The Gospel of Mark/Chapter 6:1-29/Commentary

The Gospel of Mark Chapter 6:1-29 6:1 “And He went out from there, and He came into His home town; and His disciples followed Him”: Jesus left the area of Capernaum and headed to Nazareth.

Jesus had already been rejected at Nazareth at the beginning of His ministry (Luke 4:16-30). It appears that Jesus is giving this city another chance. “His far greater popularity in Galilee is now a fact that demanded reappraisal of His claims” (Fowler p. 174). Coming to Nazareth also enabled Jesus to escape from the crowds in Capernaum and cool off the excitement of the multitudes, which at times got in the way of teaching people the gospel. In fact, Jesus had just completed a series of steps to keep tight reins on His own popularity. 1. The Sermon in Parables (Matthew 13) hid vital truth from all but those who wanted to learn. 2. The withdrawal from Capernaum by a stormy voyage to Gerasa. 3. The healing of Jarius’ daughter, which He attempted to keep a secret. 4. Sternly ordering two healed blind men not to publish the news of their healing (Matthew 9:27-31).

6:2 “And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, ‘Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands?’”

1

Observe, no one denied the wisdom by which Jesus spoke. They were all impressed. And no one denied the miracles which He performed. Instead of saying, “The source of all this is clear---it is from God!” (John 3:1-2), they remain puzzled.

6:3 “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary”: Nothing is said here about Joseph. One more indication that he has probably died. “Isn’t this just a common ordinary fellow who makes his living with his hands like the rest of us?”

(Gaebelein, p. 665). From this verse it seems that Jesus, prior to His public ministry, had followed Joseph in the same trade. “Did Jesus so establish Himself as a worker in Nazareth during His pre-ministry days that His acquaintances remember Joseph only in passing “the carpenter’s son” (Matthew 13:55), as the man whose carpentry his son took over?” (Fowler p. 178). The following are the only references to Joseph by name in the New Testament (Matthew 1:16, 1820,24; 2:13; Luke 1:27; 2:4,16,33,43; 3:23; 4:22; John 1:45; 6:42). “The son of Mary”: No one in Nazareth believed that Jesus was illegitimate. Clearly, the father was Joseph and the mother was Mary. Contrary to the claims of some atheists (that Jesus was the offspring of Mary and a Roman soldier), the eyewitnesses of the time knew of no such rumor. The enemies of Jesus called Him by many names, but they never accused Him of being an illegitimate child .

6:4 “And brother of James, Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”: Since it is claimed that Mary was a perpetual virgin in Catholic theology, Catholicism tries to argue that these brothers were actually cousins. In the context, we also have “sisters”; hence, it makes most sense that “brother” means “brother”. The verse is naturally talking about the immediate family.

“Carpenter’s son”, “the son of Mary”, the next group would logically be His brothers and sisters—not distant relatives. The terms “son” and “mother” are used literally and in the common meaning of these words, why then change the meaning of the terms “brothers” and “sisters”? If son and mother are literal, then so must be brother and sister. Lastly, since God is not the author of confusion, if such men and women were only the cousins or relatives of Jesus, then why not say so?

2

In attempting to get around the fact that Jesus had other brothers and sisters, some have tried to argue that these children were Joseph’s from a previous marriage. If this is the case, then why didn’t the text say, “step-brothers”? Again, the term “son” in the verse means “son”, and not “step-son” and the term “mother” means “mother” and not step-mother, so why change the other two terms?

James is probably the “James” who wrote the book of James and was a prominent figure in the church at Jerusalem (Acts 15:13; 21:18; Galatians1:19 “James, the Lord’s brother”; 2:9; James 1:1). Judas, is probably the same man that wrote the book of Jude (Jude 1:1 “and brother of James”). “But why do the Nazarenes bother to mention these men by name? They are proudly proving thereby to be able to remember them, since these brothers had moved to Capernaum with Jesus some time earlier (Matthew 4:13; John 2:12). By proving their ability to name them one by one, they think they have thereby explained Jesus too” (Fowler p. 179).

6:3 “And they took offense at Him”: It is amazing how easily people can be offended or the small things that they claim are offensive.

