John Calvin Commentary Matthew 14
John Calvin Commentary
Matthew 14
John Calvin Commentary
Matthew 14
"At that season Herod the tetrarch heard the report concerning Jesus," — Matthew 14:1 (ASV)
The reason the Evangelists relate this occurrence is to inform us that the name of Christ was known everywhere, and therefore the Jews could not be excused by pleading ignorance. Many might otherwise have been perplexed by this question: “How did it happen that, while Christ lived on the earth, Judea remained in a profound sleep, as if he had withdrawn into some corner and had displayed his divine power to no one?” The Evangelists accordingly state that the report about him was spread everywhere and penetrated even into the court of Herod.
"and said unto his servants, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; and therefore do these powers work in him." — Matthew 14:2 (ASV)
And said to his servants. From the words of Luke, it may be inferred that Herod did not adopt this conjecture of his own accord, but that it was suggested to him by a report current among the people. Indeed, I have no doubt that the hatred they felt towards the tyrant, and their detestation of so shocking a murder, gave rise to these rumors, as is commonly the case.
It was a superstition deeply rooted in the minds of people, as we have formerly mentioned, that the dead return to life in a different person. Closely related to this is the opinion they now adopted: that Herod, when he cruelly put the holy man to death, was far from obtaining what he expected. This was because the man had suddenly risen from the dead by the miraculous power of God and would oppose and attack his enemies with greater severity than ever.
Mark and Luke, however, show that people spoke variously on this subject: some thought that he was Elijah, and others that he was one of the prophets, or that he was so eminently endowed with the gifts of the Spirit that he might be compared to the prophets. The reason why they thought that he might be Elijah, rather than any other prophet, has already been stated. Malachi having predicted (Malachi 4:5–6) that Elijah would come to gather the scattered Church, they misunderstood that prediction as relating to the person of Elijah, instead of being a simple comparison to the following effect:
“That the coming of Messiah may not be unknown, and that the people may not remain ignorant of the grace of redemption, there will be an Elijah to go before, like him who of old raised up that which was fallen, and the worship of God which had been overthrown. He will go before, by a remarkable power of the Spirit, to proclaim the great and dreadful day of the Lord.” The Jews, with their usual crudeness of interpretation, had applied this to Elijah the Tishbite (1 Kings 17:1), as if he were to appear again and discharge the office of a prophet. Others again conjectured, either that one of the ancient prophets had risen, or that he was some great man who approached them in excellence.
It was astonishing that, amidst the diversity of views suggested, the true interpretation did not occur to anyone, especially since the state of affairs at that very time directed them to Christ. God had promised them a Redeemer who would relieve them when they were distressed and in despair. The extremity of affliction into which they had been plunged was a loud call for divine assistance.
The Redeemer is near, who had been so clearly pointed out by the preaching of John, and who himself testifies concerning his office. They are compelled to acknowledge that some divine power belongs to him, and yet they fall into their own fancies and transform him into the persons of other men. Thus the world is accustomed, in base ingratitude, to obliterate the memory of the favors God has bestowed.
Regarding Herod himself, as I hinted a little while ago, the conjecture that John had risen did not at first occur to him; but since bad consciences are accustomed to tremble and hesitate, and turn with every wind, he readily believed what he dreaded. With such blind terrors God frequently alarms wicked men, so that, after all the pains they take to harden themselves and to escape agitation, their internal executioner gives them no rest but chastises them severely.
And therefore miracles work in him. We naturally wonder what reasoning could have led them to this conclusion. John had performed no miracle during the whole course of his preaching. There appears to be no probability, therefore, in the conjecture that it was John whom they saw performing extraordinary miracles.
But they imagine that miracles are now performed by him for the first time to prove his resurrection. They further imagine this shows that the holy prophet of God had been wickedly put to death by Herod and now came forward with visible and divine protection, so that no one might afterward venture to assail him. They think that miracles work (ἐνεργοῦσιν) in him; that is, are powerfully displayed, so as to give him greater authority and make it evident that the Lord is with him.
