Tag: Acts of the Apostles

Posted in General

A MIRACLE IN TROAS SOON AFTER EASTER

Posted on by writtenexposition

And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together. And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him. When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted. Acts 20:7-12

PREAMBLE

Have you ever noticed that there are some people for whom everything in life seems to work out well? They always seem to make a great recovery from potential disaster. No matter how serious a situation they get themselves into they seem to emerge not only unscathed but even better off than before. We could say of them that they ‘come up smelling of roses!’ or ‘they always land on their feet!’ Sometimes, with a touch of humour and perhaps a tinge of jealousy, we might say of such a person: ‘His/Her middle name is Lucky!’

We don’t know if the young man who features in our passage had more than one name. However, we are told that he was called Eutychus, which means ‘Lucky’.

INTRODUCTION

In Acts 19:21 the apostle Paul declares his intention to wrap-up his third missionary expedition and travel to Jerusalem via Macedonia and Achaia. Luke, once again using the term ‘we,’ records a summary of that journey in Acts 20:1-21:16. Setting out from the city of Ephesus Paul first travelled to Phillipi and then on to Troas, a port from which he could cross the narrow body of water that separated Asia from Europe.

Luke’s travel summary in Acts 20-21 is sparse. He gives few details of locations visited and he leaves out many events in Paul’s life during the (estimated) ten months of travel from Ephesus to Jerusalem. These included severe sufferings (2 Cor 1:5, 8-10) and the writing of three epistles: 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans. Luke must therefore have considered one episode from the week spent Troas (20:6) to be highly significant; because he relates it in great detail. That episode is the fall and resuscitation of Eutychus, recorded in Acts 20:7-12.

TROAS

Troas was an important port city near the site of ancient Troy in western Asia Minor. It was strategically located for traffic between Europe and Asia Minor and in its artificial harbour ships could wait for favourable winds to sail through the Dardanelles (Hellespont) – a strait that connects the Black Sea to the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas. The city was founded by Greeks c. 310 BCE but in New Testament times it was a Roman colony, having been granted that status (Colonia Augusta Troadensium) by the Emperor Augustus.

Some Christians lived there. Luke does not say that the church was founded by Paul, although this may be implied in Acts 19:10: And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks. In Acts 16:8-11 nothing appears to have happened during his first visit, however, we learn from 2 Cor 2:12 that Paul had more success on a second visit (for Paul in Troas see Acts 20:5-12; 2 Cor 2:12; 2 Tim 4:13).

THE TIMING

As a historian Luke is precise with regards to timing. Notice ‘three months’ (v.3), ‘five days’ and ‘seven days’ (v.6), ‘the first day of the week,’ ‘the morrow’ and ‘midnight’ (v.7), and ‘break of day’ (v.11).

We learn from v.6 that Paul and his companions had waited at Philippi until ‘the days of unleavened bread’ were over before before setting out on the five day voyage to Troas. ‘The days of unleavened bread’ refers to a Jewish festival that follows Passover (14th Nisan). It begins on 15th Nisan and lasts for seven days (Exod 12:15-20; Lev 23:6-8).

The death burial and resurrection of Jesus took place at that time of year so the episode in Troas occurred soon after Easter. There is, of course, no suggestion in the passage of an annual Easter celebration but I can’t help but wonder if Luke sees in the episode a symbolic association with Easter; based not just on the timing of the event but on core elements in the narrative such as the night hours, a gathering of disciples, an upper room, breaking bread/farewell supper, a death followed by resurrection to life, and great comfort.

THE CHARACTERS

‘We’ (v.6) – the companions of Paul.

‘Paul’ (v.7, 10-11) – the main character in the story.

‘Them’ (v.7) – the disciples at Troas.

‘Eutychus’ – the ‘young man’. In v.9 he is described as neanías (a young man aged from about 20-40) but in v.12 as país (child – but could also be translated slave; Mt 8:6,8,13; Lk 7:7; 12:45; 15:26).

‘They’ (v.12) – unspecified individuals, as are those to whom Paul spoke in v.10.

THE EVENT

On the last night (the first day of the week) of his stay in Troas Paul preached at length to the disciples there for it was unlikely that he would see them again. The meeting was held in a room on the top floor of a three-storey building and it must have been full of people for a young man called Eutychus (meaning ‘Lucky’ or ‘Fortunate’) was sitting ‘in a window;’ probably on the sill.

Paul had already spoken until midnight so lamps were burning, filling the room with warmth and smoke. Eutychus, overcome by drowsiness, fell into a deep sleep and then literally fell from the window to ground level.

When picked up he was dead but Paul went downstairs, threw himself on him and embracing him said: ‘Don’t be alarmed, his life is in him.’ Notice that Paul did not say ‘his life is still in him,’ for this was a miracle; it was a real raising of the dead. Paul then went upstairs, broke bread and continued his conversation until daybreak (probably about 5.00 am.) and then departed.

PRACTICAL LESSONS

Some practical lessons may be drawn from the tragi-comic story of Eutychus:

1) The duty of believers to meet to break bread and hear the word of God preached on the first day of the week.

