Herod Antipas, the tetrarch who beheaded John the Baptist, is called a "king" in Mark 6:14-29. Since a tetrarch is a "ruler of a quarter," and he was just ruling over one designated area, and Herod the Great's son, Herod Agrippa I, was the last king of Judea, why was Antipas referred to as a king? -- Sharon Pascual
Herod the Great died in 4 BC, and his kingdom was divided. As you mention, Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, was Tetrarch of Galilee from 4 BC till 39 AD. This Herod was in fact a puppet king, only half Jewish, and hated by most of his countrymen. Herod Agrippa I was king of Judea and Samaria from 37 to 44 AD. His son, in turn, Herod Agrippa II, was Tetrarch of Chalcis, Galilee and Perea from AD 50-100.
The word "king" has a broader semantic range in O.T. Hebrew and N.T. Greek--and in the various cultures of Bible times--than in modern English. A "king" might rule a city, or a very small region. A tetrarchy, or quarter-kingdom, is led by a tetrarch. Yet there is nothing wrong with calling a tetrarch a king. We ought to remember that none of the kings in Roman times--at least those within the Empire--was ultimately sovereign. They answered to Rome.
At any rate, Antipas predates Herod Agrippa I. Or, better said, their reigns, in different parts of the Holy Land, overlap by only two years. We must keep the chronology straight.
This article is copyrighted and is for private use and study only.