"For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip`s wife." — Matthew 14:3 (ASV)
Luke currently omits this narrative because he had explained it previously; and as for me, as I do not want to annoy my readers by writing the same thing twice, I will handle this passage more briefly.354 The Evangelists relate that John was seized because he had openly condemned Herod for carrying off Herodias and for his incestuous marriage with her. Josephus assigns a different reason: namely, that Herod, fearing a change of affairs for himself, regarded John with suspicion (Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.2). It is possible that this was the pretext the tyrant used to excuse his crime, or that such a report circulated, for it frequently happens that various motives are assigned for unjust violence and cruelty. The actual reason, however, is pointed out by the Evangelists: Herod was offended by the holy man because he had been reproved by him.
Josephus is mistaken in supposing that Herodias was carried off, not from his brother Philip, but from Herod, King of Chalcis, his uncle (Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.4). For not only was the crime still recent when the Evangelists wrote, but it was committed in plain sight of everyone. The fact, stated elsewhere by Josephus (Josephus, Antiquities 18.4.6), that Philip was a person of amiable dispositions, I have no doubt, emboldened Herod to expect that an outrage committed against a mild, gentle, and peaceable man would go unpunished. Another probable conjecture may be mentioned. There is greater reason to suppose that Herodias was married to her uncle Philip than to her grand-uncle (her grandfather’s brother), who must have been at that time in the decrepitude of old age. Now Herod Antipas (who is mentioned here) and Philip were not brothers by the same mother, for Herod was the son of Marthaca, the third wife of Herod the Great, and Philip was the son of Cleopatra.355
To return to the Evangelists, they tell us that John was thrown into prison because he had reproved Herod’s crime more freely than the tyrant's ferocity could endure. The atrocious nature of the deed was in itself sufficiently detestable and infamous, for not only did Herod keep another man’s wife in his own house, whom he had torn away from lawful marriage, but the person against whom he had committed this outrage was his own brother. When, in addition to this, he was boldly reproved by John, Herod had some reason to fear that sedition would suddenly break out. His lust did not allow him to correct his fault; but having imprisoned the prophet of God, he assured himself of peace and freedom.356
Ignorance of history has led many people into a fruitless debate: “Have I a right to marry the woman who was formerly married to my brother?” Though natural modesty recoils from such a marriage,357 John still condemns the rape more than the incest; for it was by violence or stratagem358 that Herod had deprived his brother of his lawful wife. And, this consideration apart, it would have been less lawful for him to marry his niece than to marry his brother’s widow. There can be no doubt that such a flagrant crime was universally blamed. But while others cursed Herod in his absence, John alone went into his presence and reproved him boldly to his face, hoping to bring him to repentance.
From this we learn with what unshaken fortitude the servants of God ought to be armed when they deal with princes. For in almost every court, hypocrisy and servile flattery are prevalent; and the ears of princes, accustomed to this smooth language, do not tolerate any voice that reproves their vices with any severity. But as a prophet of God should not overlook such a shocking crime, John stepped forward—though a disagreeable and unwelcome adviser—and, rather than fail in his duty, did not hesitate to incur the tyrant’s displeasure, even though he knew Herod was so strongly ensnared by the prostitute that he could hardly be moved from his purpose.
354 The allusion is to his exposition of Luke iii. 19, 20, which will be found in , which will be found in Harmony, vol. 1. vol. 1. p. 222. — . — Ed.
355 “The apparent discrepancy between Josephus and the sacred historians is removed, as was formerly suggested, (Harmony, vol. 1. vol. 1. p. 223, n. 1,) by a hypothesis which appears to be generally admitted, that the name of the person in question was ,) by a hypothesis which appears to be generally admitted, that the name of the person in question was Herod-Philip. — — Ed.