The surprise expressed over Jesus by the people in Nazareth demonstrates how perfectly “normal” must have been the entire childhood and young adulthood of Jesus among these people. He did no miracles as a boy, contrary to the claims of the apocryphal gospels. His first miracle was done as an adult in Cana of Galilee (John 2:11). The doctrine of Jesus’ humanity passed the test of his closest acquaintances (Hebrews 2:14; 17; 4:15; 5:7-8; Phil. 2:8). The people in Nazareth couldn’t tell any difference between Jesus and His brothers and sisters. His humanity was convincingly real to them. “Their rhetorical questions are devastating to any theory of perpetual virginity for Mary, because they imply the common knowledge that Jesus is in no way different from His brothers, sisters, mother, or father.

Like some unbelieving scholars today, they thought that they had Jesus all figured out. “By what right does the village carpenter, whom we have known all our lives, rise to speak to us with an authority superior to the learned rabbis?” (Fowler p.

181). The world is filled with people who continue to stumble over Jesus and His claims (1 Corinthians 1:21).

3

Much of the religious world is attempting to make Jesus and His teachings into something that won’t offend anyone, but such is impossible, even Jesus told us that He would be a rock of offence and stumbling! (Romans 9:33; 1 Peter 2:8).

We can get everything wrong, if we are missing one piece of valuable information.

The people in Nazareth blundered by trying to account for Jesus by discussing His human family. What He taught and His miracles should have moved them to dig deeper.

6:4 “And Jesus said to them, ‘A prophet is not without honor except in his home town and among his own relatives and in his own household’”: Humanly speaking, it is difficult to appreciate the importance and real accomplishments of someone whose entire growth and development occurred before our eyes. “We do have problems accepting the profound changes in people with whom we think ourselves perfectly familiar” (Fowler p. 182). “In Nazareth Jesus was no more than the son of a carpenter, and the brother of a certain very common young men and girls, while abroad He was hailed as the prophet of Galilee, mighty in word and deed” (Fourfold p. 360).

Here we see that some people reject Jesus because of envy or jealousy. This still happens today. There are people who will not allow themselves to bow before Jesus and submit to His will, because they want to be the one who makes all the rules. Note that Jesus wasn’t expecting something unrealistic. His teaching and miracles proved that He was indeed a prophet, and that God was speaking through Him. 6:5 “And He could do no miracle there except that He laid His hands upon a few sick people and healed them”: Unbelief in and of itself didn’t limit Jesus’ power.

At other times He healed people when surrounded by critics and unbelievers (Mark 2:1ff). Observe the understatement. “He could no miracle there except--He healed some sick people”! For us today—that would be plenty! He did perform some miracles. Therefore, the reason He performed so few miracles in Nazareth----was that very few people in Nazareth came to be healed by Him. No one wanted to acknowledge His power or act on the evidence. Only a handful of people came forward and asked Him for help.

4

Observe that Jesus didn’t perform some extraordinary miracle or sign, “just to show them”. Here we see the self-control of Jesus. They had all the evidence they needed; Jesus did not force Himself upon them. If people are not persuaded by all the other miracles and the few miracles that He did in Nazareth, then they will not be persuaded by any more miracles. “If the imposition of hands on a few sick folk to heal them will not produce the unshakable conviction that God has sent Jesus, no mere escalation of signs and wonders could be hoped to produce it” (Fowler p. 183).

In like manner, the Creation is full of evidence that cries out for the existence of God (Romans 1:20; Psalm 19:1), and so does the Bible (Luke 16:31; John 20:3031). The reason that God hasn’t intervened to produce some spectacular display in addition to these two mountains of evidence, is that such a display wouldn’t produce any more real believers. There is a point that God knows that any additional evidence wouldn’t change the minds of people who are determined to reject the evidence already given.

