Acts 12

CHAPTER XII

THE PERSECUTION UNDER HEROD AGRIPPA I

Acts 12:1

1Along that period of time Herod, the king, put forth his hands to abuse some of those belonging to the church.

We have explained the chronology of events in 11:30. Herod’s persecution occurred “along about that καιρός or period of time.” The prophecy of Agabus preceded Herod’s persecution and his death, and this, in turn, preceded the famine and its suffering and the relief brought by Barnabas and Saul. Herod died after the Passover of 44, the famine followed toward the end of 44 and continued into 45. “Herod, the king,” refers to the Herod who was at this time the actual king of all Palestine and not merely, like his uncle Herod Antipas, often called king while he was only a tetrarch. This is Herod Agrippa I, a grandson of Herod the Great, a son of Aristobolus and Bernice. We have told his story in connection with 10:1: He was a prisoner in Rome until Tiberius died, was made tetrarch on the occasion of the accession of Caligula, and then king of all Palestine by Claudius in 41, and thus became the first and only Herodian who ruled as king over all Palestine after the death of Herod the Great. He died three years after his appointment as king.

He was a treacherous, superficial, extravagant prince, although not as bad a character as his grandfather had been. Jerusalem was his capital. Since his elevation to the kingship he courted the favor of the Jews, especially that of the bigoted Pharisees, and played the role of zealous protector of the Jewish faith and cultus. The hostility which developed some years before, when Stephen was slain, found in him a new protagonist, which explains what follows.

He began suddenly to take active measures against the Christians by putting forth his hands (through his minions) to abuse or ill-treat “some of those from the church,” οἱἀπό is often used with reference to the members of a corporation. Luke writes only “some” without specifying who are referred to although we may assume that he selected his victims. The idea that he observed them in their attendance at the Temple and gave orders to expel them from the courts and the worship, is too general and mild. The view that Peter’s action in Cæsarea when he permitted Gentiles to enter the church stirred up Herod’s animosity, is rather superficial. Κακῶσαι implies that he arrested some of the more prominent Christians, had them scourged and abused in other ways, and thus began his further bloody work. These first victims escaped death, otherwise Luke would have used a stronger verb than “abuse.”

Acts 12:2

2Moreover, he made away with James, the brother of John, by means of the sword.

During the persecution that followed upon Stephen’s martyrdom some Christians were no doubt killed. James is usually called the second martyr, yet, in reality, others preceded him. Although he was one of the Twelve, Luke makes only brief mention of the martyrdom of James. This has been found strange, and some say we do not know why Luke did not tell the entire story for he certainly knew all the details. Luke, however, follows a definite plan. The story of Stephen was vital for that plan since the death of Stephen led to the extension of the church in all directions, even to distant lands.

The martyrdom of James had no comparable effect, hence the brevity of the record. The importance of this bloody deed lies only in the fact that it singled out an apostle and that it showed the temper of Herod and indicated to what lengths he intended to go.

We again have the significant verb ἀνεῖλε (ἀναιρέω), “he made away with,” which always denotes murder and criminal killing; in the previous chapters it is constantly used with regard to the death of Jesus. The dative of means, μαχαίρᾳ, shows that James was beheaded by an executioner as the Baptist had been by that other Herod. James was thus arrested. He may also have been brought to trial before Herod or have been summarily executed after his arrest. The fact that James was at first the sole victim is most likely due to the circumstance that he was the only one of the apostles who happened to be in the city at the moment.

Clement of Alexandria tells a story which he claims to have received from his Christian ancestors to the effect that the soldier who led James from the court room, after witnessing the joyful confession James had made, was so deeply affected that he on his part confessed himself a Christian, whereupon he was led out to execution together with James. On the way this soldier asked James to pardon him for having served as the tool of the king. James thought a little while and then turned and said, “Peace be with thee!” and kissed the soldier. An affecting story, but whether it is true or not, no one can say. See Eusebius 2, 9.

Acts 12:3

3And, on seeing that it was pleasing to the Jews, he in addition arrested also Peter—now they were days of the unleavened bread—whom also, on capturing, he placed in prison, delivering him to four quaternions of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him up to the people.

To see their king take such strong measures against the Christians delighted the hostile Jews to the highest degree. It was the king’s very purpose to gain this vigorous approval. In the combination προσέθετοσυλλαβεῖν, “he added to seize,” a Hebraism, the verb takes the place of an adverb, and the infinitive expresses the main idea: “he in addition arrested” also Peter. Greatly encouraged by the first execution, the king proceeded to the next one.

