. At present the whole synagogue cannot stone those who have committed such and such sins; and thousands of other instructions are proof of the certificate of divorce. Add to this the fact that "there is no longer any prophet" and that they say, "We do not see any signs."

This sentence of chastity seemed hard to these adulterers; but they could not make answer to the argument. Howbeit, they will not submit to the truth, but betake themselves for shelter to Moses, as men having a bad cause fly to some powerful personage, that where justice is not, his countenance may prevail; They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

When the Pharisees saw that the Lord had confuted them, they were compelled to bring forward Moses as a lawgiver who contradicted Christ, and they asked, "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?"

They say to him: why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? Here their objection against the general law is presented: for they reveal what was in their mind. Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce and to put away? Moses did not command putting away, but indirectly wished to prohibit it, because Moses willed that a wife should not be put away unless a bill of divorce were given. And this pertained more to prohibition, because the bill was not made except through a public hand; hence he referred them to the wise men, that they might see if they had cause why they should put them away.

Concerning the words, "Not all can receive this saying. There are some eunuchs who were born so, and some who were made eunuchs by men, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven; let him receive it who can receive it," they do not realize the context. After his word about divorce some asked him whether, if that is the position in relation to woman, it is better not to marry; and it was then that the Lord said: "Not all can receive this saying, but those to whom it is granted." What the questioners wanted to know was whether, when a man's wife has been condemned for fornication, it is allowable for him to marry another.

(Verse 10.) His disciples said to him: If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is not expedient to marry. The burden of wives is heavy, for apart from the cause of fornication, they cannot be divorced. For what if she is drunken, if she is angry, if she is of bad morals, if she is lascivious, if she is gluttonous, if she is wandering, if she is quarrelsome, if she is abusive? She must be endured. For when we were free, we willingly subjected ourselves to servitude. Therefore, seeing the heavy burden of wives, the apostles express their thoughts and say, if it is so, it is not expedient for a man to marry.

A wife is a grievous burden, if it is not permitted to put her away except for the cause of fornication. For what if she be a drunkard, an evil temper, or of evil habits, is she to be kept? The Apostles, perceiving this burden someness, express what they feel; His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

But what took place there, this happened here also. For as there, when the Jews had been put to silence the disciples were troubled, and came unto Him with Peter and said, "Declare unto us this parable;" even so now also they were troubled and said, "If the case of the man be so, it is good not to marry."

For now they understood the saying more than before. Therefore then indeed they held their peace, but now when there hath been gainsaying, and answering, and question, and learning by reply, and the law appeared more clear, they ask Him. And openly to contradict they do not dare, but they bring forward what seemed to be a grievous and galling result of it, saying, "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry." For indeed it seemed to be a very hard thing to have a wife full of every bad quality, and to endure a wild beast perpetually shut up with one in the house. And that thou mayest learn that this greatly troubled them, Mark said, to show it, that they spake to Him privately.

But what is, "If such be the case of a man with his wife?" That is, if to this end he is joined with her, that they should be one, or, on the other hand, if the man shall get to himself blame for these things, and always transgresses by putting away, it were easier to fight against natural desire and against one's self, than against a wicked woman.

And the Lord said not, It is good, but rather assented that it is not good. However, He considered the weakness of the flesh; But he said unto them, All cannot receive this saying; that is, All are not able to do this.

But all cannot obtain it, because all do not desire to obtain it. The prize is before them; he who desires the honour will not consider the toil. None would ever vanquish, if all shunned the struggle. Because then some have fallen from their purpose of continence, we ought not therefore to faint from that virtue; for they that fall in the battle do not slay the rest. That He says therefore, Save they to whom it is given, shows that unless we receive the aid of grace, we have not strength. But this aid of grace is not denied to such as seek it, for the Lord says above, Ask, and ye shall receive.

