Matthew (Written)

Wednesday, 12 November 2025

And the king was sorry; nevertheless, because of the oaths and because of those who sat with him, he commanded it to be given to her. Matthew 14:9

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at the “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen)

You can also read this commentary, scrolling with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

“And grieved, the king, but through the oaths and those co-reclining, he commanded it given” (CG).

In the previous verse, Herodias’ daughter made her petition to Herod to give her the head of John the Immerser on a platter. In response, Matthew records, “And grieved, the king.”

A new word is seen, lupeó. It signifies distress. Reflexively, it thus signifies to be sad or grieved. In his impulsiveness, Herod opened his mouth without thinking. It has now cost him because he failed to consider that this girl might first go to her mother and seek her advice. In doing so, the mother would know exactly how far she could go without stepping over a line that was not to be crossed.

It is true that Herodias’ advice would put Herod in a personal bind, but it was not something that he would refuse to grant. As such, Herod grieved that he had been outsmarted in the matter of John, something that had probably already come up between him and his wife previously. Despite the uncomfortable request, Matthew next says, “but through the oaths.”

The plural, oaths, goes back to verse 14:7 where it said, “with an oath he assented.” He made an oath and then restated it as a binding surety that he was being sincere. When such a proclamation is made, it would show a lack of character to withdraw the offer, thus breaking the vow stated with such adamancy. Along with his oath was the added embarrassing note, saying, “and those co-reclining.”

Not only had Herod made a vow and then assented to it, but he had done so in the presence of others. For him to withdraw his words, even after such a request, would mean that when these men spoke to him in the future, they would always wonder if his words would match his actions.

The girl’s request was exceedingly embarrassing, but not impossible to grant, petition. Therefore, “he commanded it given.”

Herod, maybe laughing as a disguise for his horror, ordered his men to have John’s head removed and brought forward. Not only would this be a trying evening for him personally, but it would be an event that would bring him notoriety and shame in the eyes of those who heard about it. It would also add a gruesome sight for those who were in attendance to remember and consider when invited to dinner with the king in the future.

Life application: Despite all of the gore to be seen on TV and in movies, and even in the news to some extent, seeing a dead person close up for the first time is always a shocking event.

One of the common things seen inside a mortuary when a first-time visitor is brought in is for the person to stop, step backwards, and place his hand over his mouth. There is a sense of mental horror that a dead person is really right there in front of his eyes. This isn’t just a Hollywood movie or a prop in play, but a human being who is no longer alive.

Stepping back is a mentally horrified reaction that death somehow can be avoided if enough distance is put between the person and the corpse. And the hand over the mouth usually occurs because people somehow equate death to an influence that actually permeates the air. Covering the mouth and nose is not based on a reaction to smell, but the presence of death itself, as if it can be breathed in.

Imagine being at the banqueting hall of royalty and seeing the platter with John the Immerser’s head on it. If it was covered with linen, the mind could escape the truth of what was under it. However, with the linen removed, anyone who had never seen a dead person in closed quarters would probably react as those first-time visitors who enter a morgue will react.

When looking at a dead person, we can remember that the person lying there is dead for a reason. Ultimately, it is because of the results of sin. Now consider those who saw Jesus when He died. His body was removed from the cross, and He was carried away to be interred.

Those in attendance, if they understood theology, would know that sin caused Jesus’ death. What they would not know is that it wasn’t His sin that did so. However, an astute person standing by the tomb on the third day, seeing Jesus alive and well, would be able to theologically process the information. Jesus died because of sin. Jesus rose again. Therefore, Jesus must not have had any sin.

But if the wages of sin is death, then how could Jesus have died in the first place? If that person understood the Scriptures, had heard the words of Jesus during His ministry, and considered the true role of the coming Messiah, he would be able to say, “I get it!”

Jesus Christ really died, He was truly interred in the tomb, and He truly rose again. The magnitude of what Jesus did is the highlight of all human existence since the creation of man. From time to time, we must stop and consider what God in Christ has done for us. The lifeless body of Jesus signifies the removal of our sin. The resurrection of Jesus proves to us that it is so and that it is permanent. Thanks be to God for Jesus Christ our Lord.

“And when he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place, the tabernacle of meeting, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat. ²¹ Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man. ²² The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to an uninhabited land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness.” Leviticus 16:20-22

Lord God, thank You for the death, internment, and resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Tuesday, 11 November 2025

So she, having been prompted by her mother, said, “Give me John the Baptist’s head here on a platter.” Matthew 14:8

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at the “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen).

You can also read this commentary, scrolling with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

“And having been instigated by her mother, she says, ‘You give me here upon a platter the head of John the Immerser’” (CG).

In the previous verse, Herod offered by oath whatever Herodias’ daughter asked for. With his offer made, it next says, “And having been instigated by her mother.”