Again we ask why Peter was the one to be arrested, and also why Herod did not arrest more or even all of the apostles. The only satisfactory answer is that the other apostles were absent at this time. When James returned, Herod made away with him; now when Peter came back to the city he, too, fell into Herod’s hands. The interval between these two events seems to have been quite short.

The parenthesis is indicated by δέ, and ἡμέραι is the predicate. “They were days of the unleavened bread” means that it was Passover time when all leaven was scrupulously removed from the house for the duration of the entire festival week which began at sundown on the fourteenth of Nisan, the evening on which the Passover lamb was eaten (Matt. 26:17), Num. 28:16, 17. The entire week was called τὰἄζυμα (λάγανα, cakes), hammatzoth. It seems that Peter had come to Jerusalem in order to spend the Passover week with the mother congregation.

Acts 12:4

4Upon his arrest Peter was lodged in prison, which was very likely located in Herod’s palace, and was put under the heaviest kind of guard. The reason for this was the fact that Herod had heard that the Twelve had once been locked up securely, and yet that on the next morning their prison had been found empty. The king intended that such an occurrence should not be repeated. So he had Peter delivered to four quaternions of his soldiers who were “to be guarding him,” one set of four soldiers doing guard duty in the way indicated in v. 6 for one watch of six hours, and so each set in rotation.

It was Herod’s intention “to bring Peter up to the people” the day after the Passover proper. That means that he was to be led up out of his dungeon cell to the hall of trial where all who cared to could be present, and from there to be led away to execution where all who cared to could witness the act which demonstrated the king’s wonderful zeal for the integrity of the Jewish faith.

“After the Passover” means after the Passover meal on the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan, namely on the fifteenth. The plan was to duplicate the execution of Jesus who also died on the fifteenth of Nisan. Herod intended to impress the thousands of people who attended the festival from far and near. In Matt. 26:5, the Sanhedrin planned to wait until the festival week was past because it feared the people, the pilgrim hosts attending the festival who were captivated by Jesus. Their plan was frustrated when God allowed Jesus to fall into their hands on the night between the fourteenth and the fifteenth. The Jewish rule was: Non judicant die festo. It was broken in the case of Jesus; it was again to be broken in the case of Peter.

“After the Passover” is generally taken to mean “after the entire Passover week,” which identifies “days of unleavened bread” and “Passover.” ΙΙάσχα has this wider meaning, but it also has the narrower which then refers to the ceremonial meal when the Passover lamb was eaten on the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan. Here the narrower meaning is in place because of the context and because “days of unleavened bread” precedes. “After the Passover” specifies on which particular day during the days of unleavened bread the execution was to take place.

The king’s plans were made, and due measures had been taken to see that they would be carried out.

Acts 12:5

5Peter, accordingly, was being kept in the prison. Prayer, however, was being made strenuously by the church to God concerning him.

The two imperfect tenses describe the situation and ask the reader to visualize and to dwell on it. Which will be the stronger, the dungeon and its guards or the prayers of the church? The entire congregation was making prayer to God; ἦν and the present participle are the periphrastic imperfect. Whether we prefer the reading περί or ὑπέρ the sense is that the prayer so strenuously made to God was “concerning” or “for” Peter in the sense that his mortal danger was laid before God who was asked that his will be done. God had allowed Stephen and recently also James to die; it might be that Peter’s name was to be added to those of these martyrs, and yet God might deliver Peter even now (21:14). Human impossibilities are not impossibilities to him.

Acts 12:6

6Now, when Herod was about to bring him before them, on that very night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, having been fettered with two chains, also guards before the doors were keeping the prison.

The imperfect tenses still describe, but we are carried forward to the critical night, the one that it was Herod’s intention was to be Peter’s last on earth. Herod was very close to bringing him before them (προάγειν), thus carrying out his murderous plan. Hope seemed to be gone, rescue or deliverance impossible. God often lets a case become desperate and delays to the last in order that we may the more clearly recognize that the deliverance comes from him. It was “in that night,” on the evening of which the Passover lambs were eaten.

Luke states how Peter was guarded: he lay sleeping between two soldiers and was chained to one on each side so that he could not stir even in his sleep without arousing these two guards who were stretched out at his sides. In addition (τε) guards manned all the doors of the prison. This is usually referred to the other two soldiers of the quaternion on duty; but while these may have stood inside or outside of the door of Peter’s cell, the prison was kept by other guards, some of whom were stationed at each exit. Each quaternion when it was on duty, was responsible with its life for Peter’s safekeeping; but the prison itself had many more guards, in fact, as the Codex Bezae reads, the entire cohort of the king’s soldiers. Herod would certainly have quite a force of troops in Jerusalem at the time of the Passover when thousands of pilgrims were in the city.

