The Beheading of John the Baptist in Patristic Exegesis

August 29th is the Memorial of the Passion of St. John the Baptist. To commemorate, I have decided to make a post on the Patristic exegesis of the narrative found in Mark 6:17-29 and Matthew 14:3-12.

The beheading of John the Baptist as recorded in Mark 6:17-29 [c.f. Matthew 14:3-12], is a gripping story. Most historians regard the death of John by Herod as historical, given that it is also attested by Josephus (Antiquities 18.116-119), but that the story presented by Mark is just that, a story. It is a well-crafted story pulling many literary ideas together, much from the Old Testament. As well as allusions to cautionary tales against rash promises such as Jephthah’s vow (Judges 11:29-40), Donahue and Harrington (Sacra Pagina Vol 2., Mark, 2002, p. 202) note:

Mark 6:14-29 breathes the air of the OT court tales. Herod’s boast that he will give the girl whatever she asks “even if it is half of my kingdom” (6:23) links this story to the book of Esther (see 5:6 and 7:2). The scene at Herod’s banquet that gets out of control evokes memories of Belshazzar’s feast in Daniel 5 and the deposing of Queen Vashti in Esther 1. And the plots of the wicked queen against the righteous prophet are reminiscent of Jezebel’s efforts to rid herself and her husband Ahab of the prophet Elijah in 1 Kings.

All of this is brought together to produce a narrative encompassing the death of John, likely an emotive and important moment in the life of Jesus, which foreshadows Jesus’ own passion. As is noted in the notes accompanying the New American Bible, Revised Edition:

Similarities are to be noted between Mark’s account of the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist in this pericope, and that of the passion of Jesus (Mk 15:1–47). Herod and Pilate, each in turn, acknowledges the holiness of life of one over whom he unjustly exercises the power of condemnation and death (Mk 6:26–27; 15:9–10, 14–15). The hatred of Herodias toward John parallels that of the Jewish leaders toward Jesus. After the deaths of John and of Jesus, well-disposed persons request the bodies of the victims of Herod and of Pilate in turn to give them respectful burial (Mk 6:29; 15:45–46).

But what did Patristic authors take from the text? For this analysis, I will be using the following texts, all available on this blog:

The Passion

The first and most obvious thing to note is the connection between the Passion of John and that of Jesus. Jerome, in his Commentary on Matthew, 14:11, notes the following:

This was carried out literally. But down to the present day we discern in the head of the prophet John the fact that the Jews destroyed Christ, who is the head of the prophets.

Jerome, ties in Jesus death to the story of John, something which was likely intended by Mark. However; he goes further to suggest that the beheading itself represents Christ. The use of “we discern” implies such a belief is widespread in the early Church, but it is not often expressed. This interpretation does surface again in Bede’s Homily on John’s Martyrdom, Homily II.23.13.

And just as by his own earlier birth, preaching, and baptizing, [John] bore testimony to the one who was going to be born, to preach, and to baptize, so he indicated by suffering first that [Christ] also was to suffer.

The Law

The death of John the Baptist is sometimes marked as the end of the Mosaic Law, by evoking Matthew 11:13 (c.f Luke 16:16a)

For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John came (NRSV)

Origen, in his Commentary on Matthew, 10.21 comments that:

it seems to me, that as the law and the prophets were until John, after whom the grace of prophecy ceased from among the Jews

For Origen it is merely a designation of time, after which prophesy was not to be found among the Jews. Hilary of Poitiers, in his Commentary on Matthew, 14.8, takes it further.

Now that the era of the Law was ended, buried along with John, his disciples reported these events to the Lord, coming, as it were, from the Law to the Gospels.

For Hilary, the Law was ended was the life of John was ended. For Caesarius of Arles, this coincides with the coming of the law of grace, as in Sermon 218.3.

The fact that he was delivered over to death seemed to indicate that the letter of the law, a mere shadow, was destined to die at the approach of the law of grace.

In the First Commentary on Mark, 6:16, an anonymous work dating from the early seventh century, this concept is all that is mentioned on the passage and further parallels with the Church are added with rather visceral imagery:

There is a clear irony in this pronouncement from Herod, the man in skins of fur. He cuts off the Law’s head, which is Christ, from the body to which it belongs, the Jewish people. It is given to the gentile girl, that is the Roman church. The girl gives it to her adulterous mother, that is the synagogue, which will finally come to believe. The body of John is buried, while the head is placed on a dish. The human letter is covered, while the spirit is honored upon the altar and is received.

On Silencing a Prophet

One theme brought up far too little in my opinion is the concept that the persecution of a prophet often does little to silence the message, but in fact emboldens it. Ephrem notes that killing John does not silence him but does the opposite, by showing others the effect of the condemnation. In his Commentary on the Diatessaron 9.28 he notes:

But the preaching of his silence was much more powerful than his voice.

Peter Chrysologus expands further on this in his Sermon 174.5-6.

It is for nothing that you have run your course, O Herod, Herodias, Herodiadis, whose names are united not by affection, but by crime; you very foolishly believed that the “voice” could be silenced. “I am the voice,” he said, “of one crying out in the desert.” The voice cannot be destroyed, but it cries out all the more once it has been freed from the narrow confines of the body. Thus did Abel’s voice, as soon as his blood was shed, resound the more, become more piercing, and increase its range all the way to heaven. In just this fashion does John now proclaim your wicked deed throughout all the world, tell of it for all ages, and make it known to all the nations.

