Chapter 12

1 King Herod persecuteth the Christians, killeth James, and imprisoneth Peter; whom an angel delivereth upon the prayers of the church. 20 In his pride taking to himself the honour due to God, he is stricken by an angel, and dieth miserably. 24 After his death, the word of God prospereth.

1. About that time. The event here narrated must have occurred not long before the death of Herod Agrippa I (see vs. 20–23). Since he died in a.d. 44, the events of the early part of this chapter can be dated perhaps the year previously or in the early months of a.d. 44.

Herod the king. Herod Agrippa I was the son of Aristobulus and Berenice, grandson of Herod the Great and the Hasmonaean princess Mariamne, and brother of the Herodias who appears in the story of John the Baptist (see Vol. V, p. 40). He was named after the statesman who was the chief minister of Augustus. After his father had fallen a victim in 7 b.c. to the suspicious of his grandfather, Herod the Great (see Vol. V, p. 42), he was sent to Rome, partly as a hostage and partly to keep him out of involvement in intrigues. There he became an intimate of Caligula and Claudius, both of whom later became emperors. When Herod Antipas married Herod Agrippa’s sister Herodias, Agrippa was made the market overseer of Tiberias, but he soon quarreled with Antipas and went to Rome. Here he fell under the displeasure of Tiberius, because he expressed a rash wish that his friend Caligula might become emperor. He was imprisoned by Tiberius and remained in confinement until the death of that emperor. When Caligula succeeded Tiberius on the throne, he loaded his friend Agrippa with honors, gave him the tetrarchies, first of Philip and then of Lysanias (Luke 3:1), and bestowed upon him the title of king. When Antipas was deposed (see Vol. V, p. 65), Agrippa fell heir to his territories also. For a sketch of his reign see Vol. V, pp. 69, 234.

Stretched forth his hands. Rather, “laid hands on.”

To vex. That is, “to injure,” or “to afflict.” Since Agrippa was anxious to be looked upon as a devoted Jew, he could easily be aroused by the Jews to attack the Christians. Therefore he began a persecution of the church, “spoiling the houses and goods of the believers” (AA 143).

2. Killed James. Had the apostle been guilty of blasphemy or heresy the Sanhedrin would have sentenced him to death by stoning. As in the case of John the Baptist (Matt. 14:10), the decapitation of the apostle James shows that his death was decreed by a civil ruler, who employed Roman methods of punishment (cf. Matt. 20:23). Why Herod should have selected James as his first victim can only be conjectured; but as James preached the gospel, he may have continued to occupy the prominent position that he had shared with Peter and John in the gospel story. He may have been marked by a natural vehemence, for he was called a son of thunder (Mark 3:17). A tradition, preserved by Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History ii. 9) from Clement of Alexandria, records that James’s accuser became converted when he beheld the faith and patience of his victim.

James filled a short ministry of only 13 years after Christ’s ascension. Of the apostles, he died first, whereas John, his brother, was probably the last of the Twelve to die.

With the sword. Death by the sword was a Roman mode of punishment, which, according to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7. 3, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 354), was also employed at times by the Jews.

3. Pleased the Jews. This was Agrippa’s object. Josephus notices this. Comparing Agrippa with Antipas, he says that the latter “was more friendly to the Greeks than to the Jews,” but that Agrippa “was not at all like” Antipas (Antiquities xix. 7. 3).

An incident is related in the Mishnah (Sotah 7. 8; Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 202) that illustrates the sensitiveness of the king to popular praise or blame. At a Feast of Tabernacles in a sabbatical year, King Agrippa was reading the law. When he came to the words of Deut. 17:15: “Thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother,” his eyes overflowed with tears at the thought of his own Idumaean descent. The people saw him weeping, and thinking rather of his Hasmonaean ancestry, cried out, “Our brother art thou our brother art thou!” and the king’s heart was comforted.

Unless it was chiefly the Jewish leaders whom Agrippa wished to please, this story implies that a great change must have occurred from the earlier popular feeling in favor of the apostles, indicated so plainly in chs. 2:47; 5:26. Doubtless this change was caused by the rapid increase in the membership of the church.

Proceeded further to take. Literally, “added to take,” seizing Peter as well as James. The expression is a close translation of a common Hebrew idiom.