Acts 12:7

7Now we have the aorists which report the outcome in detail. And lo, an angel of the Lord stood by him, and a light shone in the cell; moreover, having slapped the side of Peter, he awoke him, saying, Arise in haste! And his chains fell off from his hands. And the angel said to him, Gird thyself and bind on thy sandals! And he did thus. And he says to him, Throw thy robe around thee and be following me! And, having gone out, he was following. And he was not aware that it was true what was occurring through the angel but was thinking he was seeing a vision.

The very thing that Herod intended to prevent, a recurrence of what had happened in the case of the Twelve when the Sanhedrin had imprisoned them, God made reality. God accepted Herod’s challenge, and Peter was as easily released as the Twelve had been. Out of the fetters, the cell, the prison, out from among the special and all other guards, Peter walked as though they had not been there. The account is as lucid and clear as it can be; yet it has been considered a piece of fancy, and men have undertaken to tell us what happened. There is the lightning story; Peter is released by the head jailor—yet the quaternion paid for it with their lives; the king himself had Peter released—yet he killed the four guards; how Peter got out nobody knows, he just imagined that it was through the agency of an angel.

Comment is almost unnecessary. The guards are as though they were not there; none of them is conscious of what was happening. The angel and the light that filled his cell (οἴκημα, the place in the building) Peter saw when he awoke. Let us not overlook the fact that Peter was peacefully asleep. He did not lie there and worry on this apparently his last day on earth. What he would say at his trial and how he would act was dismissed from his mind; he had his Lord’s own promises, which he had already tested twice before when he was a prisoner before the Sanhedrin (Matt. 10:19, 20; Mark 13:11–13; Luke 12:11; 21:14, 15).

Thus Peter, having committed his soul to the Lord, slept in peace! At the angel’s command to arise, the chains by which he was fastened to the soldiers at his wrists, at once drop off noiselessly. Ἀνάστα is the short form of the second aorist imperative active instead of ἀνάσθητι.

Acts 12:8

8Peter acts as though he were in a dream and has to be told everything. He is ordered to fasten the belt about his tunic and to put on his sandals; the two imperatives are the middle voice: “gird thyself,” “bind under for thyself.” The belt had been unfastened and the sandals laid aside for sleep. When Peter has done this, he is told to throw his long loose outer robe around him and to be following the angel. He probably slept on the robe by drawing it over his body as well as he could. The aorist imperative to express the one act is also middle and reflexive, but the order to follow is properly the durative present.

Acts 12:9

9Peter followed the angel as though no doors blocked his way. Did they open and then close noiselessly? No guards saw or heard anything. Peter himself could at the moment not tell whether what was occurring through the instrumentality (διά) of the angel was real (ἀληθές), or whether it was a vision that had come to him in his sleep. Luke had heard this from Peter’s own lips. Note the three imperfect descriptive tenses; the present participle and the present infinitive are the same: “the thing occurring”; thought “to be seeing.”

Acts 12:10

10And, on having gone through a first and second guard, they came to the gate, the iron one, the one leading into the city, which automatically opened for them; and having gone out, they went forward along one narrow street, and immediately the angel was gone from him.

We need make no difficulties for ourselves. In v. 9 Peter and the angel go out of the cell and leave behind the quaternion that had been especially commanded to guard Peter. Now they pass through two other guarded portals and thus get into the great open court from which a great gate led to the street. The repetition of the article gives the noun as well as its two modifiers individual attention and forms a sort of climax (R. 762, 764): “the gate, the iron one, the one leading to the city.” This final barrier was impressive. It was made of iron and thus very heavy and was locked with a massive bolt so that a number of men were required to open it. The other two had been ordinary doors.

This massive gate opened of itself and let Peter and the angel out, and then, of course, closed just as automatically. That this happened just as the guards were changing is one of those unacceptable suggestions. There lay the prison undisturbed, all its locks and its bolts in place, all its many strong guards in their places—but the prisoner was gone.

The great gate probably opened upon a wide street (πλατεῖα) from which a narrow one (ῥύμη) turned off. The angel guided Peter forward along this one narrow street and thus some distance from the prison and then suddenly disappeared; ἀπέστη is the opposite of ἐπέστη in v. 7.

Acts 12:11

11And Peter, having come to himself, said: Now I know truly that the Lord sent forth his angel and took me out of Herod’s hand and all the expectation of the people of the Jews.