On Oaths

The obvious design of the narrative as a cautionary tale on rash promises; oaths and vows is noted and used by many Patristic authors; as Augustine of Hippo notes in his first sermon on the feast of the Beheading, Sermon 307.3:

This passage, dearly beloved, rather requires me, for the sake of your manner of life and morals, to talk to you a little about the matter of swearing oaths.

In conjunction with this passage, Matthew 5:33-37 (c.f. James 5:12) is evoked.

“Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.’ But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let your word be ‘Yes, Yes’ or ‘No, No’; anything more than this comes from the evil one.” (NRSV)

The story of Herod’s oath is used by many as a proof-text to show the dangers of swearing at all, especially in light of the Dominical saying against oaths.

John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction 10.27

Do you see what swearing does? It cuts off the heads of prophets.

Basil of Caesarea, Letter 199.29

It did not profit Herod to keep his oath, who, in order that he might not forswear, as he pretended, became the murderer of the Prophet. The oath, then, is once and for all forbidden, and it is more reasonable, surely, for the oath made for an evil purpose to be condemned.

Ambrose of Milan, On Virgins, 3.6.28 (See also: On the Duties of the Clergy, I.264)

‘And,’ it says, ‘on account of his oath’. O unheard-of conscientiousness! It would have been better had he broken his oath. That is why, with good reason, the Lord commands in the gospel that there should be no swearing, lest there be cause for perjury or a need to transgress one’s oath. And so, lest an oath be violated, an innocent man was struck down. I know of nothing more horrifying. More tolerable are the perjuries of tyrants than their oaths.

Some used Herod’s oath as a point of discussion on whether an oath that promises evil should be kept. Origen, in his Commentary on Matthew, 10.22 is positive that it should not be:

the prophet is beheaded, because of an oath in a case where the duty was rather to break the oath than to keep the oath

Augustine, on the other hand is not so sure In Sermon 308.1 he notes:

Someone says to me, “So what should Herod have done?” If I say he ought not to have sworn, anyone can see that he oughtn’t to have done so. But I’m not being consulted about whether a person should swear or not, but about what a person should do when he has sworn. That’s a big problem. It was a rash oath he swore, we all know that. Still there it is, he slipped up, he swore it. Here was the girl, asking for the head of Saint John; what should Herod have done? Let’s give him some advice. If we say, “Spare John, don’t commit such a crime.” we are trying to persuade him to break his oath. If we say, “Don’t break your oath,” we are encouraging him to perpetrate a crime. A choice between two evils.

While Augustine understands that Herod should not have killed John, he can hardly give the advice to anyone that they should perjure themselves. Augustine implores instead that there should be no swearing at all.

On Birthdays, Luxury and Dancing

It is noted that the only other record of a birthday celebration in Scripture is that of Pharaoh, as narrated in Genesis 40:20-23. Jerome, in his Commentary on Matthew, 14:6 notes:

We have found that no other people observed their birthdays except Herod and Pharaoh. Thus there was a single feast day for those whose impiety was on the same level.

Origen, in his Commentary on Matthew, 10.22, is even more direct:

Some one of those before us has observed what is written in Genesis about the birthday of Pharaoh, and has told that the worthless man who loves things connected with birth keeps birthday festivals; and we, taking this suggestion from him, find in no Scripture that a birthday was kept by a righteous man.

Bede, in his Homily in the subject (Homily II.23) follows similarly, giving the following instruction:

We ought not to call to mind the day of our birth with a feast, nor ought we to indulge at any time in alluring bodily amusements, but instead we ought to anticipate the day of our death with tears and prayers and frequent fasts.

Both John Chrysostom and Ambrose of Milan denounce all extravagance and luxury:

Chrysostom, Homily 48.4 on Matthew

But mark thou, I pray thee, how the whole theatre was devilish. For first, it was made up of drunkenness and luxury, whence nothing healthful could come.

Ambrose of Milan, On Virgins, 3.6.28

For how can modesty exist where there is dancing, shouting and noisemaking?

They go further and heavily denounce dancing:

John Chrysostom, Homily 48.4 on Matthew

“But when Herod’s birthday was kept,” saith he, “the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod.” O diabolical revel! O satanic spectacle! O lawless dancing! and more lawless reward for the dancing.

Ambrose of Milan, On Virgins, 3.6.31

What say you, holy women? Do you see what you should teach and also what you should unteach your daughters? Let her dance—but as the daughter of an adulteress. Let the woman who is modest and chaste, however, teach her daughters religion, not dancing.

Other Points of Note

In an interesting exegetical line, Ephram uses Herod’s relationship with Herodias as an example of Mark 9:43.

If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than to have two hands and to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. (NRSV)

In his Commentary on the Diatessaron, 6.7, Ephrem notes

The right hand of Herod was Herodias, and instead of cutting it off and casting this unclean hand away, he cut off and cast away a holy head

Elsewhere, Peter Chrysologus, in Sermon 174.2, gives a scathing remark on those born from sin by example of Herodias’ daughter.

She who is immoral lives up to her lineage as she pleases her even more immoral father. For certainly one who has been begotten of an adulterer has to be immoral— that is the only possibility— and by her spasmodic moves, her body all contorted, her limbs disjointed, and her flesh swaying about by her craft, by all this ugliness she managed to become even more beautiful to her father.

End of Post. Please feel free to comment with criticisms and potential additions/updates/corrections.