E. Herod Agrippa I and the Church (12:1–24)
1. Martyrdom of James and Imprisonment of Peter (12:1–4)
1It was about that time that King Herod laid hostile hands on some members of the church.
2He beheaded1 James, the brother of John:
3and when he saw that this2 was acceptable to the Jews, he went on to arrest Peter also. This was at the season of unleavened bread.
4Having arrested Peter, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four quaternions of soldiers. His intention was to bring him out before the people after Passover.
1 King Herod, introduced rather abruptly at the beginning of this narrative, is the elder Herod Agrippa, a grandson of Herod the Great and of his Hasmonaean queen Mariamne. When his father Aristobulus was executed in 7 B.C., Agrippa, then four years old, was sent by his mother to be brought up at Rome. There he grew up on terms of close friendship with some members of the imperial family, notably with Claudius, his exact contemporary, and with Gaius, grandnephew of Tiberius. When Gaius succeeded Tiberius as emperor in A.D. 37, he bestowed on Agrippa the former tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias in southern Syria (cf. Luke 3:1), together with the title “king.” Two years later Agrippa’s kingdom was enlarged by the addition of Galilee and Peraea, the former tetrarchy of his uncle Antipas, whom Gaius deposed from his rule and sent into exile. When Claudius was made emperor in A.D. 41, after the assassination of Gaius, he further increased Agrippa’s realm by the addition of Judaea, which since A.D. 6 had been governed on the emperor’s behalf by a prefect.3 Agrippa was more popular with the Jews than many members of the Herod family had been: his descent from the Hasmonaean dynasty was a point in his favor. He set himself sedulously to win and retain their goodwill.4
2 The “members of the church” whom he singled out for attack were apostles. It is evidence of a change in the attitude of the people of Jerusalem toward the apostles, who had not been molested in the persecution that followed Stephen’s death, that Agrippa should now make them his principal targets.5
The first of his victims was James, the son of Zebedee, whom he had executed. James was the first of the apostles to meet a martyr’s death; thus he experienced the fulfilment of Jesus’ promise to him and his brother John that they would both drink from his cup and share his “baptism” (Mark 10:39). Jesus did not say, or even imply, that they would both suffer death together; indeed, John appears to have outlived all the other apostles. The theory propounded by Eduard Schwartz and others, that in the original form of the present narrative both James and John were executed by Herod Agrippa, is quite without warrant.6
3 If it is asked why this attack on the apostles should have proved “acceptable to the Jews,” the answer may be found in the wider phase of apostolic activity which had recently set in with Peter’s visit to the Gentile Cornelius in Caesarea. Those members of the Jerusalem church who, under the leadership of James the Just and his fellow-elders (cf. v. 17), maintained a more rigorous resistance to the weakening of the bonds of Jewish particularism, continued to enjoy general toleration for some two decades more. It was not by accident that Agrippa, after putting James the Zebedaean to death7 and testing the popular reaction to this, laid hands next on the leader of the apostles—the one, moreover, who had taken the initiative in fraternizing with Gentiles.
4 The seven days of “unleavened bread”8 were beginning when Peter was arrested. He was therefore kept in prison for the duration of the festal period. Agrippa’s intention was to bring him out for trial and public execution immediately after this period had expired.9 But, knowing how many sympathizers, secret as well as open, the apostles had in Jerusalem, he took special precautions against any attempt to free the prisoner. Four relays of soldiers took it in turn to guard him:10 four guards at a time, one on either side of him (to whom he was chained) and two at his cell door.
2. Peter’s Escape from Prison (12:5–11)
5So Peter was kept in prison,11 and earnest prayer on his behalf was being offered to God by the church.
6The night before Herod was about to bring him out, Peter was asleep between two soldiers, bound to them with two chains, while sentries were in front of the door, guarding the prison.
7Suddenly an angel of the Lord stood over him and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter’s side and roused him: “Quick!” he said. “Get up!” The chains fell off from his hands.
8Then the angel said, “Fasten your belt and tie on your sandals.” Peter did so. “Put on your cloak,” said the angel, “and follow me.”
9Peter went out and followed him: he did not realize that the angel’s action was real, but thought he was seeing a vision.
10They passed through the first watch and the second, and came to the iron gate leading into the city. It opened to them of its own accord, so they went out12 and went along one street. Then immediately the angel left him.
11Peter then, coming to himself, said, “Now I know that the Lord has sent his angel and delivered me from the hand of Herod and from what the Jewish people were expecting.”
