Tag: Latin

Posted in Latin loanwords

MACELLUM

Posted on by writtenexposition



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


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


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


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

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

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


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

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


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


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


• Factions and divisions in the assembly.


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


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


• Wrong attitudes to money.


• Disorder in the assembly.


• Misunderstandings about spiritual gifts.


• Beliefs about (the) resurrection.


• The consumption of idol food.


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


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


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

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


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


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


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

Posted in Roman names

GALLIO

Posted on by writtenexposition

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

Name: Gallio

Full Roman Name: Lucius Iunius Gallio Annaeus

Position: Proconsul of the senatorial Province of Achaea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Posted in Latin loanwords

LINTEUM

Posted on by writtenexposition

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


Greek – λέντιον (lention)

Latin – linteum

English – towel


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


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


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


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


THE SETTING

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


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


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


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


THE SAVIOUR

‘His own’


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


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


‘his own’ (13:1)

‘children’ (13:33)

‘friends’ (15:15)

‘those whom you gave me’ (17:6)

‘my brethren’ (20:17)

‘little children’ (21:5)


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


‘His hour’


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


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


THE SERVANT

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


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


‘He is going back to God’ (v.3)

‘He gets up from supper’ (v.4)

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

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

‘He pours water into a basin’ (v.5)

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

‘And Peter says to him’ (v. 6)


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


THE SOVEREIGN

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


THE STANDARD

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


SUMMATION

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


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



Posted in General, Latin loanwords, Roman names

INTRODUCING ROMAN NAMES AND LATIN LOANWORDS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Posted on by writtenexposition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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