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]

__________________
Chris Rhoades -33
Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church (PCA) Nashville, TN-Under Care

Vera theologia non theoretica, sed practica est; Finis siquidem eius agere est hoc est vitam vivere deiformem. - Martin Bucer
""True theology is not theoretical, but practical. The end of it is living, that is to live a godly life."

even the people on Jerry Springer knows that it is wrong to take your brother's wife or take your sister's husband. I don't think this law is necessarily Mosaic, but Universal.

__________________
~Keon Garraway~ Brooklyn, NY Member of Franklin Square OPC

Love for God demonstrated by the love for our children in giving them a God centered education is the only hope for our country. by David Morrow
Pslam 71:20 [Thou], which hast shewed me great and sore troubles, shalt quicken me again, and shalt bring me up again from the depths of the earth.

Chris,

This is not the case of a Levitical law being applied to a non-Jew. It is a simple case of a violation of the 7th and 10th commandments, because Herod took (by force) Herodias from her husband, who happened to be his brother Phillip. John would have said the same thing if Herodias' husband were a stranger. Note Calvin:

And Baker's NT Commentary:

__________________
Fredrick T. Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

Still chewing on the rest of your post. How can you say the above? John said it wasn't lawful - there are 2 specific laws that says so and Herod is not a Jew.

I comletely agree that all of the case laws can find their summary in the ten commandments. If I pointed to any individual law from the OT that was not one of the ten, then would not in every case I would be answered that it wasn't applying the individual case law but instead the ten commandments? Is this not a matter of our presuppositions showing through? A theonomic interpreter would say - look a case law! A non-theonomic interpreter would say - nope he was actually just applying one of the ten commandments...

Even the Baker commentary cited the Levitical laws and their summary

[Edited on 10-13-2005 by crhoades]

Follow-up thought: The above account was given in Mark right after Jesus taught in the synagogue and said that a prophet has no honor is his hometown. He then sent out the 12 and then it goes into John´s beheading. In the parallel passage in Luke and Matthew these accounts are went into more fully.

Jesus´s teaching in the synagogue led to the people trying to throw him off a cliff. When Jesus sent out the 12, he told of wolves, imprisonments, not being afraid of people who could kill the body, etc. All of that was to embolden the disciples not to waver on being prophetic "“ telling people that the kingdom of God was near, to repent, and share the gospel (all different ways alluded to in the parallel passages.).

This brings me to a chapter 10 where Jesus is being questioned by the Pharisees about "œis it lawful for a man to put away his wife?"� Jesus appealed to Moses and also brought up adultery on both sides of the marriage.

Was not the pharisees baiting Jesus into addressing the John the Baptist situation or at least trapping him in his own? Did not John suffer for answering that same question effectively. Does this not show Jesus showing the disciples that no matter what the civil magistrate does, we should not waver on the Law of God (not even discussing the moral/judicial distinction at this point).

Mar 10:1-12 ASV
(1) And he arose from thence and cometh into the borders of Judaea and beyond the Jordan: and multitudes come together unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.
(2) And there came unto him Pharisees, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? trying him.
(3) And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
(4) And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
(5) But Jesus said unto them, For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
(6) But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them.
(7) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife;
(8) and the two shall become one flesh: so that they are no more two, but one flesh.
(9) What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
(10) And in the house the disciples asked him again of this matter.
(11) And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her:
(12) and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery.

The case laws define the decalogue, so of course one can find the 7th and 10th commandments indirectly applied in this direct application of the case laws.

Actually Herod was Jewish. And they were still under the OT economy.

[Edited on 10-13-2005 by puritansailor]

__________________
Patrick
OPC
MDiv, RTS Jackson.

"He does well, that discourses of Christ; but he does infinitely better, that by experimental knowledge, feeds and lives on Christ." Thomas Brooks.

This was from the ISBE posted above:
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.

Can you point me to your source or reasoning? I was thinking through all of this on the way to work this morning and won't have access to my scrolls and parchments until tonight. The ISBE was all I had access to via E-Sword. Thanks!

Chris, to say this you have to tacitly assume that the only definition of "lawful" is that which is in accordance with the Mosaic law. A good end-around for Theonomy, but it does not fit the facts here.

