Tag: Messiah

Posted in Exposition

Psalm 2: God’s Warning To World Leaders

Posted on by writtenexposition

INTRODUCTION

Psalm 2 is a Royal Psalm that may have been sung at the coronation of Davidic kings of Israel and Judah. The psalm has no superscription identifying the author nor is the author’s name given in the psalm itself. The New Testament, however, indicates in Acts 4:25 that Psalm 2 was written by David.

Interpreters therefore attempt to match this psalm to known events in the life of David. Most likely it relates to the Philistine invasion of the Valley of Rephaim (2 Sam 5) near Jerusalem soon after David had united Israel and Judah. David defeated the Philistine forces in battles at Baal-Perazim and at Geba. The later Jewish historian Josephus (c. 37–100 CE) claims that other nations joined the Philistines in opposition to David at that time (Ant., VII, iv, i; xii, 4):

When the Philistines understood that David was made king of the Hebrews, they made war against him at Jerusalem; and when they had seized upon that valley which is called The Valley of the Giants, and is a place not far from the city, they pitched their camp therein; but the king of the Jews. . . led out his army against the Philistines; and when the battle was joined, he came himself behind, and fell upon the enemy on the sudden, and slew some of them, and put the rest to flight. And let no one suppose that it was a small army of the Philistines that came against the Hebrews. . . but let him know that all Syria and Phoenicia, with many other nations besides them, and those warlike nations also, came to their assistance, and had a share in this war. . .

In the ancient world the accession of new kings was a dangerous time because subordinate peoples would often seize the opportunity afforded by a temporary leadership void to throw off the rule of their overlords. In order to survive, a new king needed to quickly consolidate the borders of his kingdom, subdue insurgents and put down his enemies. This is the background to Psalm 2.

The Davidic kings, located in the southern kingdom of Judah after the breakup of the United Monarchy following the death of Solomon, viewed themselves as ‘the Lord’s anointed’ and, as such, entitled to rule over the nations. Psalm 2 extols the power and authority of Judah’s God YHWH over the nations, and therefore that also of his chosen and anointed king. Psalm 2 advises the nations to give up their rebellious plans and submit to the authority of the Davidic king.

That was great in theory but in practice Judah, although strategically located and prominent in the southern Levant, was small in size and relatively unimportant on the world stage. More often than not the Davidic kings were pawns in the hands of the rulers of the big empires: particularly Egypt, Assyria and Babylon.

When the the Davidic monarchy in Judah came to an end as a result of the Babylonian conquest and exile in 586 BCE any hope of world domination by Judah, however faint, had dissipated. From then on Jews, followed later by Christians, began to interpret Psalm 2 as Messianic: predicting the coming of a future king, an ‘anointed one’ (Messiah) descended from David, who would rescue them from all oppressors and rule the nations.

Christians view this Messiah as Jesus Christ and Psalm 2 as a prophecy of his eschatological reign. The psalm features large in the New Testament writings; it is either alluded to or cited in the following verses: Mt 3:17; 17:5; Mk 1:1; 9:7; Lk 3:22; 9:35; Jn 1:49; Acts 4:25-26; 13:33; Phil 2:9-11; Heb 1:2, 5; 5:5; Rev 2:26-27; 11:18; 12:5; 19:15.

STRUCTURE

Psalm 2 consists of 12 verses, with heavy parallelism in almost every verse. Summers (2020), writing on Psalm 89, gives examples of the three basic forms of parallelism – synonymous, antithetic and synthetic:

In synonymous parallelism a thought is expressed and then repeated in different words: “Then was our mouth filled with laughter, And our tongue with singing” Ps.126.2; In antithetic parallelism the initial thought is emphasised by contrasting it with its opposite: “The merciful man doeth good to his own soul: But he that is cruel troubleth his own flesh” Prov.11.17; In synthetic parallelism the second line completes the thought of the first: “I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: For Thou, LORD, only makest me dwell in safety” Ps.4.8.

