Why was Herod’s marriage “unlawful”?

Saint John Reproaches Herod and Herodias, Baptistery of Florence,
 ca. 1240–1310. Photo: Courtesy Győző Vörös.

Mark 6:17-18, “For Herod himself had sent and arrested John and bound him in prison on account of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, because he had married her. For John had been saying to Herod, ‘It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.’”¹

 

Historical Background

 

The Herodian family tree is quite complicated, so for our purposes we will simply note that Herod (Antipas) and Philip were half-brothers, sharing the same biological father (Herod the Great) but different mothers. Herodias was their half-niece by another half-brother, Aristobulus.²

 

After the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC, his kingdom was divided among three of his sons: (a) Archelaus became ethnarch of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea (Matt. 2:22) but was replaced by a Roman prefect in AD 6; (b) Herod Antipas was tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (Matt. 14:1) until he was exiled in AD 39; (c) Philip was tetrarch of the northeastern Hellenistic territories (Luke 3:1) until his death in AD 34.

 

Philip married Herodias and they had a daughter, Salome. Herod Antipas married Phasaelis, the daughter of the Nabatean king Aretas IV, but divorced her when he developed affections for Herodias, who divorced Philip in order to marry him (reported by Josephus, Ant. 18.5.1, 4).³ So what was it about the second marriage of these divorcees that compelled the Jewish prophet John to declare to Herod Antipas, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife”?

 

Was it unlawful to marry a former sister-in-law?

 

According to the Law of Moses: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it [is] your brother’s nakedness” (Lev. 18:16); “And if a man takes his brother’s wife, it [is] an unclean thing; he has uncovered his brother’s nakedness. They shall be childless” (Lev. 20:21). These injunctions, however, must be qualified, because they obviously do not apply if the man’s brother has died (Deut. 25:5-10). They rather pertain to adulterous relations. Adultery is committed when at least one of the person’s involved is married to someone else.⁴

 

It follows that if a divorce occurs without divine sanction, God does not recognize the dissolution of the marriage. The issue with the unlawful union of Herod Antipas and Herodias was more than the mere fact that she was his brother’s wife. Rather, she was his brother’s wife. The problem was “on account of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, because he had married her.” Under Roman law, one could not marry someone else’s spouse without a legal divorce. A person was allowed only one spouse at a time. It was not civil law but a prophet of God who declared this marriage of a divorced man and a divorced woman, “unlawful.”

 

Was it unlawful to marry a half-niece?

 

Since Herodias was the daughter of Aristobulus, the half-brother of Herod Antipas and Philip (all having different mothers), did this constitute incest? In Roman society an uncle marrying his full-niece was uncommon and considered improper, but there was no law against it (Tacitus, Annals 12.6).⁵ Technically, however, Herodias was the half-niece of the two half-brothers, and the respective marriages were apparently sanctioned under Roman law. John did not seem to be bothered that Herodias was “the wife” of Philip, so the issue with the other brother’s marriage does not appear to have been a question of incest.

 

Unlawful Divorce and Unlawful Remarriage

 

The teachings of Jesus provide the best commentary, enabling us to understand what is “lawful” (divinely sanctioned) and “unlawful” (without divine sanction) in regard to marriage, divorce, and remarriage, and what was wrong with the situation John bravely confronted that cost him his life.

 

The ministry of John the baptist was mostly “beyond the Jordan” (John 1:28; 3:26; 10:40), the territory governed by Herod Antipas.⁶ A couple of years after John’s death, Jesus was “beyond the Jordan” when some Pharisees publicly asked him about the legality of a husband divorcing his spouse for any cause (Matt. 19:1-2; Mark 10:1-2). This was in the political jurisdiction of Herod Antipas, a divorced man married to a divorced woman, wielding the power of life and death. The trap they were attempting to set makes the straightforward and courageous response of Jesus even more impactful. Like John, he implicitly regarded such a relationship unlawful.

