CRITICAL REMARKS
Acts 12:20. For And Herod read And, or but, he—i.e., Herod. Highly displeased.—θυμομαχῶν, in a hostile state of mind, in modern phrase, “contemplating hostilities” (Plumptre), though it is doubtful whether open war against Phœnicia would have been permitted by Rome. Perhaps prohibitory tariffs with shutting of ports and markets were what Agrippa had in view. Tyre and Sidon.—The first mention of these Phœnician cities in the Acts. For their antiquity and splendour see Isaiah 23:7-8; Ezekiel 27:28. Blastus.—Judging from his name may have been a Roman, and from the epithet, ὁ ἐπὶ τοῦ κοιτῶνος, præfectus cubiculi, cubicularis, was a chamberlain like Candace’s minister (Acts 8:27), though not like him a eunuch.
Acts 12:21. The set day.—According to Josephus was August 1st, and the second day of the public games celebrated by Agrippa in honour of Claudius (Jos., Ant., XIX. viii. 2). The royal apparel.—Was wholly of silver and of a contexture truly wonderful. The throne, or judgment seat, had been prepared for him in the theatre.
Acts 12:23. For the read an angel of the Lord. Smote him … eaten of worms … gave up the ghost.—According to Josephus (Ant., XIX. viii. 2), the disease, which was acute disorder of the bowels, smote the king with sudden and violent pain. Forthwith he was carried out of the theatre a dying man; and in five days—i.e., on August 6th, he was dead. Compare the deaths of Joram (2 Chronicles 21:19), Antiochus Epiphanes (2Ma. 9:5-10), and of Herod the Great (Jos., Ant., XVII. vi. 5). As to the nature of this disease by which Agrippa was cut off see “Homiletical Analysis.” The suggestion that Herod was poisoned by Blastus, the king’s valet, whom the Phœnicians had gained over for this purpose (Renan), is scarcely worthy of consideration, having no plausible support either from Josephus or Luke.
Acts 12:24. But the word of God grew and multiplied.—An antithesis to the horrible end of the persecuting king. (Compare Acts 5:12 ff., Acts 6:7; Acts 9:31.)
Acts 12:25. And Barnabas and Saul returned.—Not to, as some authorities read, but from Jerusalem.—Shortly after Herod’s death. How long they remained in the metropolis is not stated, but it is not likely to have been long. Alford thinks their arrival should be placed after Herod’s death, as “of all the persons whose execution would be pleasing to the Jews Saul would hold the foremost place.” Took with them John, whose surname was Mark.—See Acts 12:12, whence the inference has been drawn that Barnabas and Saul, while in the city, belonged to the congregation that assembled in John’s mother’s house.
HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Acts 12:20-25
The Death of Herod; or, the Church’s Persecutor punished
I. The occasion of, and circumstances connected with, Herod’s death (Acts 12:20-22).—
1. The place where it occurred—Cœsarea (see on Acts 8:40). If Luke suggests that Herod’s motive for leaving Jerusalem and taking up his quarters in that “city of sumptuous palaces” (Conybeare and Howson, The Life and Epistles of Paul, 2:306) was the disgust felt in consequence of failing in his project to remove Peter, Josephus (Ant., XIX. vii. 3, viii. 2) so far confirms this as to state that while Agrippa “loved to live at Jerusalem,” he suddenly, after reigning three years over all Judæa, “came to the city of Cæsarea” with the obvious intention of residing there for a season.
2. The time when it happened. Manifestly within a month or two after Peter’s deliverance, though the precise date is not specified. The interval between Herod’s murder of James, shortly before the Passover of A.D. 44, and God’s judgment on Herod, in August A.D. 44, was sufficiently short to show that in the monarch’s overthrow the martyr’s death was divinely avenged.
3. The occasion on which it took place. According to Luke that was the reception of an embassy from the cities of Tyre and Sidon, with which at the time Herod was displeased. The ground of this displeasure, though not stated, may be assumed to have been the commercial rivalry existing between those ancient ports and the newly founded harbour of Cæsarea. In consequence of this the Phœnicians, it may be supposed, had been subjected to prohibitory measures which prevented them from obtaining supplies of corn out of Palestine, and accordingly were aroused to embrace the opportunity afforded them by Agrippa’s presence in Cæsarea to approach him with overtures for peace, which were laid before him by a friend of theirs at court—viz., Blastus, the king’s chamberlain. According to the story in the Acts Herod died, or at least received his death stroke, on the day when the Phœnician ambassadors were admitted to his presence, and while he himself, arrayed in royal apparel and seated upon his throne, was making to them a bombastical harangue. Josephus agrees with Luke in mentioning that Herod’s mortal malady seized him in a crowded assembly; and though the Jewish historian does not mention Herod’s quarrel with the Phœnicians or the presence of their ambassadors in the meeting, but ascribes the vast gatherings to a festival which at the time was being held in the city “to make vows for his safety,” possibly in honour of his return from Britain which took place that year, A.D. 44, nevertheless he (Josephus) says nothing to contradict Luke’s account, while he concurs with the sacred writer in affirming that the special flattery offered to Agrippa was that of calling him a god. According to Luke the people shouted—“The voice of a god and not of a man!” According to Josephus, “his flatterers cried out, one from one place and another from another, though not for his good, that he was a god,” adding, “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.” Both forms of utterance may have been used, though Josephus’s appears like a paraphrase of Luke’s. The result, however, will remain unaffected, even if Luke should be held as having abbreviated the exclamations of the people.