5–9 Meanwhile, continuous prayer was being offered for Peter by the church of Jerusalem—the supplication of righteous people which “has great power in its effects” (Jas. 5:16). And while they were persevering in fervent prayer during what, in Agrippa’s intention, was to be Peter’s last night on earth, their prayer, unknown to themselves, was receiving an effective answer. For Peter was roused from sleep—the calm sleep that springs from a good conscience and quiet confidence in God—by a blow on his side and a voice which bade him get up quickly. The chains by which he was handcuffed to the soldiers on either side fell away as he rose. The cell was lit up; an unknown visitor stood by him, and ordered him to fasten his girdle, tie on his sandals, wrap his cloak around him, and follow. It was this narrative, probably, that was in Charles Wesley’s mind when he wrote the lines:
“I woke; the dungeon flamed with light.
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed thee.”
Amazed at it all, and only half-awake, Peter did as he was told, not realizing that it was really happening, but suspecting that it was a dream, and that he would soon wake up to find himself with the soldiers in the cell, compelled to face what the morning might bring. Through one gate and another they passed, both of them guarded. It may be that Peter was “allowed to pass the first and the second, being taken presumably as a servant; but no servant would be expected to pass beyond the outermost ward at night, and a different course was needed there.”13 Wonderful to relate, however, the outermost gate opened automatically as Peter and his mysterious guide approached it, and they found themselves in the open street—after descending “the seven steps,” as the Western text informs us. This addition has such a circumstantial character that many regard it as a genuine piece of local color, derived from an informant who knew Jerusalem as it stood before A.D. 70. Luke does not say where Peter’s prison was, but it was quite probably in the Antonia fortress, where Paul was later confined (cf. 21:31–23:32). The fortress stood northwest of the temple area, and a flight of steps may have led down from it to street level comparable to flights excavated south and southwest of the temple mount since 1968.14
10–11 They traversed one street, and Peter suddenly found himself alone. Thus far he had followed his rescuer like a man in a trance or a sleepwalker; now he woke up to his strange situation and took stock of it. This was the finger of God: it was an angel of the Lord who had come to snatch him from his imminent fate.
What account are we to give of Peter’s escape from prison? What kind of messenger was it that released him? Whether human or superhuman, he was no doubt a messenger of God. There are some features of the narrative that would point to a carefully planned and skillfully executed “inside job”; probably that was Agrippa’s conclusion. There are other features which are strongly reminiscent of the “form” in which other miraculous escapes from prison are described in ancient literature.15 But Peter apparently recognized divine intervention of a supernatural kind, and so evidently did Luke: he introduces the incident in septuagintal idiom, and the opening words of verse 7 are very similar to those at the beginning of Luke 2:9, where the angel appears to the shepherds to announce the birth of Christ.
A striking modern parallel has been quoted more than once from the experiences of Sundar Singh. By order of the chief lama of a Tibetan community he was thrown into a dry well, the cover of which was securely locked. Here he was left to die, like many others before him, whose bones and rotting flesh lay at the bottom of the well. On the third night, when he had been calling to God in prayer, he heard someone unlocking the cover of the well and removing it. Then a voice spoke, telling him to take hold of the rope that was being lowered. He did so, and was glad to find a loop at the bottom of the rope in which he could place his foot, for his arm had been injured before he was thrown down. He was then drawn up, the cover was replaced and locked, but when he looked around to thank his rescuer, he could find no trace of him. The fresh air revived him, and his injured arm felt whole again. When morning came, he returned to the place where he had been arrested, and resumed preaching. News was brought to the chief lama that the man who had been thrown into the execution well had been liberated and was preaching again. Sundar Singh was brought before him and questioned, and told the story of his release. The lama declared that someone must have got hold of the key and let him out, but when search was made for the key, it was found attached to the lama’s own girdle.16
“Now,” says Laurence Browne, “although this story is in our own time, its interpretation is as difficult as the story of St. Peter’s escape. It is possible that both events were nonmiraculous, that some well-disposed person acted as rescuer. But the difficulty in the way of a rescue in either case suggests that both were actually miraculous interventions of God. One striking difference between the two accounts is the opinion of the prisoner at the time. St. Peter thought it was all a vision until he found himself safe and sound. The Sadhu thought the rescuer was a man until he disappeared.”17
In any case, the narrative bears witness to the delivering grace of God and to the power of believing prayer. That James should die while Peter should escape is a mystery of divine providence which has been repeated countless times in the history of the people of God. By faith, says the writer to the Hebrews, some “escaped the edge of the sword”; by faith others “were killed with the sword” (Heb. 11:34, 37).
3. Peter Reports His Escape (12:12–17)
12Peter, having taken stock of the situation, came to the house of Mary the mother of John (surnamed Mark), where many were gathered together praying.
13He knocked at the door of the outer gateway, and a servant-girl named Rhoda came to answer his knock.
14When she recognized Peter’s voice, she was so overjoyed that she did not open the gate but ran in and reported that Peter was standing at the gate.
15“You are mad,” they said to her. But she insisted that it was so. Then they said, “It is his angel.”