A new word, found only here in the New Testament, is seen, probibazó, to instigate. It is derived from pro, before, and biazó, to force. Thus, it is to force forward, hence, to instigate as one prods another to take a certain action.

Mark 6:24 fills in the detail left out by Matthew, saying, “So she went out and said to her mother, ‘What shall I ask?’” Her response, still in Mark 6:24, was, “The head of John the ‘Immersing’!” That is then explained by Matthew with his continued words, where “she says, ‘You give me here upon a platter the head of John the Immerser.’”

Another new word is seen, pinax, a platter. It is a variant form of plax, a molding board, meaning a flat surface. Going along with her mother’s instigation, the young lady requests the immediate execution of John, seen in the word “here,” with his head presented to her.

It is a rather gross request, but young ladies will be young ladies, and she was obedient to her mother’s instigation. Thus, the request was set before Herod in regard to her mother’s desire.

Life application: As tragic as John’s beheading was, the fact that he would die before Jesus has already been hinted at. In John 11:11, Jesus said, “Amen! I say to you, not he has risen in ‘born of women’ greater than John the Immerser, but the least in the kingdom of the heavens, he is greater than he.”

If John were to have survived until after Jesus’ death, he would have certainly believed the good news of the resurrection and been a part of the church age. Therefore, John’s death had already been factored into things as they unfolded.

Despite this, there is a hope for those who died in faith in the promises of God. In Daniel 12, it says –

“At that time Michael shall stand up,
The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people;
And there shall be a time of trouble,
Such as never was since there was a nation,
Even to that time.
And at that time your people shall be delivered,
Every one who is found written in the book.
² And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
Some to everlasting life,
Some to shame and everlasting contempt.
³ Those who are wise shall shine
Like the brightness of the firmament,
And those who turn many to righteousness
Like the stars forever and ever.” Daniel 12:1-3

After the church age, the world will enter into the tribulation. It will be a terrible time on earth, but once that is over, those who were of faith will be raised to eternal life. This included Daniel, as stated to him in Daniel 12:13. As such, it is certain it will be inclusive of all who died before the coming of Jesus who were people of faith, including John the Immerser.

We don’t need to worry that God’s plan is out of control, and we do not need to fret over comments by people who claim God is somehow unfair or uncaring when they make negative comments over things, like John’s beheading, as if it demonstrates God is not good.

This life is temporary, and unless the Lord comes first at the rapture, we are all going to die. It really doesn’t matter how that occurs. Once you are dead, that’s it. As we are told in John 6:33, the flesh profits nothing. What matters is what we do with this life now.

Be sure to focus on Jesus, trust Him even in the most difficult of times or circumstances, and trust His word. In the end, good things are in store for those who do so.

Lord God, thank You for the promises set forth in Your word for us. We are undeserving of the least of Your mercies, and yet, You have promised us that great things are in store for Your people. Help us to focus on this as we walk in this world of troubles, trials, and wickedness that hem us in. Amen.

Monday, 10 November 2025

Therefore he promised with an oath to give her whatever she might ask. Matthew 14:7

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at the “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen).

You can also read this commentary, scrolling with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

“Whence with an oath He assented to give her what if she should ask” (CG).

In the previous verse, it was noted that Herod had a birthday celebration and that Herodias’ daughter danced for him, pleasing him. Matthew continues the narrative, saying, “Whence with an oath He assented to give her what if she should ask.”

The word that confirms the oath is homologeó, to assent. It signifies “to voice the same conclusion” (HELPS Word Studies). What is probably intended is affirming a matter by repeating it, a common Hebrew form of speaking, such as, “I vow with a vow to do this thing,” or “Vowing with a vow, he confirmed his word.” In this case, the repetition is seen in the exchange as recorded in lengthier statements in Mark 6 –

“And when Herodias’ daughter herself came in and danced, and pleased Herod and those who sat with him, the king said to the girl, ‘Ask me whatever you want, and I will give it to you.’ ²³ He also swore to her, ‘Whatever you ask me, I will give you, up to half my kingdom.’”

Herod was enamored with the girl’s dancing and wanted to reward her for it publicly, something that would demonstrate his magnanimity to those around him. When assenting to his oath, he binds himself to whatever she asks. It is not a wise way of engaging in gift giving. However, being the king, the one who is offered something with such an oath would not be expected to abuse the request, thus eliciting the disfavor of the king.

Life application: In Scripture, people are seen to make vows that can be taken as rash and unwise. A glaring example of this is found in Judges 11 –

Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he passed through Gilead and Manasseh, and passed through Mizpah of Gilead; and from Mizpah of Gilead he advanced toward the people of Ammon. ³⁰ And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, “If You will indeed deliver the people of Ammon into my hands, ³¹ then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.”