6:6 “And He wondered at their unbelief”: Some have taken this statement to mean that Jesus was caught off guard by their unbelief because Jesus was less than divine when upon this earth. Yet I reject this view (John 14:6-9; Colossians 2:9). Jesus “wondered” at their unbelief, not because it took Him by surprise, but because unbelief in the face of such overwhelming evidence, always shocks God. God never gets “use to” human rebellion that discounts the pile of evidence that He has provided. Yes, Jesus could have chosen not to know how they would have responded, but even if He chose to know, such defiance could still have amazed Him. Let us never become accustomed to human rebellion.

Jesus Sends Out His Disciples 6:7 “And He summoned the twelve and began to send them out in pairs; and He was giving them authority over the unclean spirits”: By this time Jesus had selected twelve men to be His apostles (Luke 6:13), even though He had more disciples than just twelve.

Jesus gave these men “authority”, that is, power and the right to use such power. We should note that this preaching tour of the twelve is the response to Jesus seeing the multitudes in 5

Matthew 9:36-38. Jesus sees a need for more workers, and He does something about it. “Send”: The verb translated here is apostellein and carries with it the idea of official representation. These men were commissioned to represent Him in both word and power. Their message and deeds were to be an extension of His own words and deeds. “In pairs”: From this verse some have argued that the only correct method of evangelism is going out “two by two”, that is, two Christians always working together. The problem with this is that Paul went often when with far more than just one other person (Acts 15:40; 16:1-3,10). In addition, there were times when he traveled all by himself (Acts 20:13). Added to this, besides going out in pairs, this limited preaching tour had some very severe limitations (6:8-11).

6:8-10 “And He instructed them that they should take nothing for their journey, except a mere staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belt; but to wear sandals; and He added, ‘Do not put on two tunics’. And He said to them, ‘Wherever you enter a house..’”: “They were to refrain from taking special equipment and supplies: no extra supply of money, clothing, shoes, or staff. They were not to procure extra equipment. They were not to go barefoot, for the mission was urgent, but they were not to secure an extra pair of shoes (an exceedingly comfortable possession in constant traveling). If they were accustomed to using a staff, well and good; but they were not to buy one especially for this mission” 1 And yet their needs would be taken care of (10:10-11). They were to seek out godly homes to stay in during their preaching in the village.

6:10 “Stay there until you leave town”: “Jesus gave the instruction in this verse to protect the good reputation of the disciples. Whenever they accepted the hospitality of a home, they were to stay there until they left that town—even if more comfortable or attractive lodgings were offered to them” (Gaebelein p. 667). This would provide stability and a wise use of time. No momentum would be lost by an endless round of feasting from house to house. “Contentment, because if they wandered around like mendicant monks, or appeared to be dissatisfied with the hospitality of the people, or as idle men fond of change, people would hardly take them seriously” (Fowler p. 301).

6:11 “And any place that does not receive you or listen to you, as you go out from there, shake off the dust from the soles of your feet for a testimony against them”: Apparently, there were some towns that might not have contained any “worthy” 1

Foster pg. 619 6

homes. In addition, some homes that had the reputation for being “worthy” could have turned out to be otherwise. Note, receiving the apostles is the same thing as heeding their message.

6: 11“Shake off the dust”: “In this silent witness, the Apostles were relieving themselves of the responsibility for the judgment of that house or city (Ezekiel 3:1621; 33:7-9). Your blood is on your own heads; we are blameless and leave you to your doom. While you reject us and our message, the fact remains that you are responsible for what we have tried to tell you” (Fowler p. 304). Compare with Acts 18:6. “For a testimony against them”: Jesus knew that His disciples would not be accepted by everyone. The word of God brings judgment as well as salvation. If I reject it, I must face up to the fact at the Judgment Day that I was warned, I was given a wonderful chance to do right, I did hear the truth, I was given an opportunity, and I rejected it.

6:12-13 “And they went out and preached that men should repent. And they were casting out many demons and were anointing with oil many sick people and healing them”: There was nothing magical in the oil, rather the anointing with oil was often a way of telling the sick person who had neglected such comforts to get ready to get back on track and assume the regular duties of life.

The Death of John the Baptist This section begins with an account of the various views of Jesus that existed at this time (6:14-16). Included is the view of Herod Antipas which leads us into his interaction with John the Baptist.

