a sect among the Jews at the time of Jesus Christ, mentioned
Matt. xxii, 16; Mark iii, 6; viii, 15; xii, 13; but passed over in
silence both by Josephus and Philo. The critics and commentators on the
New Testament are very much divided with regard to the Herodians; some
making them to be a political party, and others a religious sect. The
former opinion is favoured by the author of the Syriac version, who
calls them the domestics of Herod; and also by Josephus’s having passed
them over in silence, though he professes to give an account of the
several religious sects of the Jews. The latter opinion is countenanced
by our Lord’s caution against “the leaven of Herod,” which implies that
the Herodians were distinguished from the other Jews by some doctrinal
tenets. M. Basnage supposes, that one thing meant by the leaven of the
Herodians might be a conformity to Roman customs in some points which
were forbidden the Jews: if this was the case, it is not strange that
they are not mentioned by Josephus among the Jewish sects. St. Jerom, in
his Dialogue against the Luciferians, takes the name to have been given
to such as owned Herod for the Messiah; and Tertullian, Epiphanius,
Chrysostom, and Theophylact, among the ancients; and Grotius, and other
moderns, are of the same sentiment. But the same St. Jerom, in his
Comment on St. Matthew, treats this opinion as ridiculous; and indeed it
must be highly improbable. He maintains that the Pharisees gave this
appellation, by way of derision, to Herod’s soldiers, who paid tribute
to the Romans; agreeably to which the Syriac interpreters render the
word by the domestics of Herod, that is, his courtiers. M. Simon, in his
notes on the twenty-second chapter of St. Matthew, advances a more
probable opinion. The name Herodian, he imagines to have been given to
such as adhered to Herod’s party and interest, and were for preserving
the government in his family, about which there were, at that time,
great divisions among the Jews. F. Hardouin will have the Herodians and
Sadducees to have been the same; nor is it at all improbable that the
Herodians were chiefly of the sect of the Sadducees; since that which is
called by St. Mark “the leaven of Herod,” is by St. Matthew styled “the
leaven of the Sadducees.”
2. Dr. Prideaux is of opinion that they derived their name from Herod
the Great, and that they were distinguished from the other Jews by their
concurrence with Herod’s scheme of subjecting himself and his dominions
to the Romans, and likewise by complying with many of their Heathen
usages and customs. In their zeal for the Roman authority they were
diametrically opposite to the Pharisees, who esteemed it unlawful to
submit or pay taxes to the Roman emperor; an opinion which they grounded
on their being forbidden by the law to set a stranger over them, who was
not one of their own nation, as their king. The conjunction of the
Herodians, therefore, with the Pharisees, against Christ, is a memorable
proof of the keenness of their resentment and malice against him;
especially when we consider that they united together in proposing to
him an ensnaring question, on a subject which was the ground of their
mutual dissension; namely, whether it was lawful to pay tribute to
Cæsar. And provided he answered in the negative, the Herodians would
accuse him of treason against the state; and should he reply in the
affirmative, the Pharisees were as ready to excite the people against
him, as an enemy of their civil liberties and privileges. Herod had
introduced several Heathen idolatrous usages; for, as Josephus says, he
built a temple to Cæsar, near the head of the river Jordan; he erected a
magnificent theatre at Jerusalem, instituted Pagan games, and placed a
golden eagle over the gate of the temple of Yahweh; and he furnished
the temples, which he reared in several places out of Judea, with images
for idolatrous worship, in order to ingratiate himself with the emperor
and the people of Rome; though to the Jews he pretended that he did it
against his will, and in obedience to the imperial command. The
Herodians probably complied with, acquiesced in, or approved these
idolatrous usages. This symbolizing with idolatry upon views of interest
and worldly policy, was probably that leaven of Herod, against which our
Saviour cautioned his disciples.
Matt. xxii, 16; Mark iii, 6; viii, 15; xii, 13; but passed over in
silence both by Josephus and Philo. The critics and commentators on the
New Testament are very much divided with regard to the Herodians; some
making them to be a political party, and others a religious sect. The
former opinion is favoured by the author of the Syriac version, who
calls them the domestics of Herod; and also by Josephus’s having passed
them over in silence, though he professes to give an account of the
several religious sects of the Jews. The latter opinion is countenanced
by our Lord’s caution against “the leaven of Herod,” which implies that
the Herodians were distinguished from the other Jews by some doctrinal
tenets. M. Basnage supposes, that one thing meant by the leaven of the
Herodians might be a conformity to Roman customs in some points which
were forbidden the Jews: if this was the case, it is not strange that
they are not mentioned by Josephus among the Jewish sects. St. Jerom, in
his Dialogue against the Luciferians, takes the name to have been given
to such as owned Herod for the Messiah; and Tertullian, Epiphanius,
Chrysostom, and Theophylact, among the ancients; and Grotius, and other
moderns, are of the same sentiment. But the same St. Jerom, in his
Comment on St. Matthew, treats this opinion as ridiculous; and indeed it
must be highly improbable. He maintains that the Pharisees gave this
appellation, by way of derision, to Herod’s soldiers, who paid tribute
to the Romans; agreeably to which the Syriac interpreters render the
word by the domestics of Herod, that is, his courtiers. M. Simon, in his
notes on the twenty-second chapter of St. Matthew, advances a more
probable opinion. The name Herodian, he imagines to have been given to
such as adhered to Herod’s party and interest, and were for preserving
the government in his family, about which there were, at that time,
great divisions among the Jews. F. Hardouin will have the Herodians and
Sadducees to have been the same; nor is it at all improbable that the
Herodians were chiefly of the sect of the Sadducees; since that which is
called by St. Mark “the leaven of Herod,” is by St. Matthew styled “the
leaven of the Sadducees.”
2. Dr. Prideaux is of opinion that they derived their name from Herod
the Great, and that they were distinguished from the other Jews by their
concurrence with Herod’s scheme of subjecting himself and his dominions
to the Romans, and likewise by complying with many of their Heathen
usages and customs. In their zeal for the Roman authority they were
diametrically opposite to the Pharisees, who esteemed it unlawful to
submit or pay taxes to the Roman emperor; an opinion which they grounded
on their being forbidden by the law to set a stranger over them, who was
not one of their own nation, as their king. The conjunction of the
Herodians, therefore, with the Pharisees, against Christ, is a memorable
proof of the keenness of their resentment and malice against him;
especially when we consider that they united together in proposing to
him an ensnaring question, on a subject which was the ground of their
mutual dissension; namely, whether it was lawful to pay tribute to
Cæsar. And provided he answered in the negative, the Herodians would
accuse him of treason against the state; and should he reply in the
affirmative, the Pharisees were as ready to excite the people against
him, as an enemy of their civil liberties and privileges. Herod had
introduced several Heathen idolatrous usages; for, as Josephus says, he
built a temple to Cæsar, near the head of the river Jordan; he erected a
magnificent theatre at Jerusalem, instituted Pagan games, and placed a
golden eagle over the gate of the temple of Yahweh; and he furnished
the temples, which he reared in several places out of Judea, with images
for idolatrous worship, in order to ingratiate himself with the emperor
and the people of Rome; though to the Jews he pretended that he did it
against his will, and in obedience to the imperial command. The
Herodians probably complied with, acquiesced in, or approved these
idolatrous usages. This symbolizing with idolatry upon views of interest
and worldly policy, was probably that leaven of Herod, against which our
Saviour cautioned his disciples.