Peter’s impression that it was all a dream continued until he stood alone on that narrow street in the dark night. All his movements had followed the directions and the leading of the angel, now he had to think and to act for himself. His natural consciousness returned. He now knew that he had not seen a mere vision, but that what he had seen was full reality. In v. 9 “he was not knowing” (ᾔδει used as an imperfect); in v. 11 he says, “Now I am knowing, do know.” First, that Κύριος (Yahweh) had actually commissioned his angel, and that he had actually taken him out of Herod’s hand or power, and thus out of all that the Jews were expecting, namely that Peter would be killed on the very anniversary of Jesus’ death, killed without hope or help of rescue as James had been a short time before this. Peter is making an inventory of what God has done for him and what this really implies.

The aorists state the two facts; ἐξείλετο is a form of ἐξαιρέω. God’s intent is plain: Peter is not yet to suffer martyrdom, not yet is John 21:18, 19 to be fulfilled. Having been given his liberty, Peter is to use it to escape from Herod. God used supernatural means to free him but intends that from now on Peter is to use natural means and prudence to remain free.

Acts 12:12

12Also, on considering, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John, the one surnamed Mark, where were many, having been assembled and praying.

The participle states that Peter saw everything together, i. e., viewed his present situation in relation to what his next steps should be. On thus considering he went to the house of Mary who Is identified by naming her son John, whose other name was Mark, by which name he is best known to us; he became the writer of the second Gospel. We again meet Mark in v. 25, and then in 15:5, 13. In Col. 4:10 he is called the ἀνεψιός or cousin of Barnabas. In 1 Pet. 5:13, Peter calls Mark “my son”; in analogy with 1 Tim. 1:2, where Paul calls Timothy his own son in the faith, it is fair to conclude that Mark was converted by Peter.

Luke states that many disciples were gathered together in Mary’s house this night of the Passover and were praying for Peter. We have two predicative participles, for since one is perfect and the other present, neither can be combined with ἦσαν as a periphrastic verb form. Having been collected, they were now thus. Whether Peter knew that he would find many here is not indicated by Luke although some interpreters assume this to be a fact and build up their combinations on this assumption.

Let us at once state that Peter’s object was first of all to notify his friends about his miraculous deliverance. Whether he would find many or few at Mary’s house made little difference as to that object, for the whole church was deeply concerned about him, and he could not communicate with all that night. The fact that Peter found many at Mary’s house was providential. Let us not forget how the Christians after the death of Stephen, and how Peter, remembering that, might well have expected another flight now that Herod was maltreating Christians, had beheaded James, and was attempting to do the same with Peter himself. It is not at all certain that Peter expected to find an assembly in Mary’s house.

We take it that Peter’s release was effected not long after midnight, for a new quaternion would go on duty at that time. This would allow until six A. M. before the escape was discovered, when a new quaternion came on duty. He who miraculously led Peter out of prison would scarcely permit a premature discovery of the escape. Those two soldiers within the cell snored peacefully on until well toward six o’clock.

No objection can be raised to the assumption that Mary’s house often served as a place of meeting for a group of the disciples, and that the house was large, that Mary was rich, that she was a widow, a woman of character, and all that. But when we are asked to believe that hers was the house in the upper room of which Jesus celebrated the last Passover and instituted the Sacrament, that Mark was the man bearing the pitcher of water whom Peter and John were to follow, that Mary’s husband was still living at that time, that Mark was present at the last Passover of Jesus, that he was the young man clad only in a sheet, which sheet was snatched from him when he ran for his life near Gethsemane—we regard this as one of those syntheses which Zahn’s great Kombinationsgabe has produced.

But there are serious objections to this combination of facts. From this assembly on the night of Peter’s escape we are asked to leap backward across a space of about fifteen years to the night of Jesus’ last Passover, make the houses the same, and weave in everything else—that is the basic part of this hypothesis. This demands too much of us. Moreover, when Jesus delegated Peter and John to go and to prepare for the Passover, no man could even guess whose the house would be—it was not one where Jesus had been often; for Jesus states that its upper room would be tiled, the implication being that the disciples had never before set foot in it. No one but Jesus and the Twelve were present at the Passover: one proof of this is the fact that Jesus had to wash the feet of his disciples. If Mark was there, how did it come that he followed the procession clothed only in a sheet?

Would any man clothed only in a sheet walk out through the city streets and into the country to the neighborhood of Gethsemane? Men slept in their tunics. How long did it take to put on a tunic, throw a robe around the shoulders, and then run out? We cannot accept Zahn’s view.

Acts 12:13

13Now he having knocked at the door of the passage, there came to it a maid to answer by name Rhoda; and on recognizing the voice of Peter, due to her joy, she did not open the passage but, after running in, she reported Peter to be standing before the passage. But they said to her, Thou art crazy! Yet she insisted that it was so. They, however, went on to say, It is his angel! But Peter remained there knocking; and having opened, they saw him and were amazed.

