Tag: Herod

Posted in General

Felix and Paul: The Danger of Procrastination

Posted on by writtenexposition

INTRODUCTION

In Acts chapter 24 Luke records details of the trial of the apostle Paul before the Roman Procurator Felix. This is the first of four trial scenes in Acts chapters 23-26 that involve Paul; before the Sanhedrin, before the Roman Procurator Felix, then Felix’s successor Festus and finally before King Herod Agrippa II.

In chapter 21, Paul, against the advice of his fellow Christians, returned to Jerusalem after his third missionary journey. He visited the temple and there was accused of bringing Gentiles in with him, thus defiling it. A riot started and Paul was seized by the crowd. Roman soldiers intervened and arrested him in order to stop the violence and restore public order. This was a policing matter and normally the garrison commander would hand out rough justice on the spot. However, he learned that Paul was a Roman citizen and as such had the right to a formal legal hearing.

In Acts 23 Paul appeared before the Jewish Sanhedrin and as part of his defence appealed to his belief in resurrection. This caused division between the Sadducees and Pharisees and led to further unrest. Claudius Lysias, the commander of the Roman garrison in Jerusalem, therefore removed Paul into secure custody for his own safety. Following the discovery of a Jewish plot to kill Paul the Romans transferred Paul to Caesarea to the procurator Felix who agreed to hear Paul’s case once the accusers arrived from Jerusalem.

Not much is known about Antonius Felix but what is recorded about him by ancient writers is generally unfavourable. He was cruel, ambitious and corrupt. His exact dates are not known. He was born a slave, sometime between the years 5 and 10 CE. His brother Pallas, a powerful freedman, was a favourite of the Emperor Claudius and through that connection to the imperial family Felix gained freedom and influence.

Like Pilate’s, his rule (thought to extend from 52-58 or 60 CE) was marked by brutality. Felix was married three times, each time to a woman of noble birth. Two of them were called Drusilla. This Drusilla in Acts 24 was a daughter of Herod Agrippa I and a sister of King Agrippa II and Berenice, whom we read about in Acts chapters 25 and 26. See:

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Part 1)

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Part 2)

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Part 3)

KING HEROD AGRIPPA II (Bibliography)

Famous for her beauty, Drusilla was previously married at age fifteen to Azizus, a Syrian priest-king, whom she left for Felix. She and Felix had a son together (Marcus Antonius Agrippa) who perished at Pompeii when Mt. Vesuvius erupted in 79 CE. As a Jewish princess Drusilla would have been familiar with affairs in Judaea and so she accompanied her husband (according to v.24 they were married by this time, she was then in her early twenties) to listen to the apostle Paul.

We read in v.24 that Felix and Drusilla came to hear Paul ‘concerning the faith in Christ.’ This was not a casual conversation. Paul did not discuss politics or philosophy, he proclaimed the life-changing message of Jesus Christ.

FELIX’S PRIVILEGE

What must it have been like to sit in the presence of the apostle Paul and hear him speak? God was speaking to Felix through Paul; probably the greatest Christian preacher of all time. What a unique opportunity – to hear the gospel directly from the man who had encountered the risen Christ on the Damascus road!

Felix already knew something about Christianity, perhaps through his wife. During the trial, when the resurrection was mentioned, we read in v.22 ‘when Felix heard these things, having more perfect knowledge of that way, he deferred them.’

It is not enough to know the facts about Jesus Christ. You must by faith repent of your sins and trust him! The Lord Jesus said in John 5:24, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.’

Throughout life God gives us opportunities to hear his word; through gospel messages, sermons, Bible studies, the internet, or even conversations with believers. The question is: ‘Are you listening?’ Are you open to the truth of the gospel, or do pride and other distractions keep you from receiving it?

FELIX’S CONVICTION

The Holy Spirit had sparked some interest in the heart of Felix or else this meeting would not have taken place. We are not told why Felix and Drusilla wished to listen to Paul. They seem a most unlikely couple to want to hear the gospel message. He was the cruel and murderous Roman procurator and she was from the infamous Herodian family. Her great-grandfather had tried to kill the baby Jesus in Bethlehem (Mat. 2:1-16); her great-uncle had murdered John the Baptist (Mat 1:12; Mk 6:27) and mocked Jesus (Lk 23:6-12); and her father had executed the apostle James (Acts 12:1-2). Anyhow, that day they certainly heard the truth from the apostle Paul.

Paul did not shy away from addressing the hard facts of the gospel; this took great courage because of the kind of person Felix was; he later (58 CE) arranged for the High Priest Jonathan to be assassinated for criticising his behaviour. Paul in his message gave Felix and Drusilla three compelling reasons for repenting and believing on Jesus Christ: he reasoned with them about ‘righteousness, temperance and judgement to come.’

Righteousness (justice): this would have confronted Felix’s corrupt style of government.

