Category: Latin loanwords

Posted in Latin loanwords

PRAETORIUM

Posted on by writtenexposition

PRAETORIUM

‘And the soldiers led him away into the hall, called Praetorium; and they call together the whole band.’ Mk 15:16

Greek: (πραιτώριον) praitṓrion

Latin: praetorium

English translation KJV: praetorium (Mk 15:16); common hall (Mt 27:27); hall of judgement (Jn 18:28a); judgement hall (Jn 18:28b, 33; 19:9; Acts 23:35); palace (Phil 1:13)

At Easter Christians recall the Passion (suffering) of Jesus Christ. This refers to the events of the last week of his life and includes his agony and arrest at Gethsemane, his religious and political trials, crucifixion, death, and burial. The four New Testament gospels have passion narratives but, since they each have their own emphasis, all do not include the same information. Only Luke, for example, tells us that Pilate adjourned the trial for a while and sent Jesus to Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, who was in Jerusalem for the Passover at the time (Lk 23:6-12). The Fourth Gospel has the most dramatic detail of all; John sets the Passion in five locations:

A GARDEN (we know from Mt 26:36 and Mk 14:32 that the place was called Gethsemane) Jn 18:1-11

THE HOUSE OF ANNAS (the High Priest Caiaphas’s father-in-law) Jn 18:12-27

PILATE’S PRAETORIUM Jn 18:28-19:16

GOLGOTHA Jn 19:17-37

A GARDEN WITH A NEW TOMB Jn 19:38-42

The central location is Pontius Pilate’s praetorium at Jerusalem. Originally a ‘praetorium’ was the large tent of a praetor (a Roman military commander). This tent was the portable headquarters of an army in the field and within it was situated a platform on which was located a seat upon which the commander sat in order to administer justice and army discipline. The Praetorium was also used for councils of war. Gradually, as the Romans annexed conquered territories and installed either procurators or prefects (civil or military governors) in the Provinces, the term came to be applied to buildings which were official residences of the provincial governors.

The place where Jesus was tried by Pilate is called a ‘praitṓrion’ in the gospels of Matthew, Mark and John. This is a Latin loanword (praetorium) transliterated into Greek as πραιτώριον. Generally speaking, the Roman governors took up residence in the home of the displaced native ruler. The procurators of Judaea, although based in Caesarea, often moved temporarily to Jerusalem during Jewish festivals, to ensure the maintenance of law and order. The gospels do not identify the building or the location of Pilate’s residence there but, since it was on a hill (Mk 15:8 ‘ the crowd ‘came up’ to Pilate NIV, ESV, NASB) and inside the city walls (Mk 15:20 ‘led out’), the most likely building was the former palace of Herod the Great, which had been built on the west hill of Jerusalem in 25 BCE.

It was a large complex which included domestic wings, a famous ornamental garden and military barracks. If this was indeed the building then in front of it was a square called the Lithóstrōtos (pavement) and the Gabbatha (platform) in Jn 19:13. These were two different names, one Greek and one Aramaic, for the same place. The Greek name referred to the stone pavement and the Aramaic name to the platform which was also there; upon which stood the bḗma, Pilate’s judgement seat.

Herod’s son, the ethnarch Archelaus, had occupied the palace until he was deposed and exiled by the emperor Augustus in 6 CE, at which time his territories were annexed by the Romans to form the Province of Judaea. The building thus became available for use by the governors of the new province whenever they resided for short periods in Jerusalem. Their usual residence and the civic and military headquarters were located in Caesarea Maritima. We know from Acts 23:35 that a later Roman procurator, Marcus Antonius Felix (52 -60 CE), lived in Herod’s palace in Caesarea and that it too was known as a ‘praitṓrion.’

In the early morning (18:28a) Jesus was taken from the High Priest Caiaphas to the praetorium where Pilate was already up and at work. Pontius Pilate was the fifth governor of the Roman Province of Judaea, and held office for about ten years (26-36 CE). His predecessors were Coponius (6-9 CE); Marcus Ambibulus (9-12 CE), Annius Rufus (12-15 CE) and Valerius Gratus (15-26 CE). Pilate is mentioned in the New Testament but there is also good historical evidence for him in the writings of non-Christians such as Philo, Josephus and Tacitus. These authors are generally hostile towards Pilate but he must have been a competent administrator to have survived so long in the job.

Pilate has for many centuries been known as a Procurator of Judaea but the find of the Pilate Stone /Pilate Inscription in Caesarea Maritima in 1961 confirmed that his exact title was ‘Prefect’. A Procurator’s responsibilities were mainly civil (financial and administrative) but a Prefect was usually a military man and had additional powers. As a Prefect Pilate was the highest judge in Judaea and held the ius gladii (right of the sword), the authority to administer capital punishment without first consulting his immediate boss, the Legate of Syria, or the Roman emperor.

Pontius Pilate despised the Jews, which may have been why he was appointed to office in Judaea by the Supreme Prefect, Lucius Aelius Seianus, who actively pursued anti-Jewish policies in Rome. Pilate had several major conflicts with the Jews during his time in office. These included incidents involving: army flags, banners and insignia with the Emperor’s picture on them; the setting up of votive tablets to Tiberius in Herod’s palace in Jerusalem; the use of ‘corban’ funds from the Temple to finance construction of a new aquaduct for Jerusalem; the murder of a group of Galileans as they offered sacrifice in the Temple (Lk 13:1-2); and the slaughter of a crowd of Samaritans who had gathered at Mt. Gerizim hoping to witness a miracle.

Pilate’s treatment of the population during these incidents was excessively brutal and he lost his job in 36 CE as a result of the Samaritan affair. His superior, Lucius Vitellius, the governor of Syria, ordered him to Rome to account for his actions. Fortunately for Pilate, he arrived in Rome just after the death of Tiberius in 37 CE and there is no record of any action having been taken against him by the new emperor, Caligula. Later traditions say that he committed suicide, was executed or became an active Christian. A wealthy member of the Pontii family, it is more likely that he lived out the remainder of his life in retirement.

Pilate must have had his suspicions when approached by the Chief Priests with the rather odd request that he put to death a young, popular, Jewish rabbi called Jesus. The religious leaders, who had no love for the Romans, claimed to be acting out of loyalty to Rome by asking for Jesus’ execution for a political, rather than a religious, offence.

Pilate would have controlled a sophisticated network of spies in Judaea and have known that Jesus was not a political agitator. On the other hand, he was responsible for maintaining law and order in the province and Jerusalem was especially volatile at Passover time, when the Jews celebrated a release from bondage to the Egyptians. Someone claiming to be ‘King of the Jews’ was potentially troublesome and certainly a threat to Roman imperial interests. This matter had to be dealt with. The trial of Jesus by Pilate at the Jerusalem praetorium is recorded in all four gospels (Mt 27:11-31; Mk 15:2-20; Lk 23:2-25; Jn 18:28-19:16).

THE PROCEEDINGS AT PILATE’S JERUSALEM PRAETORIUM (Jn 18:28-19:16)

The section of John’s Gospel that deals with the trial of Jesus falls naturally into seven parts, all of them (except the fourth where it is implied) mentioning the action of Pilate as either entering or exiting the praetorium. Ironically the Jewish leaders, who were happily requesting that Pilate execute an innocent man, wished to remain ritually clean so that they could celebrate the Passover. They would not defile themselves by entering the praetorium of the Gentile Romans (18:28). Pilate therefore went back and forth to talk to them where they had gathered, presumably at a side entrance of the castle, just outside the praetorium compound. The action of the trial takes place both inside and outside the praetorium.