This passage is interesting in that here we have the first mention of Christians coming together ‘to break bread’ on the first day of the week; the day of the week on which Jesus rose from the dead. Presumably they were poor and did not have a nice church building to meet in for we read here about ‘the third loft’ and ‘the upper chamber.’ The architecture of the meeting place is not the main issue, what is important that Christians meet together on the first day of the week.

Depending upon the context, the early church practised the breaking of bread as both a communal meal and a spiritually significant act of remembrance. Meeting to break bread as an act of worship and communion is closely linked with continuing in the fellowship and teaching of the apostles (Acts 2:42, see also Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:16).

The believers in Troas not only gathered to break bread but were also there to listen to the word of God for, according to v.7, ‘Paul preached unto them.’ Sermon times may vary, there is no fixed rule. Like Paul’s message on that occasion some are long, others may be short. It is, however, the content that is important.

Doubtless Paul had his reasons for such a long address and especially since it was his last time with them he would have wished to cover many topics. However, just like those in first century Troas, believers today need to hear the word of God expounded whenever they meet together.

That night in Troas a young man called Eutychus was ‘fortunate’ to hear Paul preach. It is good that he was there. There could have been no better place to be that Sunday evening than in a room listening to the apostle Paul? However, all was not as well as it might have seemed.

2) The danger of living the Christian life on the edge.

Where was Eutychus sitting? We read in 20:9 that he was sitting in a window. The young man was sitting on the sill of an open window three floors up. What a dangerous place to be! We might say that he was in a position where he could hear the word but also see the world. We could say that he was associated with the church but was neither in nor out. This is true of many people in churches today – they are half-in the church and half-in the world. So be careful where you sit! (cf. Psa 1:1)

3) The possibility of a Christian falling due to human weakness.

Why was Eutychus sleeping? Sleeping in church is not recommended, especially if one is sitting at an open window three floors up! Eutychus, however, may have been a slave who had to work all day before having some some off in the evening. If so, he was understandably tired and the poor ventilation of a crowded room would have made him drowsy.

It is highly unlikely that Paul was a boring speaker and yet Eutychus was overcome by drowsiness and fell into a deep sleep. By way of application we could say that he progressively lost interest in the things of God, gradually became indifferent to them and eventually ‘fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.’

Why did Eutychus fall out of the window rather than into the meeting? It has been suggested that he fell out because that was the way he was leaning. Isn’t it tragic when a believer begins spiritually sleeping, gradually leans more and more away from the fellowship of the assembly and then drops out altogether (something that Eutychus did literally!)? Take heed lest you fall! (cf.1 Cor 10:12).

Luke seems to emphasise the fact that Eutychus fell down because from the opening word of v.9 to the opening word of v.10 he uses a form of kata (meaning ‘down’) five times: καθημενος: (kathēmenos) – sitting, KJV sat; καταφερομενος: (katapheroimenos) – being overwhelmed, KJV being fallen; κατενεχθεὶς: (katenechtheis) – being overcome, KJV sunk down; κατὰ: (kata) – down; κατῆλθεν: (katēthen) – [Paul] went down.

4) The importance of restoring the fallen believer.

How do we react when believers fall and no longer exhibit signs of divine life? Do we just continue on as usual? Do we say: ‘It’s their own fault, they were sitting too near the edge’ or ‘We’re not surprised, they never really fitted in anyway!’ Or, do we rather, as Fanny Crosby put it in her famous hymn: ‘weep o’er the erring one, lift up the fallen?’

The Christians at Troas sprang into action at once. As soon as someone shouted ‘Eutychus has fallen!’ everything stopped. Paul finished preaching. He and the believers responded immediately, hurrying to discover how the fall had affected Eutychus; unfortunately, ‘he was taken up dead.’ Clearly the brethren were very concerned about his situation because Paul asked for calm; the weeping and wailing must have already begun. The Christians were so distressed that Eutychus had gone.

The classic passage about the restoration of a believer who has stumbled is Gal 6:1: Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Galatians 6:1

The offence – ‘overtaken in a fault‘
The outlook – ‘ye which are spiritual‘
The objective – ‘restore such a one‘

When believers stumble and fall we ought to reach out to them and seek to bring about restoration. Those who are spiritual must encourage them to repent of the sin and return to fellowship with the Lord and the assembly. Far too often our churches leave the fallen alone, they just let them lie. But Paul showed concern. He went to where Eutychus was, embraced him, spoke life and restored that brother in Christ who hadn’t had the strength or energy to go on.

Do you know any believers who were once keen and enthusiastic for the Lord but they’ve grown cold? Perhaps, through carelessness or discouragement they’ve stumbled and perhaps fallen. Now they’ve dropped out. Just as Paul embraced Eutychus, perhaps what they need is a (metaphorical) hug. They need a compassionate, concerned Christian to go to them, to reach out in love and bring about spiritual restoration. The third verse of that hymn I mentioned (Rescue the Perishing) says:

Down in the human heart,
Crushed by the tempter,
Feelings lie buried that grace can restore;
Touched by a loving heart,
Wakened by kindness,
Chords that are broken will vibrate once more.

