Category: Roman names

Posted in Roman names

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (BIBLIOGRAPHY)

Posted on by writtenexposition

BOOKS

Aymer, M., Kittredge, C. and Sánchez, D., 2016. The Gospels and Acts, Minneapolis: Fortress Press

Barrett, C.K., 2002, Acts of the Apostles: A Shorter Commentary. Bloomsbury Publishing.

‌Baur, F. C., 1876. Paul The Apostle Of Jesus Christ, His Life and Work, His Epistles and His Doctrine: A Contribution to A Critical History Of Primitive Christianity, Vol. 1., London: Williams and Norgate

Balch, D. and Osiek, C., 2003. Early Christian Families in Context: an Interdisciplinary Dialogue. Cambridge: UK: Eerdmans.

Bruce, F. F., 1990. The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text With Introduction and Commentary, Grand Rapids, Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Conzelmann, H. and Epp, E. J., 1987,  Acts of the Apostles. Hermeneia: A Critical & Histor.

‌Dunn, J. D. G., 1992. The Acts of the Apostles, Grand Rapids, Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Earle, R, 1988, The Acts of the Apostles, Nicholasville, KY: Schmul Publishing Company

Gooding, D. W. 1990, True to the Faith: The Acts of the Apostles – Defining and Defending the Gospel, Belfast: Myrtlefield House

Green, M., 2004, Thirty Years That Changed the World: The Book of Acts for Today, Grand Rapids, Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Haenchen, E., 1971, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press

Horton, S. M, 1981, Acts, Springfield, Mo: Logion Press.

Jacobson, D. M., 2019, Agrippa II: The Last of the Herods, London: Routledge

Jennings, W. J., 2017, Acts: A Theological Commentary on the Bible, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press

Johnston, L. T., 1992, The Acts of the Apostles, Collegeville, Minn: The Liturgical Press

Jones, A. H. M., 1967, The Herods of Judaea, London, Clarendon Press

Keener, C.S., 2015,  Acts, Vol. 4, 24 :1-28 : 31 : An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.

Lightfoot, J. B. and Witherington, B., 2014,  The Acts of the Apostles : a New Commentary. Downers Grove, Illinois: Ivp Academic/Intervarsity Press.

Lyttelton, G, 1747, Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul. In a Letter tο Gilbert West, Esq., London : Printed for R. Dodsley, and sold by M. Cooper

‌MacArthur, J., 1986, Paul on Trial, Chicago: Moody Press

Marshall, I. H., 2008, Acts : an Introduction and Commentary. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press / Ivp Academic.

‌Montgomery, R. M, 2002, Great Events in Early Church History: Development and Spread of the Christian Faith as Recorded in the Book of Acts, Fort Worth, TX: Star Bible Publications

Neagoe, A., 2002, The Trial of the Gospel. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press

Pervo, R. I., 2009, Acts: A Commentary, Minneapolis, Minn: Fortress Press.

Sanford, W., 1972, Church Alive. Regal Books.

Seesengood, R. P., 2010, Paul: A Brief History, Chicester: Wiley-Blackwell

Schürer, E., Millar, F., Vermès, G., Black, M., Goodman, M. and Vermes, P., 2014, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. – A.D. 135). 1st ed. New York: Bloomsbury T & T Clark

Sherwin-White, A. N., 2004, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament:The Sarum Lectures 1960-1961, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers

Stendahl, K., 1976, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles & Other Essays, Philadelphia, Fortress Press

Talbert, C. H., 2005. Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Macon, GA: Smith & Helwys Publishing, Inc.

Tannehill, R., 1986, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation – Vol. 2 The Acts of the Apostles, Minneapolis, Minn: Fortress Press

Taushev, A., 2017. The Acts of the Apostles, New York: Holy Trinity Seminary Press

Udoh, E. F., 2020. To Caesar What Is Caesar’s: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine, Providence, Rhode Island: Brown Judaic Studies

Wilkins, M., Evans, C., Bock, D., Köstenberger, A. and Howard, J., 2013, The Holman Apologetics Commentary on the Bible: The Gospels and Acts, Nashville: B & H Publishing Group

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Allison Jr., D. C., 2016, ‘Acts 9:1–9, 22:6–11, 26:12–18: Paul and Ezekiel’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 135, No. 4, pp. 807-826

Bunine, A., 2004, Paul, Jacques, Félix, Festus et Les Autres: Pour Une Révision de la Chronologie des Derniers Procurateurs de Palestine, Revue Biblique, Vol. 111, No.3, pp. 387-408

Bunine, A., 2004, Paul, Jacques, Félix, Festus et Les Autres: Pour Une Révision de la Chronologie des Derniers Procurateurs de Palestine (suite et fin), Revue Biblique, Vol. 111, No.4, pp. 531-562

Dupont, J., 1961, Aequitas Romana: Notes sur Actes, 25,16, Recherches de Science Religieuse, Vol 49, No.3, pp. 354-385 available: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9816413w/f36.item.r=aequitas%20romana

Faunce, W. H. P., 1896, ‘Paul before Agrippa’. The Biblical World, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 6-93

Foerster, G., 1975, The Early History of Caesarea, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Supplementary Studies, (19), pp. 9-22

Fredriksen, P, 1986, ‘Paul and Augustine: Conversion Narratives, Orthodox Traditions, and the Retrospective Self’, Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 2-34

Harry, J. E., 1908, Agrippa’s Response to Paul (Acts 26. 28), The Classical Review, Vol. 22, No. 8, pp. 238-241

Hedrick, C. W., 1981, ‘Paul’s Conversion/Call: A Comparative Analysis of the Three Reports in Acts’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol.100, No.3, pp. 415-432

Hurtado, L. W, 1993. ‘Convert, Apostate or Apostle to the Nations: the “Conversion” of Paul in Recent Scholarship’, Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 273-284

Jacobson, D. M., 2017, ‘On the Chalkous of the Later Seleucids and of Agrippa II’, Israel Numismatic Research, Vol. 12, pp. 65-70

Jacobson, D. M., 2019, ‘The End of Agrippa II’s Rule, as Revealed by Coins’, Israel Numismatic Research, Vol. 14, pp. 131-139

Kilgallen, J. J., 1988, Paul before Agrippa (Acts 26, 2-23): Some Considerations. Biblica, Vol. 69, No. 2, pp. 170-195

Kokkinos, N., 2003, ‘Justus, Josephus, Agrippa II and his Coins’, Scripta Classica Israelica, Vol. XXII, pp. 163-180.

Kushnir-Stein, A., 2002, ‘The Coinage of Agrippa II’, Scripta Classica Israelica, Vol. XXI, pp. 123-131

Lewis, W. M., 1899, ‘St. Paul’s Defense before King Agrippa, in Relation to the Epistle to the Hebrews,’ The Biblical World, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 244-248

Prokulski, W., 1957, ‘The Conversion of St. Paul’, CBQ, Vol. 19, No 4, pp. 453-473

Speidel, M., 1982, ‘The Roman Army in Judaea under The Procurators: The Italian and The Augustan Cohort in The Acts of The Apostles,’ Ancient Society, 13/14, pp. 233-240

Spencer, A. B, 2016, ‘A style study of the Apostle Paul’s communication with Festus and Agrippa: The use of literary Koine Greek in Acts 25:14–22; 26:1–29,’ In die Skriflig/In Luce Verbi. Vol. 50, No. 4

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Part 1)

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Part 2)

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Part 3)

Posted in Roman names

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Part 3)

Posted on by writtenexposition

Reading: Acts 26:1-32

PAUL’S DEFENCE BEFORE KING HEROD AGRIPPA II

Luke’s account of Paul’s ‘apologia’ (defence) in Acts 26 consists of a speech by Paul and an interruption by Festus, followed by a closing dialogue between Paul and Agrippa.

