Tuesday of the 7th 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.

However, his mother and brothers came to him and could not reach him because of the crowd. The brothers of the Lord are neither the sons of the blessed ever-virgin Mary according to Helvidius, nor the sons of Joseph from another wife according to some, but rather they should be understood to be his relatives, as we have discussed above. Surely, when the Lord, requested by his mother and brothers, refrains from leaving his duty of preaching the word, he is not rejecting the obligations of maternal piety, for the commandment is, "Honor your father and mother" (Exodus 20); but he demonstrates that he owes more to his Father's mysteries than to maternal affections, recommending to us by example what he commands by word, "Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me" (Matthew 10). He does not disdain his brothers out of disrespect, but by preferring spiritual work over carnal kinship, he teaches that the bond of hearts is more religious than that of bodies. Mystically, however, this reading is in harmony with the higher one, where it is said about the Jews who only look at the letter of the law: "And whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has will be taken from him." For the mother and brothers of Jesus represent the synagogue from whose flesh he was born, and the people of the Jews: who, while the Savior is teaching within, coming cannot enter because they neglect to understand his spiritual teachings. For the crowd preoccupying indeed enters his house, because while Judea was differing, the gentiles flocked to Christ, and they drank in the internal mysteries of life, the closer in faith, the more capacious in mind. Thus, the Psalm says: "Come to him, and be enlightened" (Psalm 34).

But those who are said to be our Lord's brethren according to the flesh, you must not imagine to be the children of the blessed Mary, the mother of God, as Helvidius thinks, nor the children of Joseph by another wife, as some say, but rather believe to be their kinsfolk.

Now his Mother came to him etc. Here, fourth, he invites the Apostles to communicate doctrine from imitation of their Master, namely Christ, who preferred the affection of teaching to parental affection. Whence two things are introduced here: the first is the seeking of relatives; the second, the preferring of disciples.

First, therefore, regarding the seeking of parents, it is said: Now his Mother and his brothers came to him, toward whom special affection ought to be held—toward the mother indeed, because it is said in Exodus twenty: "Honor your father and your mother"; and Tobit four: "You shall have honor for your mother all the days of her life"; toward brothers, namely relatives and kinsmen: Leviticus nineteen: "You shall love your brother as yourself." Therefore, the seeking of these, to whom preeminent affection is owed, is introduced, but they could not by themselves: whence it is added: And they could not reach him because of the crowd; and therefore they sought him through a messenger.

Hence also His mother, when she is seemingly not acknowledged, is said to be standing outside, because clearly the Synagogue is not recognized by its Author, since, while holding to the observance of the Law, it lost spiritual understanding, and fixed itself outside in guarding the letter.

Our Lord had left His kinsfolk according to the flesh, and was occupied in His Father's teaching. But when they began to feel His absence, they came unto Him, as it is said, Then came unto him his mother and his brethren. When you hear of our Lord's brethren you must include also the notions of piety and grace. For no one in regard of His divine nature is the brother of the Saviour, (for He is the Only-begotten,) but He has, by the grace of piety, made us partakers in His flesh and His blood, and He who is by nature God has become our brother.

In a mystical sense he ought not to stand without, who was seeking Christ. Hence also that saying, Come unto him, and be enlightened (Ps. 34:6. Vulg.). For if they stand without, not even parents themselves are acknowledged; and perhaps for our example they are not. How are we acknowledged by Him if we stand without? That meaning also is not unreasonable, because by the figure of parents He points to the Jews of whom Christ was born, (Rom. 9:5.) and thought the Church to be preferred to the synagogue.

And it was announced to him: "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you." The word is inside, the light is inside; whence above: "So that those entering may see the light." So if even parents standing outside are not recognized, and perhaps they are not recognized as an example for our sake, how will we be recognized if we stand outside? For those standing outside wish to see the Lord, who not seeking a spiritual sense in the law, have stationed themselves outside in the guardianship of the letter, and as if they force Christ to go out to teach carnal things, rather than consent to enter to learn spiritual things.

For they cannot enter within when He is teaching whose words they refuse to understand spiritually. But the multitude went before and entered into the house, because when the Jews rejected Christ the Gentiles flocked to Him. But those who stand without, wishing to see Christ, are they, who not seeking a spiritual sense in the law, have placed themselves without to guard the letter of it, and as it were rather compel Christ to go out, to teach them earthly things, than consent to enter in themselves to learn spiritual things.

On account of which it is added: And it was told him: Your mother and your brothers, to whom you owe much affection by reason of kinship, stand outside, wishing to see you, through the affection of charity. And thus he is effectively sought, that he might pass over or go out to his relatives, both on account of nature to be acknowledged and on account of charity to be repaid. Whence on this the Gloss says, on Matthew twelve, that "this was reported to Christ evasively, so that it might be known whether he would abandon his teaching." For they knew that what is said in Ephesians five is true: "No one ever hated his own flesh"; and thus they wished to test what he would more accept, whether the affection of parents or the instruction of disciples.

For a certain woman had exclaimed, "Blessed is the womb that bare Thee, and the paps which Thou hast sucked!" And how else could they have said that His mother and His brethren were standing without? But we shall see more of this in the proper place.

But whenever a dispute arises about the nativity, all who reject it as creating a presumption in favour of the reality of Christ's flesh, wilfully deny that God Himself was born, on the ground that He asked, "Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? " Let, therefore, Apelles hear what was our answer to Marcion in that little work, in which we challenged his own (favourite) gospel to the proof, even that the material circumstances of that remark (of the Lord's) should be considered.

But some take this to mean that certain men, hating Christ's teaching, and mocking at Him for His doctrine, said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without wishing to see thee; as if thereby to show His meanness of birth.

His brethren thought that when He heard of their presence He would send away the people, from respect to His mother's name, and from His affection towards her, as it follows, And it was told him, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without.