18:28-32 OUTSIDE THE PRAETORIUM ‘Pilate then went out unto them’ v.29

18:33-38a INSIDE THE PRAETORIUM ‘Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again’ v.33

18:38b – 40 OUTSIDE THE PRAETORIUM ‘And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews’ v38b

19:1-3 INSIDE THE PRAETORIUM

19:4-8 OUTSIDE THE PRAETORIUM ‘Pilate therefore went forth again’ v.4

19:9-11 INSIDE THE PRAETORIUM ‘And [Pilate] went again into the judgment hall’ v9

19:12-16 OUTSIDE THE PRAETORIUM ‘When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth’ v13

Pilate has gone down in history as the man who presided over the trial of Jesus and some of his words and gestures on that occasion are still well-known today. The expression ‘to wash your hands of’ originates from Pilate’s action signifying his denial of responsibility for the death of Jesus (Mt 27:24). His witticism ‘What is truth?’ is still relevant in today’s era of fake news. For some reason Pilate asked this of the only person who could give him the accurate definition of truth but intentionally did not wait for an answer (18:38). This was just one of several questions asked by Pilate during the course of the trial:

TEN QUESTIONS PILATE ASKED

‘What accusation bring ye against this man?’ (Jn 18:29).

‘Art thou the King of the Jews?’ (Mt. 27:11; Mk. 15:2; Lk 23:3; Jn 18:33, 37).

‘Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?’ (Jn 18:35).

‘Hearest thou not how many thing they witness against thee?’ (Mt. 27:13; Mk 15:4).

‘What is truth?’ (Jn 18:38).

‘Whence art thou?’ (Jn 19:9).

‘Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?’ (Jn 19:10).

‘Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?” (Mt. 27:17, 21; Mk. 15:9; Jn 18:39).

‘What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?’ (Mt. 27:22).

‘Why, what evil hath he done?’ (Mt. 27:23; Mk. 15:14; Luke 23:22).

The first question in the above list was addressed to the Lord’s Jewish religious accusers, the next six to the Lord himself and the last three to the hostile crowd. Of all the above questions the penultimate one has universal significance. It is a question that everyone must answer.

‘WHAT SHALL I DO THEN WITH JESUS WHICH IS CALLED CHRIST?’

This question is of the utmost importance because what you do with Jesus Christ is the greatest decision of your life. Your personal salvation and your eternal destiny depend upon it. The accounts in the gospels convey the reality that this trial of Jesus at the praetorium was indeed a momentous occasion. The religious leaders were there as the accusers. The Lord Jesus was there as the accused. The crowd was behaving like a jury. Pontius Pilate was the judge. Pilate knew that Jesus was innocent and did not deserve to die, and yet he did not want to annoy the crowd and create an incident at Passover time. Jesus of Nazareth had brought a crisis into his life and he had a choice to make. Would he choose his career or Christ? Was it to be Jesus Christ or Tiberius Caesar (Jn 19:12)?

Pilate must have known about Jesus of Nazareth from intelligence briefings. How often must that name have come up in discussions with his security council (cf. Acts 25:12)! Now, however, Jesus himself was standing before him. That day he was not dealing with a report, he was face to face with the person. Pilate wanted to do the right thing but was under extreme pressure. Does his dilemma sound familiar to you? Have you come face to face with the claims of Christ and wanted to do the right thing, but you have felt the pressure?

What would other people say? What would they do if you were to accept Christ, his claims, his person, his work and his salvation? Pilate discovered that the crowd was not going to make it easy for him to choose Christ, that those people were going to be satisfied with nothing less than his complete rejection of Jesus. He tried to evade the issue by making an appeal and offering an alternative but that backfired. Gradually (after about five hours, Jn 18:28; 19:14) it became clear in Pilate’s mind that inaction was no longer an option. A decision had to be made and so he asked the question: ‘What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?’

Pilate viewed the evidence against Jesus and reached a firm conclusion. At least three times he publicly asserted: ‘I find no case against him!’ (Lk 23:4, 14, 22). How was it then that a short time later he heard himself sentencing Jesus to death by crucifixion? Pilate thus betrayed an innocent man. He asked the right question, ‘What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?’ but gave the wrong response, for ‘he delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified’ (Mk 15: 15).

I deliberately wrote that Pilate ‘betrayed’ Jesus because ‘betrayed’ and delivered’ are translations of the same word. Paradídōmi (to hand over) is an important and significant word for the gospel writers and is used of the action of Judas Iscariot (Jn 6:71; 12:4; 13:2, 11, 21; 18:2, 5), the Jewish people (Acts 3:13), their religious authorities (Mt 27:2, 18; Jn 19:11) and Pontius Pilate (Mk 15:15; Jn 19:16) against Jesus Christ.

That day at the Jerusalem praetorium Pontius Pilate made his choice, but it was the wrong one. What, however, have you done with Jesus Christ? This is a personal matter, no-one else can answer that question for you. You must answer for yourself: ‘What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?’

Jesus is standing in Pilate’s hall —

Friendless, forsaken, betrayed by all:

Hearken! what meaneth the sudden call?

What will you do with Jesus?

____________________

Jesus is standing on trial still,

You can be false to Him if you will,

You can be faithful through good or ill:

What will you do with Jesus?

____________________

Will you evade Him as Pilate tried?

Or will you choose Him, whate’er betide?

Vainly you struggle from Him to hide:

What will you do with Jesus?

____________________

What will you do with Jesus?

Neutral you cannot be;

Some day your heart will be asking,

‘What will He do with me?’

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Agamben, G. and Kotsko, A., 2015, Pilate and Jesus. Stanford, CA: Meridian

Bammel, E. and Moule, C. D. F., 1971, The Trial of Jesus: Cambridge Studies in Honour of C. F. D. Moule, London: SCM Press

Blinzler, J, 1959, The Trial of Jesus: the Jewish and Roman Proceedings against Jesus Christ Described and Assessed from the Oldest Accounts, Cork, Mercier Press

Bond, H. K., 1998. Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Senior, D., 1991., The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of John, Collegeville, Minn: Michael Glazier

Smallwood, E. M., 1976. The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian: A Study in Political Relations. Leiden: E J Brill

Watson, A., 2012., The Trial of Jesus, University of Georgia Press

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Bermejo-Rubio, F., 2019. Was Pontius Pilate a Single-Handed Prefect? Roman Intelligence Sources as a Missing Link in the Gospels’ Story. Klio, Vol. 101, No.2, pp. 505-542

Bindley, T. Herbert., 1904, ‘Pontius Pilate’ In The Creed, The Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 6, No. 21, pp. 12-13

Bond, H. K., 1996, The Coins of Pontius Pilate: Part of an Attempt to Provoke the People or to Integrate them into the Empire?, Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 241–262

Brown, S., 2015, What Is Truth? Jesus, Pilate, and the Staging of the Dialogue of the Cross in John 18:28-19:1 6a, CBQ, 77, pp. 68-86

Dusenbury, D. L., 2017. The Judgment of Pontius Pilate: A Critique of Giorgio Agamben. Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 32, No.2, pp. 340-365

Ianovskaia, L., 2011. Pontius Pilate and Yeshua Ha-Nozri. Russian Studies in Literature, Vol. 47, No.2, pp.7-60

Liberty, Stephen., 1944, The Importance of Pontius Pilate in Creed and Gospel, The Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 45, No. 177/178, pp. 38-56

Maier, P. L., 1971, The Fate of Pontius Pilate. Hermes, Vol. 99, No. 3, pp. 362–371

Szanton, N., Hagbi, M., Uziel, J. and Ariel, D., 2019., Pontius Pilate in Jerusalem: The Monumental Street from the Siloam Pool to the Temple Mount, Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, Vol. 46, No.2, pp. 147-166

Taylor, J. E., 2006. Pontius Pilate and the Imperial Cult in Roman Judaea. New Testament Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 555-582

Wise, H., 2004, In Defence of Pontius Pilate, Fortnight, No. 429, pp. 14–15

Wright, A., 2017. What Is Truth? The Complicated Characterization of Pontius Pilate in the Fourth Gospel, Review & Expositor, Vol. 114, No.2, pp. 211-219

Posted in Latin loanwords

CENSUS

Posted on by writtenexposition

Mt 17:25; Mt 22:17; Mk 12:14

Greek – (κῆνσος) kḗnsos

Latin – census

English – census

KJV translation – tribute

The recent arrival in the post of our UK Census 2021 instructions, for online completion of the questions by Sunday 21 March, reminded me that not only is our English word ‘census’ derived from the Latin ‘census’ but also that the same Latin word was loaned to Greek and occurs three times in the New Testament, translated ‘tribute.’