356 “Il se fait accroire qu’il sera en repos, et qu’il pourra continuer sa meschancete sans aucune crainte;” — “he makes himself believe that he will be at ease, and that he will have it in his power to continue his wickedness without any dread.”;” — “he makes himself believe that he will be at ease, and that he will have it in his power to continue his wickedness without any dread.”
357 “Combien que l’honneste naturelle condamne un tel marriage;” — “though natural decency condemns such a marriage.”;” — “though natural decency condemns such a marriage.”
358 “Ou par force et violence, ou par quelque ruse et moyen subtil;” — “either by force and violence, or by some trick and cunning method.”;” — “either by force and violence, or by some trick and cunning method.”
"And when he would have put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet." — Matthew 14:5 (ASV)
And though he wished to put him to death. There appears to be some contradiction between the accounts of Matthew and Mark: for Matthew says that Herod wanted to commit this shocking murder but was restrained by his fear of the people, while Mark charges Herodias alone with this cruelty. However, the difficulty is easily resolved. Initially, Herod would have been unwilling to put the holy man to death, if a stronger necessity had not reluctantly compelled him to do so; because he regarded John with reverence and was, indeed, prevented by religious scruples from practicing such atrocious cruelty against a prophet of God. He later shook off this fear of God due to Herodias's incessant urging; but then, when infuriated by that demon he longed for the holy man's death, he was held back by a new restraint: he feared a popular uprising on his own account.
Here we must pay attention to Mark's words, Herodias lay in wait for him;359 These words imply that since Herod was not sufficiently inclined on his own to commit the murder, she either attempted to win him over by indirect schemes or worked to find some secret way to put the holy man to death. I am more inclined to adopt the first view: that she employed stratagems to influence her husband's mind but did not succeed as long as Herod was prevented by remorse of conscience from pronouncing the death sentence on the holy man. Then came another fear: that the matter of John's death might incite the people to an insurrection.
But Mark only touches on what prevented Herod from immediately yielding to the prostitute's entreaties; for Herodias would have wished for John to be privately executed as soon as he was thrown into prison. Herod, on the contrary, revered the holy man, even to the point of willingly complying with his advice. Mark says, Herod feared John. Now the fear mentioned here was not a dread arising from a mistaken opinion, as we dread those who have gained some authority over us, even if we consider them unworthy of the honor. But this fear was a voluntary respect, for Herod was convinced that John was a holy man and a faithful servant of God, and therefore did not dare to despise him.360
This deserves our attention. Although John knew by experience that it was, in many respects, advantageous for him to have some share in the tetrarch's goodwill,361 yet he was not afraid to offend Herod when he could find no other way to secure that favor than by wickedly conniving at a known and disgraceful crime. John might indeed have protested that he was not at all considering his private interests and that he had no other object in view than the public advantage. For it is certain that he requested nothing from motives of ambition,362 but rather that Herod yielded to his holy counsel, which related to the lawful administration of the kingdom. But since John perceived that he had no right to accept this kind of compensation363—which would secure some favors for him by betraying the truth—he chose rather to turn a friend into an enemy than to encourage, by flattery or silence, an evil that he was under obligation to reprove with severity.
John, by his example, has thus provided an undeniable rule for godly teachers: not to overlook the faults of rulers to purchase their favor at this price, however advantageous that favor might seem for the public interest.364 In Herod, on the other hand, the Spirit of God shows, as in a mirror, how frequently it happens that those who do not sincerely worship God are nevertheless willing, to some extent, to obey His commands, provided that He will grant them some indulgence or concession. But whenever they are hard-pressed, they throw off the yoke and break out not only into obstinacy but also into rage. Therefore, there is no reason for those who comply with much sound advice to be well satisfied with themselves until they have learned to yield and surrender themselves unreservedly to God.
359 “Herodias cherchoit occasion;” — “Herodias sought an opportunity.”;” — “Herodias sought an opportunity.”
360 “Estoit aucunement contreint en soy mesme de luv porter l’honneur, et ne l’osoit pas mespriser;” — “was somewhat constrained in himself to bear respect towards him, and did not dare to despise him.”;” — “was somewhat constrained in himself to bear respect towards him, and did not dare to despise him.”