II. The cause and the reason of Herod’s death (Acts 12:23).
1. The cause was twofold.
(1) The natural, material, instrumental, and visible cause was a violent distemper of the bowels, which the sacred writer describes more particularly by saying “He was eaten of worms.” According to Josephus “a severe pain arose in his belly, and began in a most violent manner.” “The two accounts considered together,” writes Sir Risdon Bennett (The Diseases of the Bible, p. 101), “leave scarcely any room for doubt that the cause of death was perforation of the bowels by intestinal worms, inducing ulceration and acute peritonitis,” instances of which, he adds, are well known to medical science. “Without doubt,” says Leyrer, “one must think of abscesses and worm ulcers (ulcera verminosa), out of which, when they break up, maggots creep forth” (quoted by Keil, Biblische Archœologie, p. 564). To the same effect speaks Kamphausen in Riehm’s Handwörterbuch, art. Krankheiten):—“It is well known that masses of round worms can break through a place in the bowels which has been rendered thin by suppuration, or even through stoppage of the bowels lead to a horrible death; nor is it less certain that through ulcer holes worms can empty themselves out.”
(2) The supernatural, immaterial, direct, and invisible cause was the hand of God to which Luke points by writing, “An angel of the Lord smote him.” If Josephus does not introduce an angel into his report, it would almost seem as if by his story of the ill-omened bird, the owl, which Herod saw in the theatre (see Ant., XIX. viii. 2), he intended to suggest the direct interposition of Heaven in bringing about Agrippa’s death; and, indeed, according to Josephus, Agrippa himself regarded it in this light, and exclaimed when he saw the bird, “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 immortal, am immediately to be carried, away by death.”
2. The reason. “Because he gave not God the glory,” writes Luke; which Josephus confirms by saying, “Upon this the king did neither rebuke them nor reject their impious flattery.” He, a Jew, to whom it was a foremost article in religion that Jehovah alone was God, and that to set up a creature alongside of Him was blasphemy and worthy of death (Matthew 26:66), had allowed himself to suck in and drink down the adulation of puny mortals, and had actually began to consider himself a superior being, if not a veritable God; and so Jehovah, who is a jealous God (Exodus 20:5), smote him till he died.
III. The effect and consequence of Herod’s death.—
1. The people rejoiced. “When it was known that Agrippa was departed this life, the inhabitants of Cæsarea and Sebaste forgot the kindnesses he had bestowed upon them, and acted the part of his bitterest enemies.… They also laid themselves down in public places and celebrated general feastings, with garlands on their heads, and with ointments and libations to Charon, and drinking to one another for joy that the king was dead” (Jos., Ant., XIX. ix. 1). What a commentary—and not selected from the Bible—on the vanity of popular applause, and the insincerity of popular adulation!
2. The word of God grew and multiplied. Grew in weight and influence upon the hearts of those who listened to it; grew in the extent and circumference over which it travelled; grew in its power of overcoming difficulties and in making friends. Multiplied itself by multiplying the number of believers, by drawing towards the young Church crowds of men and women who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, and cast in their lot with His cause.
Learn.—
1. The certainty that God will avenge the blood of His martyrs (Deuteronomy 32:43; Luke 18:7).
2. The vanity of attempting to war with God (Isaiah 27:4; compare Iliad, v. 407, “By no means is he long lived who fights with the immortals”).
3. The wickedness of doing anything to rob God of His glory (Isaiah 42:8; Isaiah 48:11).
4. The ultimate triumph of the gospel over all obstacles (Isaiah 11:9; Mark 13:10).
HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Acts 12:20-23. The Sin and Punishment of Herod.
I. How the measure of his iniquity was filled up.—It was pride that did it.
1. He picked a quarrel with his neighbours, the men of Tyre and Sidon.
2. He displayed before them his royal grandeur.
3. He accepted from them their senseless flattery.
4. He glorified himself above them as a god.
II. How the wickedness of his conduct was punished.—He who had killed James and would have slain Peter was himself destroyed.
1. The agent in his destruction was no less than an angel. The angel of the Lord who smote Peter on the side for life now smote the guilty Herod in the heart for death.