26:1-23 Paul’s defence speech.

26:24-26 Festus’ interruption.

26:27-29 Closing dialogue.

26:1-12 Paul addresses the first charge.

After Agrippa invited him to speak Paul stretched out his hand in ancient oratorical style and ‘answered for himself’ (26:1). The same verb – ‘I shall answer for myself’ – occurs in verse 2. This verb is apologéomai, meaning: to defend or plead for oneself. Although the noun is not used in Acts chapter 26 the usual description of this speech as a ‘defence’ before Agrippa is justified because of Paul’s use of the verb ‘to defend’.

Paul began by courteously addressing Agrippa and saying that he considered himself blessed to be making his defence before him because the king was a recognized expert on Jewish affairs. Paul refers to ‘all the things’ of which he ‘is being accused’ by the Jews. These accusations are the two sets of charges that have been previously identified:

A) That he was anti-Jewish, teaching against the law and the people and profaning the Temple (21:28-29; 25:8).

B) Political agitation and disturbance of the Roman peace (24:5; 25:8).

Paul maintained, and continued to maintain before Agrippa (26:8), that in reality the first set of charges boiled down to the question of belief in resurrection. He explained that he was well-known in Jerusalem where he had lived from his youth. He was famous as a Pharisee, following the rules of the strictest sect in Judaism. The Jews who had been accusing him knew very well that there was no chance of him desecrating the temple or preaching against Judaism. That, according to Paul, was not the real issue. He was being judged for ‘the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers.’

Agrippa would have been aware that ‘the promise’ was the Messianic hope. Paul later clarified (26:8) that this hope included the resurrection of Jesus as proof that he really was the promised Messiah (26:23). It had been promised to the patriarchs (26:6) and been predicted by the prophets and in the torah (26:23). The strange thing was that the Jews, who had this ‘hope’, did not accept Paul’s message that ‘the hope’ had been fulfilled.

Although Jews, of all people, ought to have recognized this fulfilment Paul himself had made the same mistake. He was a Pharisee, and therefore theoretically a believer in resurrection, but had not accepted the fact that Jesus had risen from the dead. Paul had been so strongly opposed to the idea that he actively undertook an obsessive personal campaign of persecution against Christian believers. Chapter 26:9-11 details his involvement.

Thus, in this first part of his speech (26:4-12), Paul addressed the charge that he was anti-Jewish by outlining his past life as a strict Jew and by asserting that the resurrection (of Jesus) is compatible with Jewish messianic teaching. By using such expressions as ‘mine own nation’ (v. 4), ‘our religion’ (v. 5), ‘our fathers’ (v.6), and ‘our twelve tribes’ Paul emphasized that he still considered himself to be a Jew.

26:13-23 Paul addresses the second charge.

Paul’s response to the second charge (that he was a political revolutionary) was to ‘tell the story of his conversion’, explain his mission and give a potted history of his evangelistic activity up to that point in time (‘unto this day’ v. 22). Verses 13-23 may be divided into three sections:

A Christophany (13-15)

A Commission (15-18)

A Change (19-23)

A CHRISTOPHANY – OUTSIDE DAMASCUS (vv. 13-15)

Just as Luke records three accounts of the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10:1-44; 11:5-17; 15:7-11) in the Acts of the Apostles so he also includes three accounts (9: 9-19; 22: 4-16; 26:12-18) of what we commonly refer to as ‘Paul’s ‘conversion’. This is the third of the three. Paul himself did not use the term ‘conversion.’ What Paul relates was by no means a typical experience and strictly speaking not even a conversion (since he did not begin to worship a different God or leave his ancestral faith). Strangely, however, Paul later wrote that it was a ‘pattern’ (1 Tim 1:16) for ensuing conversions. He referred to the Damascus Road experience five times in his epistles (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8; 2 Cor 4:6; Gal 1:11-17; Phil 3:6-8).

Here Paul relates a vivid story which includes exciting details of:

  • The Journey: Paul travelling to Damascus with authority from the Jewish religious leaders to persecute Christians (26:12).
  • The Light: A light at noon that was brighter than the sun (26:13).
  • The Voice: A voice asking why he kept persecuting him (Jesus). The voice addressed him by name in Aramaic: ‘Saoúl, Saoúl’. This is the third of three names for the apostle in the Greek text of the book of Acts. The other names are Saúlos (which is a transliteration of his Hebrew name Sha’ūl) and the Hellenistic name Paúlos. (N.B. Contrary to what one might think the name change from Saul to Paul was not due to his conversion but occurs at Acts 13:9 when Paul was in Cyprus before the Roman proconsul Sergius Paulus. The name change signified the change in priority from Jews to Gentiles.)

A COMMISSION – TO EVANGELIZE JEWS AND GENTILES (vv. 15-18)

Addressing the issue of stirring up political unrest, Paul told Agrippa that Jesus had confronted him in a vision outside Damascus in order to appoint (procheirízomai) him ‘a minister’ (hupērétēs) and a witness (márturos).’

These terms would have been familiar to Festus and Agrippa as there would have been several of each in any courtroom. Note that an ‘assistant’ (minister) worked with documents (i.e. handling and delivering them e.g. Luke 4:20). John Mark is called this in Acts 13:5.

Paul claimed that since the Christophany his sole motivation in life had been obedience to Christ’s instructions which had been accompanied by a promise of deliverance from hostile Jews and Gentiles. Paul had been given a special commission to go to the Gentiles in order:

  • to open their eyes
  • to turn them from darkness to light
  • to turn them from the power of Satan to God
  • that they might receive forgiveness of sins
  • that they might obtain a place among them who are made holy (set apart to do God’s will) through faith in Jesus.

A CHANGE – IN PAUL’S LIFE (vv. 19-23)

Paul’s told Agrippa that his life had dramatically changed as a result of the vision of a heavenly being and gave a short account of his activities as a preacher and of the message he preached. That he was preoccupied with preaching the gospel across a wide geographical area answered the second charge levied against him; that he was a political agitator and disturber of the peace (25:8). He was motivated by the heavenly vision, not by political fervour.

Just like that of the earlier Christians in 1:8 there are four geographic divisions in Paul’s programme of outreach. His differs slightly in that his ministry began in Damascus where he was just after his conversion. He preached there (9:19-20) and in Jerusalem (9:28-29) but Acts does not record a preaching tour of Judaea, although such could possibly fit into 15:3-4. The summary of Paul’s missionary career in Galatians 1 gives no details of a period of ministry in Judaea but rather states (Gal 1:22) that Paul was personally unknown to the churches in Judaea. In an interesting article Lewis (1899, pp. 244-248) suggests that Paul’s ministry was not in person but through writing the Letter to the Hebrews during his time of imprisonment in Caesarea and arranging for it to be circulated throughout Judaea. Lewis identifies similarities in the thought and language of Acts 26 and the Letter to the Hebrews. Paul’s missionary activity began with Jews and then extended to the Gentile pagans.

Paul’s message was that his hearers were to repent, turn to God and do works ‘meet for repentance’. The idea is that their repentance could be viewed as sincere if it resulted in changed lives.

