John Calvin Commentary Mark 6:26

"And the king was exceeding sorry; but for the sake of his oaths, and of them that sat at meat, he would not reject her." — Mark 6:26 (ASV)

And the king being sorry. His heart, as we have said, was no longer influenced by religious sentiments; but, foreseeing the detestation that will be aroused by such a crime, he dreads both loss of reputation and actual harm, and consequently repents of his rashness. Yet he does not have the courage to refuse a dancing girl, for fear that he should incur the reproach of being fickle; as if it were more dishonorable to retract a rash and foolish promise than to persist in a heinous crime. With the usual vanity of kings, he is unwilling for what he has once uttered to be recalled, and orders that the prophet be instantly killed. We infer that Herod was at that time having supper in the castle of Macherus, where, Josephus tells us, John was imprisoned (Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.2).

On account of the oath, and of those who sat at table with him. It deserves our attention that the Evangelists state this to be the reason for his grief. From this we infer that, even if he had sworn a hundred times, yet if there had been no witness, he would not have kept his oath. No inner religious feelings constrained Herod to do this; rather, the mere love of power drove him headlong. For he considered that he would lose standing in the esteem of those who were present if he did not fulfill his engagement. Thus it frequently happens that ungodly men fail to perform their duty because they do not look to God, but are solely focused on this: that they may not incur the reproaches of men.³⁶⁹

But even if Herod had kept before his eyes only the sacredness of an oath, and not the dread of men’s opinions, he committed a more heinous offense in fulfilling a foolish promise than if he had violated his oath.

First, he was deeply at fault for such haste in swearing, for the purpose of an oath is to confirm a promise in an uncertain matter. Next, when it appeared that he could not be released from his promise without involving himself in an aggravated crime, he had no right to implicate the sacred name of God in such wickedness. For what could be more contrary to the nature of God than to give His approval to a shocking murder?

If a private loss is at stake, let him who has made a rash oath suffer the punishment for his folly. But when a man has taken the name of God in vain, let him beware of doubling his guilt by using this as an excuse for committing some enormous crime.

From this it follows that monastic vows, which are accompanied by open impiety, do not bind the conscience any more than the enchantments of magicians; for it is not the will of God that His sacred name should lend support to what is sinful.

But this passage teaches us that we ought to beware of making promises without consideration, and next, that thoughtlessness must not be followed by obstinacy.

³⁶⁹ “Et ne se soucient seulement que d’eviter le blasme et la moquerie des hommes;”— “and are only anxious to avoid the censure and ridicule of men.”;”— “and are only anxious to avoid the censure and ridicule of men.”