Census-taking is not a recent development. Governments have been attempting to collect information on their citizens for many thousands of years and censuses were taken in such diverse regions as ancient China, Egypt, Rome and Israel. Whereas modern census returns are used for planning the funding and delivery of education, infrastructure, health, security and other vital public services, the information collected in the ancient world was for the purposes of taxation and/or military service. Certainly these two reasons lay behind the censuses recorded in the Bible.

The Old Testament mentions census-taking by Joshua (Josh 8:10), and King Saul (1 Sam 11:8; 13:15; 15:4) but the most famous are the two censuses shortly after the Exodus in the 15th century BCE, the census taken by King David about 1000 BCE, the Roman census around the time of Christ’s birth and another mentioned in a speech by Gamaliel in Acts 5:36. The latter in 6 CE met with resistance led by Judas of Galilee.

The census records in scripture, unfortunately, have become the target of critical scholarship and there is controversy surrounding the details given in the biblical accounts. Should you wish to investigate them, much has been written and is readily available online via Google searches relating to topics like: census figures in the book of Numbers, King David’s census, the census under Augustus Caesar, the census of Quirinius, the Theudas problem.

It strikes me as interesting that although in Latin the word ‘census’ means ‘roll’ or ‘registration’ it seems from its three occurrences in the Greek New Testament (Mt 17:25; Mt 22:17; Mk 12:14) that the Jews in the Roman province of Judaea at the time of Christ did not use it in its original sense. They used the word kḗnsos, not for the registration upon which the tax was based but for the actual tax itself. The KJV therefore translates kḗnsos as ‘tribute’, some modern versions translate it as ‘poll-tax.’ That tax was the ‘tributum capitis’ (head-tax) that the Romans imposed on everyone whose name was on the census. It did not apply to Roman citizens but to the population of the provinces ruled by Rome. All males aged 14 to 65 and females aged 12 to 65 were liable, including slaves.

It was a flat rate personal tax of one denarius (a Roman silver coin) per head. The census figures were updated regularly and based on these the Romans calculated how much each tax district owed. These districts were groups of towns called toparchies. Once assessed the local authorities then had to pay the relevant amount to the Romans, who left it up to them to collect the money as they saw fit. The poll-tax was unpopular in the provinces because it brought home to the citizens in a personal way the fact that they were under the domination of a foreign regime.

The tax was particularly hated in Judaea, although, to some extent, it could be said that the Jews had only themselves to blame for it. After the death of Herod the Great in 4 BCE two of his sons, Antipas and Philip, each governed as tetrarch over a quarter of his kingdom. The remaining half, consisting of Judaea, Samaritis and Idumaea, was ruled by another son, Archelaus, as ethnarch. These kings, ruling as clients of Rome, were responsible for collecting the taxes in their own dominions.

The Herods were Idumeans (descendants of Edom) but were brought up as Jews. Although in league with Rome they had the sensitivity (not something for which the Herods are famous) to collect their taxes in local coinage which did not bear an image and was thus acceptable to Jews (Ex 20:4); unlike the Roman denarius which bore the image of the emperor. Archelaus was not a good ruler and for various reasons, including a marriage that was considered incestuous, was disliked by his subjects. The Jews therefore sent delegations to Rome complaining about Herod Archelaus, who was eventually summoned to Rome for investigation.

In 6 CE Archelaus was deposed by the emperor and died in exile less than ten years later. The Jews, however, got more than they bargained for because the Romans annexed Archelaus’s territory, bringing the districts of Judaea, Samaritis and Idumaea under their control as the Roman province of ‘Judaea.’

Direct rule from Rome brought Judaea under the Roman tax system, with its regular censuses and payment of the head-tax in Roman coinage. In 6 CE the first census was taken to determine the tax liability of the new province. This resulted in armed resistance organised by Judas of Galilee on the basis that it was not for people who regarded God as their only master to pay tax to the Roman emperor. The beginning of the Zealot movement is usually traced to this time.

When the Jewish religious leaders had their representatives ask Jesus the loaded question: ‘Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not?’ these recent events were still in everyone’s mind and the sensitive topic of the head-tax could easily have inflamed nationalistic and religious fervor.

‘RENDER THEREFORE UNTO CAESAR THE THINGS WHICH ARE CAESAR’S; AND UNTO GOD THE THINGS THAT ARE GOD’S’

In Matthew’s gospel the scene in which Jesus uttered those now famous words about payment of the tribute is set in one of several episodes where he is in conflict with the Jewish religious leaders. These are recorded in Matthew chapters twenty-one and twenty-two. They contain six controversy stories, among which are interspersed four parables. The stories, as already mentioned, are about conflict with the religious authorities. The parables also concern the religious leaders and are aimed at them. They illustrate the failure of the religious authorities to respond to the call of God through Jesus and predict the results of that failure.

THE SIX CONTROVERSY STORIES

21:12-17 Jesus asserts his authority by cleansing the Temple

21:23-27 The question which challenges Jesus’ authority

22:15-22 The question about payment of the poll-tax to the emperor

22:23-33 The questions about the resurrection

22:34-40 The question about the most important commandment

22:41-46 The question (asked by Jesus) about David’s Lord.

THE FOUR PARABLES

21:18-22 The destruction of the unfruitful fig tree

21:28-32 The two sons

21:33-46 The vineyard and the tenants

22:1-14 The wedding banquet and the guest without the proper garment

22:15-22 THE QUESTION ABOUT PAYMENT OF THE POLL-TAX TO THE EMPEROR

After Jesus had driven the traders from the temple the religious leaders had challenged him to state by what authority he had the right to do so. He had replied by asking them if John’s baptism was from heaven, or of men. They dared not answer as they had rejected John but the people thought highly of him. Although it was obvious to all that they knew the answer to the question, they replied that they did not know. This meant that the leading authorities publicly declared themselves unfit to pronounce judgement on a simple, clearcut matter. Jesus therefore refused to tell them by whose authority he had cleansed the Temple (21:27).

Having been made to look incompetent in their discussion with Jesus the Pharisees deliberately consulted (22:15) and laid plans as to how they might trap him in his talk. It is likely that they involved other groups, such as the Herodians (22:16) and the Sadducees (22:23), whom they normally opposed, in these discussions. It is interesting that often those who have no time for one another are willing to temporarily lay aside their differences and form a coalition against Christ and his teachings.

They therefore approached Jesus, armed with premeditated questions, and began by insincerely flattering him with words similar to those which Nicodemus (Jn 3:2) had used sincerely: “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances” (ESV). They addressed him as ‘teacher’ but he knew that they had not come to him as to a rabbi for guidance on a topic of religious concern. Once they asked their question ‘Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?’ he said: ‘Why put me to the test, you hypocrites?’

They had been hoping for a Yes or No answer. If Jesus condemned the payment of the poll-tax to Caesar then they would accuse him of sedition and have him arrested by the Roman authorities for being a Zealot. If he said it ought to be paid then they could stir up the crowd against him, saying that as a collaborator with the oppressive occupying regime and its corrupt system of taxation he was a traitor to his own people and the Jewish religion. There was no loophole. They had him in a dilemma, he could not escape.

Instead of giving a Yes or No answer Jesus asked them to show him the coin that was the only legal tender for paying Roman taxes. Taking a silver denarius he used it as a visual aid, asking: ‘Whose is this image and superscription?’ They answered: ‘Caesar’s.’ Matthew does not tell us which emperor had struck the coin. It may have borne the engraved image of the then current emperor Tiberius Caesar, or perhaps that of his predecessor and stepfather, Caesar Augustus. If a coin of Tiberius it would typically have been inscribed in abbreviated Latin as follows:

[Obverse]

TI. CAESAR DIVI AVG. F. AVGVSTVS

Tiberius Caesar, Son of the Divine Augustus, himself Augustus

[Reverse]

TR. POT. XVII. IMP. VII.