Here we have one of the beautiful detailed paintings of Luke. It is like the human interest stories that are so constantly published in the daily press of today. Four lines in 11:19, 20 dispose of the collection and the sending of the funds for relief; many lines fully describe Peter’s experience.

According to Luke’s account an outer door led into a passageway through the building that faced the street into an inner court. When Peter knocked at the door, a maid came to answer his knock (ὑπακοῦσαι, aorist), and Luke preserves even her name: Rhoda, our Rose or Rosa. R., W. P., comments on these beautiful names for women such as Dorcas (Gazelle), Euodia (Sweet Aroma), Syntyche (Good Fortune). Luke’s mention of the maid’s name perhaps indicates that Peter knew the household well. As all her actions show, Rhoda herself was a Christian. Maids were used as portresses (John 18:16, 17); they were often, no doubt, slaves, although it is not likely that Rhoda was a slave.

Peter’s knocking was heard in the dead of the night. Many disciples were gathered somewhere in the house. Herod had maltreated some of the Christians, slain James, and was counting on slaying Peter. That knock at the outer door must have caused great fright among the gathered disciples. Their first thought must have been that Herod had sent soldiers to make more arrests, and that in some way he had found out about the gathering at Mary’s house. Who should go to the door and answer that knocking?

Surely, they would not send just this girl even though answering the door was her regular duty. Some brave man or two ought to have gone. But no, Rhoda goes. To be sure, her answering the door would not arouse suspicion and might afford the disciples time for flight. Bravely Rhoda goes. Let us remember her for that.

With palpitating heart she listened in order to learn who was seeking entrance in the middle of the night.

Acts 12:14

14On asking, Rhoda at once recognized Peter’s voice—another sign that Peter was well known at that house. Straightforward, with nothing flighty or superstitious about her, she believes the evidence of her ears. Not for a moment does she hesitate and reason that this cannot be Peter, that he is far away in the terrible prison under heaviest guard. Instantly her heart is flooded with joy so that she forgets to unlock the door, runs back pell-mell to the assembled disciples, and shouts the great news. One must not sit in his study and coldly view this action. All the emotion, the sudden plunge from dreadful fears to the very extreme of joy in this maid’s heart must be felt by the reader. “Peter is standing before the portal!

Peter himself is standing before the portal!” she shouts to the assembly. The perfect ἐστάναι is always used in the sense of the present.

Acts 12:15

15The answer she received was that she must be demented, we should say crazy. But Rhoda insisted that it was as she declared; with an adverb ἔχειν always has the sense of “to be,” the present tense is that of the direct discourse: es verhaelt sich also. Rhoda was the only one of that entire company who kept her balance. Although it was one against all, she did not waver. In the face of her constancy and under the necessity of explaining that voice which Rhoda had heard the disciples fell to saying (descriptive imperfect, which also holds us in suspense as to what the fact would turn out to be): “His angel it is!” i. e., that is who it must be.

Since ἄγγελος means “messenger,” and angels are so called because they are God’s messengers, some think that the exclamation meant that Peter had sent some messenger from his prison cell, and that Rhoda had heard this messenger say something about coming from Peter and had thus imagined that it was Peter himself. But this is untenable. These disciples could not shake off their mortal fears for Peter and leaped to the conclusion that he was already dead, and that his guardian angel had come to tell the sad news. It was a wild idea, but fears inspire weird notions. Matt. 18:10, and Heb. 1:14, plus old Jewish ideas may have been commingled in their minds. It is difficult to be entirely sure.

We recall the cries of the apostles on the night they saw Jesus walking on the water, Matt. 14:26. The one thing that was the fact the company in Mary’s house absolutely refused to believe. After praying for Peter’s deliverance the thought that God might deliver him seemed incredible to them.

Acts 12:16

16All this was going on while Peter was standing before the locked passage. To show that he was still there he kept on knocking. Finally there was only one thing to do, to stop arguing and to unlock that door. The plural shows that practically everybody went to the door. Imagine their perturbed state and the excitement as to what opening that door would reveal. When it swung back—there stood Peter! Rhoda was right, everybody else was wrong. The unbelievable was fact—“they saw him.” And now the sudden and terrific reaction: “they were amazed,” ἐξέστησαν, their minds were completely upset.

Acts 12:17

17They, of course, took him in, and a hubbub ensued. Now, after beckoning to them with the hand to be silent, he recounted to them how the Lord had led him out of the prison. He also said, Report these things to James and the brethren, and having gone out, he traveled to a different place.