Exactly. If I might be so bold - you are finding what you already wanted to find there. Notice also that the Baker commentary cites adultery (which the Levitical law does not apply to, but rather a matter of cosanguinity) and Romans 7, which is not in the context of a Jewish law, or even an epistle to Jews, but rather Gentiles.

Romans 7 wasn't around when John the Baptist confronted Herod. There are OT case laws dealing with adultery in the same passages in Leviticus - and of course it is in the Big 10 as well.

And I am trying to be up front about the hermeneutical presuppostitions. I'm really wanting to be faithful to the scriptures which is why I posted it. We came across this passage in a Bible study on Mark last night and I'm trying to process it. I don't want to hoist theonomy upon these passages but I also don't want to see it stripped away if it is there. Just needing my iron sharpened a bit. I'll try to interact a bit more tonight on all of this when I have more time and after I do a little spade and commentary work.

Herod was Idumean. The Idumeans were forced to convert to Judiasm under Hyrcanus (one of the last Maccabees). And it was on behalf of Herod's faithfulness to Ceaser that Judaism obtained official recognition in the Roman Empire.

Would Herod's rule be considered Jewish in the continuation of the Jewish nation state or would it be considered Roman rule based upon Roman law?

It was probably a hybrid. Officially Roman, but the Jews were given much autonomy so long as they didn't revolt.

Isreal's laws were subject to Roman law, I would think. Especially in light that the Palace and Temple implored Pontuis Pilot to crucify Jesus saying it was unlawful for themselves to do it under Roman law.

__________________

(Norseman Moderator)

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
Harmony Baptist Church (Member)
PuritanCovenanter MSN Blog
PuritanCovenanter's MySpace Page

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Chris,

I would argue that Romans 7 was implicitly in place in the time of Herod, from the very day that God entered into covenant with Adam. The 10 Commandments are not simply a law made with the people of Israel on Sinai, they are an expression of the eternal character of God, and as such are always applicable.

Why is that important? Because I believe that you have hit upon the true difference between theonomy and Theonomy. It is not (as I have stated several times) a dichotomy between Theonomy and autonomy as Theonomists love to fashion the debate. It is a choice between theonomy, Theonomy and autonomy.

The Theonomist needs to find an explicit Mosaic case law applicable to the actions of Herod, because the Mosaic law is perpetual and normative for him. For the theonomist, it is sufficient (in fact superior) to appeal to the 10 Commandments themselves and find the law of God there.

That is what I believe is at the heart of the "general equity" debate (and perhaps Andrew can comment here): for the Theonomist, the general equity is the application of civil law (the Mosaic/Levitical laws) to the universe of all men (e.g. Herod the Ideumean); for the theonomist, the general equity is the applicaiton of the general principles of the moral law of God (the 10 Commandments) to all men, of which the civil law gives us an example, but not a normative application.

That is at least how I see it.

So God gave Deuteronomy as a mere example ? And God's written application of the Decalogue is not normative ?

Do you hear what you are saying ?

Was Jesus referring to ONLY the ten commandments when He said:

Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Mat 5:18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Mat 5:19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

__________________
Misery induces despair, pride induces presumption. The Incarnation shows man the
greatness of his misery by the greatness of the remedy which he required.
~ Pascal, Pensees 526

Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Mat 5:18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Mat 5:19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Does Moses, and the book of Deuteronomy not fit into the phrase Law or the Prophets ?

And, if Jesus is not referring to the whole body of O.T. law, which of the 10 commandments does He mean by whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments ?

Which of the ten is the least ?

Yes. But I do not think you understand what I mean by "only" the 10 Commandments. If you peruse the Larger Catechism on the 10 Commandments, you will find that every aspect of your life is undone by "only" the 10 Commandments.

Further, if what Christ meant by the Law were all the specific case laws in Deuteronomy, we are in big trouble, because that would include the ceremonial law as well.

For my part, I believe that the breadth and application of the moral law is greater than that advocated by Theonomy, albeit less specific in punctilliar detail.

The ceremonial law we DO keep, in Christ.

Is the breadth and application of the moral law greater that Deuteronomy and the rest of the Old Testament, or the beatitudes ?

I guess I do not get what you mean Fred.