Holder of the Tribunician Power for the Seventeenth Time, Hailed as Imperator (Victorious Commander) for the Seventh Time

Jesus said to them: ‘Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s’. It is then said that his questioners marvelled and left him. This was because it was a wise answer which identified two sets of priorities. Jesus was effectively asking them: ‘Who is Caesar and what does he demand?’ and ‘Who is God, and what does he demand?’ His words must have struck home to both groups that had come together to ask the question. The anti-Roman Pharisees were unwilling to render to Caesar the things that were Caesar’s, the power hungry and wealth-seeking Herodians who colluded with the Romans were refusing to render to God what belonged to God.

As we complete and submit our census forms let us remember that every one of us has a two-fold obligation – to Caesar (the state), and to God. These are not mutually exclusive, faithfulness as a Christian does not hinder obedience as a good citizen. Nor are they the same. Caesar assesses what we have. God claims what we are. Caesar’s image and superscription are on our coins, God’s image and superscription is stamped on our consciences. Caesar takes from what is ours, tax is a liability and not voluntary. God expects us to give him our all, it is voluntary and not obligatory. We owe Caesar loyalty and respect, we give God our worship and our service.

If only the Jewish leaders had taken on board the wise advice that Jesus gave on the subject of the poll-tax! The Jewish wars (66-73 CE), the destruction of Jerusalem and the downfall of the Jewish nation might never have come to pass. They failed to ‘render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s,’ and paid a terrible price (Lk 19:42-44).

Posted in Latin loanwords

COLONIA

Posted on by writtenexposition

‘And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days.’ Acts 16:12

Greek – κολωνία (kolōnía)
Latin – colonia
English – colony


THE GOSPEL COMES TO EUROPE


After Paul and Silas completed the first stage of the second missionary journey during which they had visited previously established churches in Phrygia and Galatia, they decided to preach the gospel in the next-door province of Asia. Somehow they were ‘forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia’ so they journeyed northwards through Asia until they reached Mysia in northwest Asia Minor. From there they tried to enter Bithynia but again ‘the Spirit suffered them not’. So they travelled south to the seaport of Troas, on the Aegaen Sea. There Paul received his vision of a man from Macedonia calling for help (Acts 16:9), after which the party set sail from Troas and reached the island of Samothrace which was about halfway between Asia Minor and Greece. The following day they disembarked at Neapolis, a port in Macedonia, and travelled some ten miles up the road to Philippi. Some years later the reverse journey took five days (20:6)!


These first Christian missionaries to arrive in Europe must have seemed a motley crew. Two of them, Paul and Silas, were obviously Jews (Acts 16:19-20). Another, Timothy, was half Jewish (Acts 16:1) but probably looked and dressed like a Gentile. The fourth was Luke, who appears to have joined the missionary party at Troas and is thought to have been a Gentile (compare Col 4:11 with 4:14). Luke was the author of the Acts of the Apostles and in 16:10 includes himself with the others (‘we’) as responding to the Macedonian Call. This is the first of five ‘We’ sections in Acts (16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-29; 28:16) in which the usual third person (he, they) narrative changes to first person plural (we). This suggests that Luke was writing as an eyewitness who had spent some time at Philippi along with the missionaries.


PHILIPPI


Philippi was located in eastern Macedonia (now northern Greece) and strategically situated on a hill surrounded by marshes. There were mountains to the north and south, and also to the south was the port of Neapolis. The city lay on the Via Egnatia which was the only land route from Rome to the East of the empire.

The town, originally named Crenides (‘springs’), was founded by settlers from the Greek island of Thasos around 360 BCE. They began to mine gold and silver from nearby Mt. Pangaion but were so harassed by nearby tribes from Thrace that three or four years later they called on Philip II of Macedon (Alexander the Great’s father) for assistance. Philip was quick to take control of the town in 356 BCE and name it after himself. He fortified Philippi, expanded the mining operations and set up a royal mint nearby. He exploited the natural resources of the area to such an extent that the town declined. The Romans conquered Macedonia c. 167 BCE but Philippi remained relatively unknown until it hit the headlines in 42 BCE as the site of the battle of Philippi. This was between the forces of Octavian and Mark Anthony on the one hand and, on the other, those of Brutus and Cassius (the assassins of Julius Caesar).


After the victory of Octavian and Anthony the town was made a Roman colony; Mark Anthony named it Colonia Victrix Philippensium. Veterans of the campaign were discharged and given land there as compensation for their service. In 30 BCE Augustus renamed it Colonia Augusta Julia Philippensis and resettled more former Roman soldiers. This time the colonists were veterans of a campaign that had ended with the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE. Thus Philippi was very much a military town.

Not only was Philippi martial in character but it was very Roman. As a Roman colony (colonia) the town had special rights; including exemption from poll tax. It also had the privilege of ius italicum (Italian law) of which it was proud. In the Provinces land was regarded as belonging to the Roman state and could not, therefore, be bought. In a colony with ius italicum, however, land could be bought and sold; the transactions being tax-free. The architecture of Philippi was Roman, inscriptions were in Latin and the usual Roman officials ran the colony. The official language was Latin and, although the people mostly spoke Greek, Latin held a strong position. It was the language of the Roman army and would therefore have been spoken by the resettled veterans and their family members, by slaves in Roman households and by employees in the imperial administration.


In areas previously unreached with the gospel Paul’s evangelistic strategy usually involved the establishment of churches in large urban centres from which the message could then be circulated to rural areas. Although his preaching was always aimed at both Jews and Gentiles he tended to first present the gospel to the local Jewish community at their synagogue worship. If they refused to accept it he then moved on to evangelize Gentiles. This procedure was not followed in Philippi, for two reasons. First, Philippi was something of a backwater and, although historically important (‘chief city’ 16:12), it was small. It had a population of about 10,000; tiny compared with Corinth or Thessalonica which numbered c. 80,000 -100,000. Second, hardly any Jews lived there so it did not have a synagogue.


In Acts 16:11-40, Luke gives a flavour of the early days of gospel work in Philippi by detailing three episodes of conversion. The first two concern the conversion of women and are connected with a ‘place of prayer’, the third is the conversion of a man and the setting is a prison. Two of the episodes contain a miracle; an exorcism and a miraculous release from prison. Taken together the stories of conversion remind us that God works providentially in the lives of different kinds of people in order to bring them to faith.


LYDIA


On the Sabbath, since there was no synagogue in Philippi, Paul looked for a ‘place of prayer’. According to the early Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities, 14.10.23 § 258) Jews were accustomed to meet for prayer beside a river or at the seaside. At a river outside the town Paul found a group of women gathered together to pray. One was a merchant called Lydia who was a dealer in purple. This was an expensive dye used on fabrics and as rouge for cheeks or lips. Having a business that catered to the rich Lydia would have been well-dressed and wealthy herself. She was a native of Thyatira and already a worshipper of the one true God of the Jews. As she listened to Paul’s preaching her ‘heart’ was ‘opened’ and she became a believer in Christ. Not only that, she and her household were baptized (16:15). Then, at her insistence, the missionaries lodged at her home. Thus the church in Europe began with Lydia.


THE SLAVE GIRL


On their way to the place of prayer Paul and his friends met a slave girl who was possessed by a ‘spirit of Python’ (16:16). Python was a surname (epithet) of Apollo, the Greek god of divination. Her fortune-telling was a source of profit for her owners. She followed Paul and his companions shouting: ‘These men are servants of the Most High God, who declare to us a way of salvation’ (Young’s Literal Translation). The term ‘Most High God’ was used by Jews as a title of God, but in that local environment it could equally be understood as a term of respect applied to gods like Zeus or Isis. The slave girl was also shouting that the missionaries were proclaiming ‘a’ (not ‘the’) way of salvation. Paul was tolerant ‘for many days’ but, aware of the ambiguities in her proclamation, he commanded the spirit to leave her. When her owners realized that their source of income had dried up as a result of this they dragged Paul and Silas before the town authorities at the forum and accused them of:


1) Being Jews.


