Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 12:23
And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.
23. And immediately the (an) angel of the Lord smote him and he was eaten of worms ] Cp. the fate of Antiochus Epiphanes ( 2Ma 9:9 ), and Herod the Great’s death (Josephus, Ant. xvii. 6. 5). The passage in which Josephus describes these events is so important in its bearing on the N. Test. narrative that it deserves to be read in its entirety. He writes ( Antiq. xix. 8. 2), “Now when Agrippa had reigned three years over all Juda, he came to the city Csarea, which was formerly called Strato’s Tower, and there he exhibited shows in honour of Csar, upon his being informed that there was a certain festival celebrated to make vows for his safety. At which festival a great multitude was gotten together of the principal persons and such as were of dignity throughout his province. On the second day of which shows he put on a garment made wholly of silver and of a contexture truly wonderful, and came into the theatre early in the morning, at which time the silver of his garment being illuminated by the fresh reflexion of the sun’s rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a dread and shuddering over those that looked intently upon it, and presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place and another from another (though not for his good) that he was a god. And they added ‘ Be thou merciful to us, for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature.’ Upon this the King did neither rebuke them nor reject their impious flattery. But as he presently afterwards looked up he saw an owl sitting upon a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of ill tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him; and fell into the deepest sorrow. A violent pain also arose in his belly, having begun with great severity. He therefore looked upon his friends and said, ‘I whom you call a god, am commanded presently to depart this life, while Providence thus reproves the lying words you just now said to me; and I who was called by you immortal am immediately to be hurried away by death. But I am bound to accept what Providence allots as it pleases God, for we have by no means lived ill, but in a splendid and happy manner.’ When he had said this his pain became violent. Accordingly he was carried into the palace, and the rumour went abroad everywhere that he would certainly die in a little time And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his bowels for five days he departed this life.”
We can see from this extract that among the throng who flattered Herod, there were some who were suing for mercy to be shewn to them; that the day was a set day, that Herod was clad in royal robes, that the flattery consisted in calling him a god, that he did not rebuke them; that he was stricken immediately so that he had to be carried to his palace, that he acknowledged that the stroke came from God as a rebuke for accepting such flattery, and everybody expected him to die at once.
With reference to the latter portion in which Josephus speaks of a violent pain increasing in vehemence very rapidly, and the N. Test. says he was eaten of worms; it is noticeable that, in the account of the death of Antiochus, already alluded to, we have these two features of the same disease mentioned and that they are described separately. First, 2Ma 9:5 , “The Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, smote him with an incurable and invisible plague, for as soon as he had spoken these words a pain of the bowels that was remediless came upon him and sore torments of the inner parts.” Then after a verse or two describing the pride of Antiochus we read, “So that the worms rose up out of the body of this wicked man.”
Josephus (by whom Herod, as one who favoured Jews, was regarded as of no bad character, and was moreover looked upon with an eye of admiration as having been raised to the highest pitch of power through Roman influence, to which Josephus himself was very ready to pay court) has merely described the form in which the malady made itself apparent at first, and has left out the more loathsome details from the death story of one who in his eyes was a great king; while Holy Writ has given the fuller account, because the object of the writer of the Acts was to emphasize in all its enormity the sin for which Josephus tells us that Herod himself felt that he was stricken. The points of accord in the two accounts are so many, and the difference so slight and so easy to be accounted for, that this extract from Josephus must always be regarded as a most weighty testimony to the historic accuracy and faithfulness of St Luke’s narrative. For other instances of death by this loathsome malady, see Herodotus iv. 205; Eusebius viii. 16; Tertullian ad Scapul. iii. A similar account is given of the death of Philip II. of Spain.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And immediately the angel of the Lord – Diseases and death axe in the Scriptures often attributed to an angel. See 2Sa 24:16; 1Ch 21:12, 1Ch 21:15, 1Ch 21:20, 1Ch 21:27; 2Ch 32:21. It is not intended that there was a miracle in this case, but it certainly is intended by the sacred writer that his death was a divine judgment on him for his receiving homage as a god. Josephus says of him that he did neither rebuke them the people nor reject their impious flattery. A severe pain arose in his belly, and began in a most violent manner. And when he was quite worn out by the pain in his belly for five days, he departed this life, in the 54th year of his age, and the 7th year of his reign. Josephus does not mention that it was done by an angel, but says that when he looked up, he saw an owl sitting on a rope over his head, and judging it to be an evil omen, he immediately became melancholy, and was seized with the pain.
Because he gave not God the glory – Because he was willing to receive the worship due to God. It was the more sinful in him as he was a Jew, and was acquainted with the true God, and with the evils of idolatry. He was proud, and willing to be flattered, and even adored. He had sought their applause; he had arrayed himself in this splendid manner to excite admiration; and when they carried it even so far as to offer divine homage, he did not reject the impious flattery, but listened stir to their praises. Hence, he was judged; and God vindicated his own insulted honor by inflicting severe pains on him, and by a most awful death.
And he was eaten of worms – The word used here is not found elsewhere in the New Testament. A similar disease is recorded of Antiochus Epiphanes, in the Apocrypha, 2 Macc. 9:5, But the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, smote him with an invisible and incurable plague; for a pain in the bowels that was remediless came upon him, and sore torments of the inner parts Act 12:9, so that worms rose up out of the body of this wicked man, etc. Probably this was the disease known as morbus pedicularis. It is loathsome, offensive, and most painful. See the death of Antiochus Epiphanes described in 2 Macc. 9. With this disease also Herod the Great, grandfather of Herod Agrippa, died (Josephus, Antiq., book 17, chapter 6, section 5). Such a death, so painful, so sudden, and so loathsome, was an appropriate judgment on the pride of Herod. We may here learn:
(1) That sudden and violent deaths are often acts of direct divine judgment on wicked people.
(2) That people, when they seek praise and flattery, expose themselves to the displeasure of God. His glory he will not give to another, Isa 42:8.
(3) That the most proud, and mighty, and magnificent princes have no security of their lives. God can in a moment – even when they are surrounded by their worshippers and flatterers – touch the seat of life, and turn them to loathsomeness and putrefaction. What a pitiable being is a man of pride receiving from his fellow-men that homage which is due to God alone! See Isa. 14.
(4) Pride and vanity, in any station of life, are hateful in the sight of God. Nothing is more inappropriate to our situation as lost, dying sinners, and nothing will more certainly meet the wrath of heaven.
(5) We have here a strong confirmation of the truth of the sacred narrative. In all essential particulars Luke coincides in his account of the death of Herod with Josephus. This is one of the many circumstances which show that the sacred Scriptures were written at the time when they professed to be, and that they accord with the truth. See Lardners Credibility, part 1, chapter 1, section 6.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 23. The angel of the Lord smote him] His death was most evidently a judgment from God.
Because he gave not God the glory] He did not rebuke his flatterers, but permitted them to give him that honour that was due to God alone. See Clarke on Ac 12:21.
And was eaten of worms] Whether this was the morbus pedicularis, or whether a violent inflammation of his bowels, terminating in putrefaction, did not actually produce worms, which, for several days, swarmed in his infected entrails, we cannot tell. It is most likely that this latter was the case; and this is at once more agreeable to the letter of the text, and to the circumstances of the case as related by Josephus.
And gave up the ghost.] That is, he died of the disorder by which he was then seized, after having lingered, in excruciating torments, for five days, as Josephus has stated. Antiochus Epiphanes and Herod the Great died of the same kind of disease. See the observations at the end of Ac 1:26 relative to the death of Judas.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
An angel had delivered Peter, and here an angel destroys Herod: all that heavenly host fullfil Gods will for the deliverance of his church, and the destruction of his enemies.
He gave not God the glory; priding himself in the acclamation the people had made, and not attributing his eloquence and glory to God, as the giver of them; or rather, not repressing or punishing their blasphemy; whereas Peter durst not accept of undue honour from Cornelius, Act 10:26, nor the angel from St. John, Rev 19:10; 22:9.