Peter also. Peter, being an outstanding figure among the Twelve, was a logical object of Herod’s attack.

Days of unleavened bread. This expression refers to the whole feast of the Passover, as may be seen from Luke 22:1: “The feast of unleavened bread …, which is called the Passover.”

4. Put him in prison. To keep him a prisoner until the termination of the feast.

Four quaternions. A quaternion was a squad of four men, used to maintain a watch. Probably two soldiers were chained to the prisoner and two stood guard outside (see on v. 10). Four such squads were appointed to have charge of Peter, apparently in rotation.

Easter. Gr. pascha, “Passover.” The translation “Easter” is an unfortunate one. As noted above, the whole paschal feast is meant, and not merely a single day of it. Peter was arrested about the beginning of the Passover feast (the Passover meal was eaten during the night that began the 15th of Nisan), and the king’s intention was to sentence and punish him after the feast had come to an end on the 21st.

The word “Easter” is of Anglo-Saxon origin, derived from the Norse EoЖstre, the goddess of spring, in whose honor a festival was celebrated each year at the time of the vernal equinox. The term “Easter” now properly describes only the Christian festival that took the place of the Passover day. It first appears in Christian history in the 2d century, and was celebrated as the festival of the resurrection. The Roman bishops urged that its celebration fall always on a Sunday. (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History v. 23–25), a custom that doubtless contributed to the practice of weekly Sunday observance. See p. 50.

To bring him forth. Literally, “to lead him up” for condemnation, as Pilate led Jesus forth to the judgment seat (John 19:13).

5. Peter … was kept. Implying at least several days’ imprisonment.

Without ceasing. Gr. ektenoµs, “earnestly,” the same word that is used in the description of Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane (Luke 22:44). The word is translated “fervent” in 1 Peter 4:8, and implies intensity. From the general situation of the church it may be supposed that these prayers were offered by groups of Christians meeting in private homes (Acts 12:12), for the persecution by Agrippa would render open Christian services dangerous, as was often the case in the early days of Christianity.

6. Would have brought. Literally, “was about to bring,” an additional evidence of the passage of time between Peter’s arrest and the moment of his intended execution.

The same night. Or, “on that very night.”

Peter was sleeping. It is an inspiration and a challenge to faith to see the calm repose of the apostle, as of one to whom God had given the sleep of His beloved (see Ps. 127:2), undisturbed by the fear of coming suffering and death.

Keepers. Or, “guards,” that is, probably the two soldiers of the quaternion who were not chained to the prisoner.

7. The angel. Rather, “an angel.”

Came upon. Gr. ephisteµmi, literally, “to stand over,” the same verb that is used of the angels’ appearing to the shepherds (Luke 2:9).

A light shined. Just as the “glory of the Lord shone round about” the shepherds, so now the presence of the angel brought heavenly glory into the dark prison.

Prison. Gr. oikeµma, “dwelling,” “chamber,” “cell.” The Athenians used this term as a euphemism for “prison.”

Raised him up. Or, “roused him up.” The verb indicates that the angel woke Peter from his sleep, but not necessarily that he helped him to arise.

His chains fell off. Peter was bound by chains to two members of the squad of soldiers. Though the chains dropped from his ankles and wrists, the guards did not awake.

8. Gird thyself. When he lay down to sleep, Peter would naturally have put aside his cloak, loosened the girdle that bound his tunic, and removed his sandals. To gird oneself was a necessary preparation for journeying (see Ex. 12:11; 2 Kings 4:29).

Garment. Gr. himation, the outer robe, or mantle, as distinguished from the undertunic (see Vol. V, p. 47).

Follow me. The angel made no explanation, but simply freed Peter from his shackles, which act was sufficient evidence to justify the apostle’s following him in faith.

9. Wist not. To Peter the situation evidently seemed very similar to his vivid trance and vision recorded in ch. 10. He must have thought he would wake to find himself chained to the two soldiers, as before he had wakened to realize that he had had a vision on the housetop while praying.

10. Ward. Gr. phulakeµ, “guard.” “The first and the second ward” may refer to guards stationed near the inner door of the prison and at a door some distance away, or possibly to guards chained to him and others at the door (see on v. 4). Perhaps Peter had been placed in an inner dungeon, and thus needed to be led through two courtyards.

