CHAPTER IX

HEROD SEEKS HIS ARREST-EXILE FROM HEROD'S DOMINIONS

Up to this point Jesus' movement had developed without serious conflict with the civil authorities. The resentment of the Pharisees had not brought him into actual conflict with the general government. True, their opposition probably had stirred up the local authorities and broken up his movement at Capernaum, but so far as we know it had stopped with that result. We have no record of any attempt to arrest him before this time.

But from this time on he was destined to be in continuous personal danger from the government under which he lived. Beginning first with astonished interest in the stories told about this new prophet of the Kingdom, growing out of a vivid memory of John the Baptist, the attitude of Herod Antipas, the prince to whom he was subject, soon developed to bitter and more bitter opposition until finally Herod became the dominating factor in Jesus' death.

Herod Antipas at this period was tetrarch of Galilee and Perea. The latter territory lay to the east of the Jordan, extending to the borders of Arabia and lying to the south of a territory ruled by a brother of similar capacity. The exact authority which was vested in him under the title of Tetrarch

is not precisely ascertainable, but it is clear that it involved in a general way most of the prerogatives which were exercised by his father, Herod the Great. Both Herod, the father, and his sons Herod Antipas, Philip and Archelaus, who jointly inherited his authority, held that authority by gift of the Roman Senate. To Herod the Great was granted complete royal power with a general loyalty to the Roman Empire as sole limitation. His authority throughout the area later governed by his sons was complete and absolute. Herod Antipas was at one time intended by his father to be his sole heir. Shortly before his death, however, Herod, who in his later years was in continual turmoil with his children, became angered at Antipas and in a will bequeathed his kingdom to Archelaus instead.' But when Archelaus went to Rome to receive the confirmation of his authority at the hands of the Roman Emperor and the Senate, the family and friends of Herod also went and presented the claims of Herod Antipas to the throne.' Augustus, after giving the matter full consideration, finally divided the kingdom among the three sons,' giving to Archelaus Judea and Idumea with an income of 400 talents per annum; Galilee and Perea to Herod Antipas with 200 talents, and the area to the northeast of this territory to Philip with an annual revenue of 100 talents. This limitation upon

'Josephus Antiq. XVII, viii. 1.

'Id. XVII, ix.

'Id. XVII, xi, 4.

the income was apparently the only limitation upon the royal authority which they thus inherited, although the name of king which their father bore was withdrawn, Archelaus being called Ethnarch and the other two Tetrarchs. Apparently the Roman authorities retained the prerogative of levying the taxes, with the requirement that these local princes should have only the specified amount, the remainder being turned in to the Roman general treasury.

Herod Antipas accordingly held the power of life and death over his subjects, without accountability to any other authority whatever, except possibly in cases of its great and violent abuse. He seems to have been a diligent administrator, who kept his unruly subjects well in hand." It is obvious that this was no easy task. This crowded population, dominated by a religious idea which was more than half political and which led them to believe that any authority other than that of God himself as represented through their High Priesthood was a usurpation, generally ignorant and emotional to a volcanic degree, stubborn, full of an inherited pride of race, filled with a never-ending hope that at some time the hand of the oppressor would be withdrawn from them and that they should again resume their position as a proud and imperial people, were enough to try the mettle of the firmest and most competent government.

*Archelaus had been deprived of his ethnarchy for such reasons. See Josephus Antiq. XVII, xiii, 2.

'Josephus Antiq. XVIII, ii, 3.

It is evident that any one who kept them in hand and maintained the public peace must be quick to recognize and prompt to restrain any manifestation of public tumult. We have seen already how promptly and effectively Herod dealt with the excitement instituted by John the Baptizer. He did not perceive at that time that he had overlooked a still more vigorous personality who would take up John's movements where he left it off and make it a still more dangerous source of disturbance. The work of Jesus until now he had ignored, if in fact he had any knowledge of it. The attempts of the Pharisees to cause his officers to take action against Jesus at Capernaum because of his violation of the Jewish ceremonial law had probably remained a local matter. Herod, who had been brought up as the son of the king of the Jews, was probably a Jew in his religious attitude, but was nevertheless too wise a governor to be easily stirred into action by a local disturbance over a purely ceremonial question. But the wide reach of this movement developed by the operation of the Twelve brought the matter to his attention in such a manner that it could not be wholly ignored.'

The reports of this new excitement brought to him by his officers reminded him vividly of his experience with John. When the great prophet of the wil

"Herod's presence in Jerusalem during the passover at the time of Jesus' arrest and excution (Luke 23:7) was no doubt for the purpose of participating in that religious festival.

'Mark 6:14; Matthew 14:1; Luke 9:7.

8

derness was arrested he had been carried to a fortress owned by Herod on the borders of Arabia. There he had been held for some time, the purpose of Herod apparently being merely to restrain him and thus to avoid the turmoil he was raising. Apparently he was at times brought before Herod himself in order that the ruler might hear his message, to which Herod's Jewish outlook responded to some degree. Herod listened to him with interest and pleasure and no doubt would have held him safe for some time had the personal animosity of his wife not been roused against him. This woman, evil genius not only of John but later of Herod himself," was Herod's

'Josephus Antiq. XVIII, v, 2.

"The story as told in Mark 6:17-29, Matthew 14:3-12, is supplementary to that told by Josephus in that Josephus gives the cause of John's arrest and the chief reason for his death, while Mark, and Matthew after him, give an additional, and perhaps the immediate reason for his death. The Josephus story is as follows: "Now when others came in crowds about him, for they were greatly moved by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death." The reasoning reported here was no doubt the same as that applied to Jesus by Herod. The writers of the gospels, men not acquainted with government, could not understand political motives, but found the explanation for the acts of the authorities in motives that would have been sufficient to persons of their own sphere of existence. To them Herodias' motive was ample to explain what happened to John.

Josephus (Antiq. XVIII, vii: Wars II, ix, 6) relates how the