God had warned the Israelites against having a king; but of course they considered that they knew best, and as soon as possible they appointed one in order “to be like the other nations “: for the power of fashion over our minds is no new thing; nor is its baneful effect. However, owing to the safeguards with which they were provided through the prophetic ministry, they were not in general nearly so disastrously affected by the character of even their worst kings as the surrounding nations were. The Rehoboams, Manassehs, and Ahabs of the Hebrews were bad enough, but never were allowed to go to such terrible extremes of monstrous iniquity as the Caligulas and Neros of old, or the Theebaus, the kings of Dahomey, and Khans of Khelat in modern times. It must be allowed though, that the Herod family did much to counterbalance anything that had been in Israel's favor on this ground heretofore.
A glance at the ruling powers of the time when Christ came, and at the frightful condition of misery and oppression in which the mass of the people lived, makes us wonder at the calm audacity of those who assert that Christianity was a development of humanity, the result of a gradual improvement of the human race. The fact is too notorious that, whereas there had been hundreds of years previously such noble minds in Greece as the king Codrus and the sage Socrates, or in Rome such chiefs as Mettus Curtius and Cincinnatus, now the rulers of the civilized world were represented by Tiberius, Herod and Caiaphas, men who had “developed” to the penultimate stage, not of virtue, but of wickedness.
There are four Herods referred to in the New Testament. The first of these is called Herod the Great who was reigning as king (under the Romans) when our Lord was born. This was one of the most atrociously wicked rulers that ever lived. Augustus, at that time Emperor of Rome, said smilingly (and making a play upon the words in the language in which he was speaking), that “it was better to be Herod's swine than Herod's son “: and another thus describes him sans compliment, if not sans phrase, “A heathen at heart, a savage in character, a brute in passions, and a fawning slave to the Imperial Court, he made use of his position to betray his country to the Romans, by fostering immorality, cultivating alien customs, sapping religious faith, corrupting the priesthood and massacring the nobles.” He was an Idumean or descendant of Edom, that is Esau, who had struggled against Israel before he was born, had tried to kill him in his manhood, whose descendants had tried to stop the march of the Israelites through the wilderness, attacked them ceaselessly in the land, and now were making a last desperate effort to destroy the Messiah, the true Israel. This Herod was the man who ordered his own wives and sons to be murdered, prepared a general massacre of the nobles “to make the people mourn,” and slaughtered the poor little infants of Bethlehem, whilst he was advertising his piety and patriotism by making the people build the most gorgeous temple in the world. The subject is not inviting to continue. Only that when we are told that Christ was merely the efflorescence of a long-continued progress in mankind, it is well to remember of what kind the leading man was in the country to which He came.
It was the son of this man who ruled as Tetrarch in Galilee at the time of the crucifixion. He was called Herod Antipas. What religion the father had was of an architectural nature, but the son liked a good sermon: he “sat under” John the Baptist and “heard him gladly." “Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things...” and that is more than everyone who “sits under” a popular preacher does. So that “he was not all bad.” No, but in a sense he was worse than if he had been. Notwithstanding all this he continued to live in the vilest debauchery, eventually murdered his religious teacher, and joined himself with the royal and priestly conspirators who put to death the Son of God. When men show a religious tendency and at the same time live bad lives, it is usual to speak of them as hypocrites, to impute to them deliberate deception; but this is often very incorrect. Such men as Herod Antipas are entirely and morbidly sincere in their religion. Their consciences are not conveniently hardened like those of men of the nature of Herod the Great, or Nero, who took a distinct pleasure in doing evil. A conscience at any time may be said to be an inconvenient and expensive thing to keep; but a conscience like that of Antipas, just strong and superstitious enough to worry and haunt him with his misdeeds, but not strong enough to keep him from perpetrating them, must be almost intolerable. It is difficult to understand how such a man could be an object of affection to any living creature; and yet Herodias, vile-natured as she was, going from one of her half-brothers to another, subtle instigator of murder and worse,—. Herodias left everything for him, first her husband and her honorable position, and finally followed him to Gaul into poverty and banishment when he was subsequently disgraced.
He was by no means a weak man. He would not have slain the Baptist at the direct desire of either Herodias or her daughter, but they entrapped him through his superstitious regard for his oath. The man is blessed who “keeps his oath to his own hurt;” but Herod kept it to the hurt of another. In the end it amounted however to the same thing as if he were weak: a woman and a wicked one, ruled the state, but the man, though a usurper, had taken the position and could not divest himself of his responsibility. When one like that rules, everything rests on an unstable and capricious basis. This was how at a certain time the Greeks said a child ruled the world, “because Europe ruled the world and of course Greece ruled Europe: of course also Athens ruled Greece, and Themistocles ruled Athens; then, of course, the wife of Themistocles ruled him; and naturally her little boy ruled her.” When things are arranged in this inverted manner, they cannot last long. It is like reversing a pyramid to balance it on its apex. The experiment is interesting, but the result hardly doubtful.
The next prominent ruler of this family is Herod Agrippa I. whom we meet in Acts 12 for a moment only. The moment is quite long enough: his passage is swift and devastating. “He stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.” And he “vexed” them to some purpose. He killed James and put Peter in prison, and would doubtless have continued “vexing” the Christians, as it pleased the Jews and did not cost so much as building temples, but that he had to go against Tire and Sidon where he decked himself out magnificently and made a great oration from the throne at which the people rapturously applauded. But vox popitli is not always vox Dei: God smote him and the worms ate him. Outside all glory and splendor: inside loathsome corruption.
He was the grandson of Herod the Great and left his power to his son Herod Agrippa II. whose life was a public scandal. But all the Herod were in their way capable men, having a good knowledge of what king James called “king-craft.” This Agrippa II. was a scholar of considerable repute, and Festus refers the difficult case of the apostle Paul's indictment to him for advice. He hears Paul's long defense with a scholar's impartiality and patience of detail, candidly acknowledging with a kind of friendly raillery to the apostle that he has nearly convinced him. He was very far however from being “almost a Christian.” He was too intelligent and learned a man to be a bigot, and he acknowledges that there was no reason why Paul should not be set free, only that [he adds to avoid committing himself] as he has appealed to Cæsar, he must go to Rome. And so having calmly and adroitly extricated himself and his friend Festus from an awkward position, he turns from the light of the apostolic gospel, charmed though with the eloquent discourse, back to his licentious life with that fair Sin that accompanied him to palace or judgment-seat, or wherever he went. At the end he fought against Jerusalem under Titus. He was the last of the Herods.