In the chapter XXIII of the New Testament, King Herod Antipas was forced to keep John the Baptist, a faithful man, in his prison for Queen Herodias against his releasing due to John’s objection to her marriage with the King. When the young daughter of Queen Herodias, the princess, was permitted an oath by the King through the way of pleasing him. When she turned to her mother to inquire what shall she asked, the mother said without sympathy and forgiveness: “The head of John the Baptist.” The King Herod was not willing but to obey the promise made by himself, and due to the reason of killing a faithful prophet, the King himself at the end was sent out of his own country, and what’s more, all the riches and honors he possessed were taken by the Lord. …show more content…
The answer is definitely “No”. Punishments are supposed to be put on the ones who are literally responsible for the crimes. In this story, it means the Queen, and it seems that the wrath of heaven didn’t make she suffer anyway. To some extent, the King is nothing but a scapegoat. But then, I realized that this metaphor is not THAT appropriate.
The King Herod had total freedom and justification to be against the request made by the princess, and in return, he would be paid by the blessing of God. The only thing he had to do is to save the poor man prisoned in the cell, and the sole thing he needed to abandon his authority of being a rule of a country. Besides, I don’t think Herod is the kind of people who devote themselves to cherish their own reputation. He made a vow which he couldn’t