Unto the city. Apparently the prison was inside the city. It may have been in the Tower of Antonia (see Vol. V, p. 225; cf. below on “went out”).

His own accord. Rather, “its own accord,” the idea being that no human agency was employed (cf. Lev. 25:5). Doubtless the gate was opened by an unseen angel.

The simple and almost casual way in which Luke records this miracle is a testimony to the accuracy of his record.

Went out. There is some textual evidence (cf. p. 10) for the reading, “going out they descended the seven steps and passed on through one street.” Although this reading cannot be shown to be original, it implies a more detailed acquaintance with Jerusalem than we now have. It may be based upon a tradition that Peter was imprisoned in the Tower of Antonia, which seems to have been entered by a flight of stairs (see ch. 21:34, 35, 40).

Street. Gr. rhumeµ, a word meaning either a street or an alley.

The angel departed. When supernatural aid was no longer necessary, he allowed Peter to take the further steps necessary for his escape.

11. Come to himself. Peter finds himself free in the cool night air in the open street.

The Lord. Peter had no doubt as to the source of this timely aid.

Delivered me. As before (ch. 5:19), Peter’s Master had sent His angel to deliver him. There could be no question now as to the reality of his freedom.

12. Considered. Or, “understood,” “comprehended.” At first Peter had been “like them that dream” (Ps. 126:1) in regard to his deliverance from prison, but at last his mind could grasp the wonderful truth and he could act upon it. The verb indicates that he also perceived the circumstances surrounding the deliverance; he took in at a glance the whole situation and realized what he should do.

Mary. This Mary was related to Barnabas (see Col. 4:10, where Mark is designated “sister’s son to Barnabas,” though the expression in Greek means rather “cousin to Barnabas”). As Mark’s father is not mentioned, Mary may have been a widow. Like Barnabas (see Acts 4:36, 37), she apparently possessed means, for she was able to have a house which was large enough to serve the church as a meeting place for prayer.

John. Since Peter speaks of Mark as his “son” (1 Peter 5:13), it may be that the young man was converted by him. The Latin name Marcus suggests some point of contact with Romans or Roman Jews.

Gathered together praying. Literally, “gathered together and praying.” Probably such gatherings were usual in Mary’s house. At the time Peter was being delivered from prison the group were earnestly praying (see v. 5) for his deliverance, for they realized that the church was in an hour of crisis.

13. Peter knocked. When the angel opened the prison doors, the supernatural intervened to meet an extraordinary need. But only a few minutes after the miracle of his deliverance, Peter had to knock at the door of a house to have his need of admission met in the usual way.

Gate. Gr. puloµn, see on Matt. 26:71.

A damsel. Gr. paidiskeµ, “a young girl,” “a servant girl.”

To hearken. A sense of danger is here implied—danger because of the persecution that Agrippa’s zeal for Judaism was bringing to the disciples. Saul had formerly entered into every house and carried off men and women to prison (ch. 8:3), and there was prospect of a like danger now. Therefore Rhoda would not open the door until she knew who might be seeking admission.

Rhoda. A common Greek name meaning “rose.” Rhoda is not mentioned apart from this experience, but few servants are so well known. Like the thief on the cross, the Mary who washed Jesus’ feet, and the unnamed widow who put the two mites into the offering box of the Temple, Rhoda has been known to every Bible reader for 19 centuries.

14. Peter’s voice. Doubtless the young woman’s Christian love for a devoted and courageous soldier of the cross had led her to listen carefully to Peter when she had had opportunity, and she knew his voice. Then too, Peter had a touch of Galilean dialect in his speech, which had caused him to be recognized by a servant girl on a previous occasion (Matt. 26:73).

For gladness. It was not because of lack of faith, but from sheer joy, that Rhoda did not open the door for Peter. She had shared in the anxiety of the brethren for Peter and in the prayers offered in his behalf. Her eager desire to tell the good news of Peter’s escape caused her to lose her presence of mind. Similarly Luke recorded of the disciples on the evening of the resurrection that when they recognized Jesus they “believed not for joy” (Luke 24:41).

15. Thou art mad. When Rhoda brought the news that Peter was at the door, the brethren could not believe her. They did not have enough faith to believe that God had answered their prayers. Therefore, they concluded, the young woman must be out of her mind.