Peter had to gesture with his hand in order to bring the excited company to silence. Then he told the entire story of his miraculous deliverance and asked that it be reported also to James and to the brethren, namely to the entire congregation. Without further delay Peter left them and proceeded to another place.

Why does Luke not name this place? The answer that Peter went into hiding in Jerusalem itself is too improbable to be accepted; besides, nearly all interpreters are agreed that he left the city. But why make so much ado about the place to which Peter went when Luke considered it too unimportant to be mentioned? Did Herod not die shortly after this Passover? Then all danger was past. Herod had no royal successors, Roman procurators once more governed. So Peter was free to come and to go as he might please. That is why Luke says only “to a different place.” He does not say to what places the other apostles had gone at this time and for the same reason: the matter was of no special importance.

Zahn finds a hint here that Luke intended to write a third book in which the story of Peter was to be continued in detail. Luke, he tells us, would mention this “different place” in that third book. The supposition of a third book cannot be supported by an omission such as this. The reason Peter sent no word to the other apostles was the fact that they were not in Jerusalem at the time but at work elsewhere. The Apostle James, it seems, had been seized by Herod and killed because James happened to return to Jerusalem for a visit; Herod had arrested Peter and probably intended to do the same with any of the other apostles who might come back.

Romanists fill out the blank which Luke left regarding the place to which Peter fled from Jerusalem by claiming that he went to Rome and remained there for a ministry of twenty-five years as the first pope of the church. This idea is fantastic. Luke wrote the Acts in order to show how the gospel took its course from Jerusalem to Rome, the first apostle to arrive there being Paul, and he a prisoner, and all the while Peter had been in Rome, had been there as a pope, and Luke never said a word about it in the entire Acts, did not even incidentally mention Rome when Peter left Jerusalem but wrote only “a different place.” And when Paul finally proposed to visit Rome and wrote to Rome from Corinth he forgot to send greetings to Peter, and after he was in Rome and wrote to others from Rome he again forgot to send greetings from Peter. Thus there is no basis for Rome’s contention.

The way in which James is mentioned here, and the fact that Peter sends word especially to him, prepare for 15:13; Gal. 1:19; 2:9, 12; James 1:1. In Gal. 1:19 Paul calls him “the Lord’s brother”; the question as to what that relationship implies has been discussed in connection with 1:14, where Luke mentions “his (Jesus’) brothers.” He must have been the chief elder of the congregation at Jerusalem and, as 15:13, and Gal. 2:9 would imply, chief because of his personal character and ability. In 11:30, the Judean elders are mentioned but no apostles. The conclusion is evident that at this time the apostles no longer had personal charge of the congregation at Jerusalem.

After the great scattering that followed Stephen’s stoning and Saul’s cruel persecution the congregation again grew. At what particular time elders were placed in charge of it no one knows. During that first persecution the apostles remained in Jerusalem (8:1), but when Saul was converted and quiet again came, we see Peter working at Lydda, Joppa, and Caesarea; the other apostles must have gone out from Jerusalem in the same manner. So already at that time elders must have been chosen by the Jerusalem church, among them was James who from that time onward had charge of the congregation and of all its affairs.

Acts 12:18

18But when day came, there was no small disturbance among the soldiers as to what, then, had become of Peter. Herod, however, when he had made search for him and not found him, after putting the guards to an examination, ordered them to be led away to execution. And having gone down from Judea to Caesarea, he was spending time there.

There was great excitement among the soldiers, which includes the entire garrison of the palace of Herod. Ἄρα implies: “since Peter was gone,” and τί may be considered an accusative adverb, R. 916. The great question was: “What became of Peter?” as our idiom would state the question. He had vanished into thin air. This happened “when day came,” as we take it, about six in the morning when the new quaternion came on duty. Herod, of course, was soon informed.

Acts 12:19

19He scarcely made the search in person but made it by means of his chief officers. If Peter had somehow gotten out of his cell, how had he managed to get through the guards and the doors, the first, the second, and then the great iron gate? But thorough search (ἐπί in the participle) revealed not even a trace of the prisoner; he was just not to be found. The first two participles report the preliminary actions, the third what followed them, namely a judicial examination with Herod acting as judge. He grilled the four guards from whom Peter had escaped. Of course, his questioning brought no results, and Herod then commanded that they “be led away,” ἀπαχθῆναι, which is like the active in Luke 23:26, a judicial term which may have a modifier as it does in Matt. 27:31, and again may not.

The four guards were forthwith summarily executed. It was the military law that the guards of a prisoner were liable with their lives for the security of the prisoner specially committed to them.