He was eaten of worms; either breeding in his bowels, or in his flesh, after a more unusual manner; as it is recorded of Herod the Great, that he was eaten up of lice. No creature so little or contemptible, but it can execute Gods judgments on whom he please.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him,…. With a disease after mentioned; this angel, according to Josephus, appeared in the form of an owl; for he says, that a little after (the shout of the people) the king looked up, and saw an owl sitting upon a rope over his head; whom he immediately understood to be an angel, or messenger of evil things to him, as it had been before of good things; for it seems by the same historian s, that when he was bound by the order of Caligula, he saw an owl sitting on that tree, on which he leaned; when a certain German predicted, that things would in a short time be changed with him, and he should be advanced to great honour; but remember, says he, whenever you see that bird again, you will die within five days. Eusebius t, out of Josephus, makes no mention of the owl, but relates it thus; that a little after (the oration and the salutation of the people) the king looked up, and saw an angel sitting over his head, whom he immediately understood to be the cause of evil things to him, as he had formerly been of good: the reason of the angel’s smiting him was,
because he gave not glory to God; or as the Jewish historian says, because he reproved not the flatterers, nor rejected their impious flattery, but tacitly took that to himself, which belonged to God:
and he was eaten of worms: Beza’s most ancient copy adds, “while he was alive”; Josephus only makes mention of pains in his belly, but these were occasioned by the gnawing of the worms: this was accounted by the Jews a very accursed death; they say u, that the spies which brought an ill report on the good land, died this death: their account is this, that
“their tongues swelled and fell upon their navels, and worms came out of their tongues and went into their navels, and out of their navels they went into their tongues,”
of this death died many tyrants, oppressors, and persecutors! as Antiochus,
“So that the worms rose up out of the body of this wicked man, and whiles he lived in sorrow and pain, his flesh fell away, and the filthiness of his smell was noisome to all his army.” (2 Maccabees 9:9)
and Herod the great, the grandfather of this, according to Josephus w; and Maximianus Galerius, according to Eusebius x, and many others:
and gave up the ghost: not directly, but five days after, as Josephus relates, in the fifty fourth year of his age, and when he had reigned seven years; but before he died, and as soon as he was smitten, he turned to his friends and said, I your God am obliged to depart this life, and now fate reproves the lying words you have just now spoke of me; and I who was called immortal by you, am led away to die, with more, as related by Josephus: by such a token as this, a man was discovered to be a murderer with the Jews; for so they say y, that
“out of the beheaded heifer went a vast number of worms, and went to the place where the murderer was, and ascended upon him, and then the sanhedrim laid hold on him and condemned him.”
s Ib. l. 18. c. 7. sect. 7. t Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 10. u T. Bab. Sota, fol. 35. 1. w Antiqu. l. 17. c. 6. sect. 5. x Hist. Eccl. l. 8. c. 16. y Targum Jon. in Deut. xxi. 8.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Smote him ( ). Effective aorist active indicative of , old verb, used already in verse 7 of gentle smiting of the angel of the Lord, here of a severe stroke of affliction. Like Nebuchadnezzar (Da 4:30) pride went before a fall. He was struck down in the very zenith of his glory.
Because (‘ ). with the genitive of the relative pronoun, “in return for which things.” He accepted the impious flattery (Hackett) instead of giving God the glory. He was a nominal Jew.
He was eaten of worms ( ). Ingressive aorist middle participle, “becoming worm-eaten.” The compound verbal adjective (, worm, , eaten, from ) is a late word (II Macc. 9:9) of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, used also of a tree (Theophrastus), here only in the N.T. The word was used of intestinal worms and Herodotus (IV. 205) describes Pheretima, Queen of Cyrene, as having swarms of worms which ate her flesh while still alive. Josephus (Ant. XIX. 8, 2) says that Herod Agrippa lingered for five days and says that the rotting of his flesh produced worms, an item in harmony with the narrative in Luke. Josephus gives further details, one a superstitious sight of an owl sitting on one of the ropes of the awning of the theatre while the people flattered him, an omen of his death to him. Luke puts it simply that God smote him.
Gave up the ghost (). Effective aorist active of , to breathe out, late verb, medical term in Hippocrates, in the N.T. only in Acts 5:5; Acts 5:10; Acts 12:23. Herod was carried out of the theatre a dying man and lingered only five days.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
An angel of the Lord smote him. An interesting parallel is furnished by the story of Alp Arslan, a Turkish prince of the eleventh century. “The Turkish prince bequeathed a dying admonition to the pride of kings. ‘In my youth, ‘ said Alp Arslan, ‘I was advised by a sage to humble myself before God; to distrust my own strength; and never to despise the most contemptible foe. I have neglected these lessons, and my neglect has been deservedly punished. Yesterday, as from an eminence, I beheld the numbers, the discipline, and the spirit of my armies; the earth seemed to tremble under my feet, and I said in my heart, surely thou art the king of the world, the greatest and most invincible of warriors. These armies are no longer mine; and, in the confidence of my personal strength, I now fall by the hand of an assassin ‘” (Gibbon, ” Decline and Fall “).
Eaten of worms [] . Only here in New Testament. Of Pheretima, queen of Cyrene, distinguished for her cruelties, Herodotus says : “Nor did Pheretima herself end her days happily. For on her return to Egypt from Libya, directly after taking vengeance on the people of Barca, she was overtaken by a most horrid death. Her body swarmed with worms, which ate her flesh while she was still alive” (4, 205). The term, as applied to disease in the human body, does not occur in any of the medical writers extant. Theophrastus, however, uses it of a disease in plants. The word skwlhx is used by medical writers of intestinal worms. Compare the account of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, the great persecutor of the Jews. “So that the worms rose up out of the body of this wicked man, and whiles he lived in sorrow and pain, his flesh fell away, and the filthiness of his smell was noisome to all his army” (2 Macc. 9 9). Sylla, the Roman dictator, is also said to have suffered from a similar disease. Gave up the ghost. See on ch Act 5:5.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And immediately,” (parachrema de) “Then at once,” suddenly, or instantly because of his wicked pride, such as Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzor had once shown and been judged for, Dan 5:18-30.
2) “The angel of the Lord smote him,”(epataksen auton angelos Kuriou) “An angel of the Lord smote him,” afflicted him with blow flies.
3) “Because he gave not God the glory:‘ (anth’ on ouk edoken ten doksan to theo) “Because he did not give forth the glory to the living and true God,” did not rebuke the people or reject their flatteries. Note the contrast of his attitude of that of both Peter and Paul, Act 10:26; Act 14:14-15.
4) “And he was eaten of the worms,” (kai genomenos skolekobrotos) “And he was or became eaten by worms (maggots),” from blow flies sent upon him while he was upon or immediately after he descended the throne that very day, became worm food in the presence of those he had promised to feed so abundantly that they extolled him as a god-giver of bread, Jas 1:1-2; La 3:21, 22; Mat 6:11.
5) “And gave up the ghost,” (eksepouksen) “And he expired,” died from the effect of the angelic judgement smiting of worms, maggots from blow flies. He died a painful, horrible, lingering death as maggots ate deeper and deeper into the vitals of his body.
CONTENDING AGAINST GOD
As you stood one stormy day on a sea cliff and marked the giant billow rise from the deep to rush on with foaming crest, and throw itself thundering on the trembling shore, did you ever fancy you could stay its course and hurl it back to the depths of t he ocean? Did you ever stand beneath the leaden, lowering cloud and mark the lightnings leap, as it shot and flashed dazzling athwart the gloom, and think you could grasp the boll and change its path? Still more foolish and vain his thought who fancies he can arrest or turn aside the purpose of God, saying, “What is the Almighty that we should serve him? Let us break His bands asunder and cast away His cords from us!”
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
23. Forthwith he smote him. As, before, the angel was a minister of God’s grace in the delivery of Peter, so now he taketh vengeance upon Herod. And God doth sometimes use the ministry of angels in heaven in punishing; but sometimes he maketh the devils as hangmen, by whose hand he executeth his judgments. And this doth he as well toward his faithful servants as toward the reprobate. Saul was troubled and vexed by Satan, (1Sa 16:14) but the same did also befall holy Job, (Job 1:12.) In the Psalms, the punishments wherewith God doth chasten the wicked are attributed to the evil angels; yet we see how the angel which had the government of the safety of the Church smiteth the Egyptians in the first-begotten, (Exo 12:29😉 although the Scripture calleth the wicked spirits God’s spirits, because they are obedient to his commandment, though full sore against their will. But where the epithet evil is not added, as in this place, we must understand the angel which doth willingly obey God, and yet the shape of the owl, whereof Josephus maketh mention, did rather serve to figure the devil than an heavenly angel.
Furthermore, I dare not affirm for a surety what manner of disease that was. The word which Luke useth doth signify that he was eaten up of worms. Many conjecture that it was a lousy disease. This is certain, that even when he was yet alive he was corrupt with stink and rottenness, so that he was, as it were, a living carcass. So that he was not only vexed with cruel torments, but also made a laughing-stock to all men, and of all men reviled. For God intended to make choice of a kind of punishment wherewith he might repress the cruelty of a proud man with extreme ignominy. If he had been overcome of some great and valiant army, and had been brought to poverty, the judgment of God had not been so marked; and this had been an honest and princely chastisement; (770) but forasmuch as he abhorreth lice and worms, and this filthiness cometh out of his body, which doth kill him by eating him up, he is handled according to his deserts.