³² So Jephthah advanced toward the people of Ammon to fight against them, and the Lord delivered them into his hands. ³³ And he defeated them from Aroer as far as Minnith—twenty cities—and to Abel Keramim, with a very great slaughter. Thus the people of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.

³⁴ When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah, there was his daughter, coming out to meet him with timbrels and dancing; and she was his only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter. ³⁵ And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he tore his clothes, and said, “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low! You are among those who trouble me! For I have given my word to the Lord, and I cannot go back on it.”

Jephthah made a vow that, unfortunately, cost him the life of his daughter. He understood that despite the consequences of his vow, it was one made to the Lord, and it had to be fulfilled. The reason for this story being included in Scripture is to make a point about what God is doing in redemptive history concerning salvation and His favor or rejection of a particular people group.

To understand what is going on in that passage, you can refer to the Superior Word sermons on Judges 11. As for our words today, a point made by Jesus and which is repeated by both Paul and James is that when we speak, we are to refrain from making vows concerning such matters.

Instead, we are to let our Yes be Yes and our No be No. In other words, when we say we are going to do or not do something, our integrity should be so accepted by others that they know we will perform our word. Additional vows and oaths are unnecessary and will detract from what the Lord expects of us.

This does not mean that we are not to make any oath at all. In society, we must swear oaths in court, on legal documents (with our signature, for example), etc. But when speaking, we should refrain from people thinking there is any necessity to go beyond a simply stated affirmation concerning our intent.

Lord God, help us to be people of integrity where others can trust our words, taking them at face value. Help us to remember that when we speak, You are being evaluated through the performance and accomplishment of what we say. Help us to remember this and follow through, to Your glory. Amen.

Sunday, 9 November 2025

But when Herod’s birthday was celebrated, the daughter of Herodias danced before them and pleased Herod. Matthew 14:6

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at the “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen).

You can also read this commentary, scrolling with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

“And being Herod’s birthday, she danced, the daughter of Herodias, in the midst. And she pleased Herod” (CG).

In the previous verse, it was noted that although Herod wanted to put John the Immerser to death, he feared the multitude because they reckoned him to be a prophet. It next says, “And being Herod’s birthday.”

A new word is seen: genesia, birthday. It is the plural of genesis, which means birth, origin, and genealogy. It signifies one’s recurring birthday or the ceremonies accompanying it. Despite being plural, rendering it in the singular is to accommodate the standard usage in English. On his birthday, “she danced, the daughter of Herodias.”

This was Salome, the daughter of Herodias by her former husband. Victorian-era commentaries on this condemn the matter as if it were the most inappropriate event imaginable, remarking how sensual and voluptuous the scene must have been. Ellicott’s comments reflect their general sentiment –

“Dances in filmy garments that but half concealed the form, commonly of an impure or voluptuous nature, were common enough both at Eastern and Roman banquets, the guests being simply spectators. But the dancers were, for the most part, women who made it their calling, like the nautch-girls of India; and it was a new thing, at which every decent Jew would shudder, for the daughter of a kingly house to come-thus into a shameless publicity and expose herself to the gaze of the banqueters.” Charles Ellicott

One must wonder what such scholars do with the contents of the Song of Songs! Dances have been common at public and private gatherings for all of human history. Cultural norms set the parameters for such things, and it is only the most prudish sort that would condemn such things without considering them in more than their own limited context. Of Salome’s dancing, it next says it was “in the midst.”

The meaning is that she would have been in the midst of the room, hall, etc., with those in attendance gathered around. When dances or performers came in, the people would direct their attention to the event. In the case of Salome’s dancing, it next says, “And she pleased Herod.”

Another new word is seen, areskó. It signifies to be agreeable and thus, to please. In Romans 8:8, Paul says that those who are in the flesh cannot please [areskó] God. Herod saw the dance and found it satisfying.

Life application: One of the ridiculous standards set forth in the Jehovah’s Witnesses is that they do not celebrate birthdays. Their reasoning is that only two birthday celebrations are noted in Scripture, and both are held by bad guys, Pharaoh and Herod.

Therefore, they illogically deduce that God finds the celebration of birthdays unacceptable. Such a conclusion is based on several fallacies. One of them is what is known as an argument from silence.

An argument from silence is when one makes a faulty conclusion based on it not being stated in a source. Yes, there are two examples of birthdays in the Bible, but they merely present the basis for what occurs in the surrounding narrative. There is no need to mention other birthdays, but because no other birthdays are mentioned, the supposedly obvious conclusion is that nobody else observed them, and those who did were bad people.

Another fallacy that accompanies their inane logic is known as a slippery slope. There are various types of slippery slope fallacies, such as the causal, precedential, and conceptual. The conceptual argument is that because no clear line between two concepts on a spectrum exists, there is no meaningful difference between them.