26:21 It was ‘for these causes’ that Jews sought to kill Paul. This might be a reference to what Paul had outlined in vv.16-20 but is more likely a reference to the charges that had been brought against him. In any case, with help from God, he had continued with his mission right up to that present time and was convinced that what he preached to everyone (both small and great) was nothing less, or more, than the message of the Old Testament (the prophets and Moses). He then summarizes this message in v. 23:

  • That the Messiah was to suffer
  • That the Messiah would be the first to rise from the dead
  • That the Messiah would show light to Israel and the Gentiles

Note that the unusual order ‘the prophets and Moses’ is the order of the Letter to the Hebrews (Heb 1:1; 3:2), as is ‘small and great’ (Heb 8:11).

FESTUS’ INTERRUPTION (vv. 24-26)

Although Paul’s speech had come to a close the outburst by Festus is usually treated as an interruption. This is because Paul had addressed his remarks to King Agrippa (26:4-23) but it was the Roman procurator Festus who spoke up loudly, telling Paul that great learning had driven him mad. Obviously Festus had been listening carefully but did not understand about resurrection. There had already been a hint of this in Acts 25:19. Festus reckoned that lit ‘many writings’ (possibly a reference to the Old Testament) had driven Paul insane.

Paul courteously addressed Festus as ‘most noble’ and assured him of his sanity and that the words he spoke were truthful and sound. Referring to Agrippa who had a good understanding of the Jewish religion (26:3) Paul said that the King knew that the death and resurrection of Jesus and associated events were public knowledge (‘not done in a corner’) and thus true and verifiable.

CLOSING DIALOGUE (vv. 27-29)

Turning from indirect to direct speech Paul called upon Agrippa as an expert witness and as one who knew that the prophets had prophesied the death and resurrection of the Messiah to confirm his belief in those prophecies.

‘King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.’

Unfortunately Agrippa sidestepped the question with a frivolous and humorous comment: ‘Soon you will convince me to play (theatrical term) the Christian’. Since it was clear that Agrippa had not come to faith in Christ Paul had the last word and said that he wished that all those present were like himself, apart from the chains. Barrett (2002, p. 393) comments: ‘Paul’s desire to make Christians applies to the least and to the greatest, to the king himself. Paul wishes for all his hearers the election, the call and the commission he himself has.’

At that point King Agrippa, Festus, Bernice and their legal advisers rose and left. Luke reports that as they talked together about the day’s proceedings Agrippa spoke positively of Paul and explained to Festus that had Paul not already appealed to Caesar he could have been released. The New Testament has nothing further to say about Festus or Agrippa.

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Part 1)

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Part 2)

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Bibliography)

Posted in Roman names

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Part 2)

Posted on by writtenexposition

READING: ACTS chapters 21-25

THE PREQUEL TO PAUL’S DEFENCE BEFORE KING AGRIPPA

THE ( LEGAL) BACKGROUND

After completing his third missionary journey Paul made his way to Phoenicia, landing at Tyre. He spent seven days with the Christians there before sailing down the coast to Ptolomais, a port near Caesarea Maritima. He spent a day with the Christians before travelling to Caesarea, where he stayed at Philip’s house. There a prophet, Agabus, foretold Paul’s troubles at Jerusalem. Although the Christians tried to persuade Paul not to venture to Jerusalem he would not be deterred (Acts 21:1-16). The opportunity to to preach to the large crowd of Jews from near and far who would gather there for the Festival of Pentecost was too good to be missed.

The Jerusalem Christians suggested that Paul ought to display conformity to his identity as a Jew by going through the rite of purification. This he did, probably in accordance with his principle set out in 1 Cor 9:22, paying for himself and four other men (21:18-26). While there Paul was noticed by Jews from Asia Minor (probably hardliners from Ephesus) who had earlier seen Trophimus from Ephesus in Jerusalem with him and assumed that Paul had brought him into the temple. They incited the crowd to physically attack Paul. The uproar was such that the Roman military intervened to quell the riot.

The Jews complained that Paul had taken a Greek into a section of the temple that was out of bounds to non-Jews but then stated the real problem as him teaching against the Jewish people, the torah and the temple (20: 28-29). The Roman authorities gave Paul leave to address the quietened crowd which listened attentively to his story of conversion up until he said that he had been sent to take the gospel to the Gentiles (22:21-23). Again there was another loud commotion as the Jews called for Paul’s death. The Roman commander, who may not have understood Paul’s speech to the crowd if spoken in Hebrew or Aramaic, wished to flog Paul in order to get the truth out of him but discovered that he could not do so as that would have violated Paul’s rights as a Roman citizen. He therefore commanded that Paul appear before the Sanhedrin so that the charges against him might be clarified (22:30).

Paul, knowing that the Sanhedrin was composed of Pharisees and Sadducees, shouted that he was a Pharisee and was being tried for the hope of the resurrection. He thus divided the council on this theological point (the Sadducees did not believe in resurrection) and the meeting was halted with no resolution to the problem of the charges, which Paul claimed had changed from teaching against the people, the law and the temple to the question of resurrection. The Roman commander, Claudius Lysias, therefore decided to send Paul for formal investigation by the Procurator, Antonius Felix. Details of a Jewish plot to kill Paul were revealed to the Roman authorities by Paul’s nephew with the result that Paul was quickly transferred to Caesarea, the seat of Roman government in Judaea.

Five days later the trial before Felix commenced. The High Priest Ananias and some other members of the Sanhedrin attended and were represented by a lawyer named Tertullus who claimed that Paul, as well as opposing matters associated with the Jewish religion, was a revolutionary who incited political opposition to Rome. Paul, while defending himself, stated in 24:17: ‘Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings.’ Felix, who was well-known to be a corrupt official, did not find Paul guilty of the charges but, having heard Paul mention a large sum of money, neither did he release him. Paul remained imprisoned for two years at Caesarea, during which Felix interviewed him several times, hoping to receive a bribe.

When Felix  was recalled to Rome in disgrace he left Paul still in prison for his successor to deal with. Felix’s replacement was Porcius Festus, who arrived in 58 or 59 CE. The Jewish authorities lost no time in approaching the new governor, asking that Paul be transferred to Jerusalem for trial, hoping to hijack Paul on the journey and put him to death. Festus refused their request but offered them the opportunity to resume their case against Paul at Caesarea. This hearing took place eleven days later.

Luke does not specify the charges brought against Paul but says that they were ‘many’ and ‘serious’ (25:7) and that the Jews could not prove them. Wishing to ingratiate himself with the Jews Festus asked Paul to go to Jerusalem and be tried there, with Festus himself as the judge. Realising that he would not get justice in either Caesarea or Jerusalem, and that the proposed transfer posed a threat to his personal security, Paul exercised his right as a Roman citizen to appeal to the emperor. (25:11). This last recourse ensured that he would remain under Roman protection.

Not long after Festus took up the reins of procuratorial power King Herod Agrippa II and his sister Bernice paid a state visit to welcome the new governor. This social call from local royalty, which would have involved lavish entertaining, lasted ‘many days’, according to Acts 25:14, During the course of the visit Festus told Agrippa about Saul’s case. Agrippa said that he would like to hear Paul himself so Festus arranged for this to take place on the following day.

THE SCENE

The hearing took place in an auditorium at Caesarea Maritima. Caesarea was previously a Phoenician settlement that had been rebuilt by Herod the Great between 22 and 9 BCE and named in honour of his patron, the Roman emperor Caesar Augustus (27 BCE-14 CE). The city was one of Herod’s spectacular building projects and, constructed of gleaming white limestone, must have been an impressive sight. It was also a major feat of engineering.