This was a sure way of stirring up the crowd against them as Jews were unpopular in the empire at that time. The emperor Claudius had expelled all Jews from Rome in 49 CE, probably just a few months before this incident. Luke refers to that Edict of Claudius in Acts 18:1.


2) Causing civic unrest.


The Romans were obsessed with maintaining public order in conquered territories, and they ruthlessly suppressed any hint of disturbance. This explains the action of the magistrates (the ‘duumviri’) in Philippi.


3) Promoting customs that were not legal for Romans to adopt.


The Romans insisted that religious cults be licensed as it was generally thought that calamity would come if the old ancestral gods and religious customs were forsaken. Also, the imperial cult was prevalent in Philippi and ‘Saviour and ‘Lord’ were titles of the Roman emperor. Paul may have been preaching about Jesus as ‘the’ Saviour and ‘the’ Lord, and also about the possibility of obtaining citizenship in a different kind of colony. He certainly reminded the Philippian believers about these things in his Epistle to the Philippians, written about five years later:


‘But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Saviour from there, the Lord Jesus Christ’ Phil 3:20 (NIV)


The Romans would have regarded this as treason against Caesar (Jn 19:12; Acts 17:7).


THE PHILIPPIAN GAOLER


The accusations were not related to the exorcism but had the desired effect of stirring up the mob against Paul and Silas. Unfortunately, the magistrates were swayed by the crowd and without properly investigating the matter had Paul and Silas stripped, cruelly flogged, and delivered to the gaoler; who secured them in the inner prison with their feet in stocks. It was unlawful to treat Roman citizens in this way, but they were given no opportunity to say that they had this status.


A dramatic event occurred as Paul and Silas prayed and sang praises to God during the night, while the other prisoners listened. This reminds us that others are looking on and gauging our reactions as Christians when under pressure. Paul and Silas were not moaning and groaning or cursing and swearing about their beating. It is not surprising that they prayed, but how could they have sung in such circumstances?


Then an earthquake released the fastenings of all the prisoners. This earthquake shook the prison foundations but left it standing, burst open its doors, and released the prisoners’ chains. The event must have impressed upon the inmates the fact that God was working. At times God uses circumstances to awaken individuals to the realisation that they are sinners in his sight, and arouse them to their need of salvation. In your case, it may be nothing so dramatic as an earthquake, but it is worth asking yourself the question: ‘What does God have to do to awaken me’?


The Philippian gaoler certainly reacted. Thinking that all the prisoners had escaped, and preferring death to disgrace, he had drawn his sword to kill himself when Paul shouted: ‘Do thyself no harm, for we are all here!’ Having called for a light, the gaoler came in trembling and asked a great question.


‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’


(N.B. I have had the following points in my notes for years, unfortunately I cannot reference the original source)


THE REQUEST (Acts 16:30) ‘What must I do to be saved?’

It speaks of:


1) HUMILITY – ‘what must I do’ – it implies that there is a need for salvation.

2) NECESSITY – ‘must’ – it implies that salvation cannot be done without.

3) INDIVIDUALITY – I’ – it implies that salvation is a personal issue. No-one else can receive it on my behalf.

4) AVAILABILITY – God is willing to save a repentant sinner.


THE REPLY (Acts 16:31) ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house[hold]’

It speaks of:


1) A Person – ‘the Lord Jesus Christ

2) A Plan – ‘’believe on the Lord Jesus Christ’

3) A Promise – ‘thou shalt be saved’


THE RESULTS (Acts 16:33-34)


1) Salvation – ‘believing in God with all his house.’

2) Service – ‘And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes”

3) Satisfaction – ‘and rejoiced’


Verse 32 is very important: ‘And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.’ Paul and Silas did not expect the gaoler to profess faith in the Lord Jesus Christ without first receiving an explanation of the facts of the gospel. The passage might suggest that they preached the gospel to him even before their wounds were dressed.


The next morning the magistrates, (perhaps realizing that they had acted unfairly and wishing to send the prisoners away as quietly as possible), sent the police (lictors), who ordered the gaoler to release Paul and Silas. Paul, however, refused to leave until the issue of their Roman citizenship was addressed. It was bad enough that Roman citizens had been imprisoned without a trial but the fact that it was illegal to flog Roman citizens created a major headache for the magistrates. They came to the prison themselves and tried to placate Paul and Silas. After receiving an official apology Paul and Silas were escorted from the prison, and went back to Lydia’s house to confer with the believers before leaving Philippi.


Paul maintained a close relationship with this assembly in the colony of Philippi, the first Christian assembly in Europe, and it, in turn, was supportive of his missionary work; sending him financial assistance on several occasions. (Phil 4:10, 15-16; 2 Cor 11:9).

Posted in Latin loanwords

MACELLUM

Posted on by writtenexposition



‘Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: For the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.’ 1 Corinthians 10:25-26


Greek: μάκελλον (mákellon)
Latin: macellum
English: food market (shambles)


The city of Corinth, strategically located near an isthmus that linked Northern Greece and the Peloponnese, was one of the most important cities in the ancient world. Situated at a ‘crossroads’ it grew wealthy and politically influential through trade and by taxing and imposing tolls on goods moving through the area. It controlled four harbours: Kenchreai, Lechaion, Schoenus and Poseidona. Kenchreai on the Saronic Gulf was convenient for ships from Asia and the Aegean Sea and Lechaion on the Gulf of Corinth for ships from Italy and the Adriatic Sea. Rather than risk treacherous Cape Malea at the southern tip of Greece merchant ships would sail into Schoenus or Poseidona to be dragged overland on wheeled oxcarts to the opposite coast via a paved trackway called the Diolkos. The city was overlooked by an elevated citadel known as the Acrocorinth which had its own water supply and could be defended if under attack.


From about 600 BCE Corinth was one of the wealthiest and most powerful of the independent Greek city-states. These states went to war with Philip II of Macedon (father of Alexander the Great), were defeated by him at the battle of Chaeronea in 338 and united into one kingdom called the League of Corinth or Hellenic League. Corinth later joined an anti-Macedonian Achaean League and, in 243, broke free from Macedonian authority.

From about 230 the Achaean League tried to counteract growing Roman influence on Greek political affairs until finally, in 147, the Romans sent a delegation to Corinth demanding the immediate disbandment of the League. The refusal to obey resulted in the Achaean War. In 146 the Roman forces, under Lucius Mummius, defeated the Corinthian army and dealt harshly with the losers. They destroyed the city; killing all the men and enslaving the women and children. This ended the period known as Greek Corinth.

The city lay almost deserted until, just before his assassination in 44 BCE, Julius Caesar issued a decree that Corinth be rebuilt as a Roman colony (Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthiensis). It was the largest city in Greece and, as capital of Achaea from 27 BCE, was the headquarters of the Roman administration. The population size is unknown but thought to have been about 80,000. Although a Greek city, Corinth was Roman in its urban design, legal system, culture and religion. Many gods were worshipped there but Corinth was famous in the ancient world as the ‘City of Aphrodite.’ Due, however, to its status as capital of the Roman province of Achaea, emperor worship was the most prominent cult of all, dominating every aspect of life.


The Romans repopulated the city with a mix of former prisoners, traders and retired army veterans but the bulk of the settlers were emancipated slaves (see 7:22 for the only NT use of the technical term ‘freedman’ – apeleutheros). Latin was the official language and Corinthian coins bore Latin inscriptions. Koine Greek, as in the rest of the empire, was the common language; that is why Paul’s letters to the assembly were written in Greek.

Paul arrived at Corinth in the year 50 CE and began to preach the gospel in this ‘boom town’ devoted to pleasure, sport (every two years the Isthmian games took place at the temple of Poseidon), idolatry and commerce. According to Luke’s account in Acts 18:1-17 Paul began his evangelistic work among the Jews but, after some initial success, encountered strong opposition from that quarter. During his eighteen-month stay (Acts 18:11), he also preached to Gentiles (1 Cor 6:9-11; 12:2) and subsequently gathered converted Jews and Gentiles together to form ‘the assembly (ekklēsia) of God at Corinth’ (1 Cor1:2), and another one at nearby Kenchreai (Acts 18:18; Rom 16:1).