His disciples say unto Him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. The disciples are troubled and say, "If they are joined together so that they are one and remain inseparable their whole life, so that even if the wife should be a schemer, or worse, he dare not divorce her, it is not expedient to marry. For it would be easier not to marry, and to war and struggle against physical desires, than to endure a wicked woman." "The case of the man with his wife" means the unbreakable union. But some interpret it this way: if the case of man be so, that is, if the man who unlawfully divorces his wife draws such a charge, or blame and accusation, against himself, it is not expedient to marry.

His disciples say to him: if the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry. After the Lord treated of the indissolubility of marriage, here he treats of the perfection of the continent: and regarding this he does two things. First he presents the opinion of the disciples; secondly the opinion of Christ, at who said to them etc. He says therefore the disciples said: if the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry. They were moved to say this because they had heard that a wife could not be dismissed except for one cause, although many other causes make marriage burdensome, such as some uncleanness, as leprosy and the like; so that what is said in Sirach 25:23 is fulfilled: it is better to dwell with a lion and a dragon than with a wicked woman. Likewise it brings much care; 1 Corinthians 7:34: if a virgin marries, she thinks about the things of the world. Therefore from this they argue that it is expedient for every man not to marry; therefore the Lord tempers this, because it happens that something is better in two ways: either simply or in a certain respect; so continence is fitting for some, but not for others: because, as the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 7:9, it is better to marry than to burn.

And King Herod heard of it, for His name had become known, and people said, "John the Baptist has been raised from the dead." The extreme malice and furor of the Jews against the Lord are taught to us from almost every place in the Gospel; behold, they believed John, of whom it was said that he performed no sign, could have risen from the dead, without any witness. But Jesus, a man approved by God with deeds and signs (Acts 2), at whose death the elements trembled, whose resurrection and ascension were eagerly proclaimed by angels, apostles, men, and women alike; they preferred to believe not that He had risen, but that He had been stolen away secretly. When they said that John had risen from the dead, and that for this reason unexpected powers or actions were manifest in him, they correctly understood about the power of the resurrection, that the saints would have greater power when they have risen from the dead than they had when burdened with the weakness of the flesh. But they also showed that the miracle of the resurrection is not unbelievable, as they believed it of their own accord without any teaching, yet they proved by their own blindness and envy that they had not believed the credible truth in the Lord.

(in Marc. 2, 25) Here we are taught how great was the envy of the Jews. For, lo, they believe that John, of whom it was said that he did no miracle, could rise from the dead, and that, without the witness of any one. But Jesus, approved of God by miracles and signs, whose resurrection, Angels and Apostles, men and women, preached, they chose to believe was carried away by stealth, rather than suppose that He had risen again. And these men, in saying that John was risen from the dead, and that therefore mighty works were wrought in him, had just thoughts of the power of the resurrection, for men, when they shall have risen from the dead, shall have much greater power, than they possessed, when still weighed down by the weakness of the flesh. There follows, But others said, that it is Elias.

(non occ.) After the preaching of the disciples of Christ, and the working of miracles, the Evangelist fitly subjoins an account of the report, which arose amongst the people; wherefore he says, And king Herod heard of him.

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, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] 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 any thing 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 would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.

(Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.) This Herod is the son of the first Herod, under whom Joseph had led Jesus into Egypt, But Matthew calls him Tetrarch, and Luke mentions him as ruling over one fourth of his father's kingdom; for the Romans after the death of his father divided his kingdom into four parts. But Mark calls him a king, either after the title of his father, or because it was consonant to his own wish.

It goes on, For his name was spread abroad. For it is not right that a candle should be placed under a bushel. And they said, that is, some of the multitude, that John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do show themselves forth in him.

This Herod was the son of the Herod who slaughtered the infants. Though he was a tetrarch, Mark calls him king, using this title in a loose sense. Having heard of the Lord's miracles and being conscious that he had killed the righteous John without cause, Herod began to think that he had risen from the dead and upon his resurrection had received the power of working miracles. Previously John had not performed a single sign, but after the resurrection — so Herod thought — he received the power to work signs.

Or else, Herod, knowing that he without a cause had slain John, who was a just man, thought that he had risen from the dead, and had received through his resurrection the power of working miracles.

(Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.) It seems to me that this prophet means that one of whom Moses said, God will raise up a prophet unto thee of thy brethren. (Deut. 8:15.) They were right indeed, but because they feared to say openly, This is the Christ, they used the voice of Moses, veiling their own surmise through fear of their rulers.

But others said of Christ that He was Elijah, because He rebuked many, for example when He said: "O faithless generation!"

For John confuted many men, when he said, Ye generation of vipers. It goes on, But others said, that it is a prophet, or as one of the prophets.

(de Con. Evan. ii. 43) But in these words Luke bears witness to Mark, to this point at least, that others and not Herod said that John had risen; but Luke had represented Herod as hesitating, and has put down his words as if he said, John have I beheaded, but who is this of whom I hear such things? We must however suppose, that after this hesitation, he had confirmed in his own mind what others had said, for he says to his children, as Matthew relates, This is John the Baptist, he has risen from the dead. (Matt. 14:2) Or else these words are to be spoken, so as to indicate that he is still hesitating, particularly as Mark who had said above that others had declared that John had risen from the dead, afterwards however is not silent as to Herod's plainly saying, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead. Which words also may be spoken in two ways, either they may be understood as those of a man affirming or doubling.

When this was heard, Herod said: "John, whom I beheaded, has risen from the dead." Luke wrote about this in this way: "Now Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was done by him, and he was perplexed, because it was said by some that John was risen from the dead; by some, that Elijah had appeared, etc." (Luke IX). It must be understood, therefore, either that after this perplexity he confirmed in his mind what was said by others when he said: "John, whom I beheaded, has risen from the dead"; or these words must be pronounced in such a way as to indicate that he was still doubtful. For if he were to say: "Is this indeed, or is this perhaps John the Baptist?" there would be no need to remind anything about pronunciation, because he would be understood as doubting and hesitating. Now, since these words are lacking, it can be pronounced in both ways, so that we can understand him to have spoken, confirmed by the words of others, or still (as Luke recounts) hesitating.

(Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.) There follows, But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead. Herod expressly says, this in irony.

And Herod was afraid. So wretched was this man that he was afraid of a dead man!

For Herod himself sent and seized John, and bound him in prison because of Herodias. The old story relates that Philip, the son of the elder Herod, under whom the Lord fled to Egypt, and the brother of that Herod under whom Christ suffered, had married Herodias, the daughter of King Aretas. Afterward, however, because of certain disputes against his son-in-law, her father took his daughter and, to the grief of her former husband, married her to his enemy. But who this Philip is, the Evangelist Luke teaches more fully: "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, Philip his brother tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis" (Luke III).

Thus John the Baptist, who came in the spirit and power of Elijah, with the same authority with which Elijah had rebuked Ahab and Jezebel, reproved Herod and Herodias for having an unlawful marriage, and that it was not permitted, while his brother was alive, to marry his brother's wife, preferring to risk his safety with the king rather than to be forgetful of God's commandments for the sake of flattery.

(ubi sup.) Ancient history relates, that Philip, the son of Herod the great, under whom the Lord fled into Egypt, the brother of this Herod, under whom Christ suffered, married Herodias, the daughter of king Aretas; but afterwards, that his father-in-law, after certain disagreements had arisen with his son-in-law, had taken his daughter away, and, to the grief of her former husband, had given her in marriage to his enemy; therefore John the Baptist rebukes Herod and Herodias for contracting an unlawful union, and because it was not allowed for a man to marry his brother's wife during his lifetime.

Not long after this, John the Baptist was beheaded by the younger Herod, as stated in the Gospels. Josephus also records the same fact, mentioning Herodias by name, and stating that, although she was the wife of his brother, Herod made her his own wife after divorcing his former lawful wife, the daughter of Aretas, king of Petra, and separating Herodias from her husband while he was still alive. It was on her account also that he killed John, and waged war with Aretas, because of the disgrace inflicted on the daughter of the latter. Josephus wrote that in this war, when they came to battle, Herod's entire army was destroyed, and that he suffered this calamity on account of his crime against John.