6:14 “And King Herod heard of it, for His name had become well known; and people were saying, ‘John the Baptist has risen from the dead, and that is why these miraculous powers are at work in Him’”: The Herod under consideration here is Herod Antipas, the son of Herod the Great.

The term tetrarch (THE trahrk) (Matthew 14:1) means “a ruler of a fourth part”, that is, the ruler or governor of the fourth part of a country, which was divided into these parts for efficient government. Herod Antipas ruled from 4 B.C. to A.D. 39. He was the son of Herod the Great and he ruled over Galilee and Perea.

7

Herod Antipas was the son of Herod the Great and Malthace, a Samaritan woman.

Half Idumaean, half Samaritan, he had therefore not a drop of Jewish blood in his veins, and "Galilee of the Gentiles". The gospel picture we have of him is very accurate. He is superstitious (Matt 14:1 f), fox like in his cunning (Luke 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 (Matt 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 "tetrarchy" 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 (Matt 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 "Julia," after the daughter of Tiberius. Another example of this inherited or cultivated building-mania was the work he did at Betharamphtha, which he called "Julias" (Ant, XVIII, ii, 1). His influence on his subjects was morally bad (Mark 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 Savior bound to Herod, and the utter inefficiency and flippancy of the man is revealed in the account the Gospels give us of the incident (Luke 23:7-12; Acts 4:27). It served, 8

however, to bridge the chasm of the enmity between Herod and Pilate (Luke 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) (International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright (c)1996 by Biblesoft).

6:14 “Heard of it”: “Perhaps Herod’s absence from Galilee on trips to Rome and his preoccupation of the war with the vindictive Arabian king, Aretas, would explain much of Herod’s ignorance about the exact identity of Jesus” (Fowler p.

219). The limited commission of the apostles in Matthew 10 increased this hearing about Jesus probably. “The people were saying”: Matthew informs us that this was the viewpoint held by Herod as well (Matthew 14:2). “John the Baptist has risen from the dead, and that is why these miraculous powers are at work in Him”: Observe that no one is denying that Jesus is working miracles.

“While John had done no miracles during his ministry (John 10:41), so powerful must have been the effect of his life and work that the tetrarch has no difficulty believing that so mighty a prophet should be risen and now working miracles too” (Fowler p. 220).

6:15 “But others were saying, ‘He is Elijah’. And others were saying, ‘He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old’”: Some thought that Elijah might have returned (Malachi 3:1; 4:5) or that Jesus might be a prophet mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:15-19 or just like the prophets of old. We find the same views in Matthew 16:13-14. Among the Jewish people there was not a clear consensus concerning the true nature of Jesus. In all these views, no one claimed that He was merely a good man. While the views are noble none of them were correct.

6:16 “But when Herod heard of it, he kept saying, ‘John whom I beheaded, has risen!’”: “However wicked Herod may have been, he could not shake himself free 9

from his own presuppositions nor his conscience. Resurrection from the dead was a fact of Old Testament history (1 Samuel 28:8-19). Further, his own admission of John’s prophetic greatness, when combined with a not totally unfounded fear of God’s vengeance, may have pushed him to conclude tentatively that God, in fact, resurrected His great prophet” (Fowler p. 220). In believing in the resurrection, Herod sided with the views of the Pharisees, while the Sadducees rejected such a concept. Very wicked men can understand Biblical truth, even if they refuse to obey it. People don’t reject the Bible because it confuses them, rather, they reject it because they understand all too well what it is demanding of them.

6:17 “For Herod himself had sent and had John arrested and bound in prison on account of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, because he had married her”: This verse begins to explain why Herod was so concerned about Jesus and jumped to the conclusion that this was John the Baptist, raised from the dead.

Herodias was the daughter of Aristobulus, who was the half-brother of Herod Philip I and Herod Antipas. Herodias, therefore, had married her uncle Herod Philip I, who was disinherited by Herod the Great, and who lived as a private citizen in Rome.

“When Herod Antipas went to Rome about the affairs of his tetrarchy, he became the guest of his brother Herod Philip I, and repaid the hospitality which he received by carrying off the wife of his host” (Fourfold p. 371).