16Meanwhile Peter kept on knocking, and when they opened the gate they saw him and were astounded.
17But he gestured to them with his hand to keep quiet, and told them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. Then he said, “Report this to James and the brothers.” So saying, he departed and went to another place.
12 The first thing for Peter to do was to acquaint his fellow-believers in Jerusalem with his escape; the next was to go into hiding, lest Agrippa’s police should find him again. So he first made his way to one of the chief Christian meeting places in Jerusalem, the house of Mary. Luke’s readers would be more familiar with Christians of the second generation than with those of the first, especially when a second-generation Christian attained such distinction as Mark eventually did; hence Mary is identified as the mother of Mark (one might compare the identification of Simon the Cyrenaean as the father of Alexander and Rufus in Mark 15:21).
Like several other persons mentioned in Acts, Mary’s son had both a Jewish name (John) and a Roman name (Mark). Joseph, surnamed Justus (1:23), was one such person; the most outstanding example is “Saul, who is also called Paul” (13:9). This John Mark is probably identical with the Mark mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament (Col. 4:10; Philem. 1:24; 2 Tim. 4:11; 1 Pet. 5:13) and with the author of the Second Gospel.18
The church of Jerusalem was too large to meet in any one building: its members were evidently divided for fellowship and worship into a number of house churches, one of which—presumably that to which Peter himself was attached—met in Mary’s house. Her house was a large one: Martin Hengel calls it a “splendid” one,19 for it was distinguished by a gatehouse or forecourt20 leading from the courtyard to the street door. The high priest’s palace was similarly equipped: when Peter was leaving its courtyard on the night of Jesus’ trial, he “went out into the forecourt” (Matt. 26:71).
13–16 The scene that now unfolds itself at the street door and inside the house is full of quiet humor. Rhoda’s excitement at hearing Peter’s voice makes her forget to open the door and let him in; those inside cannot believe that their prayers have been answered so quickly: Rhoda must be mad, or else it is Peter’s guardian angel, his spirit-counterpart, that she has heard.21 Meanwhile Peter stands outside, continuing to knock for admission—not too loudly, for the hue and cry may already have been raised, and Mary’s house is one of the first to which a search party will come.
17 When at last he was admitted, he told them about his miraculous release, and directed them to pass on the news to “James and the brothers.” Then he took his departure, and went underground so successfully that no one to this day has discovered for certain where he went. Luke’s informant probably did not know, and Luke had no other means of finding out.22
The description of Peter’s anxious gesture, as he beckoned to surprised and excited company to make less noise, is the authentic touch of an eyewitness—whether Luke got the story from Mark (whom he later knew in Rome) or from Rhoda, as Ramsay argued, or from someone else.
In addition to the company which met in Mary’s house, there was evidently another associated with James the brother of Jesus. They too must be told of Peter’s escape. The “brothers” mentioned along with him probably include his fellow-elders (cf. 11:30; 21:18). It appears that by this time James had attained a position of undisputed leadership in the Jerusalem church. When Barnabas and Paul had the conference with the “pillars” of that church described in Gal. 2:1–10, the three “pillars” with whom they conferred were James, Cephas (Peter), and John, named in that order. James on that occasion concurred with his two colleagues in exchanging “the right hand of fellowship” with Barnabas and Paul on the understanding that the latter two should evangelize Gentiles, while the Jerusalem leaders would continue to concentrate on their mission to Jews. James had a statesmanlike breadth of vision, as appears from his policy at the Council of Jerusalem (15:13–21). But he was careful to retain the confidence of the ordinary church members in Jerusalem, many of whom were “zealots for the law” (21:20). In addition, he continued to the end to command the respect of the Jerusalem populace, largely because of his ascetic way of life and his regular participation in the temple services of prayer, where he interceded for the people and their city. Whatever Peter and other members of the Twelve may have done, James was free of any suspicion of fraternizing with Gentiles. When he was stoned to death in A.D. 62, at the instance of the high priest Ananus II, many of the people were gravely shocked; and some years later some ascribed the calamity which overtook the city and its inhabitants to the cessation of James’s prayers on their behalf.23
4. Peter’s Escape Discovered (12:18–19)
18When day dawned, there was great commotion among the soldiers: what had become of Peter?
19Herod instituted a search for him and, when he could not find him, he interrogated the guards and ordered them to be punished.24 Then he went down from Judaea and spent some time in Caesarea.