 

Have you not read that the One having created from the beginning made them male and female … On account of this the man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife, and the two will be one flesh, so that they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God united together, let no one separate…. Moses, due to your obstinacy of heart, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not this way. But I say to you, whoever has divorced his wife, except for sexual infidelity, and has married another, is committing adultery …” (Matt. 19:4-9).⁷  

 

Conclusion

 

While Roman law permitted divorce and remarriage for any number of reasons, God’s marriage and moral laws are not as lax. According to Romans 7:1-3 and 1 Corinthians 7:39, death severs the marriage bond, so the widow or widower does not commit “adultery” in a subsequent marriage. Otherwise, unless a divorce is caused by sexual infidelity, it is without divine sanction and therefore another sexual union is adulterous. This most clearly explains why the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias was unlawful.

 

--Kevin L. Moore

 

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation. The entire incident is recorded in Mark 6:14-29, with parallel accounts in Matt. 14:1-12; Luke 3:18-20; 9:7-9. 

     ² The mother of Herod Antipas was Malthas (a Samaritan), the mother of Philip the tetrarch (Philip I or Philip II?) was Cleopatra of Jerusalem, and the mother of Aristobulus was Mariamne I (of the Hasmonean dynasty).

     ³ The historian Flavius Josephus was a Romanized Jew who divorced three previous wives and was married to a fourth. He reports: “Herod the tetrarch had married the daughter of Aretas; and had lived with her a great while …. However he fell in love with Herodias, this last Herod’s [Philip’s] wife …. One article of this marriage also was this, that he should divorce [ἐκβαλεῖν] Aretas’s daughter …. But Herodias, their [Aristobulus and Agrippa’s] sister, was married to Herod [Philip], the son of Herod the Great …. Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and divorced [διαστᾶσα] herself from her husband, while he was alive, and was married [γαμεῖται] to Herod [Antipas], her husband’s brother by the father’s side. He was tetrarch of Galilee” (Ant. 18.5.1, 4). 

     ⁴ Biblically defined, adultery involves voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse (cf. Lev. 18:20; 20:10; Deut. 22:22; Prov. 6:32; Matt. 5:28; John 8:3; Heb. 13:4).

     ⁵ In 49 Claudius married his full-niece Agrippina the Younger, which earlier had sparked a debate in the Senate on the legality and propriety of such a union. Vitellius argued on the emperor’s behalf: “This is quite alien to the propriety of our day. Rather let a precedent be now set for the taking of a wife by an emperor. But, it will be said marriage with a brother's daughter is with us a novelty. True; but it is common in other countries, and there is no law to forbid it…. Custom adapts itself to expediency, and this novelty will hereafter take its place among recognized usages” (Tacitus, Annals 12.6).The Senate then passed a decree legitimizing uncles marrying nieces (Cassius Dio, Hist. 61.31.6-8). Later Domitian divorced his wife Domitia and then lived with his niece Julia “as husband with wife” (Cassius Dio, Hist. 67.3.2).

     ⁶ See K. L. Moore, “Beyond the Jordan,” Moore Perspective (9 June 2021), <Link>.

     ⁷ Note the transition in the Greek text of v. 9 from the aorist tense (completed action: “divorced … married”) and the present tense (continuing action: “is committing adultery”). The Byzantine Majority Text continues, “and the one having married her who has been put away is committing adultery.” See also Matt. 5:31-32; Mark 10:1-10; Luke 16:18. 

Works Consulted:

Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, in Josephus Complete Works, trans. William Whiston (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1980): 382-83.

George Long, “Incestrum,” in William Smith, ed., A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (London: John Murray, 1875): 633.

Brent D. Shaw and Richard P. Saller, “Close-Kin Marriage in Roman Society?” New Series 19.3 (Sept. 1984): 432-444.

Susan Treggiari, “Roman Incest,” review of P. Moreau’s Incestus et prohibitae nuptiae, in The Classical Review 54.1 (March 2004): 203-205.

Related Posts: Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage, Divorce and Remarriage (Part 2) 

Image credit: https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/artistic-representations-of-herods-royal-throne/

Was Polygamy ever Acceptable to God?