(Mor. 3, 7) I cannot, without the greatest wonder, reflect that he, who was filled even in his mother's womb with the spirit of prophecy, and who was the greatest that had arisen amongst those born of women, is sent into prison by wicked men, is beheaded for the dancing of a girl, and though a man of so great austerity, meets death through such a foul instrument. Are we to suppose that there was something evil in his life, to be wiped away by so ignominious a death? When, however, could he commit a sin even in his eating, whose food was only locusts and wild honey? How could he offend in his conversation, who never quitted the wilderness? How is it that Almighty God so despises in this life those whom He has so sublimely chosen before all ages, if it be not for the reason, which is plain to the piety of the faithful, that He thus sinks them into the lowest place, because He sees how He is rewarding them in the highest, and outwardly He throws them down amongst things despised, because inwardly He draws them up even to incomprehensible things. Let each then infer from this what they shall suffer, whom He rejects, if He so grieves those whom he loves.

Set aside for a moment the term "prison." Just call it a temporary retirement. Even though the body is imprisoned, even though the flesh is confined, everything still remains open to the spirit. Walk back and forth, my spirit, not thinking of shady walks or long cloisters, but of the road that leads directly to God. As often as you shall walk in this way in the spirit, so often shall you find yourself not in prison.

Taking advantage of the occasion, Mark inserts here an introductory discourse on the death of the Baptist. Some say that Herod took Herodias while Philip was still alive, and for this he was rebuked as a lawbreaker who had married the wife of his living brother. On the contrary, others maintain that Philip had already died, but left behind a daughter. And since Philip left a daughter, Herod should not have married his brother's wife even after his brother's death; for the Law commanded a brother to take his brother's wife only in the case when the latter had died childless. But in the present case a daughter remained; therefore, Herod's marriage was unlawful.

The Evangelist Mark, taking occasion from what went before, here relates the death of the Forerunner, saying, For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her.

The law also commanded a brother to marry his brother's wife, if he died without children; but in this case there was a daughter, which made the marriage criminal: there follows, Therefore Herodias had a quarrel against him, and would have killed him; but she could not.

John saw a man that was a tyrant overthrowing the divine commands on marriage. With boldness, he proclaimed in the midst of the forum, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother Philip's wife." So we learn from him to admonish our fellow servant as an equal. Do not shrink from the duty of chastising a brother, even though one may be required to die for it. Now do not make this cold reply: "What does it matter to me? I have nothing in common with him." With the devil alone we have nothing in common, but with all humanity we have many things in common. All partake of the same nature with us. They inhabit the same earth. They are nourished with the same food. They have the same Lord. They have received the same laws. They are invited to the same blessings with ourselves. Let us not say then that we have nothing in common with them.

(ubi sup.) For Herodias was afraid, lest Herod should repent at some time, or be reconciled to his brother Philip, and so the unlawful marriage be divorced. It goes on, For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man, and an holy.

See how powerful the passion of carnal love is! Here is Herod, who had so much respect and fear for John, yet disregarded this in order only to satisfy his passion.

But see how great is the fury of lust, for though Herod had such an awe and fear of John, he forgets it all, that he may minister to his fornication.

(non occ.) He feared him, I say, because he revered him, for he knew him to be just in his dealings with men, and holy towards God, and he took care that Herodias should not slay him. And when he heard him, he did many things, for he thought that he spake by the Spirit of God, and heard him gladly, because he considered that what he said was profitable.

Mark says that Herod exceedingly honored the man [John], even when reproved. So great a thing is virtue.

For his lustful will drove him to lay hands on a man, whom he knew to be just and holy. And by this, we may see how a less fault became the cause to him of a greater; as it is said, (Rev. 22:11) He which is filthy, let him be filthy still. It goes on, And when a convenient day was come, that Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee.