18–19 Search was made for Peter, but he was nowhere to be found. Agrippa examined the soldiers who were responsible for guarding him, and sent them off to be punished, suspecting perhaps that Peter’s escape was the result of a plot, and that the guards had been bribed. By Roman law (which, however, was not binding on Agrippa in the internal administration of his kingdom) a guard who allowed a prisoner to escape became liable to the same penalty as the escaped prisoner would have suffered.25
Soon afterward, Agrippa left Jerusalem for Caesarea, the seat of government of Judaea under the Romans. When it is said that he “went down from Judaea,” Judaea is used in its narrower sense of the territory of the Jews. Caesarea, although it belonged politically to Judaea, was not in strictly Jewish territory: from its foundation by Herod the Great it was a predominantly Gentile city.
5. Death of Herod Agrippa I (12:20–23)
20Now Herod had a furious quarrel with the people of Tyre and Sidon. A united deputation from those cities appeared before him and, having secured the good offices of26 Blastus, the king’s chamberlain, they sought a reconciliation. Their country depended for its food on the king’s territory.
21On an appointed day Herod put on royal robes, sat down on his judgment seat, and made a public oration to them.27
22The populace called out, “It is a god, not a human being, that is speaking!”
23Immediately the angel of the Lord struck him down, because he did not give God the glory;28 and he died, consumed by worms.
20 It was while he was in Caesarea that Agrippa met his death, and Luke relates the circumstances. The cities of the Phoenician seaboard, Tyre and Sidon, depended on Galilee for their food supply, as they had done a thousand years earlier in the time of Hiram and Solomon (1 Kings 5:9–12). When, therefore, the inhabitants of those cities found that they had given Agrippa grave offense, for some reason which has not been recorded, they realized that it would be wise for them to regain his favor as soon as possible. They made use accordingly of the good offices of his chamberlain Blastus (whatever his services cost them, the price was worthwhile), and an opportunity was found for them to present themselves before the king and make their peace with him publicly.
21–23 We are indebted to Josephus for a parallel account of what followed. At Caesarea, says Josephus, Agrippa “exhibited shows in honor of Caesar, knowing that this was celebrated as a festival for his welfare. There came together for this occasion a large number of provincial officials and others of distinguished position. On the second day of the shows Agrippa put on a robe made of silver throughout, of quite wonderful weaving, and entered the theatre at break of day. Then the silver shone and glittered wonderfully as the sun’s first rays fell on it, and its resplendence inspired a sort of fear and trembling in those who gazed at it. Immediately his flatterers called out from various directions, in language which boded him no good, for they invoked him as a god: ‘Be gracious to us!’ they cried. ‘Hitherto we have reverenced you as a human being, but henceforth we confess you to be of more than mortal nature.’ He did not rebuke them, nor did he repudiate their impious flattery. But soon afterward he looked up and saw an owl sitting on a rope above his head, and recognized it at once as a messenger of evil as on a former occasion it had been a messenger of good;29 and a pang of grief pierced his heart. At the same time he was seized with a severe pain in his bowels, which quickly increased in intensity.… He was hastily carried into the palace, and … when he had suffered continuously for five days from the pain in his belly, he died, in the fifty-fourth year of his life and the seventh year of his kingship.”30
The accounts of Luke and Josephus are independent, but they agree in all essentials.31
The “appointed day” on which the Phoenicians were to be publicly reconciled with Agrippa is commonly held to have been a festival celebrated quinquennially on March 5 in honor of the foundation of Caesarea.32 (Another possibility is that it was held to celebrate the emperor’s birthday on August 1.)33 The “royal robes” which Agrippa wore are described in greater detail by Josephus. The way in which the silver weaving reflected the rays of the rising sun has suggested to one or two students that Agrippa presented himself to the assembled crowd as a manifestation of divinity (more precisely of the sun-god), theos epiphanēs, as Phoenician rulers had done in earlier days.34 This is improbable. Both Luke and Josephus agree in saying that he was hailed as a god and not as a mere mortal, and in deprecating his tacit acceptance of such blasphemous adulation. (There is a further reminiscence of this in rabbinical tradition.)35 The mortal pain which seized him is interpreted by Luke as a stroke of divine judgment. Medical experts have attempted to diagnose the trouble, but the data are too imprecise: suggestions include peritonitis (resulting from a perforated appendix),36 arsenical poisoning,37 acute intestinal obstruction,38 the rupture of a hydatid cyst.39 Luke’s statement that he was “consumed by worms” provides a clue of sorts, but such a term is used by several ancient writers in relating the deaths of people deemed worthy of so unpleasant an end.40
On the death of Agrippa, Judaea reverted to administration by Roman governors. Three children of his figure later in the narrative of Acts: Agrippa the younger and Bernice (25:13), and Drusilla (24:24).
6. Continued Progress of the Gospel (12:24)
24But the word of God41 increased and multiplied.
24 This is the third of the brief reports of progress with which the narrative of Acts is punctuated (cf. 6:7; 9:31). In the present report the progress and prosperity of the cause of the gospel are emphasized by contrast with the miserable end of the royal persecutor.