After moving on from Corinth Paul maintained an interest in the spiritual progress of the new Christians, but eventually some serious issues did arise in the assembly. These he tried to handle by a combination of letters and visits; 1 and 2 Corinthians mention several other letters (1 Cor 5:9; 2 Cor 2:3-9; 7:8-12; 10:10) and possible visits (1 Cor 4:19-21; 11:34; 16:5-7; 2 Cor 1:15 – 2:1; 12:21; 13:1-2) by the apostle Paul. The epistle we know as 1 Corinthians addresses various difficulties, about which the assembly had sent representatives to Paul (1 Cor 16:17) and had written asking for his advice (1
Cor 7:1). Matters had also been reported to Paul by concerned individuals (1 Cor 1:11). The major problems were:


• An emphasis on eloquence and philosophy which elevated human reasoning above Paul’s teaching.


• Factions and divisions in the assembly.


• Christians suing one another in the civil law-courts.


• Relationship issues: virginity, marriage, divorce, fornication and gross sexual immorality.


• Wrong attitudes to money.


• Disorder in the assembly.


• Misunderstandings about spiritual gifts.


• Beliefs about (the) resurrection.


• The consumption of idol food.


We hear little about the latter problem in western churches today, probably because it is not relevant to our everyday social situation. In our secular society, polytheistic religion, although present, does not impinge upon the lives of most people. Such was not the case in first-century Corinth where idolatry was visible everywhere: in temples, statues, images, inscriptions, coins, etc. Paul understood, as in fact he told the believers in 5:10, that there was no way the Corinthian Christians could avoid contact with idolaters.


Artisans and traders in Corinth were members of craft or merchant guilds. These associations held social gatherings in pagan temples and hosted communal meals in the attached dining halls (1 Cor 8:10). Temple facilities would also have been used for family get-togethers such as parties and funerals and inevitably an animal that had been sacrificed for the event would feature on the menu. In chapter 8 Paul opposes the idea of a Christian attending celebrations in a temple precinct and knowingly eating idol food. In 10:20 he again opposes eating such food, maintaining that in sacrificing to idols the Gentiles worship demonic spirits. However, in the short section 10:25-29, Paul takes a more pragmatic and open-minded approach.


Our interest lies in 10:25-26 in which he addresses the problem of goods sold in the food market (shambles). This reference is probably to meat rather than other types of food and relevant to the less well-off members of the assembly whose daily diet, on account of poverty, would have been pescatarian. Meat was expensive at that time, but they may occasionally have been able to afford small portions of salted hams, donkey meat, sausages, blood puddings or tripe. An opportunity to purchase quality cuts (at bargain prices) from animals approved for sacrifice would have been attractive.

The believers would not have known the source of the food; as not everything that was for sale in the macellum would have been offered to idols. In light of that, Paul told the Corinthian believers not to question the food’s provenance for the sake of conscience but to go ahead and eat it: ‘Whatsoever is sold in the shambles (mákellon), that eat, asking no question for conscience sake.’ What was a mákellon?


From earliest times, along with other types of goods, foodstuffs were bought and sold in wooden huts in open spaces or along busy streets near the centre of Mediterranean towns. This was haphazard, unhygienic and difficult to control. During the Late Classical (400-300 BCE) and Hellenistic (323-30 BCE) periods commercial activity moved to large indoor markets situated near the public square (Greek agora or Roman forum), which was the centre of civic life. During the second century BCE (200-101), however, references to a structure called a ‘macellum’ occur in Latin literature. The Romans began to build one in new towns, and the trend caught on in Greece also, where it was called a ‘mákellon.’ This was a building designed specifically for the sale of food. All of them had a similar basic layout consisting of a large open courtyard (usually rectangular or circular) surrounded by columns (peristyle) and having two entrances. Each macellum housed a series of shops and sometimes had a second floor. As a specialized food market, hygiene was paramount, so it had a water supply and paved floors for ease of cleaning. There were grooves or pipes for drainage. The macellum also housed the offices of magistrates (aediles) who enforced trading standards such as weights and measures.


Some of the macellae, including the one excavated at the site of ancient Corinth, have foundations for a circular room. Some think that this was a facility for cleaning and selling fish, others that it was a small temple. No-one knows if the macellum at Corinth served any religious function; it is only from Paul’s instruction to Christians in 1 Corinthians 10:25 that we are even aware that sacrificial meat was sold in the food market.


In verse 26 Paul backed up his advice to the believers by directing them to the Old Testament scriptures (Psa 24:1; 50:12; 89:11). He reminded them that everything on earth belongs to the Lord; therefore, it was permissible to eat the meat sold in the macellum, even if previously offered to an idol.

Posted in Latin loanwords

LINTEUM

Posted on by writtenexposition

‘He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.’ John 13:4-5


Greek – λέντιον (lention)

Latin – linteum

English – towel


Although the writer’s name is not given, authorship of the Fourth Gospel is usually attributed to the Apostle John. We learn from the book itself that the writer was a disciple (21:24) and that he had seen the glory of the Lord (1:14). This gospel records details of the life, teachings and miracles of Jesus Christ with the stated purpose of convincing its readers of the deity of Christ; so that by believing in him they can have eternal life (20:31). John’s Gospel falls into two main parts, conveniently labelled by scholars the Book of Signs (chapters 1-12) and the Book of Glory (chapters 13 -21). The first twelve chapters include a Prologue/introduction (1:1-18) and seven main miracle stories (2:1-11, 4:43-54; 5:1-18; 6:1-14; 6:15-21; 9:1-41; 11:1-45). The word for miracle (sémeion) means ‘sign’.


The final nine chapters contain a long farewell discourse by Jesus to his disciples (chps. 13-16), his ‘high-priestly’ prayer to the Father in chapter 17, followed by an account of his arrest, trials, crucifixion and resurrection. The book ends with an Epilogue/conclusion (21:1-25). Thus chapters 1-12 concentrate on the Lord’s ministry and chapters 13-21 on his departure. Chapters 1-12 focus on some three years of Christ’s ministry, chapters 13-17 concentrate on about three hours at a meal.


The first division of the gospel ends with Jesus bringing his public ministry to a close (12:36) and the second commences with him spending private time with ‘his own’ (13:1). Towards the end of the first division Mary anoints the Lord’s feet with ointment and wipes them with her hair (12:3), at the start of the second division the Lord washes his disciples’ feet and wipes them with a towel (13:1-17). In this passage the word ‘lention’ for towel occurs twice (13:4-5).


This account of Jesus washing his disciples’ feet is recorded only in the gospel of John and falls naturally into two parts. In 13:1-4 the author gives the time-frame, says that what takes place occurs after the supper (modern versions say ‘during’) and informs us that Jesus knew that his mission had reached its climax. In 13:5-17 Jesus washes their feet and tells his disciples how they are to behave once he has gone.


THE SETTING

The opening verses of chapter 13 set the scene for the entire farewell discourse (chapters 13-17) as well as the foot-washing demonstration. John says nothing about the location but tells us that there was a supper (13:2) which was held before the Passover (13:1). This information, it must be acknowledged, throws up a problem that has been debated for centuries but has never been satisfactorily resolved. It relates to the nature and timing of the Last Supper.


Was the Last Supper a Passover meal? Mark 14:12 places the Last Supper and the Passover meal on the same day. Luke, in 22:15, 54, clearly states that it was a Passover meal and that Jesus had already eaten it with his disciples before his arrest and trials. John, on the other hand, informs us that the meal was eaten ‘before the feast of the Passover’ (13:1) and that after Jesus’ arrest and trials the Jews were still waiting to eat the Passover (18:28).