Using huge stones and hydraulic concrete Herod created an artificial harbour by building a large breakwater. Along with a palace, temples, theatre and amphitheatre the city featured a modern underground drainage system and an aquaduct to transport water to the city from from the springs at Mount Carmel eight miles away.

When the Romans annexed Judaea in 6 CE Herod’s palace at Caesarea became the governors’ residence and the city the administrative headquarters of the Roman regime in the province. Paul would have been well acquainted with Caesarea and would have visited it many times (e.g. Acts 9:30; 18:22; 21:7-8; 23:31-27:3).

The following day Agrippa and Bernice arrived at the auditorium ‘with great pomp’ (phantasía 25:23). As well as Festus the hearing was attended by senior military commanders (chilíarchos) and by the leading citizens of Caesarea. Most of these would have been Gentiles.

One can imagine the spectacle as Agrippa and Bernice left their chariot and, waving to the crowd, entered the auditorium. There they were respectfully greeted by the military officers in shining uniforms and by the well-dressed dignitaries and their wives. Luke draws a contrast between Agrippa and Paul.

25:23 Agrippa came, Paul was brought.

25:23; 26:29 Agrippa entered with great pomp, Paul was in chains.

25:23 Agrippa was accompanied by Bernice, Paul stood alone.

Before the hearing began Festus addressed a few introductory remarks to the assembled company. He introduced Paul and summarized the case history, as he viewed it, up to the time of Paul’s appeal. In the course of his remarks he asserted Paul’s innocence of any crime (25:25, see also 25:18; 26:31). Although mentioning the appeal to Augustus he did not emphasize Paul’s Roman citizenship but instead dwelt on Jewish hostility towards him. Before handing the proceedings over to Agrippa Festus explained that the objective of the hearing was to enable him to compile a report advising the imperial court of the charges against Paul.

What followed was, in effect, a show trial. It may partly have been to enable Festus to send a report but was mostly for the entertainment of his guests. The views of Festus and Agrippa on Paul’s guilt or innocence were irrelevant. Paul had appealed to Caesar, Nero would decide.

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Part 1)

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Part 3)

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Bibliography)

Posted in Roman names

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Part 1)

Posted on by writtenexposition

Greek: Ἀγρίππας (Agríppas)

Latin: Agrippa

English: Agrippa

Full name: Marcus Julius Agrippa

Known in history as: King Herod Agrippa II

Reading: Acts 25:13 – 26:32

‘King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.’  Acts 26:27-28

INTRODUCTION

The Acts of the Apostles is a second volume by Luke the Evangelist (Acts 1:1; Lk 1:3) who ended his gospel with an account of the Ascension of Jesus. It is at that same point he commences the book of Acts. In this second work he documents the rise of early Christianity; from its small beginning as a new sect within Judaism to status as an international religion. A key verse in the Acts of the Apostles is 1:8:

‘But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.’

Acts falls into two main sections: chapters 1-12 and chapters 13-28. The first section concentrates on local missionary work in Palestine and in the surrounding areas of Judaea and Samaria. It is Jewish in flavour, Peter is the prominent apostle and the activity is based in Jerusalem.

Chapters 13-28 concentrate on overseas mission. The emphasis is therefore gentile rather than Jewish, the apostle Paul is prominent and the operational base is Antioch. This section includes details of three missionary journeys by the apostle Paul plus a record of his journey to Rome for trial. It ends with his physical imprisonment there and yet his amazing freedom to preach and teach ‘those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ’ (28:31) right in the hub of the Roman empire.

In this second half of the Book of Acts, as Christianity moves away from Judaism towards the Gentiles, Luke highlights the hostile attitude of the Jews towards the apostle Paul by including details of four incidents which deal with Paul’s status in the eyes of the ruling authorities. In these four cases the Romans are portrayed as having treated him with comparative fairness.

23:12-35 Claudius Lysias

24:1-27 Antonius Felix

25: 1-12 Porcius Festus

25:13 – 26:32 Porcius Festus and King Agrippa II

Our study will focus mainly on Acts 25:13 – 26:32 which details the state visit of King Herod Agrippa II to the Roman governor Festus and the hearing before Agrippa at which the apostle Paul gave his defence. This section may be divided as follows:

25:13-22 Festus briefs King Agrippa privately on the charges against Paul.

25:23-27 Festus briefs the assembled company publicly on the charges against Paul.

26: 1-29 King Herod Agrippa II hears Paul’s defence.

26: 30-32 Luke reports a private conversation during which Agrippa and others conclude that Paul is innocent.

THE MAIN CHARACTERS AT PAUL’S DEFENCE BEFORE AGRIPPA

THE APOSTLE PAUL

Paul, also known as Saul, was a first century Jew who was born in Tarsus in modern Turkey. He was a Pharisee who trained under Gamaliel, one of the most famous rabbis of the day (Acts 22:3). He described himself as having been a persecutor of the early Christians until he had a conversion experience on the road to Damascus. Thereafter, believing that Jesus was the Messiah, he spent the rest of his life in missionary activity, assisted by various co-workers, in various parts of the Roman empire; especially in areas around the coast of the Aegean Sea. Although it was his custom to commence his work in each area by teaching in the local Jewish synagogue Paul believed that salvation through faith in the resurrected Messiah Jesus was available also to Gentiles, without them first having to convert to Judaism or observe Jewish customs, rituals or food regulations. He gathered groups of his converts to Christianity into assemblies which functioned under local leadership (elders and deacons) and after moving on to new areas he conducted ongoing written correspondence with these churches. Some of his letters, all undated, have survived and are included in the New Testament canon. In his Defence before Agrippa Paul summarized his early career and reported on his missionary work (conducted in fulfillment of his commission by the risen Jesus) up to that point in time (c. 60 CE).

PORCIUS FESTUS

Festus was a Roman procurator of Judaea whose period of office is thought to have begun in 59 or 60 CE. He took over at a turbulent time in the history of Judaea as the Jews had been cruelly treated by previous procurators and revolution was brewing. He comes across in Acts as a man of action. After just three days in office he left his residence at Caesarea Maritima and went up to Jerusalem to survey the situation there. After returning to Caesarea about ten days later he lost no time in having Paul brought before him (‘the next day’ 25:6). Referring to this in v.17 he said ‘without any delay on the morrow I sat on the judgement seat’. By comparison with other governors he was an upright man who did not accept bribes, nevertheless, like Felix, he did experience pressure from the influential Jewish leaders (Acts 24:27; 25:9). He died in 61 or 62 CE, less than two years after his meeting with the apostle Paul.

BERNICE

Bernice (or Julia Berenice) was a great-granddaughter of Herod the Great and one of five children of King Herod Agrippa I of Judaea by his wife Cypros. Bernice was born in 28 CE, and was a year younger than her brother, the future King Herod Agrippa II.

When she was aged 12 or 13 her father gave her in marriage to Marcus Julius Alexander who was about 16 years her senior and son of a prominent Jew, Alexander the Alabarch of Alexandria, who had bailed her father out of some financial troubles. She became a widow when her husband died some three years later.

Her father, just before his death in 44 CE, then married her off to his own brother, her uncle Herod, King of Chalcis. She had just turned 16 and her uncle was 38 years her senior. The marriage lasted six years until he died c. 49/50 CE. At 22 years of age Queen Bernice was left a widow for the second time, with two young sons, Berenicianus and Hyrcanus, whom she had borne to her uncle.

She and her boys then moved to live with her brother Agrippa who was subsequently granted their uncle’s kingdom of Chalcis. She remained with him for more than a decade, effectively acting as his consort and co-ruler. Her visit along with Agrippa to greet Festus at Caesarea Maritima and her presence at the interrogation of the apostle Paul is confirmation that she carried out royal and ceremonial duties with her brother.