In like sort Pharaoh, forasmuch as he did so oft exalt himself against God with untamed pride, he was not orderly assailed by some prince that did border upon him, but locusts and caterpillars were God’s warriors [soldiers] to make war against him, (Exo 8:17😉 for the more proudly a man exalteth himself, the more doth he deserve to be cast doom of God into the lowest hell with shame and reproach. This is the reason why he set this reigned god Herod to be eaten up of worms, which he was at length enforced to grant, when he said, “Behold me, whom ye saluted as a god; I die miserable.” Such a manifest example of horrible vengeance in a king’s person ought to terrify us not a little from presuming to take to ourselves more than we ought; and that we do not suffer ourselves to be made drunk with the false commendation and flattery of men as with deadly poison.
Because he gave not the glory to God. He is condemned of sacrilege, not only because he suffered himself to be called God, but because, forgetting himself, he took to himself the honor due to God. We do not read that the king of Babylon was thus extolled; and yet the prophet upbraideth to him that he went about to make himself equal with God, (Isa 14:13.) Therefore this sacrilege is a common fault in all proud men, because, by taking to themselves more than they ought, they darken the glory of God; and so, like giants, so much as ever they are able, they endeavor to pluck God out of his seat. Howsoever, they do not usurp the title of God, neither openly boast with their mouth that they are gods; yet because they take to themselves that which is proper to God, they desire to be, and to be accounted gods, having brought him under, furthermore, the prophet pointeth out the beginning of this evil in one word, when he bringeth in Nebuchadnezzar speaking on this wise, “I will go up,” (Isa 14:13.)
Wherefore there is but one remedy, if every one keep himself in that degree wherein he is placed. Let those who are base and castaways [in a humble station] not desire to climb higher; let kings, and those who are above others, remember that they are mortal, and let them modestly submit their highness to God. And we must note, that it is not enough if men give to God only half the honor which is due to him, who challengeth all that wholly which is his own; if they submit themselves but in part, whom he will have to be thoroughly humbled. Now, forasmuch as the Scripture despoileth us quite of all praise of wisdom, virtue, and righteousness, there is no one of us that can take to himself the least jot of glory without sacrilegious robbing of God. And it is a wonder that, seeing the Scripture pronounceth that all those make, as it were, open war against God which exalt themselves; and we do all grant that that cannot be done without our overthrow, [destruction;] the greatest part of men runneth, notwithstanding, headlong with furious boldness unto their own destruction; for there is scarce one of an hundred who, being mindful of his condition, doth leave to God his glory undiminished.
(770) “ Liberalis et regia castigatio,” a dignified and royal chastisement.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(23) The angel of the Lord smote him.The intervention of the angel is obviously regarded by St. Luke as the only adequate explanation at once of the death of the persecutor and of the escape of his victim, and in the former he recognised not only what has been called the irony of history, or an instance of the law of Nemesis, bringing down the haughty in the very hour of their triumph, but a direct chastisement for an act of impiety.
Because he gave not God the glory.The words probably mean something more than that he did not ascribe to God the praise which was due to Him, and Him only. To give God the glory was a phrase always connected with the confession of sin and weakness, as in Jos. 7:19. (See Note on Joh. 9:24.)
He was eaten of worms.The specific form of the disease is not named by Josephus, and St. Lukes precision in describing it may fairly be regarded as characteristic of his calling. The form of the disease, probably of the nature of phtheiriasis, or the morbus pedicularis, from its exceptionally loathsome character, had always been regarded as of the nature of a divine chastisement. The more memorable instances of it recorded in history are those of Pheretimo of Cyrene (Herod. iv. 205), Sylla, Antiochus the Great (2Ma. 9:2), Herod the Great (Jos. Ant. xvii. 8), and Maximinus, among the persecutors of the Church (Euseb. viii. 16; ix. 10, 11; Lactant, De mort. Persecut. c. 33). The death of Agrippa took place A.D. 44, in the seventh year of his reign, and at the age of fifty-three.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
23. The angel Josephus gives the pagan form of the story. He says that at that moment Herod, looking up, beheld an owl, a bird of evil omen, perched upon a cord! “Herod,” says Josephus, “thought the owl to be the ( , angel) messenger of evil things as he had once been of good.” For some years before, when Herod was imprisoned by Tiberius preparatory to execution, an owl appeared to him, and a German soothsayer explained it as a sign of his release and future greatness, but warned him that when he should see the owl again he would expire in five days after. The appearance of an owl in so public a place in a great city, on a splendid morning, is very improbable as a natural event.
Gave not God the glory Heathen princes often received divine titles. But for Herod, a Jew, whose instruction in the oracles of God taught him the great crime of such blasphemy, the indulgence of these Gentiles in such flattery was a heinous sin. It was the culmination of that same blasphemous vainglory which prompted him to the murder of the apostles to win the applause of the Jews, and so was really identical with his spirit of persecution.
Eaten of worms A bowel complaint seized him; putrefaction, producing worms, and death in five days, ensued.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And immediately an angel of the Lord smote him, because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten of worms, and gave up his breath.’
Immediately the angel of the Lord smote him so that he died, because he did not give God the glory, and the result was that he was eaten by worms and breathed his last. ‘Immediately’ need not be taken literally, merely signifying within a short period. This is, of course, a summary of what happened and much of it would only come out on medical examination. But the point is clear, his death was sudden and ignominious, as Josephus had also testified. He who had set himself up against God and His Anointed had suffered his deserved end. And when his body was examined worms were discovered in it. This is the fate of all such blasphemers (compare Isa 14:11; Isa 66:24).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Act 12:23 . ] an angel of the Lord smote him . The paroxysm of disease suddenly setting in as a punishment of God, is in accordance with O. T. precedents (comp. 2Sa 24:17 ; 2Ki 19:35 ; Isa 37:36 ), apprehended as the effect of a stroke (invisibly) befalling him from an angel. The fate of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 4:26-30 ) does not accord with this view (in opposition to Baumgarten). Josephus, l.c. , relates that soon after that display of flattery, the king saw an owl sitting on a rope above his head, and he regarded this (according to a prophecy formerly received in Rome from a German) as a herald of death, whereupon severe abdominal pains immediately followed, under which he expired after five days (at the age of fifty-four years). That Luke has not adopted this fable, instead of which Eichhorn puts merely a sudden shivering , is a consequence of his Christian view, which gives instead from its own sphere and tradition the as an exhibition of the divine Nemesis; therefore Eusebius ( H. E. ii. 10) ought not to have harmonized the accounts, and made out of the owl an angel of death. Bengel: “Adeo differt historia divina et humana.” See, besides, Heinichen, Exc. II. ad Euseb. III. p. 356 ff.
] as a requital for the fact, that . See on Luk 1:20 .
] he refused God the honour due to Him, inasmuch as he received that tribute of honour for himself , instead of declining it and directing the flatterers to the honour which belongs to God (“nulli creaturae communicabilem,” Erasmus); Isa 48:11 . Comp. Joseph. l.c. : (the flatterers) , . How entirely different the conduct of Peter, Act 10:26 , and of Paul and Barnabas, Act 14:14 f.!
.] similarly with Antiochus Epiphanes, 2Ma 9:5 ; 2Ma 9:9 . [279] This is not to be regarded as at variance with Josephus, who speaks generally only of pains in the bowels; but as a more precise statement, which is, indeed, referred by Baur to a Christian legend originating from the fate of Epiphanes, which has taken the abdominal pains that befell Herod as if they were already the gnawing worm which torments the condemned (Mar 9:44 f.; comp. Isa 46:4 )! Khn ( ad Ael. V. H. iv. 28), Elsner, Morus, and others, entirely against the words, have converted the disease of worms destroying the intestines (Bartholinus, de morbis Bibl. c. 23; Mead. de morb. Bibl. c. 15; and see the analogous cases in Wetstein) into the disease of lice , , as if (Hesych. Mil. 40) were used!
The word . is found in Theoph. c. pl. iii. 12. 8 (?), v. 9. 1.
] namely, after five days. Joseph. l.c. But did not Luke consider the . . as having taken place on the spot? The whole brief, terse statement, the reference to a stroke of an angel, and the use of (comp. Act 5:5 ; Act 5:10 ), render this highly probable.
[279] Observe how much our simple narrative became eaten with worms is distinguished from the overladen and extravagantly embellished description in 2Ma 9:9 (see Grimm in loc. ). But there is no reason, with Gerlach, to explain . figuratively (like the German wurmstichig ): worn and shattered by pain.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
23 And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.
Ver. 23. Because he gave not glory ] Joseph is trusted with all Potiphar’s goods, not with his wife: Glory is God’s beloved Spouse; in the enjoying whereof he is a jealous God, admitting no co-rivul, in heaven or earth,Isa 42:8Isa 42:8 ; to look upon it, and lust after it, is to commit spiritual adultery with it in our hearts.