And yet one wonders at Herod. His chagrin was great; what about “all the expectation of the people of the Jews” (v. 11)? If Herod had not had the example of the Twelve recorded in 5:19–24, if he had not posted that extra heavy guard to prevent a recurrence, he might have been justified in giving the limit of the law to the poor guards. But he certainly must have felt that a higher hand was behind this inexplicable disappearance of the apostle whom he had planned to kill that day. Did he execute these guards merely to save his face? We know that he left the city, dropped all further persecutions, and spent some time in Caesarea. This is the force of διέτριβεν, the durative imperfect, which is used with or without a noun such as “time,” “day,” etc.

Acts 12:20

20Now he was in a hot quarrel with Tyrians and Sidonians. With one accord, however, they were present with him and, having persuaded Blastus, the one over the bedchamber of the king, they were duly asking peace because their country was being nourished from the king’s.

How the hot contention arose is not indicated. Tyre and Sidon lie on the coast of Phoenicia which was only a narrow strip of land extending along the coast. This territory belonged to Syria and not to Herod’s domain, yet it was dependent on “the royal land” for the greater part of its foodstuffs, especially grain and cattle, being shut off from Syrian imports by rough mountainous heights. Whatever the cause of the rupture might have been, Herod had discontinued the supplies from his country. Tyre and Sidon were rich due to their maritime trade, yet they suffered under Herod’s punitive measures. Thus a delegation of Tyrians and Sidonians was present in Caesarea for the purpose of asking peace.

The imperfect tenses are in place because the outcome of the negotiations was still uncertain. The middle ᾐτοῦντο, “were duly asking,” indicates that the matter was a piece of business; the negotiations were official. The delegation had made Blastus, the king’s chamberlain, “the one over the king’s bedchamber” (the Greek lacking our ready title), their friend. We need not ask how they “persuaded” him; bribes have always been effective. He was using his influence with the king. Διὰτό with the present infinitive states the reason for both the presence of the delegation and for their petition.

Acts 12:21

21And on an appointed day Herod, having put on royal apparel, after having sat down on the throne, was making an oration unto them; and the people kept calling, Voice of a god and not of a man! And immediately the Lord’s angel smote him because he did not give the glory to God. And having come to be eaten of worms, he expired.

From Josephus (Ant. XIX, 8, 2) we learn that the fixed or appointed day was the second in a grand celebration of games after the Roman fashion in honor of a victory and triumph of the emperor Claudius on his return from Britain and not in honor merely of his birthday or of the anniversary of his reign. On this day Herod gave his answer to the Tyrian and Sidonian ambassadors in the great theater where the games were being celebrated. The affair was made a magnificent occasion inasmuch also as the answer was favorable. Luke says that Herod had arrayed himself in royal apparel. That is putting it mildly; Josephus speaks of a στολή or festal robe wrought in silver so that on this morning the slanting rays of the sun made the king glisten and sparkle with brilliance.

The theater was filled with the δῆμος, “the people” considered as a body politic (λαός would be the people at large, ἔθνος the nation, ὄχλος just an unorganized crowd). In their hearing the king, seated on the βῆμα, the elevated stage with its chair or throne, delivered an oration to the ambassadors, ἐδημηγόρει, the word indicating the desire for the favor and the praise of the δῆμος. The king was mounting to the pinnacle of his glory. The games spoke of the great favor Herod was enjoying at the hands of the emperor; the games reflected the glories of Rome; all the important and dignified personages of Herod’s kingdom were present among the dēmos; then there were these ambassadors from Tyre and Sidon with their humble suit for peace. In his blazing silver apparel and with his demogogic oration the king was grandly rising to the occasion.

Acts 12:22

22And then the shouts began among the dēmos: “A god’s voice and not a man’s!” As far as the people were concerned, most of them were pagan idolaters and used to deifying the Roman emperors, and this shouting was no more than a bit of flattery to tickle the vanity of the king. His theatrical robes, his entire grandiose bearing on this special day for which the affair was staged invited the flattery which ranked Herod among the gods as was the case with regard to the Roman emperors. But Herod was a nominal Jew, the king of the Jewish nation, and, as we have seen in connection with his persecution of the Christians, one who posed as a most zealous exponent of Judaism, its great defender against Christian encroachments. This Jew permitted those shouts that deified him to continue instead of instantly hushing them as being utter blasphemy; he let these pagan idolaters make a pagan god of him and enjoyed it.

We must note the imperfect tenses in v. 21, 22. They picture what was happening and intimate that something decisive followed as the outcome. The aorists used in the next verse record what that outcome was.