1. 6:18 “For John had been saying to Herod, ‘It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife’”: John had brought up this subject many times. From my study it appears that the Herods didn’t have a drop of Jewish blood in their veins. Herod was the son of Herod the Great, who was a pure Idumean, and his mother was a Samaritan. The Idumeans had submitted to the use of circumcision, and other Jewish ways of living, but the Herod’s only gave the Mosaic law nothing more than lip-service. Even though the Herod’s were not Jewish, God still considered them accountable to His laws on marriage that had been in force from the beginning (Mathtew 19:8). “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife”:  John the Baptist was a spiritual man, a great man in the eyes of God, and he rebuked this unscriptural marriage.

10

   

 

John didn’t take the position that such issues could not be figured out, he didn’t argue that “the Scriptures aren’t clear enough on this issue”, neither did he argue, “Well, I will let God figure it out at the judgment”.

God does expect us to cry out against evil (Ephesians 5:11; Ezekiel 3:18-19), and to show no partiality.

All marriages are not lawful.

John did not believe that all second marriages can be made right. From the text, what would Herod have to do to in order to make this right? Is simply saying he was sorry and resolving not to divorce or remarry any more women a sufficient act of repentance? Or does repentance in this situation require that he put away Herodias?

Grace will not cover Herod if he remains in this marriage. If it is “not lawful for Herod to have her”—then he cannot have her.

This example contradicts many of the current false views on MarriageDivorce-and Remarriage. 1. John did not believe that only covenant people were accountable to God’s marriage laws. 2. John did not believe that adultery was a one-time act. 3. John did not believe that the grace of God would simply cover such situations. 4. John did not believe that all such situations should be left alone and allow God to sort out everything at the Judgment. John did not believe that all marriages are right, or that marriage is always right and divorce is always wrong.

Some try to argue that this case has nothing to do with adultery, but the unlawfulness of the marriage had to do with incest. While incest is unlawful, so is adultery. Marrying a close relative is just as much a violation of God’s law is as divorcing your mate and marrying someone else without Scriptural cause (Matthew 19:9). If a violation of laws on incest demands that the marriage be sundered, then certainly a violation of the laws on divorce and remarriage would require the same sundering of the unlawful remarriage. If Herod is accountable to God’s laws on incest when certainly he is accountable to God’s laws on adultery, for both are part of God’s marriage law that has been true from the beginning.

Herodias’ husband and Herod’s wife, daughter of Aretas, were both still alive (Romans 7:2-3). John the Baptist interpreted God’s laws concerning divorce and remarriage just as Jesus did (Matthew 5:32; 19:3-9). In fact, Mark’s version (6:18) clearly quotes John as labeling Herodias as “your brother’s wife”. Even though Herodias had succeeded in divorcing her husband Philip, God didn’t recognize this 11

divorce. She was divorced, but she was still married to another man. John doesn’t bring up incest, rather, John brings up adultery, “Herod, you are married to a woman who still has a husband!”

6:19 “Herodias had a grudge against him and wanted to put him to death and could not do so”: Herodias is a woman who had struggled for supremacy all her life.

She was the orphaned daughter of Aristobulus, who was murdered by her grandfather, Herod the Great. She had been married to her half-uncle Philip, the only son of Herod the Great and Mariamne. This would have guaranteed the throne to her husband in the event of the unforeseeable death of Antipater, the heir apparent, because Herod the Great’s will set Herod Philip as next in line.

Unfortunately for Herodias, Herod Philip’s mother, Mariamne II was caught in a plot to murder Herod the Great, for which the latter was divorced, and her son was disinherited. Herodias thus found herself married to the wealthy Herod Philip, but he was nothing more than another private citizen who could not even boast of a portion of a semi-royal position. Now that she is finally enjoying her first ladyship, John’s righteous preaching threatens to snatch it from her.

Observe, Herodias is a hardened sinner—yet she cares about her “reputation”.

