From what I understand Roman law had two very significant statutes regarding religion:

  • a law requiring that the Roman deities be acknowledged by a periodic sacrifice

  • a law permitting Judaism to operate as a legal religion

In addition there were ad hoc requirements made that the Jewish temple display Roman artifacts or offer sacrifices for the emperor and such.

We have accounts of such laws being enforced by Roman officials in Rome.

Since Herod Agrippa was King in Judea would he have been involved in dealing with such cases and imposing the will of Rome on Jewish and Christian religion?

For example, would Herod be responsible to make sure that Jews and Christians made sacrifice to Roman gods? Would he have to decide if someone had properly recanted for being a Christian? Would he have been responsible to enforce the emperor's requirements of Roman symbols in the temple, etc.?

[Act 12:1-5 ESV] (1) About that time Herod the king laid violent hands on some who belonged to the church. (2) He killed James the brother of John with the sword, (3) and when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also. This was during the days of Unleavened Bread. (4) And when he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him over to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out to the people. (5) So Peter was kept in prison, but earnest prayer for him was made to God by the church.

NIV Revelation 2: 12 “To the angel of the church in Pergamum write: These are the words of him who has the sharp, double-edged sword. 13 I know where you live—where Satan has his throne. Yet you remain true to my name. You did not renounce your faith in me, not even in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness, who was put to death in your city—where Satan lives.

  • Can you rephrase using a biblical scripture pls. This might b closed w/o it. Look up religio lecita, and Herod was an appointed "governor" by Rome. – Gina May 8 '19 at 12:07
  • You have probably figured out by now that I'm wondering if Herod might have not considered Christians to have protected status if they were not circumcised and/or bearing phylacteries, that then being the mark of the second beast, on the authority of the first beast (Rome). – Ruminator May 8 '19 at 12:29
  • @Ruminator can you explain what you mean by "if they were not circumcised and/or bearing phylacteries, that then being the mark of the second beast, on the authority of the first beast (Rome)." Maybe the sources of those ideas? – Ken Banks May 8 '19 at 15:04
  • They are the result of my ruminations of the scriptures and Roman history. I am not aware of anywhere where said interventions by Herod are explicit. I'm seeking evidence for or against such an action as might be implied in the writings of Paul that I cite. – Ruminator May 8 '19 at 15:18
  • You will need to be more precise. The Bible talks about: Herod the Great (died 4 BC) and was great murderer and builder; Herod Archelaus; Herod Antipas; Herod Philip (one of the tetrarchs); Herod Philip, brother of Antipas and 1st husband or Herodias; Herod Agrippa I, Herod Agrippa II. Which one? There was quite a family of them. – user25930 May 8 '19 at 22:33

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.