Over the centuries several solutions have been proposed in an attempt to reconcile the conflicting statements. The most plausible, but not entirely satisfactory, is that John was using a different method of reckoning time to that used by Matthew, Mark and Luke. It has been suggested that John used the official Jewish lunar calendar and that possibly the other evangelists went by a solar calendar; such as that used by the Qumran community and described in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The timing of the Last Supper is an ongoing matter of debate so perhaps we should concentrate instead on the Lord’s act of service and his advice to his disciples.


Jesus had gathered in a borrowed room (Mt 26:17-19; Mk 14:12-16; Lk 22:7-13) with his disciples; a band of men who had been with him since the wedding at Cana in Galilee (2:2). They had listened to his teaching and had seen his miracles during his public ministry but still had a limited grasp of who he was and what he was about. It was therefore necessary for him to spend time (chapters 13-17) preparing ‘his own’ for the shock and grief they would experience as a result of his violent death and subsequent absence.


THE SAVIOUR

‘His own’


The disciples referred to here are not the ‘his own’ of chapter 1. That reference is to the Jewish people, emphasizing their rejection of Jesus Christ. In chapter one we learn that the world in general was indifferent to him (1:10) but ‘his own received him not’ (1:11). That is: Jesus was brought up in a Jewish home but his own people wanted nothing to do with him. From then on John’s gospel uses the expression ‘The Jews’ (e.g. 1:19; 5:16; 19:7) as a representative term for Israel.


‘His own’ here in 13:1 describes a new category made up of those who accept him and receive his teaching (see also 10:3). In the last half of the gospel several expressions are used to refer to this group of believers:


‘his own’ (13:1)

‘children’ (13:33)

‘friends’ (15:15)

‘those whom you gave me’ (17:6)

‘my brethren’ (20:17)

‘little children’ (21:5)


Jesus knew that in a few hours and days many of the disciples would forsake him. He knew that Thomas would doubt him, Peter deny him and Judas Iscariot betray him. In spite of their failings, Jesus, aware that he would soon be leaving, had a special love for them. Chapter 13:1 says that ‘having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end’. This expression ‘unto the end’ could mean either ‘to the end’ or ‘to the utmost’; either ‘love up to the end of his life’ or ‘love to the uttermost’. The reference is either to time or intensity.


‘His hour’


According to 13:1 ‘Jesus knew that his hour was come.’ The ‘hour’ is a motif in John’s gospel (2:4; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 16:32; 17:1). This verse confirms that the Lord Jesus was working to a specific divine timetable. ‘He knew’ that ‘his hour’, of suffering and humiliation, had come.


Here (13:2) the previously predicted (6:70-71) betrayal is mentioned; bringing out the contrast in vv. 1-2 between love and hate, between the Saviour and Satan, between ‘his own’ and Judas. There is a further contrast in vv. 3-4 between the evil of Judas and the nobility of the Son of God. Even though Jesus was fully aware of his divinity (13:3) he behaved with humility and love in the foot-washing that followed, and it would seem that he even washed the traitor’s feet (v.12).


THE SERVANT

Given the unpaved and dusty condition of most roads, washing one’s feet was a significant aspect of daily hygiene in that part of the world (2 Sam 11:8). For centuries foot-washing had also been a feature of hospitality (Gen 18:4; 19:2; 24:32; 43:24; Judg 19:21; 1 Sam 25:41;1 Tim 5:10) and failure to offer this courtesy to guests was regarded as bad manners (Lk 7:44). A good host would have extended this courtesy to a welcome guest, but he would not have washed the visitor’s feet himself. Such a menial job belonged to the lowest ranking person in the home; often a woman (1 Tim 5:10). In a wealthier household it would have been performed by a slave. None of the disciples present volunteered to wash the feet of their colleagues and thus have the lowest status. In fact, according to Luke 22:24, that same evening they argued about ‘which of them was considered to be greatest.’ Feet were normally washed before a meal began but that evening the disciples reclined to eat with their feet still unwashed. Either during (‘ended’ can have the sense of prepared and set out) or after the meal Jesus himself undertook the task of washing their feet.


Verses 4-5 give a vivid description of the event. John builds the drama by use of the historical present tense i.e. he uses verbs in the present tense to highlight actions that happened in the past. In everyday English:


‘He is going back to God’ (v.3)

‘He gets up from supper’ (v.4)

‘He lays aside (takes off) his garments’ (v.4)

‘Taking a towel he wrapped himself’ (v.4)

‘He pours water into a basin’ (v.5)

‘He began to wash his disciples’ feet…’ (v.5)

‘And Peter says to him’ (v. 6)


Note the exceptions, which I have aligned to the right of the page! Here the aorist tense (which is used to denote an action in the past) is employed at the two points in the description where Jesus’ actions are characteristic of a slave. That, it would seem, is the point that John seeks to emphasize.


There must have been a stunned silence and great embarrassment when Jesus rose from the table and stripped down to his inner tunic. A rabbi undressing in the presence of his disciples would have been unheard of and this action would have seemed very strange. Several garments were worn by males of the time. A ‘chiton’ (Mk 6:9) was an undergarment or inner tunic worn next to the skin. It was usually knee-length and gathered in by a girdle (belt) around the waist. Over that a rich man might wear a long ‘stola’ (Mk 12:38) or robe. The outer garment was a ‘himation’ (12:38; Mk 6:56); a poncho-like mantle that could also be used as a blanket. According to v. 12 this was the garment that Jesus removed and later put on again: ‘…and had taken his garments (himation).’ Wearing only his inner tunic (chiton) and having a towel wrapped around his waist like an apron, Jesus would have looked exactly like a slave.


This was a deliberate act; undertaken only by himself without the involvement or help of others. It brings to mind the famous passage in Philippians 2:5-8 which contains the words: ‘But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant.’ In this connection some commentators, seeing an allusion to Jesus’ death and resurrection, point out that the verbs ‘lay aside’ (v.4) and ‘take’ (v.12) only occur together elsewhere in John’s Gospel in chapter 10:17-18:

‘Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again…’


Having undressed to his basic garment Jesus wrapped a towel around his waist. John calls it a ‘lention’, which is from the Latin ‘linteum’. This was the word for an awning, a sail or a towel. The large linen cloth may have been there so that they could all wipe their hands after eating but, by tying it around his waist like a belt, Jesus left his hands free and the long ends of the towel at either side available for drying the disciples’ feet.


Commenting on the passage the medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274 CE) observed the following things about a slave/servant:


– he must notice if anything is lacking in the service so he needs to be standing. Therefore, Christ rose from supper.


– he must be unencumbered and ready to serve. So Christ laid aside his garments.


– he should have everything he needs at hand. So, Christ wrapped a towel around himself and, having poured water into a basin, began not only to wash but also to dry the feet of his disciples.


As in the other gospels Peter is prominent in John (e.g.1:42; 6:68; 13:6; 18:10, 16; 20:2, 6; 21:3, 7, 11, 15), and often acts as spokesperson. Here John refers to him by the double name ‘Simon Peter’ (see also 6:68; 13:6, 9, 24, 36; 18:10, 15, 25; 20:2,6; 21:3). The wording of v.6 would suggest that Jesus had already washed the feet of a few disciples who had not protested but when Jesus reached Peter, he refused to have his feet washed. ‘Lord, are you washing my feet?’ There is a strong contrast between ‘you’ and ‘my’ and between ‘Lord’ and ‘feet’. Peter had a very high opinion of the Lord Jesus and did not wish to see him acting as a slave. Since it was the role of a less important person to wash the feet of someone greater, and not vice versa, Peter deemed it inappropriate for his Lord to wash his feet.


Without explaining his behaviour, Jesus matched Peter’s ‘you’ and ‘my’ in verse 6 with the words ‘I’ and ‘you’ in verse 7: ‘What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter’. ‘Hereafter’ is a translation of two Greek words meaning ‘after these things’. The word for ‘these things’ (tauta) occurs again in 13:17 which would suggest that the specific reference is to the foot-washing. Some, however, relate ‘hereafter’ (i.e. ‘later’) to the period after Jesus’ death, resurrection, ascension and the advent of the Holy Spirit (2:22; 12:16; 20:9) rather than to the time of explanation just after the foot-washing.