So if Pharaoh and Herod had birthdays and they resulted in negative events or had negative effects, then all birthdays must result in negative outcomes. This is also known as the fallacy of the beard. A person doesn’t shave for 12 hours, and he develops a shadow on his face. By the next morning, he has stubble. In two days, he will have bristly hairs.

At what point is it called a beard? The argument is ridiculous, whether it is based on a birthday or a beard. The thought process is unclear and has no basis in reality. Unfortunately, such fallacies are not limited to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They permeate the thinking of the people of the world, including those in the church.

Because of this, all sorts of legalism creep into churches. That is as harmful as a liberal attitude toward Scripture. Whether adding in rules and regulations that have nothing to do with biblical intent, or ignoring things made explicit in Scripture because they don’t suit personal mores, the results will always be unhealthy, even detrimental.

Learn about fallacies and remember to think clearly and critically when evaluating the reasons why people come to conclusions. Quite often, you will see where the faulty thinking lies, and you will be able to avoid it.

Lord God, may we learn to think clearly and critically about what Your word presents. Help us not get caught up in things that pull our hearts and minds away from focusing on You. At the same time, may we live our lives in the manner that will bring You glory while also enjoying the lives You have given us here in this world. Amen.

Saturday, 8 November 2025

And although he wanted to put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet. Matthew 14:5

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at the “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen)

You can also read this commentary, scrolling with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

“And desiring to kill him, he feared the multitude for they held him as a prophet” (CG).

In the previous verse, it was noted that John had told King Herod that having his brother Philip’s wife was unlawful. Therefore, Matthew continues with words concerning Herod’s attitude toward John, saying, “And desiring to kill him.”

In Mark, it notes that Herodias wanted to kill him, but she couldn’t because Herod feared John “knowing that he was a just and holy man, and he protected him” (Mark 6:20). No contradiction should be considered between the two.

It should be obvious to anyone who has been accused by another that Herod was certainly miffed at John when he was confronted with his wrongdoing and scolded for it. Being king, he probably thought, “I’ll just have this guy killed… problem solved!”

However, after thinking about it, he would have then reconsidered, something Herodias was unwilling to do. As for Herod, the account next says, “he feared the multitude for they held him as a prophet.”

These words align with the thought given in Mark and match the suggested state of Herod just noted. Herod was confronted with his sin. He didn’t like it, and Herod wanted him killed. However, after thinking it through and realizing this would not be a popular course of action, he renounced that thought.

The prophets were often hated by everyone. They called out sin in the people, and depending on the overall attitude of the populace, they could go from being popular with the commoners to being hated by them as well. In John’s case, he not only called out for people to turn to the Lord, but he also proclaimed the immediate coming of the Messiah.

This would have been very popular with the commoners who had to suffer under the rule of the dirty priests, the oppressive kings, and the even more oppressive hand of Rome, to whom even these lesser positions were responsible. Add in the arrogant and controlling attitude of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes, and they would have been elated at the thought of a new rule under the Messiah.

On the other hand, these people in positions of power and authority would openly claim they were happy about the coming of the Messiah, but only so far as He would continue to allow them to retain their exalted positions.

Regardless of what the leaders thought, the people were happy with John as a prophet and could have thrown the nation into turmoil if Herod executed him, especially when it was Herod who was violating the law and which brought about John’s words of rebuke.

Life application: It should come as no surprise when a Bible preacher is not liked by people in general. His job is to preach the whole counsel of God. In doing so, the general population will not like his message because it highlights sin in humanity.

This is not something people want exposed in their lives, even if nobody else is aware of it. Scripture exposes each individual’s sinful state in relation to God. People would rather hate the messenger than acknowledge their sin.

People in the church will also get miffed at preachers. If someone believes people can lose their salvation, but the preacher rightly explains why this is incorrect, the preacher will be mocked and spoken against by those who disagree with him.

The safest way to avoid such things is not to address them at all. Hence, some preachers have churches that fill stadiums because they give easy messages that the masses won’t feel intimidated by. Those who may have personal views on particular doctrines are never challenged on them.

For the preacher, it is a safe and often effective walk on a path of mediocrity that keeps money coming in, people content in their weekly church experience, and nobody is seemingly harmed by it.

But this is incorrect. People must be made aware of what the Bible expects and approves of and disapproves of. If not, they will not be properly prepared for the true challenges of a close walk with the Lord in a fallen world of choices that must be made to stay in line with what He expects from His people.

Consider what it is that you want when you select a church. If you are wise, you will desire to attend where the Bible is fully explained, even from those sections that can cause division and animosity. After all, they too are a part of God’s word.

Lord God, be with us as we pursue a right understanding of Your word. Open the eyes of our pastors and teachers to rightly understand and properly teach Your word so that we will know what is correct. Amen.