by wmfinck » Wed Oct 05, 2016 9:30 am
Under the Romans, there were Senatorial Provinces, which belonged to the people, and the men sent to administrate them were appointed by the Senate. Then there were Imperial provinces, which were controlled by the emperor and he appointed the governors of those provinces. Then there were kingdoms, which were under a king who was given his dominion by Rome, so he was subject to Rome, but who had much greater autonomy and ruled at his own whim within the bounds of the kingdom, so long as he kept the Romans happy.
The status of a given area could change under particular circumstances. For instance, all Judaea was a kingdom under the first Herod. But his son, Herod Archelaus, was so bad and the people became so resentful that the Romans had to depose him and make Judaea a province. Then they split it into 4 pieces, and appointed four other descendants of Herod to be Tetrarchs (rulers of a fourth) under Roman administration. That was more or less a political compromise.
Some time later, two of those quarters, Galilee and Perea, were given to another of the first Herod's sons, Herod Agrippa I, as a kingdom. That was a gift from the emperor, as Judea was an Imperial province under the emperor's control. I think even then, perhaps, the Senate rubber-stamped it.
So for a time, Galilee and Perea were a separate kingdom under Herod Agrippa I, and Judaea and Samaria remained under the Roman governor appointed by Caesar. That was the circumstance at the time of the ministry of Christ.
When Herod Agrippa I died (Acts chapter 12), I believe at first that those provinces reverted for a time to the control of the Roman governor of Judaea, and after awhile his son, Herod Agrippa II (Acts 25 & 26) was awarded his father's kingdom.
So under the Romans, kings ruled at the leisure of Rome, and a kingdom was really just a political reward.
If a jew is moving his lips, he's lying. If you see a rabbi, there has already been a crime!