Their intimate relationship became the subject of much scandalous gossip at the time and it is thought that her third marriage in 63 CE to Ptolemon II of Cilicia Trachaea may have been contracted in an attempt to quell the rumour that she and Agrippa had entered into an incestuous relationship. The marriage lasted less than a year, after which she returned to live with her brother. Luke makes no mention of a sexual relationship in the book of Acts, nevertheless he does make it clear that she was definitely involved along with Agrippa in all the proceedings. This he achieves by repetition of the words ‘and Bernice:’

‘And after certain days king Agrippa and Bernice came unto Caesarea to salute Festus.’ Acts 25:13

‘And on the morrow, when Agrippa was come, and Bernice, with great pomp.’ Acts 25:23a

‘And when he had thus spoken, the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them.’ Acts 26:30

In the years leading up to 66 CE she, along with her brother, unsuccessfully implored the Jews to remain obedient to Roman rule and was forced to leave Jerusalem with him.

About the year 67 CE she met the future Roman emperor Titus, who with his father Vespasian and their army was resting up up at Caesarea Philippi (the capital of Herod Agrippa’s kingdom) after a military campaign in Galilee, and became his lover. He was about ten years younger than Bernice.

Some years after the Fall of Jerusalem (c. 75 CE) she moved to Rome where Titus was heir apparent to the imperial throne. Their affair restarted and she lived openly with Titus at the palace, behaving as if she were already the Empress of Rome. Unfortunately the Romans did not like the idea of a foreign queen and both the aristocracy and the general populace turned against her.

Such was was the hostility of public opinion that when Titus became Emperor in 79 CE he did not make her his queen but, probably against his will, dismissed her. He died in 81 CE just before his 42nd birthday. By then Bernice had probably left Rome. Nothing is known of how, when or where she died.

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II

Herod Agrippa II, born 27 CE, was the last ruling member of the Herodian family in the Eastern Mediterranean. The year of his death is uncertain (estimates range from 86 -100 CE) but is likely to have been 93 CE. He is mentioned in the book of Acts chapters 25 and 26 in connection with Festus, the Roman procurator of Judaea (59-62 CE), and the apostle Paul. Although he was a member of the Herodian dynasty Luke seems quite favourable towards him. Luke does not refer to him by the dreaded name ‘Herod’ but only by his name Agrippa. Having been brought up and educated at the imperial court in Rome on account of his father being a Roman client king, Agrippa generally used his Latin name ‘Marcus Julius Agrippa’. He therefore thought of himself as a Roman, though nominally he was a Jew. He took a deep interest in Jewish affairs (in which Paul acknowledged him to be an expert (Acts 26:3), and on occasion spoke up for Jewish interests at Rome. He remained, however, thoroughly hellenized and totally loyal to the Romans throughout his lifetime.

The Herodian family was infamous for its lax morals, brutality and intrigue. New Testament references to the dynasty make unpleasant reading:

Agrippa II’s great-grandfather was Herod the Great (72-4 BCE) who killed all the babies in Bethlehem (Mt 2:16).

His great-uncle Herod Antipas (c. 20 BCE- later than 39 CE in exile) had John the Baptist beheaded (Mk 6:14-29; Lk 9:7-9). Along with his soldiers Herod Antipas mocked Jesus, who had been sent to him by Pontius Pilate (Lk 23:11).

His father King Herod Agrippa I (11 BCE – 44 CE) executed James the brother of John and also imprisoned Peter (Acts 12:1-3).

Marcus Julius Agrippa II had one brother and three sisters. His younger brother Drusus died young, before reaching his teens. His three sisters were Bernice (or Berenice), Mariamne and Drusilla (whose second husband was the Procurator Antonius Felix). Mariamne and Drusilla were ten and six when their father died.

King Herod Agrippa I died in 44 CE. Three years earlier Judaea, a Roman province since 6 CE, had been handed over to his control and he had been given the title ‘King’. At the time of his death his son Marcus Julius Agrippa junior was 17 and still being tutored at Rome. The emperor Claudius (41-54 CE) and his advisors considered him too young for the responsibilities of kingship so Judaea was annexed once more by the Romans and administered for a second period (44-66 CE) by procurators. Having been brought up at the Roman court Agrippa did, however, have very good connections with the imperial family.

In 49 CE the Emperor Claudius granted him the territory of Chalcis in Lebanon on the death of his uncle (and brother-in-law!) Herod of Chalcis. This gave him the royal title ‘King’ and with Chalcis came Curatorship of the Temple in Jerusalem which gave the right to appoint and dismiss the High Priest. Agrippa made full use of this power and had an ongoing rocky relationship with the Jewish priesthood; for example, during the seven years from 59 CE he appointed and dismissed five High Priests.

In 53 CE, Claudius exchanged Agrippa’s small kingdom of Chalcis for a much larger area, the former tetrarchy of Philip plus several eastern territories.

In 54/55 CE the Emperor Nero (54-68 CE) further expanded Agrippa’s kingdom by giving him control of Tiberias, Tarichaea, Bethsaida and Julias in Galilee plus some territory in Southern Peraea.

During the 60’s CE Jewish outrage at abuses by the procurators increased. As tension grew Agrippa tried his best to persuade the Jews not to revolt but to submit to Roman domination. This was unsuccessful and the Jews expelled him and his sister Bernice from Jerusalem in 66 CE. King Herod Agrippa II supported Vespasian and Titus in their war against the Jews (66-70) and played a small role in that war. He was involved in the sack of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, much of which had been built by his great-grandfather. As reward for his support he was made a senior senator in Rome c. 75 CE and his territory was expanded. Until his death he remained active in his kingdom while also furthering his political career in Rome. He was fabulously wealthy; Jacobson (2019, pp129-130) writes;

‘While we have no quantitative information about Agrippa’s personal wealth, its size can be approximately estimated from the data given by Josephus for his predecessors who had title to much of the same territory. Josephus states that Herod Antipas enjoyed an annual revenue of 200 talents from Peraea and Galilee, while the areas to the east of Galilee, namely Batanaea, Trachonitis, Auranitis and ‘a certain portion of what was called the domain of Zenodorus’ yielded Philip the Tetrarch the sum of 100 talents (AJ 17.319; BJ 2.95). Although Agrippa II only possessed the eastern portion of Galilee, he certainly made up for the lack of western Galilee with Arca and Abilene. So, it seems reasonable to estimate the annual revenue from his territories as exceeding 300 talents (of silver) and may have been nearer 1,000 talents. With one Attic talent equivalent to 6,000 drachmas, his revenue from those sources would have approached six million drachmas. One drachma represents the average day wage of a labourer in the Graeco-Roman economy. Besides this revenue, Agrippa would have derived supplementary income from the vast estates that he owned outright. As an example, together with his sister, Berenice, the king possessed estates near Mount Tabor administrated by his steward (epitropos), Ptolemy, and elsewhere by Thaumastus, who their father Agrippa I received as a slave from Caligula.’

In spite of all his wealth and political power King Herod Agrippa II ended his life as a renegade who turned his back on his people and on his religion.

One can only wonder how history might have been different had Agrippa shifted his allegiance from the Roman empire to the kingdom of the risen Messiah Jesus. If only he had genuinely believed the Old Testament prophets (Acts 26:27) and had moved from being ‘almost’ a Christian (26:28) to being ‘altogether’ a Christian (26:29)!