And he was eaten of worms ] . Or with lice, as his grandfather Herod had been before him; as the tyrant Maximinus (who had set forth his proclamation engraven in brass, for the utter abolishing of Christ and his religion) was after him. a So was Philip II, king of Spain, who swore he had rather have no subjects than Lutheran subjects. And when he had very narrowly escaped drowning in a shipwreck, he said he was delivered by the singular providence of God to root out Lutheranism; which he presently began to do, &c. But God was even with him soon after. See Scriban. de Institut. Princip. xx. An evil end also befell Diagoras the atheist; who when he had made a famous oration against a deity, the people came applauding him, and said he had almost persuaded them, but only they thought that if any were God, he was for his eloquence’ sake; whereupon this wretch, like Herod, was content to be thought a god; which soon wrought his ruin. Good therefore is the counsel of the apostle, “Let us not be desirous of vain glory,” of popular applause; which what is it else but a blast of stinking breath, a meteor that liveth in the air, a Magnum nihil, a glorious fancy,Gal 5:26Gal 5:26 ; and if derogatory to God’s honour, as here, it proves pernicious and destructive.
And gave up the ghost ] His death was precationis opus potius quam morbi, as it was said of Arius the heretic, who was brought to confusion by the prayers of Alexander the good bishop of Constantinople. (Socrat. lib. i. cap. 15.) Josephus saith, Herod at his death much complained of the people’s vanity in deifying him. But no man is flattered by another that hath not first flattered himself.
a Sic et Sulla pediculari morbo periit. Plutarch.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
23 .] The fact may be correctly related by Josephus (see above): but our narrative alleges the cause of what happened to have been the displeasure of God , and the stroke to have been inflicted by His angel . Compare 2Ki 19:35 ; 1Ch 21:15-16 . But no appearance of an angel is implied: nor was I aware that such had ever been inferred; but I see in Valesius’s note on Euseb. ii. 10, “Quasi vero non utrumque fieri potuerit, ut et bubo supra caput Agripp, et ex alia parte angelus eidem appareret.”
] Another additional particular: and one to be expected from a physician. In several cases of deaths by divine judgment we have accounts of this loathsome termination of the disease. So Herodotus, iv. 205, : which he alleges as an instance that excessive indulgence of revenge, such as Pheretima had shewn against the Barcans, is looked on with anger by the gods. See too the very similar account of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, 2Ma 9:5-9 . So also Jos. Antt. xvii. 6. 5, describing the disease of which Herod the Great died, mentions . So also Euseb. (viii. 16) of the death of Galerius. So also Tertullian, ad Scapulam, c. 3, vol. i. p. 702, Migne, “Claudius Lucius Herminianus in Cappadocia, cum indigne ferens uxorem suam ad hanc sectam transiisse, solusque in Prtorio suo vastatus peste vivus vermibus ebullisset, Nemo sciat, aiebat, ne gaudeant Christiani. Postea cognito errore suo, quod tormentis quosdam a proposito suo excidere fecisset, pne Christianus decessit.”
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 12:23 . , see above, p. 106. , cf. Exod. 11:23, 2Sa 24:17 , 2Ki 19:35 , 1Ch 21:15 , Isa 37:36 , 1Ma 7:41 . See p. 188. On the confusion in the reading of Eusebius, H.E. , ii., 10, where for the owl whom Josephus describes as appearing to Herod as we have the reading “the angel” of the Acts, the unseen minister of the divine will, see B.D. 1 2 , p. 1345, and Eusebius , Schaff and Wace’s edition, in loco ; see also Bengel’s impressive note on this verse on the difference between human history and divine. = , cf. Luk 1:20 ; Luk 19:44 , see also Act 12:3 ; only once outside St. Luke’s writings in N.T., 2Th 2:10 ; see Simcox, Language of N. T. , p. 137; Plummer on Luk 1:20 ; Luk 12:3 ; quite classical and several times in LXX. .: debitum honorem, cf. Isa 48:11 , Rev 19:7 ; article elsewhere omitted ( cf. Luk 17:18 ); a Hebrew phrase. How different the behaviour of St. Peter and of St. Paul, Act 10:26 , Act 14:14 . Josephus expressly says that the king did not rebuke the flatterers or reject their flattery. . .: see below. St. Luke does not say that Herod died on the spot, but simply marks the commencement of the disease, ; Josephus describes the death as occurring after five days. Wendt (1899 edition) admits that the kind of death described may well have been gradual, although in 1888 edition he held that the meant that he expired immediately; see also Zckler and Hackett, as against Weiss. ., see on Act 5:5 ; Act 5:10 . .: only here in N.T.; no contradiction with Josephus, but a more precise description of the fatal disease, cf. 2Ma 9:5 ; 2Ma 9:9 , with which detailed and strange account the simple statement of the fact here stands in marked contrast. The word cannot be taken metaphorically, cf. Herod., iv., 205: and Jos., Ant. , xvii., 6, 5, of the death of Herod the Great. Such a death was regarded as a punishment for pride; so in 2 Macc. and Herod., Farrar, St. Paul. i. 318. The term itself was one which we might expect from a medical man, and St. Luke may easily have learnt the exact nature of the disease during his two years residence in Csarea (Belser). See Hobart, pp. 42, 43, Knabenbauer in loco . The word was used of a disease of plants, but Luke, no less than his contemporary Dioscorides, may well have been acquainted with botanical terms (Vogel). To think with Baur and Holtzmann of the gnawing worm of the damned is quite opposed to the whole context. If we place the two narratives, the account given by Josephus and that given by St Luke side by side, it is impossible not to see their general agreement, and none has admitted this more unreservedly than Schrer. On reasons for the silence of Josephus as to the death as a punishment of the king’s impiety in contrast with the clear statement of St. Luke; and also on the whole narrative as against the strictures of Spitta, see Belser, Theologische Quartalschrift , p. 252 ff., 2 e Heft, 1895; for a full examination; cf. also Nsgen to the same effect, Apostelgeschichte , p. 242, Zahn, Einleitung , ii., 417. Belser should also be consulted as against Krenkel, Josephus und Lucas , p. 203 ff. It should be noted that Krenkel does not affirm that Luke derived his material from Josephus in Act 12:1-23 , but only that he was influenced by the Jewish historian, and that with regard to the hapax-legomenon, , he can only affirm that Josephus affords us an analogous expression, B. J. , vii., 8, 7.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Acts
THE ANGEL’S TOUCH
Act 12:7
The same heavenly agent performs the same action on Peter and on Herod. To the one, his touch brings freedom and the dropping off of his chains; to the other it brings gnawing agonies and a horrible death. These twofold effects of one cause open out wide and solemn thoughts, on which it is well to look.
I. The one touch has a twofold effect.
The Gospel too comes charged with that double possibility, and is the intensest and most fateful example of the dual effect of all God’s messages and dealings. Just as the ark maimed Dagon and decimated the Philistine cities and slew Uzzah, but brought blessing and prosperity to the house of Obed-edom, just as the same pillar was light to Israel all the night long, but cloud and darkness to the Egyptians, so is Christ set ‘for the fall of’ some and ‘for the rising of’ others amidst the ‘many in Israel,’ and His Gospel is either ‘the savour of life unto life or of death unto death,’ but in both cases is in itself ‘unto God,’ one and the same ‘sweet savour in Christ.’
II. These twofold effects are parts of one plan and purpose.
God changes His ways, but not His heart. He changes His acts, but not His purposes. Opposite methods conduce to one end, as winter storms and June sunshine equally tend to the yellowed harvest.
III. The character of the effects depends on the men who are touched.
This, too, is a universal truth. It is we ourselves who settle what God’s words and acts will be to us. The trite proverb, ‘One man’s meat is another man’s poison,’ is true in the highest regions. It is eminently, blessedly or tragically true in our relation to the Gospel, wherein all God’s self-revelation reaches its climax, wherein ‘the arm of the Lord’ is put forth in its most blessed energy, wherein is laid on each of us the touch, tender and more charged with blessing than that of the angel who smote the calmly sleeping Apostle. That Gospel may either be to us the means of freeing us from our chains, and leading us out of our prison-house into sunshine and security, or be the fatal occasion of condemnation and death. Which it shall be depends on ourselves. Which shall I make it for myself?
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
immediately. Greek. parachrema. See note on Act 3:7.
because = the reason for (Greek. anti. App-104. ) which.
eaten of worms. Greek. skolekobrotos. Only here. skolex, a worm, only in Mar 9:44-48.
gave up the ghost = expired. Greek. ekpsucho. Only here and Act 5:5, Act 5:10.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
23.] The fact may be correctly related by Josephus (see above): but our narrative alleges the cause of what happened to have been the displeasure of God, and the stroke to have been inflicted by His angel. Compare 2Ki 19:35; 1Ch 21:15-16. But no appearance of an angel is implied: nor was I aware that such had ever been inferred; but I see in Valesiuss note on Euseb. ii. 10, Quasi vero non utrumque fieri potuerit, ut et bubo supra caput Agripp, et ex alia parte angelus eidem appareret.
