[Fri, 14 June] Acts 12:20-25 (2256 words; 4/20)

Luke's narrates Herod Agrippa's grisly end. It is fitting for a ruler who kills apostles. Agrippa tries to kill Peter, but God saves Peter and then kills Agrippa.

Luke provides the briefest of narrative setting, which is that for an unspecified reason Herod is angry with Tyre and Sidon, and that, in the mending of this relationship, Herod appears and gives them a speech. The people seem to be overawed and acclaim him a god (v. 22). Agrippa does not give "the glory to God" (v. 23), and is "immediately" struck down by an angel of the Lord. Luke concludes, "he was eaten by worms and died." That's it. Luke's account is quite economical but, apart from something that must have indicated a sudden pain, we should probably not think that Agrippa keeled over and was consumed by worms at that very moment. More likely he suffered something when they were praising him and was taken away ill, dying not long after. The mention of worms may be literal, but other ancient writers inserted this feature to indicate that this person was worthy of a grim death. 

But Luke's account is otherwise not sensational, especially when compared to another account, also from the first century, by Josephus, the Jewish (and non-Christian) historian, which I have edited down a bit: 

"Now, when Agrippa had reigned three years over all Judea, he came to the city Cesarea, which was formerly called Strato’s Tower; and there he exhibited shows in honor of Caesar, 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 through 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 reflection of the sun’s rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him; 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 on 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 severe pain also arose in his belly, and began in a most violent manner...Accordingly he was carried into the palace; and the rumor 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 belly for five days, he departed this life, being in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and in the seventh year of his reign..."

It's really amazing that we have this completely independent account from the same time which harmonises with Luke's in all the essentials. Luke, of course, said it was an angel that struck him, but that does not mean this angel was visible. His presence and action could be inferred from the sudden violence of Agrippa's pain when he failed to deflect divine honour from himself and direct it instead to God. So why did Josephus have an owl in his account? This was because before Agrippa ruled Israel, he went to Rome and became friends with Caligula, who was not yet Caesar. Agrippa made some comment about how Caligula would be suitable for the top job, but the current emperor, Tiberias, did not agree, and rewarded Agrippa with a spell in prison. Whilst languishing in chains, Agrippa saw an owl land on a tree. A fellow prisoner, who was German, told him that this omen meant that he would soon be released: 

"It cannot be that thou shouldst long continue in these bonds; but thou wilt soon be delivered from them, and wilt be promoted to the highest dignity and power..."

This came true: Tiberius died in 37 AD, Caligula succeeded him, and he released Agrippa, giving him a gold chain the same weight as the iron one he had worn in prison. Then he gave him certain territories in Israel, but added to them the most coveted gift, the title 'king', which had been denied to the previous rulers. 

So far, so good. But the German had told him something else: 

"But, do thou remember, when thou seest this bird again, that thou wilt then live but five days longer."

This is why, then, when Agrippa saw the owl, he "fell into the deepest sorrow", and after this his pains began. He died in 44AD.

If Luke knew any of this, he was not interested in it, or he judged it not worth our attention given what else was going on. I include it here partly out of interest, but also because it is another example of how reliable Luke's recording of history was. And, if anything, the fact that his reporting of this event is so sober and simple, leaving out so many scintillating details, gives his writing all the more credibility and seriousness.

Luke ends this chapter with another summary which shows how the word of God continued to grow despite this recent opposition, with the killing of an apostle and the attempt execution of another. God cannot be hindered. 

The famine relief mission (see 11:29-30) of Saul and Barnabas is finished and so they return to Antioch, taking with them John who was called Mark. We met John Mark in 12:12, as it was to his mother's house that Peter went, having been released by the angel. Paul tells us in Col 4:10 that he is Barnabas' cousin. Tradition has it that this is the same Mark who wrote the Gospel, but his was also one of the most common names around, and there seems otherwise no reason to think they are the same person.

Some (OPTIONAL!) Notes On Yesterday's Reading

I felt that I should focus on Barnabas in yesterday's reading, but it was a longer passage and there were a few things I could have talked about. I've included some notes on some stand out verses, if you are interested!

On 11:28: This the first appearane of the prophet Agabus from Jerusalem. When Paul and company are staying at Philip's house in Caesarea, Agabus comes from Judea and predicts that Paul will be arrested in Jerusalem (21:10-11). Philip himself had four daughters who were prophetesses (v. 9). Biblical prophecy was vital to the early Christians because it showed the scriptural truth of the Gospel, but it was not a thing of the past. If anything, there was now more prophecy than ever! 