     Polygamy (a person having multiple spouses) – including polygyny (a man with multiple wives) and polyandry (a woman with multiple husbands) – is contrary to God’s original intention for marriage. His creative purpose from the beginning involved only “one man/one woman” marriages (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:4-6; 1 Cor. 7:1-5). There are, however, numerous instances of polygamy (incl. bigamy) recorded in the Bible. Lamech is the first one mentioned as having more than one wife (Gen. 4:19). This practice apparently originated among those who had become estranged from God (Gen. 4:16 ff.). Nevertheless, there are also some “righteous” men who had a plurality of wives, such as Abraham (Gen. 16:3), Jacob (Gen. 37:2), and David (1 Sam. 25:43). But even these polygamous unions were conceived in the context of sin and led to many problems (cf. Gen. 16:1-6; 21:11; 29:16 - 30:15; 37:28; Deut. 17:17; 2 Sam. 11:27; et al.). Other polygamists included Esau (Gen. 28:9), Gideon (Judg. 8:30), Elkanah (1 Sam. 1:2), Saul (2 Sam. 12:8), Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:3), Issachar’s sons (1 Chron. 7:4), Shaharaim (1 Chron. 8:8-9), Rehoboam (2 Chron. 11:21), Abijah (2 Chron. 13:21), and Joash (2 Chron. 24:3). But no polygamous marriage is ever depicted as a good marriage.

     If polygamy was contrary to God’s will and caused so many problems, why did He allow it? Throughout the Old Testament God seems to have permitted, and even regulated, a number of things of which He disapproved (e.g. Matt. 19:8). Yet He patiently endured in order to bring about a much greater state of affairs. Paul reveals that in anticipation of Christ’s atoning sacrifice, God, in His forbearance, “had passed over the sins that were previously committed” (Rom. 3:23-26). Despite their imperfections, those who submitted their lives to God prior to Christ’s death (e.g. Abraham, David, etc.) had forgiveness available to them (cf. Heb. 9:15). However, now that God’s complete will has been revealed, there is no longer any excuse. “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30).

--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts:

Image credit: https://www.google.com/search?q=polygamy&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjo6KDXqcTZAhVPzVMKHcPlC3oQ_AUICygC&biw=1280&bih=663#imgrc=S91W_pBFxexJiM: 

How does “Unequally Yoked Together with Unbelievers” Apply to Marriage?

     In 2 Corinthians 6:14-16 six words are used interchangeably: heterozugéō (unequally yoked or matched; bound together), metochē (a sharing, partaking; partnership), koinōnía (communion, fellowship), sumphōnēsis (unison, agreement, concord, harmony), merís (a portion in common, a share), and sugkatáthesis (agreement, assent, accord, alliance). With these synonyms in mind, it is apparent that more than mere “external association” is involved here. These relationships have agreement, unity of mind and purpose, and certain things in common. Paul is not simply addressing physical union or calling for spatial separation (“since then you would need to go out of the world,” 1 Cor. 5:9-13; cf. 7:12-13; 10:27), but the focus is on spiritual, mental, and participatory alliance (cf. Col. 3:2; 1 John 2:15). 

     The metaphor “unequally yoked” may have been borrowed from Deut. 22:10, “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.” Not only is a close relationship indicated, but Paul’s usage would apply to the binding together of beliefs, priorities, pursuits, activities, et al.¹ He is forbidding unholy alliances with the unbelieving world.

     The reason given is a list of contrasting opposites: “righteousness” vs. “lawlessness”; “light” vs. “darkness”; “Christ” vs. “Belial” [Satan]; “believing ones” vs. “unbelieving ones”; “temple of God” vs. “idols.” Everything contrasted here with Christian values is peculiar to the unbelieving world, particularly mid-first-century Corinth, from which believers are to be cognitively and behaviorally separated. The Christians of Corinth are being reminded to make a complete break, not with all their associations in the world (cf. 1 Cor. 5:9-10; 7:13-14; 10:27; 14:23), but with their idolatrous and sinful past (cf. 1 Cor. 6:18; 10:7, 14).

     How, then, does “unequally yoked” apply to marriage? While I am a strong advocate of faithful Christians marrying only faithful Christians (cf. 1 Cor. 7:39; 9:5), this is not what is specifically being addressed here. I would argue that it is extremely unwise for a child of God to marry an unbeliever, and I would counsel against it. As a disciple of Jesus, why would I want to spend my life with someone with whom I won't spend eternity? Why would I choose to marry a person with whom I can’t pray? Why would I intentionally prearrange for my children to grow up in a religiously divided home and likely be influenced to take the wrong spiritual path? Why would I purposefully marry someone knowing we probably won’t be going to church together and certainly not serving the Lord together?