Constantly affirmed. That is, stoutly asserted, confidently averred.

His angel. In Hebrews (ch. 1:14) the sound belief of the Jews concerning angels is expressed in the question, “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?” The Jews believed that a guardian angel was assigned to each man, and that when the angel appeared in human form he assumed the man’s likeness. During the intertestamental period the Jews developed a complicated angelology.

16. Continued knocking. Peter was as persistent in knocking for admission as the believers were in praying for his deliverance.

Were astonished. It would be hard to find a better illustration of the unwillingness of even good people to believe that prayers are definitely and specifically answered. When Peter stood before them, they could scarcely concede that it was he. Yet Jesus had given the fullest guarantee to His followers that their prayers of faith would be answered (John 14:13, 14).

17. Brought him out. When he had been released from prison and had come to himself, he had exclaimed, “The Lord hath sent his angel” (v. 11). Now he testified that it was the Lord who had delivered him.

Go shew. Gr. apaggelloµ, “to carry tidings,” “to bring word,” “to declare.”

James. This is undoubtedly the James who presided over the council at Jerusalem concerning circumcision, and who gave his decision on that question (ch. 15:13). Thus he was in some sense the presiding elder of the church at Jerusalem, and it was natural for Peter to wish him to have news immediately of his deliverance.

This James may have been the son of Alphaeus or the James who was a brother of the Lord. Jesus’ brothers did not believe in Him until the close of His life on earth, long after the Twelve had been chosen. To the James who was one of the pillars of the church in Jerusalem, after the death of James the son of Zebedee, Paul gives the express title “the Lord’s brother” (Gal. 1:19; cf. ch. 2:9). This is probably the James to whom Peter here refers. Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History ii. 23; Loeb ed., vol. 1, p. 171) calls him bishop of Jerusalem, and quotes Hegesippus’ Memoirs (a.d. 180) concerning James, which, though not necessarily exact, probably preserve some elements of truth: “‘He was called the “Just” by all men from the Lord’s time to ours, since many are called James, but he was holy from his mother’s womb. He drank no wine or strong drink, nor did he eat flesh; no razor went upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not go to the baths. He alone was allowed to enter into the sanctuary, for he did not wear wool but linen, and he used to enter alone into the temple and be found kneeling and praying for forgiveness for the people, so that his knees grew hard like a camel’s because of his constant worship of God, kneeling and asking forgiveness for the people.’“ According to tradition, he was carried up to a pinnacle of the Temple, and when he refused to disown Christ, and insisted on holding to his belief in Him, he was thrown down, and stoned, and beaten to death by the club of a fuller (see vol. V, p. 71). According to Josephus (Antiquities xx. 9. 1) he was stoned to death. See Introduction to the book of James.

Palestine Under Herod Agrippa I

Into another place. Peter’s removal to another place was in accordance with the command the Lord gave to the Twelve (Matt. 10:23). There is no way of knowing to what place Peter made his escape. Some Roman Catholic writers have insisted that he went to Rome, and after founding the church there returned to Jerusalem in time for the council recorded in Acts 15. Others have suggested that he went to Antioch, which is perhaps less improbable, but there are no traces of his presence there until after the Jerusalem Council (unless Gal. 2:1–10 is equated with Acts 11:30; see Additional Notes on ch. 15, Note 1; cf. Gal. 2:12). Some nearer city, such as Lydda or Joppa, may well have sufficed for a place of refuge. The fact that the name of the place is not given suggests that it was comparatively unimportant for Luke’s record.

18. No small stir. The guards who had been chained to Peter must have discovered as soon as they awoke that he had gone, and they knew that their lives were to be forfeited because of his escape.

This is the end of the Scripture record of Peter’s activities. Reference has already been made to Paul’s mention of him in Galatians (chs. 1:18; 2:7, 8, 11, 14). Peter gives a few hints of his doings in his two epistles (1 Peter 1:1; 5:12, 13; 1 Peter 1:14). Otherwise nothing further is known of him from any inspired record. Tradition has a great deal to say, but its claims must be accepted or rejected on their own merits. The statement in Jerome’s paraphrase of Eusebius’ Chronicon, that Peter preached for 25 years in Rome, is made highly questionable by the fact that Peter was in Jerusalem for the council (Acts 15); that he was present in Antioch apparently following the council 2 (Gal. 2:11–14; see Additional Note on Acts 15); and that he himself hints of labors in the northwest region of Asia Minor (1 Peter 1:1; see Eusebius Ecclesiastical History iii. 1). In the light of Acts 8–12, all of this must have come subsequent to Peter’s release in a.d. 44.

