crhoades
Puritan Board Graduate
Mar 6:17-20 ESV
(17) For it was Herod who had sent and seized John and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, because he had married her.
(18) For John had been saying to Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife."
(19) And Herodias had a grudge against him and wanted to put him to death. But she could not,
(20) for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he kept him safe. When he heard him, he was greatly perplexed, and yet he heard him gladly.
Levitical law written to all of the Israelites not just the priests:
Lev 18:16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.
Lev 20:21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is impurity: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.
According to some research that I've done, Herod Antipas was not Jewish but ruled under Roman Authority. I've included an excerpt out of the ISBE on him below.
My question is, is this not an example of a prophet speaking forth God's law (judicial/case) to the civil magistrate and calling his actions unlawful? Of course we know what it cost John the Baptist. Should not more modern day prophets - i.e. pastors - speak thus to modern day rulers?
Does anyone know of Roman law that forbids the marrying of a brother's wife? I'm asking this to make sure that the law that John the B. accuses him of breaking is Levitical and not Roman. Might be both.
Interesting side note - there is no record (that I've found - does anyone know of any?) of Herod Antipas having children thus validating Lev. 20:21
_______________________________
ISBE:
3. Herod Antipas
Herod Antipas was the son of Herod the Great and Malthace, a Samaritan woman. Half Idumean, half Samaritan, he had therefore not a drop of Jewish blood in his veins, and "œGalilee of the Gentiles" seemed a fit dominion for such a prince. He ruled as "œtetrarch" of Galilee and Peraea (Luk_3:1) from 4 bc till 39 ad. The gospel picture we have of him is far from prepossessing. He is superstitious (Mat_14:1 f), foxlike in his cunning (Luk_13:31 f) and wholly immoral. John the Baptist was brought into his life through an open rebuke of his gross immorality and defiance of the laws of Moses (Lev_18:16), and paid for his courage with his life (Mat_14:10; Ant, XVIII, v, 2).
On the death of his father, although he was younger than his brother Archelaus (Ant., XVII, ix, 4 f; BJ, II, ii, 3), he contested the will of Herod, who had given to the other the major part of the dominion. Rome, however, sustained the will and assigned to him the "œtetrarchy" of Galilee and Peraea, as it had been set apart for him by Herod (Ant., XVII, xi, 4). Educated at Rome with Archelaus and Philip, his half-brother, son of Mariamne, daughter of Simon, he imbibed many of the tastes and graces and far more of the vices of the Romans. His first wife was a daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia. But he sent her back to her father at Petra, for the sake of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, whom he had met and seduced at Rome. Since the latter was the daughter of Aristobulus, his half-brother, and therefore his niece, and at the same time the wife of another half-brother, the union between her and Antipas was doubly sinful. Aretas repaid this insult to his daughter by a destructive war (Ant., XVIII, v, 1). Herodias had a baneful influence over him and wholly dominated his life (Mat_14:3-10). He emulated the example of his father in a mania for erecting buildings and beautifying cities. Thus, he built the wall of Sepphoris and made the place his capital. He elevated Bethsaida to the rank of a city and gave it the name "œJulia," after the daughter of Tiberius. Another example of this inherited or cultivated building-mania was the work he did at Betharamphtha, which he called "œJulias" (Ant., XVIII, ii, 1). His influence on his subjects was morally bad (Mar_8:15). If his life was less marked by enormities than his father's, it was only so by reason of its inevitable restrictions. The last glimpse the Gospels afford of him shows him to us in the final tragedy of the life of Christ. He is then at Jerusalem. Pilate in his perplexity had sent the Saviour bound to Herod, and the utter inefficiency and flippancy of the man is revealed in the account the Gospels give us of the incident (Luk_23:7-12; Act_4:27). It served, however, to bridge the chasm of the enmity between Herod and Pilate (Luk_23:12), both of whom were to be stripped of their power and to die in shameful exile. When Caius Caligula had become emperor and when his scheming favorite Herod Agrippa I, the bitter enemy of Antipas, had been made king in 37 ad, Herodias prevailed on Herod Antipas to accompany her to Rome to demand a similar favor. The machinations of Agrippa and the accusation of high treason preferred against him, however, proved his undoing, and he was banished to Lyons in Gaul, where he died in great misery (Ant., XVIII, vii, 2; BJ, II, ix, 6).