Although Jesus had told him that his understanding was incomplete Peter still strongly resisted, saying: ‘thou shalt never wash my feet.’ ‘Never’ is literally ‘not in/until all eternity.’ Once more Jesus picked up on the ‘you’ and ‘my’ (v.6) and ‘I’ and ‘you’ (v.7) and talked to Peter about ‘you’ and ‘me’ (v.8): ‘If I do not wash you, you have no part with me.’ i.e. no share in fellowship with me. Note that there is an interesting use of this expression in 2 Samuel 20:1 that helps clarify the meaning: ‘…Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjamite: … blew a trumpet, and said, We have no part in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse…’


It seems that here Jesus spoke of washing in symbolic rather than literal terms (see also 15:3) and was saying that in order to have a portion or part with him in eternal life one must be clean. He thus meant that it is necessary to accept, not the literal washing, but what it signified. If, however, Jesus was referring to the literal action of washing his disciples’ feet the lesson for us today is that we ought to obey him without question and not have an à la carte approach to his lordship. We cannot just pick and choose those areas of our lives over which we are willing to allow him control.


As a loyal follower of Christ, Peter wanted a share with him in the future and, willing to do whatever was necessary to secure this, he immediately moved from one extreme to the other, saying: ‘Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head’ (v.9). Displaying a continued lack of understanding Peter changed the symbol from foot-washing to a full wash, shifting the focus from daily cleansing for service to salvation/regeneration/justification. Peter asked for a fuller cleansing than that which he had already received. That, of course, was impossible as he had already been cleansed, and it is a once for all act.


In v. 10 Jesus responded to the idea of an all-over wash that Peter had raised and contrasted a complete bath with daily foot-washing: ‘he that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit.’ This conversation was taking place at Passover season when Jews were scrupulous about personal hygiene and ritual cleanliness. Those invited to a Passover meal would bathe before leaving home, on arrival at the venue they did not need to do that again but just had to have their feet washed. ‘Washing’ is often used in the New Testament (Acts 22:16; 1 Cor 6:11; Eph 5:26; Titus 3:5; Heb 10:22) as a metaphor for salvation. The point for Peter and the other disciples to grasp was that they had been washed all over. That did not have to be repeated; they needed just their feet cleaned. Judas was the exception; he had not been washed. He was the only one there who lacked the spiritual equivalent of a complete bath. As believers we have experienced the once for all act of salvation (forgiveness of sin) but must now allow Jesus to serve us by cleansing us from daily sins: ‘If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness’ (1 Jn 1:9).


Having carried out the foot-washing (dramatizing what Luke 22:25-30 tells us he taught that same evening), Jesus put on his outer garment (himation) again and returned to his seat at the table. Once more assuming the posture of a rabbi (they sat to teach) he began to explain the significance of what he had just done. He opened the follow-up session with a question (‘know ye what I have done to you?’), and gave the answer in verse 15.


THE SOVEREIGN

Jesus declared that he ranked superior to the disciples: ‘Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am’ (see 4:31; 6:68). The contrast this time is between ‘you’ and ‘me’ (‘you call me…so I am’). He reminded them that as their Lord and Teacher his status was greater than theirs. The reason he washed their feet was not because he was of lower status, and he did not lose status as a result of washing their feet. He was stressing that even while he washed their feet he remained the pre-eminent person. By doing for them what was not normally expected of someone more important he was demonstrating the extent of his love and giving them an example of humble service. As their Lord and master, he ought to have been receiving service from them but instead he served them.


THE STANDARD

‘If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.’


As those who were less important the disciples ought to have been prepared to wash feet. He therefore instructed them to wash one another’s feet. There was to be no inequality, it was a reciprocal action; every one of them was to wash everyone else’s feet.


There has always been some debate as to whether the command to practise foot-washing is to be taken literally or symbolically. Did the Lord introduce an ordinance of foot-washing? The prevailing view has been that foot-washing is symbolic of an attitude that Christians ought to display towards one another (Gal 5:13; 6:2; Phil 2:3-4; 1 Tim 5:10), rather than a literal physical ceremony to be enacted. The command is to do ‘as’ Christ did, not ‘what’ he did. The word ‘example’ or ‘pattern’ (hupodeigma), occurs also in Heb 4:11; 8:5; 9:23; Jas 5:10 and 2 Pet 2:6. The command to model Christ’s attitude in dealings with others was taken up and encouraged by the apostles in their writings:


Paul: ‘Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.’ 1 Cor 11:1


Peter: ‘For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:’ 1 Pet 2:21


John: ‘He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.’ 1 Jn 2:6


The section ends at v. 17 with the first of two beatitudes in John’s Gospel (see also 20:29): ‘If ye know (understand) these things, happy (blessed) are ye if ye do them.’


SUMMATION

This passage emphasizes that the One who knew who he was, who knew what would happen, who knew where he was going and had all things under his feet, was willing to strip down to his inner tunic and wrap a towel around his waist. Taking the humble position of a slave he washed and dried the feet of his disciples as an expression of his love for them. This foreshadowed a greater demonstration of his love at the cross for later, in the same discourse, he reminded these disciples that ‘greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends’ (15:13). As his friends (15:14-15) let us also love him, keep his commands, and serve one another (13:34; 14:15, 21; 15:10, 12)!


‘And whosoever of you will be the chiefest shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.’ Mk 10: 44-45



Posted in General, Latin loanwords, Roman names

INTRODUCING ROMAN NAMES AND LATIN LOANWORDS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Posted on by writtenexposition

Palestine during the lifetime of Jesus Christ was controlled by the Romans. They were the latest in a series of world powers (Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome) to invade and conquer that area over many centuries. Each occupation of the land had a major impact on the spoken language of the people and this was especially true of the rule of the First Persian or Achaemenid Empire (c. 559 -330 BCE). The language of international trade and diplomacy during this period was Aramaic and as the dominant language it, rather than Hebrew, became widely spoken by the Jews throughout this empire. In the Province of Yehud (formerly Judah) Hebrew continued as the language of the Jewish religion.In 333 Alexander the Great (356-323) of Macedon conquered the Achaemenid Empire under Darius III at the Battle of Issus and ushered in the Hellenistic Age during which Greek culture and language were promoted throughout the empire for about three hundred years. His Argead dynasty was succeeded by others such as the Ptolemies and Seleucids and under them a common language, Koine Greek, developed and became the trade language of the empire.

In 63 BCE the Romans took over the East, later appointing Herod the Great as a client king (37-4 BCE). In 6 CE the Romans annexed Palestine; creating the Roman province of Iudaea with Caesarea as its capital. The new rulers brought with them their Latin language.As a result of Persian, Greek and more recent Roman influence the Province of Iudaea was multi-lingual at the time of Christ, with the majority of its population able to speak at least two of four languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin. The native language was Aramaic, with the more conservative Jews also speaking Hebrew. The official language of the ruling power was Latin but Koine Greek remained the trade language. Latin was mainly spoken only by the Romans to one another; they communicated with subject peoples in Koine Greek.

As the language of the Roman administration, Latin did inevitably impact Greek literature of that time, and its influence on the Koine Greek of the New Testament took several forms; which we call ‘Latinisms’. These include:

1) Translations of Latin phrases or grammatical constructions into Greek. They occur mainly in the Gospel of Mark and Luke-Acts. We shall not be considering them.

2) Adjectives that have been formed by adding a Latin-style ending (suffix) to the Greek word e.g. Herodians (Mt 22:16; Mk 3:6,12:13 Herodianoi). We shall not be considering these.

3) Latin words that have been transcribed into Greek, i.e. Latin words in Greek characters. These nouns mostly relate to government, the military, the judiciary, trade, or to everyday items in the home. There are about thirty of these loanwords in the New Testament and most of my studies will centre on passages in which one of these words occurs.

4) Roman names. There are approximately forty Roman names in the New Testament; some place names but most are the names of people. I hope to include a short character study featuring one of the New Testament Christians, or non-Christians, who bore a Latin/Roman name.