The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: S. Mark
On account of Herodias. This Herodias was the daughter of Aristobulus, Herod’s brother. Herod, then, had married her who was his niece, being his brother’s daughter. So Josephus. Herodias, therefore, was the sister of Herod Agrippa, who killed James, and who was himself slain by an angel (Acts xii.). Wherefore Rufinus, and following him S. Jerome, Eusebius, and Bede, are in error, who say that she was a daughter of Aretas, a king of the Arabians. For they confound Herod’s first wife, who was the daughter of Aretas, with Herodias, his second wife. For Herod repudiated the daughter of Aretas to marry Herodias. For this reason Aretas made war upon him, and cut his army to pieces, as Josephus relates (lib. xviii. Antiq. c. 7), adding, “It was an opinion among the Jews that Herod’s army was destroyed by the just vengeance of God because of John the Baptist, a holy man, whom he had slain.”
His brother Philip’s wife. You will say that Josephus (lib. xviii. Ant. c. 6, 7, 9) says that she was the wife of another Herod, who was of Philip and Herod Antipas. I reply that Josephus is in error in this matter, as well as in many others ; unless you choose to suppose that Herodias was previously married to Herod Antipas. Josephus falls into another mistake in the same place, when he says that John was put to death not because of Herodias, but because Herod was afraid lest, on account of the concourse of the people to John, an insurrection might occur.
Whether Herodias married Herod whilst her husband Philip was alive, or after his death, commentators are not agreed. But it is certain that either way it was an illicit marriage, and involved incest, to which was added adultery, if Philip were still alive. For (Lev. xviii. 16) it is forbidden for a brother to marry his brother’s wife if there were offspring of the marriage, and Philip had left this dancing daughter, whom Josephus calls Salome. But I say that Herod did marry Herodias during his brother’s lifetime, and against his will, and so committed a threefold sin, —the first, adultery; the second, incest; the third, violence. This is proved : 1st. Because Josephus expressly asserts it (lib. xviii. Ant. c. 7). 2nd. Because the incestuous marriage took place about the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar; for that was when John began to preach, as is plain from Luke iii. 1 ; but Philip died in the twentieth year of Tiberius, as Josephus affirms (xviii. 6), where he praises him for his justice and modesty. 3rd. Because the Fathers everywhere accuse Herod of adultery, because he took away his wife from his brother, who was of a meek disposition, whilst he was yet living. Thus Herod took advantage of his gentleness.
Ver. 20. For Herod was afraid of John , knowing him to be a just man and a holy . At first, therefore, it was only Herodias who wished to kill John, as the rebuker of her adultery. Herod did not assent, as Mark here signifies, and Luke (ix.). But afterwards she persuaded Herod, which she did the more easily, because, as Josephus asserts, he was of a malignant disposition, and prone to cruelty; and he was incensed against John on account of his frequent reproofs. “ Herodias was afraid,” says Bede, “lest
Herod should some time or other come to a proper mind under
John's rebuke, and dissolve the marriage, and restore Herodias to
Philip.”
Ver. 22. And when the daughter of the same Herodias had come in , and danced, and pleased Herod. That female dancers were formerly introduced into their feasts by the Jews out of luxuriousness appears from Josephus (lib. xii. Ant. c. 4). That there was a similar fashion among the Greeks we learn from Xenophon’s Symposium , and from Lucian’s Dialogue de Saltatricibus , where he shows by many examples, and by the opinions of philosophers , that dancing enervates even a manly mind. Truly saith Ecclesiasticus (c. 9), “Use not much the company of a female dancer, nor listen to her, lest perchance thou perish through her influence.” Truly saith Remigius (on Matt, xiv.), “The shameless woman brought up a shameless daughter, teaching her to dance instead of to be modest. Nor was Herod less to be blamed for allowing a woman to make a theatre of his palace-hall.”
Ver. 25. I will that forthwith thou give me in a dish the head of John the Baptist. You will say, John the Baptist was not, then, a martyr, because Herod slew him not because of his faith, nor because of his rebuking him for his adultery, but for the sake of pleasing this dancing girl, and fulfilling his promise. I deny the conclusion. For, 1st. This girl asked the head of
John at the instigation of her mother, who wished to cut off John for reproving her adultery. Herodias, therefore, was the virtual cause of John’s death, because she impelled Herod to behead him. 2nd. Herod assented to her. Knowing the malignant disposition of his wife, he gave way to her, and killed John. 3rd. Herod himself desired to kill John, as Matthew says expressly (xiv. 5); but he did not dare to do it through fear of the people, who made great count of John as a holy man. Lastly, many are of opinion that probably all was done collusively and of set purpose — namely, that Herod had suggested to Herodias that she should send her dancing daughter in to supper, and that she should ask for the head of John; that thus he might have from his promise a colourable pretext for killing him; and that this is the reason why Christ calls him a fox (Luc. xiii. 32). S. John, therefore, was a victim of chastity, because he died a martyr for it, like S. Paul, S. Matthew, S. Clement, and many others.
Moreover, S. Gregory Nazianzen assigns a loftier cause for the early death of John from the hidden counsel of God (Orat. 20). “ Who,” saith he, “was the precursor of Jesus? John, as a voice of speech, as a lantern of light ; before Whom also he leapt forth in strength, and was sent forward to Hades by Herod, that there likewise he might preach Him who was shortly to come.” The same Nazianzen (Orat. 39) teaches that S. John, by the spirit of prophecy, was aware of this his martyrdom. For he says, “I ought, O Christ, to be baptized by Thee; yes, and for Thee.” For he had found out that he was to be baptized by martyrdom. For he knew what was to come ; that as after Herod Pilate would reign, so Christ would follow him after life was over.
Ver. 26. The king was sorry , i.e., he pretended to be so, say SS. Hilary and Jerome. For he really wished John to be killed, as Matthew says. Wherefore the Gloss on the fourteenth of S. Matthew says, “Herod's sorrow was like Pilate's repentance.” And the Interlinear, “ The dissembler showed sorrow in his face, but was glad in his heart.”
But more simply. S. Chrysostom and Euthymius think that Herod was really sorry, that is the meaning of SS. Matthew and Mark. For though he wished John to die, yet he was sorry for his cruel and shameful death, that he should have killed so great a prophet for the gratification of a dancing girl.