[Edited on 10-13-2005 by crhoades]
(17) For it was Herod who had sent and seized John and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, because he had married her.
(18) For John had been saying to Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife."
(19) And Herodias had a grudge against him and wanted to put him to death. But she could not,
(20) for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he kept him safe. When he heard him, he was greatly perplexed, and yet he heard him gladly.
Levitical law written to all of the Israelites not just the priests:
Lev 18:16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.
Lev 20:21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is impurity: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.
According to some research that I've done, Herod Antipas was not Jewish but ruled under Roman Authority. I've included an excerpt out of the ISBE on him below.
My question is, is this not an example of a prophet speaking forth God's law (judicial/case) to the civil magistrate and calling his actions unlawful? Of course we know what it cost John the Baptist. Should not more modern day prophets - i.e. pastors - speak thus to modern day rulers?
Does anyone know of Roman law that forbids the marrying of a brother's wife? I'm asking this to make sure that the law that John the B. accuses him of breaking is Levitical and not Roman. Might be both.
Interesting side note - there is no record (that I've found - does anyone know of any?) of Herod Antipas having children thus validating Lev. 20:21
_______________________________
ISBE:
3. Herod Antipas
Herod Antipas was the son of Herod the Great and Malthace, a Samaritan woman. Half Idumean, half Samaritan, he had therefore not a drop of Jewish blood in his veins, and "œGalilee of the Gentiles" seemed a fit dominion for such a prince. He ruled as "œtetrarch" of Galilee and Peraea (Luk_3:1) from 4 bc till 39 ad. The gospel picture we have of him is far from prepossessing. He is superstitious (Mat_14:1 f), foxlike in his cunning (Luk_13:31 f) and wholly immoral. John the Baptist was brought into his life through an open rebuke of his gross immorality and defiance of the laws of Moses (Lev_18:16), and paid for his courage with his life (Mat_14:10; Ant, XVIII, v, 2).
On the death of his father, although he was younger than his brother Archelaus (Ant., XVII, ix, 4 f; BJ, II, ii, 3), he contested the will of Herod, who had given to the other the major part of the dominion. Rome, however, sustained the will and assigned to him the "œtetrarchy" of Galilee and Peraea, as it had been set apart for him by Herod (Ant., XVII, xi, 4). Educated at Rome with Archelaus and Philip, his half-brother, son of Mariamne, daughter of Simon, he imbibed many of the tastes and graces and far more of the vices of the Romans. His first wife was a daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia. But he sent her back to her father at Petra, for the sake of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, whom he had met and seduced at Rome. Since the latter was the daughter of Aristobulus, his half-brother, and therefore his niece, and at the same time the wife of another half-brother, the union between her and Antipas was doubly sinful. Aretas repaid this insult to his daughter by a destructive war (Ant., XVIII, v, 1). Herodias had a baneful influence over him and wholly dominated his life (Mat_14:3-10). He emulated the example of his father in a mania for erecting buildings and beautifying cities. Thus, he built the wall of Sepphoris and made the place his capital. He elevated Bethsaida to the rank of a city and gave it the name "œJulia," after the daughter of Tiberius. Another example of this inherited or cultivated building-mania was the work he did at Betharamphtha, which he called "œJulias" (Ant., XVIII, ii, 1). His influence on his subjects was morally bad (Mar_8:15). If his life was less marked by enormities than his father's, it was only so by reason of its inevitable restrictions. The last glimpse the Gospels afford of him shows him to us in the final tragedy of the life of Christ. He is then at Jerusalem. Pilate in his perplexity had sent the Saviour bound to Herod, and the utter inefficiency and flippancy of the man is revealed in the account the Gospels give us of the incident (Luk_23:7-12; Act_4:27). It served, however, to bridge the chasm of the enmity between Herod and Pilate (Luk_23:12), both of whom were to be stripped of their power and to die in shameful exile. When Caius Caligula had become emperor and when his scheming favorite Herod Agrippa I, the bitter enemy of Antipas, had been made king in 37 ad, Herodias prevailed on Herod Antipas to accompany her to Rome to demand a similar favor. The machinations of Agrippa and the accusation of high treason preferred against him, however, proved his undoing, and he was banished to Lyons in Gaul, where he died in great misery (Ant., XVIII, vii, 2; BJ, II, ix, 6).
[Edited on 10-13-2005 by crhoades]