] Another additional particular: and one to be expected from a physician. In several cases of deaths by divine judgment we have accounts of this loathsome termination of the disease. So Herodotus, iv. 205, : which he alleges as an instance that excessive indulgence of revenge, such as Pheretima had shewn against the Barcans, is looked on with anger by the gods. See too the very similar account of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, 2Ma 9:5-9. So also Jos. Antt. xvii. 6. 5, describing the disease of which Herod the Great died, mentions . So also Euseb. (viii. 16) of the death of Galerius. So also Tertullian, ad Scapulam, c. 3, vol. i. p. 702, Migne, Claudius Lucius Herminianus in Cappadocia, cum indigne ferens uxorem suam ad hanc sectam transiisse, solusque in Prtorio suo vastatus peste vivus vermibus ebullisset, Nemo sciat, aiebat, ne gaudeant Christiani. Postea cognito errore suo, quod tormentis quosdam a proposito suo excidere fecisset, pne Christianus decessit.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 12:23. , immediately) The disparagement (insult) to the Divine honour is most speedily counteracted (prevented): comp. ch. Act 14:14; also Rev 19:10.- , the angel of the Lord) a good angel. As to this important circumstance Josephus has nothing, though he enters into many matters of less consequence. To such a decree do Divine and human histories differ. The angel of the Lord led forth Peter: the angel of the Lord struck Herod. That both acts were done by angels, mortals saw not: it was only known to the saints.- , he gave not) He is not blamed for his having been praised; but because he accepted the praise. This sacrilege earned a more speedy punishment than the murder of James and his other crimes. [When the stroke was inflicted, Herod confessed (according to the statement of Josephus), that he had contracted guilt thereby.-V. g.]-, eaten of worms) What a change to him! Worms, to a man in the case of death, most natural, and least natural, according as they either follow or precede death. The deaths of persecutors have been striking. The Gospel overcomes and survives them: Act 12:24.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
the angel: Exo 12:12, Exo 12:23, Exo 12:29, 1Sa 25:38, 2Sa 24:17, 1Ch 21:14-18, 2Ch 32:21
because: Act 10:25, Act 10:26, Act 14:14, Act 14:15, Exo 9:17, Exo 10:3, Psa 115:1, Isa 37:23, Eze 28:2, Eze 28:9, Dan 4:30-37, Dan 5:18-24, Luk 12:47, Luk 12:48, 2Th 2:4
and he: 2Ch 21:18, 2Ch 21:19, Job 7:5, Job 19:26, Isa 14:11, Isa 51:8, Isa 66:24, Mar 9:44-48
Reciprocal: Gen 3:5 – as gods Gen 19:13 – Lord hath Gen 25:8 – gave Exo 2:23 – the king Exo 8:4 – General Exo 8:17 – lice in man Jos 8:29 – the king 1Sa 17:36 – seeing 2Sa 12:15 – struck the child 2Sa 24:16 – the angel 2Ki 9:35 – but they found 2Ki 19:35 – the angel 1Ch 21:12 – the angel 2Ch 13:20 – Lord 2Ch 21:15 – by disease Job 12:21 – poureth Job 15:25 – he stretcheth Job 20:5 – the triumphing Job 32:21 – flattering Job 33:22 – his life Job 34:20 – a moment Job 40:11 – behold Psa 7:9 – Oh Psa 9:20 – may Psa 35:5 – and Psa 37:14 – wicked Psa 37:36 – General Psa 38:7 – my loins Psa 40:14 – driven Psa 94:3 – the wicked Psa 107:40 – contempt Psa 138:6 – but the proud Pro 12:8 – he Pro 22:12 – eyes Pro 24:16 – but Pro 27:14 – He that Pro 28:28 – they perish Pro 29:23 – man’s Pro 30:9 – I be full Ecc 5:8 – higher than they Ecc 5:17 – much Ecc 7:17 – why Ecc 9:3 – after Isa 10:16 – the Lord of hosts Isa 14:15 – thou Isa 31:3 – the Egyptians Isa 36:4 – Thus saith Isa 37:36 – the angel Isa 51:13 – where is Jer 9:23 – neither Dan 4:31 – the word Dan 8:25 – but Dan 10:20 – to fight Dan 11:12 – his heart Mic 6:13 – I make Zec 14:12 – Their flesh Mat 2:15 – until Mat 18:10 – their Act 8:26 – The angel Act 12:7 – the angel Act 27:23 – there 1Co 4:7 – why 1Co 10:10 – destroyer 1Th 5:3 – then Heb 1:14 – minister Rev 16:2 – a noisome
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
3
Act 12:23. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 19, Chapter 8, Section 2, says that Herod did not rebuke the people for their flattery. Our passage merely states that Herod was eaten of worms and died. But the passage in Josephus cited above says, “A severe pain arose in his abdomen, and began in a most violent manner. . . . When he had said this, his pain was become violent. . . . And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his abdomen for five days, he departed this life.”
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 12:23. He was eaten of worm. Josephus speaks of violent and torturing pains. The writer of the Acts, whom we believe to have been identical with Luke, the beloved physician, gives a more accurate description of the mysterious and terrible disease which closed the brilliant career of the last king of Israel. It has been suggested that this fearful malady is especially reserved by God for princes who have cruelly misused their power over their subjects. The instances we possess of victims to this disease are few in number:Antiochus Epiphanes, who bitterly persecuted the Jews; Pheretima, Queen of Cyrene, celebrated for her cruelty; C. L. Herminianus, Roman governor of Cappadocia, who cruelly persecuted the Christians (see Tertul. ad Scapulam); and the Emperor Galerius, the last persecutor of the Church (Eusebius). To this list Niebuhr adds the name of Philip II.
The following table shows the descendants of King Herod Agrippa I:
After the death of Herod Agrippa I., Jerusalem was never ruled again by a native prince; a Roman procurator in Jerusalem, Cuspius Fadus, was appointed by the Government of Rome. A portion of the kingdom of his father was given to the young prince, who, under the name of Herod Agrippa 11., received from Claudius, who was personally attached to the boy, the kingly title. But this sovereign, of whom in the Acts we shall hear more, never seems to have adopted, as did his father, the feelings of the Jewish patriot party.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
See notes one verse 20
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
23. Immediately the angel of the Lord struck him, because he did not give the glory to God, and, being eaten with worms, he gave up the ghost.
Here you see the soul-sleeping heresy, i. e., that you have no soul separate from the body, is unanswerably refuted, as you see the soul of Herod left his body and went away to his account with God. The simple fact is, God turned on this wicked king the awful judgment of black leprosy, the terrible affliction of Job, in which the flesh turns black and immediately rots on the bones, spontaneously generating vermin, which utterly eat up the hopeless victim. Thus God took away that awful scourge, who doubtless would have persisted in killing the apostles and murdering the saints. No wonder the cause of God received a new impetus and prospered.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 23
He gave not God the glory; that is, he did not reject these divine honors.–Eaten of worms. This expression refers to a very dreadful and painful disease, with which Herod was suddenly attacked, and by means of which God destroyed his life.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
12:23 {11} And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he {e} gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.
(11) God resists the proud.
(e) Josephus records that this king did not repress the flatterer’s tongues, and therefore at his death he complained and cried out about their empty praise.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
elete_me Act 12:23-24
Chapter 8
THE DEFEAT OF PRIDE.
Act 12:1-3; Act 12:23-24
THE chapter at which we have now arrived is very important from a chronological point of view, as it brings the sacred narrative into contact with the affairs of the external world concerning which we have independent knowledge. The history of the Christian Church and of the outside world for the first time clearly intersect, and we thus gain a fixed point of time to which we can refer. This chronological character of the twelfth chapter of the Acts arises from its introduction of Herod and the narrative of the second notable persecution which the Church at Jerusalem had to endure. The appearance of a Herod on the scene and the tragedy in which he was the actor demand a certain amount of historical explanation, for, as we have already noted in the case of St. Stephen five or six years previously, Roman procurators and Jewish priests and the Sanhedrin then possessed or at least used the power of the sword in Jerusalem, while a word had not been heard of a Herod exercising capital jurisdiction in Judaea for more than forty years. Who was this Herod? Whence came he? How does he emerge so suddenly upon the stage? As great confusion exists in the minds of many Bible students about the ramifications of the Herodian family and the various offices and governments they held, we must make a brief digression in order to show who and whence this Herod was concerning whom we are told, -“Now about that time Herod the king put forth his hands to afflict certain of the Church.”