And when a convenient day had come, Herod on his birthday made a supper for his lords, etc. Herod and Pharaoh alone among mortals are read to have celebrated their birthdays with joyful festivities; but each king defiled his own festival with blood under ill-omened auspices. However, Herod with much greater impiety, since he killed a holy and innocent teacher of truth, and the herald of life and the heavenly kingdom, and this at the request and petition of a dancer, neither was he ashamed to present the head of the slain man before the guests. For Pharaoh is not read to have committed such madness, but only ordering a sinful eunuch to be deprived of life. So far as he strayed from the cult of true religion, so much lighter is his transgression in violating his own festival. Nevertheless, from the example of both it is proven, it is more useful to us to recall frequently in fear and chaste behavior the day of future death, rather than to celebrate the day of birth in revelry. For man is born to labor in the world (Job 5), and the elect pass unto rest through death from the world.

(ubi sup.) The only men whom we read of, as celebrating their birthdays with festive joys are Herod and Pharaoh, but each, with an evil presage, stained his birthday with blood; Herod, however, with so much the greater wickedness, as he slew the holy and guiltless teacher of truth, and that, by the wish, and at the instance of a female dancer. For there follows. And when the daughter of the said Herodias came in, and danced, and pleased Herod and them that sat with him, the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee.

The feast goes merrily: Satan dances in the maiden, and an oath is given—lawless and godless, and above all senseless.

For during the banquet, Satan danced in the person of the damsel, and the wicked oath is completed. For it goes on, And he sware unto her, Whatsoever thou shalt ask of me, I will give it thee, unto the half of my kingdom.

Note how varied sins are interwoven in this one vicious action! A banquet of death is set out with royal luxury, and when a larger gathering than usual has come together, the daughter of the queen, sent for from within the private apartments, is brought forth to dance in the sight of all. What could she have learned from an adulteress but the loss of modesty? Is anything so conducive to lust as with unseemly movements to expose in nakedness those parts of the body which either nature has hidden or custom has veiled, to sport with looks, to turn the neck, to loosen the hair?

A girl dances, a mother rages, there is rash swearing in the midst of the luxurious feast, and an impious fulfillment of what was sworn.

And when the daughter of Herodias had come in and danced, and pleased Herod. Herod is not excused for having committed murder unwillingly and reluctantly because of an oath, since he perhaps swore for the purpose of preparing the machinery for the future killing. Otherwise, if he claims to have done it for the sake of an oath, if she had asked for the death of his father or mother, would he have done it, or not? What therefore he would have repudiated in his own case, he ought also to have contemned in the prophet.

(ubi sup.) His oath does not excuse his murder, for perchance his reason for swearing was, that he might find an opportunity for slaying, and if she had demanded the death of his father and mother, he surely would not have granted it. It goes on, And she went forth, and said unto her mother, What shall I ask? And she said, The head of John the Baptist. Worthy is blood to be asked as the reward of such a deed as dancing. It goes on, And she came in straightway with haste, &c.

So the princess danced and, after the dance, committed another more serious sin. For she persuaded that senseless man to promise with an oath to give her whatever she might ask. Do you see how easily swearing makes one witless? Thus, whatever she asked, he swore to give. What, then, if she were to have asked for your head, Herod? What if she were to have asked for your whole kingdom? Yet he took no thought of these things. The devil had set his trap, making it strong, and from the moment the oath was complete, he both cast his snares and stretched his net on every side. The request was abominable, but she persuaded him, and he gave the order to bridle John's holy tongue. But even now it continues to speak. For even today in every church, you can hear John still crying aloud through the Gospels and saying: "It is not lawful for you to have the wife of your brother Philip." He cut off the head, but he did not cut off the voice. He curbed the tongue, but he did not curb the accusation. Do you see what swearing leads to? It cuts off the heads of prophets. You saw the bait. Dread, then, the ruin it brings.

So much did he value his kingdom, such a captive was he to his passion, that he would give it to her for her dancing. And why do you wonder that this happened then, when even now, after so much instruction in sound doctrine, many men give away their soul for the dancing of these effeminate young men with no oath needed? They have been made captives by their pleasure and are led around like sheep wherever the wolf may drag them.