Psalm 2 has a four-part structure. It falls naturally into four strophes; each having three verses:

1-3 The rebellion of the nations against YHWH and his king

4-6 YHWH’s reaction to the nations’ plans

7-9 The king declares his right to rule

10-12 The psalmist advises the nations to submit and be blessed

EXPOSITION

THE REBELLION OF THE NATIONS AGAINST YHWH AND HIS KING (1-3)

​1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

Psalm 2 begins with a rhetorical question: Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The author incredulously asks why the Gentiles would plot against YHWH and his ‘anointed’ when they have no chance of prevailing. Rage means to be in commotion or uproar and the parallel verb imagine means to ponder, plot or devise. The nations (gôyim) refers to the Gentiles and people is a general noun that can refer to Israel or to humanity in general. The plan they are hatching is a vain thing; it is futile.

Verse 2 focuses on the instigators of the rebellion. The leaders of the coalition against YHWH and his anointed are described as kings and rulers. The phrase kings of the earth mocks the restricted sphere of influence these officials have when compared with YHWH who in v.4 sits in the heavens. They have set themselves (adopted an antagonistic position – possibly military opposition) and conferred together (this refers back to the plotting in v.1) against YHWH and his anointed.

The title māšiyaḥ (anointed one, messiah) referred to the High Priest (Lev 4:3) or (more often) to the king (1 Sam 2:10; 2 Sam 2:51) as someone who had a special relationship with YHWH and had been chosen by the deity to fulfil a specific mission. Messiah can be a noun or an adjective; here it is a noun. The psalm views the coalition of nations directly rebelling against the anointed Davidic king as also indirectly opposing YHWH, the God whom the anointed represents.

David is very much associated with anointing as he was anointed king three times:

  • by the prophet Samuel in Bethlehem (1 Sam 16:12-13)
  • by the men of Judah in Hebron after the death of King Saul (2 Sam 2:4)
  • by the elders of Israel in Hebron seven and a half years after the previous anointing (2 Sam 5:3-5)

Verse 3 reveals the intentions of the coalition and the objective of their plans.

Let us break their bands asunder
Let us cast away their cords from us.

The plotters view their current situation as one of bondage to YHWH and his anointed one (note ‘their bands’ and ‘their cords’ i.e. of YHWH and the anointed one) and, full of resentment and violent intent, they feel the urge to gain independence.

YHWH’S REACTION TO THE NATIONS’ PLANS (4-6)

4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

In verse 4 the scene shifts from earth to heaven and the focus is now on the Lord and his response to the plans of the rebellious nations. The verse uses anthropomorphisms (YHWH doing what humans do) – sit, laugh, mock – to describe YHWH’s response to the rebellion. The word sitteth equals ‘enthroned’ as in Psa 9:4; 29:10; Lam 5:19. Verse 4 uses the divine title Adonai rather than the divine name YHWH. This emphasises YHWH’s superiority as master or lord, to whom all are subservient. In contrast to the agitation and commotion among the nations on earth the Lord is calm, detached and in control. Their plans are no cause for concern, he considers them ridiculous.

The word then at the beginning of v.5 indicates that YHWH has decided to intervene. Unfortunately for the rebels his mirth will quickly give way to wrath and anger (sore displeasure). These words are associated with heat so the idea is that of burning wrath and hot rage. According to the CWSB Dictionary the word ’ap (translated ‘wrath’) is often intensified by being paired with another word for anger or by associating it with various words for burning (Num. 22:27; Deut. 9:19; Jer. 4:8; 7:20). The word translated ‘sore displeasure’ (ḥārôn) is a noun meaning heat, fierceness, anger. The word vex means to terrify. Here we have cause and effect: the Lord will speak and his anger will terrify them.

In verse 6 YHWH says ‘Yet. . .I’ or ‘But as for me.’ In contrast to the plans the nations are hatching YHWH will carry out his own plan and install his own king in Zion. I have set is perfect tense. It could denote the recent past (‘I have just set’) or it could indicate resolve (‘I have resolved to set’) or it could be prophetic (‘I shall set’). In view of the word ‘today’ in v.7 perhaps ‘I have just set’ might be the best interpretation. The coronation of the new king will take place on the ‘holy hill of Zion.’ This can refer specifically to the Temple (Isa. 56.7; 65.11; 66.20) or more generally to the city of Jerusalem (Psa. 48.1, Dan. 9.16)

THE KING DECLARES HIS RIGHT TO RULE (7-9)

7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.

In vv. 7-9 the first person verbs indicate that it is the new king who declares by what right he rules. He quotes a decree from YHWH, this is possibly a reference to The Davidic Covenant of 2 Samuel 7. Communicated to David by the prophet Nathan, this promised an everlasting kingdom to David’s seed and that the Davidic king would be a son to YHWH and YHWH a father to him (2 Sam 7:14). In v.7 the king metaphorically refers to himself as a ‘begotten’ son of God. The ‘today’ of the begetting refers to the day when David was anointed and designated king rather than to his coronation day (although for most of the Davidic kings anointing and coronation would have occurred on the same day). Figuratively born into a royal existence the one who has been designated king now has a close, and indeed special, relationship with YHWH. Psalm 2:7 is directly quoted in Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5 and Heb 5:15.

Hoping to shed some light on the historical setting Knohl (2003, p. 726) points out that the claim that a king is ‘son of God’ was made in ancient cultures. He provides some examples from Egypt (the coronation accounts of Pharaohs Hatshepsut, Amnehotep III and Haremhab), from Greece (the Seleucid monarch Alexander Balas, 150-145 BCE) and from Rome (the Emperor Octavian who began to use the title ‘divi filius’ – ‘son of God’ – around 40 BCE). Knohl maintains that in all the cases he lists the claim to be ‘the son of God’ was made at times of conspiracy and in ‘problematic political situations’ and therefore concludes that it: had a very specific aim. It was a political tool for supporting a ruler in his struggle with his enemies. He goes on to suggest (p.727) that: the claim to be ‘son of God’ is mainly a political device. It was probably intended for Israelite ears, rather than for the enemies. It was meant to strengthen the rule and legitimacy of the king among his people in a time of an external threat.

Verse 8 continues the words of the divine decree. As YHWH’s son the new Davidic monarch will inherit the kingdom. This will include the Gentile nations (including those that are currently rebellious) and extend to the remotest parts of earth.

Verse 9 – The new king will subjugate the plotters and put down all rebellion. The phrase ‘rod of iron’ (rod equals sceptre – although some commentators take the meaning as shepherd’s staff and translate as ‘you will shepherd’ rather than ‘you will shatter’) denotes the king’s power and authority. ‘Iron’ emphasises his strength. ‘Smash them’ and ‘dash them like a potter’s vessel’ suggest violence.

Regarding the simile ‘like a potter’s vessel’ Ross (2014, p. 210) comments: This figure maybe based on the Egyptian custom in which the name of each city under the king’s dominion was written on a little votive jar and placed in the temple of his god. Then, if the people in a city rebelled, the pharaoh could smash that city’s little jar in the presence of the deity. Such a symbolic act would terrify the rebellious—not that the city had much of a chance of withstanding the pharaoh in the first place. The psalmist may be drawing on that imagery to stress how easily the king, with all the authority of heaven behind him, will crush the rebellion swiftly.

THE PSALMIST ADVISES THE NATIONS TO SUBMIT AND BE BLESSED (10-12)

10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

In vv. 10-12 the same speaker (i.e. King David who is also the psalmist) addresses the rebel leaders and gives them advice. There are five imperatives:

Be wise – they are to act prudently – make wise choices.

Be warned – receive instruction. The rebellious political leaders ‘judges of the earth’ are like children who need training.

Serve – the Gentile nations ought to turn from their own false deities and submit to (‘serve’ equals ‘worship’ and obey) YHWH, the God of Israel/Judah. They are to worship him ‘with fear’ – this probably includes both aspects of fear; dread and reverence.

Rejoice – The phrase ‘rejoice with trembling’ seems odd but the idea may be that of shouting for joy while worshipping in YHWH’s sanctuary yet remaining aware that their celebration must be honouring to God.

Kiss – They are to kiss the son. Whether the Aramaic word bar (‘son’) even means ‘son’ has been debated for centuries because it appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible with different meanings such as: pure, chosen, son, corn, and field. Some translate ‘kiss the son’ as ‘worship purely’ or ‘draw close to purity’ or ‘arm yourself with purity.’ They argue that it is unlikely that David would have used the Aramaic word for ‘son’ since he had already used the Hebrew word for ‘son’ (bēn) in v.7. They also point out that Aram (KJV – Syria) was a vassal kingdom to David (2 Sam 8:4-7; 1 Chron 18:3-6) and that he would not have borrowed this word from their language for his psalm.

Generally speaking, however, ‘kiss the son’ is interpreted as the kiss of allegiance – the action of one king paying homage to another, perhaps by kissing his feet. It is not the actual act of kissing that is important but the submission that it represents (Psa 72:9; Isa 49:23; Mic 7:17).

‘Lest he be angry’ – most likely the subject of the verb is YHWH rather than the king. The leaders of the nations are to urgently submit to the anointed earthly king or YHWH may be angry with them and they perish ‘in the way’ i.e. their path of rebellion. Anger and rage have previously been attributed to YHWH in v.5.

The psalm ends with a beatitude – a blessing for all who ‘take refuge in him’ – again ‘him’ could refer to the king or to YHWH but most likely to YHWH. They that put their trust in him refers mainly to Israel/Judah.

SUMMATION

Psalm 2 is usually classified as both a royal psalm and a messianic psalm since its subject is that of one specially chosen and anointed (Messiah) by YHWH to become king over the entire world. The psalm calls him the Lord’s anointed, the Lord’s king and the Lord’s son. The themes of the psalm are set out in 4 strophes, each with 3 verses.

  • 1-3 – The rebellion of the nations against YHWH and his chosen king.
  • 4-6 – YHWH’s angry reaction to the rebellion.
  • 7-9 – The declaration by the chosen king of his right to rule and his prediction that the rebellion will be crushed.
  • 10-12 – Advice to world leaders to submit to YHWH and his chosen king.

Although it is applicable in the first instance to David and to subsequent Davidic kings both Jews and Christians await the future fulfilment of this psalm. For Christians the Messiah is the Lord Jesus Christ and Psalm 2 predicts his eschatological reign.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Knohl, I. (2003). RELIGION AND POLITICS IN PSALM 2. in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, pp.725–727, Vetus Testamentum, Supplements, Volume: 94, Brill, Leiden

‌Ross, A. P. (2014). A Commentary on the Psalms: Volume 1 (1-41). Kregel Academic.

‌Zodhiates, S. and Strong, J. (2002). The Complete Word Study Bible Dictionary Old Testament : King James Version. Chattanooga: AMG Publishers.

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Straus M. (2014). Psalm 2:7 and the Concept of περιχώρησις. Scottish Journal of Theology. Vol. 67, No. 2, pp. 213-229.

‌ELECTRONIC RESOURCES

Gunn, G. (2011). PSALM 2 AND THE REIGN OF THE MESSIAH. [online] Available at: https://shasta2.weebly.com/uploads/1/6/7/0/16705804/psalm_2_reign_of_messiah.pdf [Accessed 24 Jan. 2026].

Summers, A. (2020). Chapter 14: Psalm 89 | The Glory of the Messianic Psalms. [online] Available at: https://assemblytestimony.org/books/book-12-the-glory-of-messianic-psalms/chapter-14-psalm-89/ [Accessed 24 Jan. 2026].

Posted in General

THE IDENTITY OF JESUS AS ‘SON OF’

Posted on by writtenexposition

SON OF GOD – often – including Mk 1:1; Lk 1:35; Jn 1:49; Ac 9:20, Rom 1:4; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20

SON OF THE MOST HIGH -Mk 5:7

SON OF THE HIGHEST – Lk 1:32

SON OF THE LIVING GOD – Mt16:16; Jn 6:69

SON OF THE BLESSED – Mk14:61

SON OF THE FATHER – 2 Jn1:3

SON OF MAN – often

SON OF MARY – Mk 6:3

CARPENTER’S SON – Mt 13:55

SON OF JOSEPH – Lk 3:23; Jn 1:45; 6:42

SON OF DAVID – Mt 1:1; 15:22; 20:30; 21:15

SON OF ABRAHAM – Mt 1:1

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 Exposition

ROMANS 9:1-5. PAUL’S LAMENT

Posted on by writtenexposition



‘I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen’ Romans 9:1-5 (NIV)


Romans chapter nine begins with a personal lament which introduces the problem that Paul intends to address; the failure of Israel to accept the gospel in spite of the privileges with which they had been blessed. This is the first of four times (9:1-5; 10:1-4; 11:1-6; 11:13-14) in chapters 9-11 when Paul involves himself personally at major turning points of the discussion:


a) In 9:1-5, he stresses how much God’s mercy to Israel matters to him – to the extent that he would be willing to be cut off for the sake of his people.


b) In 10:1-4 he bears witness on behalf of Israel that they have good intentions: they have a zeal for God, but it is is not according to knowledge.

c) In 11:1-6 Paul testifies to the faithfulness of God who has, in fact, called a remnant of Israel in Paul himself.

d) In 11:13-14 he says that he glorifies his ministry as apostle to
the Gentiles; this is part of God’s plan to make Israel jealous.


Paul begins this section with a series of double expressions in vv. 1-2 (‘I speak the truth —I am not lying; in Christ – through the Holy Spirit; great sorrow – unceasing anguish’) by which he asserts his honesty and expresses his grief that his fellow Jews are lost.

In v. 1 he sets forth in one sentence a five-fold cumulative assertion of his sincerity:

a) ‘I speak the truth!’

b) ‘I speak the truth in Christ’

c) ‘I speak the truth in Christ – I am not lying’

d) ‘ I speak the truth in Christ – I am not lying, my conscience confirms it’

e) ‘I speak the truth in Christ – I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit’

Paul calls on Christ himself as the one who can vouch for the truthfulness of what he is about to say about Israel and reminds his audience that a second witness, his conscience, is testifying by means of the Holy Spirit. He may have had in mind the OT Law of Evidence which required at least two witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15-16).

Paul (v.2) describes his heartbreak as continual (adialeiptos) and his response to this as a wish (or prayer) that he might be condemned in order that they might be saved. Was Paul speaking in hyperbole or was he serious? Moo (1996, p.558) comments:

‘I prefer, in agreement with most English translations, to ascribe a hypothetical nuance to the imperfect tense; as Cranfield paraphrases, “I would pray (were it permissible for me so to pray and if the fulfilment of such a prayer could benefit them”)’

Since Paul’s giving up of his own salvation was neither possible nor permissible the wish could not be fulfilled. He seems to model himself on Moses (Exodus 30:30-32), who had also at times been badly treated by the Israelites and yet expressed a willingness to sacrifice himself for them. That those for whom Paul is heartbroken are unbelieving Jews is emphasized in v. 3 where their identification as ‘my people’ is modified by ‘those of my own race’ and further in v. 4 by ‘the people
of Israel’. Paul may have been the Apostle to the Gentiles but he was certainly a Jew by race.

In the concluding words of this lament Paul lists eight special privileges given to Israel and bemoans the fact that the Israelites have not benefitted from these spiritual advantages:

1) adoption
2) the glory
3) the covenants
4) the giving of the law
5) the temple worship
6) the promises
7) the patriarchs
8) the Messiah – who was himself a Jew

Thus in verses 1-5 Paul laments the unbelief of his fellow Jews and their failure to take advantage of their unique privileges, and expresses his overwhelming desire for their conversion. This introduces the subject that will occupy him throughout the rest of chapters 9-11; the unbelief of Israel and the question of God’s faithfulness.

See my posts:

Introduction to Romans chapters 9-11

Romans 9:6-29

Romans 9:30- 10:21

Romans 11:1-24

Romans 11:25-36

Romans 9-11 Bibliography

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 Exposition

(3) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

Posted on by writtenexposition



‘the fact that the light has never been quenched is proved by the witness of the prophets, above all by the witness of John the Baptist, the last of the prophets and the herald of Christ. But his function as a witness has to be clearly distinguished from that to which witness is given – the light, which became flesh in Jesus Christ.’

The Fourth Gospel identifies the purpose of John the Baptist’s appearance and ministry as that of ‘witness’. In the Prologue the two mentions of John as witness are inserted at strategic points, reinforcing what has been said. Verse seven (‘to bear witness of the light’) harks back to what is said in verse five about the coming of the light and verse fifteen to what is said in verse fourteen about what Ridderbos (1997, p.42) calls ‘Jesus’ antecedent transcendent glory.’


Trites (2004, p.78ff.) argues convincingly that the Fourth Gospel ‘presents a sustained use of juridical metaphor’. She maintains that ‘in the Fourth Gospel God Incarnate has a lawsuit with the world’ (p.79). She indicates that in the first twelve chapters, which deal mainly with the conflict between Jesus and “the Jews”, John is stating a case, advancing his arguments, challenging his opponents and presenting his witnesses. She understands the idea of witness in John’s gospel in terms of Old Testament legal language and points out that other juridical words such as judge, judgement, cause, accuse and convince are also used in a context of debate or hostility.


Her assessment of John the Baptist as witness (p.91) is insightful:


‘John is the first and one of the most important witnesses to Jesus and his testimony is a threefold one, as the Prologue makes clear: (1) He is not the Light. (2) He is sent to bear witness to the Light. (3) The purpose of his witness-bearing is that all may believe in Christ (1:6-8). This pattern is followed in subsequent sections dealing with the Baptist. John is mentioned at the beginning of the Fourth Gospel , for he is the first to point his fellow men to Jesus, and in that sense all believers have been brought to Christ through him (1:7b). While there had been other men sent from God, John’s task was unique. He bore witness to the incarnate Word, to his superiority to himself, and to his prior existence.’


Others said to be witnesses in the Fourth Gospel include: Jesus Himself (3:11; 5:31; 8:13-14; 18:37), the Samaritan woman (4:39), God the Father (5:32,34,37; 8:18; I John 5:9), Scripture (John 5:39), the works of Christ (5:36), the crowd at the raising of Lazarus (John 12:17), the Spirit (15:26-27; I John 5:10,11), the disciples (John 15:27; 19:35; I John 1:2; 4:14), and the author himself (John 21:24).

Although John the Baptist was sent from God as a witness to the Light he is portrayed as insignificant in comparison with the Light itself. Jesus called him a ‘lamp’ (5:35) but he was certainly not the Light. The writer of the Gospel asserts John’s subordination to Jesus (1:20, 27, 29, 33, 36) and strongly denies that John the Baptist is the Messiah. According to Luke 3:15 some people thought that John the Baptist might be the Messiah’. In the Prologue John gives no information on John the Baptist but concentrates only on his function as a witness to the Light.



‘It is employed with two different nuances in this verse. In the first two instances the reference is to the created world, the world that constitutes humanity’s environment and that includes humanity itself. In the third instance – the world did not know him- the reference is to the world of humanity that by its response reveals its devastating plight of having become alienated from and hostile to the Word/Light that sustains it. It is this second negative connotation of ‘world’ that will become dominant in the Fourth Gospel.’

(1) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

(2) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

(4) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

(5) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

(6) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.