This Herod Agrippa was a grandson of Herod the Great, and displayed in the solitary notice of him which Holy Scripture has handed down many of the characteristics, cruel, bloodthirsty, and yet magnificent, which that celebrated sovereign manifested throughout his life. The story of Herod Agrippa his grandson was a real romance. He made trial of every station in life. He had been at times a captive, at times a conqueror. He had at various periods experience, of a prison house and of a throne. He had felt the depths of poverty, and had not known where to borrow money sufficient to pay his way to Rome. He had tasted of the sweetness of affluence, and had enjoyed the pleasures of magnificent living. He had been a subject and a ruler, a dependent on a tyrant, and the trusted friend and councillor of emperors. His story is worth telling. He was born about ten years before the Christian era, and was the son of Aristobulus, one of the sons of Herod the Great. After the death of Herod, his grandfather, the Herodian family were scattered all over the world. Some obtained official positions; others were obliged to shift for themselves, depending on the fragments of the fortune which the great king had left them. Agrippa lived at Rome till about the year 30 A.D., associating with Drusus, the son of the Emperor Tiberius, by whom he was led into the wildest extravagance. He was banished from Rome about that year, and was obliged to retire to Palestine, contenting himself with the small official post of dile of Tiberias in Galilee, given him by his uncle Herod Antipas, which he held about the time when our Lord was teaching in that neighbourhood. During the next six years the fortunes of Agrippa were of the most chequered kind. He soon quarrelled with Antipas, and is next found a fugitive at the court of Antioch with the Prefect of the East. He there borrowed from a moneylender the sum of 800 at 12.5 per cent. interest, to enable him to go to Rome and push his interests at the imperial court. He was arrested, however, for a large debt due to the Treasury just when he was embarking, and consigned to prison, whence the very next day he managed to escape, and fled to Alexandria. There he again raised another timely loan, and thus at last succeeded in getting to Rome. Agrippa attached himself to Caligula, the heir of the empire, and after various chances was appointed by him King of Trachonitis, a dominion which Caligula and subsequently Claudius enlarged by degrees, till in the year 41 he was invested with the kingdom of the whole of Palestine, including Galilee, Samaria, and Judaea, of which Agrippa proceeded to take formal possession about twelve months before the events recorded in the twelfth chapter of Acts.
Herods career had been marked by various changes, but in one respect he had been consistent. He was ever a thorough Jew, and a vigorous and useful friend to his fellow-countrymen. We have already noticed that his influence had been used with Caligula to induce the Emperor to forego his mad project of erecting his statue in the Holy of Holies at Jerusalem. Herod had, however, one great drawback in the eyes of the priestly faction at Jerusalem. All the descendants of Herod the Great were tainted by their Edomite blood, which they inherited through him. Their kind offices and support were accepted indeed, but only grudgingly. Herod felt this, and it was quite natural therefore for the newly appointed king to strive to gain all the popularity he could with the dominant party at Jerusalem by persecuting the new sect which was giving them so much trouble. No incident could possibly have been more natural, more consistent with the facts of history, as well as with the known dispositions and tendencies of human nature than that recorded in these words-“Now about that time Herod the king put forth his hands to afflict certain of the Church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.” Herods act was a very politic one from a worldly point of view. It was a hard dose enough for the Jewish people to swallow, to find a king imposed upon them by an idolatrous Gentile power; but it was some alleviation of their lot that the king was a Jew, and a Jew so devoted to the service of the ruling hierarchy that he was willing to use his secular power to crush the troublesome Nazarene sect whose doctrine threatened for ever to destroy all hopes of a temporal restoration for Israel. Such being the historical setting of the picture presented to us, let us apply ourselves to the spiritual application and lessons of this incident in apostolic history. We have here a martyrdom, a deliverance, and a Divine judgment, which will all repay careful study.
I. A martyrdom is here brought under our notice, and that the first martyrdom among the apostles. Stephens was the first Christian martyrdom, but that of James was the first apostolic martyrdom. When Herod, following his grandfathers footsteps, would afflict the Church, “he killed James the brother of John with the sword.” We must carefully distinguish between two martyrs of the same name who have both found a place in the commemorations of Christian hope and love. May-day is the feast devoted to the memory of St. Philip and St. James, July 25th is the anniversary consecrated to the memorial of St. James the Apostle, whose death is recorded in the passage now under consideration. The latter was the brother of John and son of Zebedee; the former was the brother or cousin, according to the flesh, of our Lord. St. James the Apostle perished early in the Churchs history. St. James the Just flourished for more than thirty years after the Resurrection. He lived indeed to a comparatively advanced period of the Churchs history, as is manifest from a study of the Epistle which he wrote to the Jewish Christians of the Dispersion. He there rebukes shortcomings and faults, respect for the rich and contempt of the poor, oppression and outrage and irreverence, which could never have found place in that first burst of love and devotion to God which the age of our Herodian martyr witnessed, but must have been the outcome of long years of worldly prosperity and ease. James the Just, the stern censor of Christian morals and customs, whose language indeed in its severity has at times caused one-sided and narrow Christians much trouble, must often have looked back with regret and longing to the purer days of charity and devotion when James the brother of John perished by the sword of Herod.
Again, we notice about this martyred apostle that, though there is very little told us concerning his life and actions, he must have been a very remarkable man. He was clearly remarkable for his Christian privileges. He was one of the apostles specially favoured by our Lord. He was admitted by Him into the closest spiritual converse. Thus we find that, with Peter and John, James the Apostle was one of the three selected by our Lord to behold the first manifestation of His power over the realms of the dead when He restored the daughter of Jairus to life; with the same two, Peter and John, he was privileged to behold our Saviour receive the first foretaste of His heavenly glory upon the Mount of Transfiguration; and with them too he was permitted to behold his great Master drink the first draught of the cup of agony in the Garden of Gethsemane. James the Apostle had thus the first necessary qualification for an eminent worker in the Lords vineyard. He had been admitted into Christs most intimate friendship, he knew much of his Lords will and mind. And the privileges thus conferred upon St. James had not been misused or neglected. He did not hide his talent in the dust of idleness, nor wrap it round with the mantle of sloth. He utilised his advantages. He became a foremost, if not indeed the foremost worker for his loved Lord in the Church of Jerusalem, as is intimated by the opening words of this passage, which tells us that when Herod wished to harass and vex the Church he selected James the brother of John as his victim; and we may be sure that with the keen instinct of a persecutor, Herod selected not the least prominent and useful, but the most devoted and energetic champion of Christ to satisfy his cruel purpose. And yet, though James was thus privileged and thus faithful and thus honoured by God, his active career is shrouded thick round with clouds and darkness. We know nothing of the good works and brave deeds and powerful sermons he devoted to his Masters cause. We are told simply of the death by which he glorified God. All else is hidden with God till that day when the secret thoughts and deeds of every man shall be revealed. This incident in early apostolic Church history is a very typical one, and teaches many a lesson very necessary for these times and for all times. If an apostle so privileged and so faithful was content to do work, and then to pass away without a single line of memorial, a single word to keep his name or his labours fresh among men, how much more may we, petty, faithless, trifling as we are, be contented to do our duty, and to pass away without any public recognition! And yet how we all do crave after such recognition! How intensely we long for human praise and approval! How useless we esteem our labours unless they are followed by it! How inclined we are to make the fallible judgment of man the standard by which we measure our actions, instead of having the minds eye ever steadily fixed, as James the brother of John had, on His approval alone who now seeing our secret trials, struggles, efforts, will one day reward His faithful followers openly!
This is one great lesson which this typical passage by its silence as well as by its speech clearly teaches the Church of every age.
Again, this martyrdom of St. James proclaims yet another lesson. God hereby warns the Church against the idolatry of human agents, against vain trust in human support. Let us consider the circumstances of the Church at that time. The Church had just passed through a season of violent persecution, and had lost one of its bravest and foremost soldiers in the person of Stephen, the martyred deacon. And now there was impending over the Church what is often more trying far than a time, short, and sharp, of violence and blood, -a period of temporal distress and suffering, trying the principles and testing the endurance of the weaker brethren in a thousand petty trifles. It was a time when the courage, the wisdom, the experience of the tried and trusted leaders would be specially required, to guide the Church amid the many new problems which day by day were cropping up. And yet it was just then, at such a crisis, that the Lord permits the bloody sword of Herod to be stretched forth and removes one of the very chiefest champions of the Christian host just when his presence seemed most necessary. It must have appeared a dark and trying dispensation to the Church of that day; but though attended doubtless with some present drawbacks and apparent disadvantages, it was well and wisely done to warn the Church of every age against mere human dependence, mere temporal refuges; teaching by a typical example that it is not by human might or earthly wisdom, not by the eloquence of man or the devices of earth that Christs Church and the people must be saved; that it is by His own right hand, and by His own holy arm alone our God will get Himself the victory.