When she had gone out, she said to her mother: "What shall I ask?" And she said: "The head of John the Baptist, etc." Herodias, fearing lest Herod should at some point come to his senses, or become a friend of her brother Philip and dissolve the illicit marriage with divorce, advised her daughter to immediately ask for the head of John at the very banquet, a work worthy of the dance, a prize worthy of blood!

"That you give me," says the wicked woman, "right now," at once.

The malignant woman begs that the head of John be given to her immediately, that is, at once, in that very hour, for she feared lest Herod should repent.

A Man's disposition ought to be undefiled and sound, so that he may utter words without dissimulation and possess his vessel in sanctification; that he may not delude his brother with false words nor promise aught dishonourable. If he has made such a promise it is far better for him not to fulfil it, rather than to fulfil what is shameful.

Often people bind themselves by a solemn oath, and, though they come to know that they ought not to have made the promise, fulfil it in consideration of their oath. This is what Herod did, as we mentioned before. For he made a shameful promise of reward to a dancer-and cruelly performed it. It was shameful, for a kingdom was promised for a dance; and it was cruel, for the death of a prophet is sacrificed for the sake of an oath.

When it is said that "the king was sorry," that does not indicate genuine repentance on the part of the king, but rather a confession of his guilt. Thus, according to the design of divine governance, those who do evil condemn themselves by their own confession. But what was the motive, in this case: "Because of his oath and his guests"! What could be more vile than a murder done to not displease one's guests?

It was shameful in the first place for a kingdom to be promised for a dance. And it was cruel, in the second place, for a prophet to be sacrificed for the sake of an oath.

And the king was distressed, because of the oath and because of those who were reclining at the table, he did not want to sadden her, but having sent an executioner, he commanded that her head be brought on a platter, etc. It is the habit of Scriptures that the historian recounts the opinion of many just as it was believed by all at that time. Just as Joseph is called the father of Jesus even by Mary herself, so now Herod is said to be distressed because those reclining at the table thought this. For, a pretender of his mind and a skilled murderer, he showed sadness on his face while he had joy in his mind. And he excused his crime by an oath, so that under the pretense of piety, he would become impious. But when it is added: And because of those reclining at the table, he wanted all to be partners in his crime, so that in a luxurious and impure banquet, bloody food would be served.

(ubi sup.) It is usual with Scripture, that the historian should relate events as they were then believed by all, thus Joseph is called the father of Jesus by Mary herself. So now also Herod is said to be exceeding sorry, for so the guests thought, since the hypocrite bore sadness on his face, when he had joy in his heart; and he excuses his wickedness by his oath, that he might be impious under pretence of piety. Wherefore there follows, For his oath's sake, and for their sakes who sat with him, he would not reject her.

(ubi sup.) In that again which is added, And for their sakes who sat with him, he wishes to make all partakers in his guilt, that a bloody feast might be set before luxurious and impure guests. Wherefore it goes on, But sending an executioner, he commanded his head to be brought in a charger.

It is indeed a haven of safety if we do not swear at all. So whatever storms burst upon us we are in no danger of sinking. Whether it be through anger or insult or passion, be what it may, the soul is stayed securely. Even though one might have vented some chance word that ought not to have been spoken, one is not laying oneself absolutely under necessity or law.… For it is indeed a snare of Satan, this swearing. Let us burst these cords. Let us bring ourselves into a condition in which it will be easy not to swear.

But the reckless and lustful Herod feared to break his oath and therefore kills the righteous man, when he ought in this case to have violated the oath and not committed so terrible a crime (to keep an oath is not always good). A guardsman was the name for such a military man who was appointed by the community to execute and put to death criminals. One may also understand the passage under consideration in a figurative, spiritual sense. Thus, Herod represents the coarsely carnal Jewish people: he took a wife—false and absurd glory, whose daughter even now still dances and is in motion among the Jews—this is their deceptive knowledge of the Scriptures. They think they know the Scriptures, when in reality they do not know them, for they beheaded John, that is, the prophetic word, because they did not accept the Head of prophecy—I mean Christ. Therefore, if they possess the prophetic word, they possess it without the Head, that is, without Christ.