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Part 2):

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Part 3)

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Bibliography)

Posted in Roman names

SILVANUS

Posted on by writtenexposition

Roman name: Silvanus

Greek form of a Jewish name: Silas

‘And some of them [Thessalonian Jews] were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.’ Acts 17:4 ESV

‘Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ…’. 1Thess 1:1 ESV

Silvanus/Silas was one of the most influential figures in the early Christian church and yet he seems to have maintained a low profile; perhaps preferring to work quietly and effectively without drawing undue attention to himself. The Bible gives few personal details; only that he was a leading member of the Jerusalem assembly (Acts 15:22), that he was a prophet (Acts 15:32), and that he had Roman citizenship (Acts 16:37–38). His name occurs 17 times. He is called Silas in the Acts of the Apostles (15:22, 27, 32, 34, 40; 16:19, 25, 29; 17:4, 10, 14, 15; 18:5) and in the Epistles he is referred to by his Roman name Silvanus ( 2 Cor 1:19; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1; 1 Pet 5:12).

THE EARLY SPREAD OF THE GOSPEL: A SURVEY

The first half of the Acts of the Apostles details the gradual spread of Christianity from Jerusalem. Acts 2:1-8:3 records phenomenal growth accompanied by persecution, mainly from the Jews as they did not regard Jesus as the Messiah and were angry that the Christians were undermining their beliefs. Luke viewed the stoning of Stephen in chapter 7 as a catalyst for the widespread ill-treatment of Christians. As a result, they dispersed throughout the empire, which, ironically, helped accelerate the spread of the gospel (Acts 8:3-4,11:19). Herod Agrippa 1 (King of Judea 41-44 CE) co-operated with the Jewish authorities in persecuting the early believers (Acts 12:1-2) and had John’s brother James put to death. He also made a failed attempt to execute Peter (Acts 12:1-19). Acts 8:4-13 tells of a successful preaching campaign by Philip in Samaria and a visit there by Peter and John also (8:14-25). Philip continued to Gaza (8:26) and from there to the seaside town of Azotus (8:40). After leaving Azotus he preached in various locations as he travelled 60 miles up the coast to Caesarea Maritima (8:40), the provincial capital of Roman Palestine. 

In chapter 9 we learn that Paul preached to the Jews at Damascus shortly after his conversion, but having met with antagonism, left for Jerusalem where he joined the church. He preached to Grecians (Greek-speaking Jews) but, after again experiencing opposition, left and returned to his home town of Tarsus in Asia Minor. By that time, according to a summary by Luke (Acts 9:31), there were Christian churches throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria. Meanwhile, Peter was busy evangelizing away from Jerusalem. He travelled to the coastal area where he healed Aeneas at Lydda, and then to Joppa to raise Dorcas from the dead before proceeding to Caesarea where he met the Roman centurion Cornelius (Acts 9:32-11:18) who, along with other Gentiles, believed and was ‘baptized in the name of the Lord’ (10:47-48). 

Acts chapters 11:19 – 15:35 focus on Antioch, where believers were first nicknamed ‘Christians’ (11:26). Luke is careful to emphasize the strong connection between the Gentile church at Antioch and the older Jewish church at Jerusalem. People from Cyprus and Cyrene left Jerusalem as a result of the persecution following Stephen’s death and brought Christianity to Antioch (11:19-20). The Jerusalem church, receiving news of this outreach to Gentiles in Antioch, sent Barnabas to support and encourage the believers. He then brought Paul to Antioch to spend a year helping him teach the Christians (Acts 11:19-26). Later the assembly at Antioch commended Barnabas and Paul to missionary service (Acts 13:1-5; 14:26) and sent them to Cyprus, Lycaonia and Pamphylia (Acts 13–14) on what is traditionally called Paul’s ‘First Missionary Journey.’ 

THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL

Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch and remained there ‘a long time’ (Acts 14:28) until, about 49 CE, a problem arose when ‘certain men… came down from Judea’ teaching that: ‘Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved’ (Acts 15:1). These men thought that the promises of salvation were to the Jews as a nation. Just as Judaism allowed for a few individual exceptions (proselytes) so too, they must have thought, did the Christian faith (e.g. Gentiles like the Ethiopian Eunuch and Cornelius). It would not have occurred to them that the gospel could be for the Gentiles as a group. They, therefore, considered it necessary that the few believers from a pagan background observe the Mosaic law, including the rite of circumcision. 

One can imagine that this teaching must have caused uncertainty in the minds of Christians of non-Jewish origin. Paul and Barnabas, however, who had already preached in Gentile areas without imposing Jewish rites upon the believers, would have none of it. They realized that the very essence of Christianity was at stake. The gospel was not just for Jews but was a universal message of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, without additional demands. They had presented this same message to Jew and Gentile alike. After much discussion, the assembly at Antioch decided to send Paul, Barnabas and a few others to Jerusalem to meet the elders and apostles and seek a resolution of the problem. The issue boiled down to this: ‘Is anything more needed for salvation than faith in Jesus Christ?’

At the meeting, presided over (15:13) by James the Lord’s brother (Gal 1:19), Peter described how converted Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit just as Jewish Christians had (Acts 15:9-11). Paul and Barnabas also reported (15:12) the signs and wonders that God had performed through them among the Gentiles. James made the concluding speech (15:13-21).

Realizing that the issue was highly significant, the apostles and elders decided to write not only to the church at Antioch but also to the Gentile churches in Syria and Cilicia, which had been established by missionaries (Paul and Barnabas) sent out from Antioch. The striking thing in the letter is that the Jewish leadership of the Jerusalem church officially addressed the Gentile converts as ‘brothers:’

‘The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.’ Acts 15:23

For Jews to call Gentiles ‘brethren,’ not because of blood relationship but because they shared the same faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, was hugely significant. The Jerusalem Council did not require Gentile believers to observe the rituals of the Mosaic law but requested that they avoid idolatry, unchastity and murder. The ‘brothers’ were not only to believe but also expected to behave.

The content of the letter was so weighty that oral confirmation was thought necessary. Two ‘chosen men’ (15:25) accompanied Paul and Barnabas to explain the conclusions reached by the Jerusalem Council and handle questions from the Gentiles. One of these delegates was Judas Barsabas. The other was Silas. 

SILVANUS/SILAS

Silas appears on the scene at this crucial stage in the history of the church. He and Judas Barsabas seem to have been involved in the composition of the letter (15:23), which they then delivered to Antioch and taught the believers there. Silas ‘exhorted the brethren with many words and confirmed (strengthened) them’ (15:32). This approach contrasts sharply with the harmful legacy of the legalists who had ‘troubled [the believers] with words, unsettling [their] minds’ (15:24 ESV). People like Silas, who can preach Jesus Christ clearly (2 Cor 1:19), teach believers to distinguish truth from error and encourage them in their faith, are much needed in today’s church.

After a while, Judas returned to Jerusalem while Silas stayed on at Antioch, teaching alongside Paul and Barnabas. Paul suggested to Barnabas that they ought to go and visit the assemblies in Syria and Cilicia which also were addressees of the Jerusalem letter. Unfortunately, Paul and Barnabas had a disagreement that resulted in each going his separate way. Paul then chose Silas to accompany him on the proposed trip.