Yet again we may learn from this incident another lesson rich-laden with comfort and instruction. This martyrdom of St. James throws us back upon a circumstance which occurred during our Lords last journey to Jerusalem before His crucifixion, and interprets it for us. Let us recall it. Our Lord was going up to Jerusalem, and His disciples were following Him with wondering awe. The shadow of the Cross, projecting itself forward, made itself unconsciously felt throughout the little company, and men were astonished, though they knew not why. They simply felt as men do on a close sultry summers day when a thunderstorm is overhead, that something awful was impending. They had, however, a vague feeling that the kingdom of God would shortly appear, and so the mother of Zebedees children, with all that boldness which affection lends to feminine minds, drew near and strove to secure a boon before all others for her own children. She prayed that to her two sons might be granted the posts of honour in the temporal kingdom she thought of as now drawing so very near. The Lord replied to her request in very deep and far-reaching language, the meaning of which she then understood not, but learned afterwards through the discipline of pain and sorrow and death: “Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” And then, when James and John had professed their ability, he predicts their future fate: “My cup indeed ye shall drink.” The mother and the sons alike spoke bold words, and offered a sincere but an ignorant prayer. Little indeed did the mother dream as she presented her petition-“Command that these my two sons may sit, one on Thy right hand, and one on Thy left hand in Thy kingdom”-how that prayer would be answered, and yet answered it was. To the one son, James, was granted the one post of honour. He was made to sit on the Masters right hand, for he was the first of the apostles called to enter into Paradise through a baptism of blood. While to the other son, St. John, was granted the other post of honour, for he was left the longest upon earth to guide, direct, and sustain the Church by his inspired wisdom, large experience, and apostolic authority. The contrast between the prayer offered up to Christ in ignorance and shortsightedness, and the manner in which the same prayer was answered in richest abundance, suggests to us the comforting reflection that no prayer offered up in sincerity and truth is ever really left unanswered. We may indeed never see how the prayer is answered. The mother of St. James may little have dreamt, as she beheld her sons lifeless body brought home to her, that this trying dispensation was a real answer to her ambitious petition. But we can now see that it was so, and can thus learn a lesson of genuine confidence, of holy boldness, of strong faith in the power of sincere and loving communion with God. Let us only take care to cultivate the same spirit of genuine humility and profound submission which possessed the soul of those primitive Christians, enabling them to say, no matter how their petitions were answered, whether in joy or sorrow, in smiles or tears, in riches or poverty, “Not my will, but Thine, O Lord, be done.”
II. We have again in this twelfth chapter the record of a Divine deliverance. Herod, seeing that the Jewish authorities were pleased because they had now a sympathetic ruler who understood their religious troubles and was resolved to help in quelling them, determined to proceed farther in the work of repression. He arrested another prominent leader, St. Peter, and cast him into prison. The details are given to us of Herods action and Peters arrest. Peter was now making his first acquaintance with Roman methods of punishment. He had been indeed previously arrested and imprisoned, but his arrest had been carried out by the Jewish authorities, and he had been consigned to the care of the Temple police, and had occupied the Temple prison. But Herod, though a strict Jew in religion, had been thoroughly Romanised in matters of rule and government, and therefore he treated St. Peter after the Roman fashion: “When he had taken him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quarternions of soldiers to guard him; intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people.” He was delivered to sixteen men, who divided the night into four watches, four men watching at a time, after the Roman method of discipline. And then, in contrast to all this preparation, we are told how the Church betook herself to her sure refuge and strong tower of defence: “Peter therefore was kept in prison; but prayer was made earnestly of the Church unto God for him.” These early Christians had not had their faith limited or weakened by discussions whether petitions for temporal blessings were a proper subject of prayer, or whether spiritual blessings did not alone supply true matter for supplication before the Divine throne. They were in the first fervour of Christian love, and they did not theorise, define, or debate about prayer and its efficacy. They only knew that their Master had told them to pray, and had promised to answer sincere prayer, as He alone knew how; and so they gathered themselves in instant, ceaseless prayer at the foot of the throne of grace. I say “ceaseless” prayer because it seems that the Jerusalem Church, feeling its danger, organised a continuous service of prayer. “Prayer was made earnestly of the Church unto God for him” is the statement of the fifth verse, and then when St. Peter was released “he came to the house of Mary, where many were gathered together and were praying,” though the night must have been far advanced. The crisis was a terrible one; the foremost champion, St. James, had been taken, and now another great leader was threatened, and therefore the Church flung herself at the feet of the Master seeking deliverance, and was not disappointed, as the Church has never since been disappointed when she has cast herself in lowliness and profound submission before the same holy sanctuary. The narrative then proceeds to give us the particulars of St. Peters deliverance, as St. Peter himself seems to have told it to St. Luke, for we have details given us which could only have come either directly or indirectly from the person most immediately concerned. But of these we shall treat in a little. The story now introduces the supernatural, and for the believer this is quite in keeping with the facts of the case. A great crisis in the history of the Jerusalem Church has arrived. The mother Church of all Christendom, the fountain and source of original Christianity, is threatened with extinction. The life of the greatest existing leader of that Church is at stake, and that before his work is done. The very existence of the Christian revelation seems imperilled, and God sends forth an angel, a heavenly messenger, to rescue His endangered servant, and to prove to unbelieving Jew, to the haughty Herod, and to the frightened but praying disciples alike the care which He ever exercises over His Church and people. Here, however, a question may be raised. How was it that an angel, a supernatural messenger, was despatched to the special rescue of St. Peter? Why was not the same assistance vouchsafed to St. James, who had just been put to death? Why was not the same assistance vouchsafed to St. Peter himself when he was martyred at Rome, or to St. Paul when he lay in the dungeon in the same city of Rome or at Caesarea? Simply, we reply, because Gods hour was not yet come and the Apostles work was not yet done. St. Jamess work was done, and therefore the Lord did not immediately interfere, or rather He summoned His servant to His assigned post of honour by the ministry of Herod. The wrath of man became the instrument whereby the praises of God were chanted and the soul of the righteous conveyed to its appointed place. The Lord did not interfere when St. Paul was cast into the prison house at Caesarea, or St. Peter incarcerated in the Roman dungeon, because they had then a great work to do in showing how His servants can suffer as well as work. But now St. Peter had many a long year of active labour before him and much work to do as the Apostle of the Circumcision in preventing that schism with which the diverse parties and opposing ideas of Jew and Gentile threatened the infant Church, in smoothing over and reconciling the manifold oppositions, jealousies, difficulties, misunderstandings, which ever attend such a season of transition and transformation as now was fast dawning upon the Divine society. The arrest of St. Peter and his threatened death was a great crisis in the history of the primitive Church. St. Peters life was very precious to the existence of that Church, it was very precious for the welfare of mankind at large, and so it was a fitting time for God to raise up a banner against triumphant pride and worldly force by the hand of a supernatural messenger.
The steps by which St. Peter was delivered are all of them full of edification and comfort. Let us mark them. “When Herod was about to bring him forth, the same night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains: and guards before the door kept the prison.” It was on that fateful night the same as when the angels descended on the Resurrection morning; the guards were in their rightful place and discharging their accustomed duties, but when God intervenes then human precautions are all useless. The words of the narrative are striking in their quiet dignity. There is no working up of details. There is no pandering to mere human curiosity. Everything is in keeping with the sustained force, sublimity, elevation which we ever behold in the Divine action. Peter was. sleeping between two soldiers; one chained to each arm, so that he could not move without awaking them. He was sleeping profoundly and calmly, because he felt himself in the hands of an Almighty Father who will order everything for the best. The interior rest amid the greatest trials which an assured confidence like that enjoyed by St. Peter can confer is something marvellous, and has not been confined to apostolic times. Our Lords servants have in every age proved the same wondrous power. I know of course that criminals are often said to enjoy a. profound sleep the night before their execution. But then habitual criminals and hardened murderers have their spiritual natures so completely overmastered and dominated by their lower material powers that they realise nothing beyond. the present. They are little better than the beasts which perish, and think as little of the future as they do. But persons with highly strung nervous powers, who realise the awful change impending over them, cannot be as they, specially if they have no such sure hope as that which sustained St. Peter. He slept calmly here as Paul and Silas rejoiced in the Philippian prison house, as the Master Himself slept calmly in the stern of the wave-rocked boat on the Galilean lake, because he knew himself to be reposing in the arms of Everlasting Love, and this knowledge bestowed upon him a sweet and calm repose at the moment of supreme danger of which the fevered children of time know nothing.