There follows, And the king was exceeding sorry.

Herod not being his own master, but full of lust, fulfilled his oath, and slew the just man; it would have been better however to break his oath, than to commit so great a sin.

'Spiculator' is the name for the public servant commissioned to put men to death.

In a mystical way, however, Herod, whose name means, 'of skin,' is the people of the Jews, and the wife to whom he was wedded means vain glory, whose daughter even now encircles the Jews with her dance, namely, a false understanding of the Scriptures; they indeed beheaded John, that is, the word of prophecy, and hold to him without Christ, his head.

Now Herod was not ashamed to bring before his guests the head of a murdered man; but we do not read of such an act of madness in Pharaoh. From both examples, however, it is proved to be more useful, often to call to mind the coming day of our death, by fear and by living chastely, than to celebrate the day of our birth with luxury. For man is born in the world to toil, but the elect pass by death out of the world to repose. It goes on, And he beheaded him in prison, &c.

For then did the old greedy dragon taste in the head of the servant what he so thirsted after—the passion of the master.

Or else, The head of the law, which is Christ, is cut off from his own body, that is, the Jewish people, and is given to a Gentile damsel, that is, the Roman Church, and the damsel gives it to her adulterous mother, that is, to the synagogue, who in the end will believe. The body of John is buried, his head is put in a dish; thus the human Letter is covered over, the Spirit is honoured, and received on the altar.

Look, most savage king, at the spectacle of your feast. Stretch out your right hand and see the streams of holy blood pouring down between your fingers. Nothing is lacking in your cruelty. The hunger for such unheard-of cruelty could not be satisfied by banquets, or the thirst by goblets. So as you drink the blood pouring from the still flowing veins of the cut-off head, behold those eyes. Even in death, those eyes are the witnesses of your crime, turning away from the sight of the delicacies. The eyes are closing, not so much owing to death, as to horror of excess. That bloodless golden mouth, whose sentence you could not endure, is silent, and yet it is still dreaded. Meanwhile the tongue, which even after death is apt to observe its duty as when living, continues to condemn the incest with trembling motion.

His head is presented to Herodias. She rejoices, exults as though she had escaped from a crime, because she has slain her judge. What say you, holy women? Do you see what you ought to teach, and what also to unteach your daughters?

And he brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the girl, and the girl gave it to her mother. This can be understood literally, but we even today perceive in the head of John the prophet, that the Jews lost Christ, who is the head of prophets. Alternatively: The beheading of John indicates the reduction of his fame, by which Christ was believed by the people, just as the exaltation on the cross of the Lord Savior marked the advancement of faith, because before he was thought by the crowds to be a prophet, the Lord of prophets, and Christ the Son of God was acknowledged by all the faithful. Thus, John was diminished by his beheading, and the Lord was exalted on the cross, because, as the same John said, it was necessary for him to grow, but for John to diminish. And it was fitting that he who was esteemed as a prophet be recognized as Christ, and he who was considered Christ because of the height of his virtues be understood to be the prophet and precursor of Christ. This very distinction of the time at which each of them was born has been clearly signified, because John, who was to decrease, was born when the divine light begins to wane. But the Lord, who is the true light of the world, at that time of the year when days begin to grow longer, bestowed on us the shining gifts of his nativity.

Note well the weakness of the tyrant compared to the power of the one in prison. Herod was not strong enough to silence his own tongue. Having opened it, he opened up countless other mouths in its place and with its help. As for John, he immediately inspired fear in Herod after his murder—for fear was disturbing Herod's conscience to such an extent that he believed John had been raised from the dead and was performing miracles! In our own day and through all future time, throughout all the world, John continues to refute Herod, both through himself and through others. For each person repeatedly reading this Gospel says: "It is not lawful for you to have the wife of Philip your brother." And even apart from reading the Gospel, in assemblies and meetings at home or in the market, in every place … even to the very ends of the earth, you will hear this voice and see that righteous man even now still crying out, resounding loudly, reproving the evil of the tyrant. He will never be silenced nor the reproof at all weakened by the passing of time.