On 12:1-2: After Herod the Great, the title 'king' was withdrawn for some time. It was given to Herod Agrippa I, and with it came the right to execute. Using the sword was more 'merciful' than the axe. James was one of the sons of Zebedee. There are two other James' of note: the first is the other apostle, James son of Alphaeus (e.g. Acts 1:13). And then there is another James who is the brother of Jesus, also known as James the Just, who was not part of the 12 disciples, and was initially not a believer, but perhaps was converted when the risen Jesus appeared to him (1 Cor 15:7). He seems to lead the church in Jerusalem after a certain point. When Peter goes off into hiding, he tells the believers to report all that he had just told them to "James and the believers" (12:17). It is this James who provides his judgement in the crucial debate in 15:13ff, and this James that Paul meets along with Peter when he is first back in Jerusalem after his conversion (Gal 1:18-19). Even though he was not an apostle, he was one of the "pillars" of the church that Paul later presents his Gospel to, along with Peter and John son of Zebedee (Gal 2:9). And it was "from James"—that is, the leader in Jerusalem—that men come to Antioch to disturb the believers and cause Peter (and Barnabas!) to act hypocritically (Gal 2:11-13). This James the Just, brother of the Lord, was later executed in 61-62 AD by stoning, on the order of the high priest Ananus II. But he had been so well regarded by many in the city that Ananus was removed from office as a result. Josephus wrote about this episode and describes James as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James", giving us a rare mention of Jesus in a first century document not written by a Christian. Although it is disputed, it is likely that this James wrote the epistle which bears his name. The author of Jude says he is his brother (Jude 1). Jude prefers to call himself the slave or servant of Jesus and the brother of James, rather than the brother of both, which he actually was. James does the same (Jas 1:1).

On 12:15: What do the believers mean when they say "It is his angel"? It might mean that Peter's ghost has come to tell them that their prayers have not been answered and that he has been executed. This seems to be what the disciples are thinking in Lk 24:37. In Mk 6:49 the disciples think they are seeing a ghost when Jesus walks past them on the sea. But if these believers really thought that Peter's ghost had come to announce his death, would they not have erupted in grief? More likely, then, is that they think it is Peter’s spirit-counterpart or guardian angel. Jesus seems to be referring to this belief in Matt 18:10. In Daniel 10, the angel speaking to Daniel (probably Gabriel) refers to the 'princes' of other nations, specifically the prince of Persia, and Michael, one of the 'chief princes' (Dan 10:13). These are the guardian angels which oversee nations. In 12:1 Michael is explicitly identified as "the great prince who has charge of your people". In Revelation, Jesus tells John to write letters to seven churches (Rev 1:11), but, as he dictates these to John, Jesus address the angel in charge of each church directly (2:1, 8, etc). Outside the Bible, the angel Raphael in the book of Tobit is thought to be guardian of Tobit's son, Tobias (see from 5:4 onwards). In Jubilees, Rebecca asks Isaac to make the wrathful Esau swear that he will not harm Jacob. But Isaac says there is basically no point, because it will not be possible for Esau to do so: "And you should not fear on account of Jacob because the protector of Jacob is greater and mightier and more honored and praised than the protector of Esau.” (Jub 35:17). There is another Jewish writing which retells the Bible but expands it with other material. On Moses giving the 10 Commandments, we find this addition: "You shall not be a false witness against your neighbor, speaking false testimony, lest your guardians speak false testimony against you." (Pseudo-Philo 11:12). After the spies return from Canaan with a bad report, there is this: "I will send the angel of my wrath upon them to afflict their bodies with fire in the wilderness. But I will command my angels who watch over them not to intercede for them..." (15:5). When Samuel anoints David as king, he sings a song which contains this: "God has protected me and because he has delivered me to his angels and to his guardians that they should guard me." (59:4). So, I think that this general belief of a spiritual guardian counterpart or angel is what is being referred to here in Acts. They don't think Peter is dead, but neither can they conceive how Peter could be out of jail. They first of all say that Rhoda is crazy. But, as she keeps insisting, they wonder if it is his 'angel', meaning guardian. Does this mean that there are, in fact, such things as guardian angels for believers, or even everyone in general, as well as those set over churches and entire nations? That people in the Bible believed this does not necessarily make it so. When Jesus refers to them in Matt 18, it could be that He is simply accommodating to their worldview and current state of knowledge, which is, after all, what the incarnation entails. But, even so, it does not certainly mean that, just because these beliefs were part of their culture, that they weren't actually real. The world is far stranger than we give it credit, especially us who live in the west, and God is more powerful than we can imagine. But in terms of Acts 12, it is not important for understanding what is happening.