Charles Ellicott Commentary Acts 12

Herod the king. The previous life of this prince had been full of strange vicissitudes. He was the son of Aristobulus and Bernice, grandson of Herod the Great, and brother of the Herodias who appears in the Gospel history. Named after the statesman who was the chief minister of Augustus, he had been sent to Rome after his father fell victim (B.C. 6) to his grandfather’s suspicions—partly, perhaps, as a hostage, and partly to be out of the way of Palestine intrigues.

There he had grown up on terms of intimacy with the prince later known as Caligula. When Herod Antipas married Agrippa's sister, Agrippa was made the ruler of Tiberias. However, he soon quarrelled with the Tetrarch and went to Rome. Falling under the displeasure of Tiberius for having rashly given utterance to a wish for Caligula's succession, he was imprisoned by him and remained in confinement until that emperor's death.

When Caligula came to the throne, he loaded his friend with honours, gave him the tetrarchies first of Philip and then that of Lysanias (Luke 3:1), and conferred on him the title of King. Antipas, prompted by Herodias, came to Rome to claim a similar honour for himself but fell under the emperor’s displeasure and was banished to Lugdunum in Gaul, to which his wife accompanied him. His tetrarchy was also conferred on Agrippa. Coins are extant, minted at Caesarea, and bear inscriptions in which he is styled the Great King, with the epithets sometimes of Philo-Caesar, sometimes of Philo-Claudios.

At the time when Caligula’s insanity took the form of a resolve to place his statue in the Temple at Jerusalem, Agrippa rendered an essential service to his people. He used all his influence to deter the emperor from carrying out his purpose and, backed by Petronius, the Governor of Syria, was at last successful. On the death of Caligula, Claudius, whose claims to the empire Agrippa had supported, confirmed him in his kingdom.

When he came to Judæa, he presented himself to the people as a devout worshipper. He gained their favour by attaching himself to the companies of Nazarites when they came to the Temple to offer sacrifices on the completion of their vows (as we find St. Paul doing in Acts 21:26; Josephus, Antiquities 19.7.3).

It seems that he found a strong popular excitement against the believers in Christ, probably caused by the new step recently taken in admitting Gentiles, and fomented by the Sadducean priesthood. It seemed politic to him to gain the favour of both priests and people by making himself the instrument of their jealousy.

He killed James the brother of John with the sword.—Had the Apostle been tried by the Sanhedrin on a charge of blasphemy and heresy, the sentence would have been death by stoning. Decapitation showed, as in the case of John the Baptist, that the sentence was pronounced by a civil ruler, adopting Roman modes of punishment, and striking terror by them in proportion as they were hateful to the Jews.

The death of James reminds us of his Lord’s prediction that he, too, should drink of His cup, and be baptized with His baptism (Matthew 20:23).

The fulfillment of that prophecy was found for one brother in his being the proto-martyr of the apostolic company, as it was found for the other in his being the last survivor of it. What led to his being selected as the first victim we can only conjecture; but the prominent position which he occupies in the Gospels, in company with Peter and John, probably continued, and the natural vehemence indicated in the name Son of Thunder may have marked him out as among the foremost teachers of the Church.

The brevity of St. Luke’s record presents a marked contrast to the fullness of later martyrologies. A tradition preserved by Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, Book 2, Chapter 9) as coming from Clement of Alexandria, records that his accuser was converted by witnessing his faith and patience, confessed his new faith, and was led to execution in company with the Apostle, who bestowed on him the parting benediction of “Peace be with you.”

Because he saw it pleased the Jews.—This was throughout the ruling policy of the Herodian house. The persecution did not spring from any fanatic zeal against the new faith, but simply from motives of political expediency. A somewhat touching incident is recorded, illustrating the king’s sensitiveness to popular praise or blame. It was at the Feast of Tabernacles, and the Law was read, and he heard the words of Deuteronomy 17:15: “Thou shalt not set a stranger over thee,” and he burst into tears at the thought of his own Idumæan descent. The people saw him weeping, and cried out: “Do not trouble yourself, Agrippa; you also are our brother,” and the king’s heart was comforted (Jost, Gesch. des Judenthums, I., p. 420).

Those were the days of unleavened bread.—The crowds of Hellenistic and other Jews who were gathered to keep the feast at Jerusalem naturally made this a favourable opportunity for courting the favour of the people. A tradition recorded by St. Jerome states that St. James was beheaded on the 15th of Nisan, i.e., on the same day as that of the Crucifixion. Peter was arrested probably at the same time; but the trial and execution were deferred until the seven days of the feast were over.

Delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers.—Agrippa apparently followed the lessons of Roman practice which he had learned by his own experience. The four quaternions relieved each other at set times, and the prisoner was chained to two of the soldiers of each company, while the others were stationed as sentinels at the door of the dungeon. (Compare to St. Paul's chains in Acts 28:20; Ephesians 6:20.)

Intending after Easter.—Better, after the Passover, as elsewhere. In this solitary instance the translators have introduced, with a singular infelicity, the term which was definitely appropriate only to the Christian festival which took the place of the Passover.

Prayer was made without ceasing.—The adjective is rendered by “fervent” in 1 Peter 4:8, and implies, as in the marginal reading, intensity as well as continuity. The words imply that the members of the Church continued, in spite of the persecution, to meet as usual, probably, as in Acts 12:12, in the house of Mary, the mother of Mark.