19. Be put to death. Literally, “that they should be led away,” that is, to execution. The same verb is rendered “led … away” in the accounts given in the Gospels of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus (Matt. 26:57; 27:2, 31; Mark 14:53; Luke 23:26). A Roman law promulgated about a.d. 529, declares: “The custody and care of imprisoned persons devolves upon the jailor, who must not think that some abject and vile dependent will be responsible, if a prisoner should, in any way escape, for We desire that he himself shall suffer the same penalty to which the prisoner who escaped is shown to have been liable” (The Code of Justinian ix. 4. 4; in S. P. Scott, tr., The Civil Law, vol. 14, p. 364). Doubtless this had long been the law, or at least the usage, in respect to a guard from whom a prisoner escaped. At Philippi, the jailer, when he thought his prisoners had all escaped, was ready to commit suicide rather than meet the death penalty at the hands of the law (Acts 16:27). Compare ch. 27:42.

To Caesarea. Agrippa, not a Roman governor, was in power at Caesarea at this time, for Josephus says that he had received Judea and Samaria from Claudius, in addition to the districts over which he had ruled under Caligula (Antiquities xix. 8. 2).

20. Was highly displeased. Or, “was exasperated,” “was in a hostile state of mind,” implying a deep-seated feeling of anger.

Tyre and Sidon. These two Phoenician cities, seats of maritime industry, were not subject to Agrippa. They were in a sense autonomous, though under the control of Rome. Perhaps Agrippa’s regard for the people at Berytus (Beirыt) another Phoenician seaport a little north of Sidon, may have been connected with his anger at the people of the two older cities. Josephus gives an account of the splendid buildings that Agrippa built in Beirut (ibid. 7. 5; see Vol. V, p. 69). It is clear that in some way the royal anger made itself felt, interfering with the commercial prosperity of Tyre and Sidon.

They came. That is, they joined in a common embassy and sent persons from both towns to make representations and to use their influence to appease Herod’s anger.

Blastus. Nothing else is known of this man. The title of “chamberlain,” found in inscriptions, was common in the Byzantine period. From imperial usage it was taken over into European courts. It meant, literally, the officer who had charge of the king’s bedchamber, and designated a sort of highly placed secretary. It is possible that the representatives from the two cities secured his friendship by means of bribes.

Desired peace. That is, “were asking for peace.” It is not to be understood from these words that Agrippa was actually making war on Tyre and Sidon, but only that he was on unfriendly terms with them. See 1 Kings 5:11; Eze. 27:17, which show the identity of the commercial needs of the two countries at widely separated intervals in their history.

Was nourished. The extent of Herod’s rule was wide (see Vol. V, pp. 69, 234), and if he favored another port and diverted traffic from Tyre and Sidon, he could seriously cripple their trade.

21. A set day. Josephus says (Antiquities xix. 8. 2) that this was a day appointed for holding a festival on which to make vows for the safety of Caesar.

Sat. For a graphic description of the incident see Josephus Antiquities xviii. 6–8; xix. 8. 2. See Additional Notes at end of chapter, Note 1.

An oration. Or, a popular harangue.

22. The people. Gr. deµmos, “the mass of the people”; the pagan populace, assembled in a public place. Luke alone uses this word, and he uses it only in non-Jewish settings.

The voice of a god. Probably in the sense of pagan worship of the emperor, not of a celestial being (see on v. 21).

23. Smote him. In v. 7 an angel smote Peter to awake and save him. Here, by striking contrast, and angel smites Herod to destroy him. Smiting by a divine agency usually implies a severe judgment (see 1 Sam. 25:38; 2 Kings 19:35; Acts 23:3).

Gave not God the glory. The words do not necessarily mean merely that Agrippa had failed to ascribe to God the praise that was due Him, and Him only. To give God the glory always involved taking such action, appropriate to the circumstances, that would glorify God. Sometimes this meant the confession of sin and weakness, as in Joshua 7:19 (cf. on John 9:24).

Eaten of worms. Josephus, in his parallel account, does not name the specific form of the disease. Luke’s more detailed description may reflect his profession, though it is to be doubted that “eaten of worms” is intended as a technical description of a specific disease. This was a divine judgment. Being eaten of worms was always regarded by the ancients as a divine chastisement, because of its loathsome character. There are several instances of it recorded in history: Pheretime, queen of Cyrene (Herodotus History iv. 205); Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Macc. 9:5–10). Herod the Great (Josephus Antiquities xvii. 6.5); and Galerius, an enemy of the church in the time of Diocletian’s persecution, a.d. 303–313 (Lactantius On the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died 33). A similar account is given of a death of Philip II of Spain. Agrippa died in a.d. 44, in the seventh year of his reign, at the age of 53.

Gave up the ghost. See on ch. 5:5.

24. Word of God grew and multiplied. See chs. 6:7; 19:20; see on ch. 11:24. “The seed is the word” (Luke 8:11), said Christ, and so the Christian historian, Luke, tells us that the word was as a seed: when it was cast forth diligently, it grew and bore fruit. The words describe a continuous expansion. The death of Agrippa, as the chief persecutor, left the preachers of the gospel free to proclaim their message, and they were not slow to avail themselves of the opportunity.

25. Barnabas and Saul returned. That is, from their visit to Jerusalem (ch. 11:27–30) to their labors among the Gentile converts in Antioch (see below on “from Jerusalem”; see also Additional Notes at end of chapter, Note 2).

From Jerusalem. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) the reading “unto Jerusalem,” as though Barnabas and Saul were returning to Jerusalem from “their ministry” in the field at Antioch. However, most of the editors of the Greek text, obviously judging from the context and considering that ch. 12:25 is the conclusion of ch. 11:27–30, prefer to regard as original the less well-attested reading “from Jerusalem,” as in the KJV. A suggestion has been made whereby the better-attested reading can be understood in this same sense, by reversing the order of “unto Jerusalem” and “when they had fulfilled their ministry.” The unpunctuated Greek text allows this translation, which would read literally, “Barnabas and Saul returned, having fulfilled their ministry unto Jerusalem.”

Fulfilled their ministry. Or, “charge,” “deaconate,” “ministration.” The Greek word is the same as that translated “relief” in ch. 11:29. Barnabas and Saul completed the mission on which they had been dispatched by the church at Antioch.

Took with them John. See on v. 12. The choice is partly explained by John’s relationship to Barnabas (Col. 4:10), but it shows also that John was entering heartily into the work of converting the Gentiles. See Acts 13:5, 13; 15:37–39; 2 Tim. 4:11. Apparently, he had been living at home in Jerusalem until this time.

additional notes on chapter 12

Note 1

Comparing Luke’s narrative with that of Josephus, it seems probable that the delegates from Tyre and Sidon were among those who raised the cry, “The voice of a god, and not of a man,” and added, as Josephus reports, “Be thou merciful to us.” Note the marked contrast between Peter’s refusal of homage on the part of Cornelius and Agrippa’s acceptance of the blasphemous flattery by the multitude at Caesarea. Josephus’ account agrees with that of Luke in the following details: (1) Among the multitude who flattered Agrippa there were some who were seeking to regain his favor. (2) The day was a “set day.” (3) Herod was clad in royal robes. (4) The flattery consisted in calling him a god. (5) He did not rebuke them. (6) He was stricken immediately so that he had to be carried to his palace. Josephus adds that Agrippa acknowledged that the stroke came from God as a rebuke for accepting such blasphemous flattery, and that everyone expected him to die at once.

With reference to the latter portion of the Josephus account, which says that violent pain increased in force very rapidly, and to the NT account, which says that Agrippa was eaten of worms, it is noticeable that in the account of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes these two features are mentioned as characterizing the same disease, and are described separately: “The all-seeing Lord, the God of Israel, smote him with a fatal and unseen stroke; the words were no sooner out of his mouth than he was seized with an incurable pain in the bowels, and his internal organs gave him cruel torture. … Worms actually swarmed from the impious creature’s body” (2 Maccabees 9:5, 9; in R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, vol. 1, p. 144). Josephus, who looked upon Agrippa with marked approval, has merely described the form in which the king’s malady made itself apparent at first, and has omitted the loathsome details from the death story of one who in his eyes was a great king. The Scripture has given the fuller account, because the object of the writer of Acts was to emphasize in all its seriousness the sin for which, as Josephus tells us, Agrippa knew he was stricken. The points of agreement in the two accounts are so many, and the differences so slight and so easily explained, that the account by Josephus must be regarded as a tribute to the historical accuracy and carefulness of Luke.