Acts 12:23

23Immediately, right there in the theater, Herod was struck by the Lord’s angel ἀνθʼ ὧν, “in exchange or in return for which things”, i. e., because he did not give the glory to God, namely all divine glory, instead of accepting such glory for his own person. Καί adds what this smiting of the angel implied: “he came to be eaten of worms,” σκωληκόβρωτος, and thus died, ἐξέψυξεν, the lower word, “breathed out his ψυχή,” not the higher, “breathed out his πνεῦμα.” The psyche is man’s immaterial part in so far as it animates his physical body, hence it is often translated “life.” So all that Luke says and properly can say is that life went out of him. This was the frightful and sudden end of Agrippa I which came to him after only three short years of royal reign; he died at the age of 54.

The manner of his death is plainly marked as a Gottesgericht, a signal and visible judgment of God. A number of similar horrible deaths through masses of maggots eating the victim’s putrifying body as though it were already a corpse are reported, all of them coming to human monsters. Read Josephus on the death of Herod the Great, Ant. 17, 6, 5; 2 Maccabees 9:5, 9 on the death of Antiochus Epiphanes who bitterly persecuted the Jews and is prominent as a type of Antichrist. Pheretima, queen of Cyrene, celebrated for her cruelty, was eaten by masses of worms while she was still alive; Herminianus, Roman governor of Cappadocia, who cruelly persecuted the Christians, was another; also the emperor Galerius, the last Roman emperor to persecute the church. The historian Niebuhr adds also Philip II of Spain who was noted for his cruelties and his persecutions.

As far as Josephus and his account of Herod’s death are concerned (Ant. 19, 8, 2), he states that Herod lived only five days after being stricken in the theater and agrees that it was due to the fact that he accepted the blasphemous praise. Josephus always writes with an eye to the Romans and thus says nothing about the worms eating Herod’s vitals but tones this down to pains and trouble in Herod’s “belly.” In Ant. 18, 6, 7 he tells of the time when Herod was a prisoner under Tiberius in Rome, how he saw an owl sitting, and how a German fellow prisoner worked his way toward him and prophesied that this owl meant good luck, and that he would soon be elevated to the highest position; but that if he should again see an owl, it would be the reverse, that he would then live only five days. Josephus claims that while he was in the theater he saw an owl sitting upon a rope and died after five days in fulfillment of the German’s prophecy. If any basis in fact exists for this story about the owl, we set it down as an instance of second sight.

Zahn seems to find a connection between this owl as a messenger (ἄγγελος) of evil and Luke’s angel (ἄγγελος) who smote Herod and thinks that Josephus, who wrote his Antiquities in the year 93 or 94, must have read Luke’s statement in Acts. No angel was visible when Herod was stricken; the fact that God employed the agency of an angel in visiting his sudden and swift judgment on Herod was the conviction of the apostles who had the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 12:24

24The Word of God, however, went on growing and being multiplied. That is the way in which the histories of the persecutions always end. Herod perished, the Word just grew more than ever. Note the imperfect tenses: grew and grew, etc. Both verbs mean that the Word itself increased by entering more and more hearts. In the parable of the Sower the seed thus multiplies itself; in the parable of the Pounds the capital multiplies by being used in trade.

It is a wonderful view of the vital life of the Word. It actually thrives under persecution. Yet we so often hang our heads when God sends persecution here and there. Ten most bloody persecutions ravaged the church under the pagan Roman emperors, and, when they had spent themselves, Christianity had permeated the empire, and in due time a Christian emperor ascended the throne.

Acts 12:25

25Now Barnabas and Saul returned out of Jerusalem, having fulfilled their ministry, having taken along with them John, the one called Mark.

We have discussed this passage in connection with 11:30, which see. Herod died in 44, the relief was sent from Antioch after Herod’s death and not before, for the famine and its distress came later. In 11:30 only Judea is mentioned, here, however, we see that Jerusalem was included, and no deductions can be made from “Judea” that would exclude the presence of Barnabas and Saul in Jerusalem.

A curious textual question arises because of the fact that two great uncials read εἰς, “to Jerusalem,” instead of ἐξ or ἀπό, “out of” or “from.” But in spite of Westcott and Hort who adopt εἰς this reading must be rejected as contradicting the context and also 11:30. The grammarians raise another question regarding the aorist participle συμπαραλαβόντες by stating that it might denote action that was subsequent to that of the main verb “returned”; it indicates coincident action in the very nature of the case, R. 862. We have met Mark in v. 12; we shall meet him again in 13:5, 9. We see how he got to Antioch and could be taken along on the first great missionary journey by Saul. Since he was a cousin of Barnabas, the latter must have advocated taking him along, to which Saul readily consented.

R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition.