<p>3:19 <i>But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for marrying Herodias his brother's wife, and for all the evil things which Herod had done</i>- Josephus claims that she was in fact married to another relative, not Philip, before she married Herod (<i>Antiquities</i>&nbsp;18:136). We can simply decide to trust the Biblical record over Josephus. Or it could be that Josephus refers to a previous relationship she had. See on Mt. 14:10 for another conflict with Josephus. John's example here raises the question of whether we should protest immoral behaviour in society. It could be argued that Herod claimed to be Jewish and therefore responsible to Divine law.</p><p>The laws of Lev. 18:16; 20:21 were applicable to Jews; which opens the wider question as to whether we ought to be drawing the attention of the world to their disobedience to Biblical principles, even though they do not claim any faith in the Bible. Criticizing others&rsquo; ways of living leads to anger if the point isn&rsquo;t accepted; and we have a classic case of it here. The Herods were from Idumea, but although they weren&rsquo;t ethnic Jews, they claimed to be religious Jews. So it could be that John&rsquo;s attitude was that if someone considered themselves as being under God&rsquo;s law, then they should be obedient to it and were therefore culpable before Him for disobedience to it. In this case, we do not actually have here any reason to think that a Christian&rsquo;s duty is to lobby the unbelieving world leaders to be obedient to God&rsquo;s law.</p>