And now all the circumstances of the celestial visit are found to be most suitable and becoming. The angel stood by Peter. A light shined in the cell, because light is the very element in which these heavenly beings spend their existence. The chains which bind St. Peter fell off without any effort human or angelic, just as in a few moments the great gate of the prison opened of its own accord, because all these things, bonds and bolts and bars, derive all their coercive power from the will of God, and when that will changes or is withdrawn they cease to be operative, or become the instruments of the very opposite purpose, assisting and not hindering His servants. Then the angels actions and directions are characteristic in their dignified vigour. He told the awakened sleeper to act promptly: “He smote him on the side, and awoke him, saying, Rise up quickly.” But there is no undue haste. As on the Resurrection morning the napkin that was upon Christs head was found not lying with the rest of the grave-cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself, so too on this occasion the angel shows minute care for Peters personal appearance. There must be nothing undignified, careless, untidy even, about the dress of the rescued apostle: “Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals.” St. Peter had naturally laid aside his external garments, had unloosed his inner robes, and taken off his sandals when preparing for sleep. Nothing, however, escapes the heavenly messenger, and so he says, “Cast thy garment about thee, and follow Me,” referring to the loose upper robe or overcoat which the Jews wore over their underclothes; and then the angel led him forth, teaching the Church the perpetual lesson that external dignity of appearance is evermore becoming to Gods people, when not even an angel considered these things beneath his notice amid all the excitement of a midnight rescue, nor did the inspired writer omit to record such apparently petty details. Nothing about St. Peter was too trivial for the angels notice and direction, as again nothing in life is too trivial for the sanctifying and elevating care of our holy religion. Dress, food, education, marriage, amusements, all of lifes work and of lifes interests, are the subject matter whereon the principles inculcated by Jesus Christ and taught by the ministry of His Church are to find their due scope and exercise.
Peters deliverance was now complete. The angel conducted him through one street to assure him that he was really free and secure him from bewilderment, and then departed. The Apostle thereupon sought out the well-known centre of Christian worship, “the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark,” where stood the upper chamber, honoured as no other chamber had ever been. There he made known his escape, and then retired to some secret place where Herod could not find him, remaining there concealed till Herod was dead and direct Roman law and authority were once more in operation at Jerusalem. There are two or three details in this narrative that are deserving of special notice, as showing that St. Luke received the story most probably from St. Peter himself. These touches are expressions of St. Peters inner thoughts, which could have been known only to St. Peter, and must have been derived from him. Thus we are told about his state of mind when the angel appeared: “He wist not that it was true which was done by the angel, but thought he saw a vision.” Again, after his deliverance, we are told of the thoughts which passed through his mind, the words which rose to his lips when he found himself once again a free man: “When Peter was come to himself he said, Now I know of a truth that the Lord hath sent forth His angel, and delivered me out of the hand of Herod, and from all the expectation of the people of the Jews.” While, again, how true to life and to the female nature is the incident of the damsel Rhoda! She came across the courtyard to hearken and see who was knocking at the outer gate at that late hour: “When. she knew Peters voice, she opened not the gate for joy, but ran in and told that Peter stood before the gate.” We behold the impulsiveness of the maid. She quite forgot the Apostles knocking at the gate in her eager desire to convey the news to his friends. And, again, how true to nature their scepticism! They were gathered praying for Peters release, but so little did they expect an answer to their prayers that, when the answer does come, and in the precise way that they were asking for it, and longing for it, they are astonished, and tell the maid-servant who bore the tidings, “Thou art mad.” We pray as the primitive Church did, and that constantly; but is it not with us as with them? We pray indeed, but we do not expect our prayers to be answered, and therefore we do not profit by them as we might.
Such were the circumstances of St. Peters deliverance, which was a critical one for the Church. It struck a blow at Herods new policy of persecution unto death; it may have induced him to depart from Jerusalem and descend to Caesarea, where he met his end, leaving the Church at Jerusalem in peace; and the deliverance must have thrown a certain marvellous halo round St. Peter when he appeared again at Jerusalem, enabling him to occupy a more prominent position without any fear for his life.
III. We have also recorded in this chapter a notable defeat of pride, ostentation, and earthly power. The circumstances are well known. Herod, vexed perhaps by his disappointment in the matter of Peter, went down to Caesarea, which his grandfather had magnificently adorned. But he had other reasons too. He had a quarrel with the men of Tyre and Sidon, and he would take effective measures against them. Tyre and Sidon were great seaports and commercial towns, but their country did not produce food sufficient for the maintenance of its inhabitants, just as England, the emporium of the worlds commerce, is obliged to depend for its food supplies upon other and distant lands. The men of Tyre and Sidon were not, however, unacquainted with the ways of Eastern courts. They bribed the kings chamberlain, and Herod was appeased. There was another motive which led Herod to Caesarea. It was connected with his Roman experience and with his courtier-life. The Emperor Claudius Caesar was his friend and patron. To him Herod owed his restoration to the rich dominions of his grandfather. That emperor had gone in the previous year, A.D. 43, to conquer Britain. He spent six months in our northern regions in Gaul and Britain, and. then, when smitten by the cold blasts of midwinter, he fled to the south again, as so many of our own people do now. He arrived in Rome in the January of the year 44, and immediately ordered public games to be celebrated in honour of his safe return, assuming as a special name the title Britannicus. These public shows were imitated everywhere throughout the empire as soon as the news of the Roman celebrations arrived. The tidings would take two or three months to arrive at Palestine, and the Passover may have passed before Herod heard of his patrons doings. Jewish scruples would not allow him to celebrate games after the Roman fashion at Jerusalem, and for this purpose therefore he descended to the Romanised city of Caesarea, where all the appliances necessary for that purpose were kept in readiness. There is thus a link which binds together the history of our own nation and this interesting incident in early Christian history. The games were duly celebrated, but they were destined to be Herods last act. On an appointed day he sat in the theatre of Caesarea to receive the ambassadors from Tyre and Sidon. He presented himself early in the morning to the sight of the multitude, clad in a robe of silver which flashed in the light, reflecting back the rays of the early sun and dazzling the mixed multitude-supple, crafty Syrians, paganised Samaritans, self-seeking and worldly-wise Phoenicians. He made a speech in response to the address of the envoys, and then the flattering shout arose, “The voice of a god, and not of a man.” Whereupon the messenger of God smote Herod with that terrible form of disease which accompanies unbounded self-indulgence and luxury, and the proud tyrant learned what a plaything of time, what a mere creature of a day is a king as much as a beggar, as shown by the narrative preserved by Josephus of this event. He tells us that, when seized by the mortal disease, Herod looked upon his friends, and said, “I, whom you call a god, am commanded presently to depart this life; while Providence thus reproves the lying words you just now said to me; and I, who was by you called immortal, am immediately to be hurried away by death.” What a striking picture of lifes changes and chances, and of the poetic retributions we at times behold in the course of Gods Providence! One short chapter of the Acts shows us Herod triumphant side by side with Herod laid low, Herod smiting apostles with the sword side by side with Herod himself smitten to death by the Divine sword. A months time may have covered all the incidents narrated in this chapter. But short as the period was, it must have been rich in support and consolation to the apostles Saul and Barnabas, who were doubtless deeply interested spectators of the rapidly shifting scene, telling them clearly of the heavenly watch exercised over the Church. They had come up from Antioch, bringing alms to render aid to their afflicted brethren in Christ. The famine, as we have just now seen from the anxiety of the men of Tyre and Sidon to be on friendly terms with Herod, was rapidly making itself felt throughout Palestine and the adjacent lands, and So the deputies of the Antiochene Church hurried up to Jerusalem with the much-needed gifts. It may indeed be said, how could St. Paul hope to escape at such a time? Would it not have been madness for him to risk his safety in a city where he had once been so well known? But, then, we must remember that it was at the Passover season Saul and Barnabas went from Antioch to Jerusalem. Vast crowds then entered the Holy City, and a solitary Jew or two from Antioch might easily escape notice among the myriads which then assembled from all quarters. St. Paul enjoyed too a wonderful measure of the Spirits guidance, and that Spirit told him that he had yet much work to do for God. The Apostle had wondrous prudence joined with wondrous courage, and we may be sure that he took wisest precautions to escape the sword of Herod which would have so eagerly drunk his blood. He remained in Jerusalem all the time of the Passover. His clear vision of the spiritual world must then have been most precious and most sustaining. All the apostles were doubtless scattered; James was dead, and Peter doomed to death. The temporal troubles, famine and poverty, which called Saul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, brought with them corresponding spiritual blessings, as we still so often find, and the brave words of the chosen vessel, the Vas Electionis, aided by the sweet gifts of the Son of Consolation, may have been very precious and very helpful to those devout souls in the Jerusalem Church who gathered themselves for continuous prayer in the house of Mary the mother of John, teaching them the true character, the profound views, the genuine religion of one whose earlier life had been so very different and whose later views may have been somewhat suspected. Saul and Barnabas arrived in Jerusalem at a terrible crisis, they saw the crisis safely passed, and then they returned to an atmosphere freer and broader than that of Jerusalem, and there in the exercise of a devoted ministry awaited the further manifestation of the Divine purposes.