SILVANUS THE MISSIONARY

Silas was a suitable choice because he was equally at ease with the Jewish and the Gentile wings of the church. He was a Jew with impeccable credentials as a leader (15:22) of the Jewish church at Jerusalem which had sent him as one of two trusted delegates to Gentile believers following the Jerusalem Council. On the other hand, he was a Roman citizen (16:37), had a Roman name (Silvanus) and spoke fluent Greek. He functioned well in Gentile churches (15:32-35), with his ministry among them much appreciated. Although Jewish, he welcomed the idea of missionary activity in pagan areas and was willing to endure persecution and hardship for the sake of the gospel (16:22-23). Together with Paul, he visited the assemblies in Syria and Cilicia (15:41), thus completing the instructions of the Jerusalem Council. Again, Silas produced good results as ‘the churches [were] established in the faith and increased in number daily’ (Acts 16:5).

This tour of Syria and Cilicia turned out to be just the initial stage of what we usually refer to as ‘Paul’s Second Missionary Journey.’ Paul, Silas and Timothy (16:1-3) then began to receive divine route guidance (16:6, 7, 9-10) which directed them away from Asia and caused them to take the Christian message to Europe. 

They set sail from Troas and landed in Macedonia where they preached the gospel in the cities of Philippi, Thessalonica and Beroea. Silas and Timothy remained at Beroea while Paul continued to Athens, from where he sent for them to join him (17:14-15). Timothy arrived at Athens with news of persecution in Thessalonica, so Paul sent him back there with a message of encouragement (1 Thess 3:1-6). Paul then left Athens and went to Corinth (18:1). Silas must also have gone back, perhaps to Philippi, for he and Timothy met up in Macedonia before re-joining Paul in Corinth (18:5). The three missionaries preached the gospel in Corinth (2 Cor 1:19), from where they jointly wrote two letters to the assembly at Thessalonica (1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1).

Paul eventually left Corinth and sailed to Ephesus, then on to Syria (probably landing at Tyre) before taking a short voyage down the coast to Caesarea. He went up from there and ‘greeted the church’ (at Jerusalem?) before returning to his base at Antioch (Acts 18:18-22). We do not know at what point Silas left Paul. 

SILVANUS AND PETER

We do know that Silas/Silvanus continued to work for the Lord because there is a reference to him in 1 Peter, a book written about ten or twelve years after the end of the Second Missionary Journey:

‘By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand.’ 1 Pet 1:5

After leaving Paul’s mission team, Silas must have joined forces with the apostle Peter, eventually working with him in Rome (1 Pet 5:13 – if ‘Babylon’ is a code word for ‘Rome’). Peter held him in high regard and accounted him ‘a faithful brother’, considering Silas/Silvanus qualified to write on his behalf. That Peter wrote ‘by Silvanus’ could mean several things: 

a) That Silvanus was responsible for drafting the letter on Peter’s behalf. Peter would have told him what he wanted to say, and Silvanus would have set out Peter’s thoughts and ideas in writing.

b) Silvanus was the amanuensis who wrote down what Peter dictated.

c) Silvanus was the person who would act as the bearer of the letter.

A) is the most likely meaning because of the literary nature of the Greek of 1 Peter. Some scholars consider it too refined to have been written by a Galilean fisherman who had not had a formal education. Silvanus may have managed Peter’s correspondence, presenting Peter’s spoken Greek in a more polished and technically correct written form. Peter was writing this letter to Christians in Asia Minor (1 Peter 1:1) whom he had not met. Silvanus would therefore have been an ideal helper as he had been to that area (Acts 15:41; 18:5) and had previously co-written two apostolic letters (1 & 2 Thessalonians).

SUMMATION 

i. Silvanus was well-known and respected as a leader in the early church (Acts 15:22). He was not only highly esteemed by the assembly at Jerusalem but also by those in Antioch, Philippi, Thessalonica, Beroea and Corinth. Perhaps he was known to Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1) as well.

ii. As evidenced by his performance as a delegate of the Jerusalem church after the Jerusalem Council and in his later service as a missionary, Silvanus was a level-headed person and endowed with wisdom and tact. He was able to fit in with Christians of different backgrounds and outlooks yet had strong convictions and the ability to preach and explain the doctrines of the gospel to others.

iii. Although he was recognized as a leading brother in the Jerusalem church, we do not read that Silvanus forced his ideas upon the Jerusalem Council. Once it made its decision and appointed him as a delegate, Silas simply got on with the job. Later, when Paul ‘chose’ him as his missionary companion Silvanus was willing to ‘play second fiddle’ to Paul for the sake of the gospel. He was, therefore, a humble-minded Christian who was happy to work alongside and serve others in the Lord’s work.

iv. Silvanus was willing to endure hardship for the sake of the gospel. Along with Paul, he was brutally (1 Thess 2:2) and illegally (Acts 16:38) treated at Philippi. Despite the insults and injuries received, he was able to pray and sing praises to God in the gaol and willing to point the prison officer to Christ.

We must not forget that, despite his humble attitude, Silvanus was an important man in his own right. As a NT prophet, he was with the apostles in the front ranks of importance in the church (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 2:20; 3:5; 4:11) and, exercising his gift, spoke words of exhortation and encouragement from God before the completion of the New Testament scriptures. Silvanus, in fact, was co-author of at least three (1 & 2 Thessalonians; 1 Peter) of the inspired books in that collection. We can never match his achievements for the Lord, but it would be worthwhile to emulate his humble attitude, his flexibility towards other Christians with a different theological outlook and his dedication to the gospel ministry.

Posted in Roman names

GALLIO

Posted on by writtenexposition

‘And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat.’ Acts 18:12

Name: Gallio

Full Roman Name: Lucius Iunius Gallio Annaeus

Position: Proconsul of the senatorial Province of Achaea

The casual reader of the Book of Acts might view Paul’s appearance before Gallio, the Roman governor of Achaea, as just another interesting detail that Luke has included about the apostle’s stay in Corinth. It is, however, one of the major incidents recorded in the New Testament and the most significant as regards the early history and expansion of Christianity. The historical details given in Acts 18, along with external sources, provide us with a fixed date in the career of the apostle Paul and shed light on Jewish hostility and Roman indifference (as exemplified by Gallio) towards the increasingly popular new religious movement.

In 50 CE Paul arrived in Corinth and began his evangelistic activity in the Jewish synagogue, aiming to convince Jews that Jesus was the promised Messiah (Acts 18:4). This must have continued for several months (‘every sabbath’ 18:4) but, following heated discussions, disagreements, and rejection of his message by the Jews, Paul turned his attention towards the local Gentiles and moved his operational base to a building next door to the synagogue. Its owner was Justus (some manuscripts say Titius Justus) who in 18:7 is termed a ‘God-fearer’ (a Gentile believer in God who had not (yet) fully converted to Judaism).

Relations between the two groups of next-door neighbours got worse. Tension must have increased greatly when the president of the synagogue, Crispus, ‘believed on the Lord’ and, as it were, moved to the other side of the fence. Also, the Jews cannot have been happy with the ongoing success of Paul’s mission because ‘many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized’ (18:8). Eventually,the Jewish leaders brought Paul before Gallio; the proconsul of the Roman province of Achaea.

Gallio was born about 5 BCE at Cordua in Spain, into a high-ranking Roman family which had close ties with the imperial household. His father was Seneca the Elder (Lucius Annaeus Seneca), a well-known writer, historian, and rhetorician who, with his wife Helvia, had three sons; of whom Gallio was the eldest. Another son was Seneca the Younger, a Stoic philosopher and writer who was tutor to the future emperor Nero. The third was Marcus Annaeus Mela, father of the poet Lucan. During his reign Nero suspected Gallio and his brothers of involvement in various plots against him and eventually, at different times and probably on Nero’s orders, all three ended their lives by suicide.