6:20 “For Herod was afraid of John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and kept him safe”: Like many worldly people, Herod is a man filled with contradictions. On the one hand, sheer political expediency demanded the death of any enemy so dangerous, and yet extraordinary measures must be taken to avoid public displeasure. If one doesn’t have a fear of God, then one will be subject to a host of lesser fears, including the fear of public opinion and peer pressure. This verse reminds us that Herod still knows right from wrong. He can see the truth. He knows what a righteous man is supposed to look like. Therefore, when Herod has John executed—he knows he is killing a godly man.

6:20 “And when he heard him, he was very perplexed, but he used to enjoy listening to him”: It would seem that Herod was not perplexed about the “meaning” of John’s preaching, for John was clear, rather, Herod was perplexed as to whether he should get rid of Herodias or not. He knew it was wrong to have her, but he liked having her. Herod was “perplexed” as is any sinner who doesn’t want to give up their favorite sin. Yet, Herod enjoyed listening to preaching about righteousness. Herod is like many people who secretly desire they could be a better 12

person, who like what the Bible says about morality and being upright , but who in their person opt for an easier choice.

“Perhaps because John was a link with a better past. Herod too had been a boy once, trying to make sense out of the world, and had perhaps set higher ideals for himself than were common among the corrupt Herodian courts. Later, gradually slipping and finally plunging to the hilt in the powerful vices which his unique position offered him, and even now, compromising completely by his wife, he cannot shake that lingering appreciation for integrity, principle, and the service of God in the life of another young man who made it” (Fowler p. 232).

6:21 “And a strategic day came when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his lords and military commanders and leading men of Galilee”: There is always an opportunity to be godly—like the chance to listen to John. At the same time, there will always be an opportunity to be evil.

6:22 “And when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his dinner guests”: The girl, Salome, was also daughter of Herod Philip of Rome, apparently brought along with Herodias. Many commentators have pictured, a luscious teenager doing something like an Egyptian belly dance. McGarvey notes, “The dancing of the East was then, as now, voluptuous and indecent, and nothing but utter shamelessness or inveterate malice could have induced a princess to thus make a public show of herself at such a carousal” (Fourfold p. 372). “Ask me for whatever you want”: Consider the rashness and foolishness that happens when one ignores God. Riches, honors, kingdoms, and people are given for a mere dance!

Herod’s rash promise here appears to be his attempt to act like a real pagan king (Esther 5:3,6).

6:23 “And he swore to her, ‘Whatever you ask of me, I will give it to you; up to half of my kingdom’”: Evil people tend to justify their actions by saying something like, “It is my life and I am only hurting myself”. Yet Herod’s rash promise, his drinking, getting involved with a married woman, refusing to give her up---all will bring about the death of a godly man.

6:24 “And she went out and said to her mother, ‘What shall I ask for?’”: If Herod is rash and foolish, Herodias and her daughter are cunning. They ponder the situation.

“And she said, ‘The head of John the Baptist’”: Evil is aggressive and seizes the 13

opportunity.

6:25 “And immediately she came in haste before the king and asked, saying, ‘I want you to give me right away the head of John the Baptist on a platter’”: Herodias acts swiftly, she knows what she wants, and she wants it now.

6:26 “And although the king was very sorry, yet because of his oaths and because of his dinner guests, he was unwilling to refuse her’”: Nothing demanded that Herod grant her request, for it was an evil request! Yet Herod was more concerned about “appearances”, and how he looked before worldly and ungodly people, than what was right. Here we see Herod filled with pride and arrogance and wanting to act like a tyrant who can grant any request, even very wicked ones. Observe the hypocrisy. Herod was blind to the sins of adultery and murder, but was concerned about breaking some foolish oath! “Unfaithful to his God, to his conscience, to truth and righteousness; not ashamed of any crime or sin, he would yet be faithful to his half-drunken oath, and appear honorable and true before such companions!”

(Fowler p. 239).

6:27-28 “And immediately the king sent an executioner and commanded him to bring back his head. And he went and had him beheaded in the prison. And brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the girl; and the girl gave it to her mother” 6:29 “And when his disciples heard about this, they came and took away his body and laid it in a tomb”: After this they will come and report John’s death to Jesus (Matthew 14:12).

14

15