SUMMATION

This story about ‘Lucky’ has a happy ending for we read in v.12 that ‘they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.’ What a great result! The tragedy ended in triumph. Eutychus was restored and the church was greatly encouraged by the display of God’s miraculous power.

So please bear the practical points in mind:

1) The duty of believers to meet to break bread and hear the word of God preached on the first day of the week.
2) The danger of living the Christian life on the edge.
3) The possibility of a Christian falling due to human weakness.
4) The importance of restoring the fallen believer.

Posted in General

‘INTENDING AFTER EASTER’

Posted on by writtenexposition

READING ACTS 12:1-4, 20-23

‘And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.’ Acts 12:4

I have chosen this text for a ‘Thought for the Week’ because it is the only mention of Easter in the Bible (AV) and because the events of this chapter occur around Eastertime. King Herod Agrippa I was looking ahead to Easter, which was about a week away, and had plans for what he would do thereafter. He was ‘intending after Easter’.

Marcus Julius Agrippa I (King Herod Agrippa 1), born in 10 BCE, was one of four members of the Herodian dynasty mentioned in the New Testament. The others are:

  • His grandfather, Herod the Great, king of Judea, who reigned at the time of Jesus’ birth. In the Gospel of Matthew chapter 2 he orders the massacre of all male infants in Bethlehem in an attempt to kill the baby Jesus.
  • His uncle, Herod Antipas – He was one of Herod the Great’s sons, and ruled over Galilee and Perea during the time of Jesus’ ministry. He was the ruler who executed John the Baptist and who mocked Jesus at his trial.
  • His son, Marcus Julius Agrippa II (Herod Agrippa II), who ruled over parts of Judea and Galilee. He is called King Agrippa in the Book of Acts, which describes how he heard the apostle Paul’s defence against accusations of blasphemy.

See my posts: KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (part 1); KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (part 2); KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (part 3)

This man Herod Agrippa I in Acts 12, was the grandson of Herod the Great and ruled over Judea and Samaria. He was brought up and educated along with the imperial family in Rome and was a close personal friend of the emperors Gaius (Caligula) and Claudius who granted him wide areas of territory to rule on Rome’s behalf as a client king.

Herod Agrippa I was a successful politician who managed to balance dual identity as a Jew and a Roman. Whilst maintaining excellent relations with Rome he acted as a devout Jew while in Judaea. He observed the festivals, offered sacrifices at the temple, and donated generously to Jewish causes. He was generally popular and was particularly highly regarded by the Jewish religious leaders whose approval he cultivated, especially the Pharisees.

As Acts 12:3 mentions, he also persecuted the early church, hoping to please the Jews who vehemently opposed the Christians. He executed James, the brother of John, and arrested Peter, planning to kill him ‘after Easter’.

The Greek word translated ‘Easter’ in Acts 12:4 is pascha which occurs 29 times in the New Testament. In 28 of those occurrences it is rendered ‘passover’ – referring to the night when the Lord passed over Egypt and killed all the firstborn of Egypt (Ex. 12:12). The Authorized Version (King James), like the modern Bible Versions, uses the word ‘passover’ where this word pascha occurs; with the notable exception of Acts 12:4, where it translates it as ‘Easter.’

The AV translators took on board Luke’s comment at the end of verse 3: ‘Then were the days of unleavened bread’. This tells us that Peter was arrested during the Festival of Unleavened Bread (Nisan 15-21). Since it always followed the Passover (Nisan 14th) the Passover that year had already come and gone. Herod could not possibly have had the Passover in mind as regards his plans for Peter. The next Passover was a year away! It seems likely that Herod had in mind an Ancient Near Eastern pagan spring festival (now called Easter) in honour of the goddess Astarte/ Ishtar which was celebrated around the same time as Passover and which was due to fall within a few days.

The end of Acts chapter 12 records that Herod Agrippa I died suddenly at Caesarea Maritima after the people hailed him as a god. ‘The angel of the Lord smote him’ (Acts 12:23) for accepting divine honours and he died in 44 CE at the age of fifty-four. His intentions were unfulfilled.

Many people make plans for the period after Easter, whether to travel, work, study or relax. Few, however, bear in mind that there may be unforeseen circumstances or changes that affect them. They might never be able to carry out their intentions. Herod was no doubt confident that he would execute Peter after Easter but things did not quite work out as he had planned. After Easter Herod was no longer alive.

This is a salutary lesson for those of us who have plans for the week ahead, and beyond. Our intentions, unlike those of Herod, might be legitimate and good. For some, however, carefully laid plans might not come to pass. Life is uncertain and time is short. Are there matters that we really ought to sort out before Easter? Is there someone we should speak to about spiritual matters? Is there unresolved friction with another family or church member? Is there sin that needs to be confessed to God and forsaken?

Most of us have plans for Easter and hope to see them through. Let us not forget, however, the sad case of King Herod Agrippa I – who was ‘intending after Easter’.

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 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.’