In what way, then, was this just man harmed by this demise, this violent death, these chains, this imprisonment? Who are those he did not set back on their feet—provided they had a penitent disposition—because of what he spoke, because of what he suffered, because of what he still proclaims in our own day—the same message he preached while he was living. Therefore, do not say: "Why was John allowed to die?" For what occurred was not a death, but a crown, not an end, but the beginning of a greater life. Learn to think and live like a Christian. You will not only remain unharmed by these events, but will reap the greatest benefits.

Upon hearing this, his disciples came, took away his body, and placed it in a tomb. Josephus reports that John, being bound, was taken to the fortress of Machaerus, where he was beheaded. Ecclesiastical history narrates that he was buried in Sebaste, a city of Palestine, which was once called Samaria. But in the time of the leader Julian, pagans, envying the Christians who piously visited his tomb, attacked the monument, scattered the bones across the fields, and, upon gathering them again, burned them with fire and once more dispersed them across the fields. At that time, there were monks from Jerusalem present there, who, mingling among the pagans as they collected the bones, gathered the majority of them and brought them to their father Philip in Jerusalem. And he sent them to the blessed Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, where they were kept until the time of Theophilus, bishop of the same city, when, by the order of Prince Theodosius, all the shrines of the nations were destroyed. Then, after the temple of Serapis was cleansed of impurities, they were placed there, and the basilica was consecrated in honor of Saint John in place of the shrine of Serapis. Read the eleventh book of Ecclesiastical History.

(ubi sup.) There follows, And when his disciples heard of it, they came and took up his corpse, and laid it in a tomb. Josephus relates, that John was brought bound into the castle of Macheron, and there slain; and ecclesiastical history (Theodoret. Hist. Eccles. 3:3) says that he was buried in Sebaste, a city of Palestine, once called Samaria. But the beheading of John the Baptist signifies the lessening of that fame, by which he was thought to be Christ by the people, as the raising of our Saviour on the cross typifies the advance of the faith, in that He Himself, who was first looked upon as a prophet by the multitude, was recognised as the Son of God by all the faithful; wherefore John, who was destined to decrease, was born when the daylight begins to wax short; but the Lord at that season of the year in which the day begins to lengthen.

(de Con. Evan. 2. 45) This is said to have taken place, after the passion of John, therefore what is first related took place last, for it was by these events that Herod was moved to say, This is John the Baptist, whom I beheaded.

And the apostles, gathering together, reported to Jesus all that they had done and taught. Not only did the apostles report to the Lord what they had done and taught themselves, but also what John suffered while they were engaged in teaching, or his own disciples or those disciples of John reported to him, as Matthew describes. Hence follows that which comes next:

(ubi sup.) Not only do the Apostles tell the Lord what they themselves had done and taught, but also his own and John's disciples together tell Him what John had suffered, during the time that they were occupied in teaching, as Matthew relates. It goes on: And he said to them, Come ye yourselves apart, &c.

(non occ.) The Evangelist, after relating the death of John, gives an account of those things which Christ did with His disciples after the death of John, saying, And the Apostles gathered themselves together unto Jesus, and told him all things, both what they had done, and what they had taught.

For they return to the fountain-head whence the streams flow; those who are sent by God, always offer up thanks for those things which they have received.

After their preaching, the apostles gather to Jesus. This should be a lesson for us that we too, having been chosen for some ministry, should not depart from obedience to the one who chose us or exalt ourselves before him, but should acknowledge him as head, turn to him, and report to him everything we have done and taught (one must not only teach but also act).

Let us also learn, when we are sent on any mission, not to go far away, and not to overstep the bounds of the office committed, but to go often to him, who sends us, and report all that we have done and taught; for we must not only teach but act.