2. The instrument of Herod’s destruction was no more than a worm. The body in the grave is destroyed by worms, but Herod’s body putrefied while he was yet alive, and bred the worms which began to feed on it betimes. See
(1) what weak and contemptible creatures God can make the instruments of His justice when He pleases; and
(2) how God delights to bring down proud men in such a way as is most mortifying, and pours most contempt upon them.—After M. Henry.
Herod’s Death.
I. A proud man humbled.
II. A wicked man punished.
III. A powerful man weakened.
Acts 12:1-23. God alone King. Proved:—
I. In the early death of James.
II. In the miraculous deliverance of Peter.
III. In the horrible end of Herod.—Gerok.
Acts 12:2-23. The Deaths of James and of Herod.
I. (The apostle died) by the violence of man, (the king) by the visitation of God.
II. (The apostle), mature in grace; (the king), ripe in sin.
III. (The apostle,) lamented by his brethren; (the king) execrated by his subjects.
IV. (The apostle,) to ascend to glory; (the king) to go to his own place.
Acts 12:24. The Progress of the Gospel in Apostolic Times.
I. The opposition it encountered.—From—
1. Jewish prejudices.
2. Heathen superstitions.
3. Human learning.
4. Satanic influence.
II. The success it achieved.—
1. It was widely published.
2. Its influence was extensive.
3. Its converts were multiplied.
III. The causes which enabled it to overcome opposition and attain success.—
1. The power of the Spirit.
2. The zeal of its preachers.
3. The holy lives of its disciples.
4. The unity of the Church. 5. The persecutions it suffered.
Acts 12:24. The Progress of the Kingdom of God.
I. It has its origin in a seed.—“The kingdom of heaven is like unto a grain of mustard seed” (Matthew 13:31-32). That seed is the truth of the gospel, which is:
1. Divine. Being the word of God (Luke 8:11; 1 Peter 1:23; 1 John 3:9).
2. Vital. Otherwise it would not spring up (Mark 4:27) and operate (Hebrews 4:12).
3. Small. Only a word, a gospel, a message of glad tidings, not a philosophy or a science, or elaborated system of truth.
II. It advances by growth.—Like the seed which extracts nutriment from the soil, the kingdom of God absorbs into itself that which makes it expand by attracting through the power of the gospel souls from the outside world.
III. It lives by reproduction.—As the seed multiplies according to its kind, so do believers who constitute the Church, as it were, reproduce themselves in other believers who are added to the congregation of the faithful.
Acts 12:25. The Home Coming of the Messengers.
I. After a mission well executed.
II. With a fresh recruit to their ranks.
III. In readiness for further service.
The History of John Mark.
I. His family connections.—
1. The son of a pious mother. Mary was a disciple. In this respect Mark resembled Timothy (Acts 16:1.). While grace does not run in the blood, there is an antecedent presumption that the piety of parents will reappear in their offspring. Mothers especially have an innate tendency to transmit their characters to their sons. How much pious mothers have in this way benefited both the Church and the world may be inferred from the annals of both, but will never be known till the day reveals.
2. The cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10). Not sister’s son, in which case his father may have been the father of Barnabas; but cousin, so that his father and Barnabas’s may have been brothers, if the cousinship did not come through his mother. In any case, it was to Mark’s advantage that he stood so closely related to the Son of Consolation.
II. His excellent character.—
1. Fundamentally good. Like his mother he was a Christian disciple, having probably been converted by Peter, who afterwards affectionately regarded him as his son (1 Peter 5:13), though of course the term “son,” as applied by Peter to Mark, may have referred to the service rendered by Mark to Peter. and this Mark may not have been John Mark, but either an actual son of the apostle’s (Bengel), or Mark the evangelist (Eusebius).
2. Constitutionally timid. As much as this may be feasibly inferred from his desertion of Paul and Barnabas at Perga (Acts 13:13), on account probably of the hardships and dangers of the way. Grace does not all at once revolutionise a man’s natural temperament. Indeed, many good Christians have to struggle against constitutional infirmities all their lives.
3. Ultimately steadfast. This shines out conspicuously in his subsequent career. None reading of his after labours can doubt that Mark overcame his youthful indecision and became a splendid soldier of the cross. Youthful faults and indiscretions should not be allowed to hinder future usefulness or progress. Neither should they be used by others to disparage later merit.
III. His honourable career.—
1. An attendant of Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey (Acts 13:5). Decidedly a good beginning, though it speedily came to a termination, for which he should not now be too severely judged. A colleague of Barnabas, after he and Paul had parted (Acts 15:37; Acts 15:39). Barnabas must have discerned in him elements of good notwithstanding his former lack of fortitude.
3. A companion of Paul in his imprisonment at Rome (Colossians 4:10-11; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 1:24); so that even Paul had come to recognise his true nobility of soul and to set a high value on his ministerial and friendly assistance. A lesson that old saints should not be too severe in judging the faults of young Christians.