None of us is righteous, we are all sinners (‘For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;’ Romans 3:23). There is nothing that we can do in order to merit salvation (‘Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us’, Tit 3:5). All who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ have his righteousness imputed to them (‘For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ.’ 2 Cor 5:21. NLT ).

Temperance (self-control): this would have confronted Felix’s immoral lifestyle.

Felix and Drusilla were prime examples of a lack of self-control. Drusilla had left her husband to live with Felix and become his wife, and though a Jewess, she lived as though she had never known the Ten Commandments. Felix was an unscrupulous man who did not hesitate to lie, and even murder, in order to promote himself. Self-control was something neither of them knew anything about, they were wicked people. Jer 17:9 in NLT says: ‘The human heart is the most deceitful of all things, and desperately wicked. Who really knows how bad it is?’

Judgement to come. This would have reminded Felix of his accountability to God.

Paul would have told him that Jesus Christ is either your saviour or your judge. If he is your saviour the promise is, ‘There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit’ (Rom 8:1). If he is your judge, you will hear him say: ‘…I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity (Lk 13:27).

Paul’s third argument is the strongest of all. You cannot escape God’s judgement (‘… it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement: Heb 9:27).

Luke records that as he considered these things ‘Felix trembled’ (v.25). Conviction gripped his heart and he could not hide it, he was terrified. He realised that what Paul said was true. He felt the weight of his sin and feared the prospect of God’s judgement. So what did he do?

FELIX’S PROCRASTINATION

‘That’s enough for now! You may leave. When I find it convenient, I will send for you.’ (v.25 NIV).

Conviction alone is not enough. There must be a response. By the Holy Spirit Felix felt the weight of conviction of sin but he pushed the matter aside, saying: ‘I’ll deal with that later.’ The problem is: later may never come. What might he have been thinking?

I can take or leave God’s word!

I know that I am a sinner but surely my sins are not that big a problem!

God’s grace will last until I’m ready to receive Christ.

Felix’s delay was not just a fleeting hesitation; it became a pattern. For the next two years he kept Paul in prison. Now and again he sent for him and talked to him but not in order to hear the gospel; instead, corrupt as he was, he hoped to receive a bribe. Felix was more interested in personal gain than spiritual riches and he chose to ignore the message of salvation. In the end he missed his opportunity for he was replaced as governor and recalled to Rome, leaving Paul in prison. By that time Felix’s heart had hardened and he had little concern for his soul.

That is the danger of procrastination. The longer you put off receiving Christ the harder your heart becomes. Heb 3:15 warns ‘today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts…’ Procrastination thrives where there is an attitude that thinks, ‘I have plenty of time’ but God says in Prov 27:1: ‘Boast not thyself of tomorrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth.’ Procrastination can be fatal.

This story of Felix is a cautionary tale. He was a man who heard the gospel directly from the apostle Paul and, despite being moved by the message, decided to delay his response. Do not make the same mistake. Don’t let pride, fear or other distractions keep you back. Examine your own response to the truth. The gospel is not just a message to hear, it is a call to act.

1. Why do you wait, dear sinner,
O why do you tarry so long?
The Saviour is waiting to give you
A place in His sanctified throng.

2. What do you hope, dear sinner,
To gain by a further delay?
There’s no one to save you but Jesus,
There’s no other way but His way.

3. Do you not feel, dear sinner,
The Spirit now striving within?
O why not accept His salvation
And throw off thy burden of sin?

4. Why do you wait, dear sinner?
The harvest is passing away;
The Saviour is longing to bless you,
There’s danger and death in delay.

Chorus: Why not? Why not?
Why not come to Him now?

George F. Root (1820-1895) – Gospel Hymn Book

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 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 Latin loanwords

PRAETORIUM

Posted on by writtenexposition

PRAETORIUM

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

Greek: (πραιτώριον) praitṓrion

Latin: praetorium

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

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

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

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

PILATE’S PRAETORIUM Jn 18:28-19:16

GOLGOTHA Jn 19:17-37

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19:1-3 INSIDE THE PRAETORIUM

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

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

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

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

TEN QUESTIONS PILATE ASKED

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

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

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

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

‘What is truth?’ (Jn 18:38).

‘Whence art thou?’ (Jn 19:9).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus is standing in Pilate’s hall —

Friendless, forsaken, betrayed by all:

Hearken! what meaneth the sudden call?

What will you do with Jesus?

____________________

Jesus is standing on trial still,

You can be false to Him if you will,

You can be faithful through good or ill:

What will you do with Jesus?

____________________

Will you evade Him as Pilate tried?

Or will you choose Him, whate’er betide?

Vainly you struggle from Him to hide:

What will you do with Jesus?

____________________

What will you do with Jesus?

Neutral you cannot be;

Some day your heart will be asking,

‘What will He do with me?’

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JOURNAL ARTICLES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted in 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.