IIERODIANS, a class of Jews that existcd in the time of Jesus Christ, whether of a political or religious description it is not easy, for want of materials, to determine. The passages of the N. T. which refer to them are the following,‘ Matt.
xxii. 6 ; Mark iii. 6 ; xii. 13 ; Luke xx. 20. The particulais are these :—The ecclesiastical authori ties of judzea having failed to entrap Jesus by demanding the authority by which he did his won derful works, especially as seen in his expurgation of the temple ; and being incensed in consequence of the parable spoken against them, namely, A certain man planted a. vineyard,' etc., held a coun cil against him, and associating with themselves the Herodians, sent an embassy to our Lord with the express but covert design of ensnaring him in his speech, that thus they might compass his destruction. The question they put to him was one of the most difficult—' Is it lawful to pay tri bute to Czesar?' The way in which Jesus extri cated himself from the difficulty and discomfited his enemies is well known.
Do these circumstances afford any light as to what was the precise character of the Herodians ? Whatever decision on this point may be arrived at, the general import of the transaction is very clear, and of a character highly honourable to Jesus. That his enemies were actuated by bad faith, and came with false pretences, might also be safely inferred. Luke, however, makes an express state inent to this effect, saying (xx. 1S-2o), they sought to lay hands on him ; and they feared the people ; and they watched him, and sent forth spies which should jelgn Memselves just 77Zen, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver hinz unto the power and authority if the governor.' The aim, then, was to embroil our Lord with the Romans. For this purpose the question put had been cunningly chosen. These appear to have been the several feelings whose toils were around Jesus—the hatred of the priests, the favour of the people towards himself, and their aveision to the dominion of the Romans, their half faith in hint as the Messiah, which would probably be converted into the vexation and rage of disap pointment, should he approve the payment of tribute to Rome ; another element of difficulty had in the actual case been deliberately provided—the presence of the Iierodians. Altogether the scene was most perplexing, the trial most perilous. But what additional difficulty did the Herodians bring ? Herod Antipas was now Tetrarch of Galilee and Penea, which was the only inheritance he received from his father Herod the Great. As Tetrarch of
Galilee he was specially the ruler of Jesus, whose home was in that province. The Herodians, then, may have been subjects of Herod, Galikeans, whose evidence the priests were wishful to procure, because theirs would be the evidence of fellow countrymen, and of special force with Antipas as being that of his own immediate subjects (Luke xxiii. 7).
Herod's relations with Rome were in an unsafe condition. He was a weak prince, given to ease and luxury, and his wife's ambition conspired witl his own desires to make him strive to obtain from the Emperor Caligula the title of king. For this purpose he took a journey to Rome, and banished to Lyons in Gaul.
The Herodians may have been favourers of his. pretensions : if so, they would be partial healkrs, and eager witnesses against Jesus before the Roman tribunal. It would be a great service to the Romans to be the means of enabling them to get rid of one who aspircd to be king of the je VS. It would equally gratify their own lord, should the Herodians give effectual aid in putting a period to the mysterious yet formidable claims of a rival claimant of the crown.
We do not see that the two characters here ascribed to the IIerodians are incompatible ; and if they were a Galilman political party who were eager to procure from Rome the honour of royalty for Herod (Mark vi. 14, the name of king is merely as of courtesy), they were chosen as asso ciates by the Sanhedrim with especial propriety.
The deputation were to 'feign themselves just men,' that is, men whose sympathies were entirely Jewish, and, as such, anti-heathen : they vvere to intimate their dislike of paying tribute, as being an acknowledgment of a foreign y-oke ; and by flatter ing- Jesus, as one who loved truth, feared no man, and would say what he thought, they meant to inveigle him into a condemnation of the practice. In order to carry these base and hypocritical designs into effect, the Herodians were appropri ately associated with the Pharisees ; for as the latter were the recognised conservators of Judaism, so the former were friends of the aggrandisement of a native as against a foreign prince.
Other hypotheses may be found in Paulus on the passage in Matt. ; in Wolf, Cune Phil. i. 311, sq. ; see also J. Steuch, Diss. de Herod., Lund. 1706 ; J. Floder, Diss. de Zierod., Upsal. 1764.— J. R. II.