Gallio’s name from birth was Lucius Annaeus Novatus but, when he was a young adult, a wealthy family that did not have a male heir adopted him; as was customary among Roman aristocrats. He took the name of his adoptive father, senator Lucius Iunius Gallio, and became known as Lucius Iunius Gallio Annaeus. Gallio became an expert on Roman law, and had a reputation for hard work, fairness, and a polite but no-nonsense approach in court. He became a senator in 37 CE and was later appointed proconsul of Achaea by the emperor Claudius.

One can deduce the date of his term of office in Achaea from what is usually called the Gallio (or Delphic) Inscription. In 1905 four fragments of this inscription were found in temple ruins at Delphi in Greece. In 1910 three more were found and a further two in 1967. The following is reconstructed from these nine fragments:

‘Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, 12th year of tribunician power, acclaimed emperor for the 26th time, father of the country, sends greetings to… For long have I been well-disposed to the city of Delphi and solicitous for its prosperity, and I have always observed the cult of the Pythian Apollo. Now since it is said to be destitute of citizens, as my friend and pro consul L. Iunius Gallio recently reported to me, and desiring that Delphi should regain its former splendour, I command you to invite well-born people also from other cities to come to Delphi as new inhabitants, and to accord them and their children all the privileges of the Delphians as being citizens on like and equal terms…’

This is a copy of a letter from the emperor Claudius in which he refers to a report from ‘my friend and proconsul L. Iunius Gallio’ about depopulation in Delphi and recommends future resettlement of the city. In the letter Claudius says that he has been ‘acclaimed emperor for the 26th time’ which dates the letter to between 25th January and 1st August 52. Claudius had recently received the report; therefore Gallio’s appointment to Achaea was probably from 01 July 51 until 30 June 52.

Unlike Claudius, who was an admirer of everything Greek, Gallio disliked Greece and did not serve out his full term of office; possibly leaving before shipping finished for the winter months at the end of October 51 CE. His brother Seneca wrote:

‘When in Achaia, he [Gallio] began to feel feverish, he immediately took ship, claiming that it was not a malady of the body but of the place’ (Seneca, Epistle 1 04.1)

Under Nero, Gallio was appointed a ‘consul suffectus’ (a replacement who took over when a consul died, resigned or was removed from office) in 56 CE and later served as the emperor’s herald.

As an eminent legal expert, a man of integrity who enjoyed the confidence of two Roman emperors, and someone who reached the highest levels of office in the Roman empire, Gallio was no fool. The Jews at Corinth were to discover this fact when he immediately saw through the deception that was behind the charge that they tried to level against the apostle Paul.

The Jewish leaders brought Paul before the Corinthian tribunal over which Gallio, as proconsul, was presiding. The Greek word for tribunal is bema. The name comes from the raised platform (bema) which stood in the main square of a Greek or Roman city and from which orators addressed the public at civic ceremonies.

The Bema (KJV ‘judgement seat’) was also used for legal purposes; the supreme authority of the presiding judge was signified by his elevated position while seated on it. The word bema could refer to any elevated platform, a step or even the length of a footstep (Acts 7:5) but the Bema in Corinth was not a simple rostrum. It was an impressive building built of marble, decorated with intricate carvings, and prominently situated in the city forum. A site guide to ancient Corinth published in 2018 by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens describes the architecture of the Bema as follows:


‘The Bema was a complex marble structure dating from the middle of the 1st century A.D. that dominated this part of the Forum at Corinth. It took the form of an open propylon with a Π-shaped ground plan, which stood on a rectangular podium measuring 15.6 × 7.2 m. This podium had a krepidoma with two steps and it projected 3 m above the level of the Forum to the north. Its superstructure consisted of eight pillars, three at each corner linked by walls lined with benches, and two across the front. The podium was flanked at a lower level by two unroofed exedras with benches on two of their three sides. Beside each exedra was a marble staircase leading up to the terrace to the south. Parts of the Bema’s walls and steps, as well as the floors of the exedras, have been restored.’


The grandeur of the physical Bema in Corinth and his appearance before Gallio seems to have impressed Paul so much that he used the word bema figuratively in a letter to the Corinthians (2 Cor 5:10) to describe a future tribunal, with Christ presiding, at which the life and service of every Christian will be reviewed (see also Rom 14:10).


We read in Acts 18:4 that Paul ‘persuaded’ (peíthō) Jews and the Greeks in the synagogue every sabbath.’ According to Acts 18:13, the Jews attempted to have Paul tried on the following charge: ‘this man persuades (anapeíthō) the men to worship God contrary to the law.’ In verse 13, however, ‘persuade’ means ‘persuade earnestly’ and has the idea of ‘seduce’ or ‘incite.’ The Jews accused Paul of misleading ‘the men.’ This term may indicate just the Jews and Greeks of verse 4 but is more likely a general reference to all the residents of Corinth. Paul, according to the Jews, was dishonestly encouraging men to ‘worship God contrary to the law.’ They did not specify whether they meant Jewish or Roman law. Gallio was astute enough to realize that their charge was deliberately ambiguous.

The relevant Roman law would have been that which governed the meetings of associations (collegium or sodalitates). The Romans were always wary of the possibility of sedition in conquered territories so they ensured that religious cults, political societies, and trade guilds were licensed by the state and allowed to meet no more than once a month. However, since they had great respect for ancestral religions, they granted Jewish synagogue meetings exemption from this restriction. The Jews were therefore maintaining, although both groups were studying the same scriptures, that the gathering in the house of Justus next door to them was not a Jewish synagogue meeting and ought to be regarded as an illegal and unlicensed religious cult led by Paul.

Gallio saw that their accusation was not essentially religious but that they were playing politics. He ruled (Acts 18:14-15) that if the Jews could back up their charge that Paul was guilty of a ‘criminal act’ or a ‘wicked plot’ he would proceed with a trial, but, in his opinion, the matter had to do with (1) ‘words’ (debate), (2) names (disputes over the meaning of words or terms), and (3) ‘your own (i.e. Jewish) law’.

Gallio thus dismissed the charge (under Roman law) that Paul was involved in political disturbance, and he also refused to judge Paul on matters relating to Jewish law. He had no interest in these. As Luke comments in verse 17: ‘Gallio cared for none of those things’.

Some (mis)apply this comment by Luke and suggest that Gallio was indifferent to the preaching of the gospel and the message of salvation through Jesus Christ. This, of course, is not what Luke is saying. In fact, it is unlikely that Gallio ever heard the gospel because in verse 14 Luke emphasizes the fact that Paul did not get a chance to open his mouth. The plural ‘those things’ refers to the three points in Gallio’s ruling(v.15). He refused to pronounce judgement upon what he regarded as internal differences of opinion within the Jewish religion. Gallio was an honest and upright Roman official who did not give in to and conspire with the Jews; unlike Pilate and Felix.


Governors and judges in other locations throughout the empire would have looked to this ruling by such a distinguished jurist and have likewise adopted a tolerant attitude towards Christianity. Thus, having the luxury of minimal interference from the Roman government, the new religion spread swiftly throughout the empire. Thanks to Gallio’s assessment of Christianity as just a sect within Judaism, Christians could legally meet weekly for worship and to celebrate the Lord’s supper. For the early church the positive effects of Gallio’s ruling lasted more than a decade.

Even at the end of Acts, while Paul awaited trial for two years at Rome, the authorities did not curtail his religious activities. Luke could therefore bring the book of Acts to a close by observing (Acts 28:30-31 ESV) that, right in the very capital of the empire, Christian work was permitted to continue ‘without hindrance.’

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.