Note 2

At the end of chapter 12 the question arises whether the famine visit of Barnabas and Saul (ch. 11:27–30) occurred before or after the imprisonment of Peter and the death of Herod Agrippa I, since the last verse of ch. 12 is evidently the conclusion of the narrative begun in ch. 11:27–30. This problem is made apparent by the fact that chronological evidence suggests that the death of Herod occurred before the famine visit, an order that seems to be in reverse of that in which Luke treats these events.

In considering this problem it is to be recognized that Luke does not always attempt to be strictly chronological in his accounts in either his Gospel or the Acts. Luke, in his Gospel (ch. 1:1–3), mentions “many” who took “in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us.” From their records he chose, as “it seemed good to” him, “having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first,” those events that provided a coherent narration of certain phases of early Christian history. After he had followed the activities of one character (such as Peter, mainly, in Acts 1–12), or had given a coherent picture of one area of development (such as the gospel in Palestine, to ch. 11:18), Luke then went back and picked up another phase or another character, and followed that through to another logical point of climax or conclusion (cf. the transition, ch. 11:18, 19). Chronological order sometimes is less important to Luke than other kinds of orderly arrangement, such as by subject or by geographical area. This attitude is characteristic of the literature of his time, as it is of the OT (see on Gen. 25:19; 27:1; 35:29; Ex. 16:33, 35; 18:25).

The expressions “in these days” (ch. 11:27) and “about that time” (ch. 12:1) are used, as often in the Gospels, merely as stereotyped transitional phrases, not necessarily intended to point out a specific time chronologically. It is entirely possible that the events of ch. 12:1–24 occurred between vs. 26 and 27 of ch. 11; ch. 12:25 logically follows ch. 11:30. The “ministry” (ch. 12:25) apparently refers to the carrying of the “relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judжa” (ch. 11:29). Thus the famine visit would come after Peter’s imprisonment, miraculous release, and departure from the city of Jerusalem, and after the death of Herod Agrippa I, which occurred in a.d. 44.

Following his historical method as described above, Luke has related the story of the opening of work for the Gentiles in Antioch. At the end of that narrative, its heroes, Barnabas and Saul, are sent to Jerusalem to carry the famine relief offering to the elders. In view of this change of scene, Luke next goes back (ch. 12:1) to bring his readers up to date on what had been happening in Jerusalem during the period represented by his narrative on Antioch. He tells the story of Herod’s persecution of the church, including the killing of James and the imprisonment of Peter, and of the fearful end to which the persecutor came. He is then ready to pick up again his narrative at Antioch, with the sending forth of Barnabas and Saul as ordained missionaries (ch. 13:1–3). But first he brings his main characters back to that place by mentioning (ch. 12:25) that they “returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry.” He also uses this opportunity to introduce a new character, John Mark (already mentioned incidentally at Jerusalem, v. 12), for Mark is to accompany the two older men as they set out on the journey that Luke now proceeds to describe (chs. 13:4 to 14:27), Paul’s first tour.

Such a minor displacement of the account of the famine visit is entirely reasonable in view of Luke’s habitual method of organizing his material, and it does not involve any major rearrangement or the coalescing of two events, or records of events, as do some views (see Additional Notes on Chapter 15, Note 1).

Ellen G. White comments

1–3AA 143; SR 292

1–25AA 143–154; Ev 581; SR 292–300

2 AA 597

2, 3 EW 186

4, 5 AA 145

5, 6 SR 293

6, 7 AA 146

6–10CG 42

6–115T 748

7 AA 152; EW 186

7, 8, 10 SR 295

8–10AA 147

11 SR 296

11–15AA 148

13–17SR 296

16–19AA 149

19 SR 297

21 AA 150

21–23EW 186

22 SR 298

22, 23 AA 151

23 AA 152; SR 299