361 “Qu’il eust quelque entree en la Cour, et que le Roy l’eust aucunement agreable;” — “that he should have some access to the Court, and that the King should be somewhat favorable to him.”;” — “that he should have some access to the Court, and that the King should be somewhat favorable to him.”
362 “Qu’il n’a rien demande au Roy pour se faire valoir, ou pour monstrer son credit;” — “that he asked nothing from the King to put himself forward, or to display his influence.”;” — “that he asked nothing from the King to put himself forward, or to display his influence.”
363 “Que ceste facon de compensation n’est point honneste, ne selon Dieu;” — “that this kind of compensation is not honorable, nor according to God.”;” — “that this kind of compensation is not honorable, nor according to God.”
364 “Encore qu’ils ne la cherchent point pour leur regard particulier, mais seulement pour avoir occasion de profiter plus en d’autres endroits;” —”even though they do not seek it for their private interest, but solely in order to have an opportunity of doing more good in other respects.”;” —”even though they do not seek it for their private interest, but solely in order to have an opportunity of doing more good in other respects.”
"But when Herod`s birthday came, the daughter of Herodias danced in the midst, and pleased Herod." — Matthew 14:6 (ASV)
And when Herod’s birthday was kept. The Evangelists now begin to relate the stratagem by which Herodias eventually succeeded in a design she had long contemplated: taking John’s life. The opportunity was provided for her by an annual festival, when Herod was celebrating his birthday.
It is hardly possible that such magnificent preparations should not draw luxury, pride, unbridled merriment, and other crimes, and also many other evils, along with them. Not that there is anything wrong in the mere act of preparing an expensive banquet; but such is the tendency of the human mind to licentiousness that when the reins are loosened, people quickly go astray.
The ancient custom of observing a birthday every year as an occasion of joy cannot in itself be disapproved. For that day, as often as it returns, reminds each of us to give thanks to God, who brought us into this world and has allowed us, in his kindness, to spend many years in it. It also reminds us to recall how improperly and uselessly the time God granted us has been allowed to pass away. Finally, it reminds us that we should commit ourselves to the protection of the same God for the remainder of our life.
But nothing is so pure that the world does not taint it with its own vices. A birthday, which should have been held sacred, is profaned by most people with disgraceful abuses; and there is hardly any costly entertainment that is free from wicked debauchery. First, people drink more freely; next, the door is opened to filthy and immodest conversation; and lastly, no moderation is observed. This was the reason why the patriarch Job was in the habit of offering sacrifices while his sons were feasting alternately in each other’s houses (Job 1:5). It was because he thought that when the guests invite one another to merriment, they are far from maintaining proper moderation and sin in a variety of ways.
Thus it happened that Herod, intending to give a rich entertainment to his guests, permitted his wife’s daughter to dance. This also shows what kind of discipline existed at his court; for, though most people at that time thought themselves free to dance, yet for a marriageable young woman to dance was a shameful display of a harlot’s brazenness. But the unchaste Herodias had so molded her daughter Salome to her own ways that the daughter would not bring shame upon her mother.365 And what was the consequence? The wicked murder of a holy prophet. The heat of wine had such an influence on Herod that, forgetting dignity and prudence, he promised a dancing girl that he would give her even to the half of his kingdom. A shameful example truly, that a drunken king not only permits himself to watch with approval a spectacle366 which was disgraceful to his family, but holds out such a reward! Let us therefore learn to be careful in anticipating and resisting the devil, lest he entangle us in such snares.
365 “Si elle eust mieux fallu que sa mere;” — “if she were more highly esteemed than her mother.”;” — “if she were more highly esteemed than her mother.”
366 “Non seulement prend plaisir a un fol passe-temps;” — “not only takes pleasure in a foolish pastime.”;” — “not only takes pleasure in a foolish pastime.”
Jump to: