?Herodians?
- Thread starter Bookends
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
They were probably members of or connected to Herod's family. It's probably the same group Josephus mentions:
Ant 14.10 After which defeat, the Galileans revolted from their commanders, and took those of Herod's party, and drowned them in the lake, and a great part of Judea was become seditious; but Macheras fortified the place Gitta [in Samaria].
Ant 15.1 And since Herod had now the government of all Judea put into his hands, he promoted such of the private men in the city as had been of his party
Ant 15.1 And since Herod had now the government of all Judea put into his hands, he promoted such of the private men in the city as had been of his party
Herodians were those who supported Herod Antipas (and possibly also his father when he ruled, as well as his brother), and basically supported him politically, often, as Josephus points out, for personal favours. If it's helpful, thing of them as a lobby group.
The basic political situation at the time was that the Herods ruled judea as client kings of the Roman Empire. Rome allowed the client kings leeway in terms of their ability to rule (i.e. didn't simply place a proconsul or similar in direct positions of power over territory), in exchange for submitting to Roman authority, paying taxes, etc. It was basically a way to smooth over problems after conquest, by allowing some levels of local autonomy.
What is most interesting about Mark 3 is that the idea of the Pharisees and the Herodians teaming up is quite odd behaviour. The Herodians were generally in favour of working with their Roman overlords, because doing so allowed them to retain some measure of status and political power. They viewed Rome from a pragmatic perspective, and possibly saw advantage in the situation for themselves. The Pharisees, for theological reasons, generally opposed the interference of Rome in their affairs, particularly in matters religious (the idea of an unclean and overtly pagan Roman telling God's chose people how to practice their religion would have been abhorrent.)
But here, the Pharisees and the Herodians team up, presumably because they find Jesus to be a threat to not only Pharisaical judaism, but Roman rule. It would be about the equivalent of the Republicans and Democrats teaming up to purse one particular purpose.
The reason Josephus notes Herodians being drowned after the Galilean revolt was because they were seen by many, and most particularly the Zealots (another 'lobby group'), as essentially betraying the Jewish people.
The basic political situation at the time was that the Herods ruled judea as client kings of the Roman Empire. Rome allowed the client kings leeway in terms of their ability to rule (i.e. didn't simply place a proconsul or similar in direct positions of power over territory), in exchange for submitting to Roman authority, paying taxes, etc. It was basically a way to smooth over problems after conquest, by allowing some levels of local autonomy.
What is most interesting about Mark 3 is that the idea of the Pharisees and the Herodians teaming up is quite odd behaviour. The Herodians were generally in favour of working with their Roman overlords, because doing so allowed them to retain some measure of status and political power. They viewed Rome from a pragmatic perspective, and possibly saw advantage in the situation for themselves. The Pharisees, for theological reasons, generally opposed the interference of Rome in their affairs, particularly in matters religious (the idea of an unclean and overtly pagan Roman telling God's chose people how to practice their religion would have been abhorrent.)
But here, the Pharisees and the Herodians team up, presumably because they find Jesus to be a threat to not only Pharisaical judaism, but Roman rule. It would be about the equivalent of the Republicans and Democrats teaming up to purse one particular purpose.
The reason Josephus notes Herodians being drowned after the Galilean revolt was because they were seen by many, and most particularly the Zealots (another 'lobby group'), as essentially betraying the Jewish people.
2
Herodians were bad people
Baffled in their attempts to entrap Christ, the Pharisees took counsel with the Herodians. Having laid their plans, they "sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of His words, that so they might deliver Him unto the power and authority of the governor." They did not send the old Pharisees, whom Jesus had often met, but young men, who were ardent and zealous, and whom they thought Christ did not know.
The representatives of the Pharisees and Herodians approached Christ with apparent sincerity, as if to know their duty. "Master," they said, "we know that Thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest Thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly." This was a wonderful admission; but their words were not sincere, but were spoken to deceive. The testimony was true, however. The Pharisees did know that Christ said and taught rightly, and by their own words they will be judged.
Baffled in their attempts to entrap Christ, the Pharisees took counsel with the Herodians. Having laid their plans, they "sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of His words, that so they might deliver Him unto the power and authority of the governor." They did not send the old Pharisees, whom Jesus had often met, but young men, who were ardent and zealous, and whom they thought Christ did not know.
The representatives of the Pharisees and Herodians approached Christ with apparent sincerity, as if to know their duty. "Master," they said, "we know that Thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest Thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly." This was a wonderful admission; but their words were not sincere, but were spoken to deceive. The testimony was true, however. The Pharisees did know that Christ said and taught rightly, and by their own words they will be judged.
So basically one who belongs to or follows Herod and authority backing him up, became know as "Herodian". The "ian" suffix is identifying one's allegiance.
So perhaps the disciples in Acts 11:26 were called "Christ-ians" after the same manner?
26 And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
In this case, logically I must interpret "disciples" as "a follower" because Barnabas and Saul were never of the original 12. It is one who "continues with the Lord" as Barnabas encourages the "NEW BELIEVERS (verse 24)" in the Church at Antioch in verse 23 (Acts 11)...
Therefore, being called a "Christian" has nothing to do with "Spiritual Maturity", but is one who places FAITH in words of Christ and heeds the call of the Holy Spirit to believe. Nothing more, nothing less.
So perhaps the disciples in Acts 11:26 were called "Christ-ians" after the same manner?
26 And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
In this case, logically I must interpret "disciples" as "a follower" because Barnabas and Saul were never of the original 12. It is one who "continues with the Lord" as Barnabas encourages the "NEW BELIEVERS (verse 24)" in the Church at Antioch in verse 23 (Acts 11)...
Therefore, being called a "Christian" has nothing to do with "Spiritual Maturity", but is one who places FAITH in words of Christ and heeds the call of the Holy Spirit to believe. Nothing more, nothing less.
Of course...........Christians are believers in and followers of Jesus Christ.........doesn't everyone know that? I surely hope so.
Spiritual Maturity comes with "walking the walk." Striving to live Christ like. Ingesting and digesting the Word of God. Being led by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.......but, now, that may just be me........
Spiritual Maturity comes with "walking the walk." Striving to live Christ like. Ingesting and digesting the Word of God. Being led by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.......but, now, that may just be me........
Of course...........Christians are believers in and followers of Jesus Christ.........doesn't everyone know that? I surely hope so.
Spiritual Maturity comes with "walking the walk." Striving to live Christ like. Ingesting and digesting the Word of God. Being led by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.......but, now, that may just be me........
Spiritual Maturity comes with "walking the walk." Striving to live Christ like. Ingesting and digesting the Word of God. Being led by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.......but, now, that may just be me........
Yes...........there is "salvation"...........there is "sanctification"..........
Everyone has a "long way to go" but that process, striving to live Christ-like is a "fruit" of our salvation, and we are able to do this with the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.......
I think we agree on this.............
Everyone has a "long way to go" but that process, striving to live Christ-like is a "fruit" of our salvation, and we are able to do this with the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.......
I think we agree on this.............