Herodias, on the other hand, had made up her mind. She held a grudge. John had presented a truth. It seems there are only a few ways one can respond when confronted with a truth. (1) Accept what is true and respond accordingly. In this case, Herodias and Herod would separate. (2) Acknowledge the truth and choose to act contrary. Herodias could have said, “I know being with Herod is wrong, but I’m going to stay with him anyways.” This is an appropriately uncomfortable state and oftentimes a stepping stone to acting rightly. Wanting to act wrongly is based on a misconception. Herodias thought that being with Herod and all the worldly benefits that provided her was better than acting in accord with truth, but nothing is better than acting in accord with truth. An inner obstacle here might be the thought that one can’t act rightly, and attachments can be so strong that it seems that way, but God can always unbind. We need only be willing, and if that’s not there, we can always pray for the willingness to be willing. (3) Deny the truth. Deny that there is any such thing as right and wrong. This seems to relieve the dissonance, but we can’t lie to ourselves. God’s law is written on every heart. Herodias fought futilely against what has been set for our best and directed the violence within that towards John. This isn’t to say that Herodias was always this way or would always be. Fighting against what can’t be beat can lead us in time to surrender at God’s feet.

Then came Herod’s birthday banquet. Herod had his fancy friends over, and Herodias’s daughter performed a dance that delighted the crowd. Herod, perhaps drunk, said to the girl that he would give her whatever she asked for, up to half of his kingdom! She went to her mother and asked what to ask for. “The head of John the baptizer.” When Herod heard this request, he was distressed and did not want to go back on his word in the presence of his esteemed guests. Here we see conflicting desires. Herod did not want to kill John the Baptist, and Herod did not want to break his oath. Interestingly, these are both good things, though promising to fulfill an open-ended request wasn’t too wise of the king. Herod was at a decision point. He had to incur a cost in the shallows or in the deep. Would he trust his sense that John the Baptist was worthy of respect and certainly not death? Or would he comply with the wish weaseled in by Herodias in order to remain favorable among his power and status crowd?

One thing that caught my attention while reading this passage is that both Herodias’s daughter and Herod responded immediately. “Immediately she rushed back to the king and responded.” “Immediately the king sent a soldier of the guard with orders to bring John’s head.” Why not pause? In a moral dilemma, the right response is already known. If it is a case of true ignorance, it wouldn’t be a dilemma. A bit of time is all it takes for the heart to speak, and that might be precisely what we think we don’t want. Again, it’s a misconception because acting in accord with the truth is always best. There’s a temptation to hastiness because then the deed is done, the dissonance is gone, but wounds were on the line. In this case, there was the very obvious physical harm to John. The soldier cut off John’s head, put it on a platter, and gave it to the daughter of Herodias who gave it to Herodias. Herodias got what she wanted, and also a wound, a less visible one. God gave us the law to protect us. Breaking it hurts us. Herod also incurred a wound. Though less hard-hearted than Herodias, he displayed cowardice. He could have defended John the Baptist and spared his disciples the pain of grief. The story ends by saying that John’s disciples took his body and laid it in a tomb. An irreversible bad thing had happened, and they did the next right thing.