Some background on the four Herods . . .

and other kings noted in the Gospels and book of Acts

I don’t know about you but for me, figuring out just who were the different kings mentioned in the Gospels and Acts has always left me a little confused. So, finally, I determined to do a brief study on them, and the unfolding events put any soap opera to shame.

To refresh your memory, if needful, the fabulous four were Herod the Great, His son Herod Antipas, Herod Agrippa and finally Herod Agrippa II. Before detailing the life of each king, a bit of history regarding the origin and duration of their reign from 37 B.C. to 70 A.D may be helpful.

The story begins when Pompey, who ruled with Julius Caesar and Crassus, set up ruling authorities in the land of Israel after it had come under Rome’s power. He appointed Hycranus as the high priestly ruler, and he chose an Idumaean named Antipater as his senior advisor, who in turn persuaded Hycranus to appoint his two sons to act as Roman procurators. Upon the death of Antipater in 43 B.C., Herod, the youngest son, was appointed to govern Galilee, while the elder Phasael was to oversee Jerusalem. When Caesar was killed and his plans to consolidate gains in Israel were shelved, the Parthians who dated back to the Persian empire (now present day Iran) saw an opportunity to grab the land for themselves. The outcome resulted in Phasael’s death and continued opposition to Herod. Herod finally prevailed, winning the favor of Rome through his battles with Parthia, and in 30 B.C. Octavian (Caesar Augustus) granted him his rule over Jerusalem until his death in 4 B.C.

HEROD THE GREAT was not considered so great by the Jews for two reasons. First, Herod’s bloodline traced to Edom, the land of Esau, Jacob’s brother, from which the Palestinians of today may be traced.    Surely, Abraham and Sarah erred when attempting to help God fulfill His promise of giving them a son; the hostility between Esau’s people and Israel continues even today, and the Jews never accepted Herod because of his heritage.  Second, because Herod represented Rome, he was political anathema to the Jews. However, when compared to other kings in his period who stopped at nothing to achieve power, he might be judged in a better light. Although he could be exceedingly cruel, he proved to be an astute negotiator, and an opportunist, with exceptional military ability. During the famine in Israel in 25 B.C., he spared no expense to import grain from Egypt, and in 20 B.C. he began building the great Jerusalem temple. Astute at pitting diverse interests against each other, both religiously and politically, he was able to maintain order, which made for stability of rule. 

But whatever good he accomplished pales in the light of his cruelty. He is known to have killed his favorite wife Mariame, her two sons, and in his later reign, his own son Antipater. It is notable that he is remembered for slaughtering the Innocents in Bethlehem in fear of the King the wise men sought. The historian Josephus gives a grim picture of Herod’s physical and mental deterioration in his later life, whose earlier excesses led to delusions of persecution and uncontrollable outbursts of violence. Yes, Herod the Great was not really so great.

HEROD ANTIPAS, the son of Herod the Great, was referred to by Christ as “that fox,” a reference to the subtlety and cunning that enabled Antipas to retain power as ruler of Galilee through all kinds of difficult situations. Of course, Antipas will be remembered for his marriage to Herodias, the wife of his half-brother Phillip, which John the Baptist condemned, and even more so for his seduction by Salome in acquiescing to her request for John’s head on a platter. It’s sad to remark that perhaps until this episode, Antipas was favorably disposed toward John, as noted in Mark 6:20, Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and holy, and he protected him; and when he heard him he did many things, and heard him gladly.

We gain further insight when we read in Luke 23:8 when Jesus was brought before him to be judged---Now when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceedingly glad; for he had desired for a long time to see Him, because he had heard many things about Him, and he hoped to see some miracle done by Him. But sad to say we read that after Christ would not answer him and the chief priests and scribes pressured him, Herod, with his men of war, treated Him with contempt and mocked Him, arrayed Him in a gorgeous robe, and sent Him back to Pilate. I think both Herod and Pilate sorrowed much after they sold out Christ because the next verse says, That very day Pilate and Herod became friends with each other, for previously they had been at enmity with each other. Yes, misery loves company. Herod Antipas died in 39 A.D.

HEROD AGRIPPA, the grandson of Herod the Great, was brought up in Rome where he became a favorite of the emperor Caligula. (As an aside, his name, and perhaps something of his nature was inherited from the Roman matron Julia Agrippina, b. AD 15, who was the mother of Nero. She held power during the reign of her brother Caligula but was banished after plotting against him. Her uncle Claudius I recalled her to Rome and married her in 49. He allowed her ambitions full scope and favored Nero over his own son, Britannicus. Agrippina is thought to have poisoned Claudius to make Nero emperor. Ruling with Nero for a time, she abused her power and quarreled with his supporters. In 59 he ordered her put to death.  (Family values seem not to have been in vogue.) In A.D. 37 Caligula granted Herod Agrippa the rule of Ituraea in northern Israel upon the death of Phillip who apparently had ruled Ituraea well. He was probably the best of Herod’s three surviving sons, but since he doesn’t figure prominently in this history, it’s sufficient to note only that he founded Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his confession of Jesus as the Messiah. In addition to Ituraea, Agrippa was granted the territory of Galilee and Peraea following the exile of Herod Antipas and Herodias. Agrippa’s rule was marked by a desire to gain favor with the Jews. Indeed, Acts 12:1-3 is explicit: “Now about that time Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some from the church. Then he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to seize Peter also.” Apparently he excelled in gaining favor, yet his reign was short, ending in A.D. 44. He died at the age of 54 when after addressing the Jews he accepted their praise of him as a god, as Acts 12:21-23 relates: “So on a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat on his throne and gave an oration to them. And the people kept shouting, "The voice of a god and not of a man!" Then immediately an angel of the Lord struck him, because he did not give glory to God. And he was eaten by worms and died. Following his death, there was considerable disorder over the next four years until his teenage son came into rule.