     However, what happens when a believer marries an unbeliever anyway? Paul has already affirmed to the Corinthians that a marriage involving a Christian and a non-Christian, though less than ideal, is sanctioned by God and must not be dissolved (1 Cor. 7:10-14;² cf. Matt. 19:6). Therefore, if 2 Cor. 6:14-18 is to be applied to a religiously-mixed marriage, it would mean that the Christian wife or husband must not be in agreement with or participate in the sinful behavior of the non-Christian husband or wife. Leading one’s spouse to Christ should then be a top priority (1 Cor. 7:16; 1 Pet. 3:1-2).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Contextually, because of the strained relationship between the Corinthians on one hand, and Paul and his associates on the other (vv. 11-13), the readers are being encouraged to correct their attitudes and behavior and to restore unity with God’s faithful ones.

     ² Those who argue that 1 Cor. 7:12-14 is directed only to couples already married are making an assumption not explicit in the text. If a believer goes ahead and marries an unbeliever anyway, would these directives still apply? Would it be sinful to enter into such a union but not sinful to remain in such a union? This is similar to the casuistic or case law (“if … then”) in 1 Cor. 7:10-11, where the order is not to separate or divorce (v. 10), but if this happens anyway, the Lord still has certain expectations (v. 11).

Related Posts: Premarital Decisions, What Does 'Fellowship' Really Mean?

Image credit: http://images.slideplayer.es/14/4590978/slides/slide_1.jpg

The Biblical Doctrine of Divorce and Remarriage: Part 3 of 3

Relevant Scriptures continued:

9. 1 Corinthians 7:10-16. Paul responds to a letter the Corinthians had written, asking for his advice on various matters including marriage (v. 1). He states in v. 2 that marriage is to be monogamous, between a man and a woman; sexual relations are confined to the marriage relationship, and sexual activity in any other context constitutes immorality. He further affirms that the marriage bond is for life (v. 39). “Now to the married…” (vv. 10-11) is in contrast to the unmarried (v. 8), applicable to the general state of marriage.¹ Paul can give an apostolic directive (paraggéllō) because the Lord himself gave general marriage instruction during his earthly ministry (see Part 2). A wife is not to chōrízō = “depart from” (NKJ), “separate from” (RSV) or “leave” (NAS) her husband (v. 10b). This could be synonymous with divorce,² as the separated state is described as “unmarried” (v. 11). The parallel admonition to the husband is to not “send away” or “divorce” (aphíēmi) his wife (v. 11), while “abandon” is also a possible nuance (cf. Mark 14:50). “But even if she does depart” (i.e. ignore the injunction) or ‘if she is separated’ (i.e. already in this state), there are only two scriptural options: (a) remain unmarried, or (b) be reconciled to her husband (v. 11, cf. v. 39). The husband likewise is not to “send away” or “divorce” or “abandon” his wife (v. 11c).

     “But to the rest [loipós, cf. 11:34],” i.e. the rest of the situations the Corinthians were asking about, viz. specific cases of believers married to unbelievers (vv. 12-16). “I, not the Lord, say…” Jesus did not specifically address religiously-mixed marriages, about which the Corinthians had particular concern, so Paul does. They had misunderstood Paul’s teaching about not associating with immoral people (5:9-10), so some were probably wondering if a Christian married to a non-Christian should get out of this marriage; after all, the Law of Moses forbad religiously-mixed marriages (Ex. 34:11-16; Deut. 7:1-4). Paul says that a Christian is not to “divorce” or “abandon” (aphíēmi) an unbelieving spouse, assuming the unbeliever is willing to remain in the marriage (vv. 12-14). The unbeliever is ‘sanctified’ by his/her spouse (in the context of the marriage), i.e. the unbeliever is set apart from other worldly persons (e.g. fornicators) by the simple fact that he/she is married and is thus not committing immorality in this relationship (v. 14a). Paul gives reassurance that this union is sanctioned by God by the simple fact that your children are ‘clean,’ ‘holy,’ i.e. not illegitimate or born out of wedlock (v. 14b).