HEROD AGRIPPA II appears only in Acts 25-26 during Paul’s trial. To learn of Agrippa and the other players in this plot, a brief review of the happenings recorded in Acts 21-26 may help refresh memories. (More profitable would be a full, careful reading of the chapters.) Upon his return to Jerusalem, Paul was wrongly accused by the Jews of Asia of speaking against Israel and the Law, as well as defiling the temple by bringing a gentile into it. In a rage they began to beat him and only were stopped from killing him when the commander of the Roman guard intervened. Even so, the Jews further persisted, and finally a plot to kill him was conceived. When it became known to Paul’s nephew, he instructed him to inform the commander of the guard, who for Paul’s safety sent him under armed guard to Caesarea with a letter to Felix, the Roman procurator of Judea. When the Jews came to present their case, Paul refuted them by maintaining that he was being tried “for the resurrection of the dead,” which caused a division between the Jews and caused Felix, who was somewhat knowledgeable of the matter, to be lenient with Paul although keeping him in custody. Later when Felix came with his Jewish sister Drusilla to learn more of Paul’s Christian faith, Acts 24:25 relates, “Now as he [Paul] reasoned about righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and answered, "Go away for now; when I have a convenient time I will call for you. (How many today may say the same?). We read that Felix, hoping to gain money from Paul, kept him confined for two years as a favor to the Jews until, being relieved of his authority, he was replaced by the new Roman governor Festus Porcius.  Little is known of Festus prior to his appointment by Nero, but he appears to have treated Paul even handedly, although at a loss to understand the charges brought against him. Desiring to do the Jews a favor, Festus asked Paul if he would consent to be tried in Jerusalem by the Jews, which led Paul to day, “I appeal to Caesar.” Festus, concerned about sending Paul to Rome without clear charges was apparently at an impasse. However, after some time, when Agrippa (Agrippa II, not to be confused with Agrippa I already mentioned) and his sister Bernice arrived, Festus voiced his concerns, and Agrippa expressed interest to hear Paul’s case. Paul’s testimony before Agrippa was compelling. Yet, when Festus interjected that Paul’s learning had driven him mad, Paul’s response was in appealing to Agrippa whom he knew was well acquainted with the prophets and the events since the time of Christ. Agrippa’s reply was probably not unlike that of so many today, “Paul, ‘You almost persuade me to become a Christian.’” (Sorry, “almost” just isn’t good enough.) So ends the trial, with Agrippa’s comment noting that Paul had done nothing deserving chains, he might have been released if he had not appealed to Caesar. (Well, Paul did appeal, not surprisingly since the Lord had shown him that he was to testify in Rome.)

Now that the general picture is in mind, a few comments and particulars are relevant. First, it’s worth remembering that Israel was divided into several political districts. Judea, Samaria, Galilee and Ituraea were each governed by different Roman rulers referred to by different titles, e.g. procurator, governor or king, so as the saying goes “they’re the same thing only different.” Second, we need to keep in mind that each of the four Herods differed in their reigns of power. Third, because they were related to each other, their identities may easily be mistaken.

For instance, consider Agrippa II. As noted, he is not to be confused with the first Agrippa who died in A.D. 44. His son, the second Agrippa, had three sisters, two of which are mentioned in the Acts account – Drusilla and Bernice. Drusilla, apparently young and beautiful, had been married to a King Emesa, but was persuaded by Felix of Greek birth, to marry him after his appointment as Roman procurator, so that she was considered an adultress. (Felix and Drusilla may have heard Paul out of idle curiosity, but apparently the lifestyle of Felix was enough to trouble him when Paul spoke about “righteousness, self-control and judgment to come.”)  Though Agrippa was perhaps one of the better kings, the scandal of his incestuous marriage to his sister Bernice, was to his disadvantage. As the last of the Herods to rule, he apparently felt that an understanding Judaism was the key to his successful rule from A D. 48 to 70.

Concerning Felix, he was a favorite of the Roman emperor Claudius and later Nero. Given the procuratorship of Judea, he apparently thought he could do as he pleased, and, after having failed badly, he was recalled to Rome, perhaps by the influence of Agrippa and Bernice. Aside from his involvement in the trial of Paul, he is not mentioned. Though mentioned in this account, he was not a member of the Herod family.

Of Festus Porcius, enough has been said of his role in the trial. Again, while one of the principals, he was not a member of the Herod family.

Hopefully, this brief study will be helpful to anyone trying to discern the background of events during the trial of Paul. Certainly the period of history in which these events took place shows a quest for power and control among rulers that is striking. If the full truth were disclosed of what goes unseen among rulers today, would it be that much different? Daniel 4:17 takes on a special significance, “The most High rules the kingdom of men, and gives it to whom he will, and sets over it the basest of men.”  Let us pray for the leaders of our nation.

TO TOP

HOME