     “But if the unbeliever departs” (NKJ) or “leaves” (NAS, NIV) or “separates” (ESV) [chōrízō, cf. vv. 10, 11] (vv. 15-16), let him go, assuming that he is taking the initiative and is determined to leave (cf. vv. 10-13); “the brother or the sister is not [ou] under bondage³ [dedoúlōtai, from doulóō = to ‘enslave’] in such [cases/matters]”; “In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved …” (ESV). The word doulóō occurs 133 times in the NT and is never used with reference to the marriage bond; it refers to the bondage of slavery (cf. v. 23). The word for marriage bond, used twice in this chapter (vv. 27, 39), is déō (cf. Rom. 7:2). The perfect tense of ou dedoúlōtai conveys the sense of a past action with continuing results = the brother or sister ‘stands in a position of not having been enslaved,’ i.e., he/she is not now nor has he/she ever been in the bondage of slavery (to this spouse).

     This verse does not say that a deserted Christian spouse is automatically loosed from the marriage bond and is therefore free to marry someone else. This common misinterpretation is known as “the Pauline privilege,” i.e., Paul supposedly gives an additional reason, to what Jesus had specified (Matt. 5:32; 19:9), for the acceptable dissolution of marriage. But this is incompatible with the following: (a) remarriage is never considered in this chapter except in the case of a widow (vv. 8-9, 39); (b) if Paul is giving another exception, he is at variance with Jesus; (c) Paul never says the marriage bond is dissolved (N.B. v. 39, “a wife is bound [déō] by law as long as her husband lives”); (d) the divine rule for marriage is no severance at all, but if it happens anyway the only scriptural options are to remain unmarried or be reconciled (vv. 10-11); (e) the perfect tense of ou dedoúlōtai shows that enslavement to the spouse is a state the abandoned Christian has never been in; but this person has been married, therefore ou dedoúlōtai cannot be a reference to the termination of the marriage bond.

     This verse does say that a Christian who is abandoned by an unbelieving spouse is not enslaved as in a master-slave relationship; i.e. you are not obligated to keep your spouse from leaving no matter what the cost. “But God has called us/you to peace” = the Christian is to gracefully accept his/her situation even if he/she has been abandoned by an unbelieving spouse (cf. Rom. 12:18). ‘How do you know whether you will save your spouse?’ (v. 16). In view of v. 15, Paul may be suggesting here that instead of trying to force an unbelieving spouse to stay with you, it is better to keep the peace by letting him/her leave, since it is unlikely that you will save him/her. In view of vv. 12-14, Paul may be suggesting here that if possible one should stay with an unbelieving spouse in the hopes of saving him/her (cf. Heb. 12:14; 1 Pet. 3:1), but v. 15 shows that it is not always possible. This could be a double nuance, to be applied to whatever situation is relevant.

Concluding Statement:

     If for sexual infidelity, divorce is a divinely-granted dissolution of marital obligations for the one who has been cheated on, thus freeing him/her to marry another eligible person. On the other hand, divorce is a human innovation if for any reason other than sexual unfaithfulness; it is void of divine sanction and therefore terminates none of the marital responsibilities of either husband or wife.⁴ The sexual sin of adultery is therefore committed when one so divorced enters into a marital union with someone else.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Because of what follows, many commentators try to limit this instruction to a marriage in which both partners are Christians. However, to reach that conclusion one must read further down in the text, draw this conclusion, then go back to vv. 10-11 and make that application (no doubt very confusing to those who first heard this passage publicly read!). Since it would be more natural for a writer to specify a particular type of marriage if that were his point (as in vv. 12 ff.), the general phrase “to the married” is most obviously inclusive of all marriages.

     ² In Mark’s account of the Lord’s teaching, the woman as well as the man may initiate the divorce (10:11-12), which is consistent with Roman law. At Corinth some may have been considering divorcing their spouses in order to live a celibate life.

     ³ Or “bound” (NIV, N/RSV, REB), “under no compulsion” (NEB) or “obligation” (McCord).

     ⁴ Edwin S. Jones, “The Biblical Definition of Divorce,” in Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage, ed. Jim Laws (Memphis, TN: Getwell Church of Christ, 1992): 254-67.

Related Posts: Divorce & Remarriage Part 1, Part 2, Preventing Divorce, Premarital Decisions About Non-optional Matters

Image credit: http://www.mccartylawoffices.net/sites/default/files/pictures/FamilyLawDivorce.jpg